Tuuba Mafia 4: The death of Mara [Town & Jester Victory]

Lefafel · ^

Granger wrote:

Abraker: So you're claiming to have a role with a ability that lets you know someone else as townie on d1?

I think Abraker chose his words very deliberately when saying he deduced the identity of a townie, implying he reached his conclusion through logic rather than a role ability.

I still stand by my mostly random vote on fittan for now, though he seems to have settled down a bit from the intial few actions.

The various theories and counter-theories that are currently being flinged around seem flimsy at best and have not convinced me at all.

IppE · ^

Votes

fittan (3) - Multtari, Lefafel, Hades Izanami
tupsu (2) - fittan, abraker
Multtari (1) - Granger

abraker · ^

tupsu wrote:

it was a very hesitant read based on something silly that I found slightly weird.

I ignore that on purpose to dig out any info. It doesn't matter if you think maybe, slightly, or not sure. Actions taken and thoughts given are all pieces of a puzzle. Additionally, any mafia would want to downplay their own actions to appear as if those actions imply nothing.

tupsu wrote:

if my choices are a between shot in the complete dark and eliminating someone who will possibly be harmful despite being townie later, I'm going to be advocating for the latter.

I would rather not vote at all than vote on a potential townie. The worst case scenario in voting a 50/50 is that two townies are dead vs one if not voting. It is not worth trying to get mafia over two townie deaths this early in the game. Scum would want to increase the number of townies dead per day, and they are able to sway votes to their advantage since they know who is mafia.

tupsu wrote:

here's a thought: maybe soner is just a jester trying to go for the peak confusion play with his 4D chess and betting on us wanting to lynch him for his instability

That's a possibility too. Again, that depends whether it's his first game.

Granger wrote:

Abraker: So you're claiming to have a role with a ability that lets you know someone else as townie on d1? This points to Mason but it'd be foolish to claim this this early. Whats up with that? Knowing you id expect better, explain yourself please.

I do my part in trying to hide the identity of the townie and you come out and start role guessing me. How can it possibly help town to say that I am mason out loud for all and mafia to hear? You keep such shit to yourself, observe, and deduce.

Lefafel wrote:

I think Abraker chose his words very deliberately when saying he deduced the identity of a townie, implying he reached his conclusion through logic rather than a role ability.

Yes. Transcript so far, and compilation of tupsu's situation:

tupsu · ^

jesus fuck you're being an autist
not saying that in a bad way, but you're putting far too much weight on stupid roleplay type shit being said in very early RVS both by me and others

abraker wrote:

I would rather not vote at all than vote on a potential townie. The worst case scenario in voting a 50/50 is that two townies are dead vs one if not voting. It is not worth trying to get mafia over two townie deaths this early in the game. Scum would want to increase the number of townies dead per day, and they are able to sway votes to their advantage since they know who is mafia.

in this size game, I doubt there is more than 2 mafia + possible one third party, which isn't an issue per se for the time being. this means we are at very low risk of actually losing until night 2 maybe. we can afford to mislynch on D1, and my argument mostly relies on the fact that people who break rules that directly tend to generally be unhelpful later on in the game, townie or not.

I honestly really can't tell if fittan is scummy or just overeager at this point, but it is bothering me that you and fittan - the two players going most aggressive so far - have yet to really suspect each other. abraker, what's your read on fittan right now? your magic docs seems to say you originally suspected him and then turned on me, which based on the docs seems to exclude the possibility of him being scum - why is that the case?

then again, we're probably all town and scum is distancing because of trying to not draw attention to themselves + promote infighting

I'm going to sleep someone take my keys from me

fittan · ^

because voting people out for being new or not able to put their thoughts on paper (or dumb) really makes new people want to play with us and doesn't make forum mafia a dead circlejerk xdd

im making coffee and catching up, separating because this post is not an accusation and should not be used for data though i am sincere in that we can't just vote out people because they're new

abraker · ^

tupsu wrote:

jesus fuck you're being an autist
not saying that in a bad way, but you're putting far too much weight on stupid roleplay type shit being said in very early RVS both by me and others

I can't be bothered to check previous mafia games, but if you had played them with me, then you must have forgotten my playstyle

tupsu wrote:

in this size game, I doubt there is more than 2 mafia + possible one third party, which isn't an issue per se for the time being. this means we are at very low risk of actually losing until night 2 maybe. we can afford to mislynch on D1, and my argument mostly relies on the fact that people who break rules that directly tend to generally be unhelpful later on in the game, townie or not.

