Homestar Runner [Day 13]

[BigDamnHero]

So you had info when your option didn't win? So deaisy did mix it up a bit.

No I was told what 'my' option was beforehand, and it did not win. I'd be interested to see if Dom also had info, I believe he was the only one who voted the same as me.

This intrigues me. I'd like to hear more from ANYONE who didn't vote CASTLE with the rest of the crowd and see what, if any, info they had concerning voting options. Could it be possible that an option didn't necessarily have to "win" per se, but just that certain people had to vote for certain options?

Also, I could totally get on board with the "VOTE THE PLAYER LIST" option. Genocide is hardly ever a good thing, but it WOULD destroy all the baddies...civvies too, unfortunately, but at least there would still be balance in the universe and these headaches and random eye twitches that I've started experiencing as of this morning would probably/hopefully go away!

[Bullzeye]

So you had info when your option didn't win? So deaisy did mix it up a bit.

No I was told what 'my' option was beforehand, and it did not win. I'd be interested to see if Dom also had info, I believe he was the only one who voted the same as me.

This intrigues me. I'd like to hear more from ANYONE who didn't vote CASTLE with the rest of the crowd and see what, if any, info they had concerning voting options. Could it be possible that an option didn't necessarily have to "win" per se, but just that certain people had to vote for certain options?

Also, I could totally get on board with the "VOTE THE PLAYER LIST" option. Genocide is hardly ever a good thing, but it WOULD destroy all the baddies...civvies too, unfortunately, but at least there would still be balance in the universe and these headaches and random eye twitches that I've started experiencing as of this morning would probably/hopefully go away!

We'd break so many records by voting Player List but honestly at this stage of the lynch I think (s)he's mostly civ and am willing to give PL a pass until later in the game

[thellama73]

Alex, do you find it odd that BDH is encouraging people to talk about their info, while you are discouraging them?

[Tangrowth]

Anyway, I am not 100% confident that the grand 6-tiered civvie theory is true; in fact, it would be very strange, but it is a possibility, even if remote. There are other possibilities to this poll, given the number of players who didn't weigh in and the fact that some could be lying. However, given the fact that the theory is even a mere possibility, I firmly believe we should shift discussion away from Day 0 theory mongering, and that we not vote for Snow Dog or Bullzeye today. Or at least I won't be voting for them, but that's just me. If they have pulled some grand elaborate baddie scheme, that will be revealed in due time, with their intentions... as it normally would be otherwise. For Day 1 purposes, a lynch of either of them could either prove fruitless (disproving the theory and leading nowhere if we all vote for one or both of them) or dangerous (possibly proving the theory). Either way, it's bad news.

If I'm missing something, I'd prefer to hear it, but otherwise if other players are in agreement, I say let's continue this Day 1 otherwise. I stand by my thought that if I can find a good player to vote for who bandwagoned into castle, I think that's where I'm going today... but there is still plenty of time and plenty of things could happen.

But I'll shut up for now, considering I'm sure many players would love for me to do so.

And Devin, I know there's a lot, but I don't encourage anyone to skim the pages. We have until Tuesday morning. I understand busy schedules (I even have one myself, believe it or not, but it's Sunday and I'm greatly procrastinating many things because this Day 1 is so enthralling), but I don't think skimming would be wise for anyone, if at all avoidable. A new set of eyes could expose something someone like myself might have missed.

[Tangrowth]

So you had info when your option didn't win? So deaisy did mix it up a bit.

No I was told what 'my' option was beforehand, and it did not win. I'd be interested to see if Dom also had info, I believe he was the only one who voted the same as me.

This intrigues me. I'd like to hear more from ANYONE who didn't vote CASTLE with the rest of the crowd and see what, if any, info they had concerning voting options. Could it be possible that an option didn't necessarily have to "win" per se, but just that certain people had to vote for certain options?

Also, I could totally get on board with the "VOTE THE PLAYER LIST" option. Genocide is hardly ever a good thing, but it WOULD destroy all the baddies...civvies too, unfortunately, but at least there would still be balance in the universe and these headaches and random eye twitches that I've started experiencing as of this morning would probably/hopefully go away!

No. Why the hell would you want anyone to talk about their info now?

I understand you're new... but please think about what I've said and consider it.

I very, very strongly urge people to not discuss info or Day 0 poll any longer. I think it is very logical to conclude to discuss it any further would be against the civvies' best interests.

[Mongoose]

Alex, do you find it odd that BDH is encouraging people to talk about their info, while you are discouraging them?

It makes me rather nervous too.

