Snow Dog wrote:What are your points MP? Do I have to read through all that again. I saw nothing to comment on. You raised some names. I read it.
I apologize, I sort of went into overdrive mode last night while playing (what can I say, I love mafia) and I realize that reading paragraphs of text over and over isn't exactly easy reading. I hope you didn't feel I was calling you out specifically, but I just get frustrated (in-game) when I am trying to start discussion and I feel absolutely no one is listening to me.
You're right, most of what I presented was pretty gut-based, no substantial analytical cases or anything, but that's because I believe it's near impossible to drum up something like that at this point and have it actually be a worthwhile endeavor. Trust me, I've tried making massive cases on people on Days 1 and 2, and in retrospect, much of it is stabbing in the dark. But I suppose that's the point of mafia nonetheless. It's just what makes these early day periods so difficult.
Most of what I was referring to as my discussion points
is here (though there were other points made, this was the main 'here's what I'm currently thinking' post).
I do think I'll be voting llama, Bullz, Nevinera, or Hedgeowl. Not sure. I need to think on this.
Give me a bit here and I'm going to mull over a few thoughts and attempt to make sense of what my gut has been telling me. I think I'll try to re-read a few players/posts in particular, hopefully I'll have enough time. These 24 hour days are incredibly NOT conducive to discussion and analysis.
But I'll do that in a separate post.
Snow Dog wrote:Sorry just read thw whole of your above post. I agree with you actually. SVS does seem single minded on Nev and is very sure. This is the way she plays maybe. I could never be so confident. But I am still going for the water voters. Although I suspect that Vomps maybe voted water for the next world to support Lizzy who voted it the first time. If he is civ he is the most unhelpful civ around.
This is definitely the way she plays. I get what you mean re: water voters, I'm just not sure I agree necessarily. I could easily see a scenario in which a baddie could have been ballsy and voted that option early on, but there's also the clear logic against it.
thellama73 wrote:MovingPictures07 wrote:
Also, you seriously think that NO Goomba sneaked in a vote in Gleam? If you recall, we had three baddies whose votes were worth 0 last lynch.
While I agree with your observation, you appear to be going from one extreme to the other. I disagree. I think there was one or two Goombas that voted for Gleam; the fact that you are not willing to even look at any of those voters strikes me as odd indeed, especially when he was lynched for what were really silly reasons.
Goombas votes are worth zero, so why would they bother going on record voting against someone they knew would flip civ? I know how carefully people analyze past votes and if I were bad, I would not want to be counted among those that lynched a civ if I could help it. Maybe one goomba did indeed vote for Gleam, but I think we have better odds in looking elsewhere.
I agree that SVS' pursuit of Nev is a bit much for it being so early, but I also know that that is her style, so I don't mak too much of it. I also think she makes some valid points about him, so he is someone I will have my eye on going forward.
Regarding the "excessive defensiveness" comment, I generally think it is a mistake to get one's hackles up over day one votes, when most people will collect at least one vote. It makes you stand out and look like you have been caught as a baddie. However, I know that you are an experienced enough baddie to be unlikely to respond in this way, so I am not looking at you with too much seriousness right now.
I'm happy to respond to any other concerns you have about me.
Sure, people analyze past votes, but how many baddies actually get lynched purely out of poor voting record? Honestly, I would have agreed with you entirely if I was the MP of a year or two ago... but I'm not so sure anymore. I feel pretty confident that at least one baddie would have found it most beneficial to squeak in and throw a vote on gleam; it was the perfect opportunistic bandwagon.
I understand that, and I do recognize I was in overdrive, but it seriously is old to be a major point of suspicion every game right off the bat -- and the way S~V~S linked me as possibly baddie without even saying it was because of my own actions just rubbed me the wrong way.
That, and, much of my pursuit was really just trying to prevent possible disaster. I know S~V~S can be an incredibly good civvie asset, but I've also seen her fail, just like anyone else, and I've also seen her as a devious baddie. Her relentless pursuit of Nevinera, even if she feels she is 99% right, does not accomplish ANYTHING if she is wrong. If she is right, then power to her, but even then, I felt like I could foresee a scenario where little discussion of anything or anyone else was had, and I really wanted to try to engage her (and others, but particularly her yesterday) in it.
I suppose I feel/felt more strongly about it because I feel bad about all the times I've railroaded fellow civvies as a civvie. I'm going to try not to ever do that again, but at the same time, it is good to listen to your gut -- it's all about continuous improvement.
What points against Nevinera do you think she has made that are strongest, out of curiosity? I may not even see your response before I vote, which is a pity, but I want your perspective here.
Hedgeowl wrote:
As to the explosion of posts between MP and SVS it's a bit like a posting contest. We are not required to play to stay alive (maybe nev is) and it seems stupid to stick our bear paw in that bee's nest.
MP - I think if you would like to get further discussion going from multiple players, highlighted questions are helpful. In long paragraphs, read late at night, specific questions get lost or forgotten by the time you finish reading.
