Mafia: Cecilvania [Game Over]

The Game Room
721

[QUOTE=Hal Briston]
Now then, I owe someone an apology, because I can’t remember who should get credit for this. In one of the recent games, someone pointed out how scum were tag-teaming a particular townie. One player would toss out little smudges against someone, and then back off. Then a second player would do the same against that same person. Little quick-hits, so neither one of them was screaming “they’re scum!” from the rooftops, but enough that it made it look like hey, maybe that person is scum.

Of course, the two players making the accusations were both scum…they were cleverly keeping the ball rolling against players they obviously knew to be town, but they were being relatively low-key about it.

Kinda the way ShadowFacts and Nanook have pulled against me the past two Days.
[/QUOTE]

So in other words…you have no defense for the lurking, have no comment on Sach’s question regarding your vote on OAOW, have no comment on story’s claim and subsequent investigation, and have no comment on basically anything that occurred Today. What you do have is a vague handwave smudge against me and Shadow. That’s very interesting. I’m quite happy with my vote right where it is.

722

[QUOTE=ShadowFacts]
Just to be clear, your reasons for voting for sachertorte are:
[ul]
[li]He is being overly unfair to storyteller[/li][li]He is being a little over the top[/li][li]He criticized the people who lynched a townie[/li][li]He is way too on the offensive to be pro-town[/ul][/li]
Upon further review, do you think those are legitimate reasons to vote for someone?

What do you think of **DiggitCamara’s **reasons for voting for sach? What do you think of Blaster Master’s reason for voting for him?
[/QUOTE]

I agree with them–I also don’t think, like Blaster, that the lynch of story is a good idea right now. As he said, just not prudent.

His whole “I told you so” on OaoW seems suspect to me…it’s not like he had any more chance of knowing than the rest of us, based on what we know so far. I think he’s using the fact that a lot of us got on that bandwagon as a way of fingering us for scum, which really isn’t fair.

723

Not much to go on today other than the Sach v Storyteller saga. I would normally chalk that up to town on town, but Sach is still pinging me. I can’t put my finger on it though. Freudian Slit however, I am going to vote for for the same reason I did yesterday.

Vote Freudian Slit

724

[QUOTE=Freudian Slit]
I agree with them–I also don’t think, like Blaster, that the lynch of story is a good idea right now. As he said, just not prudent.

His whole “I told you so” on OaoW seems suspect to me…it’s not like he had any more chance of knowing than the rest of us, based on what we know so far. I think he’s using the fact that a lot of us got on that bandwagon as a way of fingering us for scum, which really isn’t fair.
[/QUOTE]

You didn’t answer my first question. I’d be grateful if you would. (And in case you weren’t clear, I agree with you that a lynch of story is a bad idea right now).

And just so I’m clear, you agree with this post and this follow-up ?

725

[QUOTE=NAF1138]

Several of you are not posting enough. By several I mean a lot. Like enough people that if we mod killed everyone who wasn’t posting enough today and allowed a Night kill and a lynch there would be 7 fewer players come morning.

<snip>

There are 23.5 hours left in the Day.
[/QUOTE]

This, btw, is pitiful. :frowning:

726

[QUOTE=ShadowFacts]
So, not zero at all. Would you care to comment on this error?
[/QUOTE]
A simple mistake (but don’t worry – you can still use it to your advantage for a little while yet)…I had mistook Post 646, the post announcing Rugger’s subsititution, for the start-of-day post. I didn’t see anything from you after that…still, the idea still works. One post doesn’t damage the tag-team scum theory.

[QUOTE=ShadowFacts]
Or would you care to comment on my accusations of lurking and bandwagon-jumping, since you did not respond to them earlier?
[/QUOTE]
What’s to comment? Have I been a low-volume poster? Yup…sure have. It’s been a busy week at work (not to mention getting our house ready to list with a Realtor). Yup, I posted more in the off-site game. I had something to say there. Anyone who knows me knows I’m often very quiet the first Day or two.

