Return to “[END] Turf Wars: Battle of the Hosts”
Hiii, I'm trying to catch up on the posts so far. I didn't get a chance to read through it yet because I just started my new job today as an afterschool math and physics tutor. I'll have something solid to go on in the next few hours hopefully~Epignosis wrote:I'm taking my vote off Long Con. I wouldn't want anyone to think that I suspect him.
agleaminranks, come say something.
I don't think this assumption holds any water, especially this early in the game. Given that he or she knows who their crew is and no one else, no matter if he or she sticks to one vote or hops back and forth several times, with no other considerations at this time, he or she is just as likely as not to choose a traitor.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:I'll summarize:Epignosis wrote:I wish I understood what this plan was so I could go ahead and tell you all how foolish it is.
Assumption: Don doesn't want to change votes often because that increases the probability of voting for the traitor.
I'm fine with hunting me as an inactive, but I just got home from work and would have made my first post about the same time anyways.Epignosis wrote:Nah. I was just amazed that I vote the guy and he shows up and posts.S~V~S wrote:I thought he was implying that, here we go, we already have people saying they are not caught up to the thread and it is only halfway through day one.
Got it, I missed the part about the consigliere being the middle man. Should have read the roles more carefully.Quin wrote:@agle I don't think the don knows who the capo/crew are. Just the consigliere. From what I gather it's all done via PM's to the family's host.
I mean like, I'm not going to attack Rob back or anything for voting me. He just wanted to fish me out because I was one of only like three inactive up to then.Diiny wrote:What do you mean?agleaminranks wrote:I'm fine with hunting me as an inactiveEpignosis wrote:Nah. I was just amazed that I vote the guy and he shows up and posts.S~V~S wrote:I thought he was implying that, here we go, we already have people saying they are not caught up to the thread and it is only halfway through day one.
No, I'm just saying that strategically there is no reason for the Don to either be restrained or wild with pre-official votes since it has no statistical significance at this point in the game. Luffy was suggesting that the Don would want to be more restrained in voting to avoid accidentally voting for the traitor and that everyone else should structure their unofficial votes accordingly, but I don't think that's really a valid concern.Sloonei wrote:Are you saying the Don(s) know their own team members? Or the traitor(s)? Because I don't think either is true, unless I missed something.agleaminranks wrote:Luffy's been making a lot of discussion. I wanna quickly mention this notion I think he and Wilgy co-formulated a few pages back:
I don't think this assumption holds any water, especially this early in the game. Given that he or she knows who their crew is and no one else, no matter if he or she sticks to one vote or hops back and forth several times, with no other considerations at this time, he or she is just as likely as not to choose a traitor.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:I'll summarize:Epignosis wrote:I wish I understood what this plan was so I could go ahead and tell you all how foolish it is.
Assumption: Don doesn't want to change votes often because that increases the probability of voting for the traitor.
I don't have a ton of considerations at this point. In my experience, the people who garner the most conversation early in the games either do so unwittingly (not really the case here) or are confident enough not to worry if the lynch votes pile up. Hmm.
Was partially a mistake on my part, the Don only knows the role of one other. I was just trying to say that the player pool of unknown identities is significantly bigger than the pool of identities the Don does know, which, in this case, is just one other person.Sloonei wrote:So what did you mean by "he or she knows who their crew is and no one else"?agleaminranks wrote:No, I'm just saying that strategically there is no reason for the Don to either be restrained or wild with pre-official votes since it has no statistical significance at this point in the game. Luffy was suggesting that the Don would want to be more restrained in voting to avoid accidentally voting for the traitor and that everyone else should structure their unofficial votes accordingly, but I don't think that's really a valid concern.Sloonei wrote:Are you saying the Don(s) know their own team members? Or the traitor(s)? Because I don't think either is true, unless I missed something.agleaminranks wrote:Luffy's been making a lot of discussion. I wanna quickly mention this notion I think he and Wilgy co-formulated a few pages back:
I don't think this assumption holds any water, especially this early in the game. Given that he or she knows who their crew is and no one else, no matter if he or she sticks to one vote or hops back and forth several times, with no other considerations at this time, he or she is just as likely as not to choose a traitor.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:I'll summarize:Epignosis wrote:I wish I understood what this plan was so I could go ahead and tell you all how foolish it is.
