Finished Mafia XLII: War of the Gods ~ GAME OVER ~ Town wins!

[Vracken]

Apologies, there was a mistake with the L-X. I swapped them around, Hades has me working late into the night. I apologize for this error . This is the current status

NinjaPenguin is at L-2
Professor Palutena is at L-3

 

[Vracken]

Errr, with Scattered Minds unvote, this is the now corrected L-X. Once again, apologies.


NinjaPenguin is at L-2

 

[Celever]

mirdo is humorous as town, js. That post screams town.

 

[NinjaPenguin]

To give you a chance to contribute without my pressure, as you requested, and to put more on Prof to see if he would slip up in case his response is untrue.

The mason ability does not include the safeclaim, which is the only ability bb and Prof share. The safeclaim clause is in Prof's second ability, which bb doesn't necessarily have.

You requested a hammer. That's more than just pressure.

 

[mordacazir]

@mirdo The mayor cases and a read list from NP. For context click the arrow. I know it's a lot but it's less than 10 pages.

How the case on NP created:



Celever makes the observation that NP's behavior (attacking morda over the first RVS vote, in an obvious way to pressure) is an attempt to appear as town NP, which NP presumably perceives as aggressive. Celever also most probably refers to the quote NP made from the pirates game, in response to Lord's post who voted NP asking him to relax, implying he is too aggressive for this RVS stage. The quote NP used to defend himself was to show how this is how he plays and treats RVS, in order to, probably, prove that this is not something unusual on his part.



NP is asking this question, which might be a dumbtell to buy some time, because it is pretty obvious that Celever referred to the quote NP gave from the pirates game.



Celever points the obvious.



Here, NP indirectly admits that this time he was more/less aggressive than past games, but that this is not an issue, because the level of aggressiveness cannot justify what Celever says.



Here Celever asks from NP to explain what is the reason behind the change of the way NP is being aggressive. Meaning: Celever thinks that the change is because this is scum NP trying to imitate town NP's aggressiveness, and because NP says that it is not so, Celever asks him:" then what is it?"



Here, NP explains that the change in aggressiveness is the result of his attempt to quickly get out of RVS, which in his opinion, consistently harming the game and leads the town to a last minute lynch. A good reason, however, stay with me.





According to NP, the change of aggressiveness in practice is him questioning every post and being more vocal,





Here Celever is reaching. This is a dead end. NP has given a decent answer, but Celever is trying to pressure him further, from some reason.










Here, Celever explains that NP's reason of being more vocal is a mindset shit, and that this is the scummy part. I am not very sure what he meant there, and so was NP:





Which part are you referring here. bb?



Celever is not willing to continue explaining the mindset thing. Instead he is referring to a complete different issue, and that is the fact that NP said bb's vote was townie, but..



Exactly! So why, Celever? and why even bringing this up when you still have not completed the first point? I am confused. But here, Lord explains :



Yes it could, like everything pretty much, but what is the evidence that it is so?




-----


ANYWAY, remember the part where I asked you to stay with me? The one where it seemed like NP gave a good answer to his change in aggressiveness? Well, the point in which this statement is contradicted is here:





NP's answer to that contradiction is:



In one word : annoying.
This RVS vote on IE holds no attempt whatsoever to pressure. And in general, this behavior is not adding up to the presented new ideology of NP regarding RVS, which he gave as an explanation to his change in aggressiveness instead of Celever's explanation that the real reason behind the change is NP being scum trying to act too much what he believes his town meta is.



So this is what I think is most likely the entire issue with NP. To all of you who were not so sure about it like:


All of you guys and really everyone, can now, I think have much more to say. :3

On NP's case on Lorde:

@NinjaPenguin; I think you're trying too hard. By that I mean that a lot of the points you brought up are overthought and involve you reading too much into the posts, presuming scummy intentions from them, and thus are flawed. It's tunnel vision. Some examples:

Spoiler

This point is based off the assumption that lorde is scum and intentionally trying to stop bandwagons. What lorde said could have just as easily be said by town.

This also assumes that lorde is scum and intentionally trying to stall the game state. Not only is this not on most newer scum's agendas, it was RVS (as lorde pointed out) and you've taken it out of context.

