Finished Mafia LI: Senate Subterfuge~Game Over!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why do you think there should be FoS on Cel if or because Lele flips scum? What about defending a mafian Lele actually indicates that Celever is a scumbuddy? In this situation, when its been publicly revealed that a scumbuddy is a mafian, scumbuddies generally won't defend them and try get someone lynched - most mafians would just cut their losses and go along with it.
My thought process was really just that Cel seems to be the only one defending Lele now that we've seen the flip. I don't think Cel would be one to let one of his teammates go down without investing some effort into defense. Though that's not an opinion based on past games.

Yeah I'll agree it is a tad WIFOMy, but I think I'm leaning more towards the scummy side of things.
 
What did you mean by the bolded? What are the defenders of Lele having to defend against that would result in interesting reactions?
I was simply stating as I did before that they could all turn vengeful in different ways, some more passive, others more aggressive. Altogether, their reactions will be different.
 
FWIW I support the Lele lynch considering he's still refusing to answer the post I've asked him about twice already.
 
Vote Count 3
@Tapu Lele (4): bbninjas, Jabberwock, Acetrainer_Samwise, scattered mind, TeamAqua4Life #HEYNICK, @OshaCraft360
Acetrainer_Samwise (1): Celever
Celever (1): Acetainer_Samwise

Abstaining:
mordacazir, @Professor_jplap, @GekkisaiDaiNi, @Jadethepokemontrainer, GM Draclord, @Luispipe8, Tapu Lele, @PMJ, bbninjas, mirdo, @Dusk Form Lycanroc, @Luxinity, double o squirtle

Players yet to post twice today have been tagged, along with the player who would be lynched if the day ended right now (Tapu Lele).
Those who have yet to post twice nor are on V/LA have also been notified about this via Discord.

Here's a not-so-friendly reminder that we extended the day by 24 hours for you, yet you completely wasted it with only 9 posts in 24 hours. This post literally was copied and pasted from yesterday. Eight players have posted one time or less and while some are on V/LA, some have no excuse. The Loyalists will literally never win the game with you posting .33 times a day, and even 1 on average won't be enough. To the players who have truly contributed to the thread and have actually played the game (or informed us about a potential V/LA), we salute you. To the others, please play the game because this isn't getting you any closer to winning regardless of alignment.

Now then, you have 48 hours until the end of the day. Here's to hoping some of that time can be spent productively.
 
Also, @Acetrainer_Samwise needs to respond to post #403. The whole thing, not just the last line of it, considering it's p much the longest post I've made yet this game and it's predominantly a direct address of you. If you can't think of a way to respond to it, move your vote.
 
This goes without saying and it seems strange to say it.

Theres nothing wrong with stating a point. It's a fact that was ignored in my last game and the mafia won because of it.

I've talked largely about Lele, which isn't taking focus off them. But we should take the focus off him a bit and make a headway on the Day 3 lynch.

Lele is the best candidate for the lynch and it would be foolish not to talk about him. We can talk about the day 3 lynch on day 3.

I'll take my vote off of you because it isn't helping anyone at the moment.



##UNVOTE
##VOTE TAPU LELE



Just like SM said he's trying to trick us.
 
Lele is the best candidate for the lynch and it would be foolish not to talk about him. We can talk about the day 3 lynch on day 3.
Incorrect; Lele is the best candidate for the lynch, but his lynch at this point is a foregone conclusion. It would be foolish to keep talking about him when we've already reached a consensus, and a much better use of time to discuss options for D3.

I vaguely remember getting into a several-page debate with Camo about this once, but there is nothing wrong with planning ahead. None of us but scum knows whether we'll be here tomorrow or not.
 
I'm still supposed to be resting until [including] tomorrow, but I was finally able to catch up while on the phone so I'd like to at least post my thoughts so far. My activity won't be as efficient as last game until D3 when I'm fully recovered.

1. ROFL at T_E, 2 Kamikaze roles in a row and nailed scum both times, you sir are clearly in a lucky streak! xD

2. I'm most definitely believing the role reveal. Any info revealed in that way, by the hosts, should be able to be trusted 99% of the time and, when not, you'll have /A REASONABLE/ explanation revealed once the info is proven wrong; and the only reason it's a 1% is becaus I find it difficult to see how a role would be falsely posted. So, I'm trusting mod posts and the moment those are trolly/misleading I'm literally quitting the game (mark my words, please).

