You are viewing the MafiaScum.net Wiki. To play the game, visit the forum.

Document Mode Mafia/Day One

From MafiaWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article contains outdated terminology that cannot be reasonably edited out. (delete • history)
The editor who added this tag elaborates: Outdated terminology in this page, which appears to be a game played on this wiki.
Final Votes
  • BlueSin: 1-MasSive,
  • MikeHart:
  • FoolSter41: 1-(Mathcam)
  • MathCam: 1-(NarniniaN)
  • shadyforce:
  • massive: 6-(BlueSin, shadyforce CurtainDog,FoolSter41, MikeHart, Wacky)
  • CurtainDog:
  • NarniniaN:
  • Dourgrim:
  • WaCky:

(With 10 alive it's 6 to lynch)

Day 1

As the town awakens on day one, they find MikeHart and Vraak X dead. With 10 alive it's 6 to lynch.

mikehart

Every night you may target a player. This player will die. You win when all members of the mafia are dead.

Vraak X

Anyone who targets you at night will die. The action itself will not fail. You win when all members of the mafia are dead.

Ok. 2 dead => Mafia + SK, or Vigilante. Probably the former. Vigs tend to not kill on N1 these days. Where exactly do we put our votes?

-- shadyforce 2004-05-14 09:27 UTC


Shady: I think you edit the text on the page, and add your name next to the person you want to vote for above. Polarboy: did you forget to tell us who the people are, or was that intentional?

Seems there's not much to go off of, especialy since we don't even know who died. Heck, I'll just random [b]vote: mathcam [/b]

-- FoolSter41 2004-05-14 15:55 UTC


Well, seems like perfect time for normal "day 1" random votes.

and as such, random vote [b]Shadyforce[/b]

-- Scalebane 2004-05-16 02:59 UTC

So, how do I delte the cache?

Anyway, I find that shadyforce has already got a random vote, and I'm already voting for this "With 10 alive it's 6 to lynch" guy, so I will just sit there and sit. there.

-- Wacky 2004-05-16 04:47 UTC

To delete your cache in internet explorer, select tools/internet options... from the menu. Click delete files, then yes. This will delete all the on-site copies of webpages that your computer is using.

-- PolarBoy 2004-05-16 23:38 UTC

Yeah, well I'm going to Vote: Scalebane. I won't deny it... it's totally OMGUS.

In other news, our first priority should be to get everyone posting and paying attention. Some I fear, don't know it's gone to day.

Regarding the cache thing, won't just hitting refresh/reload get the newest page?

-- shadyforce 2004-05-17 16:01 UTC

Seems to me that mikehart must've targeted V X. Is there any other way to account for the fact that V X is dead, other than him being targetted by somebody?

Anyway, it's probably not a bad thing V X is gone - that ability is pretty dangerous to the town.

-- CurtainDog 2004-05-18 16:02 UTC

There has been some misunderstanding as to the purpose of the "position pages". They are not intended as your main medium of dicsussion. In fact, there may never be a good use for them depending on how the game progresses. What they are for is posting bulk data and observations for later reference. Things like player dossiers, role-claim records, "reasons I find x, y, and z susupicious", etc.. That is all.

-- PolarBoy 2004-05-18 16:10 UTC

Something I just thought of that's confusing me. V X's role says that anyone who targets V.X. will die (and specificily says the action istelf won't fail). Note it doesn't say the target action won't work. The lack of dead bodies besides mikeheart makes me think that possibly mike heart targeted V. X. and died for it.

That would mean that the mafia didn't attempt a kill night 1, (or it was blocked) and a SK (if there is one) didn't attack or was blocked.

Is my line of reasoning wrong somewhere? 

For now I'm going to  unvote: mathcam  and  vote: dourgrim

-- FoolSter41 2004-05-18 18:34 UTC

I think i follow you foolster, and it is entirely possibe, thats how I interpreted the role as well. But I think its more likely it was a scum role and an SK. also, i think its odd that there were 2 pro town (?) killing roles killed on N1. P.S. I definately knew this was where we were posting... definately not editting the main page *whistles and walkd away innocently*

-- BigBenWD 2004-05-19 02:57 UTC

<Quote:> Something I just thought of that's confusing me. V X's role says that anyone who targets V.X. will die (and specificily says the action istelf won't fail). Note it doesn't say the target action won't work. The lack of dead bodies besides mikeheart makes me think that possibly mike heart targeted V. X. and died for it.

That would mean that the mafia didn't attempt a kill night 1, (or it was blocked) and a SK (if there is one) didn't attack or was blocked. Is my line of reasoning wrong somewhere? For now I'm going to unvote: mathcam and vote: dourgrim </quote>


Why would mikehart want to kill Vraak X? It may seem like the only solution available, but it doesn't seem like something mikehart would do.

It is possible that mikehart might have been blocked, so his kill ability didn't work, and someone then killed him.

And why is 2 pro-town killing roles dying N1 strange? Coincidences do happen, and I don't think there was any way scum could have known.

-- WaCky 2004-05-19 07:55 UTC

there was definately no way the scum knew, but It's just bad luck if you ask me.

-- BigBenWD 2004-05-20 03:09 UTC

well, just find this comment page. thought this game is dead before i did.

-- BlueSin 2004-05-20 10:04 UTC

not dead. So, who feels like acting scummy so we have something to discuss?

-- BigBenWD 2004-05-20 23:34 UTC

'Vote: Dourgrim, because he hasn't posted yet, and he should be right now.

-- WaCky 2004-05-21 10:04 UTC

[b]Vote:Dourgrim[/b] Looks like we have ourselves a bandwagon.

-- CurtainDog 2004-05-21 12:30 UTC

One might even call it a Dourgrim-wagon vote: dour

-- BigBenWD 2004-05-22 05:32 UTC

I'm going to unvote Dourgrim now to prevent a quick kill. Dourgrim, if you have been lurking now is a good time to speak up. Polarboy, maybe you should PM him and let him know that day has begun and close to being lynched.

-- Foolster41 2004-05-22 21:35 UTC

he still has yet to pos. this game is almost as inactive as Calvin and hobbes. come on guys.

-- BigBenWD 2004-05-23 22:47 UTC

P.S. for those of you who don't know, the tags are < b > and < /b >

-- BigBenWD 2004-05-24 00:20 UTC

  • bump* not that this is a thread that can be bumped, but still...

