Moderator: Community Team
RIP LT
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
Ditto. Please? With sugar on top? (used by us southerners when we really want your help)thellama73 wrote:I wasn't around when the poll closed. Can someone post the results?
I understand that completely. It's all about what eventually people perceive to be 'normal' behavior from you.Roxy wrote:Nope you did not deserve to be lynched but as a player who does give reasons for his vote and rales against randomizing when you voted with little to no reasoning it stands out. Like me during Sesame Street mafia trying to get rey lynched with reasons stuck out b/c I don't usually go all out on Day 1 to find a reason. Understand?
I am not a hypocrite, and I'm also not bad. I know you're unfortunately gone now, but I wanted to respond to this nonetheless.LittleTiger wrote:MovingPictures07 wrote:I should have said, LT's randomized early vote*, not just early vote. I think it's weird she seems so noncommittal at this point, it struck me as a bit odd. Here's hoping my gut is onto something, but by all means, if you guys find better reasons to vote people, go for it.
Ahhhh linki and I don't have time to read it since I really should be out the door! I'll address these when I get back, I'm already later leaving than I should be.
Seriously?
And your gut is wrong!
I genuinely mixed up the poll end times and I am spending far more time in the other game than this one at the moment, so I randomized my vote. And this whole random discussion pisses me off everytime. If there is nothing to go on, randomizing is perfectly legitimate. It is as effective on D1 as voting "minor pings". Both are more likely to snare a civvie statistically. It is very rare to nab a baddie on D1 - as you well know.
Also, people who are dead set against randomizing as vehemently as you and then go ahead and pursue "randomizing people with votes" or "randomizing insert whatever excuse here" are hypocritical. So, Sock, you are a hypocrit
thellama73 wrote:Thee are 145 posts in this thread. How is that "nothing to go on?"LittleTiger wrote: And this whole random discussion pisses me off everytime. If there is nothing to go on, randomizing is perfectly legitimate.
I just don't get how anyone can disagree with this, but whatever. I'm vocal about my viewpoint on randomizing every time this comes up.Kate wrote:My whole point about the randomizing is that if you randomize, there is nothing to go back to later. If you vote a weak ping, or a bad fakes a weak ping, those are in the thread as evidence later in the game. Randomizing tells everyone nothing, and if you are bad, that is a good thing. So the argument about "its just as likely to lynch a civ as is voting on weak pings" may be true but it leaves something to be analyzed later, which randomizing doesn't.
I read boo's post the same exact way, planting seeds for a later vote. I've often done it as baddie. The way he came in here and denounced votes against him as nonsense was interesting as well, especially coupled with a little subtle switcheroo.He-Man wrote:Well Boo's 'intention' turned to reality.
There are things called, erm 'playing the field' your 'intention' was really laying the ground work for your 'intentional' vote. Call your bluff. Glad I voted Boo now.
I'm sorry? What about my vote constituted blanket randomizing?Vompatti wrote:Whoops, almost missed it. Voted for MP for randomizing.
Thanks for clarifying, boo. I do agree it's nice to get rid of non-participants, but this early in the game it's impossible to know whether one of those players is civvie or baddie, and honestly getting rid of the baddies is obviously top priority.boo wrote:Sorry LT, I didn't want to vote for you but staying alive and all that good stuff.
And, I didn't get a chance to post about my opinion on d1 voting philosophy, so here goes.
I always prefer voting non-participants if there are any and I don't think there are any good reasons to vote anyone else. It has nothing to do with my alignment, I've done it as a civvie and a baddie and at the very least tend to discuss like I did here, as I tend to bring up those names as votes I'm considering on d1 because I ALWAYS consider a non-participant for a d1 vote.
It is annoying to make the decision to replace or host kill a player. You eventually have to do that with a non-participant. Killing them (as a player of the game) makes sense to me because it prevents killing a person actually playing the game. I don't care about a persons alignment if they are not playing, what's the point of having them in the game? They are adding absolutely nothing to the game for other players, and I for one would much rather have an interesting game by keeping people playing it around then keeping around someone who isn't playing, regardless of their alignment. The only valid counter-argument to that in my mind is "But Winning..." and if that's the kind of game you like to play then I honestly consider your opinion worthless. It's a game played for fun, sure winning can be fun, but winning by eliminating active players and keeping your non-threats around is not interesting.
Anyways, moving on. I'm thinking INH (just all those posts didn't sit right with me), MP (started the LT train, I don't agree with a great deal of what he said), and Kate (of my voters, I think hers was the most nonsense. I didn't have a chance to read He-Mans post before I voted and made that post, I have no problem with his vote, I didn't want to see LT lynched on her birthday either) for d2 considerations, but we'll see how the night goes.
