JaggedJimmyJay wrote:If someone out there is a bad guy trying to acquire power, I think it's more likely he/she/they'd be among the people making a show of their candidacy (banners, Trump impersonations, etc).

Moderator: Community Team
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:If someone out there is a bad guy trying to acquire power, I think it's more likely he/she/they'd be among the people making a show of their candidacy (banners, Trump impersonations, etc).
Yellow: Should I take this to mean you believe these players are more likely civilian than not at this point, even if barely, or is it completely alignment indicative?JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I) I would say it is illogical yes, but still understandable. It comes with the territory when I play the way I play.MovingPictures07 wrote:Jay, I have a question for you.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think I'm suited for the task and I got sick of all the anti-me paranoia. I'm not really seeing much to instill confidence about other people anyway. Perhaps I'm arrogant, but oh well. I also expected to be gone through the deadline, but apparently me and sleep don't mix right now.Golden wrote:Jay, why did you vote for yourself?
Here you noted you got sick of anti-you paranoia. Did you think any player's paranoia was specifically either or both: (I) particularly illogical or unwarranted; (II) suspicious at face value?
II) I've been considering this though Day 0. The prevailing narrative has been that I am a civilian asset and a dangerous baddie, so it might not be worth the risk of putting power in my hands. What hasn't been acknowledged is that this works both ways -- baddies can have the same ulterior motive to resist me receiving power as a townie that I could have as a baddie myself pursuing that power. I've decided though that I don't think it's suspicious. Those who promoted this perspective the most (DDL, Bass, and Scotty perhaps among others) did so in such a way that it appears more like genuine paranoia than an underhanded tactic to weaken my influence. If someone out there is a bad guy trying to acquire power, I think it's more likely he/she/they'd be among the people making a show of their candidacy (banners, Trump impersonations, etc).
I would lean civilian on them right now. I am trying to eliminate/significantly reduce total neutrality in my Mafia play, because I think it's useless -- so they'd be town reads GTH.MovingPictures07 wrote:Yellow: Should I take this to mean you believe these players are more likely civilian than not at this point, even if barely, or is it completely alignment indicative?
"Suspicious" is a stronger word than I'd use for it, but their conduct makes me less inclined to support their prefect candidacy rather than more. I think the baddies will have a stronger motive than the average townie to get at least one of their number among the three prefects, so I'd theorize they're more likely to promote themselves however they must. It's a guess.MovingPictures07 wrote:Orange: Does this mean you find anyone doing this to be suspicious at this time, even if barely?
It's annoying to be at the center of consistent illogical paranoia even when it's understandable.Turnip Head wrote:I think you bring up a good point though, Sock. Jay, why are you sick of anti-you paranoia on Day 0?
I agree that total neutrality is useless, but I feel I'd have to force myself to see something that isn't there to declare anyone a GTH read worth anything, so while I find your civilian leanings intriguing and worth discussion, I disagree there.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I would lean civilian on them right now. I am trying to eliminate/significantly reduce total neutrality in my Mafia play, because I think it's useless -- so they'd be town reads GTH.MovingPictures07 wrote:Yellow: Should I take this to mean you believe these players are more likely civilian than not at this point, even if barely, or is it completely alignment indicative?
"Suspicious" is a stronger word than I'd use for it, but their conduct makes me less inclined to support their prefect candidacy rather than more. I think the baddies will have a stronger motive than the average townie to get at least one of their number among the three prefects, so I'd theorize they're more likely to promote themselves however they must. It's a guess.MovingPictures07 wrote:Orange: Does this mean you find anyone doing this to be suspicious at this time, even if barely?
I'm actively trying not to blow this thread up in Day 0. I don't want this massive player list to be filled with lurkers, and nothing inspires people to not bother with a game thread than one that gets away from them before the game even actually starts. I know this is atypical of my usual shtick, but it's what I've decided to do in this game. I am not going out of my way to say things and promote discussion, at least not yet. I'll do that when there's a proper lynch poll.MovingPictures07 wrote:I agree that total neutrality is useless, but I feel I'd have to force myself to see something that isn't there to declare anyone a GTH read worth anything, so while I find your civilian leanings intriguing and worth discussion, I disagree there.