Vote stands because Scale is not posting either.

Maybe we can get some mod-prods please PB?

-- shadyforce 2004-05-25 12:15 UTC

Honestly, I didn't know the game had started, nor am I completely sure what I'm supposed to do with my homepage for the game, etc. I'll figure it out, I promise. In short: sorry for not posting up to this point.

-- DourGrim 2004-05-25 20:14 UTC

with your wiki page, you can just say what you think about the game so far, or jot down any ideas you had about the game, or take notes ect. otherwise, this is just a normal game with the votes at the top of the page. Im gonna keep voting you though because pretty much the only day one strategy is a bandwagon to a claim.

-- BigBenWD 2004-05-25 22:28 UTC

I, like DourGrim, have just figured this thing out. I was looking at the main page for the text of the game, didn't see anything, so assumed the game hadn't started.

I wonde why Foolster unvoted me to vote DourGrim. Up until that point, we had both posted 0 times.

-- MathCam

-- Anonymous 2004-05-25 22:42 UTC

I'm here and waiting for a claim.

Who is this Anonymous guy?

-- WaCky 2004-05-26 06:39 UTC

It looks like MathCam signed his post manually, but then had anonymous or a blank space instead of the name in the below box, when he was posting his comment.

-- shadyforce 2004-05-26 10:50 UTC

I didnt realize the discussion was on this page - I thought it was through our links. I will be commenting after lunch

-- NarniniaN 2004-05-26 16:08 UTC

Let me get this straight... you want me to roleclaim because I have three votes on me?! Not likely, bub. The only reason you're voting for me at all is because I hadn't posted to this thread yet because I didn't know how wikis worked... you'll have to forgive me if I don't think that's a stellar reason for a bandwagon.

-- DourGrim 2004-05-26 18:12 UTC

you should be bandwagoning me as well then - since I posted after dourgrim and all.

-- NarniniaN 2004-05-26 23:04 UTC

do we all know whats going on now? and dourgrim, my point was that someone has to be bandwagoned to a claim, and you were already bandwagoned, so why waste the time?

-- BigBenWD 2004-05-27 01:30 UTC

I'm inclined to think that Dourgrim has a point - just another mod-attention grabbing D1 lurker wagon, so there shouldn't be any need to claim for no reason.

The font is so not good for getting the thought processes going... makes me sleepy just looking at it, and I already slept for like 12 hours today. Damn winter...

But I digress: Firstly Bluesin hasn't posted yet, I think, so he needs a prod, and Vote: Scalebane - he's posted ages ago and vanished since.

-- WaCky 2004-05-27 08:04 UTC

Dour and Bigben both give good points. On the one hand, the whole point was really to get dour talking. Which happened.

On the other hand, forcing players to roleclaim and judging the them based on how realistitc their roleclaim is, and how their acting connects with or onterdicts their role in my opinion is a good way of getting informaiton. Like jeep said, the town's best strategy is to lynch all liers.

So, should we force a claim out of dour? For now I'm going to vote: bigbenWD Some things he says kind og rings scummy, though not 100% sure yet.

-- FoolSter41 2004-05-27 22:31 UTC

Vote: Scalebane just random vote. Back from exams. it is over now.

-- BlueSin 2004-05-28 00:23 UTC

vote: blusin for "randomly" placing a third vote on scalebane.

-- BigBenWD 2004-05-28 06:15 UTC

Vote: Foolster for the argument above. Plus, I kind of figure that the mafia would have figured out how this forum worked before the non-mafia, and Foolster was one of the first to post here.

-- mathcam 2004-05-28 18:31 UTC

Math: Could you please explain exactly what you disliked about my srgument? The fact that I see forcing claims as a valid way of gaining information?

I have to at least partialy disagree with your statement about mafia being quicker. True the mafia would have to figure out the wiki to comunicate night 1, but that does not nessicerily mean that they are scum. The chances are also good of a townine figuring out the wiki by the time day 1 rolls around, or being already active are too high.

-- Foolster41 2004-05-29 02:50 UTC

well, foolster, if day one isnt goinjg to andwagon until a claim, then what is going to happen? would you rather a cop come out? (NOT implying the cop should come out.)

-- BigBenWD 2004-05-29 22:54 UTC

well, not so random afterall.

-- BlueSin 2004-05-30 04:54 UTC

why did you put a third vote on him anyway?

-- BigBenWD 2004-05-30 18:11 UTC

This was in one of your early posts, Foolster:

"For now I'm going to unvote: mathcam and vote: dourgrim"

This was made after your random vote for me. I thought it was bizarre because neither Dourgrim or I had made a post by this point. What part of our 0 posts made you more suspicious of Dougrim than of me after having random voted me in the first place?

"True the mafia would have to figure out the wiki to comunicate night 1, but that does not nessicerily mean that they are scum."

This is an amusing sentence as is. I know what you mean here, but it sure reads like "The mafia might not be scum." But I still hold there's a little validity in this argument. The mafia had to figure out how to communicate before the town did. So I would suspect that mafia would be quicker to post than townies, but fo course the reverse argument doesn't hold. Not everyone that posts quickly has to be mafia. (I think this is what you were trying to say above). So while I agree with this, it's still evidence. Quick posters are, in my opinion, more likely to be scum than people who bumbled around with this site trying to figure out how it worked for a while.

-- mathcam 2004-05-31 18:20 UTC

Good point... *looks at who posted first*... Bad point! ;)

Though in my defense, I was the first to notice it turned day because I be on here regularly, reading and posting elsewhere. No need to take my word for it. Look for yourself.

Well, who posted second... Foolster, a guy who is suspicious for a number of reasons. I do think you are very jumpy and looking to create suspicion instead of finding suspicion. Don't get me wrong, sometimes bandwagoning to get info is useful, but better than that is bandwagoning because of info, and hence getting more info.

Bandwagoning to create suspicion is the lazy way out, or the scummy way out, and should only be a last resort. That seems unnecessary here, as we have plenty to go on.

FOS: Foolster, but my vote stays on Scalebane because his vote is still on me... oh, and he is lurking.

-- shadyforce 2004-06-01 13:03 UTC

DAA! my net keeps going out in the middle of posting- Ill keep this short.

One possible theory for the night is that whoever killed Vraak was night protected and that mikehart was killed by somebody else (sk+mafia)

On another note- I have evidence agaisnt mathcam -I'd prefer not to go into specifics until I give Mathcam a chance to explain any reasons why I might have evidence agaisnt him.

