TL Mafia XXVIII

On July 17 2010 14:31 Bill Murray wrote:
no clues, sir

On July 17 2010 14:35 Pandain wrote:


Youngmini? I only trust you.... Let's ally! We can trust no one else in this hideous gotham of a city.

On July 17 2010 14:35 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:

No, he's just obviously intolerant of my sex change.

On July 18 2010 05:09 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
Secondly, we should set up potential lists of people to watch out for until they can be confirmed. I would start with

BloodyC0bbler
Foolishness
DTA
YoungMirii
Citizen

I believe us 5 should be under the most scrutiny at the beginning of this game.

On July 18 2010 09:51 Bill Murray wrote:
EVERYONE abstaining? I guess it'd no lynch. Didn't expect that to happen!

On July 18 2010 10:13 SiNiquity wrote:

I'm not sure I like it. The inactives will get modkilled, no one gets lynched, the mafia kills 2 more people, and then we're back at square one, no?

On July 18 2010 10:16 Jayme wrote:
No-Lynch?

Oh hell no absolutely not.

I don't understand how a no-lynch is beneficial to the town if you're going to kill an inactive anyway. You learn absolutely nothing from it, you don't even have a CHANCE at hitting a red, and you're basically wasting a whole day on nothing.

No lynch is a terrible idea.

On July 18 2010 23:49 XeliN wrote:
Actually scrap that, I've just gone over your posts individually Youngminii and your coming across so scummy to me. You argue everyone to abstain on the first day, or vote for someone that is going to be killed anyway. That directly helps mafia, and further reduces any information that we could have going into Day 2

you've also tried to directly influence what any blues in the game do on the first day

and instead of addressing the points infundulum makes against you, you flip reverse it and accuse him of being Red.
Remove vote Vote youngminii

On July 18 2010 21:24 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
i really should refresh before i post, since i missed your last post when i was writing mine.

anyway your defense up there only addresses 1 thing that BC and citizen pointed out, which was the initial sentence. maybe you were joking (a reasonable explanation, i do admit, and i read it that way at first for what it's worth), maybe you weren't.

but what about asking the already answered questions? what about obvious blue advice that any blue knows?

what about telling the town it's a good idea to abstain? (it's not)

citizen didn't say that you weren't strong as i saw it, rather he said those kinds of mistakes were not something he would expect from you.

see, this is why i wrote that "just in case," since i know i'm not gonna be here my vote has a chance of being useless so i'm taking a gambit with a person that i think could be a lynch target as the night deadline rolls around. i knew you would come and have something to say; obviously just not this soon (sooner than me lol). sorry, but you haven't convinced me to move my vote.

On July 18 2010 21:46 youngminii wrote:
There was only one thing that they did point out and that's the only thing that was directed at me, hence I responded to it.

Obvious blue advice? Really? Do you honestly believe that all 30 people in this thread know exactly how to play blue? Do you really think that each and every new person in here knows how to play their role perfectly? So in the case of all 30 people knowing the exact way to play without any discussions as to any plans we should just leave it at that and not discuss our options? You can't be that stupid, I refuse to believe it.
Also, what already answered questions? Back up your statements with evidence please.

How is telling the town to abstain not a good idea? I'm willing to accept criticism of my ideas, but I'm not willing to just sit back and watch as someone comes in, votes for me as a placeholder in case a bandwagon is formed on me (which I suppose is pre-emptive bandwagoning) and then says my ideas are not good. Information Instead of Analysis. In fact, IIoA is a big scumtell in my experiences in other mafia sites (not sure about TL since this site is actually quite a lot different).

I never said citi.zen said I was good. In fact, I implied citi.zen said I was quite bad. I don't critique citi.zen's play because as far as I can tell, people seem to believe his meta is good but if he continues to critique me, so be it. I don't care.

Your 'just in case' is the same as bandwagoning, except you're doing it early. You think there might be a chance that people will start voting for me so you put your vote on me 'just in case'. Biggest hidden form of bandwagoning imo.

My conclusion: You're either a really bad scum, really bad townie, or a fucking bad blue.

##Bote infundibulum

On July 18 2010 23:13 citi.zen wrote:
youngminii, you seem to have a lot of trouble reading a simple statement so let me clarify it for you: you did well last game, hence I think you are a pretty good player. I never implied otherwise.

On July 19 2010 03:46 chaoser wrote:
It's already been established that not lynching someone on the first day is a horrible decision, why are you still pushing for it?

On July 20 2010 15:35 Divinek wrote:


that's all well and good but since we are pretty sure our first vet has lost his first life, as soon as the second vet claims the suicide bomber just fucks him right up the ass. Im positive bm said suicide bomber insta kills vet

On July 20 2010 23:15 chaoser wrote:


Why don't you think the claim by d3 and only one person dying last night means anything/affects anything?

