Mafia 96 Who Are You? Game Thread

[Chill]

yes!!! not only do i get to keep playing, but we got their hitman!!!! yes!!! but seriously UD's make me mad. put in a vote the day befor eif you think you might not be here. itd be better than udiing especially if your a townie. if your scum dont bother putting in a vote, just UD to help us out also i dont expect anyone to forget me just bc UN turned out scum, but hopefully i can do better now. id like to see what chill has to say avout the wanting to spread out the votes and then wanting to tie it up.

Are you confusing me with Ice or are you asking me? If you're asking me I did say I agree with spreading out the vote but by the time I got back that was no longer an option and a lone vote on Labby served no purpose.

 

[Chill]

Well lots to process and not much to go on. Busy day today I'll be back sometime but don't know when.

 

[jbradt]

Well, I finally had a chance to get caught up, and right now I feel like my thoughts are at a stand still. It's great that we took their gun away, but I'm really not sure where to go from here. I still believe AAF has something to hide. The feeling that I read into his vote switch still nags at the back of my brain. Kash also makes some sense in talking about those pushing for a spread out vote, then tieing it up between two peeps. I still don't know what to think about Zaffy. I really don't have much of a read on most players. Maybe something will come to me during my 20 hour shift at work.

For now. I vote to lynch AAF. This is because of that nagging feeling and a place holder in case I don't get back before nightfall.

 

[Lab_Rat]

Not keen on multi-color coding right now, so I'll extract parts from above.

1. "I also was in favor of having the votes spread out." Yes you were, which is why I asked you to comment about Ice doing the same thing. Wanted to see what kind of answer I would get from you or if you'd dodge it.

So basically...... Ice gets a pass on contradicting himself just because you did it too. And that being a fairly reasonable scum-tell is excusable (this time) because... um, because you had... a good reason. Sure.

So tell me, your original vote was on Chill. Any comment from you about the way he showed up toward the end, asked where to vote to reestablish a tie, then decided to follow the instruction he was given? What do you think about Chill as a result of that?

Where did I say Ice got a pass on anything? I like how you're making things up.

In regards to Chill, I don't trust him (nor anyone else) as far as I could throw him. In the chaos of the pre-nightfall events, I can see why he moved his lone vote from a pointless one to one where it could make a difference. From the amount of movement there was, it seems most of the town wanted a tie. Now maybe Chill moved his vote to blend in with everyone else switching or maybe he did it because he felt it was the right thing to do. I cannot read his mind so you'll have to ask him that yourself.

2. "Near nightfall, when UN pulled his shenanigans, I was actually thinking of a 3 way tie (AAF, Zaffy, and UN)." Okay. Would you mind telling me why having a 2- or 3-way tie was such a good idea for the town?

That's the part I didn't understand from the start. Before nightfall, we had one don and one mayor, each holding only one invest result. They both had (almost) a 50-50 chance of finding an enemy to kill later on or finding a teammate they could chat with.

Wouldn't forcing the scum to "save" a scummate also be just as likely to force a communicating innocent (or even the mayor themself) to "save" their teammate? The strategy behind these ties escapes me. The same pressure applied to the scum side could as easily have back-fired against the town side, particularly since no one (almost no one, that is) would've known the outcome ahead of time.

Why was having a tie at all so dang important? Especially after it had been discussed already and agreed upon too that the opposite strategy was better for the town.

I guess it could have backfired, but it most certainly didn't. The tie strategy gave us a good result.

In regards to the opposite strategy being agreed on, I call BS. IIRC, Ice mentioned it, and I said that was my thought as well. I don't see where everyone else "agreed" with it. Then we got a few more votes on AAF, UN had his scummy brain fart, and suddenly a tie seemed like a better idea. So should we have just kept everyone spread out and not gone with who was acting scummy?

4. "The end result leaves us with one less scum, and a PR scum at that. Do you have a problem with that result?" Of course not. (Stupid question.... and a twisty one too I noticed.) Pssst, remember where I voted? lmao.

What I do have a problem with are good players who consistently offer the town bad advice.

Sure, you voted UN...well BEFORE he did anything really scummy. That makes me less likely to think you wanted him lynched for being scum. Tell me, why did you vote for him?

And who would the "good players who consistently offer the town bad advice" be? Are you just sad that the hitman was lynched?

5. "Only two could have communicated prior to nightfall in worst case scenario and I wouldn't expect them to do too much to draw attention to themselves by manipulating the vote." Bingo! There it is.

