Mafia 80: The Lost Village

[Catta]

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

Are dupti's posts weird?

[Razamith]

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.

Jebus you're right i missed pala. That could make things interesting. I didn't like your timing/reasoning/context of your large vote yesterday (i think thats clear from my posts) as i may expect scum to hide their vote especially if they know a train is forming on a townie. Large being mod struck me as a good spot as i didn't see that likely going to fruition but looked like a real train there for a while. This doesn't say anything about large's alignment, but i doubted that was viable. Also the arialla vote itched me for similar reasons because while i encourage people calling out lurkers/afk there also IS a mechanic this game to auto-eliminate them. That doesn't mean we cant let them skate by without pressure with a last minute post, but seemed premature/again low-risk of being meaningful. Today the catta comment (as per my earlier post) also was questionable (IMO, at least). I currently have you at high interest in your comments/actions today.

[Kryllian]

What strikes me as odd is why kryllian revealed a trait AND claims to have not done his ability

That was a mistake on my part when I first read about the traits. I thought we all had to reveal a trait every day. It wasn't until the end of D1 when I realized that some people hadn't that I went back and re-read the rules.

[dupti]

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.

I do not agree with this play.

If Kryllian is telling then truth, then he made the correct play by revealing a trait yesterday, because otherwise it would be very telling if he kept giving out fake traits only to suddenly give out a correct one later (especially if he is like a vigi or something). It would also warn scum (assuming Kryllian is town) that he was about to do something.

I understand your point about giving away info about your role by revealing traits, but I don't think the alternative is much better. In either case you're going to bring attention to yourself, and I'm sure you share traits with some of the other players as well. If scum are able to determine someones role because they claimed "charming", they deserve to win anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

That was a mistake on my part when I first read about the traits. I thought we all had to reveal a trait every day. It wasn't until the end of D1 when I realized that some people hadn't that I went back and re-read the rules.

How was it a mistake? You claimed that you had to claim a specific trait to unlock your ability, so why does it matter if you claim your other traits?

[Graeham]

Jebus you're right i missed pala. That could make things interesting. I didn't like your timing/reasoning/context of your large vote yesterday (i think thats clear from my posts) as i may expect scum to hide their vote especially if they know a train is forming on a townie. Large being mod struck me as a good spot as i didn't see that likely going to fruition but looked like a real train there for a while. This doesn't say anything about large's alignment, but i doubted that was viable. Also the arialla vote itched me for similar reasons because while i encourage people calling out lurkers/afk there also IS a mechanic this game to auto-eliminate them. That doesn't mean we cant let them skate by without pressure with a last minute post, but seemed premature/again low-risk of being meaningful. Today the catta comment (as per my earlier post) also was questionable (IMO, at least). I currently have you at high interest in your comments/actions today.

Eh, honestly I was going to spend D1 randomly quoting portions of Wikipedia articles with no context. I don't really like D1 very much and wanted to liven things up a little but doing something similar during the previous game just got my lynched. I was also aware that there was a mechanic in place to tackle lurking but I wanted to try and draw Arialla out nonetheless.

As for my vote on Largehorn, as I stated yesterday I just shifted my vote over to him for no particular reason. I didn't want to lynch Monkz because he shared a trait with me and my gut told me that I could trust him.

[Largehorn]

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.

And I said it could be unreliable... but it's

As for Arialla, if it's that big a deal Danner is going to modkill them. One post on D1 isn't much of an issue to me right now with Danner's rule.

[Graeham]

And I said it could be unreliable... but it's

As for Arialla, if it's that big a deal Danner is going to modkill them. One post on D1 isn't much of an issue to me right now with Danner's rule.

Well, according to the rule in question a player needs to only post at least once per day to avoid being replaced or removed from the game by Danner. Arialla posted once on D1 and then again on D2 so technically he could just not show up again and largely fly under the radar. If Arialla - or any other player for that matter - actively contributes to the game, then that's great. If we're just faced with the bare minimum being put into the game in terms of presence, though, then it's still problematic and reads, perhaps unintentionally, of just putting in just enough effort to avoid the elimination rule.

[Largehorn]

Well, according to the rule in question a player needs to only post at least once per day to avoid being replaced or removed from the game by Danner. Arialla posted once on D1 and then again on D2 so technically he could just not show up again and largely fly under the radar. If Arialla - or any other player for that matter - actively contributes to the game, then that's great. If we're just faced with the bare minimum being put into the game in terms of presence, though, then it's still problematic and reads, perhaps unintentionally, of just putting in just enough effort to avoid the elimination rule.

