Succinct Mafia - Game over

[Laggy]

Fix'd, sorry about that.

[Sierra]

I'd suggest that we retract Corwin votes at this point in time. Given the potential modkill, there's really no reason to keep them there. I would like to draw attention to Soppy, who has posted but provided no real content. We got a jokevote twenty-four hours ago, and that's it.

Also:

I dislike Bard's playstyle.

I'd actually like some elaboration on this. What exactly is it that you dislike? More importantly, what kind of reaction did you hope to provoke by dropping that statement without any explanation?

~

Muppy sez: Being lurkerrific is bad news for Town. If you're one of us, speak up!

[Ranmilia]

I dislike Bard's style because it feels like gonzo journalism.  "And here we are today in Mafia Vietnam!  X, Y and Z did this this and this!  THEY COULD BE SCUM... OR NOT?!"  There is a lot of reporting on events and suggesting possible stances people could take on them without taking one himself.  And his descriptions are often of dubious accuracy - for example, he claims I was "Prodding on the Delta train first, then conveniently jumping off that when no one gives backing and starting what seems to be a Corwin train?"

This is pretty much the *exact opposite* of what happened, I started out being the first and only person to prod *away* from Delta, saying he was probably town when other people were voting him, then voted him anyway in frustration when Delta kept insisting on his course of action, even when others started agreeing with me that he was probably town and unvoting.  I'll admit that may not have been the smartest way to play it, and I certainly am ambivalent on what to do about the whole Delta business, but out of all the possible angles you could take on me for it, "pushing a Delta train first and then jumping off when it wasn't backed" is not one that makes sense.

That is just an example though.  The reporting style is mainly what bugs me.  I've seen him do it in previous games, it bugged me there and it bugs me here.

I mentioned it because it's day 1 and mentioning anything of potential actual significance is tops. 

Now that I think about it, the rest of Bard's latest post is also talking all about people others have found suspicious and restating the cases on them without really adding anything.  That is enough for me to

##Unvote: Corwin
##Vote: Bard

for now.  Sleep now.

[Luther Lansfeld]

Excal: I feel like that if you are going to try to emphasize a point to someone and you have the first chance to do so, that you should do it with GUSTO (as Morrie would say)! I just think that you seem to be trying to have a presence without having a real presence, and I haven't seen much that makes me less confident in this. Of course it is Day 1.

Bardiche: I realize wanting immediate results and for the game to go faster. But a game has to start somewhere, and starting with at least more than dull jabber for a number of pages... well, whatever. I think you are taking Rat's statement to the extreme as well, I feel like he was just trying to brew discussion at a typically stagnating beginning of the game.

Alex: I think you're wrong in saying that the reactions to the situation are not worth considering because they involve Delta. Personally I find discussion on a subject, even if it is a psyduck subject, inherently better than discussing how someone doesn't exist. (Not that I have a problem with voting for people who don’t exist, just that talking about them isn’t very exciting.)

Sopko and Corwin and Kilga: Need to exist (more in Sopko/Kilga’s case, at all in Corwin’s). Just because this is supposed to be a game with short posts doesn’t mean you can just not do anything. <_<

And I made a mistake regarding Corwin. He logged on on the date that the game started, but it was early in the morning before the game had actually begun.

[Hunter Sopko]

Could make excuses, but won't.

##Unvote: Ciato

Alex is drawing my attention at the moment, for reasons other people seem to be. He seemed to wait for other people to go after Delta for his rolecall before going in full force.

Bard seems to be leading conversation, but his arguments seem to go in circles as he attempts to play all sides. Granted, it's Day 1, so I'm not looking in his direction too much.

Kilga needs to be a lot more coherant in his posts, even if he's trying to be sarcastic.

[Kilgamayan]

Sorry about the lack of unvoting. Don't know where that came from. ##Unvote: Corwin (and Alex, for posterity) while I'm thinking about it.

I believe Delta is silly town at this point, and not worth voting as anything more than a last resort (and the rules don't say anything about no majority = no lynch, so even that may be unnecessary).

I also believe everyone that voted for Delta is town, as his actions seem to make him more valuable to scum as an easy lynch further down the line rather than "wasting" him here.

Nothing on Corwin, obviously. I almost want to keep my vote on him just to try to avoid the extra death from a modkill, but that's not terribly helpful.

This leaves four people.

Hurricane Ike: Not a fan of his "no need to always be aggressive" line when he himself stated earlier that votes are retractable. Aggressive tends to get more results than passive. Page 1 comments lend themselves to "well hey I was ragging on him from the beginning" later on in the game, if such is necessary (even with the "I never truly believed he was scum" line - who is ever 100% confident their Day 1 vote choice is scum, anyway?).
Ice Woman: Accuses Excal of things she herself could be accused of. The rest of the Excal accusation post is spent stating facts.
Gandrayda: Doing just as much as me. I'm kind of curious as to why he didn't weigh in on Delta one way or the other.
Raging Heart: Pokes a whole bunch, but was at least willing to take one stand. Never acknowledged Alex's explanation of his thought process - in fact, I'm wondering if he missed it altogether.

