New York Jets Mafia Game Thread

[Vicious89x]

I reread and I think I interpreted your claims of mod favoritism to mean you were roleless. I did not see you ever said you were roleless as I suggested.

I understand why it'd be interpreted that way.

[Dan.]

Well, I almost always drag my feet and extend days, and had 0 reason to think Jets babe was scum. SMC on the other hand is less cautious with his votes then I am typically..

Further, I didn't like the passive aggressive approach you and slats continually took to push the train. The only thing that's stopping me from being convinced one or both of you is guilty, is that both of you are too smart to do something so obviously scummy. Do me a favor, go examine slats passive approach to pushing the JB lynch, and his need to always clarify why he was doing it. Then do the same for your posts. Both of you worked hard to push that train without ever being definitive.

You'll have to do a better job defining what you mean by "passive aggressive approach" and how this would point to my scumminess.

If you look back at my posts (which I assume you did, since you asked me to do that as well), I think I was pretty clear about how her behavior was rubbing me the wrong way. I've repeatedly said I stand by everything I said about her. I was the second vote for her, I questioned pretty much everything she said, and I was clear that if she turned up innocent, I had a huge problem with the way she was playing. If anything, I was actually worried that I was being too aggressive.

To me, passive aggressiveness would be something like voting for her without an explanation and joking that my vote was subject to change if I received pics from her. How is what I did any more "passive aggressive" than what other people did? Is saying, "I think you're innocent but I'm going cast the final vote for you anyway, just to gain information, mind you ..." any less passive aggressive? But I personally think it's ridiculous to expect any townies, on Day 1, to cast any votes "definitively".

Furthermore, I don't know how "definitive" you expect anyone to be at any point in this game. Could I guarantee 100% that she was going to turn up guilty? Obviously not, so why would I make a claim like that? Especially so early on - right now I can understand arguments for and against everyone's guilt, and I would never pretend to be certain about something I can't possibly be. As far as I saw the last game, the only people who made absolutely definitive statements like that turned out to be scum or roled townies who had sufficient outside information to make certainty statements.

Sorry if I'm completely off the mark here, but I'm really having trouble understanding what you mean ...

[Dan.]

To add, I also don't understand how this is any different from how I've played in the past, so I'm confused as to why it's suddenly so suspicious now ...

[AVM]

To add, AVM is awesome...that is allQUOTE]

Fixed. True story

[AVM]

Good thing I meant awesome at Mafia, and not at quoting, eh?

[Dan.]

Nice ...

[Dan.]

I'm heading off. As a reminder, it's Monday, so I'll try to check in when I can but might not be very active until tonight. I'll try my best.

[Norway'sWaddlingMarmaloof]

Another random behavior I found odd:

Norway unvoted Jets Babe to keep her at two votes from lynching, then asked if we could set a response deadline for her, then made not a single comment about her again (despite making several jokey comments after she had posted her defense). Seemed strange to me that after making a show of wanting to hear her out, he never responded on the topic again. Maybe because he knew she would turn up innocent and wanted to keep his hands clean?[/quote]

No, she just didn't seem especially scummy, it's just how she plays. I knew we likely to lynch an innocent on day. I just wanted to make there was no speed lynch b/c I wasn't sold on her guilt. I figured there was no deadline to move along, so deadline for her to respond seemed appropriate. When she didn't, I figured that was scum, and had just given up.

[slats]

Well, I almost always drag my feet and extend days, and had 0 reason to think Jets babe was scum. SMC on the other hand is less cautious with his votes then I am typically..

Further, I didn't like the passive aggressive approach you and slats continually took to push the train. The only thing that's stopping me from being convinced one or both of you is guilty, is that both of you are too smart to do something so obviously scummy. Do me a favor, go examine slats passive approach to pushing the JB lynch, and his need to always clarify why he was doing it. Then do the same for your posts. Both of you worked hard to push that train without ever being definitive.

I sure wish JB turned up scum. That would've been great. Being that she turned up innocent, I certainly wish we had taken out scum instead. But the fact is, in that day phase, she was acting very scummy. Even the people not voting for her said she was acting scummy, but that she always acts scummy, so that's okay. She was always acting scummy last game, too, and in that one it turned out that she was scum. So that particular defense is rather weak, IMHO.

I wasn't going over the top, and hedged my bets, because I recognized the fact that she always acts scummy, and that anyone who got lynched on day one would be lynched with minimal "proof." That's the general nature of day one lynches, right? I knew if she turned up innocent that I'd be a target.

