Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Galzria]

I'm a little suspicious of bozzball. He was late to the party (I won't hold that against him really), but his quick vote of Robz888 for saying "Hey I'm here, let me get caught up"...

What was the point? Either he's trigger happy, which I'm not sure is good, or something else is going on.

It just seemed suspicious to me. Why not wait to post when you are caught up?

Because people jump to accuse at inactivity. Rightfully so, silence *cough* insomniac *cough* Kuildeous *cough* is a dead tell.

[Voltgloss]

Who here has played this game before?

How often does a mafioso get lynched on the first turn?

It just seems incredibly random.

I haven't played this exact setup before, but it's very rare to actually lynch a mafioso on the first day. HOWEVER the reason is that, when the town correctly identifies a mafioso, which happens reasonably often, he'll fakeclaim to avoid early death (town is generally unwilling to lynch a power role claim on day 1). This usually only saves him for a day or two, and it definitely helps the town to force a fakeclaim from mafia, but it does mean mafia themselves rarely get lynched day 1.

I should note that in the RL game I played where we lynched the mafia on days 1 and 2, there were NO power roles (completely vanilla game).  So the fakeclaim option wasn't available.

[Tables]

It's a lot more common in F2F to lynch correctly day 1, because of the way voting tends to work (by the time you know everyone is going to vote for you, you're dead).

[Robz888]

On the note of more info.

It occurs to me that bozzball revealed his profession (?) to us, which gives us the beginnings of an inkling about his character. Perhaps it wouldn't hurt for us all to share that piece of info? I'm the opposite of a numbers person, all about words. Journalism is my field. I admire mathy folks but my aptitude for it is ... not good.

Oh, i missed this earlier. I am a journalist, too!!!! I write about higher education for an online news site, and contribute to some newspapers, other sites, and magazines.

[Robz888]

But that analysis is based on the vote always being (essentially) random. I don't know if that bears out. Consider: The first night vote has a worse than 2/9 chance of hitting Mafia, because the 2 Mafia won't vote for themselves or each other. In fact, they can communicate, so they may well vote for the same person. So a non-mafia town member will get at least 2 votes in the first round lynching. That means the 7 of us who aren't in the mafia have an above-average chance of lynching an innocent.

From Day 2 onward, we have a better than 2/#of survivors chance of hitting the mafia because our votes are informed by actual events and information.

Not true. The "odds" don't change. We do not have a worse than 2/9 chance of hitting a mafia tonight; we have exactly a 2/9 chance. But we can beat the odds if we use our heads. And we can do that this very round, without sacrificing a chance to do so. It's true that the mafia have the advantage of coordination and the like, but... that's sort of just the nature of the game. We have to outthink them. And we can do that now.

[Kuildeous]

Sorry for being quiet. Been a bit crazy around here…and no, I wasn't burying bodies.

My first inclination was to vote for no lynch. I see the reasons why this is bad, though I am still concerned about the possibility of lynching the doctor or cop. These are helpful in rooting out the Mafia, as I understand it.

I hate the idea of killing off someone at random (especially if that someone is me!). Even after hearing the arguments, I fear that my "informed" vote will still seem random.

I'm off to not bury a body, but I should have a vote soon. I see the arguments against "no lynch." I don't like the idea of randomly lynching someone, but I suppose it must be done. I'm open to arguments, though.

[Robz888]

Can see no purpose in this content. Vote: Robz888

Hey guys, wow! Activity! I will respond in a couple minutes.

My lack of response up to that point had earned me a ton of suspicion, so I posted just to say that I was catching up on the thread and would weigh in soon. So, I think I had a valid purpose for writing that. So your vote strikes me as odd, though I wouldn't say suspicious.

[Robz888]

Sorry for being quiet. Been a bit crazy around here…and no, I wasn't burying bodies.

My first inclination was to vote for no lynch. I see the reasons why this is bad, though I am still concerned about the possibility of lynching the doctor or cop. These are helpful in rooting out the Mafia, as I understand it.

If we are careful, we won't kill the cop/doctor/jailkeeper. If a cop/doctor/jailkeeper has like, 3 or 4 votes, they should say "Stop, halt desist!" And explain. And we should immediately take back our vote. As I said before, this will be regrettable, because the mafia will have learned something, but it will be better than accidentally executing a power role townie. This is part of the reason I am scared to see votes flying everywhere. Let's have accusations flying, rather than votes. I don't want the cop to come back to his computer after a couple hours and find out "Oh crap I'm dead."

I hate the idea of killing off someone at random (especially if that someone is me!). Even after hearing the arguments, I fear that my "informed" vote will still seem random.

I'm off to not bury a body, but I should have a vote soon. I see the arguments against "no lynch." I don't like the idea of randomly lynching someone, but I suppose it must be done. I'm open to arguments, though.

Our lynch shouldn't be random, it should be the product of careful and deliberate consideration of everyone. Listening to people defend themselves is what will tell us who is acting suspiciously. To that end, I would like to hear morgrim defend his bandwagoning on the "no lynch" thing.

Oh, and if we absolutely positively have no idea who it is... I suppose there are worse things than no lynch. But we would have to be pretty depserately unsure who was mafia to do that, I think.

