TL Mafia XXXV - Page 2

On December 29 2010 12:52 Jackal58 wrote:
You stupid fucks.

On December 29 2010 13:12 Jackal58 wrote:

!0 Hours ago.
You're next.

On December 29 2010 13:16 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
i believe mr zergling is mafia, in fact i have since his very first few hosts

he would be a good dt check as well as seraph and insanious

ill reanalyse things when i get home. also why can noone spell "pandain"

On December 29 2010 14:17 Pandain wrote:


LOL wtf

Anyway i just played an hour long game O.O

On December 29 2010 05:26 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
Now for RoL's badass analysis of the game, raping Red's day 1.

Seraph


A nothing post, just the pregame jovial attitude usually shown by mafia.
:D I'm a jovial person ^_^


One of my favorite little tells that a lot of people give off is format speculation early on, he is one of the first to discuss it. Seraph and LD. Although a LOT of people have done it in this game because their was a new role I think we can view this as an additional circumstance to his "mafia" behavior since a lot of people exemplify this strait.
I don't really get why this is scummy? This isn't so much speculation as it is drawing from previous game experience.


At this point he gets on the"lets lynch inactives" train and trying to figure out how to define inactives. First off I am going to say this right now. Fuck lynching inactives. It is such a stupid plan most of the time, lynching an inactive does two VERY anti town things. One it provides ZERO information because generally there is no vote split on inactives its usually a unanimous decision among the town, and on top of that since there is NO information to decide on who we are going to lynch because they are inactive the mafia have a huge influence over just which inactive guy we decide to kill.

In summary lynching inactives makes Day 1 a day we get NO information and on top of that the lynch is more readily swayed by the mafia, yielding our daily KP to them. It is just stupid. What annul did is exactly what I would do. Just start throwing shit and see who comes out of the wood work. Ideally though you aim to target someone who you believe is red. But either way the important thing is we are getting information.
I wanted to discuss lynching inactives because it does incline the would-be lurkers to start posting. Who knows if it worked or not, but at least it's a prod. I would never actually go ahead and lynch an inactive/lurker day 1 though, I agree, the information we get from that is minimal.




We are going to see a recurring trend with Seraph, He doesn't really ever stop talking about inactives and mod kills at all.
Hooray. Clarify how this makes me scum?



Now one big thing to notice here, he advises against using KP and uses a TERRIBLE argument. This is a giant redflag to me. Why the hell would there be a better chance of hitting a blue then a red with a vigi hit? If we hold off our vigi hits there is a better chance the mafia will kill the vigi and we lose that KP too. That's roughly equivalent to telling mad hatters not to place bombs until night 3 because chances are they will just bomb a blue. It just chances us wasting our KP that we shouldn't be. On top of that if a vigi is doing ANY amount of behavioral analysis then they should be able to hit a god damn red by night 2 if they choose to, MAYBE hold it off until night 3. I generally would not recommend holding off your hit because it increases the chance of the town losing it.
RoL you seem pretty confident in our blue's scumhunting capabilities. You may be right but I'd rather play this on the safe side and not waste the hit. I'm more confident in vigi's ability to stay alive than their scumhunting abilities. And I still don't see how this labels me red, isn't the whole point of discussion to get rid of bad ideas and spread good ones? Why weren't you chiming in?

And on top of that Seraph says we have more important things to discuss then vigi's, like the day 1 lynch. Alright, I can agree with that but seriously what the fuck is there to talk about if you are lynching an inactive? Exactly, nothing. Its just basically RNG whichever person not posting the mafia approves of and unanimously killing them.
Once again, I had no intention of pushing a lynch on an inactive.


Alright let me get this strait. By your agenda we should be lynching inactives and searching for them but we need to wait for people to check in day 1...? Pretty much self explanatory. So far we have seen a good amount of anti town posting from Seraph on top of a bit of spammyness.
Straits are small rivers. And we were only a few hours into the day, so pretty much everyone was "inactive".


This is one of the posts I found really interesting. The pandain wagon did make no sense and Seraph says what I think he is trying to do. We can just label it wifom. At the same time he discredits Annul saying his argument is forced

Then explains what forced means! But seriously, how is Annul's analysis forced? I read it, it felt pretty natural to me. Annul remains dedicated and keeps going for his lynch of LSB and LSB OMGUS him back which is a really shitty way to play and incredibly anti town. The thing is I also believe that could just be a blue tell from LSB believing his role to be important for town victory.

The last thing he does is FOS on Meapak but not saying ANYTHING about why. At least give some reason.
Annul's analysis included taking a bunch of LSB's various bad and semi-bad jokes (and even a few worth chuckling for!) and treating them seriously. I mean really, you'd have to be from romania... Meapak was the first person to follow annul's case, but obviously since then many others have joined in. So the point's moot. Still, one of the first three or four on the wagon is likely mafia.



Seraph then stresses that we go back to lynching inactives while clearing up such a trivial issue between insane/haunted mafia.

