Felt vs. MC: Mafia Night 2 Thread

[Trepa Mayfield]

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.

[BobArrgh]

Crap! He wasn't lying!

[Giraffe]

Goddamn it. I suck!

(I still think Romanic is scum, though.)

[Total Ulla]

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

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

Anyway I just wanted to address this:

Originally Posted by BobArrgh

@Ulla: Do you really think that Day 2 is when the Lynch-the-Lurker campaign should start? I know we have to cross that bridge sooner or later, but I think it might be better to get a Scum or two first.

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

Originally Posted by Total Ulla

I still believe that there were scum voting for Idle yesterDay and that's why I'm voting for Lucifer.
The remark regarding lurkers was that I'd rather see a lynch-the-lurker than a testing-Romanic-lynch.

Part of my reasons for this is that I really don't see Romanic doing anything scummy. Does this preclude him being not-Town?
No. But I'd rather lynch someone I've seen as scummy than a policy-lynch. Most of that is based on the fact that we so often see the policy-lynches show up as mis-lynching.

The votes on Idle for "not claiming" was IMO policy-voting. I view the votes for Romanic the same way.
However the difference to me being that there at least is some sort of logic behind the idea of a Romanic-lynch. I just don't agree with it.

Followed up by:

Originally Posted by BobArrgh

@Ulla: Do you really think that Day 2 is when the Lynch-the-Lurker campaign should start? I know we have to cross that bridge sooner or later, but I think it might be better to get a Scum or two first.

Originally Posted by Total Ulla

I still believe that there were scum voting for Idle yesterDay and that's why I'm voting for Lucifer.
The remark regarding lurkers was that I'd rather see a lynch-the-lurker than a testing-Romanic-lynch.

Part of my reasons for this is that I really don't see Romanic doing anything scummy. Does this preclude him being not-Town?
No. But I'd rather lynch someone I've seen as scummy than a policy-lynch. Most of that is based on the fact that we so often see the policy-lynches show up as mis-lynching.

The votes on Idle for "not claiming" was IMO policy-voting. I view the votes for Romanic the same way.
However the difference to me being that there at least is some sort of logic behind the idea of a Romanic-lynch. I just don't agree with it.

Originally Posted by Total Ulla

I forgot to answer this. Mainly because of his actions at the end of Day 1.
I'll have to re-read to give you posts and quotes (and time is still limited based on RL).

Originally Posted by Total Ulla

NETA: His actions meaning Lucifer's actions.

[Total Ulla]

Originally Posted by BobArrgh

@Ulla: Do you really think that Day 2 is when the Lynch-the-Lurker campaign should start? I know we have to cross that bridge sooner or later, but I think it might be better to get a Scum or two first.

Originally Posted by Total Ulla

I still believe that there were scum voting for Idle yesterDay and that's why I'm voting for Lucifer.
The remark regarding lurkers was that I'd rather see a lynch-the-lurker than a testing-Romanic-lynch.

Part of my reasons for this is that I really don't see Romanic doing anything scummy. Does this preclude him being not-Town?
No. But I'd rather lynch someone I've seen as scummy than a policy-lynch. Most of that is based on the fact that we so often see the policy-lynches show up as mis-lynching.

The votes on Idle for "not claiming" was IMO policy-voting. I view the votes for Romanic the same way.
However the difference to me being that there at least is some sort of logic behind the idea of a Romanic-lynch. I just don't agree with it.

Originally Posted by Total Ulla

I forgot to answer this. Mainly because of his actions at the end of Day 1.
I'll have to re-read to give you posts and quotes (and time is still limited based on RL).

Originally Posted by Romanic

And it's true that you did say that on Day 1 in #110, although it wasn't a direct answer to my post.

Your answers are giving me a headache. I can't figure if I like them or not because you're assuming things that I wouldn't assume myself (fishing, implying questioning Town. Moody joking about Idle...) but I guess it doesn't make you Scum.

I can't shake my intuition about you but I might just have to let you go for now. I'll read your posts again.

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::

[Total Ulla]

Arrgghh!! Lumperjack*

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

[BillMc]

well that was a clusterf*ck

[Total Ulla]

Originally Posted by BillMc

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*)

[Total Ulla]

@ Sister Coyote:

Do you have a restriction regarding votes?

[SisterCoyote]

Originally Posted by Total Ulla

@ Sister Coyote:

Do you have a restriction regarding votes?

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

[BillMc]

Originally Posted by Total Ulla

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*)

I meant the lynch.

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

[Romanic]

*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.

[Total Ulla]

@ 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?

[Idle Thoughts]

Originally Posted by Romanic

*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.

This.

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

[Total Ulla]

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

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Romanic

*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.

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

Originally Posted by Romanic

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Romanic

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

"You Townies"?

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.

[Romanic]

Originally Posted by Giraffe

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Giraffe

"You Townies"?

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.

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

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Romanic

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.

Sure. I think that's perfectly reasonable.

Originally Posted by Romanic

- 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Romanic

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Romanic

- 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 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.

[Romanic]

Originally Posted by Giraffe

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.

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.

[Trepa Mayfield]

Originally Posted by Total Ulla

NETA: NOT show up in the vote counts?

Gah - must remember that Preview is my friend

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

Originally Posted by Romanic

*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.

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

[Romanic]

Originally Posted by Hypnagogic Bonafide

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'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.

[BobArrgh]

@ 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>>

[Total Ulla]

Originally Posted by BobArrgh

@ 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

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

[Total Ulla]

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

Originally Posted by BillMc

On the subject of Peeker

First, back to the sign up thread ...for the 3rd time

So no one could have directly changed Peeker's alignment, that does preclude Peeker having free choice -- or his alignment being changed by indirect action - such as he would flip one way or another depending on some event in the game.

Peeker also doesnt appear to have voted on day 1 - which would be unusual for Peeker -- so this may suggest that his alignment may be set based on how he voted, or who got lynched.

With 15 players and no PFK's, we'd expect 3-4 scum. With Peeker potentially becoming scum, then there couldnt already be 4 scum to start with or it would be hugely imbalanced with 5 scum.

Similarly, there is nothing that says Peeker had not already made his choice; nor that he didnt have access to both vig/blocker powers as undecided. We can't rule out the possibility that Peeker vig'd Ed. Nor the possibility that he may have also been remorseful - so the fact that he killed town he also died.

And nothing to say there arent other folk who may have indeterminate alignment.

Idle's "????" role may be an indication that he has yet to gain a power based on some game event/action.

I cant see a compelling reason to lynch Romanic today, but I'm still suspicious of Zeener for trying to get us to blindly trust ROmanic

Anyways, I may not get a chance to be back before day end so

[Total Ulla]

NETA: NOT show up in the vote counts?

Gah - must remember that Preview is my friend

[Romola]

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.

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Romola

But it's fair to say that Giraffe singlehandedly got Zeener lynched.

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.)

[Romola]

Originally Posted by Giraffe

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.)

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

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Romola

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

That's fine too.

[SisterCoyote]

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.

[Romola]

Originally Posted by SisterCoyote

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.

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.

[Romola]

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

[SisterCoyote]

Originally Posted by Romola

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

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.

[BobArrgh]

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?

[Romanic]

For once you make sense.

[Romanic]

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

[BobArrgh]

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

I am truly impressed.

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

[Trepa Mayfield]

Day 3 will be a little late.

[BobArrgh]

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

[Trepa Mayfield]

Originally Posted by BobArrgh

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

If by "Color" you mean "the moderator got home late and then was lazy" then yes, yes it is color.

[BobArrgh]

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

<<Insert Winky smilie here>>