Mafia #72: Heads of State. Game Thread

[Graeham]

You do not hold grudges. You're not that kind of person. That's a character read, by the way.
If you did, I would probably have ignored your vote.

So help me out - what exactly troubles you about my vote? I already stated that it wasn't set in stone and that I could be convinced to move my vote elsewhere if a convincing argument was made. For the moment you're the closest thing to a 'read' I have - D1 being what it is and all. That may very well change depending on how things play out from here.

[dupti]

@shirokitsune, why is it between me, Crackle and Danner?

[Kryllian]

@dupti

My opinion of Danner? He's doing his usual RP that he likes to do in games. I'm not getting an overly town or scum vibe from him. Especially with the most recent interactions I'm getting a read of someone who know's they're not going to last long in the game so might as well try and provoke as many responses as he can for people to use later in the game.

The more I play the less i'm a fan of D1 votes based on randomness or past game activities. So my votes this game are based off what people actually say/do D1. Danner offered up a "treaty" more or less with you in his RP early on. That combined with a couple other things in his RP made me vote him as suspicious knowing that it might simply be innocent RP.

However I changed to you specifically because you kept going off about your plan to N1 Kill people. This is a back to basics game and by Celtic's own words he said not to expect much past a cop and scum. I highly doubt if that is the case he gave us a vig. So if you're going to claim a NK i'm going to put you as Scum/SK and vote for you. It might all be in fun/joke or to provoke a response but we can see last game what happens when you carelessly throw out statements. BF's D1 and D2 claims last game to get responses resulted in important TPR's being lynched.

[dupti]

@Crackleslap, you called me incompetent for thinking he was serious, but seems like I was right!
@Kryllian,

Well first of all a vigilante is a fairly standard role I'd say. That's not to say I am claiming a vigi (but maybe I am, who knows).

In any case, do you think I'd claim to have a kill n1 as a SK? Because then mafia would instantly kill me. Do you think I'd so it as a mafia? Assuming we have no other kills, what would I say when only 1 kill shows up (or 2 if we have a SK), especially if the kill doesn't add up with my reads?

Actually I'm pretty sure we've played several games together now and I pretty much always claim to be SK or at least to have a kill, so I'm not sure why that would surprise you.

Could you explain the logic behind me wanting to claim to have a NK at that point as scum? Actually why I would do it as either alignment?

[shirokitsune]

@shirokitsune, why is it between me, Crackle and Danner?

Visibility really betwixt you and Danner. I'm still learning some of the ins and outs of this but there seems to be some fire underneath all this smoke we're seeing. I don't really have enough info either way to definitively give a good informed vote.

Info for voting on Dupti:
People give good reasons to vote you, even if your comments are in jest.

Info for voting on Crackle
Crackle seems to also want to claim NK ability to remove people they can't lynch... Which is ominious sounding to me.

Info for voting on Danner:
Again the whole visibility thing, I'm having a hard time following if Mr President is being evasive and acting cornered because they just have too much past history and hatred on them. Graeham makes a good case, but having not read that game in question I can't speak as to the veracity of their claim.

----
I still could be easily convinced to switch votes to someone else.

[Kryllian]

There is no logic to claiming a NK. That's my whole point. Don't throw out "joke claims" unless you're willing to defend yourself. I'd rather pressure someone making claims "in jest" then someone at random because I rolled a dice to decide. The best lies are the ones of omission/half truth so for all I know there is something to your posts. We won't know until the game plays out more.

[dupti]

What good reasons?

Kryllian voted me because he thought I was claiming to have a NK.
Catta voted me to avoid #justduptithings.
Crackle voted me to apply pressure because it was the only vote he saw (since there wasn't a vote count).

So could you explain why your vote is on me?

- - - Updated - - -

There is no logic to claiming a NK. That's my whole point. Don't throw out "joke claims" unless you're willing to defend yourself. I'd rather pressure someone making claims "in jest" then someone at random because I rolled a dice to decide. The best lies are the ones of omission/half truth so for all I know there is something to your posts. We won't know until the game plays out more.

I'm always going to throw out joke claims, better get used to it. No one else thought I was being serious. (to be fair I once claimed cop d1 when I was the actual cop).

Strikered has already tried to policy lynch me for claiming SK d1 (and once managed to do it when I was a tpr), but it's not going to change anything. Policy lynching for fluff isn't going to get you anywhere.

