Scooby Doo Mafia: All Fired Up - Day 2

[Darkdragon]

Sign-Up | Confirmation | Day 1 | Day 2

Welcome to Day 2, campers!

Rules

1. Each player will be given a character to play, who will be aligned with either the Town or the Mafia. To win the game, the Town must kill off all the Mafia, while the Mafia needs to outnumber the Town. Third-Party (neutral) characters have their own win conditions as outlined in their roles.
   
2. Each day you will be able to vote to lynch a player. Voting should be done in the following format; Vote: Character (Player). Similarly, unvoting is to be done in the format; Unvote: Character (Player). No other format will be accepted. A majority vote is required to lynch a player.
   
3. A game day will last a maximum of 72 hours. You may not vote in the first 24 hours. After the day has concluded, a night stage will commence, which will last a maximum of 48 hours. Night actions must be sent to the host in the first 24 hours of the night stage.
   
4. The alignment of lynched players, as well as those that died during the night, will be revealed at the beginning of the following day.
   
5. You may not quote or pretend to quote anything sent to or from you in PM with the game host. This includes all the details of your character and role, as well as any night action results. Role claims and reporting of night action results are acceptable, but in your own words only. Do not attempt to use the structure of your role PM to your advantage.
   
6. Do not play the game outside the thread. Similarly, do not post out of character inside the thread; you must always play the role given to you. Game tactics and roles may only be discussed in the game thread.
   
7. If you are dead, you may not post in thread or discuss the game with any of the players. Any information you had becomes void, and may not be passed on.
   
8. You may not edit your posts.
   
9. You must post in every day thread.
   
10. If you encounter a problem or have a question, please contact the host via PM.
    
11. No player is allowed to privately contact any other player in this game about/playing the game. This includes but is not limited to PM, chat (such as IRC), IM (such as Skype and Steam), phone, and playing in person. All game discussion must take place in the appropriate day thread. The scum team will have a writeboard to use during the night phase only.
    
12. Violation of the above rules will result in a vote penalty of half the required majority against you on your first offence, and the death of your character on your second offence. Violation of rule 7 will have a heavier penalty, including suspension, made at the discretion of the Games Moderator.

The Gang (NPC)	[/td]
Scooby-Doo	Shaggy	Fred	Daphne	Velma

Players

Alec McKenzie (Bob)

Carla Riddle (Dragonator)

Derrick Bird (Dragonfire)

Desiree Walters (mediumsnowman)

Lynn Benton (TrumpetKing)

Matthew Huff (def)

Patti Best (Piratedave84)

Trenton Collins (JackJonespaw)

Theodore Dunn (Scubacarrot)

[Piratedave84]

No night kill, that's a very good thing!

Now let's get down to business; I want to lynch Carla; yesterday she said 2 things that rub me the wrong way:

(Can't direct quote due to topic being locked)

1) post 47 (Bold added for emphasis)

Posted 19 October 2015 - 07:59 AM

Hmmn well this is an interesting first day that's for sure, I like it! Certainly I think a cop is a good idea, but wouldn't a blocker be more helpful to us than a tracker? A blocker has a chance to save a life, whereas a tracker may not track the right person until it is too late.. our numbers are quite small after all. But then, it sounds like the scum can choose who submits the kill, so a blocker would be less useful in that situation.

Actually, wouldn't cop and watcher be the best combination? In that instance, the cop can come forward during the day and tell us results, then the watcher can keep an eye on him at night; I think that's a better method of stopping the scum from attacking the cop than a blocker is, as if they strongarm they won't get caught and we lose the cop. However, that does mean our watcher would be tied up looking at the cop and the scum would just target other people. But it keeps our cop alive. If we go cop and tracker, I can't see how the cop can come forward with results without being murdered...

Vote: Cop

Vote: Watcher

I'm still not sure where my dear granddaughter has gone...

2) post 64 (Bold added for emphasis)

Posted 20 October 2015 - 12:57 AM

I supposer if we agree that the cop doesn't come forward unless he gets a scum reading, and the tracker doesn't come forward unless he witnesses murder then that is one feasible plan. I just see the watcher as having more utility as he can watch the cop if the cop comes forward, or watch some other person who may seem likely to the watcher to be targetted by the scum. Whereas a tracker just follows whoever seems suspicious, and as it seems the scum can change who does their kill action, I feel tracking is more likely to lead to dead ends.

