Mini 179: Famous Mafiascum Avatars Mafia - GAME OVER


Forum rules
Locked
User avatar
Maximumum
Maximumum
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Maximumum
Goon
Goon
Posts: 537
Joined: November 15, 2004

Post Post #11 (isolation #0) » Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:36 am

Post by Maximumum »

Good morning avatar players!

I like your move mathcam. It makes sense to have clear target who is likely scum right off the bat. If massive is scum and you managed to stop a kill, good on ya!

But wait....

What if it's mathcam who is scum? What if he came out willing to claim a convenient roleblocking role because there were no kills last night? What if we take out massive now, find out he is pro-town, then tomorrow mathcam says "opps, I guess the roleblock wasn't the reason for the no kill night, my bad"

Hmmm,
Doesn't seem likely. So, I'm willing to vote for massive if once we've heard from him he doesn't have fun and exciting things to say.
[i]Nothing says lovin' like something from the oven![/i]
User avatar
Maximumum
Maximumum
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Maximumum
Goon
Goon
Posts: 537
Joined: November 15, 2004

Post Post #45 (isolation #1) » Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:14 am

Post by Maximumum »

armlx's quick claim yesterday was very bizarre. The facts are that he claimed cop, gave us a guilty on an innocent, then came back today with "I investigated myself". That last part is the part I have the biggest problem with. Not only did he say that he investigated himself but also adds he didn't even get a result! Not having anything to share so we can verify his claim is REALLY convenient.
This is sounding really fishy. This claim better be good.

Milkman...why would you tell us you are going to use your one shot on the guy who is the most likely lynch target?? Not only that but we already had a roleblocker claim and, no offense to mathcam, we don't know for sure what team he is on. Even if mathcam is a good guy there is no way of knowing whether there are other roleblockers out there. I have to agree that we don't need anymore hasty claims.
[i]Nothing says lovin' like something from the oven![/i]
User avatar
Maximumum
Maximumum
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Maximumum
Goon
Goon
Posts: 537
Joined: November 15, 2004

Post Post #58 (isolation #2) » Wed Apr 20, 2005 2:47 am

Post by Maximumum »

The fact that noone has counterclaimed with Meme's avatar makes armlx's claim much more believable. There is no way there would be an avatar mafia without her's involved. I just wish he had investigated someone else so we could verify the claim with a little more than his word.
Chaotic_diablo, if the clue is something that will lead us to scum then I'd say go for it. If it is nothing concrete then it would probably be best to keep it to yourself for now.

(Tally's avatar is
Velma
, not Thelma. Sorry, big Scooby Doo fan here)
[i]Nothing says lovin' like something from the oven![/i]
User avatar
Maximumum
Maximumum
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Maximumum
Goon
Goon
Posts: 537
Joined: November 15, 2004

Post Post #66 (isolation #3) » Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:16 am

Post by Maximumum »

So far, the only thing we've really heard from him is that he misread his role PM and thought he could kill someone during the day. A one shot Vig is still a useful role, if that is indeed what he is, even if he has come out.

I'm getting more and more suspicious of mathcam. First, he comes out with a quick role-blocker claim on day one. He strongly suggested we lynch massive and the town (too quickly) followed his advice and we lost a cop. He doesn't want to say who he roleblocked last night, just said that he "had no new information". Now he is voting for a claimed vig.

vote: mathcam


Since we have been trying to ascertain the validity of armlx's claim through the avatar he claimed, I would like to hear mathcam's avatar. Considering we already know his role there should be nothing to lose in revealing what avatar he is playing as.
[i]Nothing says lovin' like something from the oven![/i]
User avatar
Maximumum
Maximumum
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Maximumum
Goon
Goon
Posts: 537
Joined: November 15, 2004

Post Post #71 (isolation #4) » Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:43 pm

Post by Maximumum »

Armlx,
What caught my eye the most was the conflicting nature of these two posts from mathcam:
mathcam wrote:Well, I don't have any new information, which makes armlx my number one target. While I'd like to hear form eveyrone before we get ahead of ourselves, I think you'll probably eventually have to claim.
When JereIC asked "Mathcam, did you actually block him
(refering to armlx)
last night, or somebody else?"....
mathcam wrote:I've been trying to decide if I should reveal that information or not, actually. I was pretty happy leaving it vague: For example, if he
is
a cop, mafia don't know whether or not they have an investigation result out there that they have to worry about. Nonetheless, my mind isn't set on this, so if people have good reasons for me to come out with last night's choice, I'm certainly willing to.
First he said he had no information....then said he wasn't sure whether he should
share
his information. He says he wants to keep it vague because the mafia wouldn't know if there was a investigation result on them out there BUT you already said you investigated massive on Night One and yourself on Night Two. You also said that your second investigation was interfered with in some way, it would be nice to know if that was mathcam's doing or if there was another roleblocker out there. He doesn't have to say specifically who he blocked, just if he was the one who blocked you so we would know better what we are up against. He has info could be beneficial to the town and wasn't sure if he wanted to share?