Absolutely, but to focus on that now seems like a bit of a waste of time. I'm not saying to ignore Arialla that would be dumb.

[Reticence]

Also I'd never lynch Ret d1, but I dislike everything he has said so far.

Would you care to elaborate?

Claim: Unemployed

I do not agree with this play.

If Kryllian is telling then truth, then he made the correct play by revealing a trait yesterday, because otherwise it would be very telling if he kept giving out fake traits only to suddenly give out a correct one later (especially if he is like a vigi or something). It would also warn scum (assuming Kryllian is town) that he was about to do something.

I understand your point about giving away info about your role by revealing traits, but I don't think the alternative is much better. In either case you're going to bring attention to yourself, and I'm sure you share traits with some of the other players as well. If scum are able to determine someones role because they claimed "charming", they deserve to win anyway.

I don't disagree with this in the context of revealing/obfuscating information. Also, until it becomes otherwise apparent, I have no real way of knowing which, if any, specific traits may be used for one purpose or the other, so worrying about them is bound to just give myself a headache.

The one counterpoint I'll offer, though, is that games sometimes last more nights than the number of traits that we've seen on role cards so far. Depending on the actions available, it may be valuable for a townie to do nothing for a night at the risk of informing scum that that is the case, and the least impactful night to do so is probably N1.

I wouldn't make a habit of it, of course -- this isn't D&D Mafia, so the game probably won't last beyond D8-9.

[Xanjori]

I do think trying to read into the traits is the wrong approach to play, meta gaming always turns out badly. I didn't change my vote last night as I was raiding and couldn't stay fully updated before going to bed.

I can agree with the suspicious views of Kryllian. I think Catta was just trying to play a joke but has a terrible sense of humour. I hope to contribute more but while Im getting used to 7:30 wake ups my brain may not function fully.

[Rixis]

A couple of things strike me as odd, but we only have our own, and Monkz' role card to go off, but I personally do not have to use a specific claim to activate a night ability.

Were that the case, I'd assume either the person has multiple night actions, with each requiring a specific claim (or one of a few), or, they have 1 "strong" night ability that requires a specific claim, and another night ability that can be activated by using any claim.

For reading the traits, yeah, it could be iffy, I'd say most of mine are scum sounding, or definitely could be taken either way.

@Reticencei Aren't we all unemployed in this new LEGO village?

edit: had to edit the @ tag, cos apparently i just drew attention to a forum user called ret, oops

[Crissi]

To be perfectly frank, if we're going to be looking into traits, I think we will need more than 1 flip. Otherwise, at this point I feel its an exercise in headaches. Monkz had some positive and some very negative ones, and was a townie. Came off as Vigish, assuming he wouldnt abuse his blackmail powers. Use it on a quiet person and if they didn't say it, then is able to kill them off.

@Crackleslap I think you might be looking more into that Marack train than there already was, considering early D1 seems to be jokes. Considering Xanjori is the one I lept off Marack for, and Xanjori was the one that got me into this game in the first place, I feel if I didnt answer a callout with a joke vote it would be almost as weird as Catta and Xanj not joke voting each other.

Anyways going to the zoo for the day, and then working. (backwards I know, but i do everything backwards! *moonwalks*)

[Senna1251]

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).

This would be quite relevant if Large, Ret, or Crackle flip scum. I did place my vote on Monkz at that time knowing that scrutiny is possible.

Jebus you're right i missed pala. That could make things interesting. I didn't like your timing/reasoning/context of your large vote yesterday (i think thats clear from my posts) as i may expect scum to hide their vote especially if they know a train is forming on a townie. Large being mod struck me as a good spot as i didn't see that likely going to fruition but looked like a real train there for a while. This doesn't say anything about large's alignment, but i doubted that was viable. Also the arialla vote itched me for similar reasons because while i encourage people calling out lurkers/afk there also IS a mechanic this game to auto-eliminate them. That doesn't mean we cant let them skate by without pressure with a last minute post, but seemed premature/again low-risk of being meaningful. Today the catta comment (as per my earlier post) also was questionable (IMO, at least). I currently have you at high interest in your comments/actions today.

I generally agree with this post. The post that concerns me the most is Graeham's no particular reason vote on Large. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe that Graeham is the type of player who on Day 1 votes on someone who isn't around (which is why the Arialla vote doesn't surprise me one bit), or is conscious of who hasn't played in a while or modded last game, and gives them a pass on Day 1. The Large vote did surprise me.


