173 replies to this topic

[Scouty]

Hinckley, on 22 September 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

Scouty
You panic but you are successful often. It was so weird to watch the evolution of your accusations and your weird defenses. Never say "That's a fair cop." again. Really, what the fuck does it even mean? Scuba made some valid accusation and you latched onto the word "consistent". When you said, "Isn't it good to be consistent?" when he was saying you were consistently agreeing with every defense, I really expected every player to vote for you. And then how did they forget about you for a day? I'm not even sure your first day turn as "mediator" between two arguing Townies was a plan to get the whole Town to trust you, but somehow it worked. How did the Town figure you were clear when Petey came up as Town? Maybe it was because they thought you would only defend her if you both were Scum, but your reactions and the attempt to stay neutral and help two people appear Town was just all so weird. Your defense on the day you were lynched made me cringe a couple times too, but for the most part, you did much better than on Day One. You are always fun to play with. And I appreciate the energy you bring to Day threads. You've got a good sense of humor and it adds a lightness to some of the more crabby elements of the game.

I had a lot of fun playing Casey Cat. She was a cool character and the only pussy...cat in town. For some reason I thought she painted people's houses on a canvas, not just painting the actual, physical house I don't know why. Coming into this I was excited. Very excited. Over excited. Too excited. Crap, shoot, I made a mistake. I really jumped in and I know it was my overeagerness in the game that screwed me over. I just became a bumbling mess whenever I was accused. (I think the only times I've ever been accused in a mafia were in The Forest games. I clearly panicked and I just degraded on day one. I underestimated people's analysis capabilities on day one and that hurt me. I forgot I was in the big league, this time! I tried to be somewhat neutral in the duel between Gordon and Petey, but it somehow came out that I was defending Petey and I felt like words were being put into my mouth, so my defense was awful. Never, ever, ever, ever saying "a fair cop" again. I was surprised Rufus remembered it and just latched onto that against me. Oh for goodness sake. I misread Scuba's "consistent" post, so, yeah, that was screwy.

The events of Day One really changed the game for me, negatively, and there was little I could have done to avoid biting the bullet. I can only take partial, partial, partial credit for being able to last three more days after that. I survived on luck. Luck that the town somehow thought they cleared me and didn't think much of my behavior. Had Tammo fought for his life on Day 2, I would have probably been lynched instead, but with my luck, that didn't happen. I sort of regret going after Ralphy, in the end it only really hurt me, but I at least got one townie killed by a lynch

Then Day 4 happened. Worst. Time. Ever. That was honestly depressing and stressful how that went down. My luck not only ran out, it inverted and turned into bad luck...an anti-luck to be more dramatic. I think had I had my computer, I would have done a much much better job in my defense. Instead I panicked while writing on my tiny phone keyboard and scrolling around reading a tiny EB board, all between classes and moving into a new place. What a mess. It didn't help that my main accuser was 5 hours ahead of me and was in bed by the time I could reply to his defense. I blame my awful, all over the place defense on all that, sorry it made you cringe. I'll have to improve on that next time

Definitely my worst performance as a scum, I think, I only ended up getting myself killed, but I hope I helped my team more so than myself. I definitely need to re-evaluate my play and tweak it and improve it. It's not very mechanical, which I'm not sure is a good or bad thing. I could probably do well if I put a little more of the mechanical aspect of mafia in my play style and take out a bit of the human element, though, I do attribute the latter to my slipperiness from getting lynched .

Thank you for the analysis, I really appreciate it and hope to use it to improve myself for my next game, whenever that'll be. This was a very big up and down roller-coaster experience for me, but I at least enjoyed all the jokes and interludes and all the quirks that make a Hinckley game fun !

[Hinckley]

Dragonator, on 23 September 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

What game?

Bloodbrick II. It seemed you were working with us the day before we converted you.

Dragonator, on 23 September 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

The mere fact I asked you "So, I'm neutral. If, in the event, there happened to be a scum converter, and they attempted to convert me in the knowledge that I can be converted, would I be?" should probably have at least hinted to you that it was being discussed. But I will not labour the point, I was merely giving some advice. The note about separate scum PMs is probably the main one that should be kept in mind in future.

It's a great point and I will. As far as me being hinted that it was being discussed, I still didn't expect to be dragged into the way I was. See my six point list about the order of how that happened and where my mind was.

Dragonator, on 23 September 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

The "arbitrary shouldn't" isn't at all what you just said. I said you should not plan to reveal someone's role, either with clues or without. Allow for it to happen in the game mechanics, but don't plan on it and then panic when the player figures out a way for it not to happen. Of course I don't want my role revealed, of course I'll try to find the best way to avoid that. It was more the "I planned to have this sub-plot work this way by revealing it like this" impression that I was saying you shouldn't have.