That said, she wasn't long for this game with her style of play. We had nothing strong to go on with any other player. Had we lynched a different innocent yesterday, JB would be the focus again today. If an innocent had to go, I have to say, I'm glad it was a roleless JB.

I'll come back and do some re-reading a little later. Some random thoughts:

Right now I'm not interested in getting on Vic - and I'm really hoping he turns out to be innocent because of that unwillingness. Dan went thru the entire last game without any pressure on him at all. He has it easy. I appreciate his list making abilities, but I'll want to look into his behavior a little more closely.

I'm wary of EY, CTM, and Doggin because they're all strong players and it just seems to go against the odds that they'd all be innocent. One of the reasons I went my own way on JB was that I didn't want to be led around by the nose by EY again. CTM's interest in me peaks my interest in him, but I don't want to go down that knee-jerk path just yet.

We have a couple players hiding in the shadows like Sharrow and Woody, and I'd be in favor of pushing them a little bit. Doggin's at the bottom of the post list. The holidays are over now, I definitely want to start hearing more from him. His silence is unnerving.

[CTM]

Dan, by passive agressive I meant the continually refocus of the conversation back to JB, the additional "reasons" to lynch her that were offered, most of which were caveats should she turn up innocent, ie. "if shes not playing anyway, what's the big loss", "if she acts scummy as a townie, how does she help the town". There wasn't alot of, "I know it's day 1 but I think she's scum", or "she's my best bet as scum". It was a litany of reasons why she should go first regardless of alignment..

There's no question that you and slats were the biggest pushers of that lynch, and it's not that lynching an innocent on day 1 makes you scum, it's the way you guys went about it that I didn't like.

[Dan.]

No, she just didn't seem especially scummy, it's just how she plays. I knew we likely to lynch an innocent on day. I just wanted to make there was no speed lynch b/c I wasn't sold on her guilt. I figured there was no deadline to move along, so deadline for her to respond seemed appropriate. When she didn't, I figured that was scum, and had just given up.

Ok, just thought it was strange you didn't say so at the time, if you did decide she was scum who had just given up. Most people commented one way or the other, either "I'm not changing my vote" or "I think she's innocent".

But I know in the last game I voted for you for not explaining your votes, etc., and I don't want to make the same mistake.

[Dan.]

Dan, by passive agressive I meant the continually refocus of the conversation back to JB, the additional "reasons" to lynch her that were offered, most of which were caveats should she turn up innocent, ie. "if shes not playing anyway, what's the big loss", "if she acts scummy as a townie, how does she help the town". There wasn't alot of, "I know it's day 1 but I think she's scum", or "she's my best bet as scum". It was a litany of reasons why she should go first regardless of alignment..

There's no question that you and slats were the biggest pushers of that lynch, and it's not that lynching an innocent on day 1 makes you scum, it's the way you guys went about it that I didn't like.

That's fair. It's no secret I really didn't like the way she kept contradicting herself and disappearing, nor did I like everyone's complacent, "Oh, she always acts scummy." My point was that either way, I saw her as a threat to the town and thought it was in the town's best interest to get rid of her. I obviously didn't expect her to flip innocent, but now that she has, I still think her behavior made her dangerous to the town.

[Pac]

Vote AVM

Everyone seems to have gotten tight-lipped and he's the one I'm most suspicious of at this point. I'd like to see how things progress with Vic but for now it's the audio visual man.

[Bleedin Green]

Vote Count:

Vicious89x (2) - Doggin94it, SMC

AVM (1) - Pac2566

With 13 players remaining, it takes 7 votes to cut.

[Vicious89x]

I really don't know what to say here... I think slats is innocent to be honest. But I'm not sure as to where to start developing suspicions on others, outside of myself. Some interesting points have been made on Dan but nothing solid enough. Some people have made some good points on SMC but at this point there is too much inactivity which allows for mafia vets to steer the town in the wrong direction.

[AVM]

Vote AVM

Everyone seems to have gotten tight-lipped and he's the one I'm most suspicious of at this point. I'd like to see how things progress with Vic but for now it's the audio visual man.

You spend 4 or 5 pages arguing with Vic about how suspicious he is, then just back to me again? You are an odd one

[slats]

Dan, by passive agressive I meant the continually refocus of the conversation back to JB, the additional "reasons" to lynch her that were offered, most of which were caveats should she turn up innocent, ie. "if shes not playing anyway, what's the big loss", "if she acts scummy as a townie, how does she help the town". There wasn't alot of, "I know it's day 1 but I think she's scum", or "she's my best bet as scum". It was a litany of reasons why she should go first regardless of alignment..

