Mafia 60: Face-to-Face - Game over!

Fritzler · Post Post #75 (ISO) » Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:34 am

Adele wrote:Who is?

scum void

unvote, vote: scumvoid

Patrick · Post Post #76 (ISO) » Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:46 am

I'm still just pretty much neutral on Andrew. I don't see particularly what benefit he could have hoped to gain from doing this as a 'scummy gambit'. It's not like we would be persuaded to no lynch. In a town full of new players maybe, but not here.

Cogito Ergo Sum · Post Post #77 (ISO) » Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:56 am

Fritz, why don't we make scumvoid's tomorrow's play and Thesp today's play?

Mr Stoofer · Post Post #78 (ISO) » Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:03 am

Vote Count

Thesp: 3 (Patrick, CES, Zindaras)
AndrewS: 3 (Thesp, Adele, Ether)
Cogito Ergo Sum: 2 (ChannelDelibird, Glork)
Glork: 2 (MrBuddyLee, spectrumvoid)
spectrumvoid: 1 (Fritzler)

Not voting: IH*, MgM*, Nightfall, AndrewS

8 to lynch!

Thesp · Post Post #79 (ISO) » Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:17 am

AndrewS wrote:Alright, alright...Guess I'll explain. I voted no lynch and said that in order to get peoples' reactions. Many times, by doing or saying something unexpected, you can learn a lot from simple reactions...And while I haven't gotten anything concrete from it, I do believe that I have sort of a feel for who to watch for. Not enough for a vote, mind you, just sort of a feeling for it.

Good job with the persistent waffling after your scumalicious move, and for getting ChannelDelibird to out himself as your partner.

FOS: ChannelDelibird

.

Glork · Post Post #80 (ISO) » Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:23 am

Hey Fritz.

Has Glork ever led you astray?

Glork · Post Post #81 (ISO) » Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:24 am

Also,

Unvote, Vote: AndrewS

IH · Post Post #82 (ISO) » Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:47 am

......I've certainly been watching this game!

AndrewS's explanation is pure BS. I was more willing to believe his first suggestion about the nolynch..... and then he changed it to "I just wanted to see some reactions". Dude, I'm so totally serial.

vote:Andrew

-3

Cogito Ergo Sum · Post Post #83 (ISO) » Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:22 am

Unvote, vote: AndrewS

-2

Zind, with me!

Mgm · Post Post #84 (ISO) » Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:23 am

Vote: CES

for being way too talkative.

ChannelDelibird · Post Post #85 (ISO) » Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:26 am

Mgm wrote:
Vote: CES
for being way too talkative.

you prefer lurkers?

Mgm · Post Post #86 (ISO) » Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:29 am

No, from what I've seen from CES, he's usually relatively silent and only becomes really active when he's scum. Granted, part of that is based on a face-to-face game in real life, but it's the best I've got.

For what it's worth: I didn't notice the game started.

Cogito Ergo Sum · Post Post #87 (ISO) » Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:44 am

Mgm wrote:No, from what I've seen from CES, he's usually relatively silent and only becomes really active when he's scum. Granted, part of that is based on a face-to-face game in real life, but it's the best I've got.

I play differently in real life games. I didn't rack up my post count by only being active when I'm scum.

Zindaras · Post Post #88 (ISO) » Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:50 am

*shrugs*

I do what AndrewS did myself some times. Doesn't work very well in games like this. Too many good players. It's really quite unnecessary.

Zindaras · Post Post #89 (ISO) » Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:53 am

Woah, I missed an entire page.

Cessy, the deal was for voting Thesp. It did not include me following your vote to the end of the earth, or, more precisely, AndrewS. While what AndrewS did was stupid and very unnecessary, I really do doubt that he's the correct lynch for today. I most certainly do not feel that it's enough to warrant a quicklynch on Page 4, as my vote would be putting him at Lynch-1.

Cogito Ergo Sum · Post Post #90 (ISO) » Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:55 am

I know what the deal was for. But you should still vote for AndrewS. It'll be fun.

Fritzler · Post Post #91 (ISO) » Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:56 am

Cogito Ergo Sum wrote:Fritz, why don't we make scumvoid's tomorrow's play and Thesp today's play?

deal, im waiting for the mjonlir though

AndrewS · Post Post #92 (ISO) » Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:03 pm

CES: Explain why my little plan wouldn't work, and/or is a scummy idea. I've played in a good number of games on this site, and I've never seen the mafia successfully go no lynch in any of the games that I've been in. For that matter, I've never actually seen the mafia attempt to go no lynch(except in newbie games). Ergo, why would I actually attempt it, other than the idea that I have presented? As for what information I gathered, I was hoping to see who was lynch-hungry. As it is, several were. The only of those that I feel were particularly scummy was Adele - it's quite common for a mafia to vote, and then to state a rule, nothing else. As for her reasoning that I should have thought of something that wouldn't hurt the town if it was taken up, with this group of players, it's rather obvious that the town would NOT take me up on it. Therefore, I think that the town's best move at this point is:

Unvote, Vote: Adele

Cogito Ergo Sum · Post Post #93 (ISO) » Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:07 pm

No-lynching is bad for information flow and reduces the town kills:mafia kills ratio. It's, as I believe Adele said, giving the power to the scum. You are not allowed to mention on Day 1.

AndrewS · Post Post #94 (ISO) » Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:22 pm

You're sidestepping the question. Why would I seriously claim it, other than what I stated?

Cogito Ergo Sum · Post Post #95 (ISO) » Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:35 pm

Draw attention to yourself so your GFyness can come in handy?
To pretend to try and incite reactions? (Hey, it's not like you've done anything with the reactions you've supposedly gotten.)

Anyhow, I don't consider it all that relevant, personally.

Cogito Ergo Sum · Post Post #96 (ISO) » Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:35 pm

And with "it", I mean your intent.

Mgm · Post Post #97 (ISO) » Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:44 pm

AndrewS wrote:You're sidestepping the question. Why would I seriously claim it, other than what I stated?

That's what the wiki calls a logical fallacy. Just because scum doesn't usually do it, doesn't mean it can't be a gambit on your part. Suggesting a no lynch is not in the town's best interest, so it's scummy.

Why you suggested it? I'm sure your guess will be better than mine.

AndrewS · Post Post #98 (ISO) » Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:45 pm

FOS: CES

You don't care about my intention? That seems rather interesting to me. If I were to use this as a godfather, that would be an incredibly silly move. As for the reactions that I've gotten, it has sparked discussion and led me to suspect Adele. I was hoping for more, but I can only work on what I am given after making the move.

IH · Post Post #99 (ISO) » Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:50 pm

Andrew wrote:Explain why my little plan wouldn't work, and/or is a scummy idea. I've played in a good number of games on this site, and I've never seen the mafia successfully go no lynch in any of the games that I've been in. For that matter, I've never actually seen the mafia attempt to go no lynch(except in newbie games). Ergo, why would I actually attempt it, other than the idea that I have presented? As for what information I gathered, I was hoping to see who was lynch-hungry. As it is, several were. The only of those that I feel were particularly scummy was Adele - it's quite common for a mafia to vote, and then to state a rule, nothing else. As for her reasoning that I should have thought of something that wouldn't hurt the town if it was taken up, with this group of players, it's rather obvious that the town would NOT take me up on it. Therefore, I think that the town's best move at this point is:

Way to Wifom out the wazoo.

"If it's so suspicious, why would I do it?"

As I said only recently in an ongoing game about a nolynch.
= | I hate that idea.