[Bullzeye]

I certainly am not prepared to vote Snow at this point. I think it's probable he was just confused about the nature of the info discussion and I could see him being a civ, especially if MP's theory is accurate.

[Tangrowth]

Alex, do you find it odd that BDH is encouraging people to talk about their info, while you are discouraging them?

I do... Given that person is brand spanking new, I'd really, really rather not vote for him, but it is possible he is baddie as much as it is anyone else (all glory to the wonderful randomizer!), so I am conflicted.

I am not set on voting anyone over anyone else at this moment, other than what I have just recently said that I will not be voting Snow Dog or Bullzeye. That much is clear.

I think I need to step away from this discussion for IRL reasons and due to giving other players the chance to catch up and have the discussion shifted elsewhere. I want to see it organically develop... and I'm afraid I'm domineering it too much now; baddies would rather me keep talking and have me or someone else guide the lynch a very specific direction and then say what I or someone else said makes sense. I'd rather that not happen.

That said, we need to discuss suspects, but that will develop in due time. I will make an assessment at that time, but considering castle voters who bandwagoned, players who are very clearly more so seeming as though they are avoiding discussion for possibly nefarious reasons, or even those who are participating for nefarious reasons, might be better leads... even though it is Day 1 and we're bound to not come onto anything particularly enlightening (unless it's by chance).

[Draconus]

Devin, one thing. If you completely randomized, as you say, that is interesting, because you were the only one who voted your option.

If the grand 6-tiered civvie theory is true, this means the player who benefited from that option is either you, and you are lying, or could have easily deduced this could bite them in the ass later on and threw their vote off elsewhere... if I were that player, I would have questioned that I would benefit from such an option because this poll did not seem to make much sense as an alignment-type poll as is typical in most games.

I did indeed randomize and I was also curious about being the only one to vote for the option. I believe Coach Z must have thrown his vote elsewhere (Castle perhaps?) after seeing the massive bandwagon on the Castle option. I stand by my theory on the Day 0 poll, though, and I will not be voting for Snow Dog or Bullzeye. As I said I will be looking at everyone else who bandwagoned the Castle option.

[Draconus]

Linki: MP: Thank you!

I will be interested to hear from most of those who voted for the Castle.

[thellama73]

I think I need to step away from this discussion for IRL reasons and due to giving other players the chance to catch up and have the discussion shifted elsewhere. I want to see it organically develop... and I'm afraid I'm domineering it too much now; baddies would rather me keep talking and have me or someone else guide the lynch a very specific direction and then say what I or someone else said makes sense. I'd rather that not happen.

I am not sure I have been seeing civvie Alex this game, but this paragraph reassures me a bit, at least for the time being.

[Elohcin]

I just read 4 pages of posts! Y'all are a chatty bunch today

Many of the theories being thrown out so far don't seem realistic to me. That said, I appreciate when players actually come out and participate in such discussion because it often leads to an unfortunate early civvie death and thus there are risks involved in doing so.

That being said, the idea that we should lynch the 6th player or other such inferences are completely ridiculous, IMO, and I will vote for the first person to cast their vote based on something so trivial and illogical.

Like you have never made any ridiculous or illogical theories. I've seen your lengthy posts on how things could be this way or that and then at the end you say something like, "but I could be wrong". At least I'm trying. And I already said, if what I came up with was a bad theory, just tell me, kindly. I will respect your opinion. We civs are in this together.

That said, I don't have anything to really go on for finding baddies yet. Many of the players aren't even posting, really.

What are your feelings about low posters? I tend to like to vote for them on Day One, but other people think I am wrong to do so. The reason I like to is that I think it is an easy way for baddies to hide. I have seen very low posters make it all the way through games with no scrutiny due to flying under the radar. Also, I like to have fun, and the game is not fun if nobody is talking, so I prefer to vote of someone who is not talking over someone who is, all things being equal.

I agree with you here. I hate to vote people just because they aren't talking but I think randomizing is worse. If we randomize aren't we more likely to lynch a civ, yes? I think between the two options, voting a quiet player over random voting would give us a better chance at lynching a baddie on the first try. I don't know about you all, but I've never seen a baddie lynched on Day 1. Have any of you ever witnessed such a thing? And, I agree with Hedge that we ought not vote a newbie on Day 1.

About the info, I think the whole thing about 6 players getting info as there were 6 options would be logical if Snowy hadn't received info *before* the pole. It would be nice if everyone who had info would let us know they had it and whether they received it before or after Day 0 poll ended, or both. We could put a list together of who had info and when and what option they voted for. Thank you SnowDog for giving us what you could I too think it was a misunderstanding about what "info" meant. Technically you had info before the poll just by knowing that you would get info if castle won .