Don't misunderstand me. I expected it to be revealed slowly through other game mechanics, only giving the Scum clues if necessary.

Dragonator, on 23 September 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

Anyway I didn't want to get into a long back and forth about it, I just meant to point out one or two spots that I think you could improve on in an otherwise fantastic game.  

And of course I've already said how much I loved the game, and it would take forever to list all the really cool elements you included. Now gimme my evil minion army.

No worries. I appreciate your feedback. My point was that your feedback seemed to change from what we were talking about in private...

Shadows, on 23 September 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

IF we're ever in this position again, and I'm not saying we will be, there will definitely be a different way of handling that situation. There is never a time when the host should adjust the game because he sees something that the scum are discussing, so if it takes keeping all of that out of sight to prevent it, it's worth it. I never would have expected that, to be honest, but you say you changed things according to what you saw, so it won't happen again.

I would never do that and certainly didn't on this game.

Shadows, on 23 September 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

They really did and I them all for it. I have a new respect for each and every one of you who lived past day 1. *pokes Masked Builder* Yep, still dead.

I really liked the comaraderie. It was really entertaining watching you guys work together. That was really fun for me.

Shadows, on 23 September 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

I remember the post and it wasn't really meant to be patronizing, though it clearly was. It was actually the point where I recognised that they had grown since the beginning of the game. When we first started, I kept thinking, "oh god, it's another one of these teams, I've had them before, I can win with them, but it's going to be like babysitting the whole time." When I made that post, I stopped thinking of them that way, despite how it sounded.

It did come off like "My babies have all grownsed up as well. Which was good, too. Either sentiment was really OK. I said it was a point where I thought it was shown that you could let them participate more, but it wasn't really a bad moment.

Shadows, on 23 September 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

We discussed it in our private PM and came to the conclusion that no host in their right mind would put a scum team in that position. Apparently some part of that idea was wrong. You know which one I think it was.

Shadows, on 23 September 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

Speaking of which, I'm not going to be able to make it this weekend, but I'll make it up to the kids later. Promise. Oh, and the check is in the mail.

I told you I had a thing. You always mess things up for me.

Shadows, on 23 September 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

It didn't matter how convinced I got at times, the overall insanity of a 3rd party being inserted in the scum and given access to everything including a role was too much to overcome. I seriously hope to never see a role like that again.

*makes note to give Shadows that role next time.*

Shadows, on 23 September 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

I love that post. I will always love that post. As games seem to go well, I get more and more ridiculous in my approach to them. That was my over-the-top post for the game, and so much fun to make. I was one step from proclaiming myself a member of the Fabuland Bureau of Investigation, by the way. Had there been another day...

Had Flitwick blocked you or Draggy there would've been. It was close.

Shadows, on 23 September 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

How can you be, I've said it 100 times. I said it when it was proposed, I've said it between games and in all kinds of discussions. Team win doesn't work, it opens the door to cheating, for one thing. It also ruins the use of usurpers, and this game is proof of that. If, as you say, Draggy was really scum, no matter what his win condition, his winning made all of the scum win. Yay, scum team win! And if he wasn't scum why was he using one of our actions and told who we were? See where this is going?

So much blah blah blah...

Shadows, on 23 September 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

That's the only benefit of team win. It's a tricky issue, I'll admit. I want to find a middle ground somehow.

Oh, good.

Shadows, on 23 September 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

We were getting closer, this one was a punch in the face. I don't think I'll be happy until I see you play a scum game in which you're given an impossible situation to deal with and the win is taken from you at the last second. Yes, I'm really that horrible of a person.

Well, I wouldn't pester the host...

Shadows, on 23 September 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

Every time I started to see your talent, you'd suggest something that would have instantly been the lynch of the day. It was a hilarious rollercoaster, but in the end you did good job and I'll remember it in the future. I'm not sure if that's good or bad for you.

This is so true. I can't remember now, but I should've taken notes on some of the good ones. I tried to not even take notes on what was happening on the Scum writeboard since I know you guys wanted the discussion to be private.

Shadows, on 23 September 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

I get points for never complaining about that, by the way.

Blame the cups.

Shadows, on 23 September 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

There's no reason for them to be on the same side. If they can't play opposites, they shouldn't play. I have no doubt they can do it, have faith in them, hosts.

They insist they can't. I have an idea but it includes a fake conversion. No, I really do have an idea. But at least they can admit it would effect the balance of the game. Can we call you two Dragows?

Shadows, on 23 September 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

I thought it was a perfectly reasonable response to the question, and they were 100% accurate (and naturally within the rules of the game). I didn't even consider it a great defense, just an easy way to answer what was asked. I was as surprised as anyone when it cleared me of suspicion and I was innocent anyway.

All in all, quoting PMs ends up piling up against the Scum and I think it's time we disallow it for the sake of balance.

