Mainstream Mafia II: D&D Edition [FIN]

[Miss Lane]

It's actually been an hour. My fucking god.

It's funny how you can sit down with the intention of making a few posts in a mafia game and then you look up and an hour has gone by.

[gobbledygook]

VOTE: Zoraster

[Miss Lane]

PB, Pisskop, Miss Lynch, time to give me all your chips cause y’all just lost to EP’s Royal Flush

So, first things first:

If a player rolls a random number generator and throws out a list of names that are scum and just happens to get them all right, no one loses to that player's impressive play. If another player makes a remarkably good argument that a certain target is scum, and that target later flips town and was just playing very very poorly, the player does not lose to other people with better play.

The play supports itself. If it is not good regardless of what the player flips, it isn't good. Calling someone scum and then being right about it for the wrong reasons isn't laudable, it's just lucky.

Second:

How did Wooper claim scum?

I have finally put into words something I've wanted to be able to produce but couldn't.

I feel so happy. I added onto it, BTW, because I think it gives a practical application when reworded like this.

Wow.

That's so remarkably relieving. I cant't tell you how long I've had this on my chest.

[EspressoPatronum]

Spoiler: My response to your response

Nvm, I'll do a normal response. My comments are in

this colour

. I'd appreciate a response from you.

@ML

Just to bring everyone back on track + to help those who missed the case on Wooper/Zor:

We have a fairly reliable 50/50 in Zora or Wooper.

Amrun PI'd FormerFish's body to identify his killer (the aasimar woman) and 5 random names.

Sure.

Through PoE, there's a strong chance that it's Zora or Wooper. Even without Amrun's list, there's ample reasons for lynching either.

I very strongly disagree with this, and you presenting it as such makes Wooper seem like a much more repulsive lynch, and you more interesting. It should be noted that your name is on that list.
1.

I've noted several times today that my name was on the list. The purpose of this post was a TL;DR to get people back on track. You're welcome to check my ISO to confirm.

Wooper is the better target for 3 reasons.

1) Wooper has been hard lurking. Some have mentioned this is a scumtell for Wooper.

You don't seem to believe that, I certainly don't.

What makes you think I don't believe my case on Wooper?

Other players have presented counters to this that include the fact that this isn't really a scum tell for Wooper, and this evidence is statistically unreliable being cherrypicked from select games and ignoring others. 2.

off the top of my head, the people I trust the most in this game have said that Wooper's lurking = scummy behaviour for Wooper. Perhaps you are giving different weight to different players.

2) Wooper's response to being pushed was to essentially give up. Wooper offered no real defence + refused to claim or flavour claim.

No, it wasn't. He defended himself, and he flavor claimed. This is untrue. 3.

Please quote me the elements of Wooper's response that you consider a 'real defence.'
I take your point about the flavour claim piece btw. Gobble highlighted that shortly after my post. I'll backtrack slightly and say that despite Wooper giving us some flavour, it isn't enough to help us with the case.

3) InsideJob's hid behind Zora and subsequently inno'd Zora. While Rauth's lie detector identified this statement as false, it's unclear when InsideJob was culted + how that impacted Rauth's results.

Exactly. The inno on Zora is shady and unreliable. 4.

Correct, but Rauth has addressed this. Given NAR, Rauth thinks the claim would have come back as false even if Inside Job was town at the time. By no means is this exonerating evidence. It makes things unclear, which is exactly what I said.

In light of the muddied waters, it seems better to test the 50/50 on Wooper, who is more scummy.

If you're saying Wooper's play is more scummy, I'd really like you to point to where, unless you intend on pointing back to the first two points of this argument, in which case I would point out that both of those two statements are either intentional manipulations of data or ignorant of legitimate facts contrary to the assertions in them. 5.

Can you expand on this please? Imo, it's perfectly legitimate to say that 'in light of muddied waters (ie. Point #3), it is better to vote for Wooper because he is more scummy (point #1). I'm not sure why you're saying I'm manipulating the facts

Zora is far scummier than Wooper, IMO, 6.

*highlight*

for reasons that I've already outlined. The only legitimate reason to lynch Wooper over Zora is that Zora's "inno" is relatively plausible, but I think both player's actions are contrary to the way things look to be framed mechanically speaking.

