[ENDGAME]: Film Directors.

#251

Ricochet wrote:I have to ask, as this point, those who intend to scan back Day 0 for OT content: what exactly do (or will) they consider to be OT in this particular game?

Perhaps S~V~S can better explain what she's looking for... Frankly, the only way this would even prove meaningful to me is that if someone makes every effort to post about film directors, but refuses to engage in current discussion. I can't recall anyone doing this though. And it's not like there's really much to discuss on-topic right now, anyway, due it to being D1.

#252

But again, I don't want this to be a trend in future games. I appreciate the OT discussions on Day 0. It is fun and healthy to engage in the theme.

At this point, it's really just grasping for straws to find evidence, since there's so little of it.

#253

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:I have to ask, as this point, those who intend to scan back Day 0 for OT content: what exactly do (or will) they consider to be OT in this particular game?
Perhaps S~V~S can better explain what she's looking for... Frankly, the only way this would even prove meaningful to me is that if someone makes every effort to post about film directors, but refuses to engage in current discussion. I can't recall anyone doing this though. And it's not like there's really much to discuss on-topic right now, anyway, due it to being D1.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp? I don't expect you to agree with me, but surely you have seen baddies hiding in OT? I am not trying to discourage OT, and I am amazed that you are implying that i am. I have been involved in it myself. What I am saying is that after some time days, if someone is mostly posting OT, then I might find that suspicious. Like if someone has 1- or 15 posts and says nothing game related, that would get my eye.

#254

ebwop, "time or days" and "10 or 15"

#255

S~V~S wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:I have to ask, as this point, those who intend to scan back Day 0 for OT content: what exactly do (or will) they consider to be OT in this particular game?
Perhaps S~V~S can better explain what she's looking for... Frankly, the only way this would even prove meaningful to me is that if someone makes every effort to post about film directors, but refuses to engage in current discussion. I can't recall anyone doing this though. And it's not like there's really much to discuss on-topic right now, anyway, due it to being D1.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp? I don't expect you to agree with me, but surely you have seen baddies hiding in OT? I am not trying to discourage OT, and I am amazed that you are implying that i am. I have been involved in it myself. What I am saying is that after some time days, if someone is mostly posting OT, then I might find that suspicious. Like if someone has 10 or 15 posts and says nothing game related, that would get my eye.

What?

I can't say I've ever witnessed a baddie hiding in OT, but it's possible I just don't pay attention to it.

I'm not implying that you are; I'm implying that witch hunts on D1, if this were to be the basis by which people judge activity, might discourage OT.

After some time? Sure. But we've hardly had that happen yet.

I agree with you on the bolded and underlined.

I don't understand why you're offended.

#256

I honestly have been on plenty of baddie teams, and never did we discuss or entertain the idea of posting a ton of OT to blend in or "hide". It just never would have crossed my mind; and if someone else would have suggested it, I would be indifferent.

#257

I am not offended.

And I have seen people do that. i don't think it is a strategy that you discuss in the chatroom, but I think I have seen people inflate post counts to look more civ. Not sure why this is such a big issue for you.

i was asked what caught my eye, I answered and you are acting like I am restarting McCarthyism.

#258

"With Hunts", lol??

#259

S~V~S wrote:I am not offended.

And I have seen people do that. i don't think it is a strategy that you discuss in the chatroom, but I think I have seen people inflate post counts to look more civ. Not sure why this is such a big issue for you.

i was asked what caught my eye, I answered and you are acting like I am restarting McCarthyism.

Oh, good.

I'll take your word for it. I personally just never really think about it, so it's possible it's happened in a game I've played, and I just didn't notice.

I think you're reading something into my posts that isn't there. Where did I say or imply it was a big issue? I don't suspect you or anything for this; I'm merely discussing. I've said your findings would intrigue me, and that I would entertain your thoughts, even if I had my own thoughts on the matter.

The fact that you think my tone sounds like I am "acting like you are restarting McCarthyism" means that clearly we're miscommunicating. I never once said that we're witch hunting THIS game. I was only expressing concern over making your OT criteria a hard and fast rule in future games because I encourage OT discussion at the start of games. I never said that's what YOU were doing.

