Mars 3 - Weasel Mafia -GAME OVER

[Skruffs]

Okay, on my phone at a convention so short response.

The undo wagon happened petty much while I was not followng the thread. I can't really lOok, but earlier in the game I had been suspicious of undo or oman. I can't remember if it was one or both of them.... Anyways when I came back I was not really sure what was going on, and suddenly undo was lynchproof at possibly a lylo situation. (Remember, "3" scum alive and all that). I thought that the wagon on him was being jumped on by scum because potentially they would win even with the 'no-lynch' that undo clamed would happen. So no while I would not say undo was cleared, in my eyes he was the wrong lynch for that day. I realize that he was the Only lynch for tha day, now, as the extra two to vote him (I think it was) would possibly have been impossible later in the game.

Tss has been focussing on convincing players to follow him more than positng cases, similarly to glork, neither of which is their typical protown play.

[destructor]

Here's undo's claim after Yos posted a vote count when undo reached the normal number of votes for a lynch.

Bah. So much for the secrecy of my ability. Wonderful.

Yes I lied. I'm the Awesomely Popular Weasel, handsome guy, good at sports, etc etc, chicks love me so much and guys look up to me so much that I cannot be lynched. Ta-da! Now do you want to spread the red carpet for scum to nightkill me?

Why are you saying undo said there'd be a no lynch? Also, no one but scum knew he needed two extra votes to be lynched, so that wasn't what made him a good lynch. He was a good lynch, good enough to doubt and test his claim, because he and Gage had been scummy and

Gorrad jailkept him

the night there was no kill. He was in no way a likely target that night.

[Skruffs]

I understand what you are saing, but do not understand the correlation between him being or not being lynched ad the possibility of him being nightkilled?

[destructor]

There isn't one. Gorrad jailkept him that night and there was no kill. Since it was unlikely that scum would have killed him (from the town's point of view) the lack of nightkill was a compelling reason to believe that he was scum whose nightkill was blocked by Gorrad.

Why'd you think voting for undo would result in a no lynch? At the time you also argued that we shouldn't lynch an unlynchable townie. What did that mean?

[Skruffs]

I jumped into that conversation thinking that he was being lynched for his claim; I didn't read about the jailkeeping on him until later on in the game. As for what I meant: why would you throw away a lynch in a lynch or lose situation?

[destructor]

How would we have thrown a lynch away?
How would voting for undo have resulted in a no lynch?

[Skruffs]

If he had been unlynchable, then lynching him would have resulted in no lynch occuring, correct?
Maybe I just don't understand the concept of a "non lynchable" role, but in Post Restriction MAfia 3, Glork was an unlynchable player - IE when he was lynched, he wasn't, but the game went to night. That is my experience with those roles.

[destructor]

How many votes did you think it would take to lynch him? By the time you posted he's already reached L-0 and was technically lynched.

*goes to read PR Mafia 3*

[destructor]

I read the role PMs for Post Restriction Mafia 3. There was no unlynchable townie.
Which game did you see that role in?

[the silent speaker]

Holiday just ended; will post I hope later tonight.

[the silent speaker]

I also realised that I can't remember tss ever explaining why he thought I was town besides thinking Skruffs was scum.

That comes from my initial partial reread. I slotted Oman and Thanatos as the scummiest, followed by Gage; you were always down on my list of scummy people because I had liked opie's play. This was before I had even begun to think about who might be tied to whom, and was just sorting players' individual scumminess. By the end of yesterday, things like voting record had pretty well cemented your status in my eyes as all-but-confirmed town, which is why I saw Skruffs's attempts to cast doubt on the matter as suspect. He also tried to cast doubt on Foolster, when Foolster

was

confirmed town.

I also called Skruffs my top suspect based on current events fair before I started deeming specifically an Oman pairing to be a strong probability. Indeed, part of my reasoning for voting Skruffs was insurance against a possible two-pair partnership, which would have

had

to include Skruffs (else there would have been a quicklynch) but would

not have had

to include Oman; subsequently I saw Oman appearing to defend Skruffs, and Skruffs appearing to subtly guide Oman's claim, which seemed to confirm my suspicions.

I also note a certain irony in that before, I was accused of adopting Gorrad too much, and now I'm asked that I didn't adopt him enough. I agreed with (I wouldn't even say

accepted

, since my own reasoning led me there) one of Gorrad's statements, but I'm not bound to take everything. (I'm not calling that irony scummy, as it's not; it's just ironic.)

[Skruffs]

destructor - Glork was actually the mafia godfather, but his claim was that of an unlynchable townie. We lynched him anyways (though I don't think I voted him then, I could be wrong, it was at least a year ago) and there was in fact no lynch - we had to lynch him again the next day.

TSS: Why would I, as scum, risk upsetting destructor and potentially getting a vote from him in LyLo by 'attempting' to make you doubt him? You came at me today just like you did yesterday, guns blazing, only you always seem to find an excuse to vote another player, but you always came back to me. It would have made more sense to kill you last night, if I was scum, and hope that foolster hammered destructor on his own terms (possibly for not claiming yesterday as a hook) today than to kill foolster. You can write this all off as wifom but it is what you did.

