Mahaloth, I would like to be spoiled please.
Cookies is a big old wifom now, yet can town afford a mislynch right now? There are better targets right now I feel
For the first two days there wasn’t a whole lot to go on. I had some feelings about Cookies. I still think Special Ed could be scum (scuba ben). There was a compelling case against Chipacabra here that turned up to be wrong (Why do masons always act so scummy?). Anyway, kind of quiet for the first few days right?
Now nearly EVERYONE is acting scummy.
storyteller: I don’t get the claim. It makes no sense to me what-so-ever. He has no useful information to share. Fear of dying should not have pushed him to claim. He’s better off riding the line and hoping that he gets a chance to use one of this other powers this coming night. Which of course leads to… Why didn’t storyteller use a power this past night?
This is where I get into trouble because storyteller approaches these things very differently than I do. But I’m not understanding anything he’s done this Day.
I also can’t reconsile Today with everything storyteller has done before. The defense of ushi and Pleonast were exactly what I had been thinking.
Cookies: A kill, really? I could see her killing ushi just to get him off the table, but Chipacabra? I’d lynch her except for the fact that there was an extra kill the previous night which might open the door for a Town Vig killing Cookies at Night.
If Storyteller is town, I see no motive for the claim whatsoever, unless he’s still hiding something. I’d be pushing HARD for a full claim, if town and playing, because of that. I’d need to know if he has something in his pocket. If he doesn’t, IMO he is not town.
Chipa was the obvious vig kill as Skeezix just pointed out, so I see some motive for Cookies’ choice. Not sure at all about her, though.
Need to think a bit more about Skeez’s comment about Pleo and Suburban.
Still suspicious of Skeezix, for mostly metagame reasons – the last set of explicitly so-named “lovers” I came across were a town/not-town pair with their own wincon. Paranoia is lovely, haha. (Plus, that Cookies comment aside, I’m not on his wavelength at all this game and I usually am.)
and i know this might not be optimal play but right now i’d be voting sushi just for being a prick.
He’s being so bad I just about agree. I could even justify it if I tried real hard, and I’d be damn tempted. Lessee –
- He backed off being abrasive when it was about to get him lynched yesterday and has just about done the same today, but in between, he’s derailing everything else by making the game all about him. Rather effective scum play if you ignore the obvious down side that he will most likely eventually die for this. Maybe he thinks it’s worth it. Maybe he thinks changing his tune permanently would lead to a worse outcome.
- Pleo’s policy vote on Oredigger for self-voting, that he got so much heat for and which seemed so unmotivated. Maybe it was motivated after all. He made such a point out of saying he’d vote Ushi if Ushi did the same, you know? But he never had to, did he?
See? Not so hard. Maybe it’s even correct.
I think Pleo has said that he doesn’t like “bail out” votes before, though, in games where he wasn’t scum.
I’m sure he has.
That’s so over the top.
And he’s not even correct either. If Town was given the opportunity to lynch 7 on the first Day, they should take it. Period. The ‘error’ for lack of a better term W.R.T. Cookies wasn’t that she killed, but that she was a one-shot killer. Delaying a one-shot makes sense to gain better information, but the kill in and of itself wasn’t anti-Town. On the other hand, I think it reasonable from Cookies’s situation to kill. As a free-agent she needed to create a win condition. There was sufficient reason to believe that she needed to kill to generate a win condition. That doesn’t make her Town, but I can’t blame her for killing (even though I already did). See? We’re all hypocrites.
I agree with you peeks. Even with a player claiming scum, I’d still vote ushi.
Alas, it was out-of-game reasons which kept me from my usual participation level.
Pushing for a mass claim and unilaterally revealing one’s own information are distinct actions. It’s quite reasonable to be for one and against the other.
I considered adjusting what I revealed, but my instinct is always to play as I would if I were town. There was no townie reason not to reveal everything–I wasn’t sure how dangerous Cookies is, so I wanted to let everyone see all the evidence I had. (Plus, I needed to get the info to my teammates.)
And they got lucky that I was scum. Players should know by now that I don’t reveal information that I do not think will help town. The details of an investigator’s powers are one of those. Oh, and that reminds me:
This is so much nonsense. I wasn’t taking any information to the grave with me. I gave my one and only result. When dead, a player’s name, alignment, power, etc are all revealed by the moderator.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Somehow it’s become conventional wisdom that a lone mason (either initial or after the others have died) must claim immediately. That is poor policy. What’s the worst that can happen for not claiming? A scum claiming to be the mason? That will provoke a counter-claim and you’ll get a one-for-one trade. Always a good thing for town.
