Homestar Runner [Day 13]

[birdwithteeth11]

@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.

Ah, okay then. That clears it up for me. Thanks!

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?

I know one of the topics I would like to hear more opinions on is the whole Snow Dog thing. Do others agree with me that it was a misunderstanding, or do some people honestly think it was a baddie slip-up? My mind isn't entirely made up on it yet, and I think other voices would help clear it up for me.

[Matt]

Hey all! That was a lot to catch up on!

FYI, weekends are the worst for me (I'm a food server), and also being new to the site, I only know about half of the players here. Just trying to get a feel for everyone before I go post-crazy.

Not exactly sure where we landed with "give info!" or "do not give info!", so I won't go into that. Obviously, given my one post before this, I do not agree with lynching castle voters (unless there's another reason to do so besides just voting for castle).

Oh, and just so everyone knows, Bullz is always bad, even when he's good. to Bullz!

[birdwithteeth11]

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.

Ooooooooooo. I get what you're saying now. Basically, you feel there are other possibilities as to who all received info about the Day 0 poll, and that by no means is it a for-sure thing that everyone was a civvie.

Alright, that clears it up for me where you were coming from. Thanks! And I will keep your thoughts about MP in mind.

Linki

[Elohcin]

I know one of the topics I would like to hear more opinions on is the whole Snow Dog thing. Do others agree with me that it was a misunderstanding, or do some people honestly think it was a baddie slip-up? My mind isn't entirely made up on it yet, and I think other voices would help clear it up for me.

I thought it looked mostly like a misunderstanding. But I'm not sure how good of a liar Snow Dog is.

[Matt]

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.

So you believe MP is a civvie? Not trying to say he's not, but rather, I have no idea. Or maybe you were just trying to butter him up after he struck down that idea of yours?

[Elohcin]

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.

So you believe MP is a civvie? Not trying to say he's not, but rather, I have no idea. Or maybe you were just trying to butter him up after he struck down that idea of yours?

I wrote this when I assumed him civvie. I am unsure at the moment. I try not to pin baddie on anyone until they give me something to suspect.

[Matt]

I play the opposite. Everyone's a baddie until I have a reason not to suspect them. Especially Bullz.

[thellama73]

I play the opposite. Everyone's a baddie until I have a reason not to suspect them. Especially Bullz.

Even me?

[Matt]

I play the opposite. Everyone's a baddie until I have a reason not to suspect them. Especially Bullz.

Even me?

Well, since you so graciously complimented me in that other game, I now declare Llama as civvie king!

[thellama73]

I play the opposite. Everyone's a baddie until I have a reason not to suspect them. Especially Bullz.

Even me?

Well, since you so graciously complimented me in that other game, I now declare Llama as civvie king!

Yay! Above suspicion!

[Matt]

Other thoughts...

re: Snowdog - Never played with Snowdog, so I don't know what to make of his so called "slip" with Bullz. However, if Snowdog is an experienced player, I would guess he (she?) would be a lot more careful then that if he/she were baddie.

re: New players (Big Damn Hero) - As someone who made a colossal mistake in my first game (and on that note, welcome to the game DFaraday ((who was my first host ever!!)) ), I was graciously allowed to continue. At the time, people were all like "wow you messed up bad but went far", but seeing the game as I do now, I'm sure most players in that game were just being kind by letting me play far longer then I should have. And on that note, BigDamnHero could literally come in here and say "I am Mafia", and I would not vote for him Day 1. Anyone who does vote for him Day 1 gets a big ol'

Linki

[borokkuei]

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.

Maybe, but it stuck out to me too. That's a pretty bold statement.