And of course, there’s your laughable accusation of “bandwagon-jumping”. Soooo…I voted for the person I thought to be the scummiest. And I wasn’t the first one to do so. Uh oh…better call the bandwagon police. See, to me, “bandwagon-jumping” is constantly and consistently switching up your vote to hide in with the voting pack – not…ummm…voting once.

But hey, here’s one that isn’t a bandwagon – no real chance of it going through today, but in a couple of days you’ll be exposed:

Vote ShadowFacts

(And on preview, man am I sounding like a jerkwad there…Hope you know I seperate Mafia from real life – no hard feelings and all that. :))

727

So after NAF’s little thing I went back and manually counted the posts since today. I did no personal judgment on fluff vs. non-fluff, just counted any and all posts. The only posts I didn’t count were double posts. Here’s what I came up with:

ShadowFacts: 20
sachertorte: 19
storyteller: 9
WF Tomba: 8
Nanook: 8
Diggitcamara: 6
Freudian Slit: 6
CatinaRugger: 6
Koldanar: 5
Hockeymonkey: 3
Hal Briston: 3
Pollux Oil: 3
Darth Sensitive: 3
Blaster Master: 3
Fretful Porpentine: 2

I’m aware that I’m sucking it up pretty hardcore but I promise once I’m back on my own home turf I’ll be posting more. Hopefully people can use this as a reference. Now that I’ve got this out, I’m going to go back through and take out all the stuff I wanted to specifically comment on.

728

[QUOTE=ShadowFacts]

(snip)
What do you think of **DiggitCamara’s **reasons for voting for sach? What do you think of Blaster Master’s reason for voting for him?
[/QUOTE]

I know you didn’t ask this question to me but I’ll answer nonetheless:

  1. You have been criticizing my decision to vote for sachertorte for an implied defense which, sachertorte says, wasn’t implicit but explicit. Let’s be fair now: at the end of Day 1 it was, like both of you say, pretty explicit. But guess how that changed?

Post 370

Post 387

After this “exchange”, **sachertorte **changed his subtle defense **of OAOW **to an overt one.

And this behavior carries a distinct aftertaste of “perfect knowledge” to me. I stand by my vote.

729

All right, so I looked at Pollux Oil and Hockey Monkey’s posts, like I said I was going to do…

Pollux Oil: Posts seem substantive and pretty sensible for the most part, but a couple of things tripped my radar. One of them was that he seems to hedge a lot, as in post 332:

A lot of hemming and hawing, some pressure on storyteller to claim. The other post of his that bugged me was 693, where he says storyteller isn’t the best lynch for today but is for tomorrow (I don’t think storyteller is EVER a good lynch – until and unless we have reason to think he’s lying.)

In Pollux Oil’s favor, he was the first person to vote for FS, and he had a detailed explanation of why he found her comments about being bitten suspicious, so he’s definitely not just piling onto the nearest convenient non-OAOW candidate.

Hockey Monkey: I think she’s somewhat more likely to be scum than Pollux Oil, mainly because her reason for suspecting FS was pretty lame (namely, that FS said no one in particular had pinged her radar), and she seemed to be placing way more emphasis on this statement than it really warranted. Also, she was the second vote on FS, soon after Pollux Oil’s, so hers looks a bit more opportunistic.

That said, I don’t even know if my theory that at least one scum voted for FS has merit. Will think on it.

730

[QUOTE=Hal Briston]

(And on preview, man am I sounding like a jerkwad there…Hope you know I seperate Mafia from real life – no hard feelings and all that. :))
[/QUOTE]

No worries - it’s all good :stuck_out_tongue:

731

[QUOTE=ShadowFacts]
You didn’t answer my first question. I’d be grateful if you would. (And in case you weren’t clear, I agree with you that a lynch of story is a bad idea right now).

