Well, I tried starting discussion to the best of my ability, but I knew it would be seen as silly by some, and that hardly anyone would probably answer my questions. :P Not a problem. I knew it was not a good discussion starter. Thanks to those who did. I'm glad more discussion occurred while I was gone nonetheless!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Responses to Posts
If you see your name
underlined and bolded, it is addressed to you.
Metalmarsh89 wrote:I don't think MovingPictures07 is acting suspiciously. I just think this is what happens when you have a player who is incredibly addicted to mafia and is not allowing himself to play often right now.
, I assume you mean "this" as in I'm playing like OMG I'M SO SUPER EXCITED FOR THIS GAME, and if so, then yes, I imagine that my excitement is coming across in my posts.
Is that what you meant? :P
thellama73 wrote:Metalmarsh89 wrote:I don't think MovingPictures07 is acting suspiciously. I just think this is what happens when you have a player who is incredibly addicted to mafia and is not allowing himself to play often right now.
I agree.
I have been poking MP a lot today to see how he reacts. He hasn't seemed fishy to me. He seems like normal, hyper-engaged civ MP.
, why did you decide to poke me a lot today? Just curious.
timmer wrote:I hope this doesn't offend anyone, but I will be largely skipping Day 0 banter. It just never does anything for me!
, I can understand this sentiment. I am pretty impatient for Day 1, usually, but even I typically don't try to push discussion as much on Day 0 as I have so far this game. Just trying it out, especially since we only have 24 hour Days.
G-Man wrote:
So have I. It's been fun. But I haven't been doing it to fish for reactions. I've been messing with him for sport.
, I'll ask you what I asked Llama. Why me? Just curious.
DharmaHelper, thanks for your thoughts. I think regarding the defense of Golden, we're likely in agreement, but on two different pages.
I was defending Golden from a possible policy lynch in principle, yes, but I was not defending Golden because I had thought he was a civilian in this game.
As DDL notes here, a policy lynch is a lynch of someone without actually thinking they are mafia, and, as I had no read on anyone at the time, I didn't like how there seemed to be momentum from a few players throwing around a policy lynch of Golden. I had no reason to defend Golden based on his behavior thus far in this game, so that is why I was denying defending him. Does that explanation adequately address your points here?
On a related note, I can vouch for DH's attitude this game toward policy lynches and Day 1 votes. It is consistent with his previous mafia history.
Elohcin wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:A policy lynch of a complete no-show is practically the only one I will support. I hope that doesn't happen here though.
You're telling me you've never voted low posters for the sake of them being low posters?
Hello,
Elo! Glad to be playing with you again. I assure you that I won't rage at you this time.
That is a very good question. Thinking back through the last 5 years of mafia games, it is difficult for me to answer that question one way or the other with absolute confidence. Off the top of my head, I cannot recall any instances where I voted a player on Day 1 solely for being a low poster. It's more possible I did so as the game progressed. There may have been one or two in the last few years. I almost always find a reason for my Day 1 vote, and that alone has gotten me heat significantly in the past, since players found such reasons to be "forced" or "trying too hard". That said, I haven't come up against that accusation in the past year or so as much as I used to.
Regarding how I feel anymore about voting low or no posters on Day 1, I tend to prefer voting a no show over a low poster on Day 1, especially if that player seems unlikely to show subsequently, and has not given any reason for their absence. If instead we leave that person alive, then every day that goes by and they still do not show, they are not helping the civilians via discussion or voting, even if they are civilian, and they become an element that can never be analyzed at crucial later stages of the game (like LyLo). This is in contrast to a low poster, who has shown up in the thread, and is contributing to the game, even if very barely. I prefer to give those players at least a couple of Days until I consider lynching them for lack of content, since at least there is room to analyze their behavior. Of course, both of these depend on a case by case situation, and what the low poster says may cause me to find them suspicious in the content itself. Likewise, there may be reasons to vote someone I genuinely suspect over a no or low poster.
Does that answer your question adequately?