You also tried to tie oman to me specifically so that

you would have credibility

in getting oman lynched. Oman was a power role, and even if you go "Oh but I didn't vote him!" you didn't need to- you were focussing on getting Foolster to vote him instead. Getting one confirmed pro-town power role to vote another (unconfirmed) power role only to be night killed by you immediately afterwards gave you the confidence to think you couuld easily convince destructor to vote me today. And that's exactly what you were trying to do.

Note also that even while you were trying to get Foolster to do your dirty work, you were using Gorrad's beliefs as the basis of your own - you were sandwiching yourself between two power roles! All the while accusing me of giving Oman too many 'chances' to lie (even though he wasn't) and heckling me for nto realizing Undo's claim was flase at the time he claimed it. Remember also that your sole mention in regards to voting Undo was that he claimed townie originally and was lying - you did not try to get any other players to vote him, you did not investigate his role, etc. You put your vote on him and pretty much shut your trap after that, which is completely different than how you reacted to Oman's claim.

[the silent speaker]

LOL. Skruffs can't make up his mind whether I'm "guns blazing, only you always seem to find an excuse to vote another player, but you always came back to me" or desperately trying to get Foolster to vote Oman by the cunning ploy of never once voting him. Somehow my promotion of a Skruffs vote to Foolster and emphasizing how Skruffs was scummy vis-a-vis Oman translates in Skruffs's mind to a tricksy way of getting Foolster to not vote Skruffs and vote Oman instead.

You also tried to tie oman to me specifically so that you would have credibility in getting oman lynched.

FREUDIAN SLIP ALERT!

Skruffs admits that a tie to him gives credibility in getting another player lynched! Skruffs admits that he is scum!

[Skruffs]

No - You had to find a reason to support an Oman lynch without being able to back down from tying to get me lynched. Therefore, you *HAD* to 'partner' him with me the reason why you were supporting his lynch.

Look at the reaction you had to the interactions between me and Oman and try to tell me that you were not trying to build the concept of me and him being partners as the reason for trying to convince Foolster to vote him.

My actual alignment has nothing to do with what you tried to do in convincing FOolster to vote Oman yesterday; but the supposed alignment of me is what you used to try and make Oman look more guilty.


If you disagree with the above, please quote posts of yours that suggest you were NOT trying to do exactly as I was saying, instead of trying to pervert what I Said into some sort of 'slip', which even if you WERE to look at it that way, doesn't make sense as it would suggest that you were my scum buddy trying to tie a townie to me and bussing me at hte same time.

[the silent speaker]

I wasn't trying to convince Foolster to vote him! I wanted Foolster to vote

you

!

[Skruffs]

Because if Foolster doesn't vote Oman, my vote isn't enough to get him lynched, and if Foolster does vote Oman, my vote isn't needed to get him lynched.

Note that you later said this,was a 'trap' you set specifically for me, to see if I would vote Oman, and then also said in the same paragraph that the logic behind it 'wasn't reversible'.

How do those actions of yours; encouraging foolster to vote oman and trying to 'bait' me into oman, collaborate with your last post?

[destructor]

That comes from my initial partial reread. I slotted Oman and Thanatos as the scummiest, followed by Gage; you were always down on my list of scummy people because I had liked opie's play. This was before I had even begun to think about who might be tied to whom, and was just sorting players' individual scumminess. By the end of yesterday, things like voting record had pretty well cemented your status in my eyes as all-but-confirmed town, which is why I saw Skruffs's attempts to cast doubt on the matter as suspect.

Voting record?
What was remarkably pro-town about opie's play?
I got a lot of heat for drawing attention away from the DS wagon. Given that we were near the end of the game, why didn't you factor this in at all?

Skruffs, I'm still not convinced that what you did wasn't about keeping undo alive. Glork wasn't in PR Mafia 3 (I checked), but, regardless, your explanation doesn't make sense as a defence for your play in this game. You say Glork was scum in a game (can you link me to it?) and the town lynched him despite his unlynchable claim. If it was okay in that game, why not this one? You say that it was your experience with unlynchable roles in that game that made you think trying to lynch undo, claimed unlynchable, was bad play. But if you really judge unlynchables by that game you should be eager to lynch anyone suspicious who claims it. The exact opposite was true with undo.

The fact that your immediate reaction was to argue against an undo lynch is what makes me doubt you. You say you weren't following the game closely at that point. But then why would you pick a side on the undo lynch at all? The more sensible thing a townie to do in that situation, especially one who's seen unlynchable scum as you have, is review the case. Instead, you:
1. believed undo's claim without reading the case against him,
2. argued against his lynch and
3. started pushing a case on Gorrad instead.
Why should I believe this was the play of a townie when your anecdotal defence only means your play makes less sense?

[Skruffs]

I understand the points you are trying to qualify, but I think that if you compare them against the setting in which they happened, you will probably find that while they do not make sense as a townie to do, they also do not make sense for scum to do, either. I will admit, openly, that how I responded to the undo lynching does not make sense. I jumped in half-cocked, and shot from the hip in an attempt to contribute my two cents at a time where I was basically not participating much. If I remember correctly, I was also being ragged on by glork pretty heavily, and was waiting for him to reply to my argument, or had been, or it was about to happen anyways, in regards to the fiasco with the thief wanting to be lynched over mneme.

