Mafia 80: The Lost Village

[Crissi]

Honestly, I see Catta's thing as one long running nixon joke (similar to Graeham's copy pasting stuff in last game), and did it to get Danner to do the ultimate punchline. I could see it being connected to some kind of comedic role I suppose, since we have an emo gal and a psycho blackmailer gal.

Not that that clears him. I think the defense was silly when the minority lynch would have kicked in anyway when the time ran out in an hour, since Monkz would still have had the most votes on him at that point.

Although looking at the votes and the 3 way train tie, Id probably say Senna and Pala are the most responsible for that going from a tie to a runaway train. Senna pushing him into the minority lynch territory (5 hours before lynch time), and Pala for making it more pronounced and making it look like the only sensible option at that point in the day (3 hours before lynch time, but only 2 posts between his and Senna's).

[PalawinFC]

Catta's claim turning out to be false is almost as concerning as if he said it was true.

Can you elaborate on why you'd be concerned if it's true?

[Razamith]

Have to see if missing rolecards continue. Could be something specific to Marak's character, could be something like a ME or equivalent around like the MMMM game, could be really bad like scum taking our abilities or another mechanic. Too little to go on for now (and i promised myself i'd keep theorycraft/megaposts to a minimum, only as needed)

I dont read anything into the catta situation. Its way too high profile and a perfectly crafted joke to scumread IMO. Of course it could be a mechanic or something, but feels more like trying to force an issue/controversy.

Will go over the marak interactions see if I see anything interesting. Still a bit curious about the largehorn train votes from yesterday aside monkz's (and others).

[Catta]

[Crackleslap]

Claim: Irreconcilably irritable

I'm not sure how I feel about Kryllian. That last hour did feel kinda out of place. Throwing accusations for pushing a target close to l-1. Saying it limits discussion, but there was only an hour left. Mistake or fishing for town credit. Hmm.

Also Kryllian (and Crissi) jumped off Marack just before the train could take off. I hoped off later because it was unquestionably dead train. So I'm feeling Kryllian is my main target today and lesser so Crissi. But Marack's line is blue? No role card, the name sounds ominous though. Not having it is kinda annoying.

[listo95]

You must apologize for lying with your head on a pike!!

[dupti]

Danner said that most powers are activated based on your role claims. For the most part people are pretty benign in their claims yesterday. For people who's traits could be read as negative I'd lump Arialla (Depressed), Crackle (paranoid), Dupti (addict), Large (martial artist), Senna (poor), or a random longshot that you can only kill if the trait matches one you claimed Xanjori (edgy which Marack claimed).

This is pretty questionable. First of Kryllian, everyone has negative traits. Not only should this be obvious due to balancing, but we already have 1 revealed townie flip with traits (Monkz). He has a lot of very negative traits (criminal etc), it hardly means anything and we are not going to lynch anyone simply because of their traits.

In fact I'd say that if scum believed this not to be the case, then it is probably more likely that they used a positive trait yesterday whereas town wouldn't really care since they could go for either. Town shouldn't really feel like they had to use a positive trait.

Vote Kryllian

You seem to imply that you don't have any negative traits, which I think is very unlikely so I'd like to start here.

- - - Updated - - -

Claim: holds a grudge

- - - Updated - - -
@Crackleslap, pretty sure Marack was town.

[Graeham]

Vote: Kryllian

For added pressure. I, too, find it more likely than not that everybody has both positive and negative traits. I don't believe that they have much bearing on alignment, if at all - but are linked primarily to the secondary game mechanic in place as well as potential bonus win conditions.

Claim: Temperamental

[Arialla]

I don't think Marack's card not showing was to do with his character.

[PalawinFC]

You seem to imply that you don't have any negative traits, which I think is very unlikely so I'd like to start here.

That was exactly my thinking in pressing him.

He clearly didn't think town had negative traits, which suggests he doesn't have a town role card.

vote kryllian

[Largehorn]

Here's how I read things. Kryllian was a bit suspicious for the late day stuff yesterday (as people have already said), but I don't like that we have people brushing off Catta's joking around.

Total metagaming here: Catta does stuff like this when he either A) is in a debate he thinks is completely stupid or B) is scum. Since no one has really been "discussing" with Catta, I'm leaning toward B pretty heavily.

Also, I'm about 99% sure Marack was town and so was Monkz. Danner is known for giving everyone multiple ways to "win" and Danner wouldn't have colored both of them the same if they weren't aligned with each other.

I was a little weirded out by the "surge" of votes onto Kryllian... then I counted them (instead of just playing from the hip) and am now much less concerned. 3 votes aren't anywhere near as many as I thought there were.

Vote: Catta

I want to start here, and since we already have a growing train on Kryllian, this makes Catta's wagon an alternative (2 whole votes!). I'm currently happy to vote for either but I think this makes it much more interesting. I would admittedly prefer to lynch Catta but right now my distrust is based completely on Meta-gaming which might not be very reliable.

[Kryllian]

Specifically in the opening posts, Danner talked about traits...