Scotty wrote:MovingPictures07 wrote:
A policy lynch would be any of the following:
- Voting the player with the most or least posts
- Voting the player who is seen as most or least apt to contribute
- Voting a player who just completed a successful baddie win
- Voting a player who is consistently a good baddie
etc.
I intend to vote for the player I find most suspicious and generate as much discussion as I can in order to determine suspicion.
Policy lynches only work when, after generating discussion all throughout Day 1, there is still is no suspicious behavior, and there is a player who is very unpredictable (like a Vompatti) or a complete no-show that could prove to be a problem down the road.
I gotta be honest. I always tend to feel the Day 1 vote as more or less a crapshoot. Sure, maybe you can pull little bits of aggression or ignorance as "suspicion" but I guess I'm just not at that level yet. I'm much more of a logic and factual-based deducer. If I know the parameters and am presented with a set of data, then I can start making justified decisions. Day 2 is when it tends to start making sense to me. Day 1 has speculation, and a majority can KNOW that someone is bad or suspicious, but they won't really KNOW without having a role-check role or public-knowledge alignment.
Also, I can't vouch for people's pre-game reputation, since I've only played with 2 or 3 of you, and actually still don't know what alignment they were/are in the BoB game, but I will say that I am also in the camp of eliminating the slack- the people that haven't posted. I'm totally down to make that my first vote, since 1/3 of the players in BoB right now are MIA on Day 10, and it's making it difficult to pinpoint alignments.
So if you haven't chimed in by Day 1, I'm most likely voting your way by end of day. Because I don't want to have to deal with lots of no-shows again.
, I understand your perspective. There was a time I considered Day 1's to be more of a crapshoot than I do now, but that is only after seeing massively successful town efforts, especially at RYM, where every member of the civilian team really puts a large amount of effort into the game, and consequently legitimately caught a mafia member on Day 1. It is definitely possible. I think viewing Day 1 as a 'crapshoot' is a bad perspective to adopt, since it merely shifts responsibility for players to begin the hunt until Day 2.
That said, I agree that it is easier to analyze after 1 Day's worth of lynch votes have been cast. It's inevitable.
G-Man wrote:thellama73 wrote:Guys, I think G-Man is bad.
Discuss.
Nope. I'm just getting my talking in now, because I'm going to be AWOL pretty much all day tomorrow. I was hoping we'd jump right into Day 1 but no. Alack, alack, alack!
I don't understand,
G-Man. How does your response address Llama's concern? I realize he doesn't say why here, but I am still lost as to why you responded this way. You say you're talking now because you're going to be AWOL tomorrow, but what does that have to do with defending yourself from the assertion that you are mafia?
G-Man wrote:Sloonei wrote:thellama73 wrote:Guys, I think G-Man is bad.
Discuss.
I think it is a bood and unexpected assertion by thellama to suggest that G-man is bad. Why does the llama think this?
He's probably just fishing. I refuse to believe anyone can spot a baddie with 100% certainty on 1, let alone a Day 0. I have yet to meet anyone that good, if they even exist.
, again, here you provide an odd and unsatisfactory response.
What does "probably just fishing" mean? Why add the word "probably"? Can you clarify?
I just want to note that I see you already clarified that you were fishing regarding the "100%" statement in your post, but I'm not sure I believe that explanation.
Golden wrote:MovingPictures07 wrote:and overanalyzing the Day 0 poll clearly was pointless in Roger Rabbit (Golden :P ), I'll follow this vote.
Overanalyzing the day one poll led directly to the aces lynch...
, you misunderstand me here. I wasn't clear, sorry. I was just dropping a joke because a bunch of folks, yourself included, overanalyzed the Day 0 poll, and it turned out to be meaningless. You did legitimately catch Aces, however, during Day 0 and Day 1 banter. I was only referring to overanalyzing the options on the Day 0 poll by itself.
thellama73 wrote:G-Man wrote:Sloonei wrote:thellama73 wrote:Guys, I think G-Man is bad.
Discuss.
I think it is a bood and unexpected assertion by thellama to suggest that G-man is bad. Why does the llama think this?
He's probably just fishing. I refuse to believe anyone can spot a baddie with 100% certainty on 1, let alone a Day 0. I have yet to meet anyone that good, if they even exist.