3. That above said, I'd like to place FoS on Celever. I agree on the fact that scum would have just let Lele die by this time, but given Lele is even trying to defend himself I don't find it weird that Celever keeps defending so that said consistency on defending becomes its defense. And for whoever that could argue this is WIFOM, well, it's not as WIFOM as Lele trying to defend a mod reveal.

4. I highly dislikes me how everyone is SO disgustingly paranoid about "anti-claim" mechanics. :facepalms: If everything you said is true then we couldn't even share role results or even say "I'm town". It's outright absurd that people use this as an excuse; maybe even more absurd than the fart such mechanics even exist. Claim=>"Copy/Pasting your role or parts of it in the thread". Everything else CAN be shared OR EVEN WRITTEN IN OTHER WORDS like T_E when he said he had a post-mortem Ability. That's the way I'm interpreting the "claim" term because otherwise this absurd rule gets ridiculously restrictive and I'd like to think we can at least /play/. So, whoever tries to defend itself saying "can't say that without triggering the anti-claim stupidbot" is immediately under my suspicion.
 
Oh, and in case I'm not back by sunset:

##EXPELL: Tapu Lele

My day 1 RVS vote was right, lol
 
Sorry, I was not infornt of my pc for a while.... Only manage to glimpse every now and then with my mobile.


The way I see it, all arguement againt lynching or saving Lele are totally based on the host announcement which not like the Luxinity one. However we need information.
Although I kinda want to believe Lele claim that the role is not really his.
 
Now that we are pretty much case-closed on Lele's fate, I suggest one of the more inactive players for tomorrow's lynch. This refers to many of the people highlighted in the last vote count excluding Luispipe as they have yet to post up to this point. Also Lele is of course excluded.
 
2. I'm most definitely believing the role reveal. Any info revealed in that way, by the hosts, should be able to be trusted 99% of the time and, when not, you'll have /A REASONABLE/ explanation revealed once the info is proven wrong; and the only reason it's a 1% is becaus I find it difficult to see how a role would be falsely posted. So, I'm trusting mod posts and the moment those are trolly/misleading I'm literally quitting the game (mark my words, please).
I don't think anybody's implying that the hosts are intentionally being trolls. It's moreso the fact that because a straight-up seer effect is contrary to NP's MO (and I guess Vrack's too based on what Cel said), we have reason to believe that Lele's reveal could be false because of something screwy with TE's certamen or another factor entirely.

(This is kinda separate, but I'd urge you not to quit the game in the event that things don't go how you expect them to. It's part of the game. ^.^)

3. That above said, I'd like to place FoS on Celever. I agree on the fact that scum would have just let Lele die by this time, but given Lele is even trying to defend himself I don't find it weird that Celever keeps defending so that said consistency on defending becomes its defense. And for whoever that could argue this is WIFOM, well, it's not as WIFOM as Lele trying to defend a mod reveal.
You don't find what Cel's doing weird, but you're FoSing him anyway?

4. I highly dislikes me how everyone is SO disgustingly paranoid about "anti-claim" mechanics. :facepalms: If everything you said is true then we couldn't even share role results or even say "I'm town". It's outright absurd that people use this as an excuse; maybe even more absurd than the fart such mechanics even exist. Claim=>"Copy/Pasting your role or parts of it in the thread". Everything else CAN be shared OR EVEN WRITTEN IN OTHER WORDS like T_E when he said he had a post-mortem Ability. That's the way I'm interpreting the "claim" term because otherwise this absurd rule gets ridiculously restrictive and I'd like to think we can at least /play/. So, whoever tries to defend itself saying "can't say that without triggering the anti-claim stupidbot" is immediately under my suspicion.
Personally I'm concerned because with the mechanic from last game, it wasn't a bot, it was the scumteam enforcing the anti-claim measure. If something similar is up now, paraphrasing one's role won't do a thing because it only matters that scum get the gist of it.

I think it's dangerous to take your interpretation of it because the hosts have been deliberately vague about the anti-claim measure, so imo it's far better to be safe than sorry. And it is possible to play this game without claiming; that's the entire point of the anti-claim measure in the first place.

The way I see it, all arguement againt lynching or saving Lele are totally based on the host announcement which not like the Luxinity one. However we need information.
Yeah, but Lele's flip gives us information which we can use to do VCAs of D1 and whatnot. It'll be very very helpful even though the case on Lele outside of the reveal hasn't reached consensus.
Now that we are pretty much case-closed on Lele's fate, I suggest one of the more inactive players for tomorrow's lynch. This refers to many of the people highlighted in the last vote count excluding Luispipe as they have yet to post up to this point. Also Lele is of course excluded.
Now why on earth would we want to do that?
 