Alright, I was gonna change my vote to the reddest of BrownBear and Subversion. But, I don't really like going after either of them today so maybe I can get some of you to change your votes.

My Ph.D. Dissertation on DarthTheinAn
by Pyrrhuloxia
The Story Thus Far
Day 1 Accusation
+ Show Spoiler +
Day 1 "Refutation" by the accused, wherein he admits he should be lynched, except not, because.
+ Show Spoiler +
Day 2 Accusation
[spoiler]

Let's not let this get lost in the shuffle. Red or confused green, I don't think BrownBear is much of a threat right now.

From what I gather, DarthTheinAn is usually a pretty high profile player (won mayor two games ago). This game he is playing obstinate/quiet.

When DTA was red mayor two games ago, "Darth was also an excellent mafia player, managing to sweep his way into office on day 1, but he did overstep his boundaries just a little bit on the last day, and his position as mayor actually worked against him as he was under intense scrutiny, which led to his downfall." Source for that is BrownBear, btw, so... take that into account however you will. But it seems to me if DTA was red this game he'd be trying to take a lower profile this time around.

Some of this is intuition, which I usually don't rely on, but BrownBear strikes me as town and reminds me of RedTooth in a game where I got him killed for similar behavior (I was red that game ). Meanwhile, DTA is clearly taking a low profile. From a player that is usually talkative, this usually means blue / red. I laid that on DTA day 1 and on Foolishness as well. Foolishness did make a bigger post towards the end of the day, but still seemed blue/red to me, and I imagine this was part of the hit reasoning (plus Foolishness is a good veteran player [whose first game was ran by me :D]).

Now you may think that it is too obvious for the mafia to kill off someone who publicly calls them out. It's not. It's good strategy. In fact, I myself killed off Foolishness in a game I won because he was one of the few suspicious of me. If someone suspects you, they won't magically think you're innocent if you let them survive the night. People's heuristics for determining who they will vote for don't tend to shift too wildly over the course of a game. Even if people make a mistaken vote early, they will tend to justify it ex post facto and perhaps continue it (maybe what I'm doing here, but I think I have some good logic to back up my gut feeling). If you are mafia, and a member is getting 3rd/4th place in votes, even with just a couple, that member could be in 1st a few days later. By killing off the people who are suspicious of you, even if their reasons suck, you get talked about less and you literally shave off your vote total. It's not too bad of a strategy to just play whack-a-mole going after all your public detractors because you can always just say you're getting framed. I've been there, done that.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / THE THREATDOWN / TLDR CENTRAL
DarthTheinAn
1. Never defends himself with logic
2. Responded to Foolishness with a distorted counter attack and no refutation.
3. Blatantly ignores legitimate criticism to snark at strawmen instead.
4. Talks often, but without contributing anything new and useful.
5. Changes his vote often, usually without explanation.
6. Constantly "pretends" to be mafia. No red would ever be so daring!
7. Doesn't do shit all else.
8. Is supposedly capable of much better than this.

On July 22 2010 04:51 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
Going through this thread since I got home from work last night and began to filter through the vote info day 1, but more importantly, who seemed to push for random bandwagons. What is more surprising is that these bandwagons formed AFTER they had solidly defended themselves (hyper/young). Yet even with a defense, people were “unconvinced” of their innocence.

The youngminii vote list is odd, after two defense posts and solid ones for day 1 at that, he still garnered people vote for him

Infundi started the vote train with

It’s a “placeholder” vote. He then argues with young and refuses to vote swap.

Xelin posts a reason to vote for young very quickly after,



He is gut shotting, not a very solid way to do it day 1.



This post intrigues me, a lot. HE is blind trusting someone to follow for voting, which makes the third vote of a bandwagon that formed in the last 17 hours of the day, all 3 voting with in a page of eachother. Super odd to be formed a) so late and b) with next to no real debate.




Odd vote choice as he has read the thread, comments little for his vote, but goes onto say how he would prefer to have the days lynch go, seems fair enough of a reason to avoid a no lynch.




Of all the votes for young, this one strikes me as the most reasonable, as it is voting based on things he has said, and things he disagrees with and is voting for it. Now, that that is done, lets go see what day 2 looks like for these 5.



This vote is a completely different style, levels out with what he said the day before of not having time, here he obviously did as it’s a moderately informed vote. HOWEVER he later does this



Here shows that rather than being certain of his choices, he going bandwagon to bandwagon. Subversion has had far to many people jump on him for being a bad player when the kid is new. And now another player, who should know better based on experience, is jumping at him. Seriously fishy imo. Very little activity overall and hoping onto bandwagons is all hes really doing.