You know what? I'd stand by that. I thought that was the concept behind getting on the inactives - to get them more active, hear what they have to say, see if it's scummy or if it's helpful. That would be my day two approach as well.

Sharrow hid the entire game last time and wound up being the last scum standing. He's near the bottom of the post list again this time around. That's worth investigating. Same with Woody. I know it's his style to post short and infrequently, but if you're going to play you need to play. What's the point of joining the game if you're going to hide in the woodwork? I thought it was supposed to be about your team winning, not about being the last man standing.

Doggin's inactivity is the most disconcerting. He's too good to be this quiet.

[CTM]

didn't doggin say he was going to be unavailable again?

I don't have much to go on right now, and am getting the itch to start pressuring inactives ...

[slats]

didn't doggin say he was going to be unavailable again?

I don't have much to go on right now, and am getting the itch to start pressuring inactives ...

He had Passover, then said something about Sunday night into Monday. But he's way at the bottom of the list here. I definitely want to get his thoughts.

[Vicious89x]

didn't doggin say he was going to be unavailable again?

I don't have much to go on right now, and am getting the itch to start pressuring inactives ...

He did say that... but it seems he once again just threw a vote out and then has disappeared. Is he still over at JI? Maybe someone could go take a look and see if he's been active over there or that politics board?

[WoodyPaige]

He did say that... but it seems he once again just threw a vote out and then has disappeared. Is he still over at JI? Maybe someone could go take a look and see if he's been active over there or that politics board?

I just checked, his last post at JI was Friday.

[Vicious89x]

I just checked, his last post at JI was Friday.

Cool. Thanks very much Woody.

So at least his inactivity is consistent, he checked in here, read, voted and left. I think for now if his inactivity across his known message boards then we can honestly leave it at the fact that he's truly busy.

[Pac]

You spend 4 or 5 pages arguing with Vic about how suspicious he is, then just back to me again? You are an odd one

I wanted him to elaborate on his mysterious insinuation which he apparently won't do until he's 1 vote short of death. I'm reserving the right to change my vote but for now you are the only player that was involved in some extent to both dead players. Your early play also drew attention by just about everyone that saw you play the last game.

I don't want to aid a speed lynch on an innocent especially if Vic is who he's hinting he is. Conversely, I don't want to sit idly by and let what very well may be veteran scum sway my decisions. With that being the case I have to vote for who I am most suspicious of.

To be honest I'm a bit surprised how quickly Doggin and SMC voted Vic. That more than anything is what's caused me to hold off on him for the time being. If one or both of them is scum that wouldn't be good for the town... at all.

[slats]

This exchange with EY is bothering me.

I posted this, hoping to get a little discussion about what the revelation of a serial killer/vigilante might mean for the rest of the town (and never really got that ball rolling so here it is again):

What do we think about the game set-up? Was this extra NK a townie/vigilante, or a serial killer? How would that impact the way the scum team was set up? Would such a role make it less likely that there's a godfather in this game? I'd think it would, right? An extra player with NK capabilities would be a big advantage for the scum (townie or not) without the luxury of a godfather. The addition of a godfather would really tilt the scales towards them.

The reason I bring it up is because I welcome an investigation, if it hasn't happened already. I'm thinking our cop can trust his results. If there are any trackers in this game, they know I didn't go anywhere last night.

EY responded with this:

Huh?

If anything last night pretty much proved that an extra NKer was not to the benefit of the scum.

Expecting some more conversation I replied...

We know from the last game that a vigilante can be manipulated by a clever mafioso. In online tutorials about mafia games like this, the vigilante role is described as one potentially more destructive to the town than the scum. We probably got very lucky with that hit last night.

...but got none.

EY knows full well that a serial killer/vigilante is most likely going to be detrimental to the town. His initial reply here is one of his innocent shrugs, but he knows better. In the last game as a mafia godfather, he was looking to ride SMC the vigilante to help him double his NK's. SMC even replied in the game postmortem that he was all set to be Bud White to EY's Dudley Smith. A great analogy, BTW.

Even without a puppet master, an innocent vigilante only has his own instincts to go on, and as a result is probably more likely to hit an innocent player than scum. It's a role that's dangerous to the town.

