|
I've missed all the recent new games and I've been wanting to play some more mafia for a while, so sign me up!
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
This is all very confusing being in the wrong time zone. Is it tomorrow yet?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Confirmed. I haven't played in ages so to make things easier for myself I'd appreciate if all players could complete the following brief questionnaire: Are you scum?: Y/N
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Hmm, well that seems plausible.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
Just want to make sure I understand the rules - during challenges, when we contribute points, those points are lost correct? So in your example of contributing 4 violence, the player that did so would have 4 fewer points in violence to use in future? (i.e. they're not like RPG stats that can be applied on multiple occasions) Also, regarding the purchases I'm assuming wildcard points and anti-points can be used in place of violence etc for challenges as generic positive/negative points?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Rascyc posted:5 here Why would you only contribute 5 points for something that needed 27 between four people, especially with no prior communication in thread?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
I could kinda see a merk/Rarity gambit, but for now it seems more likely to treat it as the more probable situation that they're both town who were able to contribute. I cannot come up with a convincing narrative for contributing only 5 as a town player - it seems to make a hell of a lot more sense as a scum play. I'm kinda not comfortable with how quickly everyone's jumped on Rascyc though when Magnus only contributed one more and had volunteered earlier.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Magnus Gallant posted:I decided to join because I wanted to be one of the four. I know I'm town and I knew I submitted what I submitted so if there was a failure id be able to at least have some view into the points and only have three different people to check out to see if I believe them. So what do you think of Rascyc's play? I don't really see how your play makes much sense even from an information gathering perspective. We could have and nearly did fail the check not from (overt) sabotage but simply from not contributing enough. If that had happened, what information would we have gained?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
merk posted:...and apostate didn't even volunteer so the gambit wouldn't have made any sense at all. Disregard everything I said in the last five posts. Nah. ##vote merk
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
3 game days? How about 3 game minutes. I'm on to you merk!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
merk posted:I just realized what you did. That's a pretty lovely / game-breaking way to confirm me as Town. This post makes absolutely no sense given what you claimed to be assuming. At this point, you stated that: 1) you had not received a PM and 2) you were assuming that aC had volunteered and had also not received a PM. If this were true, then the fact that neither of you had received PMs would not confirm or break anything at all since it could be assumed that any scum in the challenge also would not have received PMs. Seems like you thought you had a good way to claim confirmed town, then once you realised that the logic didn't make sense (quite apart from the fact that aC hadn't volunteered) you backpedalled on it. Otherwise I just cannot get my head around what you were thinking with this post.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Oh okay that reasoning makes sense. Seems like there are a whole lot of assumptions you'd have to make to reach the conclusion that this scenario was game breaking though. Maybe the sort of assumptions you'd want to check.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
I'm seeing two possible scenarios here (well 3, but the third one seems pretty improbable). 1) Rascyc is scum, contributes way too little in the hopes that town fails the challenge but he can still claim to have helped. Especially since we didn't know (I don't think?) whether the total score would be revealed. merk/Rarity are probably town but could be bussing. 2) Rascyc is town, makes a bad play. Scum have an awesome opportunity to jump on a townie with a highly defensible case, and one of tt/Rarity/merk is scum. Probably merk due to weird backpedalling around the PMs thing. 3) Both Rascyc and merk are town, I spend the rest of the game being suspicious of townies who just screwed up. Scum find the whole situation hilarious.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
merk posted:What's the purpose of these last two sentences, especially the last sentence? Are you just bashing me for being wrong or does this have anything to do with alignment? Just an overly wordy way of saying I don't buy it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
I already voted you?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Magnus Gallant posted:It was never revealed how many points were sent in. Just that we passed. Yeah I know, but I don't think we knew before the challenge that that was going to be the case, unless I missed something?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Harold Krell posted:It is impossible to 100% correctly determine scum without a shadow of a doubt on day 1 due to the fact that there is so little evidence to be aware of. However, such a behavior is incredibly detrimental to the game and regardless of whether or not this person is scum, their actions are still outright disrespectful and people like this should be open to scrutiny if they continue to act in such a way. This is always true, but in this case we have a lot more information than is usually the case D1 due to the challenge format. Do you have any thoughts about that? The more I think about it the more rascyc's contribution seems like a bad play as either town or scum, so may not be indicative of alignment. It still seems like it makes more sense as a scum play however so I'd be happy voting rascyc. rascyc, what do you think of the response to your play? Any thoughts about alignment based on this? (apart from Rarity who you already commented on).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