I do think that the mafia will have motive to get one of their number among the three prefects, but having hosted many times, I know baddie teams usually are disorganized, especially this early in the game. So I'm not inclined to throw suspicion at anyone trying really hard to become a prefect, because I can justify that it could be coming from a civilian really wanting to help out their team as well.
I think the better question now is: Why did you not share these thoughts until I pressed you for them, if you really hold GTH reads on players based on their Day 0 activity, even if slightly? Wouldn't it be prudent for a civilian JJJ to bring this up earlier in the Day 0 period as a matter of formal discussion, rather than to passively say "I'm sick of anti-me paranoia"? I'd argue that the way you approached this was anti-conducive to starting conversation regarding reads and opinions among the thread, which is what a civilian should strive to do.
I don't think it was "serious" either. But it was still annoying. I do want to process that paranoia into my reads -- I just talked about that with MP.Turnip Head wrote:@Jay I didn't get the impression that there was any serious, actionable paranoia about you, though.Did you? And would you not want to process that paranoia into your reads of players?
I love that the Epi emoji is that.Simon wrote:I want S~V~S to be second in command.
And I will be leader.
That's fair enough. Thanks for elaborating.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm actively trying not to blow this thread up in Day 0. I don't want this massive player list to be filled with lurkers, and nothing inspires people to not bother with a game thread than one that gets away from them before the game even actually starts. I know this is atypical of my usual shtick, but it's what I've decided to do in this game. I am not going out of my way to say things and promote discussion, at least not yet. I'll do that when there's a proper lynch poll.MovingPictures07 wrote:I agree that total neutrality is useless, but I feel I'd have to force myself to see something that isn't there to declare anyone a GTH read worth anything, so while I find your civilian leanings intriguing and worth discussion, I disagree there.
I do think that the mafia will have motive to get one of their number among the three prefects, but having hosted many times, I know baddie teams usually are disorganized, especially this early in the game. So I'm not inclined to throw suspicion at anyone trying really hard to become a prefect, because I can justify that it could be coming from a civilian really wanting to help out their team as well.
I think the better question now is: Why did you not share these thoughts until I pressed you for them, if you really hold GTH reads on players based on their Day 0 activity, even if slightly? Wouldn't it be prudent for a civilian JJJ to bring this up earlier in the Day 0 period as a matter of formal discussion, rather than to passively say "I'm sick of anti-me paranoia"? I'd argue that the way you approached this was anti-conducive to starting conversation regarding reads and opinions among the thread, which is what a civilian should strive to do.
Hey I never said anything about walls of text, just being active and posty.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:MP you liar, you wouldn't write walls of texts in this game, and here are you doing it.
(This is not a critiscism though, feel free to keep doing them)
Also I love Simon's avatar. Gengar is the best pokemon.
I'll catch up in three hours or so.
Why are you curious about that dialogue and not mine with JJJ?Quin wrote:It's possible I'll be even less active than I was going to be originally. My wisdom tooth socket got an infection so I'm now taking more medicine for that, which is making me kind of sick. I've got two assignments due on top of that so whenever I'm feeling good I'll probably prioritise that. With that said, I promise I'll still post and vote every day but I can't guarantee that you'll be hearing from me a lot (at least until tuesday - the day my assignments are due)
Please bear with me, but if you can't, I understand.
---
On a game related note, I'm curious about the dialogue between JJJ and TH. TH picked out the 'anti-JJJ paranoia' thing from JJJ's posts and he's kind of run with it as though it's something more significant than I think it is. What's your thinking behind this, TH?
Oddly enough, it's always been the opposite for me -- I get overwhelmed and impatient scrolling through long pages. I can't stand anything above 20ppp. I think that continuously clicking onto next pages holds my attention span and feels like I'm progressing through the thread faster.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I swear y'all should go to 100 posts per page. I'm not even into page 3! Obviously the thread is the same length, but it feels less overwhelming to me when I look down at the page clickers.