This assumes that lorde is scum and is intentionally trying to make it so IE needs not to react. In fact, most town will say things that prevent the ideal reaction of the person another is scumhunting unintentionally, so this is also not alignment indicative.

I think that in the core of it, the points NP raised boils down to some WIFOM-yness and some average logic. The first I think is a legitimate issue, and lorde saying "it's normal despite how hard I try" sounds more like an excuse. The second point is very shakey, since there's a lot of average logic going around right now. Aggressiveness was discussed somewhat, but that's not really the tone that I'm picking up.

Bolded


On Lorde:
The potentially scummy things that I noticed in lorde's defense was some passive aggressiveness (might be normal), potential OMGUS (still needs confirming/clarifying) and some weird reasoning in "- WIFOM is normal for me, no matter how much I want it not to be.", this simply showing that WIFOM is actually a legitimate point on lorde.*

*A tangent thought; I'm actually thinking that maybe a good case is one that can't be well defended against. A defendable case implies that there are flaws in the arguments. Yeah, this only just clicked for me. Dx'

Lorde's tone seems calculated and inconsistent
The reason why I'm reading lorde as scum at this point is that I think her tone is coming off quite calculated, which I don't think is normal for her. It reminds me, rather, of how she played this previous game as scum. Follows are lorde's first five posts (not in consecutive order); I suggest you read them all first before you read my thoughts on them.

Both of these are overexplained and are some notable posts where I notice a calculated tone. Keep in mind that this is in early RVS. They also seem to be overthought. For example, in the second post, lorde devotes three sentences in her explanation, despite the issue being somewhat obvious - the same meaning could be conveyed with the last sentence alone. Why did she bother with her longer explanation, particularly in RVS? This indicates either town trying too hard to find tells, or scum overthinking and overexplaining things as to present 'flawless' cases, or to ensure that town would have no way to think they've slipped. These posts feel artificial to me.

Compare that to the following posts, which are much more-lighthearted or significantly shorter. Particularly compare the last post (about 'bad reasoning') with the ones above. It's something that could have easily been overexplained - lorde didn't say why 'it' is bad reasoning; however it didn't actually need to be explained. This is interesting because the posts above do explain fairly obvious problems. So there's definitely some inconsistencies in tone.

Lorde's WIFOMY behaviour
This combined with the WIFOMyness that we've seen so far; take this post, which is generally just maybe/maybe not. There's also a bit of noncommital behaviour here, which NP brought up, and I think that is probably expressed through the WIFOM.

Interestingly, she's also been sticking to the NP case nearly tunnel-like. Whenever she uses WIFOM, it's nearly always bias towards NP being scum. Remember, one of lorde's scummiest plays this past game was being selective. It's definitely toned down thus far, but it's still evident in this bias WIFOM. For example:
This is some obvious and major evidence of using WIFOM to discredit a defense on NP.
She says here that jade's point is half-true, but then is like "oh, but it's a great point still", which is some more implicit evidence of lorde using WIFOM against NP.

tl;dr

lorde is scum because:
- inconsistent tone that feels artificial, calculated and overexplained
- general WIFOMyness
- selective (bias towards NP being scummy) when using WIFOM
- potential OMGUS (needs clarifying/confirming)

It would involve me claiming, which is why I'm hesistant. But heck, I'm expecting to die soon anyway; what is there to really lose? >.>

So, I've got a QT chat with Prof P (just the two of us), and we've had this exchange (unfortunately there was a delay due to Prof P not being around):





I asked for Prof to claim his QT Ability in the chat, however he either didn't see it or ignored it, which is annoying.

I also clarified the safeclaim thing with the hosts:



So, in short, there's no apparent reason for there to be something about safeclaims in our Abilities, which indicates the Prof is lying, and the hosts don't deny the possibility that Prof P's role could be a safeclaim.


Now you might be thinking; couldn't this just be a difference in the way the roles were written? Well, if the hosts did tried to make the roles similar as they said above, I'd expect our QT Abilities to be similar. Additionally, I'd expect that only one of the hosts wrote the two mason roles; it's a bit odd for them to write each seperately. One Ability having something about safeclaims and the other note is a very weird inconsistency that I would have expected to be otherwise fixed.

