Mafia Mongolica [Concluded]

[Caius]

Vote:ATPG

[Askthepizzaguy]

I agree. I've been acting scummy. We should vote for me next round.

[Reenk Roink]

There was no way for a single vote to have made ANY difference in the vote unless it was tied. Surely I do not need to explain why this is true.

I see I do need to explain some things to you. A GH vote on Beskar, keeping all other things equal would have tied the vote. That would have sent it to tiebreaker. That may have allowed gibson, for example, who had explicitly stated in the thread hat he was suspicious of Beskar and Atpg, to vote Beskar (he voted Atpg).

Pardon, but there was no suspicion on split at all before GH was killed. The main focus was entirely on Beskar and ATPG, whom you believe to be in league with one another. Their very relationship would have made it highly unlikely that both of them would have been the options for the lynch. One was always going to take the lead as the standard bearer for the Lynch ATPG/Beskar Party and without a third suspect the odds of a tie were minimal.

And you bring up split because? I thought your initial position was that there was no way to determine that this round would end up in a tie. Given the voting from before, along with various banter on the matter, it seemed that roughly half of the interested parties were convinced that Beskar was the best lynch while the other half of interested parties were not.

This bore out in the voting for split where it seems that most of the votes against him were to save Beskar. This is something you yourself have stated by the way.

So it doesn't matter about split at all, and I have my speculations as to your motivations why you decided to bring him up in this discussion despite the fact that it was not relevant. After all it is hard

Of course, this entire point of being able to reasonable predict whether the vote on Beskar would be close or not is moot, as we had the third round in front of us, and it was close, and GH's vote would have mattered significantly as it would tie it. These facts remain clear despite your attempts to run around them.

I have noted two habits of yours. One is to misinterpret (intentionally or not) posts. The second is to take an argument into different directions for whatever reason. However, it isn't too hard to notice what you're doing and you will be called out for it.

Then we simply disagree. As I noted immediately after the night results came in, my first thought was that he was framed. At best, I give it 50/50 odds. I simply disagree that Beskar killing GH should be given greater weight for some amorphous reason you have yet to define.

Fair enough though I believe the reason I gave certainly is well defined enough. Is there a particular reason it deserves the label you give it?

No need, I will likely be placing it on you next round. You still haven't explained your change in play style. You are not remotely acting like yourself.

Oh no?

I don't have to explain my change in playstyle at all.

I'd love to see any inferential link that somehow connects this "fact"* to being scummy. Heck, I'd love to see even any kind of correlation that is more significant than other patterns of behavior. Of course, as you stated before, you aren't interested in even beginning to question this dogma and you've never really given any kind of proof that a significant correlation exists.

* In fact, I'll bet you two Atpg cookies that you will have a heck of a time defining my behavior and than pointing to the ways that it changes. You've already admitted as much that you haven't exactly played too much with me, and your lack of knowledge on especially my playstyle in the early days of Mafia here at the org is quite evident.

Just in case you're curious, my behavior here bears striking resemblance in two major games: Interficio quod Scrupulosa and Mafia VI. Not only that but in many other games I have decidedly acted this way in parts of many other games.

You believe it is odd for me to go so tenaciously after someone? This is most likely because you have imperfect knowledge of my play style.

[Reenk Roink]

If I may weigh in;

I am aware people think Beskar is guilty and so forth, and they're free to vote for him next round, but in my opinion the debate on Beskar has already been said and done. Quite honestly the issue feels overblown to me, from where I sit. It's clear he's not going to get very far with so many wanting to lynch him. I also feel that the division between various players over the issue is going to unduly color attitudes going into future rounds about who is a friend and who is a potential rival.

In short, this whole thing is becoming a convenient distraction and causing unnecessary divisions between townies. Most of the people voting for either candidate are going to end up being innocent, and just because you sided differently on the Split/Beskar vote, that doesn't automatically mean the opposition is scummy.

