Nowhere, really. Just trying to gauge his experience. I figured he would give me game names/number of times when he responded, but he didn't. So I had to ask again. Figured I would be cute and make it in the same form.
What if someone has been given info regarding roles that are in the game? Or another player has a similar role that might in some way confirm or deny your claim? These are just the 'what ifs;' that benefit Sutho himself.
For the town as a whole one of the greatest disadvantages is that we are given no public information (some roles have limited info or the ability to learn it). So the town is relatively blind in choosing lynches and can only determine their votes by analysis/instinct. The mafia on the other hand knows who isn't on their team - they already have the information needed to start lynching... anyone who isn't them.
By claiming, Sutherlands, you will benefit the town by adding to the publicly available information. Even if he does get lynched then that information will allow better analysis of later claims, and begin balancing the scales. Hell, you might even save yourself.
Mafia is a team game and you need to have the benefit of the team in mind when making your decisions. You should claim.
Sutherlands, claiming is an essential part of the game. It's an advantage the town should have and provides the mafia with a little more difficulty (See LotR mafia for a bad mafia claim *cough Fayul=Erestor cough*). That said, it involves more strategy for the mafia, and thus i cant understand why you think its wrong?
No, it's not an essential part of the game. It takes away from it. It makes it less about determining who is lying and more about "i need information". Also, see reply below.
See, the thing is, I don't think it helps the town out at all. I really don't. I think what helps the town out is keeping information out of the mafia, then when one of them claims something that we don't believe, we can use our roles to point out why. Right now, if a mafia claims, there is pretty much no chance that they will claim something the same as someone else. What we can hope is that when they claim, they don't have enough information to get within the pattern (if there is one. If there isn't, then this is a moot point and it doesn't really matter). But I digress, like I said, this is not what the game was made to be. It was made to be mind games and psychological stuff.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
See, the thing is, I don't think it helps the town out at all. I really don't. I think what helps the town out is keeping information out of the mafia, then when one of them claims something that we don't believe, we can use our roles to point out why. Right now, if a mafia claims, there is pretty much no chance that they will claim something the same as someone else. What we can hope is that when they claim, they don't have enough information to get within the pattern (if there is one. If there isn't, then this is a moot point and it doesn't really matter). But I digress, like I said, this is not what the game was made to be. It was made to be mind games and psychological stuff.
Problem is. I don't know you aren't mafia and just saying that to make us think you're town.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia Stats (10-22 Overall) Random Mafia 2 Town MVP '08 MTGS Fantasy Football Overall Champion Best Non-SK Neutral Performance (Individual)
I guess this is just a difference of play philosophy, then. At MTGS, a large part of mafia games revolves around evaluating and testing people's claims.
It's how it is at news too, for the most part. Point is, that's not what the game was created to be about. It's hard to keep it the same when you don't have that face to face element, though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
Sutherlands, the whole "A mafia in my position would claim in an attempt to clear themself" (not real quote) is total wifom. You could very well be scum doing this as an attempt to seem believable.
@people who were in lotr mafia: I don't get what happened with the erestor claim. He is a real character isn't he?
Yes, he is. But his role in Lotr was minute and insignificant. All the roles up to that point had been either nameless roles (rider of rohan, elf of rivendell, etc.) or major named characters (Aragorn.) So, when Fayul claimed Erestor, the town went "Pffffft!" and lynched her. The same thing happened to the next mafioso, when he claimed Radagast the Brown.
@Sutherlands: It doesn't make a huge difference, but you realize that, if you're town, claiming improves your own chances of winning as well as the rest of the town's. It's a legitimate tactic and one of the town's important weapons for weeding out the scum.
@Mod - Could we get a prod on silicon? I only notice that he hasn't posted in a while because I'm trying to analyze Sutherlands vote series, and I'd really like to hear what the first person who's vote stayed on Sutherlands has to say now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're town and I'm mafia, you've already lost. You just don't know it yet.
I'd like to see ikerr tell us either why he thinks Sutherlands is scum, or what he's learned from the discussion on Sutherlands, if he does not beleive Sutherlands is scum.
Alright, my problems with Sutherlands between my vote for ZDS and mine for him:
Post123: Linking Cyan and ZDS and Majoeman without any reasons or foundation.
Post134: States that use of logic is not conducive to a good arguement, and that Cyan's use of it somehow means he isn't connecting himself to ZDS's defense.
Post140: States that ZDS was telling mistruths that inciminated Sutherlands, and that was why he voted. This is a vast overstatement of the discussion they had about the location of the library. States others believe Cyan is mafia with ZDS, and that townies want to kill other townies to 'survive the night'. He overvalues intuition and uses it as his reason for linking ZDS and Cyan.
Post151: Continues to attack logic. Accuses Cyan of misleading the town when he gave a counterexample to Sutherlands theory that scums will defend each other.
Post16: Tries to go back on a few things he said (shots at logic were cautions against incomplete information, town thinks ZDS is scum instead of town thinks ZDS is scum with Cyan, townies want to survive instead of want to lynch other townies), seems to want to lead invetigation target (fairly moot as our cop is dead).
His posts were inconsistant and he presented a lot of false statements. In these amounts, it feels like he's a mafia who got a little more attention than he wanted and wasn't sure how to get out of it. You can also see that there aren't many (if any) points here that haven't been made before, so i felt it was enough to state my conclusions (of minor contradictions and strange arguments) without running through all the evidance again first. His behaviour hasn't changed, and he hasn't done anything to make me change my mind (otherwise I would have unvoted him already).
Quote from ZeDorkSlipeur »
@ ikerr : To clarify, did you not vote Fayul or Cyan because there wasn't already a wagon against them and you had to bring up points against them by yourself, or because you saw the wagons against Sutherlands and myself as much more useful (no matter how you define useful), comfortable and/or convenients ?
I thought the wagon on you was more useful and the wagon on Sutherlands was more comfortable. Cyan's 'attack' on AbbeyGargoyle really wasn't enough of a tell to pursue in this manner, and I didn't agree with the reasons to vote for Fayul. Both of their wagons were in about the same state as ZDS's at the time I voted him.
I really, really don't like Sutherlands' refusal to fully claim. It strikes me as extremely scummy a priori. I never was a huge fan of his wagon to begin with, I much prefer an ikerr lynch. However, this pathological refusal to name-claim is an extremely gutsy play if he was scum at this point, but either way it doesn't help the town in the least. I don't know whether or not to jump onto his wagon now for this refusal to claim, but I will reiterate this:
SUTHERLANDS CLAIM NOW.
It can only help you at this point if you are town as several people have said, and it helps the town as a whole.
All I seem to remember is that I made a couple contradictions in my word choices and that I've been trying to get ZDS lynched on what some other people don't believe is a valid reason. The first one does not show that I am scum. Please realize this. The second one I can understand, but I don't believe that mafia would try to get someone lynched this early in the game (although there are different play styles). And even if you still believe I am scum, do you really believe that it is more likely that I am than Ikerr? He has made 7 posts, been on the 2 "big" bandwagons for no reason (which he later went back and said was for "pressure") and "minor contradictions and sometimes strange arguements". Also, the vote for "pressure" on ZDS was within a post of ZDS's 2nd and 3rd votes.
Alright, my problems with Sutherlands between my vote for ZDS and mine for him:
Post123: Linking Cyan and ZDS and Majoeman without any reasons or foundation.
Post134: States that use of logic is not conducive to a good arguement, and that Cyan's use of it somehow means he isn't connecting himself to ZDS's defense.
Post140: States that ZDS was telling mistruths that inciminated Sutherlands, and that was why he voted. This is a vast overstatement of the discussion they had about the location of the library. States others believe Cyan is mafia with ZDS, and that townies want to kill other townies to 'survive the night'. He overvalues intuition and uses it as his reason for linking ZDS and Cyan.
Post151: Continues to attack logic. Accuses Cyan of misleading the town when he gave a counterexample to Sutherlands theory that scums will defend each other.
Post16: Tries to go back on a few things he said (shots at logic were cautions against incomplete information, town thinks ZDS is scum instead of town thinks ZDS is scum with Cyan, townies want to survive instead of want to lynch other townies), seems to want to lead invetigation target (fairly moot as our cop is dead).
His posts were inconsistant and he presented a lot of false statements. In these amounts, it feels like he's a mafia who got a little more attention than he wanted and wasn't sure how to get out of it. You can also see that there aren't many (if any) points here that haven't been made before, so i felt it was enough to state my conclusions (of minor contradictions and strange arguments) without running through all the evidance again first. His behaviour hasn't changed, and he hasn't done anything to make me change my mind (otherwise I would have unvoted him already).