That's a whole lot of posting without any actual scumhunting. ##unvote ##vote Harold Krell
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
##volunteer I can't quite do my share of this mission, but have still contributed a sizeable amount. Someone will need to do more than their share.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Opopanax posted:Why are we voting him for saying nothing vs all the other people saying nothing? I don't know about 'we', but I'm voting him because he's been actively responding with meaningless posts to some of the posts calling him out for being mean, while ignoring/not responding to any of the posts (including my own) asking for commentary on who he thinks is scum/the outcome of the challenge etc. I haven't played in a while so I have no idea what people's normal play is like, so maybe merk regularly doesn't read the thread/pay attention to what's going on and Krell normally noise-posts all over the place, but it seems scummy to me.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Opopanax posted:Why would you volunteer if you don't feel you can contribute enough? I contributed 6 (as I reasonably clearly suggested). I volunteered because I figured being one point off it would not be hard for someone else to make up the difference, and it's one of the things I'm strongest in. I don't know what other people's point spread is like, but there are not many things I'm going to be able to contribute to and this is one of them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
So, re-reading aC, merk and pmush - pmush/mills has nothing before this challenge. merk I've already commented on. As for aC:apostateCourier posted:Is this a thing we should do? Skill claiming, I mean? It does make sense in terms of challenges. apostateCourier posted:This was done before? What happened that time? apostateCourier posted:What interests me is that the point requirements are high enough to require maximum or near-maximum point expenditures from multiple specialists in that skill in order to have a shot at passing. apostateCourier posted:Merk- how many points did you get? This seems like a lot of questions fishing for information about people's skill distributions and game setup. I could definitely see this as scum trying to work out which players to be focusing on for NKs. apostateCourier posted:That doesn't 100% track. Especially given that we're probably going to lose a townie for every challenge we lose. Winning challenges is going to be really important, if for no reason other than to keep the points away from scum. This post kinda rubs me the wrong way too. It doesn't really say a lot, but makes repeated references to we/town/scum which leads me to think maybe it's aC making a point of trying to look townie. At this point I don't see any reason for voting anyone other than me/aC/merk/pmush, and since we have nothing from pmush at the moment I like either aC or merk. ##unvote ##vote apostateCourier
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Opopanax posted:I'm pretty sure it's Kerro. Pulls the same maneuver here that he chastised ras for, possibly hoping to slip under the wire with it. Then comes out swinging with a (possibly prepared) case. I don't like any of it Except that, y'know, unlike rasc I did exactly what I suggested in my post against him and communicated in thread what I was contributing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Somehow 6/25 which I mentioned beforehand so that people could plan around it looks more scummy to you than 6/27 or 5/27 which are not announced? I don't even know what to say to that. Unrelated but something else to bear in mind, whichever scum sabotaged this check would have known that they would be a potential target for votes, and so (if they'd thought this far ahead) would likely have believed that there was someone else already contributing who would be easier to paint as a target. In hindsight, this makes my case against aC look bad, but I stand by my reasoning on it. It also makes me lean towards thinking merk is town since I doubt he would have wanted to attract more scrutiny, but I'm curious to see what he makes of the challenge result.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
apostateCourier posted:Also shocker, kerro didn't actually read the context for many of those posts of mine. It would have been literally impossible for me not to read the context in which you made those posts since in all but one of them they were a response to someone else that you'd quoted. I don't see anyone else fishing as hard for information, so I voted you.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
I like imagining it is your avatar reading your posts 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
I don't know why anyone would want to vote anyone other than someone who contributed in the last challenge, since there is guaranteed scum there. Especially pmush since assuming you're town, there'd be a one in three chance of hitting scum.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
