Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

51

Mafia Game Threads / Re: Mafia 82: Speed-Dating Mafia - Day 2

« on: June 17, 2016, 04:05:55 pm »

The game's slowing down for some reason. We're halfway through the day and not a lot has happened.

On Joseph/RR: Firstly, I consider this situation not necessarily a dichotomy. It's certainly possible that they didn't get NK'd as lovers because one of them is scum, but there's just too much WIFOM to consider it a definite.
I am more interested in their part in Jimmm's lynch. After all, he got lynched pretty much because he had several votes on him at a critical juncture - and RR/Joseph were these votes. What I would like to know is what was going on in their qt when they voted. RR/Joseph: In your own words, why do you think the other one of you voted for Jimmm?

On Seprix: His lover claim yesterday is the big thing. Now, lying about role info can be a tricky thing sometimes - I have known some players to lie about critical info on somebody if they're sure they are scum. But I don't know if I believe Seprix's explanation here. He says that he was "100% sure" Jimmm was town after 705, but to me that seems a stretch at best - Jimmm was just refusing to contribute to the end in that post, and I could have told you that yesterday. I just don't believe he was that sure he was prepared to lie to save Jimmm.
As for his posting today, I'm not impressed. In 807 he says that he "thinks he's found the next scum", but then he says in 829 that he lost his big post (I could buy that, it's happened to me before), but his tldr is more of a PoE that omits ADK for some strange reason. There's no real analysis going on here, or even naming of who he thinks is scum - his rhetoric is to mention "alternatives" and a "viable option" (words I consider suggestive of an underlying mindset of looking for mislynches). As of yet, there's still no explanation of his tldr, and it feels like he's stalling.

52

Dominion League / Re: Season 15 - Results

« on: June 17, 2016, 03:01:53 pm »

C3:
ced 5 - 1 Jean Michel

53

Mafia Game Threads / Re: Mafia 82: Speed-Dating Mafia - Day 2

« on: June 16, 2016, 01:17:59 pm »

The problem is, AFAIK exact quoting is not allowed, and its the specific wording he used that made it seem scummy to me. I said that I didn't see how me telling him who I requested would benefit him as scum but that I didn't want to do it anyway just in case, and he replied that he also didn't see how it would benefit him as scum, except worded in such a way that seemed like a scumslip because it implied that he was in fact scum.

I don't see any reason or rule why you shouldn't be able to quote from the qts. I believe I've quoted from the qt at least a couple of times yesterday, and nothing happened to me anyway. The mod can correct me if I'm wrong.

Why are you voting Joseph?

54

Mafia Game Threads / Re: Mafia 82: Speed-Dating Mafia - Day 2

« on: June 14, 2016, 07:05:03 pm »

I didn't really know, so I no-requested.

55

Mafia Game Threads / Re: Mafia 82: Speed-Dating Mafia - Day 2

« on: June 14, 2016, 02:56:39 pm »

unvote

As per faust's logic, because Jimmmm and Seprix were partners and Jimmmm was mafia, Seprix should be IC right?

Are spec chats here spoiler-free as a rule?

I'm kinda with Joseph here.  Why would scum pass up the opportunity to either kill a doctor or kill two townies simultaneously?  Makes it fairly likely to my mind that one of RR and Joseph is scum.  I would guess RR, I think?  But this we can find out.

On play, I'd instinctively say that RR is town and Joseph is scum - RR for reasons I mentioned yesterday, and Joseph because I feel he was scummy to begin with and did end up lurking through the Jimmm lynch. But they did between them basically get the Jimmm lynch going, and Joseph even left his vote on Jimmm right to then end. Is there even a dichotomy here?

But also: gkrieg said some scummy stuff in our QT last night. The main thing is that he asked who I was requesting, which I found odd, but he also said something that I wouldn't exactly call a scumslip but seemed to imply he was speaking from a scum perspective. It's enough to make me want to vote: gkrieg

I did note that gkrieg (in 642), suggests the before-the-fact request claim, but I didn't like the way he framed the suggestion as originally being from me.
What is the other thing he said?

