The Big Lebowski Mafia - Mafia and Lyncher win!

[ga7]

Sorry for the inactivity I got busy. Will try to catch up today.

[Anarkistsdream]

Tails, no one was dead when we lynched Larry...

Nice to use that in a case against me... *roll*

Also, all my posts have been small, but they have said more than most of the people around here have said.

[spiesr]

I apologize for not posting much, the last few days have been busy here.

So lead a lynch on flimsy evidence?

I'm fairly sure you are allowed to claim and this pressure at least got you posting, so I somewhat happy.

Are you trying to suggest that with your vote/case on pancakemix that you had no intention of actually lynching him and that if other people had quickly bandwagoned him without the case turning up any new evidence that you would have done a 360 in the middle of the bandwagon and argued that we shouldn't actually lynch him since you had never intended your original vote/case to cause a lynch unless more evidence was uncovered?

I do want discussion, but I don't want everybody talking about different things.

So you only want people talking about the case that you came up with and not a different one about you and your scummates? (Disclaimer: Prior statement is baseless speculation.)
And now I am out of time and have to go again. I will try to get back some time...

[pancakemix]

Who said the basis was poor? It's not much, sure, but it should still be enough to make a decent case (and I consider mine to be decent).

How am I skipping anything if I've not even mentioned possible ones? I'm not saying that all of them are good, but the likability of getting something better than this is higher than not - the more people post, the more chances for them to mess up.

I'm feeling that you're using a straw man here - I said that you COULD have done more, but decided not to. If indeed all of this posting is baseless and you feel that it's better to just stay quiet, why should we post at all?

No posting-->No good evidence-->No good case. The case on Streaker wasn't even good. Looking back he was fully aware that chu was not in the game. Vote ga7 for putting the case forward (which could only be brought about by skimming)

The one where I was active about nothing was a possible one. And basically you're telling me I should've posted more so I could've had more opportunities to mess up. Huh.

Because nobody wants to lose and they're going to grasp at something. It's inevitable. This is why little things like bandwagoning and inactivity are considered scumtells: because they're something to go on initially. The game merely builds from how people react to these small cases. Me, I'm not one to grasp at the little things because most D1 lynches are town (from my experience).

As much as I love debating hypotheticals, this is going in circles. Let me ask you something: You voted Streaker when he was -3 without having reread or knowing why he was at that point. You based it completely on his roleclaim. Why? It really makes it look like you wanted to set up a quick lynch. Surely you must have given more thought to the theme before you decided to simply vote so close to a lynch.

[FloresDelMal]

I think it's 3 complete mafias actually... but I started playing in February or thereabouts... I am still fairly new. I did think I caught him in a lie, as I didn't look up the thief role and I didn't think it was investigative.

I apologized for what was perceived as the quick hammer, and I will definitely wait until closer to the deadline in the future.

sounds good to me unvote doom yoshi im glad you are speaking up yoshi, next time if you have doubts just ask, i have been playing for a while now, and i encounter roles i didn't know quite often, in my experience you can always find someone who will oblige and explain.

FOS pancake, mandy crazy ass theories are right half of the time, and at the moment that seems better than the other leads on the table (meaning anarkist and streak).

[Commander9]

Are you trying to suggest that with your vote/case on pancakemix that you had no intention of actually lynching him and that if other people had quickly bandwagoned him without the case turning up any new evidence that you would have done a 360 in the middle of the bandwagon and argued that we shouldn't actually lynch him since you had never intended your original vote/case to cause a lynch unless more evidence was uncovered?

I did not say that - you're just putting words in my lips now. If people would have BW'ed him really fast without adding anything, I might have, but originally I just wanted to pressure him.

So you only want people talking about the case that you came up with and not a different one about you and your scummates? (Disclaimer: Prior statement is baseless speculation.)
And now I am out of time and have to go again. I will try to get back some time...

Again, stop trying to put words in my lips - I said I'll gladly welcome any other cases that people will come up with, but I won't post more than one at the same time. Stop skimming, ffs. Annoying.

No posting-->No good evidence-->No good case. The case on Streaker wasn't even good. Looking back he was fully aware that chu was not in the game. Vote ga7 for putting the case forward (which could only be brought about by skimming)

The one where I was active about nothing was a possible one. And basically you're telling me I should've posted more so I could've had more opportunities to mess up. Huh.