Going into description of who he thinks should be lynched based off two major candiates. Although DTA is a more recent bandwagon (well revival of one)




This vote worries me. He starts by saying “I was going to vote for x” then immediately swaps his opinion to someone who has made a few minor slip ups (possible newb?) but votes out of fear of him saying something he shouldn’t. Odd reason to kill someone now, sounds like a pm land reason, although I have no way to prove that.

To my knowledge, Infundi has just voted for double lynch today, and Roffles still hasn’t voted.


Now looking at this, I see a few really oddly done votes, and it continues today.

Amber seems to vote for whichever wagon at the time is attracting the most people, hopping onto Youngminii near its beginning, then proceeding to jump on BB when it was in its prime, now hes hopped over to subversion. This is insanely odd to me.

Next we have jayme, doing very similar things, hopping onto popular wagon without really contributing much to the game other than hopping onto the wagon with a simple reason of why he joined it. His reason day 1 was sound, his reason right now not so much.

I would also say as a minor link that potentially means nothing at this point, but both amber and jayme have voted together twice now (provided this vote stays final).



NOW, lets talk about the last days playing. WHAT THE HELL GUYS. I am gone for a day, and seriously return to you all attacking well everyone

Youngminii vs chaoser
pandain vs chaoser
Chaoser vs young/pandain
everyone and their puppy vs subversion
Shit jumping randomly out to attack dta
people still discussing the crap of BB rather than just ignoring him based on stupidity.
Lakrismamma attempting to start a fight with roffles based on inactivity (pot calling the kettle black?)


The amount of just literally piles of crap to weed through is agonizingly annoying to read. ALL of responsible for this all should take a step bad and really see what you are doing. Because of all this nonsense there is really next to no real candidate for a lynch, instead its a bunch of minor bandwagons people can fan/hide in. If the group of you mainly responsible for this is town, shame on you guys, you should know better. Start reading what people are saying, not just arguing a gut shot.

As its too damn late to try and coordinate on who to vote on, I AM choosing amber for having two days worth of sketchy voting habits + bandwagon hopping.

##vote amber[light]

On July 22 2010 06:34 Pandain wrote:
Finally, I have been exchanging PM's from mroe expierenced players and they have laid out their arguments fantastically. I am inclined to believe them. You, of all people, should know how hard Mafia is, and I can't just stick to one person because I voted them first. If people offer sufficient evidence, I change my mind. I always have.

On July 22 2010 09:00 tree.hugger wrote:]
If Subversion flips red, then we catch youngminii right off the bat.

On July 22 2010 09:41 tree.hugger wrote:
Well, I'll pick this up again on Friday, presuming I'm not dead, so I can vote again for Subversion after whoever the hell it is we're lynching today flips green.

gg. citi.zen, you win this round.

One final note:

You doubt that you're joined at the hip with Subversion?

youngminii was a newb too, he rocked pretty hard in my game.

On July 22 2010 11:01 Divinek wrote:


yes, WE SHOULD VOTE FUCKING AMBER, if any of you dudes would be man enough to switch.

this is of course going to be hard to do cuz 3 of the votes are people trying to save their lives, but it'd only take all of them moving plus what 1 or 2 more?

if you really do want to hit a red vote amber, but between the 3 right now i am so unsure

On July 22 2010 11:03 ~OpZ~ wrote:

You know that post of Tree.Hugger's you linked on page 54 (the one where he says his reasons for saying to go for subversion...I addressed that.)

So please stop claiming to gain more from subversion. Tree.Hugger, please post all reputations on the line for Darth and Subversion. Thanks in advance (though I don't suspect it will happen, AND if by some means it does, I'm sure it will be wrong)

On July 22 2010 11:09 Subversion wrote:


lolz, worlds most confusing paragraph xD

On July 22 2010 11:13 chaoser wrote:


THIS is WIFOM

Sigh, I don't even know what to think anymore. At this point I feel like none of us are mafia ;_;. Since both DTA and Subversion are soft claiming blue, I don't mind if I get lynched. I'm only green btw.

On July 22 2010 11:13 chaoser wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EkBuKQEkio&feature=related

THIS is WIFOM

Sigh, I don't even know what to think anymore. At this point I feel like none of us are mafia ;_;. Since both DTA and Subversion are soft claiming blue, I don't mind if I get lynched. I'm only green btw.

On July 22 2010 11:19 ~OpZ~ wrote:
*Addition*
Not only that, but tree.hugger says many reputations lie on it. My argument is against tree.hugger, because his reasoning is weak, but he chose to defend you and not subversion. WHich is why I'm voting to lynch you (not to mention you're play this game is annoying). He said youngmini defended subversion so it gives us insight into how mini is aligned, BUT mini defended you too...so how can he argue that?
He can't.