[Shadows]

Hinckley, on 23 September 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

Can we call you two Dragows?

As opposed to Shagonator?

Hinckley, on 23 September 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

All in all, quoting PMs ends up piling up against the Scum and I think it's time we disallow it for the sake of balance.

If I was scum, I could just fake the same effect. It might take slightly longer, but in most games that wouldn't be obvious.

The real fun would be another game with no one allowed to PM except the scum. Remember those, the games where silver tongued toaster salesmen had to work out in the open and nobody could role claim to anyone at all because there was nowhere to do it privately? That could be some fun.

[Eskallon]

Hinckley, on 22 September 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

Eskallon
Yay, Esky! Like Pie, I think you really turned your game around. With a bumpy first day, you changed your tone. Unfortunately, the suspicion was already there and the Scum definitely used you as a scapegoat more than once. Your protection targets were right on more than once, so great job there. You protected Rufus and Pandora successfully and it would've saved Pandora on Night Three had you not been blocked. Even though it was fishy to everyone, you chose a good person to claim to. Based on your own Night Actions. I'm really glad you picked up on your weird result from Night One and spread the information around the Town. What went wrong during the private conversations with Scubacarrot? Sounds like you've come a long way either way so congratulations. Can't wait to see you apply what you've learned to the next game.

Thanks    , as for night actions, I've been protector in mafia a few times and as far as harnessing the action goes, I think this was my best. Had it not been for my Day 1 actions, I would have been contacting a few more people privately and would have hoped to have save another life. The weird result was something I puzzled over for a while, it's what split me and Scuba up. I told him, but didn't want him to persue it yet, until I'd thought about it more or decided to do it myself. Scuba went ahead and contacted Heidi and told me her role, however I didn't believe him and the fact that he went forward and contacted Heidi the way he did made me skeptical. I asked him for some more evidence of Heidi. To me it seemed like he was trying to cover for Heidi, trying to handle it all for me so I don't find out anything I didn't need to know and that came off as scum which drove us apart.

I too dislike team wins. Always have and always will. I'm not gonna go into that though....

[Darkdragon]

Shadows, on 23 September 2012 - 07:06 AM, said:

As opposed to Shagonator?

[Hinckley]

Shadows, on 23 September 2012 - 07:06 AM, said:

The real fun would be another game with no one allowed to PM except the scum. Remember those, the games where silver tongued toaster salesmen had to work out in the open and nobody could role claim to anyone at all because there was nowhere to do it privately? That could be some fun.

Mafiawiki says only Scum should be allowed to PM and only during the Night phase. It makes exceptions for Masons, too. But they, as well, can only communicate at Night. That would be interesting.

[Scubacarrot]

Shadows, on 23 September 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

Sent me a one line taunting PM after he died, laughing because I was wrong about him. I'll keep it forever.

Also sent a congratulatory PM when Rufus accused me, and staying in character, I denied being scum and said Rufus must have been tricked.

The first part is not true. You said you were suspecting Eskallon, after he died I said you were wrong about him. Not that matters, since you were going to kill us. And stuff.

The second part is right, I was just so excited, I think you played splendidly, and I at least, was not on to you. Whatever you think of the game mechanics and wether or not you got screwed over, you played a damn good game, and everyone should treat you with the most care in the world when playing with you. The way you manipulated people, the way you managed to dodge the bullet, it's really great play. Hell, you tricked me in giving up the protector! (Doubt you didn't know that already, but my point stands).

[iamded]

Well, thanks for the feedback Shadows and Hinck! I'm glad y'all think I did alright, I did try and am happy with how I played. I looked back over my Forest I gag night actions and how they amused you back in Forest I, Hinck, and I'm glad I could do so again with my defences in this game.
It's awesome to see you working so hard on the game even after it's finished, providing all this feedback and commentary, so thanks again Hinck. You definitely deserve a break.

[Shadows]

Scubacarrot, on 23 September 2012 - 08:01 AM, said:

The first part is not true. You said you were suspecting Eskallon, after he died I said you were wrong about him. Not that matters, since you were going to kill us. And stuff.

I remember you saying I was wrong about something, but you're right, it was Eskallon, which I clearly knew.

Scubacarrot, on 23 September 2012 - 08:01 AM, said:

The second part is right, I was just so excited, I think you played splendidly, and I at least, was not on to you. Whatever you think of the game mechanics and wether or not you got screwed over, you played a damn good game, and everyone should treat you with the most care in the world when playing with you. The way you manipulated people, the way you managed to dodge the bullet, it's really great play. Hell, you tricked me in giving up the protector! (Doubt you didn't know that already, but my point stands).

I really just wanted to say thanks, but I had to stay in character at that point. I don't even trust me.

