[Official] HP Mafia - MVP: Aage - Archive

[got tonkaed]

I think the point is that Voldemort and whatever forces may be with him, would not target Mtam because Voldemort cannot be killed until Harry is dead. Mtam could clarify.

[degaston]

I think the point is that Voldemort and whatever forces may be with him, would not target Mtam because Voldemort cannot be killed until Harry is dead. Mtam could clarify.

But Mtam seems to think that they will target him:

Whatever I'll claim because I'll have more fun watching town burn when I die tonight. I'm Harry Potter.

Except when he thinks that they could never target him:

I can never die in the night because if I do it makes Voldemort vulernarable to night actions...

I guess it's hard to keep things straight sometimes when you're not telling the truth.

[aage]

You're assuming the are all telling the truth, but you still want to lynch them?

Either your reading comprehension is not too good, or you're a liar.

I have no idea if these claims are believable.

If Storr is telling the truth, there is no reason to kill him at all - he's not mafia, and not a threat.

This is also a lie. If he is telling the truth, then he will side with whoever will end the game with him alive. If we start lynching townies, then he will quickly become a threat. If you do not know who is telling the truth, then it makes sense to lynch the only one that we know is not town. If you do know who's telling the truth, then you're scum. I see that Storr just OMGUS'ed me because I pointed out that he is the safest option to lynch. I think this shows how quickly he'll turn on anyone he thinks is a threat to his win condition..

But if you want a risky option, then lynch Mtam, because I know he's lying about something:

I can never die in the night because if I do it makes Voldemort vulernarable to night actions...

So which is it, Mtam?
1. You can never die in the night?
2. If you die in the night, Voldemort becomes vulnerable.
They can't both be true.

Mtam is basically blackmailing the mafia as far as I can see, if he dies they become weaker?

Anyway, concerning my "lies"...

Sure you don't know whether the claims are believable, but it'd be useful to actually take a stance here. Which claims do you believe, which don't you believe? It seems to me you've been doing nothing but doubt every word the claimed people have uttered - why? What is your obsession with them? You seem to be thinking inside the box way too much. It seems you assume that we can only lynch between the people who claimed, and that therefore the 3rd party must die. Do the people who haven't claimed not participate in this game? Your grand alternative is lynching Pershy, even after he checked in. You actually summed it up nicely yourself:

Do we go with one of these, or take a crapshoot on someone else who hasn't been active?

Suggesting these are our only options is stupid. You've seen people vote and discuss between different cases and players. Why do you present this false dilemma between the claims and the inactives?

Yes of course Storr will attack anyone who wants to see him dead, because his objective is not to die. I don't see why you think it's suspicious of him to be aggressive about this, but then I also don't see that as being his main reason - he literally admits to sheeping others. This is actually fine for a 3rd party surv as long as those others are town, which in Mtams case is a fair assumption.

[aage]

When I say "stupid", I mean "illogical, and therefore suspicious".

[got tonkaed]

unvote, vote degaston

I don't really think there is much to the argue with Mtam point here. Storr also is not really a sensible push. Ok with moving vote off of Pershy who checked in.

[Epitaph1]

VOTE COUNT

mtamburini - madmitch, Pixar
Ragian - dd
charm - Ragian
pershy - floyd, dazza, degaston
dd- Talapus, Endgame
degaston - metsfan, mtam, aage, Storr, HotShot, degaston
dazza - Streaker
MudPuppy - charm, virus
Storr - BG

With 24 alive, it takes 13 to lynch.

Deadline Friday, noon Eastern Time.

[Metsfanmax]

degaston has a vote on himself? lol

[*Pixar*]

it obviously looks like we wont get a lynch in within the next day. We shall see what happens at night!

[got tonkaed]

it obviously looks like we wont get a lynch in within the next day. We shall see what happens at night!

Mets- I think I am that vote on degaston.
Pixar- I believe whoever has the most votes is getting lynched per the mod once we deadline.

[Epitaph1]

VOTE COUNT

mtamburini - madmitch, Pixar
Ragian - dd
charm - Ragian
pershy - floyd, dazza, degaston
dd- Talapus, Endgame
degaston - metsfan, mtam, aage, Storr, HotShot, tonkaed
dazza - Streaker
MudPuppy - charm, virus
Storr - BG

With 24 alive, it takes 13 to lynch.

