[MAFIA] Death of the Author - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > [MAFIA] Death of the Author

Thranguy: Apr 21, 2010; Deceitful and black-hearted, perhaps we are. But we would never go against the Code. Well, perhaps for good reasons. But mostly never.

I'll try this, sure.

# ¿ Sep 17, 2017 19:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Mar 30, 2023 10:35

Thranguy: Apr 21, 2010; Deceitful and black-hearted, perhaps we are. But we would never go against the Code. Well, perhaps for good reasons. But mostly never.

Exmond posted:

It is well known that Undercover mafia (writers?) have to say if they are undercover. I can assure you I am not undercover.

But are you overcover mafia?

# ¿ Sep 20, 2017 18:46

Thranguy: Apr 21, 2010; Deceitful and black-hearted, perhaps we are. But we would never go against the Code. Well, perhaps for good reasons. But mostly never.

Yeah joining bandwagons seems more suspicious than starting them ##vote Tyrannosaurus

# ¿ Sep 20, 2017 20:03

Thranguy: Apr 21, 2010; Deceitful and black-hearted, perhaps we are. But we would never go against the Code. Well, perhaps for good reasons. But mostly never.

Sitting Here posted:

I like how we all go straight for the accusin' and no one even RPs going to check on the lovecraftian hellscape outside

You've seen one lovecraftian hellscape, you've seen 'em all.

Also you're probably gibberingly insane.

# ¿ Sep 20, 2017 21:23

Thranguy: Apr 21, 2010; Deceitful and black-hearted, perhaps we are. But we would never go against the Code. Well, perhaps for good reasons. But mostly never.

yronic's the quietest, which might be suspicious.

# ¿ Sep 21, 2017 01:26

Thranguy: Apr 21, 2010; Deceitful and black-hearted, perhaps we are. But we would never go against the Code. Well, perhaps for good reasons. But mostly never.

I didn't think seb was scum until he just denied math.

# ¿ Sep 21, 2017 04:52

Thranguy: Apr 21, 2010; Deceitful and black-hearted, perhaps we are. But we would never go against the Code. Well, perhaps for good reasons. But mostly never.

Well, I started off vaguely thinking that no-lynch was the better choice for town, and the attempt to build a quick bandwagon looked suspicious. And I still find it a bit suspicious. But after the discussion on the math for no-lynch versus the alternative, I'm convinced. So I currently find the people still pushing for doing nothing (seb,) after those posts a bit more suspicious. Also maybe yronic, who also seems to prefer not killing anyone despite the math and is voting alone, which is just as good for scum pushing a null day one as abstaining. Not really feeling anything about anyone else who actually has votes, so I'll stay here for now.

(does 't-rex' work with votefinder anyhow?)

# ¿ Sep 21, 2017 17:53

Thranguy: Apr 21, 2010; Deceitful and black-hearted, perhaps we are. But we would never go against the Code. Well, perhaps for good reasons. But mostly never.

b-minus didn't actually put 'vote' in there, so it's not quite official. (And I'm not sure how official the vote for 't-rex' is; votefinder isn't counting it with the others.)

What's the case against b-minus? Just early lurking+joining the emerging majority, or is there something else that looks scummy there?

# ¿ Sep 21, 2017 20:03

Thranguy: Apr 21, 2010; Deceitful and black-hearted, perhaps we are. But we would never go against the Code. Well, perhaps for good reasons. But mostly never.

I'm a bit more suspicious of b-minus than Ty right now, but not going to rush things.

# ¿ Sep 21, 2017 22:04

Thranguy: Apr 21, 2010; Deceitful and black-hearted, perhaps we are. But we would never go against the Code. Well, perhaps for good reasons. But mostly never.

I'm more than vaguely suspicious on B-minus, just not changing my vote because that would end the day prematurely.

# ¿ Sep 21, 2017 23:01

Thranguy: Apr 21, 2010; Deceitful and black-hearted, perhaps we are. But we would never go against the Code. Well, perhaps for good reasons. But mostly never.

I'm dead sure Ty is town now. And 99% sure QPQ is. Other than that, I don't have any strong reads. If seb had survived he'd be my top suspect still.

My very weak read is that Muffin feels a bit suspicious to me. Didn't do much by way of reads, one could argue the b-minus lynch was inevitable by the time he joined it.

# ¿ Sep 22, 2017 19:15

Thranguy: Apr 21, 2010; Deceitful and black-hearted, perhaps we are. But we would never go against the Code. Well, perhaps for good reasons. But mostly never.

I don't know what to believe anymore.