-- NarniniaN 2004-06-01 14:52 UTC

BigBenWD Said: "well, foolster, if day one isnt goinjg to [b]andwagon until a claim, then what is going to happen? would you rather a cop come out? (NOT implying the cop should come out.)" 

Unless I'm misinterupting what you're saying here, you are FOR using bandwagons, but you seem to get the impression I'm against it. My comments before was saying that I feel they are usefull when there's nothing to go on, though I also commented that many people dosagree with this opinion.

BigBenWD Said: "why did you put a third vote on him anyway?" If you're talking about my vote on dour, then you are completly wrong. I was the FIRST to vote dour you were the one to vote on dour third. [B]FOS: BigBenWD[/B]

Mathcam: You're right, that is what I ment to say, not that "mafia arn't always scum." *Oops* :)

-- Foolster41 2004-06-01 21:44 UTC

I was reffering to bluesin with that second post. because he said he had a reason to put a 3rd vote on scalebane and i asked him what it was. and if theres something to go on, please, shar it. at that point, I saw nothing to go on, so I opted for a bandwagon which is what I do day 1.

-- BigBenWD 2004-06-01 22:47 UTC

OK, it's official, I'm not proficient with wikis at all... I've been checking every day and never saw a single comment after my last one until just now, when I decided to click the little "diff" link at the bottom to see what would happen. Bah.

MOD: is there any way of getting a more cohesive votecount at the top of this page? Y'know, kinda like how vote counts are usually done?

I'll reread later tonight and post more then.

-- DourGrim 2004-06-02 21:34 UTC

I'll reorganize the votes so it is normal. in the future, when changing votes, add your name next to the player you're voting for and change their number of votes.

-- BigBenWD 2004-06-03 01:25 UTC

Uh.. right.

I can't seem to read the text of this properly (eyes and this kind of text don't seem to like each other), but d1 bandwagons need claims to work. We've bandwagoned 2 people and not got a claim. Is there a point to all this otherwise?

-- WaCky 2004-06-03 06:10 UTC

maybe we should stay firm on a bandwagon then, rather then back down when the person says, "hey, why are you bandwagonning me?!" thereby i'm going to vote for scalebane (putting 4 on him) and demand a claim from him.

-- BigBenWD 2004-06-04 03:45 UTC

I can think of absolutely no reason why you would get any "evidence" against me, Narninian. Feel free to reveal if you want.

I think you (Wacky and Ben) are missing the point to bandwagons. For me, the point of a bandwagon is not to force claims, it's to see how people react when being bandwagonned and to see how much of a defense they can muster, and seeing the participants of the bandwagon and the order in which they join. Also, forcing partial role claims is good because they limit a mafia's choices for a later full role claim. Just because we don't get a claim out of it doesn't mean it wasn't a successful bandwagon. To the contrary, if we happened to bandwagon a doc, for example, then bringing an end to the bandwagon BEFORE the claim is even MORE succesful.

Cam

-- mathcam 2004-06-04 17:02 UTC

Cam: I agree with your philosphy on bandwagoning.

Narninian: I don't think you can just say: "I have something suspicious on you, n ow saty something you scum you". Of course he's going to say he has no idea what the hell you're talking about. You probably need to give us a carefully compiled hint, giving Cam enough to know why your suspicious, but not so much that he can claim, without risking you catching him in a lie. OR something like that. Yo know what I mean. Tell us a little, not much more than that though, and then we can pressure Cam into saying something.

Vote stays on Scale because he has still yet to post, even though his vote for me has gone for some reason. One possible explanation is that he came, he saw, he unvoted, but didn't bother post.

-- shadyforce 2004-06-04 19:01 UTC

Oh, sorry Bigben, case of mistaken idenity. :) <UNFOS: BigbenWD

Shadyforce said: "Bandwagoning to create suspicion is the lazy way out, or the scummy way out, and should only be a last resort. That seems unnecessary here, as we have plenty to go on."

Mathcam said: "I think you (Wacky and Ben) are missing the point to bandwagons. For me, the point of a bandwagon is not to force claims, it's to see how people react when being bandwagonned and to see how much of a defense they can muster, and seeing the participants of the bandwagon and the order in which they join. Also, forcing partial role claims is good because they limit a mafia's choices for a later full role claim. Just because we don't get a claim out of it doesn't mean it wasn't a successful bandwagon. To the contrary, if we happened to bandwagon a doc, for example, then bringing an end to the bandwagon BEFORE the claim is even MORE succesful."

Shadyforce Said: "Cam: I agree with your philosphy on bandwagoning."

Shadyforce can't seem to make up his mind. Is bandwagoning "lazy way... scummy way?" or is it good, as cam seems to imply in the statement you agreed to? FOS: Shadyforce

Mod: BigBenWD currently has two votes (blueSin and ScaleBane at once.

-- Foolster41 2004-06-04 21:20 UTC

Scalebane hasn't partial claimed (whatever that means) though.

Also, I tend to find it easier to tell if someone is scum by there claim than by their voting patterns. Many people make the darndest claims....

So I don't necessarily agree.

Also, if you have evidence against someone, the best thing to do is ask them to claim. As opposed to asking why, for reasons narninian pointed out.

-- WaCky 2004-06-05 11:51 UTC

Hey all from cloudy Beijing!

I'm still happy with my vote on Dour at the moment. His response to the votes on him earlier seemed to be a kind of 'why me?' denfense. It's day one, somebody has to be picked on... and unless you have exceptional circumstances that someone is usually random. A player as experienced as dour should know that. Vote stays.

-- CurtainDog 2004-06-05 12:28 UTC

To clarify:

I agree with Mathcam when he said: "Just because we don't get a claim out of it doesn't mean it wasn't a successful bandwagon." ...which I believe to be the crux of his point.

My point is mainly based on starting bandwagons not ending them, hence my agreement with Cam does not contradict my earlier statements.

-- ShadyForce 2004-06-08 01:32 UTC

So, what are we waiting for? For scalebane to throw us a bone? No one is being perticularly talkitive this game (It' s been 2 days since the last post!)

ShadyForce: I undestand now what you mean. though your blanket "I Agree!" to what apears to be a pro bandwagoning statement was confusing.

Narnian: If you have something, maybe it's best you just spit it out, now that you've told everyone you have it...