Other players with info...did your info come like Snowy's? Or was it different?

Also, why do you think someone would lie about getting info? Someone was talking (sorry cannot remember who with all I read) about how if only one person voted for a certain option, they would automatically be the one to receive info (with the "6" theory) but someone in this situation claims they got no info. What would keep someone from sharing the info that they received info (did that make sense?)

[Tangrowth]

Everyone will blend in now. Baddies will agree that my logic makes sense... so I hesitate to eye BDH necessarily, but I do think his actions are worth watching, very much so.

Anyway, be back at some later time. Hopefully much more very excellent discussion will be had by then, but I think we've exhausted many aspects of discussion, and I don't expect anything particularly enlightening to develop against any one particular individual. In fact, if that does happen, I will wonder, but I do want players to voice their thoughts and point out observations, even if it gets other players talking, as that is how you catch baddies.

Linki with Devin: Before I go... I find this post actually a bit pingy. I'm sorry, but did I miss where you posted your theory that this was true before llama and I stumbled onto it? I don't know, but this post reads so blendy in a baddie way to me. I'm not even sure I'll vote for you, but since you've returned to the thread, you're scaring me just a bit, I'm afraid it must be said, which makes me sad. That said, given you were the only one that voted your option... I'm not sure I'd want to vote for you either... but perhaps if you were a baddie you'd love to use that to your advantage, wouldn't you?

Oh, WIFOM, we meet again, my old friend.

No, suspicions must be set at zero. Everyone and anyone could be suspicious. I wouldn't recommend avoiding voting for someone that could be outed on the theory if I or anyone else believes them to be most suspicious.

Devin, I don't know what I think of you, actually, but I agree it might be worthwhile to use the castle bandwagoners as a lead. I'm not sure I'd start there, though... I would rather suggest going through the thread, seeing if anything pops out, THEN if their Day 0 vote was castle and seemed to indicate they gave no thought to the poll, then that might be good.

Using it as a starting point alone, while might be good to close down the number of players to examine, might prove to lead to logical fallacies similar to those exhibited in the good old Erlatz 11 back in my second mafia game ever in 2010: A Call at Arms on The Piano. Players restricted their votes and restrictions too much because we very confidently presumed Erlatz had to have recruited one of eleven players on Day 0... but it led nowhere good.

Anyway, now I am leaving, seriously. Be back later, thread!

God dammit, more linkitis! No, seriously, I am gone. Bye. Not responding!

[Tangrowth]

restricted their votes and suspicions*

Bah. Anyway, now gone. Had to fix that glaring typo.

[Mongoose]

I think going after castle voters is nuts. This is probably the third time I've said it, but I believe it to be true. With no other factors at play, I think an anonymous vote would have still resulted in a majority vote for castle. It's straightforward, logical and sensible. We're not all contrarians, ya know.

I find it to be an inadvertent bandwagon, if that.

[BigDamnHero]

No. Why the hell would you want anyone to talk about their info now?

I understand you're new... but please think about what I've said and consider it.

I very, very strongly urge people to not discuss info or Day 0 poll any longer. I think it is very logical to conclude to discuss it any further would be against the civvies' best interests.

whoa whoa whoa...didn't you just say a little bit ago:

As to the poll, I was hoping for more discussion along the lines of what I originally proposed. I know info receivers cannot speak about their info or their results, but did anyone else make their votes on Day 0 as I did: without any information and received nothing thereafter?

...and now all of a sudden you want to put the kibosh on discussions? You even said you're not 100% confident about your 6-civilian poll-option theory yet you want all talks about it to end? I'm fine with discussing other things but if we dump out all poll-voting related topics what else really is there to discuss?

[Tangrowth]

One last post because I happened to see it.

Elohcin: Catch up before posting again.

And Mongoose: I agree, don't use it as a starting point. It will be Erlatz 11 all over again. I am actually thinking I might vote Devin today... but I might not. I might vote MDH, but I might not. I might even vote for llama... but I might not. I might even vote for Player List...

I will mull on this and visit the thread when I have more time, and when I think it would be beneficial for me to do so. Seriously. Bye now.

Sigh. Linki with BDH: Please read my last 10 or so posts again. If you come to that conclusion again, think about it. I do not want to discuss info any further; it should be clear why.

Now let me go!

[Draconus]

Am I the only one who thinks that the video and the poll are two different things? Nothing in mafia is ever that obvious or simple...

