Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

Creature · 2016-02-12 16:46:57

First, I wouldn't make the kill if I were mafia.

Second, if you noticed, I am so far the only one who claimed to be roleblocked. If Anak had roleblocking abilities, someone should've said they were roleblocked by now. So I am suspicious about Anak's claim.

TaskManager · 2016-02-12 16:48:32

Creature wrote:

First, I wouldn't make the kill if I were mafia.

pls.

Creature wrote:

If Anak had roleblocking abilities, someone should've said they were roleblocked by now.

maybe theyre just inactive like tako

Processor · 2016-02-12 16:49:47

Pyromaniac wrote:

Why do you think w24 is town?

He is a newbie. I don't believe he would make a such bold and random claim if he was mafia. (Unless he was instructed by a mafia member, but I'm putting him on town for now)
It is a weak tell because I only have heard from him once. He should start talking more or I will change my opinion about him very fast.

Pyromaniac wrote:

And why did you say Tako is town? Just because he's inactive? Isn't that what last game had people suspecting Zooey?

Zoey wasn't scum last day, what is your point?

Looking back, history has thought us that most active members are more likely to be a PR or Scum.
Right now those people would be: Maxi123, Anak, Creature, You (Pyro) and myself.

I put Tako town, and I explained it later in my post:

Processor wrote:

I believe him when he says he RB'd Tako, and that he was swapped with someone else. This is probably the reason mafia didn't attack anyone. They swapped themselves with tako to prevent any damage: Nobody would attack tako, I mean could you find a possibly more inactive person?! lol

Why would the mafia swap Tako with someone else?!

Look maybe the mafia doesn't have a role swapping ability, and that person is town aligned. I'd have no explanation for why they swapped Tako with someone else then...

Pyromaniac wrote:

he could've just been afk until after cali claimed rb

a) He posted earlier in the day, if he wanted to tell us, he could do that earlier
b) He confirmed calicara within ~15 minutes

I believe he had no intentions to tell us about the kidnap at all.

maxi123 wrote:

if he is mafia why would he admit that he got RBed if that just pushes us closer towards conclusion the mafia kill didnt occur due to him being RBed?

That's exactly what he wants us to think

If I were scum, I would have done the exact same thing, it was the best option. Otherwise we would lynch cali and then realize that she was right and then we would lynch Creature.

maxi123 wrote:

im still in doubt that creature is scummy

This is the second time you buddy with Creature this game.

Maxi scumlean.

Creature wrote:

First, I wouldn't make the kill if I were mafia.

Yes you would. (Or explain why not?)

Creature wrote:

Second, if you noticed, I am so far the only one who claimed to be roleblocked.

This is odd, agreed, but I doubt anak would be playing suck a risky gambit. It would be very different from his playstyle in the past games.

TaskManager · 2016-02-12 16:57:01

Processor wrote:

This is the second time you buddy with Creature this game.

if you havent noticed, im trying to question almost every accusion to prevent town mislynches
also what was the 1st time?

Creature · 2016-02-12 17:02:39

Still, if nobody claims roleblocked (besides me), it means Anak hit a mafia or he's lying about having a roleblocking ability. There's no reason for town to refuse to say they were roleblocked.

Anak claiming early won't make him automatically town.

Hostage · 2016-02-12 17:03:30

Hmm
on one hand,the mafia could be inexperienced and not kill anyone
on the other hand,they could be wanting us to think that

Processor · 2016-02-12 17:18:56

maxi123 wrote:

Processor wrote:
This is the second time you buddy with Creature this game.
if you havent noticed, im trying to question almost every accusion to prevent town mislynches
also what was the 1st time?

I am doing my best to prevent a mislynch as well, but we must lynch someone today.

This is the first time you buddied with Creature: http://forums.everybodyedits.com/viewto … 76#p581376

Creature wrote:

Anak claiming early won't make him automatically town.

I never said that. The opposite cannot be said either.

Hostage wrote:

Hmm
on one hand,the mafia could be inexperienced and not kill anyone
on the other hand,they could be wanting us to think that

Mafia definitely knew that they had to kill someone at least. I'm pretty sure.