-- Foolster41 2004-06-08 21:40 UTC

sorry about the double vote, my bad, forgot to unvote. anyways. MathCam, interesting idea on bandwagons, I'll keep that in mind in the furure. but for now, my vote stays on the silent one.

P.S. I need a replacement.

-- Anonymous 2004-06-08 22:34 UTC

Add your comment here. Who needs a replacement?

-- WaCky 2004-06-09 08:43 UTC

look on the list :-P

-- BigBenWD 2004-06-09 12:04 UTC

Okay, another reason for bandwagoning is simply to move the day.  :)

Hence, Unvote: Narninian, Vote: Scalebane

Cam

-- mathcam 2004-06-09 21:03 UTC

Sorry, Narninian was voting for me, not the other way around.

Unvote: Foolster41, Vote: Scalebane

though I've still my eye on Foolster.

-- mathcam 2004-06-09 21:04 UTC

Careful... it's 6 to lynch.

Citizens demand answers!

And possibly a replacement!

-- WaCky 2004-06-10 07:05 UTC

If I just spit it out - Mathcam will just come out and say an obvious reason explaining why the evidence was there and that would explain his innocence..

I wanted to give him to explain anything that might point him as guilty while actually being innocent ahead of time. Ill contemplate this some more and maybe Ill reveal my info tommorow.

-- Narninian 2004-06-10 08:58 UTC

Fair enough, I suppose. Keep in mind you may be dead tomorrow. In any case, I don't see how anything to do with my role could be construed as suspicious.

Cam

-- mathcam 2004-06-11 20:36 UTC

... bump (i have nothing new to add, sry)

-- BigBenWD 2004-06-14 04:16 UTC

Mathcam has a good point - If he IS mafia, then there is a good chance you will be dead tommarow if they think you have incriminating evidene against one of them, twhich you sound like you do. Though also if you math can easily explain the evidence, then there seems to be no point to your "evidence".

BigBenWD - Remember, this is a wiki so bumping is pointless. Posting saying "I have nothing" is in my mind worse than lurking. it's lurking and pretending not to lurk. Maybe it's just bad playing, but I'm 65% sure from the way Bigben's been acting that he is scum

Big Ben Said: "I think i follow you foolster, and it is entirely possibe, thats how I interpreted the role as well. But I think its more likely it was a scum role and an SK. also, i think its odd that there were 2 pro town (?) killing roles killed on N1..."

To me this sounded like talking out of both sides of his mouth, trying to sound agreeible when disagreeing.

This is what I suggest: We have the mod nudge scalebane and in the mean time we put preasure on bigben to claim or somthing. I know I could be wrong, but nothing's happeinging right now and bigben looks to me to be the most scummy person here.

-- FoolSer41 2004-06-14 19:25 UTC

Oh, I forgot that Bigben's asked for a replacement because of the recent post. I'll talk to Polarboy about finding one.

-- FoolSer41 2004-06-14 19:27 UTC

Okay, reviewing his posts, I see your point about Ben. If we find a compelling reason to jump off the Scalebane ship, he might be my next target.

Cam

-- mathcam 2004-06-14 20:09 UTC

i know you can't bump it, bet there were no active posts in a while, so i posted tha just so I got someone to talk about something so i could have new ideas. That worked too.

-- BigBenWD 2004-06-14 20:41 UTC

We need more activity.

PolarBoy... can you: 1. Prod lurkers. 2. Replace inactives. 3. Devise some scheme for encouraging people to check this game as often as they check a normal mafia game.

-- ShadyForce 2004-06-14 23:33 UTC

maybe we should make a link to here in the new york forum?

-- BigBenWD 2004-06-15 02:45 UTC

That might work... maybe with a sticky? Games tend to sink.

Unvote: Scalebane for now, pending a mod prod. Leaving my vote there does nothing.

-- WaCky 2004-06-15 07:56 UTC

BigBen: Yes, it made us talk alright, about how you look scummy. :). Not to bright in my opnion.

I talked to PolarBoy, so I think he's working on it. I also reminded him about Bigben needing a replacement, so I think he's working on that too.

My idea was that either we: 

1.)Stick with scalebane, waiting for polarbpy to prod him until we can get information
2.)Jump from scalebane and put preasure on bigben in order to get information

Simply removing your vote from scalebane and doing nothing else fails to acomplish either goal.

-- Foolster41 2004-06-15 19:21 UTC

Oh yeah, and I think I'm not going to be able to get online for the next 2 days. ('Til Friday)

-- Foolster41 2004-06-15 19:23 UTC

La la la.

"maybe we should make a link to here in the new york forum?" - Ben

That is a great idea.

Cam

-- mathcam 2004-06-16 21:21 UTC

'Simply removing your vote from scalebane and doing nothing else fails to acomplish either goal.'

It does achieve the goal of preventing phenomenally bored players from casting the final vote until Polarboy replaces scalebane and bigbenwd. Putting pressure on people who aren't really here doesn't do much.

-- WaCky 2004-06-17 03:58 UTC

Good point. Didn't think about that. (Temproary Brain Fart, though I hate that term and wish I could think of something else to call it...)

-- FoolSter41 2004-06-17 21:32 UTC

I can't make a thread in any game forum, as I don't have moderator status. Also, such a thread would quickly sink out of site for lack of activity.

-- PolarBoy 2004-06-18 17:53 UTC

Well, there could just be a link to the Wiki somewhere on the main page.

I any case, I'm becoming impatient. Let's kill Scalebane.

Cam

-- mathcam 2004-06-18 18:49 UTC

I still have moderator status from Paced - New York and B&B - Little Italy.

-- WaCky 2004-06-19 03:44 UTC

OK, I'm back so I can start contributing a bit more (well, ok, a LOT more :P)

For now I agree with mathcam, I think the info that we get from what happens tonight will be useful... plus if we don't do something now then I think there's a decent chance that the game wont go anywhere anyway.

unvote: Dour

vote: Scalebane

-- CurtainDog 2004-06-21 23:33 UTC

Cam: If you havn't forgotten we're waiting for a replacement for BigBen. Also we havn't heard from scale bane yet. In fact, has he even comunicated at all. He may simply not know how to get here. I doubt very much that he's lurking because he probibly would have said something.

Though I agree this is frustrating, siting and doing nothing, I don't think jump lynching will help us. Especialy since there has been no evidence revealed against him.