The protector thing was funny, you'd hinted at it fairly blatantly in game, and then you told me thinking I had somehow missed it and I just went along because that's what I do. And then you told me about the commuter, which actually got the idea that she was only a commuter so stuck in my mind that when she bodyguarded Rufus, I though Hinck was screwing us over. Well, he was, but not that part.   

iamded, on 23 September 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

I'm glad y'all think I did alright, I did try and am happy with how I played.

You were a blast.

[Hinckley]

Shadows, on 23 September 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

The protector thing was funny, you'd hinted at it fairly blatantly in game, and then you told me thinking I had somehow missed it and I just went along because that's what I do. And then you told me about the commuter, which actually got the idea that she was only a commuter so stuck in my mind that when she bodyguarded Rufus, I though Hinck was screwing us over.

Despite the fact that I told you he was the commuter/bodyguard when you investigated him. I explained that to you when you started pestering me about that. Learn to read.

Like the original PM adjustments I made during the conversion that you admitted you only skimmed over. Read the info I give you before you start pestering me. And then don't pester me.

Christ...

Draggy, you'll get your minion army. I'm ... working on something.

[CallMePie]

Hinckley, on 22 September 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

CallMePie
Congratulations! You figure out the team thing! I was so excited when you bodyguarded Rufus instead of commuting. It made me so happy. It's nice to see your evolution even if a huge portion of it just happened in this one game. Way to take one for the team. That role is meant to be a risk taker and at first I was a little worried that you would just take it as a way to try and survive to the end. I'm so happy you chose the risk part. Commuting was a way to keep the balance for the Scum. We couldn't have two targets protected every night. Although your role would've allowed it, but this gave it enough variation and the Town had protection from the many night killers in this game. Anyway, it was a pleasure having you in here, especially since you had a great growth experience on top of it all.

Thanks, Hinck.   It's usually in hindsight that I learn how to effectively play a specific role (it's been a jumble the past few games, vengeful spirit, neutral investigator... ) but more importantly, yes, this game really did get me to realize if you're not a proactive townie, your chances of helping your team win are just awful.   And your analysis of the entire town was spot-on, nobody ever pulled anyone together. We were apparently close on one night, but then the scum decided to slaughter what might've been a decent town block at once.

[Rick]

Hinckley, on 22 September 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

Rick
I think you were taken out before Shadows starting whispering to Fangy so I'm not sure why Fangy and Cornelius found you so suspicious. Zepher blocked you as well. You were just being Scummy, I suppose. You're one of my favorites, due to the fact that we've been through so much together, but I didn't get to see a lot out of you since your time was cut so short. You were active in the day thread which is nice because it's what the Town needs. You have a great mind for this and were working on things, so I'm sure you would've been an asset to the Town block eventually.

And here I was trying to be a bit more proactively Town on the first days this time, especially considering I was vanilla.   I guess a lot of Townies were just being too damn suspicious of each other, which is kinda natural in a game as big as this. It makes it easier for the Scum to hide and for the Townies to appear Scummy.   I had a feeling the game only properly started after I got killed though.  

[Shadows]

Hinckley, on 23 September 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

Despite the fact that I told you he was the commuter/bodyguard when you investigated him. I explained that to you when you started pestering me about that. Learn to read.

Which is why I said that being told he was a commuter stuck in my head. Geez, you admit something honest around here and get beaten down for it.

Hinckley, on 23 September 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

Like the original PM adjustments I made during the conversion that you admitted you only skimmed over.

Right, because no one reads a wall of text that should be the same as it was the 3 times they've already read it. Crossing out one line out of hundreds and sticking a name next to it is not abundantly obvious.

You, on the other hand, posted the wrong rules for days and no one caught it, even you. The only reason it was caught is because someone violated the posted rules and you didn't want to enforce them as listed, but instead had to dig and dig to find where you had said you were changing them, but hadn't.

Hinckley, on 03 September 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

You must play on things that effect your animal (natural predators, diet, etc.) in every post. You may need to do a little research. Feel free to expand on the information your find. Be creative. (You have the first 24 hours to practice. Penalties will not be incurred on posts before voting starts) EDIT: As stated on Day Two, these violations will incur one vote per penalty. I apologize for not updating each day's rules to reflect that until now. Sowwy.

So lay off the reading bit, that's a perfect example of how easy it is to overlook a small detail in a wall of text that otherwise stays the same. Seriously.

Rick, on 23 September 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

I had a feeling the game only properly started after I got killed though.  

So, honestly, were you really a boy bulldog in drag, because you sure as hell looked like it.