Well either way I think we can work with it. Of course, we can WIFOM with the watcher; is the watcher really watching the cop? Or is he pretending to and watching someone else? Who knows!

Carla, we asked you several times yesterday to explain this.

So let me ask one more time; why do you think the scum can change their kill and choose who kills?

[JackJonespaw]

Yep, I definitely picked up on this, too. I couldn't think what it could be other than a slip of the tongue by a scum.

I wonder why there wasn't any night kill? I wonder if the scum couldn't kill before the town got their PRs? They definitely didn't get blocked, so I'm not sure what's going on there.

[Bob]

Do you think there's a chance that since we didn't get to use our night actions last night, the scum didn't get to use their actions?

I do concur with Patti's questioning of Carla, since that's something that stood out to me quite clearly yesterday. Additionally, she pushed for a watcher instead of a tracker. To me, the watcher just seems like more of a defensive role instead of an offensive one. The watcher would simply be watching the cop to see if they die at night. Doing this also puts the cop right in the crosshairs, regardless of whether or not the watcher is watching the cop.

[Piratedave84]

SNIP

I wonder why there wasn't any night kill? I wonder if the scum couldn't kill before the town got their PRs? They definitely didn't get blocked, so I'm not sure what's going on there.

Do you think there's a chance that since we didn't get to use our night actions last night, the scum didn't get to use their actions?

SNIP

I think that night one was a no-NA night regardless of affiliation. This being said; is it possible that scum could also have had to choose their roles during the night phase? It seems a bit crazy but think about it, from a balance stand point it makes sense. There could not be more than 3 scum and to give them a fighting chance, they could have had to pick NA's based on the ones we picked during the day which in turn balances out their NA versus ours? Is this crazy?

SNIP

I do concur with Patti's questioning of Carla, since that's something that stood out to me quite clearly yesterday. Additionally, she pushed for a watcher instead of a tracker. To me, the watcher just seems like more of a defensive role instead of an offensive one. The watcher would simply be watching the cop to see if they die at night. Doing this also puts the cop right in the crosshairs, regardless of whether or not the watcher is watching the cop.

but we don't have to use the watcher to protect the cop since we don't know who they are; for the time being, it's an offense role seeing it's investigative (to some extent). The problem is when we will need to 'protect' the cop; then we will need to use the role in a defensice function. I think it's a good thing we have a watcher because it will/could eventually allow us to 'protect' the cop one more night phase if he/she ever needs to claim.

[Dragonator]

What a scary monster!

As to my comments yesterday, that was an obvious conclusion drawn from the framing of the doctor role, which said something along the lines of the doctor action doesn't work where the mafia strongman "submits the kill" on the target. Submitting the kill along with the information we already had that the scum can communicate at night led me to the natural conclusion that they can choose who submits the kill and therefore who carries it out. That's generally how these things work. Did nobody else reach that conclusion? Or are the scum already looking for an "easy" lynch target? Yes I'm looking at you Patti, your "asking me several times" right at the close of day when I didn't have an opportunity to respond was a lovely way to set me up overnight, rather than questioning me on my first statement if you were that concerned by it. Personally, I thought as we were discussing the matter of the strongarm in great detail it was already established in the group that any of the scum would potentially be able to submit the kill action.

Alec lovely, if the watcher had watched the cop and he or she was killed, then the watcher would see who committed the murder, which in my view was less ambiguous than a tracker following someone who may or may not have killed their target (eg may have used a different role on them). But either way, as I noted yesterday, I feel we can make either role work for us if we use it correctly.

[def]

Shit, I'm a little drunk (late on Friday) but I want to put my two cents in early. I think the watcher was a better choice than the tracker as Carla said, since we are without a private communication system. I don't want town roles to give themselves away, but if the cop fingered a scum publicly, the watcher is a clear line of defense for them. Scum couldn't kill the cop without outing themselves. People were throwing shade on Carla yestersat and today, but she'S one of the ones that doesn't seem so scummy today.