Of course it's scummy that I said that and yadda yadda; I'm starting to see Reenk's point on how useless WIFOM is.

Agree with most of this.

However, if I may continue on some points. Some people voting for split are certainly suspicious over others. I believe the theory of keeping Beskar (and you and me) around as patsies is a decent explanation.

The Beskar/Atpg/Reenk thing has become overblown but it's probably for good. In the first round there was little real discussion as usual. However, in the second round despite the fact that most of the issue stems from there, there was quite a bit of apathy.

It was this last round that the floodgates opened. We now have a lot more to go on then just Beskar/Atpg/Reenk. We can now speculate on why some people voted split for example (especially Sigurd imo).

[Askthepizzaguy]

I do like the discussion, it certainly beats random pointless voting which is easier to hide in and easy for the mafia to manipulate. However, when the discussion becomes so... pointed, shall we say, it almost puts players into the position of making an "enemies list" so to speak. Those who keep voting against us, or whatnot. Often times these factors will be more in the forefront of our minds than actual scummy behavior.

I do this myself, and I'm making a conscious effort to remember how lazy and sloppy that is.

[Reenk Roink]

I do like the discussion, it certainly beats random pointless voting which is easier to hide in and easy for the mafia to manipulate. However, when the discussion becomes so... pointed, shall we say, it almost puts players into the position of making an "enemies list" so to speak. Those who keep voting against us, or whatnot. Often times these factors will be more in the forefront of our minds than actual scummy behavior.

I do this myself, and I'm making a conscious effort to remember how lazy and sloppy that is.

Ah it's all good fun sparring against a lawyer.

Well TinCow is probably my biggest interlocutor (yes even bigger than Beskar ) but I doubt I will vote for him in the foreseeable future. DJGingivitis did make some good points against him, and I was inclined to agree until he voted Beskar.

At this point next round I'd like and hope to see Beskar, yourself, or Sigurd lynched, and I will probably put my vote on the one who has the most support. However, I'd also rather myself get lynched than TinCow (or about half of the other people in the game).

By the way, according to Reenk's (meta)rules voting against him is scummy behavior (I am a townie and they want me dead . I spent an entire game not only voting for those who voted me, but also keeping an exact list on those who voted against me so I could vote for them later. The next game I reversed it and would only vote for those who voted against me, not voting for anyone who didn't.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Now that's unusual. Why would you want yourself to be lynched over an unknown? Unless you know something about TinCow, which would make your sparring with him either very odd or very fake, you should want yourself to survive longer than him, if you're intending to lynch a mafia. Unless I am missing something which I probably am.

[Beskar]

At this point next round I'd like and hope to see Beskar, yourself, or Sigurd lynched, and I will probably put my vote on the one who has the most support.

For me, I rather see the Mafia dead, than particular players. Just saying. You can do your own hitlist, but I am only interested in the Mafia.

[Reenk Roink]

Now that's unusual. Why would you want yourself to be lynched over an unknown? Unless you know something about TinCow, which would make your sparring with him either very odd or very fake, you should want yourself to survive longer than him, if you're intending to lynch a mafia. Unless I am missing something which I probably am.

Tons of reasons. I can't even begin to enumerate all of them.

Had the first three lynches been you, me, and Beskar, I'd definitely say the town was in a better position, even if both of you were innocent (I am). The reason being that players like FactionHeir, Beefy, and even split have no baggage to carry throughout the game. They won't serve at all as distractions (for their early round play - well maybe split a bit).

A huge (probably the biggest) problem with players who rouse suspicions early on in the game and then live, is that they cause so much uncertainty in the endgame. That's when the lynches count, and I highly doubt that players would be lynched like split was in favor of a player with an actual case on them in the end round. Wheras if there continues to remain this player who stays alive and he had suspicion on him early on this can easily cloud judgment.