[borokkuei]

Other thoughts...

re: Snowdog - Never played with Snowdog, so I don't know what to make of his so called "slip" with Bullz. However, if Snowdog is an experienced player, I would guess he (she?) would be a lot more careful then that if he/she were baddie.

re: New players (Big Damn Hero) - As someone who made a colossal mistake in my first game (and on that note, welcome to the game DFaraday ((who was my first host ever!!)) ), I was graciously allowed to continue. At the time, people were all like "wow you messed up bad but went far", but seeing the game as I do now, I'm sure most players in that game were just being kind by letting me play far longer then I should have. And on that note, BigDamnHero could literally come in here and say "I am Mafia", and I would not vote for him Day 1. Anyone who does vote for him Day 1 gets a big ol'

Linki

I think I agree with this

[Leamiteo]

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.

I'm sorry, but I don't seem to be following your logic here. Why would you think 6 civillians would receive any sort of information and no one from any of the bad guy teams? And why would it be those 6 roles that received info? I'm just trying to understand the thinking behind this.

Let's say each option corresponds to a role as they have in their descriptions... i.e., Bubs' Concession Stand corresponds to Bubs. With Strong Sad corresponds to Strong Sad. At King of Town's Castle corresponds to King of Town.

If only six players received information regarding the poll, it is possible that six different civvies (the ones that correspond to their option in the poll, assuming "at the stick" corresponds to Strong Bad) received information regarding what could be a beneficial option for them before the poll began.

However, this would out those six players as civvies, and not only that, exactly which civvie they could be, especially since so many players voted for castle.

Holy heaven that was a lot to read! Good thing I have nothing better to do than wait for my laundry and read through eight pages of head spinning numbers and speculations....

I don't think that the six roles correspond so simplistically with the roles...that just seems that it would be too easy to figure out. Also, I think that Snow Dog was being clear all along. Is it just me? ::shrugs:: made sense in my brain when I read it.

It makes me think that both sides, civvies and baddies, because the method that they received by was different. Also, perhaps special roles play into who receives info in from poles? Maybe? That being said, I didn't receive any info or info about receiving info. :P Keeping it confusing.

Thanks for being kind to newbs on Day 1. Also a note about quiet ones, some of us are just quiet. Also, several people said that they had other engagements, like company and such, including myself. It would stink to be lynched for such a silly reason on the first day.


Help > what the heck is linki?

Is there a Mafia game lingo cheat sheet?

I need this. Sometime acronyms and the like make me feel like this

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.

Yes, thank you and thank you. Good heavens, seriously, eight pages and growing and this is going to be one massive post. Sorry! I was growing more and more wary of MP as the pages went on. It's as if he got a piece of info he needed from whoever it was that spoke up (I forgot, sorry, over the course of eight (8!!!) pages. I don't know who to trust, But I feel as if I am watching a ping pong match. BDH, I like your logic though.

[Leamiteo]

Oops, incomplete sentence. It was as if MP got something he needed/wanted to know and then wanted to shut down all discussion.

[Mongoose]

I didn't really see anything problematic with what Snowy said. At worst, it seemed like it was just a communication calamity.

[reywaS]

You're entirely right, but I don't think Mongoose or Elohcin have necessarily nefarious intentions in throwing out theories, do you? That's where I was confused because you seemed to be suspecting them.

I'm all for discussion; as I said previously, if it seems we've discussed the poll and there's nothing to be ascertained from such discussion, that's fine. I don't see why we can't talk about both items. I appreciate your initiative to attempt to bring up discussion on baddie hunting as well.

I don't know what their intentions are yet. I just thought I would explore the idea.

I feel a little bad now, because I really don't want to discourage conversation. I sincerely appreciate the level of contribution by Mongoose and Elohcin, and I hope they won't turn quiet now because of something I said.

Here's the thing about low posters. I largely agree with you; however, there are many reasons players could be low posters, especially so early in the game. I find the distinction between low and high posters, especially early on, to be decided often by circumstance, rather than alignment. For example, I've been there where I've signed up for a game and just don't have near enough time, and I've witnessed this happen to others as well, and they become an incorrect suspect just because of such fact.