[Dragonfire]

but we don't have to use the watcher to protect the cop since we don't know who they are; for the time being, it's an offense role seeing it's investigative (to some extent). The problem is when we will need to 'protect' the cop; then we will need to use the role in a defensice function. I think it's a good thing we have a watcher because it will/could eventually allow us to 'protect' the cop one more night phase if he/she ever needs to claim.

...We have a tracker, not a watcher.

I wonder why there wasn't any night kill? I wonder if the scum couldn't kill before the town got their PRs? They definitely didn't get blocked, so I'm not sure what's going on there.

Ping. Speculation on the night kill when the host said that there would be no actions submitted on Night One.

[Piratedave84]

What a scary monster!

As to my comments yesterday, that was an obvious conclusion drawn from the framing of the doctor role, which said something along the lines of the doctor action doesn't work where the mafia strongman "submits the kill" on the target. Submitting the kill along with the information we already had that the scum can communicate at night led me to the natural conclusion that they can choose who submits the kill and therefore who carries it out. That's generally how these things work. Did nobody else reach that conclusion? Or are the scum already looking for an "easy" lynch target? Yes I'm looking at you Patti, your "asking me several times" right at the close of day when I didn't have an opportunity to respond was a lovely way to set me up overnight, rather than questioning me on my first statement if you were that concerned by it. Personally, I thought as we were discussing the matter of the strongarm in great detail it was already established in the group that any of the scum would potentially be able to submit the kill action.

I see your point.

I however thought it meant that they could opt to kill amongst other possible NA; as in the same person kills but thay can pick another NA if they choose.

...We have a tracker, not a watcher.

Oh .. I voted for tracker ... I should have known ... well the point is still semi-valid. As someone else pointed out, the watcher and tracker can both be used to our advantage.

Ping. Speculation on the night kill when the host said that there would be no actions submitted on Night One.

Given that the no-NA message was said along the voting results for the town PR, I thought it only applied to us, not scum.

[mediumsnowman]

Oh, good, we're all still here.

Reading Carla's defense, I can see how she could have drawn that conclusion, but it still seems really... odd. I don't know how else to put it.

[Piratedave84]

10 hours with no comments ... Is this for real?

Is everyone's minds made up? What's happening?

I want to lynch Carla, what about you guys?

[JackJonespaw]

I think that night one was a no-NA night regardless of affiliation. This being said; is it possible that scum could also have had to choose their roles during the night phase? It seems a bit crazy but think about it, from a balance stand point it makes sense. There could not be more than 3 scum and to give them a fighting chance, they could have had to pick NA's based on the ones we picked during the day which in turn balances out their NA versus ours? Is this crazy?

So the only way to get rid of people would be to lynch them? Seems...lengthy... We can only really speculate until tonight.

Ping. Speculation on the night kill when the host said that there would be no actions submitted on Night One.

How does this have any cause for suspicion? Confused ping from me for an early defense over something so...churlish? Is that a good word?

10 hours with no comments ... Is this for real?

Is everyone's minds made up? What's happening?

I want to lynch Carla, what about you guys?

Been gone all day, sorry. I'm on board with lynching Carla, although I'd prefer to continue speculating here, maybe we can get some new pings off of some people. Multiple pinging on different people is never a bad thing!

[def]

I'm not feeling too strong on anyone, but I'm never a fan of lynching people for being active or sharing ideas. What is the case on Carla? She posited something about game mechanics?

I'll have to go through day one again before voting, but I don't remember a whole lot being said by anybody.

[Dragonfire]

How does this have any cause for suspicion? Confused ping from me for an early defense over something so...churlish? Is that a good word?

Sorry, what? You OMGUS ping me back and cite a 'defense' - who or what am I defending? To be honest dumbtelling about the night kill is something I've seen scum do before.

[Dragonator]

Where on earth did the lynch Carla team arise from? Patti you're very keen to try and push a quick lynch for no reason more than that I was sharing ideas yesterday and attempting to help us make the best choice of action. You don't even seem to know what actions we voted... that's a bit awkward. And your speculation on the night kill seems rather forced. Personally, with a team this small, it looks to me like you're aggressively pushing for a quick lynch to get the ball rolling and the town numbers dropping. Ping, as they say?

[Dragonator]

I see your point.