So, in short, Prof P is likely lying about his QT Ability stating that my role could be a safe claim. Thoughts, particularly @scattered mind?

I'll claim:


Cel, it's not a role fish. I have a legit reason for asking this that I'll explain if he says yes/no or in a couple of hours if he's offline. There's very little risk in saying it, which is why it's fine in my book. I believe Prof. is scum a lot more depending in one of the answers.

Also, a reads list:
bb- Leaning town. He's never done anything very scummy, is not tunneling a side, and took the initative with the Prof. P slip. This causes me to believe him.
Cel- Leaning scum. His extreme tunneling is ridiculous, and there are small connections to Lorde.
IE- Neutral, leaning scum. He's said basically nothing, but he gave a useless comparison between me and Camo in that time. Lorde also gave a small defense for him.
Lorde- Large scum. BB and I have both made cases on her. Check them out.
Morda- Leaning town. He's trying to play better, and it's apparent and nice to see.
Mirdo- Neutral, leaning town. He's not really said much that I remember. By virtue of the fact that there are more townies than scum, he's leaning town.
Jesi- Medium scum. Lorde tried to defend HW, and HW was a bit strange when he was playing. We haven't heard from her at all, which I'd want before I made a decision on her.
Prof. P- Leaning scum. He potentially slipped. That's all I have.
Scattered- Large town. He's acting like a townie, thinking out all of his posts in a logical manner and always listening to other points of view.
Rainy- Leaning town. He's been tunneling me, but he's clearly playing better, and trying to think things out.
Jade- Neutral. He seems to be playing like a townie, but Lorde's strange interaction with him makes me unsure.

 

[mordacazir]

Also, why aren't we voting lord anymore?

 

[Scattered mind]

NP's right. Celever, you also have these scummy points that you didn't answer/provide an alternative explanation :
1)reaching after NP's good reason (before the contradiction)
2)Refusing to reexplain the case on NP when requested more than once.

 

[Scattered mind]

Also, why aren't we voting lord anymore?

Because, I think, there is a main issue about Lord that she needs to answer about in order to determine something in her most scummy post. I explained it in my response to NP;s case on her, and later on to bb.

 

[Scattered mind]

@Professor Palutena - final bets on who's scum/town just for the heck of it?

 

[Celever]

NP's right. Celever, you also have these scummy points that you didn't answer/provide an alternative explanation :
1)reaching after NP's good reason (before the contradiction)
2)Refusing to reexplain the case on NP when requested more than once.

1) I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to here. I always dislike reaching as an argument unless it appears there's motive behind it anyway; sometimes people just make bad cases. Especially on Day 1, this can lead to better things later.
2) I was away and phonebound; I repeated this loads of times.

 

[NinjaPenguin]

Also, why aren't we voting lord anymore?

I still like the Lorde lynch, along with the Prof. P lynch and now the Celever lynch. Right now, I'm unfortunately in self-preservation mode. I'll go with whichever of those lynches are the most achievable. If there's a tie, my order is Lorde, then Celever, then Professor. Right now, Professor looks the most achievable, so my vote is on him.

1) I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to here. I always dislike reaching as an argument unless it appears there's motive behind it anyway; sometimes people just make bad cases. Especially on Day 1, this can lead to better things later.
2) I was away and phonebound; I repeated this loads of times.

Don't dodge my question.

 

[Professor Palutena]

@Professor Palutena - final bets on who's scum/town just for the heck of it?

Gut still says Lord. Hence why my vote is there.

 

[Celever]

Don't dodge my question.

What question?

 

[NinjaPenguin]

Why did you request a hammer on Prof. P if you expected him to do something that would make you remove your vote?
Don't say "I never said that." I don't have the time to find the quotes, but they certainly exist (one was you expecting Prof. to say what he said when you removed your vote, and one was requesting a hammer).

 

[bbninjas]

I always doubt my cases and re-evaluate the strength of it; I just don't show it if it's the best option for the day for the sake of pressure. I think it is very plausible that NP is scum, but I'm giving him the leverage he so-desperately desired to give him a chance to contribute. If Prof gives a good response, I will move back to him, as he is second-scummiest rn.

