Print

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

[Eevee]

haha trying my best to be insightful and smart and coming out as silly, thats painful to hear

[Captain_Frisk]

It's probably not a good thing, though we don't know which roles we are dealing with. But yeah, people should keep their roles quiet for now. But no I don't think accusations are likely to out people with roles until that person has a lot of votes. We have to get info somehow at some point.

We do need to get info @ some point.  To this end - I am going to UNVOTE.  While I'm suspicious of various people who seem to be anti-voting, I'm going to vote with O here for 2 reasons:

1.  I don't believe that the isotropic timestamp is predictable enough to reliably game - so I do believe his vote is true random - rather than a mafia attempt at guiding us.
2.  Morgrim's posts have been non substantial... I appreciate the attempt @ flavor, but when the posts are journal entries discussing Merchant Ships and banks, it doesn't seem to accomplish anything other than keeping us from thinking that you're inactive and lurking.

VOTE: Morgrim7

[Morgrim7]

-Shrugs Shoulders-
Well, I suppose I will vote too. And my vote is...

[Robz888]

haha trying my best to be insightful and smart and coming out as silly, thats painful to hear

You are insightful. I meant that you are insightful and a little silly, which strikes me as mafia. But it could be that I am exaggerating how silly you are because you are a cute Pokemon.

[Morgrim7]

-Pulls name from basket-
An here we have…

Vote: def

[Captain_Frisk]

-Pulls name from basket-
An here we have…

Vote: def

And this is exactly what I'm referring to - you've posted... but have done so with no substance.  You hint that the vote for def is random, but there's no way for us to verify.  There's no explanation given for the vote. 

[yuma]

Also, I tend to use emoticons to clarify my meaning online.  Otherwise, my dry sarcastic pith might go undetected, and then what's the point of being dry, sarcastic and pithy?    (And more importantly, I have at times unintentionally offended people who didn't realize I was joking.)

That is a good point. Perhaps it is because I am not very sarcastic? I don't use emoticons very much and as such don't like it when other people do. It confuses the conversation for me --see what do I mean by that smile? I don't know, do you -- ah! there it goes again. ....  Ok, maybe I am a little sarcastic.

Status:

Suspicious: Galzria, Morgrim7
Not suspicious: none
Vote: none

[Morgrim7]

-Pulls name from basket-
An here we have…

Vote: def

And this is exactly what I'm referring to - you've posted... but have done so with no substance.  You hint that the vote for def is random, but there's no way for us to verify.  There's no explanation given for the vote.

Explanation: I ripped up a peice of paper into 12 different peices of paper, wrote the names of the player on the shreds, placed them in a basket, and chose one randomly. True story.

[eHalcyon]

I really don't like the random voting by either O or Morgrim.  By randomly voting, you remove yourself from the decision process.  If the lynch goes through and they turn up Town, you can curse fate and keep the blame off of yourself.  You can't be accused of targeting the unlucky player because it was random.  And that tells the town nothing.

If you are town, you should be picking a target based on SOME sort of reasoning.  Something strange the player said.  Their post count.  Their post quality.  Even an inexplicable gut instinct is better than random voting.  It lets the town know that you're at least trying to identify the Mafia.

[Robz888]

Yeah, voting this random is going to be close to random. There's no need to make it EXACTLY random. In fact, we will face the same problems next round if our kill this round is made for purely random reasons. We need to question, accuse, harass. Although I guess these random voters are instructive in that they give us someone to accuse.

So, I insist that pure random voting is the worst thing you can do for the town. O and Morgrim have done it. I ask you both: Why? Do you disagree with my analysis? Will you admit to being the mafia?

[Robz888]

Yeah, voting this random is going to be close to random. There's no need to make it EXACTLY random. In fact, we will face the same problems next round if our kill this round is made for purely random reasons. We need to question, accuse, harass. Although I guess these random voters are instructive in that they give us someone to accuse.

So, I insist that pure random voting is the worst thing you can do for the town. O and Morgrim have done it. I ask you both: Why? Do you disagree with my analysis? Will you admit to being the mafia?

Typo: ****Yeah, voting this ROUND is going to be close to random. There's no****

[Morgrim7]

Why? I guess I was pressure to vote, after two voting squares were.placed on my head. Do I disagree with you? Absolutely not. That makes sense. Will I admit to being Mafia? If I lie to you by saying I am Mafia, what could I hope to gain? Suspicion? People wondering wether I am bluffing or double bluffing? I am town.

[eHalcyon]

Post 224 -- Morgrim said he was suspicious of "Galzria, maybe some others."  I asked for reasons why he was suspicious but there hasn't been a response yet.  Morgrim, can you explain?  Who else were you "maybe" suspicious of, and why?  Why haven't you shared those thoughts?  And why did you "randomly" vote for def instead of people you suspected?

Even though the first vote for you was random by O, I'm leaning towards you now as well.

Response?  Please?

