Mafia - Game in progress [Edited title]

[Johnny_Bravo]

I don’t see how the lack of “You are Town” in Stan’s role claim can be anything but an editing error on his part. Also:

@USCDiver

1. He’s a third-party loner. His role is more or less what he’s claimed it is, but there must be something left out.

…

In the first case, the Scum investigator probably found him on Night 1. The scum decided not to waste a night kill on him in the hopes that placing a false Barn message would lead the Town to do their 3rd party killing for them.

This scenario makes lots of sense to me - much more sense than it being a simple case of our investigator leaving a poor message.

Vote Stanislaus

I have some suspicions about other people, but I’ll have to re-read and post those when I have a bit more keyboard time.

[Stanislaus]

I don’t know what happened to my Win Con - all I did was C&P. Hadn’t even noticed it was different when I got it.

Guiri is right about the vote record though. It looks pretty likely I’ll go down now, not least because no-one has really gone to the effort of finding another lynch candidate. Because I agree with Astral about Dizzy I will now

vote Dizzymrslizzy for all the difference it will make.

Incidentally, why isn’t there another serious lynch candidate? I appreciate that the missing “I am Town” has created an easy rationale for people to vote for me, but even before I posted my PM, there was a collective apathy about toDay that doesn’t bode well. Heck, I’ll ram this point home - it doesn’t exactly reflect a scum team trying to save their buddy either.

The reason for that is, I am Town. I don’t expect to be able to sway people more, however, so I will close by saying:

watch Babale,
watch choie,
watch Dizzy
watch Cookies
and for Og’s sake make sure you hear something from wombat, Red Skeezix and gnarly, who seem to be coasting very effectively.

[Mahaloth]

@GuiriEnEspana

Sorry, I didn’t think it needed a response. I’m already voting you, you never explained your tie breaking vote, so this was just another poke. And you know what, taking about timing, USC replied just 2 minutes after you posted, explaining the issue with stanislaus’s wincon, I confirmed the issue with the poke 19 minutes later, then almost one hour later you posted to take offence to my “took your time” comment but for some reason only replied to USC’s post, the one about finding possible scum, nearly five hours later. Isn’t that strange? Didn’t you notice that I also explained what was different in Stanislaus’ wincon in the same post you took offence to?

• Ah, it is kind of strange. I see the confusion.

• No, I didn’t notice.

• And yes, I voted to break the tie and because it was still an acceptable vote based on the previous Day’s thoughts.

[Johnny_Bravo]

On a side note, could someone explain “handshaking” to me? It’s not on the mafia wiki.

[Astral_Rejection]

A handshake is a method of confirming PMs without revealing your PM. Some players will hashtag their PM; all others with the same PM can hashtag theirs the same way and see if the resulting numbers match.

Or, you might say “My PM has elephants as the fourth word in the second paragraph.” Pretty much any method between players to confirm each other based on PMs is a “handshake.”

To combat that, moderators almost always reveal a sample vanilla PM, and in games I mod (all one of them so far), I also provide scum with a power role PM as well.

[GuiriEnEspana]

@Mahaloth

• And yes, I voted to break the tie and because it was still an acceptable vote based on the previous Day’s thoughts.

Mahaloth, on D2 you placed the 5th vote on choie, here:

@Mahaloth

Vote choie

Hard to describe the reasoning on this. Basically:

The self-vote

first-time getting lynched comment

the overall “bitter” vibe of that last post

=

Me thinking this is a scum pretending to be a desperate to not die town. The frustration could come from choie’s first lynch actually happening as scum.

Story posted the vote count, showing a tie on 6 votes:

[quote=“storyteller0910, post:862, topic:646635”]

6 votes
[ul][li]Choie – GuiriEnEspana (712), Stanislaus (786), Enderw24 (788), choie (795), Mahaloth (799), Meeko (817)[/li][li]Chucara – Texcat (733), Diggitcamara (804), choie (805), Lightfoot (835), wombat99 (851), USCDiver (852)[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
A little later you came along with this post:

@Mahaloth

I can support Chucara’s lynch for the same reasons as yesterDay. I’ll break the tie.

Vote Chucara

Did you forget you were voting choie and effectively voting against yourself? Or did you think that Chucara was a better candidate than choie? Or were you happy to vote for both of them and, if so, why mention breaking the tie? It looks like you voted choie because she was the lynch leader at the time, then EITHER you completely forgot about her and when you saw the tie, voted Chucara OR choie is your scumbuddy and you saw a chance to lynch a townie. Strange, right?