Low risk you say? You being a 50/50 shot to me seems low risk enough. Why not eliminate you and go from there? That statement to you is as retarded as you saying that an unhelpful potential townie should be eliminated to me. That's why you direct questions at the player to find out more. And you totally did not bother asking soner why he did what he did because? Why, as someone so concerned with the situation, you don't bother to find out more about it? Scum would want to create a one sided argument, that is why. "He broke rules, therefore lynch".

tupsu wrote:

and my argument mostly relies on the fact that people who break rules that directly tend to generally be unhelpful later on in the game, townie or not.

My experience relies on the fact there can be idiot townies that set themselves up for a lynch for no apparent reason. I went through three mafia games in a row on osu! forums where an idiot townie set self up for lynch. You might not care, but I do. I am not taking risks.

https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/t/475418 - -[Jess]- in this one. Idle and cryptic. Didn't help with anything
https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/t/552912 - Dawnsday in this one. Fooled around with fake claims until he went too far
https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/t/625397 - This one is so retarded it had to stop

tupsu wrote:

I honestly really can't tell if fittan is scummy or just overeager at this point, but it is bothering me that you and fittan - the two players going most aggressive so far - have yet to really suspect each other

To be fair, you have also written the most, which allows to come up with more theories for every little thing you say.

tupsu wrote:

abraker, what's your read on fittan right now? your magic docs seems to say you originally suspected him and then turned on me, which based on the docs seems to exclude the possibility of him being scum - why is that the case?

You are too aggressive, far more aggressive than him. You always make it seem as if you are using any situation to rack up votes against someone. You went on fittan and lefafel on a complete rvs case, and it could have eventually developed into something had I not intervened for you to downplay it. I don't care if it was a slight thought or whatever, that's how scum plant seeds for votes to start rolling. You also went on soner way too strongly for breaking the rules as if you are scum that is nitpicking any detail to create a one sided argument to get rid of them. You did not bother finding out more about soner's actions.

fittan showed restraint when saying that he wants to vote soner and realizes that even thought soner screwed up, that doesn't imply scum. He understands the risks of voting potential town as townies themselves should understand. He also admitted he can't really defend himself when you questioned his Granger vote. Normally a person would make something up, but he admitted he can't, which make me see him as sincere. I don't see him trying to set anything up yet because he is not influencing the game enough, unlike you.

tupsu wrote:

then again, we're probably all town and scum is distancing because of trying to not draw attention to themselves + promote infighting

Many statements you say I can counter with "that's exactly what scum would say to draw attention from themselves". This statement is no exception. All you say is suggestive self-defense, which is why it's easy to counter. You never even tried to defend anyone else but yourself so far.

Finally, if you want to read me as mafia after this entire post, at least attempt to postulate instead of getting mad at me for suspecting you so much.

fittan · ^

I just realised that my previous post is pretty much metagaming, and I apologise for that, I'd still like to clarify that it's not meant as an accusation. I'd delete it if it was allowed.