Assumption: Don doesn't want to change votes often because that increases the probability of voting for the traitor.
I don't have a ton of considerations at this point. In my experience, the people who garner the most conversation early in the games either do so unwittingly (not really the case here) or are confident enough not to worry if the lynch votes pile up. Hmm.
I agree with the rest of what you're saying. I think a player's voting habits will be determined by the player themselves, and not their role.
Lo siento. Mea culpa. Minuto, por favor...Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Aglea, I think you missed my response to your post. Which also included a question.
I wasn't referring to you doing so unwittingly, I just recall instances in other games (and from personal experiences) that someone can oftentimes unwillingly get a bandwagon going against them early on from one misplaced word or unintentionally ambiguous statement. Especially early on when there's not much to go on and people are looking for any sort of footing to latch on to.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:How are you so sure it's not unwittingly?agleaminranks wrote:I don't have a ton of considerations at this point. In my experience, the people who garner the most conversation early in the games either do so unwittingly (not really the case here) or are confident enough not to worry if the lynch votes pile up. Hmm.
I tend to talk a lot in games. It's just how I am. Though I'm not sure if that counts as "unwittingly" or not (I had to google that word lol), how are YOU so sure?
I can say I'm pretty sure it's not the later though. As in, I'm not confident I can avoid getting voted. I have a long story of getting lynched, or close to lynched, early in games. I just rub people the wrong way.
Well, hang on. Yeah, I misread a role, but it didn't change my assumption. It actually helped further my point. Which wasn't all that big of a point to begin with, all I was doing was pointing out that Dragon's (day 1, mind you) strategy for helping the Don was moot, but you clearly didn't read my posts if you missed that.S~V~S wrote:I am going to drop a vote on Gleam for now, he made a lot of assumptions based on incorrect role reads, then backtracked them, and if you cancel all that out, he made a lot of posts comparative to others at this early stage, but did not say much.
When we're this early in the game and far more likely (statistically) to lynch a good guy, I'm more focused on minimizing civilian deaths than actively trying to suss out the police. That's just my strategy. You can agree with it or not, but that's what makes the most sense to me. Granted, once a day or two goes by and we have some patterns to examine, then the baddie hunt needs to become the main focus. If I'm still being noncommittal at that point, you can criticize me of not getting involved all you want. But I've certainly been participating in the discussion. Going all gung-ho and throwing accusations left and right isn't the only way to get involved.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Agreeing with what you are saying doesn't equal reading you as a civ.
SVS and Sloonei pointed out something I hadn't yet noticed. I then read your posts and concluded that indeed, you were saying a lot without actually getting yourself involved in the actual game (hunting baddies).
Sloonei wrote:Asking questions is my thing. What popular opinions have I been in agreement with? My vote is currently on a player no one else wants to lynch and I've been a vocal opponent to the traitor/don discussion.agleaminranks wrote:The only other suspicions I have so far are about llama, I know they said they were out of town but they never explained their vote either. And sloonei, who has only really been asking coy questions and agreeing with whatever the popular opinion seems to be of the time.
I was going to say this was my first criticism but you actually posted it before me, so I'm the follower here, unbeknownst to myself even.Sloonei wrote:The Luffy Dragon has been all over the place in agreeing with every plan or strategy that's been proposed in the thread. This has caught my eye. I'll put my first vote on Dragon D. Luffy until he explains why he's so easy to convince.
Sloonei wrote:My behavior is curious in that I am curious about the game, sure. I'm not sure what else you could mean by that.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:With that, a few points.