Deadline Friday, noon Eastern Time.

*corrected tonka's vote

[aage]

11. Deadlines WILL be set when I feel like they should. Pay attention to them. If a deadline is reached due to inactivity, the player with the most vote will be considered lynched.If a deadline is reached due to an impasse, I will consider it a no lynch and the game will go into night phase without a death.

I don't know whether this counts as inactivity or impasse, though, but either way Pixar avoiding a vote is... well, actually it's well in line with the rest she's done this day, but I dislike that this pardons her.

[Metsfanmax]

At the end of this game can we give Epitaph an award for doing the best job with vote counts we've seen in a while?

[Epitaph1]

At the end of this game can we give Epitaph an award for doing the best job with vote counts we've seen in a while?

Metsfan has become BP and unlynchable.

(j/k, but thank you)

[got tonkaed]

11. Deadlines WILL be set when I feel like they should. Pay attention to them. If a deadline is reached due to inactivity, the player with the most vote will be considered lynched.If a deadline is reached due to an impasse, I will consider it a no lynch and the game will go into night phase without a death.

I don't know whether this counts as inactivity or impasse, though, but either way Pixar avoiding a vote is... well, actually it's well in line with the rest she's done this day, but I dislike that this pardons her.

I mean it's probably an impasse. It is kinda crummy that 5 people don't have a vote out there though.

[degaston]

Sure you don't know whether the claims are believable, but it'd be useful to actually take a stance here.

I took a stance on Sempai and Mtams, and they eventually claimed. (not trying to take credit)
Where did you take a stance?

Which claims do you believe, which don't you believe?

Sempai - has proven his power. I am pretty sure that he's town.
Storr - I believe his role, but I think his alignment is up for grabs.
Mtam - I believe his role, but the way he plays is anti-town, and he's even said that he will have fun watching the town burn.
Pershy - Not much to go on, but I'm willing to believe him at this point.

It seems to me you've been doing nothing but doubt every word the claimed people have uttered - why? What is your obsession with them? You seem to be thinking inside the box way too much.

What the hell are you talking about?

It seems you assume that we can only lynch between the people who claimed, and that therefore the 3rd party must die. Do the people who haven't claimed not participate in this game?

There are several people who are not really participating in this game. dd, HotShot, jbfloyd, madmitch, skillfu and virus were all under 10 posts this morning. If enough pressure were put on them, then I assume they would have some townish claim as well. How many claims do you want on D1? Do we continue to go for more claims, or choose from those who have already claimed? My understanding is that seeking a lot of claims on D1 is scummy. Are you saying that it's not?

Your grand alternative is lynching Pershy, even after he checked in. You actually summed it up nicely yourself:

Do we go with one of these, or take a crapshoot on someone else who hasn't been active?

Suggesting these are our only options is stupid. You've seen people vote and discuss between different cases and players. Why do you present this false dilemma between the claims and the inactives?

I didn't think that there was going to be a big push to go after an active player this late in the day - I guess I was wrong. But if enough people join in and I have to claim, then we will still be back to the point of choosing between the claims, or picking some player who has not claimed. I would think that the more claims there are, the harder it will be to agree on one. Is that good for the town?

Yes of course Storr will attack anyone who wants to see him dead, because his objective is not to die. I don't see why you think it's suspicious of him to be aggressive about this, but then I also don't see that as being his main reason - he literally admits to sheeping others. This is actually fine for a 3rd party surv as long as those others are town, which in Mtams case is a fair assumption.

I didn't say it was suspicious - it makes perfect sense for him to do this. Especially now that Mtam has exposed himself, which will probably make it harder for town to win.

So, to sum it up, we either go for more claims, or we choose from those who have already claimed. Apparently you want more claims. I think we should go with what we've got.
From the claims we have, I kind of believe them all, - I know Mtam ("I will never claim", "I'm Harry Potter"), will not be lynched no matter how much he lies. So I'll go with the one that I know doesn't hurt the town.
Unvote
Vote Storr

[sempaispellcheck]

11. Deadlines WILL be set when I feel like they should. Pay attention to them. If a deadline is reached due to inactivity, the player with the most vote will be considered lynched.If a deadline is reached due to an impasse, I will consider it a no lynch and the game will go into night phase without a death.