If it's not obvious, what I was trying to do was to test ikerr. At the point I posted, I was VERY close to changing my vote to ikerr. The topic of the claim first came up, and I decided I wanted to see where that was going, but I tried to give ikerr a rope to see what he did with it. Instead, Sutherlands grabbed the rope out of his hands assuming my statement was an attack against him. I realize Sutherlands has been getting a LOT of pressure, but what what he quoted was NOT an attack on him, yet he defended himself as though it was. And now we have this whole refusal to claim business which really bothers me. I don't know if Sutherlands cares about my word or not, but I would also like to see him claim, and therefore my vote stays on him for now.
Ikerr has also provided a reasonable justification for the action in question, but he had to be pressed to do so. ZDS makes a good point about the status of the the potential wagons ikerr mentioned against Cyan and Fayul. I feel the case against ikerr still warrants enough discussion that we probably don't want to end the day quite yet.
As already stated, I'm not going to claim. It's become more of a personal issue for me now than anything else.
The problem with ikerr's post is that he misrepresents me, as treigit did. I did not attack logic. I attacked using logic to defend someone so that you don't appear connected to them. Logic itself is good. Also, it appears he is just parroting what other people have said. The "caution against incomplete information" was completely off-base, considering I was saying that
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
what he said was offbase, considering I was saying that I was simply sayign that we don't actually have any facts. Again, he misrepresents everything I have said. Seems to be a common theme.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
Alright, I'm here and have read through, but may need a reread at some point before the thread gets too long...
Anyway, I'm not really convinced that Sutherlands is scum, even in light of his refusal to claim, and I am going to have to say I am opposed to his lynch as I believe he is simply a misguided townie. However, I do want him to clarify one thing:
I'm not a Legend, I just get along well with other people.
At some point after this, he mentioned two hints towards his role, and I belive this was one of them. I also did a quick gatherer search and there are no cards with "hero" in their name which would fit this description directly.
Anyway, moving on, I'm also not entirely convinced about Ikerr and I think that essentially the only point against him is his bandwagon hop which did not seem altogether scummy at any rate. I'm not entirely sure how experienced Ikerr is, but if he is relatively experienced, then his original 'wagon on ZDS seems to have been done in such a way that would definately realize his goal of "promoting discussion and gauging
reactions" (not exact quote), though I can't really see a total newb managing to pull it off like that.
Here are where my suspicions do lie: bluesoul/atlseal
Let's take a look at each, because both seemed scummy by themselves (reminder: atlseal replaced bluesoul)
Bluesoul 4 total posts. I am completely willing to excuse him for the quantity of his posts given the circumstances, however, the content bothers me. 2 of them are irrelevant, one being an (understandable) excuse for lurking, the other being a replacement request. Of the other two, one was a reasonless bandwagon vote and the other was a response to a response thereof.
Now, given that its bluesoul, who is normally a very good analyst and takes the time to reason out his votes, why would he post a 4 word vote-post? I entreat you to compare this action with this game from scum in which he did the exact same thing as mafia, and later pmed me with the excuse that it was because he was mafia that he did that: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3261
specific post (last post on the pg. in 15 view): http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3261&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=50
(btw, when he said "MTGS rule", he meant mIRC rule... I have yet to be scum on MTGS)
OK, so thats my case on bluesoul, now lets examine the slightly more prolific atlseal:
First post after his replacing of bluesoul puts a vote and an fos of the two biggest, and only real bandwagons of the game (ZDS's wasn't intended to get anywhere near a lynch so I'm not counting it).
I will concede that he did provide sufficient reasoning for both, but it is quite easy for mafiosos to bandwagon on large wagons for the sake of lynching a townie while providing sufficient reasoning, so that hardly gets him off the hook.
After this, every single one of his posts (save for the mod-prod request) is directed at Sutherlands.
Somehow, he manages to tell suth to claim ~4-5 times, using different wordings and reasons for posting each time, but he never actually gives any input on the state of the game after his first post.
Admittedly, I am not familiar with atlseal's posting style in any way shape or form, but in general terms, he hardly makes me feel comfortable about his townie-ness. Bluesoul I am familiar with and he makes me even less comfortable.
So, in light of the above, vote atlseal
Recap: I am voting atlseal for 3 reasons:
1) Overall scumminess between him and his predecessor as stated above.
2) An attempt to redirect attention off of a likely noob townie (a la MD) and onto somebody who actually deserves attention
3) An effort to take a solid stance in showing my disapproval of both current wagons and my preference to go after atlseal.
I really would hate for the day to be ended because we lynched someone on the principle that he wouldn't claim. Once he takes the definitive stance that he will not claim, even if it means being lynched, votes beyond that are virtually meaningless(you would have to actively try to make a vote past that point come across in a scummy fashion). And I honestly cannot see a mafioso refusing to claim. I'm sure that someone is going to say 'WIFOM' here, but, if you think about it, when was the last time that you saw someone get accused of WIFOM and it actually turned out that they were Mafia? It's been awhile. In the games I've participated in and followed along with, whenever the term WIFOM gets thrown into play, the person being accused of it inevitably ends up being town, and generally are just new players. I think that most people realize that WIFOM(at least in the extent that you can be called on it) is a strategy that works almost never, and draws more attention to you/weakens your position almost always. As such, I don't think that it is very likely that Sutherlands is a mafioso trying to bluff his way out of claiming.
In conclusion, I think that we should lynch someone that is actually scummy(Ikerr) and Vig Sutherlands.
Honestly, guys. Can anyone give me a real reason why Suth claiming is likely to be benefitial to the town? The chances that it will actually accomplish anything are so small, why is it such a sticking point?
Sure, I see little reason that it could hurt the town, but Suth has provide something: There could be a pattern to the roles that we don't want the mafia to know. It's not likely, but I'd say it's about as likely as the idea that someone just happens to know that "rolename X is town!"
And can someone who voted for Suth for not claiming please explain to me how his refusal to claim makes him scummy? If he were scum, he'd have hundreds of claims to draw from, so what is the incentive for a scum to avoid claiming?
Can someone actually give a reason why all this is scummy, rather then making blanket statements, like...
Quote from ZDS »
Since the mafia starts with MORE information than the town, by NOT giving information to the town you can ONLY make sure the mafia KEEPS its advantage over the town.
This generalization is so blatantly false, I have to wonder if you're being intentionaly dense. If you folow this line of thought, then it's best for us all to roleclaim everything we know right now. Some information is helpful for us. Other info should be kept to ourselves. Can you actually give me a reason why Suth not claiming hurts us more then helps us?
At 9 votes you are under some pressure to claim Sutherlands. Also if you're town and you don't claim you'll put yourself in a very tight position during night.
At 9 votes you are under some pressure to claim Sutherlands. Also if you're town and you don't claim you'll put yourself in a very tight position during night.
As for Suthie's claim, or anyone else's claim under similar circonstances, I'm pushing for it because there's a light chance it could remove suspicion off him, and it is pointless to not claim anyway (he is likely to die soon, so what's the point ?).
But what could he possibly claim that would remove suspicion from him? Sure, if were Lin Sivvi, there might be reason to back off a little, but if he determine's that his claim is none so convincing, who are we to argue?
What are the chances that him claiming will actually help? Enough to make this big of a fuss about it?
Just checking in on the thread for the time being; don't really have time to make a significant post again at the moment. Will hopefully have time to do that later tonight.
@kops, I'll hope to easy your fears about me
@Sutherlands, I hope to address your sudden change in tone when stating your case (a good change mind you) and why I still have my vote on you at the moment
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're town and I'm mafia, you've already lost. You just don't know it yet.
Aysen Crusader. Note that if it is indeed his role, I understand why he is affraid that giving his name can inform the mafia of the existence of a pattern in the town's roles (there is a kind of pattern between him being vanilla, and a white card from Homelands and Kenji being vanilla and a white card from Homelands). I personaly think it is nothing more than a coincidence, really. Even if he's not the crusader, I still don't think we could see an accurate pattern between his role, Szadek and the matron.
I wonder if attacking atlseal was not a bit too much. I mean, we don't even know if he can do something else than ask Suthie for a claim !
I'm always happy to be proven wrong :).
It's nice to see someone is actually doing something active to try and figure it out instead of simply telling me to claim. That said, I'm not a Crusader.
I really would hate for the day to be ended because we lynched someone on the principle that he wouldn't claim. Once he takes the definitive stance that he will not claim, even if it means being lynched, votes beyond that are virtually meaningless(you would have to actively try to make a vote past that point come across in a scummy fashion). And I honestly cannot see a mafioso refusing to claim.[. . .]
