[Advanced] US Presidents Mafia - MAFIA WIN

[Nolder]

fyi we're running out of time to elect me.

 

It's the election cliff guys!!

[michellem]

What does impeached mean?

[Tiinker]

Discrediting/accusing. Pretty much step 1 in removing an elected president by filing charges against them.

[dapianoplay3r]

Is the fact yhey are mafia considered a charge worthy offence?

[michellem]

Thanks Tiink :)

[Nolder]

What does impeached mean?

From Wikipedia

Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as criminal or civil punishment.

[Red2111]

 

 

o.0 50 shades of Kate *beams proudly at her Blue sister*

 

@ peace - Nixon is like 3rd on my list for scummy presidents. i mean seriously, water gate was bad enough but the man single handledly caused the decline in this country by taking us off the GOld standard and giving Washington a credit card with no limit on the dime of future generations.

 

I dunna, my boyfriend thinks Nixon is the best president ever. He would argue this forever with you. Maybe I should get him to come here and play mafia or go on the D&D board. lol

 

i look forward to that debate even though he's wrong

 

 

@ Peace Alright I missed Reds poke at you about the impeached presidents. I thought you were talking about Politcal parties.

 

You are implying you are an impeached president though from what im reading and you are saying you are republican ((Not sure if IRL or in game?)) And there are no impeached Republican presidents.

 

um, Tricky Dick Nixoon was republican and impeached. Congress approved, passed and charged him with Impeachement, and were about to vote on it to make it offical until the scummy coward decided to resign.

 

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/nixon.htm

 

 

he is still considered impeached though by the people of this country reguardless of this Vice President pardoning him. and is imo likely scum.

 

 

for intersting reading, here is one on the other two presidents that were impeached - Andrew Johnson & Bill Clinton

 

 

if you want to get very technical, Clinton was the only president to truely be impeached, as Johnson was impeached by the House in 1868 but later acquitted by a single vote following a Senate trial.

 

 

my accusation of scumminess to Nixon stems less from Watergate/Impeachment though, and more for his actions of taking us off the gold standard and givign Washington an unlimited credit card, which allows them to spend beyond our GDP and is the leading cause to our economic troubles today. and he is still looked unfavorably upon through history.

 

theres a reason why the mods dont want us to character reveal; likely because it will be obvious which presidents will be scum. imo this is most likely based in 2 things, how History views them & the state of the country while they were in office and as a result of their actions.

 

for instance, Jimmy Carter (economic collapse) is also likely scum in this game; as is Dubya (causing the house crisis/2 wars) and Obama (i'll go into detail if people want, mainly though, failure to improve the economy, mega loss in jobs in the available market, bengahzi, Fast and Furious, Egypt, Lybia, lossing out AAA credit rating).

 

neither Dubya nor Obama will be looked favorably upon in history, becuase America has suffered economically under both of these presidents. hence, these two are liekly scum imo.

 

Nixon and Carter are liekly scum, for reasons already stated.

 

Clinton, i'm unsure about. the country and history will look favorably on him becuase of the economic boom that happen despite him being in office (it was the result of the tech bubble and .com boom; whcih burst under the middle of Bush's first term and started the economic recession we're still in today). to me, this over shadows his impeachment; but i will agree that his impeachment is an arguement for him being scum.

 

 

so this leaves us with two options. we can lynch from game flavor and go with Nixon/Peace; a president i'm almost sure is scum. or we can lynch from scummy game play and go after Rand.

 

Rand imo is the better option out of the two. his lynch yeilds good info, where as Peaces yeilds next to none; and lynching based on game flavor is WIFOM. for all we know, the allignments could have been randomly assigned (less lieky imo given the restriction onf character reveals) so my choice is to keep my vote on Rand but i would love pressure on Peace because of his scummy character.

[peacesells]

Pressure me?  How do you go about that?  If you are so positive place your vote.

[michellem]

Red; we can character claim, but not role claim.

[Lenlo]

I dont think Clinton would be scum. A miller maybe, but not scum.

 

And I wasnt arguing that Nixon wouldnt make a good scum, just about what presidents count as impeached.