I think Beskar is the most suspicious now. Should he live however, I will certainly be on the lookout from considering all the suspects and then thinking to myself, gee Beskar had a ton of suspicion early on and he's still living, maybe he's the one. I have found myself doing that before, and I have heard that kind of reasoning from others.

What should be done is judge the case on each suspect. And while the case on an early suspect will probably be weaker than a case on a late round suspect, the disproportionate attention the early one got early in the game has a psychological effect.

For me, I rather see the Mafia dead, than particular players. Just saying. You can do your own hitlist, but I am only interested in the Mafia.

That is obviously a list of players I consider most likely to be Mafia...

You may be trying to get a rhetorical effect out of that statement but it is plainly vacuous. We can't say Vote: Mafia now can we?

[Beskar]

No, but if you was deemed to be innocent, I wouldn't vote for you, that is the difference. You sound like you would vote for me and others based on grudges, even if I or them were proven to be an innocent. Just saying.

[Reenk Roink]

No, but if you was deemed to be innocent, I wouldn't vote for you, that is the difference. You sound like you would vote for me and others based on grudges, even if I or them were proven to be an innocent. Just saying.

I wouldn't vote if you were confirmed innocent or very close to it (detective reveal or doctor save - also taking into consideration that you may be another family member or some kind of non mafia bad role). It looks really bad to the rest of the town.

I would however, go ahead and vote for someone I personally thought was innocent. Many reasons for this. Maybe they're the best choice despite not being a good choice. Maybe they're not doing what you want them to do. Maybe they're annoying you or the town.

I like the effort with these rhetorical statements that make me look bad though, it's a good option to go given that your case against me is basically self refuted according to your own standards.

[TinCow]

I see I do need to explain some things to you. A GH vote on Beskar, keeping all other things equal would have tied the vote. That would have sent it to tiebreaker. That may have allowed gibson, for example, who had explicitly stated in the thread hat he was suspicious of Beskar and Atpg, to vote Beskar (he voted Atpg).

Point of order: it DID go to a tiebreaker. The vote was tied when the time limit expired. Jolt then put it over the edge.

And you bring up split because? I thought your initial position was that there was no way to determine that this round would end up in a tie. Given the voting from before, along with various banter on the matter, it seemed that roughly half of the interested parties were convinced that Beskar was the best lynch while the other half of interested parties were not.

I brought up split to point out there was no way to predict that a bandwagon would start on him. I do see your point about the divergent opinion on Beskar naturally trending towards a two-person race, but your I find your implications that opinion was obviously split 50/50 before GH died to be... questionable. If you were able to figure that out how everyone was going to vote in advance, then you have skills far beyond my own. I didn't even know how *I* was going to vote until halfway through the day phase.

I have noted two habits of yours. One is to misinterpret (intentionally or not) posts. The second is to take an argument into different directions for whatever reason. However, it isn't too hard to notice what you're doing and you will be called out for it.

It is not possible to intentionally misinterpret something. By definition, the very act of doing it intentionally requires an understanding of what it is in the first place. I believe the word you are looking for is distortion.

As for your second point; really, I hadn't noticed. You'd love arguments at my house.

Fair enough though I believe the reason I gave certainly is well defined enough. Is there a particular reason it deserves the label you give it?

I'm not certain I understand what you mean by label. Are you referring to me calling GH's death an attempt to frame Beskar?

I'd love to see any inferential link that somehow connects this "fact"* to being scummy. Heck, I'd love to see even any kind of correlation that is more significant than other patterns of behavior. Of course, as you stated before, you aren't interested in even beginning to question this dogma and you've never really given any kind of proof that a significant correlation exists.

Wait a second, I thought I was the person who "misinterpreted" things? It's not fair for you to do it!

As I previously stated in detail, I do not believe changes in behavior make someone "scummy." I simply believe they warrant further examination of that person.