Because nobody wants to lose and they're going to grasp at something. It's inevitable. This is why little things like bandwagoning and inactivity are considered scumtells: because they're something to go on initially. The game merely builds from how people react to these small cases. Me, I'm not one to grasp at the little things because most D1 lynches are town (from my experience).

As much as I love debating hypotheticals, this is going in circles. Let me ask you something: You voted Streaker when he was -3 without having reread or knowing why he was at that point. You based it completely on his roleclaim. Why? It really makes it look like you wanted to set up a quick lynch. Surely you must have given more thought to the theme before you decided to simply vote so close to a lynch.

And yet again - you're the one who is controlling your posting level and the quality of it.... Streaker's lynch might not have the best basis, but his roleclaiming is what got him in trouble and what lead to his lynch. It was not a bad day 1 lynch with what knew at that time.

Well, it's mostly scum who are afraid to post as they're afraid to say something inconsistent which could get them into trouble now or later.

I pretty much agree with what you've said here... BUT I've also scum do that (WIFOM) thinking that they'd get away with that (see / in matrix or in Alberezzi). While this is not a great way to build a strong case, it's better than just randomly choosing any person and lynching him - and sometimes this leads up to more information and better cases.

It is, but you're the one who's defending with the same arguments (and fueling the fire). Why I voted Streaker? Because he claims seemed inconsistent (thief and investigative roles) and he claimed a rather minor character when we knew that scum would be provided with fake claims. I'm not sorry for what I did and I still think it's right even thought the outcome is not what I've desired. I also love it how you're trying to change the subject and shift the blame

[pancakemix]

Why I voted Streaker? Because he claims seemed inconsistent (thief and investigative roles) and he claimed a rather minor character when we knew that scum would be provided with fake claims. I'm not sorry for what I did and I still think it's right even thought the outcome is not what I've desired. I also love it how you're trying to change the subject and shift the blame

Even so, I knew thief was an investigative role. A quick check of the mikeburnfire site does a great service in these types of situations even if you don't know these things. Plus, based on who's already dead, I get the feeling there's more to this setup than we think there is. I still think it was very careless. Changing the subject? You just acknowledged we were talking in circles. And what's this about shifting blame? I didn't vote for Streaker. My whole point is that Yoshi was playing follow-the-leader and you're the one playing leader (Nark too, but that's another argument).

FOS pancake, mandy crazy ass theories are right half of the time, and at the moment that seems better than the other leads on the table (meaning anarkist and streak).

This seems almost like a post to stay on the radar. And what's this now?

[Haggis_McMutton]

Just re-read.

First, I'm not feeling the case on pancake, the case on nark however seems to have some merit to me. I do get a feeling he's trying to follow the waggons without creating too many waves, but it's mostly a feeling at this point.

I'm going to have to post a case on Yoshi though.

1. The obvious, the quicklynch. yes he's new, not new enough to completely disregard it though.

2. Immediatelly jumping on the first real waggon:

Hmm. I have been busy and glancing from time to time but it's true there wasn't anything remotely relevant till yesterday and I didn't have time to make wild conjectures (which always seem like a wasted effort on day 1 anyway).
I find the Tails vote/unvote while defense a bit weird, but something much more classic and obvious is worth pursuing IMO:

Unvote, vote Fir for his intentional infection of this thread. It's scummy

To be fair, fircoal had 'admitted' to infeccting the thread.

I'm a little reluctant to hop on the pcm wagon, because really there hasn't been much discussion to get into. Except for pokemon.

So I'll just stick with my vote on Fir for derailing us here...

So, on one side there is the blatant skimming that is even more remarkable here in that there are so few posts and this replacement was made obvious in 4 different posts before Nag's last VC. On another there's the manner Streaker prefers to blame one person on the collaborative derailment as Spiesr put it and sticks with that when there's at least some semblance of serious discussion starting. One might say it isn't as bad as those simply not contributing, but I find it fishier at this point.

This second post, where he has upped the ante on the derailment IS fishy. This seems like the most promising of the BWs all day.

Unvote Vote Streaker

unvote vote streaker

This just seems like providing some kind of weak excuse to jump on the waggon. And this waggon wasn't "the most promising", it was the only serious one at the time. Besides, he actually claims later that he wishes to "get some semblance of a lynch going".