I will say that my mistakes have been horrible and not helpful, for the town, or for myself, and the one you are questioning me on right now would probably have been the absolute worst thing for scum to do to themselves as the sole remaining player.

On the other hand, glork and TSS seem to have a very intuitive grasp on who to be suspicious of and who not to be so suspicious of. Glork's claim that scum weren't trying to kill him because they thought he was being doc protected was about as un-town-glork-like as it can get; scum would have killed him, early on, as soon as someone claimed a power role that seemed likely to be doc protected, which would have been feasible several times through the game, with the number of power rles there are. It contradicts his town playstyle to act like that.

As for the unlynchable townie, yes, he was a mafia godfather and had to be lynched twice. I'm pretty sure it was glork, when I am not posting from my cell phone I will look it up. I saw undo being ganged up on, didn't see the reason for it, and was nervous that we were in lylo and that a no-lynch would end the day.


I wonder if oman got a motivation in.

[destructor]

I've read your post Skruffs. I'm waiting for TSS to post so I can respond to both of you at once.

[Skruffs]

okie dokie

[the silent speaker]

Sorry ofr the delay -- unexpected internet downtime.

By "voting record" I meant that you helped get several of the scum dead.

As to "what was remarkably pro-town about opie's play," I don't know if I can answer that. It's not like I read his posts and noted town tells in them. I simply thought favorably of his participation and scumhunting over the early part of the game, and he rang no warning bells in my head. Those thoughts generally covered, and were forged within, the first thirty pages; for things that were after that, like the DS wagon for the most part IIRC, I had already gotten distracted by more current events and slipped into the (possibly bad) habit of incorporating my own prior opinon by reference, taking my own word for who had been scummy in earlier sections of reread and who not. I'm still a bit hazy on the middle chunk of the game; fortunately, I don't need it to tell me who's confirmed town and who is (to me) confirmed scum.

[destructor]

Ok. Skruffs, I want one last thing from you. Can you link me to that game you're talking about? I haven't been able to find it.

[Skruffs]

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4005


Ahh... I got Thok and Glork confused... Thok was the "Mayor's Advisor", who we lynched, even though he said he was unlynchable, and then had to lynch again.

[destructor]

I've read the relevant parts of PR3 Mafia and Thok's role worked like Skruffs says it did. It wasn't "unlynchable" but had a one-shot lynch immunity. This is not what undo claimed.

Skruffs, your defence is basically that you were inattentive?

Also, this:

Glork was actually the mafia godfather, but his claim was that of an unlynchable townie. We lynched him anyways (though I don't think I voted him then, I could be wrong, it was at least a year ago) and there was in fact no lynch - we had to lynch him again the next day.

You quote past experience of "unlynchable" roles as scum.

A player who can not be lynched, will automatically win the game if there is no NKs of opposing faction (Town or scum or SK, whatever) in the game. Putting such a role in a game as mafia would be incredibly stupid, it relies on that player to be vigged or SK'd f or a town win, which is irresponsible.

You say "unlynchable" roles are irresposible to include as scum. You imply an understanding that unlynchables need to be nightkilled.

I explained my reasoning - he said he was unlynchable. People wanted to lynch him anyways. I pointed out how an unlynchable player basically is a bastard role as scum, so I would not be voting him.

Both this and the quote above don't jibe with the first quote.

[1]I have absolutely no reason to intentionally vote someone who is for all intents and purposes, and through their own claimed roleclaiming, cleared. [2]Do you have a reason to think that one of hte votes on Undo 'doesn't count'?

1. You still haven't explained why you believed undo's claim.
2. This seems to be you admitting that you were aware that undo had already reached the normal number of votes required for a lynch. So, what harm was there in adding yours?

[Skruffs]

REsponse later today, too groggy at the moment.

Also, it feels kind of tedious; I am glad you are being extremely thorough, but you're falling down the rabbit hole. I believe when I said that post (in regards to the last two questiosn of your post) Undo had reached the normal number to lynch, which indicated that , since the day had not ended, that if we all voted him the day would result in the equivalent of a no lynch. I don't know why I assumed THAT over the possibility that he just needed MORE to lynch, it did not cross my head.

Secondly, There was only one or two other people not voting him, which meant that unless ALL the mafia were not voting him because he was a partner, that it was likely that he WAS already being voted by the mafia (IN MY HEAD). Again, if he was a townie who could not be lynched, why do we have to 'test' it, rather then perhaps going after someone who actually could be lynched, town or not?

Thirdly, IF I had known or seen about Gorrad's jailkeeping results, I probably (If I had believed them) have voted him, or else thought that Undo had been the mafia's target. Either way I would have been a bit more integrated into the game. Yes, I was confused and all that crap.

I Wlil anwer the beginning of your post earlier, but I would like to ask if, even if my actions don't make sense, if you think that they don't make sense from a town's perspective and that makes me scum, or from ANY player's perspective, which makes me Skruffs.