SHIELD vs. HYDRA Mafia - Day 2

[JackJonespaw]

Let me footnote this. We do not want to completely forget about an SK, but speculating every single variable about who killed who and who blocked or doc'd who isn't really helping with the whole voting someone off thing.

Footnote my last post, not Ms. Corrigan's.

[Forresto]

Let me footnote this. We do not want to completely forget about an SK, but speculating every single variable about who killed who and who blocked or doc'd who isn't really helping with the whole voting someone off thing.

Footnote my last post, not Ms. Corrigan's.

Its a bit odd you're so insistent on pushing the serial killer topic to the side as fervently as you are. I imagine the rational and normal response to a mysterious third party with the potential of killing us all off would be one of high concern.

[Umbra-Manis]

Its a bit odd you're so insistent on pushing the serial killer topic to the side as fervently as you are. I imagine the rational and normal response to a mysterious third party with the potential of killing us all off would be one of high concern.

It's not that much of a push to the side, the SK just has to be a possibility in the back of your mind. A scum killer is worse, because he knows exactly who is scum and who is not (Most of the time) An SK can hit a town or a scum, but there's no guarantee one is even in the game, if the investigator finds one he'll be lynched but we really can't do anything about it.

[Darkdragon]

Its a bit odd you're so insistent on pushing the serial killer topic to the side as fervently as you are. I imagine the rational and normal response to a mysterious third party with the potential of killing us all off would be one of high concern.

What I'm finding very disconcerting is how much you are pushing to talk about a possible SK instead of concentrating on talking about who here could be scum. It's possible that you are excited to draw the conversation off of yourself and your team and steer it toward something that may or may not exist. It has really drawn all talk off of any vote analysis from yesterday as well as the fact that the top suspect from yesterday posted tiny fluff today so far and then disappeared. I, for one, would like to hear from him and what he's doing to help us find scum?

[Forresto]

What I'm finding very disconcerting is how much you are pushing to talk about a possible SK instead of concentrating on talking about who here could be scum. It's possible that you are excited to draw the conversation off of yourself and your team and steer it toward something that may or may not exist. It has really drawn all talk off of any vote analysis from yesterday as well as the fact that the top suspect from yesterday posted tiny fluff today so far and then disappeared. I, for one, would like to hear from him and what he's doing to help us find scum?

wow nice try. I am not trying to pull the conversation from talking about the regular scum. I was just in opposition to Jafar who seemingly wants to bury it for the time being. Suspicious behavior if you ask me. If anything I wanted to make sure he didn't get off doing that without being called on it.

Let's talk vote analysis since you seem so keen on the subject. Mrs. Reed what is your opinion on our trajectory after yesterday's split vote? As after all that bluster about talking vote results you failed to bring up any real points. I am actually interested on your take on it by the way

[Lady K]

What I'm finding very disconcerting is how much you are pushing to talk about a possible SK instead of concentrating on talking about who here could be scum. It's possible that you are excited to draw the conversation off of yourself and your team and steer it toward something that may or may not exist. It has really drawn all talk off of any vote analysis from yesterday as well as the fact that the top suspect from yesterday posted tiny fluff today so far and then disappeared. I, for one, would like to hear from him and what he's doing to help us find scum?

I find myself agreeing with this....one post consisting of the least amount of words I have yet seen in any post. In addition to Mr. Schram, where are Ms. Turner, Ms. Coleman, and Mr. Heinz? Not a single post from these three at all today. Now Mr. Heinz I am especially interested in hearing from you, as yesterday you voted three different times rather quickly and you didn't even have a solid reason for your final vote.

[Khscarymovie4]

I'm afraid I don't have any thing worth posting today. I am a bit surprised someone killed Kinjobby. Behind me, he had the most votes voted on by players. I would also like to hear from Ms. Turner, she's been the most quiet with only 2 post.

[CMP]

I would also like to hear from Ms. Turner, she's been the most quiet with only 2 post.

I'm afraid I don't have any thing worth posting today.

In all seriousness, I'm very surprised are people are discussing the possibility of an SK. This is a very small game. I'd wager the scum are the only ones with a regular kill, and that we have a limited vig. That, or they were rightly cautious last night and chose not to kill. I think everyone discussing claiming to one another at this juncture need to calm the hell down. I'd've been surprised if we did have multiple kills last night, this is not indicative of any good night action results, so I'm hoping the PRs are playing their cards a bit closer to their chests.