3. The most important one.
He unvotes 50 minutes before quicklynching.

Check it out, immediately after streaker claims:

So you are allowed to steal people's powers? Flavour Text in a small world like Lebowski can be very powerful. I will unvote for now.

45 minutes later pancake puts streaker as L-1. 5 minutes after that yoshi has a change of heart and hammers:

The thing is when he originally claimed he said he was an investigator, then he claimed he was a thief (sort of?). It does seem suspicious. So I will vote Streaker and I believe it is the hammer.

What exactly changed in those 50 minutes?
Seems to me like he initially thought the waggon would fall and wanted to get off it asap. When he saw it actually was at L-1, he decided to seize the moment, make up a bullshit excuse and vote.
Yes, it's not very good strategy for scum to do that, but as he's pointed out he is relatively new.

So we've got quicklynching and voting that isn't internally consistent(unless Yoshi can explain to us the revelation he had in those 50 minutes). This type of voting indicates that he doesn't care about wether streaker was scum, he cared about getting a lynch and not looking scummy.
These are classic scumtells for a reason, they're usually right.


Furthermore, and this is more speculative, I found it interesting how suddenly cases sprung up and focus was changed as soon as some pressure started being put on Yoshi. And not only from strike, who has already been noted.

I am guessing the scum left me alive as they figured I would be an easy lynch today. The way I see it they killed edocsil to frame me. If I was playing as mafia, that's what I would do. An alternate is that the vig is the one who killed edoc. If so, that's very random of you. I don't think he would've been a great target. So we need to know if there is a vig out there.

I will formally apologize about my quick hammer yesterday. In the end, he turned out to be a town thief, which I regret, but I still don't understand why he didn't truthfully claim.

Read: "I couldn't have done it! It makes too much sense!" That's WIFOM and I don't like it.

If it was a vig, I'm also curious as to the choice, but I'm not sold that's the case here.

Except that he didn't. Thief is investigative. Or are we on something else?

Would a Scum work so hard to lynch someone on Day 1? Or would he just throw his vote in and let the townies do all the work? Principles of Aikido suggest the second strategy is better, so I conclude that Yoshi is a noob (no offense men, we all were) and Pancake is a seasoned scum. Vote Pancake

This is mandy's only serious post in the game so far.

commander then follows suit and the pressure is completely taken off yoshi.

I've rarely seen experienced players ignore a classic scumtells like Yoshi's so easily, at the very least the pressure should have mounted some more forcing him to keep talking. Something just smells fishy here.

Anyway, Vote Yoshi

[DoomYoshi]

I will address your point 3 as it is the most important one. At first, I believed the claim. When it was deemed a lie by others, I realized that it DID sound like a lie.

Point

[DoomYoshi]

I will address your point 3 as it is the most important one. At first, I believed the claim. When it was deemed a lie by others, I realized that it DID sound like a lie.

Point One I have already answered. Point two: Even though Streaker was aware that fircoal was no longer in the game, he continued to defend his vote on fircoal. Even pcm knows that. Jumping on the wagon seemed sensible as at that point, Streaker was trying to slow down the day (a scummy tactic) and he was deliberate and remorseless about it.

[FloresDelMal]

FOS pancake, mandy crazy ass theories are right half of the time, and at the moment that seems better than the other leads on the table (meaning anarkist and streak).

This seems almost like a post to stay on the radar. And what's this now?

by streak i was meaning strike, im not a native english speaker and i think phonetically, got them mixed up (btw i think that strike might have a linked role to yoshi's, hence his overprotective attitude, for example like siblings, in which case is common to have one being mafia and the other town).

Also im starting to doubt the "noobness" defense of yoshi, because he seems to feel experienced enough for run 2 games at the same time, since when ppl who is just learning the ropes go around modding games? FOS yoshi

[strike wolf]

I can assure you I am in no way connected to doomyoshi.

[Anarkistsdream]

I can assure you I am in no way connected to doomyoshi.

Well of COURSE you can...

[ga7]

That's the whole thing - you're not even trying. I'm not saying that is a clear-cut strong case, but you've barely participated AND you didn't encourage others to go scum-hunting. One way or another I would like this game to start going somewhere with people being involved and posting and hopefully finding scum. I have a couple of other suspicions, but for now I'm feeling fairly fine with keeping my vote on you and unless something better comes up, I'll continue to do so.