Is it mechanically likely that Wooper is scum based solely off of Amrun's list? Yes. Are there any other good reasons? Not particularly, 7.

not true. Remember that BB's flavour claim failed on Wooper. That's why asked about ascetic

unless you for some reason think that lurking is a good scum tell w/ 28 players remaining in the game, and even then that's a terrible argument to lynch someone, especially when there are so many actually scummy players. 8.

I have consistently been anti-lurker in this game and all my past games. Like it or hate it, that's how I see the game. Lurking is scummy.

Your post here feels very disingenuous and manipulative, ignorant of events that prove contrary to it, 8.

do you actually believe this? I'd like to think I'm paying very close attention to the game.

and it very much feels like you think Wooper is scum and are manipulating facts to fit your evidence.

1. That's not the part I disagree with.

"ample reasons for lynching either"

is.

How many reasons are required for you definition of ample? In the context of this game, I consider a PR red flag, poor response to a push, and lurking to be ample evidence.

2. You were asked who said this, and you couldn't remember. This seems pretty dishonest to me.

I do not remember who said it, but I remember trusting the people who said it. Where's the dishonesty?

3. No. I won't quote those points to you, because you've just recently been arguing with him. The fact that you would try to deny it right now while you're in the middle of a discussion with him is appalling.

my discussion with you is mostly focused on information as it was at the time of posting. Most of what I'm writing here might be redundant or useless given Wooper's recent claim, but ironing out the reasons for my stance on Wooper is important. It's equally important for me to understand your reasons for defending Wooper.

4. It's what you said, but you presented it as evidence against Wooper. You wrapped a dried turd in christmas wrapping paper and called it a pet rock, and I think you and I both know that a majority of mafia players often don't look close enough to know the difference, especially in a fourty person mafia game. Maybe it wasn't intentionally presented that way, but it sure felt like it.

I wrote what I meant. While I can't change how you interpreted that information, the steps I've been taking to talk with you should show that I'm trying to be forthright here.

5. If points 1 and 2 were legitimate, your second statement on point 3 would be legitimate.

Where is the dishonesty/manipulation?

6. I don't understand the point of this.

It's kind of rich that you're giving me such a hard time and calling me dishonest when you're actually just disagreeing with my opinion.

7. I have no clue what you're talking about here.

Go read BBmolla's comments on Wooper.

8. Nice! I am also anti-lurker in almost every game except for a 40-player game of mafia. Funnily enough, I think town does better when there's a narrowed down list of players to pick from as scum. If we had a lot of scummy players at the beginning of the game the game would be a lot more difficult. I very much support players waiting until they're significantly more useful in a 40 player mafia game, and we can get into the numbers of why this is actually beneficial for town later, not now, though.

at the time, I had no reason to believe Wooper would serve more benefit to the town later. That may change depending on how verifiable the claim is.

8. Yes. I think if you believe what you've said about the arguments for Wooper and Zoraster, you've missed some vital points

This is not the same as calling me ignorant of events contrary to my argument. I'm clearly informed about the for/against of Wooper and Zoe. Perhaps I've missed a few things -- I probably have -- but so have you, and I'm not calling you ignorant over it.

.

[Miss Lane]

EP respond to this too, please.

EP you want a summary of what I don't like about your Wooper push?

You bring up as points against him: 1. That he has been lurky in a 40 player game. This is funny, because he has more posts than I do. Or Untrod Tripod. Or Zoraster. He has a LOT more posts than Zoraster. So that part of this isn't true. Then the second part of point one is that (and get this)

someone somewhere that you can't even remember said that being lurky is indicative of Wooper scum.

This is also pretty untrue, based on what I know of Wooper, and also based on the fact that other people have said so. You're just choosing to listen to the arguments you want to here, and you won't even list this as a point that you personally think counts against him, otherwise you'd list yourself as believing it here.

2. He refuses to defend himself or flavor claim. This is also untrue, considering the fact that he is currently defending himself, he defended himself before, and he has flavor claimed his name. You want more than that, it's pretty dishonest to present him as not flavor claiming whatsoever when he simply refused to claim as much information as you want him to. Zoraster, on the other hand, ACTUALLY hasn't flavor claimed or defended himself.

3. Zoraster was inno'd by InsideJob. This is a shady claim, regardless of the fact that it's somewhat probable. That's just the first half of point three. In the second half, you seem to try to pretend that Wooper has an overall scummy play. This is relatively untrue, unless you can point to a single thing Wooper has done that supports a scum wincon. I can do that for Zoraster, and have done so, actually.

[EspressoPatronum]

Thanks for claiming btw Wooper. I appreciate you working with me.