I don't know whether this counts as inactivity or impasse, though, but either way Pixar avoiding a vote is... well, actually it's well in line with the rest she's done this day, but I dislike that this pardons her.

I mean it's probably an impasse. It is kinda crummy that 5 people don't have a vote out there though.

I don't have a vote out there because I haven't gotten a chance to reread since unvoting mtam.
Once I get a chance to reread, I will revote.

sempai

[Talapus]

I don't really agree with the case on deg but God knows I could have misinterpreted the clues others claim they see. I still think dd is a better choice though so will not be jumping on the popular vote today as I just don't see it. But I completely agree that others not voting still have time and should weigh in to vote.

FYI, Harry Potter was never a complete dick. So all those useless pages of sheer rage at people from a player who claims to be HP is totally uncalled for.

[aage]

Well Dega, I guess I'll reply to your post...

I took a stance on Sempai and Mtams, and they eventually claimed. (not trying to take credit)
Where did you take a stance?

I meant after their claims, maybe that wasn't clear but it was connected to the next sentence, fortunately you answer that in the next bit though. And stop trying to turn the tables on me, it doesn't work.

Which claims do you believe, which don't you believe?

Sempai - has proven his power. I am pretty sure that he's town.
Storr - I believe his role, but I think his alignment is up for grabs.
Mtam - I believe his role, but the way he plays is anti-town, and he's even said that he will have fun watching the town burn.
Pershy - Not much to go on, but I'm willing to believe him at this point.

You believe Storr's role but you don't believe his alignment? There isn't such a thing as town/mafia survivor...

It seems to me you've been doing nothing but doubt every word the claimed people have uttered - why? What is your obsession with them? You seem to be thinking inside the box way too much.

What the hell are you talking about?

About the next bit... That's why those sentences were next to each other in the same paragraph... Stop taking my post apart to make it look like it makes no sense...

It seems you assume that we can only lynch between the people who claimed, and that therefore the 3rd party must die. Do the people who haven't claimed not participate in this game?

There are several people who are not really participating in this game. dd, HotShot, jbfloyd, madmitch, skillfu and virus were all under 10 posts this morning. If enough pressure were put on them, then I assume they would have some townish claim as well. How many claims do you want on D1? Do we continue to go for more claims, or choose from those who have already claimed? My understanding is that seeking a lot of claims on D1 is scummy. Are you saying that it's not?

Yes, in a way. In a 24 person game it doesn't hurt to get more than one or two claims out on day one. It's likely that there is scum between the claims because it's generally assumed that people vote for scummy people. In a "normal" game there are less people, usually around 10-15, so it's considered bad if half of the town claims on day one. Don't forget Storr put his claim forward voluntarily; only Mtam, Sempai and Pershy have been 'forced' to claim. Not really sure about the last one, there were five votes on Pershy when he claimed. Fairly premature.
Also, when I say "participate in this game" I don't mean whether they're active, I mean whether they're on the player list. Sometimes I think you're bending my words intentionally, is this correct?

Your grand alternative is lynching Pershy, even after he checked in. You actually summed it up nicely yourself:

Do we go with one of these, or take a crapshoot on someone else who hasn't been active?

Suggesting these are our only options is stupid. You've seen people vote and discuss between different cases and players. Why do you present this false dilemma between the claims and the inactives?

I didn't think that there was going to be a big push to go after an active player this late in the day - I guess I was wrong. But if enough people join in and I have to claim, then we will still be back to the point of choosing between the claims, or picking some player who has not claimed. I would think that the more claims there are, the harder it will be to agree on one. Is that good for the town?