I'd be happy with Tree.Hugger's death too.

On July 22 2010 11:39 chaoser wrote:
I don't like how this situation is playing out...the votes are so close, Mafia should be able to save their own if they wanted to if one of their own was in trouble. But they're not. What does this mean...

On July 22 2010 11:44 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
Ugh

i've already outlined my reasons for chaoser being innocent.

at first i was pretty convinced by Pyrr's essay, but youngminii and a couple other players did point out some flaws. upon reexamination it also seems that Pyrr was very selective in which posts of DTA he presented, picking only the worst posts and omitting DTA's more logical and serious posts.

I'm pretty sure Subversion is townie as i've been saying for the past 20 pages or something. but at this point it looks like i have to choose the lesser of two evils.

#vote subversion

Sorry, man. nothing personal.

On July 22 2010 12:14 DarthThienAn wrote:
chaoser, I don't mind dying. Prefer not to, but it's all good if I do.

People to look out for when I flip green: Pyrr. Subversion (still got it out for him). youngminii. tree.hugger who fed me the connection between Sub and youngminii. And if those two are guilty then check out Pandain and citi.zen too.

People who haven't been posting that I remember:
d3
zeks
Jayme
Laxer
Amber (maybe?)

I forget who else and can't be bothered to check right now.

On July 22 2010 12:22 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:


It's "Infundibulum."

On July 22 2010 12:51 Subversion wrote:
Yeah sure. But the general consensus seems to be they're both town Which brings up why we lynch either anyways

But DTA has claimed green, chaoser hasn't claimed at all.

I'm working on the assumption that we believe both are town ^_^ If we don't work off that assumption, the argument obv makes no sense.

On July 22 2010 13:25 tree.hugger wrote:

Because he didn't.

Either Pyrr is a clever mafia, or a really really bad townie. I'm leaning towards the latter, and seeing as how we don't seem to want to kill the obvious mafia, can we take this one out next?


You're not at all. And you never have been.

On July 22 2010 13:31 d3_crescentia wrote:

Because it doesn't mean shit if the rest of your cronies will vote for you? Let's be fair, though - I don't have a strong opinion on you yet, so by "your cronies" I just mean "the mafia's cronies". But saying "oh hey I guess that means I'm town" is utterly unconvincing and smacks of manipulation.

On July 22 2010 13:34 Protactinium wrote:

You are not a confirmed townie. You are not a central townie. You are not a confirmed, central townie. Please bring this back up when you become one.

On July 22 2010 13:37 Subversion wrote:
Big fkn surprise this was =/ read:sarcasm

Sigh.

When is night?

On July 22 2010 13:39 Protactinium wrote:

I don't need you to tell me the rules of the game. You and I both know this. When I say "you" I mean it in a general term. You're so hell-bent on trying to appear as town that it works against you.

I'm stopping here. There's no point discussing this further as it adds nothing to the thread.

On July 22 2010 13:50 flamewheel wrote:

Whoa, whoa dude... Calm down yo. It's just a game man :/


Edit: lol

On July 22 2010 14:27 Roffles wrote:

Yawn, you can count me in on that as well. I however don't pay much attention to PMs and I kinda just said screw it to what he wanted me to do.

On July 23 2010 07:44 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
ebwop: i mean, if i knew as much as this as you did, i'd be strongly suspecting tree.hugger of being mafia right now. but you don't suspect him. why?

On July 23 2010 13:23 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:


Look, this is every post you made between the Tree Hugger PM post and the post where you answered me saying you had "already answered the question:

+ Show Spoiler [posts] +

Like I said, the answer wasn't in there even though you said it was.

If you'll notice this game I have never once said I thought you were red. I have been asking you questions, because you've been making some out of the ordinary posts.

Your reactions to these questions have generally been hostile, uncooperative (see: the reply I am quoting) and overall it seems like you think I don't like you or something. Which personally, I don't understand. I'm a pretty friendly guy. But when my questions are met with you saying things like "this is the scummiest post ever," or "you are fucking bad," - which are things you have actually typed in this thread, paraphrased - is it any wonder why I don't think you're meeting me on equal grounds here?

Now, maybe I really am a fucking idiot, but that explanation you gave previously didn't make any sense to me and I and probably several others would like it if you could just be clear about things instead of saying "I'm not dodging the question" while continuing to dodge the question!

Look, if you really are town, your abrasive reactions aren't helping you at all and will help you get lynched more than anything I could ever muster. And there really hasn't been that much pressure on you at all this game, so I'd hate to see you react under actual intense scrutiny.

On July 23 2010 12:05 youngminii wrote:

There's no reason for scum to pin me along with Subversion. If Subversion is scum, then tree.hugger wouldn't be lynching him (unless it's epically bad bussing). If Subversion's isn't scum, then what's the point of 'pinning' me to Subversion? It makes no logical sense.