Where did I say 100% certainty, Captain Straw Man? I just said I think you are bad. It's a vibe I'm getting from you based on what I know of you from past games and contrasting with other players who have a similar style to you. You've been vocal today, but not as productive as DDL and Golden, who I think of as playing somewhat similarly to you. As I said, vague, undefined, but a hunch nevertheless. WHich is why I wanted other people's thoughts.
, can you elaborate on this please?
thellama73 wrote:G-Man's response is very interesting. It sounds like he is trying to convince himself. "Llama couldn't have possible figured me out this early, right? He must just be fishing, right? Right?!"
, I read G-Man's posts similarly. They do sound like he is trying to convince himself. I don't want to put his head on a pike just yet though, especially after misreading him terribly in Economics.
How is
everyone else reading G-Man's responses to Llama?
Sloonei wrote:The two games i've played with G-man were Economics (where he was town but posted entirely in pictures for the whole game) and Bullets over Broadway (where he was scum and replaced in after Day 2 or 3 and was roundly suspected before he even entered the game), so I can't say I am familiar with his usual style, but some of his early posts here had the appearance of being sincere to me when I looked at them. I will look further into this and re-analyze later tonight, after work when I'm on my laptop.
Also, MP's behavior around the policy lynch/"overreaction" stuff reminds me a lot of his Day 0 posts in BoB, which had me feeling mildly suspicious at the time. I still do not know his alingment in that game, can y'all lynch Epi 2.0? 
But this time I can at least understand where he's coming from and fully support what he said, whether he's town or not. A close-minded Day 1 (or Day anything) is a terrible way to approach the game, and policy lynches should be few and far between. MP is a player who I think will become easier to read later in games, but that doesn't mean I wish to give him a pass for any amount of time.
, what about G-Man's posts comes across as sincere to you? I know that's difficult to elucidate, but can you elaborate in any way?
Also, this is vital. I do
not recall you voicing any suspicion of me early in that game. Please direct me to what you are referencing and show me where you said I was mildly suspicious in that game.
Thanks!
thellama73 wrote:
Epignosis believes that baddies use adverbs more than civvies. I think he's right.
, I think that one has to establish a base line of how often a player uses adverbs before judging whether their adverb usage has increased, for this theory to have any merit. Just my two cents.
Sloonei wrote:thellama73 wrote:Sloonei wrote:@llama: I have heard of this theory and do not support it, whether it's being used against me or somebody else.
Okay. I'd rather vote for G-Man than you anyway.
How settled are you on that choice? I have been alarmed at how early people decide on suspects in games here, but I'm getting more used to it as I play more. It just seems to be the way y'all do it. That does not mean I agree with it though. If the Day 1 poll went up right now without changeable votes, what would be the likelihood of you casting a vote for G-man?
This strikes me as forced.
I am starting to believe something is off about
Sloonei. What do others who have played with him think?
Golden wrote:G-Man wrote:3) Civilian G-Man certainly prefers contributing players to non-contributing players. Early on it is necessary to take a utilitarian stance and thin the herd. I think the problem is that you're not keeping my stance on eliminating "good players" separate from the contributor v. non-contributor argument. I think we're more in agreement on things than you realize. For instance, if a talkative player was contributing a lot on Day 1 but says something fishy, isn't there merit in lynching that person over someone who posts little more than "yay game" and "catching up"? I'm not suggesting lynching a "good player" because they are a "good player." What I'm saying is that we shouldn't give "good players" a free pass at all. We shouldn't be afraid to lynch them early- even on Day 1 if there's merit.
Then you would be talking about lynching someone
suspicious rather than someone who isn't. Which is obvious.
And who has ever been afraid of lynching a good player on day one if they think they are suspicious? I can't think of anyone.
But talking about lynching
suspicious good players is not what you were doing, let's be very clear here...
G-Man wrote: Golden is simply now my de facto fallback vote in case I don't see anything vote-worthy on Day 1.