[Rufus]

Hinckley, on 22 September 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

Rufus
The Town's last hope! I was so excited that you had a tangible result that was going to reveal a Scum. It really gave the Town hope. Eventually, it didn't, but it was an excellent chance. I was surprised you didn't come out with a long final post blasting Shadows. I saw you reading the previous days for hours and then got a PM from you analyzing the pictures. I was so disappointed. No clues in the pictures this time. Nothing to save you. It would've been nice to have a behavioral analysis of Shadows for the remaining Townies to look at once you were dead. It also would've helped them to know that you were the tracker. Your death really would have implicated Shadows in that case. The way it was left, Shadows had the opportunity to say some phantom someone was lying to you. But, you had a nice methodical game going. You were putting evidence together, learning who to trust. It was a slow burn versus the steamroller kill trifecta the Scum were working with. Eskallon and Pie figured you were the Towniest of Town and worthy of protecting. Unfortunately, that was the last thing both of them did. So, the only Town you were left with were the Townies that didn't trust you...and wanted you dead. Excellent effort, though. You went down fighting. I love that.

Day 6 came at the worst time for me - I had a lot of real life stuff to do, so I wasn't able to put as much into pursuing Shadows as I might have liked.  Still, we had a bit of fun accusing each other of being scum.    Byt the way, for all of the Mafiawiki acronym lovers:  Shadows's defence was a perfect example of OMGUS.  

It didn't help that I was convinced iamded was town.    Everyone was voting for him; I can be forgiven for assuming he'd show up town (I hope).  Zepher thought he was the SK, because he'd blocked him when there was no SK kill; I agreed that was possible which was one reason I didn't try too hard to overturn the lynch.  The main reason I didn't come out with an analysis of Shadows's behaviour was because there wasn't much to analyse:  as I've said already, he did two things which clued me into him being scum, but there was nothing that he couldn't easily explain away.  Once it became clear that iamded was going to be lynched, I went into damage control mode and spent what time I had trying to work out how to use the Motivator action to try to turn things around for town in the night phase.  I considered motivating Fangy, but I wasn't absolutely sure he was the vig, and if he was, I had no guarantee that he wouldn't unwittingly finish off the town if I motivated him.  So I chose Zepher.  Had I known iamded was scum, I might just have commuted (I had a one-shot commuter action from a night puzzle - TinyPies), but then I'd have been the prime candidate for a lynch on day 7.

Hinckley, on 22 September 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

Rufus, what do you think about being the Miller? That was another way I kept these two mini-masons balanced.

Well, I didn't know I was the Miller until after the game was over.  If I'd been investigated as scum, I'd have assumed I was framed.  But I'd most likely have been lynched if I had been investigated (I'd have lynched me ).

[Cecilie]

Hinckley, on 22 September 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

Cecilie
What can I say that I haven't already told you? I think you should be very happy with your performance. You brought out an accusation (that was completely correct) and didn't care if it meant putting yourself at risk. And you put up a helluva Townie fight. I was really impressed watching how you handled what was truly a shitty card dealt to you. I'm not sure how it happened. Someone thought you were acting Scummy, others agreed and from there they all thought you were Scum and wouldn't let it rest until your dead corpse said otherwise. Hopefully, you keep trying because I think you have a good game.

Thanks for the positive feedback Hinck . It makes me feel better that at least someone thought I was doing a good job and wasn't just scummy all the time... I feel like I haven't learned much from this game at all though. On one side, I'm being told that what I was doing was exactly how a townie should act, especially a vanilla townie, and on the other side, I got lynched for it . And nobody is giving me any pointers on how to improve my vanilla game. So, which is it? Was I doing a good job as vanilla townie, or was I just a babbling scummy townie?

I'll definitely try again, but I think I'm skipping the next game. I need to get some distance from mafia after this game. I was really really excited to play in this game, and the hosting was the best ever. Yet, I'm left with mostly sad memories about the game, because of how I felt everyone was against me, from day 1 to my lynch... I may take these games too seriously. When I play, I become my character. I was Maurice Mouse. I still feel connected to the poor mouse. I've even ordered that particular Fabuland head on bricklink, so I can make him a nice home where nobody will be mean to him .
Ok, I'm going to stop being emo in here now... I just can't help that I'm very emotional, and playing mafia brings out so many emotions that can be quite overwhelming at times... Scouty says it well, emotional roller coaster indeed...

[JimButcher]

Thanks for the feedback, Hinck. Like I said in the writeboard, I absolutely hate the watcher role.   There's so many ways it can screw you up if you're not careful, which is exactly what happened in this game. This is my third time with the role. It can be useful, too, but I've just had some bad times with it.  

[Dannylonglegs]

Hinckley, on 22 September 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

Player Analysis (continued)

The Cultists
Overall, you guys really did a fantastic job with this game. You avoided suspicion, deflected suspicion, successfully pulled off a meat shield gambit. There was so much brilliant play from you guys I was really impressed.

