Mafia 72: Peril in Panama - Game over!

[Porochaz]

V/LA till New Year...

[vollkan]

333 Vollkan extremely noncommittal – nearly everyone at 50% (neutral) Highest he goes is 65% on BM, while giving several reasons to think he’s town. Seems too safe – no real stand on anyone. 341 calls pete d noncommittal. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

I have to disagree with you here.

Let me quote my scumdar:

1. Battle Mage
As you'll see from my notes, a number of instances occur where I find BM's behaviour weird (chiefly the early Jordan BW vote and the "blatant scum" thing). I disagree that BM's voting for gage is a towntell. 65%

2. mandalorian
Not enough for me to get a read on. Seems like a newb. 50%

3. Gage
Strikes me as a clear newb. His mason claims makes me cringe. 0% due to claimed status, but his behaviour is 55%.

4. Unright
Misrepresented ABR early on. I really did not like his subtle fishing for a partner claim. I also take issue with his belief that thinking BM as scum relies on WIFOM. 60%

5. Nekka-Lucifer
Very short posts and much noise with little to no quality analysis. This merits a 60%.

6. Kakeng (now me)
Only game related post was a jokey No Lynch call. 0%.

7. JordanA24
A good amount of analysis without much noise. Not necessarily a town tell in my eyes, but always a promising start. My only issue was with the dodgy contradiction. 50%.

8. richman99
Total lurker. 50%.

9. Mastermind of Sin
Seems rather short on full analysis. Little to go by in terms of an assessment. 55%.

10. Dragon Phoenix
He never really stuck out to me on my immediate read, but Jordan's analysis of him raised some valid questions. 55%.

11. curiouskarmadog
I have no issues here, since I find myself in agreement with him on most of the matters I look at above. 50%

12. Porochaz
Very little content despite a fair few posts. 55%

13. pete d (replacing Sir Tornado)
He is forming opinions about who he would vote for, but most of his arguments seem rather ambivalent. Everything he discusses he describes as that it "seems" a certain way, rather than actually being scummy. For ambivalence, 60%

14. Albert B. Rampage
Same thing as CKD. 0% due to claim. 50% on behaviour.

I have 5 people on 50%, and another 4 on 55%.

If you read my comments on those who have a 50%, there are either people I have scant suspicion of (Jordan, CKD and ABR) and lurkers who I have no read on. Do I think they are necessarily pro-town? No. In the cases of the former 3, it is just that their behaviour says nothing to me which, at this stage of understanding, is suspect. Thus, I have no reason to suspect them, or to put them below 50%. For the lurkers, the meaning is slightly different, in that it is simply that I have NOTHING on them at all. Thus, the 50% ranking is not me being neutral or uncommittal. It entails me making a clear position of saying either: "I have no reason at this stage to suspect this person" or "This person has not said enough for me to take a position". Thus, this is not uncommittal.

As for the 55s, those people are ones who I have minor reasons to suspect. In all those cases, they are people who have behaviours which seem scummy, without having necessarily done anything I consider notably scummy. Again, this is not being non-committal. In those cases, I am saying that I see nothing pro-town in their behaviour and that I see hints of scumminess.

As for my highest being 65%, I don't know why you seem to think that is a problem. Meta, I can't recall ever going to 80% and I usually only go 75% in later game scenarios when I have stronger ideas and more to judge upon (or if I really don't like someone). Unless I have a lot of evidence to consider or something major, I'm not going to be throwing out the big numbers. As such, BM struck me as the stand-out contender, but nothing he did was sufficient to render him obvscum to me.

As for the PeteD apparent hypocrisy you suggest, you are again wrong - this time by virtue of the fact that you are taking my usage of the word "noncommittal" in the context of Pete to mean the same as yours right now. You have accused me of being "noncommital" in the sense of taking "no real stand". This I have already rebutted. When I accused Pete of being non-commital it was because his language was such that he was subtly second-guessing himself in a number of his arguments - that he was not committing to any particular interpretation of things, but was just leaving things open.

As I said at the time:

Majorly scummy? Not at all. FoS-worthy? Not at all. The point is that it is rather ambivalent and that strikes me as note-worthy. Currently, my biggest issues are with those who are posting very little content, of which you are not one.

372 vollkan votes BM to “kickstart” the game. He’s careful to not give real reasons or take a stand – it’s a vote that’ll be easy to back out of. Then fosses Bookitty rather than voting. Looks self conscious, noncommittal – playing extremely safe and not taking a firm stand on anyone.

