Finished Mafia XLII: War of the Gods ~ GAME OVER ~ Town wins!

[bbninjas]

Is that post complete, @scattered mind, or is there another part to it?

 

[Scattered mind]

Is that post complete, @scattered mind, or is there another part to it?

The other part is responding to your case. I am writing it right now, and as usual it can take a while.

 

[bbninjas]

The other part is responding to your case. I am writing it right now, and as usual it can take a while.

Okay, cool. If you can spare a moment; what are your thoughts/read on Prof P?

 

[Scattered mind]

PP is either
1) too busy to play/paranoid to or anti play D1
2)he's scum.
Based on the way he's not investing in reading cases properly and his confident in NP's being town.

Do you agree?

 

[bbninjas]

PP is either
1) too busy to play/paranoid to or anti play D1
2)he's scum.
Based on the way he's not investing in reading cases properly and his confident in NP's being town.

Do you agree?

I'm thinking a combination of both. He's most likely busy, but I noticed something that could be a slip, I just need to decide whether it's worth sharing, and whether or not I've thought of everything through.

 

[Scattered mind]

About bb's case on Lord:

Point #1:

Lorde's tone seems calculated and inconsistent
The reason why I'm reading lorde as scum at this point is that I think her tone is coming off quite calculated, which I don't think is normal for her. It reminds me, rather, of how she played this previous game as scum. Follows are lorde's first five posts (not in consecutive order); I suggest you read them all first before you read my thoughts on them.

The other games she played she was inactive, new and/or subbed out. I won't say that's something to be referred to as her normal play.

Both of these are overexplained and are some notable posts where I notice a calculated tone. Keep in mind that this is in early RVS. They also seem to be overthought. For example, in the second post, lorde devotes three sentences in her explanation, despite the issue being somewhat obvious - the same meaning could be conveyed with the last sentence alone. Why did she bother with her longer explanation, particularly in RVS? This indicates either town trying too hard to find tells, or scum overthinking and overexplaining things as to present 'flawless' cases, or to ensure that town would have no way to think they've slipped. These posts feel artificial to me.

Compare that to the following posts, which are much more-lighthearted or significantly shorter. Particularly compare the last post (about 'bad reasoning') with the ones above. It's something that could have easily been overexplained - lorde didn't say why 'it' is bad reasoning; however it didn't actually need to be explained. This is interesting because the posts above do explain fairly obvious problems. So there's definitely some inconsistencies in tone.

Here bb's trying to tell us that it's not not just different than previous games, but also in this current game. There is a change in the tone- meaning that she can be over explaining, and too much short on words when more details are needed. This can be referred to as an alarming behavior to keep in mind, but not really a reason to find her scummy. So I guess that's the point of this.. point. Explaining what has triggered bb's scum radar, and then provide the real points. So let's see those:

Point #2:

Lorde's WIFOMY behaviour
This combined with the WIFOMyness that we've seen so far; take this post, which is generally just maybe/maybe not. There's also a bit of noncommital behaviour here, which NP brought up, and I think that is probably expressed through the WIFOM.

Interestingly, she's also been sticking to the NP case nearly tunnel-like. Whenever she uses WIFOM, it's nearly always bias towards NP being scum. Remember, one of lorde's scummiest plays this past game was being selective. It's definitely toned down thus far, but it's still evident in this bias WIFOM. For example:

Already commented on that linked "this" post in my response to NP's case on Lord, and stated the part that I agree is weird and requires Lord's response.

It could easily be a fabricated stance, this has been pointed out. Don't rule this out.

I agree this is the clearest WIFOMy post of all Lord's posts.

This is some obvious and major evidence of using WIFOM to discredit a defense on NP.

Didn't she defend NP earlier?

She says here that jade's point is half-true, but then is like "oh, but it's a great point still", which is some more implicit evidence of lorde using WIFOM against NP.

Commented on that earlier.

 

[bbninjas]

Didn't she defend NP earlier?

I didn't inspect all of lorde's posts carefully, so I can't say for certain; but if you think she might have, than perhaps she did. I am referring to later, however; both alignments can defend someone at one point and then later find them scummy.

What's your general consensus on lorde now that you've analysed the case?

 

[Scattered mind]

I'm thinking a combination of both. He's most likely busy, but I noticed something that could be a slip, I just need to decide whether it's worth sharing, and whether or not I've thought of everything through.

How is that not worth sharing? The only things he said are that :
1) He can't understand my post
2) He's busy
3) Asking you if your case is any different than NP's case
4) Saying NP is definitely not scum, because.. the case is the overreaction of the RVS vote, which is the simplification of a case like never seen before in the history of Mafia.

So the slip can be about either point 3 or 4. The obvious slip would be point 4, but since I already mentioned how that's weird, I don't think this is what you are talking about. Although it's really hard for me to see any kind of slip in point 3.

 

[Scattered mind]

What's your general consensus on lorde now that you've analysed the case?