- Enrique has posted nothing but smilies and refuses to answer anything. I don't think this is enough for a lynch, but I wish he started being more helpfun soon.
- Ika made a vote for Silverwolf just for the sake of "getting her to talk". Which is pro-active, but not really necessary, and reeks to me of an attempt to look like he is doing anything. Of course it's mostly paranoia, but I might as well point it out.
- Sloonei doesn't have the time to participate but he apparently has time to read the thread, think I'm suspicious and demand answers from me. I find that curious.
- Matt was way more active last game I played with him. he couldn't shut up. Now he only made one post, about how he intends to read Zebra. I know this is too soon for make such demands, but I miss active Matt.
Don't know if any of those are useful but we might as well discuss them. 28 hours to go, let's move guys.
Sloonei wrote:Perhaps I was feigning aloofness.Diiny wrote:You know exactly what he means but you disagree, why pretend otherwise?
Sloonei wrote:Thoughts so far?Diiny wrote:Silverwolf, are you giving your friend advice because you think they're town or are you saying you think they're scummy?
Linki: a read on you.
Mostly you've just been kind of reposting questions or trying to get other people to speak out. Normally that's fine, and any sort of attempt to encourage discussion is good. As I said, there are other ways to play than just making accusations. It just also seems to me like you've been skirting under the radar by doing this, and avoided saying anything about your own opinions. I didn't really see you address Epignosis' vote for you.Sloonei wrote:How are things at this beginning period, though? Which players have caught your eye?Quin wrote:I feel like this game could go on for weeks, I'm curious to see how the dynamic changes over such a long period.Sloonei wrote:I've got no problem with it being addressed, but I think the proposals being made in the thread were over-reactions to a very minor point and there is no need to continue discussing it beyond what has been said. So I should stop saying things about it now.Quin wrote:
At day 1 I think we should be addressing even the minor concerns. I'm aware that in the long run the traitors are going to be triggered regardless, but even so, I think we should be trying to delay that risk for the safety of the dons.
How's your first Big Game going so far?
I didn't. I don't have solid reads on people apart from how they normally act in other games.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:@Gleam
Did you actually post civ reads on anyone though? Other than me? Please show because I think I missed those.
Ideally, I think it would be best if no one got lynched the first day.Sloonei wrote:What exactly do you mean by this? Are you saying you'd prefer not to lynch anyone today?agleaminranks wrote:When we're this early in the game and far more likely (statistically) to lynch a good guy, I'm more focused on minimizing civilian deaths than actively trying to suss out the police. That's just my strategy. You can agree with it or not, but that's what makes the most sense to me. Granted, once a day or two goes by and we have some patterns to examine, then the baddie hunt needs to become the main focus. If I'm still being noncommittal at that point, you can criticize me of not getting involved all you want. But I've certainly been participating in the discussion. Going all gung-ho and throwing accusations left and right isn't the only way to get involved.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Agreeing with what you are saying doesn't equal reading you as a civ.
SVS and Sloonei pointed out something I hadn't yet noticed. I then read your posts and concluded that indeed, you were saying a lot without actually getting yourself involved in the actual game (hunting baddies).
I'm still trying to decide that. I should have been working on homework for the last hour instead of trawling through mafia posts. I'll be back with a vote in a bit.Diiny wrote:The best way to minimize noble mafioso deaths is to hunt the cops. I'm glad you're admitting you're being noncomittal even now. who, out of the people with decent content, is most likely to be scum, even if you don't want to hunt them to instead focus on protecting mafia (agleaminranks wrote:When we're this early in the game and far more likely (statistically) to lynch a good guy, I'm more focused on minimizing civilian deaths than actively trying to suss out the police. That's just my strategy. You can agree with it or not, but that's what makes the most sense to me. Granted, once a day or two goes by and we have some patterns to examine, then the baddie hunt needs to become the main focus. If I'm still being noncommittal at that point, you can criticize me of not getting involved all you want. But I've certainly been participating in the discussion. Going all gung-ho and throwing accusations left and right isn't the only way to get involved.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Agreeing with what you are saying doesn't equal reading you as a civ.