I wrote this amazing long post, but I accidentally closed the window like a complete idiot. I don't want to write all of that stuff again right now, so here's the tl;dr: Basically, I confirmed that Awaclus and Haddock are town, that Silverspawn is likely town, and thus the alternatives are Ced, gkreig and Iguana as scum partners.

I'd like to hear more details on this, if you could. In particular, why did you say you "think you know the next scum" in 807?

56

Mafia Game Threads / Re: Mafia 82: Speed-Dating Mafia - N1

« on: June 13, 2016, 03:57:02 pm »

Uh Seprix, why'd you claim lover?

Vote: Seprix

57

Dominion League / Re: Season 15 - Results

« on: June 11, 2016, 06:13:41 pm »

C3:

ced 3 - 3 markus

58

Mafia Game Threads / Re: Mafia 82: Speed-Dating Mafia - Day 1

« on: June 11, 2016, 12:59:27 pm »

At this stage I don't think we're lynching anyone but Jimmm/Awaclus. The two sets of valid votes are too strong.

There's only one valid set.


PPE. WHAT DO YOU MEAN MIGHT?

Oh yeh silver broke the other set.

59

Mafia Game Threads / Re: Mafia 82: Speed-Dating Mafia - Day 1

« on: June 11, 2016, 12:59:12 pm »

Jimmmm and I might be lovers.

Unvote Jimmmmm

Defo?

60

Mafia Game Threads / Re: Mafia 82: Speed-Dating Mafia - Day 1

« on: June 11, 2016, 12:57:46 pm »

At this stage I don't think we're lynching anyone but Jimmm/Awaclus. The two sets of valid votes are too strong.

61

Mafia Game Threads / Re: Mafia 82: Speed-Dating Mafia - Day 1

« on: June 11, 2016, 12:30:13 pm »

you do, because your vote still counts in tie breaks.

That's true. That comes directly after a tie for valid votes, then?

I'd still rather Jimmm over Awaclus, if that's the only non-Haddock option.

62

Mafia Game Threads / Re: Mafia 82: Speed-Dating Mafia - Day 1

« on: June 11, 2016, 12:17:54 pm »

From now on, votes need to have a colon.  I counted ced's this time because I counted his before and he is new.

Alright then.

I feel bad lynching ced day one but he might be my top scum read...

Why? This is a non-sequitur after your Seprix vote.

...

Haddock looks townier the more he posts. Like, it's him and faust that are trying to make sense of the situation.

I don't know how much you have read the rules, RR, but no valid votes on the deadline = a random lynch. IIRC, a random lynch is statistically better than no-lynching, but I'd rather not do either.
Regardless, if Iguana did quit the game, then I guess I don't have a vote for the rest of the day.

63

Mafia Game Threads / Re: Mafia 82: Speed-Dating Mafia - Day 1

« on: June 11, 2016, 10:09:06 am »

So FTR I think that faust's 587 presents a good case on Haddock.

As for Haddock's more recent posting:
There's an obvious self-survival motive at work here (e.g. voting Jimmmmm), but I think that's a given regardless of alignment. There's something else driving Haddock's posts here, though: he's trying to solve the game. 675 is insightful in this regard. The voting restrictions are making a mess of the deadline situation, for example me not being able to productively vote iguana. He's not just saying that though - he is also actively trying to scumhunt outside of just going for Jimmmmm.

Jimmmmm and Awaclus meanwhile are mainly preoccupied with self-survival votes. In Jimmm's case, this goes back further. I did note his previous posts were complaining about Lynch all Lurkers when he got the first two votes from RR/Joseph.

Vote Jimmmmm

Lurker lynches suck but I really don't like the alternatives.

...

EWP: Man. If you're gonna flame me iguana, then I don't think I want to play.

EWP2: Oh.

64

Mafia Game Threads / Re: Mafia 82: Speed-Dating Mafia - Day 1

« on: June 11, 2016, 06:37:46 am »

I really want to know what kind of weird-ass scum narrative you came up with for these posts of mine that you found strange.