In the lack of actual evidence, I can understand a Day 1 vote for that, and I may even vote for a low poster myself. But it's difficult to make inferences on that fact alone; it's also good to consider: whether anyone seems to parroting other players' ideas ONLY when they're posting or if they are not posting much but actually making insightful contributions; whether such behavior is normal for them to do so and whether they have provided substantive reasons for their absence; etc.

It's very unlikely we'll actually have solid evidence to find a baddie on Day 1, or even through Day 3, as the first few days can be like shooting in the dark, but I think we can both agree that it is imperative to avoid logical fallacies leading to bandwagons as well as outlandish, reckless behavior which will lead to civvie lynches and no leads.

Thus, suspecting Mongoose and Elohcin only because they threw out illogical theories tells me nothing about their alignment; suspecting you because you were the first to throw out suspicion on them likewise tells me nothing.

I'd much rather vote elsewhere and I refuse to vote randomly (only upon occasion, to prove a point, but it seems this point is too manipulated when I do so, so I'm not sure I intend on doing this again in the near future unless game circumstances support it being a likely way to vote a baddie instead of a civvie).

Yes, these are all good points. Thing I've noticed is that reywaS and Matahari have been participating quite a lot in the game over at RM, yet are quiet here. Could be that they only have time to focus on one game right now, could be a difference in tactics.

I also want to say something about bandwagons, a point I made over at RM recently. While, bandwagons can be dangerous things, a highly spread out vote on Day One basically guarantees a civvie lynch, because it only takes one vote for the baddies to tilt the balance away from one of their own. Whereas, if a bandwagon forms and we happen to pick a baddie, they have to either accept it or risk outing themselves by all voting the same way.

I just havent gotten into this game yet. I'm in 2 games at RM. Im pretty much fully invested in SFU while im a bit behind in Doms game...but im getting there. Same with this game. Im starting slow, but its not my intention to be a low poster/non participant like i was in the last game i played here...thomas the train game.

[Spacedaisy]

re: New players (Big Damn Hero) - As someone who made a colossal mistake in my first game (and on that note, welcome to the game DFaraday ((who was my first host ever!!)) ), I was graciously allowed to continue. At the time, people were all like "wow you messed up bad but went far", but seeing the game as I do now, I'm sure most players in that game were just being kind by letting me play far longer then I should have. And on that note, BigDamnHero could literally come in here and say "I am Mafia", and I would not vote for him Day 1. Anyone who does vote for him Day 1 gets a big ol'

Bahahah! Who are you kidding? You tapped danced through that game in ways I never dreamed anyone could. Seriously, you were such a big fat liar and you got away with it! It was not pity, you just had the wool pulled over their eyes for long enough to survive quite a while.

Rey: thank goodness you mentioned Into the Woods, I forgot!! Sorry Dom!

[Leamiteo]

And another thing on the fishiness of MP wanting conversation to stop, if he is indeed a baddie and baddies have BTSC, then he knows the other baddies that had info. Assuming this, could it be that he was wanting to see who else got the info, other than the baddies? And he was intrigued by the two different methods.

Does this make sense to anyone else?

I have to re-read, but I seriously took two hours to read through eight pages the first time and have to get to bed. I had a fun, full weekend, but now the brothers are gone and I have to go back to reality...starting with work at 8am.

[Leamiteo]

Wow my sleepy brain is typing incomplete thoughts. Sorry for this messy double post!

The first thought assumes that both baddies and civvies got info. This is what I think is most likely the case. The second thought is that MP was super intrigued by the fact that some got info that instructed to vote a certain way and some got info for voting a certain way. (At least I think that's what happened. Is that what happened? I'm doubting because of the communication debacle.) Anywho, I am just feeling suspicious of MP, but he did a lot of talking and put himself out there...however in a noncommittal/two-sided way at times...and seemed a little controlling/demanding that we follow what he said. I dunno. Time will tell.

Off to bed for real this time!

[Dom]

Yes, these are all good points. Thing I've noticed is that reywaS and Matahari have been participating quite a lot in the game over at RM, yet are quiet here. Could be that they only have time to focus on one game right now, could be a difference in tactics.

