Random Mafia

The Game Room
661

NETA: Because I did not see ed’s comment.

I could see Meeko doing that to a town but honestly, I just don’t see why he’d bother. He does, on the other hand, get really worked up when he has a stake in something and he loses. He was incredibly hesitant, for ex, to bus me in the colorless mafia game. He also gets really freaked out when he thinks he’s going to lose, town or scum. That’s how he was in Pond mafia. Meeko’s definitely more of an emotional player–he gets really invested. I honestly see him doing everything in his power to try to keep a fellow scum safe, not seeing the forest for the trees–i.e., that he is attracting more, not less, attention to himself.

662

unless Keely and Meeko are masons…

663

LOL Meeko was a mason in the last game, what’s the chance??? :wink:

664

So, given that sachertorte has not answered my question, I’m assuming that he doesn’t intend to give us any more than he already has. My first thought is that this is quite bad for us. However, given sach’s arguments that a game without a detective would be unbalanced because a false claim would never be countered I think that there has to be enough information in each player’s “profession” to work out who the major power roles are if they die. A protective role might be given an obvious medical profession like physician, for instance. Otherwise, NAF the Mormon could have been a detective and we’d never know, and then a false detective claim could go uncountered.

665

I’m somewhat hopeful that not having a role identified means they were Vanilla.

I’m fairly certain peeker was Vanilla because he would have claimed something as he noticed that his lynch seemed probable.

666

Hey guys, been out and about.

Let me get to something, and follow up on it.

This is long, but I think I get a few points out.

**
Vote Freudian**

Reasons and Reasons follow.

**
I don’t buy this case on me at all. Here are my reasons, in my outline format of late. **

  1. I know, I’m not that random, IIRC, it was responding to earlier posts on Kelly. This will be debated for sure, but I didn’t spend that much time on it, more like an immediate answer to an unasked question to me.

  2. I just felt that I could look at other people on Day 1.

  3. I NEVER said that Kelly got a full pass for the entire day.

  4. So, You have both quotes here. Lets follow it out logically.
    4A. I give Kelly a “pass” based on the odds. A Pass, as in, I don’t intend to look at kelly in terms of vote placement. Much less to make a case for him, either way.

**4B. 15 words and one number all of a sudden become my ““Justification”” for not voting Kelly, on a Day 1 vote. **

4C. One has to wonder how Freudian would vote if my ““Justification”” was longer in words, or if I stated that I Would not vote Kelly, for the entire game.

4D. Freudian implies that I indeed did say that I would NEVER place a vote on Kelly. The implication comes by way of bypassing my “on day 1 at least*” by upgrading it to " couldn’t be scum "

*Day 1 at least == meaning I reserve the right to vote Him on other days.

**
5. But it gets worse **

Freudian is Voting me, because I am saying someone else [Kelly] is Town. [Essentially]

What is the defense to this? Do I call Kelly Scum? I have no proof to do so, I don’t know it to be so. It would mean that I smudge Kelly at the least, vote him at the worst.

But ok, lets follow this. Assume I call Kelly Scum. If I Call Kelly scum, I have to vote for him, or I risk being Anti Town. I have no doubt Freudian would vote me on that charge on a later day.

5B. As I read the vote on me, it stands because I said that Kelly wasn’t scum.

5C. Would Freudian rather I smudge Kelly, and place a vote on Kelly?

5D. Note, if I vote Kelly, as in 5C, I can’t vote anyone else. (Namely Freudian)

5E. I am getting a vote on me, because in GENERAL, to THIS GAME, I am playing the odds? Kelly or No Kelly, any one person is going to be Town by the odds.

**
I feel this is an elaborate smudge by Freudian on me.**

I made the mistake of falling for Gamblers’ Fallacy. That’s the type of mistake Scum live for. ** I remind everyone that we have no proof of Kelly’s Alignment -or- Freudian’s alignment. **

–

–

If Freudian is Scum:

Freudian would know Kelly’s Alignment if Freudian was scum. As I demonstrated, I’m not sure how I can respond to Freudians vote on me, unless I start looking at Kelly as Scum.

Bonus Round : It gets a vote on a possible Townie, and It takes heat off of Freudian. If I look at Kelly, at least my efforts are removed from looking at and later voting for Freudian.

If Freudian AND Kelly are scum :

Freudian moves in for Town Cred, starting with the vote on me. Kelly being a newer player will probably get lynched before Freudian gets lynched. All of this time Freudian is building up even more Town Cred. Wouldn’t be surprised if Freudian busses Kelly in this entire exchange. At the time Kelly shows up to be scum my ““protecting”” [A term Freuidan used first, I believe] him would be used against me.

The fact that I show up town wont matter, Freudian will have built up enough Town credit to avoid the noose for the rest of the game. Memories are fickle, and Freudian will be remembered for the fake town cred, and little more.

667

Freudian, I saw Shutter Island as well. I’m not DiCaprio’s character.

Your claims here are Just De Crap.

Again, How can I defend myself against you, if you smudge me ?