I thought you said that you thought NP was townier now because his role has synergy with your role and because that doesn't normally happen in a scum-town situation?

Found this quote:

Prof. isn't playing like Town!PP or Scum!PP, but freaking out and subbing out seems more like Town!PP than Scum!PP. I see your point about Girma, though.

Apart from that being Prof. saying that, which may or may not be accurate; why would town PP freak out and disappear if he was telling the truth?

Going to work right now lol.

I don't mind claiming role name cop because it's literally useless with safeclaims.

Prof P is either really good at slipping out of slips or he's town. There is a remote possibility that the "safeclaim" parts of the two latter Abilities just got added by Prof P, however I think this is unlikely. Why Prof P said what he did makes complete sense based off his claim; I wasn't particularly clear in what I was referring to in my question, so it being misinterpreted like it did would make sense. The only thing that doesn't make sense here is that why Prof P assumed to have non-QT Abilities like his, as that's a bit of a wild assumption. That said, I think the chances of Prof P being scum is much less likely at this point, and considerably less than both lorde and NP. The other thing, albeit a weaker point; Prof P being scum doesn't really line up with my other scum reads so that was making me doubt either of my lorde read or Prof P slip.

So... back to lorde: ##UNVOTE: Prof P ##VOTE: lord o

Yes, I still think lord is scum and I'm not sure if they're going to respond in due time to clarify the scummier post, especially considering a good scum tactic here is to stall; the only scummy thing about NP for me is the contradiction which I don't find incriminating. (If I did, I'd be pushing for Celever first, as I feel he has been contradicting - or at least been hypocritical - more than NP.)

mirdo is humorous as town, js. That post screams town.

Thirded. That is a very townie post from mirdo there; and I just don't feel like scum mirdo would go around making pie charts of all things, especially when they haven't done it before, which, btw, I think is amazing

@Celever Can you repeat what's scummy about NP again? Others sorta have, but I would like to see you post them again.

 

[bbninjas]

Why did you request a hammer on Prof. P if you expected him to do something that would make you remove your vote?

This is actually a very good question.

 

[Celever]

Why did you request a hammer on Prof. P if you expected him to do something that would make you remove your vote?
Don't say "I never said that." I don't have the time to find the quotes, but they certainly exist (one was you expecting Prof. to say what he said when you removed your vote, and one was requesting a hammer).

To make Prof post said response. If he wasn't threatened with death, Ty would have subbed in, and I don't know how much experience he has, so he may not have identified the best thing to say, whereas i knew Prof would.

 

[bbninjas]

To make Prof post said response. If he wasn't threatened with death, Ty would have subbed in, and I don't know how much experience he has, so he may not have identified the best thing to say, whereas i knew Prof would.

That was a huge risk to take, because a townie could have followed along with what you said and hammered Prof P very easily.

 

[NinjaPenguin]

That was a huge risk to take, because a townie could have followed along with what you said and hammered Prof P very easily.

Not only that, you decided to potentially throw away Prof. P's life. Townies do not risk people's lives. Scum do (when they feel safe with the lynch no matter what).
Besides, Ty could have been told to post his role by us. In fact, we could be pretty sure that he was telling the truth, since he would not get the idea to alter his safeclaim as he would not be very well aware of his situation (and by extension, the need to alter his claim).

 

[Celever]

(If I did, I'd be pushing for Celever first, as I feel he has been contradicting - or at least been hypocritical - more than NP.)

Explain why this is scummy smh.

@Celever Can you repeat what's scummy about NP again? Others sorta have, but I would like to see you post them again.

I need to do CaC. I'll reply to shorter posts here as breaks because my attention span is terrible anyway, and I don't have anything new to add I don't think.

That was a huge risk to take, because a townie could have followed along with what you said and hammered Prof P very easily.

Eh. I was also annoyed that Prof decided to arbitrarily jump ship, and was in a bad mood. Like, regardless of affiliation, I don't like people who build up scumminess and then flee at the first sign of trouble.