3. That above said, I'd like to place FoS on Celever. I agree on the fact that scum would have just let Lele die by this time, but given Lele is even trying to defend himself I don't find it weird that Celever keeps defending so that said consistency on defending becomes its defense. And for whoever that could argue this is WIFOM, well, it's not as WIFOM as Lele trying to defend a mod reveal.
Nah, this is definitely WIFOM. If I continued defending Lele to keep looking consistent, then I'm mafia. If I stopped defending Lele I'd backpedal, which is also a mafia tactic. So yeah, it's WIFOM.

Though it's also not, because the foundation of your case is erroneous: there was an obvious window of time between the host reveal of Lele's role and my first defense of Lele after the fact where, if I were mafia, I would have jumped at the chance to vote for him for town cred. Like, there's no reason not to -- I get pretty much nothing out of defending him, because it's a foregone conclusion that he would get lynched today, and I wasn't even the first player to suggest we don't lynch him today.

So ur case is bad smh :<

Luis said:
4. I highly dislikes me how everyone is SO disgustingly paranoid about "anti-claim" mechanics. :facepalms: If everything you said is true then we couldn't even share role results or even say "I'm town". It's outright absurd that people use this as an excuse; maybe even more absurd than the fart such mechanics even exist. Claim=>"Copy/Pasting your role or parts of it in the thread". Everything else CAN be shared OR EVEN WRITTEN IN OTHER WORDS like T_E when he said he had a post-mortem Ability. That's the way I'm interpreting the "claim" term because otherwise this absurd rule gets ridiculously restrictive and I'd like to think we can at least /play/. So, whoever tries to defend itself saying "can't say that without triggering the anti-claim stupidbot" is immediately under my suspicion.
I don't think this is a reasonable assertion to make: the OP was left intentionally ambiguous so as to entice this exact reaction. We have no idea what the anti-claim mechanics are, and the hosts are not giving us any more details despite the fact that it seems like half the people in the game have asked them for it at this point. Considering the effect that this has had on the gamethread, where everyone is too fearful to claim in the first place, and further considering that the hosts haven't stepped in to clarify the rules, it can therefore be concluded that it's pretty likely the anti-claim mechanics pertain to more than just copy/pasting your role or parts of it in the thread. If not, the way the hosts have presented it has been with the clear intention of making it so that we think it pertains to more than just copy/pasting the role into the thread, and so saying absolutist things like "people who are afraid to say anything that might claim the mechanics are suspicious" is just.... wrong.
 
I don't think anybody's implying that the hosts are intentionally being trolls. It's moreso the fact that because a straight-up seer effect is contrary to NP's MO (and I guess Vrack's too based on what Cel said), we have reason to believe that Lele's reveal could be false because of something screwy with TE's certamen or another factor entirely.
Ehhh I'm with Luis on this one, actually. If the role the hosts posted isn't Lele's actual role, I'm really not a fan of the ability at all. It is intentional misguidance, and not signposted in any way (because the hosts had no guarantee that Luxinity would use their ability today) to make it even remotely balanced. Like, the extent of possible signposting is the Oracle of Delphi because Lele is correct in that every statement this particular oracle makes must be inherently open to multiple interpretations, only one of which will actually occur. But considering the phrase in the post doesn't have that quality, and the fact that it's not a vision of the future, which is what the Oracle of Delphi deals in, it does seem like meaningless flavour above all else. Again, if Lele's role isn't the genuine role they've put there and we were meant to guess that from this Oracle of Delphi flavour, then the flavour wasn't done well enough.

Honestly this is the only reason why I tried giving Lele's defence the time of day: I think it's far likelier that, if the role posted were genuine, that Lele would've just given up, because every other time I've seen this ability that's exactly what's happened. The fact that Lele has bothered to make a defence at all makes me think that just maybe the hosts have put in this pretty bad mechanic, but they're two competent hosts and so it seems unlikely.
 
@Jabberwock (because replying on mobile is hard v':)

-Well, it's a 1-time reward-type seer effect, nothing that's guaranteed to be a thing since D1. It's actually how I'd see NP including a seer effect, if any at all. (And for the separate part, it wouldn't be because things don't go how I'd like, that'd be childish. It'd be because of hosts deliberately misleading, and exclusively for that reason. Right now, unless we get the word-by-word explanation of the Certamen's Ability and how it could change the reveal, then any instance of Lele not being scum is misleading.)

