MAFIA: The Road to Canterbury - Game Thread

[Babale]

First things first, Visor, I appologize. In my circle of friends we casually trade insults all the time, and I didn’t mean that in an offensive manner. I just meant that you might not be giving us your thought process because you didn’t feel like it, which I now know isn’t true.

Now, I’m not disregarding Mosier’s claim. I do think that it is so very WIFOM that it is completely useless.

[TexCat]

I am not going to be around at EOD.
vote: Inner Stickler
Of the current vote leaders, I find him the most likely to be scum.

[Enderw24]

@Stanislaus

Amateur vote count:

**Snickers **(3): gnarlycharlie (324); Enderw24 (330);MentalGuy (340)
TexCat (3): visorslash (337); Mahaloth (349); Mosier (371)
**Mosier **(2): Babale (379); MHaye (381)
**MHaye **(2): sinjin (326); AlkaSeltzer (333)
Inner Stickler (2): Stanislaus (375); fubbleskag (378)
gnarlycharlie (1): TexCat (309);
**Mahaloth **(1): Snickers (360)
Suburban Plankton (0): [del]Stanislaus[/del] (313-362)

I don’t see any duplicates so I count 14 votes. That leaves 5 people that have somewhere in the range of 3 hours to cast a ballot, which could swing anyone.

I hate making multiple votes so, for the moment, I’m going to stick with **Snickers ** as my sole vote. But I still have real misgivings about TexCat (for reasons explained earlier, that really weren’t refuted) and wouldn’t be at all disappointed if that’s who we chose.

But I can’t understand the **Mosier ** votes. I really can’t. Even if there was the suspicion of him being scum (and I’m not getting that vibe at all), there are IMO, two more worthy targets to consider before even getting to him.

[fubbleskag]

@MentalGuy

I think you chose a good target and I for the time being am going to consider Stanislaus Town. Of course, this tells us nothing about your alignment, since you would still reveal Stanislaus as Town even if you are scum.

@Stanislaus

Also, it seems churlish but necessary to point out that getting my alignment correct doesn’t offer any solid evidence of yours.

this is a very good point that I think should be highlighted in case it wasn’t obvious to anyone else.

also, I had to look up “churlish” - so, ignorance fought mid-mafia!

[fubbleskag]

Assuming Stanislaus’ vote count is more accurate than my previous attempts have been, the updated count should be:

Inner Stickler (4): Stanislaus (375); fubbleskag (378); Hal Briston (399); TexCat (402)
**Snickers **(3): gnarlycharlie (324); Enderw24 (330);MentalGuy (340)
TexCat (3): visorslash (337); Mahaloth (349); Mosier (371)
**Mosier **(2): Babale (379); MHaye (381)
**MHaye **(2): sinjin (326); AlkaSeltzer (333)
gnarlycharlie (1): TexCat (309);
**Mahaloth **(1): Snickers (360)
Suburban Plankton (0): [del]Stanislaus[/del] (313-362)
[/QUOTE]

[Inner_Stickler]

@Hal_Briston

I had already mentioned there was a very good strategic reason for scum to lay low on Night One, but Sticker pressed the idea that getting in one kill was worth the trade of likely causing several power roles to waste their one-shot ability and possibly get caught. Don’t care for that line of reasoning one bit.

There are more players on Night One than the following nights and a higher chance of not getting hit by a watcher or investigator. I don’t understand the causing several power roles to waste their one-shot ability. Town roles use their abilities independently of scum. If anything, scum not acting on a night deprives a watcher of the chance to catch them and an investigator should get a result regardless of whether their target was acting or not.

As much as I would like to vote for mosier again, I just can’t justify it in light of the claim. It’s possible Mosier is scum and is playing a relatively high stakes gambit but for the moment, I’m willing to see him as town.

Vote Texcat

The defense of her visor vote was particularly uncompelling.

[Stanislaus]

I think this is a terrible vote:

@Hal_Briston

I’m going to cross my fingers and work under the assumption that Stanislaus was not cloaked, and is therefore town. With that in mind, I was prepared to give extra credence to his vote of Inner Stickler. However…

In making his case, he pointed out several things he found scummy about Inner Stickler…but not so much about him, as his playstyle. And in reading through the case, I find Stickler’s playstyle to me extremely similar to mine.