##Vote: Ciato for looking the worst of these four.

(300!)

[Laggy]

Excal (1): Ciato
Ciato (1): Soppy, Kilga
El Cid (0):
Soppy (0):
Kilga (0):
Rat (1): Excal
Delta (2): El Cid, Rat, Dread Thomas, Alex
Alex (1): Kilga, Bardiche
Bardiche (1): Delta, Alex
Corwin (0): Delta, Alex
Dread Thomas (0): Bardiche

With 11 alive, it takes 6 to lynch.

[Carthrat]

Bard - Everything you say about me is mostly correct, I was trying to focus on Delta and get others to do the same. I think you missed the point of why I was cagey about his defenders; at best, you can call Delta's play bad and have no clue about him, but that shouldn't really be shifting him more towards the 'townie' axis of things and that was something that needed quantification. So in fact I guess you might have been reading me wrong. That's a loaded question if there was ever one, too.

I don't really think you've been paying much attention to the reasons behind people's actions, as illustrated by your comments on Alex and also myself, really. It's all been mostly clear to me.

The other person I seriously don't like at the moment is Cid. He came in after Delta's post, went 'Let's look at the reactions to Delta' without really giving us anything himself, and since then, the only things he's done is ramble about Cor and lurkiness for a bit, and then ask Alex what he thinks about Bardiche. Neither of these are doing what he suggested should be done, and neither of them are terribly interesting in and of themselves, either. If anyone is hiding in plain sight, as it were, it's him. Would vote for him if I wasn't voting for Delta. May actually do this later even though I think Delta is worse, simply because nobody is biting on the former.

Lots of people are too succinct (Excal, Kilga, Sopko, Dread Thomas, offhand.)

I'm not really following Kilga's reason for voting Ciato, please elaborate.

Delta looks worse with every post he makes and you all know why.

MOD: Isn't Bardiche voting for Alex, not Dread Thomas?

[Sierra]

I believe Delta is silly town at this point, and not worth voting as anything more than a last resort (and the rules don't say anything about no majority = no lynch, so even that may be unnecessary).

I also believe everyone that voted for Delta is town, as his actions seem to make him more valuable to scum as an easy lynch further down the line rather than "wasting" him here.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You believe approximately half the game is town...on day one? Are you totally serious about that? I don't see how we have anywhere near enough information to make such a conclusion with confidence, and doing so seems highly suspect. It's also built on an assumption of how scum would play in this situation, which is unreliable at best given that we don't know who any of the scum players are and thus have no knowledge of the scum faction's M.O.

Glad to see you joining us, Soppy.

Alex stuff requires mulling over, as well as rereading of Bard posts to see whether or not I agree.

~

Muppy sez: You know what they say about making assumptions, right?

[Laggy]

Yeah, I forgot to remove the unvote. This has been a fantastic day for me on detail. Thanks. (rest assured no surprise hammers will happen)

[Hunter Sopko]

I'm torn on Cid's latest post. On the one, it doesn't reference Rat's point against him directly. However, it does provide an argument against someone... which is a case thats been put forward several times and answers none of the other questions Rat raised against him. Avoiding self-incrimination maybe? In the age of post warnings, missing Rat's post is no excuse. Gonna put the pressure on Cid.

##Vote: Cid

[EvilTom]

Sorry, I sleep in.

Pegging him as town for now.

I don't think the Delta issue is a good basis for any lynch right now.

What is WIFOM?

##Vote: Delta

Do you understand why you are making it nearly impossible for us not to lynch you?

Alex seems to have foregone an epic switch with Delta’s bizarre questions. [...] The thing that makes me suspicious about this is that he’s gone under fire for defending Delta and then quickly puts a vote in for him after another Delta post.

+1

I am having serious trouble believing anything about Delta.  I think it is impossible for him to be as well read as he claims, yet still not know what WIFOM is.  Every post he makes, he hurts town more and digs himself deeper into a hole of being the only possible lynch for today...

What's so aggregious about not knowing WIFOM that flips you from 'pro-delta' to 'lynch delta'? What could scum possibly have to earn by pretending not to know an acronym?

What do you think of the debate surrounding you?

He can only deny it all as he has been doing thusfar. Making him to continue denying the same accusation over and over will only imprint his error in our minds and exacerbate the problem of it taking up all of day 1's focus.

I am concerned that he is eclipsing everything today

Yes, like that.

