Lightning Mafia - Halloween Edition [Game Over]

[Roxy]

where is the pout smiley?

[Tangrowth]

Just going to bed and what do I see? My bloody name.

Announcement: Britain is declaring war on newts.

Get the hell out of here you lousy Brit.

[S~V~S]

Seems to me she's trying too hard to fit a preconceived notion about her behavior.

What? She would not have to "try too hard" by posting one sentence :P

[thellama73]

For dinner I am having a piece of Champignon Brie with Mushrooms that I got at the store because it was on sale.

It bears a label warning: "Contains milk."

[Made]

So announcing a probable random is less suspicious then announcing that far in advance wanting to lynch a low poster?

^^^^^

[Tangrowth]

So announcing a probable random is less suspicious then announcing that far in advance wanting to lynch a low poster?

Yes.

Low poster voters take responsibility for their votes.

Randomizers do not.

[fingersplints]

where is the pout smiley?

I keep LC's smilie's bookmarked for occasions like this!

[S~V~S]

So announcing a probable random is less suspicious then announcing that far in advance wanting to lynch a low poster?

This is a good point, do you also think this is suspish, MP?

[Tangrowth]

For the record, I did not say I am voting Rox. There is still a half hour.

But I stand by my assessment.

[fingersplints]

So announcing a probable random is less suspicious then announcing that far in advance wanting to lynch a low poster?

Yes.

Low poster voters take responsibility for their votes.

Randomizers do not.

Not really. I can see it now "oh sorry but they didn't post much it isn't my fault"

[thellama73]

So announcing a probable random is less suspicious then announcing that far in advance wanting to lynch a low poster?

As I pointed out in defending Roxy, I didn't commit to such a vote. I was just mulling it over.

Anyway, I have a ping now, so that goes out the window.

[Made]

But wouldn't announcing you plan to vote for a low poster that far in advance be a bad idea, worst than saying you're going to vote random because it would encourage mafia to talk more, making it harder to find them?

[Epignosis]

Hello. I just wanted to let you all know that you can't change your vote.

This is now going to be problematic for me.

[Tangrowth]

So announcing a probable random is less suspicious then announcing that far in advance wanting to lynch a low poster?

Yes.

Low poster voters take responsibility for their votes.

Randomizers do not.

Not really. I can see it now "oh sorry but they didn't post much it isn't my fault"

Not true, you're wrong.

That low poster voter bears that responsibility nonetheless. It's gotten Llama lynched MANY of times.

A randomizer, when questioned about their vote, which is hardly ever, just says "I randomized".

[juliets]

what is your ping llama?

[S~V~S]

But wouldn't announcing you plan to vote for a low poster that far in advance be a bad idea, worst than saying you're going to vote random because it would encourage mafia to talk more, making it harder to find them?

It can work that way in a full game, but not sure in this format.

[Roxy]

Seems to me she's trying too hard to fit a preconceived notion about her behavior.

How often have I actually randomed on Day 1 though MP? I don't even know myself but I do not do it as often as I used to.

I knew it would start discussion and I was right about that

[thellama73]

But wouldn't announcing you plan to vote for a low poster that far in advance be a bad idea, worst than saying you're going to vote random because it would encourage mafia to talk more, making it harder to find them?

Unless my aim was simply to encourage conversation, affording more chances for slip ups.

[Made]

I swear, i think this game is going to be just an eternal state of the last 1h before a vote ends in most games.

[fingersplints]

So announcing a probable random is less suspicious then announcing that far in advance wanting to lynch a low poster?

Yes.

Low poster voters take responsibility for their votes.

Randomizers do not.

Not really. I can see it now "oh sorry but they didn't post much it isn't my fault"

Not true, you're wrong.

That low poster voter bears that responsibility nonetheless. It's gotten Llama lynched MANY of times.

A randomizer, when questioned about their vote, which is hardly ever, just says "I randomized".

I don't think it's not true and I do not think I am wrong.

[Epignosis]

So let's think about this.

Given people's responses, apparently it is more suspicious for one to change up one's own playstyle from game to game than it is to not, regardless of whether the circumstances were different (in this case, this type of game is very different from a full mafia game).

Therefore, it would be more logical for a baddie to try to confine oneself to one's usual playing style.

Consequently, I will look for players trying to seem too hard to appear like their normal playstyle without genuinely contributing.