That I need Lord's clarification on that post to understand what did she mean, because this is not clear to me at all, and is very problematic in regards to my assumptions about her earlier notes about "this could be this or that" (what you guys regarded as WIFOM):

So I guess your problem here is that she does not know why you are scummy, yet finds you scummy. This is the interesting part. The reason for finding NP scummy by Lord in that post is written: "His mindset isn't what I think makes him scummy, its his defense and his promotion of intense pressure...Him not replying to further conversation when he earlier implied he wanted to keep it alive with pressure is super contradictory and is scummy as well."

I'm trying to analyze this..

"His mindset isn't what I think makes him scummy"- The reason NP gave, stating his improved/new view on RVS and how its bad for town to not get out of this phase as quick as possible, is not the scummy part.

k, what is it then?

"its his defense and his promotion of intense pressure"- His defense is the mindset part.. isn't it? if not then what are you referring to?? the intense pressure itself is not scummy, it is the reason why he's so aggressive that can be scummy.

Lord, you didn't really respond to that, so do that or correct me if I'm wrong.

There are a few more points, but I am tired now, so I rather invest the rest of my energy on bb's case on Lord.

 

[bbninjas]

It would involve me claiming, which is why I'm hesistant. But heck, I'm expecting to die soon anyway; what is there to really lose? >.>

So, I've got a QT chat with Prof P (just the two of us), and we've had this exchange (unfortunately there was a delay due to Prof P not being around):

Does your role also say something about how "-snip-" could be a safeclaim?

Hi, I forgot I was in the game.

Yes it says Pit could be a safeclaim. I'm assuming it says the same about me.

Really? Because I actually lied - my role does not talk about safeclaims at all. If your role is town, than it shouldn't have anything about safeclaims either.

I asked for Prof to claim his QT Ability in the chat, however he either didn't see it or ignored it, which is annoying.

I also clarified the safeclaim thing with the hosts:

If -snip- was a safeclaim, would my Ability say something along the lines of "...yourself standing next to -snip- (or the player with -snip- as a safeclaim)..."?

That's just the flavour, it's only referring to an event in the actual game. Sorry if it was confusing :x

So, in short, there's no apparent reason for there to be something about safeclaims in our Abilities, which indicates the Prof is lying, and the hosts don't deny the possibility that Prof P's role could be a safeclaim.

Also please note that we have different ways of writing roles, although we tried to make them similar, there may be differences. Please don't lynch someone over writing habits!

Now you might be thinking; couldn't this just be a difference in the way the roles were written? Well, if the hosts did tried to make the roles similar as they said above, I'd expect our QT Abilities to be similar. Additionally, I'd expect that only one of the hosts wrote the two mason roles; it's a bit odd for them to write each seperately. One Ability having something about safeclaims and the other note is a very weird inconsistency that I would have expected to be otherwise fixed.

So, in short, Prof P is likely lying about his QT Ability stating that my role could be a safe claim. Thoughts, particularly @scattered mind?

 

[mordacazir]

Completely unnecessary role fish. You know jade has a double vote weight (since you know you have a single one), so why bother telling the scum?

Ehhhh, yeah that is a scummy thing to do sorry.

that contradiction from earlier

What contradiction?

was very aggressive over RVS vote and gave a quote from last game to justify his aggressiveness)

I think very aggresive is exaggerating,

but I noticed something that could be a slip

Keeping information away for town is a scummy thing you know. But do understand because it involved claiming part of an ability.

The other games she played she was inactive, new and/or subbed out. I won't say that's something to be referred to as her normal play

Last game she won and wasn't inactive, new or subbe dout.

So, in short, Prof P is likely lying about his QT Ability stating that my role could be a safe claim

So, that is interesting. So probably scum?

 

[bbninjas]

What contradiction?

This post is very much "RVS isn't helpful; we need to pressure instead". Yet, only a few posts prior, you RVS'd Ice Espeon (see below). Out of the blue, without any form of pressure, nothing. What's with that contradiction?

(Click the arrow for the context.)

Keeping information away for town is a scummy thing you know. But do understand because it involved claiming part of an ability.

Sorta. There's times when keeping information to one's self is important. I do it often.

Last game she won and wasn't inactive, new or subbe dout.

Except she isn't town, which is ideal when comparing metas. Scum can replicate elements of their town play well, so just because someone did it as scum doesn't mean that it's inherently a scum metatell.

So, that is interesting. So probably scum?

Probably. It depends on whether or not there's any flaws in the slip that I overlooked.

On that note, what are your thoughts on lorde and NP atm?

 

[Celever]

Limited internet access have just read up can't really stay. But I wanna know where NP is, why bb's trying so hard to lynch Lorde yet is trying to distance himself from the case as much as possible considering he's literally making the case, and why Prof voted based on how well-written the cases are in their current form -- there's apathetic and there's just plain uninvolved.

 

[bbninjas]

why bb's trying so hard to lynch Lorde yet is trying to distance himself from the case as much as possible considering he's literally making the case

Why do you think I'm trying hard to get lorde lynched and distancing myself from the case? You're the one trying hard to get people lynched. >.>

Also when you're next online, what do you think about the potential scumslip on PP described above?