I'd just read that first post and that caught my attention so I went through his conversation, which left me wanting. I didn't even think to go back and read what you had said actually. It was like 2 in the morning.MovingPictures07 wrote:Why are you curious about that dialogue and not mine with JJJ?Quin wrote:It's possible I'll be even less active than I was going to be originally. My wisdom tooth socket got an infection so I'm now taking more medicine for that, which is making me kind of sick. I've got two assignments due on top of that so whenever I'm feeling good I'll probably prioritise that. With that said, I promise I'll still post and vote every day but I can't guarantee that you'll be hearing from me a lot (at least until tuesday - the day my assignments are due)
Please bear with me, but if you can't, I understand.
---
On a game related note, I'm curious about the dialogue between JJJ and TH. TH picked out the 'anti-JJJ paranoia' thing from JJJ's posts and he's kind of run with it as though it's something more significant than I think it is. What's your thinking behind this, TH?
Just arguing against something I disagreed with. One thing I like to do the most in mafia games is pointing out people's BS. So if I see BS, I quickly reach for the reply button.MovingPictures07 wrote:So I would also like to hear more from DDL on why he was harping on that and whether he found anyone suspicious for Day 0 activity.
To be fair I was more worried about the idea of people blindly following you, than whether you might be tricking us or something. At this point of the game hardly anything a player does matters much.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I) I would say it is illogical yes, but still understandable. It comes with the territory when I play the way I play.MovingPictures07 wrote:Jay, I have a question for you.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think I'm suited for the task and I got sick of all the anti-me paranoia. I'm not really seeing much to instill confidence about other people anyway. Perhaps I'm arrogant, but oh well. I also expected to be gone through the deadline, but apparently me and sleep don't mix right now.Golden wrote:Jay, why did you vote for yourself?
Here you noted you got sick of anti-you paranoia. Did you think any player's paranoia was specifically either or both: (I) particularly illogical or unwarranted; (II) suspicious at face value?
II) I've been considering this though Day 0. The prevailing narrative has been that I am a civilian asset and a dangerous baddie, so it might not be worth the risk of putting power in my hands. What hasn't been acknowledged is that this works both ways -- baddies can have the same ulterior motive to resist me receiving power as a townie that I could have as a baddie myself pursuing that power. I've decided though that I don't think it's suspicious. Those who promoted this perspective the most (DDL, Bass, and Scotty perhaps among others) did so in such a way that it appears more like genuine paranoia than an underhanded tactic to weaken my influence. If someone out there is a bad guy trying to acquire power, I think it's more likely he/she/they'd be among the people making a show of their candidacy (banners, Trump impersonations, etc).
Hope you get better soon.Quin wrote:It's possible I'll be even less active than I was going to be originally. My wisdom tooth socket got an infection so I'm now taking more medicine for that, which is making me kind of sick. I've got two assignments due on top of that so whenever I'm feeling good I'll probably prioritise that. With that said, I promise I'll still post and vote every day but I can't guarantee that you'll be hearing from me a lot (at least until tuesday - the day my assignments are due)
Please bear with me, but if you can't, I understand.
---
On a game related note, I'm curious about the dialogue between JJJ and TH. TH picked out the 'anti-JJJ paranoia' thing from JJJ's posts and he's kind of run with it as though it's something more significant than I think it is. What's your thinking behind this, TH?
I second this post.nutella wrote:Oddly enough, it's always been the opposite for me -- I get overwhelmed and impatient scrolling through long pages. I can't stand anything above 20ppp. I think that continuously clicking onto next pages holds my attention span and feels like I'm progressing through the thread faster.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I swear y'all should go to 100 posts per page. I'm not even into page 3! Obviously the thread is the same length, but it feels less overwhelming to me when I look down at the page clickers.![]()
Quin wrote:I'd just read that first post and that caught my attention so I went through his conversation, which left me wanting. I didn't even think to go back and read what you had said actually. It was like 2 in the morning.MovingPictures07 wrote:Why are you curious about that dialogue and not mine with JJJ?Quin wrote:It's possible I'll be even less active than I was going to be originally. My wisdom tooth socket got an infection so I'm now taking more medicine for that, which is making me kind of sick. I've got two assignments due on top of that so whenever I'm feeling good I'll probably prioritise that. With that said, I promise I'll still post and vote every day but I can't guarantee that you'll be hearing from me a lot (at least until tuesday - the day my assignments are due)
Please bear with me, but if you can't, I understand.