Pyromaniac · 2016-02-12 17:27:35

Processor wrote:

Zoey wasn't scum last day, what is your point?
Looking back, history has thought us that most active members are more likely to be a PR or Scum.

I had only asked because in the previous game rhaz made a point of saying that passive (inactive) people are usually mafia and everyone yelled at me when I disagreed

@creature- saying you aren't mafia because you "wouldn't kill" is a terrible and unprovable (is that a word?) alibi based on hypotheticals.

Like processor said, Anak has shown his playstyle in the last couple games, and while I'm not convinced he's telling the truth, this would be a deviation from character for him.

Pyromaniac · 2016-02-12 17:30:21

As for w24, don't you think a new player would make the mistake of pressuring too hard and too fast right off the bat? I mean it just seems like a newbie mistake...? I'm not really sure where I stand on him right now, i would like him to explain himself.

Processor · 2016-02-12 17:40:06

@pyro: no i don't think a mafia aligned player would make that mistake. I find it even less likely because this is not D1, but D2. W24 wasn't that excited about D1 apparently.

Calicara · 2016-02-12 18:20:34

So here's me theory so far: Creature being blocked N1 doesn't lend to the theory he was Mafia. It would've been coincidence. However I personally found it strange he didn't mention right away being role blocked, which lends to my suspicions, but it's to early to tell. Ill RB him again and see what happens.

I do find less legitimacy in Anaks claim since no one else ha come forward of being roleblocked, but again that doesn't necessarily make him evil. I think for now we should also keep an eye on him. I say give him one more night to see if someone else gets roleblocked. Let's not have a mislynch on D2

TaskManager · 2016-02-12 18:29:39

Processor wrote:

but we must lynch someone today.

we dont have enough evidence on D2 for a 100% accurate lynch

Processor wrote:

This is the first time you buddied with Creature:

Processor wrote:

Both maxi123 and Creature are attacking calicara.
Maxi defends Creature's stance.

really?
i thought you were joking around
i have no clue what led you to that conclusion and i have answered to that accussation or read or whatever of yours
please dont be stupid like that, its annoying

TaskManager · 2016-02-12 18:33:54

Calicara wrote:

Ill RB him again and see what happens.

[sarcasm]
it is indeed smart to lay out that plan here
[/sarcasm]
do you really think creature will do the faction kill this night just to prove your point?

Anak · 2016-02-12 19:11:27

So now that I'm here let me just respond to a couple things.

Creature wrote:

Second, if you noticed, I am so far the only one who claimed to be roleblocked. If Anak had roleblocking abilities, someone should've said they were roleblocked by now. So I am suspicious about Anak's claim.

As I mentioned, my action was changed. Unfortunately Rhazh didn't tell me who I had roleblocked instead. Since you confirmed Calicara's outing, I assumed it was changed to you.

Processor wrote:

Pyromaniac wrote:
he could've just been afk until after cali claimed rb
a) He posted earlier in the day, if he wanted to tell us, he could do that earlier
b) He confirmed calicara within ~15 minutes
I believe he had no intentions to tell us about the kidnap at all.

Now THIS is something I hadn't noticed. I've been on at Calicara for doing the same action as me, but this I hadn't considered. Creature, why didn't you say you had been roleblocked before? Granted you may have forgotten, but from previous games I'm sure we've learned to tell what's happened to us in the night. Whilst I am still curious as to why Calicara outed in the first place, this I would like to know as well.

Creature wrote:

Still, if nobody claims roleblocked (besides me), it means Anak hit a mafia or he's lying about having a roleblocking ability. There's no reason for town to refuse to say they were roleblocked.
Anak claiming early won't make him automatically town.

Once again, my action was changed. And I don't think anyone claiming so early would confirm them.

Calicara · 2016-02-12 19:24:22

maxi123 wrote:

Calicara wrote:
Ill RB him again and see what happens.
[sarcasm]
it is indeed smart to lay out that plan here
[/sarcasm]
do you really think creature will do the faction kill this night just to prove your point?