In conclusion, I think that we should lynch someone that is actually scummy(Ikerr) and Vig Sutherlands.
The only part I don't understand about what you said, is that you really don't believe me to be mafia, yet you want a vig to waste me. This sounds like mafia trying to get a vig to do his dirty work and waste his shots.
Honestly, guys. Can anyone give me a real reason why Suth claiming is likely to be benefitial to the town? The chances that it will actually accomplish anything are so small, why is it such a sticking point?
This is basically what I've been asking. I have yet to get a real response (for the most part) except "ZOMG WE WANT YOU TO CLAIM SO CLAIM!!@!!!1"
I think it should be put in context. This was my answer to Sutherlands saying he doesn't want to claim because it would give an advantage to the mafia, and that the townies should keep what they know secret. What I was simply saying is that the mafia already has the advantage of having more informations than us, so it is pointless to want to not give them this advantage : they already have it ! Instead, we should do our best to give information to the town, which is not what he is doing by not claiming. You are right though that giving away everything we know for no reason is stupid, and thank you for making me clear it up. Information should only be given if, thanks to it, we can obtain the knowledge of any player(s) alignment(s), just as long as it will not help the mafia gain a tactical and/or numerical advantage (doc claiming to clear himself = stupid, cop claiming to clear a townie who is under suspicion and/or get a scum lynched = less stupid). As for Suthie's claim, or anyone else's claim under similar circonstances, I'm pushing for it because there's a light chance it could remove suspicion off him, and it is pointless to not claim anyway (he is likely to die soon, so what's the point ?).
Wait, so now YOU'RE having to go back and correct yourself? Isn't this exactly one of the reasons that people were voting for me?
At 9 votes you are under some pressure to claim Sutherlands. Also if you're town and you don't claim you'll put yourself in a very tight position during night.
Yes.. mafia are definitely going to kill Joe Shmoe. Cops and doctors you're safe tonight! I'd say that I was under MORE pressure to claim when I had 10+ votes on me. If I didn't do it then, your "ZOMG CLAIM" is not going to make me do it now.
As has been said... WHY? How could this information help the town? You're right that the mafia have information on the town... but not in this particular arena. They don't have town role knowledge, we do... just not all of it with one person. So giving them the knowledge they don't have is definitely helping them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
The reason I think that everyone is stuck on him claiming is that he's refusing to comply with the demands of the town. Half of the validity in claiming is the fact that you do what the town requests of you, which Sutherlands is refusing to do. His reasoning behind not claiming, also, is extremely defeatist. I feel that defeatism is typically a mafia ploy, designed to evoke sympathy from people. Townies shouldn't have to use people's emotions against them to illicit a desired reaction, they should be able to logically present themselves in a manner that makes sense with the town as a whole.
As for why not just lynch him. I'm fairly confident that he is scum, but, not enough so that I would want to lynch him and go to night. However, I am more convinced that Ikerr is scum. As such, I would rather lynch him. As far as vigging Sutherlands at night..chances are that the Vig(assuming that we have one, which seems a fair assumption) is going to target someone tonight. Sutherlands seems like a good choice for that. If he turns up town that way, we don't lose nearly as much as if we mislynch him and the Vig goes after someone else, whom might also be town.
And I honestly cannot see a mafioso refusing to claim. I'm sure that someone is going to say 'WIFOM' here, but, if you think about it, when was the last time that you saw someone get accused of WIFOM and it actually turned out that they were Mafia? It's been awhile. In the games I've participated in and followed along with, whenever the term WIFOM gets thrown into play, the person being accused of it inevitably ends up being town, and generally are just new players. I think that most people realize that WIFOM(at least in the extent that you can be called on it) is a strategy that works almost never, and draws more attention to you/weakens your position almost always. As such, I don't think that it is very likely that Sutherlands is a mafioso trying to bluff his way out of claiming.
In conclusion, I think that we should lynch someone that is actually scummy(Ikerr) and Vig Sutherlands.
I feel that defeatism is typically a mafia ploy, designed to evoke sympathy from people. Townies shouldn't have to use people's emotions against them to illicit a desired reaction, they should be able to logically present themselves in a manner that makes sense with the town as a whole.
As for why not just lynch him. I'm fairly confident that he is scum, but, not enough so that I would want to lynch him and go to night. However, I am more convinced that Ikerr is scum. As such, I would rather lynch him. As far as vigging Sutherlands at night..chances are that the Vig(assuming that we have one, which seems a fair assumption) is going to target someone tonight. Sutherlands seems like a good choice for that. If he turns up town that way, we don't lose nearly as much as if we mislynch him and the Vig goes after someone else, whom might also be town.
So in the first quoted part, you say that you don't think I'm scum because a scum would not refuse to claim like I do, and you advocate lynching someone who is "actually scummy". In the second post, you say that you're "fairly confident that [I am] scum"???? Whoa! Talk about a turn-around.
Also, my attitude is most definitely not defeatist. Never was. Everything I did was because I was trying to help myself and the town. Claiming would have done nothing, so why do it? I'd say that claiming just before I do would have been defeatist.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
As far as vigging Sutherlands at night..chances are that the Vig(assuming that we have one, which seems a fair assumption) is going to target someone tonight. Sutherlands seems like a good choice for that. If he turns up town that way, we don't lose nearly as much as if we mislynch him and the Vig goes after someone else, whom might also be town.
That doesn't really make sense because if we don't lynch him, we're lynching someone else... who might also be town, while the vig is just performing the lynch that we passed on. You're basically just switching the roles of the town and the vig, which may or may not be a good or bad thing (since the vig may very well be misguided but so might the town... especially since within the town lurks the scum).
Even if we have not, we probably have an SK, and SKs have a tendency to do what vigs would do.
Um, no. Vigs and SKs have different incentives; vigs are preoccupied with killing scum, and can hit townies on accident, while SKs are initially advantaged to kill townies to ensure the mafia doesn't die too quickly. I suppose it's possible to false-claim vig as SK, but vigs are at least as common, and you'd have to basically admit you'd missed your targets. Then the town knows who to tell who to lynch, and the SK loses his independence because otherwise he'll get lynched for killing someone else.
Killing one scum when there are still enough scums to not give an obvious advantage to the town can't harm the SK too much and gives him the option to false-claim later, if ever needed. Keeping his claim believable (by not going on a rampage, for instance) would be hard, probably pointless and he would therefore probably not put too much efforts into it, but he would still at the very least keep this option open. It can buy him some time, which, depending on context, may be invaluable.
The SK does benefit from the death of scum, but it's safer to kill townies because due to the lower number of scum, there's the potential for the "oops-all-the-scum-died" moment, and the SK wants to keep things close to even.
I don't think that it's likely that you're a mafia trying to bluff, but, it's still possible. What it comes down to is the fact that I think that, not knowing the identity of the Vig, the town should direct the Vig(there are a few people in this game that I would trust their decision/judgment over that of the town in general, but, obviously that's not applicable right now).
I find it unlikely that whomever is the Vig isn't going to fire tonight, and as such, I think that the town should decide whom that person fires upon. I think that person should be you, because behind Ikerr, you seem the most likely to be scum, right now. My feelings on whether or not you're scum go back and forth alot. But this is largely because so many of your mistakes seem like misconceptions that someone would have because they're new. The problem with this is that you're really not new to mafia, and even if you were, you could be a newb scum as easily as a newb town.
Also, the statement 'I won't claim because it wouldn't do any good' is a defeatist statement. You have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not it would do any good, and are just assuming(if you're not just bluffing) that it wouldn't. That is defeatism.
@kops: Yes, I know that means that we'd be lynching someone else. But, considering that I Think that Ikerr is much more likely to be scum than Sutherlands, and as such am voting for him and want to lynch him, this doesn't strike me as a problem.
@ZDS: As soon as all of this hubbub around Sutherlands settles down some, I'll look back at Ikerr again. Doing it now seems pointless, as people are obviously going to be stuck on Sutherlands until we decide whether or not to lynch him or Vig him or what.
OK, 1) SK can't claim vig, vig counter-claims, SK loses
2) How come nobody has even commented on my case against atlseal? I understand if you don't agree, but I'd at least like to hear thoughts, mostly cause I'm still not happy with Suth being lynched or vigged, at least not today (probably not in the future either but that at least is subject to change).