Why do you expect us to believe that you are telling the truth?

  Delta cannot answer this question in a constructive fashion.
...as shown here:

I dont expect you to, but i want you to.

So some fairly pointless questions there which do more harm than good.

Alex is weird, but no vote change for now.
too.....many....words...argh. So hard.

[EvilTom]

egregious*
I should read my posts before I post them.  >.>

[Luther Lansfeld]

Kilga, if there weren't numerous votes on Delta at the time I posted, I would have voted for him. I felt asking questions to Delta to try to get some information out of him when he has votes on him was a generally not a bad idea. My overarching concern with Excal's play reaches past just the Delta stuff and into... things I've already talked about. The point isn't just "oh noez he didn't vote for Delta", the point is that he is been sticking his toes in the water of inquiry in later posts as well as the Delta ones... but no further.

Rat raises a really good point about Cid. He feels like he is skirting the borderline as well, but at least he laid down a vote that wasn't a jokevote which shows us SOMETHING about him, so for right now he's somewhat suspicious, but not a pressing concern.

Bardiche... I find his logic hard to follow, but that's not especially unusual. I addressed this in the last post; I was more confused by his point than anything else, and would like some clarification.

Glad to see Sopko and Kilga back in the fray. While I disagree with Kilga's post of course, it does seem like he's made a legitimate effort to form a case which earns him points in my book. Not sure what to think of Sopko's Cid vote.

Will read Tom's post when I have more time!

[Kilgamayan]

Rat: She accused Excal of votelessly prodding Delta, which she had been doing herself in the two posts I linked to. The rest of her post was some noncommittal wavering with some filler facts thrown in. Her other post was a little better bunch it still came off as a bunch of filler.

This will become moot later in this post, but that was my thought process at the time.

Cid: Perhaps the straight-up statement that "these people are town" is jumping a bit too far, but I do believe their actions were townier, which was why I tossed them for the purposes of that post.

Ciato: Upon rereading, I think I see what you mean. Excal does seem to poke more than you do, and you also have a meaningful vote out.

All right, I'll buy it.

##Unvote: Ciato
##Vote: Excal

[Excal]

Curious.  Why voting for "easy" lynch sign of town?  Seems wifom, bad logic.  No reason one or both scum didn't vote for Delta.

[Kilgamayan]

Assuming there are indeed exactly two scum.

[Sierra]

I'm torn on Cid's latest post. On the one, it doesn't reference Rat's point against him directly. However, it does provide an argument against someone... which is a case thats been put forward several times and answers none of the other questions Rat raised against him. Avoiding self-incrimination maybe? In the age of post warnings, missing Rat's post is no excuse. Gonna put the pressure on Cid.

##Vote: Cid

Rat posted that while I was typing my little jab at Kilga, yes. I saw it, but was just about to leave the computer for a while and didn't feel like sticking around to redo my post. Even in Succinct Mafia, the Cid types slowly. And maybe Kilga's basic argument had appeared earlier, Soppy, but I don't think anyone expressed it as strongly as he did in that post I quoted. There's also the following Excal quote that aptly sums up my feelings on Kilga's theory:

Curious.  Why voting for "easy" lynch sign of town?  Seems wifom, bad logic.  No reason one or both scum didn't vote for Delta.

Note that the above (and my preceding post) constitute my "reactions to Delta stuff" that Rat was looking for, or at least as much as I care to say about it right now.

~

Muppy edit: Kilga, how does speculation on the number of scum players answer Excal's post in any way?

[Kilgamayan]

It doesn't directly address his statement, but I'm still curious as to how he knows there's exactly two scum. For what it's worth, his statement doesn't address the concerns Ciato raised.

As for addressing the statement directly, he can call it WIFOMy if he likes. I call it playing the numbers. Assuming Delta is town, who's the townie most beneficial to the scum cause come crunch time? Delta. Assuming Delta is town, if he gets lynched today, who will we study? Everyone who voted for him, because it happens every time.

Sure, any number of scum could be voting for Delta right now in an attempt to off him immediately. Is the accompanying risk as detailed above worth it? I wouldn't say so.

[Excal]

What risk?  We never actually really get down to who voted for who in Day 1.  Especially if it's something where it makes a decent amount of sense for voting that way.  As for how I know there's two scum?  I don't.  I posted while on shift because I really didn't like your PoV and had to fire it off before I got caught by management.  And I'm not gonna spec further as there's no way that ends well right now.

That said, there is one reason two scum came to mind.  It's because your argument suggests it, Kilga.  Half of us voted for Delta, half did not.  Assuming that scum didn't vote for him, and that Delta is town, then that means we can just axe everyone who refrained from voting Delta and Town wins easily.  And, two makes it far less likely that there was any splitting than three.