Lefafel wrote:

Sonar making such a mistake does indeed make him seem useless at best and likely a liability, but would a member of mafia ever do something like that? It would imply that he is intentionally breaking rules just for the sake of creating an illusion of ignorance, which seems a bit extreme at this point. Based on that I am inclined to believe he's harmless for now.
And what comes to the current vote, I believe we are firmly in the realm of random voting still so I'm sticking to my vote for now.

tupsu wrote:

assuming he is in fact mafia, I suppose it might be an attempt to bait out really stupid townies in order to find easy lynch/kill targets? yes, it doesn't add up, but imo a d1 info lynch on a basically-confirmed dumb, fairly inactive townie is better than voting someone who's 50/50 on flipping scum (particularly since I'm opposed to voting active players early on, knowing how much of a snooze fest and info black hole forum mafias end up being once one or two actives are dead).

I agree that we're reading into Soner too much, but we can't ever let this incident go either until we make Soner role claim, honestly. Given circumstances, I don't think that's quite necessary yet, however. Considering how active day 1 is, I don't think we need to leave it a no vote, we have enough information to vote someone (though sadly active players are the most suspicious at the moment, as is the curse of speaking up and mostly I'd just like quiet players to attempt to give input on events rather than quietly voting without backing their vote up with facts, as exhibited by Hades).

abraker wrote:

vote: tupsu
Reasons:
- Inconsistent arguments that hint of you pushing some sort of agenda
You suspect lefafel for voting fittan for the same reason you suspect fittan. lefafel voted in response to fittan's vote on Granger and you trying into implicate fittan as scum.
I have provided the insight that if you are scum, then you are trying to set fittan up. You would be using rvs to your advantage to make a bigger deal of something than it really is. Looking at fittan's ISO, all he did is run on Granger for rvs between Granger and Multtari. That holds no water.
You really think that Fittan voted you for scum reading him? No, the finishing blow was when you said that you are ready to lynch Soner for breaking rules with no consideration or further insight and with what sounds a ruthless tone. Fittan proceeded to vote you after that. You are shifting viewpoints here.
- I have also deduced the identity of a certain townie, allowing me to use that as a reference point against all others. It really puts your actions scum leaning. I'll say more on this once the situation allows me to hint who the townie I deduced is.

This is a point where I have to distance myself from abraker, even if only slightly, to make us seem less like a scum pair. I'm claiming pro-town and believe in abraker being pro-town also, so I have a hard time properly distancing myself from them. What I do disagree with is this:

abraker wrote:

tupsu wrote:
if my choices are a between shot in the complete dark and eliminating someone who will possibly be harmful despite being townie later, I'm going to be advocating for the latter.
I would rather not vote at all than vote on a potential townie. The worst case scenario in voting a 50/50 is that two townies are dead vs one if not voting. It is not worth trying to get mafia over two townie deaths this early in the game. Scum would want to increase the number of townies dead per day, and they are able to sway votes to their advantage since they know who is mafia.

I sincerely believe we should lynch someone tonight, and at the moment it's tupsu I have my eyes on, with either Granger or Hades being their partner in crime. What tupsu was right about is there likely only being two scum and a maximum of one neutral faction, though I would prefer three scum (also, guessing sizes of scum and neutral faction in public is extremely out of character :^) ).

abraker wrote:

Granger wrote:
Abraker: So you're claiming to have a role with a ability that lets you know someone else as townie on d1? This points to Mason but it'd be foolish to claim this this early. Whats up with that? Knowing you id expect better, explain yourself please.
I do my part in trying to hide the identity of the townie and you come out and start role guessing me. How can it possibly help town to say that I am mason out loud for all and mafia to hear? You keep such shit to yourself, observe, and deduce.

This, partly, makes Granger seem like an enemy of Tuubatown, but not enough to warrant a lynch train. Granger also hasn't had that much to say about the events up until this point, which makes it seem like bandwagoning with tupsu to me, making me want to have either of them boldly claim (not necessarily role claim) that they are part of town and not in allegiance with whom they suspect is scum and want to lynch.

My vote remains, and both Hades Izanami(?? stupid weeb name) and Granger, if they believe me pro-town, need to defend themselves.

Also, Soner; speak up, please. Don't be scared of talking just because you broke a rule.

abraker · ^

fittan wrote:

This is a point where I have to distance myself from abraker, even if only slightly, to make us seem less like a scum pair.