I didn't comment on your case against atlseal largely because I don't agree with any of it, and partially because I don't want this game to end up like God Mafia on Day 1, where there were so many cases and PBPAs going around that everyone was constantly changing their votes and the town had no focus whatsoever and just ended up lynching someone because he was obnoxious.
@ZDS: I don't really get what you're asking. I guess it doesn't matter whom gets lynched and whom gets Vigged, of those two. I proposed it that way because I'm voting for Ikerr, and I think that he is more scummy. I have some doubt in Sutherlands scumminess, but, not alot. Ultimately, it seems like Ikerr being lynched is less likely to be a wasted lynch. Also, people seem reluctant to look at anyone other than Sutherlands right now, and as such, I'm not confident that Ikerr would get Vigged if Suth gets lynched. However, it seems likely that, even if Ikerr gets lynched, Sutherlands will get vigged anyway. If I was confident that they'd both die today, I wouldn't care which order it happened in.
Forgive me please, I’m composing this in Word, without access to the web (I copied a few recent posts before going )
My comments underlined.
297
Tell me this: how would me claiming IN ANY WAY help the town? IN ANY WAY? Even if I were to claim, no one would stop voting for me. I would still be lynched. In that case it would not help anyone at all (not even the mafia) so why give up something that I am determined not to do? Others are covering this so I’ll leave that to them.
Also, what reason do you have to not buy the "I changed my mind" thing? Is it because mafia often refuse to claim? Must be it! Wait, no that's not true. Is it because I didn't expect both Cyan and CC to want me to claim? YES! So you admit you were lying when you siad that? Oh... no... please provide reasoning.
When did I say that your points were wrong because you were dumb? Most Blatantly in point E. Never. Hey look anothe lie. I took each thing you said, and refuted it. See below. That's classic townie sign, right? Refuting arguments? Just as evading them is a scum tell. And I'd love to see how you are going to show everything Misrepresentation is a scum tell. In fact, I'll bet you on it. I will bet any magic card that I am not scum. If you're that sure, take me up on it. I suspect these kinds of statements are explictly forbidden in the rules of this game, in addition to this site’s mafia rules.
285
A Oh noes! Tell to link 2 unknown players
B I NEVER CLAIMED TO HAVE EVIDENCE, JUST A FEELING! I think you did, but I’ll have to check.
C That's how it started, but I didn't start a bandwagon because of that. Then why havne’t you dropped it?
D Um... huh?Tell. It’s convient that you voted for the player with the most votes while saying the othere player with a wagon on him was co scum.
E Wrong, answered all questions when they were asked, with enough information that any person of NORMAL intelligence should be able to know what i'm talking about. The implication beign that if you don’t understand anything suthie has said it’s your failing.Also see his runaroud to Bluesoul for a current example.
F Yup... so? Tell. Anti town regarless of alignment.
G Wrong, and you're misrepresenting what I said. i said that the town obviously believes that he is mafia more than they believe i am mafia. Which at the time was certainly true. It most certainly wasn’t, at most, apparently 6 peopel though ZDS was scum, harldy a consensus.
H Yup... so? Tell. Poor play if town, good play if mafia, excelent play if neutral.
I No contradiction there
J Whoopide doo
K Um... contradictory to what? I was the one making sense on that issue. NO ONE was making snese on the issue. But I was refering to your recent “ZDS brought the library up” attempt.
L Absolutely false on both accounts Oh really?
M Again, misrepresenting me. I never said they wanted to get other townies lynched, i said they would rather have someone else lynched than themselves. True for me certainly. Which shows your anti town attitude.
N quotes?
O Just changed my mind, that's all.
Rational thought. Ad Hom
CC: Yup, like I said, I've played mafia before. Because of my play-style, I pretty much only get lynched when I'm town. Here's not gonna be any different. I stick by what i said about no claiming. You all can find it out when I die. If I had access to gatherer right now, I would figure out exactly how hard it is to tell from what I've said. Points that you didn’t attempt to refute: A, D, F, H, J and N. Points that you used lies to refute: -(I believe B, could some one check what he said when he first claimed to see a link between Cyan and ZDS?) 1-E You’ve still never shown which MJM post you were refering to, You never showed what posts on page 3 were “lying to the town,” You haven’t said SPECIFICALLY what you found suspicious about Cyan and ZDS’s “argument” 2-G You said that the ZDS case was beeter than your case because he had more votes on him 3-I Contradictory statements cannot both be true -(K, It’s debatable that either of you were making sense there) 4&5-L See his response to my “table=in play” specifically his “I know” also, see the majority of his attacks on ZDS, as they use the table misuderstanding as evidence 6-M Could someone repost this, again.As you said “[Online] you can't read people except what they type,” it’s for this reason that we’re forced to judge you on what you type, not what you “meant.” 7-O See above. Further, even if you did change your mind, one of the following statments must be false “I’ll do action X if...” “I’ll never do action X.” *Extra Bonuse lie- N he clarifies the fact that strength is an aura when someone else thinks otherwise. But this was only intended as a reductp ad absurdm, so I’ll drop it. The following refutations use faulty logic: C- If it’s not part of your current reason for voting, why do you bring it up? G- Even if you two were the only potential mafia, and townies always immediately vote for those they think most likely to be mafia, this doesn’t follow. Some hadn’t voted at all yet, others might change their minds upon reading the posts between their vote and their next opportunity to vote. I- 2 mututally exclusive things cannot both be “most” anyrhing K- He recently posted posts revealing that he brought up the library first Points successfully refuted: Points I’m willing to drop anyway: C (I don’t want to hear anymore about who’s on the table), D, G , J (covered to death) K&L (Drop it pleease), M (Covered already), N (it was an Ad absurdum I contructed) New points I’m adding P-Ad Hominems Q-Repeated WIFOM (XXX will get me investigated, therefore I’m town, If I were scum I’d claim...) R-Lies S-OMGUS T-Misrepresentation Points that are currently standing: A-Linking 2 players B-Refuses to give the evidence he claims to have for such link E- Evasiveness when asked for evidence F-Refuses to claim (Though I’ll let others handle this) H--Playing for survival I-Contradiction: Townie lynchers/scum lynchers most likely to be investigated O-Contradiction: Will claim when X says so/Subset X1/Won't claim P-Ad Hominems Q-Repeated WIFOM (XXX will get me investigated, therefore I’m town, If I were scum I’d claim...) R-Lies S-OMGUS T-Misrepresnetation
If you don't want to be called a moron then don't say what I said was crap. Ad Hom. I CAN see part of a pattern, both with my role and with cards in the grave. It would be nice of you to share your insight befrore you go. At the time I said it, I didn't want to claim, but was essentially giving veto power to the town if they wanted it that much. Since then, I reread old threads Which? on news to find out about my history in mafia, and since then have decided that I wasn't going to claim no matter what. What posts in these other games in particular changed you mind? Like I said, coming up with a role wouldn't be hard, so if I was mafia you can bet I would do it to save my skin, right? WIFOM
As I mentioned earlier my current vote is going anywhere. I also find a couple of other players scummier than WP now anyway.
Unvote
I definitely am not a fan of those persons who are encouraging any potential vigs to kill a player tonight. I for one am not certain of Sutherlands' scumminess and DO NOT support that plan. There are a number of other alternatives to vigging that might provide information on Sutho's alignment.
Both ZDS and Cyan are currently advocating a plan that may result in us losing even more townies tonight than normal,. Given that there are almost definitely other alternatives this plan is incredibly risky.
At the risk of being accused of directing investigative roles, I would mention that there may be a number of them better suited to targeting Sutherlands than vigging him (despite 1 dead cop) - such an attitude seems incredibly blood thirsty, and certainly appears to be an attempt to off an extra player during the night. Misplaced vig kills are effectively extra kills for the bad guys. I don't want to suggest that the two (Cyan and ZDS) are in cahoots, but one of them could easily be scum trying to lull us into two deaths instead of one.
I'm nearly certain that Sutherlands is a Holmes/MD_ type player (despite experience) and is certainly not a worthy lynch. He's the low hanging fruit (by his own fault maybe, but nevertheless he's the easy target).
FoS ZDS and Cyan
One will turn into a vote after I have reassessed both of their play.
EBP:
I just remembered my experience with Cyan in Star Trek.
Also ZDS is too much like Holmes and MD_ himself.
Meant to explain why I didn't like the ikerr wagon.
I thought his reasons for switching votes were pretty obvious, and he explained them quite well recently. Everyone had provided reasons for voting Sutherlands I didn't really see the need to repeat them. It was opportunistic (and is filed away for further use) but at the time wasn't a big deal to me.
