Mafia V: The Cult of Sekham

The Game Room
2281

In post 2252:
**fluiddruid **quotes Queuing’s reasoning and vote for **Zeriel **before voting for Zeriel herself (n.b., the vote is in the next post 2253). I found this mode of operation questionable and decided to go back and see fluiddruid’s history.

Post 702: fluiddruid’s Day One vote for sachertorte. She quotes MonkeyMensch’s reasoning for voting sachertorte in her vote post.

Post 1031: fluiddruid’s Day Two vote for malacandra. She quotes Pleonast’s reason for voting malacandra in her vote post.

Post 1513: fluiddruid’s Day Three vote for Hockey Monkey. She quotes SnakesCatLady’s reasoning on Hockey Monkey. (This is the weakest of the five)

Post 1790: fluiddruid’s Day Four vote for MadTheSwine. She quotes Queuing’s reasoning for voting MadTheSwine in her post.

My personal feeling is this type of play is scummy. Her votes are nicely placed behind someone else’s reasoning. Five Days of this just strikes me as just too much. Overall this fits into the scum strategy of participating enough to not be noticed for not participating, while not contributing anything substantial or anything that can be held against her.

vote fluiddruid

And Zeriel? go stand over there next to Hockey Monkey and Pleonast, we’ll sort you three out later.

(On preview, I’m curious about the magical number 2 monks confirming the number left. I would think that the single remaining monk should confirm that there is only one left. Why two? I’m guessing it is so that they can confirm each other, but Monk claims are confirmed by the absence of a counter-claim. I suppose with one Monk left there is the possibility of a scum counter-claim, but that bags a scum, which is good. Anyone care to risk causing Queuing’s head to explode and explain this to me?)

2282

FWIW, I seem to be missing from your list, and probably should be on there. I missed most of the discussion by virtue of not having joined the game yet, but I did comment on it in my first post, which may even have come at a time when the discussion had died down.

2283

Mostly since it would give us a better exchange rate.

If one Monk claims and one Scum counterclaims and nothing else happens, we could end up lynching both the Monk and the Scum.

However, if then another Monk pipes up, we would lose no Monks and lynch one Scum. (and kind-a-sort-a force the Scum’s Night kills). This can’t happen when there is only one Monk left and no one can vouch for him.

2284

OK, so I’ve been thinking…I still don’t believe **Pleonast’s ** claim but on the chance that it is true, I’ll unvote Pleonast for now. I don’t want to go dunking power roles any more than any of the rest of the town. Sigh. Now **Zeriel ** has role claimed. This leads me to believe my scumdar is in serious need of a tuneup or is damaged in some way. I hope it’s still under warranty. I have really only picked up scumminess from **Pleonast ** and **Zeriel ** for the most part, so I’m at an impasse right now as to who to vote for. Good points have been made about Captain Klutz and fluiddruid, so I’ll take a closer look at them.

2285

Well damn. So not only was it a poor idea, but it might have been a poor execution?

My vote is going to be for

captain klutz

For 2 reasons:

The case laid out against him by Fretful
His drive by post of the O/A discussion.

I am not confident in either of these reasons.

2286

Ok, everytime I come in here to do some research or make a meaningful contribution, the shit hits the fan.

Looking at a list of players who have had posting analyses done about them, I find that Captain Klutz does not have one yet. And given the brief history done by Fretful Porpentine I thought I would go into more depth.

Going back to the middle of Day 3.

1620: defends himself after SnakesCatLady (confirmed Believer) accused him of diffusing suspicion on himself by voting for Zeriel(claimed Monk).

1623: further discussion with SCL, accuses her of not posting so as not to leave scum tells. States when out of his way to 'not vote for Malacandra. Says “Although I don’t think that anything I say will help. It seems you have decided that I am scum and nothing will change your mind, as you can always simply say “Well, of course a scum would say that”.”

1648Accuses fluiddruid of beginning a bandwagon against Malacandra (defending Malacandra again). Plans a closer look at Hockey Monkey (claimed Alchemist)

1656: Analysis of Hockey Monkey, states more suspicious of him now, considers changing vote, but does not.

1658: combs Day 1 posts for possible pre-Night 1 scum communications, reaches no firm conclusions, but continues to suspect Hockey Monkey and fluiddruid

1666: after being voted for by SCL, defends himself and then changes vote from fluiddruid to Scuba_Ben (confirmed Believer)

1677: comments on Hockey Monkey’s role claim, asks why he waited so late

2 Night Posts

Day 4
1794: hops Oracle didn’t investigate Hockey Monkey’s claim

1797: discusses Alchemist counter-claims. Mentions false monk claim

1801: slight bit of a tiff with Malacandra over Oracle breadcrumbing, apologizes for overreacting at the end.