[yuma]

Along with the above posts I am becoming more and more wary of Morgrim7 behavior. I think I will join C. Frisk--whose vote I agree with--and O--whose vote I don't--in voting for Morgrim7.

Status:
Suspicious: Galzria, Morgrim7
Not suspicious: none
Vote: Morgrim7

[Morgrim7]

Post 224 -- Morgrim said he was suspicious of "Galzria, maybe some others."  I asked for reasons why he was suspicious but there hasn't been a response yet.  Morgrim, can you explain?  Who else were you "maybe" suspicious of, and why?  Why haven't you shared those thoughts?  And why did you "randomly" vote for def instead of people you suspected?

Even though the first vote for you was random by O, I'm leaning towards you now as well.

Response?  Please?

I was suspicious of Galzria because of all his posts. I believe it is around 20 now. Some others, meaning the people who did not post much. You yourself said we should vote according to things such as # of posts.
You still do not believe my vote was random? Do you want me to post pictures of the slips of paper and basket? Prepare for some mesy handwriting.
Why did I vote randomly? Good question. In Mafia II, one of the reasons why I was lynched was because of my 'easy on the bandwagon- easy off the bandwagon'. If someone came up with some defense for the person that I had voted for that made sense, I could either keep my vote (which would arouse suspicion) or vote for someone else. Voting for someone else would catch me in the same trap as last time. By voting randomly, if someone ever came up with a defense, I coud unvote, and hide behind my totally random vote and avoid suspicion. Did not realize at the time that the same could very possibly be done for the random vote idea.

[eHalcyon]

Post 224 -- Morgrim said he was suspicious of "Galzria, maybe some others."  I asked for reasons why he was suspicious but there hasn't been a response yet.  Morgrim, can you explain?  Who else were you "maybe" suspicious of, and why?  Why haven't you shared those thoughts?  And why did you "randomly" vote for def instead of people you suspected?

Even though the first vote for you was random by O, I'm leaning towards you now as well.

Response?  Please?

I was suspicious of Galzria because of all his posts. I believe it is around 20 now. Some others, meaning the people who did not post much. You yourself said we should vote according to things such as # of posts.
You still do not believe my vote was random? Do you want me to post pictures of the slips of paper and basket? Prepare for some mesy handwriting.

That's fine, I just wanted to see a reason.

I have no reason to think that you are lying about selecting randomly.  But as others have noted, it can't be verified.  Saying it was random just seems like you want a way to defend a bad choice if it goes wrong, even though your choice may have truly been targeted.  At least with O's approach, it's rather unlikely he could cheat.  Photos wouldn't prove anything here!

Why did I vote randomly? Good question. In Mafia II, one of the reasons why I was lynched was because of my 'easy on the bandwagon- easy off the bandwagon'. If someone came up with some defense for the person that I had voted for that made sense, I could either keep my vote (which would arouse suspicion) or vote for someone else. Voting for someone else would catch me in the same trap as last time. By voting randomly, if someone ever came up with a defense, I coud unvote, and hide behind my totally random vote and avoid suspicion. Did not realize at the time that the same could very possibly be done for the random vote idea.

Random voting seems less helpful to me.  If you vote for someone with some reason, OK.  If a defense is brought up which makes you change your mind, OK.  It gets suspicious if you're especially capricious, but re-evaluating based on input from others is fine, I think.

[Morgrim7]

Post 224 -- Morgrim said he was suspicious of "Galzria, maybe some others."  I asked for reasons why he was suspicious but there hasn't been a response yet.  Morgrim, can you explain?  Who else were you "maybe" suspicious of, and why?  Why haven't you shared those thoughts?  And why did you "randomly" vote for def instead of people you suspected?

Even though the first vote for you was random by O, I'm leaning towards you now as well.

Response?  Please?

I was suspicious of Galzria because of all his posts. I believe it is around 20 now. Some others, meaning the people who did not post much. You yourself said we should vote according to things such as # of posts.
You still do not believe my vote was random? Do you want me to post pictures of the slips of paper and basket? Prepare for some mesy handwriting.

That's fine, I just wanted to see a reason.

I have no reason to think that you are lying about selecting randomly.  But as others have noted, it can't be verified.  Saying it was random just seems like you want a way to defend a bad choice if it goes wrong, even though your choice may have truly been targeted.  At least with O's approach, it's rather unlikely he could cheat.  Photos wouldn't prove anything here!

Why did I vote randomly? Good question. In Mafia II, one of the reasons why I was lynched was because of my 'easy on the bandwagon- easy off the bandwagon'. If someone came up with some defense for the person that I had voted for that made sense, I could either keep my vote (which would arouse suspicion) or vote for someone else. Voting for someone else would catch me in the same trap as last time. By voting randomly, if someone ever came up with a defense, I coud unvote, and hide behind my totally random vote and avoid suspicion. Did not realize at the time that the same could very possibly be done for the random vote idea.