Traits:
Each character has been given a set of traits. These do not do anything on their own, but some abilities and wincons may interact with traits. Specifically, most of your night actions require you to reveal a trait before you can use it.

I never said I didn't have a negative trait. The rest of my traits are a mix of positive and negative.

I was surprised that Monkz flipped town based on his role, blackmailer seems scummy. Also the fact that he only has to reveal any trait to use his power was surprising to me.

I have a power but I didn't feel the need to activate it on D1. According to my card I have to reveal a specific trait (and I clarified it has to be stated explicitly as worded, no dancing around it, hinting at it, or unclaiming and claiming another role) to use my ability that is directly related to that trait. Knowing that I have to make a specific claim, it wouldn't surprise me if other roles have similar requirements. So I was looking though the claimed traits to see if any struck out as me as being possibly related to having a desire or ability of bashing someones head in with a baseball bat.

As for my concerns with Catta, as I stated based on my requirements to activate my ability, I suspect others have to as well. Claiming "Crook" possibly says "I'm Mafia!" and would activate his kill ability. Now that turned out to be a false claim but a few games back there was a big discussion about if it was ok for Town to ever lie. I'm pretty sure he was on the "Town should never lie" side, but I could be mistaken.

[Largehorn]

As for my concerns with Catta, as I stated based on my requirements to activate my ability, I suspect others have to as well. Claiming "Crook" possibly says "I'm Mafia!" and would activate his kill ability. Now that turned out to be a false claim but a few games back there was a big discussion about if it was ok for Town to ever lie. I'm pretty sure he was on the "Town should never lie" side, but I could be mistaken.

The question I have is that whether "Criminal" (see Monkz RC) and "Crook" were interpreted by Danner to be the same thing. That's the key. If Danner treats those as the same, we could maybe read into that, but if he doesn't than all we know is that Catta isn't a "Crook" but he could still be a "Criminal". All that said, "Criminal" has been shown to be a town trait or at least not just a scum one.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm leaning toward Danner wouldn't read those as the same. That's why we are having to bold our claims.

[dupti]

Specifically in the opening posts, Danner talked about traits...

Traits:
Each character has been given a set of traits. These do not do anything on their own, but some abilities and wincons may interact with traits. Specifically, most of your night actions require you to reveal a trait before you can use it.

Your point being what exactly? Considering everyone claimed a trait I'm pretty sure everyone knows they have to reveal a trait to use their abilities. It is possible some roles can put in action without revealing a trait. I've honestly been considering we go for a day where no one submits a trait just to see what happens, but scum could just WIFOM it and not put in any action so I don't think it's worth it (assuming they can nk without revealing a trait).

I never said I didn't have a negative trait. The rest of my traits are a mix of positive and negative.

No you did not, but you seemed to imply that people who had negative traits were suspicious, but if you have negative traits yourself I don't understand why you'd ever think this way. It just seemed like a really lazy attempt at scumhunting, since you didn't actually reach any conclusion but just called out negative traits.

I have a power but I didn't feel the need to activate it on D1. According to my card I have to reveal a specific trait (and I clarified it has to be stated explicitly as worded, no dancing around it, hinting at it, or unclaiming and claiming another role) to use my ability that is directly related to that trait. Knowing that I have to make a specific claim, it wouldn't surprise me if other roles have similar requirements.

This is interesting and if you are telling the truth then your logic actually kind of makes sense. However given the fact that you've already seen Monkz rolecard and then know for a fact that there are roles that just need to reveal whatever trait they feel like (while you claim your role is different), I still think it's a pretty weird way to approach the game. From your point of view, you know there are roles that can just reveal any trait they want to, so for you to that scum had to reveal a specific trait tied to their nk (assuming the nk is coming from a scum) doesn't really make sense as it wouldn't be balanced at all, especially considering none of the revealed traits really has anything to do with a baseball bat.

But well yeah, to be honest I think you are more likely to be town, so for now please do not read into traits as it's not going to get us anywhere, we are probably going to get back to them later though.

Unvote

[Razamith]

Marack summary (from my view) is: flurry of joke votes cast by and against early, claim edgy (same as xanjori), named in the "kryllian 4", some talk by crackle around marack (#138), his vote for monkz, rest seems mostly irrelevant. Not seeing much to go on -- it does seem like a "safe" kill like someone mentioned already.

Monkz summary (from my view) is: early charming claim (mirroring graeham), named in the "kryllian 4" which i referenced later, grudge vote by pala, his vote on reti with immediate unvote (could be joking around but was interesting interaction, #104), raz vote, his vote on crackle, kryllian vote (and pala's noting of such/interaction/changing off monkz #130), maracks vote for form/tie train, rixis vote, some reti/monkz/crackle interaction, the "lynched D1 recently" claim + raz questioning of such + pala's research (and all other references to this), senna vote deciding between reti/monkz, pala revote, then the rest of the votes/talk that pushed him to clear lynch.