merk posted:To top on to what Opo posted, there's literally no reason whatsoever to volunteer if you can't contribute a "sizeable" amount, especially when we have four players who already have 2 points to their name. If you aren't going to slam dunk this one home and you're just going for your first set of points, then you should stay out of it. Wait, so in your mind am I scum, or did I contribute 6 as I have stated that I did? You're starting with one assumption (that I contributed only 6) and using it to argue a different outcome (that I am scum). If I did contribute 6 (which I did), then assuming everyone else was telling the truth (which they're obviously not) then the challenge would have passed regardless. This reasoning is super scummy since it looks good on first read but makes no sense when you actually take the time to think about it. You could be right that it was a mistake (I was probably a bit over-eager to get some points) but nothing about it suggests scum. The votes on me in general are pretty bad since a lot of them seem to be based on my contribution, when both pmush and merk claim to have contributed the same or less and didn't communicate in thread what they were doing. I'm not sure if there's any response to make to the other comments since it seems to be a case of people interpreting my posts as 'calculated' as opposed to the reality which is that they're just my train of thought.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Pretty sure I've made as many/more cases on people than anyone else in the thread thus far. But sure, I'm going to go back to where I started. First of all, I don't know what to make of your 'mix-up' over the PMs/aC's query about points etc. It seems from other people's responses that it's fairly normal for you not to be paying attention to what's going on in thread (as evidenced by asking further questions about wildcard points etc that had already been answered) so I won't read too much into that, but it equally seems like it could be a gambit to me. Secondly though, your posts targeting me really do seem scummy. OMGUS sure, but I don't see the same thing in other people voting me. You start by defending my play (of contributing 6), then suggest that Opo's read is good and that you 'may' vote with it, then call out a series of my posts as 'fake' (which is a pretty safe accusation to make since it's essentially just a gut read and you could later claim you got it wrong) and then finally you come back to me contributing 6 which a) not only contradicts your original position where you defended this play, and b) wouldn't make sense anyway as outlined above. If I had contributed what I said we had and everyone else was telling the truth, we would have past. I notice you completely fail to address this point? Finally, and this is meta-gamey but I've been thinking about it anyway and it's added to my own suspicion, you've basically claimed to have the same point spread as I do (8 tech, 6 diplomacy) based on your contributions. If everyone has 8 in one stat and 6 in another, then with 4 possible stats there are 12 different combinations of 8 and 6. In a 15 player game, it would make sense for 12 town to have one of each of those combinations, and for scum to have either some other distribution, or to mirror one of the town's distributions. On its own, this wouldn't be a big red flag though I definitely noticed it, but in combination with your plays above - particularly the really sketchy looking shift in your opinion on me, I feel pretty damned confident about this vote. ##unvote ##vote merk
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Well that's true I guess since the other ones in the thread throw up a 'divide by zero' error.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Help I'm stuck in a bizarro world where pointing out inconsistencies and making cases based on available information seems more scummy than saying 'this sounds fake' and jumping on a bandwagon.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
merk posted:How does this in any way make me scummy? I'm not really sure how to explain it any more clearly. Apparently spelling it out in detail doesn't work, so maybe bullet points? 1) I claim to have contributed 6 2) You claim that this is scummy "My point is that you limped in" 3) This only makes sense if I had contributed 6. If I was actually scum, as you claim to believe I am, then the argument would be that it doesn't matter what I claimed to contribute since I would be lying anyway. 4) This inconsistency in your reasoning is scummy because there were other people in both challenges who contributed less than I did, and made no attempt to communicate with the rest of town about what they were doing. So why focus me over them? Because it seems like a safe bandwagon = scum. 5) Also you claim to have the same point spread as me, which no-one else will know obviously but which certainly makes me suspicious as hell.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
apostateCourier posted:Kerro failed to actually state a number during the challenge. Why would you not give a number, Kerro? Yeah I kinda regret doing that. I wasn't really sure if it was in town's interest to reveal exactly how much we were contributing since I figured that would make it easy for scum to sabotage with minimal points invested. In hindsight, my hint was pretty transparent either way and ends up just looking more suspicious. I find it utterly bizarre though that I'm getting flack for being the only person to attempt communicating how much they were contributing to a check. Unless I'm seriously missing something, it is far more in town's interest to discuss this before the challenge than scum's, because it gives a whole lot more information to work with after the challenge, and can guide others to invest the appropriate amount of points. If I survive today (which is looking unlikely) I think we really need to decide whether we are or are not going to communicate pre-challenge about our contributions.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Good lord the town this game  I'm pretty sure that's hammer since Opop's vote hasn't been counted.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
 Go town!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
I could sub back in I gotta stop getting lynched D1.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
Congrats Rascyc, a well-deserved win. Though I'm kinda sad that suspicion on you completely dropped off after D1. Somberbrero posted:Town wasn't very coordinated and I didn't even consider that people wouldn't say how many points they were contributing. Apparently trying to do this gets you lynched 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 01:35
|
|