And just so I’m clear, you agree with this post and this follow-up ?
[/QUOTE]

Okay, well, yeah, I agree with that. And I do think those are legitimate reasons for voting for someone. They’re every bit as legitimate as the reasons others have given for me.

732

[QUOTE=DiggitCamara]
I know you didn’t ask this question to me but I’ll answer nonetheless:

  1. You have been criticizing my decision to vote for sachertorte for an implied defense which, sachertorte says, wasn’t implicit but explicit. Let’s be fair now: at the end of Day 1 it was, like both of you say, pretty explicit. But guess how that changed?

Post 370

Post 387

After this “exchange”, **sachertorte **changed his subtle defense **of OAOW **to an overt one.

And this behavior carries a distinct aftertaste of “perfect knowledge” to me. I stand by my vote.
[/QUOTE]

But you skipped a post in between those ! In that post, sach says:

[QUOTE=sachertorte]
But OAOW isn’t wrong; storyteller’s claim isn’t confirmable.
I think there is a bit of post hoc reasoning in there.

If OAOW were town, he wouldn’t know what storyteller would claim. (Actually even if OAOW is scum he wouldn’t know what storyteller would claim). If storyteller had claimed Doc or mason, the trap wouldn’t have happened. The way I see it, OAOW was reacting to the situation as it developed, and each reaction was reasonable to me. I don’t see a nefarious plot on the part of OAOW. But that’s just me.
[/QUOTE]

Pretty explicit to me. By leaving that post out (as well as others sach posted in response to Blaster and, I think, Freudian on this topic), you make it look like you drew him out or something. You didn’t. But even if you did, I’m not sure how that makes sach look more guilty.

The point here in my mind is that you voted for him TODAY for his “implicit” and “subtle” defense YESTERDAY, when it was neither. And when you realized that the implicit business had already been debunked, you said you couldn’t remember if it was or not, but you might check before the deadline. But that’s what you based your vote on! Do you seriously not see how scummy that is?? Does anyone???

733

[QUOTE=ShadowFacts]
I think sach is also criticizing you for recent nonparticipation, as he clarified when he said above.
[/QUOTE]

OK. But my objection was not to his clarification, but rather to what he actually said, three times at least. He has now “clarified.” I put the word in quotes because while it is obviously possible that the content of his clarification was what he meant all along, I find it difficult to believe that someone who is generally so careful and specific with words just sort of carelessly generalized in this way.

I also reject the proposition that my early contribution is not amenable to post analysis, which is really the heart of the point made by sach to which I object.

And then there’s this:

sach, either you’re scum and you’re trying damn hard to get me lynched, or you’re being incredibly sloppy. I have already explained my actions regarding OAOW. If you really, really want me to repeat the two posts in which I explained why I was voting for him and what actions of his I considered scummy, I’d be happy to do so. But I explained my votes at the time, so I’m not exactly sure what’s to be gained by repeating the explanation. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask them. But you’re smudging me by implying that I have not explained, and once again, you are doing so falsely.

As for opinions of yesterDay, there you make a good point. It seems pretty certain that there is something to be learned from what went down yesterDay. I will post a detailed analysis of the vote for OAOW in the morning, and no more time wasting from me on the subject of my own participation - I’ll leave it to the observer to decide whether your statements regarding that participation have been honest or not.

734

Let’s get this show on the road. First off, after looking at ShadowFacts’ review of OAOW’s voters, I’d say that Freudian Slit, Hal, and Darth had the most bandwagony type votes for them. So for my first part, I’m going to take a look at what they’ve said today:

[QUOTE=Freudian Slit]
I don’t see why being skeptical of storyteller while also voting for OaOW is necessarily a tell. I mean, it’s natural to be skeptical of any claim. No one’s going to claim a boring role–they always claim the most important ones. But at the same time, what if he’s telling the truth, you know? I admit, I was wrong on the OaOW vote but so was everyone else.
[/QUOTE]

ShadowFacts and CatinaRugger jumped on this fairly quickly, but I agree with them that this seems to be shuffling the blame off.