You made like four different posts so I'll condense my response into a reply to this one.

I think the scum narrative for both things is obvious:

-Self-meta posts are often moot points at best. Obviously a scum doing self-meta can just "re-interpret" their meta so that it fits their play this game. Hence, when you use "solvy" to describe both, I'm thinking that this is maybe what you're doing. That said, your defense that one was "solvy the entire game" and the other one was "solvy until I get emotional" does make sense in the context of your self-meta posts.

-The "silver and faust are 100% in agreement" thing is noncommittal. I'll throw out the 100% thing - I think it was hyperbolic, but you have evidence behind your words, so sure. The "interesting" conclusion was the main thing I didn't like. Saying an aspect of someone's play is "interesting" sort of implies you find it scummy but might not mean that at all. That's what scum like to do - say something ambiguous now so you can clarify it later. I would also argue that if it is something you will "keep in mind for sure down the road" and if you think that "the act of observing a behavior manipulates the behavior", then maybe you should have kept the "100% in agreement" thing to yourself for now, rather than posted it in thread.
There's a second noncommittal aspect, actually. Your original post said that it was both silver and faust agreeing with eachother. Yet your post evidence is only of silver's posting. Why did you say that "[they] are in agreement" rather than "silver is agreeing with faust" originally?

This post is actually a good idea.  It wouldn't hurt to say who we plan on requesting before the day is over.

Uh, that's not what I said.

...

Unvote Seprix

Alright, so by my watch it's ~6.5 hours til the deadline. I should be online until then.

Looking back on Seprix's defense of my case, I'm liking him a lot more. He did have a more believable townie motive than what I thought for one of his posts, and that's really a big point in his favour if that comes to him naturally.

Awaclus might be increasingly looking like a caricature, but I don't think I want to lynch him for that. I feel it might be easier to read him a day or two down the line.

Jimmmmm's a lurker lynch. Lurker lynches are usually pretty janky, but man, if he's gonna lurk like this the whole game then he's a good fallback lynch. That said, I think someone mentioned earlier something along the lines of Jimmm and day one being a nonbo, and if that's the case I'd like to wait on that too.

All considered, I'd really like to vote iguana, but at this stage it's pointless of course. Actually, it's looking increasingly likely that my vote is only going to count on Haddock. Hmm. I haven't really read his recent posts (in particular his game analysis post) in-depth yet. I'll go and do that.

65

Dominion: Empires Previews / Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires

« on: June 10, 2016, 09:13:23 am »

Debt cards should be ranked in their coin cost bracket. I thought the point of separating them was: what can you buy with $X.

I don't know if I agree. A debt cost on a card is an advantage over a coin cost (well, aside from TfB), and I feel that ranking them like this is trying to treat the debt as a drawback.
Also, we already rank Stonemason as a $2 and Masterpiece as a $3 even though you don't buy those cards at those pricepoints. Debt is the same, but reversed. Masterpiece is a $3, but you buy it for $6. City Quarter is a $8, but you can buy it for much less.
Of course, I haven't had the chance to play with Empires/debt cards yet, so I don't know how they really play in practice and when you actually buy them. There's also a few debt cards where you probably will often buy them for close to the minimum value e.g. Wedding, Donate.

66

Mafia Game Threads / Re: Mafia 82: Speed-Dating Mafia - Day 1

« on: June 10, 2016, 08:38:44 am »

Ok, this whole solvy vs. analytical thing is so much of a non-starter that I've been super-duper loathe to respond to it at all. But you keep bringing it up, so here goes.

It's a pain in the butt to explain every single player's meta and get all the details right. So I skipped a few people at the end by saying, "Hey they're pretty normal, they just try to solve the game like anyone else." Then you asked about me and I didn't know WTH to say about myself so I just said "Uh, I'm normal too." When you interpreted solvy to mean "analytical" it didn't sound quite right to me but I also didn't bother to correct it because it more or less DOES apply to how Gkrieg/ADK/Haddock/me all play. Then, Haddock decided to disagree with the analytical comment and go on his whole "Woe is me, I don't know how to mafia" rant. The thing is, Haddock is solvy/analytical/whatever. He's good at the game. He just likes to whine and moan and complain about himself. There, that's Haddock's meta.

