Felt vs. MC: Mafia Night 2 Thread
 

As if an imaginary hand somewhere else in the universe had pushed the "previous track" button, the background music abruptly changed back to last Night's.

Zeener was found, once the decision had finally been broken onto him, bouncing aimlessly off the walls, following a criss-crossy path before falling into the umbrella stand. Giraffe picked him up and chased him, following the exact same path until he became trapped at the umbrella stand, and punched to death.

Zeener Diode, who was Fin (Town Weak Doc) is dead.

Night ends at 8:00 PM MDT, Tuesday, March 1st, because I don't want to have to stay up later and later each time the end of a Day/Night comes around, unless there are any complaints.

Crap! He wasn't lying!

Goddamn it. I suck! :sciencefail:

(I still think Romanic is scum, though.)

Wait - if he didn't lie then did he or didn't he protect Idle :confused:

So the "lucky"-note might have been an mechanism not related to Zeener.

Anyway I just wanted to address this:

I made it very clear that my vote was not a lurker-vote:

Followed up by:

Sorry about the headache ;)
And my poor logic (you would not be the first to point it out to me)

You're going to make me do the same, aren't you?

::leaves the party at Night and goes sulking back to re-reading the Days::

Arrgghh!! Lumperjack*

Sorry about the post above - some of the quotes just snuck back in while I was tryping my answer to Romanic.

well that was a clusterf*ck

A small part of desperately hopes that is a comment on the outcome of Day and not my multi-posting (including extra quotes and the mis-spelling of Lumberjack*)

@ Sister Coyote:

Do you have a restriction regarding votes?

*sigh*

You people should rethink that rule about the last vote being the tiebreaker. It could have turned in a votefest if I was around at the deadline. It really, really does not make sense that unvoting/revoting changes the lead. I can't figure how this rule made his way into this game, with the numbers of games some of you have.

Anyways, clearly Giraffe manipulated the votes to save Zuma. In fact all his votes yesterDay helped Zuma, who himself didn't post at all, using a real life argument to defend himself instead of posting anything of worth. And oh, he banked a vote for tommorow.

I'm gonna be pissed at you Townies if you don't lynch Giraffe or Zuma tomorrow, no matter what happens toNight.

@ Bill - I would still like to know why you voted for two different players yesterDay. Why not place two votes on one player, if you going to double-vote?

@ Ulla: Please don't take this as mean-spirited in any way, but I absolutely adore the way you misspelled "Lumberjack". I have always had a problem where I mix up my "B"s and "P"s when a "B" comes in the middle of a word, both writing by hand and typing. All of my science notebooks (dang it ... i just wrote "notepook" and had to fix it) have "test tupe" followed by "test tube".

I don't seem to have a problem with "B"s at the beginning or end of a word, such as "Bob" (good thing, or I'd have to have gone through life as "Pop").

Anyway, things became quite funny when I worked for a lawyer whose last name was "Crabtree".

Anyway, I think "Lumperjack" is totally cute! ;)

<<Insert Winky smilie here>>

OMG - I am laughing so hard right now :D

The "Crabtree" totally did me in!!!!

Why did Bills vote on me show up in the vote counts??

NETA: NOT show up in the vote counts?

Gah - must remember that Preview is my friend :facepalm:

This.

Either Zuma or Giraffe is clearly scum. Quite possibly both of them. I'd be surprised if Giraffe wasn't scum.

I agree - it seems to much of a "coincidence".

No restriction other than my own stupidity. For some reason I got it in my head that yesterDay would end today, rather than Sunday.

I agree with this. Letting someone unvote/revote to change the results of a tie gives way too much power to individual players.

You jumped on the me-saving-zuma pattern you found, but I have no opinion on zuma whatsoever. All of my voting and posting yesterDay were motivated exclusively by my theory that you (Romanic) and/or Zeener were scum. Had it been someone other than one of you two who swung the tie toward zuma, I'd have let it lie, but given my belief that you both were scumbuddies and I hadn't seen much of a case against zuma beyond voting for Idle, it seemed insane to let you two decide Town's vote. Sucks that I was wrong -- if I get lynched for it, so be it.

"You Townies"? :dubious:

And nice absolutism there. You know I don't actually know who is Town and who is scum, right? So I can have a strong belief about someone being scum which is incorrect without being scum myself? It's the scum who can afford to be full of righteous certainty about a mislynch.