* In fact, I'll bet you two Atpg cookies that you will have a heck of a time defining my behavior and than pointing to the ways that it changes. You've already admitted as much that you haven't exactly played too much with me, and your lack of knowledge on especially my playstyle in the early days of Mafia here at the org is quite evident.

Just in case you're curious, my behavior here bears striking resemblance in two major games: Interficio quod Scrupulosa and Mafia VI. Not only that but in many other games I have decidedly acted this way in parts of many other games.

You believe it is odd for me to go so tenaciously after someone? This is most likely because you have imperfect knowledge of my play style.

I have nowhere near enough time to read all the games that were played before I started participating in the gameroom. All I can do is work off of what I know, and what I know begins with Capo II. Based on that history, you appear to be acting odd to me. You will excuse me if I find your own statements about whether you are behaving normally or not to be less than credible evidence.

However, since apparently you are an expert at this game and I am doing things incorrectly, I would greatly appreciate your guidance on how exactly I should be playing. What methods should I be using to detect mafioso?

[Beskar]

I like the effort with these rhetorical statements that make me look bad though, it's a good option to go given that your case against me is basically self refuted according to your own standards.

Using your argument "I am innocent, so I go after those who vote for me" think of what happened, but you was me, and I was you.

You say to some one (while an innocent), finding their behaviour suspicious, then they start posting against you and vote against you, not making real arguments, trying their best to lynch you, just because you said they acted scummy when they did.

What would you think? That you possibly caught the Mafia, and they are trying their hardest to get you lynched because you called them out? That is exactly what I thought due to your behaviour. You condemned yourself by your purely going after me, because I called you out on an obvious scummy activity. If you actually came up with a reason then left it alone, I would have most likely dropped it, but since you carried on attacking me like a dog, because I called you out (and I am an innocent) you look hell of a scummy.

So even by your own standards, you would arguably be the prime lynch target. You have to remember, you have to put yourself in other peoples shoes, not just be in your own.

[Reenk Roink]

I brought up split to point out there was no way to predict that a bandwagon would start on him. I do see your point about the divergent opinion on Beskar naturally trending towards a two-person race, but your I find your implications that opinion was obviously split 50/50 before GH died to be... questionable. If you were able to figure that out how everyone was going to vote in advance, then you have skills far beyond my own. I didn't even know how *I* was going to vote until halfway through the day phase.

This is either a misrepresentation or intentional distortion of my post. I don't know how you could get "obviously split 50/50" from "roughly half" but my English ain't as good as yours.

Well yeah. I did some extrapolation to get the 50/50 part. Yes, not even I (shocking really but I am limited in some small ways) knew that it would be exactly 50/50. I thought it would be close but Beskar would be lynched by a couple of votes.

It is not possible to intentionally misinterpret something. By definition, the very act of doing it intentionally requires an understanding of what it is in the first place. I believe the word you are looking for is distortion.

I'm not certain I understand what you mean by label. Are you referring to me calling GH's death an attempt to frame Beskar?

Your label refers to the use of the word amorphous.

Wait a second, I thought I was the person who "misinterpreted" things? It's not fair for you to do it!

As I previously stated in detail, I do not believe changes in behavior make someone "scummy." I simply believe they warrant further examination of that person.

I admit, even I of all people sometimes fall into this trap.

However, I'm probably not falling into it here. Essentially, I was not

First. what did you mean by this?

Having observed a fair number of mafia games, I have concluded that it is the single most reliable method of spotting mafioso.

I'll give you a direct insight into my reasoning (prepare to be enlightened :lightbulb:):

Your first sentence of: "No need, I will likely be placing it on you next round."

From this I gather that you are intending (in some manner with a certain though probably not absolute conviction to vote for me).

Is it a reasonable inference that given the nature of the game you would vote for the person you thought was the most scummy? This is what I gathered from some of your posts in this very thread (about split and Beskar)?

If so, my interpretation of this statement is that you will vote for me because you think I am the most scummy at this point in the game? If this is incorrect let me know, I then have some follow up material.

