Johnny Depp Mafia: [Game Over]

[Mackay]

[Chaz]

Meh. Again, I think Krad has a pretty solid stance in that he doesn't play with me often enough to know how wild I get. I can see someone unfamiliar with this fact finding my post suspicious; he was already voting for Undercover Monk, and probably didn't want to draw attention to himself for vote switching (something I've never found to be a sure-fire scum tell anyway.)
_________________
The enemy's base is down.

[KradDrol]

[ralphmerridew]

Mackay: Are you sure? I found that Gilbert Grape and Jack Kerouac (as well as my role) have something distinctive in common. The odd thing is that if you start with the common thread at the logical place, you won't find Kerouac. If you start with Kerouac at the logical place, and you're aware of the common thread, you'll find out that he matches it as well.

[Mackay]

Holy wow, you're absolutely right!

I *had* started at the logical place with what I thought the theme was and couldn't get to Kerouac, but starting with Kerouac and the common thread pinged it immediately. Who knew? Now I don't have to feel as though I'm missing something huge - though honestly I'd assume that everyone's role fits the theme, good or evil.

Now I'm wondering what the thing was that Chaz was doing that I missed, though =)

[Undercover Monk]

Like Macay my role name has a lot in common with GG! which is odd cause Jack Keuroc has a small thing in commmon with me. These similarities are not the same so Im totally lost.

as to Chaz'z conspiracy thing I completely missed it. i have no idea what you guys are talking about. So I guess my question to Chaz is do you really think that discussing this theory wil help the town. To me it seems like a distraction. I would rather like to go down Zags road of vote and post analysis.

Im in class all day today so I may not get to a summary but someone should, I think.
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning

[Zag]

Ok. With a little work on imdb, I figured out what was in common between my role and Gilbert Grape, and, sure enough, there's the association to Jack Kerouac right there. I can't say, though, that I would accept someone else's claim of association as being confirmation of innocence. After all, there are plenty of mafia (and even at least one Serial Killer) roles that fit the same theme perfectly well.

So Chaz -- how can I say this politely? -- if you aren't scum, then quit your role-sniffing. It can only help the mafia to hear everyone's role name. The only possible benefit to town would be if a mafia feels the need to lie about his and he accidentally picks one that someone else has. The likelihood of that is far less than the likelihood of the mafia picking out the power roles from people's role names. They've already gotten lucky enough to snuff out our doctor. Let's not help them any more, eh? But, I still suspect that was your goal all along.

[Zag]

[Chaz]

Bahahahaha. My theory was way off! I'm still going to keep it to my self for now, but I will share it later. It was a fun one if nothing else, and I think it got the thread moving along.

Zag I think you've found the theme, almost certainly. It matches my name as well. It is odd about Kerouac... if you check the source, then it does match up again.

It does negate my assumed innocence of rm, however, and makes me wonder why DP agreed with me (unless he was laboring under the same delusion that I was.)
_________________
The enemy's base is down.

[ralphmerridew]

Well, when this game ends, you'll have to tell me why that post made me seem innocent. It was a simple matter of fact, and not roleplaying / breadcrumbing. Writing has always been my weak point.

[Chaz]

I will if someone reminds me to do so.

Unvote for now. Zag has made it clear enough for my purposes. I'll do a re-read next; I think it's time to start pressuring lurkers.

[Zag]

So I've finally convinced you to stop role-sniffing, so now you're cop-baiting? If you aren't scum, you are working so hard to help them that we should just lynch you and be done with it. I'm starting to think that you wouldn't be this clumsy about it if you were scum, but this is only filled in by my thought that we would be better off without you, anyway.

[Chaz]

*shrug*

If you say so. Again, I'll point out that we wouldn't have anything to analyze if everybody played like you do.
_________________
The enemy's base is down.

[Zag]

We have plenty to analyze.

For instance, if someone acts uncharacteristically serious within the first few posts (especially if he did not act that way in another game in which he was known to be town), that's a scum tell. If someone seems desperate to throw mud anywhere, pushing hard every time it looks like it might stick, that's a scum tell. This is especially true if he is constantly presenting evidence which sounds as if he doesn't even really believe it. If someone is role-sniffing and cop baiting, that's a scum tell. Especially if he has no more to say about his own role than "I'm a vanilla townie," that's a scum tell.

No one of these is conclusive -- they just add to a level of scumminess until you reach a preponderance of guilt.

[MNOWAX]

Ok, I finally found the link.

Chaz it really is time for you to Hang. You wanna help us out? YOU role-claim.

Vote Chaz
_________________
The Man The Myth The Legend
MNOWAX

[Chaz]

The important thing is why we have plenty to analyze Zag.

I'll role claim. I'm J. M. Barrie, vanilla townie.
_________________
The enemy's base is down.

[MNOWAX]

unvote

Okay that fits with what I'm thinking. Anyone want to dispute his name?
_________________
The Man The Myth The Legend
MNOWAX

[Chaz]

So MNO, based on what Mackay said about her role name, and the fact that she's claiming Vanilla, does that seem to fit what you're thinking?
_________________
The enemy's base is down.