SVS and Sloonei pointed out something I hadn't yet noticed. I then read your posts and concluded that indeed, you were saying a lot without actually getting yourself involved in the actual game (hunting baddies).)
Did I say she was lying? I just said her read on me is wrong.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:How does that even work? You mean she was lying just for the shits and giggles?agleaminranks wrote:I think S~V~S has a false read on me but I don't have reason to suspect her as bad.
Echoed for sentiment.Mongoose wrote:I was literally compiling a post about not wanting to pile on ika when I noticed that there were three votes when I saw this in linki.Diiny wrote:Ask yourself not whether people do it but whether ika would do it for the reasons they specified. Silently and without an accompanying post, mind you.Mongoose wrote:Before I vote ika for the odd post on Silverwolf, is that something we do around here now? Vote for people to get their attention?
Golden - Thanks for the comment. I am not a fan of changeable votes historically, but I get why people like them. Just commit -- and don't be like my college boyfriend.
What did I say about you? I can't remember.Mongoose wrote:Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Also Moongose, I don't think anyone is attacking you for inactivity. Relax. You have been active enough.
Thanks dude -- I was mainly referencing Gleam's post. Again, it doesn't bother me a lick, but I just prefer to address these things as they come up.
linki - Oh lord, I'm so glad to hear you say that. I was embarrassed to admit that I was not following the threads of that triad very well either.
Not explicitly, but she's clearly against contributing to the lynch, in a noncommittal sort of fashion. She offered to do a vote trade with someone who had barely posted and had no votes against them.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Did Goose say she is against lynching people? I didn't see that.agleaminranks wrote:So it seems like Goosey is committed to my philosophy as well. Will she be subjected to the same criticism?
I don't know if I would have gone for a vote trade, but I agree with your sentiments completely. I made what I thought was a logical and convincing argument for the pointlessness of day 1 votes and why I hate them so much. I just got backhanded for the notion is all.Mongoose wrote:That's exactly why I picked him. I just hate Day 1. It's hard to find the most persuasive of cases (not always). HATE Day 1. I'm not exactly new to vote trades on Day 1, Gleam. I do it in like half the games (but only on day 1).agleaminranks wrote:Not explicitly, but she's clearly against contributing to the lynch, in a noncommittal sort of fashion. She offered to do a vote trade with someone who had barely posted and had no votes against them.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Did Goose say she is against lynching people? I didn't see that.agleaminranks wrote:So it seems like Goosey is committed to my philosophy as well. Will she be subjected to the same criticism?
Not in the slightest. I specifically said that I hated day 1 for the same reasons and following this day I would hopefully have more to go on. I am not opposed to hunting mafia. I am, on the other hand, opposed to lynching civilians for hair-trigger reactions.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Her post was weird but in that case it was more like "fuck day 1, I'll try again tomorrow".agleaminranks wrote:Not explicitly, but she's clearly against contributing to the lynch, in a noncommittal sort of fashion. She offered to do a vote trade with someone who had barely posted and had no votes against them.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Did Goose say she is against lynching people? I didn't see that.agleaminranks wrote:So it seems like Goosey is committed to my philosophy as well. Will she be subjected to the same criticism?
You have been actively opposing the idea of hunting mafia.
I think Luffy made a good point against your favor. As much as I don't want to say that for how fervently he is attacking me at the moment.Diiny wrote:Glad your vote is well informed.agleaminranks wrote:I'm voting Diiny, but not because I specifically side with Wilgy or Enrique. To be honest I have no idea what the flying fart is going on in that circle.