You do have a good point. I forget this is not town of Salem and anyone can attack. I will not announce my actions a day ahead of time from now on.

TaskManager · 2016-02-12 19:35:35

you gotta change your plan now, just making sure you realise that :l

RhazzleFrazzle · 2016-02-12 20:16:05

Vote count:

Creature:Processor

8 votes needed for majority.

Processor · 2016-02-12 20:17:44

(@RhazzleFrazzle: How many messages will a person receive if they are kidnapped twice?)

maxi123 wrote:

Processor wrote:
but we must lynch someone today.
we dont have enough evidence on D2 for a 100% accurate lynch

So? No matter what, we still need to lynch someone. We have higher chances of winning if we were to lynch random people than if we sit and do nothing.

maxi123 wrote:

Processor wrote:
This is the first time you buddied with Creature:
Processor wrote:
Both maxi123 and Creature are attacking calicara.
Maxi defends Creature's stance.
really?
i thought you were joking around
i have no clue what led you to that conclusion and i have answered to that accussation or read or whatever of yours

This is the second time you strongly defend Creature. That is a fact and you cannot really say it didn't happen because it did.

a) You told Calicara to stop attacking Creature and called her behavior stupid. (Defended creature, attacked calicara)
b) You said Creature wasn't scummy. (Defended creature again)

I didn't say defending the same person makes you automatically scum, but right now I don't have a good feeling about Creature and that's why I'm starting to suspect you as well.

Here is another reason why I think you might be scum:
You are too focused on defending yourself even though I didn't put a vote down on you. Scum players get very nervous when they are accused, especially when they don't have a lot of experience in the game. Look, I already told you why your reasoning about Creature is invalid, was I able to convince you or not? https://forums.everybodyedits.com/viewt … 13#p582413

maxi123 wrote:

please dont be stupid like that, its annoying

This is a terrible response.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
You won't convince me of your innocence this way.

maxi123 wrote:

you gotta change your plan now, just making sure you realise that :l

~Maybe they will~
~Maybe they wont~
The mafia will never know...

TaskManager · 2016-02-12 23:14:20

Processor wrote:

So? No matter what, we still need to lynch someone.

yeah lets just lynch someone because mislynch chances arent even high as hell cmon

Processor wrote:

We have higher chances of winning if we were to lynch random people than if we sit and do nothing.

no. do your math. we will lose faster if we do random lynches

Processor wrote:

This is the second time you strongly defend Creature. That is a fact and you cannot really say it didn't happen because it did.

i didnt defend him. i questioned the accusations on him to see if it would be a valid choice to lynch him.

Processor wrote:

a) You told Calicara to stop attacking Creature and called her behavior stupid. (Defended creature, attacked calicara)

maxi123 wrote:

cali pls
get the joke lol
dont repeat ur defensive crap from game 3

it was D1 and we were joking around while cali seemed to take the joke too seriously and was about to go overly defensive about it like she did in game 3
show me that line where i referred to creature and defended him
show me that line where i told cali to stop attacking creature
show me how your point makes sense

Processor wrote:

b) You said Creature wasn't scummy. (Defended creature again)

where exactly did i clearly say he is 100% not scum? i did say i doubt he is scummy but that is because i didnt see enough proof against him.

Processor wrote:

You are too focused on defending yourself even though I didn't put a vote down on you.

i like to clear things up when im talking with people so an issue is resolved once and for all

honestly you look a LOT like scum to me right now, you clearly stated that youre trying to get a mislynch + you start to alter the meaning of my words and make things up, like mafia typically does to accuse town
im not sure but
!vote Processor

Creature · 2016-02-12 23:16:37

I am starting to feel the 2nd neutral is actually a witch (considering Anak's action was changed to someone else, seems like a witch), unless town/mafia has the ability to change someone's target.

Anak wrote:

As I mentioned, my action was changed. Unfortunately Rhazh didn't tell me who I had roleblocked instead.