[Mackay]

J.M. Barrie fits, obviously, nobody is going to dispute it. I'm pretty sure everyone is going to fit the theme, evil or otherwise. =) I don't think its being known is as bad as Zag is making out, though - the scum probably already knew the theme, simply due to the fact that they already had knowledge of 3 or 4 roles between them. I *do* agree that coming out with actual roles is probably a bad idea, because there's a possibility they don't have safe claims, in which case knowing what's out there would be hugely beneficial to the scum for obvious reasons.

Chaz, what are you talking about re: my role name? What is it that you're assuming about my role name that makes you think "not vanilla", and in such a case why would you be trying to dig me out? (Still vanilla, though.)

Zag, is there a reason you asked for me to outline my reasons for suspecting Krad? I mean, I don't mind that you've disregarded it really, if you give it no credit, but I was expecting some kind of discussion about it after you asked so pointedly.

[Zag]

Sorry, Mackay. I didn't mean to give the impression that I ignored what you wrote, I guess I was looking for a pure one-way transfer of information, which, of course, isn't fair.

So, in reply, I don't really see why you find an FOS to be suspicious. My policy, especially first day, is to state an FOS if someone does one thing to concern me, and not actually vote unless they do a second thing (often in response to my FOS). So I didn't find that suspicious at all. I did, however, find his feeble attempt at meta-gaming to be more significant than you did. It felt more like he was working to find a reason to finger you than that he actually believed what he was saying.

In any case, his reasoning was totally flawed. Even if it were true that Amb considered removing the player, but then decided to replace it, that would be evidence for innocence, not guilt. He wouldn't even consider removing a mafia player.

By the way, while I would normally support a policy of lynching lurkers, I think that Amb's willingness to replace them makes the argument for that policy incorrect.

---

I have to make a sort of global apology for the somewhat arrogant (and incorrect) comment I made in post 248. I came to the right conclusion but for the wrong reasons, because I had confused Jack Kerouac's work with that of Hunter S. Thompson. I still think that the interpretation of the theme is correct, from further googling, but my original evidence for it was flawed. I also continue to suspect that the Mafia names follow the same theme, so I don't think that coming up with the theme is any indication of innocence. But, just in case, I won't say it aloud (so to speak).

[MNOWAX]

oh lets just get it out there. We are all alluding to it, but no one seems to actually say it. theres enough info out there to pretty much give a good conjecture.

My question is which ones could be considered evil roles?
_________________
The Man The Myth The Legend
MNOWAX

[Mackay]

The first that springs to mind is Sweeney Todd, though that's more of an SK thing. I already mentioned earlier that movies aren't really my thing so I'd need to look at a list.

[Chaz]

[MNOWAX]

See, I was thinking about that last night, but I would also see Jack Sparrow being a SK too.

Its goign to be hard from scum to come up with roles that aren't scummy anyway, and I doubt there would be any safe claims here. i would be fine with a NAME ONLY mass claim. and I will tell everyone my identity. I'm Willy Wonka.
_________________
The Man The Myth The Legend
MNOWAX

[Zag]

Seriously, folks, don't claim names. It probably doesn't make any difference, but if it does, it can only help the scum.

[Chaz]

I'm very curious to hear from the following players:

• KradDrol (who has indicated that he's about to read the thread again.)
  
• Quailman (who claims to have some suspicions about others, that he doesn't want to bring up until tomorrow--I assume he meant in game tomorrow.)
  
• rm
  
• Silverfire - She's gone quite quiet too.
  

A name claim would be nice, but just anything really... I'll give more info and speculation after they've posted. I think any other observations we (townies) make right now could play to the favor of unclaimed scum (not that these four are scum, just that they could be.) Ugh. This theory makes saying anything nearly impossible.
_________________
The enemy's base is down.

[Quailman]

I'm back from vacation, and had a lot of catching up to do just for today's posts. I do not think a mass claim is a good idea. I agree with Zag. It can only help the scum. I don't know how you get doctor out of Gilbert Grape, but the scum might be able to connect the dots to ID a cop.

Anyway, my vote is based solely on the following:

[Dragon Phoenix]

I am swamped right now in meat life - will be able to give this game the attention it deserves from Sunday onwards.
_________________
My photography:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/artrock2006/

[Chaz]

Hey Quailman!

[Undercover Monk]

I think Keurock may have been the last minute addition. The problem we are going to have with name claims is that many of these roles are very dark. Sweeny Todd for example is definately a hero but hes also a sociopath. so I would hold off on a mass claim for now but thats just my opinion.
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning

[Amb]

Vote count
2. Chaz: Zag, Quailman
1. Kraddrol: Mackay


Note: If you see a player that needs prodding, please let me know. I have prodded at least one player

[Mackay]

Upon reviewing KradDrol's posts, I recall why I left day 1 with a feeling that he wasn't being honest. His posts are full of what look like clumsy attempts to mislead the town, with a distinct absence of any valid excuse when called out.

