International Mafia

[Normal_Phase]

@Mahaloth

Is this the post you are referring to?

Yes indeed:

Hi, I am primarily letting everyone know that I am indeed here.

There are several players that I have not played with before so some of the things that have jumped out at me might just be from being unfamiliar. For example, I found Baffle jumping on Pleonast for pushing a mass claim a bit suspicious when I did not really consider it a push for a mass claim and the suggestion that was made I did not really find surprising from Pleo. But looking at it from a bit more distance, I can see how someone (especially if they are not that familiar with Pleo) might find it suspicious. So, while I think Baffle may have been trying to drum up support for an arrest candidate, I can see where his fear might have been legitimate. I am not trying to say that I think Pleo is Town, I just think this particular suggestion is something that he would do from either side.

Since I don’t know how the unusual rules will affect the game, I am not advocating a mass claim now, and I don’t know if there will be a point in this game in which I would. I do wonder, however, why Suburban Plankton and Romanic are universally against mass claims. I have found that generally, a mass claim is more of a benefit to Town that it is to the scum team.

I, too, find Wolverines suggestion a bit odd, but I also don’t really see what scum would have to gain by that strategy since they know nothing about the person they would be targeting and don’t even know if they would ever be coming to London.

One last thing. My PC is in the shop right now, so my posting might be sporadic since it will depend on when I can get access to a computer.

Do I have to into why this post is so scummy? I’m amazed it drew no negative attention from the London crowd.

[Normal_Phase]

And along similar lines, NAF’s vote of ShadowFacts in post 131 pings a bit, too – he votes ShadowFacts for SF’s post 130, which is here:

Just to be clear, I don’t actually think this anymore. I did before sach clarified that the roles he posted are just examples. That said, given that travel is the really unique known mechanic in this game, it does make sense to pay really close attention to who is traveling.

On another topic, Baffle’s jumping on Pleonast for advocating a mass claim jumped out at me as a mischaracterization of Pleo’s position. However, Pleo has since come out much more forcefully in favor of the mass claim, so Baffle may have seen something I didn’t, and I’m going to let that slide.

Wolverine’s idea of issuing an arrest warrant today for someone in Wellington is a terrible idea. Could’ve been a townie terrible idea, though, so no vote from me right now.

Question for Idle Thoughts: Why did you post your role PM? (Aside from “because I have nothing to hide.”)

on the basis that it is fence-sitting and playing both sides. The vote itself is fine, but I think Mental Guy’s post (which came some ten or fifteen posts previously) is a worse example of the genre than ShadowFacts’. Why call out one and ignore the other?

[Mahaloth]

Yeah, go ahead and explain your thoughts.

[peekercpa]

ok. quick question to the crowd (and i know we are getting wrapped around the axle with this whole travel discussion thing and i am sure that sach is probably laughing his ass off).

but if someone travels should they potentially claim that they did it willingly or if there is some coercion mechanism that they announce that they didn’t do it by choice? if travel is a Day action then that has got to mean that unwilling travel was initiated by a Night action on someone’s part. and it would have to mean it was in the other city where such action was initiated. so if two folks end up flying in any cycle and they claim we will know whether they initiated on their own and if both claim unwilling travel we could figure that one is lying since i can’t see two travel coercers in the same place. and if they both claim truthfully that could present a full range of “whatup” discussion. or does this place our town roles in jeopardy?

i honestly don’t know and therefore throw it out to the crowd. i mean on first blush it kind of makes sense to me but maybe that’s just because i am curious.

and i agree with cookies (and i am paraphrasing) but this is going to be one bytch kitten for me to get a handle on. when i see something my natural inclination is to respond immediately. with the delay half the crud i wanted to talk about has either for hammered out or, more likely in my case, totally forgotten.

[Mahaloth]

@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies

I must have attributed Pleo’s quote from Shadowfacts’ review post as belonging to someone else. So there does not seem to be any blazing smoking guns. What that means about Drain, who knows.