I agree!   I think we did really well as a team!
For the record, our primary place of strategy discussion occurred in your writeboard. The only talk which occurred in the SuperSecretScumBoard was about the Draggy situation, which we thought was best discussed in private. We didn't "put up a front" at all.

Hinckley, on 22 September 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

Anyway, based on what I saw there, the teamwork seemed to mostly be Shadows taking a strong lead and you guys filling out his plan in an excellent and highly efficient manner. Wow, you guys really wanted to work together and really did take his plan and run with it. So the teamwork was more of a team with a very strong leader, where everyone else allowed him to do what he wanted. That's great. Shadows has a vast amount of experience. He really knows how to weave a web and sometimes all you have to do is let him and then step up to the plate when you do your part. There were days when, though, when Danny would postulate about 5 different things, make several posts in a row, and then nobody would respond to his questions or ideas. Shadows would come in and make a blanket announcement about what he had done that day and what needed to be done next and the rest of the team would jump on it and run. I'm not saying this is a bad way to do things. Not at all. It clearly worked. Amazingly well. But it does help to possibly listen to more than one point of view. It appeared like a lot was happening in a private conversation between Shadows and Draggy, apparently with Amy opinion thrown in from Steam, whatever that is. That's nice, but it seemed Danny was left out. Maybe Scouty too. Perhaps a better way to encompass team work is helping the new players or sharing experience or including them in all aspects. Danny decided to press for Amy's conviction the day they were convicting Cecilie. Shadows dropped in and said something funny but with an underlying patronizing tone like "Look at you guys strategizing and being Scummy on your own" or whatever. It was funny because Shadows is the master, but I did think there was an underlying truth to it...

Having Shadows as our strong leader was awesome! I feel like I learned allot about how to play as a scum and how Shadows plays as a scum...
I didn't feel left out. I actually felt like I was spamming the thread un-necessarily.   FunFact: I didn't send a single PM to a non-scum this game.

Hinckley, on 22 September 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

Shadows
*snip*

Shadows you magnificent Bastard! I read your book!   

Hinckley, on 22 September 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

Dannylonglegs
Like I said, I am likely to put you in one of my games every time you sign up. I've liked you ever since Red Moon I and I thinks it's because you displayed the most patience with the on-again, off-again nonsense and then again, with Red Moon II. You did a really nice job on this, especially being the noobiest of the Scum team. You had a lot of great ideas, some of which would've gotten you killed. Others which were very clever. I would've liked to have seen you just go with some of your ideas and take the risk. You seemed to want everyone else to approve every move you made, even down to posting some posts on the writeboard first and waiting for proofreading. This affected your activity a bit as sometimes people wouldn't respond and you would sit there reading the thread and waiting. This is sometimes a Scum-tell and to be avoided. Watching the thread and not posting looks Scummy. Didn't matter here though. You never got a vote, I don't think. Thank you for your ridiculous amount of dedication considering you had just moved into college the weekend this started. Sorry I was hounding you about participation. You truly are a badass for contributing as much as you did. And really good job on strategizing and implementation of the Scum plan. Some of those things wouldn't have worked had you not played it right in public, specifically the meat shield gambit. It is something to watch, for both you and Shadows if this happens again, that you seemed a little too sure that Horace would come up as Scum. You actually not so bad, but Shadows was blatant.

And, likewise, I'm likely to sign up for anything you host (if I have the time) because I love your hosting skill, storytelling ability, and pictures! You're always great fun!
Thanks, I think I've warmed up to the prospects of playing scum. I enjoyed it more this time than I did last... which is saying something.  
Strategy-wise, I like playing it safe, so half the ideas I presented in the EvilThread were not ever likely to be perpetrated unless I got positive feedback on the idea. I'm usually a good judge of what to say and what not to, and if I'm not sure about something, I scrap it. I'd actually be really interested to see which Ideas you thought were good.
I am also aware that lurking is scummy. I didn't have much of a choice in the beginning though, playing from my kindle and what-not! Later, I actually wanted someone to pick up on it and then, if they were forming an argument against me, I'd turn it on them, accusing them of scumyness by taking my "inability to post due to real life" as "scummy."   (sort of a low blow, I know.)
It's alright! Sorry for slowing down the game...    
That last bit of Chesswork was awesome! I've never been in a successfull gambit before, but it worked like a charm. I'm almost disappointed Rufus was killed that night. I think it'd have been even more epic if we got him lynched the next day.

Hinckley, on 23 September 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

All in all, quoting PMs ends up piling up against the Scum and I think it's time we disallow it for the sake of balance.

While I agree that you're right, it is possible for the scum to pull it off right. We didn't get a chance to use them, but in Excalibur 1.0, I made sure we were all PMing each-other as Townies on the off chance that we had to go public at any point.