To be fair, SFU games are much further along, there's more to talk about, etc. For example, I'm in SFU and that game is in Day 8 (I believe) and its end momentum is seeming to start to build. It's easier to talk about a game where there's more information.

I'm among those who have been posting more at RM. You didn't mention me, which I find slightly interesting.

As such, I think it would be fruitful to avoid lynching Snow Dog or Bullzeye, because if we lynched one of them and they came up King of Town and Strong Sad, we'd have a double edged sword. We could propose that certain players could be certain roles based on this information, but so could the baddies.

The very fact that this could actually be exactly what happened scares me but also is very thrilling.

I don't think I want to lynch Snow Dog or Bullzeye today.

I completely agree.

Llama, you've been right with MP quite a lot this game.

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:.

I know you agreed to afterwards, but seriously?

Oops, incomplete sentence. It was as if MP got something he needed/wanted to know and then wanted to shut down all discussion.

I didn't want to quote your big wall of text, but yeah... I agree with this bit about MP.

MP seemed to want to direct where conversation went, demand it stop, then say he was going to let the rest of us discuss it out. Very strange in my opinion. Very controlling, actually. I'll likely throw a vote MP's way for this.

Rey: thank goodness you mentioned Into the Woods, I forgot!! Sorry Dom!

[bea]

Ok - so - yea. I came home from work and read this again and it still took me like 2 hours. And my head is all splody a bit.

While reading it - it does feel like MP kinda thew out an idea that was a bit wacky then squeshed it the idea as soon as soon as he realized people were doing what he asked them to do. I'm not one to lynch anyone solely for a wacky idea. Heck I had it about the day 0 poll while day 0 was going down. But given the two theories, I'd be more inclined to think my idea was a bit closer to the mark than the 6 civ theory.

Of all the things I've read - teefies makes the most sense to me. and to respond to what you asked, I'm not sure about snowy. I do need to re-read that bit - It was in the middle of the crazy theory slinging blah blah.

I think it's hard to draw any kind of opinion on BDH yet. He's new. He was following the thread. I don't find his posts particularly suspish. I've been reading them as the new guy trying to figure everything out.

As far as devin and elo go, yea. It could be read both ways. I'm not sure which one I'm seeing at the moment. I admit - my brain is bleeding together atm. and I'm 6 beers into trying to do this catch up.


also - matt - I agree with daisy - you worked that thread like there was no tomorrow. don't deny it - own the awesome!

[Tangrowth]

I see the bandwagon is already forming against me. What a surprise. Go ahead, lynch me, you'll receive no information from it, and I'll lose yet another game right off the bat.

Why do I even bother to contribute, ever, when people always misrepresent my intentions?

[Tangrowth]

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 have many posts I could address, but considering I'm likely to end up dead this lynch anyway because I'm sure the baddies would love to have me gone... for more reasons than one... I did want to address this.

You, sir, are an absolute natural; there's no denying that. I look forward to playing many games with you in the future.

I'm not taking anything as gospel; in fact, that's incredibly out of my character. No, but I stumbled upon a theory whose existence I believe is possible to be true, and because of that fact, I would rather not on Day 0 attempt and try to test it to be true, considering that fact. I never once said I believe it to be 100% true (in fact at one point I recognized this fact), but the very fact that it at least has a 1% possibility means that I am willing to accept it as a possible explanation for the Day 0 poll, and considering Daisy, it's something I could very much see her doing, which means I honestly believe it is a more than 1% chance that is the kind of setup we're seeing.

Would it be unconventional? Sure. Very much so. Does that mean she didn't do it? No, not necessarily.

And to all of those who said I seemed 'controlling', think again. I was merely trying to put all of my thoughts out there, as I have nothing to lose but my life, and as I always do, and then we were discussing Day 0 theories, and I came upon where it would no longer be advantageous to share information -- I believe my train of thought is pretty clear to follow, but perhaps it isn't. That said, I find it difficult to believe my actions to be so incredibly suspicious as to throw a vote in my direction...