It's a possibility as the rules do state their is a third party character. However third party doesn't automatically mean it must be an SK, could be a survivor, lyncher etc.

As far as I am aware that's always in the rules regardless of whether or not there is in fact a third party.

[jluck]

Meta gaming warning on this post:

I was just curious as to how much the scum typically do on day 1. In the past several games, scum made an average of 6.5 posts on day 1 with a max of 12 and a minimum of 3. Also, they average the 10th most posts in the day. That proves definitely that the following player is scum!!! It's...me...

Oops...

So yes, I fit the criteria a little too closely, however, it is something to think about when looking for scum. They typically are middle of the pack day 1 players. They're not leading or staying quiet, they're just fitting in. While this might tell us who the scum are, it does give us a profile to look for.

[mediumsnowman]

You may now vote. With 15 players remaining, a majority of 8 is required for a lynch. Approximately 48 hours remain in the day.

[Dragonfire]

It's a possibility as the rules do state their is a third party character. However third party doesn't automatically mean it must be an SK, could be a survivor, lyncher etc.

As Alyssa has said, there doesn't always have to be a third party. Take The Second Crash Mafia for instance - there was no third party in that game although it said it in the rules and JJP hinted at it.

Gah so theres at least one mobster (are we all guessing more then that?) and potentially a third party that is going around attempting to kill us. I hope the SK if that who is they indeed are can kill mafia and vice versa.

There's always more than one scum. Usually there'd be three or four in a game this size - three if there's a SK and four if there isn't. I don't want this to turn into a pedantic argument about how many scum there are, but equally you shouldn't underestimate scum numbers.

Its a bit odd you're so insistent on pushing the serial killer topic to the side as fervently as you are. I imagine the rational and normal response to a mysterious third party with the potential of killing us all off would be one of high concern.

Since you've never played before, I'll give you some advice: while scum can be "caught" due to behaviour (ie. defending a teammate / not voting for them etc.), a SK has no teammates and therefore cannot be "caught" the same way. Scumtells exist; SK tells do not. Therefore if there is a SK, we'll only be able to work out who it is through process of elimination once a few more people have died (or due to PR results).

[Piratedave84]

The conversation about SK is interesting albeit useless and doesn't advance our cause one bit.

I also think it's way too early to assert that the doc "surely" saved someone last night. I hope our new players if assigned PRs will consider all aspects of the situation before reaching out to non-confirmed players.

[JackJonespaw]

As Alyssa has said, there doesn't always have to be a third party. Take The Second Crash Mafia for instance - there was no third party in that game although it said it in the rules and JJP hinted at it.

Could be the host trying to screw with us, but I do not see Director Fury as that kind of man.

Meta gaming warning on this post:

I was just curious as to how much the scum typically do on day 1. In the past several games, scum made an average of 6.5 posts on day 1 with a max of 12 and a minimum of 3. Also, they average the 10th most posts in the day. That proves definitely that the following player is scum!!! It's...me...

Oops...

So yes, I fit the criteria a little too closely, however, it is something to think about when looking for scum. They typically are middle of the pack day 1 players. They're not leading or staying quiet, they're just fitting in. While this might tell us who the scum are, it does give us a profile to look for.

The way this entire thing is phrased really bugs me for some reason. Mr. Williams, may I ask really what the purpose of this was? I get that you may be attempting to help new players out, but to me, at least, it rubbed the wrong way.

[Forresto]

Agreed everyone makes fair points about the SK, we aren't sure if there is one and so until we know more I guess it's fine we push it to the side, while keeping it in mind.

As for the normal scum when Mr. Brown (i'm not saying that he's scum mind you) was given a pineapple was that someone providing him aid or saving him from being murdered?

[Umbra-Manis]

As for the normal scum when Mr. Brown (i'm not saying that he's scum mind you) was given a pineapple was that someone providing him aid or saving him from being murdered?

I'd say that's more flavor or our host giving us some misleading food for thought than an actual clue.

[Dragonfire]

The way this entire thing is phrased really bugs me for some reason. Mr. Williams, may I ask really what the purpose of this was? I get that you may be attempting to help new players out, but to me, at least, it rubbed the wrong way.