~Furry, Insectoid Aristocrat

[Hinckley]

Dannylonglegs, on 23 September 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

For the record, our primary place of strategy discussion occurred in your writeboard. The only talk which occurred in the SuperSecretScumBoard was about the Draggy situation, which we thought was best discussed in private. We didn't "put up a front" at all.

Thank you for posting this! So, you had a private PM to discuss the Draggy situation? How interesting. So you guys were considering the possibility that he wasn't fully converted. Wow, one would think the way Shadows is painting it, my action made you guys think there was no doubt you could trust him. But there was a whole other secret discussion. How very fascinating to discover this.

So, was this before or after I left Shadows in confusion over the statement about Draggy having the choice to reveal if he was the serial killer or not?

Did it actually go like this?

1. Hinck flips out and tries to fix it.
2. Shadows asks for clarification about if Draggy was allowed to share his role or not.
3. Hinck tells Shadows to leave him alone and that discussing anyone else's win condition is inappropriate.
4. The Scum have a private PM to discuss if they should trust Draggy.
5. The Scum reach the wrong conclusion.

So, lo and behold, the possibility of a fake conversion wasn't so wild, it was just the Cultist's mistake in not seeing it? Is this true? Just curious, not trying to beat a dead horse here. No, really. This horse will be a hole in the ground for all I care. I'm just so interested to hear about this new information.

Secret PM to discuss the Draggy situation... Greatest thing I've heard all weekend...

[Scouty]

Hinckley, on 23 September 2012 - 11:10 PM, said:

[snip]
Secret PM to discuss the Draggy situation... Greatest thing I've heard all weekend...

Don't get your hopes up, Hinck ! Most of this conversation took place before we converted Draggy and concerned if any of us were stumps, before we let the lumberjack in o our parade. It was all done to try and avoid as little influence from you as possible when it came to the situation of the serial killer. There was a comment that you were hiding something, but after the argument in the pm thread, I thought it all sorted out and moved on from that fuss.

I guess that's one thing I should learn to do, always look back at everything related to the game, because there's always something... Never did the possibility of a fake conversion enter my mind. I didn't see any of the controversy of Draggy's role as particularly threatening to the scum team. It's probably a mix of my mistake (which is a mistake that I would not have realized I made until after the conclusion), your white lies, Draggy's subtle deception, and the argument that clouded everything and made it a very difficult thing to spot for us.

Why, whhhhyyyyy could we convert the serial killer!? Boooo to that!

[Dannylonglegs]

Hinckley, on 23 September 2012 - 11:10 PM, said:

Thank you for posting this! So, you had a private PM to discuss the Draggy situation? How interesting. So you guys were considering the possibility that he wasn't fully converted. Wow, one would think the way Shadows is painting it, my action made you guys think there was no doubt you could trust him. But there was a whole other secret discussion. How very fascinating to discover this.

So, was this before or after I left Shadows in confusion over the statement about Draggy having the choice to reveal if he was the serial killer or not?

Did it actually go like this?

1. Hinck flips out and tries to fix it.
2. Shadows asks for clarification about if Draggy was allowed to share his role or not.
3. Hinck tells Shadows to leave him alone and that discussing anyone else's win condition is inappropriate.
4. The Scum have a private PM to discuss if they should trust Draggy.
5. The Scum reach the wrong conclusion.

So, lo and behold, the possibility of a fake conversion wasn't so wild, it was just the Cultist's mistake in not seeing it? Is this true? Just curious, not trying to beat a dead horse here. No, really. This horse will be a hole in the ground for all I care. I'm just so interested to hear about this new information.

Secret PM to discuss the Draggy situation... Greatest thing I've heard all weekend...

Sorry to bring your hopes up and crash them down, but it went a little more like this:

1. Shadows tells us Draggy's claimed lumberjack and asks us if any of us are secretly the stump.
2. We get excited that Shadows found the SK and all tell him "No, we're not the stump."
3. We decide converting him is he best way to keep him under control. We discuss if this'll make him lose his kill and conclude that it's unlikely.
4. Shadows gets into an argument with Hinckley and discusses it in the thread. Shadows thinks Hink is hiding Draggy's kill.
5. Draggy is "converted" and added to the thread.
6. We lose.

That's it. I hope Shadows is ok with this having been posted, as he did make the thread specifically to avoid Your interference.  

~Insectoid Aristocrat

[iamded]

Hinckley, on 23 September 2012 - 11:10 PM, said:

Thank you for posting this! So, you had a private PM to discuss the Draggy situation? How interesting.

Ah yes, the Fiery Fortress of Foxxxy. Heh, actually, it was as Scouty and Danny said, it was really just Shadows asking if any of us were tree stumps, and if we should convert Draggy. Actually, looking back on that, I see this post I made:

iamded said:

Suppose we convert someone other than Dwanky, but still have Dwanky fight for us. You seem to have him under your thumb, Shadeaux, so it could work. Problem is that option always risks Dwanky switching out and cutting us down, or ignoring you and killing one of us for some reason.