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
Perhaps not blanket but most definitely a sheet.MovingPictures07 wrote:I'm sorry? What about my vote constituted blanket randomizing?Vompatti wrote:Whoops, almost missed it. Voted for MP for randomizing.
LMAO. Yeah, you go ahead and do that, Snow Dog. I'm pretty sure we've got a baddie in you, sir.Snow Dog wrote:Same goes for you. I'll have to remember this next votereywaS wrote:I'm voting Snow Dog.
Extremely opportunistic vote there for LT.
You are wrong so let's not compound our error by repeating it.reywaS wrote:LMAO. Yeah, you go ahead and do that, Snow Dog. I'm pretty sure we've got a baddie in you, sir.Snow Dog wrote:Same goes for you. I'll have to remember this next votereywaS wrote:I'm voting Snow Dog.
Extremely opportunistic vote there for LT.
I agree that Snow Dog and INH look most likely to be baddie at this point, just going off of how the lynch/votes went down. I'm not sold on either of them, but you seem pretty confident here. What do you think about INH, boo, or juliets?reywaS wrote:LMAO. Yeah, you go ahead and do that, Snow Dog. I'm pretty sure we've got a baddie in you, sir.Snow Dog wrote:Same goes for you. I'll have to remember this next votereywaS wrote:I'm voting Snow Dog.
Extremely opportunistic vote there for LT.
I disagree with boo's rationale here. Of course the game is more fun if everyone is participating, and in another day period or 2 if we still had no major leads I'd be willing to look at no-shows. But on Day 1 the game has been going on for just over 24 hours, and I can think of plenty of RL reasons why someone wouldn't check the site within that time frame. I would hate to lynch a player (at least, assuming they were civvie) who was really interested in playing and just hadn't had time to check in, because I would feel really bad if that happened to me. As I (and LT, I think?) previously stated, lynching a Day 1 no-show is at best no better than randomization, and since baddies may have other channels of communication it's even very slightly more likely that a civvie would not have noticed. Honestly, I'm flabbergasted you're still trying to drive this point home, and it continues to ping me.MovingPictures07 wrote:Thanks for clarifying, boo. I do agree it's nice to get rid of non-participants, but this early in the game it's impossible to know whether one of those players is civvie or baddie, and honestly getting rid of the baddies is obviously top priority.boo wrote:Sorry LT, I didn't want to vote for you but staying alive and all that good stuff.
And, I didn't get a chance to post about my opinion on d1 voting philosophy, so here goes.
I always prefer voting non-participants if there are any and I don't think there are any good reasons to vote anyone else. It has nothing to do with my alignment, I've done it as a civvie and a baddie and at the very least tend to discuss like I did here, as I tend to bring up those names as votes I'm considering on d1 because I ALWAYS consider a non-participant for a d1 vote.
It is annoying to make the decision to replace or host kill a player. You eventually have to do that with a non-participant. Killing them (as a player of the game) makes sense to me because it prevents killing a person actually playing the game. I don't care about a persons alignment if they are not playing, what's the point of having them in the game? They are adding absolutely nothing to the game for other players, and I for one would much rather have an interesting game by keeping people playing it around then keeping around someone who isn't playing, regardless of their alignment. The only valid counter-argument to that in my mind is "But Winning..." and if that's the kind of game you like to play then I honestly consider your opinion worthless. It's a game played for fun, sure winning can be fun, but winning by eliminating active players and keeping your non-threats around is not interesting.
Anyways, moving on. I'm thinking INH (just all those posts didn't sit right with me), MP (started the LT train, I don't agree with a great deal of what he said), and Kate (of my voters, I think hers was the most nonsense. I didn't have a chance to read He-Mans post before I voted and made that post, I have no problem with his vote, I didn't want to see LT lynched on her birthday either) for d2 considerations, but we'll see how the night goes.
I'm wondering about INH myself. I do find it weird that LT ended up getting lynched, especially when I said I didn't feel strong at all about her. INH does often get lynched unfairly as a civvie though, so I am a bit hesitant, and I'm not sure we saw a baddie INH or not. I'm leaning to think that we didn't, but I don't know.
Though I must ask, how does LT's birthday have anything to do with wanting to get her lynched or not? If she were a baddie, why would it matter whether it was her birthday?
You are including me with inh and boo which tells me you find me suspicious. Can you elaborate?MovingPictures07 wrote:I agree that Snow Dog and INH look most likely to be baddie at this point, just going off of how the lynch/votes went down. I'm not sold on either of them, but you seem pretty confident here. What do you think about INH, boo, or juliets?reywaS wrote:LMAO. Yeah, you go ahead and do that, Snow Dog. I'm pretty sure we've got a baddie in you, sir.Snow Dog wrote:Same goes for you. I'll have to remember this next votereywaS wrote:I'm voting Snow Dog.