I like wake-up wagons, and I had already given my reasons against BM. And I FoSed Bookitty for the simple reason that, since she was not my number 1 candidate, I wanted to hear reasoning from her before voting. I've taken my positions in this game quite clearly already. I've said who I suspect and to what degree. I have taken firm positions on each player. I even gave each player a number ranking that position.

Now,
Posted as I read through the latest:

3) Scum try to look suspicious of someone that is in no danger of being lynched so they are uninvolved with the lynch of a townie.

Then she "paces" my reality, a subtle manipulation technique studied in NLP:

But I can see on a reread how you would think that pete d was saying we should just lynch Battle Mage now.

IOW she feigns agreeing with me to make me think we are on the same page even though she logically claims to be on opposite sides from me. AKA appeasing me and sweeping it under the rug, as you might say.

I find your explanation here a tad unclear. My reading of what Book says here is that she is basically just pulling a "let's agree to disagree" sort of thing - saying that she sees your point, but stands by her own. That avoids conflict and ends debate on the issue.

I don't get what you mean by she "feigns agreeing" with you, though. She acknowledges the validity of your position, but still disagrees with it.

I didn't find it especially clear.

Is ABR right? Is suggesting scum strategies generally considered a pro-town tell, and not to be questioned? I'd like some other people to weigh in on this point.

This is equally horrendous. Seeing this, I would be freaked out if I were her mafia partners. What kind of horror-movie-worthy post is this ? How can you make such a daring attempt at discrediting someone with pseudo-rhetoric and false dichotomies ?

Where's the false dichotomy/ies?

ABR:

You've thought every case you've had, in this game at least, to be the "be-all end-all". You were convinced enough that Battle Mage was scum to try to wagon him despite his claim, and now you're saying "I am not saying BM is 100% townie"... what happened to "lynch him anyway"?

AGAIN WITH THE NINJA MOVES. My point is not that I am always right, my point is that I back up what I say with my reasoning and my vote. Like with Unright, like with BM, whenever I said something I pushed the wagon. Something you've failed to do. You fail at even appearing like you want Pete D lynched. Nowhere do you say you want him lynched. You are too cowardly a mafia to try that.

You don't actually answer Book's question here. Book is saying that you are overly-certain, and you respond by saying that you substantiate your arguments and back them with your vote. The question of your certainty is separate from your level of argument or voting.

You could be right about Boo, but one reason I think I think you're wrong is I think vollkan might be scum and he's supporting your wagon in a non-bussing kind of way

I have made just one post since the whole Book thing began in which I FoSed Book for what is an entirely sensible reason. Thus, I don't see how you go about saying you think I am scum supporting the wagon.

[Patrick]

Votecount

Battle Mage (1) -- Gage
Setael (1) -- Mastermind of Sin
Dragon Phoenix (1) -- Lowell
Bookitty (3) -- Albert B. Rampage, Dragon Phoenix, pete d
Unright (1) -- Setael

Not Voting: Unright, Porochaz, Battle Mage, curiouskarmadog, Bookitty, volkan, Streeflo
14 alive, 8 to lynch. 5 to lynch at deadline.

[Patrick]

The deadline is still the 2nd of January. The time of the deadline is 11pm GMT. 5 votes to lynch someone at deadline.

[Albert B. Rampage]

I didn't find it especially clear.

Is ABR right? Is suggesting scum strategies generally considered a pro-town tell, and not to be questioned? I'd like some other people to weigh in on this point.

This is equally horrendous. Seeing this, I would be freaked out if I were her mafia partners. What kind of horror-movie-worthy post is this ? How can you make such a daring attempt at discrediting someone with pseudo-rhetoric and false dichotomies ?

Where's the false dichotomy/ies?

Either I'm right about Pete and suggesting scum strategies is pro-town, or I'm wrong about Pete and he is scum.

GUYS,

WE NEED TWO VOTES ON BOOKITTY NOW

. ANYONE WHO LETS THE DEADLINE PASS WITHOUT VOTING WILL DIE a horrible death in my imagination. Setael, that includes you. ESPECIALLY you. No-lynch is the worse possible outcome for the town and you all know it.

[vollkan]

GUYS, WE NEED TWO VOTES ON BOOKITTY NOW. ANYONE WHO LETS THE DEADLINE PASS WITHOUT VOTING WILL DIE a horrible death in my imagination. Setael, that includes you. ESPECIALLY you. No-lynch is the worse possible outcome for the town and you all know it.

