Mafia Game 2: Wynnexcavation Game Thread

Analyse me Sherlock

 

Willingness to be analyzed, town.

There.

 

Ok so:

We did not have an innocent child announced in the morning, meaning that as to the number of Masons, there are 2 Masons (2 M slots), 3 Masons (4 M slots) or 2 separate pairs of Masons (5 M slots).

But it is more likely we have lesser amounts of Masons since Masons have a smaller chance to be picked in the set-up. Whatever the case we have at least 2 Masons in the game (who in turn take up 2/4/5 slots), but no innocent children.

 

Or there are zero masons, did you consider that

 

fair enough.

 

Unvote
There. Happy, @add air spear ?
Johnald doesnt seem to be responding anyway,
so i guess that all that move was doing was getting me unnecessarily attacked.

Oh and now i'm directly putting myself in harms way.

Really, I could have a basis of an attack on you, but it is based on an extremely small amount of evidence and i generally like to give the benefit of the doubt.

If you find me suspicious after i make a pretty decent play, then you are looking in the wrong location. By far.

 

I'm not attacking you because you're voting him, I'm attacking you because your action of voting him is scummy and coincides with a scum agenda

And IMO that wasn't a decent play ;)

 

I voted to see what his response would be to see if he was scum without realizing he would be basically inactive. How is it not one?

Frankly, the fact that you're trying to set yourself up as town leader, where you clear Dave in a heartbeat but relentlessly attack me sounds suspicious by itself.

 

I attack you because I find you scummy. I do not attack Dave because I do not find him scummy.

Clearly this logic makes no sense and warrants an instant lynch. /s

This really feels like post-hoc rationalization - it seems to me that you did your action first and made up this reason later. I don't see how that was a reaction test.



And if you don't trust me have a cop check me or something but I'm probably dead by D2 or D3 so you shouldn't even bother to be honest

 

At this point, i see practically none of these words to convince you. Ill be back when the coin comes up tails and i get revealed to have been innocent all along.

 

If you give me a reason to townread you I'd do it

I just haven't seen such a reason yet

 

That's the point.
If there's one thing I've learned from wynn mafia it's that everything I say will just make me even shadier.
If for some reason, I'm incapable of saying anything trustworthy, I'll just go into "eh" mode.

 

Standard scumtells used by inexperienced players are usually ineffective
If you're town, play like it, with any luck I'll townread you for it ;)

 

In the Player listing, you listed the player formerly known as @Chigo_ (Who is currently @Stag2003) as @Stag2001

Do look at the number of years, since there is a new Stag cult going around.

 

Active y'all.

 

Not going to waste this time.

@Wynner

This is in no way a lynch, but I'd like to point something out to you:

In your first post, you condemn @HM The Nether for rapidly voting on someone. You told him you should wait to see how others would act before accusing someone of being mafia. So, in short, you rapidly vote on him and accuse him of being mafia.

You violated your own rules there, and I do kind of wonder if it maybe had been a mafia motive to jump on the first person and make them look bad. HM said many times he was scumhunting, yet you all continue to attack him.

You go on to say we should be more careful only after @Dr Zed retracts his vote. Though I approve of you doing this, nowhere in your original post does it say you would retract. This reeks of bandwagoning, not to mention your second post looks rather scripted. There is a very heavy tone change between the two posts.

Again, this is not a lynch. However, you currently smell of scum. Input from the other townspeople as well as you would be appreciated.

 

Now that I'm over that bit and simply awaiting my death in 2 irl days, I'll expand my point.

Imagine you're some hypothetical mafia member. You know that in this game, clearing somebody is going to be extremely difficult if not impossible.
Such, you and your brethren are just as susceptible to being lynched as everyone else.
On paper, at least.

In most mafia games, there is often a "town leader" of sorts who, while not having an official leader role, still generally guides the people and is seen as trustworthy.
This was pulled off without a hitch in wynn mafia, as there was a way to clear people in that session.
Here? A mafia member could use force of will and accusations to become generally accepted as a voice of reason, and proceed to "clear" other mafia members and attack innocents, which means whoever's gunning to be that voice is suspicious to me.

With that argument being my rationale, I ask what the rest of you think of it before I cast a vote.

 

This feels like a ploy to direct the efforts of rolecheckers elsewhere.
Or, you could be immune to rolechecking, raising you above immediate suspicion. Assuming you are a rolecheck-immune mafia, you will gain more influence over lynchs once confirmed as town, which is extremely valuable to mafia roles.

I won't say further as you could also be a valuable member of town trying to stay alive, however I don't think many townies would draw attention in this manner on the first day.

Food for thought.

 

Active

Also, right now I see HM as the scummiest, seeming he is almost panicking. But I believe we should still not risk lynching yet until we have better evidence.

 

Okay, it's been a day and @Wynner has not responded but has been online.

I am therefore changing my vote.

Vote: Wynner