I agree with this. But now that I have time to put my 2 cents in, here it is:

It's hard to say which choices would benefit the baddies since 5 out of 6 of the options have a civ's name in it. I feel pretty comfortable keeping my vote on Coach Z's locker because what is wrong with looking in a civ's locker (other than the fact that it can come off as creepy )? Quite honestly if my randomizer had come up with anything other than the stick, I would have kept my vote there. Where no characters are actually affiliated with the stick, that option makes me the most wary.

Alex, here is my post for reference. I stated the theory in a less obvious manner than I previously thought. But that was my intent. I'm not sure I understand why I'm pingy, though

[Draconus]

I am definitely a vanilla civ this time. If you want to vote for me fine.

@ Mongoose: Why do you find it nuts to look at Castle voters? There are 9 baddies and 14 people voted for the Castle. If my theory is correct the baddies had no info going into the Day 0 poll and would have been more likely to go with the "obvious option." It's just a start, though.

[Matahari]

Trying to catch up-
first, happy bday Alex! My bro's bday is also the third, his daughter on the fourth, my sis in law the sixth, mine the seventh, and to make a long story longer, we have 12 bdays from mid July to mid August. All the celebrating is in my tiny apt. because someone has to be with my dad all the time. So it's her, or else I miss out on family fun. And cake.

So anyway, I'm in three games now and trying to keep up. I noticed that elohcin and mongoose were talking about the possibility of the number 6 person on the poll needing to be voted, although I don't agree that a host would ever out a player, I didn't think they were necessarily pushing it. But later mongoose posted this:

linki - MP: Yeah, I threw out something a little crazy, and then you brought it around to something more sensible. Eloh and I were just kinda thinking aloud. Maybe you or someone else would have taken that "illogical" reasoning and tweaked it or added to it to achieve something more cogent.

This also might not mean anything but I am wondering how mongoose can be sure of what elohcin meant.

Ok back to reading-

Linkitis up the wazoo!!!!!

[Snow Dog]

I certainly am not prepared to vote Snow at this point. I think it's probable he was just confused about the nature of the info discussion and I could see him being a civ, especially if MP's theory is accurate.

Yes it seems we were at cross purposes. In short I did receive a "prize" which was info. I had info beforehand that if Castle won I would gain this info.

You recieved info that if something else won you would get a prize. Which you didn't.

Is this correct?

[Bullzeye]

I certainly am not prepared to vote Snow at this point. I think it's probable he was just confused about the nature of the info discussion and I could see him being a civ, especially if MP's theory is accurate.

Yes it seems we were at cross purposes. In short I did receive a "prize" which was info. I had info beforehand that if Castle won I would gain this info.

You recieved info that if something else won you would get a prize. Which you didn't.

Is this correct?

Yeah exactly.

[Mongoose]

I don't know for sure that Eloh was thinking aloud, but it was pretty clear we were both just throwing out ideas.

Devin - I think it's folly to go after castle voters purely for voting castle because of the reasons I stated above and also because I don't think the numbers game will pay off. Some people didn't even vote! With twice the civ as baddies, looking into castle voters seems a sure fire way to bag a civvie. Too risky for my taste.

[Draconus]

I don't know for sure that Eloh was thinking aloud, but it was pretty clear we were both just throwing out ideas.

Devin - I think it's folly to go after castle voters purely for voting castle because of the reasons I stated above and also because I don't think the numbers game will pay off. Some people didn't even vote! With twice the civ as baddies, looking into castle voters seems a sure fire way to bag a civvie. Too risky for my taste.

I can understand your logic, Mongoose. It was the only thing I could come up with, though. If there is a better way to sniff out a baddie on Day 1, I would be more than happy to try it.

[BigDamnHero]

Sigh. Linki with BDH: Please read my last 10 or so posts again. If you come to that conclusion again, think about it. I do not want to discuss info any further; it should be clear why.

Now let me go!

Sorry, but I find it very UNCLEAR why. I've read and re-read all your posts over the last couple pages and they really seem to be all over the place up until you do a complete 180 and insist we stop talking about something you've been talking about for 2 pages. This doesn't sit well with me at all! I've yet to see or read any theory that has any merit behind it. This 6-civillian poll-vote-option-info-thingy has no credibility to support it. Is it plausible, like you said? Sure, but it's also plausible that the world should've ended on 12-21-12. My point here is that what can be considered "plausible" is a far stretch from what can be considered true or fact, and yet you went from making a plausible theory to taking it as an unmitigated fact. I see no justification at make that leap at this juncture.

[Elohcin]

One last post because I happened to see it.

Elohcin: Catch up before posting again.