If you don't believe me, then I don't know what else to say, but it's incredibly disheartening.

I actually threw out Devin towards the end there, without exactly suspecting him and having no clue as to his actual alignment, thinking baddies might have tried to attach to my abstract suspicion, and then this morning I could have pointed out, 'Ha! I knew at least someone was waiting around to attach to something I would say.', but I should have known better that someone would try and go after me, because I'm an incredibly easy target to lynched, game after game, especially when I'm civvie. It's especially wise because if I get lynched this period, the information will lead to absolutely nothing, because I've condemned no one. It's genius, really...

[Tangrowth]

And Elo, I'm very sorry you found me as rude, but I never had any intention of coming off as such. You just had clearly not caught up by the time you posted, as you were asking for other people to share their info (or maybe you had and just disagreed with me... which is fine), and so I spoke out of urgency because I did not want to contribute to the potential outing of civvies. Regardless of what anyone thinks of my hackbrained theory... on the off chance it actually is true and at some point we lynch a player who would be outed in the off chance that it is true, it only possibly confirms everything, which only helps the baddies more than it does us.

But anyway, I apologize for that. I suppose I know better now to "control" the thread. Maybe I should have just spent hours on my Sunday studying instead and not bothering actually contributing, like other 'helpful' civvies who will last until Day 10 because they follow the crowd and don't put themselves out there.

[Snow Dog]

MP. I find it incredibly hard to believe that an experienced player like you would ask for people to say if they got info and then when he got answers remembered that it wasn't a good idea to admit to info after all!
I stuck my head out to assist the civvies, as did Bullz and now others ar5e told not to do the same. I feel like I've been hung out to dry to be honest.

[Tangrowth]

In fact, looking through at my own posts before I left, I never once said to stop the discussion; only to do so regarding the Day 0 poll information and I believe my reasons were clear. Despite my declaration, I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head, I find it interesting that players believe that they could no longer then discuss information; of course, they were free to, but personally I found/find it incredibly unworthwhile at this point.

Not only that, but I never once stifled discussion regarding suspects; in fact, I was hoping to see much discussion regarding that while I was gone.

So how could a certain few individuals actually so strongly see my intentions as nefarious at this point in time? Is it because they are misguided civvies or are they truly nefariously trying to start a bandwagon against me? I'm undecided.

I have to say, I find it that Leamiteo and Dom, both of which I am very happy to be playing this game with by the way (as well as everyone else, of course), seemed to express incredibly confidently that they'll be voting my way, yet we still have an entire 24 hour period to go, and I believe it was because I seem so controlling. Right, because that's indicative of my behavior one alignment or the other, and isn't just how I like to be in general... I find it kind of interesting given how players were arguing that I was so baddie in MOTU right before my outing and so many players there were arguing it was because I was controlling... and that was right before I outed myself as a baddie.

What might be even more interesting is how llama says these two things:

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.

This at 4:41PM EST yesterday. Then...

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.

This at 8:07PM EST. Seems like a very subtle way to push the thread in my direction... but I can't tell whether it's just llama attempting to put his civvie feelers out or whether it is out of malice.

Llama, while I can understand your hesitation to trust me (which, again, I encourage, as it is mafia game after all, and if players fell into line trusting me just because I was contributing or 'controlling' so much, I would question that), why the change in gut feeling; do you mind explaining?

Anyway, I have to get ready for work now. As to suspects, I really have none of my own at the moment, I'm attempting to feel all of this out.

Linki: Snow Dog, you entirely misunderstand. Your contributions were incredibly helpful. So much, in fact, that I personally believe I have a good idea of exactly what happened in the Day 0 poll. Because of that, however, I don't want to discuss it any further. Does that make sense?