Then there are these two sentences: "You still haven't explained your change in play style. You are not remotely acting like yourself."

Given the proximity to the first sentence, these two seem like a justification of the intention to vote for me.

If they are not and rather just unrelated thoughts please do two things:

1) Pardon me
2) Try to separate unrelated thoughts a bit better

If these are reasons for the intention to vote for me, then let us examine the content of these reasons.

The first of these two states that I have not done something, namely, explain something. The thing I have not explained is my change in playstyle. The second is an assertion that I am not acting like myself. In other words, I have changed behavior this game.

So if these are your reasons for your intention to vote against me, it is because I have changed my behavior this game. I came to this conclusion based on the proximity of these sentences and earlier statements by you on behavior change. Certainly, there were many ways for me to err, and so next time, if I am confused by your lack of absolutely precise language, I will first run it by you.

Now then, if I did misinterpret or intentionally distort your statement, you have already gotten me for it. Will you now be as courteous enough to actually make clear what you meant by it as I did for you when you misinterpreted or intentionally distorted my statements? Thank you.

In any case, "I simply believe they warrant further examination of that person" is certainly not your simple belief as I have shown above with another post on the same matter. Maybe you forgot what you believed? Maybe you are lying?

I have nowhere near enough time to read all the games that were played before I started participating in the gameroom. All I can do is work off of what I know, and what I know begins with Capo II. Based on that history, you appear to be acting odd to me. You will excuse me if I find your own statements about whether you are behaving normally or not to be less than credible evidence.

Well, I even pointed you to the games in question. I didn't make a whole lot of posts to deal with anyway.

I sympathize with your limitations, but is it really an excuse for you to vote against me because I have changed my behavior admitting that you are only going by a limited sample of my play? You're even not accepting my invitation to actually check out further evidence.

You seem to be stating that although you are aware of your limited sample into my gameplay, you will still draw out the conclusion from that unrepresentative sample. Ok then...

However, since apparently you are an expert at this game and I am doing things incorrectly, I would greatly appreciate your guidance on how exactly I should be playing. What methods should I be using to detect mafioso?

Once again this is a misrepresentation or intentional distortion or false attribution, but I don't want you to feel too badly so I'll indulge you and give you 1 point.

Do not fret as admitting this is the first step to your reformation. Your task is simple: I'll tell you who to vote for and you do it. Leave the hard work to me.

[Chaotix]

With all of these long posts, you guys are making it difficult to keep up with the thread, here!

Although the discussion is certainly interesting. Personally, I see that TinCow is acting much more abrasively than usual for mafia games... and because this argument has bloomed into something taking up two or three pages at least, I think inevitably tomorrow's lynch is going to wind up between Reenk and TinCow. I think that both have to be lynched... my opinion is that one of them is mafia.

We won't have to worry about ATPG or Beskar being lynched, because they'll both be left in the dust by this feud of sorts... and I'm starting to wonder if they might really have a connection through roles, whether mafia or not. We have to keep our eyes on both of them, too.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I think that both have to be lynched... my opinion is that one of them is mafia.

Why do you feel that one of them must be mafia?

If I were smart, and that's a big hypothetical, I would fade EASILY into the background of this whole mess and not garner attention on myself. There's just no reason to gain suspicion on oneself so early, especially with the murders coming in so slowly. I really have to reiterate the wasp nest and stick theory... if you're allergic to being lynched, why would you smack a bunch of townies in the face? Reenk is poking progressively more people in the eye, which eventually leads to people either thinking he is scum or wanting him eliminated anyway. TinCow doesn't have to put himself into the spotlight by challenging his behavior, yet he does.

Meh. I'll flip a coin between a lurker or someone who is trying too hard to "blend in", myself.

[TinCow]

Your label refers to the use of the word amorphous.

I meant it exactly as it means. The reasons you gave were amorphous.

