Print

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

[Axxle]

Vote: Quicktopic

@O: Puppies of large dogs are cute. I've not encountered puppies of yappy-type dogs enough times to form an opinion on them.
I'm fine with smart children, but there are a lot of obnoxious, loud, undisciplined children that I prefer to stay clear of me.
I think this is where I say: God Bless America.

UNVOTE
Vote: Axxle (for the above post)

@ALL: Can we get more focused on gleaning actionable information?  This is going to be incredibly unwieldy 6 weeks from now at the end of Day 3, when there could still be as many as 12 people in the game.

O requested this, and I felt the need to grant him it for whatever reason.
You should bold your votes so it's easy for Voltgloss to see them.

[SwitchedFromStarcraft]

Damn, this may get old:

UNVOTE
Vote: Axxle (for explanation, see my post #322.

[Galzria]

UNVOTE
Vote: Axxle (for the above post)

@ALL: Can we get more focused on gleaning actionable information?  This is going to be incredibly unwieldy 6 weeks from now at the end of Day 3, when there could still be as many as 12 people in the game.

I actually feel we've made a lot of progress for early day 1. Tons of good information there, even in the trollvotes.

[Dsell]

That unlikelihood is already implied, and he wasn't prompted by anything like "to what extent do you feel SFS is likely scum", someone just asked to follow his thought process.  He over reacted and tried to shirk responsibility for his vote.

Ok so I went back and read exactly what you said in case I misunderstood it. You obviously see a big difference between asking someone "You are voting for SFS because you think he's mafia?" and "How scummy do you think SFS is?" Is that basically what you're saying? I guess they are different. Hmm. How do you think he should have reacted? I don't quite follow your logic, though I admit that there does appear to be some there.

[Glooble]

Hello everyone.

I might be able to provoke an argument this way: I am actually fine with not killing anyone on Day 1 if I don't believe we have a good chance of actually killing a mafia member. (When I argued otherwise in Mafia II, I was a member of the mafia).

I'm not voting 'No Lynch,' and I'm not saying that should be the goal--but if we run out of time, and we have no reason to suspect anyone more than anybody else... it's better to have an additional townsperson alive on Day 2 rather than mislynch. In my view, at least.

Do you really think we'll run out of time, given the late deadline and how much talking we've done in less than ten hours? I think I agree with you in general, but I'm having a hard time seeing how, given the amount of information we'll likel have even just at the end of this week, we won't have a better-than-random chance of hitting scum.

[Grujah]

THIS REPLY IS AFTER READING UP TO POST 314, SOMETHING WILL POP UP IN MIDTIME.

Ok with Quicktopic

I came to the thread wanting to vote for Tables, after giving it some thoughts (and watching Game of Thrones season finale)
Yes, Axxle was a bit too jumpy (still not completely clear), especially getting jump for Tables bring out out his name saying "I trust this guy". But than, this is what struck me as weird! What the hell is that? "I believe Axxle". Out of blue. No reason. And Axxle's respond seemed like two of the share a dirty little secret. And by that I don't mean Mafia exclusively, Axxle's jumpyness to me, look like, a guy saying to another one: "dude, we don't bring that up, we agreed not to".
But I'm still more interested in Tables' out of blue trust towards Axxle, and especially bringing it up like that. Ok, it did "create response" especially from Axxle, but still, it feels.. like  a weird move. Like, why do that exactly and not vote someone or at least back up why you trust him?

Unvote

Got a response that is all I wanted for now.

But this! This caught me off-guard. How outrageous. It looks completely like someone trying to cover up things. Seriously. Especially after that exchange with Captain Frisk. So other posts too, like "lets now all vote for J"

On others players:
SFS's post seems honest, trustworthy, for some reason.
Galzria seems like he triest so much to comment and put into context everything, but seems good so far.
O and pops - don't like em at all, acting random for.. what?.
Robz seems ok and trustworhy so far.
Captain Frisk - though he seems thoughtful and helpful, a bit too.. I don't know? Scripted.
Axxle at least showed some spine 
Tables I dont like.
Theo - nothing so far.
Dsell - mostly impartial but leaning on good side.
Green Opal - still evaluating, though leaning on good side.
For J i all ready said it was a very stupid move nad he didn't do anything smart after that.

Vote: Insomniac.
I'll hammer/bandwagon on some other votes too (J, O, pops)

[Galzria]

Hello everyone.

I might be able to provoke an argument this way: I am actually fine with not killing anyone on Day 1 if I don't believe we have a good chance of actually killing a mafia member. (When I argued otherwise in Mafia II, I was a member of the mafia).