Now, all of that said, I want to avoid hitting my limit, as well as actually read over this thread properly, and see what Ciato has to say.

[Laggy]

Excal (2): Ciato, Kilga
Ciato (0): Soppy, Kilga
El Cid (1): Soppy
Soppy (0):
Kilga (0):
Rat (1): Excal
Delta (2): El Cid, Rat, Dread Thomas, Alex
Alex (1): Kilga, Bardiche
Bardiche (1): Delta, Alex
Corwin (0): Delta, Alex
Dread Thomas (0): Bardiche

With 11 alive, it takes 6 to lynch.

It is 12 hours until deadline.

[Ranmilia]

How very interesting. 

Lack of discussion re: Bard is saddening and a little disturbing.

Agree w/Sopko re: El Cid.  I didn't really realize he'd failed to vote anyone but Delta.  "As much as I care to say about it right now" - what?

Two scum is obvious from the player count and the fact that this is not high-role.  Not sure why there is controversy here.

Dread Thomas - the answer is frustration.  Too many words in THIS game?

Keeping vote on Bard in mostly symbolic gesture to get someone to talk about him.  12 hours is not much time now though.

FoS:  Cid for not voting. 
FoS:  Someone out of the Rat/Ciato/Sopko/Excal pack.  These four blend together too much and I don't trust that.  They have all done one or two townish things but just not had much presence otherwise. 

[Bardiche]

That is just an example though.  The reporting style is mainly what bugs me.  I've seen him do it in previous games, it bugged me there and it bugs me here.

Are you serious going to rattle on about how I play the rest of this Mafia game? The goal here is to seperate the liars from the truthful ones and lynch them before they off you all - not to dissect someone's playstyle and keep going "I dislike it". There's a lot of playstyles I dislike, but that doesn't mean I need to state it twice in two pages, especially when playstyle should not be a deciding factor in lynches.

I mentioned it because it's day 1 and mentioning anything of potential actual significance is tops. 

See above. The way I play should not be a reason to lynch me. Therefore, stating you dislike my playstyle, to me, only makes me annoyed with you for stating it multiple times.

Now that I think about it, the rest of Bard's latest post is also talking all about people others have found suspicious and restating the cases on them without really adding anything.

No one was suspicious of Carthrat, and no one had/has shown much suspicion about you, save me.

I find it interesting you keep going at me, though; you just posted again, urging people to talk about me, stating that it is disturbing no one's talked about me. Why? You seem to have jumped from pro-Delta, to anti-Delta, to anti-Corwin, to anti-me all in the course of three pages, and cite my post where I didn't aggressively attack anyone as a reason to vote on me.

Keeping my vote. Out of words.

[Ranmilia]

The way I play should not be a reason to lynch me.

Wait, what?  Sure it should.  That's... the reason to lynch people.  Someone plays in a scummy way, you lynch them.  Unless you possess a psychic lie detector, that is how the game goes.  Playstyle is indicative of whether or not you are lying, and I think there is a decent probability that you are, because
A. your playstyle makes it very easy to conceal yourself by not taking stances, and
B. the things you have said have not been true, indeed what you said about me before was the opposite of true, which naturally makes me raise an eyebrow.

You seem to have jumped from pro-Delta, to anti-Delta, to anti-Corwin, to anti-me all in the course of three pages, and cite my post where I didn't aggressively attack anyone as a reason to vote on me.

Yes, absolutely. 

[Carthrat]

I can't really take anything away from the playstyle discussion just now (insofar as much as we're talking about whether or not playstyle factors into lynch decisions; it does, in fact, but people arguing that it somehow doesn't is too common for me to read as scummy in general.)

As far as Bardiche goes, I find him mildly worrisome because of the way he just didn't seem to get some things that were obvious to me, and the comments on a 'reporting' style of play are starting to ring true, since he seems to state a bunch of facts/things that happened but only makes an implied judgement call on them. The key problem is that he doesn't explain why actions as bad; what he's done is say 'you've been moving your vote around a lot. HAH!' without appearing to think about the reasons behind 'em. It doesn't give the impression he's actually hunting for clues so much as trying to make an appearance (and get others to work for him, I guess.) Not awful beyond awful, despite my verbosity, but still troublesome.

Dread Thomas appeared to shoot down a lot of what Alex said about Delta, yet kept a vote on him. I don't know what to make of that, please explain?

Excal looks bad for trying way too hard to find a 'reason' why we can conclude there are two scum after getting called for it. Justification after the fact is uncool.

Cid still looks significantly worse than all of the above due to sidelining, not voting, and generally seeming to try and push people into action without taking anything himself. I don't accept that what he's just posted is terribly sigificant or stance-taking. As promised, my vote now goes to him. ##Unvote, ##Vote: Cid