Sdmb mafia

[JSexton]

@Boozahol_Squid_P.I

I really fail to see the distinction between your move in this game and an outright claim of some sort of knowledge. Was it your intention that anyone not assume that you had some sort of watcher/strongman/protective role? Would it be reasonable for players to assume that, given your statements?

Of course that was my intent. But, it was also my intent that the implication would only last for a short period, enough to test ok11. That much should have been fairly obvious within about a 24-hour span.

There’s a very, very big difference between that and, say, outright claiming to have watched ok11 and then being counterclaimed by the true watcher.

[ShadowFacts]

@JSexton

I’m also blown away at how readily Hal’s claim was accepted. You had two dead investigators. You know (or strong suspect) that you’re at lynch or lose. Yet Hal claims that ShadowFacts, a player who has been generally on the accurate side of things all game is scum, and the votes just pile on with hardly a word of discussion?

Of course, I completely agree with you that it was unfortunate, but one reason why I think it worked so easily is that scum had been going ON and ON all game about how I was obsessed with Hal, how I was irrational and erratic, etc. None of it was true, but they kept at it: Hal, Hero and Boozahol all said that about me, and it seemed to me that it came to be accepted truth and I was effectively compromised. There were several times when I wanted to post more about Hal later in the game, but did not because I knew that doing so would actually hurt my cause more than help it. They effectively neutralized me, and when Hal made the claim there was no way anyone was going to believe me over him.

And FTR, saying I was carrying a grudge against Hal from previous games cheesed me off a little, I must admit. Too personal and meta-gamey, IMO.

[Pleonast]

@JSexton

Yes, I strongly implied that I had some knowledge that I didn’t. In this game, it’s a critical distinction between implying and stating.

I don’t think the distinction between implying and stating is significant. A large part of Mafia is reading between the lines; that is, discerning implications. One of the best ways of detecting scum is finding implied, unexplained knowledge. A lie by implication causes just as much damage to the Town trust as a lie by direct statement.

I’m also blown away at how readily Hal’s claim was accepted. You had two dead investigators.

I must have missed it–we had two dead investigators?

[JSexton]

@Pleonast

I don’t think the distinction between implying and stating is significant. A large part of Mafia is reading between the lines; that is, discerning implications. One of the best ways of detecting scum is finding implied, unexplained knowledge.

The period of time involved is also pretty significant, though. Bluffing a for a short time then coming clean is different than lying and getting caught by someone else the next day.

I must have missed it–we had two dead investigators?

A Watcher and a Detective, right?

[Hoopy_Frood]

@Pleonast

I must have missed it–we had two dead investigators?

It depends upon how one classifies a watcher.

[Pleonast]

@JSexton

The period of time involved is also pretty significant, though. Bluffing a for a short time then coming clean is different than lying and getting caught by someone else the next day.

I guess we’ll have to disagree, then. Strategy differences just make the game more fun.

@Hoopy_Frood

It depends upon how one classifies a watcher.

I guess I don’t consider a watcher (someone who sees what happened to a person) to be an investigator (someone who gets alignment information). I felt Hal’s backup investigator claim was quite reasonable.

[ShadowFacts]

@Pleonast

I felt Hal’s backup investigator claim was quite reasonable.

Yeah, but you were 100% certain I was scum, so…

I’m just kidding. Hal’s claim was extremely well constructed and executed. I probably would’ve voted for me if I wasn’t me.