Drain is trying to mis-represent people in order to make them look like they are desperate to lynch a certain group of people. Definite potential scum motivation in that.

[Mahaloth]

@peekercpa

but if someone travels should they potentially claim that they did it willingly or if there is some coercion mechanism that they announce that they didn’t do it by choice?

1. If someone is forced to travel between cities, I think they should tell us that. Seems obvious to me. I would certainly share if I was forced to travel.

2. I guess that if we have people telling us they were forced to travel, it makes no sense for those who choose to travel to hide that it was their choice. I mean, we’ll know it was by force through process of elimination. Obviously, if they want to hide their intentions, they could just lie and say they were forced.

Basically, it ends up being a bit WIFOM. I do think we should share if we have been forced to travel, though.

[Normal_Phase]

@Mahaloth

Yeah, go ahead and explain your thoughts.

Thanks so much.

Hi, I am primarily letting everyone know that I am indeed here.

Downplaying the importance of his following words before he even says them.

There are several players that I have not played with before so some of the things that have jumped out at me might just be from being unfamiliar.

Same thing: “stuff following this might mean nothing, because I don’t know these people”.

For example, I found Baffle jumping on Pleonast for pushing a mass claim a bit suspicious when I did not really consider it a push for a mass claim and the suggestion that was made I did not really find surprising from Pleo. But looking at it from a bit more distance, I can see how someone (especially if they are not that familiar with Pleo) might find it suspicious. So, while I think Baffle may have been trying to drum up support for an arrest candidate, I can see where his fear might have been legitimate. I am not trying to say that I think Pleo is Town, I just think this particular suggestion is something that he would do from either side.

“I found it suspicious, but then maybe it’s understandable. So it might have been scummy, but maybe it’s legit. And by the way I’m totally not saying I think Pleo is town.”

Since I don’t know how the unusual rules will affect the game, I am not advocating a mass claim now, and I don’t know if there will be a point in this game in which I would. I do wonder, however, why Suburban Plankton and Romanic are universally against mass claims. I have found that generally, a mass claim is more of a benefit to Town that it is to the scum team.

“I’m against claiming now, but I’m going to throw a gentle “wonder” at people who are also against claiming now, because strong positions are suspicious. Or something.”

I, too, find Wolverines suggestion a bit odd, but I also don’t really see what scum would have to gain by that strategy since they know nothing about the person they would be targeting and don’t even know if they would ever be coming to London.

“This other thing is odd, but I can’t think of any motivation, so this is as far as I can take it.”

One last thing. My PC is in the shop right now, so my posting might be sporadic since it will depend on when I can get access to a computer.

Real life, so I’ll leave this one alone.

He’s constantly deflecting, discounting and downplaying his own thoughts in this post. It looks like he feels like he has to say something (see again the first sentence), but can’t overcome the instinct not to make waves.

[Scuba_Ben]

@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies

Scuba, your statement just seemed so obvious that it confused me, considering that in most games most players are Vanilla. I’d even be willing to say that most honest claims are Vanilla claims if you include enough games in your sample. You make it sound like a novelty.

Me correctly understanding an element of MafiaScum play is a novelty.

In other matters… I agree with peekercpa (and Mahaloth’s concurrence) that someone who travels ought to say whether they did so by choice or by compulsion, and if by choice then why.

So for the record: Idle Thoughts in post #89 said e began the game in transit. Suburban Plankton, did you receive the same (or a similar) statement, or did you start in-transit as a pre-game option?

Less for the record and more for analysis: I observe that everybody who started round 1A (NZ’s starting Night) in NZ was still here in the morning; nobody is presently in transit. This could be game balance, as half the players are here toDay. Or it could be people had a travel option but did not exercise that option. I blame the Mod.

And finally: I have no scummy read on anybody here in NZ as yet. (Which is normal for me.)

I like what Normal Phase is doing on Mental Guy’s #121. We can neutrally analyze the UK players’ posts and provide London with our thoughts. I trust they’ll return the favour.