I admit, even I of all people sometimes fall into this trap.

However, I'm probably not falling into it here. Essentially, I was not

First. what did you mean by this?

It's a trend I've noticed in studying Sasaki. So far, my main failing in mafia games has been in detecting mafioso. Being a mafioso I can manage just fine, but since probability dictates I don't get that job very often, improving my townie game is important to me. In the games I have played, Sasaki has far and away been the person who has been best at spotting mafioso based on nothing more than in-thread behavior. I have specifically asked him about his methods before, and he has stated that it is done by looking for changes in character that are both macro and micro in nature (my own words, not his). On a macro level, changes in behavior between games. On a micro level, contradictions in behavior and arguments within a single game. This is what I have been trying to do for my last several games.

I'll give you a direct insight into my reasoning (prepare to be enlightened :lightbulb:):

... (cut for brevity)

Now then, if I did misinterpret or intentionally distort your statement, you have already gotten me for it. Will you now be as courteous enough to actually make clear what you meant by it as I did for you when you misinterpreted or intentionally distorted my statements? Thank you.

You did not misinterpret, everything you said in the above (abbreviated) quote is what I meant.

In any case, "I simply believe they warrant further examination of that person" is certainly not your simple belief as I have shown above with another post on the same matter. Maybe you forgot what you believed? Maybe you are lying?

The answer is neither. I have found that there are two methods of putting pressure on people in mafia games. The first is dialog. The second is voting. For me, voting is an escalation of pressure that I use when I am not satisfied with the results of the dialog. In your case, at this moment I feel that more pressure is warranted on you and discussion is not doing it. I therefore intend to vote for you next round to increase the pressure. I used the word "likely" because I have no way of knowing what will happen between now and then. It is entirely possible that something else could arise that would make me suspect someone else more than you. Thus, the vote is currently likely, but not certain.

Well, I even pointed you to the games in question. I didn't make a whole lot of posts to deal with anyway.

I sympathize with your limitations, but is it really an excuse for you to vote against me because I have changed my behavior admitting that you are only going by a limited sample of my play? You're even not accepting my invitation to actually check out further evidence.

You seem to be stating that although you are aware of your limited sample into my gameplay, you will still draw out the conclusion from that unrepresentative sample. Ok then...

In addition to the time constraints, there is no need for me to do it in this situation. If I am wrong, others with knowledge of your play style will point it out to me. I am fond of shortcuts that save me from reading through masses of old posts.

[Chaotix]

Why do you feel that one of them must be mafia?

If I were smart, and that's a big hypothetical, I would fade EASILY into the background of this whole mess and not garner attention on myself. There's just no reason to gain suspicion on oneself so early, especially with the murders coming in so slowly. I really have to reiterate the wasp nest and stick theory... if you're allergic to being lynched, why would you smack a bunch of townies in the face? Reenk is poking progressively more people in the eye, which eventually leads to people either thinking he is scum or wanting him eliminated anyway. TinCow doesn't have to put himself into the spotlight by challenging his behavior, yet he does.

Meh. I'll flip a coin between a lurker or someone who is trying too hard to "blend in", myself.

Then I'll say it again, myself.

WIFOM. Lots of WIFOM. If one of them happens to be mafia, they are getting exactly the kind of response they want from you: "He is putting himself in danger of lynch, therefore he must not be mafia".

I'll point to you and Reenk in The Prometheus.
I'll point to you and myself in Dark Descent.

It's not uncommon for mafia to be actively putting themselves in the spotlight, because the general consensus is that the mafia are going to be the lurkers, or those who blend in. That's why the three players who we've lynched so far have not been especially attention-demanding.

I'm not saying that the mafia couldn't be lurkers, but we can't just rule someone out because they are deliberately putting themselves in danger.