People like yourself are a pretty common trope in movie bad guys. They have some ideal that may even be morally sympathetic to the viewer, but you still use the end to justify your means of sacrificing a few innocent lives along the way. I think that is the wrong attitude.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Oh sorry, you are not opposed to the idea of hunting mafia. You just don't want to lynch them. Accusing each other is okay as long as no blood is drawn.
Thanks. So, a retaliatory vote. I'm traditionally extremely opposed to them. I just cast my first vote, was it for anyone who actually ever voted for me in the past 48 hours? No, it wasn't. Because statistically you're likely to be civilian and I believe you're reading me incorrectly. And I have not enough of a concrete reason to vote for you.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?tit ... edirect=noagleaminranks wrote:Can you explain the OMGUS acronym? I'm not familiar.
They may serve their purpose when they happen, but I don't agree with your conclusion at all. I think mislynches are statistically far more likely to happen than lynching baddies for the reasons I have tirelessly tried to explain. Maybe it's because you all have this attitude. Maybe mislynches are unavoidable but I'll be damned if I at least don't try to prevent civs from getting lynched by their fellow civs. Apparently, that's not a good attitude to have! Who woulda fuckin' thought!Nerolunar wrote:Do you seriously think we can win without any mislynches? They do serve their purpose, as we can look at vote tallies and such. To me it is alright to mislynch a few if it means winning in the end anyway.agleaminranks wrote:I think Luffy made a good point against your favor. As much as I don't want to say that for how fervently he is attacking me at the moment.Diiny wrote:Glad your vote is well informed.agleaminranks wrote:I'm voting Diiny, but not because I specifically side with Wilgy or Enrique. To be honest I have no idea what the flying fart is going on in that circle.
People like yourself are a pretty common trope in movie bad guys. They have some ideal that may even be morally sympathetic to the viewer, but you still use the end to justify your means of sacrificing a few innocent lives along the way. I think that is the wrong attitude.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Oh sorry, you are not opposed to the idea of hunting mafia. You just don't want to lynch them. Accusing each other is okay as long as no blood is drawn.
I was not pinged before but now I am.
I did, it just also feels to me that you really just sort of chimed in rather than giving further explanation for your votes.Diiny wrote:Read my response.agleaminranks wrote:I think Luffy made a good point against your favor. As much as I don't want to say that for how fervently he is attacking me at the moment.Diiny wrote:Glad your vote is well informed.agleaminranks wrote:I'm voting Diiny, but not because I specifically side with Wilgy or Enrique. To be honest I have no idea what the flying fart is going on in that circle.
That's a good question. It's really hard to do because someone has to be lynched the first day. Mongoose has attempted to do so by spreading the votes thinner, that's certainly at least one way to abstain personally. I think the best thing to do is to really try not to fly off the handle with suspicions so early. That's the most common way that civs end up getting lynched.Golden wrote:Gleam - what is the difference between sussing out the police and minimising civilians deaths? How do you propose to minimise civilian deaths?agleaminranks wrote:When we're this early in the game and far more likely (statistically) to lynch a good guy, I'm more focused on minimizing civilian deaths than actively trying to suss out the police. That's just my strategy. You can agree with it or not, but that's what makes the most sense to me. Granted, once a day or two goes by and we have some patterns to examine, then the baddie hunt needs to become the main focus. If I'm still being noncommittal at that point, you can criticize me of not getting involved all you want. But I've certainly been participating in the discussion. Going all gung-ho and throwing accusations left and right isn't the only way to get involved.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Agreeing with what you are saying doesn't equal reading you as a civ.
SVS and Sloonei pointed out something I hadn't yet noticed. I then read your posts and concluded that indeed, you were saying a lot without actually getting yourself involved in the actual game (hunting baddies).
[quote="agleaminranks"=You know what big, bold, brazen, and unbacked claims result in? Good guys getting lynched.Golden wrote:At this point I'm heading off and hoping to be back before poll ends, but no guarantees (in fact I'm thinking I probably won't be, unfortunately, as I've just been told my meeting is off site).