[QUOTE=Freudian Slit]
Wait, not everyone who voted for OAOW was wrong? I mean, he was town–anyone who voted for him for any reason is wrong by sheer virtue of him not being scum.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think anybody else fielded this. Everybody who voted OAOW was wrong in the sense that yes, they voted to lynch a townie. But people could have voted to lynch OAOW for the “right” reasons, i.e. if OAOW had been putting out scummy vibes with his actions. Citing the scummy things OAOW is doing is a good thing and could be considered a “right” reason. Citing “I’m lazy” is a bad thing and also not a good reason. I’ll get to that in a minute.

Nothing else from Freudian Slit jumped out at me, though, so moving on to Hal. Only a few posts today by him, and nothing particularly scummy about what he has said. I would like to comment on this, though:

[QUOTE=Hal Briston]
Kinda the way ShadowFacts and Nanook have pulled against me the past two Days.

Most interesting there is ShadowFacts – tell me, why vote for me for lurking on Day One, but have zero to say about me on Day Two? It wouldn’t be that you’ve “tagged out” to a partner now, have you?
[/QUOTE]

This point I disagree with. If I understand it correctly, ShadowFacts pointed out going after lurkers as his voting strategy for Day One. To me, it would make sense for him to not focus on Hal as much on Day Two. It doesn’t strike me as two scum buddies doing a tag-team.

Now Darth Sensitive…

[QUOTE=Darth Sensitive]
My vote yesterday was easy. I was pressed for time, so posted quickly. OAOW rubbed me the wrong way, and I wanted to go on record with that.

It was a lazy play, I’m sorry all.
[/QUOTE]

Strike one. No! NO NO NO NO. Lazy is bad, even if the OAOW bandwagon was on its way out already. But wait…

[QUOTE=Darth Sensitive]
I don’t think that WF Tomba’s ‘s/17 probability of scum’ after the comments by Fretful are on the level. It felt and feels far to unwilling to say anything at all, which make me feel that something is being hidden.
[/QUOTE]

Wait wait wait. I know you commented on WF Tomba’s statement several times over Day One. In fact…here…

[QUOTE=Darth Sensitive]
WF Tomba - I’m looking harder at you. Wishy washy was the wrong word to describe what you said. I will call it stikingly noncommittal. I know that just about everyone in this game has moved to one side or another of the patented Patented Darth Sensetive Scumometer, and the way that you are carefully not saying anything is moving you into the red.
[/QUOTE]

You said this on Wednesday last week…well before the deadline needed for a vote. In fact, looking back on your posts you even FOSed WF Tomba! And yet…your only comment about OAOW was…

[QUOTE=Darth Sensitive]
I don’t know that scum would be trying to shift the voting - if OAOW is scum, some hard looks will be given at people who tried to shift the pattern of voting.
[/QUOTE]

You had a FOS on the table and really hadn’t mentioned anything about OAOW at all. You conveniently chose to jump on the majority vote instead of voting for somebody you’d already expressed suspicion of…and it’s clear that your suspicion of them hadn’t lowered at all since you immediately brought up the same point in your first post in Day Two and later voted for them.

Nothing about this makes any sense to me at all. If you’re really being “lazy” wouldn’t you just vote for the person you’ve already expressed suspicion of? You’ve jumped onto my radar above Freudian Slit, therefore…

Vote Darth Sensitive

There’s other stuff I want to comment on, but it’s not anything that has to do with my vote so I’ll put it in another post.

735

[QUOTE=DiggitCamara]
While there should be analysis of the voting patterns, right now we don’t have enough data to do so. We can’t see the patterns, simply put, because we don’t know the roles.
[/QUOTE]

Disagree with this. Voting analysis can be done with just one Day’s voting. Sure, two Days’ worth of voting will have more patterns per se, but there’s all sorts of stuff you can glean from a single Day of voting.