G-Man wrote:In each of the games I started in here so far, we have lynched a civvie on Day 1, so it seems evident to me that mafia communities have gotten no better at rooting out the baddies early on in games. As someone who is a terrible people-reader, many of my early votes are either blind guesses or have weak reasoning. I fully intend to have several fallback contingencies in place for my Day 1 vote.
This reminds me.
G-Man, do you have any thoughts on anyone at this time?
Long Con wrote:G-Man wrote:MovingPictures07 wrote:If we are going to consider a policy lynch of any sort for Day 1, why not the person with the lowest posts?
You mean the player whose posts can be read with the deepest voice or the player who writes the low-down meanest posts?
I believe the word you are looking for is
fewest.
G-Man is now on my list of people that I will not vote for on Day 1.
, is this serious or kidding?
Cookie wrote:After catching up on the thread, I have a few small things to say:
1) I'm new to this site so don't think I am a good candidate for policy voting (please), for those of you who support it.
2) I've never heard policy voting but I think it's good to identify that problem within mafia games. I've always hated it and having to explain that, in terms of probability, we are more likely to lynch a townie. That being said, I do not support it in any way.
3) I don't think G-Man is suspicious. Having said that, I barely remember who posted what because everyone is new to me. It's easier if I knew people and can put a personality to the post, so when I get to know everyone a bit more, I will be able to scumhunt more efficiently.
4) How do I vote not to lynch someone? On the site I use, we vote "no lynch." Is there an alternative name for it here or do I just not vote?
Welcome,
Cookie!
Why do you not think G-Man is suspicious? Can you elaborate?
Why would you want to vote a "no lynch"?
Russtifinko wrote:Sooooo the game started, and I worked all day.....
You guys do realize you averaged over a post per minute between 9:30am and 10am, right? And I haven't read the last 3 pages yet, but it's gotta be close to that for most of the evening.
MP has already demanded no less than 7 answers to questions from EVERY SINGLE PLAYER....and that was 3 pages ago.
Sheesh.
I'd have not voted Rorschach's journal. If he's all he made out to be, he'd write a shorthand or code known only to him in case it fell into the wrong hands.
Also, I have a policy of supporting policy lynches. Let it be known that I will bandwagon onto all policy lynches forthwith, henceforth.
Welcome new players! And new players who used to be old players before I was around. And regular players.
Hey,
Russ!
I realize it's been a relatively high amount of posts, and that you're a busy man, but would you not argue that's a good thing? Would you have preferred that I not try baddie hunting until Day 1 began? Do you not have any thoughts about any of what's been said so far?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rainbow List - Day 1 (~21 Hours Remaining)
Yes, I am continuing my love of Rainbow Lists. For those unaware, I prefer to organize my thoughts on everyone in a rainbow-colored list of suspicion, in order to display to everyone how I am currently reading all living players. It not only helps me keep track of my own thoughts and forces me to try to evaluate every other player in the game, but easily shows other players what I am thinking, so that everyone doesn't have to ask me what I think of Player X.
This is VERY subject to change, since it's tough to read anyone at this stage. I was tempted to place the players who have contributed no thoughts into the "slight" mafia range, but I didn't want to do that, since they are truly "no read".
This is how I am currently feeling about everyone in the game:
MovingPictures07 wrote:TASTE THE RAINBOW
Golden
thellama73
Bass_the_Clever
Cookie
DharmaHelper
Dragon D. Luffy
Elohcin
espers
Long Con
LoRab
Metalmarsh89
nijuukyugou
Ricochet
Russtifinko
Scotty
timmer
G-Man
Sloonei
For reference:
Very strong civilian read
Strong civilian read
Moderate civilian read
Slight civilian read
Very slight civilian read
No read or unsure
Very slight mafia read
Slight mafia read
Moderate mafia read
Strong mafia read
Very strong mafia read
If any of you want elaboration regarding any number of these reads, please ask.
I'm off for the night, and will have a busy day tomorrow, but I'll try to be around as much as I can.
Fiddler on the Roof
(Note: This doesn't excuse you from suspicion, mind you. I have none at the moment..but down the line, don't think you can just bat your eyelashes and expect to let your voting patterns go unnoticed)
But, I'm here, I'll try my best.