And Mongoose: I agree, don't use it as a starting point. It will be Erlatz 11 all over again. I am actually thinking I might vote Devin today... but I might not. I might vote MDH, but I might not. I might even vote for llama... but I might not. I might even vote for Player List...

I will mull on this and visit the thread when I have more time, and when I think it would be beneficial for me to do so. Seriously. Bye now.

Sigh. Linki with BDH: Please read my last 10 or so posts again. If you come to that conclusion again, think about it. I do not want to discuss info any further; it should be clear why.

Now let me go!

I keep a separate tab up to address things as I read. Then I edit my thoughts after I'm done catching up. Four pages is a lot to read without making notes on what I want to say. And, you're rude

[Draconus]

Sigh. Linki with BDH: Please read my last 10 or so posts again. If you come to that conclusion again, think about it. I do not want to discuss info any further; it should be clear why.

Now let me go!

Sorry, but I find it very UNCLEAR why. I've read and re-read all your posts over the last couple pages and they really seem to be all over the place up until you do a complete 180 and insist we stop talking about something you've been talking about for 2 pages. This doesn't sit well with me at all! I've yet to see or read any theory that has any merit behind it. This 6-civillian poll-vote-option-info-thingy has no credibility to support it. Is it plausible, like you said? Sure, but it's also plausible that the world should've ended on 12-21-12. My point here is that what can be considered "plausible" is a far stretch from what can be considered true or fact, and yet you went from making a plausible theory to taking it as an unmitigated fact. I see no justification at make that leap at this juncture.

I do see what you are saying. Nothing is certain right now. But I think Alex (MP) initially was excited by the fact that we were getting "info" from what Snowy and Bullz admitted to. After thinking it over, though he must have realized that this could potentially result in role-outing. Something he is extremely against. I'm surprised he pushed for people with info to come forward in the first place.

[A Person]

Maybe we could lynch someone who said they had info just to see if they have any relation with the poll, that way we could begin to see if any theories are correct. But I doubt anyone would think that's a good idea.

I'll probably just randomize (for reasons stated in previous games).

[Vompatti]

I'm not going to catch up, I prefer to live in the moment. That said, let it be known that I didn't have any info before the poll and I still don't. Furthermore I'm getting strong civvie vibes from Player List:.

[Bullzeye]

I agree with Vomp. I'm about 18 27ths sure that Player List: is a civ. That said it's probably a good idea for anybody behind to catch up...

[birdwithteeth11]

Alright, still catching up. But I figured it would be better if I broke this down into 2-3 posts, rather than 1 giant post that is hard to follow.

As to the poll, I was hoping for more discussion along the lines of what I originally proposed. I know info receivers cannot speak about their info or their results, but did anyone else make their votes on Day 0 as I did: without any information and received nothing thereafter?

I did not receive any info about the poll.

OK. I had info

We definitely need to tread carefully with how we handle this. Because I've seen people reveal they get info on a Day 0 poll, and then get NKed by baddies because of this additional info. I'm fine with the discussion I've read so far though. But that's another thing to keep in mind, especially if several civvies received info about it.

If SNow is not lying about his info, it would madness for a baddie to admit to it when everyone else is denying it. If he is not lying. I would expect at this point that each option had one role associated with it (the attributions would be fairly obvious) and that they are the ones who received info.

This is incredibly sound and I'd love to believe this is true. However, I'm hesitant because I wonder if Daisy would consider doing anything like that since obviously this could lead to the outing of players and their roles.

If it is somehow true though, we might want to be careful about how we discuss this any further, correct? Bubs, King of Town, Marzipan, Strong Sad, Coach Z, and Strong Bad are all civvie roles.

So if your theory is correct, this would mean 6 different civvies received information, baddies did not, and Trogdor did not.

If your theory is correct, I am glad we have uncovered the meaning of it, but I'm also a bit scared since outing civvies roles is not exactly something I want to do.

Couldn't we test this theory somehow? Because if Snow Dog was King of Town, for example, and Bullzeye was Strong Sad, this would be great to know as it would put their posts in context, but... would we even want to is the question... since then not only would the civvies know (which would be nice), the baddies would know as well.

Like I said before, we need to be very careful how we handle this one. I agree that we don't want to cross any lines in terms of rules, but I also don't want to put people in the crosshairs.

I'm fine with not testing the theory right now however. I'd prefer to not potentially reveal up to 6 civvie roles for the baddies to pick off at their leisure.

Linki w/ AP: I would vote for someone who based their Day 1 vote off that theory. So I would hesitate against voting that way.