Do you know if you shown up in the night flavour at all?

[Wooper]

I'm not all that happy about losing utility but I also don't dislike you. Sorry if I'm too prickly.

Haven't seen myself in the flavour, no.

[Gamma Emerald]

What’s going on with the Wooper claim

[Wooper]

I claimed. I'm happy because EP is happy and I like EP.

[EspressoPatronum]

EP respond to this too, please.

EP you want a summary of what I don't like about your Wooper push?

You bring up as points against him: 1. That he has been lurky in a 40 player game. This is funny, because he has more posts than I do. Or Untrod Tripod. Or Zoraster. He has a LOT more posts than Zoraster. So that part of this isn't true. Then the second part of point one is that (and get this)

someone somewhere that you can't even remember said that being lurky is indicative of Wooper scum.

This is also pretty untrue, based on what I know of Wooper, and also based on the fact that other people have said so. You're just choosing to listen to the arguments you want to here, and you won't even list this as a point that you personally think counts against him, otherwise you'd list yourself as believing it here.

"based on what I know of Wooper" is not the same was what EP or other players know of Wooper. Some have said lurking is ai of Wooper. You have said differently. Noted, and thanks.

I am definitely choosing to listen to some people over others. There's nothing wrong with that. You said you do the exact same thing, so I have no idea why you're coming after me for this.

2. He refuses to defend himself or flavor claim. This is also untrue, considering the fact that he is currently defending himself, he defended himself before, and he has flavor claimed his name. You want more than that, it's pretty dishonest to present him as not flavor claiming whatsoever when he simply refused to claim as much information as you want him to. Zoraster, on the other hand, ACTUALLY hasn't flavor claimed or defended himself.

I haven't asked Zora to claim. He also isn't the top wagon.

3. Zoraster was inno'd by InsideJob. This is a shady claim, regardless of the fact that it's somewhat probable. That's just the first half of point three. In the second half, you seem to try to pretend that Wooper has an overall scummy play. This is relatively untrue, unless you can point to a single thing Wooper has done that supports a scum wincon. I can do that for Zoraster, and have done so, actually.

Go read Rauth's and Bingles posts on the lie detector and Inside Jobs hiding, respectively. Tell me why they're wrong and you're right.

What do you hope to achieve, ML? Are you defending Wooper or attacking me? Or both?

[Miss Lane]

1. Wooper isn't lurking. He has more posts than me, Zoraster, or Untrod Tripod. His "terrible response to a push" is pretty darn subjective, and you present it as objective. Zoraster hasn't responded to a push at all, afaik.
2. You feeling trust the moment you read about someone saying that Wooper is scummy for lurking is remarkably unreliable to the point of being borderline dishonest. It's not even a meta read YOU have on Wooper, and it's not a meta read that someone you know as a reliable source of meta reads in particular, it's a meta read from someone you remember trusting for whatever reason that is unverifiable because you can't remember who it was, and just because a player is trustworthy for one thing doesn't mean they're good at meta reads on players, which is a remarkably difficult thing to be good at, especially with a player that doesn't play a whole lot and is playing in a game where conditions are going to be remarkably different from normal. We can get into why meta reads are often terrible, but I don't want to do that right now.
3. I'm defending Wooper because he hasn't done anything particularly scummy that I've seen, and other players on the list have. And because your argument for him seems pretty manipulative of the facts.
4. Sure.
5. Points 1 and 2 aren't legitimate.
6. No. I'm disagreeing with the way you're manipulating words and twisting context.
7. You placing weight on players solely off of their mechanical addition is silly, especially since you're trying to force people to claim in order to do it which removes their mechanical benefit when they get shot for being too beneficial.
8. I'm not saying you're ignorant as a person. I'm saying you're ignorant of events. I can try and rephrase this a fourth time, but I really don't want to.

[Miss Lane]

Thanks for claiming btw Wooper. I appreciate you working with me.

Do you know if you shown up in the night flavour at all?

You use mechanical utility to rank your players

and then make them claim, therefore removing their mechanical utility in a lot of places

[Miss Lane]

Again, we have managed to force someone to claim that didn't necessarily need to claim because people are so certain that they're half-assed confbiased arguments are the best thing since sliced bread.

[EspressoPatronum]

Thanks for claiming btw Wooper. I appreciate you working with me.

Do you know if you shown up in the night flavour at all?