My mistake. Fixed. Fortunately, it was not a mistake that would have changed the course of the game.

I will only say that there was a very specific reason why this rule was included, and put the rest in the spoiler board.

I can understand not wanting to let 2 players you find scummy, manipulate the votes, but we also have to consider your reasons for finding these two guys, Zeener and I, scummy. I don't think they're genuine.

- You were the only one speaking against me, nobody else is, but because Zeener is somewhat vouching for me, you find him scummy, despite is doctor claim, and despite many other players not wanting to lynch me. You're the black sheep in the pack, and if you're really Townie, you couldn't analyze a claim to save your life. Clearly Zeener wasn't faking, unpressured claims rarely are, at least where I come from. And my claim is so flawed that it's just odd that someone wouldn't believe it, or give me some benefit. Look at everyone else, who wants to lynch me? Nobody.

- All your votes helped zuma. They helped zuma even before Zeener and I placed our votes. Don't try to weasel your way out of this with easy arguments.

- You were scum in Batman, and you tried to lynch me when I claimed Batman unpressured. You're doing it all over again, with bad arguments.

Blah blah blah. - I don't feel like arguing this with you.

I'm sorry HB. I wasn't criticizing your game per se, you didn't have to justify yourself. I don't like this rule, but I should have waited after the game to comment about it.

I like your game, don't get the wrong impression here. :)

I'm having a long hard re-read. I am sure the scum team is using the game format to their advantage and we need to rethinkwhether we need to change tactics slightly from a normal mafia game. I think it was Ed who mentioned that consensus is needed by Town. Obviously, Town doesn't know who the other Town are with any degree of certainty, but we need to think about who we can hypothesise is Town, who is bordreline and who is possible scum. The late ends to Day (from the UK) have scuppered me. On Day one, Bill's 2 votes on Red couldn't have been countered by just one player anyway. But it's fair to say that Giraffe singlehandedly got Zeener lynched. I would like any Town vig to take out non-participants or anyone they see as unhelpful to Town.

The role claims are not a good idea in this game at this stage, in my opinion. It's too easy for scum to corral their present and future votes and lynch declared Town powers on the most pathetic justification, saving their night kills for Town players with unknown powers.

The late ends to Day (from the UK) have scuppered me.

Are you by any chance playing Puzzle Pirates?

Town doesn't know who the other Town are with any degree of certainty, but we need to think about who we can hypothesise is Town, who is bordreline and who is possible scum

In what mafia game isn't this true?

And I never like early mass role claims.

Sure. I think that's perfectly reasonable.

Well, I'll start by agreeing with this last sentence completely -- this is only my second game ever as Town, and so far I've been wrong way more than I've been right.

But the rest of your statement is incorrect. "Black sheep?" WTF? Other people not agreeing with me about your scumminess means nothing -- I believed you were acting like scum, and I continue to believe it. I was suspicious of Zeener in part because of the strength of his defense of you, but not enough to vote for him over you until I read moody's case against him. To me, it was very logical: why would a Doctor make an unpressured claim? Ever? (I still have no idea why Zeener claimed -- I think that was a huge mistake on his part.) Given that I was already suspicious of him, moody's argument made it seem reasonable to switch my votes over to him and see how he flipped.

Wow. So, we've got "scum wouldn't do that", "scum wouldn't do that" and "nobody else thinks I'm scum so you shouldn't either". Those are some solid arguments right there.

I absolutely think scum would make an unpressured claim, particularly if they were trying to cover up something like a poisoner role. Your role is confusing, I'll admit, but could easily be a scum/free agent power that you've modified to be a Town Miller. I'll also note that in the last two games, all the confusing/flawed role claims (mine in Batman, Special Ed's in Dr. Seuss) were made by scum, not Town. Both of us made the "if I were going to make up a role, would I make up this one?" argument, I believe.

You are correct. I thought the case on Zeener was stronger than the case on zuma, and I voted to try to lynch Zeener as a result. This helped zuma.

However, as stated, I have no real vibe on zuma either way. The case against him so far doesn't seem that convincing to me, but it's not terrible -- scum have been sniffed out on less.