I wasn't hoping for or expecting town points for telling you about the other players in the game. I was just bored and you seemed curious enough about people so I figured, why not let you in. I was acutally acutely aware that I could be giving all this information to scum but I figured, well if you have partners they would probably tell you anyway. It's common knowledge for all of us; you're the outsider. I was just being nice. And not in a buddying sort of way, because I expected no town-cred whatsoever for it.

I did mention that the whole "solvy" vs "analytical" thing might just be a semantics argument, and I'm not bothered about that directly. I'm more interested in how it fits with your self-meta in 339. I'm even more interested than that in precisely what you were talking about in 353, with the "silver and Faust are 100% in agreement" thing.

67

Mafia Game Threads / Re: Mafia 82: Speed-Dating Mafia - Day 1

« on: June 09, 2016, 04:24:59 pm »

It really wasn't.

Faust didn't just coax the info out of an unpressured Joseph. He was at 5 votes at the time, with a looming deadline. He was going to have to claim something. And there's only two claims that can stop a lynch this game: doc and lovers.
Faust's question gave us just enough info to know that we shouldn't be lynching Joseph today. It was a good question.

68

Dominion League / Re: Season 15 - Results

« on: June 09, 2016, 03:33:51 pm »

C3:

ced 5.5 - 0.5 Tomush

69

Mafia Game Threads / Re: Mafia 82: Speed-Dating Mafia - Day 1

« on: June 09, 2016, 12:15:16 pm »

Faust's question was fine.

70

Mafia Game Threads / Re: Mafia 82: Speed-Dating Mafia - Day 1

« on: June 09, 2016, 12:09:51 pm »

so this game?

faust seems town
RR seems town
igu seems town
Seprix seems town

Why'd you vote/unvote iguana earlier?

71

Mafia Game Threads / Re: Mafia 82: Speed-Dating Mafia - Day 1

« on: June 09, 2016, 12:08:27 pm »

I edit my posts after writing a lot, and I cannot do that in Mafia for obvious reasons. So I end up posting very little content over a longer stream. Maybe that's not a good habit to have, who knows.

Alright.

I'm thinking out loud. Just because a reason (from ADK) is bad doesn't mean that Faust wasn't scum at the time. Yes, I'm 'hedging my bets', because I want to be open to options. I don't want to commit completely unless I am positive about something. Every time I commit, I end up getting screwed and then I have to switch, then oh look at Seprix, he's a flip-flopper. You cannot tell me you keep your reads 100% of the time. That would be foolish if you were not open to other options.

I did start my case off by explaining what I thought might be a "bad post" playstyle from you. I perhaps should have explained it better (I reviewed your posts last and was a bit fatigued by that stage so I maybe didn't get my point quite across), but this basically means that you'll make posts that look bad but aren't always indicative of your alignment. Now, the above is a townie motive for making post 166, though I had considered that there could be (and did posit one in my review post, though the above is a better one, to be honest). What is more interesting is which motive (scum or town) makes sense with the rest of your posts.
The issue here is that in 166 you say that you don't like faust's Awaclus vote (151). However, in 267 (where you explain why you made post 165 and later voted faust), you didn't mention your issue with the Awaclus vote. It seemed like a very prudent time to bring that up (since it demonstrates you were suspicious of faust at a time where he suggests you were defending him). But you didn't, which makes me think it (not liking the vote on Awaclus) was just something you said at the time to keep the faust option open and didn't play a part in your perception of the stance you took on ADK vs faust.

1. Haddock IS making a comment on Iguana's stance by saying he does not like his 'scummy vibe'. In another game, Iguana said he wanted to play a lot more like Awaclus (don't ask me why), and I assumed that this was a continuation of that meta.

2. I was not for an Iguana lynch, but I can still dislike aspects of his play, especially what he did.

You criticize me for moving, then you criticize me for not moving.