If mathcam can back up his claim of roleblocking good guy with an avatar that makes sense and a further explanation for not sharing his info I would be willing to change my vote, but for now my vote stands.
[i]Nothing says lovin' like something from the oven![/i]
User avatar
Maximumum
Maximumum
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Maximumum
Goon
Goon
Posts: 537
Joined: November 15, 2004

Post Post #77 (isolation #5) » Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:23 pm

Post by Maximumum »

JereIC,
I'm just suggesting that mathcam tell us whether or not he blocked armlx last night. If it wasn't armlx then he should by no means tell us who he blocked for the reasons you mentioned. If it
was
armlx he blocked then it would explain why armlx's self-investigation didn't work. If it wasn't then we know that there is some other roleblocker out there.
The problem I see is mathcam's reason for not telling us. He said he was hesitant to tell us if he blocked a claimed cop because it would have mafia wondering whether there was an investigation on them out there, but armlx has openly told us who he chose to investigate both nights. There is no mystery about armlx's claimed investigations. His reason didn't make sense, but guess I could be misintrerrupted his reason.
[i]Nothing says lovin' like something from the oven![/i]
User avatar
Maximumum
Maximumum
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Maximumum
Goon
Goon
Posts: 537
Joined: November 15, 2004

Post Post #93 (isolation #6) » Sun Apr 24, 2005 3:06 pm

Post by Maximumum »

mathcam wrote:If I hadn't made this clear, I'm happy to reveal my avatar if people want, but I haven't seen the kind of evidence that I'd like to for me to actually do it. I'd also like it explained what there is to gain?
Mafia know I'm probably innocent,
but they don't know my role...which is one more role they have to be unsure of whether or not they can fake claim or not. So me revealing helps the mafia, and even worse, if for some reason you don't believe my claim, you might lynch me anyway! So the mafia laugh themselves all the way to the bank as they learn one more role not to claim
and
have survived the day with another pro-town player dead.

Cam

Mafia know you are
probably
innocent? If you aren't mafia with them then they would
know
you are innocent, wouldn't they?

We have nothing but mathcam's word that he is a good guy role-blocker and I thought his avatar would go a long way to establishing whether or not he is actually on the town's side. The guy he supposedly blocked on night one died before confirming he was blocked and mathcam has given us nothing today to help confirm his status. He wouldn't tell us whether he was the one who interfered with armlx's self-investigation because he wanted mafia to wonder whether there was an investigation out there on them. Armlx's two investigations are already common knowledge so that reason makes no sense.

There are only 10 players left in the game, that's just ten active avatars left. There are plenty of mafiascum avatars to choose from so mathcam claiming his avatar wouldn't really give mafia much of an advantage. His reluctance is just making me feel more and more comfortable with my vote.

C_D, since you revealed who your clue was about, can you elaborate about the rest of it?
User avatar
Maximumum
Maximumum
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Maximumum
Goon
Goon
Posts: 537
Joined: November 15, 2004

Post Post #106 (isolation #7) » Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:09 pm

Post by Maximumum »

I don't think C-D's hint was presented as a cop investigation. He called it a "hint".
StD, are you still following me?
[i]Nothing says lovin' like something from the oven![/i]
User avatar
Maximumum
Maximumum
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Maximumum
Goon
Goon
Posts: 537
Joined: November 15, 2004

Post Post #108 (isolation #8) » Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:13 pm

Post by Maximumum »

Excellent points, StD.
The one about there being lots of avatars to chose from for a false claim was what I tried to say earlier, but you did it so much more eloquently. There are so many potential avatar's out there that a good guy claiming their avatar would not help mafia significantly and it would go a long way to proving a claim.
For example, a wizard being a vig makes sense. I can see him zapping bad guys with his magic wand.
If there were only 12 famous avatars then I could see where the hestiation comes from, but there are lots out there.

