[Mafia] Utopfia

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > The Game Room > [Mafia] Utopfia

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

Tremendous Taste is a jerk. A very persuasive and attractive jerk.

(This is a signup)

# ¿ Jan 30, 2015 19:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 17:25

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

Confirming!

# ¿ Feb 4, 2015 06:09

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

Oooh there are a lot of people I haven't played with yet, this is exciting!

People who don't like jokephase are wolfy! ##vote Lumpen

# ¿ Feb 4, 2015 18:46

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

wall monitor posted:

Does anyone else keep misreading the title as 'Ufotopia'?

I WANT TO BELIEVE

# ¿ Feb 4, 2015 19:05

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

Lumpen posted:

How convenient that you contend this somehow gives you a justification to "storm off in a huff", contributing nothing and leaving no interactions with other players.

If you were sincere about having a problem you could replace out. It is a Scummy posturing pretense.

##Vote Capitalist Pig

I think it's just Pig being Pig.

# ¿ Feb 5, 2015 18:11

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

Gabriel Pope posted:

Rarity, what are your thoughts so far? You've been posting a lot but so far you've yet to contribute anything beyond your early jokevote.

EXAKT Science has also been very quiet and jokey.

Yeah sorry, I'm in a lot of games right now, and also going through some really dumb E/N poo poo irl, so I've been a bit distracted from this game.

I am still not super fond of Lumpen's play so far. I don't like how he townreads people here:

Lumpen posted:

Upon re-read, I feel Gabriel Pope, wall monitor, and Rarity are all likely Town.
gamerofthegame is slightly suspicious.
Good Sir and EXAKT are null.
CPig is playing his Scum game but one post isn't enough to be worth an OMGUS vote.

I don't like townreading people in general, but especially this early, when we have no information to work with, I don't see how it helps to advance scumhunting. Then, when he backs off on his Gaberiel townread, we get this:

Lumpen posted:

Ahh crap. I had given Gabriel Pope Townie cred for posting that he thought there were only 2 Scum. Just now reading the setups in the OP, I see that this was specifically stated. For some reason I thought this game had more players and there would be 3 Scum.

Why would you give someone townie cred for being wrong about the setup?

# ¿ Feb 5, 2015 23:26

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

Rarity posted:

Exakt, what do you think of Somber?

So far, I'm not a fan tbh. I don't like his entry post:

Somberbrero posted:

What's up nerds? I'm replacing Capitalist. Pigman is dead. Long live Pigman!

I did this my very first game, where I was scum. ##vote Gabriel Pope

One of the things Somber does that always strikes me as scummy is that he'll talk about his playstyle and use it to project. For example, "I did this thing when I was scum, and a different player with a different playstyle is doing it now, therefore they are scum!"

I also am not big on how he reacts when you question him:

Somberbrero posted:

Rarity, trying to be polite here is giving me a headache. You play mafia weird, okay?

Aggressively pointing out anti-town behavior sometimes hits bad town players, yeah, which is why distinguishing between bad town play and scum play is an important skill.

I don't like that he gets exasperated and tries to get you to drop the subject, and I don't feel like this squares with his earlier defense of WM.
##vote Somberbrero

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 00:05

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

Somberbrero posted:

I have no idea how to respond to Rarity other than to tell her that she's wrong and say mean words. I'm not sure what you two are doing and how the behaviors you're pointing out correlate in any way to alignment. I don't think a big back and forth is productive here because it will just give Gabriel more room to hide, but there are clear issues with your reasoning.

One of the things Somber does that always strikes me as scummy is that he'll talk about his playstyle and use it to project. For example, "I did this thing when I was scum, and a different player with a different playstyle is doing it now, therefore they are scum!"

That's written as not 'one thing somber does as scum,' but rather 'one thing somber always does.' Even I buy into the premise that I do this behavior as town or scum, how then would that be indicative of my alignment?

I would ask you to be as specific as possible in detailing how my position on Wall Monitor is contradictory.