[peekercpa]

@Mahaloth

1. If someone is forced to travel between cities, I think they should tell us that. Seems obvious to me. I would certainly share if I was forced to travel.

2. I guess that if we have people telling us they were forced to travel, it makes no sense for those who choose to travel to hide that it was their choice. I mean, we’ll know it was by force through process of elimination. Obviously, if they want to hide their intentions, they could just lie and say they were forced.

Basically, it ends up being a bit WIFOM. I do think we should share if we have been forced to travel, though.

see and that’s where i kind of box myself into the corner on my thought process. if two people travel and they both claim to have been forced do we then just lynch/gaol/incarcerate (or whatthefrackever) seeming to come to the conclusion that one of them is lying since it seems unlikely that there might be two coercers in the same durn city.

and i think it’s kind of funny that a lot of the observations are about what london did or did not do. i wonder how they will treat us when they get the chance. i mean sach is a devious piece of turd. to some extent it creates a them v us kind of situation (location wise). but in both places there are them’s (scum) and us’s (town). absolutely fascinating.

[Mahaloth]

@peekercpa

see and that’s where i kind of box myself into the corner on my thought process. if two people travel and they both claim to have been forced do we then just lynch/gaol/incarcerate (or whatthefrackever) seeming to come to the conclusion that one of them is lying since it seems unlikely that there might be two coercers in the same durn city.
.

Right, so initially it seemed to me that we should require people to tell us if their transit was forced or not. However, if a townie has a power that requires movement to do it, we could be forcing them to, by revealing their intentional transit, to reveal that they are a power role, which would make them a target for the scum.

[Suburban_Plankton]

@peekercpa

but if someone travels should they potentially claim that they did it willingly or if there is some coercion mechanism that they announce that they didn’t do it by choice? if travel is a Day action then that has got to mean that unwilling travel was initiated by a Night action on someone’s part. and it would have to mean it was in the other city where such action was initiated. so if two folks end up flying in any cycle and they claim we will know whether they initiated on their own and if both claim unwilling travel we could figure that one is lying since i can’t see two travel coercers in the same place. and if they both claim truthfully that could present a full range of “whatup” discussion. or does this place our town roles in jeopardy?

Well, if I was coerced into traveling, I would most definitely want to make clear exactly what was happening. I can’t imagine why anyone would want to keep that kernel of knowledge to themselves, so I think it’s safe to assume that if anyone is forced to travel against their will, we’ll hear about it.

As far as whether or not people should claim that they are traveling willfully, I don’t know if it’s strictly necessary. At this point, I will assume that anyone traveling is doing so of their own volition unless they indicate otherwise. Now, a traveler may well want to explain why they are traveling in order to allay suspicion, but that’s a different topic.

[Idle_Thoughts]

@Scuba_Ben

So for the record: Idle Thoughts in post #89 said e began the game in transit. Suburban Plankton, did you receive the same (or a similar) statement, or did you start in-transit as a pre-game option?

I’m (obviously) not SP, but I think you misunderstood my post. I never got any actual PM or message saying I was going to begin the game in transit, nor did I choose anything of the sort.
I signed up for the game, the game started, and I was already in transit, as said by Sach. That’s all I know, so you know as much as I do. I assume it was the same for SP.

[Idle_Thoughts]

Put more simple: I didn’t know I’d be starting the game already traveling until the game started and Sach said “Idle and SP are traveling”.

[Suburban_Plankton]

@Idle_Thoughts

Put more simple: I didn’t know I’d be starting the game already traveling until the game started and Sach said “Idle and SP are traveling”.

Ummm…read your PM again, Idle. Because when you posted it for us, it ended with the line “You begin the game in transit to Wellington, New Zealand.”.
Scuba_Ben, I didn’t see your question earlier…sorry.

I was told that I was beginning the game in transit in my PM (“You begin the game in transit to Wellington, New Zealand.”) I had no choice in the matter.