Throughout this discussion, you talk as if you know for certain who is scum and who isn't. "Clearly" Zeener wasn't scum, I must be scum because my votes helped zuma (who presumably you think is scum for sure).
Just an FYI on the off-chance you are actually Town: this is one of the reasons you seem super scummy to me. The aggressive over-the-top reactions to what I think are fairly normal lines of reasoning/voting don't help either.

I agree with this. However, I think the fact that I was in the position of getting/having to make the decision between zuma and Zeener at the last minute is crap strategy on Town's part. An hour before the Day's end, the vote was 3-3-2-2-1. I'm sorry, but that is retarded.

With both a last vote tiebreaker rule and multiple future voting allowed, Town can't afford to spread its votes across five people. Had Town players been around near the end of Day, people's votes could have been used in a way that actually mattered, namely zuma vs. Zeener.

Instead, you let one retard make the choice, which if he makes wrong (he did) gives scum a perfectly defensible excuse to get a mislynch bandwagon rolling on another Town player the next Day.

IMO, Town needs to either reach consensus early or make sure they're around near Day's end to avoid a repeat of this. (If you all think I'm scum, you can ignore this for now, but once I flip Town please come back and reread.)

Of course it's true in every game. But it's more important in this one. The possibility of bringing in extra votes to ensure the 'right' lynch candidate gives an even greater benefit to scum than normal. Town needs to play this game more co-operatively, more talkatively and more consensusly than normal. What has happened so far is that we haven't, as a group, decided a lynch candidate. The group has been splintered, as always, and that has allowed one or two players to have a disproportionate effect on the lynch by calling in future votes. The non participants are an even greater liability in this game than normal, as are the 'rogue' elements, who may or may not be Town, but aren't playing a team game.

NETA, i dunno what puzzle pirates is, but I think I could well be playing it.

Actually, I'm reading this as you being scum but giving very good advice.

That's fine too.

YoHoHo Puzzle Pirates

I asked because in that game when you have the child-safe language filter on, "Fucking" becomes "scuppering" and I've been known to use "scuppering" just on its own.

And OMG is Billions of Blue Blistering Barnacles!

I need to give the last two Days a re-read through before I'm in any sort of shape to make any sort of case against anyone.

Bolding mine.

That's not even true, you're getting mixed up in your lies. You voted Zeener in #48 before mitchy made his case against him.

It's so clear anyway that you are just looking for reasons to place your votes, rather than actually being looking for Scum. A normal Townie reaction when someone vouch strongly for another player, would be to wonder why, and be worried about accusing a possible pro-Town role. Yet when Zeener vouched for me, you charged at him like you've found a gold mine, not bothered by the possibility that he could have been scanner.

Just like zuma and Lucifer, who went after Idle for not claiming immediately on Day 1, when he could have been an important Town role. Just like Lucifer who went after me for protecting Idle, not worrying about masons.

Let's make it clear once and for all, Giraffe:

I know you are scum, and I know you are faking being suspicious of me. Future argument between us are completely unnecessary.

And then in #49, three minutes later, I posted the following:
I'm glad you know who everyone is and whose word should be taken seriously. Town can't ever be too credulous, right? :dubious:

You're right, I didn't bother with the possibility that Zeener might be a scanner. You know why? Because the role you claimed returns scum when investigated. Remember? It's one of the more troubling aspects of your role, the fact that you're the one player we know can't be confirmed Town.

And I didn't "charge at Zeener", I expressed surprise that a Town player would so strongly argue against voting to lynch a player claiming your role. I then put a vote on him, on top of the one I had on you, followed by a promise to make a decision before Day's end on which I thought was scummier. That was you, up until moody's post.

Scum lie. Town have to try to root out those lies. How can Town do that if players don't dare put votes on people you feel could potentially have important roles (despite not having yet claimed)? The lack of a claim from Idle seemed weak to me, but given the noise that was made about it in the last game, it hardly seemed beyond the pale.

No you don't. You think I am scum. Or you yourself are scum and you know I am Town. The one thing you don't know for a fact is that I am scum.

And no need to end the discussion, even if our respective minds are made up. Discussion helps Town, silence helps scum. Even if you're Town and I'm scum, wouldn't it benefit Town for you to provide a logical explanation of your actions without getting defensive or angry?