Hey Somber, I really am sorry for not responding to this yesterday. I'm going through a breakup of a really longterm relationship while also trying to move and find a job, so I'm a bit out of it at the moment xD

The main thing that struck me was how it read to me like you were, on the one hand, talking about how important aggressive scumhunting is (I agree, by the way), but then also are excusing WM's scumminess. It felt like you were trying to stifle discussion while also talking about why that discussion is so important, which struck me as scummy. I've also seen you buddy up to scummy-acting townies and vouch for them when your scum, and I know that you're very good at faking scumhunting and leading townies around. Before you ask, yes, of course I'm over what happened in Low-Effort Mafia, why do you ask? :v:

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 23:02

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

wall monitor posted:

Wanted to throttle back a bit since I was throwing votes everywhere yesterday. If quietness is my biggest sin, there's at least one that's been quieter (Good Sir)

I've got literally half the people here on my suspicion list so I've been trying to narrow it down before i pick someone to make a case for. If I absolutely had to cast my vote right now it'd be Gabriel or Lumpen, with Good Sir earmarked if he stays quiet and Somberero for the reasons Gabe's stated.

I don't like this post. WM says their (what are your pronouns btw?) lurkiness should be excused because there's another player who is lurking more, and then the entire second paragraph is one big hedgefest, where they still refuse to commit to a read and list off almost half the players in the game as people they'd vote.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 23:16

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

Somberbrero posted:

Oh wow dude, that really blows. You're a better person than I am for staying in the game. For what it's worth I meant what I said a while back, St. Louis is cheap and I can put you in touch with job people!

I see what you mean about Wall Monitor as it relates to my scum play back in Low-Effort Mafia, which is a game I still cherish. http://i.imgur.com/34gmo9E.png

Honestly, playing mafia has been helping, when I remember to post, because it's giving me something to distract myself.

Wall Monitor are you new?

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 23:20

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

Lumpen posted:

Good Sir has one single post for the entire day. Lurking is the #1 strongest Scumsignal. Replace or lynch.

If we lynch him he's very likely to flip Scum, even though, if so, it wouldn't help establish any links with his Scumbuddy (besides, possibly, weak evidence in the vote record). Still, if he never posts, that's never happening anyway.

Lynch the lurker.

I agree with Gamer that this feels scummy. I don't really like using the cuddle to go after lurkers, as it tends to not give us very much information, and is also a very convenient way for scum to push a townie without arousing too much suspicion.

# ¿ Feb 7, 2015 00:06

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

Also, I don't like the way that Lumpen backed off of Somber as soon as CPig replaced out. I understand that there was some history, but why would his replacing out make you that much more confident about his alignment when you were so sure of CPig's scumminess?

Gabe, that was a hell of a weird post, but it sucks if you actually feel attacked. In my experience, Somber can be aggressive and sometimes abrasive when he plays mafia, bu tthere isn't ill will behind it.

# ¿ Feb 7, 2015 00:11

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

Gabriel Pope posted:

Is Lumpen secretly a mind-controlling master manipulator?

Especially when it comes to fire elementals! :eng101:

# ¿ Feb 7, 2015 00:31

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

I'm not sure how much I'm going to be around between here and deadline, so I'm going to keep my vote on Somber for now. I'll try to check back at least once if I can.

# ¿ Feb 7, 2015 00:58

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

The level of certainty that Lumpen had about Good Sir yesterday is really not sitting well with me. Certainty so early in the game is scummy to begin with, but the way he was pushing smacks of opportunism, like he saw a player he could get cuddled without too much difficulty and went for it.

##vote Lumpen

# ¿ Feb 7, 2015 22:09

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

Lumpen posted:

Hello, please demonstrate the assertion here with quotes, and please post the most persuasive case against me that you can develop based on the evidence. I feel super eager to have you post this You, in particular, EXAKT, for reasons.

Lumpen posted:

Good Sir's lurking is now the Scummiest thing left to pursue at the moment.
##Vote Good Sir
Come out and contribute some content.

Lumpen posted:

Good Sir has one single post for the entire day. Lurking is the #1 strongest Scumsignal. Replace or lynch.

If we lynch him he's very likely to flip Scum, even though, if so, it wouldn't help establish any links with his Scumbuddy (besides, possibly, weak evidence in the vote record). Still, if he never posts, that's never happening anyway.