Linki w/ Vomps: You're not catching up because you're a lazy git k

[Mongoose]

I'm not going to catch up, I prefer to live in the moment. That said, let it be known that I didn't have any info before the poll and I still don't. Furthermore I'm getting strong civvie vibes from Player List:.

Aww, don't be a wussy wombat! It's really not that much to catch up on in terms of time, but I think it's all stuff you need to know. Information you can form baseline opinions from all of us on.

[birdwithteeth11]

Part 2! I know this is exciting stuff to keep hearing from me!

No. And I don't understand what you are saying at all. Why would you get info from the poll before the poll?

I received info because Castle won the poll. I didn't have to vote fpr it.

You misunderstand. I WAS told before the poll that if Castle won I would receive certain info. But I didn;t have to vote for it. I did vote for it to make it as certain as possible to win.

Am I the only one who thinks these don't add up? Particularly number 1 and number 3.

Yeah, I noticed that as well while catching up. I'm not sure if we've caught Snow Dog in a lie, or if there was a miscommunication in what he was saying.

You say you knew which option to vote for. Therefore you had info on the poll before it was over. But you also questioned why I would have had info on the poll before it was over.

Hmmmmmmm....worth keeping in mind.

I need to finish re-reading. And then I will post some more.

Linki w/ Mongoose: Vomps is not someone who is going to be influenced by what anyone else says. He's one of the few people who could say he wouldn't bother keeping up with the game, even if he had the time, and it wouldn't tell me anything about his alignment. I do agree it's kind of an odd response however.

[Vompatti]

I'm not going to catch up, I prefer to live in the moment. That said, let it be known that I didn't have any info before the poll and I still don't. Furthermore I'm getting strong civvie vibes from Player List:.

Aww, don't be a wussy wombat! It's really not that much to catch up on in terms of time, but I think it's all stuff you need to know. Information you can form baseline opinions from all of us on.

Okay.

Linki [ˈlinki] (German: Linken) is a village in the administrative district of Gmina Mikołajki Pomorskie, within Sztum County, Pomeranian Voivodeship, in northern Poland

[birdwithteeth11]

Alright. I think I'm all caught up for now. Also I would like to apologize. I would not have mentioned whether or not I had info if I had fully caught up and seen more posts. I agree that more people revealing what happened with them in this regard only helps the baddies.

This intrigues me. I'd like to hear more from ANYONE who didn't vote CASTLE with the rest of the crowd and see what, if any, info they had concerning voting options. Could it be possible that an option didn't necessarily have to "win" per se, but just that certain people had to vote for certain options?

Also, I could totally get on board with the "VOTE THE PLAYER LIST" option. Genocide is hardly ever a good thing, but it WOULD destroy all the baddies...civvies too, unfortunately, but at least there would still be balance in the universe and these headaches and random eye twitches that I've started experiencing as of this morning would probably/hopefully go away!

Do you understand WHY having people volunteer whether or not they received info is a bad thing? Because to me, it either sounds like you don't or that you don't care.

Other players with info...did your info come like Snowy's? Or was it different?

Again, why do you want to continue that train of thought? This is the only part of the discussion so far that is really bothering me. And I feel there are plenty of other avenues we could explore besides this one.

I am definitely a vanilla civ this time. If you want to vote for me fine.

This stuck out to me big time for some reason. Because from what I can see, Reynold is the only civvie who appears to be vanilla (outside of his secret of course). And you're willing to throw a line like that out there on Day 1? Unless you actually have that role (and I highly doubt you do since that would be role-hinting otherwise), the person who actually DOES have that role is probably going to suspect you big time.

Idk. Maybe I'm reading into that last one too much. But I would like to hear more from BDH, Elo, and Devin as the day goes on. Because those are the 3 people that have caught my attention the most so far. I also wouldn't mind to hear more from other players on the subject. Particularly about the quotes I pulled.

[Elohcin]

Other players with info...did your info come like Snowy's? Or was it different?

Again, why do you want to continue that train of thought? This is the only part of the discussion so far that is really bothering me. And I feel there are plenty of other avenues we could explore besides this one.

I was just joining in the discussion when I wrote this. If we as a whole feel it is better not to discuss this any further, I am okay with that. I'm sure thee will be a more appropriate time later. What other avenues would you like to explore?

[Draconus]

@bwt: I may be misunderstanding the meaning of "vanilla civ" then. Could you clear me up on that definition please??

[thellama73]

@bwt: I may be misunderstanding the meaning of "vanilla civ" then. Could you clear me up on that definition please??

Vanilla means no night powers.

