Finished Mafia XXXIX: Superheroes Vs Supervillains - Mafia has won!
- Thread starter Scattered mind
- Start date
- Status
A couple games of experience is equivalent to being inexperienced. The issue with experience in mafia is that each game is so varied and different to every other mafia game. You probably have no similarities with this game compared with any games you've played in already if you've only done 2 or 3. A good example of this is how you admitted to not having seen much of PP's meta.
Yes; the majority of the game. I'm doing this on my break from economics revision; all you guys without impending failure and sadness should be pulling more slack!
And if we're talking about posts backing up hypothetical nk logic, I still think your "LOL GUYS LOOK HOW CREDIBLE MY READS ARE!" post at the start of the day is far more directly linked and not reachy than whatever point you were trying to make against me.
I'm confused about the relevance, but I also didn't see Little Cherrim on the forum before this game.
I'll try and talk about the difference between the two inferences for me. I guess my issue with Little Cherrim is that it's very open. My points against Prof are comprised of a combination of mod-confirmed evidence and process of elimination. Your "lead" on Little Cherrim is just that he's somewhat abnormal for a new player, which I think is incredibly difficult to defend against, and I would have great trouble doing so. The reasoning against Prof is focused on the one bit of mod-confirmed information we have right now: NinjaPenguin's alignment. The nightkill is the single most reliable and solid piece of information we have, and all of the connections are things which can only apply to Prof. Your point on Little Cherrim that he's potentially been coached? That could apply to most of the game! TSM's posts have been really contribution-heavy and great to read in my opinion, but the stereotype for new players is for their posts to be uh... not that. Bandwagoning is one of the first things new players are told not to do -- one of my first posts in any scumchat if there's a new player on my team is "don't vote unless you can provide articulate reasoning when questioned further". Therefore, Blakers is totally being coached, right? It's player-unspecific, which is a very weak case. All of my points on Prof only apply to Prof, and while they are irrefutably hypothetical (an unavoidable feature of the early-game phases), they have more strength than whatever you're trying to push on Cherrim.
Give a numerical value to your suspicions, 1-100, where 1 is "literally scanned town" and 100 is "literally scanned scum". I don't like obtuse statements in this game; it makes it difficult to see where your head is at.
I think I must be missing something. All I saw was "yeah I don't like this post lol
". That, to me, is not a case.I also noticed that; I have to admit that I found it interesting too, and hoped someone else would note it (because it'd be weird if I was like "wooooow we both talked about the same thing!
I like the first two questions, but I'm not sure what you're insinuating with your last little clause there. >:U
And yes, I did see who was viewing the thread when I was posting earlier. And no, I'm not receptive of the fact that you're now not viewing the thread, after not leaving a post. The only thing not posting accomplishes is losing! It's literally negative no matter what faction you're on: if you're town, you get lynched for being useless and nightkilled to stifle discussion. If you're scum, you get lynched for being useless and are likely to get targeted by things like seers because you're enigmatic.
SO POST DAMNIT :U
SO POST DAMNIT :U
Vracken
Just a Ghost of the Past
I didn't change votes because I didn't have any particularly scummy reads (as per my usual opinion day 1). I had a pretty minor case against Ninjapenguin but very little on anyone else.
I said I didn't think Jezi was scummy, or scummier than she was in previous games, should I have defended her? I don't know, to be honest I don't even know how to when that is all I have. I have seen people lynched over early player defenses in some of the games I have read and witnessed IRL and though I can't recall examples of those happening here, I am fairly sure they must have.
Celever, I also don't really get your argument. I don't know if it is just me, but it is really hard to follow. The treating it as a 30 man game is a strange thing to say because were this scenario and that one similar, we would have a lot more information, and even the brand new players would have figured out things, been heavily swayed by others, have their own opinions, those kinds of things. So just that whole statement reads weirdly to me, and even slightly counter to your original point.
I wrote that before post 262, I think I am following a little better now though I still have issue with what was said here
While the two arguments don't contradict each other 100%, the read weirdly being in the same post, so I would like to know, do you think scum are targeted in their kills? or is this game an exception to your "generally [thoughtlite]" comment?
Otherwise, I agree with this of Celevers points,
As per a couple of points made in Post 189 I think you are looking the scummiest, though I admit it is weakly.
##Vote: Celever
I want to write more, but I need to go out soon, I promise to not just forget about it like I did with my previous "I will get back to this" comment.
