That's the only thing holding me back.Prisoner 509378 wrote:Okay so sig basically claimed Messagero. Thoughts?
Sig, answer me honestly here: which Team would you fight for...Sock or Daisy?
Moderator: Community Team
That's the only thing holding me back.Prisoner 509378 wrote:Okay so sig basically claimed Messagero. Thoughts?
Hypothetically, of course...That's the only thing holding me back.Prisoner 509378 wrote:Okay so sig basically claimed Messagero. Thoughts?
Sig, answer me honestly here: which Team do you fight for...Sock or Daisy?
Maybe in the night phase. Maybe. I've got a lot on my plate and I didn't expect to spend it in defense mode. I'll do my best.Prisoner 509378 wrote:Scotty, I want you to make a case for yourself. You don't even have to focus on defenses against accusations you've faced, just put together a convincing case that you are town. Show me the best things you have to offer in your post history, votes, and whatever else. Why should I believe you?
I don't put stock in such things.Prisoner 509378 wrote:Okay so sig basically claimed Messagero. Thoughts?
Maybe in the night phase. Maybe. I've got a lot on my plate and I didn't expect to spend it in defense mode. I'll do my best.[/quoteScotty wrote:Prisoner 509378 wrote:Scotty, I want you to make a case for yourself. You don't even have to focus on defenses against accusations you've faced, just put together a convincing case that you are town. Show me the best things you have to offer in your post history, votes, and whatever else. Why should I believe you?
What do you think? He's been sending you and your jail buddies messages hasn't he? Were those messages something you see sig writing?Prisoner 509378 wrote:Okay so sig basically claimed Messagero. Thoughts?
Civs don't need to distanceQuin wrote:I even considered that post when I came to that conclusion. Scotty wasn't in any danger from that vote. Turnip's justification is pretty hard to get behind.Prisoner 509378 wrote:Nope
Turnip Head wrote:I voted for Scotty on the basis of the points I made in this post. It's not as strong of a point now that the Gleam wagon slowed down and two others popped up, but I still get a word feeling from how he used his vote today.
Turnip should say a thing so I know whether I'm barking up the wrong tree.
Also, my internet SEEMS to be working now. I'll just post if I can from here on and if I can't I won't go through too much trouble.
linki: why indeed.
This is yikes AFsig wrote:?Prisoner 509378 wrote:You didn't make a point about Scotty. You made a point about sig. Quin voted for sig. The connection is obvious.sig wrote:When I made my first point Quin was still thinking he could be that role?
Do you think if I was mafia I'd do something so stupid?
It was a jokey point to make Quin look wrong, you're reading way to deep into it.
civs with BTSC do.Dom wrote:Civs don't need to distanceQuin wrote:I even considered that post when I came to that conclusion. Scotty wasn't in any danger from that vote. Turnip's justification is pretty hard to get behind.Prisoner 509378 wrote:Nope
Turnip Head wrote:I voted for Scotty on the basis of the points I made in this post. It's not as strong of a point now that the Gleam wagon slowed down and two others popped up, but I still get a word feeling from how he used his vote today.
Turnip should say a thing so I know whether I'm barking up the wrong tree.
Also, my internet SEEMS to be working now. I'll just post if I can from here on and if I can't I won't go through too much trouble.
linki: why indeed.
Baddies do.
This is yikes AFsig wrote:?Prisoner 509378 wrote:You didn't make a point about Scotty. You made a point about sig. Quin voted for sig. The connection is obvious.sig wrote:When I made my first point Quin was still thinking he could be that role?
Do you think if I was mafia I'd do something so stupid?
It was a jokey point to make Quin look wrong, you're reading way to deep into it.
I don't understand the role claim, but am annoyed there seems to be one.
Role outing and strong role hints of any kind will not be tolerated. They potentially break the game.MovingPictures07 wrote:RULES & PROCEDURESRules
4. No role outing of yourself or anyone else. This includes all statements of fact regarding your or someone else's role, such as "I am The Don" or "Spacedaisy is Beat Cop", etc. This game is open setup role madness and incompatible with role outing, thus making it not fun when players engage in it. Absolutely don't do it.
5. No dumping information you received from the Host (whether role-related or not) into the thread. This includes statements that more often are seen as implications, rather than statements of fact (role outing). An example would be declaring that "I have reasons to believe MovingPictures07 is Beat Cop" without elaborating. If you suspect someone to be a certain role or alignment, use in-thread reasons to back up your assertion or speculation, even if your reasons are sourced from information you gained outside of the thread. If you are unsure if what you are about to say constitutes info dumping, please PM the hosts first before making the post. If you fail to do this and your post does violate information dumping, then you and your faction will be punished.
