Mafia 68: The West Wing

[Robozerim]

Thanks for the game Cru.

Also;

I would like to state, once again for the record, I never intentionally mess with my vote record analysis no matter what role or alignment I am. I may have been a doctor, but I never doctor my records.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess now we know why Danner didn't die on N1 when we targeted him...

[Monkz]

I would like to state, once again for the record, I never intentionally mess with my vote record analysis no matter what role or alignment I am. I may have been a doctor, but I never doctor my records.

I'm not sure whether or not we speak about the same thing here. I have no doubts that you never intentionally "miss a vote" or places a wrong vote somewhere that could benefit your team.
But if what you're saying is, that you never alter your reads on people based on your alignment, then I still think it's bullshit. Lets say you read your scum-buddy as definite scum, like 100%, based on his playstyle that game. There is no way you would put that in your vote analysis, right?

[Robozerim]

I'm not sure whether or not we speak about the same thing here. I have no doubts that you never intentionally "miss a vote" or places a wrong vote somewhere that could benefit your team.
But if what you're saying is, that you never alter your reads on people based on your alignment, then I still think it's bullshit. Lets say you read your scum-buddy as definite scum, like 100%, based on his playstyle that game. There is no way you would put that in your vote analysis, right?

Yup, I would. Though, to be fair I never say 100% scum no matter who it is, unless they have done something seriously bad or have been investigated as guilty. If I think my allies look suspicious, I'm going to say they are suspicious.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you pay attention to this game? I said that both Uggor and Graeham were likely scum, both of which were on my team, and at the end I was pushing harder than anybody else against Graeham and pointing out legitimate reasons why he shouldn't be trusted.

[Dendrek]

I would like to state, once again for the record, I never intentionally mess with my vote record analysis no matter what role or alignment I am. I may have been a doctor, but I never doctor my records.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess now we know why Danner didn't die on N1 when we targeted him...

You called me suspicious the day after I got Uggor lynched because you thought I could have been bussing or because I didn't have a vote on any other known scum. That was a pretty doctored reason to call me suspicious.

[Monkz]

Did you pay attention to this game? I said that both Uggor and Graeham were likely scum, both of which were on my team, and at the end I was pushing harder than anybody else against Graeham and pointing out legitimate reasons why he shouldn't be trusted.

Rude question. Yes I payed attention.

[Robozerim]

You called me suspicious the day after I got Uggor lynched because you thought I could have been bussing or because I didn't have a vote on any other known scum. That was a pretty doctored reason to call me suspicious.

Only if I knew whether or not you were his ally. If I didn't know (which is how I try to do it, as if I weren't on a team, which is the definition of not doctoring my analysis as far as I'm concerned), I think it's entirely plausible you could have been busing him. Let's be honest, with the claim he made it would make sense that he was doing it with the intent purpose of being bused, and just because you said you were suspicious of his reads before the claim doesn't mean you couldn't have been busing him. In fact, it would make sense to get his ally to get on his case before he makes the bad claim that was meant to bait the town into lynching him.

- - - Updated - - -

Rude question. Yes I payed attention.

Then how can you ask whether or not I'd point out that somebody on my team is pretty well guaranteed to be scum based on their play when I did exactly that with Graeham? Had I done my vote records in the last couple of days I guarantee I would have had Graeham as the least trusted person on them.

[Dendrek]

Only if I knew whether or not you were his ally. If I didn't know (which is how I try to do it, as if I weren't on a team, which is the definition of not doctoring my analysis as far as I'm concerned), I think it's entirely plausible you could have been busing him. Let's be honest, with the claim he made it would make sense that he was doing it with the intent purpose of being bused, and just because you said you were suspicious of his reads before the claim doesn't mean you couldn't have been busing him. In fact, it would make sense to get his ally to get on his case before he makes the bad claim that was meant to bait the town into lynching him.

The issue is that you called me "questionable" which is a far cry from "it's possible he could be bussing." Yes, it was possible I could have been bussing. But to paint me as questionable implies that you actually have a legitimate scum vibe from my push on Uggor or from other actions you saw from me. Neither the push on Uggor nor the "lack of votes on other known scum" were actual justification for saying I was questionable. Especially when I was previously "leaning trust." At best, a read of "uncertain" or even "uncertain leaning questionable" would have made sense given Uggor's flip. To be clear, my busing Uggor was not the most likely option. There's no way you could have thought it was. That means you were either subconsciously putting your own bias into that read, or you were consciously or subconsciously doctoring that read.

[Robozerim]

In what world does "he may have been busing" and "he doesn't have votes on any other scum" not provide justification for finding somebody questionable? You can disagree with the read, but that doesn't make what I said "doctored".

- - - Updated - - -

I never consciously doctor a read. I never have argued that I haven't subconsciously had my reads altered based on my alignment, that's pretty well inevitable, but if it's subconscious it's not doctoring them.

[Dendrek]

In what world does "he may have been busing" and "he doesn't have votes on any other scum" not provide justification for finding somebody questionable? You can disagree with the read, but that doesn't make what I said "doctored".

Because the only known scum at the time were Virothe (with almost no one voting on him at any point), Largehorn (who only got votes after being confirmed scum by TPRs), Crackleslap (who was third party, and who I did vote on), and Uggor (who I voted on). Robo, your "no votes on other scum" argument is pointlessly bad. It had no merit. And "could have been busing" was a weak read. It was much more likely I actually found him scummy.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, if "no votes on other scum" was a valid read, then literally everyone up to that point deserved to be questionable. Unless you counted votes on a confirmed scum after a cop outted them as proof that people aren't scum.