#260

This is the perfect example of why we often suspect each other in games, yet often are incorrect.

#261

Well, I've finished a reread, and nothing still has really caught my eye. I suppose the most worthwhile topics of discussion are:

1) MM's self-vote.
2) Llama's theory about Vompatti generally being more active when baddie.

All I know is that I will NOT vote:
- Llama: He put out a theory about Vomps and seems genuinely interested in trying.
- Ricochet - He's new, and seems to be generally interested in playing the game
- S~V~S - Despite our miscommunication and my misunderstanding of what you were hunting for in terms of OT, I see your attempts to baddie hunt so far genuine, and I'd rather not vote out a high poster right away when I have no reason to suspect you're bad any more than anyone else (I feel similarly about Llama)

#262

Dom wrote:Llama, who has suspected you?

Llama, why did you not answer my question?

1. Lizzy mainly with a hint of Long Con.

2. No internet (it is back now.) In answer to your question, yes, I consider his ff-topic banter activity. He has posted more than he usually does, which I consider suspicious.

I have found the responses to my suspicion very productive, however, and I am far from decided on who I will vote for.

#263

Frankly, I don't understand how LC wants the claim for Vomps's baddieness = activeness to be definitively proven, especially since there seems to be some dissent, unless he's asking for Llama to provide substantiation for his theory.

I offered one counterexample (Twin Peaks) and Vomps offered another (Occultism), both of which are valid examples. I'd still say I generally agree with Llama, though, since I was on a baddie team with Vomps twice (a game on RM... can't remember which, and the other one was McGyver IIRC), and he did seem a bit more post pushy. It's a weak observation though, especially since the reasons that one would post more or less are much more complicated than alignment-driven.

#264

Ricochet wrote:I have to ask, as this point, those who intend to scan back Day 0 for OT content: what exactly do (or will) they consider to be OT in this particular game?

Frankly, the only way this would even prove meaningful to me is that if someone makes every effort to post about film directors, but refuses to engage in current discussion. [/quote]

S~V~S wrote: What I am saying is that after some time days, if someone is mostly posting OT, then I might find that suspicious. Like if someone has 1- or 15 posts and says nothing game related, that would get my eye.

I can perfectly understand these two viewpoints, thank you for clarifying.

#265

No problem.

I have to eat and will likely be busy for a while with homework and then other tasks, but I'll be around again tonight and tomorrow morning. Hopefully more discussion occurs by then, especially by those who still only have a post or so. Because right now I just know three people I won't vote for (unless they seem super baddie between now and poll's end, something that seems highly unlikely, almost impossible), but other than that I'm not sure which direction I will take with this vote just yet.

#266

MovingPictures07 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:I have to ask, as this point, those who intend to scan back Day 0 for OT content: what exactly do (or will) they consider to be OT in this particular game?
Perhaps S~V~S can better explain what she's looking for... Frankly, the only way this would even prove meaningful to me is that if someone makes every effort to post about film directors, but refuses to engage in current discussion. I can't recall anyone doing this though. And it's not like there's really much to discuss on-topic right now, anyway, due it to being D1.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp? I don't expect you to agree with me, but surely you have seen baddies hiding in OT? I am not trying to discourage OT, and I am amazed that you are implying that i am. I have been involved in it myself. What I am saying is that after some time days, if someone is mostly posting OT, then I might find that suspicious. Like if someone has 10 or 15 posts and says nothing game related, that would get my eye.
What?

I can't say I've ever witnessed a baddie hiding in OT, but it's possible I just don't pay attention to it.

I'm not implying that you are; I'm implying that witch hunts on D1, if this were to be the basis by which people judge activity, might discourage OT.

After some time? Sure. But we've hardly had that happen yet.

I agree with you on the bolded and underlined.

I don't understand why you're offended.

This was where I got the "witch hunt" thing from.

Maybe we are miscommunicating. This is something I have seen, and done myself.