See, we had considered converting someone else and having Shadows continuing to manipulate Draggy. But with Shadows' reply:

Shadows said:

Right, I don't trust him that much either. Conversion is definitely better.

You can see the only reason we converted Draggy is because we couldn't trust him enough to work with him as a neutral. We converted him with the expectation that he'd be converted to the scum team, winning with them so long as the tree stump was dead, especially after being told he was corruptable.

Basically, we converted Draggy to assure that exactly what happened wouldn't happen. Such is life in Mafia.

[Hinckley]

Scouty, on 24 September 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

Don't get your hopes up, Hinck ! Most of this conversation took place before we converted Draggy and concerned if any of us were stumps, before we let the lumberjack in o our parade. It was all done to try and avoid as little influence from you as possible when it came to the situation of the serial killer. There was a comment that you were hiding something, but after the argument in the pm thread, I thought it all sorted out and moved on from that fuss.

I guess that's one thing I should learn to do, always look back at everything related to the game, because there's always something... Never did the possibility of a fake conversion enter my mind. I didn't see any of the controversy of Draggy's role as particularly threatening to the scum team. It's probably a mix of my mistake (which is a mistake that I would not have realized I made until after the conclusion), your white lies, Draggy's subtle deception, and the argument that clouded everything and made it a very difficult thing to spot for us.

Why, whhhhyyyyy could we convert the serial killer!? Boooo to that!

Dannylonglegs, on 24 September 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:

Sorry to bring your hopes up and crash them down, but it went a little more like this:

1. Shadows tells us Draggy's claimed lumberjack and asks us if any of us are secretly the stump.
2. We get excited that Shadows found the SK and all tell him "No, we're not the stump."
3. We decide converting him is he best way to keep him under control. We discuss if this'll make him lose his kill and conclude that it's unlikely.
4. Shadows gets into an argument with Hinckley and discusses it in the thread. Shadows thinks Hink is hiding Draggy's kill.
5. Draggy is "converted" and added to the thread.
6. We lose.

That's it. I hope Shadows is ok with this having been posted, as he did make the thread specifically to avoid Your interference.  

~Insectoid Aristocrat

I hear you both loud and clear: Hinckley is totally vindicated. Thank you. :stubborn_mule_face:

[Shadows]

Hinckley, on 24 September 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

I hear you both loud and clear: Hinckley is totally vindicated. Thank you. :stubborn_mule_face:

Your hearing and reading skills are still as good as ever, but your face is looking better.

[Hinckley]

iamded, on 24 September 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

You can see the only reason we converted Draggy is because we couldn't trust him enough to work with him as a neutral. We converted him with the expectation that he'd be converted to the scum team, winning with them so long as the tree stump was dead, especially after being told he was corruptable.

I always say hosts shouldn't make things complicated. This statement makes me see the over-complication of it. Still, you should have stuck with the original concern and left me out of it altogether. Not that it was you. Little white lies wouldn't have even happened had I not been pestered. Really when I said "no" you guys should've known and that should've been the end of it. Why did you think I was resisting?

I've also said that the players (mostly Town) should be able to rely on the consistency of the host's results. This was consistent, just deceptive, which I also still think is OK. It was supposed to be completely up to Draggy to dupe you guys like a real life serial killer would have to. It would've helped if Draggy were around to see it all happening and explain to me he'd already told Shadows. That had to wait 12 hours after the whole thing started. What if I made a Scum the Serial Killer from the beginning? Although I didn't imagine the Scum would've known the person they were converting was the Serial Killer (thus the result, "Corruptible" as opposed to "Serial Killer".) Anyway, thanks for talking this out and handling it well. I would love to try something "tricky" like this again in the future, but now I know what precautions to take. Mostly, my error was responding to the questions at all. Seems like you guys were on the right track without that. I should've just let Shadows insult me and the game and ignored it altogether. However, allowing the conversion seems to be the confirmation you needed to make the mistake. If I had refused to give the role PM or modified it, you guys would've known. After that you weren't looking for clues. However, since I thought I had given Dragonator away, I felt I owed it to him, so I made those adjustments. Gross.

At the same time, after that "conversion", I thought, at least the fact that I never gave you Draggy's Night Action results would've been a huge clue.

[Scouty]

Though you didn't include Draggy's killing action, you did include the scum action of Draggy with the rest of the scum actions, so that just keeps the consistency of the thought that Draggy's killing action was his own, so stayed in his role pm. Again, there was reason to think of why there was a separation that didn't lead to "Oh, he must be a fake!" I still think that what you thought was obvious really wasn't.