Let me ask this, yet again:

Labby, if you wouldn't expect them to do too much to draw attention to themselves by manipulating the vote......... why the hell did you work so hard to force ties for the lynch????

I believed both AAF and UN to be scum right before nightfall so I wanted them both on the block. Excuse me if I work hard to get those who I think scummy lynched. I didn't realize that was anti-town.

Are you confusing me with Ice or are you asking me? If you're asking me I did say I agree with spreading out the vote but by the time I got back that was no longer an option and a lone vote on Labby served no purpose.

Chill, you willing to spill your reason for voting me yet? Or is it still super secret?

 

[Chill]

No big reasons Labby more or less just guaging reactions. You said something at one point about pretending innocence last game in this format and it made me wonder.

 

[Chill]

This was the post:

Innocent townies vs. scummy townies is still innocent vs. scum. I'm not sure how far the no-rcing extends, maybe Wiz can clarify. I know the last 50/50 split we still looked for scum, but for those who were scum that game it was the typical pretending to look for scum while trying to lynch an innocent.

and then first post after nightfall was:

Freaking UDs...at least we got one scum.

Just made me wonder if you weren't eager to pretend. Not a lot, but enough to give you a nudge. As for now - the feelings mutual I trust you about as far as I can throw you which is probably a little further than you could throw me.

 

[Lady G]

UN was a hit man.

I'm a bit concerned about everyone being so sure UN was actually the mafia hitman...yes, from the word "hitman" it does seem that is the case, but the way Wizard put UN was A hitman has me a little worried, wouldn't he of said THE hitman? Someone asked if Wizard would clarify, but I do not see a response to that.

what's with all the innocents UDing? at least we got the hit man. the town should still have a police man that has one hit to even things out. good thing we keep getting rid of scum through votes.

Unfortunatley that seems to happen quite a bit anymore in these games

I am still thinking AAF too.... he escaped lynching twice.... well, I was very close to voting him the first night anyway, then tonight, lost by the coin...

Why because he "escaped" a lynching twice, does that make him seem more mafia to you? There have been many innocents that has happened to. I am not saying I do not still think AFF would be mafia in this set up, since they are not communicating (except maybe two of them) at that point. I just don't see how not getting lynched 2 nights in a row makes someone appear more mafia.

Had to go find this one first of all. Dag showed some logic/common sense amid all the switch-arounds.



Not really, Dun.... from me anyway. (Not yet.) There were plenty of others instigating this which seemed a little uncharacteristic or contradictory based on their level of play or what had been posted already. Also know you're familiar with the games and from reading them you probably know each of our game styles better than we know yours at this point. Still don't think it'd be accurate to base a lot of judgment about you on just this tonight so I'll hold off in your case.



Well, for example....... Lab, what do you think about the fact that Ice suggested we spread our votes around so we might actually learn something about each other tonight. Then he pushed the vote switching around as hard as he did? Don't you think it kinda defeated the whole point he made in the first place?

And the end result leaves us where, exactly?... with Ice looking good for making the suggestion in the first place, but managing to leave us with little to go on.

I still have to read through it again, btw. Not intending to single Ice out all by himself.... he wasn't the only one. I just get nervous about a player's agenda when they say one thing but do the opposite.

Dun, I really do not see where you could of done much else at that point, had you not "went with it"...things would of been spun into you were trying to save a team mate, by those that wanted it so badly.
I really do not see where the tie proved anything last night either, and I don't understand the push for it. I can understand the switch to UN because of his posting..but what exactly was a tie going to do. Unless the Don was up for a lynch, and the ONE person he/she would of been talking with moved, a tie did nothing in anyway. Yes, it got a hitman lynched and that's great if he was in fact the mafia hitman. I guess I don't see how Ice and Labby wanted to push soooo hard for a tie that proves absolutely nothing about anyone, the only thing it could of done was make anyone who was here at the time and didn't move look "scummy" if they didn't. Yes, if this was a normal game maybe something could of been seen, but seriously to cause so much confusion right before nightfall over it..I don't get it.

Ice, Labby...with only 2 possibly communicating what kind of move did you expect to see, what did you learn from the votes that did move?

I also was in favor of having the votes spread out. Near nightfall, when UN pulled his shenanigans, I was actually thinking of a 3 way tie (AAF, Zaffy, and UN). Dag was reading my mind and switched to UN right before I made the move. Then voting chaos ensued and we ended up with everyone on 2 candidates with a tie. I pushed for the tie probably about as much as Ice did and I will own my actions. Things changed before nightfall which consolidated the votes, that's what happens in these games when people do scummy things to draw votes to themselves.