Stance != "scummy vibe." A stance is a particular position/opinion on someone/something, a "scummy vibe" is just a mafia synonym for a bad feeling.
Hmm. What did you mean in 214 when you say that you are "on the same side" as iguana?
Interesting on Iguana saying he wanted to play like Awaclus. Would provide some context to your post. Got a link to him saying that?
And again, I said that I could see a townie thought process occuring in this post alone (214), but context of your other posts matters.

This feels like some sort of misunderstanding, or maybe you're being dishonest and forcing some lame case. I hate votes without any sort of case unless it is easily implied. There is no connection at all between my comments of Iguana playing like Awalcus and someone else voting like him. Sorry. It sucks, I know.

I stated Iguana was playing like Awaclus as a devil's advocate, because that's what he's been doing in the past. It was defending him, sure, but I still said I didn't like his play. And then much later, those two vote for Iguana, and do not state their reasons. I don't like that. I like to see reasons for things. The votes are terrible to me because there is no reasoning. Get me?

Hmm. I read 341 as being critical of Joseph's vote as it was a vote on you, and therefore read your responses to the votes on iguana as being critical because they were votes on him. But my assumption about 341 doesn't line up at all with how you responded to my vote, so it makes more sense that your problem with all three votes is that they were naked. Sure, I'll cede the point.

72

Mafia Game Threads / Re: Mafia 82: Speed-Dating Mafia - Day 1

« on: June 09, 2016, 09:29:40 am »

>8 snip

8. silverspawn - faust suggested that Silverspawn is buddying him, but I don't agree. That would imply there's some discernable pattern to Silver's votes. He's voted for RR, myself and iguana, but the only real analysis he's done the whole game is in 205. For his iguana vote, he doesn't provide reasons for either voting or unvoting. Seems a prudent a time as any to ask: what were those reasons?

9. faust - I still don't like the whole Silverspawn thing with ADK, but it's hard to look past his scum daychat misunderstanding. That all reads very genuine.

10. Seprix - So I heard that Seprix is the sort of person that makes lots of "bad" posts even (and sometimes especially) when they're town. These are the sort of players where motive analysis can be most useful: they're both too honest and not careful enough most of the time. Seprix has a lot of posts and a few "bad" ones dotted in. I've picked out some posts I don't like to review:

• 165, 166: Posts are very night and day. 165 is confident dislike of ADK's faust vote, 166 is comparitively very waffly and would be ok voting faust over the Awaclus vote, because we might be "lucky".
• 267: Doesn't really mention the Awaclus vote thing at all while justifying his earlier position on the faust wagon. I think I asked him about this and he didn't answer.
• 214: Another waffly post. Defends Iguana from Haddock's case ("playing like Awaclus"), then agreeing (?) that he doesn't like iguana's stance. I don't think Haddock's statement mentioned iguana's stances at all, though, so I'd like to know what Seprix means here.
• 342: "Playing like Awaclus" is now "playing like scum." Even though he previously defended iguana by saying he's "playing like Awaclus". On top of that this is jarring, to attack the iguana votes, especially after expressing suspicion in 214.

Hmm. With 166, he's either hedging his bets to see what side of faust/ADK to play, or just looked back on the Awaclus vote and changed his mind. But, if it is the latter, why didn't he bring up the Awaclus vote in 267?
214 could make sense as a townie thought process. 342 I don't understand though. What prompted him to label the votes on iguana "terrible"?

12. iguanaiguana - So I guess I've been implicitly trusting of iguana re: his meta infodump from earlier, though there's debate on what he even means by "solvy". In 334 he says I apparently misconstrued him on it meaning "analytical", then he seems to suggest they are not dissimilar in 339. This might just be semantics. However, speaking of 339, he describes his scumgame as being "solvy" (and, correct me if I'm wrong, that implicitly his town game as not?), but yet he describes himself as a "normal solvy fella" in our qt. It's weird more than anything else, but it follows that one of those evaluations isn't correct.
Oh, he also made 353, which I don't like. For a start, Silver/faust look very far from 100% in agreement to me. They synced votes on RR and Silver posted in faust's defense, but that was half a gamethread ago. Since then they haven't really shown any interest in eachothers' top suspects. Additionally, the extent of iguana's conclusion is that this is "interesting." Anything more to add to that?