#267

MovingPictures07 wrote: - Ricochet - He's new, and seems to be generally interested in playing the game

The only thing I can trace back in the thread regarding MM's self-vote was that there was a lot of irony regarding MM being lynched again on D1, he excused himself for going on a boat trip, even more ironies about lynching him followed, to which he just said fine, I'll vote for myself, because I'll be away. He also voted himself knowing the vote is not changeable, judging from his post. It is an odd vote, indeed, but perhaps this whole thing can at the same time be considered to be completely ironical?

***

I'm back in the hole room, with nothing left to do for today, but I think I'll see that movie now. And some tennis, too. At least Federer was the first to get lynched there mwahaha

#268

Ricochet, you are a new player, so let me ask you a direct question (I hope you don't mind).

Are you bad?

#269

thellama73 wrote:Ricochet, you are a new player, so let me ask you a direct question (I hope you don't mind).

Are you bad?

now that's how baddie hunting is done. lol

#270

thellama73 wrote:Ricochet, you are a new player, so let me ask you a direct question (I hope you don't mind).

Are you bad?

Whoa there! Do all newbies get this baptism of fire?

I don't think that, at this point, either my answer or your reason for asking could be supported by anything from the discussion. But feel free to make claims, if you believe you have reasons to.

#271

Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Ricochet, you are a new player, so let me ask you a direct question (I hope you don't mind).

Are you bad?
Whoa there! Do all newbies get this baptism of fire?

I don't think that, at this point, either my answer or your reason for asking could be supported by anything from the discussion. But feel free to make claims, if you believe you have reasons to.

Are you refusing to answer?

#272

thellama73 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Ricochet, you are a new player, so let me ask you a direct question (I hope you don't mind).

Are you bad?
Whoa there! Do all newbies get this baptism of fire?

I don't think that, at this point, either my answer or your reason for asking could be supported by anything from the discussion. But feel free to make claims, if you believe you have reasons to.
Are you refusing to answer?

No, I merely wish to be accused properly.

#273

I am not accusing you of anything. I am merely asking if you are bad. Are you?

#274

I was not saying you were accusing me. I would just rather have you claim what gives you the impression of being bad, and start from there, rather than having to give an empty answer to an empty question.

#275

I don't have the impression you are bad. I was just asking a question which you have refused to answer. I invite the thread to make of that what they will.

#276

thellama73 wrote:I am not accusing you of anything. I am merely asking if you are bad. Are you?

I'm going to some friends' house for the weekend and may or may not be able to pop in to vote. I'm going to gamble on being able to, so I don't have to vote yet.

I will say this, about this recent llama/Ricochet thing.

@Ricochet... when someone asks you if you are bad, and you aren't? You typically say "no". :P

#277

timmer wrote:
I will say this, about this recent llama/Ricochet thing.

@Ricochet... when someone asks you if you are bad, and you aren't? You typically say "no". :P

Ah, got it.

#278

Riddle me this: Why would someone refuse to say "no" when asked if they are bad? There are many explanations, but the following springs immediately to my mind:

They are new to the game of mafia and not used to telling bald-faced lies to their fellow players.

Just a thought.

#279

Happy Saturday, players!

Ingmar must send in the request to remove a player before the night period ends, like any other night action -- good question.

Truf&Godard cannot out themselves to each other.

Glad everyone seems to be having fun!

#280

thellama73 wrote:Riddle me this: Why would someone refuse to say "no" when asked if they are bad? There are many explanations, but the following springs immediately to my mind:

Because of the implications of simply answering "no". Again, no basis from the debate so far for my answer, just as much as no basis for you to ask. You can promptly go on to say you did simply just asked a question, but I didn't believe it to be anything except a trick question and that's that. If there's something springing immediately in my mind, it's that you could be out to troll on me being a baddie as much as you may have been out earlier to troll on Vomps being a baddie. Opinions on that being a credible theory are 50-50 so far, so I'll take my chances here as well.

#281

MovingPictures07 wrote:So who is that one no show anyway? I'll try and find out here.