On July 23 2010 13:24 chaoser wrote:
Also, where have you EVER heard someone say "I'm excited about the kills"? This is the same person who said "mafia made no mistakes so far". Gloating as mafia/being excited for kills (WHICH NO TOWNIE SHOULD BE SINCE DEATHS=LESS OF US) is VERY SCUMMY

On July 23 2010 13:27 chaoser wrote:
By the way, I was on top of the lynch list for a VERY long time while Subversion slowly moved down to 6 VOTES while me and DTA were up at 9 ish. At the end he moves to 8. That's what I mean when I say would mafia leave it so damn close. If i was mafia, I'd be as safe as Subversion. One vote my way from DTA's group would have killed me.

On July 23 2010 13:30 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:



Youngminii post response generator v 0.89b

Output: you are the scummiest bad player ever, can you even read? Your play is so awful I don't understand?

Accept output [y/n]

On July 23 2010 13:31 Pandain wrote:


Nah Youngmini both of these things happened.
But it doesn't matter because Chaoser is totally drawing huge speculations from these sentences. I mean, I'm excited about the kills too. He thinks he was killed, why wouldn't he be excited?

Also, where have you EVER heard someone say "I'm excited about the kills"? This is the same person who said "mafia made no mistakes so far". Gloating as mafia/being excited for kills (WHICH NO TOWNIE SHOULD BE SINCE DEATHS=LESS OF US) is VERY SCUMMY

On July 23 2010 13:43 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:


i'm still working out the bugs in the code

On July 23 2010 14:07 BrownBear wrote:
Hmm fair point. Alright, I'll bite. I also agree that we should have enough info by 3 real-life days from now to lynch, so

##Vote: Abstain
##Vote: Double Lynch

(the abstain will change, obviously, but just incase some disaster happens it would be nice to cover all my bases)

On July 23 2010 14:38 Pandain wrote:
I think if the Vigi didn't make a hit, they should claim so now.

If they don't claim so now, then BC is NOT lying.
I think that's a solid inference.

On July 23 2010 14:48 chaoser wrote:
I do however know that a Vigi hit SOMEONE tonight. That Vigi should claim since they are regular townie now and say who they hit and why. Mafia doesn't gain anything from them claiming, I think. Also, if it's a false claim, real Vigi can always claim as well and then we have a 1 v 1. Either way, one mafia is dying if they fake claim. I'm also going to go to sleep but I feel I have enough evidence to compile a case against someone by tomorrow morning

On July 23 2010 14:53 Subversion wrote:


Please stop doing this. It's really annoying.

"No." is not a post that contributes anything.

I think it's less about the days and more about the fact that we get tons of information from looking at vote lists

So basically you just said: "lawl, i messed up/made a mistake but oh well, not going to change." Anyone else find that suspicious?

From reading this, I'll change my vote to Subversion even though that means I'll 100% die.

Darth, if you wanna help me, you could switch it over too and I think he'll be first.

##unvote
##vote Subversion

On July 24 2010 10:46 BloodyC0bbler wrote:


The biggest issue I actually see with young isn't neccesarily that he is scum, but he is playing in such a disruptive manner that it makes it really hard to analyze players. He points his finger at alot of people, comes off super aggressive and spams an insane amount. It inhibits solid town play. As much as he seems town, he also doesn't seem to be doing a good job furthering town ideals.

On July 24 2010 09:48 youngminii wrote:
My case on Chaoser.

[spoiler]
Let us delve into the mind of scum. The pattern for a normal, general scum that doesn't go out of his way to do anything out of the ordinary is quite simple. Lay low on the first day or two and slowly come out with accusations. Be very careful of jumping on bandwagons as it may arouse suspicion. Rather than openly coming out and making a case on someone on the first day/two, try to find someone that is making a fool of themselves and make a small case to see if it gains momentum. I think we can all agree that this is a standard way of playing as scum, keeps the suspicion low while still contributing information.

Now let us look at chaoser's early game. One of his first posts is to abstain. This vote does not change for the entire day. Fits perfectly in line with my 'lay low' theory, especially (as the wonderful Pandain pointed out) as chaoser was so against my 'no lynch' strategy. One would have to wonder why he didn't simply vote for someone if he was so against it. He raises the counter argument that voting to abstain is different from voting to no lynch, which is a moot point in my opinion really.

Cool, chaoser wants information from voting lists on the first day. In fact, he even points this out to the public. So why does he not vote for anyone? Oh right, abstaining doesn't label you as 'against' someone. Good stuff in my opinion, I'd probably do it too if I was scum.