It's not about "remembering"... it's about the journey. I knew absolutely nothing about the Day 0 poll until you and Bullzeye revealed you had information. Then possible explanations for what happened on Day 0 began to surface, and then llama threw out the idea that six different players who were civvie could have received information corresponding to their options on the poll, and it's the idea that made the most sense to me at the time, and still kind of does... despite it's inherent flaws and very ballsy attitude. Just because I believe this to be a fair possibility, even in the face of more 'simple' and more 'fair' explanations doesn't mean I'm attempting to mislead or shut down anyone.

The very fact that you stuck your head out to assist the civvies is commended, and you and Bullzeye will not receive my vote today, as I stated earlier. I find it interesting though that others are not willing to see the same of me; I've done nothing but stick my head out this entire time, and it's gotten me nowhere.

[Tangrowth]

Oh god, I used "it's". I clearly meant "its" inherent flaws.

Anyway, I apologize again for posting so much; I just got sucked so much into this game, and realized it would do the cause no good if I continued to domineer the thread... then of course apparently I'm suspicious no matter what I do. If this seriously gets me lynched this period, I am going to have to finally commit to my desire to revamp my civvie (and then, by extension, because I'll have to, my baddie) game because it apparently doesn't lead to my benefit nor my alignment's benefit, ever. It's a shame because I love putting myself out there, but what good does it do when I always fail?

I'll be at work now so at least I can get home, see the votes for me, and go on and do other things that I should have been doing yesterday.

[Snow Dog]

True, Alex, you are getting your usual flack for being the most coverstional and with having the most ideas. I t did seem like you made an about face though. I don't think I'll be voting for you though. Would like to hear from some more players though.

[Tangrowth]

It's not an about face; think about it. If there is even any remote possibility of what I am saying is true, why would we want to discuss Day 0 poll information any further? If on the off chance it is true, it only plays right into the baddies' hands. It's not a matter of 'let's expose some civvies!' I had no idea what the Day 0 poll was about, then you thankfully came out and said you had info, and given the percentage of people who admitted they had info versus those who didn't... and the way the votes fell... there is a remote possibility that there were six players who all received information and those players are civvie. If it isn't true? Then sure, that's possible... but why discuss it further? It seems very clear to me by (1) the fact that it's a Daisy game and (2) the setup of the poll that it makes very little sense that this was your typical alignment-aligning poll. In fact, I'd bet my life that it wasn't.

I'm not so much trying to convince you, but those who are grabbing their pitchforks against me should consider it -- or at the least I'll be very curious to see what happens to this thread while I'm gone today.

I agree, I want to hear from those who have hardly spoken.

[Tangrowth]

One last thought, I promise. But how I said before how I have no suspects, that's pretty much true, though for some reason I can't help but keep my eye on one particular person. I am not going to reveal who that person is, however, because whether I truly find them suspicious is dependent on how they act (or fail to) from this point forward.

[Bullzeye]

I play the opposite. Everyone's a baddie until I have a reason not to suspect them. Especially Bullz.

Funny you say that about me when I have far more reason to distrust you in every game ever You did way better than me in Beatles and are far more worthy of eternal distrust in that regard

I have no particular suspects yet. I don't think I'd vote for MP, he seems quite defeatist right now but coming up with crazy theories doesn't make him a baddie any more than it makes anyone else a baddie. Look at people like Llama and Mr F who do it pretty much every day regardless of alignment.

[Leamiteo]

I see the bandwagon is already forming against me. What a surprise. Go ahead, lynch me, you'll receive no information from it, and I'll lose yet another game right off the bat.

Why do I even bother to contribute, ever, when people always misrepresent my intentions?

Wow, that is a super dramatic statement. Don't be too "woe is me" until you're dead. Unless you're feeling guilty.

Also, you said I am voting for you. Um, no. I never said that. I said all your talking made me suspicious. I admit that I don't know how people play, veterans, does he always act like this?

I am suspicious of a few others, but I ping-ponged back and forth so much in eight pages. I have no clue.

Your multiple subsequent posts seem to be really grasping for reasons to not be lynched. We get it. Or are you trying to cover up that you really are a baddie? I'm just thinking out loud here too. I know that you said waaaaay up at the top of this thread that's what you like to do.