I'm not voting 'No Lynch,' and I'm not saying that should be the goal--but if we run out of time, and we have no reason to suspect anyone more than anybody else... it's better to have an additional townsperson alive on Day 2 rather than mislynch. In my view, at least.

Do you really think we'll run out of time, given the late deadline and how much talking we've done in less than ten hours? I think I agree with you in general, but I'm having a hard time seeing how, given the amount of information we'll likel have even just at the end of this week, we won't have a better-than-random chance of hitting scum.

I would rather have a Vanilla Town lynched than not lynch at all. Even if it's me. The math simply supports that being the better move. I would also rather lynch a VT than a Role. And above all that, I would rather lynch Mafia.
[/quote]

[popsofctown]

You're still off, but now you're actually trying and getting closer, Dsell.  The post posed to Insomniac was more like "Are you, Insomniac, voting X because his action Y leads you to believe he is scum?" As part of his explanation he emphasized the -unlikelihood- that his target is scum.  That was not necessary to his answer, but served the survivalist purpose of appearing less aggressive

[Glooble]

On others players:
SFS's post seems honest, trustworthy, for some reason.
Galzria seems like he triest so much to comment and put into context everything, but seems good so far.
O and pops - don't like em at all, acting random for.. what?.
Robz seems ok and trustworhy so far.
Captain Frisk - though he seems thoughtful and helpful, a bit too.. I don't know? Scripted.
Axxle at least showed some spine 
Tables I dont like.
Theo - nothing so far.
Dsell - mostly impartial but leaning on good side.
Green Opal - still evaluating, though leaning on good side.
For J i all ready said it was a very stupid move nad he didn't do anything smart after that.

Vote: Insomniac.
I'll hammer/bandwagon on some other votes too (J, O, pops)

No opinion on me yet?

[O]

THIS REPLY IS AFTER READING UP TO POST 314, SOMETHING WILL POP UP IN MIDTIME.

Ok with Quicktopic

I came to the thread wanting to vote for Tables, after giving it some thoughts (and watching Game of Thrones season finale)
Yes, Axxle was a bit too jumpy (still not completely clear), especially getting jump for Tables bring out out his name saying "I trust this guy". But than, this is what struck me as weird! What the hell is that? "I believe Axxle". Out of blue. No reason. And Axxle's respond seemed like two of the share a dirty little secret. And by that I don't mean Mafia exclusively, Axxle's jumpyness to me, look like, a guy saying to another one: "dude, we don't bring that up, we agreed not to".
But I'm still more interested in Tables' out of blue trust towards Axxle, and especially bringing it up like that. Ok, it did "create response" especially from Axxle, but still, it feels.. like  a weird move. Like, why do that exactly and not vote someone or at least back up why you trust him?

Unvote

Got a response that is all I wanted for now.

But this! This caught me off-guard. How outrageous. It looks completely like someone trying to cover up things. Seriously. Especially after that exchange with Captain Frisk. So other posts too, like "lets now all vote for J"

On others players:
SFS's post seems honest, trustworthy, for some reason.
Galzria seems like he triest so much to comment and put into context everything, but seems good so far.
O and pops - don't like em at all, acting random for.. what?.
Robz seems ok and trustworhy so far.
Captain Frisk - though he seems thoughtful and helpful, a bit too.. I don't know? Scripted.
Axxle at least showed some spine 
Tables I dont like.
Theo - nothing so far.
Dsell - mostly impartial but leaning on good side.
Green Opal - still evaluating, though leaning on good side.
For J i all ready said it was a very stupid move nad he didn't do anything smart after that.

Vote: Insomniac.
I'll hammer/bandwagon on some other votes too (J, O, pops)

You're one short- What about glooble?

And why so confident about SFS?

Ninjaed by glooble himself

[Dsell]

You're still off, but now you're actually trying and getting closer, Dsell.  The post posed to Insomniac was more like "Are you, Insomniac, voting X because his action Y leads you to believe he is scum?" As part of his explanation he emphasized the -unlikelihood- that his target is scum.  That was not necessary to his answer, but served the survivalist purpose of appearing less aggressive

Ok thank you. I don't really think I agree with this logic (ok the logic is fine but I still think he was just trying to get a lurker to talk) but I can definitely live with it.

[Grujah]

@Glooble - Still evaluating, though his post #301 seems quite reasonable. I don't know how O usually plays, but I am keeping an eye on him too.

@SFS - This is likely to change, it is nothing in particular, his first post just seemed honest (maybe because it mostly was, as it is information about him  ). Though I only skimmed it the first, reading it closely doesn't seem as a reasonable for O as Gloobe's is, because.. well, Glooble just provided more sounding reasoning than "random is bad". But still nothing concrete to grasp onto yet.

