TL Mafia XXXIV: Pokemafia - Page 20

On December 11 2010 16:08 Gabriel wrote:
Come on guys we can do it better.
I believe defending myself is not really needed so im keeping my reasons to myself. On the lynch Gabriel bandwagon we *may* actually have some mafia but im inclined to believe most of them are town alligned people. I dont want to go further. In return i present a better case for active lynching.

The thing is: I agree we dont really need to tackle down an inactive because they are actually going to die to a modkill (please disregard anything i said before about the matter). The key point here is that i expect a bunch of people voting very late to dodge the non voting modkill (thus looking suspicious) but at the same time mafia can not hide so well this game because there are no abstainers: we are actually forced to vote.

So far the most unconvincing active voice is zeks.




Nobody is going to correct you: scum tend to lurk around and make contributing like yet meaningless posts, way too defensive to state something that is almost general consensus.

This post is a big tell in my book.
You were called out by at least 3 players for your vote (d3_crescentia, jcarson and others) and your argument was voting infundibulum as a placeholder. Interesting that you choose someone with a vote already.
Next 2 lines are really odd: What are Infundibulums slip ups? You were called out about that (Node) but you just dodged in olympic fashion.

Your last line is very likely to be red:"Nice to get a reaction?" Its not like you are the one making the crazy guys play here to get a reaction. In fact you actually had no reaction (and when you got it you dodged meh?) This "praise like" post is really red


But you didnt get any discussion at all from your voting. I mean you could just let it go as a "placeholder" vote but you wanted to get spark from that? Not really convincing that the second vote on the same guy wants to do that. Maybe the third or fourth (if they make a valuable argument, but still lack to explain why you were suspicious of Inf) and you are not actually getting anything like discussion or reaction, so your early vote doesnt add up with your reasoning. Excuse me if im reading you as an "active lurker" so far.



But wait... you wanted a "fair inactive list"? why picking an inactive at random just now? I mean at least give us something. Why stormtemplar and not any other inactive? This is just too weird for you to target an inactive at random when there is a guy fighting everyone in the thread. Some people think im disrupting the town and others think im just playing bad. You still fail to write something different than "lets vote an inactive but dont look at me to lynch"

Adding to your fail to explain anything there are just too many parts were your posts follow an extreme defensive pattern: (stop overreacting), (dont go apeshit on me), (correct me if im wrong), out of nowhere. This fear is highly indicative of scums play, i have never ever seen a green or blue post like that when there are actually almost no votes on them.

Sir I have to say that unless you come with some actual reasoning (why did you suspect Inf?) (why you fear so much?) (why do you insist in voting an absolutely random inactive?) you look very very good for a first day lynch... a lot better then me.

On December 11 2010 16:40 jcarlsoniv wrote:
Well, Gabriel...wow. This is so very ironic.

You accuse zeks because of some suspicious stuff. Ok, that's fine, I agree, he is on my "players to watch" list. But come on. What. The. Fuck. You are seriously questioning for two reasons: 1. Accusing Infund with shaky reasoning and 2. Choosing a random inactive to vote for.

YOU also voted for Infundibulum. YOU voted for Infund AFTER zeks. YOU proposed very questionable logic for accusing Infund yourself. You are more of a waffle than John Kerry...

You were an advocate for lynching inactives and calling it a day, something I called you out on. If you were to lynch inactives, how would you go about it? Would you have a strategy other than picking a random inactive and hanging him? However, now you are accusing zeks because this is what he wanted to do. Not only that, but it's not like one random vote on an inactive is going to start a random bandwagon without some reasoning behind it, so as far as I can see, stormtemplar isn't in any real danger.

This looks like possible scum bussing scum to me.

Also, lawl at Gabriel saying he doesn't feel he need to defend himself. Well, buddy, you've got 6 votes on you at the moment, which is triple other player for the majority at the moment. I DEFINITELY feel that you need some defense because honestly, you are playing super anti-town at the moment.

Anyways, that's it for me tonight. It is late and I've had way too much rum. See you guys in the morning.

On December 11 2010 17:05 Gabriel wrote:


No Sir. The main indicative of mafia behavior is his fail to come with an explanation about his vote or anything at all. I actually explained my vote (under a bad logic i agree) and in my first paragraph im stating that im actually going to lynch an active player. Maybe you missed the part where i asked to disregard all i said about lynching an inactve and posted why we should actually lynch an active player.

On December 11 2010 16:58 Eiii wrote:
...gabes posts are so blatantly bad I'm actually starting to have a hard time believing they could possibly be authored by scum. o_O

On December 11 2010 17:10 Eiii wrote:


holy shit

Gabriel Mafia: The game where it doesn't matter that your arguments are logically consistent, or that they're accurate, or even that they make any sense at all! As long as you have a long post to make so it looks like you're trying really really hard, congrats! You're absolved of potentially being mafia. Next suspect!