(P.S. please pay any bills you find in my mail)
[i]Nothing says lovin' like something from the oven![/i]
User avatar
Maximumum
Maximumum
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Maximumum
Goon
Goon
Posts: 537
Joined: November 15, 2004

Post Post #111 (isolation #9) » Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:39 am

Post by Maximumum »

Hehe, underwear gnome.
That's a reasonable claimed avatar for your claimed role. Barring a counterclaim I'm ready to unvote.
[i]Nothing says lovin' like something from the oven![/i]
User avatar
Maximumum
Maximumum
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Maximumum
Goon
Goon
Posts: 537
Joined: November 15, 2004

Post Post #113 (isolation #10) » Wed Apr 27, 2005 2:34 pm

Post by Maximumum »

PBuG wrote:If it was milkman in mathcam's shoes, I'd still have reasons...
If you wish me to explain, I will, I already accidentally slipped up.
A slip up? PBug, you've been voting for milkman/StD this entire day. If you have some info that would indicate we should follow suit, please do explain.

hehe, underwear gnome.
User avatar
Maximumum
Maximumum
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Maximumum
Goon
Goon
Posts: 537
Joined: November 15, 2004

Post Post #127 (isolation #11) » Fri Apr 29, 2005 1:59 am

Post by Maximumum »

Wow, another cop claim.
I had never heard of Gaspode but after looking at his avatar I see nothing evil about it.
Three cops and a player who gets "hints". They can't all be sane. Velma was the most likely to be sane based on her character in Scooby Doo. Armlx has claimed a guilty result on an innocent player but no second result to compare for verification, possibly insane or paraniod. PBug has two innocent results, so chances are he is naive and his results may not be worth much. An old dog being naive is certainly a possiblity.
Perhaps we should avoid lynching either of them until their sanity is sorted out. If armlx turns out to be insane then his results could be useful.

unvote: mathcam
he seems to be the only underwear gnome in the game.
[i]Nothing says lovin' like something from the oven![/i]
User avatar
Maximumum
Maximumum
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Maximumum
Goon
Goon
Posts: 537
Joined: November 15, 2004

Post Post #141 (isolation #12) » Sun May 01, 2005 7:56 am

Post by Maximumum »

Wow, welcome to ClaimFest 2005!
Che Guevara, the Cuban Revolutionary, as a doc...interesting. Wasn't Stewie's original, and more famous, avatar Stewie from The Family Guy? I thought he changed his avatar recently...but I could be getting his mixed up with someone else's.
How do you know the clue came from JereIC? Did it come through the mod or was it directly from JereIC?
[i]Nothing says lovin' like something from the oven![/i]
User avatar
Maximumum
Maximumum
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Maximumum
Goon
Goon
Posts: 537
Joined: November 15, 2004

Post Post #151 (isolation #13) » Tue May 03, 2005 9:19 am

Post by Maximumum »

There are only a few of us who haven't revealed our avatars. Would it help things if we all threw them out there?
[i]Nothing says lovin' like something from the oven![/i]
User avatar
Maximumum
Maximumum
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Maximumum
Goon
Goon
Posts: 537
Joined: November 15, 2004

Post Post #157 (isolation #14) » Tue May 03, 2005 6:01 pm

Post by Maximumum »

mathcam wrote:I'm not sure I'm
against
this plan, per se, but I also don't see it gaining us much...Max's post feels very much like scum who's got a safe claim to make, and is eager to get it out there in the open. Max aside, I do think scum won't have a hard time finding something reasonable to claim.

Cam
I think you misunderstood my question. Whether that was intentional or not I'm not sure. I didn't say I was all for the rest of us claiming our avatars, I asked if it would help. InHimshallibe brought it up in the post before mine and I was trying to spark the discussion on whether or not it was a good idea.
I believe you are now contradicting yourself, mathcam. When asked earlier about revealing your avatar your reasoning for reluctance to do so was very clear...
mathcam wrote:But what's the point? To give scum one more avatar they know not to claim?
Cam
That has now changed to "I do think scum won't have a hard time finding something reasonable to claim". Which is it?
[i]Nothing says lovin' like something from the oven![/i]
User avatar
Maximumum
Maximumum
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Maximumum
Goon
Goon
Posts: 537
Joined: November 15, 2004

Post Post #165 (isolation #15) » Thu May 05, 2005 12:47 pm

Post by Maximumum »

mathcam wrote:Max, keep in mind that between those two posts of mine, there were probably at least a couple of claims. Each claim that's been made has made it just a little bit easier for scum to make fake claims. At this point, scum would have to get very unlucky to get trapped into a bad false claim, so I'm just saying that unless there's a clear pro-town incentive for revealing the rest of the roles, I'm not sure it's worth giving the mafia the extra information. Maybe I'm missing your question...could you explain what you think is contradictory? They both share the general philosophy of "Don't claim unless there's a good reason to."