My extra win con condition highly suggests that town can have extremely scummy looking traits, and therefore, like others have mentioned, looking to find scum through traits alone is folly at best.

My thoughts on Kryllian: I only have a meta response to why Kryllian argued for more discussion time when there was barely any time left, but that's a very Kryllian thing to do. I've seen that argument in games before (I do not have time to look them up right now), and this is not alignment indicative for him. I believe Kryll's post for now where he explains that he has to reveal a specific trait to use a certain action, which would explain his reasoning for his posts today. I'm more interested in how quick Graeham and Pala jumped on the Kryll train on the heels of Dupti's vote. Dupti has great sounding arguments, and I can see the possibility of scum hiding under great arguments while jumping at the chance to be at the beginning of the train (which is generally under less scrutiny).

[Catta]

I think Catta was just trying to play a joke but has a terrible sense of humour.

I think we should lynch Xan for speaking heresy.

[PalawinFC]

I haven't had time to post. I have a few thoughts to get down.

I'll try to post on the train to work.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm more interested in how quick Graeham and Pala jumped on the Kryll train on the heels of Dupti's vote. Dupti has great sounding arguments, and I can see the possibility of scum hiding under great arguments while jumping at the chance to be at the beginning of the train (which is generally under less scrutiny).

That's a new one. I look scummy because I votef due to good arguments?

I'll just point out that I had every intention of voting kryllian.
I agreed with dupti yesterday (202) because I had the same thoughts as him about kryllian.
Knowing my own role card, which is town and has negative traits, when kryllian said he didn't like Catta claiming crook I had a red flag (204).
Then I tried to get him to commit to that position (222) before putting a vote out and tipping my hand. But dupti decided to just put it out there, which meant I may as well vote too.


Not sure what to make of dupti jumping off. I still think kryllian is the most likely scum at this point. I read the above tell in conjunction with the fact that he unvoted crackle when it looked like crackle train might be a contender.

- - - Updated - - -

Also @dupti regarding your unvote. I get Kryllian's explanation for his suspicion of Catta. But he hasn't explain this :

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).

- - - Updated - - -

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).

3 hours before lynch time and he was the largest train. Voting for him was the sensible option. I also pointed out that I'm keen to vote kryllian. In fact... I had originally voted monkz, swapped to Crackle due to Kryllian's suspicious unvote, and then swapped back tu Monkz at end of day to secure the lynch when not enough people joined me. At that time others had already pushed the Monkz lynch ahead.

Edit - confusing myself mixing up kryllian and crackle.

[Kryllian]

S
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.

I haven't had time to post.

Also @dupti regarding your unvote. I get Kryllian's explanation for his suspicion of Catta. But he hasn't explain this :

Quote Originally Posted by Kryllian View Post
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).


I explained my reasons for going though and looking at claimed traits as a basis for kill motives in an earlier post Palawin.

[PalawinFC]

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 don't view Catta as scummy based on his actions so far.

[Senna1251]

Fair enough Pala, I forgot about your interactions with Kryllian yesterday. I thought that you and Graeham were piggybacking on arguments laid out by Dupti.

[PalawinFC]

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.

Which do you think is more likely :
- Catta lied to benefit his scum agenda (how?)
- cattas ability didn't require him to claim or he didn't want to use his ability on might 1,and thought it would be funny to get danner to say he is not a crook (Nixon quote and also mod saying he s good guy) tongue in cheek.


Hey I just thought of a third explanation : maybe his ability or win con requires him to falsely claim.

Oh or : maybe he doesn't trust the trait system and doesn't want to reveal any info about himself. Which wouldn't be alignment indicative at all - I thought about not claiming, as others decided to do.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Agreed. I chose to claim charming mainly because you and Monkz did.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

I've thought of a few ways the mechanic could go. At this stage there's not enough info to narrow those theories down.

- - - Updated - - -

And I said it could be unreliable... but it's

As for Arialla, if it's that big a deal Danner is going to modkill them. One post on D1 isn't much of an issue to me right now with Danner's rule.

But it's what?

[Largehorn]

But it's what?

But it's some thought I had in my head a few hours ago that was mercilessly cut off because of being distracted by this thing called work. I tried to think of what I was going to say there and failed... miserably.

So you can decide to make it whatever you want as long as it's funny!