[Mahaloth]

@GuiriEnEspana

Mahaloth, on D2 you placed the 5th vote on choie, here:
Story posted the vote count, showing a tie on 6 votes:A little later you came along with this post:Did you forget you were voting choie and effectively voting against yourself? Or did you think that Chucara was a better candidate than choie? Or were you happy to vote for both of them and, if so, why mention breaking the tie? It looks like you voted choie because she was the lynch leader at the time, then EITHER you completely forgot about her and when you saw the tie, voted Chucara OR choie is your scumbuddy and you saw a chance to lynch a townie. Strange, right?

Indeed. I have no idea anymore. I thought I understood and remembered, but I don’t remember for sure what I was thinking at the time. If this accrues me votes, I don’t have much to say other than despite the fact I thought I was playing well, I apparently wasn’t. I don’t remember well enough now to know if I knew what I was thinking at the time.

I do apologize to Town if this gets my lynched toDay or tomorrow. It looks like good analysis from Guiri and I actually am impressed. I am not scum or third party, though. I am Town and I will not specify my power at this point.

[LightFoot]

@Johnny_Bravo

I don’t see how the lack of “You are Town” in Stan’s role claim can be anything but an editing error on his part. Also:

Quote:
Originally Posted by USCDiver

1. He’s a third-party loner. His role is more or less what he’s claimed it is, but there must be something left out.

…

In the first case, the Scum investigator probably found him on Night 1. The scum decided not to waste a night kill on him in the hopes that placing a false Barn message would lead the Town to do their 3rd party killing for them.

This scenario makes lots of sense to me - much more sense than it being a simple case of our investigator leaving a poor message.

Vote Stanislaus

I have some suspicions about other people, but I’ll have to re-read and post those when I have a bit more keyboard time.

Is it just me or is this post contradictory?
1- ** Stan ** edited poorly
2- ** Stan ** is third party and the message was left by Scum
3- Vote **Stan ** like Scum want me to

And then

@Johnny_Bravo

On a side note, could someone explain “handshaking” to me? It’s not on the mafia wiki.

I think you know what handshaking is but you ask in an effort to subtly inject that ** Stan’s ** PM could be “different” to prevent handshaking.
You appear to be voting with the crowd while giving yourself 2 different ‘outs’ if it goes poorly

• I’ll give you a bit to explain- but at this point I’d vote you for these posts alone *

[USCDiver]

@Johnny_Bravo

I don’t see how the lack of “You are Town” in Stan’s role claim can be anything but an editing error on his part.

Johnny, are saying you think Stan oringally had the “You are Town” phrase but accidentally edited it out?

[Johnny_Bravo]

@LightFoot

I think you know what handshaking is but you ask in an effort to subtly inject that ** Stan’s ** PM could be “different” to prevent handshaking.

Well I’m not sure how to respond to that. You can look on the mafia wiki and see that it’s not there, or you can try googling something like “mafia handshake” and see lots of Youtube videos by gangsters or wannabe gangsters like I did, if you like.

It’s easy to infer from this thread that handshaking is some kind of verification, but I was curious about the specifics of it. This is my first game of Mafia and a rather large chunk of posts have been questions.

@USCDiver

Johnny, are saying you think Stan oringally had the “You are Town” phrase but accidentally edited it out?

I think it probably said something like “You are a third party” or whatever, and he forgot to replace it with “You are town” while he was editing his role.

I think the Scum found him and are trying to get us to lynch him. They may or may not have known that he was third party, but that they got an investigative hit other than “Peasant Redshirt” and thought it was worth a barn post. I don’t have any real ground to speculate about why they didn’t kill him themselves.*

And since we know from the rules post that 3rd party roles win exclusively, it’s worth lynching him whether or not the scum want us to. They’re not on our team.

*ETA: Maybe that original barn post about “wolf’s” was from a townie with incomplete knowledge, and the scum can’t night kill *any * 3rd party players?

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

@Johnny_Bravo

Well I’m not sure how to respond to that. You can look on the mafia wiki and see that it’s not there, or you can try googling something like “mafia handshake” and see lots of Youtube videos by gangsters or wannabe gangsters like I did, if you like.