Lynch the lurker.

Lumpen posted:

Lynching lurkers reliably nails Scum. That is just the solid truth based on 6 years of heavy Mafia play here. All the incentives in the structure of the game reward Scum for lurking as much as they can possibly get away with. I don't try to let anyone get away with much lurking because it also makes games suck. In the absence of a very strong case on anyone, a lurker lynch is the way to go to improve Town's chances of winning the game.

Lumpen posted:

I'm here. Noting how hard gamerofthegame is scrambling to pull the lynch off Good Sir. Why?
Good Sir isn't going to get modkilled, he seems very likely tactically lurking.

Like seriously how do these posts not support my point? This is a substantial portion of your posting yesterday and you were far and away the one pushing Good Sir the hardest.

# ¿ Feb 7, 2015 23:48

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

Lumpen posted:

I'm at -1, but I believe both Scum are already on me, so that should be no problem. If you are Town and inclined to hammer early for some strange reason, please give a few-hours notice or something. If you're Town and currently have your vote on me putting me at -1, please unvote for now, your inclination has been made clear and you don't want something unfortunate to happen.

I have this whole game busted pretty wide open and there's some posting to do.

I just want to play out some rope first and see what gets posted.

You're at -2. Also, you've solved the game a few hours into day 2?

# ¿ Feb 7, 2015 23:50

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

Lumpen, are you always this abrasive when you play mafia? I was away from a computer for most of yesterday and so haven't gotten a chance to do much more than skim, but I'll post some content in a bit once I've reread.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2015 23:54

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

fiery_valkyrie posted:

Exact, why is certainty scummy?

Because certainty implies some sort of information. Especially this early in the game, the only ones with information are the scums.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2015 00:22

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

Well, in the absence of a counterclaim, I'm inclined to believe him. I don't see any reasonable rationale for a fakeclaim d2 when he isn't immediately under the hammer, unless he's pulling an insane scumgambit (unlikely, imo). So, I do think Lumpy is town, but I don't really like how much he seems to be reading into the nightkill, which tends to be a dangerous practice in my experience.

##unvote

That said, the posts from the newbies look super weird to me. Both Pope and WM have some off the wall conspiracy theories going on:

Gabriel Pope posted:

I really don't like this post. It seems very premature to declare yourself and valk cleared. The timing smells of desperation play, and I don't like Lumpen's continuing fixation on Gamerofthegame.

On the other hand...

EXAKT was one of our leading lynch candidates at the end of D1 and has not exactly covered himself with glory so far D2. Even before the claim I would already have been satisfied with an EXAKT lynch today (although Rarity is quickly rocketing to the top of the scummiest players list) and now lynching EXAKT also gives us an opportunity to test Lumpen's claim. If he's lying, we've only lynched someone we might have wound up lynching anyhow and we'll have confirmed Lumpen is scum. If he's telling the truth, we'll have nailed scum and confirmed a doctor.

I don't want to lynch EXAKT just yet, though. I'm pretty confident in the prospect of lynching EXAKT to test Lumpen's claim, but there are three possible pitfalls:

1) Lumpen is the doctor, but misinterpeted the nightkill. We lynch EXAKT, get a townie flip, and have to either trust Lumpen at his word (yeah right) or lynch a doctor.

2) Lumpen is scum... and so is EXAKT. They knew they were two of the leading scum candidates and now Lumpen is hard bussing so that at least one of them can survive unscathed.

3) Lumpen is scum and has reason to suspect EXAKT is a power role or is otherwise somehow dangerous to scumteam. Lumpen knows he's going down so he sacrifices himself in order to take out EXAKT or at least draw out a counterclaim.

There's a fourth possibility we may be led astray here, if Lumpen is town and fakeclaiming to avoid being lynched, but from what I've seen of Lumpen I think we can rule that one out. Nothing about Lumpen/EXAKT's posting makes me suspect scumbuddies, so we can probably set aside #2.

#3... If Lumpen was scum, and somehow suspected EXAKT was the doc, this claim would be a brilliant move. That could be where he was trying to lead people with his thought experiment yesterday. That seems farfetched, though.