Stanislaus has problems with Sticker bringing up strategies, but “not married to it” and “non-committal”, when I find inflexibility to be very anti-town. I can’t make heads nor tails of his accusation that “He’s happy to push discussions that don’t themselves lead to finding scum. E.g. Directing investigators”, since it seems like he’s saying “investigators don’t find scum”, which is clearly not true.

So, while I disagree with much of what Stanislaus has to say, I’m going stick with the thought that he’s saying it from a townie perspective. And although it wasn’t part of his reasons for voting Stickler, he also quoted a bit that is pinging me more and more:

I had already mentioned there was a very good strategic reason for scum to lay low on Night One, but Sticker pressed the idea that getting in one kill was worth the trade of likely causing several power roles to waste their one-shot ability and possibly get caught. Don’t care for that line of reasoning one bit.

Vote Inner Stickler

Hal’s giving me credence because I’m probably Town. He doesn’t agree with my case at all, but he thinks I’m at least honestly mistaken. That said, he votes Inner anyway. His reason is that Inner didn’t consider, or dismissed, the idea that Scum deliberately no-killed. In fact, he goes further and says that in not mentioning it, Inner was actually “pressing” the counter-argument. But fundamentally, it’s a disagreement about what scum might or might not do.

Hal, how does this indicate Inner is scum? What makes him more likely to be scum than Town who doesn’t agree with you? Why does my being honestly wrong make it worth following my vote if you disagree with my case?

[Suburban_Plankton]

Catching up after the holiday…

@TexCat

I thought gnarly posted in the wrong thread. The fact that he was responding to Alka would mean that he and Alka were also talking in the scum thread.

The problem with this theory is that the post **gnarly **responded to, and quoted in his post, was one from this thread. Yes, it’s possible that gnarly is Scum, but there is no evidence to suggest that he posted in the wrong thread. Why do you keep pushing that idea?

@MHaye

So Texcat, Snickers or IS?

I’m going to review the votes on Texcat now, and try and get up early enough to review the others tomorrow.

First vote : Visorslash in [post=15231611]post 337[/post]. If Visor hadn’t been revealed Town by Storyteller, I’d be incredibly suspicious of this vote. There is no substance to it at all. I’m going to stop before the analysis reaches four times the length of Visor’s “justification.”

Second vote : Mahaloth in [post=15233492]post 349[/post]. Votes Texcat for suggesting that there were no Mafiates on Visorslash’s bandwagon. It is perhaps worth noting that Texcat justified her vote on the Visorslash wagon primarily because of the three in fifteen “slip” Visorslash perpetrated Day 1, although she retained her “no lynch” vote as well. I think the suggestion that there were no Mafiates is a bit of a stretch for a Townsperson to conclude, personally; however it would be risky for a Mafiate to make that statement because it stands out.

Third vote : Mosier in [post=15236763]post 371[/post]. Mosier justifies his vote partly because of Texcat’s campaign for a no-lynch (although I feel Mosier overstates how close it came to success; no lynch never collected more than 3 votes, peaking in 155; Visorslash already had three votes at that point, and rose slowly to 5 before the rush at the end, prompted in part by his own self-vote) and partly because of her attempts to steer people away from looking at the bandwagon.

My trouble with Mosier’s vote is that he is, in part, placing a vote when he did because of how it looks. He doesn’t want to be accused of jumping on a bandwagon. That pings – he’s doing it for appearances sake. Town shouldn’t be worrying about appearance. They have the giftof a clear conscience.

I’m going to

vote Mosier

for that. I intend to review other cases before Nightfall, but can’t do so during the day as we can’t use the Internet for personal business except at breaktimes.

The question at the beginning of this post is “Texcat, Snickers or IS?”…so apparently the answer is “Mosier”???

First, why limit yourself to only those three candidates? I suppose because those were the three people with more than one vote on them at the time.

So you review TexCat’s posts, then without reviewing the rest of your ‘candidates’, place a vote on Mosier?

…and since you can’t post during the day it seems your analysis on **Snickers **and Inner Stickler isn’t forthcoming. I suppose I shouldn’t complain about your saying “I’ll be back soon with more analysis” and then failing to follow up, because I’m guilty of that myself. But that still doesn’t explain what you did here…

@Babale

Not unreasonable at all, whether you are Scum or Town. More likely if you are Scum. A Town placing a vote just to “look good” is risking placing a vote on a fellow Town. Scum don’t have to take that risk, since they know who everyone is.

ETA: Enderw24, I’m sorry you feel I don’t post enough. But real life takes precedence. You’ll notice that when I do post, I try to make my posts long and filled with analysis.

