Return to “[END] Avant-Garde Mafia 2”
Awesome event!MovingPictures07 wrote:LOLKate wrote:Haha! I totally thought this was the beginning of some event. "The eye"MovingPictures07 wrote:Illyria wrote:
Really? We need some suspicious and eye smileys please!
The eye is here.
I am going to promise myself, if I ever find the perfect time to start an event by posting exactly what I did above, I will.
Haha! I totally thought this was the beginning of some event. "The eye"MovingPictures07 wrote:Illyria wrote:
Really? We need some suspicious and eye smileys please!
The eye is here.
Who, me?triceratopzeuhl wrote:I don't know if that's just what kind of a mafia player you are, though. At least you're mentioning several things, trying to help discussion. I do know that the players I'm acquainted with seem mostly normal right now. The vompatti comment above was a joke, btw. At least he's not quoting wikipedia pages yet.
Kate wrote:EXACTLY!LittleTiger wrote:I think the most suspect thing so far is Vompatti trying to explain away Leech's self vote. Giving him an excuse, talking about secrets as if he knows why Leech voted himself. Just seems odd that he would jump to his defense so quickly. Also, the "defense" dissuades anyone from actually voting Leech (and it seems to have been effective).
DH - there are quite a few new players in this game, so why is sharing knowledge of how the game is played for their benefit worthy of being "notable"?
LOL, I can't tell if we agree or not, but I don't think we are too far off!DharmaHelper wrote:Kate - I think you think I disagree with you, which is not the case. I'm just hesitant to vote for people who vote for themselves, particularly this early. I'd like to be cautious is all.
LittleTiger - I don't think it's wrong to want to help people who are new. I just think finding people who are new to be suspect for "drive by voting" during a day 0 poll is a little off.
EXACTLY!LittleTiger wrote:I think the most suspect thing so far is Vompatti trying to explain away Leech's self vote. Giving him an excuse, talking about secrets as if he knows why Leech voted himself. Just seems odd that he would jump to his defense so quickly. Also, the "defense" dissuades anyone from actually voting Leech (and it seems to have been effective).
DH - there are quite a few new players in this game, so why is sharing knowledge of how the game is played for their benefit worthy of being "notable"?
I guess dismiss was too strong a word.DharmaHelper wrote:I didn't dismiss it at all.
So then, why dismiss his self vote?DharmaHelper wrote:I count at least one baddie that has a secret that might explain Leech's voting for himself with no sweat.
Rab, I wouldn't have thought too much of it either - other than it being a poor move if he is in fact a civvie - until a few other players jumped in to defend it with a somewhat wild theory that they seem to claim they "know" as opposed to "think" it.rabbit8 wrote:lol, OK.
Yeah, thats what I always do. You got me.
Or...................
I have not played with him very much if at all and don't really remember him. But I've known a few players who vote for themselves every day 1. He could be one. I don't know at this point he has posted very little to go on. A player voting forthemselves day 1 means nothing to me.
Day 2 he does it again, then we have a problem.
Why would you give so much credence to other posters to answered for him, and then suggested that a secret may or may not be that he gets power from votes? Sounds more like Leech wanted to vote and get out of there. When he got called on it, others not so subtly jumped in to defend it and came up with a "oh yea, must be a super secret secret theory." I call balloney on this one, DH. (the theory, not your not buying it that is...)DharmaHelper wrote:Given the amount of secrets and the shadiness of voting for himself I don't feel comfortable voting Leech at the minute. I don't disagree that an eye should be kept on him, however.
What do you think about Leech, Rabbit?
Lol just kidding you're probably just going to post "lol k" again :P
Why are you only considering INH and Rabbit and not Leech? You seemed to think that, and posed that in fact, he may have made a huge Baddie McBadderson move. Why address it but not add him to your possibilities list?DharmaHelper wrote:Thoughts:
INH's quickness to finish the task and finish it first (sloppily I might add) pings me something fierce. I am reminded of a game we played together where there was a similar posting "contest" (wouldn't call this a contest, just an incentive to talk). He REALLY tried hard to win it, breaking the actual rules of the contest in the process (he posted some off topic nonsense to boost his post count). At the time, I was doing pretty well in the contest as well and I was pretty much a confirmed civvie. His trying so hard to beat me set off bells all over the place and it turns out he was Doc Ock (Baddie).
So, that's where I'm at with INH. It wasn't a contest, it was just an incentive to post 3 times with 3 sentences over 48 hours. Him rushing to complete it and completely ignoring the three sentence rule for some of his posts makes me look in his direction.
Vompatti caught onto this just as I did, and rabbit claimed that it wasn't all that suspicious. For rabbit not to realize that something as odd as what INH did might not even be the slightest bit pingy also pings me. Rabbit dismissed it outright, which I don't think is fair, especially on Day 1. Rabbit also called out Epignosis for not posting alongside his poll vote. He called it a "baddie move". Now, I dunno Epignosis but lets compare:
Rushing to complete an ambiguous challenge, ignoring the rules of the challenge, and bending the rules of the challenge - Not remotely suspect.
Voting in a Day 0 poll without posting - Baddie move.
Bit of a leap.