[Morgrim7]

I have not seen any talk as of late. It does not matter if the vote is random or not if we do not vote at all. Vote, people! For now, I guess I will Vote: Voltgloss.

On another note, Kuildeous and bozzball, who are your ssuspects.

[Morgrim7]

Sorry, scratch that. I meant Vote: Robz888. oops.

[Robz888]

Sorry, scratch that. I meant Vote: Robz888. oops.

It does nothing to deflect my suspicions that morgrim refuses to answer my questions about why he quickly bandwagoned "no lynch," how he could have possibly just voted for the wrong person, and why he abruptly switched to me after I've kept calling him out.

This strikes me as either foolishness, or transparently mafia play.

[Tables]

I disagree slightly with Robz about voting. The thing is, people generally don't properly defend themselves until they think they could have their head on the chopping block, and that only happens as votes pile onto them. There is a chance of an early hammer, but that, on day 1, isn't a problem. We have regular vote totals, and if someone were to hammer to early, well, that's an obviously scummy thing to do. Enough that you'd probably get lynched the following day. It could happen accidentally, but not if people are paying attention.

Kuildeous' defence about No Lynch... doesn't strike me as suspicious. I can see where he's coming from, and I get more of a 'I don't want to lynch yet' rather than a 'let's waste the day yo' vibe from him. In this game, we only stand to lose by no lynching. We're better voting randomly than no lynching, as we might hit mafia, while the mafia will definitely hit town with their extra kill.

In fact, I'm beginning to get a bad vibe from Robz. The things he's chosen to respond to aren't exactly... the most relevant things he could have been picking out. Information, not analysis, type posts. Slightly worrying.

[Robz888]

I disagree slightly with Robz about voting. The thing is, people generally don't properly defend themselves until they think they could have their head on the chopping block, and that only happens as votes pile onto them. There is a chance of an early hammer, but that, on day 1, isn't a problem. We have regular vote totals, and if someone were to hammer to early, well, that's an obviously scummy thing to do. Enough that you'd probably get lynched the following day. It could happen accidentally, but not if people are paying attention.

I guess in my mind the difference between an accusation and a vote isn't much, except a vote could get us in trouble. I would expect people to respond to accusations, not just votes. But perhaps you're right.

Kuildeous' defence about No Lynch... doesn't strike
In fact, I'm beginning to get a bad vibe from Robz. The things he's chosen to respond to aren't exactly... the most relevant things he could have been picking out. Information, not analysis, type posts. Slightly worrying.

What are the relevant things? I don't mean this flippantly. I'm interested to know what things you think are relevant.

[Morgrim7]

Sorry, scratch that. I meant Vote: Robz888. oops.

It does nothing to deflect my suspicions that morgrim refuses to answer my questions about why he quickly bandwagoned "no lynch," how he could have possibly just voted for the wrong person, and why he abruptly switched to me after I've kept calling him out.

This strikes me as either foolishness, or transparently mafia play.

Look at my first post. Now.look at my second post. Now look at my first post again. What do you notice? My two posts are little more than five minutes apart. Given that I am a horrible typer, and that I am posting from a Kindle Touch, which has a horrible keypad, and that I am like a hawk on this thread and I have seen every post on this thread you have made aroud five minutes after you said it, was your final assumption at all fair?

[Voltgloss]

Hmm.

There is one player who:

- immediately after jotheonah proposed "no lynch," jumped on that bandwagon;

- immediately after the "no lynch" proponent (jotheonah) was countered by two dissents (myself and Tables), jumped off the "no lynch" bandwagon;

- was the only person who responded to my question about "what additional info are you hoping to get," and did so by explicitly refusing to answer as it "could turn out to be a dangerous piece of info" - which sounds like telegraphing he has a power role, but why hint at having a role (without revealing it) unless it's a fakehint?;

- has repeatedly pushed people to vote, rather than just voice their suspicions - an approach that can lead to a hasty bandwagoned, scum-driven lynch; and

- responded to Robz888's reasonable question (to "defend his bandwagoning on the 'no lynch' thing") by not responding at all - other than to vote for Robz888; and

- responded to Robz888 pointing out his failure to respond to the question by, yet again, NOT responding - instead focusing on one minor aspect of Robz's post (that he quickly switched his vote in the space of a few minutes).  Poking a hole in a minor piece of an argument does not automatically make the whole thing collapse - and trying to do that, while ignoring the more substantial gist of the argument, feels scummy to me.

My scumdar senses are strongly tingling in the direction of Morgrim.  Quite strongly, in fact.

Vote: Morgrim

Morgrim, if you want to allay my suspicions, you should address each of the points I've listed above.

[Insomniac]

I have a wedding to be at today so I was doing a bunch of driving this morning and won't be able to partake too much today. That said I would tend to side with the thoughts that Morgrim7 is mafia. I don't want to rush the vote yet though So I will currently abstain from voting

[Galzria]

Good points being made. Not enough to sway me yet, although I will do two things:

Unvote Voltglass: My reasoning? Early on he was pointing fingers rather randomly. Not only did I feel it was unnecessary that early, I felt it caused more confusion than it helped anybody determine a Mafia member. Since then, he has waited, making more informed valid arguments. His change in tactics could be seen as suspicious, but I'm getting a better vibe from him now.