HOST: Just a request, but for future polls and for the main player listing, is it possible for the names to be alphabetized? I know it's rather trivial, but it helps for better organization: to keep better track of who is playing, who has votes, etc.

Thanks!

Absolutely! Thanks for letting me know that's useful.

#282

Ricochet wrote: Because of the implications of simply answering "no".

What are the implications on answering "no" to a question asking if you are bad?

#283

Ricochet wrote:I have to ask, as this point, those who intend to scan back Day 0 for OT content: what exactly do (or will) they consider to be OT in this particular game?

Statistically, early lynch polls are about as accurate as random guesses as far as finding a baddie goes. Some people will just vote randomly, some people work on suspicions. I'm usually the former because I don't feel like I can have an informed opinion yet. if you are looking for evidence at this stage, you can't really observe much other than the number of posts and such.

Mongoose wrote:Tonight I'm watching this weird film Wetlands, based on the book of the same title. It's on Netflix, for those that may be interested.

Man that was cray.

Also, I forgot to mention Lady Vengeance when we were talking about use of color in films.

#284

thellama73 wrote:I don't have the impression you are bad. I was just asking a question which you have refused to answer. I invite the thread to make of that what they will.

I didn't interpret Rico's response as refusing to answer your question. I saw it more as him saying he'd prefer to hear from you why you would think he is bad before he responds to it.

#285

FYI - I no longer need a replacement. Thanks!

#286

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:I don't have the impression you are bad. I was just asking a question which you have refused to answer. I invite the thread to make of that what they will.
I didn't interpret Rico's response as refusing to answer your question. I saw it more as him saying he'd prefer to hear from you why you would think he is bad before he responds to it.

I don't think he is bad (or at least I didn't. I'm rapidly forming an opinion of him.) You don't have to already think you know the answer before asking a question. In fact, that's sort of the whole point in asking a question.

#287

thellama73 wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:I don't have the impression you are bad. I was just asking a question which you have refused to answer. I invite the thread to make of that what they will.
I didn't interpret Rico's response as refusing to answer your question. I saw it more as him saying he'd prefer to hear from you why you would think he is bad before he responds to it.
I don't think he is bad (or at least I didn't. I'm rapidly forming an opinion of him.) You don't have to already think you know the answer before asking a question. In fact, that's sort of the whole point in asking a question.

I know. I just think that his response was just as telling as a straight-forward answer of "no" in that case. And I would be inclined to agree with you that I do not think he is bad.

#288

Are you on a team with Ricochet, BWT?

#289

MovingPictures07 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:I have to ask, as this point, those who intend to scan back Day 0 for OT content: what exactly do (or will) they consider to be OT in this particular game?
Perhaps S~V~S can better explain what she's looking for... Frankly, the only way this would even prove meaningful to me is that if someone makes every effort to post about film directors, but refuses to engage in current discussion. I can't recall anyone doing this though. And it's not like there's really much to discuss on-topic right now, anyway, due it to being D1.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp? I don't expect you to agree with me, but surely you have seen baddies hiding in OT? I am not trying to discourage OT, and I am amazed that you are implying that i am. I have been involved in it myself. What I am saying is that after some time days, if someone is mostly posting OT, then I might find that suspicious. Like if someone has 10 or 15 posts and says nothing game related, that would get my eye.
What?

I can't say I've ever witnessed a baddie hiding in OT, but it's possible I just don't pay attention to it.

I'm not implying that you are; I'm implying that witch hunts on D1, if this were to be the basis by which people judge activity, might discourage OT.

After some time? Sure. But we've hardly had that happen yet.

I agree with you on the bolded and underlined.

I don't understand why you're offended.

You've never seen a player with a disproportionate amount of posts that don't add anything to discussion?

thellama73 wrote:
Dom wrote:Llama, who has suspected you?

Llama, why did you not answer my question?
1. Lizzy mainly with a hint of Long Con.

2. No internet (it is back now.) In answer to your question, yes, I consider his ff-topic banter activity. He has posted more than he usually does, which I consider suspicious.