Even the slightest thing is worth bringing up.

The case on Streaker wasn't even good. Looking back he was fully aware that chu was not in the game. Vote ga7 for putting the case forward (which could only be brought about by skimming)[/b]

(Lol either you're very confused or you forgot a negation in that last quote)

this is going in circles.

Ok enough with the ironic quotes You clearly have at least half of the responsability for this to be going in circles, when you say everything and the opposite, bound by the absence of logic. It seems to me you're gonna play the role of a harpy here, dissing any argument or case you deem not good enough while doing nothing yourself. Though, while I'd be happy to vote you because of that behaviour, it's unfortunately not enough for me to paint you as scum for now.

Are you trying to suggest that with your vote/case on pancakemix that you had no intention of actually lynching him and that if other people had quickly bandwagoned him without the case turning up any new evidence that you would have done a 360 in the middle of the bandwagon and argued that we shouldn't actually lynch him since you had never intended your original vote/case to cause a lynch unless more evidence was uncovered?

This sounds strangely familiar, though I don't remember in which game

Possible leads: on one hand DoomYoshi, less for his own scumminess (although the WIFOM he put about edoc kill is a bit fishy, not so much the role confusion bit) than the potential links revolving for and against him; on another I'd like to prod someone shining by his absence. The case on Nark is mostly a case on laying low, and it might be a good time to prod someone laying lower, for the second day out of two.

Vote Tonka

[Anarkistsdream]

ga7.... Tonka is dead.

[pancakemix]

That's the whole thing - you're not even trying. I'm not saying that is a clear-cut strong case, but you've barely participated AND you didn't encourage others to go scum-hunting. One way or another I would like this game to start going somewhere with people being involved and posting and hopefully finding scum. I have a couple of other suspicions, but for now I'm feeling fairly fine with keeping my vote on you and unless something better comes up, I'll continue to do so.

Even the slightest thing is worth bringing up.

The case on Streaker wasn't even good. Looking back he was fully aware that chu was not in the game. Vote ga7 for putting the case forward (which could only be brought about by skimming)[/b]

(Lol either you're very confused or you forgot a negation in that last quote)

Taken quite out of context. Commander says he has leads, they ought to be brought up. And how is streaker semi-joking when we're being semi-serious "the slightest thing"? That's just bull. Look back and see what I mean. He voted Fircoal AFTER he was replaced because Fircoal was still posting. And you're telling me I have lapses in logic.

this is going in circles.

Ok enough with the ironic quotes You clearly have at least half of the responsability for this to be going in circles, when you say everything and the opposite, bound by the absence of logic. It seems to me you're gonna play the role of a harpy here, dissing any argument or case you deem not good enough while doing nothing yourself. Though, while I'd be happy to vote you because of that behaviour, it's unfortunately not enough for me to paint you as scum for now.

You really ought to point out where the absence of logic is here before you take quotes out of context and claim it to be so. And I am going to argue against:

1. Anything aimed at me, for obvious reasons (seriously, I feel like you guys think it's scummy to defend myself).
2. The same shit I've already defended myself from that several people have decided to bring back up for no reason except that "it's the best lead".

This is both. I'm sick of discussing this because there's nothing to discuss. If you want me to talk, bring up something relevant.

Prediction: Ga7 will say "My logic is obvious. You are willfully blind to this clear logic and must be scum. Your flustered response was all I needed.

ga7.... Tonka is dead.

Bravo. My vote stands.

[ga7]

I confused, thought Illy was the one killed for some reason. I don't recall a game where Illy was much active though so I guess that's a moot point.
Pancake: Dude, by only counterpointing anything you end up contradicting yourself a lot, I don't see how these quotes were out of context when all your points are always so clear-cut by your colouring method
About Streaker, he was the one who skimmed and I as many others didn't buy his claim, so I don't see how that case was irrelevant especially seeing his defense. Hell, else either we would still be in day 1 or you possibly would have gotten wagonned for the way you answered pressure then Seriously, blaming people for trying to bring something to the table then complaining that nothing is happening except you having to defend yourself? Did you voice your opinion about the points brought forward by Tails on Nark? Did you say anything about Haggis' take on DoomYoshi? It seemed to me you just stayed on your loop with Commie, so taking that in consideration I do find my comments quite relevant. But hey, if you want to keep defending yourself and playing victim feel free too, don't think it's helping the game though.

