Mafia 94 - Recruiting for Mafia 95

Oh shit, a new game has started. Y'all fuckers move fast.

Jaz > Viking

For no reason at all.

Haha, way to call out KDogg on his bullshit.

Most people who play with me know by now I'm usually pretty quiet in the first round; this is no exception. I've been loosely following the game but so far I'm satisfied with the runoff and see no need to move my vote.

WLViking in re my vote for you: you're a big talker, which makes me wary because of your tendency to obfuscate. While you're not a player that I see cracking under pressure, it can be worth seeing who doesn't want to vote for you and who does.

You said yourself that you tend to find yourself in D1 runoffs often - and you admit that it's because of the way you play. I'm just helping you make the bed for you to lay in.

As for my absence - like I said, I'm usually exceptionally quiet Day 1, and life has been quite busy the past several days. I agree with your assessment of Talkers/Watchers though and how the Mafia might be split. Though generally you're the player I trust the least from game to game so I'm not paying you much mind just yet.

NO NONSENSE, NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT

Meh, not being cryptic. You said you understand how your playing style garners you votes, so that was just my way of saying that my vote is one of them. Frankly, you talk so much and in so many directions that you make the game harder for me, regardless of role. I have had no inclinations throughout this round whether or not any player is Mafia over another, so I'm keeping my vote on you. You may not like that and I will concede arguments that maybe that's not a helpful way for me to play, but tough noogies.

Right now I'm inclined to believe him. I had taken notice of both SFA and Mike D's votes on him earlier in the game, and noted to myself that it could be two vets' (or just one's) attempt to take out a dangerous player. I haven't gone back and read their reasons for voting for him yet, but you'd think that if they were both townies they'd want one of the better players to remain in the game unless they had strong suspicions of him being Mafia. And yes, I realize that my own vote for Viking is in contradiction to this, but I'm a lazier player than SFA/Mike D, and like I said I find Viking's play to make my own read of the game more difficult.

Possible scenarios, assuming Mike D and Viking are not both Mafia or both town:

1. We vote Thor out

   A. Viking is Inspector

      i. Mafia whack him, we vote out Mike D, and we start Day 3 with 1M/3T down, or 2M/2T down if Thor is Mafia.
      ii. Mafia let him live, we vote out Mike D, and we start Day 3 with 1M/3T down, or 2M/2T down if Thor is Mafia. In this situation I think we would also then have to vote out Viking in Day 3 to ensure that we have at least Mafia killed going into Day 4.
      iii. Mafia let him live, we vote him out thinking he's Mafia, and we start Day 3 with 0M/4T down or 1M/3T if Thor is Mafia.

   B. Viking is Mafia

      i. Mafia whack him, we vote out Mike D, and we start Day 3 with 1M/3T down, or 2M/2T down if Thor is Mafia.
      ii. Mafia let him live, we vote out Mike D, and we start Day 3 with 0M/4T down, or 1M/3T if Thor is Mafia.
      iii. Mafia let him live, we vote him out, and start Day 3 with 1M down or 2M down if Thor is Mafia.

2. We vote Viking out

   A. Viking is Inspector

      i. We vote out Mike D and start Day 3 with 1M/3T down.

   B. Viking is Mafia

      i. We vote out Mike D and start Day 3 with 1M/3T down.

The following opinion is probably going to make me look bad, but I think it might be wiser to vote out Viking, regardless of whether or not he's inspector. Voting him out this round and Mike D the next would ensure that we've voted out at least one Mafia - which is really the best scenario that we can hope for if we DON'T vote him out this round, unless Thor is Mafia also and we go 2 for 2 by voting out a Mafia next round. In not voting him out, we run the risk of opening ourselves up to greater confusion if the Mafia don't whack him, as well as to the possibility of having NO Mafia down going into Day 3 if they let him live and we vote out the townie out of Viking/Mike D. The only caveat is that Viking could be Inspector, the Mafia let him live to throw shade on him, and then we get another name out of it - but with this name comes a greater amount of confusion and clusterfuckiness.

Thoughts?

Though I should add that personally I think Mike D is full of shit, but if I've learned anything about Mafia by now it's that I'm almost always wrong when I think I know something.

Say what you want ZIG, but that post by kdogg was actually pretty helpful, for me at least. The statements Viking made about Mike D prior to his reveal certainly bolster his claim. To some extent that could be viewed as just Viking being Viking (he sure does mention any and everyone when he plays), but I do think it's interesting that he mentioned Mike D more than anyone else.

SFA >>> Mike D

Cause baby you're a firework!

I would love to see the results to this.  I've got some incomplete data in a thread about 10 games back, where I went back to list how many mafia had found themselves in a round one runoff. It happens more often than I originally thought. 