Which mostly leaves #1, EXAKT is random town and scumteam targetted valk for unrelated reasons. This... is possible, although overall I'm comfortable with lynching EXAKT. I already thought EXAKT was a better scum candidate than Lumpen, so this doesn't even change anything. Still, I think we should wait for EXAKT. I also feel remiss pushing for a lynch before Somberbrero says anything for D2--my case on him has coolled a bit but there could still be something up there.

I don't like the reasoning here at all. He'd apparently be comfortable cuddling me, but isn't willing to rule out the possibility of a ~crazy scum gambit~ from Lumpy. All in all, this post is a whole lot of words that aren't saying very much, and look fake to me.

wall monitor posted:

Okay, theory time!

I'm calling fakeclaim.

Either someone else is the doctor and you're taking credit, or, and I know this might be a bit but I like this theory better:

There may or may not actually be a doctor, and scum chose not to nightkill N1 to make us think there was one so that Lumpen could claim and then possibly then finger EXAKT as above

If Lumpen is telling the truth and is in fact the doctor though... well, let me think on this a bit. You've convinced me not to try hammer today till I see other people's reactions at least, so good job(?)

This is also ridiculous. I'd vote either of these two.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2015 00:52

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

Because they're trying to cast doubt on an unCC'd doctor, and going about it by way of arguments that are crazier than pretty much anything I've seen in any mafia games I've played. It's like they've never heard of Occam's Razor and are just trying to complicate the discussion to distract from scumhunting.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2015 01:06

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

Lumpen posted:

Yes, and please don't take it personally.

Don't worry, we cool

# ¿ Feb 9, 2015 02:11

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

Lumpen I'm not sure what you expect me to say to defend myself, as you seem pretty set on voting for me. I don't like your case, as it seems to hinge mainly on the NK target, which I don't like on principle. I'd rather vote Somber or Gabe, but if I have to die, so be it.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2015 21:53

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

Somberbrero posted:

I have no idea how to respond to Rarity other than to tell her that she's wrong and say mean words. I'm not sure what you two are doing and how the behaviors you're pointing out correlate in any way to alignment. I don't think a big back and forth is productive here because it will just give Gabriel more room to hide, but there are clear issues with your reasoning.

One of the things Somber does that always strikes me as scummy is that he'll talk about his playstyle and use it to project. For example, "I did this thing when I was scum, and a different player with a different playstyle is doing it now, therefore they are scum!"

That's written as not 'one thing somber does as scum,' but rather 'one thing somber always does.' Even I buy into the premise that I do this behavior as town or scum, how then would that be indicative of my alignment?

I would ask you to be as specific as possible in detailing how my position on Wall Monitor is contradictory.

EXAKT Science posted:

The main thing that struck me was how it read to me like you were, on the one hand, talking about how important aggressive scumhunting is (I agree, by the way), but then also are excusing WM's scumminess. It felt like you were trying to stifle discussion while also talking about why that discussion is so important, which struck me as scummy. I've also seen you buddy up to scummy-acting townies and vouch for them when your scum, and I know that you're very good at faking scumhunting and leading townies around. Before you ask, yes, of course I'm over what happened in Low-Effort Mafia, why do you ask?

I didn't like the way he went back and forth on WM, and I've seen him win as scum before by doing pretty much exactly this.

My Gabe case is based on this doozy of a post:

Gabriel Pope posted:

I really don't like this post. It seems very premature to declare yourself and valk cleared. The timing smells of desperation play, and I don't like Lumpen's continuing fixation on Gamerofthegame.

On the other hand...

EXAKT was one of our leading lynch candidates at the end of D1 and has not exactly covered himself with glory so far D2. Even before the claim I would already have been satisfied with an EXAKT lynch today (although Rarity is quickly rocketing to the top of the scummiest players list) and now lynching EXAKT also gives us an opportunity to test Lumpen's claim. If he's lying, we've only lynched someone we might have wound up lynching anyhow and we'll have confirmed Lumpen is scum. If he's telling the truth, we'll have nailed scum and confirmed a doctor.