You would have helped your case some if this post had not been short and void of analysis. Also, in reviewing your posts in this game, I don’t find your statement to be particularly accurate. Some of your posts are long; several are only a line or two. And as for whether or not they are “filled with analysis”…we’ll have to wait and see on that, won’t we?

Give me a few minutes to look through my notes and I’ll be back with a vote or three…

[Suburban_Plankton]

@KellyCriterion

Game thread seems a bit quiet compared to other Mafia games I have seen.

No one is majorly pinging me yet.. I could just throw my vote at Tengu again but that would be somewhat boring, and doesn’t help learn anything new.

Is it worth looking through the town power roles and trying to work how best and/or when to use them? Would it help if certain power roles “outed” themselves now? Are there some power roles where the owner of that role should definitely keep their head down until much later in the game? Can we encourage certain power roles to get busy?

I assume we’re still waiting to find out the results of any investigations that were strongly encouraged on Day 1? Did no one investigate?

I’d really like to vote for **KellyCriterion **for making posts like this. Kelly seems to have done very little this game but drop in occasionally to complain about how slow the game is, and to ask for Investigator results.

Unfortunately, a vote for Kelly at this point leaves us still in a tie, so that’s not a viable option…

[Snickers]

To be fair, Plankton, **MHaye **didn’t say he was reviewing TexCat’s posts, but that he was reviewing the votes on TexCat. Presumably, he’s reviewing other people’s cases on those he found scummy. I don’t know that I’d go this way, but he’s not me, either.

[gnarlycharlie]

@MHaye

Gnarlycharlie’s slip.
Gnarlycharlie gets some heat (and a vote from Texcat) because of [post=15224371]post 299[/post]. Gnarly claims that he was referring to the investigation powers as a whole, and should have written “them” instead of “it.” Texcat, on the other hand, claims that when using “it,” Gnarly is referring back to what Alka Seltzer was referring to; that is, the Cloak of Lies. That is slightly more plausible than confusing “it” and “them” to me, but I don’t think that’s right either. The comment arose from Alka’s response to Gnarly’s suggestion that the investigators look into the voters for Visorslash. I don’t see how Gnarly can leap from there to the Cloak very easily. There is a third possibility, namely that Gnarlycharlie was pondering the timing of the use of his own power. That makes sense of Gnarly’s sudden use of the singular.

you got me. explanation below.

@fubbleskag

Apologies in advance, on my phone again.

I am the man of law. Last night I investigated Stanislaus and was informed that he is not a member of the brotherhood unless the cloak was used.

I wanted to avoid overlap and thought it safest to investigate someone unlikely to have garnered too much attention. I chose him specifically from that list because I feel he is a strong mafia (the game) player and knowing his alignment held more weight than the other candidates.

i am the friar. i also investigated Stanislaus and received a NOT a member of the Brotherhood of the Rose. i purposely recommended that those in the Visorslash wagon be investigated so i’d have a better chance in getting a true result. why Stanislaus? he struck me as very town and also he won as scum in our last game together by playing that way. so i wanted to know his alignment.

@Visorslash

I’ve had a death in my immediate family. I won’t be all that active for a while.
What have I done to deserve this, honestly?

I have insulted no-one in this game, and used my power successfully to help the town. What is wrong with you people?

sorry for your loss.

---

as for Mosier, i’m inclined to believe his claim. i agree with Stanislaus’ thinking.

do you guys still think that having multiple votes is anti-town? if so, what’s your take on Texcat being the only one having more than one vote (at least when i started this post)?

[Alka_Seltzer]

I notice that fubbleskag refers to “The brotherhood” while gnarlycharlie calls it “the brotherhood of the rose”, a phrase I’ve not seen in the rules or colour posts.

@fubbleskag - Please could you post your night PM from storyteller.

[Snickers]

Well, story’s first post says something about a white rose right at the very end; maybe that’s where gnarlycharlie’s getting it? You’re right though, Alka: that does seem fishy.

[Suburban_Plankton]

Interesting point there, Alka Seltzer. I don’t see “Brotherhood of the Rose” anywhere either. It’s possible that’s a Scum slip, though it could be something that only appears in the Investigative results, and **fubbleskag **simply didn’t include it. Hopefully **fubbleskag **will return soon to shed some light on this.

As for the **TexCat **vs. Inner Sticker issue, I’m not finding either of them to be significantly more or less suspicious than the other.