[Robozerim]

Because the only known scum at the time were Virothe (with almost no one voting on him at any point), Largehorn (who only got votes after being confirmed scum by TPRs), Crackleslap (who was third party, and who I did vote on), and Uggor (who I voted on). Robo, your "no votes on other scum" argument is pointlessly bad. It had no merit. And "could have been busing" was a weak read. It was much more likely I actually found him scummy.

Once again, you can argue that it was a bad read, you can disagree with my opinions, but it was not doctored. I never said or thought "I need or want to say I find Dendrek suspicious". I personally didn't care in the least whether I found you trusty or suspicious when I was going through my analysis. I don't care about any individual person enough to do something like that. Need I remind you that bad reads are done regardless of a player's alignment...such as with Danner and Graeham for example?

[Graeham]

Honestly, if people suspect me of being scum they should generally look at who I don't mention or interact with. I very rarely 'bus' my allies due to loyalty to my team - but this time around I fell into the trap of not really interacting with anybody from my team in the game thread until Robo called me out directly. It's a trick that worked well enough for me back when I was a Mason with Uggor and Largehorn a few games ago too.

[Robozerim]

Again, if "no votes on other scum" was a valid read, then literally everyone up to that point deserved to be questionable. Unless you counted votes on a confirmed scum after a cop outted them as proof that people aren't scum.

Though I put some reasoning into things such as that, when there are few scum deaths there tends to be heavy emphasis on gut reads and general impressions that don't have solid evidence. You're getting far too caught up on the "no vote on other scum" thing, because trust me when I say it meant very little to me in the grand scheme of things. I thought that as town I would have found you suspicious, so I said I thought you were suspicious.

- - - Updated - - -

If you look at my analysis from several games where I am not scum, I am damn near certain you'll find similar examples of poor judgement for seemingly inane reasons. You, like many others, are taking it too personally due to too big an ego. I don't care enough about any one particular person to try and doctor my records against them. You are insignificant, not worthy of wasting my time lying about my reads on you in such a fashion. The vote record analysis takes a lot of effort to make (especially the first one of the game) and is a considerable chore, trying to doctor it in addition to simply complete it would make it an even bigger chore. Even if I wanted to do such a thing, it's not worth the effort.

[Dendrek]

Need I remind you that bad reads are done regardless of a player's alignment...such as with Danner and Graeham for example?

Fair enough. In my defense, I was right about both of them. I only trusted them after their claims because Danner had an innocent and there were missing NKs on some nights I protected him (and I hadn't died on at least one of those nights), and I trusted Graeham based on an (apparently wrong) meta game analysis. I didn't trust either of them based on their actual content. =/

- - - Updated - - -

If you look at my analysis from several games where I am not scum, I am damn near certain you'll find similar examples of poor judgement for seemingly inane reasons. You, like many others, are taking it too personally due to too big an ego. I don't care enough about any one particular person to try and doctor my records against them. You are insignificant, not worthy of wasting my time lying about my reads on you in such a fashion. The vote record analysis takes a lot of effort to make (especially the first one of the game) and is a considerable chore, trying to doctor it in addition to simply complete it would make it an even bigger chore. Even if I wanted to do such a thing, it's not worth the effort.

I am not taking it personally. It has nothing to do with my ego. There were only two conclusions I could come to based on your analysis: you were either fudging it or your logic was bad. You say you weren't fudging it. Then that means I had more faith in you logic than I should have.

[Uggorthaholy]

Man, I called the mafia being a big team split up early.

[Robozerim]

I am not taking it personally. It has nothing to do with my ego. There were only two conclusions I could come to based on your analysis: you were either fudging it or your logic was bad. You say you weren't fudging it. Then that means I had more faith in you logic than I should have.

Every player that ever plays mafia needs to learn as quickly as possible....nobody has impeccable logic, nobody is always right, nobody will go through these games without making mistakes or saying/doing things that just don't make sense. Even the most idolized players are far from perfect.

[Arlee]

Every player that ever plays mafia needs to learn as quickly as possible....nobody has impeccable logic, nobody is always right, nobody will go through these games without making mistakes or saying/doing things that just don't make sense. Even the most idolized players are far from perfect.

I'm always right! Woof!

[dupti]

Every player that ever plays mafia needs to learn as quickly as possible....nobody has impeccable logic, nobody is always right, nobody will go through these games without making mistakes or saying/doing things that just don't make sense. Even the most idolized players are far from perfect.

Except me of course.

[Graeham]

Except me of course.

How hilarious would it have been if we both flipped town?

[Lellybaby]

Although town played like shit I still think that the mafia was overpowered.


The Mafia had:

*Two separate teams that can't really kill each other
*Although separate still won together
*Had PR Roles
*Had Fake Claims

I think they had just too many advantages, considering the RP or reveals didn't really help Town at all.

[Robozerim]

Although town played like shit I still think that the mafia was overpowered.


The Mafia had:

*Two separate teams that can't really kill each other

Unless I misread, that's not technically true. The godfather's couldn't be killed by the other team unless it was the godfather who was sent to do the kill. The others, however, could be killed, barring my lucky case of my passive saving me that one time and doctor protects. (according to post 1725 by Cruelle on the game make up).

I'm not saying the mafias weren't overpowered, but they could mostly kill each other.