I don't want to lynch EXAKT just yet, though. I'm pretty confident in the prospect of lynching EXAKT to test Lumpen's claim, but there are three possible pitfalls:

1) Lumpen is the doctor, but misinterpeted the nightkill. We lynch EXAKT, get a townie flip, and have to either trust Lumpen at his word (yeah right) or lynch a doctor.

2) Lumpen is scum... and so is EXAKT. They knew they were two of the leading scum candidates and now Lumpen is hard bussing so that at least one of them can survive unscathed.

3) Lumpen is scum and has reason to suspect EXAKT is a power role or is otherwise somehow dangerous to scumteam. Lumpen knows he's going down so he sacrifices himself in order to take out EXAKT or at least draw out a counterclaim.

There's a fourth possibility we may be led astray here, if Lumpen is town and fakeclaiming to avoid being lynched, but from what I've seen of Lumpen I think we can rule that one out. Nothing about Lumpen/EXAKT's posting makes me suspect scumbuddies, so we can probably set aside #2.

#3... If Lumpen was scum, and somehow suspected EXAKT was the doc, this claim would be a brilliant move. That could be where he was trying to lead people with his thought experiment yesterday. That seems farfetched, though.

Which mostly leaves #1, EXAKT is random town and scumteam targetted valk for unrelated reasons. This... is possible, although overall I'm comfortable with lynching EXAKT. I already thought EXAKT was a better scum candidate than Lumpen, so this doesn't even change anything. Still, I think we should wait for EXAKT. I also feel remiss pushing for a lynch before Somberbrero says anything for D2--my case on him has coolled a bit but there could still be something up there.

Like look at this. He pushes me while trying to cast doubt on a claim from an unCC'd doctor. He's also trying as hard as he can to look like he wants to vote for me, while still distancing himself from my eventual flip.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2015 22:09

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

Gabriel Pope posted:

I'm looking to see who's supporting other possible candidates because I don't think there's any justification for not lynching EXAKT today, therefore people bringing up other candidates are suspect. I guess f_v is technically beyond reproach but it's still my knee-jerk reaction that anyone could be possible scum.

I'm planning on dropping my vote when I get off work today. I don't want to cut off discussion, particularly during working hours where it's simple for me to keep up with the thread, but I'm going to be too busy tonight to spend time on the forums.

Who here doesn't think EXAKT is a probable scum candidate? Just WM and Rarity last I checked, Gamer seems wishy-washy but sounds like he would be willing to join in.

And here's another interest check as far as cuddling me. He doesn't want to be the one leading the charge on my cuddle.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2015 22:12

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

Lumpen posted:

EXAKT, any thoughts or analysis you'd be willing to share on Rarity and/or gamerofthegame?

I feel okay about both of them, I guess. Both of them, especially Gamer, have fairly scummy metas, but I haven't seen anything particularly damning from them. I'm honestly amazed that Gabe doesn't have more attention thrown his way; he's pushing for me in a super scummy way, and it's crazy that no one else sees it, and I'm not going down before I ##vote Gabriel Pope. Anyway, hammer me if you have to. It does suck that I'm going from never being miscuddled to being miscuddled twice in a week, but that's mafia

# ¿ Feb 10, 2015 01:32

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

Gabe hadn't made that ridiculous scumpost yesterday. Also I tend not to trust you on principle.

# ¿ Feb 10, 2015 03:44

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

Thanks for the vote of confidence, WM. Again, if I get cuddled, that's fine. I still think that Gabe would be a far better cuddle and would net us a scum, but I've stated my case several times over and it unfortunately hasn't taken. If Rarity switched, we'd only need Gamer and one more to hammer, but I don't know how feasible that is at this point.

# ¿ Feb 10, 2015 07:34

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

Is anyone else here?

# ¿ Feb 10, 2015 07:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 17:25

EXAKT Science: Aug 14, 2012; 8 on the Kinsey scale

Somberbrero posted:

I genuinely cannot remember it so no hard feelings! S'all in the game.

"I don't think he's necessarily a threat either. He's never been able to get enough momentum going to cuddle me"

wow rude exakt

what, it's true! Just look at Monster Island!

# ¿ Feb 12, 2015 09:14

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > The Game Room > [Mafia] Utopfia