I however thought it meant that they could opt to kill amongst other possible NA; as in the same person kills but thay can pick another NA if they choose.

How could the strongarm "submitting the kill" possibly mean choosing kill over another action? The role was describing a doctor. It was saying, thw doctor's action will work to protect a person from a scum kill, unless it is the scum strongarm which does that kill, in which case the doctor's action doesn't work. If they were selecting another action instead of a kill action which must always be submitted by the strongarm, then that wouldn't make sense as the doctor would never be able to protect a person. Again, that all seems obvious to me from the role description and I don't understand how you are confused by it. I suspect our lovely host was attempting to be helpful by revealing that information, not deceitful or attempting to present us with red herrings.

So I again I really don't understand your position against me, other than a lack of understanding of a simple sentence, or more likely an attempt to jump on the first thing you saw which you thought you could turn into a lynch.

[Darkdragon]

You may now vote for the player you find most worthy of a Lynch.

Voting should be done in the following format;

Vote: Character (Player).

Similarly, unvoting is to be done in the format;

Unvote: Character (Player).

No other format will be accepted.

A majority vote of 6 is required to lynch a player.

[JackJonespaw]

Sorry, what? You OMGUS ping me back and cite a 'defense' - who or what am I defending? To be honest dumbtelling about the night kill is something I've seen scum do before.

Defensive might be a better word. Patti pointed it out - both she and I thought that the no-NA thing applied only to us, not the scum. Contextually, what the host posted was:

"You have selected Cop and Tracker as the power roles for your town. The roles will be PM'd to two random townies within the next 24 hours.

No night actions are to be sent in for Night 1."

It might have just been me contextually assuming that this only applied to Town, since town PRs were the last thing discussed. Let's just chalk this all up to a misunderstanding - I'm not Scum, and there really isn't much basis for you to suspect me other than perhaps a misunderstanding, which, as I already pointed out - Patti also misunderstood.

[Scubacarrot]

As to my comments yesterday, that was an obvious conclusion drawn from the framing of the doctor role, which said something along the lines of the doctor action doesn't work where the mafia strongman "submits the kill" on the target. Submitting the kill along with the information we already had that the scum can communicate at night led me to the natural conclusion that they can choose who submits the kill and therefore who carries it out. That's generally how these things work. Did nobody else reach that conclusion?

I don't understand your leaps in logic at all.

Submitting the kill and the mentioning of a strongman does not make it seem likely that the scum can choose who kills, to me at least. I think it is possible you slipped up. Or perhaps you could explain it to me better? I'm deciding between voting for you and for Private Walters, who seems very wishy washy.

[Piratedave84]

How could the strongarm "submitting the kill" possibly mean choosing kill over another action? The role was describing a doctor. It was saying, thw doctor's action will work to protect a person from a scum kill, unless it is the scum strongarm which does that kill, in which case the doctor's action doesn't work. If they were selecting another action instead of a kill action which must always be submitted by the strongarm, then that wouldn't make sense as the doctor would never be able to protect a person. Again, that all seems obvious to me from the role description and I don't understand how you are confused by it. I suspect our lovely host was attempting to be helpful by revealing that information, not deceitful or attempting to present us with red herrings.

You know what I mean, you've seen it before; scum can sometimes choose which action they submit and I think this was the case here as in if the strongarm submits a kill then the doctor is useless. Your slip up reinforces my position on this point.

So I again I really don't understand your position against me, other than a lack of understanding of a simple sentence, or more likely an attempt to jump on the first thing you saw which you thought you could turn into a lynch.

Is this not the goal of this? Find who is scummiest and lynch them? Sorry for wanting to make this situation progress ...

vote: Carla (Dragonator)

You're trying to accuse me of accusing you after you gave details on the scum kill which went beyond game-mechanic assumptions/speculation.

I'm not feeling too strong on anyone, but I'm never a fan of lynching people for being active or sharing ideas. What is the case on Carla? She posited something about game mechanics?

I'll have to go through day one again before voting, but I don't remember a whole lot being said by anybody.

Carla is active? Here? Where?

She barely showed up and if you look it up, both times she slipped up ...

