Mafiascum.net

↑ Dazed and Confused wrote:To answer your question, you'd have an added incentive to vote RachMarie and push a new mislynch option if your partner was one of the popular suspects (whereas otherwise, you might hop onto Nacho's or jason's wagons). It's not conclusive, since if you're partners with someone like Sotty, you have more leeway to vote creatively.

Wouldn't Whiskers get just as much heat if he did just jump on one of the popular wagons? This seems like a damned if you damned if you don't move.

Whiskers, did you read the game and vote or did you ISO Rach and vote? I ask because I don't know how you couldn't have missed Sixty claiming Josh was a quick hammer threat.

↑ Whiskers wrote:Also, I'm totally happy to vote and lynch jason, and I'm very solidly null on Nacho. And even better, I voted Rach over jason because jason had more support. Why shouldn't I want my scum reads to both be viable wagons? Then, no matter which gets lynched, I'm happy about it.

I'm not sure this actually makes sense the more I read it. You didn't vote Jason because you wanted Rach's wagon to be viable? How does that help the town? Also, why is your vote still on Rach even after I have unvoted?

Post 293 makes no sense either. Sixty and Rach basically did the same thing (signaling out a different player for potential "poor" play) and you talk about it not being an accusation? What? I'm not getting your point here.

↑ Whiskers wrote:So so far, we're lynching lurkers.

Rach last posted in thread: 4 days 1 hour ago

Okay. I get the Whiskers hate now.

Very tempted to vote Whiskers right now, josh was meh, whiskers done little to convince me that kitty is a soft kitty....

↑ Dazed and Confused wrote:Posting from my phone to mention that Nacho has basically stopped posting ever since we started piling on Whiskers.

Eh.

There is nothing earth shattering in his ISO, but would ScumNacho really talk me down from Rach? Seems counterintuitive to his potential scum needs at this point in the game.

↑ jasonT1981 wrote:Very tempted to vote Whiskers right now, josh was meh, whiskers done little to convince me that kitty is a soft kitty....

Looks like I'm going to have to look for a replacement for Rach.

She has till I find one to post.

↑ Dazed and Confused wrote:Posting from my phone to mention that Nacho has basically stopped posting ever since we started piling on Whiskers.

Hold the fuck on. So has Rach. So has jason.
ALL of the other candidates for scum have [Stopped posting ever since you started piling on Whiskers].

Sotty7 wrote:Whiskers, did you read the game and vote or did you ISO Rach and vote? I ask because I don't know how you couldn't have missed Sixty claiming Josh was a quick hammer threat.

Read the game. Sixty didn't claim he was a threat, just went, "players like josh" and I didn't pay it any mind.

Sotty7 wrote:

↑ Whiskers wrote:Also, I'm totally happy to vote and lynch jason, and I'm very solidly null on Nacho. And even better, I voted Rach over jason because jason had more support. Why shouldn't I want my scum reads to both be viable wagons? Then, no matter which gets lynched, I'm happy about it.

I'm not sure this actually makes sense the more I read it. You didn't vote Jason because you wanted Rach's wagon to be viable? How does that help the town? Also, why is your vote still on Rach even after I have unvoted?

Uh? I'm voting a scumread, it helps town? I have to trust myself first, before anypony else. If all of my scumreads are wagons, it's helping town...?

Sotty7 wrote:Post 293 makes no sense either. Sixty and Rach basically did the same thing (signaling out a different player for potential "poor" play) and you talk about it not being an accusation? What? I'm not getting your point here.

This is me trying to rationalize why I missed it in the read through. Really though, the best excuse is "I didn't realize it was noteworthy."

Sotty7 wrote:

↑ Whiskers wrote:So so far, we're lynching lurkers.

Rach last posted in thread: 4 days 1 hour ago

Okay. I get the Whiskers hate now.

That's hardly my fault. It had only been a day or so when I made that first post. Didn't see anything really scummy from Josh in my readthrough, still haven't seen anything scummy from Nacho. What do they have in common? They fucking lurked. Yeah, Rach has been GONE for four days, but I was voting her before that was the case.

Here, there's this.

Just got back to a computer and I'm a little tipsy but I'll try my best to sound coherent here.

↑ Sotty7 wrote:I'm gonna read the last couple of pages again and see if I get swayed by anything.

Ok so I feel like I owe you some sort of explanation as to why I'm super confident Whiskers is scum -- partly because I think you're town and your vote is important in getting my scumread lynched, partly because your post made me feel bad as it certainly wasn't my intention to shit on your thoughts re: this game.

My other head's already dug into the substance of his posts (I do want to emphasize that the posts really do come across like he doesn't give a fuck about Rach's motivations or genuinely scumhunting at all though), but I want to focus a bit more on their structure.

Pretentious Mafia Theory Disclaimer: I think focusing on the way posts are organized can be extremely important in forum mafia specifically. Given the immense amount of time people have to piece together their posts, they often pay far more attention to what they're saying than how they're saying it. While form should never take precedence over substance, I think you can figure out a lot about the poster's intentions based on the way they're organizing their thoughts. This is especially important when you consider the "stream of consciousness" style replace-in/catch-up style posts that people often like to write.