- The incorrect metagaming that Zag mentioned, of course, where he wrongly claimed that my role was to be modkilled and tried to use that as an argument for my guilt. Of course, the actual statement said something along the lines of "if IO_SAMBO_OI isn't replaced by the end of this day, the role will be modkilled". KradDrol argued that Amb was going to modkill my role, then changed his mind to replace me. He defended this by saying he didn't read Amb's post properly, and I guess the next point could be explained by his not reading anyone else's posts properly anyway, so maybe he just lacks reading comprehension. (I doubt it, though, every post smacks of disingenuity.) (...disingenuousness?)

- He claimed that Chaz was "following [my] every word" based on the fact that we both voted for him, and nothing else (save possibly the fact that we happened to be on the site at the same time?). When I called him out on this, he quoted as "proof" one post where Chaz stated he was hoping I was familiar with the players, one post where Chaz agreed with what I said and did indeed switch his vote to mirror mine (i.e. the one piece of REAL evidence), and one post where Chaz was actively attacking me. Chaz and I both pointed out how ridiculous this was, and he never responded.

- This post:

[KradDrol]

Sorry guys, but I need more time to read this. I just got word yesterday that we've moved into the next round of our moot competition, so I have cases to read and arguments to prepare for Monday. Apologies again.

Seriously, I was told law school was intensive, but this is ridiculous.

[Zag]

Mackay: Ahh. I had forgotten about his clumsy attempt to tie you and Chaz together. I'd take offense at being tied to Chaz, too.

At the time I was considering stepping in and saying that I don't find that suspicious (Chaz looking to you for advice) because I believe Chaz respects your instincts as much as I do, from past games we have both been in. However, I didn't because I still had you under suspicion (not from anything specific, just wariness), so I was resisting putting too much weight in what you had to say. But, I have to agree that his whole argument didn't ring true at the time: Why go after someone for asking another person to state an opinion? Also, why then target the person he asked, and not the one doing the asking? It's almost as suspicious as Chaz targeting me for sab's very first post.

I still find Chaz to be the most suspicious, but this puts Krad into a strong #2 position. I'll show a little faith in Mackay and

unvote Chaz, vote Kraddrol

[Zag]

(Oh yeah. I meant to say also that being a lawyer -- or trying to become one -- is fundamentally suspicious. )

[MNOWAX]

Out f town till monday, will catch up then
_________________
The Man The Myth The Legend
MNOWAX

[Silverfire]

Ugh. I've been unexpectedly without internet for the past few days. Apologies for the absence.

I second Chaz's call for Quailman's theories which depended on Snik's guilt. And I'd like Chaz to finally come out with some of the actual reasoning behind his suspicions of guilt. These mystery-shrouded metagame theories about the setup are mostly going right over my head, and it's getting annoying. I know that when I received my role I had no idea what the theme was, and it's not like we don't have enough in-game info to go on. While we all pretty much now know the theme behind the role names, that doesn't really help the town.

To be honest, I suspect that the role names have little or nothing to do with the actual roles (seriously, Gilbert Grape is a doctor?). The original post announcing that role PMs would by typed on the fly indicates that Amb may have taken precautions against metagaming. That being said, though, if nothing about a person's role can be gleaned from the role name, we won't out our power roles by claiming.

But I said I'd rather not metagame. I'd kind of like to know where Sab went, but nothing else about him is suspicious. On the other hand, it might be just me, but I feel like UM has been posting just enough to avoid lurker suspicion, but not saying much meaningful. By now you probably know that I tend not to be suspicious of very vocal players, nor those who post so little that they seem like lurkers. I do plan to post a more comprehensive analysis when I get the chance.

[Chaz]

I'll be rather busy today and tomorrow (project at work that's coming to fruition, and the owner of the company wants to see it demonstrated.)

I am planning to explain my theory in detail, as soon as I know more role names. It's probably nothing, and you're probably right about Amb's motives for typing things on the fly. It's just an interesting connection I made early on (mostly motivated by bad assumptions, but later reinforced.) I just don't want to give up the game on the (very unlikely) possibility that I'm "not wrong" about the theory.
_________________
The enemy's base is down.

[Chaz]

I will definitely be waiting until after Quail has posted something meaningful before I do anything else. Maybe he needs some incentive.

Vote: Quailman
_________________
The enemy's base is down.

[Mackay]

Y'know, not only does it tend to work better if you say why you suspect someone rather than saying things about how you want to hear more from them, it also is actually helpful to the town!

Blah blah defending Quail, clearly in league with him, etc etc - whatever - it's just that you were willing to vote for Krad, then withdrew it based on a theory that doesn't exist and now seem utterly unwilling to look at that association, preferring to utter vague and mysterious phrases about Quail which I can only guess stem from OMGUS sentiments.