Obviously, there’s still a lot of work to be done in getting players to realize that the revelation of information need not be a binary all or nothing.
This is exactly what every player should be doing. Unfortunately, ushi’s insults are blinding others to the useful contributions he is making.
A mason can stay secret if the number of masons is known. In this case, the number was not known so claiming was the correct move. If the second mason had died (and wouldn’t it have been crazy if both had died on that 3kill night?) then there wouldn’t BE anyone to counterclaim a false scum claim of Mason. Furthermore, the scum could point to the fact that the second mason hadn’t claimed as ‘proof’ that there is a third mason.
If Chipacabra had claimed mason and verified that there were only 2 masons before dying, then the second mason could stay hidden.
So when does “I dislike sushi” take over “I hate shoes” as a Mafia meme?
Would like to comment on Ushi’s player-related comments as long as they’ve been brought up.
Yes.
Not at all sure, but wouldn’t be surprised.
Disagree, I think, despite what Skeezix points out about Pleo and despite the pronoun thing. Or at least, I hope he’s town. He’s made some comments that have seemed to me to be spot-on in their townie motivation. If he’s scum, he is playing superbly. And ushi is wrong about him always being second.
Probably.
Reads very townie to me.
No idea what to think about her and think it can wait, besides.
Leaning hard scum, for me.
Same, though based on only one sentence, really, where he first commented on Skeez’s mason claim. There was an air there of “dang I wish I could attack this, but it’s really not possible”. Pinged the hell out of me, though it’s obviously not much.
Respectfully disagree a little bit. IMHO, a huge part of Mafia is collaboration and persuasion (for both sides). If you are so abrasive that people don’t want to work with you, don’t want to hear you out, and don’t really care what you are saying, you are not being useful. Regardless of the knowledge bombs you might be dropping, you are being distracting and asking to get lynched. I suppose there are some odd roles where this would be effective strategy… but, in general, I think if you are insulting/distracting, you are not being useful.
If ushi IS town, he is playing exceptionally poorly. My two cents. Feel free to agree or disagree.
We’re talking more than the game.
After three night kills everyone’s afraid to pop their head up! 
that’s what happens when you don’t have either me or ed around to antagonize meeko.
and i agree with doctor who. i mean all of us have our abrasive side but to some extent we have “earned” that right over time. as a newb i don’t think you have “earned” the right to be personally insulting and condescending to anyone.
Yes, that is a risk, but it goes both ways. If the number of masons is unknown, scum are taking a risk by false claiming, because they don’t know if there’s another one around who can counterclaim.
The number of masons in a game is a critically important piece of information. Revealing it too early can be bad. (And if scum know it before the town in general does, it is an almost game-ending advantage!)
And the fact that scum might use the second mason’s lack of a claim as “proof” that there were more than two masons is an excellent reason why the policy of claiming when there’s only one left is bad.
I think you’re agreeing with me. 
What I quoted is useful, but doesn’t negate the insulting behavior.
I’d make a distinction between insulting and distracting. Distraction and ignoring it is a part of the game. Insults are not.
Sums up the problem. ushi has stated who and why, but Cookies apparently missed it.
False claim risk is kind of moot when scum will happily false claim to avoid a lynch.
And if you are going to acknowledge that there are definable risks to a mason not claiming in the given situation then I don’t think it is fair to claim “wrong, wrong, wrong.” The benefit of staying silent is minimal. The benefits of claiming are copious.
I disagree. The main benefit of masons are confirmed Town. Delay of claim is mainly to avoid nightkill so that the masons are around during endgame. The number of masons isn’t a critical piece of information. I reject the assertion that telling scum the number of masons is ‘almost [a] game-ending advantage.’ I think it’s barely an advantage at all (assuming at least one mason).
In one case Town know that there are two masons. In the other they have to decide whether the game had 2 masons or 3. How could that possibly be better?
The Town’s ability to gauge these things comes from standardization. What you are proposing is a paradigm shift where we all agree to not to claim mason in such situations. I agree that this policy is different, but it is not superior.