1866: further discussion of role claims and ‘more than one of each role’ post by Blaster Master as well as wondering who asked the question in the first place

1866 and 1874: discussion withfluiddruid from about 200 posts earlier about bandwagoning vs voting with weak reasoning (see post 1677 as well)

1875: responds to Zeriel’s accusation of pushing Scuba_Ben (confirmed town) over the edge

1894: hold off voting for MadTheSwine to avoid instadunk (later pointed out does not exist with the 12 hour countdown)

1907: more meta-discussion about who might have asked Blaster Master about the multiple roles

1908: votes for MadTheSwine putting him on the verge of the 12hour countdown

1959: defends voting for MadTheSwine, also defends breaking tie on Day 3 between Hockey Monkey and Scuba_Ben by saying it wouldn’t have mattered in the end

1 Night Post

2117: Posting summary of ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies, concludes “feels like town”

2119: Posting summary of DiggitCamera v.2, concludes doubts to Diggit’s towniness due to flimsy voting

2173: votes for DiggitCamera v.2 for ‘flimsy voting’

2232: discusses Pleonast role claim, asks Pleonast who he ‘protected’

My conclusions: Captain Klutz has been suspected by several ‘confirmed town’ and has defended several people on my suspicious list. His meta-analaysis of who asked Blaster Master role questions and his attempt to get Pleonast to reveal who he’s protected strikes me as particularly scummy.

Captain Klutz

2287

ugh, just so that vote color doesn’t get overlooked in the rest of the blue links

vote Captain Klutz

2288

Glad to see the activity is picking up again, but the timing sucks. :frowning: Work has just not given me the opportunity to hunker down in the game for the past couple of days. To make things extra interesting, my mother-in-unlawful-and-sinful-lesbian-cohabitation is visiting this week and I will again be traveling over the weekend, starting tomorrow.

I will do my damnedest to post my analysis and vote before driving off tomorrow, and I will keep what tabs I can on the thread after that.

2289

Hmmm. Wasn’t expecting that. Unvote Zeriel for now. I’m not going to revote just yet, since Zeriel and Pleonast were pretty high on my lynch list and I’m rethinking the way I’ve seen this game.

2290

Well shit. After thinking more I think I’m going to have to unvote Pleonast. I still don’t believe him but I don’t wanna take a chance that I’m wrong.

BM, can we get a vote count?

–FCOD

2291

I’m not sure I follow. If there is a monk claim and a scum false-monk claim then I can see the second monk claiming to confirm the first, but this doesn’t address the issue presented by the ‘a role-claimed monk should say how many monks remain when there are 2 monks left.’ That situation says nothing about a counter claim.

If there are 2 monks left, and one claims (the other still hidden), what is the benefit of the role claiming monk telling the town that there are 2 monks left? In my view, it is better for the monks to stay silent until there is only one monk left*. The lone monk must tell the town he/she is alone so that no future false claims can happen. I just don’t see the benefit of revealing the number at 2.

  • assuming single night kills. If multiple kills can happen, I can see the need for revealing the number at 2.
2292

Unfortunately, I don’t have my spreadsheet with me today :frowning: so it’ll have to wait until I get home in a few hours.

2293

color removed

Unofficial Vote count:

Captain Klutz(3): Fretful Porpentine, Queuing, USCDiver
Pleonast(2): Idle Thoughts, amrussell
Malacandra(2): Pleonast, zuma
DiggitCamera v2 (2): Captain Klutz, Zeriel
Kyrie Eleison(1): DiggitCamera v2
fluiddruid(1): sachertorte

11 votes out of 21 Players remaining

2294

The problem is if we go into endgame with an unknown number of monks and an unknown number of scum. Lets say the penultimate monk dies leaving 6 players behind. 2 scum 3 town 1 monk. Now if the monk claims saying that he is the last monk alive and the scum claim saying that they are the last two monks and the town choses to kill the monk, or if they chose to ignore all the claims and kill one of the three unknown, the town loses.

2295

The above is assuming that the 3 town are vanilla.

It is best to go into endgame with as many 100% confirmed town as possible. You just don’t want to get too many of them too soon or they start getting picked off by scum.

2296

Like NAF already said: During the endgame a lone monk on the loose wouldn’t be good news for the Town.

And the benefit of having Monks is that you have confirmed citizens. A single Monk is as much use as a single Citizen. (S)He can claim all Day long… and still be unconfirmed.

2297

Okay, I can buy that, but the situation you describe is situational. The need for two monks to confirm number happened because the situation you describe is the endgame, which is a whole separate reasoning for revealing monks. For example if there were 2 monks and 15 players still milling about, the ‘rule’ announce monk number when there are two, doesn’t fit in with the situation described. My feeling is, if we are in mid-game and the number of monks falls to two, I see no reason to announce that there are two.

I’m sorry for being annoying about this. I really want to understand.

2298

I disagree. A single monk role claim will be believed in the absence of a counter claim; this is no different than the alchemist claim we have, and the secret role claim we have. A scum could counter-claim, but in the mid-game this nets a scum for a monk… good trade in my point of view. The only time this doesn’t work is if a monk dunk loses the game, which is an endgame situation, which has different criteria. I’m just saying we can’t extend endgame reasoning to the mid-game.

2299

In summary, I see that my assertion that the number to reveal is at one monk is overly simplistic and there are cases where monks should reveal numbers at two; but the ‘reveal at two’ policy is not absolute and must depend on the current game situation.

2300

Well this goes back to my “nothing in this game is always true” maxim. And now I am going to shut up before anyone else joins this conversation.