-- Foolster41 2004-06-22 21:00 UTC

Oh, you're totally right. I just assumed that Scalebane had posted once and then left. But checking, of course, I see that he hasn't posted at all. This calls for a PM, not a lynching.

  • sits and waits patiently*

Cam

-- mathcam 2004-06-23 14:08 UTC

Well, I would have assumed by now that PB has at least PMed him, right?

-- ShadyForce 2004-06-24 18:35 UTC

He hasn't posted at all? [quote] Well, seems like perfect time for normal "day 1" random votes.

and as such, random vote [b]Shadyforce[/b]

-- Scalebane 2004-05-16 02:59 UTC [/quote]

-- WaCky 2004-06-25 03:33 UTC 

Sorry,I guess i missed that. So he was here... Then where is he??


Scalebane posted at least twice today that I know of: 

8:15 am - Posted in scalescum
2:12 pm - Posted in RPG scummers might like


Did he forget? Polar said he prodded him so he must have read his PMs if he was online, right?

Also Polarboy told me that BigBenWD is now replaced, I think with PopiscleStix. I'll ask polar boy who it is and ask him to update the information, prod the replacement.

-- Foolster41 2004-06-25 22:13 UTC

Sorry I didn't update this. BigBen has been replaced by PopsicleStix. ScaleBane has been prodded and needs to be replaced as well.

-- PolarBoy 2004-06-26 22:27 UTC

Ok. I've replaced ScaleBane as well. massive will be filling the role. I've also removed BigBen's vote on ScaleBane.

-- PolarBoy 2004-06-26 22:59 UTC

Luckily for you all, I am replacing the erstwhile and up-until-recently-I-hope-bandwagoned Scalebane.

I mean, at some point in the future, to do some actual research into how often scum will hop on the lurker bandwagon. I bet it's more than people think. An innocent person who's not around to defend themselves? Sounds like good pickin' to me.

-- MasSive 2004-06-26 23:20 UTC

Finally! Maybe now the game can go on.

Ok, so where do we go from here? Do we push massive for information since we have votes on him anyways, or do something else?

-- Foolster41 2004-06-28 21:17 UTC

MasSive: Am I correct in saying you think our best way forward is to go after one of the five people on your bandwagon -(BlueSin, shadyforce mathcam, CurtainDog) and formerly PopsicleStix ? That seems to be the implication of your last post.

I think the idea has some merit... but there has to be a way of discouraging people from lurking, and bandwagoning is pretty much the only weapon the town has. It's kind of a lesser of two evils thing (in a perfect world everyone would talk)

All: I'd like to hear from PopsicleStix, he hasn't even posted a 'hey, I'm here' post.

-- CurtainDog 2004-06-28 22:37 UTC

That's great, but I don't think its enough to go on. I'd also liekt o hear that popsicle stix talk as well.

but that is a great idea:

quote: I mean, at some point in the future, to do some actual research into how often scum will hop on the lurker bandwagon. I bet it's more than people think. An innocent person who's not around to defend themselves? Sounds like good pickin' to me.

-- WaCky 2004-06-29 02:57 UTC

I certainly think it's possible. Look, for instance, at BlueSin's vote for ScaleBane. He comes back into the game, places a "random" vote on someone with two votes already, and then after disclosing that his vote might not have been random after all ... hasn't posted since.

Content to let the quiet person be bandwagoned, I imagine, since he was the one who really started it.

I'm also suspicious of MathCam's post claiming to vote to ScaleBane to get conversation moving along. Thirty-plus posts at three votes didn't prompt him to talk ... I think MathCam's vote is more to remind people that we were bandwagoning a silent player more than to actually get ScaleBane to talk.

I'll attempt to vote BlueSin and hope I get my tags right.

-- Anonymous 2004-06-29 19:45 UTC

Gosh darn it, that's my comment above me.

-- MasSive 2004-06-29 19:45 UTC

Check out jeep's finding scum article under the main page of this wiki, then click "theory" then "common tells" (Sorry don't know the actual URL. )

Of the things you pointed out, the fact that bluesin was [u]third[/u] clicks the most with me as supicsious.That is one of the mafia "tells". Though personaly I find BigbenWD/PopsicleStix more suspicous right now, a definite [b]FOS: BlueSin[/b]

-- FoolSter41 2004-06-30 20:14 UTC

Is it just me, or is the vote count up above not updated with Massive's vote?

Anyway, I agree with Massive's comment. Foolster's third on a bandwagon thing - isn't that a bit old? Does it still work?

vote: bluesin

-- WaCky 2004-07-01 05:24 UTC

Wacky: I'm not sure I follow what you mean by old and the question of weither it "works" or not.

I think it was pointed out before if that's what you mean, If it hs I had forgotten. But still bluesin's vote is still standing (so it must not be too very old) and I feel that it justifys at least a little bit of suspicion on BlueSin.

-- Foolster41 2004-07-01 21:18 UTC

The "third vote on a bandwagon" trick CAN work if you know that the player in question might be susceptible to falling into it. Experienced players will stay away from those spots, and the super-experienced players might go into those spots and claim that no sane mafia player would vote in those spots. I think it's a Catch-22, but it's not where the vote was that caused me to vote BlueSin - it was the way it happened and what happened afterwards.

-- massive 2004-07-02 01:21 UTC

By that do you mean

(quote) Vote: Scalebane just random vote. Back from exams. it is over now. (/quote)

And then not hearing from him?

-- WaCky 2004-07-03 08:19 UTC

Hello???

-- WaCky 2004-07-05 09:12 UTC

We can't do very much unfortunately, until we get the replacements, and everyone says hello. Inactivity is killing this game.

-- ShadyForce 2004-07-07 00:39 UTC

The replacements have been found, and stix is the only one who hasn't posted yet.

To get things rolling here's my obvservations so far and who I think are the 3 most likely players to be scum:

1.)PopsicleStix/BigBenWD (NOTE: Based on BigBen's Actions as Stix hasn't posted yet at this point)

-Voted 3rd on Dourgrim (See Jeep's tells)

-Seemd to me to be talking out of the side of his mouth, trying to sound agreeible while disagreeing

-Typed *Bump* in a post that had no real content at all and even said he had nothing to say.