You use mechanical utility to rank your players

and then make them claim, therefore removing their mechanical utility in a lot of places

I'm resolving Amrun's list. You're welcome.

[Miss Lane]

You don't have to respond to me, EP, if you don't want to.

Wooper already claimed and I doubt he'll be lynched now. You also don't seem to be understanding the meaning behind what I'm saying and I'm far too exhausted to try anymore. I don't really intend to respond to any more of your arguments, you've already done the damage you could.

[Wooper]

I just had a wild idea

[Miss Lane]

Thanks for claiming btw Wooper. I appreciate you working with me.

Do you know if you shown up in the night flavour at all?

You use mechanical utility to rank your players

and then make them claim, therefore removing their mechanical utility in a lot of places

I'm resolving Amrun's list. You're welcome.

Equivalent statements to this:
"I'm solving the game by making everyone full claim."
"I'm solving the game by lynching players until I hit scum."

Yes, all three of these statements achieve the effect, just not in an effective way.

What is your point?

[Miss Lane]

To be honest, I'd really rather you didn't make up bullshit arguments until people bend to your will and reveal that you're wrong just to resolve every last whim of yours

[BBmolla]

Nope, as I said if I were ascetic I would have claimed it first post. Fml pc BBM is confirmed blocked that night.

my motivated ability worked though

??

[EspressoPatronum]

@ML - Your whole point of disagreement with me comes from why I thought/think Wooper over Zora, but I've already said that it has to be one or the other. I'm not interested in voting outside of that, and perhaps that's why we're talking past one another.

You also haven't read or don't remember the posts by Bingle on the implications of Inside Job's hiding, Rauth's posts on the lie detector, and BB's post on Wooper's possible ascetic (which may actually be a roleblock or Wooper's power). All of these make a defence of my mechanics-driven discussion very difficult.

In the end, I think it's best we sort Wooper and Zor even if I means losing the utility of their roles being unknown. Solving Amrun's N2 list can give everyone information about me, Amrun, UT, Wooper, and Zor. Trading one or two claims to gain a scum lynch and some possible innos is worth it imo.

[Wooper]

Spoiler:

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=79868
scum lurksack mech heavy game

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=79354
town lurksack 'til being cleared, only really did much lategame

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=79367
scum active mech-lite game

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=78296
town active mislynched d1 (d1 was mech-lite)

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=78591
scum activeish? then repped out

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=78023
scum lategame game rep-in, very active

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=77970
scum active

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=76637
soloscum active

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=76341
town active

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=77677
town lurksack

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=77420
town lurksack/rep-out

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=76709
town lurksack until super lategame

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=76441
scum pretty active

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=76501
town fairly active, fell off later - got more mechanically heavy

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=76904
town lurksack

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=76118
soloscum active

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=75915
town lurksack

who suggested me lurking in a large game was scum indicative?

[Wooper]

Nope, as I said if I were ascetic I would have claimed it first post. Fml pc BBM is confirmed blocked that night.

my motivated ability worked though

??

what happened exacrly?

[Miss Lane]

You also haven't read or don't remember the posts by Bingle on the implications of Inside Job's hiding, Rauth's posts on the lie detector, and BB's post on Wooper's possible ascetic (which may actually be a roleblock or Wooper's power). All of these make a defence of my mechanics-driven discussion very difficult.

We were literally just discussing two of the three items, I don't know how you can try and present me as not having read or remembering them.

Whatever. I really don't care.

[Miss Lane]

Spoiler:

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=79868
scum lurksack mech heavy game

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=79354
town lurksack 'til being cleared, only really did much lategame

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=79367
scum active mech-lite game

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=78296
town active mislynched d1 (d1 was mech-lite)

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=78591
scum activeish? then repped out

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=78023
scum lategame game rep-in, very active

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=77970
scum active

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=76637
soloscum active

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=76341
town active

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=77677
town lurksack

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=77420
town lurksack/rep-out

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=76709
town lurksack until super lategame

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=76441
scum pretty active

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=76501
town fairly active, fell off later - got more mechanically heavy

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=76904
town lurksack

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=76118
soloscum active

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=75915
town lurksack

who suggested me lurking in a large game was scum indicative?

He can't remember but he trusts them a WHOLE LOT

[BBmolla]

Nope, as I said if I were ascetic I would have claimed it first post. Fml pc BBM is confirmed blocked that night.

my motivated ability worked though

??

what happened exacrly?

I was motivated

you were my first target and my action failed

second action succeeded