[TinCow]

TinCow is acting much more abrasively than usual for mafia games

If this is the case, I truly do apologize. My wife has been out of town on business for a week and a half and she's not due back until well into next week. I'm fond of her, and hanging around the house all alone for this long is making me a little grumpy. I shall endeavor to solve the problem by drinking more wine until she returns.

[Reenk Roink]

I meant it exactly as it means. The reasons you gave were amorphous.

I think it's reasonable to add a little more value to a notion that Beskar killed GH to take off someone who would be reasonably expected to vote for him again and wasn't looking like lynchbait

I honestly don't see how this is not a well defined explication of a possible explanation of GH's murder. It may not be convincing (you might say he was framed to make it seem like the above was done, which I also agree is a good explanation or the explanation of a double frame).

The question becomes how do we lend preference to these explanations. Many would point to Occams Razor, which I won't.

However, I will give preference to that explanation due to the pressure that was clearly on Beskar at that time, and while it may be looking at things in retrospect, the choice of killing GH was amazingly beneficial to Beskar this past round.

Is there a similar reason to prefer the WIFOM frame explanation?

[TinCow]

Is there a similar reason to prefer the WIFOM frame explanation?

It's what I would do, therefore it's what occurred to me first. I understand it's a personal perception thing, which is why I think this is just something we disagree on.

[Chaotix]

If this is the case, I truly do apologize. My wife has been out of town on business for a week and a half and she's not due back until well into next week. I'm fond of her, and hanging around the house all alone for this long is making me a little grumpy. I shall endeavor to solve the problem by drinking more wine until she returns.

It wasn't necessarily a bad thing, if that's how you took it.

I just meant to note a change in behavior- you do seem to be more aggressively pressuring other players than in the previous games I've played with you; looking at your last few posts, I realize this is probably intentional. It reminds me somewhat of ATPG and his walls of text in his earlier games (but with substantially less "wall" in the text, of course).

[gibsonsg91921]

Right now my top suspicions are TinCow, Reenk, ATPG, and Beskar.

I wouldn't put it past TinCow to have staged an argument with Reenk right now to make it look like they aren't in-game buds.

Oh well. I'm so bad at this game.

[A Very Super Market]

Go to sleep, crazy people.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Then I'll say it again, myself.

WIFOM. Lots of WIFOM. If one of them happens to be mafia, they are getting exactly the kind of response they want from you: "He is putting himself in danger of lynch, therefore he must not be mafia".

I'll point to you and Reenk in The Prometheus.
I'll point to you and myself in Dark Descent.

It's not uncommon for mafia to be actively putting themselves in the spotlight, because the general consensus is that the mafia are going to be the lurkers, or those who blend in. That's why the three players who we've lynched so far have not been especially attention-demanding.

I'm not saying that the mafia couldn't be lurkers, but we can't just rule someone out because they are deliberately putting themselves in danger.

If they manage to survive for a while and it's clear they aren't going to be murdered, I'll review their activity and make a decision based on their post behavior. I can't do that with people who don't post much; and it does seem to be the case that mafia will lurk in situations where it is easy to do so, most of the time. But there's enough room for both of our approaches, because neither is fail-safe.

As for me and Reenk in Prometheus; it got my butt lynched pretty quick, and to be honest, Reenk surviving for that long after claiming detective was a serious clue. I know it's biased for me to say so, as I was mafia, but... detective claims seriously have to mean death in all cases. It's about 50/50 that the "detective" is actually mafia. Only Reenk and Khaan could make such a claim plausible, even after a couple night phases where he didn't die.

@AVSM- It's 6:53PM my time. You go to sleep!

[Beskar]

However, I will give preference to that explanation due to the pressure that was clearly on Beskar at that time, and while it may be looking at things in retrospect, the choice of killing GH was amazingly beneficial to Beskar this past round.