[QUOTE=Fretful Porpentine]
I would assume that the Wolves probably didn’t vote in a block on the first day, so at least one Wolf is probably to be found among the five votes for Freudian Slit, which is the safest place to hide if you don’t want to vote for OAOW.

Of these, OAOW is confirmed town. CatInASuit / Santo Rugger is a tougher case, since storyteller may be lying or he may be the Alpha Wolf, but I don’t think we should lynch him without further evidence that one or the other of these things is true. I’m having a hard time buying sachertorte as scum; considering how vocal and how aggressive he’s been, it would surprise me if he were anything other than a vanilla townie.
[/QUOTE]

Like this, for instance. I totally agree with this line of thought, except for one adjustment: I would include the one-off votes as well as the Freudian Slit votes. I did a similar analysis in the Blade Runner game of the day that Pleonast was lynched and hypothesized that there would be at least 1 scum not on the bandwagon for Pleonast. As it turned out, there were 3 scum not on the Pleonast bandwagon.

[QUOTE=Fretful Porpentine]
The other post of his that bugged me was 693, where he says storyteller isn’t the best lynch for today but is for tomorrow (I don’t think storyteller is EVER a good lynch – until and unless we have reason to think he’s lying.)
[/QUOTE]

I think we just disagree on this point. There are costs and benefits to keeping storyteller alive, and costs and benefits on lynching him. Right now it’s more beneficial overall to keep him alive. But unless something really out there happens between now and then, I think tomorrow it will be the most beneficial to lynch him in the grand scheme of things.

736

[QUOTE=ShadowFacts]
But you skipped a post in between those ! In that post, sach says:
Pretty explicit to me. By leaving that post out (as well as others sach posted in response to Blaster and, I think, Freudian on this topic), you make it look like you drew him out or something. You didn’t. But even if you did, I’m not sure how that makes sach look more guilty.

The point here in my mind is that you voted for him TODAY for his “implicit” and “subtle” defense YESTERDAY, when it was neither. And when you realized that the implicit business had already been debunked, you said you couldn’t remember if it was or not, but you might check before the deadline. But that’s what you based your vote on! Do you seriously not see how scummy that is?? Does anyone???
[/QUOTE]

You’re right, actually.

I did miss that post. YesterDay and toDay, as a matter of fact.

However, I still look at this post I made and have to wonder:

and I must say: **sachertorte **remains my main suspect. But I must admit: my case is weaker than I thought it’d be.

737

[QUOTE=Pollux Oil]
Disagree with this. Voting analysis can be done with just one Day’s voting. Sure, two Days’ worth of voting will have more patterns per se, but there’s all sorts of stuff you can glean from a single Day of voting.(snip)

[/quote]

Please enlighten me on this point. What do you make of our first Day?

Full disclosure: I drove pretty big bandwagons on 1, 2 and 3 Days of voting patterns during my first game and pretty much struck out on all those cases (Hal might remember this).

738

PO - I subscribe to the notion that if there are two bandwagons that could concievably each win, that you should pick the one you like most. Maybe that’s bad play, but if there’s ever a choice between leaving my vote out by its lonesome and putting it on someone who can actually be lynched I’ll do that.

739

I’m about to head out to the dentist. By my unofficial count, we have 3 votes on sach, 2 on Hal, and a bunch of singles. It seems likely that there’s a lot of room for movement in the next few hours before the Day ends. I hope to be able to get back on before then, but it depends on how the visit goes. Most likely it’s going to suck, but one never knows.

740

I won’t be back, and am leaving my single on WF.

Quick rundown of why:

Is as noncommittal as possible when asked about the scumminess of a player early on after something that (IMHO) should haved moved every scumdar one way or the other.

Took poorly to being questioned about it, including OMGUS FOSes.

Accused those who didn’t drop the issue ASAP of being scum.