So up until early Day 2, chaoser continues to bring in a wealth of information (such as the voting history of certain people etc.) but doesn't actually accuse anyone. All he does is make some accusatory comment that doesn't really have any flair to it. See below.

chaoser to BB:

So early on in Day 2, after a small group of people (Divinek, DTA and Amber[light]) already vote for BB, chaoser joins in and mounts a small case against BB.

After a page or two a LOT of people jump on the bandwagon. It's uncanny. Chaoser realises that if BB is lynched and he flips town then things will look bad for him, so he switches his vote to Subversion, another bandwagon being formed at the time. It's funny, after using that argument against BB he immediately switches to Subversion after seeing the possibility that he might be labeled as mafia (note: someone actually said that the '3rd/4th person on the bandwagon tends to be mafia' and could have affected chaoser's thoughts). The argument he uses against Subversion is one that has already gained traction from BC/Protractinium and so it's easy to ride with.

Pandain then mounts an argument against chaoser, who responds by responding to each and every point. I believe they continue this argument via PM and sort it out there and Pandain drops his case on chaoser (I attribute this to Pandain being new to this game and not being very good at picking out lies/deceit etc.). Anyway, what does chaoser do now? Of course, he abstains. Oh, the joy of not really voting for anyone.

A common trait of mafia is that they won't contribute too much in the accusations etc. early on. They will however, try and 'appear' to be useful by posting stuff that doesn't really cause them any risk in any way (ie. pointing at someone of being scum). They will often side with someone else or pick on a player that seems to be causing a ruckus which won't be seen as suspicious. In addition to this, scum will go to great lengths to defend themselves. Think about it (directed at newer players), if you are scum you are much more willing to come back to this thread and try to shake off any accusations against you. This is why RVS is quite helpful in smaller games. Often scum will 'lurk' meaning they'll browse around, read everything but won't post too much in order to stay under the radar. However, accusing them and voting for them will force them to come out and defend themselves profusely. We can see this in DTA, he was town and everyone started voting for him. He didn't reply in the thread for a looooooong time (I actually pointed this out but I was ignored /yay), indicating that he was in fact, not lurking but actually AWOL, which is a townie trait.

Chaoser falls into the above mafia category. He immediately comes out of his 'useful/informative' shell and starts defending himself a LOT. His posts start becoming a lot of the 'discussion' going on. This continues for a long time, only defending himself and never accusing anyone asides from the occasional "your arguments are weak, why are you trying to get me lynched so bad? Are you scum?" type of argument. Now it's actually really painful to go through skimming page by page but the general trend I see right now is that a lot of people start jumping on the chaoser bandwagon. It's funny, he votes for DTA because he's getting a lot of votes for him. He then states:

Look at this from a scum perspective. He knows DTA is town. He knows that if DTA is lynched then he'll get an even worse image than before. So what does he do? He tries to side with DTA to lynch someone else that already has a lot of people voting for him. This is actually a good play by mafia as he had already taken the side of voting for Subversion earlier so if questioned, he could retaliate by saying "I already had my suspicions on Subversion before!"

+ Show Spoiler +

Blah blah DTA ends up getting lynched (one of the final votes by chaoser, although it could be argued that he did it to save himself) and ends up flipping town.

I know I've always been wary of chaoser but I'd like everyone to read my analysis of him. I'm not going to analyse Night 3 'cause that was just a big spam fest and lots of people probably have an ill image of me now. I'd just like you all to trust me for once (I was right on hyperbola/DTA even though it doesn't mean anything, yes I know) and vote for chaoser. I would also like to mention that I believe infundlibsuvxkum and chaoser are linked but that discussion can be saved for another time.[spoiler]

On July 24 2010 15:31 BloodyC0bbler wrote:



Do you not realize how pm circles work? He is the direct contact of a "dt" who would be working with the contact of another dt, etc..

If hes red, two people pm him seperately with contacts, he can get info quite easily once you know who someone is. Offs them. If red, his DT is actually non existant.

He could be GF who got checked dt went "hurr most likely legit what gf would choose hatter" and gave info, and then ends up getting filtered (as he's still the voice of his dt) so he still gets fed info from the other dt via a chain.

HE still ends up in a better position. You would get tops of one red, for however many confirmed blues/greens you give him + names of circles to snipe. It bewilders me that this is lost on you when he can easily prove his case while maintaining the circle he wants to create.

On July 24 2010 15:49 BloodyC0bbler wrote:


Your also assuming that his DT is fine with his name being passed along to until they can confirm eachother an unconfirmed "dt" which leads into possible mafia faking dt to get his info. So instead of bagging two red, a dt can still die. Your idea also has its problems.