On December 11 2010 16:58 Eiii wrote:
...gabes posts are so blatantly bad I'm actually starting to have a hard time believing they could possibly be authored by scum. o_O

On December 11 2010 08:30 KtheZ wrote:
I'm not sure if we should really take Gabriel's actions that greatly into consideration. Considering that he is a relatively veteran player, I don't think the bandwagon against him is of great value. If he was mafia, isnt it common sense for them to talk about a game plan and think things out before posting, rather than actively arguing with people?

On December 11 2010 04:28 LSB wrote:
The problem is now, why the bandwagon the bandwagon against Gabriel took place.
(i'll look into it later, right now I'm hard pressed for time)

On December 11 2010 04:15 Hesmyrr wrote:
There is one possible reason why I am willing to give Gabriel null-read for now, but I am going to wait for him to come and explain himself first to see if his argument agrees with mine.

On December 11 2010 03:15 seRapH wrote:
Oh come on guys, 5 people voting for Gabriel out of nowhere? He hasn't really been very scummy imo. I'm keeping an eye on this bandwagon for scum, it's very likely that someone amongst these 5 are poison-type pokemon, maybe even multiple of them.

On December 11 2010 02:44 jcarlsoniv wrote:
I agree with you, which is why I'm not convinced he's scum. He is making wild accusations though that is disrupting everything, and even if he's town, removing that isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, if we can find scum, I definitely want that, obviously. I just want Gabriel to have an eye kept on him.

On December 11 2010 12:31 Kavdragon wrote:
Oh, and that's why I'm voting LSB. In case that wasn't clear.

On December 11 2010 17:02 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:
Jcarl hit the nail on the head. Gabriel is doing exactly what he says not to do AND he has flip flopped like three times on who we should lynch. He's just lashing out at the most random people now. While zeks is a lurker, at this point lynching someone as erratic and just downright scummy as gabe is a much better way to go.

If you have your vote on someone else right now read jcarls post, if that doesn't convince you then just read all of Gabriels posts. After rereading all of them just now I have no idea who Gabriel thinks we should lynch or why we should lynch them because quite frankly he's changed his position more times than konadora has LR posts.

I really had wanted gabe to clarify and solidify his positions because I don't want to lynch the most active player right off the bat but instead of clarifying he's simply muddied the waters further which is very good for scum and very bad for town.

On December 11 2010 17:18 tree.hugger wrote:
Apologies to everyone for my lack of participation. As is easily verified, I've been sitting on 3999 posts for several days, and trying to write two major essays and my 4000th post at the same time, so it's been a little awkward.

That said, this really hasn't been a particularly eventful day so far, so I've caught up easily. Firstly:

Please don't put your entire posts in green. Makes it impossible to read. Your post was noticable enough because of it's length, and green text has a purpose, so don't abuse that.

Anyway, we should probably lynch a TR member this first round and, we've got an obvious mafia to lynch in Kenpachi, so we should probably go take it.

+ Show Spoiler [Kenpachi Archive] +
If I had a nickle for every useful thing Kenpachi said for the town, I'd be broke. This is pretty basic mafia stuff here, no substantive accusations, and some aimless FoSing on Gabriel, which has turned into a mini-wagon. Specifically note Kenpachi actually disowning the bandwagon that he created in the last post, because he doesn't want to commit to anything. From the beginning, Kenpachi has been particularly useless, not commenting on or committing to plans, even as they're being discussed under his nose. His strategy is pretty clearly non-committal, and every single post of his just highlights the fact that he's not saying something useful. I know this basic formula well, because I used it in the game that Ver analyzed. I was killed by BM being bad, but lets kill Kenpachi day one, so we don't have to put up with this anymore.

On December 11 2010 17:18 tree.hugger wrote:
Please don't put your entire posts in green. Makes it impossible to read. Your post was noticable enough because of it's length, and green text has a purpose, so don't abuse that.

On December 11 2010 17:29 Oceanic wrote:
I am going to have to agree with Gabe's points on zeks. So far his votes have been very wishy washy and he seems to change them very randomly. He bandwagons on Infundibulum at the start of the game without really giving much evidence and then later he switches to some random inactive player for which he doesn't give a reason other than "inactiveness"

On December 11 2010 17:28 Gabriel wrote:


My problem so far with lynching Kenpachi is that i really think he is not Green but he may as well be Blue. As someone already stated i was actually triyng to get some reaction from him (so it is not really like im doing mafias work) and to direct somw attention for a RC. Im not ready to lynch Kenpachi (and i never advokated to lynch him). Honeslty zeks is far away a better target for now.