Feck. I had the deadline here mixed up with another game.

Vote: Bookitty

I had Nekka on 60% and did not like him, and, as I have already indicated, Book has been keeping to Nekka's form.

[Porochaz]

Ill post properly when Im not drunk and Ive read stuff... that'll be tomorrow. Night and Happy new year

[Albert B. Rampage]

ONE MORE VOTE. Let's go guys. One more.

[Bookitty]

Not that I think it makes much difference at this point, but I'm going to point out that pete d never did answer my question, though he's posted since. I suspect he didn't feel the need to, since ABR answered so aggressively on his behalf.

Either I'm right about Pete and suggesting scum strategies is pro-town, or I'm wrong about Pete and he is scum.

I'd still like an explanation for why that's a FALSE dichotomy. It's more of a straw man, since suggesting scum strategies isn't pro-town in my view regardless, as I think I pointed out.

I also will point out that ABR himself stated his willingness to wagon pete d earlier, so his comments about pete d being under no meaningful suspicion are false even from his own perspective. I don't know why a pro-town mason would misrepresent the situation so badly (ABR forgot, maybe?) but I am hopeful if I'm lynched then perhaps town will take a closer and more skeptical look at ABR's postings and his interactions with his claimed mason partner. Also, look at who easily slipped onto this wagon without much comment or previous justification.

Not that I think it will do any good, but my suspicions are about equally split between Unright (once the tell was pointed out, I could see it pretty easily) and pete d, but due to his lack of explanation and trailing of ABR's vote, I'm going to

unvote; vote pete d

[pete d]

Also, look at who easily slipped onto this wagon without much comment or previous justification.

You mean me right? You're serious? I was the person who was most convinced Nekka was scum.

Not that I think it makes much difference at this point, but I'm going to point out that pete d never did answer my question, though he's posted since. I suspect he didn't feel the need to, since ABR answered so aggressively on his behalf.

Why would you suggest the scum-strategy you employed in a previous game if you're town, pete d?

If this is the question you were talking about... the reason I didn't directly answer it is because it is a stupid and/or loaded question. I was not suggesting a scum strategy. I was refuting a faulty argument. I don't see anything wrong with stating that.

but due to his lack of explanation and trailing of ABR's vote, I'm going to unvote; vote pete d

This is obviously bull. I made my suspicion of Nekka clear.

confirm vote: bookitty

GUYS, WE NEED TWO VOTES ON BOOKITTY NOW. ANYONE WHO LETS THE DEADLINE PASS WITHOUT VOTING WILL DIE a horrible death in my imagination. Setael, that includes you. ESPECIALLY you. No-lynch is the worse possible outcome for the town and you all know it.

QFT

[Albert B. Rampage]

Can you claim Bookitty ?

[Albert B. Rampage]

Actually, don't claim. We will lynch you anyway.

[Albert B. Rampage]

SOMEBODY HAMMER FOR GOD'S SAKE.

[curiouskarmadog]

Well if ABR wants it, I cant handle all the peer pressure.

vote bookitty

, actually I think your alignment will tell us a lot (looking at pete d)

I offer you...the HAMMER!!!!

[Patrick]

Votecount

Battle Mage (1) -- Gage
Setael (1) -- Mastermind of Sin
Dragon Phoenix (1) -- Lowell
Bookitty (5) -- Albert B. Rampage, Dragon Phoenix, pete d, volkan, curiouskarmadog
Unright (1) -- Setael
Bookitty (1) -- pete d

Not Voting: Unright, Porochaz, Battle Mage, Streeflo
14 alive, 8 to lynch. 5 to lynch at deadline.

Just under 7 and a half hours left.

[Lowell]

Sounds fine.

unvote, vote bookitty

. FULL DISCLOSURE ALERT: I really don't have much of an opinion of bookitty, nor her predecessor. I do, however, advocate violence.

[Porochaz]

A vote, Im not to fond of bookitty here however not near enough to lynch her, even at deadline. I feel ABR has latched on here and has on more than one occasion suggested we all feel the same way... He says Setael thinks Bookitty is town when all he said was Bookie is not the lynch for today. I dont like the Bookitty wagon so for all the good it will do

vote ABR

[Setael]

If Bookitty is a protown power role I am going to be SO pissed at you ABR.

[Albert B. Rampage]

If Bookitty is scum I'll be looking at you, Setael.