- - - Updated - - -

Also what you're saying doesn't really make sense. Joke claiming isn't alignment indicative, so don't go all WIFOM.
Base your read on actual content instead.

- - - Updated - - -

Info for voting on Danner:
Again the whole visibility thing, I'm having a hard time following if Mr President is being evasive and acting cornered because they just have too much past history and hatred on them. Graeham makes a good case, but having not read that game in question I can't speak as to the veracity of their claim.

I also want to comment on this because it isn't true. There is no hatred, in fact I'm pretty sure pretty much everyone likes playing with Danner. I'm not sure why he believes people want to lynch him, I can't even remember the last time he got mislynched.

[shirokitsune]

Right now mostly three reasons.

First, Kryllian's comments re: NK's. Which you repeat again it seems like. Crackle's only claim to that was in the fluff sign-up thread....though they did say they wanted to stay true to their word and try and D1 Lynch or N1 me as per the sign-up thread.... /eyeball Crackle.

Second, because I'd rather keep the pressure close to equal between you and Mr President so that neither one gets to far of a majority and can be jumped upon by the shadows... And the only thing that tipped the vote from Danner to you in this game of balance was reason the first.

Also can you really complain that you specifically claim something that you knowingly say makes you a target and then people vote on you for it?

[Kryllian]

I'm always going to throw out joke claims, better get used to it. No one else thought I was being serious. (to be fair I once claimed cop d1 when I was the actual cop).

That statement right there reinforces my reason. In the past you made a claim that had some truth behind it. At least I have a reason for voting the way I am whether you agree with it or not. I'll still stand by my statement that voting with a purpose (even based on questionable D1 posts) is better than voting for past game actions or at random.

[shirokitsune]

I also want to comment on this because it isn't true. There is no hatred, in fact I'm pretty sure pretty much everyone likes playing with Danner. I'm not sure why he believes people want to lynch him, I can't even remember the last time he got mislynched.

Perhaps hatred was a poor word choice and should have instead just stuck with the word history.

[dupti]

I'm not complaining, I'm just saying I have always done that and will continue to do so. You and Kryllian are both new players so I don't really care that much about it.

I disagree with your second reason. It is much better to get a third train going instead and I've been trying to push this for a while. Several games ago there was a train on me and another player who claimed VT. I hard defended the other player, even though he was the only alternative wagon and ended up getting lynched instead (I was the doctor), but they decided to lynch me since they couldn't get a third train running. Limiting ourselves to two wagons, especially this early on is silly because if both of them are on town, then scum can do whatever they want to. It is a possibility that if we have three wagons all of them are on town, but there is a higher chance that one of them is on a scum.

So if you want to put a vote out to keep wagons equal, then you should've done so to a third wagon instead of trying to force a two man race.

[Danner]

Danner, if you are town then take a break. This conf bias is not helpful at all. If you're scum, then I don't care and you may continue spamming random non sense, but to be ompletley honest I'll be very disappointed if you decided to go for such a ridiculous AtE play as scum.

Break not gonna happen.
I may be wrong about you. I have to consider the possibility that you do NOT consider the predisposition I have for an early lynch this game, and just for some unreal reasons believe my first post is so incredibly terribly scummy (I mean, I did vote blood fox, the nerve!) that you had to spent almost the entirety of the game pushing me for unrelated reasons, then actually not realising you were and start running a defensive mode where you blame me for calling you out on it. It's possible. I just don't think it's more plausible than the primary read. It is however enough that I vote Graeham over you.

I may even be wrong about Graeham. There is a chance he just voted me haphazardly, and cooked up a justification for that vote to avoid scrutiny. I just do not believe his reasoning one bit. It's a vote justification, not a vote reason.

I may be wrong, but if mafia taught me one thing - be obtusely stubborn, and change course only AFTER new info appear. If I let this dog lie, then I am not playing. I signed up to play.

--

But fair enough. I sense you are now desperately trying to get out of the topic of Danner. And that means the one driving the topic of Danner is now me. I recognise this. So claims the topic of Danner continuing should be considered self-inflicted from this point. But that said - I cannot reasonably drop this. We need to get to the bottom of it. Cue your previous post.