-I think I could have explained it better: what he's doing could be considered an alibi so that he can continue defending Lele.

-(also @Celever) I know it wasn't a bot last time, but you're all acting like it was in this game and it's obnoxious. It's the "go-to excuse" to avoid any question, and it shouldn't be. And of course you can play a game without fully claiming. But any step above my definition of "claiming" would be heavily restricting, and playing a game where you can't even back up your results (if any) would just lose any meaning. I mean, if that's the case then run a full Vanilla game, for Christ's sake. And sure, e don't have an strict definition, so I'm personally using mine until told otherwise by the host by giving us the proper rules. I'm not going to say "yo, WPM, use this definition or quit", but my thought processes will go by this definition and whoever tries to defend behind the "I-I'll get p-punished, halp" /without a logical reason/ then you'll bury yourself.

@Celever, I never stated I had a full case on you, just FoS in that particular scenario and something to take into consideration :p may matter in the long run, or it may not.
 
Hey ya'll!

I have returned. So..

I hate to ask of this, but would anyone mind catching me up on how the game has gone so far and whats happened? I'd love to be able to read through the whole thread, but that's 22 pages right now, and I just got back from an 8 hour drive and want to get myself dinner and go to bed. I'll still read through the thread at some point, but it would make everything much easier for me if I could just get a brief summary, if anyone has time.

Thanks ^w^
 
-(also @Celever) I know it wasn't a bot last time, but you're all acting like it was in this game and it's obnoxious. It's the "go-to excuse" to avoid any question, and it shouldn't be. And of course you can play a game without fully claiming. But any step above my definition of "claiming" would be heavily restricting, and playing a game where you can't even back up your results (if any) would just lose any meaning. I mean, if that's the case then run a full Vanilla game, for Christ's sake. And sure, e don't have an strict definition, so I'm personally using mine until told otherwise by the host by giving us the proper rules. I'm not going to say "yo, WPM, use this definition or quit", but my thought processes will go by this definition and whoever tries to defend behind the "I-I'll get p-punished, halp" /without a logical reason/ then you'll bury yourself.
It's not obnoxious: it's the situation we're stuck with. There's no more reason to believe that your interpretation is right than any of ours, and so running with your interpretation could have pretty dire consequences. It seems strange to me how piously you're sticking to this definition to the point of being willing to dish out suspicion to anyone who doesn't agree with it (which is everyone), and really make me think you have a greater knowledge of these anti-claim mechanics than the rest of us. As Jabs said, though, last game the anti-claim mechanics were controlled by mafia. Not saying there's a link, just saying this logic is transferrable now.... simply that it could be.

I agree with you, though, in that the anti-claim mechanics have made this game feel pretty restrictive. Not because the mechanics themselves are bad, because they can work in games perfectly well. The issue is that the game doesn't seem built around them all too well: my reward for the certamen, for example, was a one-use investigative ability, but when I asked the hosts for confirmation that if I shared the results of this ability it wouldn't trigger anti-claim mechanics, they weren't willing to provide me this confirmation. Therefore, that's a logical reason I have to not share the results, or even who I decided to target, because there is a host-confirmed plausibility that sharing those results would trigger anti-claim mechanics. And what feels restrictive is the fact that we have mechanics that might trigger upon sharing results with the rest of the players, but still have roles in the game which provide results. It renders those roles completely useless, especially since they're pretty weak in the first place (though the first certamen apparently had a strong prize if we trust the flip, so the certamen I won having a phenomenally weak prize may be the exception rather than the rule), so it's not like one player finds out for certain the X is mafia and, though they can't share their results, guns for them like nobody's business. It's more like one player finds out for certain that X targeted Y last night, which is pretty useless even if you can share it with all the other players, and the mechanics do feel disconnected from the game design.

And the above paragraph is why I would lean towards siding with your interpretation that it could well just trigger based on copy/pasting the role into the thread. However, because the hosts have kept is as intentionally obtuse as they have, it's not a risk that's rational to take, even if you are right. So no, it's not suspicious to "hide behind" the mechanic: it's simply following the safest path, which is an obviously good thing to do 99% of the time. If someone finds themselves willing to risk the wrath of the anti-claim mechanics because they can turn the game (known informally as a F*** TIGER) then by all means, but in every other scenario it does not make rational sense to do so.
Luis said:
@Celever, I never stated I had a full case on you, just FoS in that particular scenario and something to take into consideration :p may matter in the long run, or it may not.
But even ur FoS is bad smh >:L
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top