There wasn't, like I just said there were five votes on Pershy. Only reason I voted him was to avoid mtam getting axed at the deadline. The direction I wanted the votes to take was towards one of the other suspicious people, of which there were plenty. If they claimed before the deadline, great, we could review the claim. If not, fine, I actually prefer a lynch to a claim since it's guaranteed to yield correct results. After Sempai this push on you is the first one I want to participate on because I think you're likely to be scum. If you die, good. If you claim and live, good. Either way there is a result. However, why do you think a push on an active player would be unlikely, but a push on an inactive would make sense? Inactive players are so named for their one quality - they're not posting. You seem to want to get a claim from people rather than a lynch - how does one claim if one does not post? And why are inactive players inherently more likely to be mafia in your mind? Or do you just want to lynch people based on post count as an investment in future activity?

Yes of course Storr will attack anyone who wants to see him dead, because his objective is not to die. I don't see why you think it's suspicious of him to be aggressive about this, but then I also don't see that as being his main reason - he literally admits to sheeping others. This is actually fine for a 3rd party surv as long as those others are town, which in Mtams case is a fair assumption.

I didn't say it was suspicious - it makes perfect sense for him to do this. Especially now that Mtam has exposed himself, which will probably make it harder for town to win.

So, to sum it up, we either go for more claims, or we choose from those who have already claimed. Apparently you want more claims. I think we should go with what we've got.
From the claims we have, I kind of believe them all, - I know Mtam ("I will never claim", "I'm Harry Potter"), will not be lynched no matter how much he lies. So I'll go with the one that I know doesn't hurt the town.
Unvote
Vote Storr

Agreed, it was a bad plan to make Mtam expose his role. But you did say about Storr that you "think this shows how quickly he'll turn on anyone he thinks is a threat to his win condition.."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the three dots mean you're suggesting that's bad, right? And you just voted Storr - I'm going to assume you're voting because you think he's bad?


Fastposted by Talap
Harry was quite a dick in book 5, though, and also when he was wearing the Horcrux in book 7.

[charm]

My self proclaimed official color is pink. Only I can use it so don't be using it Dev or anyone else!

My laptop has crashed, so I'll be using my phone until it is fixed on Monday. I actually had to get out a pen and paper today. Ugh. Anyhoo, if I'm slow to post you will know it is because I'm dealing with technology issues. Wished I had some tool to magically fix my computer.

[dazza2008]

Dazza, show me where you actively contributed to both wagons you sheeped. That's what you say, and that's mostly why i'm voting you.
Now, don't say go look yourself because I have.

Agree with Degaston if need be. Still plenty of time before deadline.

Clearly you don't think I added any thought. I can't see the point of trying to convince you. I have better things to do with my time like reading back though all this to see what I think.

This is exactly the answer I was expecting from you. You can't go back and look for an answer because you know that would be pointless. It's basicly a confession to what I am voting you for.
Luckily for you, everyone else is ignoring this.

I'd love to lynch Pershy for that weak post. If you don't want to get voted, then maybe you should consider playing the actual game you signed up for.
We know we are running out of time, and it's because of players like you that we are now facing a difficult lynch situation. No contribution, until you get voted for. Then you can suddenly come out and post? If it wasn't for you claim (and I mean, Snape could in this game flavourwise be a very good fake claim) I'd be already voting for you. But I know you are faithfull to Dumbledore

Now, in any other game you'd be already lynched. Yes we need a lynch and a good one but you did NOTHING to help us with that. Cheesus.

Dazza's reads are interesting. A few I can fully understand and support, but seriously. WHY IS NOBODY VOTING DAZ????

dd's read: not scummy? He said he 'forgot' and now is still not posting.
Charm: no idea? She's had some very interesting posts to form an opinion about.
Virus: same story how can you not have an idea here. Looks like you are soft defending these 2 here.

Come on people, he's even refusing to defend himself...

I never said DD was not scummy. I find it very scummy that he "forgot" he was playing. All the rest I don't know what you want me to say. Just because some people have posted lots doesn't mean i have a clear read on them. Not that i have a clear read on anyone. I went through every player and said what i think though.

I voted storr earlier and said why and when I voted mtam I said why. For some reason you think I haven't but this constant going through the same shit over and over is a waste of my time so i will just ignore you for a few days.

[skillfusniper33]

Pershy has a very interesting claim here, and I have slight trust issues with it. But I think it could be a very powerful town role, and I am leaning towards trusting it at this point in time. I can completely see why he claimed when he did with so little time on the clock.