I agree. It almost seems as if you're posting to appear helpful and analytic but not actually being so.

Agreed everyone makes fair points about the SK, we aren't sure if there is one and so until we know more I guess it's fine we push it to the side, while keeping it in mind.

As for the normal scum when Mr. Brown (i'm not saying that he's scum mind you) was given a pineapple was that someone providing him aid or saving him from being murdered?

Based on previous games, I'd hazard a guess that someone submitted a "joke" action to give me a pineapple.

[jluck]

Could be the host trying to screw with us, but I do not see Director Fury as that kind of man.

The way this entire thing is phrased really bugs me for some reason. Mr. Williams, may I ask really what the purpose of this was? I get that you may be attempting to help new players out, but to me, at least, it rubbed the wrong way.

Basically, I'm a math teacher. I looked all this up between last game and this because I wanted to see how data collection could contribute to the game. Whether you find it helpful or not, it was fun for me.

[mostlytechnic]

As for the normal scum when Mr. Brown (i'm not saying that he's scum mind you) was given a pineapple was that someone providing him aid or saving him from being murdered?

Officially, check rule 10. And note that that rule was NOT originally in the game. There normally is a stated rule that there's no info or clues in the story/pictures. I noticed during the confirmation phase that rule was missing so I asked Sir Fury about it. He said it was an oversight and edited the rules to add it. Based on that, even though it says "probably not," I'm assuming that there are no real clues. It's likely that someone has a prank night action that caused that, so in a way the pictures are showing someone visiting him during the night (which may or may not be visible to a watcher/tracker), but it does NOT necessarily mean a "real" role visited him (such as a doc or investigator or whatever).

[Tariq j]

I'm afraid I don't have any thing worth posting today. I am a bit surprised someone killed Kinjobby. Behind me, he had the most votes voted on by players. I would also like to hear from Ms. Turner, she's been the most quiet with only 2 post.

See what I find somewhat odd about this post is that instead of joining in the current discussion or voicing any suspicions you may have, you just decide to call out another player.

Something about Kinjobby's last post makes him a lot more suspicious. However, I still find Mr. Schram more scummy so:

Vote: Steven Schram (Khscarymovie4)

Maybe it's just me, but out of all the Day One votes, this certainly strikes me as the weakest vote out there. There's no logic, no reasoning, no nothing. Just a "oh yeah, this guys scummy lets vote for him" Very Sheepish.

[JackJonespaw]

See what I find somewhat odd about this post is that instead of joining in the current discussion or voicing any suspicions you may have, you just decide to call out another player.

Adding to that, I have never heard anyone state "I don't have anything useful to say". It is similar to showing up, grabbing a delicious coffee, introducing yourself, and sitting back in the corner while everyone else does things. That is - thoroughly useless.

Basically, I'm a math teacher. I looked all this up between last game and this because I wanted to see how data collection could contribute to the game. Whether you find it helpful or not, it was fun for me.

Ah, that actually makes a good deal of sense. I was thinking you had just made up those numbers.

[Comrade Commander]

Well that is unfortunate, though interesting...

We now have some data to analyze.

First, here was no reason for a night kill of our now deceased pizza guy. He was a viable lynch option as even I thought he could be scum based off the very limited data we had.

- So that asks why he was killed?

My thought is he was killed to deflect suspicion from the scum. This is because yesterday I posted that if the pizza guy turned out to be town,I would be less suspicious of Eugene Lawson (Forresto) due to the nature of yesterday's play out. I think the scum, knowing the pizza man was innocent, murdered him hoping I would lead the cause of professing the innocence of Lawson.

However, I was of course only analyzing lynch perspectives and now see new trends. When factoring in the above, and the speculation on scum roles/numbers/etc, it is possible to see other trends towards scum.

Of note, Lawson had a 4 vote penalty against him. If there was the perceived minimum scum count of three, all they would need to do is pile on and convince two other players to join them in order to remove an innocent player. A fact that would be easier if there was the possible four scum infiltrating us.

Additionally, this move would have cut down on communications (always a scum weakness) as a bandwagon would probably occurred and could have been tried to be passed off as doing the "easy lynch" on day one.