I said I didn't think Jezi was scummy, or scummier than she was in previous games, should I have defended her? I don't know, to be honest I don't even know how to when that is all I have. I have seen people lynched over early player defenses in some of the games I have read and witnessed IRL and though I can't recall examples of those happening here, I am fairly sure they must have.
Celever, I also don't really get your argument. I don't know if it is just me, but it is really hard to follow. The treating it as a 30 man game is a strange thing to say because were this scenario and that one similar, we would have a lot more information, and even the brand new players would have figured out things, been heavily swayed by others, have their own opinions, those kinds of things. So just that whole statement reads weirdly to me, and even slightly counter to your original point.
I wrote that before post 262, I think I am following a little better now though I still have issue with what was said here
While the two arguments don't contradict each other 100%, the read weirdly being in the same post, so I would like to know, do you think scum are targeted in their kills? or is this game an exception to your "generally [thoughtlite]" comment?
Otherwise, I agree with this of Celevers points,
scum chat hasn't lead anywhere in anything I have seen as it is more or less a coin flip speculation unless the person has wildly changed tactics either mid game or between games. I don't think we have that kind of data on Little Cherrim, so I don't like what you said there bbninjas, seems weak to me, so suspicions of bbninjas are raised.
As per a couple of points made in Post 189 I think you are looking the scummiest, though I admit it is weakly.
##Vote: Celever
I want to write more, but I need to go out soon, I promise to not just forget about it like I did with my previous "I will get back to this" comment.
To get it out there right now, Ill say my opinions, which may put me under a firing squad.
1) "Celever Buddying":
I am not "openly buddying" with Celever, but I am somewhat leaning towards his side of the argument, mainly for his defence against certain arguments.
2) Ignorance
While I admit that I am at fault for not responding sooner, these cases were formulated against me when I wasn't available to respond.
Sorry about that!
3) Scum Reads
Still in jeopardy, and I'm having trouble interpreting the conversation.
4) Frail reasoning behind "P.P Vote"
1) "Celever Buddying":
I am not "openly buddying" with Celever, but I am somewhat leaning towards his side of the argument, mainly for his defence against certain arguments.
Good response. ##UNVOTE: mirdo
My case was just that he was scared of dying by means of lynch over nightkill. Could've been a freudian slip, but mirdo's response shot me down quite absolutely. :L
This is why I don't like making big posts on my phone. I forgot to finish the point
But... we're not meant to agree on anything!
I think we're saying the same thing but drawing opposite conclusions. We both agree that the NP kill was unreasonable, but from that I infer that there was good reasoning that went behind it. Nightkills are never arbitrary shots in the dark, and the default kill from the inexperienced player group would be someone who seldom contributed. An NP kill sparks discussion, which means the kill was meant as a means of directing this discussion. This discussion has one primary benefactor: Prof. Hence why I believe Prof is the likeliest scum right now.
But I don't think his lynch is likely. Experienced players don't get lynched before Day 4; new town are scared to lose that wise town direction, should the lynch be misguided and hit one of their own. It's annoying. :U
IDK, I don't use WIFOM really. But sure
There's a reason I offered to sub; it was too painful to spectate :3
##VOTE: Blakers. No, it's not a good case. Excellent bandwagon. I'll go into it later but rn I wanna play some Splatoon before I have to go to my Dad's SORRY PRIORITIES :U
@bbninjas in case you come on before I shoot down your Little Cherrim case, share your second-best read please. This post seems to imply you have more than 2 scumreads, and I'm very interested who else is on the list.
2) Ignorance
While I admit that I am at fault for not responding sooner, these cases were formulated against me when I wasn't available to respond.
Sorry about that!
3) Scum Reads
Still in jeopardy, and I'm having trouble interpreting the conversation.
4) Frail reasoning behind "P.P Vote"
In the opening stages, for some reason, I didn't notice that this was a counter vote. I don't know why, but I interpreted this as an act of aggression, which seemed to fit what I thought @Professor Palutena was doing throughout the RV stage. Later on, as more defence was made for "P.P''s case, I repealed my vote for revision, but I did not realize that the day was practically over, and I missed the vote count."
I'm only just understanding what Little Cherrim is saying. First point is a bit irrelevant, second point is invalid since you posted after I posted my case on you, third point: okay then; fourth point is that you're looking at a vote made in RVS (Random Voting Stage) and RVS votes are not serious. Also, @Little Cherrim; you haven't really responded directly to me and it's driving me nuts. xD
Whas this meant for me? If so, the only problem is I don't know what to say because you guys have already said everything what can be said. And I can't find anything new.