This makes me believe that tupsu's question:

tupsu wrote:

abraker, what's your read on fittan right now? your magic docs seems to say you originally suspected him and then turned on me, which based on the docs seems to exclude the possibility of him being scum - why is that the case?

Can have multiple purposes depending on my response, and by the looks of it, I may have fell into the trap that might be the 2nd purpose

fittan · ^

Oops, I completely forgot to talk about this post.

tupsu wrote:

jesus fuck you're being an autist
not saying that in a bad way, but you're putting far too much weight on stupid roleplay type shit being said in very early RVS both by me and others

I'd warn you as moderator for this. Be nice.

tupsu wrote:

in this size game, I doubt there is more than 2 mafia + possible one third party, which isn't an issue per se for the time being. this means we are at very low risk of actually losing until night 2 maybe. we can afford to mislynch on D1, and my argument mostly relies on the fact that people who break rules that directly tend to generally be unhelpful later on in the game, townie or not.

I agree that the most information we can get to find scum at this point is to lynch someone and wait to see what happens at night. If scum plays it well, they don't night kill someone who is super active, especially not one who has been on a townie's ass. Remember this post, as it's a reminder I think every game needs to have especially since it works so well to manipulate the way scum decides their night kills.

tupsu wrote:

I honestly really can't tell if fittan is scummy or just overeager at this point, but it is bothering me that you and fittan - the two players going most aggressive so far - have yet to really suspect each other. abraker, what's your read on fittan right now? your magic docs seems to say you originally suspected him and then turned on me, which based on the docs seems to exclude the possibility of him being scum - why is that the case?
then again, we're probably all town and scum is distancing because of trying to not draw attention to themselves + promote infighting
I'm going to sleep someone take my keys from me

I'm glad you at least claim pro-town and hint us being town also. It's certainly a strategy for scum to let town bicker and accuse. As for abraker's read on me, my interpretation of his writing and documentation was that I was the pro-town they deduced, no? Maybe saying this is a mistake. I know I'm trusting abraker too much for d1, but he is the one providing the most fleshed out information at the moment.

fittan · ^

abraker wrote:

fittan wrote:
This is a point where I have to distance myself from abraker, even if only slightly, to make us seem less like a scum pair.
This makes me believe that tupsu's question:
tupsu wrote:
abraker, what's your read on fittan right now? your magic docs seems to say you originally suspected him and then turned on me, which based on the docs seems to exclude the possibility of him being scum - why is that the case?
Can have multiple purposes depending on my response, and by the looks of it, I may have fell into the trap that might be the 2nd purpose

It's only natural that we would appear as scum pair after both commenting on the events and voting tupsu. Even without being accused of being in cahoots with you I would have said that, (unless I actually was scum).

tupsu wrote:

fittan wrote:
the first thing granger did was vote someone after a random lynch train had started ?_?
Unvote: Lefafel falafel
Vote: Granger
voting granger for RV, while completely ignoring my RV just before it? are you a scum trying to play down you and granger as a scumpair? or trying to implicate me as your partner in illegal crimes?
it does make sense that mafia would have a gun, but what do I know, apparently I was somehow reincarnated after being killed by gladi

I'd like to return to this post briefly, your vote was the third, while Granger's the fourth. If you think this carries little significance, you're absolutely correct. However, your reaction to my response does. You may have acted out of paranoia, but you're the only one to have reacted this way (other than Lefafel briefly after you, but without elaboration which makes it seem like another RV). Did you get on my case due to this vote, or only after it?

tupsu wrote:

my extremely flimsy initial scumread is on either you or lefa, you for the weird granger vote that ignored me (though I suppose that could've been you just missing my post, though you haven't said anything in your defense yet so still sus) and him for vote piling on you during RVS
but we still have at least one completely silent player, so don't read much into it

Why Lefafel? Another case of accusing someone of voting scum to seem less like a scum pair? You're very stuck on this being the case if I understand this correctly (tell me if I don't).

fittan · ^

fittan wrote:

[...]I would have said that, (unless I actually was scum).