You mean like, getting lynched on Day 1 for you?

[Tangrowth]

But wouldn't announcing you plan to vote for a low poster that far in advance be a bad idea, worst than saying you're going to vote random because it would encourage mafia to talk more, making it harder to find them?

It encourages discussion. Discussion, aka more posting, gives more time for baddies to "slip up", as Logan pointed out.

So no.

Conversely, if no one says anything, there's no way to uncover any evidence.

[thellama73]

what is your ping llama?

Give it another ten minutes or so and I'll tell you. I want to see where things go without putting anyone on defense.

[Tangrowth]

So announcing a probable random is less suspicious then announcing that far in advance wanting to lynch a low poster?

Yes.

Low poster voters take responsibility for their votes.

Randomizers do not.

Not really. I can see it now "oh sorry but they didn't post much it isn't my fault"

Not true, you're wrong.

That low poster voter bears that responsibility nonetheless. It's gotten Llama lynched MANY of times.

A randomizer, when questioned about their vote, which is hardly ever, just says "I randomized".

I don't think it's not true and I do not think I am wrong.

I can assure you that Llama getting lynched for gunning after low posters on multiple occasions proves you wrong, but you're entitled to your beliefs.

[Marmot]

Hello. I just wanted to let you all know that you can't change your vote.

This is now going to be problematic for me.

Already fixed.

[fingersplints]

I have seen many times a low poster get lynched, turn up a civvie, and its the posters fault for not posting not the people who voted them.

I don't like MP saying its not true and I am wrong. If I had time to go find examples I would but I dont

[juliets]

ok that sounds fair llama

[Tangrowth]

So let's think about this.

Given people's responses, apparently it is more suspicious for one to change up one's own playstyle from game to game than it is to not, regardless of whether the circumstances were different (in this case, this type of game is very different from a full mafia game).

Therefore, it would be more logical for a baddie to try to confine oneself to one's usual playing style.

Consequently, I will look for players trying to seem too hard to appear like their normal playstyle without genuinely contributing.

You mean like, getting lynched on Day 1 for you?

That's not playstyle.

[fingersplints]

So announcing a probable random is less suspicious then announcing that far in advance wanting to lynch a low poster?

Yes.

Low poster voters take responsibility for their votes.

Randomizers do not.

Not really. I can see it now "oh sorry but they didn't post much it isn't my fault"

Not true, you're wrong.

That low poster voter bears that responsibility nonetheless. It's gotten Llama lynched MANY of times.

A randomizer, when questioned about their vote, which is hardly ever, just says "I randomized".

I don't think it's not true and I do not think I am wrong.

I can assure you that Llama getting lynched for gunning after low posters on multiple occasions proves you wrong, but you're entitled to your beliefs.

Ok so thats ONE PERSON. what about everyone else that isnt llama? several of us said we might vote boogs

[thellama73]

[It's gotten Llama lynched MANY of times.

I was going to point out that I always go after low posters, absent a better ping, but then I realized tha this would condemn me under your theory of acting normal being suspicious.

Curse you MP! You've got me caught in a Catch 22!

[S~V~S]

what is your ping llama?

Give it another ten minutes or so and I'll tell you. I want to see where things go without putting anyone on defense.

So in 10 minutes everyone will rush to vote in a bandwagon? You are trying to provoke a bandwagon?

[Tangrowth]

I have seen many times a low poster get lynched, turn up a civvie, and its the posters fault for not posting not the people who voted them.

I don't like MP saying its not true and I am wrong. If I had time to go find examples I would but I dont

I already told you: this has happened several times on this site, with Llama typically being the victim.

Tell me this, splints:

When has a randomizer ever been held truly responsible for their vote?

[Roxy]

I have seen many times a low poster get lynched, turn up a civvie, and its the posters fault for not posting not the people who voted them.

I don't like MP saying its not true and I am wrong. If I had time to go find examples I would but I dont

having hosted a lot I know this to be true as well - MP search your heart you know this to be true

[Tangrowth]

Splints, re: Boogs, an intent to vote someone is not an actual vote.

Llama has voted low posters on D1 and gotten eyed heavily for it. So have I, even, though I don't do that nearly as often because I almost always find a better reason on D1.