This also in part contributes to my suspicion of Cyan - he jumped on an obvious 'tell' to create a wagon, but at that stage it really wasn't substantial enough to really make anything out of.
I will even ready to move my vote to ikerr, in order to pressurize him a bit more. Unvote : Sutherlands, Vote : ikerr. Official reason : He lied about Cyan and Fayul's cases !
Pressurize me for what? Could you elaborate as to why you feel I was lying about Cyan and Fayul's cases?
@Cyan- You've done a pretty good job working 'ikerr is scum' into every post you've made for the last while, but at least I would prefer something I could defend against, or are you just content to tear down my character a bit more first?
Also, people seem reluctant to look at anyone other than Sutherlands right now, and as such, I'm not confident that Ikerr would get Vigged if Suth gets lynched. However, it seems likely that, even if Ikerr gets lynched, Sutherlands will get vigged anyway.
OK, now to an actual purpose for this post. Can you please explain why you are so confident about this? As far as I'm concerned, neither should be lynched or vigged and I hope our vig has more sense than that. But apart from that, I fail to understand why you are so sure that the vig is going to follow your ideas, unless you're sub-claiming vig, in which case don't say you are and stop doing it now.
Also, I agree with 99% of what Passdog said... actually, in rereading to find the part I didn't agree with, I changed my mind, I agree with 100% of what Passdog said (referencing only the above two posts of course (which may become 1 post when fade checks in))
Alright, I’ve gone a little in depth with all the posts since my last major post here, so I figured (mostly at a couple town requests) I’d do another analysis of the current situation. First, I’m going to get all things regarding Sutherlands out of the way first, and I promise that I’ll move on to other analyses (just to prove to ZDS that I can)
Since I’m still keeping my vote on Sutherlands for the moment, I believe he deserves the right of being addressed first here. First, I must compliment you. I’ve noticed that you tend to get “very” defensive when people attack you, but recently you’ve seemed to calm down quite a bit and have also seemed to started using logic arguments instead of just intuition. As I said before, I don’t mind intuition as long as you provide reason for it as well (which you seem to have been doing). Let me reiterate one point, I don’t want to see Sutherlands lynched because he refuses to claim. Honestly, asking him to claim at this point is just beating a dead horse. If he didn’t do it at 11 votes when it’s 13 to lynch, he’s certainly not going to at 8.
On this note: @CropCircles and Sutherlands: You wanted to know why I’m still insistent on him claiming? It’s because he passed two different “I’ll claim if…” gates before saying that he wouldn’t. I’d be more understanding about this if he just came out in the beginning and said that he won’t. It only irks me that he seemed willing to when x/y were met, and in the end refused.
To end this Sutherlands bit:
My reasons for keeping my vote on (as stated in my original large post and this one):
- Sutherlands “apparent” misunderstanding of the importance of random voting in the early stages of the game
- Sutherlands using mostly-if-not-all intuition (Thank you Sutherlands for fixing this)
- Trying when he was nearing his end to push votes onto ikerr with pretty much the same arguments others had made before him
- Now: Going back on what he offered to do, twice
Now, ZDS, I hope I can prove you wrong:
@kops: I’m now going to try to explain out your suspicions of me, and I’ll quote it here for everyone’s ease of looking:
OK, so thats my case on bluesoul, now lets examine the slightly more prolific atlseal:
First post after his replacing of bluesoul puts a vote and an fos of the two biggest, and only real bandwagons of the game (ZDS's wasn't intended to get anywhere near a lynch so I'm not counting it).
I will concede that he did provide sufficient reasoning for both, but it is quite easy for mafiosos to bandwagon on large wagons for the sake of lynching a townie while providing sufficient reasoning, so that hardly gets him off the hook.
After this, every single one of his posts (save for the mod-prod request) is directed at Sutherlands.
Somehow, he manages to tell suth to claim ~4-5 times, using different wordings and reasons for posting each time, but he never actually gives any input on the state of the game after his first post.
Hate to nitpick about the first point, but it actually was my second post here that was the major analysis. Seriously though, you are also forgetting to mention my FoS on Fayul for pretty much the same reasons as ikerr. Although, maybe you missed it since it was buried in the middle of the post.
Thank you at least for ceding that I gave plenty of reasons for my suspicions. I can also assure everyone here that any vote I make in this game will be backed up with evidence.
My addressing of Sutherland up to this point has been two-fold:
1) As you said yourself, I was very adamant about Sutherlands claiming. All of this was because he provided cases in which he would claim, and then would move onto a new one. Most of my posts here were either an effort to get to the next plateau (as was the case in asking people to wait until CropCircles and Cyan could chime in) or a response to a plateau not being enough (like after Sutherlands finally decided to not claim)
2) I wanted to give Sutherlands a chance to defend himself by changing my views on him (as he has at least done on the intuition part)
However, I must disagree about not giving input into the state of the game. Unfortunately, right now a lot of the town seems to be torn between wanting Sutherlands to claim, saying he doesn’t need to, or realizing that he won’t. I have been commenting on that because that’s what the current state of the game at the time was and still appears to be (although, luckily it seems as though this is the tail-end of that discussion).
@everyone: I tend to think that votes speak louder than words in this game. As such, I’ve been keeping a vote log (and plan to keep keeping it throughout the game). I was wondering if anyone would care to see the vote log on the three bandwagons we’ve had in the game so far (ZDS up to 8 votes, Sutherlands up to 11 votes, and ikerr up to 6 votes)? I merely ask because other players might be able to catch a pattern where I might not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're town and I'm mafia, you've already lost. You just don't know it yet.
@everyone: I tend to think that votes speak louder than words in this game. As such, I’ve been keeping a vote log (and plan to keep keeping it throughout the game). I was wondering if anyone would care to see the vote log on the three bandwagons we’ve had in the game so far (ZDS up to 8 votes, Sutherlands up to 11 votes, and ikerr up to 6 votes)? I merely ask because other players might be able to catch a pattern where I might not.
If you already have it, please do so. It can not hurt us.
I am still reading today's developments, more later.
Gah. Sorry for being gone so long, stuff came up and I couldn't exactly get on for a lot of time. I'm trying to catch up now, I should have a post with actual content within an hour or two.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There's no reason for Sutherlands not to claim. What I'm saying is that at this point, there's very little reason for him to claim.
Nowhere, really. Just trying to gauge his experience. I figured he would give me game names/number of times when he responded, but he didn't. So I had to ask again. Figured I would be cute and make it in the same form.
He doesn't know what information other players have. What if someone has been given information regarding othe
Accidently posted. to continue;
What if someone has been given info regarding roles that are in the game? Or another player has a similar role that might in some way confirm or deny your claim? These are just the 'what ifs;' that benefit Sutho himself.
For the town as a whole one of the greatest disadvantages is that we are given no public information (some roles have limited info or the ability to learn it). So the town is relatively blind in choosing lynches and can only determine their votes by analysis/instinct. The mafia on the other hand knows who isn't on their team - they already have the information needed to start lynching... anyone who isn't them.
By claiming, Sutherlands, you will benefit the town by adding to the publicly available information. Even if he does get lynched then that information will allow better analysis of later claims, and begin balancing the scales. Hell, you might even save yourself.
Mafia is a team game and you need to have the benefit of the team in mind when making your decisions. You should claim.
mafia 2x, townie with alt win condition once. (online)
No, it's not an essential part of the game. It takes away from it. It makes it less about determining who is lying and more about "i need information". Also, see reply below.
See, the thing is, I don't think it helps the town out at all. I really don't. I think what helps the town out is keeping information out of the mafia, then when one of them claims something that we don't believe, we can use our roles to point out why. Right now, if a mafia claims, there is pretty much no chance that they will claim something the same as someone else. What we can hope is that when they claim, they don't have enough information to get within the pattern (if there is one. If there isn't, then this is a moot point and it doesn't really matter). But I digress, like I said, this is not what the game was made to be. It was made to be mind games and psychological stuff.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Problem is. I don't know you aren't mafia and just saying that to make us think you're town.
Random Mafia 2 Town MVP
'08 MTGS Fantasy Football Overall Champion
Best Non-SK Neutral Performance (Individual)
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
@people who were in lotr mafia: I don't get what happened with the erestor claim. He is a real character isn't he?
<XylBot> ||| MAFIABOT || sk: LookingforReality (Copycat) |||
<XylBot> ||| MAFIABOT || survivor: matjoeman (Anarchist) |||
<XylBot> ||| MAFIABOT || town: kops (Anarchist) |||
Mafia stats
@Sutherlands: It doesn't make a huge difference, but you realize that, if you're town, claiming improves your own chances of winning as well as the rest of the town's. It's a legitimate tactic and one of the town's important weapons for weeding out the scum.