1. How does everyone feel about SVS' focus on Nev?
I noted that when she asked about his initial vote reasons and I explained what I thought they might have been, she apparently never read or saw my post. Rather than engaging in discussion she continued to post 'why haven't you answered me nev?' Now nev then explained that really he had no better reason to vote gleam or MP. Which while upsetting to those who would like a darn good reason if we will be lynched, is perfectly logical to me in this point in the game. We can all pretend its great insight, but how many times have people lynched a baddie the first day? BWT can speak more to being lynched as a baddie over a typo I believe.
That said we are all suspects on each other's lists right now.
Linki - if that is SVS' style, then what is Nev's? Points? You mean point. She has one point, that he voted for no reason.
I think you are right about Goomba voting. It will be more useful later hopefully, but right now feels just as much of a shot in the dark.
Trust me, you would KNOW if I was in a posting contest. That was not it.
I understand, perhaps it wasn't the best way to stimulate discussion, but I wanted to throw out all of my thoughts. I always do that when I play; I work on the feedback and interactions of the thread. Because if you take that all away, what strategy do you have left?
As to S~V~S's focus on Nevinera, I'm very torn about it. I have no idea if Nevinera is a baddie, and I think he's reading a more likely baddie to me than S~V~S at the moment, but I'm not sure I'm completely convinced either.
Perhaps you're right about the Goomba voting. You probably are. I just think it's something to keep in mind.
Elohcin wrote:
It seems odd to me that you would come out and ask how you might defend yourself, Snowy, without being specifically asked. I have read over your posts and I am reading civ, but I am wondering if you may be trying TOO hard to act civ. What does anyone else think about this? Do you think Snowy is just playing his civvie part or trying too hard to appear civ even thought he is baddie?
Interesting point. I have a really hard time reading Snow Dog, so I have no idea. Am I the only one that just reads all of Snowie's posts the same regardless of his game? He has to be one of the hardest people to read ever, at least for me.
I appreciate the discussion point though. You could be onto something, I don't know.
Mongoose wrote:Epignosis wrote:
A message from Toad:
"A concise post is better than a lengthy one. Bazinga!"
I think Epi thinks we are being rather verbose!
I'm sure that was entirely aimed at me.
I really hope Toad loves this post! Here's looking at you, kid!
birdwithteeth11 wrote:Alright. Here's what I have gotten since I last posted.
I can understand MP's defense about civs lynching civs. I've definitely been on the receiving end of that a few too many times. I remember my first few games of mafia well. I was a civ in the first 3 or 4, and in each of them, MP went and got me lynched thinking I was a baddie. It can be easy for him to get blinders on sometimes. The doesn't necessarily make him bad or good however.
This post is sticking out to me quite a bit:
MovingPictures07 wrote:S~V~S wrote:I considered a vote for you due to behavior of what i considered to be a potential teammate. Yes.
My main reason for suspecting him is his voting reason paired with the fact that he did NOT vote for the earliest voter (you). Should he come up bad, we can talk. Until then, it is academic.
I agree, but I still don't get this at all. How does someone else's behavior even incriminate me as a potential teammate when there is a reason for him to act in such a way in possibly any scenario (him being bad, me being bad; him being bad, me being civ; him being civ, me being civ)? Isn't that a clear logical fallacy and can you not understand how I feel that's unfair to me?
I can't decide what to make of your intentions, but if they are civvie-minded (and I have no reason to think you are civvie or a baddie at this point), I think it's a bit dangerous to be following that kind of lead.
I'm curious about other's opinions on it. Assuming I'm read that correctly, SVS thinks it is odd that, given Nev's logic, he did not vote for MP. But where did SVS make the logical jump from Nev to MP? I feel like I'm missing something here, so I wouldn't mind an explanation from someone else.
I also can understand why MP might be coming off as overly-defensive. I think it was odd that SVS refused to address any suspicions of other suspects that MP had brought up. But that also doesn't surprise me. SVS can be very focused and aggressive when she nails on a certain suspicion and decides to run with it. I think when you're a baddie in that situation (believe me, I've been there), it can be very frustrating and hard to get away from.
All that being said though, I'm still leaning toward both of them being civ. Thoughts?
Linki: Holy shit! Tons of linki!
I still don't get S~V~S's train of thought connecting me to Nevinera either, even after she elaborated on it. However, I am currently leaning slightly civvie on her for now. Obviously leaning civvie on myself.
What do you think of Nevinera? Or was he one of the ones you included in "both of them" (I read as me and S~V~S, but am not sure)?
Hedgeowl wrote:
Also, I am loving this game and the people playing.
Same here, can't emphasize that enough!!
S~V~S wrote:ebwop, @bwt~ also, re not addressing other suspicions. I am sure you have had suspicions that you believed in your heart, and others did not, or tried to dissuade you, for nefarious reasons or for good, civvie reasons, but you still, in your heart of hearts, thought you were right. I feel my OWN suspicions most. While I agree that other people are bad, I still think Nevin is bad. So that is my focus.
I have not heard anything to make me think otherwise about him.
I can respect this. I just am not near that confident. I hope you are right, assuming Nevinera does face death today.
Will try to get to analysis here shortly... because I have to vote. Sucks. Majorly. I feel way too rushed with this schedule... and if that's why it seemed like I was pushing for discussion so much during a Night period, that would be why. Lol.