 

[double o squirtle]

Day 1: Votecount 2

All votes are in chronological order
The players being voted are in alphabetical order
The player(s) with the most votes is tagged
The majority for a lynch is 7
If you think there’s anything wrong please ask

bbninjas 0: Mordacazir (vote) | lord o da rings (vote) | Professor Palutena (vote) l
Celever 1: Mirdo (vote) | bbninjas (vote) l
Ice Espeon 0: NinjaPenguin (vote) l
Lord o da rings 3: NinjaPenguin (vote) | bbninjas (vote) | Professor Palutena (vote) l
Mordacazir 0: Ninjapenguin (vote) l
Mirdo 1: scattered mind (vote) | Ice Espeon (vote) l
@NinjaPenguin 6: Lord o da rings (vote) | bbninjas (vote) | scattered mind (vote) | rainyman123 (vote) | Celever (vote) | Lord o da rings (vote) | Jadethepokemontrainer (vote) | scattered mind (vote) l
PikaMasterJesi 1: Jadethepokemontrainer (vote) | mordacazir (vote) l
Professor Palutena 0: scattered mind (vote) | lord o da rings (vote) l

Also, forgot to mention this but @NinjaPenguin is at L-1

A reminder that Day 1 ends in 24 hours on June 27th 7am EST.

 

[bbninjas]

##UNVOTE: lorde ##VOTE: Prof P

Someone should unvote NP in case someone accidentally hammers.

 

[NinjaPenguin]

I was preparing to say this if Cel responded to my case, but there was a lot of it intentionally made using the Celever case building philosophy of tunnel something into every post (the RVS point was the best example of this). I figured that if he responded negatively, he would just prove how his case was a reach on me. Instead, he called me out for not posting in 9 hours. Townies, make note of this. If me not posting in 9 hours is just an example of the reaching that is Celever's case on me (scattered's case makes a lot more sense, and I thank him for that), is the case you're on motivated by your feeling towards an aggressive playstyle, or actual logic. Scattered said it himself; the one large point on me is the IE vote, which I still did give a reason, albeit a pretty bad one, for. Lorde can't defend basically at all against her using biased WIFOM and doing things to shut down conversation and pressure (not giving even a joke reason on her votes, defending for others).
The Prof. P slip is certainly strange, and itcould incriminate both of you (you may really be the one with the fake role line, as scum don't need the safe claim clause). I believe it may be legit, since generally host inconsistencies are not that large and the hosts seemed to deny the concept of you being 1-way masons from your host quote, but I have one question. @bbninjas is Prof. P's role said to be Palutena?

 

[Scattered mind]

##UNVOTE:NP

 

[Celever]

Why do you think I'm trying hard to get lorde lynched and distancing myself from the case? You're the one trying hard to get people lynched. >.>

Considering you made a large chain of posts trying to incriminate Lorde, while also saying things like "I think NP's case on Lorde is like..." so that NP takes the blame.

Also when you're next online, what do you think about the potential scumslip on PP described above?

I don't know whether I buy it. It's all very vague. Prof's vote was also so lazy that I almost feel like we might as well just lynch him though, if that's his level of commitment. Maybe it really is a slip.

is Prof. P's role said to be Palutena?

Um, rolefish???

 

[bbninjas]

The Prof. P slip is certainly strange, and itcould incriminate both of you (you may really be the one with the fake role line, as scum don't need the safe claim clause). I believe it may be legit, since generally host inconsistencies are not that large and the hosts seemed to deny the concept of you being 1-way masons from your host quote, but I have one question. @bbninjas is Prof. P's role said to be Palutena?

And me as scum would definitely want to unnecessarily put myself into the spotlight like that instead of going along with the lorde or NP wagon, which scum me could have easily gone with. (Assuming that the wagons are not both on scum.) This "it could incriminate both" nonsense is just plain WIFOMy and what you have called lorde out for.

Why do you need to know whether or not Prof P's role is Palutena? How this post is worded leads me to believe that whether or not your believe the slip rides on this too, which is odd.

Considering you made a large chain of posts trying to incriminate Lorde, while also saying things like "I think NP's case on Lorde is like..." so that NP takes the blame.

Uh, no. If you read the entire post, the first half is about NP's case and my thoughts on it, and the second half is my own thoughts.

I don't know whether I buy it. It's all very vague. Prof's vote was also so lazy that I almost feel like we might as well just lynch him though, if that's his level of commitment. Maybe it really is a slip.

What's so vague about Prof P likely being caught in a lie? Prof P claims that his Ability says that my role could be a safeclaim. Mine does not say his role could be a safeclaim. Inconsistencies from the hosts in roles like that is very abnormal.

A side thing; I specifically worded my question to suggest that my Ability did discuss safeclaims, as scum would be more likely to claim similar in fear of not fitting in, increasing the likelihood of catching out scum. As a parallel, a townie would trust their role and be truthful, and probably ask why I'm lying, at least.