Again, EY knows this. When I point out to him that he knows it first hand, he drops it. Why?

It's bothering me.

[AVM]

I wanted him to elaborate on his mysterious insinuation which he apparently won't do until he's 1 vote short of death. I'm reserving the right to change my vote but for now you are the only player that was involved in some extent to both dead players. Your early play also drew attention by just about everyone that saw you play the last game.

I don't want to aid a speed lynch on an innocent especially if Vic is who he's hinting he is. Conversely, I don't want to sit idly by and let what very well may be veteran scum sway my decisions. With that being the case I have to vote for who I am most suspicious of.

To be honest I'm a bit surprised how quickly Doggin and SMC voted Vic. That more than anything is what's caused me to hold off on him for the time being. If one or both of them is scum that wouldn't be good for the town... at all.

There are 3 out, not 2.

[Pac]

There are 3 out, not 2.

yes.

I meant the NK's and not the lynching.

[AVM]

yes.

I meant the NK's and not the lynching.

Uh huh. So...I get you're saying I'm connected to JvoR because he put an FOS on me. How exactly am I connected to JiF?

[Pac]

Uh huh. So...I get you're saying I'm connected to JvoR because he put an FOS on me. How exactly am I connected to JiF?

as I mentioned a couple pages ago JVOR voted you then quickly unvoted and JIF had a semi-aggressive post where he mentioned you and slats as his prime suspects. On top of that just about everyone was commenting early on how different your play was from last game.

Believe me.. it would be nice if scum would make it more obvious but at this point everyone is playing it close to the vest. There's only so much to go on and for now you and Vic are the most shady as far am I'm concerned.

[Dan.]

This exchange with EY is bothering me.

I posted this, hoping to get a little discussion about what the revelation of a serial killer/vigilante might mean for the rest of the town (and never really got that ball rolling so here it is again):

EY responded with this:

Expecting some more conversation I replied...

...but got none.

EY knows full well that a serial killer/vigilante is most likely going to be detrimental to the town. His initial reply here is one of his innocent shrugs, but he knows better. In the last game as a mafia godfather, he was looking to ride SMC the vigilante to help him double his NK's. SMC even replied in the game postmortem that he was all set to be Bud White to EY's Dudley Smith. A great analogy, BTW.

Even without a puppet master, an innocent vigilante only has his own instincts to go on, and as a result is probably more likely to hit an innocent player than scum. It's a role that's dangerous to the town.

Again, EY knows this. When I point out to him that he knows it first hand, he drops it. Why?

It's bothering me.

I noticed that as well, but when I went back and reread, he said something else about it earlier (before your exchange) that made a little more sense with his comment here. When I have time later tonight I can find it, or you can also look for it yourself.

Of course, EY is always suspicious to me. I thought his reasoning for voting/unvoting Vicious and Pac on Day 1 was kind of weird.

[CTM]

This exchange with EY is bothering me.

I posted this, hoping to get a little discussion about what the revelation of a serial killer/vigilante might mean for the rest of the town (and never really got that ball rolling so here it is again):

EY responded with this:

Expecting some more conversation I replied...

...but got none.

EY knows full well that a serial killer/vigilante is most likely going to be detrimental to the town. His initial reply here is one of his innocent shrugs, but he knows better. In the last game as a mafia godfather, he was looking to ride SMC the vigilante to help him double his NK's. SMC even replied in the game postmortem that he was all set to be Bud White to EY's Dudley Smith. A great analogy, BTW.

Even without a puppet master, an innocent vigilante only has his own instincts to go on, and as a result is probably more likely to hit an innocent player than scum. It's a role that's dangerous to the town.

Again, EY knows this. When I point out to him that he knows it first hand, he drops it. Why?

It's bothering me.

It's funny, the last game Bleedin mod, the town caught a mafia power role on a day 1 lynch and proceeded to lose the game mostly due to a vigilanti who kept killing innocents. My experience is the often time a vigilanti is worse for the town, but if they vigilanti player has a good game, it decimates the scum pretty quickly.

I think most scum, wanting to survive, prefer to take out any other NK'ers asap, and only choose to keep them alive should they need to play catchup. (like last game where the 2 remaining scum players should've been allies)

[Vicious89x]

IMO it seems we have outside of myself, some suspicions on some of the most experienced players. Perhaps it wouldn't be a terrible idea to have our cop/investigator/detective role to investigate these guys in order to put some of these fears to rest. EY, Doggin, SMC, CTM can all be very good for the town and if scum, can play very deep games.