No but the follow up posts. I didn't expect anything. Maybe you would've asked why I thought you were scum or maybe not. I didn't like your reaction.

Why would i?
The "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" question is not something you can rationale out of. Ignore it and move on. It's not a serious question, and you know it. Stop pretending it was.

What was I really supposed to answer here?

Because it isn't true. This is such a ridiculous statement for several reasons:

It is so early in the day that you have absolutely no idea what is going to happen. Not only that, but how can I one single person ensure that the discussion stays on the topic of you? What is everyone else doing?

This is just conf bias. I asked you to explain your read on Crackle, I asked Ret what he thought of Crackle, I questioned Crackle and questioned Kryllian just before you went crazy. Sure I asked him about his thoughts on you, what's your point? I'd like to know his read on you.

No you did not. You only brought up the fact that I have focused on you, which yes. You were my first scumread, I kept pinging you out until I got a proper response and then I went on to do something else. You are reaching here.

First you vehemetly deny that you have been focusing on me, saying it was a thing of the past by the time I called you out on it, despite your VERY LAST POST (#165) before I called you out on it mentioning me by name.

Second, you agree you have been focusing on me. The facts agree, as I have been saying for a while. So what are we even arguing about here?

Look, focusing on me is fine. That's how this game is played. The point I was and am making is - you are the one driving it when it comes to the topic of Danner. I am not backing down on that statement. And the fact that you so vehemetly disagree that you were focusing on me, apart from admitting you were, is why we are here.

My best read is that you are scum trying to paint me as scum. Give me a better read.

- - - Updated - - -

So help me out - what exactly troubles you about my vote? I already stated that it wasn't set in stone and that I could be convinced to move my vote elsewhere if a convincing argument was made. For the moment you're the closest thing to a 'read' I have - D1 being what it is and all. That may very well change depending on how things play out from here.

I already explained it in my reply to Senna earlier. You're clearly allowed to vote me. I just read you as an opportunist scum in doing so.

[dupti]

That statement right there reinforces my reason. In the past you made a claim that had some truth behind it. At least I have a reason for voting the way I am whether you agree with it or not. I'll still stand by my statement that voting with a purpose (even based on questionable D1 posts) is better than voting for past game actions or at random.

Indeed, it happened once. In the 20 other games it wasn't the case. I don't really care if you want to read into it, I'm just telling you to get used to it because you'll never be able to get a wagon running only based on that so it would be better for you to focus on actual content instead.

Speaking of which, we are 24 hours into day 1 and I've posted quite a lot. Surely you have an actual read on me by now considering I've been the most active, so do you think I am scum?

[Reticence]

What's your problem with my vote?

It seemed opportunistic.

Visibility really betwixt you and Danner. I'm still learning some of the ins and outs of this but there seems to be some fire underneath all this smoke we're seeing. I don't really have enough info either way to definitively give a good informed vote.

Perhaps, but it can be dangerous to frame things between only one or two people. It makes it far too easy for others to skate by.

I also want to comment on this because it isn't true. There is no hatred, in fact I'm pretty sure pretty much everyone likes playing with Danner.

Can confirm.

Also,

Unvote

I don't want today's lynch framed as between Dupti and Danner. Not only do I not want to find ourselves stuck deciding between two players that I think may both be town, but I don't think either of their posts can qualify as suspicious enough to warrant removing their level of activity from the game this early.

I have a minor gutfeels on Crackleslap, but I'd rather we look at players who haven't had any attention. Gonna take a look back through posts to see where I want to put my vote.

[shirokitsune]

I'm not complaining, I'm just saying I have always done that and will continue to do so. You and Kryllian are both new players so I don't really care that much about it.

I disagree with your second reason. It is much better to get a third train going instead and I've been trying to push this for a while. Several games ago there was a train on me and another player who claimed VT. I hard defended the other player, even though he was the only alternative wagon and ended up getting lynched instead (I was the doctor), but they decided to lynch me since they couldn't get a third train running. Limiting ourselves to two wagons, especially this early on is silly because if both of them are on town, then scum can do whatever they want to. It is a possibility that if we have three wagons all of them are on town, but there is a higher chance that one of them is on a scum.

So if you want to put a vote out to keep wagons equal, then you should've done so to a third wagon instead of trying to force a two man race.

