Alright, I'm gonna analyze what I can of those voting for jo.
I'll start assigning % to my suspicion. You have a default of 20% (since there's about a 1/5 chance of you being scum)
Green Opal: (1st vote)
Aside: Are you a he or a she? Cause with the young witch avatar I always read your posts as female...anyways I'm gonna use gender-neutral he, because I think the gender-neutral pronouns are stupid (apologies to anyone who likes them, I'm fine with you, just not your pronouns).
He's quiet. Very little read one way or the other. Given around a 1/5 chance of being scum, I'm leaning towards not. First vote on joth strikes me as near-meaningless. You were fine with things where they were a little while ago (#725), how do you feel about the more recent developments? Since then he's picked up 3 votes and lost 2.
(this was the first of the "we, townies" arguments that I argued against btw.)
Suspicion: Low (20%)
Galz: (2nd vote, 2nd unvote)
He seems helpful. I find myself agreeing with most everything he says. I think he's started up a lot of good discussions, and pushed for a couple bandwagons to gain information. He's jumped off of bandwagons once he got the "information" he was looking for. I think he's doing some pretty good and active scumhunting. Whether in trying to generate theory discussion or in getting bandwagons rolling. Also, he really seems minimally involved in any of the distracting play when I go through just his posts. I don't see the "grandstanding" that Tables does.
Suspicion: Lower (15%)
Tables: (3rd vote, 1st unvote)
He's posted sparingly, but tried to get discussion rolling. His accusation of jo involved the 354 post which called out the "we, townies" wordings...although he was referring to something else. I don't personally find thinking along the lines of "mafia wants to do X" terribly scummy personally, but it's an argument I can respect. I already argued the "we townies" point. I disagree with that side of it...but I find Tables' reasoning sounder than Grujah's own post. He does lots of analysis in his posts. He has different opinions from me, but I know his opinions. And he jumped off the bandwagon.
Suspicion: Low (18%)
Axxle: (4th vote)
His posts read town to me...but his actions (read votes) seem scummy. Maybe he just really likes to apply pressure though? He's been as high as 2 votes, but has had 4 total people vote for him over the course of the game. Unfortunately when he was at 2 was amid a bunch of joke-votes, O wanted his opinion of children and puppies after all. He really hates vanilla town claims, which is a position I don't understand. So, all in all, I have trouble identifying whether he's mafia or just a different play-style.
Suspicion: Medium still (40%)
Robz: (5th vote)
I think the Robz Axxle interplay on my first two posts is interesting. Axxle found the first suspicious the second exonerating, Robz was the opposite. Now to be fair, I think they were both kind of suspicious, since I hadn't gotten into the swing of things yet, and was slightly frustrated at the thread length (and forum difficulties of the preceding afternoon). Either mafia feeling out the crowd or town feeling out their own suspicions...probably stuck out to me most for being in the middle of it. Anyways, moving on since this should really be a more minor point.
He reads townie for most of the thread...which means I'm assuming he just really believes that when people crack their mafia. I offered some counter arguments (in the form of previously cracking people not being mafia). As with Axxle, I feel like I just play a different game than Robz, which doesn't mean we have different motivations (or wincons if you like, pops). So, he's in the same position as Axxle to me, talks town, but uses what I find as "mafia-reasoning" to make his vote. It's a toss up between them to me.
Suspicion: Medium (40%)
SFS: (6th vote)
Lots of newbishness, some defensiveness, which he sites as defending himself, rather than defensiveness. I don't see much mafia-like here, except the vote for jo. "Wanting to see what happens" could be a good reason for a sixth vote (if you think it'll make townies jump ship, or bring a mafia out for vote 7) but disappearing afterwards is bad. If you really think he's mafia say-so...if you don't you shouldn't be placing a 6th vote and disappearing.
Suspicion: Low-Medium (30%)
Dsell: (7th vote, 6th at the time)
First thing that strikes me, is that he claims to want to take time with the first vote, but he's pushing for jo at 6. See #203: He wants extra time to comment on debate, rather too much than too little. I guess he's referring to deadlines here...his position on day1 length seems conflicted though.
He pushed on pops' silence/crypticness but didn't vote for him. He feels like he wanted the game to stay non-serious (#346) He goes a little after SFS, a little after me, maybe gonna vote on Pops, feeling it out first? #658 after the pops-wagon cools down he makes another claim that slower play is better.
He keeps dragging up jo's "I'm mafia" joke. (#675 is the one where it struck me. I think he's done it twice before?)
He was definitely a part of pushing the anti-jo based on his reactions. Maybe starting somewhere around #726. Robz, and SFS joined the bandwagon then and he joined finally at the end.
#743 he defends his change of position to go ahead and make it a quick-lynch.
#779 continuing his slight change of position from earlier. using #780 to qualify it?
Well, as should be obvious by my starting to site posts here...I find him to be super-super suspicious.
It looks to me like he's trying to influence town behavior to direct them into lynching targets he "suspects" rather than trying to draw out information. Could be a false read, but he's definitely comung up scummiest of all the jo voters.
Suspicion: High (~60%)
So, let's see where this one leads:
unvote
vote: DSell
Now to have a look over Capt_Frisk's post.
Author
Topic: Mafia IV: Within These Estate Walls (GAME OVER - MAFIA WINS!) (Read 338451 times)