[Natlaw]

@Scuba_Ben

I can think of three reasons why somebody would want to travel:

1. They have a power that they want to use at the other location, and must be present there to use it. (Such a power could be Town or ICR.)
2. They want to strengthen or weaken a voting bloc. (Again, this could be Town or ICR.)
3. They are fleeing a probable arrest warrant for the next Day.

On the flip side, Suburban Plankton said in #199 (edit don’t lynch if city confirmed):This is not complete, IMO. If one city believes they have lynched all the Scum, they should vote to arrest every known traveler at the other city. That way any Scum over there can’t come to the first city.

Which means we ought to be very suspicious of a long-term change in who is in which city.

2+3) Some additional reasons: they are fleeing a power role (scum leaving city where an investigator claims (which also assume the power can only be used in current city)) or Night kill (town power going to a safer city where a couple of scum have been lynched although them they might be more needed at where they are now).
5. Not a reason why someone would want to travel, but there might be a power that forces others to travel (or roles similar to the one Pleonast claimed which must travel).

I don’t think that in the flip side scenario (one whole city confirmed) the travelers in the other city should be auto-lynched. It might be safer but could also increase the chance of a stalemate. I definitely would want to think twice before issuig an arrest for a forced traveler in that situation, but I agree that a ‘you can travel right back and solve your own problems’ might be the best reponse (if that’s what you meant by being suspicious of long term change).

@Mahaloth

1. If someone is forced to travel between cities, I think they should tell us that. Seems obvious to me. I would certainly share if I was forced to travel.

2. I guess that if we have people telling us they were forced to travel, it makes no sense for those who choose to travel to hide that it was their choice. I mean, we’ll know it was by force through process of elimination. Obviously, if they want to hide their intentions, they could just lie and say they were forced.

Basically, it ends up being a bit WIFOM. I do think we should share if we have been forced to travel, though.

For that reason I think Pleonast claim was the right call in this game and I don’t think a mass can/can’t/must travel claim is a bad idea to pin down the unexpected. Pleonast claiming in his first post every game normally I would consider it a null tell but here he does seem to have a more valid reason than his normal gambit to claim.
Related to that I would like to hear Planktons and** Idle**s travel plans for the future. Plans can change of course with new info but I would like a baseline to compare it against (I might have skimmed it if they already laid this out earlier).

[Natlaw]

Bookmarks:
080: T00:00
252: T12:00

Claims:
087: Pleonast - NZ Agricultural Attaché (forced traveller)
089: Idle Thoughts - Dual Citizen (vanilla traveler)
244: Shadow Facts - UK Citizen (vanilla)

Rules Sample Roles Schedule

[USCDiver]

@Suburban_Plankton

Ummm…read your PM again, Idle. Because when you posted it for us, it ended with the line “You begin the game in transit to Wellington, New Zealand.”

I’m not sure what you’re asking Idle to do here. The game started when he got his PM, just like you and the rest of us. There was no Night 0.

[Idle_Thoughts]

@Suburban_Plankton

Ummm…read your PM again, Idle. Because when you posted it for us, it ended with the line “You begin the game in transit to Wellington, New Zealand.”.
Scuba_Ben, I didn’t see your question earlier…sorry.

I was told that I was beginning the game in transit in my PM (“You begin the game in transit to Wellington, New Zealand.”) I had no choice in the matter.

D’oh, you’re right. I had a brain fart. I didn’t remember it saying that, but it does (and I even quoted it saying that when I posted my PM). My mistake.

[Idle_Thoughts]

@Natlaw

Related to that I would like to hear Planktons and** Idle**s travel plans for the future. Plans can change of course with new info but I would like a baseline to compare it against (I might have skimmed it if they already laid this out earlier).

I already said in an earlier post that I have no intention of traveling again.

[Idle_Thoughts]

@USCDiver

I’m not sure what you’re asking Idle to do here. The game started when he got his PM, just like you and the rest of us. There was no Night 0.

He was just baffled at my saying “My PM doesn’t say I start out traveling” when, in fact, it did (I even quoted it as saying so earlier). I had forgotten and didn’t remember it saying that. I rechecked after SP’s post and he’s right, I was wrong.