Instead, a lot more effort was put into convincing the town to vote elsewhere.

This makes me believe that the scum was trying to protect Lawson (Forresto)

For that reason I VOTE: Eugene Lawson (Forresto)

I am happy to discuss but will likely be busy in the lab quite a bit so may not be able to respond right away

[Darkdragon]

Let's talk vote analysis since you seem so keen on the subject. Mrs. Reed what is your opinion on our trajectory after yesterday's split vote? As after all that bluster about talking vote results you failed to bring up any real points. I am actually interested on your take on it by the way

Yesterday's votes, well there's not much to analyze yet is there. I don't think there are many scum voting on Steven yesterday, they most likely tried to split the vote so he wouldn't get lynched, if he is scum.

I was hoping that Steven had some opinion or in some way was trying to help us, but apparently he has nothing to say today. Much like yesterday.

Since Steven is doing nothing to help the town, giving no opinions, still posting completely useless and less-than-fluff posts, I have not changed my mind on him from yesterday. He still reeks much more of frightened scum than general frightened newbie.

Vote: Steven Schram (Khscarymovie4)

[mostlytechnic]

Well that is unfortunate, though interesting...

We now have some data to analyze.

First, here was no reason for a night kill of our now deceased pizza guy. He was a viable lynch option as even I thought he could be scum based off the very limited data we had.

- So that asks why he was killed?

My thought is he was killed to deflect suspicion from the scum. This is because yesterday I posted that if the pizza guy turned out to be town,I would be less suspicious of Eugene Lawson (Forresto) due to the nature of yesterday's play out. I think the scum, knowing the pizza man was innocent, murdered him hoping I would lead the cause of professing the innocence of Lawson.

However, I was of course only analyzing lynch perspectives and now see new trends. When factoring in the above, and the speculation on scum roles/numbers/etc, it is possible to see other trends towards scum.

Of note, Lawson had a 4 vote penalty against him. If there was the perceived minimum scum count of three, all they would need to do is pile on and convince two other players to join them in order to remove an innocent player. A fact that would be easier if there was the possible four scum infiltrating us.

Additionally, this move would have cut down on communications (always a scum weakness) as a bandwagon would probably occurred and could have been tried to be passed off as doing the "easy lynch" on day one.

Instead, a lot more effort was put into convincing the town to vote elsewhere.

This makes me believe that the scum was trying to protect Lawson (Forresto)

For that reason I VOTE: Eugene Lawson (Forresto)

I am happy to discuss but will likely be busy in the lab quite a bit so may not be able to respond right away

Decent analysis and definitely worth considering. One flaw I see right away - don't put TOO much stock in the fact that scum didn't pile on Eugene to get a quick lynch. Day 1 is the time scum stay fairly quiet and don't lead. Even if Eugene was the towniest of townies they probably wouldn't risk being in a group piling the votes on him unless someone else started it.

[Dragonfire]

Maybe it's just me, but out of all the Day One votes, this certainly strikes me as the weakest vote out there. There's no logic, no reasoning, no nothing. Just a "oh yeah, this guys scummy lets vote for him" Very Sheepish.

Much like your vote on Jasper

Decent analysis and definitely worth considering. One flaw I see right away - don't put TOO much stock in the fact that scum didn't pile on Eugene to get a quick lynch. Day 1 is the time scum stay fairly quiet and don't lead. Even if Eugene was the towniest of townies they probably wouldn't risk being in a group piling the votes on him unless someone else started it.

Look at what you yourself did in Main St. Mafia. You and another scum tried to start a bandwagon to save Shadows, your buddy.

Anyway, I agree with Cecilia: Steven's not only being unhelpful today, he's decreased in activity, and that makes me think that he's received advice from his scumteam to lie low and not attract any attention. So I'm going to Vote: Steven Schram (Khscarymovie4)

[Tariq j]

Much like your vote on Jasper

When I initially voted for him I didn't say much, but I did explain myself later:

To answer your question, PD misinterpreted a post and made a wrong accusation. That's all fine, I think its safe to say we've all done that before. But when he did vote for Forresto, his post for voting felt quite wishy washy. He voted for a random player because they hadn't spoken up that much, he then unvoted them and then voted for Forresto. It felt to me like an attempt to stir up confusion, a not taking a clear point of view type of post.