As being in the know (the know that I am not the Mafia and that I didn't kill GH), my retrospect is completely different to yours. You are accusing it of being "Amazing Beneficial to Beskar", I will tell you now, it was "Amazing Detrimental to Beskar". If let's say, AskthePizzaGuy was lynched, as he is apparently my 'scumbuddy' his death and proven innocence would have vindicated me. So if I was the Mafia, killing Pizza would have been top-priority. If lets say, Caius was lynched (no connections with him claimed), I still would have had a far better chance of survival, as your argument would have still been "Beskar is scummy as he accused me" opposed to actually giving you any weight.

The situation was actually perfect for the Mafia, the Mafia knew by lynching some-one like GeneralHankerchief, that you would accuse me, that I would know I was framed, and possibly accuse you, while they are sniggling to themselves, completely out of harms way.

[A Very Super Market]

What is that number? All I know is that the sun went down, and it's dark. Go to sleep, so I can strangle you.

Er---.

I mean.... rest.

[Beskar]

No results? Weird. I thought the round was ended a few hours ago. Just came home from work and thought I got night killed.

[Tratorix]

No results? Weird. I thought the round was ended a few hours ago. Just came home from work and thought I got night killed.

Rounds end whenever the Great Khaan says they end.

[seireikhaan]

Shinzei Khaan laid outside his tent, gazing at the crescent moon. He was having difficulty sleeping as of late. That the camp was infiltrated by enemy agents so soon after Jenghiz departed was troubling. That he was having so much difficulty catching them was even more ominous. Jenghiz wasn't tolerant towards failure, and if he came back to his camp only to find it one third of the size he left it.... Well, let's just say it would be bad news for ol' Shinzei. On the other hand, perhaps they had executed the last one.

"Give me a sign!" he begged of the starry heavens. "Tell me I've done right! Tell me the spies are gone!" The night sky seemed at first indifferent of his request. Shinzei sighed, and decided it was time to get back into his tent for the night. As he picked himself up, he noticed something bright in his peripheral vision. He looked back skyward. An angry, blue fireball strode across the heavens at astonishing speed. Its twin tails flared out spectacularly. Shinzei scampered back into his tent. "This is not the sign I wished for!" he muttered to to himself. "I needed a good omen, not a disaster!"



My previous night of good sleep would prove elusive once more. I was quite rudely awakened during the night multiple times by tribesmen who seemed to be milling about in the night. I ignored it for the time being, desperate for every wink of sleep that I could obtain. When the time came for me to be up and going, I felt groggy and irritated. What could have been going on that was so fascinating?! I stumbled out the tent, heading towards the council grounds once more. It seemed a rather large number of tribesmen were in attendance, perhaps every member of the camp. All I could see, including Shinzei, seemed exceedingly agitated. My irritation began to warp into dread. What could have happened that caused such emotion from the savages? I made my way to the side of Shinzei, and before the council could be started, I asked him how many had been killed during the night, assuming the number must be strikingly large. He replied that nobody had been found dead. I was stunned. I asked him what had happened that caused the entire camp to be so on edge. He gave me a curious look, as though I was an imbecile for not knowing. He informed me the heavens opened up that night with an ominous portent, a great fireball which scorched the heavens themselves. I now understood why the council was being held; such omens could not be ignored. The matter at hand was now more serious than ever, and it was important that we prevent the foretold disaster upon this camp.

-- The Record of Zhang Qian


Alive: 19

Askthepizzaguy
A Very Super Market
Beskar
Caius
Chaotix
Death is Yonder
DJGingivtis
Gibsonsg91921
Ichigo
Jolt
Khazaar
Lord Winter
pevergreen
Reenk Roink
Sigurd
TinCow
Tratorix
White_eyes:D
YLC

Dead: 3

Yaropolk (N1)
Atheotes (N2)
GeneralHankerchief (N3)

Lynched: 1

FactionHeir (D1)
Beefy (D2)
Splitpersonality (D3)

WoK'd: 0


THIS DAY PHASE WILL LAST 36 HOURS. PLEASE KEEP THE TALLY!