Still, you should have roleblocked someone, you don't know who, but someone know he was roleblocked unless you were lying. I assume your target was mafia and refused to say they were roleblocked to not raise suspicion, specially after you claiming your target was changed and claiming roleblocker.

Anak wrote:

Since you confirmed Calicara's outing, I assumed it was changed to you.

I don't think so. Calicara said I was roleblocked before I said I actually was. That'd be stupid to lie like this if you're not a roleblocking role. If Calicara were the possibly witch, I don't think she would guess what is your ability.

And I was roleblocked just once.

Anak wrote:

Creature, why didn't you say you had been roleblocked before? Granted you may have forgotten, but from previous games I'm sure we've learned to tell what's happened to us in the night. Whilst I am still curious as to why Calicara outed in the first place, this I would like to know as well.

I forgot to tell, sorry. I didn't read my PM before I made my post. When I did, I forgot to tell.

Anak wrote:

Once again, my action was changed. And I don't think anyone claiming so early would confirm them.

Your action was probably changed towards a scum, this is why they're not claiming.

Evilbunny · 2016-02-12 23:20:26

I'm sure 90% of us here are unfamiliar with what a witch is. Can you explain?

TaskManager · 2016-02-12 23:20:49

Creature wrote:

I am starting to feel the 2nd neutral is actually a witch (considering Anak's action was changed to someone else, seems like a witch), unless town/mafia has the ability to change someone's target.

there was a bus driver (which was aligned with town) in game 2 so i think there might be a town capable of doing that

Calicara · 2016-02-12 23:21:52

I know "outing" was dumb, but I felt suspicious after I RB'ed Creature, there was no mafia kill, and he didn't claim RB.

Secondly, I can't be a witch. Why? Lets assume I was the witch, how would I know Anak's role? I wouldn't. Therefore even if I used Anak on Creature, there would have been no way of telling what happened. Especially since he didn't claim escort till after me, and Creature never mentioned being RB'ed to begin with. Ergo, I am not a witch, but it wouldn't surprise me if someone was.

Processor

Processor · 2016-02-12 23:41:13

maxi123 wrote:

show me that line where i referred to creature and defended him

Ok here you are:

maxi123 wrote:

Calicara, in response to Creature wrote:
And you are? I'm getting a scum reading from you already, attacking me on D1. Smh
cali pls
get the joke lol
dont repeat ur defensive crap from game 3

Calicara was accusing Creature and you told her to back off. Isn't that defending him?

maxi123 wrote:

We have higher chances of winning if we were to lynch random people than if we sit and do nothing.
no. do your math. we will lose faster if we do random lynches

Winning chances if we don't lynch at all: 0%
Winning chances if we lynch randomly: >1%

It is almost always better to lynch someone instead of nobody. Scum aren't going to kill themselves during the night, you know...

Town lost the mafia game 2 by just nolynching. Don't do that again. It is strategically almost always smarter to lynch one person during the day.
Also fyi, I think your opinion on nolynch is just dumb, it isn't really scummy, it is just dumb.

maxi123 wrote:

honestly you look a LOT like scum to me right now, you clearly stated that youre trying to get a mislynch + you start to alter the meaning of my words and make things up, like mafia typically does to accuse town
im not sure but
!vote Processor

Seriously, you exactly know that I don't want a mislynch either. It is BS to call that a tell, YOU are the person who is changing the meaning of MY statement (which is: we still should lynch the scummiest person, even if they could unfortunately be a town member).

This is a very opportunistic move. You want to push attention away from yourself.

You already stated that you think a lynch today could result in a mislynch and that's why you think we should not lynch anyone.
Then you go ahead and vote to get me lynched, what the hell, that is such a contradiction.
Where's your logic?

@Everyone: Tell me what you think about Maxi123, do you agree with the points I made?

Creature still looks scummy, his argument about not killing if he were mafia makes 0 sense (and I know that he is capable of proper argumentation).

But: I'm moving my vote to maxi because he seems like a much more obvious scum at this point.

