...That was what Caesar accused me of Fishy, which I said made no sense.

 

Luckylee, I am talking to you, don't ignore me!

 

I tunneled on Fishy, I'll answer gimme a sec.

---------- Post automerged at 11:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:33 AM ----------

I never said Lochness was scum, I said why would someones whose very first post pressured me, be my apparent scum mate?

 

Ok, that was a reading comprehension fail on my part.

The second part still stands, though.
If "he's the next biggest wagon" really is the reasoning you used for voting Aekiel that's not ... good.

So the question still is:
Who do you think is scummy and why?

 

So let's try this at not 3 AM.
Quick Response to Lucky:
So you sort of gave reasons for Proph, fine.

And the bit about Lochness/Sesc was, as blab says, reading comprehension fail on my part. I thought that was your scumteam. It didn't occur to me you were referring to Caesar's post. The next question would be Blab's.

 

Oops. Meant to respond to that. Sesc's bit kinda got away from me, I think. Still, he reads as town to me because he hasn't done anything scummy and has been actively applying pressure on people. Just because one of those people is me doesn't mean I'm going to assume he's scum. Town don't know who the other town players are, so it's easy to be wrong, especially at this stage.

Perhaps tunnelling was too strong a word. Maybe focused instead? You've improved since then, but that doesn't change the fact that you rarely strayed from the topic of Blab before my reads.

It'd take too much room in this post to analyse your posts so far, so I'll do it in the next one and automerge.

It was content because it wasn't fluff, and the content was coaching scum because it was telling them how they should behave in a situation like this. Instead of, say, waiting for scum to possibly do what she said and then call them on it, she said it to the entire thread, cutting off one avenue of scumhunting.

That is assuming she wasn't just using it as a cover for her own scumminess.

Honestly, I can't remember and I'm not going to look it up. I said he would be null scum, except that his content-less posts extended much further than even the most ardent RVS ones did. It wasn't the useless first day posting that rang the bell because that's fairly normal. It was how Kalas was in the top half for posting (I think it was 9 at the time) and had still barely said anything.

Getting to that. I've been at work.

Or, you know, I was attempting to scumhunt. May turn out that I'm completely wrong, but at this stage they're my best scum reads.

 

Also:
@Luckylee: I'm pretty sure you missed post #110.

---------- Post automerged at 11:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 AM ----------

Ah, I get your other reasons for voting Aekiel. You are kind of hard to parse ):

 

Okay, Fontisian post analysis time.

RVS

RVS

RVS

Null read.

First response to Blab. Question post.

Referring to Proph's vote on Blab.

Pressure on Blab.

Question to Sesc about his vote on me.

Agreeing with Proph about Blab.

Response to Blab's roleclaim, mostly dealing with a misconception of Mini Mafia.

Mechanics talk about Blab's role.

Fairly obvious what this one is about.

Another mention of Blab, though a loose one. Pressure on Luckylee and more not-quite-mechanics talk.

Pressure on Luckylee about Blab.

Call for activity, useless question to Caesar and set up for the next post.

Hard defence of Kalas.

Of all 16 posts, 3 are fluff posts, 9 refer to Blab to one degree of separation, with 2 of those being mostly used as pressure against Luckylee.

So yes, I'd say you did some tunnelling there.

 

I still really don't like Caesar. Post 96 looks like a very common early game scum post, asking questions without putting real pressure. Then he had to be pushed to give reasoning for his scum read on Luckylee.

2 town are Sesc and Fontisian.

Scum are Caesar, for reasons already stated and Aekiel for this:

I think that's a terrible argument for him being town.

 

Logic almost as sound as Proph's! xP

 

That's kind of how I play though. I use questions to try and fuel discussion and acquire more information so I can pressure people. I'll be the first to admit that it does make me a terrible Day 1 player, though. And in my defense about the Luckylee thing I was suffering from insomnia at the time, leading to the scattiness of my last few posts. I'm somewhat less tired now, so I should have something better up soon.

---------- Post automerged 23rd Oct 2013 at 00:41 ---------- Previous post was 22nd Oct 2013 at 23:11 ----------

Hopefully more coherent post is go:

Aekiel

RVS stuff, platitudes and mechanics questions. My opinion on that last is well-established: at best, they're of no use in a well-modded game. At worst, they're a distraction and excellent cover for scum. The last paragraph sort of reminds me of my play in the last game, in that it seized upon an interesting mechanical tid bit and attempted to create discussion around it.

Bolded paragraph is a little strange, in that it seems to suggest that the setup disadvantages town by... obliging them to at least make an effort at playing Mafia properly. The following paragraph suggests that town has more information in this set-up (which I'm pretty sure we don't). Adds to pressure on blab.

Disagree that mechanics questions are useful except as a smoekscreen for scum. Arguable that he managed to create discussion as well. Second paragraph advocates fluff gaming, which strikes me as a terribly unreliable way of playing Mafia (and provides an interesting contrast to his stated intent not to metagame.) Some pressure on blab to expound on his reasons for thinking Aek is scum. Ends with something of a misrepresentation of the previous game.