On July 24 2010 16:17 BloodyC0bbler wrote:



Because I am 100% certainbased on how hes been playing that if he is legit there is a bomb on me. He has posted more than once that he has suspicions on me, so regardless, I'd die. So if i was scum, no it wouldn't be 3 free kills. You are taking huge leaps of faith whereas you shouldn't be in a position where if hes mafia, town loses. The tiny holes you are describing are actually quite large and I gave a plan to fix said hole, and instead people are wanting to take everything in faith, very scary concept in mafia. IF a DT claimed he would have to offer a red, a vig would have to claim his shot and be willing to die to prove it/be checked, etc... The fact your expectations of a hatter in a much more sensitive spot doesn't meet the same standard is just odd.

On July 24 2010 16:26 tree.hugger wrote:

What did I even say about you? My post was a comment on the two votes in quick succession to lynch South. Not everything is about you.

On July 24 2010 16:04 tree.hugger wrote:
Mafia have been posting, they always do, and we should be able to find them based on evidence, not lack of evidence.

Not that I don't think southrawrea could easily be mafia, but I want to lynch someone who is active and who has people attached to him.

On July 25 2010 03:52 SouthRawrea wrote:
So far I've been trying to slip under the radar so I don't get lynched early on or killed at night. I've actually only placed one bomb thus far as I was a little hesitant to kill place two people at risk even if I suspect them. My only one at the moment is on chaoser but that was placed yesterday after seeing that he didn't get lynched. I decided to abstain from placing a second bomb because of the first vote placed on me by Bumat... I felt threatened. :/

## Vote Citizen for now

If he IS bomber like he says he is, it'll just be me and him dying. That gives a lot of information against me/him such as those who where making a strong case against me/people who ADMITTEDLY jumped on him. If he's mafia, we just killed a mafia, good job, we still can't 100% trust citi.zen since it could be a ploy to sac one mafia to make the other one more trusted. Not saying that I don't trust you citi.zen, I'm just saying that's a possibility.

On July 25 2010 05:31 chaoser wrote:


We're not saying he's 100% confirmed and that everyone, blue included, should run to him roleclaiming, we're saying you gotta die. I'm fine with dying with you and if you really were town, you wouldn't mind dying. Both of you claimed bomber. There can only be 1 bomber since Tricode said he was vigi. Unless he's lying and both of you are bombers but that means BC is lying too about being hit. Someone HAS to die, either you or citi.zen cause you both claimed. We can get lots of information depending on how you flip. I'd rather you die cause if you ARE red, there's lots of info that would come out of it. If you aren't info still comes out but the better thing is that only TWO people will die, me and you. Citi.zen said he placed both his bombs. That's 3 dead. Let's go to heaven together if you're townie baby.

On July 25 2010 05:51 chaoser wrote:


Please don't put words in my mouth, I never said people please trust me if he flips red. I never even bring it up, I'm merely saying that I'm fine with dying with him and he should be too because it helps town.

On July 25 2010 05:59 chaoser wrote:


I wasn't even thinking about my being innocent but sure, spin it however you want. If after he had died, I said, haa, look i'm innocent now right? then you'd have a case against me. Right now you're just pulling shit out of your ass. lots of <3 for you though. XOXO

On July 25 2010 07:37 BloodyC0bbler wrote:


Thing is your wrong. Citizen being lynched reveals us
A) he is hatter
b) he is gf
c) he is suicide bomber
d)he is townie playing huge gambit
e) he is dt (would be bad and he would have to claim this to save himself, although by lying once he could be doing it twice)

Now, if he is hatter, he dies kills two people (we get info based on who died remember), we get info based on those heavily accusing him, we get a confirmed dt (the one that checked him has checked someone else remember) his dt can then check the other dt confirming him and the circle is formed regardless and we get a ton of info.

We lynch southrawr
A) is mafia trying to save himself
B) is hatter with one bomb on chaoser
C) he flips green and we all go wtf

If he dies, we find out hes either a red trying to save himself or that hes a hatter with a bomb on someone you have been pressuring to kill all game. Regardless of his death, all we know is he was inactive till being called out. we get no info on really anyone else in this game. You just want to get chaoser killed and are pushing this.

On July 25 2010 07:38 SouthRawrea wrote:


That's not the only factor involved though. There is also likelihood based on who we're associating with. Don't we gain info on three total deaths if citi.zen is the mad hatter? There is much more potential info there then the 2 people we know will show up if I die. Also, if I were the mafia how do you gain info on Chaoser? Your supposed evidence that you gain is all circumstantial because of the nature of WIFOM. You sir are and idiot .

On July 25 2010 05:46 youngminii wrote:
For the record, I'd just like to point out the following. This is assuming SouthRawr flips red.