Also, I will, for the time being, rescind my "nice camp" feelings towards Morgrim. I'm not nearly ready to move... His actions do speak to a potential power-role player, and if he IS, I don't want to force a reveal. Still, I'll need to hear a lot from him to feel better.

[Morgrim7]

Hmm.

There is one player who:

- immediately after jotheonah proposed "no lynch," jumped on that bandwagon;

- immediately after the "no lynch" proponent (jotheonah) was countered by two dissents (myself and Tables), jumped off the "no lynch" bandwagon;

- was the only person who responded to my question about "what additional info are you hoping to get," and did so by explicitly refusing to answer as it "could turn out to be a dangerous piece of info" - which sounds like telegraphing he has a power role, but why hint at having a role (without revealing it) unless it's a fakehint?;

- has repeatedly pushed people to vote, rather than just voice their suspicions - an approach that can lead to a hasty bandwagoned, scum-driven lynch; and

- responded to Robz888's reasonable question (to "defend his bandwagoning on the 'no lynch' thing") by not responding at all - other than to vote for Robz888; and

- responded to Robz888 pointing out his failure to respond to the question by, yet again, NOT responding - instead focusing on one minor aspect of Robz's post (that he quickly switched his vote in the space of a few minutes).  Poking a hole in a minor piece of an argument does not automatically make the whole thing collapse - and trying to do that, while ignoring the more substantial gist of the argument, feels scummy to me.

My scumdar senses are strongly tingling in the direction of Morgrim.  Quite strongly, in fact.

Vote: Morgrim

Morgrim, if you want to allay my suspicions, you should address each of the points I've listed above.

Uhhh, right.
- At first no lynching looked like a good idea, but...
-I thought  I had said before that, because you and Tables made a good argument against no lynching, that you had converted me to your view.
-Well, look at my post. I will say that that is the truth, but now it is not. I witheld the info. to protect you from being killed by the mafia, as they would have seen you as a useful source of info. and would want to kill you of if you were not mafia already and they had no better target.
-I thought I had already answered that above, but apparently I had not.
-I guess I was taken a little off guard after being called a liar.

[Galzria]

To clarify Morgrim:

Your reasoning for "withholding information" is that you didn't want Voltglass to be seen as being good at ferreting out information, thus putting him at risk from Mafia?

If so... Interesting. I'll have to consider how best to interpret what that means about you, and potentially about Voltglass.

[Morgrim7]

To clarify Morgrim:

Your reasoning for "withholding information" is that you didn't want Voltglass to be seen as being good at ferreting out information, thus putting him at risk from Mafia?

If so... Interesting. I'll have to consider how best to interpret what that means about you, and potentially about Voltglass.

Precisely, my dear Watson.

[Robz888]

To clarify Morgrim:

Your reasoning for "withholding information" is that you didn't want Voltglass to be seen as being good at ferreting out information, thus putting him at risk from Mafia?

If so... Interesting. I'll have to consider how best to interpret what that means about you, and potentially about Voltglass.

Precisely, my dear Watson.

I don't get it. You seem to be implying something about roles. But nobody has used their powers yet, so... that's just a hunch right?

[Morgrim7]

To clarify Morgrim:

Your reasoning for "withholding information" is that you didn't want Voltglass to be seen as being good at ferreting out information, thus putting him at risk from Mafia?

If so... Interesting. I'll have to consider how best to interpret what that means about you, and potentially about Voltglass.

Precisely, my dear Watson.

I don't get it. You seem to be implying something about roles. But nobody has used their powers yet, so... that's just a hunch right?

No. This has nothing to do with roles. I am saying that Voltgloss has obviously some experience, and because of this, if Voltgloss is not mafia, and the mafia do not have a better target already, then Voltgloss would be a good target.

[Galzria]

I know people are busy, but I'd really like more thoughts from:

Bozzball, Kuildeous, Insomniac, and  joetheonah. Maybe Tables as well. Lots of information to offer thoughts on. I'd like to hear where they're at with all this.

[Kuildeous]

On another note, Kuildeous and bozzball, who are your ssuspects.

The rub is that I don't currently have suspicions. Something I've noticed in play-by-forum is that there is no body language to read. Also, people have more time to come up with rebuttals, examining what they have written with plenty of time to come up with wording that acquits themselves and possibly puts blame on others. From reading the past few pages, I do not have a rock-steady suspicion.

That being said, I am going to vote Insomniac. It's not because I am actively accusing Insomniac of being Mafia, but I'm adopting the "better safe than sorry" approach of lynching. I only hope that my random dart hits the bull's-eye.

[Voltgloss]

I second Galzria's request for others to chime in.  In particular, I'd like to hear Tables' response to Robz's question - about what issues Tables thinks Robz should be addressing in his posts, but isn't.

Also, Galzria - it's "Voltgloss," not Voltglass.  O, not A.  Ridiculously minor nitpick, I know - apologies for even bringing it up.