You make a good point. I'm for it. Well that leaves only one option then. We have (if I'm not mistaken) 2 on Catta, 2 on Xanjori and 1 on Crackle... So this will perhaps not put as much pressure as it could, but this leave the options open for anyone else to help start a third one with lots of possibilities to choose from.

Unvote. Vote Crackleslap.

If I get any good reasons to switch from Crackle to either of Catta or Xanj, or back to Dupti or on to Danner, I'm still quite game to switch.

[Danner]

[COLOR="#417394"]
I also want to comment on this because it isn't true. There is no hatred, in fact I'm pretty sure pretty much everyone likes playing with Danner. I'm not sure why he believes people want to lynch him, I can't even remember the last time he got mislynched.[/QUOTE]

Fun fact: haven't actually happened yet. I'm overdue for being a mislynch, really. Today is a great opportunity to make game history!

I also back up on the claim of no hatred. There is no animosity between me and Dupti. Its playing the game. I think Dupti is trying to paint me as scum, but that doesn't mean I hold it against him as a person.

- - - Updated - - -

Bah. That Markup failed. I was supposed to quote Dupti.

[Kryllian]

It's kind of funny, the championship game Uggor recently participated in showed me a whole different style of play than what we have here. I'm not saying I want to play with 150 posts per person per 24 hour period and having to make judgment calls on any and all posts a person makes. But I did like that people acutally discussed the entire day instead of just the last few hours so yes, I'm trying to be more active and get pressure/conversation going early so we have time to change targets if it doesn't pan out.

Yeah, my opinion on you now is that you've spent the entire time saying that anyone who votes on you must either be scum themselves or basically that their logic is flawed. Last time I saw that type of reaction the person turned out to be scum. You've made your arguments against a Dupti lynch, I've made my argument as to why you're on my radar. Now make an argument as to who we should be looking at and why and I'll be more than willing to consider an alternative.

However given that the only people really talking back and forth today are you, me, Danner, Crackle, Graeham, and Shiro I can't help get the feeling that scum is sitting back laughing their asses off that town is fighting among themselves.

[Danner]

However given that the only people really talking back and forth today are you, me, Danner, Crackle, Graeham, and Shiro I can't help get the feeling that scum is sitting back laughing their asses off that town is fighting among themselves.

This kind of thinking was what made me look into Graeham closer in the first place... the scum should want to just let this mess happen, and nudge things along. It ended up with a vote on Graeham.

[dupti]

Break not gonna happen.
I may be wrong about you. I have to consider the possibility that you do NOT consider the predisposition I have for an early lynch this game, and just for some unreal reasons believe my first post is so incredibly terribly scummy (I mean, I did vote blood fox, the nerve!) that you had to spent almost the entirety of the game pushing me for unrelated reasons, then actually not realising you were and start running a defensive mode where you blame me for calling you out on it. It's possible. I just don't think it's more plausible than the primary read. It is however enough that I vote Graeham over you.

Just stop Danner. "Entirety of the game", lol really? You modded the D&D game, do you remember what happened there? Graeham called me out for tunneling a couple of hours after I started questioning him.

You're calling me out for tunneling you for pinging you out first and then clearly expressing interest in moving on - something you continue to ignore even though I posted it in the thread. You can deny it all you want and continue to misrep be, but fact is it was fairly obvious I was going for something else. I think you should read me and Crackleslaps conversation.

The reason I disliked your first post was because you tend to come up with weird post 1 like that (very fluff heavily) more as scum than town, so I wanted to engage you. I put out a vote and then tried to ping you out, yet you just kept fluffing. I told you that you couldn't fluff your way into my towncircle which was basically me telling you that if you were town then engage me seriously, you chose not to so I continued.
Then when you finally started to respond to me, I liked your response. I then told Crackle my read on you (that I initially thought you were scum but now felt better about you) and that I was slightly suspicious of Kryllian.

I may be wrong, but if mafia taught me one thing - be obtusely stubborn, and change course only AFTER new info appear. If I let this dog lie, then I am not playing. I signed up to play.

There is a difference between being stubborn and just refusing to listen. You can theorize all you want, but I'd much rather you stick to what you actually know, and that is that I openly stated that I felt better about you now that you actually cared to respond to me.

But fair enough. I sense you are now desperately trying to get out of the topic of Danner. And that means the one driving the topic of Danner is now me. I recognise this.