[Draconus]

@bwt: I may be misunderstanding the meaning of "vanilla civ" then. Could you clear me up on that definition please??

Vanilla means no night powers.

Thank you. That makes more sense. I meant clueless in my previous post.

[Hedgeowl]

@bwt: I may be misunderstanding the meaning of "vanilla civ" then. Could you clear me up on that definition please??

Vanilla means no night powers.

I did not know this either. Thanks! Is there a Mafia game lingo cheat sheet?

I agree that we should no longer discuss info from polls to protect any other possible specific civs. We definitely dont know if this is only a civ poll, however currently I think it's safer to not discuss it. Of course it can be revisited later. I also don't want to vote BDH Day 1 as a newbie, but it people want to watch him I think thats reasonable.

5 pages of reading and I don't feel better about a suspect. I think Snow and Bullz have worked out what they meant and seem to in agreement, which makes sense. Bullz shouldnt have received additional prize info since his option didnt win, while Snowy should have and did.

[BigDamnHero]

This intrigues me. I'd like to hear more from ANYONE who didn't vote CASTLE with the rest of the crowd and see what, if any, info they had concerning voting options. Could it be possible that an option didn't necessarily have to "win" per se, but just that certain people had to vote for certain options?

Also, I could totally get on board with the "VOTE THE PLAYER LIST" option. Genocide is hardly ever a good thing, but it WOULD destroy all the baddies...civvies too, unfortunately, but at least there would still be balance in the universe and these headaches and random eye twitches that I've started experiencing as of this morning would probably/hopefully go away!

Do you understand WHY having people volunteer whether or not they received info is a bad thing? Because to me, it either sounds like you don't or that you don't care.

No, I really don't understand, so please help me understand. The ASSUMPTION that people are making is that ONLY CIVILIANS were given any sort of information pertaining to the poll. No if this were indeed true, then yes, I can see why people revealing they received info would be bad because it would be identifying roles we are inherently trying to protect. I by no means want to expose, sacrifice or otherwise endanger any of my civilian counterparts, but I can neither subscribe to this insane theory that one side has been given an unfair advantage over another in a game that is just in its early stages. Assumptions and theories are not the same things as truths or facts. I could formulate a theory that every single civilian player ONLY voted for the Castle option and therefore everyone else is a bad guy. Is it PLAUSIBLE? Of course, but that doesn't make it true or factual in any way. So I'm having a hard time buying into the theory that only civilian roles were given any information. At this point I don't care who has info or who doesn't or who voted why or whatever. What concerns me is that this single theory has been seemingly validated and made out to be the gospel truth to everyone so as to distract us from considering other possibilities. I can envision multiple scenarios where one of the bad guys would either admit or deny receiving info so as to forward their own agendas. The fact that MovingPictures began down a specific road of discussion only to put an abrupt and immediate halt to that exactly line of debate has me gravely concerned since he was one of the key people who began propogating what I'm going to refer to as the 6-civ theory. I see this as him trying to manipulate a situation wherein we think his actions are for the greater good of the civilians so as to give him a sort of credibility as being one of us.

[Elohcin]

This intrigues me. I'd like to hear more from ANYONE who didn't vote CASTLE with the rest of the crowd and see what, if any, info they had concerning voting options. Could it be possible that an option didn't necessarily have to "win" per se, but just that certain people had to vote for certain options?

Also, I could totally get on board with the "VOTE THE PLAYER LIST" option. Genocide is hardly ever a good thing, but it WOULD destroy all the baddies...civvies too, unfortunately, but at least there would still be balance in the universe and these headaches and random eye twitches that I've started experiencing as of this morning would probably/hopefully go away!

Do you understand WHY having people volunteer whether or not they received info is a bad thing? Because to me, it either sounds like you don't or that you don't care.

No, I really don't understand, so please help me understand. The ASSUMPTION that people are making is that ONLY CIVILIANS were given any sort of information pertaining to the poll. No if this were indeed true, then yes, I can see why people revealing they received info would be bad because it would be identifying roles we are inherently trying to protect. I by no means want to expose, sacrifice or otherwise endanger any of my civilian counterparts, but I can neither subscribe to this insane theory that one side has been given an unfair advantage over another in a game that is just in its early stages. Assumptions and theories are not the same things as truths or facts. I could formulate a theory that every single civilian player ONLY voted for the Castle option and therefore everyone else is a bad guy. Is it PLAUSIBLE? Of course, but that doesn't make it true or factual in any way. So I'm having a hard time buying into the theory that only civilian roles were given any information. At this point I don't care who has info or who doesn't or who voted why or whatever. What concerns me is that this single theory has been seemingly validated and made out to be the gospel truth to everyone so as to distract us from considering other possibilities. I can envision multiple scenarios where one of the bad guys would either admit or deny receiving info so as to forward their own agendas. The fact that MovingPictures began down a specific road of discussion only to put an abrupt and immediate halt to that exactly line of debate has me gravely concerned since he was one of the key people who began propogating what I'm going to refer to as the 6-civ theory. I see this as him trying to manipulate a situation wherein we think his actions are for the greater good of the civilians so as to give him a sort of credibility as being one of us.