6. You may, however, alignment claim truthfully or falsely, although it is not necessarily recommended.
No, they don't. Ask SVS.Quin wrote:civs with BTSC do.Dom wrote:Civs don't need to distanceQuin wrote:I even considered that post when I came to that conclusion. Scotty wasn't in any danger from that vote. Turnip's justification is pretty hard to get behind.Prisoner 509378 wrote:Nope
Turnip Head wrote:I voted for Scotty on the basis of the points I made in this post. It's not as strong of a point now that the Gleam wagon slowed down and two others popped up, but I still get a word feeling from how he used his vote today.
Turnip should say a thing so I know whether I'm barking up the wrong tree.
Also, my internet SEEMS to be working now. I'll just post if I can from here on and if I can't I won't go through too much trouble.
linki: why indeed.
Baddies do.
This is yikes AFsig wrote:?Prisoner 509378 wrote:You didn't make a point about Scotty. You made a point about sig. Quin voted for sig. The connection is obvious.sig wrote:When I made my first point Quin was still thinking he could be that role?
Do you think if I was mafia I'd do something so stupid?
It was a jokey point to make Quin look wrong, you're reading way to deep into it.
I don't understand the role claim, but am annoyed there seems to be one.
MovingPictures07 wrote:These rules should be 100% clear:
Role outing and strong role hints of any kind will not be tolerated. They potentially break the game.MovingPictures07 wrote:RULES & PROCEDURESRules
4. No role outing of yourself or anyone else. This includes all statements of fact regarding your or someone else's role, such as "I am The Don" or "Spacedaisy is Beat Cop", etc. This game is open setup role madness and incompatible with role outing, thus making it not fun when players engage in it. Absolutely don't do it.
5. No dumping information you received from the Host (whether role-related or not) into the thread. This includes statements that more often are seen as implications, rather than statements of fact (role outing). An example would be declaring that "I have reasons to believe MovingPictures07 is Beat Cop" without elaborating. If you suspect someone to be a certain role or alignment, use in-thread reasons to back up your assertion or speculation, even if your reasons are sourced from information you gained outside of the thread. If you are unsure if what you are about to say constitutes info dumping, please PM the hosts first before making the post. If you fail to do this and your post does violate information dumping, then you and your faction will be punished.
6. You may, however, alignment claim truthfully or falsely, although it is not necessarily recommended.
Yeah, that's my bad, not sure what I was thinking. Then I read back over my post and realized, 'Hey, that's not right...' :PDom wrote:thx
As noted in Rule 5., it's totally acceptable if players use in-thread reasons to speculate on why players might be certain roles. For example, you can say "I think MovingPictures07 might be such and such role because he's strongly defending Spacedaisy and it seems they might have BTSC given this post" or whatever.Quin wrote:MovingPictures07 wrote:These rules should be 100% clear:
Role outing and strong role hints of any kind will not be tolerated. They potentially break the game.MovingPictures07 wrote:RULES & PROCEDURESRules
4. No role outing of yourself or anyone else. This includes all statements of fact regarding your or someone else's role, such as "I am The Don" or "Spacedaisy is Beat Cop", etc. This game is open setup role madness and incompatible with role outing, thus making it not fun when players engage in it. Absolutely don't do it.
5. No dumping information you received from the Host (whether role-related or not) into the thread. This includes statements that more often are seen as implications, rather than statements of fact (role outing). An example would be declaring that "I have reasons to believe MovingPictures07 is Beat Cop" without elaborating. If you suspect someone to be a certain role or alignment, use in-thread reasons to back up your assertion or speculation, even if your reasons are sourced from information you gained outside of the thread. If you are unsure if what you are about to say constitutes info dumping, please PM the hosts first before making the post. If you fail to do this and your post does violate information dumping, then you and your faction will be punished.
6. You may, however, alignment claim truthfully or falsely, although it is not necessarily recommended.
Can I still post my role-guess for Epi using game-based facts without breaking any rules?
My internet absolutely shit itself, and I'd have had this posted like 20 minutes ago if I could. I'm basically done but I'm gonna wait on MP.