You are spending all of your time saying :

Meeko is “off”. Meeko is “off”. Meeko is “off” Meeko is “off”. Meeko is “off”. Meeko is “off” Meeko is “off”. Meeko is “off”. Meeko is “off” Meeko is “off”. Meeko is “off”. Meeko is “off” Meeko is “off”. Meeko is “off”. Meeko is “off” Meeko is “off”. Meeko is “off”. Meeko is “off” Meeko is “off”. Meeko is “off”. Meeko is “off”

And the I object.

And you pointout “What would you expect someone who is always “off” to say?”

668

That’s a good point.

Agreed.

669

Heh. Good one.

snipped

Yes, so I think we have to assume f both were vanilla town, which seems most likely. I would think any power would have been told to us.

670

:dubious::dubious::confused:

671

Regarding the rest of Meeko’s outline as he cast what can only be called an OMGUS vote (and who would expect differently?

  1. huh?
  2. OK, good point, you should look at other people.
  3. As I pointed out in my previous post, this is contradicted by your actual statement.
    4…
    4A. Yes, I suppose that would be the definition of a pass
    4B. Does it matter how many words you use? Or is it enough that you just use the words? I’m sure a case can be made in a few words. And a case can be handwaved the way you did in even fewer words. (you handwaved the case saying you weren’t even going to consider it, instead of actually looking at the basis of the case)
    4C. Who cares? Why are you asking what might happen in situations that didn’t happen?
    4D. You’re wrong. Freudian voted for you for defending Kelly. You’re misrpresenting her by saying she implied you would never vote for Kelly.
  4. I think you’ve got part of it. Freudian is voting for you for defenidng Kelly as Town.However, you struggle after that. You go on about, 'should you call Kelly Scum" should you do this or that. When the real action is to do what every Town did: Evaluate the case on Kelly for themselves and realize that they can’t figure out of he is or isn’t Town, and make their best vote accordingly, either for Kelly or someone else.
    5B. You said Kelly was Town. How would you know that if you weren’t Scum?
    5C. I think Freudian and everyone, would rather you stated your opinion on the case against Kelly instead of handwaving the case off.
    5D. No one is asking you to vote for Kelly. As far as I can tell, no one ever asked you to vote for Kelly. I’m not certain why you’re arguing this way.
    5E. To extend your logic, you should never vote because any player is likely to be Town. You’ve also, in a completely different way, again misrepresented the vote against you.

starting with this odd and incorrect statement (it’s not a smudge since she’s voting for you)

**

**
the rest of the post makes no real sense to me. I think Meeko is just getting deep in his own thoughts and they wander off the track into somewhere.

You state why freudian might make the case if she were Scum, but you ignore the fact that she might very well be making the case as Town.

It’s not way out of line. I can see the case myself, and while it’s not rock solid, there’s meat to the case against you, Meeko.

672

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Are we even playing the same game?

673

No, Meeko, that’s been our problem all along. I’m playing Mafia

674

Well obviously, something doesn’t mesh there.

I think we can both agree that I meant to say “game”. Instead of day.

675

No, you are playing Smudge.

But, as you will level that I am still being unclear ::

Where is this “meat” you speak of?

676

The meat is that you came out and handwaved the case against Kelly.

677

OK, can you point out where Freudian said anything about your votes for the rest of the game.

As far as I can tell, the case against you is for your defense of Kelly on Day 1.

You mischaracterize the case and seem to redirect it. The case was not against what your plans were for the future.

678

**
Ed, “meat” means specifics.**

679

I think the case is pretty clear, and, btw ‘meat’ doesn’t mean specifics, it means that there is substance to the case. I could be very specific without having much substance on a case.

But you want specifics, let me be more specific then.

  1. Kelly garnered a couple of votes
  2. You posted a brief statement dismissing the case against Kelly.
    2a. Your dismissal only had faulty reasoning as a back up.
    2b. It appears as a defense of Kelly
  3. Scum motivated reasons for the statement you made could be:
    3a. Yo were protecting a fellow Scum Kelly
    3b. You were trying to earn Townie cred by defending a Townie Kelly.
    Now, Meeko, would you care to provide specifics for the staements you made that I’ve called mischaracterizations?

Specifically

  1. You stated that Freudian’s case in some fashion implied that you would never vote for Kelly. What causes you to come to that conclusion?

  2. Why does the number of words you used in your dismissal of the case against Kelly matter?

  3. Why do you (in point 5E) state the vote against you was because you were playing the odds? What does that fact that to a Twonie, any unknown player is more likely to be Town have to do with the case against you?
    P.S. A smudge is when someone makes a statement against a person, that while on the surface doesn’t directly state any case against the person, but is designed to make the reader come away with an underlying suspicion of said player.

For example, if I said “Special Ed is a great player, and while he hasn’t done anything overtly scummy, that’s exactly what I’d expect of a Scummy Ed.”

When someone directly accuses another of doing something suspicious or questions them on something, it isn’t really a smudge. It’s more of an accusation. And that’s the meat of this game.

680

“justification that Kelly due to the numbers couldn’t be scum again”

Freudian is basically saying “Meeko, I know you will never vote Kelly, at any point in this game. Because of that, I am voting for you.”

Trying another way :

Freudian can’t see Meeko ever voting Kelly in this game. If Freudian can see Meeko voting for Kelly, at any point, in this game, then the justification for the vote falls flat. But, because a vote is made on this exact justification, a statement IS made about my votes for the rest of the game.