Plus, even if there were a contradiction, I'm not sure what you think this would imply...I myself have already claimed, so it's not like I can get myself out of having to come up with a claim by shouting down this idea.

Finally, while I see what you were saying about your post 151, it still feels to me like you were eager to claim your role, which to me is pretty scummy.

Cam
All I was pointing out was the fact that when asked to reveal your avatar (because your roleclaim was already out there and the avatar could be used to verfiy your roleclaim) your refusal was, in part, because you didn't want to give mafia one less avatar they could claim. From the sound of your posts it seemed like you didn't want to claim your avatar because it would narrow down the choices for mafia to false claim.
I thought that was odd because of the number of avatars on mafiascum I didn't see much harm in verifying your role with your avatar. Then StD reinterated that statement in his post. Your position seems that have changed. You are saying that there are plenty of avatars so false claiming would not be a problem for mafia no matter how many avatars are claimed. Do you see how the position seems to have shifted?

Granted, I do agree that we shouldn't give mafia any more information than is totally necessary. I never said I thought that a mass claim was a good idea or the right way to go. I simply asked if it would help. I wasn't advocating that move in any way. However, if the majority of players talked over the issue and decided that was the way to best flush out scum then I would have agreed to it. I certainly was never "eager to claim my role". If you don't agree with that could you please point out in my posts that makes you think I was?


OH, thank you StD! I knew someone else had used Che as their avatar before Stewie but I couldn't remember who it was. It was Maximus! That was bugging me.
The avatars that have been mentioned are all the current avatars of the players they represent, I think.
The only way I could see Che being a doc is using the "saving the people from oppression" kind of angle?
[i]Nothing says lovin' like something from the oven![/i]
User avatar
Maximumum
Maximumum
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Maximumum
Goon
Goon
Posts: 537
Joined: November 15, 2004

Post Post #175 (isolation #16) » Sat May 07, 2005 5:00 am

Post by Maximumum »

chaotic_diablo wrote: The only way that you could not see Che Guevara as possibly a doctor if you didn't know that he graduated from medical school, became a medic, AND taught at a medical faculty.

p.s. I have no idea who Che Guevara is
I had no idea Che had a medical background. Believe it or not, Cuban Revolutionaries are not my area of expertise. In my last post I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt by providing a way that Che
could
have been a protector. That was before you told us about his background.

Armlx, where do you see that everyone else sees mathcam and I as scummy? He and I have had a kind of adversarial relationship in this game but that's because I don't like blindly believing claims and he thinks I was anxious to make a claim. As far as I could tell I was the only one questioning his claim and even I unvoted when he gave his avatar.
I don't mind people voting for me when they have valid reasons to do so. But so far the last two posts that have me as "scummy" just say
"I'm getting suspicious of Maximumum" and "I'm leaning toward maximum". Why?

We have a few quiet players in this game. I would like to hear what Leonidas and JereIC have to say about all this. Maybe getting a fresh take from some observers would help us out.
User avatar
Maximumum
Maximumum
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Maximumum
Goon
Goon
Posts: 537
Joined: November 15, 2004

Post Post #182 (isolation #17) » Sun May 08, 2005 3:30 am

Post by Maximumum »

Leonidas makes good points about armlx's avatar.

When today started I was all ready to lynch armlx because of his claim yesterday he was a cop with a guilty investigation and THAT's what the last voters based their votes for massive on.
Now he says that it was mathcam's doing that the lynch went so fast? mathcam even came back yesterday before the lynch and FOS'ed everyone who put on quick votes! There are things that mathcam has done that has made me suspicious of him but that certainly wasn't one of them.

Armlx's claim of MeMe's avatar was the thing that changed my mind but the way Leonidas describes it it has me rethinking that. His investigation of himself last night is looking even more scummy.
vote:armlx
[i]Nothing says lovin' like something from the oven![/i]
Locked