[jotheonah]

@Galzria

I think that concientious town players will be hyperaware of the possibility of mafia-led bandwagons. Anyone accumulating a critical mass of votes in a short time is not a good lynch target.

We can't be looking for obvious tells, but we should hunt for subconcious ones. Robz expressed (in MIII) that when he played as mafia (in MII) he wrote a lot of posts and deleted them. Mafia are playing carefully. So I think people playing carelessly are less likely to be scum (myself included). Of course, that does not preclude the possibility of carefully trying to appear careless. Still, I think our rapid-fire posting should make it hard to fake erratic play (i.e. think carefully about appearing not to think carefully). Should our hypothetical mafioso then decide his or her only defense is to actually stop being so careful, well great - all the more likely they'll slip up in some actionable way.

So, to conclude, we should all play like O until someone looks scummy.

[jotheonah]

I started out writing this tongue-in-cheek, but now I quite like it.

[Dsell]

So, to conclude, we should all play like O until someone looks scummy.

I really hope this is a joke. XD

[jotheonah]

Note, this potentially incriminates the people who are coming out and saying silliness is antitown as (potentially) mafia trying to wrangle the town into a more manipulatable state. *cough*Axxle*cough*

[jotheonah]

So, to conclude, we should all play like O until someone looks scummy.

I really hope this is a joke. XD

That particular line was somewhat of a humorous overstatement. But I'll go ahead and sand by the general sentiment.

[jotheonah]

*stand

[jotheonah]

Galzria, since you asked me, let me throw the question back at you. How ought we hunt scum in order to accomplish the difficult goal of a Day 1 scumlynch?

[Grujah]

Robz expressed (in MIII) that when he played as mafia (in MII) he wrote a lot of posts and deleted them. Mafia are playing carefully. So I think people playing carelessly are less likely to be scum (myself included). Of course, that does not preclude the possibility of carefully trying to appear careless. Still, I think our rapid-fire posting should make it hard to fake erratic play (i.e. think carefully about appearing not to think carefully).

This is has some interesting and reasonable points. You are right; a Mafia would need to think more before posting and with us posting this much it would be hard to keep up. They need often posts, but convincing, well-though-out posts, I agree faking erratic play would be harder.

(Though your posts seems well-though-out as well). JK. 

[theorel]

Hi all,
just posting more or less to say that I'm here, and I'll try to read some of the posts.  I was on when the game had just started...then I started to read just before the forum went down (at least for me) sometime this afternoon.  So, IF I read it all, I've got like 7 pages to read...anyways, I'll probably read backwards from now, starting in a couple hours when the kids go to bed.

I will say, that you are a talkative bunch...you should all resolve to read the entire thread each time you post, that will let those of us with less than all of our time keep up

Oh, also I'm guessing not all 7 pages (or however many there will be in the an hour and a half) have substance, so if anyone would like to sum up what's happened, I'm sure I would find it helpful.

Anyways, I'm sure posting will slow down tomorrow (game time) once there is information of actual substance, and the people with crazy amounts of free time actually start rereading the thread to determine what's actually going on...until then I'll probably.

Anyways, I'll post something more substantial tonight (can't guarantee much substance, since a lot depends on how much substance the rest of you lot have given)

PRE-EDIT: Also...it's ridiculous that my clicking post warning says that 6 posts were written in the time I took to write this one.
Pre-Edit2: and another one! goodness!

[Dsell]

So, to conclude, we should all play like O until someone looks scummy.

I really hope this is a joke. XD

That particular line was somewhat of a humorous overstatement. But I'll go ahead and sand by the general sentiment.

Yeah, that's kinda what I figured. O is a strange case. He is really frustrating when we are trying to be serious but I've actually found him hilarious so far here.

[theorel]

until then I'll probably not keep up entirely. (silly lost ends of sentences, I'm sure it was in my brain before I started typing)

[Dsell]

Oh, also I'm guessing not all 7 pages (or however many there will be in the an hour and a half) have substance, so if anyone would like to sum up what's happened, I'm sure I would find it helpful.

In general, I don't think this is a good idea. Maybe a VERY rough summation, but it really is best for you to read it all yourself. And quite a bit has happened. Sorry, I know it is a ton to read. 

[Axxle]

Note, this potentially incriminates the people who are coming out and saying silliness is antitown as (potentially) mafia trying to wrangle the town into a more manipulatable state. *cough*Axxle*cough*

I will counter by saying that Mafia is perfectly fine with no active scumhunting happening.

Do you guys really think that faking erratic play is harder than being consistent Day to Day? Anything you point at later can just be attributed to erratic play.  I know that I was very limited in the lies I could tell in Mafia I because of my behavior Days 1 and 2.

I will repost: How to scumhunt day 1: http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=13710