Sorry that this seems sporadic and rushed...it is...I'm at work! Shhhhh....

[Hedgeowl]

MP is often in the unfortunate situation of getting lynched early because he posts actively. Creates a lot for people to latch onto easily. I am learning to recognize these players and give them the botd for a day. There are at least 4 players in this game who have had this happen to them too often as well. Nothing about his turnaround pings me. It was a lot to read, but logically it made sense at the time.

At this point I don't think we need others to share because we did learn something about the poll. Individuals got info about what they needed to win and the option that won got specific info as a prize. That's it. We can't really know more than that.

After all this my list of players not to vote for is getting pretty long.

[Lizzy]

Merde! That was a lot of pages!

As far as the Sock is concerned, for me, it's not what he says that makes him a target, but how he says it. That was the main reason I went after him and Bullz last time. However, after this 6 page mumbo jumbo, I have only one question: Bullz, what was the reason behind your decision to reveal that you received poll info right after Snowy had done so?

[Bullzeye]

Merde! That was a lot of pages!

As far as the Sock is concerned, for me, it's not what he says that makes him a target, but how he says it. That was the main reason I went after him and Bullz last time. However, after this 6 page mumbo jumbo, I have only one question: Bullz, what was the reason behind your decision to reveal that you received poll info right after Snowy had done so?

I revealed it because Snow had also revealed info which conflicted with mine, and I wasn't sure what to think of that so I decided to inform the group and allow discussion to progress further.

[thellama73]

Yes, these are all good points. Thing I've noticed is that reywaS and Matahari have been participating quite a lot in the game over at RM, yet are quiet here. Could be that they only have time to focus on one game right now, could be a difference in tactics.

To be fair, SFU games are much further along, there's more to talk about, etc. For example, I'm in SFU and that game is in Day 8 (I believe) and its end momentum is seeming to start to build. It's easier to talk about a game where there's more information.

I'm among those who have been posting more at RM. You didn't mention me, which I find slightly interesting.
I was referring to Into the Woods, not 6FU, since I am not in that game and have not been following it. Mata and rey have both been active there even though it just started. You have ben hosting, which as I well know takes up a lot of time, so I was not surprised to see a low level of posts from you.

[thellama73]

I see the bandwagon is already forming against me. What a surprise. Go ahead, lynch me, you'll receive no information from it, and I'll lose yet another game right off the bat.

Why do I even bother to contribute, ever, when people always misrepresent my intentions?

You are overreacting. I said I don't entirely trust you, but I also don't intend to vote for you today. I just want to keep an eye on you, that's all.

[thellama73]

Llama, while I can understand your hesitation to trust me (which, again, I encourage, as it is mafia game after all, and if players fell into line trusting me just because I was contributing or 'controlling' so much, I would question that), why the change in gut feeling; do you mind explaining?

There has been no change in my gut feelings about you at all, and I don't see the two posts you quoted as incompatible. Based on the games we have played before together, I feel like the tone of your posts this game has been more similar to your baddie game than your civvie game. However, other things you have posted lead me to question this analysis, and it's very little to go on.

With players who talk a lot, I prefer to let them continue for a few days in the hopes of getting something more concrete. I don't want you lynched on Day 1, because if you are civvie it will be a huge loss and if you are baddie we will learn nothing about your compatriots. Much better to watch and wait at this point.

[Elohcin]

And Elo, I'm very sorry you found me as rude, but I never had any intention of coming off as such. You just had clearly not caught up by the time you posted, as you were asking for other people to share their info (or maybe you had and just disagreed with me... which is fine), and so I spoke out of urgency because I did not want to contribute to the potential outing of civvies. Regardless of what anyone thinks of my hackbrained theory... on the off chance it actually is true and at some point we lynch a player who would be outed in the off chance that it is true, it only possibly confirms everything, which only helps the baddies more than it does us.