Further misrepresentation of the previous game in the initial post. Post merge is just a truism and an explanation for his anti-meta stance.

Mini-read wall, with little of note, bar one or two things:
1-the line about lack of defense is bad, as has been mentioned previously.

2-blab has been pretty active and at the centre of much of the discussion so far. In that context, it makes sense for many of font's posts to mention or have some connection to him. Hardly tunnelling.

He ends the post by asking for reads.

Defends his previous post from font and gives expanded justifications for some of his reads. It's fairly null in general, but for the bolded section, which is somewhat hypocritical.

Agressively defends himself against Lucky. Slight rowback from his previous position that mechanics questions are good in and of themselves. Here he implies he intended to supplement them in some way. (Probably nothing, included for the sake of completeness.) Ends post by asking me to construct a scum team around Luckylee. (In retrospect I shouldn't have answered, for a variety of reasons.)

Disagree that he started the bandwagon on Lucky- for one thing, there isn't a wagon on Lucky at the moment. For another, Lucky had been under scrutiny/pressure already. The call for reads is pretty standard.

Further defense of his read wall from font. Bolded section does sit well with me, though I don't know why. It just feels off. (Again, included purely for the sake of completeness.) Pulls back slightly from the accusation of tunneling he leveled at font earlier. I can't see how his opinion on #67 hasn't lead him to pressure Lochness. I disagree with his Kalas read, but this is a pretty decent justification for it, if you're ignoring Kalas's meta.

Analysis of font to back up his tunneling accusation. Not happy with this: there are better things he could be doing, especially when font isn't one of his main scum reads.

TL;DR-There's mechanics talk, misrepresentation of events in this game and its predecessor and hints of hypocrisy and a willingness to backtrack. Aek looks pretty scummy.

---------- Post automerged at 00:42 ---------- Previous post was at 00:41 ----------

Ebwop: bolded section *does not sit well with me*

 

I was going to do a full analysis of Aekiel, but Caesar covered it pretty well. I'll just add a few things.

The last sentence here is bad for two reasons. 1. It's general mafia theory designed to make Aekiel look authoritative and 2. It offers a nice excuse for Aekiel to fall back on when he lynches town.

Yes, because blab was the most interesting thing at the time. Why did you ignore him after his reveal?

If you think that, why don't you consider LochNess as scummy as Kalas, Caesar and LuckyLee?

I don't like this. Proph attacked Kalas because of actual things Kalas said. You're just going after him while vaguely citing content problems.

As for the post about me: 1.That wasn't analysis, that was a summation. 2. It was a poor summation. (Post 8 was not RVS, in that it had a definitive purpose. You ignored my suspicions of Sesc in your summation of post 43. I suspect that you missed the point of post 70, which was to compare Bill Door's reaction to this reveal to his reaction to my reveal in Mini Mafia 5. The question to Caesar was not useless. Calling post 95 a “hard defense of Kalas” is a reach.) 3. You are still reaching to justify your original conclusion of tunneling. 4. You did a full post analysis of me instead of looking at one post from Kalas, your actual scum read.

LochNess and Fishy Justice: What do you think of Aekiel?

 

@Proph: Wanna discuss your logic now or would you rather weigh in on Aekiel?

 

Well, between you, Caesar, and Bill I feel the bones are picked clean.

It's been mentioned, but he has been oddly defensive. The first bit with his town read of Sesc shows he might be thinking about his own standing in other players eyes, and the fact he's been so concentrated on replying to you and you alone supports that fact.

At this point I'm assuming he's ignoring my question. I don't like that, but It's pretty mute at this point compared to the rest, anyway.

Granted, he has pressured some folks on the side, but I wouldn't mind lynching him at this point.

---------- Post automerged at 11:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 PM ----------

Unvote. Vote Lynch: Aekiel


I think this is where we stand:


Aekiel (3) Caesar, Fontisian, Fishy
Kalas (2) - Rents, Prophylaxis
LuckyLee (2) - Lochness, Aekiel
Rents (1) – Sesc
Caesar(1) - Bill Door
Proph (1) - Kalas
Wenturse(1) - Blab
Blab (1) - Wetnurse



Abstaining: LuckyLee

I wanted to know the number of votes on Aekiel.

We still have around 3 days.

 

Because we've never had a game where scum haven't had day chat on Day 1. Lexi could be doing it differently, but it's weird of Aekiel to assume there is no day chat, which his point about scum coaching implies.

 

He had exactly 2 posts beyond that. One where he mostly disagrees with you. I would like you to specify how you got a town-read out of that especially because of this:

I don't get what role reveal on death has to do with anything, either.

I don't understand, however, why I do have to be what I claimed. From your perspective, if I were Mafia, surely I could be another role, i.e. the Mafia Godfather. The only ones who should be sure that my role is correct is scum. (and me, of course). So yeah, ... I don't get it apparently, either. (Or you don't or you're scum)

 

So much this. Claiming means almost nothing in this game, scummy is scummy regardless of your role.

@Sesc: What's your opinion on Proph? Contrived logic really isn't sitting well with me this game.