!vote Maxi123

Creature · 2016-02-12 23:48:49

maxi123 wrote:

Processor wrote:
So? No matter what, we still need to lynch someone.
yeah lets just lynch someone because mislynch chances arent even high as hell cmon

Unnecessary statements, both of you.

Every half-decent mafia player know nolynching early is as bad as nolynching in a LyLo. Although, if we mislynch a town, considering mafia and SK both hits different town members, we're going to end in a 6v3v2 or 6 town vs 5 non-town, meaning we'd have to lynch correctly 4-5 scum in a row.

The biggest evidence against me is that I was roleblocked and there were no mafia kills, but did you ever take in consideration what I said about Anak?

maxi123 wrote:

Processor wrote:
We have higher chances of winning if we were to lynch random people than if we sit and do nothing.
no. do your math. we will lose faster if we do random lynches

Not really random lynches. We should proceed to a lynch based on how someone's acting, not based on night results that anyone can fake.

maxi123 wrote:

Processor wrote:
This is the second time you strongly defend Creature. That is a fact and you cannot really say it didn't happen because it did.
i didnt defend him. i questioned the accusations on him to see if it would be a valid choice to lynch him.

Doesn't look like you questioned any accusation.

maxi123 wrote:

Processor wrote:
a) You told Calicara to stop attacking Creature and called her behavior stupid. (Defended creature, attacked calicara)
maxi123 wrote:
cali pls
get the joke lol
dont repeat ur defensive crap from game 3
it was D1 and we were joking around while cali seemed to take the joke too seriously and was about to go overly defensive about it like she did in game 3
show me that line where i referred to creature and defended him
show me that line where i told cali to stop attacking creature
show me how your point makes sense

Have to agree on this one. It was most a joke, just Calicara overreacted too much over a joke. Maxi123 was mostly questionining her overreaction.

maxi123 wrote:

Processor wrote:
b) You said Creature wasn't scummy. (Defended creature again)
where exactly did i clearly say he is 100% not scum? i did say i doubt he is scummy but that is because i didnt see enough proof against him.

Processor has a point here. I was being accused because I was roleblocked and there was no mafia kills. If you were going to defend me, you should've at least brought some reasoning.

maxi123 wrote:

Processor wrote:
You are too focused on defending yourself even though I didn't put a vote down on you.
i like to clear things up when im talking with people so an issue is resolved once and for all

No comments. Just a point of agreement to Processor.

maxi123 wrote:

honestly you look a LOT like scum to me right now, you clearly stated that youre trying to get a mislynch + you start to alter the meaning of my words and make things up, like mafia typically does to accuse town
im not sure but
!vote Processor

This looks more like an OMGUS than a legimitate vote.

Processor

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#151 2016-02-12 16:46:57

Re: Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

#152 2016-02-12 16:48:32

Re: Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

#153 2016-02-12 16:49:47

Re: Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

#154 2016-02-12 16:57:01

Re: Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

#155 2016-02-12 17:02:39

Re: Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

#156 2016-02-12 17:03:30

Re: Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

#157 2016-02-12 17:18:56

Re: Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

#158 2016-02-12 17:27:35

Re: Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

#159 2016-02-12 17:30:21

Re: Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

#160 2016-02-12 17:40:06

Re: Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

#161 2016-02-12 18:20:34

Re: Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

#162 2016-02-12 18:29:39

Re: Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

#163 2016-02-12 18:33:54

Re: Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

#164 2016-02-12 19:11:27

Re: Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

#165 2016-02-12 19:24:22

Re: Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

#166 2016-02-12 19:35:35

Re: Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

#167 2016-02-12 20:16:05

Re: Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

#168 2016-02-12 20:17:44

Re: Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

#169 2016-02-12 23:14:20

Re: Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

#170 2016-02-12 23:16:37

Re: Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

#171 2016-02-12 23:20:26

Re: Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

#172 2016-02-12 23:20:49

Re: Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

#173 2016-02-12 23:21:52

Re: Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

#174 2016-02-12 23:41:13

Re: Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

#175 2016-02-12 23:48:49

Re: Mafia 4 game thread (Day 2)

Board footer