No I'm not. I was trying to do something else before you had to go crazy, which if you actually read what me and Crackle was talking about, should be fairly obvious. For some reason you keep denying this and just talk about "oh and then X is going to happen, because Y" and whatever, but how about you just read what I actually did? If you continue misrepping me, then I don't care if you're getting lynched because if either you're just being stubborn town (like Graeham in D&D) or scum. In either case it isn't helpful to town.

Why would i?
The "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" question is not something you can rationale out of. Ignore it and move on. It's not a serious question, and you know it. Stop pretending it was.

What was I really supposed to answer here?

I don't know. Maybe you could've asked why, maybe something else. You aren't supposed to answer anything. Even ignoring me is an option. What you did however gave me the impression you didn't want to speak with me, simple as that. I'd like you to look up earlier games. Notice how often I ask you if you are scum and other random questions? You always responded in a different manner in the other games.

First you vehemetly deny that you have been focusing on me, saying it was a thing of the past by the time I called you out on it, despite your VERY LAST POST (#165) before I called you out on it mentioning me by name.

I did not deny that I've been focusing on you - in fact I said it was ridiculous for you to call it out since it was so early on in the day so me pushing a scumread of mine makes perfectly sense.
I denied that I was ensuring the discussion was only about you, which is false. You would know that if you actually cared to read what I am saying. It was fairly obvious I was going to pursue something different after talking with you.

Second, you agree you have been focusing on me. The facts agree, as I have been saying for a while. So what are we even arguing about here?

Once again, that I was trying to limit the discussion to you. This is an absurd statement and you are well aware of that. I can't tell everyone else what to do.

Look, focusing on me is fine. That's how this game is played. The point I was and am making is - you are the one driving it when it comes to the topic of Danner. I am not backing down on that statement. And the fact that you so vehemetly disagree that you were focusing on me, apart from admitting you were, is why we are here.

I'm just going to repeat myself. I never said I wasn't focusing on you, only that I wasn't ensuring the discussion was about you and that it was silly of you to complain about me focusing this early.

Have I been the one driving it when to the comes to the topic of Danner? Perhaps, but how is that a scumtell? I often ping out people because I want them to contribute, especially if they are a scumread of mine. Once again, it's a silly complain and for some reason you are trying to paint this as a scummy thing to do. It's probably just conf bias, which is why I'm asking you to take a break.

My best read is that you are scum trying to paint me as scum. Give me a better read.

Oh indeed, that is why I said I felt better about your slot a couple of posts before you went all emotional.

And I'm going to say this once more Danner I think you're an excellent player so I'm going to be really disappointed if you are going for such a cheap appeal to emotion play as scum.

- - - Updated - - -

God damnit Danner, why do you think I am trying to paint you as scum? I backed off after you responded to me and told you I felt better about your slot = not scumreading you anymore.

- - - Updated - - -

If I wanted to paint you as scum and mislynch you, I wouldn't have backed off.

[shirokitsune]

...
I have a minor gutfeels on Crackleslap, but I'd rather we look at players who haven't had any attention. Gonna take a look back through posts to see where I want to put my vote.

I was wondering what to do with this.

So far our player list is
Allowyn, Anakso, Arialla, Blood Fox, Catta, Crackleslap, Crissi, Cruelle, Danner, dupti, Graeham, JynxieJ, Kryllian, listo95, Marack, Reticence, Senna1251, shirokitsune, Uggorthaholy, Virothe, Xanjori

If I take out of that list all the ones that have been noisy..er I mean posting more than a "I'm here post" with a vote + substance or somesuch. Not really regarding votes that seem too much like a version of "I'm here".

That removes:
Crackle, Danner, Dupti, Graeham, Kryllian, Reticence, Senna, and Myself

Leaving:
Allowyn, Anakso, Arialla, Blood Fox, Catta, Crissi, Cruelle, JynxieJ, Listo, Marack, Virothe, Uggor, Xanjori

-----

hmm Blood Fox last round was almost hyperobsessive with posts as town but now seems completely silent.... Likewise I'm used to seeing a bit more analysis from Xanjori...

Hopefully we'll hear more from these delegates, contingents, what have you, later today.

FoS Blood Fox, Xanjori. For feeling out of character.