[Bob]

Carla's post is suspicious, as I've said. It could be that she was trying to speculate on game mechanics and abilities, but it could also be a legitimate slip-up. People have historically been lynched for less in these sorts of games. I'm sort of treating this like Day One, Part Two, since everyone is still alive and there were no night actions. We don't really have anything to go on except for what happened on the real Day One. All we can look at is what stuck out to us most on Day One. That post is one of them for me, but I'm not sure if I'm ready to dive head first into a lynch and add to a potential snowball bangwagon. I'm going to hold off for now.

That should be bandwagon, not bangwagon...The latter is something much different, I'm sure.

[Dragonator]

Would I honestly say such a thing if I were scum? Don't be daft Patti. It is an obvious conclusion to draw. There would be absolutely no point in having a doctor if the scum kill action will always be useless because a kill is always submitted by the strongarm. The logical conclusion is that it means a kill action could potentially be submitted by someone else who would not override the doctor's protection. My theory would be the scum must have a strongarm with a limited number of uses, to be balanced. Certainly my experience in past games that have had strongarms were that they could only do so a limited number of times and it was always in a scum team that could assign the action to one of their number to carry out. That is certainly the logic I was working with, you are welcome to disagree with it of course but that is how I formulated my theory when considering which roles to vote for yesterday. Ultimately it is just theory but in my view it was helpful to consider these possibilities when deciding between the roles.

Personally I think it is far more scummy to be twisting the words of someone that was actually trying to provide useful input to the discussion and had a different opinion to you. A "slip-up" argument is ridiculous and you know it; expressing an opinion twice based on the words of the host is no slip-up. Trying to invalidate my thoughts by attacking my activity is an equally scummy approach to arguing this, as firstly we know that town tend to be cautious when expressing their thoughts and secondly that quantity does not equal quality. Certainly I made sure to consider carefully my position on the role votes before contributing my views, which is much more useful than several unhelpful speculative posts that simply agree with what other people have already said. Scum don't like to be the first to disagree, they look for where the majority is going to be and make sure they are on it, then attack the town minority to cause division. Is this what you're up to?

Anyway, my accusation then is that Patti knows this game will be short given our few numbers and is making a play to remove a knowledgeable town player early on in an attempt at what she perceives to be an easy speculation lynch. She speculates that something I have theorised based on my prior knowledge of general game mechanics and the wording of the roles posted by our lovely host must come from some other knowledge. She also asserts that I would be stupid enough to state twice knowledge that supposedly only the scum must have. She convinces the town to convict me, then on discovering my alignment tomorrow will exclaim that it was an honest mistake and that's just how day 1 lynches go. Classic scum approach to knocking off a townie nice and early if nobody else has got the ball rolling, which they haven't.

With that in mind I think I shall place my own vote to contest that placed against me. I think the eager push and the attempts to rally support when she accepts my point are evidence enough of a careless scum probe pushing hard to gain town support before I can respond, rather than a carefully considered town vote.

Vote: Patti Best (Piratedave84)

[Dragonfire]

Again, that all seems obvious to me from the role description and I don't understand how you are confused by it. I suspect our lovely host was attempting to be helpful by revealing that information, not deceitful or attempting to present us with red herrings.

I'm having a hard time believing this because it's what got me caught in Ragnarok 3 as scum. Scum Confirmation Bias, that's what I call it. It seems obvious to you, but not to the town; you've forgotten that we don't know whether the scum can switch their action around. So IMO it was a slip, yes.

Defensive might be a better word. Patti pointed it out - both she and I thought that the no-NA thing applied only to us, not the scum. Contextually, what the host posted was:

It might have just been me contextually assuming that this only applied to Town, since town PRs were the last thing discussed. Let's just chalk this all up to a misunderstanding - I'm not Scum, and there really isn't much basis for you to suspect me other than perhaps a misunderstanding, which, as I already pointed out - Patti also misunderstood.

Defensive?? Still don't get it. How is me calling you out defensive?

I agree. Although you're still on my scum list, it's pointless too keep on arguing this one point.

Would I honestly say such a thing if I were scum? Don't be daft Patti. It is an obvious conclusion to draw. There would be absolutely no point in having a doctor if the scum kill action will always be useless because a kill is always submitted by the strongarm. The logical conclusion is that it means a kill action could potentially be submitted by someone else who would not override the doctor's protection.