2.)Bluesin

-Voted 3rd onbluesin, and the vote was claimed ot be random and then later admited to not be. (see: LynchAllLiars)

3.)Curtain Dog

-voted 4th on scalebane

-- Foolster41 2004-07-07 20:54 UTC

Sorry, Blue sin voted scalebane

-- Foolster41 2004-07-07 21:26 UTC

@foolster
Actually, I think I was 5th on the scalebane bandwagon. After mathcam, I believe. It's just that BigBenWD's vote was cleared when he was replaced. Anyhow, voting patterns become progressively more reliable as the game goes on... I don't know if I agree with placing too much stock in them at this stage.

Also, I'm a bit suspicious of you citing jeep's observations. It seems like you're setting up an easy way out if we follow you and end up lynching an innocent. Kind of like an 'I was only following orders' defense.

-- CurtainDog 2004-07-09 00:32 UTC

Triple postage!

On BigBenWD - he's BigBenWD. On BlueSin, lying about random votes isn't that big an infraction - it's just too common IMO. Newbies do it all the time (though BlueSin should know better) On CurtainDog - it's day 1, there is always going to be people 4th on the bandwagon. I think you're in danger of overanalysing here.

Since I've forgotten why I voted for massive (it's been that long), I will unvote: MasSive Vote: FoolSter41

-- WaCky 2004-07-09 06:52 UTC

Sorry, that should be unvote: BlueSin, vote: FoolSter41

-- WaCky 2004-07-09 06:54 UTC

Sorry, forgot about the game.

Massive: Yes, probably I was eventually a little forceful of the silent Scalebane bandwagon, but I guarantee you that the primary motive of this was to make SOMETHING happen in this game other than waiting for non-playesr to show up. I'd rather lynch with information than lynch randomly, but I'd rather lynch randomly than sit here and not play mafia.

I think I agree with CurtainDog. While I think that Foolster has some half-valid points on his 3 suspects, it sure sounds like he's just lining 'em up to blame JEEP's algorithm when he "discovers" that he's wrong.

All this AND the fact that I was most suspicious of Foolster (for the me/Dourgrim voting weirdness) before the lurker Scalebane votes came to prominence.

Unvote: Massive, Vote: Foolster41

-- mathcam 2004-07-09 19:59 UTC

Sorry, I also wanted to mention that if Foolster41 turns out to be scum, we should take a close look at his list of 3 above. I find it highly likely that he would have included at least one of his fellow scum on that list.

Cam

-- mathcam 2004-07-09 20:00 UTC

Lining Jeep's Algarithim up? It was never my intention to hide behind a fault in Jeep's essasys If I'm wrong. I never even throlugh of that as a possibility.

I NEVER said this was a hard-and-fast definite scum list, but based on what information I can gather, this is who I beleive right now are looking the scummiest. Jeep's essays look pretty good to me, and I'd thought I'd test them out here. If Stix, BlueSin or CD are lynched and turn up innocent, lynch if you like though you are a fool if you listen to one person and use them as a scape goat. Like I said before, I never said. "Let's Lych 'em now" I ment for this information to push them for more information.

And If I'm found to be innocent, what should you do, ignore the list, cam?

-- Foolster41 2004-07-09 21:01 UTC

Sorry about the tripple post thing, I was having trouble with this wiki, and I worked about an hour trying to fix it but couldn't (probibly because of these library computers), looks like someone did anyways. Thanks whoever that was. 

 Uh, Is the vote count updated?

Wacky Said: "On BigBenWD - He's BigBenWD" 

What is that supposed to mean?

But, wacky makes a good point about CurtianDog and being day 1. Yeah, maybe I am overanalyzing. I guess I got exited over the jeep articles, and I wanted to try them out and see if they work. :) Thought making the 5th vote (as CD admitted himself) makes me at least a little supicous of him.

-- Foolster41 2004-07-09 21:10 UTC

Foolster41 wrote: What is that supposed to mean?

Foolster41 wrote:

-Voted 3rd on Dourgrim (See Jeep's tells)

--> You probably need to use it with other tells, I don't think it's strong

-Seemd to me to be talking out of the side of his mouth, trying to sound agreeible while disagreeing

--> BigbenWD tends to just talk on and on about, well, no offense if you are reading, but useless stuff.

-Typed *Bump* in a post that had no real content at all and even said he had nothing to say.

--> BigBenWD tends to just talk on and on, bumping stuff, and being all spammy.

-- WaCky 2004-07-11 06:35 UTC

Wacky: Though I guess I see your point that basicly, he alwasy acts this way. Though if it was just being spammy, or something that would be one thing, but because it concerns lying, and lying and desception are two of the toip tools of the mafia, and that makes me nervous.

The vote count is wrong, though I'm afraid to fix it 'cause this computer's caused problems before. I think right now massive and I both have 3 votes on us.

Let's stick to one person and get a claim. If you want me to claim, I'll claim if will move this game on. Personaly, thought would like to push BigBenWD and see how he reacts, then I would have a better idea of if he's scum or not.

-- Foolster41 2004-07-12 21:32 UTC

I like using the ">" symbol for a quote, as in replies to emails.

> Lining Jeep's Algarithim up? It was never my intention to hide behind a fault > in Jeep's essasys If I'm wrong. I never even throlugh of that as a possibility.

> I NEVER said this was a hard-and-fast definite scum list

You never even thought that you might be wrong, yet you also didn't think it was definite? That seems a little odd.

> And If I'm found to be innocent, what should you do, ignore the list, cam?

I'll treat it just like I treat everyone else's opinion. I have my own opinions, and these are shaped, but not decided, by the opinions of people whose decisions I respect (e.g. yours and/or JEEPs).

I still mostly like my Foolster vote, but I could certainily be persuaded to join a Ben bandwgaon.

-- mathcam 2004-07-13 19:38 UTC

>Math said: "You never even thought that you might be wrong, yet you also didn't think it was definite? That seems a little odd."

>I said: "Lining Jeep's Algarithim up? It was never my intention to hide behind a fault in Jeep's essasys If I'm wrong. I never even throlugh of that as a possibility"

I think you misunderstood me, (maybe partly my fault from the accidental vaugness of this post). I didn't mean, I didn't even think that jeep could be wrong, (Note later I said, I wanted to "try them out", why would I do that if I was sure?) but I didn't even think about the possibility of hiding behind it as a sheild. I think that's when you ment by saying it was "odd." Note I never said "these are scum", just that they were my OPINIONS of who was looking the scummiest to me.