Alright, my problems with Sutherlands between my vote for ZDS and mine for him:
Post123: Linking Cyan and ZDS and Majoeman without any reasons or foundation.
Post134: States that use of logic is not conducive to a good arguement, and that Cyan's use of it somehow means he isn't connecting himself to ZDS's defense.
Post140: States that ZDS was telling mistruths that inciminated Sutherlands, and that was why he voted. This is a vast overstatement of the discussion they had about the location of the library. States others believe Cyan is mafia with ZDS, and that townies want to kill other townies to 'survive the night'. He overvalues intuition and uses it as his reason for linking ZDS and Cyan.
Post151: Continues to attack logic. Accuses Cyan of misleading the town when he gave a counterexample to Sutherlands theory that scums will defend each other.
Post16: Tries to go back on a few things he said (shots at logic were cautions against incomplete information, town thinks ZDS is scum instead of town thinks ZDS is scum with Cyan, townies want to survive instead of want to lynch other townies), seems to want to lead invetigation target (fairly moot as our cop is dead).
His posts were inconsistant and he presented a lot of false statements. In these amounts, it feels like he's a mafia who got a little more attention than he wanted and wasn't sure how to get out of it. You can also see that there aren't many (if any) points here that haven't been made before, so i felt it was enough to state my conclusions (of minor contradictions and strange arguments) without running through all the evidance again first. His behaviour hasn't changed, and he hasn't done anything to make me change my mind (otherwise I would have unvoted him already).
I thought the wagon on you was more useful and the wagon on Sutherlands was more comfortable. Cyan's 'attack' on AbbeyGargoyle really wasn't enough of a tell to pursue in this manner, and I didn't agree with the reasons to vote for Fayul. Both of their wagons were in about the same state as ZDS's at the time I voted him.
SUTHERLANDS CLAIM NOW.
It can only help you at this point if you are town as several people have said, and it helps the town as a whole.
If it's not obvious, what I was trying to do was to test ikerr. At the point I posted, I was VERY close to changing my vote to ikerr. The topic of the claim first came up, and I decided I wanted to see where that was going, but I tried to give ikerr a rope to see what he did with it. Instead, Sutherlands grabbed the rope out of his hands assuming my statement was an attack against him. I realize Sutherlands has been getting a LOT of pressure, but what what he quoted was NOT an attack on him, yet he defended himself as though it was. And now we have this whole refusal to claim business which really bothers me. I don't know if Sutherlands cares about my word or not, but I would also like to see him claim, and therefore my vote stays on him for now.
Ikerr has also provided a reasonable justification for the action in question, but he had to be pressed to do so. ZDS makes a good point about the status of the the potential wagons ikerr mentioned against Cyan and Fayul. I feel the case against ikerr still warrants enough discussion that we probably don't want to end the day quite yet.
The problem with ikerr's post is that he misrepresents me, as treigit did. I did not attack logic. I attacked using logic to defend someone so that you don't appear connected to them. Logic itself is good. Also, it appears he is just parroting what other people have said. The "caution against incomplete information" was completely off-base, considering I was saying that
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
what he said was offbase, considering I was saying that I was simply sayign that we don't actually have any facts. Again, he misrepresents everything I have said. Seems to be a common theme.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Preempting page 24’s vote count
(With 24 alive, it takes 13 to lynch)
Sutherlands (9) - silicon, Matjoeman, ZeDorkSlipeur, WhytePanther, Treigit, ikerr, Good&Evil, Jobie, atlseal
CropCircles (1) - Fayul
ikerr (5) - Sutherlands, arimnaes, loran16, AbbeyGargoyle, Cyan
WhytePanther (1) - Passdog
Fayul (2) - Crippled_Fist, CropCircles
Anyway, I'm not really convinced that Sutherlands is scum, even in light of his refusal to claim, and I am going to have to say I am opposed to his lynch as I believe he is simply a misguided townie. However, I do want him to clarify one thing:
At some point after this, he mentioned two hints towards his role, and I belive this was one of them. I also did a quick gatherer search and there are no cards with "hero" in their name which would fit this description directly.
Anyway, moving on, I'm also not entirely convinced about Ikerr and I think that essentially the only point against him is his bandwagon hop which did not seem altogether scummy at any rate. I'm not entirely sure how experienced Ikerr is, but if he is relatively experienced, then his original 'wagon on ZDS seems to have been done in such a way that would definately realize his goal of "promoting discussion and gauging
reactions" (not exact quote), though I can't really see a total newb managing to pull it off like that.
Here are where my suspicions do lie:
bluesoul/atlseal
Let's take a look at each, because both seemed scummy by themselves (reminder: atlseal replaced bluesoul)
Bluesoul
4 total posts. I am completely willing to excuse him for the quantity of his posts given the circumstances, however, the content bothers me. 2 of them are irrelevant, one being an (understandable) excuse for lurking, the other being a replacement request. Of the other two, one was a reasonless bandwagon vote and the other was a response to a response thereof.
Now, given that its bluesoul, who is normally a very good analyst and takes the time to reason out his votes, why would he post a 4 word vote-post? I entreat you to compare this action with this game from scum in which he did the exact same thing as mafia, and later pmed me with the excuse that it was because he was mafia that he did that:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3261
specific post (last post on the pg. in 15 view): http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3261&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=50
(btw, when he said "MTGS rule", he meant mIRC rule... I have yet to be scum on MTGS)
OK, so thats my case on bluesoul, now lets examine the slightly more prolific atlseal:
First post after his replacing of bluesoul puts a vote and an fos of the two biggest, and only real bandwagons of the game (ZDS's wasn't intended to get anywhere near a lynch so I'm not counting it).
I will concede that he did provide sufficient reasoning for both, but it is quite easy for mafiosos to bandwagon on large wagons for the sake of lynching a townie while providing sufficient reasoning, so that hardly gets him off the hook.
After this, every single one of his posts (save for the mod-prod request) is directed at Sutherlands.
Somehow, he manages to tell suth to claim ~4-5 times, using different wordings and reasons for posting each time, but he never actually gives any input on the state of the game after his first post.
Admittedly, I am not familiar with atlseal's posting style in any way shape or form, but in general terms, he hardly makes me feel comfortable about his townie-ness. Bluesoul I am familiar with and he makes me even less comfortable.
So, in light of the above, vote atlseal
Recap: I am voting atlseal for 3 reasons:
1) Overall scumminess between him and his predecessor as stated above.
2) An attempt to redirect attention off of a likely noob townie (a la MD) and onto somebody who actually deserves attention
3) An effort to take a solid stance in showing my disapproval of both current wagons and my preference to go after atlseal.
Oh really? You think the lynch has already been decided? Think again.
Case against ikerr coming up soon.
In conclusion, I think that we should lynch someone that is actually scummy(Ikerr) and Vig Sutherlands.
Sure, I see little reason that it could hurt the town, but Suth has provide something: There could be a pattern to the roles that we don't want the mafia to know. It's not likely, but I'd say it's about as likely as the idea that someone just happens to know that "rolename X is town!"
And can someone who voted for Suth for not claiming please explain to me how his refusal to claim makes him scummy? If he were scum, he'd have hundreds of claims to draw from, so what is the incentive for a scum to avoid claiming?
Can someone actually give a reason why all this is scummy, rather then making blanket statements, like...
This generalization is so blatantly false, I have to wonder if you're being intentionaly dense. If you folow this line of thought, then it's best for us all to roleclaim everything we know right now. Some information is helpful for us. Other info should be kept to ourselves. Can you actually give me a reason why Suth not claiming hurts us more then helps us?
[The Family]
[The Family]
Really? Howso? He's already claimed vanilla.
What are the chances that him claiming will actually help? Enough to make this big of a fuss about it?
[The Family]
What will that feasibly do? Szadek was the cop, and I doubt I would have thought him town until I saw him dead.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
@kops, I'll hope to easy your fears about me
@Sutherlands, I hope to address your sudden change in tone when stating your case (a good change mind you) and why I still have my vote on you at the moment
It's nice to see someone is actually doing something active to try and figure it out instead of simply telling me to claim. That said, I'm not a Crusader.
The only part I don't understand about what you said, is that you really don't believe me to be mafia, yet you want a vig to waste me. This sounds like mafia trying to get a vig to do his dirty work and waste his shots.