Unless something revelatory appears, I don't plan on voting you. Your process was logical even if your conclusion was wrong. I can respect that.Quin wrote:oh bobba
Since the poll ends tonight, I have no choice. I will have to pull odd quotes here & there. If a certain Sock stops sendingme PMs maybe I can play his gameScotty wrote:I appreciate you breaking down my baddie game dynamics. I legit wouldn't know since I've only ever been Mafia twice, but I'm sure next time I'm Mafia I'll mix it up. I am not Mafia this game, but love that my "baddie game" meta is being referenced as a reasoning to vote and not vote for me.S~V~S wrote:It is hard to explain; he just *feels* jabbier to me when he's bad, not unlike how I view LC when he's bad; he makes little one liner pokes at people for reasons I don't fathom. Which isn't to say *I* have to fathom everyone elses thoughts. But in LOST Again I read Scottys posts with my forehead scrinched up and one eyebrow almost in my hairline. In LOST Again, I could pretty much pull him out of a hat after a few posts. I am not seeing it as much here. He danced around it a bit more, IMO. Here he is pretty much sticking to his guns. He looks totally different to me than he looked in that game, and more like he does in the games I have seen him mislynched.Epignosis wrote:Can you elaborate?S~V~S wrote:Of the people with votes, I think Scotty DOES have a baddie game. I am not sure I am seeing it here.
BUT God knows I could be wrong, though; see the last 2 lynches. My civ game always goes off the rails when I have to defend before I get a chance to settle in to the thread.
@Bea, yeah I kinda agree. But even if Llama were to allow votes for Matt (and in the past he has not cut replacements slack iirc) I would feel better letting him settle in. Replacing into a role taking suspish is not easy.
Which reminds me, I don't know about anyone else, but I thought Suspish-Gate in GOC was hilarious.
Scotty wrote:I think SVS has been slinking through the past few days. I haven't rea d back on her because I've been a little preoccupied today, but I don't remember her other suspicions taking flight besides for Matt. Which is why I really think discovering Matt's alignment is important.DrWilgy wrote:Voted fer Matt.
Matt, who is definitely not on your team other than Zebra?
Matt, what do you think of my friend Scotty?
Scotty, what do you think of SVS?
Hemade two posts this game, the first where he kinda buriedmy name in themiddle of the post, but a clear thrust at me, followed by a more cohesive direct post. I think since he knew I could read him, he shadowed me all game to keep me from looking at him (and it worked) made all those posts about "Why aren't we dead" and "We're almost the same person", and then he turned on me. The baddies have to mislynch to win with only one bad team. Not a bad idea to keep one in reserve especially since people like to think I am bad.Scotty wrote:The semantics of this is astounding to me, because if Typh was targeted and SVS does turn out to be bad, it would come completely out of left field.Typhoony wrote: SVS, you do realize that if you lied about trying to kill me, I will never, ever, trust you in a mafia game again.
On one hand, SVS seems like a woman of her word when it comes to promises and such, but IMO if you are barred by these imaginary rules of semantics as a mafia, you are giving yourself more opportunities to fail. I have been Mafia exactly once and as Mafia I may make promises that I won't be able to fulfill. This is getting meta, but on the surface SVS doesn't seem like the type of person that would break a pre-game vow like that. I would like to think she wouldn't.
But.
Hypothetical:
If she were bad, what better way to build civ cried than being involved in Typh's death? Notice I said involved, not committed. Maybe if she didn't want to go through with the kill, and chose one of the other Mafia members to do it, she would be absolved of any wrong doing.
I could be reading too much into that, but when people make statements that "oh, I would never do that" or "I'm an honest and noble person as a baddie, I hate being Mafia" it makes me tense up. Could just be a personal play style but if I am ever Mafia again I think anything is fair game.
Again, SVS, I think highly of you as a person, but I don't buy for a second if you were bad that you wouldn't do what you have to do to win.
I missed this. That post you are quoting is hella confusing. What am I being asked?Dom wrote:No, they don't. Ask SVS.Quin wrote:civs with BTSC do.Dom wrote:Civs don't need to distanceQuin wrote:I even considered that post when I came to that conclusion. Scotty wasn't in any danger from that vote. Turnip's justification is pretty hard to get behind.Prisoner 509378 wrote:Nope
Turnip Head wrote:I voted for Scotty on the basis of the points I made in this post. It's not as strong of a point now that the Gleam wagon slowed down and two others popped up, but I still get a word feeling from how he used his vote today.
Turnip should say a thing so I know whether I'm barking up the wrong tree.
Also, my internet SEEMS to be working now. I'll just post if I can from here on and if I can't I won't go through too much trouble.
linki: why indeed.
Baddies do.
This is yikes AFsig wrote:?Prisoner 509378 wrote:You didn't make a point about Scotty. You made a point about sig. Quin voted for sig. The connection is obvious.sig wrote:When I made my first point Quin was still thinking he could be that role?
Do you think if I was mafia I'd do something so stupid?
It was a jokey point to make Quin look wrong, you're reading way to deep into it.
I don't understand the role claim, but am annoyed there seems to be one.
I was referencing that I think you tend to make non-baddie BTSC obvious.S~V~S wrote:
I missed this. That post you are quoting is hella confusing. What am I being asked?