-- Foolster41 2004-07-13 21:28 UTC

I see. Okay, that makes more sense. I still think you're scummiest, but I'll confess this is partial eagerness to move the game along.

Cam

-- mathcam 2004-07-16 17:57 UTC

Ummm....has PopsicleStix posted yet?

Cam

-- mathcam 2004-07-16 17:59 UTC

No he hasn't. I almost forgot there that stix is supposed to be replacnig bigben. (Ofcourse, when I say bigben I mean stix.) MOD: Please prod stix!!

Another thing I've been thinking about is the CD/voting 5th on scalebane thing, and I realized that really the 5th vote isn't really a scum sign (checking just now I see it's not in jeep's tells)

The 3rd is the begining of a real bandwagon, and the 4th is in the middle so it's not threatening. So his saying he voted 5th makes me less suspicous of him. (I officialy drop him from my "suspicous" list. I think that is what CD was trying to say when he said he voted 5th on scalebane.

-- Foolster41 2004-07-16 20:02 UTC

Bah, I just realized that the whole "see how BigBen Reacts" thing is moot since now stix has taken over.I've been looking back at BB's other games, and was trying to get an idea of how he acts as scum and inncocent, build a profile. I knew only very little about BB's pattents, but I know nothing about stix. Still, I would like to see his reaction to preasure.

-- Foolster41 2004-07-16 20:11 UTC

Okay, I've already forgotten EVERYTHING about this game, and maybe its because my memory sucks, but I think this game is going way too slow. I'm willing to vote fo anyone just so we can get to night at this stage.

-- WaCky 2004-07-17 07:35 UTC

I talk to polar, and he said he would poke stix, so I guess we're waiting AGAIN for an in active player. (Coe on stix, post already!) :# <- (Frustrated gritting teeth)

I agree this game is too slow, wacky but if you still have any interests of winning, just lynching someone on a whim is a bad idea. You know who I think are most likely to be scum, and I know everyone else has their own personal which unfortunitly is so sparse it means we're not getting anywhere in our game.

This long overdue, but unfos: scalebane.

Is there someone we can agree on is supsicou? The following is a table of the suspicion trend (based on votes/FOSs of players). current Votes are worth 3 poits, FOSs are worth 1 point. Only 1 FOS is counted from a person on a single person. A fos from a player is ignored if the fosing player also voted fro that player.

1.Massive: 9 2.Foolster41: 7 (Voted: PopsicleStix/BigBenWD, FOS: Bluesin) 3.Mathcam: 3 (Voted: Foolster41) 4.PopsicleStix: 3 5.Bluesin: 1 ( Voted:Massive) 6,ShadyForce: 1 ( Voted: Massive, Fos:Foolster41) 7.Curtian Dog: 0 (voted: Massive) 8.Dourgrim: 0 9.Narnian: 0 (Voted: Mathcam) 10.Wacky: 0 (Voted: Foolster41)

I think I got this right, feel free to check and correct me if I'm wrong somewhere.

-- Foolster41 2004-07-18 07:20 UTC

hmmm vote/fos ratio - seems kind of wierd to base suspicion on that - on day 1, most people are hard up for finding suspision - so they try to find it where they can

-- Narninian 2004-07-19 18:56 UTC

hmmm vote/fos ratio - seems kind of wierd to base suspicion on that - on day 1, most people are hard up for finding suspision - so they try to find it where they can

-- Narninian 2004-07-19 18:56 UTC

Narnian: Yeah, perhaps this info isn't as valuble on day 1 as other days, but since the game was is a lock-up and there's such a wide dispercement of votes I wondered if there was a common denominator in supsicion. <also I was kinda bored :) >

Also we are pretty well in to the day, so it's not just random votes and such included in this table, but real suspicions.

P.S. Polar prodded Stix, but still no responce yet...

-- Foolster41 2004-07-19 21:38 UTC

I'm setting a deadline for approximately 48 hours from now. If I don't see some increased activity by then, I'll lynch whoever has the most votes over half-majority. Otherwise it'll be a no-lynch.

-- PolarBoy 2004-07-23 16:07 UTC

Uh, meanwhile we're all waiting for stix, shouldn't you make sure he's in the game first before doing that?

-- Foolster41 2004-07-23 19:19 UTC

I made a mistake. There should've been no deadline as I'm replacing popsiclestix. I've decided to allow mikehart to replace, mainly for lack of other volunteers. I generally think it's bad to allow someone to replace once they've been killed. Anyway, mikehart's choice on night one was to do nothing.

Anyway the deadline's been revoked, but will be brought back if something doesn't happen and fast. With 10 alive it's 6 to lynch.

-- PolarBoy 2004-07-26 20:22 UTC

I don't really understand why people are still voting Massive. I still like my Foolster vote best, though I'm sorely tempted to unvote precisely because of his activeness.

Cam

-- Anonymous 2004-07-30 06:41 UTC

None of the people on massive have posted lately. I think a mass mod prod might be in order.

-- WaCky 2004-07-30 11:57 UTC

five days late but kinda forgot about it and had comp probs. will read soon but i go on vacation mon until thur so i wont be gone long

-- MikeHart 2004-08-02 02:55 UTC

I must admit I forget to check this game regularly.

-- Narninian 2004-08-02 18:01 UTC

@cam (and others too perhaps?)

I just don't believe in lettling people off the hook that easily. People should be scared when they get bandwagoned - thats when the scum are going to slip up.

If I had my way I'd probably still have my vote on dour... I changed in order to prompt scale to post, and massive still hasn't given me a reason to unvote.

-- CurtainDog 2004-08-03 02:35 UTC

Cam Said: "I don't really understand why people are still voting Massive. I still like my Foolster vote best, though I'm sorely tempted to unvote precisely because of his activeness."

CD said: "If I had my way I'd probably still have my vote on dour... I changed in order to prompt scale to post, and massive still hasn't given me a reason to unvote"

Looking through the thread, it looks to me the only motive to vote him was OMGUS, random votes and lurking/not posting. I admit lurking is susspicous, but CD makes it sound like something massive's said makes him susspect him but I don't see CD pointing out anywhere that Massive has been suspiscous.

CD Said: "I just don't believe in lettling people off the hook that easily. People should be scared when they get bandwagoned - thats when the scum are going to slip up."