I have to point out that this is some of my worst English ever and I don't proof-read my posts until after I've clicked Submit))))))))

Granger · ^

Jesus fuck how are y'all digging all this up so early. I dont understand, maybe im not observant enough.
Gimme a while to read y'alls things and stuffs while i battle with the headace this causes.

But first
Abraker: I apologize. It was uncalled of me, aside from me being dumb i dont really have a excuse. Still, why would you make such a statement this early? Id rather have you around for longer as you do have a knack for reading everything (along with your extensive note taking... how are you finding the time to do this ?_?), but such a statement puts a target on you regardless of my idiocy.

fittan · ^

The thing is, it's not even that early, thanks to how wild the discussion has been. You don't need a death to lynch someone.

fittan · ^

fittan wrote:

If you think this carries little significance, you're absolutely correct. However, your reaction to my response does.

This is contradictory, I now notice. I meant that your reaction does carry actual significance to your case.

Lefafel · ^

abraker wrote:

[fittan] also admitted he can't really defend himself when you questioned his Granger vote. Normally a person would make something up, but he admitted he can't

This is a very good point, and one that makes me give up my current vote. Someone who is in the mindset of lying or trying to manipulate will very rarely concede to an acusation like this, strongly hinting that fittan was, at least at that point in time, sincere.

Unvote

Right now it's Hades Izanami that's sticking out to me as the most tempting lynchee, based on his amount of vote flipping vs. the lack of any real reasoning behind it, or contribution to any of the discussion. I will hold off for now though, see if he has anything more to say.

(There's also always the chance that boat is playing like this on purpose, for whatever twisted personal reason or because of an in-game role)

I definitely think a d1 lynch is better than no-lynch, I think the townies have enough leeway here to make one wrong call and still be in good standing to survive this game.

^ #61 2017-11-24 21:34:12

Re: Tuuba Mafia 4: The death of Mara [Town & Jester Victory]

^ #62 2017-11-24 22:27:03

Re: Tuuba Mafia 4: The death of Mara [Town & Jester Victory]

^ #63 2017-11-24 22:51:28

Re: Tuuba Mafia 4: The death of Mara [Town & Jester Victory]

^ #64 2017-11-24 23:34:12

Re: Tuuba Mafia 4: The death of Mara [Town & Jester Victory]

^ #65 2017-11-25 04:03:58

Re: Tuuba Mafia 4: The death of Mara [Town & Jester Victory]

^ #66 2017-11-25 04:20:18

Re: Tuuba Mafia 4: The death of Mara [Town & Jester Victory]

^ #67 2017-11-25 04:42:58

Re: Tuuba Mafia 4: The death of Mara [Town & Jester Victory]

^ #68 2017-11-25 04:50:41

Re: Tuuba Mafia 4: The death of Mara [Town & Jester Victory]

^ #69 2017-11-25 04:52:42

Re: Tuuba Mafia 4: The death of Mara [Town & Jester Victory]

^ #70 2017-11-25 05:07:12

Re: Tuuba Mafia 4: The death of Mara [Town & Jester Victory]

^ #71 2017-11-25 05:08:42

Re: Tuuba Mafia 4: The death of Mara [Town & Jester Victory]

^ #72 2017-11-25 08:56:35

Re: Tuuba Mafia 4: The death of Mara [Town & Jester Victory]

^ #73 2017-11-25 09:37:09

Re: Tuuba Mafia 4: The death of Mara [Town & Jester Victory]

^ #74 2017-11-25 09:42:47

Re: Tuuba Mafia 4: The death of Mara [Town & Jester Victory]

^ #75 2017-11-25 10:54:19

Re: Tuuba Mafia 4: The death of Mara [Town & Jester Victory]

Board footer