This is basically what I've been asking. I have yet to get a real response (for the most part) except "ZOMG WE WANT YOU TO CLAIM SO CLAIM!!@!!!1"
Wait, so now YOU'RE having to go back and correct yourself? Isn't this exactly one of the reasons that people were voting for me?
Yes.. mafia are definitely going to kill Joe Shmoe. Cops and doctors you're safe tonight! I'd say that I was under MORE pressure to claim when I had 10+ votes on me. If I didn't do it then, your "ZOMG CLAIM" is not going to make me do it now.
As has been said... WHY? How could this information help the town? You're right that the mafia have information on the town... but not in this particular arena. They don't have town role knowledge, we do... just not all of it with one person. So giving them the knowledge they don't have is definitely helping them.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
No need.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
As for why not just lynch him. I'm fairly confident that he is scum, but, not enough so that I would want to lynch him and go to night. However, I am more convinced that Ikerr is scum. As such, I would rather lynch him. As far as vigging Sutherlands at night..chances are that the Vig(assuming that we have one, which seems a fair assumption) is going to target someone tonight. Sutherlands seems like a good choice for that. If he turns up town that way, we don't lose nearly as much as if we mislynch him and the Vig goes after someone else, whom might also be town.
So in the first quoted part, you say that you don't think I'm scum because a scum would not refuse to claim like I do, and you advocate lynching someone who is "actually scummy". In the second post, you say that you're "fairly confident that [I am] scum"???? Whoa! Talk about a turn-around.
Also, my attitude is most definitely not defeatist. Never was. Everything I did was because I was trying to help myself and the town. Claiming would have done nothing, so why do it? I'd say that claiming just before I do would have been defeatist.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
That doesn't really make sense because if we don't lynch him, we're lynching someone else... who might also be town, while the vig is just performing the lynch that we passed on. You're basically just switching the roles of the town and the vig, which may or may not be a good or bad thing (since the vig may very well be misguided but so might the town... especially since within the town lurks the scum).
Um, no. Vigs and SKs have different incentives; vigs are preoccupied with killing scum, and can hit townies on accident, while SKs are initially advantaged to kill townies to ensure the mafia doesn't die too quickly. I suppose it's possible to false-claim vig as SK, but vigs are at least as common, and you'd have to basically admit you'd missed your targets. Then the town knows who to tell who to lynch, and the SK loses his independence because otherwise he'll get lynched for killing someone else.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
(With 24 alive, it takes 13 to lynch)
Sutherlands (8) - silicon, Matjoeman, WhytePanther, Treigit, ikerr, Good&Evil, Jobie, atlseal
CropCircles (1) - Fayul
ikerr (6) - Sutherlands, arimnaes, loran16, AbbeyGargoyle, Cyan, ZeDorkSlipeur
WhytePanther (1) - Passdog
Fayul (2) - Crippled_Fist, CropCircles
atlseal (1) - kops723
*silicon has been prodded.
The SK does benefit from the death of scum, but it's safer to kill townies because due to the lower number of scum, there's the potential for the "oops-all-the-scum-died" moment, and the SK wants to keep things close to even.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
I don't think that it's likely that you're a mafia trying to bluff, but, it's still possible. What it comes down to is the fact that I think that, not knowing the identity of the Vig, the town should direct the Vig(there are a few people in this game that I would trust their decision/judgment over that of the town in general, but, obviously that's not applicable right now).
I find it unlikely that whomever is the Vig isn't going to fire tonight, and as such, I think that the town should decide whom that person fires upon. I think that person should be you, because behind Ikerr, you seem the most likely to be scum, right now. My feelings on whether or not you're scum go back and forth alot. But this is largely because so many of your mistakes seem like misconceptions that someone would have because they're new. The problem with this is that you're really not new to mafia, and even if you were, you could be a newb scum as easily as a newb town.
Also, the statement 'I won't claim because it wouldn't do any good' is a defeatist statement. You have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not it would do any good, and are just assuming(if you're not just bluffing) that it wouldn't. That is defeatism.
@kops: Yes, I know that means that we'd be lynching someone else. But, considering that I Think that Ikerr is much more likely to be scum than Sutherlands, and as such am voting for him and want to lynch him, this doesn't strike me as a problem.
@ZDS: As soon as all of this hubbub around Sutherlands settles down some, I'll look back at Ikerr again. Doing it now seems pointless, as people are obviously going to be stuck on Sutherlands until we decide whether or not to lynch him or Vig him or what.
2) How come nobody has even commented on my case against atlseal? I understand if you don't agree, but I'd at least like to hear thoughts, mostly cause I'm still not happy with Suth being lynched or vigged, at least not today (probably not in the future either but that at least is subject to change).
@ZDS: I don't really get what you're asking. I guess it doesn't matter whom gets lynched and whom gets Vigged, of those two. I proposed it that way because I'm voting for Ikerr, and I think that he is more scummy. I have some doubt in Sutherlands scumminess, but, not alot. Ultimately, it seems like Ikerr being lynched is less likely to be a wasted lynch. Also, people seem reluctant to look at anyone other than Sutherlands right now, and as such, I'm not confident that Ikerr would get Vigged if Suth gets lynched. However, it seems likely that, even if Ikerr gets lynched, Sutherlands will get vigged anyway. If I was confident that they'd both die today, I wouldn't care which order it happened in.
Forgive me please, I’m composing this in Word, without access to the web (I copied a few recent posts before going )
My comments underlined.
297
Tell me this: how would me claiming IN ANY WAY help the town? IN ANY WAY? Even if I were to claim, no one would stop voting for me. I would still be lynched. In that case it would not help anyone at all (not even the mafia) so why give up something that I am determined not to do? Others are covering this so I’ll leave that to them.
Also, what reason do you have to not buy the "I changed my mind" thing? Is it because mafia often refuse to claim? Must be it! Wait, no that's not true. Is it because I didn't expect both Cyan and CC to want me to claim? YES! So you admit you were lying when you siad that? Oh... no... please provide reasoning.
When did I say that your points were wrong because you were dumb? Most Blatantly in point E. Never. Hey look anothe lie. I took each thing you said, and refuted it. See below. That's classic townie sign, right? Refuting arguments? Just as evading them is a scum tell. And I'd love to see how you are going to show everything Misrepresentation is a scum tell. In fact, I'll bet you on it. I will bet any magic card that I am not scum. If you're that sure, take me up on it. I suspect these kinds of statements are explictly forbidden in the rules of this game, in addition to this site’s mafia rules.
285
A Oh noes! Tell to link 2 unknown players
B I NEVER CLAIMED TO HAVE EVIDENCE, JUST A FEELING! I think you did, but I’ll have to check.
C That's how it started, but I didn't start a bandwagon because of that. Then why havne’t you dropped it?
D Um... huh?Tell. It’s convient that you voted for the player with the most votes while saying the othere player with a wagon on him was co scum.
E Wrong, answered all questions when they were asked, with enough information that any person of NORMAL intelligence should be able to know what i'm talking about. The implication beign that if you don’t understand anything suthie has said it’s your failing. Also see his runaroud to Bluesoul for a current example.
F Yup... so? Tell. Anti town regarless of alignment.
G Wrong, and you're misrepresenting what I said. i said that the town obviously believes that he is mafia more than they believe i am mafia. Which at the time was certainly true. It most certainly wasn’t, at most, apparently 6 peopel though ZDS was scum, harldy a consensus.
H Yup... so? Tell. Poor play if town, good play if mafia, excelent play if neutral.
I No contradiction there
J Whoopide doo
K Um... contradictory to what? I was the one making sense on that issue. NO ONE was making snese on the issue. But I was refering to your recent “ZDS brought the library up” attempt.
L Absolutely false on both accounts Oh really?
M Again, misrepresenting me. I never said they wanted to get other townies lynched, i said they would rather have someone else lynched than themselves. True for me certainly. Which shows your anti town attitude.
N quotes?
O Just changed my mind, that's all.
Rational thought. Ad Hom
CC: Yup, like I said, I've played mafia before. Because of my play-style, I pretty much only get lynched when I'm town. Here's not gonna be any different. I stick by what i said about no claiming. You all can find it out when I die. If I had access to gatherer right now, I would figure out exactly how hard it is to tell from what I've said.
Points that you didn’t attempt to refute: A, D, F, H, J and N.
Points that you used lies to refute:
-(I believe B, could some one check what he said when he first claimed to see a link between Cyan and ZDS?)