I'm tossing up between Wilgy and gleam, but the tie breaker for now is I don't know gleam, although I find his behaviour more than just dodgy. The stuff about not scum hunting, while connecting his voters as though they are on a team out to get him, doesn't sit well with me. Actually I've talked myself in to changing to gleam. So I'll go there.
[/quote]
Ninja'd. What's up, Wilgy? You're all over the damn place.Metalmarsh89 wrote:Psst, DrWilgy-san. You can't vote for players at night.DrWilgy wrote:Dragunu D. Ruffey-san
Yeah. I voted for someone who at the time only had one other vote (I believe. The votes were changing a lot). He was the only one I had any sort of minor suspicions against. The people who were voting against me I didn't have enough of a solid case on. I was hoping my vote wouldn't contribute to the one who was getting lynched, to avoid contributing to the very problem I was hoping to avoid, but I failed. I should have taken the Mongoose path and opted for a vote trade.Sloonei wrote:Who are yourntop suspects? Also, you spent most of the day advocating your philosophy that townie deaths should be avoided on Day 1 and then you cast a vote for the player who ended up being lynched. Care to comment on this?agleaminranks wrote:I think Dragon was hounding me pretty furiously, but only because he genuinely thinks I'm a bad guy. I've played with him acting similarly in a civ role. I said before that I think he's a civ (or rather, I don't have reason to believe he's a bad guy) but I think I'm leaning a bit more towards civ.
Same with S~V~S, who also voted for me.
I cast my vote a little more than two hours before the poll was up, and truthfully, I didn't change it because I'm used to playing in games where the votes aren't changeable. It was more of a personal oversight than anything.Sloonei wrote:I checked your post history to see when you were here. You posted 20 minutes before and 20 minutes after the deadline. Were you just not able to be here for those 40 minutes in between? I can't pretend to know what the tally looked like 20 minutes before the deadline. Still, on the surface the timing of your posts looks a bit convenient. I don't like accusing people for reasons like this, but you cast a vote that contributed to the lynch despitr advocating against that and you were clearly here near the deadline, if not right at it.agleaminranks wrote:Yeah. I voted for someone who at the time only had one other vote (I believe. The votes were changing a lot). He was the only one I had any sort of minor suspicions against. The people who were voting against me I didn't have enough of a solid case on. I was hoping my vote wouldn't contribute to the one who was getting lynched, to avoid contributing to the very problem I was hoping to avoid, but I failed. I should have taken the Mongoose path and opted for a vote trade.Sloonei wrote:Who are yourntop suspects? Also, you spent most of the day advocating your philosophy that townie deaths should be avoided on Day 1 and then you cast a vote for the player who ended up being lynched. Care to comment on this?agleaminranks wrote:I think Dragon was hounding me pretty furiously, but only because he genuinely thinks I'm a bad guy. I've played with him acting similarly in a civ role. I said before that I think he's a civ (or rather, I don't have reason to believe he's a bad guy) but I think I'm leaning a bit more towards civ.
Same with S~V~S, who also voted for me.
Also you didn't answer my question about your suspects.
It's just your votes were all over the place yesterday, and today you acted like you were voting for someone when it's the night phase. You just seem real aloof.DrWilgy wrote:What categorizes me as such?agleaminranks wrote:Ninja'd. What's up, Wilgy? You're all over the damn place.Metalmarsh89 wrote:Psst, DrWilgy-san. You can't vote for players at night.DrWilgy wrote:Dragunu D. Ruffey-san
I know why Luffy and Sloonei are pursuing me, but why you all of a sudden?Silverwolf wrote:agelaminranks
They don't. Did I say I thought Wilgy was the Don? I just am pretty sure of his alignment and familial association. The cops don't know who the Don is, but they can at least figure out who isn't on their team.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:How would the cops know who the Don is, so early in the game?agleaminranks wrote:I still think the best lead I have is the results of day 1, Sock's intervention, and Wilgy's alignment. Or what I strongly believe it to be.