And in the event that the strongman was the first scum to die??

Would I honestly say such a thing if I were scum? Don't be daft Patti. It is an obvious conclusion to draw. There would be absolutely no point in having a doctor if the scum kill action will always be useless because a kill is always submitted by the strongarm. The logical conclusion is that it means a kill action could potentially be submitted by someone else who would not override the doctor's protection.

And in the event that the strongman was the first scum to die??

Would I honestly say such a thing if I were scum? Don't be daft Patti. It is an obvious conclusion to draw. There would be absolutely no point in having a doctor if the scum kill action will always be useless because a kill is always submitted by the strongarm. The logical conclusion is that it means a kill action could potentially be submitted by someone else who would not override the doctor's protection.

And in the event that the strongman was the first scum to die??

Oops, triple post

[Scubacarrot]

Private Carla, that attitude of yours seems quite scummy to me. You are extremely defensive and hostile, trying to power through the suspicion against you. It is a tactic I am intimately familiar with. I still see it as a leap in logic that you would assume the scum could choose who kills, and you seem to be just discarding the possibilities that the strongarm thing could be a copy/paste thing or even a red herring.

Also, could you put your name in your signature, it's making me have to scroll all the way up to vote for you, ugh, effort.

Vote: Carla Riddle (Dragonator)

[Piratedave84]

Would I honestly say such a thing if I were scum? Don't be daft Patti. It is an obvious conclusion to draw. There would be absolutely no point in having a doctor if the scum kill action will always be useless because a kill is always submitted by the strongarm. The logical conclusion is that it means a kill action could potentially be submitted by someone else who would not override the doctor's protection. My theory would be the scum must have a strongarm with a limited number of uses, to be balanced. Certainly my experience in past games that have had strongarms were that they could only do so a limited number of times and it was always in a scum team that could assign the action to one of their number to carry out. That is certainly the logic I was working with, you are welcome to disagree with it of course but that is how I formulated my theory when considering which roles to vote for yesterday. Ultimately it is just theory but in my view it was helpful to consider these possibilities when deciding between the roles.

Personally I think it is far more scummy to be twisting the words of someone that was actually trying to provide useful input to the discussion and had a different opinion to you. A "slip-up" argument is ridiculous and you know it; expressing an opinion twice based on the words of the host is no slip-up. Trying to invalidate my thoughts by attacking my activity is an equally scummy approach to arguing this, as firstly we know that town tend to be cautious when expressing their thoughts and secondly that quantity does not equal quality. Certainly I made sure to consider carefully my position on the role votes before contributing my views, which is much more useful than several unhelpful speculative posts that simply agree with what other people have already said. Scum don't like to be the first to disagree, they look for where the majority is going to be and make sure they are on it, then attack the town minority to cause division. Is this what you're up to?

Anyway, my accusation then is that Patti knows this game will be short given our few numbers and is making a play to remove a knowledgeable town player early on in an attempt at what she perceives to be an easy speculation lynch. She speculates that something I have theorised based on my prior knowledge of general game mechanics and the wording of the roles posted by our lovely host must come from some other knowledge. She also asserts that I would be stupid enough to state twice knowledge that supposedly only the scum must have. She convinces the town to convict me, then on discovering my alignment tomorrow will exclaim that it was an honest mistake and that's just how day 1 lynches go. Classic scum approach to knocking off a townie nice and early if nobody else has got the ball rolling, which they haven't.

With that in mind I think I shall place my own vote to contest that placed against me. I think the eager push and the attempts to rally support when she accepts my point are evidence enough of a careless scum probe pushing hard to gain town support before I can respond, rather than a carefully considered town vote.

Vote: Patti Best (Piratedave84)

Hahahahaha! Your vote for me is based on my wanting to lynch the scummiest person; priceless.

I'm certainly not meta-voting you based on your experience and my comment about your activity was targeted at Matthew who somehow thought you had participated a lot yesterday; your concerns about a comment made to another layer are duly noted though!

It sucks it has to be you but we need a lynch today, you are (as far as I'm concerned) our best bet given your comments about the kill mechanics and now your OMGUS vote just reinforces my point.