Mini 1404 - Monopoly Mafia - Game Over

[StrangerCoug]

I'm not. I'm more confident in the claim than you are, but the circumstances don't make him town per se.

[Guy_Named_Riggs]

~Searching for a replacement for Nobody Special~

[Lord Mhork]

Aren't you voting lurker, StrangerCoug?

[StrangerCoug]

Yes. It's clearly from a card, and as I've hammered into everybody's head, I think everybody has cards.

[Baby Spice]

Firstly I hate vague.

But I read and yhink that yhis is town StrangerCoug. Just can't put my finger on specifics.


I think that the quick "I got a card" is townish. I think that the scum would try and keep them secret. At least for the girst few cards to show up.

[numberQ]

Lurker:

Before the claim, his content amounted to an analysis of his own wagon (though unless I read it wrong he didn't even supply any opinions of his own), a case on Mhork (which is weak, but that's already been discussed), and a few statements that almost sound like the beginnings of some investigation but stop before they go anywhere (see: 76, 89).

Then he claimed, and for some reason people forgot that the game explicitly stated that cards (ie, powers) are randomized after alignment assignments, meaning alignment has nothing to do with powers. On top of that, the claim was strange because he waited until someone specifically asked him about it to mention his Watcher role.

Post-claim Lurker has been IIoA and a promise to look at the SC issue, though he's posted since that promise without having looked at the issue.

--

StrangerCoug:

I don't see anything inherently wrong with SC's post 257, where he votes Lurker because of Mhork's deconstruction of Lurker's case. Seriously. What the hell was bad about it? Maybe I'm blind but I'm just not seeing it.

I thought the conversation between SC and Jake after that was weird though, and I can't put my finger on why. When I say weird, note that SC's posts looked weird, not really Jake's. I don't know if this even means anything.

Other than that, SC has mostly just defended himself and responded to questions. I don't see a lot that's scummy about him, especially since (and I may have forgotten something here) the only case against him seems to be his Lurker vote.

--

So yeah Lurker should be lynched.

VOTE: Lurker

I still want to look at Mhork and Robert in more detail, and now Baby Spice since I'm seeing people against her, but I'll get to them some other time.

[Baby Spice]

I think that the quick "I got a card" is townish. I think that the scum would try and keep them secret. At least for the first few cards to show up.

Firstly, bloody iPhone keyboard thingy.

I meant community chest cards, and presumably chance cards though I don't remember anybody saying that they had any.

[Xisiqomelir]

@StrangerCoug

:

But you said you were 'sold'. How is that not agreement?

Of the four people besides Lord Mhork to post cases that were quoted in your post, Agent_Ireland's vote is clearly random while the other three discuss post #44. Lord Mhork's post discusses Lurker's later actions, and your "odd one out" suggests that going with him was a bad thing.

Is something wrong with Mhork's post?

....

This has nothing to do with Mhork and everything to do with you. Your vote was the only one quoted which was a sheep (AI voted for RVS reasons, Jal for non-participation, Mhork for unhelpfulness, Mogadishu for #44). I find it disturbing because it wasn't even a sheep of what I take to be a case (Mhork's #227).

This:

I don't like Lurker's accusing Lord Mhork of voting Robert2424 for not having an avatar. First of all, that's not his vote reason. Second of all, voting someone for having no avatar is patently ridiculous. Lord Mhork had also already told me that the early wagon thing was sarcasm.

Does not answer my question about what it was in Mhork's #227 which sold you on voting Lurker. There is a connection to his points #4 and #2, but those are defences of himself, not part of a case he made to vote Lurker.

I saw his post as a counterattack demonstrating that Lurker's vote was weak, especially #4 since he insults Lurker in the first sentence.

Since he's right here, let's get clarification.

@Lord Mhork

: Was your #227 intended mainly as a defence against Lurker's #168, or was it primarily intended to be a demonstration of Lurker's scumminess? If it's some admixture of the two, what are the rough proportions?

Additionally, how do you feel about StrangerCoug's hop from you to Lurker in #257?

@Baby Spice

:

I assume the bandwagonning vote is my Lurker vote. Who specifically is the "easy target" vote cited here? Is it Mhork or StrangerCoug? Why was he easy?

Didn't I already say earlier that Lord Mhork would be one of those easy targets?

I prefer things to be unambiguous. Thanks for the clarification.

[Mehdi2277]

Number continuing on the SC argument he backs down from his votes too easily. Vote me because of meta, k don't want to argue meta when I show he's wrong. Vote Mhork because of something not true and backs down again. While I understand unvoting when you misread something doing it repeatedly shows lack of care with votes.

And I think it's somewhat better he waited to claim watcher since that was likely just directly with the card so he didn't see that as part of the main claim. Tell me the scum motivation of not full claiming then if it's likely to be forced out of you?