After reading the most recent stuff deg has put forward, I really see him as being scum at this point. For the one reason of if mtam fake claimed he would have been outed by now. I didn't buy the case earlier, but now I am seeing it now on deg.

Vote Deg

[dazza2008]

what is the point in voting Deg at this point in the day? There is not enough time to actually do anything.

All he did was ask a question. Why is it bad for a newer player to ask a question? I think most would.

How the hell are you defending the scummy list, and getting away with it? The point is to lynch him. It's not about asking a question.

I don't get what you mean here. Some people find him scummy. I don't. I already stated I don't. He is playing like a new player to me. Not scum. He could be scum but I am not seeing it.

[degaston]

Well Dega, I guess I'll reply to your post...

I took a stance on Sempai and Mtams, and they eventually claimed. (not trying to take credit)
Where did you take a stance?

I meant after their claims, maybe that wasn't clear but it was connected to the next sentence, fortunately you answer that in the next bit though. And stop trying to turn the tables on me, it doesn't work.

What exactly is it that you think I should be doing after someone claims? Is there something you're doing that I'm not? Are you saying that all you wanted was one of those stupid little lists that people make about who they think is slightly scummy or leaning townie? I think those lists are next to useless. They allow people to look like they're contributing, but they're not committed to any of it. On D1, I vote for who I think could use some attention.

And what was your contribution?

Vote Storr for no apparent reason.

For now I'll vote Sempai to see what he has to say in defense.

unvote vote degSafe options are for scum who don't want to get lynched.

Yes, those are some pretty risky "stances" you've taken. Are you sure you're not going to regret going against the flow like that? Better be careful or you'll draw too much attention to yourself.

You believe Storr's role but you don't believe his alignment? There isn't such a thing as town/mafia survivor...

I didn't say that he was a mafia/town survivor. I said that his alignment is up for grabs, meaning that he would side with whoever is winning. Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand my statements? Who's side do you think he's on? Who's side will he be on if the mafia need to kill one more townie to win? How is he not a potential threat?

What the hell are you talking about?

About the next bit... That's why those sentences were next to each other in the same paragraph... Stop taking my post apart to make it look like it makes no sense...

Okay, here's the whole thing:

Sure you don't know whether the claims are believable, but it'd be useful to actually take a stance here. Which claims do you believe, which don't you believe? It seems to me you've been doing nothing but doubt every word the claimed people have uttered - why? What is your obsession with them? You seem to be thinking inside the box way too much. It seems you assume that we can only lynch between the people who claimed, and that therefore the 3rd party must die. Do the people who haven't claimed not participate in this game? Your grand alternative is lynching Pershy, even after he checked in. You actually summed it up nicely yourself:

Do we go with one of these, or take a crapshoot on someone else who hasn't been active?

Suggesting these are our only options is stupid. You've seen people vote and discuss between different cases and players. Why do you present this false dilemma between the claims and the inactives?

Okay - what the hell are you talking about? How have I doubted every word the claimed people have uttered? What makes you think I'm obsessed with them? What does it mean if someone is "thinking inside the box way too much", and how am I doing that? You're just throwing crap against the wall to see what will stick. If you want more claims, then take a "stance" and say you think we need more claims.

In a 24 person game it doesn't hurt to get more than one or two claims out on day one.

That's not much of a stance - we already have 4. How many do you think we need?

Also, when I say "participate in this game" I don't mean whether they're active, I mean whether they're on the player list. Sometimes I think you're bending my words intentionally, is this correct?

No, I really don't know what you're trying to get at with this. You seem to be saying that when you said this:

Do the people who haven't claimed not participate in this game?

You meant this:

Do the people who haven't claimed not whether they're on the player list?

I don't understand either statement. What answer are you looking for? Yes? No? What point are you trying to make (if any)?

Too many questions in this block of text - I have to break it up to make any sense of it:

There wasn't, like I just said there were five votes on Pershy. Only reason I voted him was to avoid mtam getting axed at the deadline. The direction I wanted the votes to take was towards one of the other suspicious people, of which there were plenty.

If you wanted the direction to go towards someone else, then why didn't you vote for that person? Come on - take a "stance" for once!

If they claimed before the deadline, great, we could review the claim. If not, fine, I actually prefer a lynch to a claim since it's guaranteed to yield correct results.