[fingersplints]

I have seen many times a low poster get lynched, turn up a civvie, and its the posters fault for not posting not the people who voted them.

I don't like MP saying its not true and I am wrong. If I had time to go find examples I would but I dont

I already told you: this has happened several times on this site, with Llama typically being the victim.

Tell me this, splints:

When has a randomizer ever been held truly responsible for their vote?

Umm right now? Rox was getting called suspicious for randomizing.
One of my first games I ever played I was lynched for randomizing, so I haven't done it since

[Roxy]

I have seen many times a low poster get lynched, turn up a civvie, and its the posters fault for not posting not the people who voted them.

I don't like MP saying its not true and I am wrong. If I had time to go find examples I would but I dont

I already told you: this has happened several times on this site, with Llama typically being the victim.

Tell me this, splints:

When has a randomizer ever been held truly responsible for their vote?

I have been lynched plenty bc of my randomed votes - you know this also

[Tangrowth]

I have seen many times a low poster get lynched, turn up a civvie, and its the posters fault for not posting not the people who voted them.

I don't like MP saying its not true and I am wrong. If I had time to go find examples I would but I dont

having hosted a lot I know this to be true as well - MP search your heart you know this to be true

When the game is over halfway complete? Yes.

On D1? Never.

[Made]

As this is a test game, an auto refresher of some sort would be incredibly useful.

I have a theory, double checking front page to confirm something...

[Tangrowth]

I cannot recall any game in the history of this site where anyone was voted on D2 for "randomizing" D1.

[fingersplints]

Splints, re: Boogs, an intent to vote someone is not an actual vote.

Llama has voted low posters on D1 and gotten eyed heavily for it. So have I, even, though I don't do that nearly as often because I almost always find a better reason on D1.

Rox didn't randomize either though she said she might.
So, the intent there is suspicious but not the intent to vote a low poster. Right

[thellama73]

what is your ping llama?

Give it another ten minutes or so and I'll tell you. I want to see where things go without putting anyone on defense.

So in 10 minutes everyone will rush to vote in a bandwagon? You are trying to provoke a bandwagon?

No, I don't want a bandwagon. I want people to come to their own conclusions, which is why I'm not revealing my ping yet.

[Made]

Just a thought, wouldn't baddies be a sort of disadvantage having to keep up with both BTSC chat as well as the thread?

[Tangrowth]

Splints, re: Boogs, an intent to vote someone is not an actual vote.

Llama has voted low posters on D1 and gotten eyed heavily for it. So have I, even, though I don't do that nearly as often because I almost always find a better reason on D1.

Rox didn't randomize either though she said she might.
So, the intent there is suspicious but not the intent to vote a low poster. Right

Rox is known for randomizing.

She stated a probable intent 45 minutes before the deadline, not knowing what would happen in those 45 minutes.

Therefore, it could be argued that she is trying too hard to fit into a preconceived notion about her behavior. The same could be said about Llama.

Where have I stated that I am going to vote Rox?

[fingersplints]

I cannot recall any game in the history of this site where anyone was voted on D2 for "randomizing" D1.

Why are you pretending like this game is a normal mafia game anyways? It clearly isn't. So because people didn't use it as an excuse to vote someone after 4 RL days they might in a game where they only have an hour to find suspicions

[Roxy]

I cannot recall any game in the history of this site where anyone was voted on D2 for "randomizing" D1.

Maybe not here on this site that has not been around long but on TP, RM, STV and poss HV I can't remember on HV so we will not count it

[Tangrowth]

I don't like how subdued Epig is being.

[Epignosis]

I think randomizing is lazy and I will never do it.

fucking linki!

[thellama73]

Fingersplints, are you just pushing Alex for consistency, or are you thinking about voting me based on what I said?

[Tangrowth]

I cannot recall any game in the history of this site where anyone was voted on D2 for "randomizing" D1.

Why are you pretending like this game is a normal mafia game anyways? It clearly isn't. So because people didn't use it as an excuse to vote someone after 4 RL days they might in a game where they only have an hour to find suspicions

I'm not pretending this game is like a normal game, anywhere.

We were arguing about whether intent to randomize or intent to vote low poster was more suspicious. I provided you empirical evidence stating why I believe what I do.

[Epignosis]

I don't like how subdued Epig is being.

I don't want you looking at me because of consistency. I'm trying to avoid suspicion.