It’s easy to infer from this thread that handshaking is some kind of verification, but I was curious about the specifics of it. This is my first game of Mafia and a rather large chunk of posts have been questions.

I think it probably said something like “You are a third party” or whatever, and he forgot to replace it with “You are town” while he was editing his role.

I think the Scum found him and are trying to get us to lynch him. They may or may not have known that he was third party, but that they got an investigative hit other than “Peasant Redshirt” and thought it was worth a barn post. I don’t have any real ground to speculate about why they didn’t kill him themselves.*

And since we know from the rules post that 3rd party roles win exclusively, it’s worth lynching him whether or not the scum want us to. They’re not on our team.

ETA: Maybe that original barn post about “wolf’s” was from a townie with incomplete knowledge, and the scum can’t night kill *any * 3rd party players?

On what grounds are you speculating that he is Third Party? What you claim to have grounds for vs not seems pretty arbitrary.

[Johnny_Bravo]

My thinking is that a townie investigator would have given us some way of verifying their barn post in the same manner as **Pleo **did. If it had been, “Stanlisaus is a bad guy, - THE GROCER,” and we had ended up disregarding the post, a later lynching or kill of a player whose role was ‘The Grocer’ would have basically sealed the deal on Stan, right?

So I think it’s more likely that the message was posted by Scum.

So, my assumptions here are:

1. The message was from scum.
2. Stan did in fact erase something from his role claim and forget to add “You are town.”

It’s pretty insane to believe that scum would out another scum in a barn post, so:

He wouldn’t have been erasing “You are scum” from the claim.
He **definitely **didn’t erase “You are town” from the claim. In fact he claims to have copied/pasted directly with no editing whatsoever.

Therefore:

The only other option is that the removed bit of info was about being a third party.

I know that my reasoning is based on some unproven (really, unprovable) assumptions, but aren’t everybody’s at this point?

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

@Johnny_Bravo

He **definitely **didn’t erase “You are town” from the claim. In fact he claims to have copied/pasted directly with no editing whatsoever.

Normally I’d agree with you here, but I was in a game recently where someone did just that.

Thanks for clarifying.

[LightFoot]

** Johnny ** this Day

@Johnny_Bravo

Stanislaus isn’t exactly lurking - he’s contributed more than quite a few players have. I am surprised at how quickly he’s being voted for, considering that Cookies was the only one who was suspicious of him on Day One or on Day Two. There are other living players who have garnered more suspicion that shouldn’t be dismissed simply because there’s an anonymous barn message.

On the other hand, we’ve been pretty lucky so far, in that we’ve only lost a single power role. To that effect, I think it may be worth gambling and taking the message at face value. I’m not going to vote yet, because we have lots and lots of time until the end of the day and I want to watch the conversation. Somebody may still slip up.

@Johnny_Bravo

At the end of day 1 we had 26 living players. Assuming our investigator isn’t also a mason or something, and that s/he was randomly choosing from among the other 25 players (and also that there’s only one SK or other “bad guy”):

3 scum/1 SK = 16%
4 scum/1 SK = 20%
5 scum/1 SK = 24%
6 scum/1 SK = 28%
+4% for each additional scum or third-party bad guy.

And if we’re assuming that the message is true, then I think we also have to assume that it was a random choice, since I can’t really see any motivation to investigate Stanlisaus at the end of Day 1 unless the investigator is Cookies. Nobody else seemed at all concerned with him.

I was saying that the odds of randomly hitting scum without any kind of motivation aren’t all that astronomical.

@Johnny_Bravo

**If **we assume that the message is true - my overall point is that I think there’s at least a decent reason (and plenty of time before the end of day) to at least *consider *possible Night Two obfuscation motivations rather than only considering Night One investigation motivations (which from out perspective boil down to “random player out of a hat” or “Cookies”, and that’s slim pretty pickings) when we consider the origin of the barn message.

I’m not defending Stanislaus and I’m certainly not claiming that Cookies is the investigator. I just think more conversation is better than immediately jumping on a wagon. Or to quote somebody from Day 1:

Posted prior to the vote on Stan

@Johnny_Bravo

I think it’s exactly as likely that the message is legit as it is likely that Stansilaus’s claim above is legit: that is, it’s a crapshoot either way.

I understand the logic in getting early votes in on his wagon, though. If he flips town, well, there was a barn message! Can’t blame a guy for trying to catch scum!