So what do i get from these? There's some interesting crackle and kryllian interactions that i dont know how i feel about yet, with a pala angle thrown in. Somewhat interested in seeing what these people have to say today. Of course there are the voters in their contextual positions, and the fact that we had 3-4 viable trains (even if i questioned the largehorn train) at the time before monkz got the clear lead. Also the train avoiders, of which i'm most interested in xanj/graeham (large) and arialla (no vote cast). Kinda most interested in graeham since a few things haven't sat well with me and possibly coincidental possibly relevant same claim. Expecting some action results may come to life today too so its still a bit early.

[dupti]

@Senna1251, hai. thoughts?

[Catta]

Here's how I read things. Kryllian was a bit suspicious for the late day stuff yesterday (as people have already said), but I don't like that we have people brushing off Catta's joking around.

Total metagaming here: Catta does stuff like this when he either A) is in a debate he thinks is completely stupid or B) is scum. Since no one has really been "discussing" with Catta, I'm leaning toward B pretty heavily.

Also, I'm about 99% sure Marack was town and so was Monkz. Danner is known for giving everyone multiple ways to "win" and Danner wouldn't have colored both of them the same if they weren't aligned with each other.

I was a little weirded out by the "surge" of votes onto Kryllian... then I counted them (instead of just playing from the hip) and am now much less concerned. 3 votes aren't anywhere near as many as I thought there were.

Vote: Catta

I want to start here, and since we already have a growing train on Kryllian, this makes Catta's wagon an alternative (2 whole votes!). I'm currently happy to vote for either but I think this makes it much more interesting. I would admittedly prefer to lynch Catta but right now my distrust is based completely on Meta-gaming which might not be very reliable.

I mean, you're just wrong about the meta-gaming thing. I joke around when I am not afraid of visibility. This game I just came back so I wasn't afraid of attention. If you hadn't noticed, I talk a lot - and I get targeted for it. Often on D1 too. Meanwhile there are those who just post once, *cough* Arialla *cough cough*, and just scoot by with no one paying attention.

AAAAAAaaand yet, there are still people who read too much into it and here we are.

- - - Updated - - -

Now that turned out to be a false claim but a few games back there was a big discussion about if it was ok for Town to ever lie. I'm pretty sure he was on the "Town should never lie" side, but I could be mistaken.

I didn't lie.

I did say I was not a crook.

Danner confirmed Catta is not a crook.

4 more years.

[Graeham]

Marack summary (from my view) is: flurry of joke votes cast by and against early, claim edgy (same as xanjori), named in the "kryllian 4", some talk by crackle around marack (#138), his vote for monkz, rest seems mostly irrelevant. Not seeing much to go on -- it does seem like a "safe" kill like someone mentioned already.

Monkz summary (from my view) is: early charming claim (mirroring graeham), named in the "kryllian 4" which i referenced later, grudge vote by pala, his vote on reti with immediate unvote (could be joking around but was interesting interaction, #104), raz vote, his vote on crackle, kryllian vote (and pala's noting of such/interaction/changing off monkz #130), maracks vote for form/tie train, rixis vote, some reti/monkz/crackle interaction, the "lynched D1 recently" claim + raz questioning of such + pala's research (and all other references to this), senna vote deciding between reti/monkz, pala revote, then the rest of the votes/talk that pushed him to clear lynch.

So what do i get from these? There's some interesting crackle and kryllian interactions that i dont know how i feel about yet, with a pala angle thrown in. Somewhat interested in seeing what these people have to say today. Of course there are the voters in their contextual positions, and the fact that we had 3-4 viable trains (even if i questioned the largehorn train) at the time before monkz got the clear lead. Also the train avoiders, of which i'm most interested in xanj/graeham (large) and arialla (no vote cast). Kinda most interested in graeham since a few things haven't sat well with me and possibly coincidental possibly relevant same claim. Expecting some action results may come to life today too so its still a bit early.

What, exactly, doesn't sit well about me in your opinion? Monkz and I were not the only players to claim the 'charming' trait during D1. That appears to have been overlooked in your analysis.

[dupti]

I don't think Catta's 'joke' is alignment indicative.

Oh and for what it is worth Catta hasn't called my posts "weird" or something like that yet, which he for some reason loves to do as scum

[Razamith]

Your point being what exactly? Considering everyone claimed a trait I'm pretty sure everyone knows they have to reveal a trait to use their abilities. It is possible some roles can put in action without revealing a trait. I've honestly been considering we go for a day where no one submits a trait just to see what happens, but scum could just WIFOM it and not put in any action so I don't think it's worth it (assuming they can nk without revealing a trait).

Not everyone claimed a trait. 13 did were true, 1 did was false, 3 didn't (including me). I am wary of what giving away my trait info may due to scum and/or possibly some town too. For me i too didn't feel like my ability was worth activating N1 (and possibly detrimental) for giving that info out. What strikes me as odd is why kryllian revealed a trait AND claims to have not done his ability -- but i guess it could have been reactionary to the results of the day or an on-the-fly decision or something.

But as you said its a whole bunch of what ifs that we probably need more info on before overanalyzing.