The end result leaves us with one less scum, and a PR scum at that. Do you have a problem with that result?


The thing is, this game is different since the scum team wasn't communicating from the start and is likely working on building their team. Worst case scenario after this past nightfall is that 3 scum are communicating. Only two could have communicated prior to nightfall in worst case scenario and I wouldn't expect them to do too much to draw attention to themselves by manipulating the vote. So your push from 4-5 players doesn't hold for them working together as communicating scum.

Yes, things happened before nightfall to justify the vote to UN..that is true, but how did it help having a tie and all the confusion it caused. Can you tell me please what you learned from the votes?

 

[Lab_Rat]

I didn't want to let the town down

Looking back, this makes me lol hard.

I'm a bit concerned about everyone being so sure UN was actually the mafia hitman...yes, from the word "hitman" it does seem that is the case, but the way Wizard put UN was A hitman has me a little worried, wouldn't he of said THE hitman? Someone asked if Wizard would clarify, but I do not see a response to that.


...

I really do not see where the tie proved anything last night either, and I don't understand the push for it. I can understand the switch to UN because of his posting..but what exactly was a tie going to do. Unless the Don was up for a lynch, and the ONE person he/she would of been talking with moved, a tie did nothing in anyway. Yes, it got a hitman lynched and that's great if he was in fact the mafia hitman. I guess I don't see how Ice and Labby wanted to push soooo hard for a tie that proves absolutely nothing about anyone, the only thing it could of done was make anyone who was here at the time and didn't move look "scummy" if they didn't. Yes, if this was a normal game maybe something could of been seen, but seriously to cause so much confusion right before nightfall over it..I don't get it.

Ice, Labby...with only 2 possibly communicating what kind of move did you expect to see, what did you learn from the votes that did move?


Yes, things happened before nightfall to justify the vote to UN..that is true, but how did it help having a tie and all the confusion it caused. Can you tell me please what you learned from the votes?

Did you miss the part that there are 2 hitmen and 2 policemen for this game? The wording of "a" hitman doesn't bother me since he wouldn't be the only one.

As I said in my response to Kash, I was quite happy with having 2 people I strongly felt were scum (from their actions) up for the lynch. Can you please tell me why that was a bad strategy? Both made last minute votes/retractions that didn't make sense and their explanations were clearly fabricated. AAF even admitted he made up his reasoning. UN admitted he didn't know what he'd written previously.

The latter part of the voting record may not be super useful since we didn't know when nightfall was exactly, but it makes me look harder at anyone who was on UN early (before his uber scummy move) when he hadn't done much, if anything, that was scummy, that tries to say "look, I lynched the hitman and I was on him early". *cough*Kash*cough*

 

[Lab_Rat]

This was the post:

and then first post after nightfall was:

Just made me wonder if you weren't eager to pretend. Not a lot, but enough to give you a nudge. As for now - the feelings mutual I trust you about as far as I can throw you which is probably a little further than you could throw me.

Ok, that makes sense, I can understand that reasoning.

 

[Lady G]

Looking back, this makes me lol hard.


Did you miss the part that there are 2 hitmen and 2 policemen for this game? The wording of "a" hitman doesn't bother me since he wouldn't be the only one.

As I said in my response to Kash, I was quite happy with having 2 people I strongly felt were scum (from their actions) up for the lynch. Can you please tell me why that was a bad strategy? Both made last minute votes/retractions that didn't make sense and their explanations were clearly fabricated. AAF even admitted he made up his reasoning. UN admitted he didn't know what he'd written previously.

The latter part of the voting record may not be super useful since we didn't know when nightfall was exactly, but it makes me look harder at anyone who was on UN early (before his uber scummy move) when he hadn't done much, if anything, that was scummy, that tries to say "look, I lynched the hitman and I was on him early". *cough*Kash*cough*

Yes, actually I did miss there were 2...I thought there was only one for each side, then yes that makes since and YAY!!!!

Ok, I guess I can see where you were coming from on the "tie" thing...but I don't really see where much was learned, not like a typical game where the vote switches can actually show something. In this case it just caused a bunch of people to scramble around, jumping back and forth having no idea where votes where or what exactly they were doing...it was just a bunch of mass panic.