Random voting seems less helpful to me.  If you vote for someone with some reason, OK.  If a defense is brought up which makes you change your mind, OK.  It gets suspicious if you're especially capricious, but re-evaluating based on input from others is fine, I think.

Because pictures would not help, I do not see how I can defend this further. If you choose not to believe me, there is nothing I can do. I can only say I am telling the truth.
Voting for something, and then changing my vote when a good point was brought up played a big part in getting me lynched last time. Don't want to repeat mistakes.

[Dsell]

I gotta say I'm pretty surprised people are jumping on Morgrim like this. While I must agree that his posts have been largely (with the exception of his latest couple) unhelpful and while I don't like the idea of random voting...or at least trying to make something of a random vote, I am surprised to see votes being thrown his way. Disapproving glances, finger-shaking, and even suspicion I completely understand but I think letting this Morgrim bandwagon get off the ground is really premature. Not to unduly bring up the other game, but Morgrim's actions so far aren't seeming too dissimilar from Mafia II in which Morgrim was wrongly mislynched on day 1 because of his...unorthodox posting.

I'm definitely not saying he's not mafia, I have no idea. Nor do I mean to come to his defense adamantly, I'm just saying I think it's premature to draw any significant conclusions from his lack of substance thus far. I'd also like to point out that aside from his apparently purely random vote for def, I am really the only one he's shown any suspicion of or hostility towards, in the form of his "flavor" entries (talking about how the alchemist is terrible and whatnot...which he says was accidental and I believe him, but...really tough to say 100%).

All that said, Morgrim, if you are really town, please play smart. In your other game you drew lots of suspicion and then deprived the town of invaluable information by hammering yourself, and the town is on the verge of defeat in that game.

[eHalcyon]

I gotta say I'm pretty surprised people are jumping on Morgrim like this. While I must agree that his posts have been largely (with the exception of his latest couple) unhelpful and while I don't like the idea of random voting...or at least trying to make something of a random vote, I am surprised to see votes being thrown his way. Disapproving glances, finger-shaking, and even suspicion I completely understand but I think letting this Morgrim bandwagon get off the ground is really premature. Not to unduly bring up the other game, but Morgrim's actions so far aren't seeming too dissimilar from Mafia II in which Morgrim was wrongly mislynched on day 1 because of his...unorthodox posting.

This is really helpful information.  I wasn't following Mafia II closely enough to know what exactly got him lynched.  I did see the self-hammer go down though!

[Dsell]

Maybe it's too early to cry "bandwagon!" against Morgrim, with only Yuma and O voting for him thus far. But it does seem like we should be a little more careful about votes actually based on suspicion rather than just trying to get someone to talk, which I can't ever see turning into a bandwagon.


That reminds me! For the purpose of full disclosure, in just over two weeks, I am going on a week-long camping trip and I will almost certainly have no access to wifi the whole week. I know this could be right in the middle of things and so I'm sorry for that, but I will try to give a lot of substantive posts and help both before and after. I will actually be back before the deadline of day 1 so who knows, if we drag it out I might not miss too much. I'll remind people again with like a week left and before I leave.

[jotheonah]

I would feel like kind of a jerk letting Morgrim be the Day 1 lynch ... AGAIN. Poor guy just wants to play some mafia.

On the other hand, two votes in a town this size is not so big a pressure cooker. It takes seven to kill? So 4 votes is the bare minimum for a mafia hammer, and that's assuming fairly stupid mafia play. So everybody calm down a little.

[Galzria]

I'm kinda with you on that J. I feel bad for Morgrim. But I can't let that stand in the way of good analysis and reads. Still, for the time being, his crimes are no more egregious than O's, and since O is making a habit of willfully unhelpful town play, my suspicions are "squarely" on O.

[O]

I find it incredulous that you see my play as "willingly unhelpful", but I may have to wait till the end of Mafia I to defend myself there.

I have nearly equal chances of lynching a mafia whether I go off nonsensical "hunches" that I can later wave away as just first day ramblings as I do with random choice. The best thing I can do for myself at the moment (regardless of whether I'm town or Mafia at the moment) is convince you I'm town. If I'm town, that's ALSO the best thing I can do for the town at the moment.

Robz is once again going off the I-really-have-strong-feelings-about-these-players-when-I-have-no-information. Does this mean he is any likelier to be Mafia? Not really. But the strong accusation at whim Townie is a bad townie to play with indeed.

[jotheonah]

Ha! By the same logic that I wouldn't want to Day 1 Kill Morgrim, I ought to be thrilled about Day 1 killing Robz, eh? That guy's playing too damn much mafia!

[Galzria]

O, if I asked a random number generator to pick someone to kill, and we lynched that person, how would we be any closer to winning day 2? Our odds will have changed (more often for the worst), but we will have no better knowledge than day 1.

Yes, Robz's play is AS LIKELY to hit town as yours, but at least we get information. Good, bad, or otherwise, it's more than we have with your method. And if town can't figure out who the Mafia are, town losses.