1-E You’ve still never shown which MJM post you were refering to, You never showed what posts on page 3 were “lying to the town,” You haven’t said SPECIFICALLY what you found suspicious about Cyan and
ZDS’s “argument”
2-G You said that the ZDS case was beeter than your case because he had more votes on him
3-I Contradictory statements cannot both be true
-(K, It’s debatable that either of you were making sense there)
4&5-L See his response to my “table=in play” specifically his “I know” also, see the majority of his attacks on ZDS, as they use the table misuderstanding as evidence
6-M Could someone repost this, again.As you said “[Online] you can't read people except what they type,” it’s for this reason that we’re forced to judge you on what you type, not what you “meant.”
7-O See above. Further, even if you did change your mind, one of the following statments must be false “I’ll do action X if...” “I’ll never do action X.”
*Extra Bonuse lie- N he clarifies the fact that strength is an aura when someone else thinks otherwise. But this was only intended as a reductp ad absurdm, so I’ll drop it.
The following refutations use faulty logic:
C- If it’s not part of your current reason for voting, why do you bring it up?
G- Even if you two were the only potential mafia, and townies always immediately vote for those they think most likely to be mafia, this doesn’t follow. Some hadn’t voted at all yet, others might change their minds upon reading the posts between their vote and their next opportunity to vote.
I- 2 mututally exclusive things cannot both be “most” anyrhing
K- He recently posted posts revealing that he brought up the library first
Points successfully refuted:
Points I’m willing to drop anyway:
C (I don’t want to hear anymore about who’s on the table), D, G , J (covered to death) K&L (Drop it pleease), M (Covered already), N (it was an Ad absurdum I contructed)
New points I’m adding
P-Ad Hominems
Q-Repeated WIFOM (XXX will get me investigated, therefore I’m town, If I were scum I’d claim...)
R-Lies
S-OMGUS
T-Misrepresentation
Points that are currently standing:
A-Linking 2 players
B-Refuses to give the evidence he claims to have for such link
E- Evasiveness when asked for evidence
F-Refuses to claim (Though I’ll let others handle this)
H--Playing for survival
I-Contradiction: Townie lynchers/scum lynchers most likely to be investigated
O-Contradiction: Will claim when X says so/Subset X1/Won't claim
P-Ad Hominems
Q-Repeated WIFOM (XXX will get me investigated, therefore I’m town, If I were scum I’d claim...)
R-Lies
S-OMGUS
T-Misrepresnetation
If you don't want to be called a moron then don't say what I said was crap. Ad Hom. I CAN see part of a pattern, both with my role and with cards in the grave. It would be nice of you to share your insight befrore you go. At the time I said it, I didn't want to claim, but was essentially giving veto power to the town if they wanted it that much. Since then, I reread old threads Which? on news to find out about my history in mafia, and since then have decided that I wasn't going to claim no matter what. What posts in these other games in particular changed you mind? Like I said, coming up with a role wouldn't be hard, so if I was mafia you can bet I would do it to save my skin, right? WIFOM
Sometimes SKs have limited kill-immunity, so that's not always a solution.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Unvote
I definitely am not a fan of those persons who are encouraging any potential vigs to kill a player tonight. I for one am not certain of Sutherlands' scumminess and DO NOT support that plan. There are a number of other alternatives to vigging that might provide information on Sutho's alignment.
Both ZDS and Cyan are currently advocating a plan that may result in us losing even more townies tonight than normal,. Given that there are almost definitely other alternatives this plan is incredibly risky.
At the risk of being accused of directing investigative roles, I would mention that there may be a number of them better suited to targeting Sutherlands than vigging him (despite 1 dead cop) - such an attitude seems incredibly blood thirsty, and certainly appears to be an attempt to off an extra player during the night. Misplaced vig kills are effectively extra kills for the bad guys. I don't want to suggest that the two (Cyan and ZDS) are in cahoots, but one of them could easily be scum trying to lull us into two deaths instead of one.
I'm nearly certain that Sutherlands is a Holmes/MD_ type player (despite experience) and is certainly not a worthy lynch. He's the low hanging fruit (by his own fault maybe, but nevertheless he's the easy target).
FoS ZDS and Cyan
One will turn into a vote after I have reassessed both of their play.
EBP:
I just remembered my experience with Cyan in Star Trek.
Also ZDS is too much like Holmes and MD_ himself.
Vote Cyan
Meant to explain why I didn't like the ikerr wagon.
I thought his reasons for switching votes were pretty obvious, and he explained them quite well recently. Everyone had provided reasons for voting Sutherlands I didn't really see the need to repeat them. It was opportunistic (and is filed away for further use) but at the time wasn't a big deal to me.
This also in part contributes to my suspicion of Cyan - he jumped on an obvious 'tell' to create a wagon, but at that stage it really wasn't substantial enough to really make anything out of.
Pressurize me for what? Could you elaborate as to why you feel I was lying about Cyan and Fayul's cases?
@Cyan- You've done a pretty good job working 'ikerr is scum' into every post you've made for the last while, but at least I would prefer something I could defend against, or are you just content to tear down my character a bit more first?
Looking forward to it!
*sigh* why am I not surprised.... but w/e I don't want this to turn into yet another grudge match
[nitpick] it's who, not whom
OK, now to an actual purpose for this post. Can you please explain why you are so confident about this? As far as I'm concerned, neither should be lynched or vigged and I hope our vig has more sense than that. But apart from that, I fail to understand why you are so sure that the vig is going to follow your ideas, unless you're sub-claiming vig, in which case don't say you are and stop doing it now.
Also, I agree with 99% of what Passdog said... actually, in rereading to find the part I didn't agree with, I changed my mind, I agree with 100% of what Passdog said (referencing only the above two posts of course (which may become 1 post when fade checks in))
Since I’m still keeping my vote on Sutherlands for the moment, I believe he deserves the right of being addressed first here. First, I must compliment you. I’ve noticed that you tend to get “very” defensive when people attack you, but recently you’ve seemed to calm down quite a bit and have also seemed to started using logic arguments instead of just intuition. As I said before, I don’t mind intuition as long as you provide reason for it as well (which you seem to have been doing). Let me reiterate one point, I don’t want to see Sutherlands lynched because he refuses to claim. Honestly, asking him to claim at this point is just beating a dead horse. If he didn’t do it at 11 votes when it’s 13 to lynch, he’s certainly not going to at 8.
On this note: @CropCircles and Sutherlands: You wanted to know why I’m still insistent on him claiming? It’s because he passed two different “I’ll claim if…” gates before saying that he wouldn’t. I’d be more understanding about this if he just came out in the beginning and said that he won’t. It only irks me that he seemed willing to when x/y were met, and in the end refused.
To end this Sutherlands bit:
My reasons for keeping my vote on (as stated in my original large post and this one):
- Sutherlands “apparent” misunderstanding of the importance of random voting in the early stages of the game
-
Sutherlands using mostly-if-not-all intuition(Thank you Sutherlands for fixing this)- Trying when he was nearing his end to push votes onto ikerr with pretty much the same arguments others had made before him
- Now: Going back on what he offered to do, twice
Now, ZDS, I hope I can prove you wrong:
@kops: I’m now going to try to explain out your suspicions of me, and I’ll quote it here for everyone’s ease of looking:
Hate to nitpick about the first point, but it actually was my second post here that was the major analysis.
Thank you at least for ceding that I gave plenty of reasons for my suspicions. I can also assure everyone here that any vote I make in this game will be backed up with evidence.
My addressing of Sutherland up to this point has been two-fold:
1) As you said yourself, I was very adamant about Sutherlands claiming. All of this was because he provided cases in which he would claim, and then would move onto a new one. Most of my posts here were either an effort to get to the next plateau (as was the case in asking people to wait until CropCircles and Cyan could chime in) or a response to a plateau not being enough (like after Sutherlands finally decided to not claim)
2) I wanted to give Sutherlands a chance to defend himself by changing my views on him (as he has at least done on the intuition part)
However, I must disagree about not giving input into the state of the game. Unfortunately, right now a lot of the town seems to be torn between wanting Sutherlands to claim, saying he doesn’t need to, or realizing that he won’t. I have been commenting on that because that’s what the current state of the game at the time was and still appears to be (although, luckily it seems as though this is the tail-end of that discussion).
@everyone: I tend to think that votes speak louder than words in this game. As such, I’ve been keeping a vote log (and plan to keep keeping it throughout the game). I was wondering if anyone would care to see the vote log on the three bandwagons we’ve had in the game so far (ZDS up to 8 votes, Sutherlands up to 11 votes, and ikerr up to 6 votes)? I merely ask because other players might be able to catch a pattern where I might not.
If you already have it, please do so. It can not hurt us.
I am still reading today's developments, more later.