[Lurker]

Lurker:

Before the claim, his content amounted to an analysis of his own wagon (though unless I read it wrong he didn't even supply any opinions of his own), a case on Mhork (which is weak, but that's already been discussed), and a few statements that almost sound like the beginnings of some investigation but stop before they go anywhere (see: 76, 89).

Then he claimed, and for some reason people forgot that the game explicitly stated that cards (ie, powers) are randomized after alignment assignments, meaning alignment has nothing to do with powers. On top of that, the claim was strange because he waited until someone specifically asked him about it to mention his Watcher role.

Post-claim Lurker has been IIoA and a promise to look at the SC issue, though he's posted since that promise without having looked at the issue.

--

StrangerCoug:

I don't see anything inherently wrong with SC's post 257, where he votes Lurker because of Mhork's deconstruction of Lurker's case. Seriously. What the hell was bad about it? Maybe I'm blind but I'm just not seeing it.

I thought the conversation between SC and Jake after that was weird though, and I can't put my finger on why. When I say weird, note that SC's posts looked weird, not really Jake's. I don't know if this even means anything.

Other than that, SC has mostly just defended himself and responded to questions. I don't see a lot that's scummy about him, especially since (and I may have forgotten something here) the only case against him seems to be his Lurker vote.

--

So yeah Lurker should be lynched.

VOTE: Lurker

I still want to look at Mhork and Robert in more detail, and now Baby Spice since I'm seeing people against her, but I'll get to them some other time.

As for the SC voting of me, did he himself make a case, or was it sheeping?

[Lurker]

Wait. It was sheeping.

[Jake from State Farm]

the fact that there is a resistance to SC, makes me want to keep my vote on him.

[Xisiqomelir]

Current Vote Count 1.07

StrangerCoug - 4 (Jake From State Farm, Jal, Xisiqomelir, Mehdi2277) (L-3)

Jal - 3 (Baby Spice, Robert24, Robert24) (L-4)
Lurker - 2 (Lord Mhork, StrangerCoug) (L-5)
numberQ - 1 (Mehdi2277) (L-6)
Lord Mhrok - 1 (Lurker) (L-6)

Not Voting: Agent_Ireland, Mogadishu Jones, Robert2424, numberQ, Nobody Special

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch
Deadline is in

(expired on 2013-01-05 14:10:00)

@Mod

: Is Mehdi2277 meant to have two votes here?

[StrangerCoug]

This has nothing to do with Mhork and everything to do with you. Your vote was the only one quoted which was a sheep (AI voted for RVS reasons, Jal for non-participation, Mhork for unhelpfulness, Mogadishu for #44). I find it disturbing because it wasn't even a sheep of what I take to be a case (Mhork's #227).

I'd respond, but:

Since he's right here, let's get clarification.

[Lord Mhork]

@Lord Mhork

: Was your #227 intended mainly as a defence against Lurker's #168, or was it primarily intended to be a demonstration of Lurker's scumminess? If it's some admixture of the two, what are the rough proportions?

Additionally, how do you feel about StrangerCoug's hop from you to Lurker in #257?

"Admixture"
Dat word...

Yeah it was a little of Column A and a little of Column B. It began with me just being very irritated with lurker's poorly done case, but that last line where I accuse him of IIoA is enough for it to be a case as well. I'd say... 75-80/20-25? Somewhere in that ball park? I wasn't really trying to win votes with that post, if that's what you're asking.

I'd be willing to give StrangerCoug the benefit of the doubt for misreading, though I don't like how I had

just

said I had made a mistake. I don't really see the scum motivation here though to misunderstand a really, really obvious correction. I'd say it's more of a null tell/leaning slow player tell.

And I don't really know what to make of him hopping on lurker like that. If he thought my deconstruction of the terribad post revealed enough scum intent from lurker, more power to him. I'm more worried about his 263. That's where my bad feels are coming, not so much from 257. That hop can be neutral too, I guess.

Number continuing on the SC argument he backs down from his votes too easily. Vote me because of meta, k don't want to argue meta when I show he's wrong. Vote Mhork because of something not true and backs down again. While I understand unvoting when you misread something doing it repeatedly shows lack of care with votes.

And I think it's somewhat better he waited to claim watcher since that was likely just directly with the card so he didn't see that as part of the main claim. Tell me the scum motivation of not full claiming then if it's likely to be forced out of you?

Where is the town motivation not to give all the information possible to the town when it's demanded of you. Hiding information is not characteristically townie, now is it?

[Jal]

Okay, I've been busy, and I just finished a stupid final LYLO which took all my free time.

Here's the deal with Lurker: What is the scum motivation to not give all information at first, and then spill the beans a few minutes later when asked about having another card? I'm not seeing scum do something like that in such a quick back-and-forth manner. Maybe if he was being coached in the moment, but why not just spill all the beans in the first place then?