I have found the responses to my suspicion very productive, however, and I am far from decided on who I will vote for.

OK. I just wanted an answer! Thank you.

thellama73 wrote:Riddle me this: Why would someone refuse to say "no" when asked if they are bad? There are many explanations, but the following springs immediately to my mind:

They are new to the game of mafia and not used to telling bald-faced lies to their fellow players.

Just a thought.

Riddle me this: Why would someone refuse to say "no" when asked if they are bad? There are many explanations, but the following springs immediately to my mind:

They are new to the game of mafia and are not sure if they are supposed to say such things.

Just a thought.

#290

Hey, sorry for not being around. life...

After catching up, I have to admit that I thought Vompatti was being more active than usual, but since it was mostly about the theme, I thought it was just enthusiasm. What I didn't like though, was when he said he suspected himself. Yeah, it's Vompatti's sense of humour, I know. But last time he was laughing about being bad, he really was bad. I don't remember which game it was, but it was the last one I played with him. So this is a major

I actually understand what SVS is saying. I don't think it's the ton of OT posts, but the fact that it's so much easier to hide behind the "theme" when everyone is talking about that. I wouldn't be surprised if there's at least one baddie who is enjoying contributing to the theme talk, because it's helping him blend in. That said, I don't think that right now, we can learn much from it, so it's not a very productive line of investigation.

Lastly, was I the only one pinged by LC's analysis of the roles post? Sounded to me like a baddie who thinks the civvies have the upper hand in terms of roles and can't come out and say that he's pissed, so he puts it out there in the form of the many ways the civvies can have BTSC and get stronger. It's something I've seen baddies do too many times. To me, that's a baddie indication, and my vote will probably go to either Vomp or LC

#291

thellama73 wrote:
I don't think he is bad (or at least I didn't. I'm rapidly forming an opinion of him.)

Can I confess towards the feeling being mutual and leave it at that? I really feel like detaching from the game for now and watch that movie I planned.

#292

FZ. wrote: Lastly, was I the only one pinged by LC's analysis of the roles post? Sounded to me like a baddie who thinks the civvies have the upper hand in terms of roles and can't come out and say that he's pissed, so he puts it out there in the form of the many ways the civvies can have BTSC and get stronger. It's something I've seen baddies do too many times. To me, that's a baddie indication, and my vote will probably go to either Vomp or LC

That is an extremely interesting point. I was inclined to believe LC was civvie due to his rejection of my Vompatti suspicion (baddies tend to say things like "oooh, interesting Let me think about that." rather than "you're wrong.") But this makes me want to look at him some more.

#293

Oh, and on the Rico debate, it was definitely weird, but I'm not really sure I can vote based on that. It sounded like he/she (sorry) was trying to sound mysterious or sophisticated and get people talking. But maybe it was what llama said. I think if I were asked that as a newbie, I would just say no. You know that if you're bad, you need to lie

linki: I wish I could show you games where I've seen people do that. But I swear I have

#294

Mongoose: Thanks!

Llama, are you insane? Sure, you could say that's one explanation for Ricochet just didn't say "No", but if you want to believe that's most likely, then it seems to me you have to make some serious assumptions. Ricochet obviously has some idea of what he was getting into, so I just can't believe that anyone over the age of 5 would actually refuse to say just "No" because they're baddie. What's the logic or motivation in that, in a game of deception? Any adult human being should be able to recognize that answering your question with "Yes" would be ridiculous and self-destructive. I frankly found Ricochet's responses incredibly reasonable. I don't know whether he's bad or not, but this incident has not influenced my view of you or him.

Dom: I suppose when you say it like that, sure, I'm sure I've seen something like that. I just can't think of an example off hand. I can't really think of an example of someone being baddie though because they posted tons of OT early in the game but then refused to participate thereafter. I can think of examples of baddies avoiding genuinely contributing to discussion though, for sure.

FZ.: Interesting observation on LC. I didn't really get that impression, personally, but that's an interesting interpretation. It didn't strike me as out of character for LC to do that though; I think he did a similar analysis in a recent game (can't remember which). Nonetheless, it would be a good way to make it seem like he's contributing without actually contributing anything.