The running trend with Seraph is anti town play, just focusing on lynching an inactive and really not committing at ALL on the annul/LSB situation. This could be because he doesn't want to be associated with supporting a bad lynch of either of them, or not wanting to side at risk of being exposed when his ally gets lynched.
What? Did you even check to see who I voted for? I defended LSB when I was here and put my vote on annul. I suppose I can't really say that I wouldn't risk chainsaw defending LSB now that he's been flipped, but I did!

With that being said, I strongly believe Seraph is mafia and we should lynch to kill him and hold off on the LSB/Annul situation because of how important blue roles are to a town victory. On top of that if/when LSB fails to prove his claim we get another free mafia kill that we can make a vigi use. LSB is claiming to be able to PROVE his alliance by night 2 and if he can't then well I am sure we can do something about that can't we? We just need to stay focused and get him killed then and not get distracted by other "better" targets.

On December 30 2010 01:38 why wrote:


Honestly, this post comes off as very scummy to me. Seraph doesn't show up all day after he is FoSed by RoL and then comes in 30 minutes after the lynch to berate everyone on how they messed up. It feels like he is trying to take credit for being against the LSB lynch when he actually he just wasn't a part of it either way. Also, he doesn't say who he would have voted for (evidently he wouldn't have supported a Brocket lynch given that the inactive thing was just a talking point).

On December 30 2010 04:58 DoctorHelvetica wrote:

he'll do that if he's town too

i am personally of the opinion that role-fishing is just as often a town move as it is a mafia move

On December 30 2010 08:33 tree.hugger wrote:

No need to get testy, that's all I'm looking for.

MH bombs shouldn't be directed by anyone else, because that's too easy for mafia to manipulate. If we left it up to the town or random people with plans to determine where the bombs went, then they'd land on townies every single time. MH needs to use their own judgment because your direction, or anyone else's is open to mafia interference. Also, if the mafia looked at your list, and knew that none of them were threatened, then that would relieve a large load from their shoulders, and clear the path for blue sniping.

On December 30 2010 12:35 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
Who would you propose we lynch? I am pretty sure about all 3 of you, right now I would prefer to go after Annul but I feel to get the backing on that would require very hard analysis. Tonight's hits make me think Annul is likely mafia and I can explain why. I still think you are most likely mafia but I can hold off on that judgment in favor of him.

On December 27 2010 13:45 Soulfire wrote:
I had meant to contribute earlier, but I was watching some streamed games of my team's CW.

I'm a new player, so for the most part I've just been reading what everybody has said thus far and trying to come up with any reasonable conclusion, which not surprisingly has been futile. I've gone over previous games and observed common posting habits for many of the more veteran players in this game and I honestly don't notice anything alarming enough to begin to point fingers safely. I'd definitely have to agree with Pandain, Wiggles and others; focus attention on the inactives, but struggle to differentiate between those who just don't care and are probably going to be modkilled and people who are trying to lay low, specially people making pointless posts to avoid the modkill.

But I will speak for other players who are new like I am, it is difficult to post something that contributes in Day 1 - so yet another thing to differentiate: new players who are lost and can only agree with others, and mafia trying to slip under the radar and avoid modkill.

On December 27 2010 18:01 Soulfire wrote:
Yet another vote for Pandain - can you guys seriously stop that? There's no reason to be doing that, and the only thing we know about him thus far is that he's been pretty damn helpful, and past games show that he knows what he's doing. There's no reason to be piling votes on people, and new players will just be prompted to join the bandwagon.

On December 28 2010 14:22 Soulfire wrote:
Just read the last 5 pages, and like many others, paid attention to the argument between Annul and LSB. BOTH come off as scummy, but to be totally honest I think it's a safer bet to go with a lurker, for the same reasons that many have said - the more talkative a scum is, the more likely he is to make a mistake and thus be lynched. We have NOTHING to go by other than very slight hints in posting style. Our best bet easily is to lynch a lurker because they may continue lurking later on, and we won't be able to gather any hints from them that may identify them as scum. However, Annul and LSB will both continue posting frequently, thus increasing the chance that they may make mistakes and reveal themselves. If they all of a sudden STOP posting frequently, that'd be out of the character developed on day 1 and would be a pretty strong hint that they're scum.

Just my 2 cents.

On December 29 2010 08:19 Soulfire wrote:
I've been on the whole "lynch LSB" bandwagon, but after reading Pandain's logic, even though it makes HIM sound incredibly scummy as well the the information fishing, I'm gonna vote for Brocket. When I read over Pokemafia he indeed acted quite differently, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was trying to hide under the radar.

But yeah, Pandain really strikes me as a mafia trying to save LSB - but then again, is there any way to protect someone WITHOUT appearing suspicious? Atleast he presents a logical argument. If LSB does not "prove himself", LYNCH HIM ON DAY 2.

On December 29 2010 11:36 Soulfire wrote:
Gonna actually have to agree with Pandain's analysis here, I didn't think of it the way he put it: We don't have much to go on, so we might as well guarantee important information with a lynch of LSB.

##Unvote
##Vote LSB

On December 31 2010 09:06 Barundar wrote:
... and annul votes without providing a reason. I would like for some more of the inactives to join the discussion. Brockett what's your thoughts on the current targets? Darthien we still need to see a first post from you. Also maybe you could address some of the points raised against you, Seraph?