How do you get a lynch without a claim? (unless someone is not even following the thread)

After Sempai this push on you is the first one I want to participate on because I think you're likely to be scum. If you die, good. If you claim and live, good. Either way there is a result.

If I'm town, and I'm lynched, how is that "good"? (unless you're scum)

However, why do you think a push on an active player would be unlikely, but a push on an inactive would make sense? Inactive players are so named for their one quality - they're not posting.

An active player may or may not be scum, but they're either actively trying to find scum, or they're likely to leave some evidence that can be analyzed later to help nail them. An inactive player is not doing anything to help the town, so if there's no strong case against the active players, lynching an inactive townie is less of a loss than lynching an active townie.

You seem to want to get a claim from people rather than a lynch...

Do you have any evidence for this statement?

...how does one claim if one does not post?

I guess they dont - no loss.

And why are inactive players inherently more likely to be mafia in your mind?

Well, to begin with people in my last game said it. And I think I read somewhere that it's easier for them to lay low and hide than expose themselves to attention, or potentially get caught in a lie or a voting pattern, etc. Do you somehow think that this is not true, and the inactive players are more likely to be town? What is your evidence for going against the conventional wisdom?

Or do you just want to lynch people based on post count as an investment in future activity?

If I have no strong reads against an active player, then I would prefer to go with a weak read on an inactive player. There should be time to analyze an active players statements on D2 and beyond. With an inactive player, you'll have no more information on them than you did on D1.

Agreed, it was a bad plan to make Mtam expose his role.

Mtam needlessly exposed himself by claiming a power role. He made it worse by evading Tonka's questions.

But you did say about Storr that you "think this shows how quickly he'll turn on anyone he thinks is a threat to his win condition.."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the three dots mean you're suggesting that's bad, right? And you just voted Storr - I'm going to assume you're voting because you think he's bad?

The second dot there was a typo. I'll stick with my vote for Storr because he's the only one that I know is not town. Some of the others may be dead tomorrow, but I don't think there's anything else to be learned about Storr.

[degaston]

For the one reason of if mtam fake claimed he would have been outed by now. I didn't buy the case earlier, but now I am seeing it now on deg.

I never said that Mtam fake claimed. I said that the way he plays hurts the town. Two different things.

Mtam - I believe his role, but the way he plays is anti-town, and he's even said that he will have fun watching the town burn.

[aage]

Dega, I'm getting sick and tired of your separating sentences in the (imo) well-structured paragraphs in my posts. Your current 'reply' to my post has become impossible to reply to, I'm not going to indulge a quote war during the last 24h of the game.


Your reply to my call for a stance is once again replied with bad OMGUS, I've said before and I'll say again that I don't flaunt my vote around like a whore, I prefer to build cases before voting. My vote on Storr was an obvious early game troll, and every other vote has followed (lengthy) discussion. You on the other hand apparently put your vote on the first 3rd party claim you see, but you don't think he's mafia. I guess it's a difference of playstyle.

Concerning Storr. If we assume he is third party we must assume that he will play for Town, otherwise he would not have claimed on day one. It really is that simple.

Concerning the game participation, the point I'm making concerns what I've said earlier:
It seems you assume that we can only lynch between the people who claimed, and that therefore the 3rd party must die. Do the people who haven't claimed not participate in this game?
You seemed to assume we could only lynch between the claimed people... thereby creating the illusion that the non-claimed players were not lynching options. They are, though - everyone is an option for the lynch. The mounting pressure on you is actually proving that, although I accept that it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The inactive players are bad lynching targets because most have indicated they are busy irl which is not alignment indicative, and there are too many people in this huge game who have indicated this to assume they're mafia - even too many to assume the majority of them is mafia. Mtam was even called out on his 'inactivity' and he's apparently Harry flipping Potter.

"If I have no strong reads against an active player, then I would prefer to go with a weak read on an inactive player."
I quote this specifically because I really don't see how you can have a stronger read on someone who doesn't post. It's near impossible to read someone based on silence, and they are the least trustworthy reads because you know so little about these players. There's been gazillion discussion, going around and analyse the three posts of an inactive is counter-productive as hell.