For example, why did you leave separate votes on Ulla and Zuma? (I'm not trying to build a case against you here, by the way, I'm honestly curious.) You seem to feel it was pretty obvious Zuma was scummy, at least compared with Zeener, so why waste a vote on Ulla?

I have the same question for BillMc, actually. Why use two votes for two different people? How can that not be a wasted vote?

Gah, right. I temporarily forgot about that it seems, and I bet you went all wet seeing me making that mistake. Anyway, as I said, I'm not interested to discuss with you anyrmore. Take your last post and answer it yourself. :D

And now for something completely different.

I have an idea for a Mafia game but would like to collaborate with someone to develop it. Any of you super-awesome game designers looking for something to do?

I meant the lynch.

Hopefully time tomorrow to go back and read everything that happened since thursday in detail

This cannot be emphasized enough.

(and then there was more snippage)

I would like an answer to Giraffe's question, as well.

I don't care to talk with Giraffe anymore. If you want him to have discussions, start some yourself, Sister.

I said why I placed 2 different votes when I did (to pressure two of my suspects). And I would have moved my 2nd vote on Zuma if I didn't fail to come back before the deadline.

Are you honestly annoyed with me, Romanic? Or do you just feel we're at an impasse? I hope there are no hard feelings -- I'm only chasing after you because I think you're scum, and the more you post, the more you reveal info that will help Town lynch you later. If I'm wrong, well, it wouldn't be the first time. :smack:

Anyway, rereading this thread this morning, I'm seeing what looks like at least four votes headed my way. While I think it is pretty understandable for Town to consider lynching me given the role I played in lynching Zeener, since I am Town it's still bad for Town to kill me.

So, I'm going to claim:
I didn't vote block anyone on Night 1. ToNight I vote blocked Romanic. Thus, toMorrow he should be unable to vote.

I'm claiming now instead of toMorrow so that it's clear I caused Romanic's voting inability and I'm not just jumping on that to make up a fake claim. Obviously, I could be some sort of scum voteblocker, but I'm, um, not.

I'm not annoyed at you personally, I'm annoyed at the player who keeps hammering me, at the guy who manipulated the tally late yesterDay, and at the guy who's turning my every words into something scummy, sometimes putting words into my mouth.

I'm at a point where I could vig you even if I was certain you were Town, for being such a pain to your team.

So, no hard feelings, no.

About your claim, why didn't you block someone on Night 1? It seems to me that blocking one of your top suspects should have been the way to go, but maybe not your top suspect, if you didn't want to be too obvious.

I guess that I cannot convince you to back off away from me toNight? ... guess not, I'm just gonna have to raise my annoyed level to pissed off. You're gonne be depriving your team of 1-2 votes tomorrow, and somehow I got a feeling that I will survive the night because the Scums just like my fucked up role.

Wonderful.

I wasn't sure who to block at first, if anyone, and then Night ended before I made a decision either way. (I misremembered how long it was and thought I had another full day to decide.)

I probably wouldn't have blocked anyone, though -- I didn't really get suspicious of you and Zeener until Day 2, so I didn't have an obvious candidate. Plus, in the past two games, people's early voting records have been helpful at sniffing out scum in the later game. So even if I got lucky and blocked a scum vote, that's one less data point for the future, since a vote that doesn't count isn't nearly as clear as one that does.

Also, one thing I thought of last night as I was falling asleep:

Town should be increasingly suspicious of BillMc the longer he survives. Being freakishly intuitive, he's one of the best Mafia players, and because of this scum often take him out right away. The longer they leave him alone, the more one has to suspect that he's not Town.

I have no reason to suspect him right now, but I don't want Town to lose sight of this fact down the road.

For once you make sense.

Post #43 was an answer to Giraffe's #41, not #42.

Of course, Scum are also aware of BillMc's reputation and may well be intentionally leaving him alive in order to convince Town to lynch him because he "must" be Scum.

Bill living means absolutely nothing -- it's just another form of WiFoM.

Jumping Jiminy, Romanic ... I just read in the Monty Python game that you are playing 7 games at once! :jaw:

I am truly impressed. :toot:

I tried 2 at once and made a right hash of it. One game at a time is all I can handle.

Day 3 will be a little late.

Ummm ... is this part of the color? Is this because of some of the Felt's "Weird Time Stuff"?

Uhhh ... yeah, that's what I meant. ;)

<<Insert Winky smilie here>>