[curiouskarmadog]

unvote

...refuse to vote with lowell not to mention his vote looks shady..however, I am sure he knows that.

[Albert B. Rampage]

If someone else unvotes we are screwed. Put your vote back on.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Unvote, Vote: BooKitty

I've read up to Page 19, BooKitty seems pretty scummy for trying to put suspicion on pete d. Battle Mage, remember Mafia 61?

More to come.

[Mastermind of Sin]

I dont understand why people (Gage, pete d, Albert B. Rampage) re still voting for our claim doc..any reason why those voting for him want to do the mafia work for them?

Why are you assuming that mafia will automatically take him out? When I was scum and there was a suspicious claimed doc, we left them alive for day 2 to screw with everyone (but they got vigged anyhow).

but I would be more inclined to lynch him tomorrow to see if mafia bags him tonight.

With statements like this, why would mafia get rid of BM if he was a doc?

I'm really tempted to vote for pete d based on this. It looks to me like an excuse in advance for Battle Mage not being nightkilled.

The reason for Mafia to get rid of doc-Battle Mage is the same as for any other doctor... because they don't want their nightkill interfered with. That doesn't change just because Battle Mage is likely to be lynched tomorrow. Additionally, if Battle Mage is scum, you've just provided an excuse for him when he's not nightkilled.

Why would you suggest the scum-strategy you employed in a previous game if you're town, pete d?

This is what we have cops for. I'm not saying that a cop should definitely investigate Battle Mage, because that guarantees that the mafia will kill him if he is innocent, but they should consider it. And if this post baits the mafia into killing BM, so much the better. They're doing the work for us so we don't have to.

God help me, I agree with ABR.

Unvote whomever I was voting 2 months ago or so
Vote Bookitty

I had the same thought.

MoS, who has yet to weigh in on Unright at all, ignores the issue entirely and votes Jordan for his DP vote and FOSes ABR for agreeing. I didn't like this post at all. MOS clarifies in post 62 that his reasons for this are meta re: DP's play. Odd that in post 58 he gave no indication that he had meta reasons for his argument. Rather, he spoke as though it was something Jordan and ABR should know. Here's the post:

Jordan is stretching like a mother----. It is *NEVER* too early to be serious about lynching. Just because DP is willing to lynch a self-voter does not mean that he's trying rush the day, nor does it mean that he's willing to let everyone blindly bandwagon without giving their own opinions. You're bullshitting us this early? Nice try.

Unvote, Vote: Jordan

FoS: ABR for following him.

If his reasons for thinking it’s a nulltell are meta, why would he assume Jordan and ABR should know this to the point that it merits a vote? And why wouldn't he mention that at the time he voted? Then, when he has to explain that his argument only holds water if you have the meta he has, why doesn't he unvote? Not only does he not unvote, he holds the vote until now and is still voting Jordan. For what, exactly? For not having the meta on DP that MoS has?

I think Jordan and/or ABR have played in other games with DP where he did this, so I assumed it to be rather obvious. Not to mention the fact that it was not the ENTIRE reason for my belief that DP was not scum in saying that. I still stand by the original argument that I made when I voted Jordan. I explained quite thoroughly why DP's action did not make him scum, and I mentioned nothing about a meta about him, as you so kindly pointed out. So the fact that I *also* have a meta on him is just additional evidence, not the *only* evidence.

But then in the next post we get MoS again, telling BM to cool off. Totally disregards BM's arguments and undermines it by making BM look hot headed.

BM *was* being hot headed. I wasn't undermining anything, and I wasn't responding to his arguments. I was responding to BM getting mad at someone because they typo'd his name. It should be pretty obvious that he WAS being hot headed in response to something that was clearly a mistake and an understandable one at that.

[Dragon Phoenix]

A vote, Im not to fond of bookitty here however not near enough to lynch her, even at deadline. I feel ABR has latched on here and has on more than one occasion suggested we all feel the same way... He says Setael thinks Bookitty is town when all he said was Bookie is not the lynch for today. I dont like the Bookitty wagon so for all the good it will do

vote ABR

So voting for a claimed and supported mason is a better solution?

[Porochaz]

shoot I forgot about that... however I am still not discounting the theory that gage panicked when under suspicion and claimed mason and ABR not wanting his scumpartner lynched needed to claim mason as well... however I am not sure as of yet... so Im downgrading

unvote

and

fos ABR

and then

vote Lowell

for his post.