TexCat is pinging me because of her No-lynch stance yesterday which I very much disagree with, plus the fact that she ultimately did vote anyway, and did so in a situation where her vote was almost completely unneccessary. Also, she has twice in this game accused someone of 'posting in the wrong thread: gnalrycharlie Today and **Visorslash **on Day 1.

Inner Stickler has done less to ping my suspicions, but that’s the problem; he hasn’t really posted much of significance at all. He was against the direction of Town Investigators, but backtracked some on that…he voted Mosier just to get a reaction, but never followed up on that…he’s pretty much been lurking in plain sight.
Looking at the voters on each, and discounting the fact that they are voting for each other:

Visorslash, Mosier, and Mahaloth are voting for TexCat. That’s one confirmed Town, one probable Town, and one Unknown.
Stanislaus, fubbleskag, and Hal Briston are voting for Inner. that’s one probable Town, one claimed Town, and one Unknown.

Of course, being Town doesn’t mean that one;s votes are any good, but it does suggest that they aren’t deliberately misplaced.

And there is the fact that TexCat was voting for gnarly since early on today, and only added a vote for Inner as a self-preservation measure. While I’m not against self-preservation votes, the fact that he’s the only person with two votes on the board does bother me.

[Alka_Seltzer]

I notice both TexCat and InnerStickler are placing un-acknowledged self-defence votes. Reviewing both, Stickler did at least express some suspicion of TexCat here.

[Inner_Stickler]

@Suburban_Plankton

Inner Stickler has done less to ping my suspicions, but that’s the problem; he hasn’t really posted much of significance at all. He was against the direction of Town Investigators, but backtracked some on that…he voted Mosier just to get a reaction, but never followed up on that…he’s pretty much been lurking in plain sight.

Backtracked? I wouldn’t call it that at all. As I recall, I stated that I was against directing investigators and I am and remain unconvinced of the utility of such an action but I also offered a plan that would, in my opinion, mitigate some of the issues directing investigators might have without compromising the benefits, such as they are, in the event that as a group we decided to go through with it. You never tell someone, “I don’t think that’s a good idea but if you really wanna do it, here’s some things you can do to lessen the fallout.”?

[Suburban_Plankton]

@Alka_Seltzer

I notice both TexCat and InnerStickler are placing un-acknowledged self-defence votes. Reviewing both, Stickler did at least express some suspicion of TexCat here.

That’s very slight suspicion…but I suppose it is something…
I’m going to

vote TexCat

She’s done more to *actively *rouse my suspicions, whereas my suspicion of **Inner **is based more on his lack of real content. And if I was going to lynch someone based on lack of content, there are others I’d like to see hang: **KellyCriterion **and **Mahaloth **spring to mind here.
We’ve got at least 45 more minutes left for hi-jinks and shenanigans…GO!

[Alka_Seltzer]

How long do we have until dusk? (I’m in the UK, so timezones get confusing) Right now we have a no-lynch tie.

storyteller, since the start of the Day was delayed, would it be possible to request that it is extended to the end of the dusk period please?

[Suburban_Plankton]

@Alka_Seltzer

How long do we have until dusk? (I’m in the UK, so timezones get confusing) Right now we have a no-lynch tie.

storyteller, since the start of the Day was delayed, would it be possible to request that it is extended to the end of the dusk period please?

Per story, the Day will end “between 1 and 5 PM Eastern on Thursday, July 5”

It’s 12:21 PM Eastern time as I type this, so we have between 0:39 and 4:39 left, assuming there is no extension.

[Suburban_Plankton]

@Tengu

I agree with this completely.

I’d also add, since unless I missed it on multiple readings, Stanislaus never mentioned it, the Summoner’s power doesn’t just let him see whether his target did something, but whether someone did something to his target. So if Mosier’s Scum, and not using the Memento to access his Summoner power, he’s not just guessing that SP didn’t do anything, he’s guessing that no other Investigator investigated him, and nobody spammed a protective power on him. Which, as it turns out, seems to be accurate, but if he were Scum false-claiming, I would expect him to wait until someone else claimed to lower the chances of being contradicted, not be the first to claim.

So, yeah, low chance of Scum.

We still have crap information to go on, and that annoys me.

I’m also tired as shit, so I can’t think…I’ll vote before Nightfall, but not now.

I hope you got a good night’s sleep. Any chance you have a vote forthcoming?