Not convinced of what?S~V~S wrote:I am not convinced.
Did anything ever come of this Quin? Its fairly late in the game, so the more semi-confirmed town members we have the better at this point. Process of elimination our way to victory.Quin wrote:I've been thinking about the capo/crew team more than anything else lately. Given their role, they should have a task to do today, yes? I'll be keeping an eye out and hopefully I can get some town reads from that hypothesis.
If Wilgy had been a cop, I would very much have read this post as you being mafia. How exactly would "present yourself as scum" be defined with when the only outcomes are success and failure? With Wilgy being a civ, this comes off more as keeping an open mind and you stuck to looking for clues as to the capo/crew situation.Quin wrote:ika, for reasons I have previously stated.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?
Wilgy has also caught my eye for his abnormal posts. Someone called him out on it before, but the 'oink's he is shoving into his posts are just really...weird. My initial thoughts were that he is one of the capo/crew and his mission is to present himself as scum in his posts, but I need to dwell on that further. At this point it is a leaning town read, but I am also really confused by him.
Maybe its my bias for being looked down upon strongly for advocating No Lynch in my early days of playing NF mafia but I've found that those who show themselves enthusiastically supporting no lynch are town. Its usually the ones that condemn the players who did it that are mafia.Quin wrote:I'd like to hug you. No lynches are fantastic.agleaminranks wrote: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.
I think Matt is being a bit more quiet than normal, I think I remember him being a little more pandering for discussion than usual. But I have no reason to suspect him as being bad.
Scott and Epignosis are both acting pretty typical, even if they're somewhat low posters for the game right now.
The only other people I have played games with before (Mongoose, llama, zebra) have all been pretty inactive in the game right now. I'm inclined to say civilian just because their contributions seem normal.
I think S~V~S has a false read on me but I don't have reason to suspect her as bad.
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).
Think of this mathematically. I'm of the firm opinion that no one has enough concrete evidence on anyone else to make more than, say, a 10 or 20% educated guess on alignment. We're close to lynching at random here. It's no different from a first day lynch. Statistically then we are more likely than not to lynch someone good. Then we wait for the results of the night actions to formulate more solid theories.
These are the two scenarios at this point:
1. The lynch vote ends up being civilian. The night phase happens, the Police Chief (unless they target the Don) is probably going to succeed in arresting someone. We're down two noble mafiosos/mafiosas.
2. The lynch vote ends up being police. Unless the Chief is lynched (a one in thirty chance), some mafia is probably going to be arrested. One baddie is down, we're down one good guy.
The first scenario is more likely to happen by a factor of 5. I agree that if a baddie is lynched this early, yes, it will go a long way towards helping the mafia teams in the long run. But. You risk civilian death as well. Some people might argue that it's worth the risk of killing a civvie if the chance of taking down even one baddie is there, I just don't agree with that strategy. Maybe it's a matter of personal taste to want to be more restrained. If we were able to somehow avoid lynching someone Day 1 then we would most likely be down one civvie but we also wouldn't be down two, probably. But that's not part of the rules, so I have to come up with my best educated guess.
I'm on page 12 right now and so far there's nothing that has convinced me to change my vote. We'll see how it goes. I think there's like, 30 minutes of day left so I'll be fast.
One of those rather sound logic posts I was referring to. Its unfortunate though that Enrique and his successor are the type of town who come off blatantly scummy, as the contradictions pointed out are spot on. His next two posts are also on pressuring Enrique with similarly valid points.Quin wrote:I hope I'm not alone in seeing this as though it was written extremely half-assed. He's pushing for a Diiny vote, yet advocating that we should be lynching whoever we want to lynch. On top of that, he immediately goes to present some weak justification to go with his hardcore push. It just seems extremely contradictory. He says that he's 'the right choice' but he's not said anything of value in the thread that might lead me to think that. Same with Wilgy's plan. There's absolutely nothing in the thread by him that would explain why he disagrees.Enrique wrote:Hey folks I'd like to remind you that there are six friggin cops so manipulation of tight lynches should be easy. I suggest y'all get your shit together and join me in voting Diiny because he's clearly the right choice
Or come to a consensus yourselves. It's been a way hectic past couple days for me and I'm not really following the game as well as I could be, and I can't say I have many reads besides being freaked out by Diiny's over-eagerness (supatownin?) and general vagueness to his actions.
jeez dudes the game just started why are you being so demanding already
btw wilgy's plan is terrible and the don would have to be a silly billy to go through with it
This is the first I'm hearing of thisEpignosis wrote:We're traveling today to visit nijuukyugou and do fun non-Internet things. I won't be around.