Will get back to this in a bit.

[Robert2424]

Baby Spice, are you Shadoweh? I miss her...

Robert, does watcher even definitely mean town? Isn't scum watcher possible?

I'd say watcher would mean 95% of the time town. But that doesn't Clear him cause he got a property card to say, he's a Watcher Night 1. Along with any other abliltys he may have. I've Never Seen Scum with a Watcher role if that is what your saying, though on the other hand it could be a convinat lie for the moment. There is no proof right now its true or not. I Mod games and wouldn't make scum able to have the watcher ability. But the powers are in the property's as it says in the beginning of the thread. So, in this game everything goes.

[Robert2424]

Current Vote Count 1.07

StrangerCoug - 4 (Jake From State Farm, Jal, Xisiqomelir, Mehdi2277) (L-3)

Jal - 3 (Baby Spice, Robert24, Robert24) (L-4)
Lurker - 2 (Lord Mhork, StrangerCoug) (L-5)
numberQ - 1 (Mehdi2277) (L-6)
Lord Mhrok - 1 (Lurker) (L-6)

Not Voting: Agent_Ireland, Mogadishu Jones, Robert2424, numberQ, Nobody Special

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch
Deadline is in

(expired on 2013-01-05 14:10:00)

Riggs, Both my votes are already submitted, why am I under the Not Voting list?

[Lord Mhork]

Baby Spice, are you Shadoweh? I miss her...

Robert, does watcher even definitely mean town? Isn't scum watcher possible?

I'd say watcher would mean 95% of the time town. But that doesn't Clear him cause he got a property card to say, he's a Watcher Night 1. Along with any other abliltys he may have. I've Never Seen Scum with a Watcher role if that is what your saying, though on the other hand it could be a convinat lie for the moment. There is no proof right now its true or not. I Mod games and wouldn't make scum able to have the watcher ability. But the powers are in the property's as it says in the beginning of the thread. So, in this game everything goes.

Pal, like I keep pointing out, roles are randomized. Mod said this. What was the purpose of this post?

[Baby Spice]

Aye, roles seem to be based on property cards which were randomly handed out after alignment.

PR claim is next to useless for alignment in this game.

Robert, why not try a third vote then?

[Lurker]

Baby Spice, are you Shadoweh? I miss her...

Robert, does watcher even definitely mean town? Isn't scum watcher possible?

I'd say watcher would mean 95% of the time town. But that doesn't Clear him cause he got a property card to say, he's a Watcher Night 1. Along with any other abliltys he may have. I've Never Seen Scum with a Watcher role if that is what your saying, though on the other hand it could be a convinat lie for the moment. There is no proof right now its true or not. I Mod games and wouldn't make scum able to have the watcher ability. But the powers are in the property's as it says in the beginning of the thread. So, in this game everything goes.

Pal, like I keep pointing out, roles are randomized. Mod said this. What was the purpose of this post?

Most of the time watcher = town

If the mod kept to giving town town roles and scum scum roles that watcher would be town.

However we don't know that, thus the summary of the argument.

[Guy_Named_Riggs]

~Vote Count Issues were because I didn't get rid of them on my spreadsheet. Mehdi2277 is NOT voting numberQ and Robert2424 has used both of his votes. These will fixed at the next vote count~

[Jake from State Farm]

who says most of the time watcher is town? I do agree with the argument that the cards don't guarantee alignment but to assume that watcher means town isn't a smart assumption

[Robert2424]

I'm saying I do believe his card gives him the ability(unless he's lying about it, witch wouldn't do anything to lie about it), not making him town. The power is in the cards, not the role unless your mafia. I think Town is just vanilla, with cards that randomly give us powers. So Watcher don't mean somebody is town, but only because of the card issue. If there wasn't for the cards, I can imagine this game entirely different and my theory can thrown to the way side.

@Jake, Lurker said time watcher is town.

@Baby, if I had randomly 3 votes, I'd be too powerful as a lyncher. Plus I don't like Day 1 lynches anyways.

[Lord Mhork]

Baby Spice, are you Shadoweh? I miss her...

Robert, does watcher even definitely mean town? Isn't scum watcher possible?

I'd say watcher would mean 95% of the time town. But that doesn't Clear him cause he got a property card to say, he's a Watcher Night 1. Along with any other abliltys he may have. I've Never Seen Scum with a Watcher role if that is what your saying, though on the other hand it could be a convinat lie for the moment. There is no proof right now its true or not. I Mod games and wouldn't make scum able to have the watcher ability. But the powers are in the property's as it says in the beginning of the thread. So, in this game everything goes.

Pal, like I keep pointing out, roles are randomized. Mod said this. What was the purpose of this post?

Most of the time watcher = town

If the mod kept to giving town town roles and scum scum roles that watcher would be town.

However we don't know that, thus the summary of the argument.

Why are you saying this?