I'm going to look at the people who were targeting Wilgy the best I can. I think it's possible there's a cop in the group.
I don't think the cops know Wilgy's role, or even what importance he has. My thought was that between whoever Wilgy is and Diiny, Socky opted to use his one-shot to save Wilgy over Diiny because Diiny was the traitor, who had a chance of defecting to Daisy's crime syndicate if voted for by their Don. Wilgy could be the least important role on the team, but at least he didn't have the chance of defecting. I think the end-sum is that saving Wilgy was more advantageous than saving Diiny.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Okay then I interpreted your theory wrong.agleaminranks wrote:They don't. Did I say I thought Wilgy was the Don? I just am pretty sure of his alignment and familial association. The cops don't know who the Don is, but they can at least figure out who isn't on their team.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:How would the cops know who the Don is, so early in the game?agleaminranks wrote:I still think the best lead I have is the results of day 1, Sock's intervention, and Wilgy's alignment. Or what I strongly believe it to be.
I'm going to look at the people who were targeting Wilgy the best I can. I think it's possible there's a cop in the group.
You seem to think Wilgy is a member of the Sockfaces who's important enough for MP to use his one-shot to save him.
How would the cops know that? Otherwise, why would they target Wilgy?
Mmm, I had missed you addressing me in that spoiler post. Apologies.RadicalFuzz wrote:My general strategy is to point out things that I don't like.
Gleam do you understand my confusion at your policy of "I'd rather not lynch civs Day 1 than try to lynch scum" in this format? I mentioned it earlier but that was in the big spoilered post and I want to make sure I get the chance to talk to you about this.
EBWOP, you also have neglected to answer why you're voting for me out of nowhere.agleaminranks wrote:Silverwolf, if I can interject, you've been about as inactive as ika has throughout the game. In fact, Ika has made more posts than you have in this game so far: 19 to your 13. You've not offered any single reads on any people yet apart from ika, whom you seemed very preoccupied on from the start. You pandered for their participation in your very first post, just as a response to their vote. You also addressed Golden but with very little interaction.
Can I ask why you're pushing so hard for ika's participation and lynching when you aren't even performing to the standards you're asking for?
I'm actually a little bewildered by Matt's behavior this game as well. He's posted very little and apparently come up with several strong cases so far.indiglo wrote:This is what I am still pondering about this game. The set up is such that yes, hunting cops is preeminent. Beyond that, I am just really not sure how to even begin to approach things. Beyond cops there are no "baddies" to hunt. Not sure what kind of patterns to look for, or even what to look for. I've not played a game set up like this, so at first I'm just kind of trying to figure out how tf to even approach it.agleaminranks wrote:Mmm, I had missed you addressing me in that spoiler post. Apologies.RadicalFuzz wrote:My general strategy is to point out things that I don't like.
Gleam do you understand my confusion at your policy of "I'd rather not lynch civs Day 1 than try to lynch scum" in this format? I mentioned it earlier but that was in the big spoilered post and I want to make sure I get the chance to talk to you about this.
Yeah, the way you put it makes sense. I was kind of operating under the principle that both mafia families were the traditional "civilians" of the game , and that's kind of how they're being treated by everyone here. But it is, in the end, going to boil down to which family is left standing. It's not something I'd really considered, nor anyone else as far as I can see. The cops are the more imminent threat.
I honestly do not like how Matt was badgering (crap, now I forgot who he was badgering) about having so many reads so quickly. Like, being super close minded about the tunnel vision and not open to hearing the whys of it. Just focusing on the time of it, rather than the actual mechanics of what went on. Because something similar happened to me in a game recently - and I got mislynched because of it. Can't know if this is a similar case, but it just left a bad taste in my mouth and this reminded me of that.