(Ty's logic looks wrong; no reason for the cop to speak up unless we're on the verge of lynching someone they know is town*. But not so wrong as to be obviously scum rather than newbie.)

*And there may be some counter-intuitive logic for not even then, but it's not obvious to me.

# ¿ Sep 22, 2017 21:38

Thranguy: Apr 21, 2010; Deceitful and black-hearted, perhaps we are. But we would never go against the Code. Well, perhaps for good reasons. But mostly never.

The scenario was after someone claimed cop, which would be a fake claim and thus scum.

'Course, mafia aren't going to fake claim on any day but the last, so sort of moot. If we have a jailkeeper nobody should say anything.

# ¿ Sep 22, 2017 22:16

Thranguy: Apr 21, 2010; Deceitful and black-hearted, perhaps we are. But we would never go against the Code. Well, perhaps for good reasons. But mostly never.

If any scum fake-claims, the real role can counterclaim and town wins in two. (Same if scum fake-counterclaims). Scum knows this, so will only fake-claim if they're dummies too.

So an uncountered claim can be fully trusted at this point, which means the cop can tell the entire town who's innocent, lowering chances of off-lynches.

# ¿ Sep 22, 2017 22:35

Thranguy: Apr 21, 2010; Deceitful and black-hearted, perhaps we are. But we would never go against the Code. Well, perhaps for good reasons. But mostly never.

I'm trying to figure out why the scum picked seb to kill. Okay, the two people who looked most town to me, maybe they also looked worth protecting and thus worth avoiding by the mafia. But seb was looking a lot more suspicious than yronic. sh, or muffin, so killing him gave us a lot more information than picking one of those. So why? The only two answers I can see are the exmund reverse psychology 'frame' qpq mentioned earlier or that the mafia literally rolled a die to prevent information leaking from their choice.

# ¿ Sep 22, 2017 23:00

Thranguy: Apr 21, 2010; Deceitful and black-hearted, perhaps we are. But we would never go against the Code. Well, perhaps for good reasons. But mostly never.

Thought of one more possibility; mafia might have thought 'if there's a cop they'll probably investigate seb', so killing him limits the town's information.

And if there had been a jailkeeper holding seb, we'd have no kill and probably have lynched seb, so the plan works in both scenarios.

# ¿ Sep 22, 2017 23:15

Thranguy: Apr 21, 2010; Deceitful and black-hearted, perhaps we are. But we would never go against the Code. Well, perhaps for good reasons. But mostly never.

When ty voted b-minus he was the first one, with no justification but revenge. No way of expecting it would get traction.
voting qpq makes no sense at all; the b-minus train would have gone nowhere without them. Mafia deliberately stage-managing the loss of their power role is a few more dimensions than chess can go.
And b-minus's malformed vote for ty is looking even more suspicious now, as is the lack of correction when called on that.

##vote tyrannosaurus, which should put us at -1.

# ¿ Sep 23, 2017 18:16

Thranguy: Apr 21, 2010; Deceitful and black-hearted, perhaps we are. But we would never go against the Code. Well, perhaps for good reasons. But mostly never.

If I read the setup right, if there is a backup they might not know that they are backup yet. Also everyone should check in so nobody can say they missed a chance to counterclaim I think.

# ¿ Sep 24, 2017 17:26

Thranguy: Apr 21, 2010; Deceitful and black-hearted, perhaps we are. But we would never go against the Code. Well, perhaps for good reasons. But mostly never.

So what do we know? (If QPQ came up clean, I read muffin slightly scummier than ex right now. Not that it matters other than day count bragging rights.)

# ¿ Sep 25, 2017 17:39

Thranguy: Apr 21, 2010; Deceitful and black-hearted, perhaps we are. But we would never go against the Code. Well, perhaps for good reasons. But mostly never.

The only other scenarios are your investigation comes up scum or Muffin shows up and late-counterclaims cop, and they both play out in a straightforward manner.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2017 18:10

Thranguy: Apr 21, 2010; Deceitful and black-hearted, perhaps we are. But we would never go against the Code. Well, perhaps for good reasons. But mostly never.

##vote SurreptitiousMuffin

Wish we'd (self included) followed my morning two suspicion rather than going down the trex/math rathole that day now.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2017 20:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Mar 30, 2023 10:35

Thranguy: Apr 21, 2010; Deceitful and black-hearted, perhaps we are. But we would never go against the Code. Well, perhaps for good reasons. But mostly never.

Are we supposed to be able to see spectator chat? I can only see scum right now.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2017 00:22

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > [MAFIA] Death of the Author