Extremely opportunistic vote there for LT.
You shouldn't make assumptions based off of people I ask others about. But I understand that, if I am calling you as suspicious, that I do it to your face so you can respond.juliets wrote:You are including me with inh and boo which tells me you find me suspicious. Can you elaborate?MovingPictures07 wrote:I agree that Snow Dog and INH look most likely to be baddie at this point, just going off of how the lynch/votes went down. I'm not sold on either of them, but you seem pretty confident here. What do you think about INH, boo, or juliets?reywaS wrote:LMAO. Yeah, you go ahead and do that, Snow Dog. I'm pretty sure we've got a baddie in you, sir.Snow Dog wrote:Same goes for you. I'll have to remember this next votereywaS wrote:I'm voting Snow Dog.
Extremely opportunistic vote there for LT.
Also, the hair product I run out of first is the volumizer or mousse so I'm voting for that.
linki Russtifinko
Sounds like me then! I look forward to receiving your vote.Roxy wrote:I will be looking over the voters for LT for Day 2 lynch and if any voted for Auger they will be my first choice for a lynch candidate.
Hope the llama answers my question from yesterday.
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
Lol, I was just going to say something similar to this because I voted Auger and LT.thellama73 wrote:Sounds like me then! I look forward to receiving your vote.Roxy wrote:I will be looking over the voters for LT for Day 2 lynch and if any voted for Auger they will be my first choice for a lynch candidate.
Hope the llama answers my question from yesterday.
Remind me what your question from yesterday was (I must have missed it) and I will answer it.
I haven't been getting a read on either INH or Snow Dog. Is your suspicion of them based solely on the vote for LT? Because we both voted for LT and we are good.MovingPictures07 wrote:
It seems many are agreeing about Snow Dog and INH which to me either indicates at least one of them clearly did act suspicious and they are bad or they are being used as good distractors by somebody.
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
That's pretty much it, yeah. That's why I'm not quite sold on anything just yet.thellama73 wrote:I haven't been getting a read on either INH or Snow Dog. Is your suspicion of them based solely on the vote for LT? Because we both voted for LT and we are good.MovingPictures07 wrote:
It seems many are agreeing about Snow Dog and INH which to me either indicates at least one of them clearly did act suspicious and they are bad or they are being used as good distractors by somebody.
No problem. I try to do that in games to gauge how people respond about others throughout the game. You can often manage to crack open teams that way on retrospect (like how I made the decision at the beginning of MOTU that I would defend Snow Dog when he is brought up, but enough about that game since it is in progress).juliets wrote:Thanks for your response MP and I see what you are saying, makes sense.
wow linki linki linki
I simply haven't checked that much and was kinda pissed to see someone voting for me based on "low posting." I think is a bit early in the game to conclude that low posters are avoiding discussions. I did vote for you entirely because you voted for me and the reasoning behind it, or resounding lack-there-of.juliets wrote:A low poster could be someone who is avoiding conversation in order not to be noticed and thus not voted for. You will also hear people use the term 'flying low' for someone who posts the minimal amount and doesn't add anything to the discussions.AllAlongTheBoardwalk wrote:
This is such a cop-out. Why exactly is being a low poster at this point such a problem? You're basically trying to justify just throwing a lynch vote away. Votes Juliets
And what you did right here is called a "switcheroo" which means voting for someone just because they voted for you. Also a baddie tactic.
So normally I would think this makes you more suspicious but I do see how new you are so maybe you didn't know.
Also, RIP LT it's very sad to see you go. And welcome to the "I got lynched on my birthday" club.
Roxy wrote:What do you mean "general attitude"?thellama73 wrote:I have to leave in a bit, so I am going to go ahead and vote. I hate to lynch anyone, because I am not confident about anyone being a baddie yet, but decisions have to be made!
I believe LT about mixing up the post times, but the randomization doesn't sit well with me. I agree with Kate that it seems like something a baddie would be more likely to do than a civvie. I don't trust boo, and I would probably be voting Roxy if she were in the poll based on general attitude.
It is therefore with a heavy heart that I vote LT.
Whelp gotta vote and I random'ed betwixt those I said I would and got Dex. Sorry Pickle but it is what it is. I do however <3 pickles in general
Happy to answer!Roxy wrote: What do you mean "general attitude"?