 

Between Peace and Rand I think Rand would be a better lynch. In a game like this where it would actually be rather difficult to tell who would be scum based off of only their character, we should focus on gameplay and ignore character's for the most part.

 

If someone claims George Washington, Abe Lincoln or other very important presidents then we can listen, but other than that I dont think we should care that much about characters.

[Red2111]

 

 

@ Peace Alright I missed Reds poke at you about the impeached presidents. I thought you were talking about Politcal parties.

 

You are implying you are an impeached president though from what im reading and you are saying you are republican ((Not sure if IRL or in game?)) And there are no impeached Republican presidents.

Len: you're forgetting Andrew Johnson.

Johnson was a Democrat.

 

 

 

 

Johnson is listed as Democratic.

He was Lincoln's running mate as part of a Republican ticket. And he was impeached. That means he was an impeached Republican president. President Whitmore says your point is invalid.

 

[url=http://www.pajiba.com/assets_c/2012/07/bill%20pullman%20id4-thumb-550x298-46849.jpg]http://www.pajiba.com/assets_c/2012/07/bill%20pullman%20id4-thumb-550x298-46849.jpg[/url]

no Basel, you're wrong.

 

Lincoln ran on a duel ticket. Lincoln was Republican but chose the Democrat Johson as his running mate to try and sway favor in the Democrat party and do damage control for his opposing view to the issue of Slavery. Johnson never changed his party upon election and remained a Democrat after succeeding Lincoln from the assassination in Lincolns 2nd term.

 

i honeslty wich more tickets we're run like this, or better yet, the VP and President ran on seperate tickets like it originally was.

 

 

ehh... not really. If all the people that read it were scum, which not only would be very improbable, if the scum team coordinated to make up information like that, they might all be caught, for absolutely no purpose.

its less to do with whether its true or not and more to do with you unquestioningly following along with the thought process. it reeks of trying to blend in.

 

 

I really don't know what to say to this. I just said I agree with Nol because he said it. Nothing really beyond that happening here. I don't consciously think about my word choice. I just say what I might say in RL.

this is Mafia, we all wiegh what we say before we post it to see how it could possibly be used. either by tryign to word it to make our point clear or whether trying to bait people for various reasions. you choose to link yourself to the lead vote getter, i find that ping worthy.

 

 

No, again, we don't even know if electing is lynching for 100% yet though. Look at how Ed answered my question, the only thing he gave a definite yes to was are we voting to elect a president, nothing about whether this is a regular lynch or not. So all I am saying is that until we know that it is a lynch, it is somewhat risky to lynch scum, and I am on the side of not doing it right now.

what part of i'm not WIFOMing Eds statement dont you get. i've stated how i think it was meant, i'm sticking with that. you want to interpret it different', thats fine. but discussing it detracts from scum hunting imo.

 

to the blue - and for the 3rd time you are advising us NOT to lynch scum. also, this contradicts your previous stance for moving your vote off of Nol. you're fence sitting on this Rand, tryignt o argue both sides of the coin.

 

either you want to lynch scum, or your willign to lynch a person you suspect is town in case something odd happens. make up your mind and get off the fence.

 

 

 

Well, as you said before, I didn't start the talk about the electing, I just saw it and thought it was important. I mean, we need to reach a consensus on what we're going to do if we don't even know whether we should vote for town or mafia. And keep in mind that while doing this, I am also scumhunting, so I am not staying away from scumhunting, I am just introducing another important game portion to our talks.

no, but you're nudging it along and =keeping the issue in the fore front. i see it as a means of distraction.

 

oh, i think all but the scum woudl agree that we should lynch scum.

 

your also scum hunting? could have fooled me. seems like all you've been doing is focusing on the game mechanic to create WIFOM and defending yourself. i have yet to see you brign a case or pressure to someone.

 

 

 

I don't understand what else was wrong with the blue statement, can you clarify your statement from "you're arguing not voting.... townie if we lynch Nol" ? All I tried to say was that if Ed confirmed that election is a lynch, then I wouldn't want to lynch Nol since that was for the purpose of figuring out what was happening in the game.

heres how i followed your logic.