I put the phrase "stream of consciousness" in quotes because that's exactly what I think Whiskers' posts . His replace-in posts are way too structured/organized + way too narrowly focused (e.g., almost exclusive attention to Rach) to be the product of a stream of consciousness, but at the same time, feel like they're trying really hard to come across that way. The random asides to other players in #275 feel wholly tangential, almost like he's trying to come off like he cares about other people's opinions or like he's not just having a one-track mind, a sentiment that is later betrayed by the later posts like #285. Basically, the whole thing feels really artificial and fake and scummy, not the product of a townie's natural borne thought processes.

I don't know if I sound like an idiot right now or if this is alcohol or if this makes sense to anyone but me, but yeah.

I get what you are saying, I am going to chew it over for a little bit.

=========[]
[]=========



Nacho next.

Lol, you guys.

You guys you guys you guys.

C&D, your beef is that I look like I'm doctoring my posts to look more town?

God, you guys.

Fucking Nacho next, not that I have any cop results yet or anything, but I haven't seen a reason to lynch him yet, either, other than "he could be scumbuddies with x, y, or z!" Not any actually scummy things.
You guys. You guys are all really good at not telling anybody what the fuck you're doing. I guess you've all got secret scumreads, because I still haven't seen any reason for TownRach, I haven't seen any reason for ScumNacho, you haven't lynched jasonT yet, and you lynched me. I'd have tried to defend myself if you'd have given me something to defend myself , but y'all didn't, it's just, "Hey, you replaced a lurker, we're going to lynch you!"

"Ok."

I'll save the rest for either the graveyard or after the game, but for the record, although you say you didn't try to defend yourself from anything, the majority of what you've posted this game since people first started attacking you was self-defence, sarcastic comments, and "Why are you voting me when X is doing the same thing?" Rightly or wrongly, it did a lot to make us feel better about where our vote was sitting.

CES, as inevitable as this was looking, you could have shown us the courtesy of a warning before hammering.

Should I post my other thoughts before thread lock, y/n?

Sure?

I think a warning would've spoiled the effect, surely.

Um, there was stuff I wanted to say about Nacho's catch-up post, but I have to go before the stores close. So just two quick points that were never answered:

Jason:

jason, are you saying that Sotty is town because she suspects you based on an actual case instead of your lack of activity?

You didn't respond to this, but I might as well come out with why this bugged the hell out of me: Sotty has been pretty much attacking you all game because you haven't been active. Didn't you just say that was her scum meta? Why are you suddenly clearing her for it?

Sotty:
Why did you feel the need to answer the above question before jason did? Also:

3) Why didn't you mention Sixty's reaction to jason's L-1 vote at the time, if it was a major factor in your jason town read? How does that even make any sense? (jason is town because you don't like a post Sixty made after his vote?)

You answered the first part (rushing to get this in before the lock, so not going to link it). But that still doesn't explain how Sixty's vote would remotely affect how you'd read jason.

I'm off, so if I die before I wake, good luck, town. And don't be so overconfident that this game is as easy as you think it is. Nacho is suspicious for posting in every game except this one, and I don't have much confidence that Whiskers will flip scum right now, because he's reacting the way Thor did in ADwD, but I actually think CES's point in favour of a Josh/Nacho team is a point AGAINST them being partners (granted, calling Nacho and Sotty town isn't as strong a point ruling out Nacho as just calling Nacho town, but I still think weaker scum going on the record with a town read of a partner while doing nothing to actually him). Disclaimer: Empire (who is more articulate while drunk than I am sober) disagrees on this. Also, am I missing why Whiskers immediately answering for jason as his scumbuddy is a Nacho-buddy tell?)

Lastly, remind me to never, ever play another Mafia game again, at least until the time I forget this promise and fuck up.

↑ Dazed and Confused wrote:but I actually think CES's point in favour of a Josh/Nacho team is a point AGAINST them being partners (granted, calling Nacho and Sotty town isn't as strong a point ruling out Nacho as just calling Nacho town, but I still think weaker scum

hate

going on the record with a town read of a partner while doing nothing to actually

defend

him).

The idea is that Josh was calling Sotty town too precisely because of that.

So the deliberations have ended and enough of the town has agreed that Whiskers must die to string him up. The hope that you were right is initially high, as it does turn out that Whiskers is armed as the town disarms him on the way to the noose. Unfortunately the notebook you find on him after he's hung and dead shows that the town's choice for lynch was indeed one of the worst choices you could have possibly made. Without a around to investigate the bad people, you're certainly in for some dark days ahead.

Whiskers lynched day 1

Night one deadline is (expired on 2013-03-04 16:30:00) but won't end until I find a replacement for RachMarie. If you have an action have it in by the deadline or it will be forfeited.

Syryana replaces RachMarie effective immediately.

Night One will end at deadline.

The only thing worse than lynching your cop is waking up the next morning to a dead body... but you knew what you were getting when you signed up for this job, and you can expect no less... anyway it is a sad morning that is now without puppies, for sixty is no longer with us. You must avenge them... for all puppykind!

Sixty killed night 1

Not Voting: (JasonT1981, Nachomamma8, Sotty7, Syryana, Dazed and Confused, FourTrouble, Cogito Ergo Sum)

With 7 alive it's 4 to lynch

Deadline: (expired on 2013-03-18 20:00:00)

VOTE: CES

We're policy-lynching you! Any objections to that?