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
Do you think juliets is baddie for this reason, or no?AllAlongTheBoardwalk wrote:I simply haven't checked that much and was kinda pissed to see someone voting for me based on "low posting." I think is a bit early in the game to conclude that low posters are avoiding discussions. I did vote for you entirely because you voted for me and the reasoning behind it, or resounding lack-there-of.juliets wrote:A low poster could be someone who is avoiding conversation in order not to be noticed and thus not voted for. You will also hear people use the term 'flying low' for someone who posts the minimal amount and doesn't add anything to the discussions.AllAlongTheBoardwalk wrote:
This is such a cop-out. Why exactly is being a low poster at this point such a problem? You're basically trying to justify just throwing a lynch vote away. Votes Juliets
And what you did right here is called a "switcheroo" which means voting for someone just because they voted for you. Also a baddie tactic.
So normally I would think this makes you more suspicious but I do see how new you are so maybe you didn't know.
Also, RIP LT it's very sad to see you go. And welcome to the "I got lynched on my birthday" club.
I have to say I don't understand this either.thellama73 wrote:Happy to answer!Roxy wrote: What do you mean "general attitude"?
You have seemed overly aggressive to me. Maybe that's just your play style, but it struck me as suspicious. Also, your push to lynch Auger voters (irrespective of the fact thta I happen to be one) is very confusing to me and I can't see the logic behind it.
You know what they say, it's mafia, it's not personal.AllAlongTheBoardwalk wrote:In response to your question MP, it certainly pings me quite a bit, but I may be taking it too personally.
As far as the poll goes, I really don't care, hair products were mentioned so I guess I'll go with Mousse. Seems kinda old school, does anyone still use it? Votes Mousse
Care to explain how you know MP is good, llama?thellama73 wrote:I haven't been getting a read on either INH or Snow Dog. Is your suspicion of them based solely on the vote for LT? Because we both voted for LT and we are good.MovingPictures07 wrote:
It seems many are agreeing about Snow Dog and INH which to me either indicates at least one of them clearly did act suspicious and they are bad or they are being used as good distractors by somebody.
I'm feeling the same way on all three of those players. I would say this seems to be relatively normal behavior from Rox, so while it doesn't make sense to me, she's not necessarily really pinging me as BADDIE or anything. I haven't played with her in a while now though. I'll read through posts myself once I have some more time and see if I can't figure anything out. I do think there's one baddie to be found in the LT bandwagon, perhaps, just not sure who it is.Russtifinko wrote:Care to explain how you know MP is good, llama?thellama73 wrote:I haven't been getting a read on either INH or Snow Dog. Is your suspicion of them based solely on the vote for LT? Because we both voted for LT and we are good.MovingPictures07 wrote:
It seems many are agreeing about Snow Dog and INH which to me either indicates at least one of them clearly did act suspicious and they are bad or they are being used as good distractors by somebody.
I read through Snow Dog and INH and don't think there's much there to make a decision on yet. I certainly didn't get INH's logic that randomizing is bad but killing no-shows on Day 1 is ok, but that doesn't make him bad necessarily. Snow Dog's vote does look bad, but he's not the only LT voter. I still don't and will never understand Roxy's anti-auger campaign and agree that her aggression seems over the top, though I do appreciate that she's started so much discussion. Can anyone comment on whether this is a 'normal' play style for her?
And I suppose it's too much too hope anyone will post the poll now, right? This will be a consistent problem for me because I go to bed long before they finish; can someone volunteer to get them in the future?
Why does my vote look bad? Is it because, assuming I was mafia I quickly voted for LT and followed a trend? I could answer if I was really mafia I would have been more subtle. No. I voted LT because she raised most suspicion to me and as I'm not mafia I had no need to be more subtle. I gave my reason and voted.Russtifinko wrote:Care to explain how you know MP is good, llama?thellama73 wrote:I haven't been getting a read on either INH or Snow Dog. Is your suspicion of them based solely on the vote for LT? Because we both voted for LT and we are good.MovingPictures07 wrote:
It seems many are agreeing about Snow Dog and INH which to me either indicates at least one of them clearly did act suspicious and they are bad or they are being used as good distractors by somebody.
I read through Snow Dog and INH and don't think there's much there to make a decision on yet. I certainly didn't get INH's logic that randomizing is bad but killing no-shows on Day 1 is ok, but that doesn't make him bad necessarily. Snow Dog's vote does look bad, but he's not the only LT voter. I still don't and will never understand Roxy's anti-auger campaign and agree that her aggression seems over the top, though I do appreciate that she's started so much discussion. Can anyone comment on whether this is a 'normal' play style for her?
And I suppose it's too much too hope anyone will post the poll now, right? This will be a consistent problem for me because I go to bed long before they finish; can someone volunteer to get them in the future?
Oh, I don't know. I don't know that anyone is good. For the moment,. however, he seems to be behaving in a logical and trustworthy manner to me.Russtifinko wrote: Care to explain how you know MP is good, llama?
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