I wasn't looking for 3 vrs 4 person and it needs to be updated. Let me remember which game it was(pretty sure I was talking to Boner) and I might update that to give us an idea.  Doesn't look like it will matter for this game, as a  4-way is already the norm, but it will be an interesting talking point for the future.

As for the current runoff.  It seems like the usual suspects. Putting me aside, I feel Kdogg, Potent and Viking end up in a higher percentage of runoffs than your average player. It's partly playing style for Kdogg and Viking. Not sure why it seems to happen to Potent too. Maybe it doesn't and that just my perception?

Not that that has anything to do with this current game or it's a bad runoff. We will certainly get a lot more info out of a R1D1 with us four than the one we had last game. I'm naturally suspicious of anyone putting me in a runoff but Viking's stupid "luck vote" is a thing. It started like 4 years ago? So I'll give him that and hold off on any knee-jerk reaction for now.

A 5-person runoff is lame and I can't believe we are discussing the merits of it.  If we want to start off with a 5-way than we should just go back to voting partners(which nobody wants). Start off the game 2-2-2-2-2-1 and debate until we are at 3-3-3, 2-2-2-2 or whatever. Then began the first runoff. At least that structure had some internal logic to it and people generally had to make a case for early vote moves.  Now you can say anything, I quoted goddamn Katie Perry yesterday. What makes it worse is we sit around for days between a five person runoff and then have another 4 person runoff. So the mafia has WAY to much time to plan and figure out how to maneuver any troubled member they might have out of harms way. That also gives the town days to overthink shit and turn on each other. Making the whole thread a disaster to go back and read through.

In short, people have done away with voting partners. That essentially did away with any useful 5-way runoffs. At least in the way the game has been played as the last two years or so. The end.

Just an FYI, proboards will give you the post counts in the thread. Just go to the main arcade page and look at the "replies" column. Click on the corresponding number and it will bring up a box with all the people that have posted in the thread and their post count in it.

I'm pretty certain someone will even things back out.

I'm not quite sure what I want to do yet. I can see both Kdogg and Thor's arguments.  I just can't tell if both are being sincere. While both of them have some valid concerns, there seems to be a good deal of conjecture which leads to sift through. But this is mafia, most of the time we are flying blind and making arguments based on our gut. Can't really fault either of them. I do the same thing.

Viking stayed on his gimmick vote for me and has got me placed in the runoff. He's done this before and, if I recall correctly, he'd done it regardless of his role. It's hard to say otherwise because he's been so quite.  It's also worth noting that the people voting for him haven't had much to say either.

Going to mow and think about all this.

I wasn't really considering Potent's vote as a sure bet either way. I was more focused on if I wanted you or Viking to move forward, as Thor was already in. The confusion is likely my fault, looking back at my post I went full on dyslexic in that first paragraph.  And no, I wasn't entertaining the notion of forcing more vote switches by upping someone to 4 votes.

MY thought process was basically that if there is something shady to all this 3-way/4-way/5-way runoff talk and vote switches then perhaps both sides should go forward into the runoff? The town might get more info that way.  Having said that, if you read the last game you'll know that my voting based on what I thought would gather the most info ended up hurting the the town in the end.

So I'll be more selfish here and vote based on not fully trusting Viking's "luck vote."
SFA>>> Viking

While I think some of his vote switches were a little rash he has a point.  I don't know if it's on purpose but I do feel people have misrepresented his argument. Perhaps I'm just more use to Jimmy's playing style but I didn't take any of his 3-way/4-way talk as him trying to be controlling or manipulate  the outcome.  Especially when a lot of that activity took place days prior to the end of the round.

So while it's fair to judge his votes and his reasoning. I think there's been a good deal of misunderstanding as to what he was getting at.

Well, if you read it maybe you'd know?

Perhaps "gimmick" has to negative a connotation but it's fair to say you haven't strictly used that vote just for "luck" in the past. You have your tactical reasons be it to try to draw stacks from eager mafia or just to get a general reaction.  That's what I was getting at. While I can appreciate all of that, I shouldn't be expected to just swallow it whole. I'm natural going to question your motives, as you are going to question mine.

I'm curious to find out what you think is curious about my recent posts. They are pretty standard observations. I'll readily admit they are quite fluffy. There wasn't much being discussed outside of debating the value of different sized runoffs.  I'm sure you recall that I've been involved in enough of those. I didn't really have much to add to another one outside of thinking 5-way runoffs are crap. That shouldn't be surprising after the last game.

I got on this morning and proboards was acting up. Checked it at lunch and it was more arguing that I didn't want to be apart of. It's far from a secret that I don't really post much from my phone. So here I am...