I'd just like to say that I like you and think you will be so much fun to play Mafia with

[thellama73]

I did not know this either. Thanks! Is there a Mafia game lingo cheat sheet?

No, but there should be! Someone needs to make that.

[juliets]

wow Big Damn, are you sure you are new to this? For my way of thinking you make a very good and well articulated point. I am also having trouble understanding why we are pursuing the 6 civv theory when in the preponderance of games if info is to be had on day 0 it is spread among the factions. Maybe Daisy wanted to be completely different but it does seem like it would start her other-than-civvie groups off at a disadvantage.

With that said, I don't object to any of the theorizing that has taken place. Some times a wild idea can lead to something, what happened here was really just brainstorming and having wild ideas is a part of that process. I just feel like we've settled on an explanation that doesn't doesn't make as much sense to me as having the info spread out.

I don't know what this means for anyone being bad or good in this group. I don't see a clear person to vote for, I just need to let this whole thing seep into my brain.

[bea]

Srrsly guys. I go to sleep for a few hours and pow! I've tried to catch up by I'm called into work. I hopefully will not be there all night. (Its my day off darnit!!! ) I will try this again tonight.

[BigDamnHero]

I'd just like to say that I like you and think you will be so much fun to play Mafia with

Is that because you feel I'm smart , analytical player or because you see me as naive and potentially easily to manipulate?

wow Big Damn, are you sure you are new to this? For my way of thinking you make a very good and well articulated point. I am also having trouble understanding why we are pursuing the 6 civv theory when in the preponderance of games if info is to be had on day 0 it is spread among the factions. Maybe Daisy wanted to be completely different but it does seem like it would start her other-than-civvie groups off at a disadvantage.

With that said, I don't object to any of the theorizing that has taken place. Some times a wild idea can lead to something, what happened here was really just brainstorming and having wild ideas is a part of that process. I just feel like we've settled on an explanation that doesn't doesn't make as much sense to me as having the info spread out.

I don't know what this means for anyone being bad or good in this group. I don't see a clear person to vote for, I just need to let this whole thing seep into my brain.

YES! Exactly, thank-you!!!!!
I'm not against any brainstorming, theorizing or other free forms of expressions but I feel as though things have been distinctly pushed in one specific direction, and if we let ourselves be blindly led we'll be nothing more than lambs to the slaughter.

[Elohcin]

@BDH - definitely a smart, analytical player.

[thellama73]

BDH, you've put your finger on why I am not entirely trusting of Alex this game. His big push for info followed by a big push for silence could easily have been a way from the baddies to plant some false seeds and create false trust, or just to gain knowledge about the civvies who had info. I like your contributions very much.

[BigDamnHero]

Thanks, Elo & llama. I appreacite that!

OK, so I was going over the characters and the rules and stuff to make sure I have a good grasp on things (hopefully) and I noticed the two MISc. things at the bottom: Homestar's gameshow and Bub's inventory stand. It says each day there are things that are supposed to happen and I haven't seen anything in regards to either (except Bub's inventory stand being mentioned in the first poll). Do these no apply to Day 1 or 0 or is it something that is not made public? I'm not really sure what (if anything) is supposed to be going on there but with people talking about consequences to the poll results and not seeing anything about these has left me more than a little befuddled as well as concerned.

[thellama73]

Thanks, Elo & llama. I appreacite that!

OK, so I was going over the characters and the rules and stuff to make sure I have a good grasp on things (hopefully) and I noticed the two MISc. things at the bottom: Homestar's gameshow and Bub's inventory stand. It says each day there are things that are supposed to happen and I haven't seen anything in regards to either (except Bub's inventory stand being mentioned in the first poll). Do these no apply to Day 1 or 0 or is it something that is not made public? I'm not really sure what (if anything) is supposed to be going on there but with people talking about consequences to the poll results and not seeing anything about these has left me more than a little befuddled as well as concerned.

Usually no one can use their night powers until Night 1, so we would not see any effects until Day 2.