 

original voting logic -

 

"lynch might give a perosn a power, Nol wants to be the guini pig, i think Nol is town, i'd rather test this out on a townie than a scum; so i vote Nol"

 

now, after pressure and a case agaisnt you, you flip -

 

"lynch might give a perosn a power, Nol wants to be the guini pig, i think Nol is town, i'd rather test this out on a townie than a scum; but i dont want to vote Nol cause i'm sure he'll flip town"

 

 

 

either you want to test this theory out of yours and keep your vote on a person you think is town; in which case why did you remove your vote in the first place.

 

OR

 

your scum and are using a non-info gaining discussion as a distraction agaisnt vote consolodation and scum hunting; and dont really care who gets the lynch so long as their town.

 

 

so which is it Rand?

[ReleaseTheEvil]

ok, I did misinterpret this then.  I believed that the yes

was just to mention that we are voting to elect the president, and the

PAFO was for the rest of his questions.  All that happened here was a

little rearrangement of the questions.  Actually mod confirmation(please)

that the yes was in fact intended for "Is this just the flavor lynch

for the regular mafia lynch?" and not for "We are voting to elect a

president?" would be helpful.  Anyways, if it was in fact for the just

for the flavor lynch for the regular mafia lynch, then I take back

voting for Nolder and agreeing for testing this, because what will

obviously happen is we will lynch town.  Now we move onto the death

gifter idea.  Will Ed be giving them a power right before they die?

 Because if he does, then although lynching mafia will be beneficial, we

are going to have to try and find out what kind of powers they will be

given, or their team.

 

This post from Rand does ping me but it is the type of slip ups and sloppyish posting that I expect from him. Turns out he posts this way even when town. So I'm not sure what to think, but he is coming off as the scummiest to me right now.

 

I agree with what some have said, I am not inherently familiar with all the US presidents, and I'm not sure how relevant history will be to alignment in this game. You'd imagine it would be relatively accurate, but it sounds like a fair amount of it could be left to interpretation.

[Tiinker]

Less history lesson and more game play.

[Red2111]

@ Tiink - would love to see some more ativity from you as well. nothignt o say on my case on Rand then? or are you just tryign to appear proactive then go back to lurking *taps foot*

 

 

 

That would be the things I agree with. I already thought you were scummy but was going to hold off because i was doubting my reading of you ability. Reds points showed me I wasnt the only one thinking this way about you. Hence getting rid of my doubts.

 

I didnt get bullied. In fact what pressure got applied to me that could be bullying? cause i didnt notice it.

or you saw a chance to distance yourself from a scum mate using a townies casing and a chance to link up with said townie.

 

 

Is the fact yhey are mafia considered a charge worthy offence?

imo yes. i mean, they will tell us "but ai is town" and profess their innocences, only to be proven LLL when lynched.

 

lieing under oath and obstructing justice are impeachable offenses *nods* scum are guilty of both

 

unless you're tlaking about Kennedy's and LBJ's pressumed connection to the actual RL mafia *raises eyebrow*

 

 

Pressure me? How do you go about that? If you are so positive place your vote.

i explained this in my post you scummy skimming scummy mcscummerson.

 

needless to say, dont plan on lurking this game peace

 

 

 

Red; we can character claim, but not role claim.

looking back over the rules you are correct. i take back random alignment assignment as a possability and am more happy with my initial choice to vote based on game play rather than character claims and stick with Rand.

 

 

 

I dont think Clinton would be scum. A miller maybe, but not scum.

 

And I wasnt arguing that Nixon wouldnt make a good scum, just about what presidents count as impeached.

 

Between Peace and Rand I think Rand would be a better lynch. In a game like this where it would actually be rather difficult to tell who would be scum based off of only their character, we should focus on gameplay and ignore character's for the most part.

 

If someone claims George Washington, Abe Lincoln or other very important presidents then we can listen, but other than that I dont think we should care that much about characters.

agreed on all but two points

 

- Clinton as miller, i dunno that implies that he was actually innocent of the things he was impeached for; and he 100% did lie under oath and obstruct justice. as i said, i'm undecided on what i would consider his alignment in this game; becuase of how favorably history will look at him.