I did asked for you to follow up on what you found suspicious about my gameplay. I don't know how I could respond more on that topic when I don't know what it is.  I've honestly blanked out during some of these long arguments. Which is something I'd generally never do but everything seemed to be the same repetitive argument. I had no reason or desire to involve myself with it. Although I did point out that I think it's based on misunderstandings... I should have also mentioned personality crashes and emotionally manly man-man yelly androgens

Maybe not? Maybe mafia is pushing one side of it or they are just sitting back enjoying the show. It's pretty impossible to get a solid read on it.

Lord knows I've raised plenty of hell in this game over the years, so I've no room to really judge.  But this kind of stuff certainly helps the mafia more than the town.  For one, it muddys the waters for people to go back and make sense of the whacks. So again, I've been silent because I don't really want to be apart of this.  I also don't really feel I have anything to even say about it.  Give me some normal debates or some crazy theory to poke around at it. That's my bad.

I'll likely be in bed early tonight but I'll try to stay up to date if you still want to bring up what you found suspicious about my early gameplay.

Trying to read back over the game this morning....  I don't really read it as him being the ring leader against you. As he was fairly quite until right before the  3 person runoff or so. At that point you were already under heavy fire.   But there's no doubt he come after you extremely hard after the holidays. It's hard to say if it's atypical of Viking or not. He'll attack whomever he finds himself up against from what I remember of playing with him. And yes, I don't recall him ever toning things down when he's mafia.

Well, giving that it's the first round I'm inclined to believe you. But, I must say, throwing this much shade my way makes me very leery. Seriously, I'm 'very likely" mafia? You do realize that if you are wrong(you are) that you're handing the mafia a bone, right? I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

Opening up the game voting for each other isn't evidence of shit. That goes for anyone. I pretty much always reciprocate a vote if I have one when the round starts.  If not, I tend to pick an older player but it's whatever really.  If anything, me not returning Mike's vote would be the irregularity in my playing style.

 We apparently agree on some of the main points I did raise is my own superfluffy way. I didn't find Kdogg or Jimmy particularly suspicious so I didn't vote for either of them(Although I did consider it might be good info gathering for both to go forward). I thought the original hubbub was more of a misunderstanding based on personalities and playing styles. You apparently agree with that line of thinking as well, at least you do now....after my suspicious ass had already said it.

You know very well how I feel about calling out supposed mafia and getting into huge arguments in the first round. Why is it surprising I didn't involve myself in the argument? In fact, the last time I did involve myself in first round drama I was mafia. So there's that.

I also brought up that Kdogg, Potent and you are usual suspects for an early runoff. That's something you've echoed too.

Yet somehow I've said "little of substance."

There's a good deal of distortion here. Your lucky vote tended to happen prior to any runoff and your vote didn't always force me into it. So I generally didn't feel justified in returning the vote, nor did I find it incredible suspicious of you. As I've already explained, I didn't fully trust you using that as a reason for placing me in a runoff, so I returned the favor.  Your undervaluing my ability to play this game if you honestly think I'd give you a free pass based on a "luck vote." I know better.

 Basically, It was the  vote that made the most sense at the time. Like I've told you in plenty of games we've played together...  You're overreacting and placing more meaning behind that vote than what is there. Stop it, please.

I'm heading back to work. Between that and helping move my grandmaw into her retirement community I'll be pretty occupied the next two days. I will certainly be around at night and will try to check in on my phone during the day.

I'm home and catching up. This shouldn't be a surprise but I agree with the majority even if I don't fully trust Viking's claim. The best thing to do is to force the mafia's hand and hope for the best.

If you can do post-graduate work on Ezra Pound then you can understand my point. I wasn't trying to stroke your ego and  buddy up to you and your grand ideas. You claimed my posts are of little substance. Well, look at them. You can follow my thought process and the reasons I didn't feel Kdogg or Jimmy were all that suspicious. They are in accordance with things you are now claiming to believe. That's the key difference. Maybe I should have been more vocal but these are things I've been getting at all round. I wasn't insulting Jimmy and calling him guilty. I didn't do that to you or Kdogg either. It's totally cool for you to do it thought. But sure, the guy who made the mistake of coming to the same conclusion before you. He's the bad guy.

My crime is reciprocating two votes. And for that I'm somehow your most likely. No matter what hoops you have to jump through or what points I make that you constantly skirt over in favor of a snarky comment.

I'm done now. You have more important questions to answer that might actually be helpful to the town. This clearly isn't. You just don't get that yet.

That bold part is hyperbolic . My apologies. "..you choose to skirt over" would have been more accurate.

ALSO. This post was a fluff post. My apologies.