...

So, gkrieg, RR, ADK, faust are all probably town.

Jimmm and Awaclus really don't give me enough of a read.

Joseph is a sticky situation all of a sudden. If he and RR are lovers, then I feel like it's better to leave his lynch until later - I don't think there's a need to kill RR too if we can avoid it.

That leaves Haddock, Silverspawn, Seprix, Iguana. I believe I've left in queries for them all in the above. My scummiest read of those four is probably Seprix, hence I will:

Vote Seprix

73

Mafia Game Threads / Re: Mafia 82: Speed-Dating Mafia - Day 1

« on: June 09, 2016, 09:29:30 am »

Man, can you guys like post more on weekends and less on weekdays or something?

1. gkrieg - Slow starter, but has really got going after that. His first bigger post, 236, is one I get good vibes from: very stream-of-consciousness.

2. Roadrunner - His early posts in response to the two votes (114, 115) read town - not seeing anything wrong with his post and responding in kind. He's been under-the-radar since then. His post 311 reads super-townie, actually. Super-dumb, but super-townie. Actually, that whole post is pretty interesting. It reads like suspicion of Joseph (otherwise why would he ask for scumreads here rather than in the qt), but he's maybe too unsure to make a direct accusation. This is really backed up by the "is it scummy to claim town X times", which is naive for sure, but the thought process leading him to the question is there (well I presume it's there in their qt I guess). The doc question is really the super-dumb part, but I think you have to be really gutsy to make that post as scum.
As an aside: I hear that RR gets mislynched a lot. What does he get mislynched for?
A further aside to RR: Did Joseph say he's town multiple times to you in your qt?

3. Joseph - People are casing him for empty, safe posting as far as I can tell. I've never really been of the opinion we should lynch people for that alone on day one (on later days with some wagon analysis perhaps). It's more interesting to see what they've chosen to post. In Joseph's case, I'd look at 222, where he suggests we shouldn't "leverage info" off the mods as it "feels kind of dirty". This bit is like he's trying to undermine faust's guess, and reads like he has an ulterior motive.
EWP: Following on from my analysis of RR's post 311, I noticed that Joseph responded to it in 315. I don't feel good about that response at all. His answer really misreps the question, which begs an explanation of why he tried to answer the question in the first place. Assuming that the question is relating to RR's/Joseph's chat, it's a very defensive answer, like he's self-conscious about it.

4. Jimmmmm - Interesting that Jimmmmm's vote on Roadrunner is for the "empty, safe" thing, since he's been even more lurky. Though this vote isn't necessarily non-sequitur, and Jimmmmm has a reputation as a lurker from what I've heard. Going "I need to interact with people to form reads" and then not really interacting with people though - what's up with that?

5. ADK - I like his lead-in with the faust vote, looking back. Reminds me of me playing mafia 5-6 years ago. Into the game from the get-go, thinks he's found a scum, wants to keep the game moving. 275 reads like genuine frustration that he thinks he was wrong.

6. Awaclus - Is beyond frustrating. Like, do you understand that nobody's going to listen to you ever if you never post anything for people to listen to? Meh. I can see someone settling into this playstyle as a townie (maybe until they get mislynched enough to snap them out of it), but at the same time it's pretty ezmode to post like this as scum. Well, for at least day one. I'll revisit Awaclus later, I expect.

7. Haddock - His initial content post was phoneposting, so whatever. Man his iguana case is bad though. It's like he goes into it without an understanding of what a scumtell is. Though I don't think this is necessarily scummy either. Then his frustrations over getting wagoned could also go either way - but I did like his defense of himself from faust. His opinion on the Joseph wagon, though - there's two different comments in favour of it (363, 414) but he's unwilling to vote. Like, either of those comments would make much more sense if they ended with a vote. It's not like Haddock really has a vote elsewhere (since he said he'd move his vote from iguana). So why does he say "I could get behind that" and not move his vote?