But anyway, I apologize for that. I suppose I know better now to "control" the thread. Maybe I should have just spent hours on my Sunday studying instead and not bothering actually contributing, like other 'helpful' civvies who will last until Day 10 because they follow the crowd and don't put themselves out there.

First of all, I had caught up. Second, try not to be discouraged. I know what it is like to be civ and to be thought bad - remember our talks in the game we previously played together. As of right now, I am not sure about you yet - baddie or civvie. I think players are grasping at straws right now. There is not much to go on, but you know that. I don't think I will be jumping on any bandwagons today even though it is probably the safest thing to do.

[Kate]

OMG, I'm so far behind. Need to do a massive catch up.

I was away this weekend. Hopefully I haven't missed too much.

[Mongoose]

I know a lot of players have expressed concern at what they call MP's "flipflop," but I didn't read it like that. I think 1) some of us were uneasy about talking specifics of the information game ab initio and 2) he had a lightbulb moment when we all started putting tangible theories together and realized how dangerous it was to keep following that line of questioning.

I don't mean to sound like a politician, but for me, it's not changing your mind if you receive more information (and this can come in the form of having an epiphany based on what facts you have at your disposal).

I really don't think an MP vote today would be prudent.


linki Kate - Oh man, you have no idea. Hope you have a good anniversary and game with the kids!

[Draconus]

I know a lot of players have expressed concern at what they call MP's "flipflop," but I didn't read it like that. I think 1) some of us were uneasy about talking specifics of the information game ab initio and 2) he had a lightbulb moment when we all started putting tangible theories together and realized how dangerous it was to keep following that line of questioning.

I don't mean to sound like a politician, but for me, it's not changing your mind if you receive more information (and this can come in the form of having an epiphany based on what facts you have at your disposal).

I really don't think an MP vote today would be prudent.


linki Kate - Oh man, you have no idea. Hope you have a good anniversary and game with the kids!

At work and still skimming so sorry if I missed something really important.

Glad to this at the very end, though. I will go ahead and defend MP on this even though I believe I am his one suspect (not sure why, though).

As I said before I just think he was so curious about the info given to certain people that he was very excited to see people stepping forward ("Yes something to go on already!"). Then, when he put that with the theory of 6 civvies receiving info (my original theory which I still stand by because this is supposed to be a simple and fun game), he realized he may be outing certain civs, making it easier for the baddies to pick them off at night.

I'm just going ahead and spelling this out because I have lost almost all of my interest in this game. I'm sorry Spacedaisy, I was really looking forward to this one and I'm sure you put a ton of work into it. I hope it still ends up being fun for everyone.

[juliets]

I don't under stand! Why have you lost interest , we're only on day 1 and its been a more active day 1 than I've seen in most games.

[Spacedaisy]

Ok guys, you should know me better than to think I would do something that would out civs. Both civs and baddies received info in this poll. Additionally, not everyone was told an option that needed to win, some of them were told if a certain option wins you will be hindered by that result. So, I as a host have not outed anyone. Day 0 polls are intended to generate discussion and it has done exactly that.

[Elohcin]

So, this means that it would be a good thing to find out who received info, right? Alex?

[Hedgeowl]

Anyone else receive info on the poll?

[Bullzeye]

I highly doubt anyone will come forward. Especially not baddies at this point.

[Elohcin]

I highly doubt anyone will come forward. Especially not baddies at this point.

I guess you're right. It would give us a better idea of who the baddies are.

[A Person]

I highly doubt anyone will come forward. Especially not baddies at this point.

I guess you're right. It would give us a better idea of who the baddies are.

I'm not sure, we don't know how many on each team received info, and we don't know how the people who received it relate to the poll, so it might not help us either way. On the other hand it might be good for baddies to come forward, the civs might not be willing to risk lynching someone just because they said they had info, especially at this point. But then again, it might protect civs at night because it would be weird for one of them to be nk'd but not the other, we've only got two people who've came forward so it wouldn't take very long for them to be killed off if everyone agrees that only civs are admitting to receiving info.