[Anarkistsdream]

GA7 does have a point about you, pancake. You have been very focused and single-minded, and a townie usually would at least point out the other things that are going on in a game... In fact, that's what I am being criticized for by Tails.

[DoomYoshi]

I got a major scumvibe from your long post there ga7. The second one cleared the air a little. But let it be known that I am closely watching you now.

[strike wolf]

I got a major scumvibe from your long post there ga7. The second one cleared the air a little. But let it be known that I am closely watching you now.

You know with at least some one liners in this game they actually express a real opinion and not vague mentions of scum vibes without backing it up or are you just scared of long posts?

It is odd that ga7 forgot tonka had been killed the same concept goes into what he accused streaker for however I also think he brings up a good point about pancake staying out of the loop.

[pancakemix]

GA7 does have a point about you, pancake. You have been very focused and single-minded, and a townie usually would at least point out the other things that are going on in a game... In fact, that's what I am being criticized for by Tails.

I tend to focus in on one aspect of something. That's universal for me, not just in mafia. I haven't responded to anything else because I've been trying to break off these pointless arguments. I'll try to post something more substantial in the near future. It might happen tonight if I end up wasting more time, but these next couple of weeks are gonna be bad for my activity.

[DoomYoshi]

Well, the misquoting and quoting is out of context is a big scumtell to me. The voting of someone not in the game means a lot, especially in this game.

With my background in theatre, I tend to look at motivation of words. In the post in question, the motivation is clear. The majority of the post's content is focused on PCM. Now it is a decent argument. So I am not saying he is scummy for poor logic. Then he quotes spiesr, who was bringing attention to strike. Then he switches focus to me, probably since I'm an easy lynch. Then he finishes on the note of Nark. That's 40% of the people covered in one post, and all of them easy targets.

PCM is an easy target merely because he did so much typing in the last little while that there are most likely several ways to construe a scumtell by quoting out of context. The case on Strike is easy, since Strike is obviously scum, since he defended Yoshi, who is also obviously scum. Then to finish it off, he goes to the inactive.

I am not skimming. I realize he is saying that the case on Nark isn't great. But the switch of focus is still there. For saying that the case on Nark isn't great since it is 'just lying low'. Then he invites us to build a case on even more players: FOR LYING LOW. So Scratch the first part, he fingered more like 60% of the players.

I realize fircoal did that once recently and turned up town. However, that situation was so different as to be not comparable.

I don't do long posts usually since I deplore stating the obvious. Since the entire content of this post is obvious (with the exception of the theatre bit), I feel it should've been clear without stating - hence the one liner.

[Anarkistsdream]

My problem is I am not staying low... I'm just not posting six paragraph diatribes...

The people who ARE staying low are
Haggis
Mandy
Iliad

[DoomYoshi]

Haggis had a huge post last page. I remember it well as it was a case against me. Mandy and Iliad are on the laying low list. That could just as easily mean doctor as mafia though, so I think we should just ignore the laying low arguments to avoid spreading our gaze too wide.

[ga7]

Haggis had a huge post last page. I remember it well as it was a case against me. Mandy and Iliad are on the laying low list. That could just as easily mean doctor as mafia though, so I think we should just ignore the laying low arguments to avoid spreading our gaze too wide.

I am not skimming.

5. Edocsil - Maude Lebowski (Doctor) killed night 1!

O RLY? See, this is a good example of quotes put out of context. Not what I did before.
Anyway, I like how you misinterpreted almost everything out of that post. I wasn't targetting PCM but pointing out how I felt his vote for me was contradicting previous statements. The spiesr quote has nothing to do with Strike but with Commie, though admittedly I forgot to add that in the quote title. It does feel quite odd to me that you start defending Strike because he's defending you though, but again this seems at most noobish. At least I don't expect Strike to come to the help of his scumbuddy.
My intent to "go for the inactive" is not to cover more people, but because the current leads seem unconvincing to me. This is no longer day 1, and it is a bigger concern now that we don't have input from some people.
Lastly, a general tip would be that what seems obvious to you can be viewed in a totally different light by others; if you hadn't clearly stated why my post felt scummy to you I wouldn't have been able to spell it out for you, so one-liners in this situation are not the best way to play this.