I think you're basicly right, we need to stick to someone to get information though I don't really see massive as suspicous, and I might be willing to fall in to force massive to claim if you can give me good evidence why he could be scum, right now i'm just not seeing it.

-- Foolster41 2004-08-03 20:43 UTC

So is this being abandoned? Let's just lynch someone.

Cam

-- mathcam 2004-08-05 03:02 UTC

I concur, and out of foolster and massive (ie those with more than one vote) I prefer voting for massive.

At the risk of sounding incredibly scummy: 'It's day one people, it's not going to be the end of the world if we get it wrong.'

-- CurtainDog 2004-08-05 06:07 UTC

ok, after reading the thread, i can understand how people thought BB/stix/me could seem scummy. BB is always like that so you cant blaim him. stix just forgot about the game prolly. and considering this is my first real post i find it hard to believe someone could find me scummy. id like to go back to Narninian's "evidence" against cam. i think even if he gets targetted tonight by mafia, there almost has to be a doc to protect him. anyways more later im tired and need to update The Hobbit.

-- MikeHart 2004-08-06 01:23 UTC

MIke said "ok, after reading the thread, i can understand how people thought BB/stix/me could seem scummy. " and then.. Mike Said: "considering this is my first real post i find it hard to believe someone could find me scummy."

Mike: You understand, but can't understand why? confused are we? Yes, this is you're first post (as this charecter), and perhaps it is true, as I think wacky said before "BigBen is BigBen", but it's rediculous to simply say "this is my first post, let's start over" and expect for me to forget everything that was suspicous that BigBen did under your charecter.Also, Acting suspicous to me is acting supicous, regardless of how they are outside of this game.

It seems Narnian's "evidence" was dismissed rather quickly, and agree I would like to hear more, though if it can easily be refuted (as narnian claims) it doesn't sound much like evedence, but as this point it would be something.

-- Foolster41 2004-08-06 21:22 UTC

> I said: ok, after reading the thread, i can understand how people thought BB/stix/me could seem scummy.

should have read: ok, after reading the thread, i can't understand how people thought BB/stix/me could seem scummy. sry for the confusion

-- MikeHart 2004-08-07 04:54 UTC

I think the evidence will make more sense tommorow, so I wont say more now.

-- Narninian 2004-08-07 04:58 UTC

Narnian: Ok.. and if you die tonight, then what?

Bah. I think I've had enough. I was cautous before in warning wacky against quick lynching massive, but this game is just simply a farse. My one vote isn't doing much anyways. [unvote: mikeheart vote: massive There that's 4. So one more person should put a vote on massive, or massive can save us the trouble by claiming now.

-- Foolster41 2004-08-07 20:11 UTC

you'll be able to figure out what my evidence is from my role description, most likely if I die.

-- Narninian 2004-08-07 20:17 UTC

I'm bored.

Did someone set a deadline?

-- WaCky 2004-08-09 07:50 UTC

Polarboy told me that the deadline's not real. He forgot to remove it from before.

-- Foolster41 2004-08-09 22:12 UTC

So, is someone going to put preasure on massice or move on to someone else so we can actually GET ON WITH THE GAME?

-- Foolster41 2004-08-09 22:14 UTC

I don't understand you guys at all. I'm not scared of being lynched ... but it doesn't serve any purpose. You guys haven't found anything to actually lynch me on beyond ScaleBane's absence.

I do find it funny that certain people decided that continuing to move against me was the right move. Certainly will be interesting tomorrow.

-- MasSive 2004-08-13 15:47 UTC

Did Mikeheart vote without posting?

Massive: You sound like it's over and you're lynched and that is the complete goal of this bandwagon. There's 5 votes, you should claim if you don't want to die.

-- Foolster411 2004-08-13 19:33 UTC

If Mikehart voted without posting, that sounds like a good candidate for my vote. Mikehart?

Cam

-- mathcam 2004-08-13 22:42 UTC

sry, for some reason it didnt stay. i need to remember to delete the cache.

this is what i said,

i agree, we need to get some info. vote: massive

-- MikeHart 2004-08-14 06:12 UTC

I was looking again at massive's post:

"I don't understand you guys at all. I'm not scared of being lynched ..." Sure, It's not the end of the world if we lynch you and you end up being pro-town, but you should make some effort to not be lynched if y ou are town because lynching a townie just wastes our day kills, which is our primary weapon against scum.What do you not understand? The fact that we are holding back?

"but it doesn't serve any purpose. You guys haven't found anything to actually lynch me on beyond ScaleBane?'s absence. I do find it funny that certain people decided that continuing to move against me was the right move." 

As I said you're not my #1 suspect, and I really don't know why the others started in on you but I see at this point that information is information. (That's the purpost) You make it sound like we're out to get you.

" Certainly will be interesting tomorrow." 

Uh,  do you mean by this?

-- Foolster41 2004-08-14 18:46 UTC

Unvote: Whomever, VOTE: MASSIVE

-- WaCky 2004-08-15 06:09 UTC

I said.... Unvote: Foolster, VOTE: MASSIVE


Why didn't it work?

-- WaCky 2004-08-15 06:10 UTC

That's weird: My cache didn't update as it did before. I'm loading this in IE.

-- WaCky 2004-08-15 06:17 UTC

always delete your cache before you post here. it helps

-- MikeHart 2004-08-15 09:10 UTC

WACKY! YOU JUST KILLED MASSIVE BEFORE HE COULD CLAIM!!!.

POLARBOY: is it too late, or can she retract her vote?

-- Foolster41 2004-08-16 22:09 UTC

WACKY! YOU JUST KILLED MASSIVE BEFORE HE COULD CLAIM!!!.

Is it too late?

-- Foolster41 2004-08-16 22:10 UTC

Sorry about the double post. Polarboy told me he'll cap off day 1 sometime today. I suggest that we lynch wacky tommarrow since wacky descided to quick lynch massive today.

-- Foolster41 2004-08-17 19:28 UTC

PB?

-- mathcam 2004-08-20 20:53 UTC

Sorry this took so long. I briefly forgot that I was modding a game.

With six votes, massive is dead. His role follows:

massive (Replacing Scalebane)

The first night-kill targeted at you will fail. You win when all members of the mafia are dead.

That begins night 2. Send choices pronto, and do not post here.

-- PolarBoy 2004-08-20 22:51 UTC

Retrieved from "http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Document_Mode_Mafia/Day_One&oldid=144883"