 

i will say that bringing up the Miller role pings though, it feels like laying the seed and breadcrumbing to denounce future finder claims.

 

 

- re-important presidents. ALL presidents are important. i think what you meant are notarious. imo, President claims are important. there are certain presidents we can all agree, that from their actions, will make them more likely to be scum. thsi can help direct us in where to apply pressure and who to keep a special eye on.

 

these four presidents: Carter, Nixon, W. & Obama are the most likely to have scum allignments imo.

[peacesells]

I red your post Red.  I'm just wondering why you are trying to make it look like you are bussing me? 

[Red2111]

because your character claim is scummy peace. and actulaly, i advocated (and still am) keeping an eye on you and bussing Rand.

[Red2111]

game play > character reveal. only expection, an Obama claim. that sucker is auto lynch for me

[peacesells]

yet you are driving home that the likely scum are certain presidents meaning in actuality you are pushing the character claim angle. 

[Lenlo]

The Obama one is just your personal bias coming into play IMO. Nixon I can see, not sure on Carter.

 

I don't think the pres claims will be that important since we are all Presidents most likely. I did not mean notorious, I meant important/memorable. Some pres are more important than others. Ex: who really cares/remembers Buchanan, Arthur or Fillmore? Those are not important presidents when you look at them all.

[peacesells]

BTW..no one has come forward and claimed a democratic president yet.

[Lenlo]

 

BTW..no one has come forward and claimed a democratic president yet.

<<<<<< Democrat President.

[Red2111]

*raises eyes* Blue Dog Dem or Progressive Dem

 

 

yet you are driving home that the likely scum are certain presidents meaning in actuality you are pushing the character claim angle.

because its the game theme and theme always takes a part in allignment. if we're in a Harry Potter game, i'd expect Voldemort to be Scum and Harry to be Town. if someone claimed Wormtail or Snape in that game, theres a good chance they could flip either way depending on the game runners biased towards those two characters or which book they are running the game in. this would be accounted for, discussed and taken into heavy account in the character claims for that game

 

this is no different here.

 

certain presidents have a likelier chance to be scum, because their actions had a negative effect on the country and history does not favor them. Nixon is one of those, unless you'd like to argue agaisnt that.

 

 

you're hard standing against considering character claims for judgements on allignement is starting to reek. i mean, your claim did come out of left feild and might have been you trying to gain some town cred instead of waiting to be forced to reveal.

 

 

 

The Obama one is just your personal bias coming into play IMO. Nixon I can see, not sure on Carter.

 

I don't think the pres claims will be that important since we are all Presidents most likely. I did not mean notorious, I meant important/memorable. Some pres are more important than others. Ex: who really cares/remembers Buchanan, Arthur or Fillmore? Those are not important presidents when you look at them all.

part of it is my biased against Obama, but my dislike for him is based in the same reasoning behind classifying other presidents as "liekly to be scum". i'm judging their performance as president, he state of the union during their presidency and if they made the economy better or worse (stronger or weaker) during their terms in office.

 

this is the only time i will post this. with Obama specifically, inflation increased, USA lost its credit rating, spending was atriocous, he decreased the available job market, the value of the dollar crashed, the stock market almost crashed, the recession has not lifted, U3 unemployment never went below 8% and went as high as 10%, u6 employment stayed in double digits the entire time; the cost of energy skyrocketed as did inflation. leaving out the two scandles of Gunrunning and Benghazi that put Watergate to shame.

 

these facts equate to a weakened economy and a poor performance during his term. if we were grading performance, hed get a D- at best. the same applies it Carter, whose record is only slightly better than what i posted above, but woudl recieve an F because he wasn't handed a shoddy deck at his start.

 

 

its THESE reasons why IN THIS GAME i think those two are scum. i will not debate these points nor am i trying to start a poltical discussion, i'm simply backing up WHY i beleive them to be scum and why i will push for hard pressure on ANY of those reveals.

[Sakaea]

HIstory makes my brain hurt, you guys. 

[Sakaea]

And so does Obummer for that matter. 

[Lenlo]

I know why you think he's scum Red, I just wanted to clarify for everyone that it was based off of your bias.

 

And I don't know about the Dem thing.