---
On a game related note, I'm curious about the dialogue between JJJ and TH. TH picked out the 'anti-JJJ paranoia' thing from JJJ's posts and he's kind of run with it as though it's something more significant than I think it is. What's your thinking behind this, TH?
I've since read yours though, and I don't think I'd have asked you anyway. You've given lots of detail and I agree with your sentiments.
No need to apologize, just wanted an elaboration. Trying to make conversation and understand where your head is at.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Just arguing against something I disagreed with. One thing I like to do the most in mafia games is pointing out people's BS. So if I see BS, I quickly reach for the reply button.MovingPictures07 wrote:So I would also like to hear more from DDL on why he was harping on that and whether he found anyone suspicious for Day 0 activity.
I realize that kind of makes me an hypocrite because I made an even less informed vote, but I'd rather be an hypocrite than not say the things I notice in a game.
And I saw a bunch of random posts that looked somewhat suspicious, but not enough to be worth building a case on someone, or heck, reeading back in the thread to list them all. Sorry.
I found this logic to be kind of forced. Like he just wanted to make a post that looked informed while forfeiting the need to decide a vote for himself.Russtifinko wrote:Agreed, JJJ.
Hey, I REALLY like the idea of the "whoever does ____ first, gets my votes" posts. They prevent people from finding excuses to give votes to baddie teammates. So I'm gonna do one too, and would suggest others do the same (even though it's an itsy bit late for a few).
The first two people to post pictures or emojis of platypi earn my votes.
Nice. And the apology wasn't needed anyway because I actually ended up going reading back the thread.MovingPictures07 wrote:No need to apologize, just wanted an elaboration. Trying to make conversation and understand where your head is at.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Just arguing against something I disagreed with. One thing I like to do the most in mafia games is pointing out people's BS. So if I see BS, I quickly reach for the reply button.MovingPictures07 wrote:So I would also like to hear more from DDL on why he was harping on that and whether he found anyone suspicious for Day 0 activity.
I realize that kind of makes me an hypocrite because I made an even less informed vote, but I'd rather be an hypocrite than not say the things I notice in a game.
And I saw a bunch of random posts that looked somewhat suspicious, but not enough to be worth building a case on someone, or heck, reeading back in the thread to list them all. Sorry.
In the immediate presence I don't think we should worry much about this when making our selections, but it might become more important as the game progresses and we develop a better understanding of players' potential dueling strength.MovingPictures07 wrote:So who wants to talk about this duel mechanic? It seems we would want to nominate the two most suspicious players (in lieu of one) similar to lynching, but is that necessarily the case? What if a player is suspicious but has a role type that is stronger in duels and keeps winning them? What do you all think?
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:In the immediate present
Ah, MP, always wanting to talk mechanics :P I can see where you're coming from; if we were able to identify a strong dueling civ, we could put him or her up against the suspect for a better chance at a death. However, and this is important, the rules for warriors say "most likely to win in a duel." It's not a guarantee, it would seem. On the negative side, that strategy would identify good NK targets for the baddies. And if we try to get two baddies in a duel and succeed, one of them is destined for deathMovingPictures07 wrote:So who wants to talk about this duel mechanic? It seems we would want to nominate the two most suspicious players (in lieu of one) similar to lynching, but is that necessarily the case? What if a player is suspicious but has a role type that is stronger in duels and keeps winning them? What do you all think?
Another bout.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Host:
If you're able to say, what is the result of a tied roll in a duel?
It's difficult to say. I think people would have to volunteer themselves for a duel, but that could also approach the realm of infodumping. It's also a risk to expose those people to night kills. It may be better to just pit suspect against suspect. We'll learn more as we go I'd imagine.Dragon D. Luffy wrote:My opinion is that we should just lynch the people we want to see dead the most. But in case of endgame situations, putting a warrior on the battlefield against a strategist just to get the strategist killed sounds like a smart move. I mean, look at those odds. Of course, that's assuming we know who are the warrior and the strategist.