Man, I really thought that I had you two under the pump. :U
*Whoops, I meant Little Cherrim.I'm confused about the relevance, but I also didn't see Little Cherrim on the forum before this game.
This is a bit of a fallacy, because there are many scumtells that are hard to defend. My problem right now is that Little Cherrim has only very vaguely said anything regarding to the case, which I find hilariously strange but I'm not sure what it indicates. I wasn't expecting a defence, but I was at least expecting to something that actually directly responded to it.
Can you restate your case, because I was in no way shape or form thinking that "all of the connections are things which can only apply to Prof". I'm not sure what you're on about. xD
To set the record straight, I actually see people post "if someone votes you, don't worry and don't crack under the pressure" waaaay more often than "don't bandwagon".
You say the lead is player-unspecific, but I disagree very much. The lead is basically "Little Cherrim ignored a RVS vote on him and new players normally will not just ignore that, unless they've been told something otherwise (in the scumchat)". There is evidence for Cherrim being coached, which is not what you're making it sound like. You're writing off this evidence because anyone could be coached, which is very WIFOMy.
Note: I'm not saying that Cherrim is the strongest case. It's a lead going into Day 2 that I don't think you're giving enough merit at all and it's a lead I'm nearly done with pursuing.
I think PP is about "60" or "65" scum. I thought he was about "40" before Day 2 began. I feel like you think he's much closer to "85", and I disagree with this. I also think there are players that are more likely to flip scum, so I want them lynched before Professor P.
I don't really understand what you're saying here. All I was saying before was that what prompted your recent vote ("case" was a bad word choice), being the fact that PP's case is pretty bad, is something you nearly caught me (as scum) out on in the past. So it's sorta just me saying "it's not just OMGUS" and "this is evidence that I'm considering".I think I must be missing something. All I saw was "yeah I don't like this post lol
By FOSs I meant these two things:
I would've quoted but I didn't have time. Dx'
tl;dr Blakers fits those two things quoted above and has been lurking and scummily bandwagoned.
OMGUS might be a valid claim for some players, but for you it's like double-invalid, because as I alluded to above, this isn't the first time you've voted someone for making a bad case on you (or someone else).
You're the only one who can say your own opinion. You don't have to say anything new when you post (although it is much preferred), but mentioning what you think about the current leads is a good start so we can actually read you beyond "lurking" and "not contributing". Placing a vote is also nice, and I don't think you have yet.
I think rainyman is still scummy, but PP is acting really strange, judging by the games i've played. And the case celever made, then I guess ##VOTE: Professor Palutena
Vracken
Just a Ghost of the Past
What I am finding most interesting about rainyman123 right now is that he hasn't posted today so far, which is high unlike him. He could be taking the step back and learn advice, which would be good, but it is too hard to tell until he says something. Otherwise that is all I have seen from him so far, so it is well within his town meta
Day 2 votecount 1
The people who are being voted are in chronological order
7 votes for a majority
The player(s) with the most votes is tagged
If you think there’s anything wrong, just ask
@Little Cherrim 2: bbninjas (vote) l Blakers (vote) l
Mirdo 0:Celever (vote) l
Blakers 0:Celever (vote) l
@Celever 2: Professor Palutena (vote) l Vracken (vote) l
@Professor Palutena 2: Celever (vote) l Mordacazir (vote) l
The people who are being voted are in chronological order
7 votes for a majority
The player(s) with the most votes is tagged
If you think there’s anything wrong, just ask
@Little Cherrim 2: bbninjas (vote) l Blakers (vote) l
Mirdo 0:
Blakers 0:
@Celever 2: Professor Palutena (vote) l Vracken (vote) l
@Professor Palutena 2: Celever (vote) l Mordacazir (vote) l
Last edited:
I need to go through and catch up later, but Prof has 2 votes on him. It wasn't bolded, but it's just being pedantic to not allow non-bolded votes, considering they can be counted by ctrl+F'ing the "##".
Really? Huh, I did not see that. :x I'll go add it in.I need to go through and catch up later, but Prof has 2 votes on him. It wasn't bolded, but it's just being pedantic to not allow non-bolded votes, considering they can be counted by ctrl+F'ing the "##".
I also didn't see that. But here it is:
Regardless, please make sure you bold your vote next time. Just so we can see it easily
Regardless, please make sure you bold your vote next time. Just so we can see it easily
Okay, sorryI also didn't see that. But here it is:
Regardless, please make sure you bold your vote next time. Just so we can see it easily
- Status