>8 snip

74

Mafia Game Threads / Re: Mafia 82: Speed-Dating Mafia - Day 1

« on: June 08, 2016, 03:20:37 am »

Also, some more setup talk. I feel we should address the partner requests thing. I feel like it will be best if everyone picks their highest scumread, because scum-town neighborhoods are much better if they're lovers.

I disagree. What I think we want is for scummy people we want to lynch to be partnered together. That way, if the right pair becomes lovers we can maybe get a double lynch out of it. Of course, nonlover scumpairs would suck.

OK so with ced, not actually much to say.  He is actilurking really hard for a big part of the game.

Then there's a period where he only asks people questions, rather than actually contributing any of his own thoughts?  I always find that kind of thing kinda scummy, but I probably shouldn't I guess.  It's a town playstyle for some people.  Like this:

This is how I usually play. I like to hear people's thought processes and don't really like to proceed when I don't understand them.

I told ced this: "Gkrieg, Haddock & ADK are more just normal solvy type players that you would expect to find in a mafia game."

From that, ced inferred that you are "quite analytical," a phrase I did not in fact say. I said you were "solvy" IE: competent. From "quite analytical" you misconstrued further into "super analytical." That phrase was in fact your own invention.  Again, manipulative.

Are you and ced both scum then, and in which order ought we kill you?

Except I inferred the "solvy"="analytical" thing in the QT right after you posted it. Why didn't you correct me then?

...

Swamped with work right now but I'm free all day Thurs.

75

Mafia Game Threads / Re: Mafia 82: Speed-Dating Mafia - Day 1

« on: June 06, 2016, 05:27:05 am »

I'm here! I think faust is town.  Especially with silvers backing. I mean maybe they're both scum, but eh.

Just caught up and read everything.  I may have missed bits and pieces (on phone) but my main takeaway here is a scummy vibe I'm getting from iguana. His posts just don't seem like him somehow. I'm aware this is super weak. But it's what I got. vote: iguana

Im null-scum on ced. But would like to leave that for a while, see some more of ced's play. (Pronoun, ced? )

I'm a guy.
This is... low on analysis and high on feels. I must admit I was informed you were usually quite analytical.
EWP: I suppose I'll await your concrete.

The whole daychat thing makes my mod outguessing game a whole lot worse though... it still has validity, but much less than I thought.

That's uh, pretty on-the-nose. Honestly, this is like one time that I'd really really like to know details of faust's meta, but these 3 posts would be strikingly town for most people that I've played with.

Unvote faust

Re: the QTs in spec chat thing. You make the assumption that the mod would keep the spec chat spoiler-free. Is that a thing here? It's not something I'm familiar with.

Something to note (I don't think anyone else has mentioned this): in the case that there are no scum pairs, scum has veto power over 3 of the 6 votes. Which would mean we can't lynch correctly before deadline without a bus.

That's something I considered in the pregame. People partnered with someone from the opposite alignment may not have a vote when it matters. Hence, due to the deadline lynch rules, what is significant is the majority of the people partnered with the same alignment as them. However I don't think it matters, since we should always be lynching by majority decision and anyone who gets in the way of that is scummy.

Woh, nice slip there ^^

Welp, now that I know Faust is town, I feel comfortable with a symbolic Vote: ced


I encourage the other dating pairs to kill my scum buddying partner.

Anything to add to this? I thought your buddying accusation was a bit rich, considering what you've posted in our chat.

So I say something about scum set-ups, everyone gets mad. But Jimmmmm can say something and nobody gets pissed.

What did you say about scum setups?

No, not really. I was addressing ADK's point, which I thought was incorrect. However, your overreaction to some votes on you spurred my vote, but then the whole 'townslip' thing happened, and I don't think it's as terribly relevant as SS thinks it is, but whatever.

How does this bolded bit jive with your post #166?