S~V~S wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:I have to ask, as this point, those who intend to scan back Day 0 for OT content: what exactly do (or will) they consider to be OT in this particular game?
Perhaps S~V~S can better explain what she's looking for... Frankly, the only way this would even prove meaningful to me is that if someone makes every effort to post about film directors, but refuses to engage in current discussion. I can't recall anyone doing this though. And it's not like there's really much to discuss on-topic right now, anyway, due it to being D1.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp? I don't expect you to agree with me, but surely you have seen baddies hiding in OT? I am not trying to discourage OT, and I am amazed that you are implying that i am. I have been involved in it myself. What I am saying is that after some time days, if someone is mostly posting OT, then I might find that suspicious. Like if someone has 10 or 15 posts and says nothing game related, that would get my eye.
What?

I can't say I've ever witnessed a baddie hiding in OT, but it's possible I just don't pay attention to it.

I'm not implying that you are; I'm implying that witch hunts on D1, if this were to be the basis by which people judge activity, might discourage OT.

After some time? Sure. But we've hardly had that happen yet.

I agree with you on the bolded and underlined.

I don't understand why you're offended.
This was where I got the "witch hunt" thing from.

Maybe we are miscommunicating. This is something I have seen, and done myself.

Ah, yes, I see. What I meant was:

I'm NOT implying you are discourage OT. I'm only saying that, if, hypothetically -- someone's OT participation became a major criteria by which everyone judged whether someone was bad early in the game, then it might have consequences for making people feel uncomfortable to post OT. Which is NOT what I was saying was going on here. But merely speculating on the nature of analyzing someone's OT content this early in the game. Does that make sense?

#295

thellama73 wrote:Are you on a team with Ricochet, BWT?

If he's a civvie, then yes.

#296

Ricochet are you new to mafia or just new to the site?

#297

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Ricochet are you new to mafia or just new to the site?

He is both I believe.

That's an interesting observation on LC, FZ. And certainly not one I made at the time. I might go back and look at it again though.

#298

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Ricochet are you new to mafia or just new to the site?

I think I remember when the site was created, but I never joined until Mongoose planned this game and invited me. Regarding mafia, I didn't really do much research in the past games, tbh.

#299

thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote: Lastly, was I the only one pinged by LC's analysis of the roles post? Sounded to me like a baddie who thinks the civvies have the upper hand in terms of roles and can't come out and say that he's pissed, so he puts it out there in the form of the many ways the civvies can have BTSC and get stronger. It's something I've seen baddies do too many times. To me, that's a baddie indication, and my vote will probably go to either Vomp or LC
That is an extremely interesting point. I was inclined to believe LC was civvie due to his rejection of my Vompatti suspicion (baddies tend to say things like "oooh, interesting Let me think about that." rather than "you're wrong.") But this makes me want to look at him some more.

That post was a very civvie LC thing to my mind. The very first game I played with him was a Twilight themed game at LP, and he did exactly this kind of post as a civ; he also has done it when bad. He tends to make the civvie roles sound more powerful when he's bad.

It is always a good policy to keep an eye on LC, but I don't see anything there that he would not do as a civ.

And MP, did you ever play at Hedville? That was MY baddie MO, as well as lots of other people. I actually picked up that trick from Aldo. Schmooze the thread, make everyone feel nice about you, chat people up, talk theme. Bolster your post count with crap, make people recall that you posted, just not WHAT you posted. It isn't a biggie, but I am not sure why you seem so astonished at the idea. It is a fairly common thing, I thought.

Also, re Ricochet, some people ALWAYS ask noobs that question. I can see Ricochets hesitation at first, but Timmer explained it to him, he acknowledged the explanation, but still refused to answer?

TBH, I would think if he had teammates they would tell him to answer. So I am less inclined to think he is bad, but I could see why others might think the other way.

#300

Updated: Main Player List on Page 1 (alphabetized), per player request

See you in Felt Mafia II: Denim Mafia?