[Jets Things]

IMO it seems we have outside of myself, some suspicions on some of the most experienced players. Perhaps it wouldn't be a terrible idea to have our cop/investigator/detective role to investigate these guys in order to put some of these fears to rest. EY, Doggin, SMC, CTM can all be very good for the town and if scum, can play very deep games.

Unless someone is overtly acting scummy, these four should be the first investigated anyway. Sorry I haven't checked in. Between golf on Saturday and getting drunk in the sun yesterday, I have a pretty wicked sunburn on my face and was at my doctors all friggin morning waiting for a cortisone shot (yeah, it's that bad - blisters).

[Vicious89x]

Unless someone is overtly acting scummy, these four should be the first investigated anyway. Sorry I haven't checked in. Between golf on Saturday and getting drunk in the sun yesterday, I have a pretty wicked sunburn on my face and was at my doctors all friggin morning waiting for a cortisone shot (yeah, it's that bad - blisters).

LOL. That reminds of a time where my friend and I passed out drunk on a deck down the shore and woke up at noon. Not pretty.

I have a feeling that slats/dan/AVM might have been looked into but I haven't seen anyone pipe up and push a train on either one of them. As of right now I honestly can only say I think pac is suspicious but I'm not entirely sold on him.

[Sharrow]

This exchange with EY is bothering me.

I posted this, hoping to get a little discussion about what the revelation of a serial killer/vigilante might mean for the rest of the town (and never really got that ball rolling so here it is again):

EY responded with this:

Expecting some more conversation I replied...

...but got none.

EY knows full well that a serial killer/vigilante is most likely going to be detrimental to the town. His initial reply here is one of his innocent shrugs, but he knows better. In the last game as a mafia godfather, he was looking to ride SMC the vigilante to help him double his NK's. SMC even replied in the game postmortem that he was all set to be Bud White to EY's Dudley Smith. A great analogy, BTW.

Even without a puppet master, an innocent vigilante only has his own instincts to go on, and as a result is probably more likely to hit an innocent player than scum. It's a role that's dangerous to the town.

Again, EY knows this. When I point out to him that he knows it first hand, he drops it. Why?

It's bothering me.

If I was Mafia, I would want a vigilante/serial killer dead asap. You have the possibility of seeing lynches coming and taking some defensive action against them or working them into your plans. You have no way of seeing a NK coming. It's basically a random factor that can work for either side depending on who gets the role. Last game, after we found out SMC was one, he was still going to be high on our list even if he wasn't modkilled. The only reason we might have kept him around was because EY had him buddied up and on the path to maybe doing our bidding. We probably would have picked him off at the first sign of him turning from us. I think you're either grasping at straws here or actively trying to put the pressure on someone other than yourself.

[ZachEY]

This exchange with EY is bothering me.

I posted this, hoping to get a little discussion about what the revelation of a serial killer/vigilante might mean for the rest of the town (and never really got that ball rolling so here it is again):

EY responded with this:

Expecting some more conversation I replied...

...but got none.

EY knows full well that a serial killer/vigilante is most likely going to be detrimental to the town. His initial reply here is one of his innocent shrugs, but he knows better. In the last game as a mafia godfather, he was looking to ride SMC the vigilante to help him double his NK's. SMC even replied in the game postmortem that he was all set to be Bud White to EY's Dudley Smith. A great analogy, BTW.

Even without a puppet master, an innocent vigilante only has his own instincts to go on, and as a result is probably more likely to hit an innocent player than scum. It's a role that's dangerous to the town.

Again, EY knows this. When I point out to him that he knows it first hand, he drops it. Why?

It's bothering me.

A serial killer is not beneficial to either scum or the town, as they win when they eliminate anyone. A vigilante is beneficial to the town in that he can hunt scum, but also potentially destructive

I didn't elaborate, because wholly it doesn't matter.

You've thrown out the SMC situation as a reason why it matters, but here's the deal... Last game, I KNEW SMC was telling the truth. A vigilante/SK cannot be manipulated if he's undercover.

You think I could just say, "Whoever the SK/Vigilante is, please kill __________". They'll do what they want until they're outted. Plus, if a SK, a kill is a kill, they don't care.

I didn't continue to discuss it with you, because honestly, I don't think it matters right now. Either way, the goal should be to find him, and find scum. The intrinsic details of his abilities aren't going to keep anyone alive any longer.