SouthRawr false claims. He is under heavy scrutiny and has barely participated in the game and the scum team knows his usefulness is running out. They make one last attempt to make use of him by agreeing for him to counter claim citi.zen. They also make him say that he placed a bomb no chaoser to try and 'remove' any suspicion on him.

Chaoser now goes into a state of bussing as he tries to make the most of the situation. If SouthRawr gets lynched, chaoser will come out looking innocent, if he doesn't get lynched, chaoser's rep remains the same.



Look at this play: By saying "I'm willing to die with you to confirm citi.zen's bomber claim" he can look 'innocent'. He KNOWS that citi.zen's claim is real and so he puts on this charade to make the most of this situation.

This is all assuming SouthRawr is red. What else can we learn from this? I'm only focusing on chaoser's posts in regard to SouthRawr's claim, there's heaps more information that can be analysed. Also, this tells us that the mafia team isn't very organised. A truly organised (pro) mafia team wouldn't do this type of play. It sticks out like a sore thumb and has lots of risks involved. Assuming SouthRawr flips red we can safely assume that there may only be one or no 'pro' players in the mafia team.

So I implore you, vote SouthRawr as it will give us the most information, more so than lynching citi.zen. I also implore you to double lynch as it will be the most beneficial after this shitstorm.

##Vote Double Lynch

On July 25 2010 07:48 BrownBear wrote:


You bring up a very good point here, and I think everyone should read it. It is still possible that Tricode is the liar, and there are 2 Mad Hatters in the game.

On July 25 2010 07:50 citi.zen wrote:

You know offering South hasn't saved you, don't you? You just dug the hole deeper.

On July 25 2010 07:57 BloodyC0bbler wrote:


dude your defending a guy whos only post in hours was a FoS on me. HE has ignored how many posts? seriously whats going through your mind.

On July 25 2010 07:59 tree.hugger wrote:

You realized you've essentially just claimed that out of the three Town KP roles that have been claimed, two of them are mafia?

You know that right? Where's the fourth claim? We need it now. Find the fourth claim.

On July 25 2010 08:00 chaoser wrote:


It's not silly if he is Suicide Bomber and in the rush of his claim, blues claimed to him. Then when the real one comes forward, hopefully the real one gets lynched, bombs go off, lots of people die. Now he gets to laugh and blow himself up with a few blues.

On July 25 2010 08:02 BloodyC0bbler wrote:


... citizen if in the dt circle he claimed, wher ehe claimed he told the dt who to check day 2, has a confirmed townie (or he would have offered a red in his original plan). That townie can be the link that citizen wanted to be if citizen flips hatter as his circle just got instantly proven legit. Then the real dt could claim to that link, voila. Mafia faking the claim would get checked and off'd.

How are you missing the obvious here? You speak about logical inconsistencies but are ignoring citizens, as well as your own.

On July 25 2010 08:08 BrownBear wrote:
Town in this game = sheep, it's ridiculous.

Make your own fucking decisions people.

On July 25 2010 08:12 rastaban wrote:
Guys I have been staying quiet but I can’t anymore. I was hoping citi.zen would prove his claim but he hasn’t and I am worried about what his plan is. He has already gotten the DT claims. Before the real and asked for us to reveal the DTs. I haven’t heard from him since the counter claim.
From Citi.zen:

+ Show Spoiler +

He hasn't mentioned this in the thread, I hate putting myself out there, but if he is playing us I am sure another mouth can confirm.

did you ask multiple people to claim to me?

-----------------------------------------
Original Message:
Anyway I guess at this point we should wait 12~ hours to see if someone else claims DT rep.

-----------------------------------------
Original Message:
Same here, I view the DTs as key, not myself.



-----------------------------------------
Original Message:
Scum wouldn't counter claim, it's suicide.
Scum also wouldn't claim what you claimed, it's suicide.

Besides it's not like my being alive is very important in the game right now, lost all credibility as a player.

-----------------------------------------
Original Message:
Waw, you didn't wait very long to see if there is a counter claim!


-----------------------------------------
Original Message:
DT circle rep.

On July 25 2010 08:17 BrownBear wrote:
I am so fucking confused right now. What I see it as:

rastaban has a DT
citi.zen has a DT
youngminii has a DT

Could 2 of these be the same DT? Or have we caught a falseclaimer/the GF?

On July 25 2010 08:19 BloodyC0bbler wrote:


A more puzzling thing is this.

Two mouths have claimed to citizen, and we have someone counter claiming? The pm rasta showed implies a third claimant (as i doubt citizen would count himself as one) Seems really odd to me.

On July 25 2010 08:27 rastaban wrote:


Yeah no he didn't go silent, he made an error when he claimed which I pointed out and he gave up.
Intead he asked us to give up our DT names... I don't like it. And just like last game when he was GF he has gone completely silent when suspicion is cast on him