I also understand that anybody who isn’t voting right away is putting themselves at risk if he ends up actually flipping scum. “What’s this? You waited until late to vote for him? Then clearly you knew he was scum and were hoping to avoid voting until the last minute to save him!”

I’m just not convinced that we need to automatically trust an anonymous message. If the writer had added some way, any way, to trace the message back to themselves after death the way Pleonast did, I’d feel way better about its truth, but the message was written in such a way as to keep the writer anonymous both before and after death.

It niggles at me.

ETA: Does anyone have any comments about Stan’s claim? I don’t play enough to know whether that seems like a legit role claim. The writing seems storytellerish, from the little I’ve seen. I also see some grammatical consistencies between his post and the sample PM on post 108, but nothing that couldn’t be intentionally copied.

You seem to be a fence jockey selling waffles
** * this was composed prior to most recent comments- that I have not read yet- but I see no reason to waste this *

[Johnny_Bravo]

I think my logic is consistent. My gut feeling was that the barn post wasn’t from a legit town investigator, so I was uncertain about voting for Stanislaus.

USDiver suggested a scenario (which I ran with) that allows for my original feeling (the barn post was scummy) and still jives with the current overall consensus (**Stan **needs to swing today because he’s not town).

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

Skeez, wombat. Y’all are seriously phoning it in this game.

[Dizzymrslizzy]

I’m going back and doing a re-read and writing as I

Yes, you are 100% correct, I haven’t verbalized my feelings on Stan…but that doesn’t mean that I don’t have other feelings, on him that lead to my vote. I have time now to find them so I don’t mis-speak. I’d much rather do that, then rely on memory and falsely accuse him of saying something that he didn’t. I’m sorry you take that as` suspicious, because it has no malace behind it at all.

Aside from wanting to test the barn post…Here are other thoughts that I havent’ had the chance to verbalize because I didn’t have time to find them at the time:

• I never really liked Stan’s vote on Babale D1, because Babale babbled onn about the barn and the stalker. It seemed like Babale was just confused and didn’t know what was going on. Simple misinformation.

And you know what I just went back and re-read the first 15 pages and didn’t see what I thought I saw, and now I feel like a dumbass. I don’t know why I can’t find my other case on him. IF, what went down with the Role posting missing the “You are Town” didn’t happen, I would have debated taking off my vote at this point, because you were right, I WAS being hasty with my vote.

I’d really like for Stan to come back with something to make me want to unvote him toDay, but if anything the way today has deteriorated, I just don’t see it happening. What are the odds that someone accidently deleted the “You are Town” part of their WinCon. Of course, I believe whoever said it has happened in the past, but I’d be willing to wager that Stan is AT BEST a Third Party, and most likely the Scum/Wolf that he is portrayed on the Barn as.
I also have an issue Cookies. In #301 he’s defending Babale and having suspicious thoughts against thoughts who are “picking on the newbie” Yet, he’s doing just that to me. While I haven’t posted my confusion, I’ve posted that I’m struggling keeping up with this format, and he’s accusing me of laying back.
I’m here…I’m reading…I’m trying to keep everything straight, but unlike other games I can’t just go back and re-read a night, or a day phase. I have to scroll through pages to find it, and I just don’t have the physical time with 2 small children I have all day, and a job at night. That is 100% of my problem here, and why I’m going to stay away from games in this format in the future…I cannot keep up.

Seriously if someone has some hints on how I can keep a better tab on Day/nights starting that would help me tremendously!

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

I’m a she. And the core of my ‘defense’ of Babale is that I don’t see a scum motivation for saying thing things that s/he(?) said early in the game about the barn that led to her picking up some votes either directly or indirectly due to people not licking how s/he defended it. Also, lack of participation is secondary in my case against you to what I see as a potentially opportunistic vote on Diggit.

The issues with keeping up with a game in a single thread is a handicap (for lack of a better word) that we all have.

[USCDiver]

@Dizzymrslizzy

Seriously if someone has some hints on how I can keep a better tab on Day/nights starting that would help me tremendously!

At least two people, myself included, have given you tips on Bookmarking Day and Night posts for quick reference.

[LightFoot]

@USCDiver

At least two people, myself included, have given you tips on Bookmarking Day and Night posts for quick reference.

although that only works if you know where they are
And you are on your personal computer