ADDED: Seems rabbit was just "messing" With Epignosis. But LT apparently wasn't when she agreed that it might look like a baddie move. Dunno, maybe I'm missing something. Oh now SVS is explaining the "Drive-By" thing. I dunno if "Drive-By" voting applies to a Day 0 poll. I mean really, my reason for voting the Sun was nonsense, so it wouldn't have mattered if I posted it or not.
Also, Leech's voting for him/herself and refusing to post more than 3 posts on topic pinged me. Might be an excuse to scrape the bare minimum and then fall into the shadows. Nobody would expect a baddie McBadderson to vote for themselves day 1...
And it seems theres quite a bit of discussion about secrets, alot of back and forth and again rabbit is kicking the cages.
My head is thinking a vote for INH or rabbit. Granted, I know both of them more than I know half of the folks playing, so Might be I am biased a bit.
I doubt his vote could be controlled on day one.DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:His vote could be controlled maybe. I'm not sure. :o Either way it's an odd move.
I don't think so either. All this backing up is seeming more like layers upon layers than the supposed secrets you all seem to know so much about.rabbit8 wrote:Boomslang wrote:This does strike me as very odd, against the self-preservation that this game is theoretically all about. Alternatively, it could be a masterful bit of paranoia induction: he must have a secret power that gets activated by votes, so don't vote for him! Layers upon layers, am I right?Vompatti wrote:There are secrets in many of the role descriptions, so it could be that he knows something we don't know. Most likely he'll gain something by voting for himself (if he survives the lynch). Otherwise it would not seem to make much sense.Kate wrote:Might I ask why you would vote yourself, particularly so early into the day? I do not want, and will not get into, a discussion about random voting, but how could this ever be construed as a civvie move? You are either 1. Voting a known civvie or 2. Voting a baddie, I assume you will say you are doing the former, thus my quesion, why would you vote for someone you are certain is a civvie (assuming that is your stance)?Leech wrote:You may notice that Sock stated that three separate posts and three on-topic sentences are the criteria to avoid punishment. That could be interpreted to mean that having too much is just as bad as having not enough, which is the kind of trick I could see Sock pulling. Based on that conclusion, I wil now refrain from any more on-topic posts, indirectly meaning that I have to vote this early on, in this very post; so I will now cast the first vote, for myself.
No, you're not right.
Ditto.rabbit8 wrote:^^lol, nice answer.
So you know because there are secrets or you assume because there are secrets?Vompatti wrote:I count 22 (twenty-two) instances of "(Secrets)" on the first page, that's how I know about it.Kate wrote:Well thanks for supplying him with an answer but I'd still like to hear from him. So, since this "information" is so secret how would you know about it? Seems you have a bit of secret information yourself.Vompatti wrote:There are secrets in many of the role descriptions, so it could be that he knows something we don't know. Most likely he'll gain something by voting for himself (if he survives the lynch). Otherwise it would not seem to make much sense.Kate wrote:Might I ask why you would vote yourself, particularly so early into the day? I do not want, and will not get into, a discussion about random voting, but how could this ever be construed as a civvie move? You are either 1. Voting a known civvie or 2. Voting a baddie, I assume you will say you are doing the former, thus my quesion, why would you vote for someone you are certain is a civvie (assuming that is your stance)?Leech wrote:You may notice that Sock stated that three separate posts and three on-topic sentences are the criteria to avoid punishment. That could be interpreted to mean that having too much is just as bad as having not enough, which is the kind of trick I could see Sock pulling. Based on that conclusion, I wil now refrain from any more on-topic posts, indirectly meaning that I have to vote this early on, in this very post; so I will now cast the first vote, for myself.
Well thanks for supplying him with an answer but I'd still like to hear from him. So, since this "information" is so secret how would you know about it? Seems you have a bit of secret information yourself.Vompatti wrote:There are secrets in many of the role descriptions, so it could be that he knows something we don't know. Most likely he'll gain something by voting for himself (if he survives the lynch). Otherwise it would not seem to make much sense.Kate wrote:Might I ask why you would vote yourself, particularly so early into the day? I do not want, and will not get into, a discussion about random voting, but how could this ever be construed as a civvie move? You are either 1. Voting a known civvie or 2. Voting a baddie, I assume you will say you are doing the former, thus my quesion, why would you vote for someone you are certain is a civvie (assuming that is your stance)?Leech wrote:You may notice that Sock stated that three separate posts and three on-topic sentences are the criteria to avoid punishment. That could be interpreted to mean that having too much is just as bad as having not enough, which is the kind of trick I could see Sock pulling. Based on that conclusion, I wil now refrain from any more on-topic posts, indirectly meaning that I have to vote this early on, in this very post; so I will now cast the first vote, for myself.
Might I ask why you would vote yourself, particularly so early into the day? I do not want, and will not get into, a discussion about random voting, but how could this ever be construed as a civvie move? You are either 1. Voting a known civvie or 2. Voting a baddie, I assume you will say you are doing the former, thus my quesion, why would you vote for someone you are certain is a civvie (assuming that is your stance)?Leech wrote:You may notice that Sock stated that three separate posts and three on-topic sentences are the criteria to avoid punishment. That could be interpreted to mean that having too much is just as bad as having not enough, which is the kind of trick I could see Sock pulling. Based on that conclusion, I wil now refrain from any more on-topic posts, indirectly meaning that I have to vote this early on, in this very post; so I will now cast the first vote, for myself.
