MacGyver Mafia~It's NOT Night 5

#101

I particularly dislike when people "randomize" early in the day. I would rather vote for an early randomizer than for someone who has yet to check in.

#102

I don't even remember what the MOTU poll did. Can someone remind me?

#103

Roxy wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Kate wrote:I was going to agree that not much could be determined from the day 0 poll, however, it appears some people got results from it. I did not.

Did the people who voted for the tool that won, all get a prize?
I didn't get anything nor did I have any idea what any of the options did.

Rox, this response works for what you asked me as well. Honestly, I was surprised to see people seemed to benefit from the poll directly (like Rox is gone from the poll), I figured it might be more like an MOTU type of poll.
I am quite surprised honestly that you would think all poll would be alike or similar to MOTU mafia - when in almost every game I play the polls do something different. In games I make I know no two polls are ever the same game to game. Mostly polls I have seen do directly benefit the player or players who vote the winning option.

Linky llama lol

I realize most polls are like this one in terms of benefit, but I wasn't thinking that in this case. I thought the item would probably affect the game for everyone as a whole and be written into the story as MacGyver having it, if that makes sense.

Where did I say all polls would be alike or similar to MOTU?

Linki with Kate, many of the MOTU polls have not seemed to be the typical mafia straight-up benefit teams type of poll. I am specifically thinking Day 0 here.

#104

Kate wrote:I particularly dislike when people "randomize" early in the day. I would rather vote for an early randomizer than for someone who has yet to check in.

Also, I agree with this.

BWT could be good or bad, we have no way of knowing, just like everyone else, so I'm not sure I get the logic of absence of BTSC means that someone is more likely to be missing at first.

#105

You peeps must all be on the East coast.

I'm OK with randomizing. People say "randomizing kills", to which I reply "maybe so, but not randomizing kills just as surely".

#106

Kate wrote:I particularly dislike when people "randomize" early in the day. I would rather vote for an early randomizer than for someone who has yet to check in.

Actually, I didn't mean to vote early - I got the two poll end times mixed up for the two games.

#107

Sockboy- you didn't say all polls I did but it seemed you were trying to lump this poll to another game's poll in similarity when we both know that is very unlikely.

#108

LittleTiger wrote:
Kate wrote:I particularly dislike when people "randomize" early in the day. I would rather vote for an early randomizer than for someone who has yet to check in.
Actually, I didn't mean to vote early - I got the two poll end times mixed up for the two games.

Would you keep your vote as randomized then or do you have any opinion on anyone now?

Roxy wrote:Sockboy- you didn't say all polls I did but it seemed you were trying to lump this poll to another game's poll in similarity when we both know that is very unlikely.

I told you my train of thought as to this poll just before. You and I both know SVS is unpredictable. I didn't say I was confident that was the way it was going to happen, but that's what I was thinking.

#109

Well, I'm not too sure who to vote at this point, but I'll have to before I leave for night class.

#110

I am trying to rile you up Socky

I totes understand what you are saying I just like busting you out

So yah I will be randomizing betwixt those who voted for auger or fishing rod.

#111

Roxy wrote:I am trying to rile you up Socky

I totes understand what you are saying I just like busting you out

So yah I will be randomizing betwixt those who voted for auger or fishing rod.

Lol, okay then, I get that. Why those two, again?

#112

MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, I'm not too sure who to vote at this point, but I'll have to before I leave for night class.

Not sure why you are so dead set against a randomiser. With absolutely nothing else to go on how does one vote? It is a shame for anyone to leave the game so early.

#113

Snow Dog wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, I'm not too sure who to vote at this point, but I'll have to before I leave for night class.
Not sure why you are so dead set against a randomiser. With absolutely nothing else to go on how does one vote? It is a shame for anyone to leave the game so early.

Except for a baddie, of course...

#114

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Roxy wrote:I am trying to rile you up Socky

I totes understand what you are saying I just like busting you out

So yah I will be randomizing betwixt those who voted for auger or fishing rod.
Lol, okay then, I get that. Why those two, again?

Roxy, if you have the names for who voted what would you mind putting that information in the thread?

#115

Snow Dog wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, I'm not too sure who to vote at this point, but I'll have to before I leave for night class.
Not sure why you are so dead set against a randomiser. With absolutely nothing else to go on how does one vote? It is a shame for anyone to leave the game so early.

Randomizers simply allow baddies to manipulate the vote and ensure a civ lynch. If a bunch of civs randomize then a few (even one) baddie can come along and "randomize" and oh wow, look at that, "happen" to randomize the same player who they know to be civ or at least be not on their team. If the baddies have any vote manipulation, randomizing plays right into their hand.

If everyone votes based on gut or thread evidence, however little there may be, there is, IMO, a better chance of voting a baddie and not giving the baddies that easy vote.

#116

MovingPictures07 wrote:
LittleTiger wrote:
Kate wrote:I particularly dislike when people "randomize" early in the day. I would rather vote for an early randomizer than for someone who has yet to check in.
Actually, I didn't mean to vote early - I got the two poll end times mixed up for the two games.
Would you keep your vote as randomized then or do you have any opinion on anyone now?

.

At the moment, I would still be randomizing. Of course, as the day draws closer to the end, I am sure something would be pinging me by then. I regret voting so early!

#117

Snow Dog wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, I'm not too sure who to vote at this point, but I'll have to before I leave for night class.
Not sure why you are so dead set against a randomiser. With absolutely nothing else to go on how does one vote? It is a shame for anyone to leave the game so early.

Let me explain it this way.

A randomizer is basing your vote off of absolutely nothing, thereby leaving it to odds. If you are a civvie in this game, for example, and then there are 11 other civvies and 4 baddies. All you're doing is giving the randomizer a list of those names and letting it choose for you, and your odds are 4 out of 15.

Not only does that discourage discussion of who is suspicious, but it allows the baddies to sneak by in Day 1 votes by saying they're going to "randomize", when in reality they're likely voting for someone they know isn't on their team. When asked to explain why, they just can say they were randomizing.

It completely absolves a baddie of their reasoning behind their vote, which is very disadvantageous as you can often catch baddies by their voting habits. Not only that, but it can allow discussion to go unsaid and it leaves everything to random chance.

The only thing worse than a randomized vote is a self-vote, IMO.

Linki with others

#118

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Roxy wrote:I am trying to rile you up Socky

I totes understand what you are saying I just like busting you out

So yah I will be randomizing betwixt those who voted for auger or fishing rod.
Lol, okay then, I get that. Why those two, again?

I wrote: Llama - yes I understand their is more to a ship besides the hull. But like the fishing rod (a paper clip can serve as a hook) the auger can be replaced by the swiss knife to make holes. So maybe not today will this poll matter but in a couple of days yes I would say this poll matters. Imo I will most likely vote for someone who voted for the auger or maybe even the fishing rod.

#119

Roxy wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Roxy wrote:I am trying to rile you up Socky

I totes understand what you are saying I just like busting you out

So yah I will be randomizing betwixt those who voted for auger or fishing rod.
Lol, okay then, I get that. Why those two, again?

I wrote: Llama - yes I understand their is more to a ship besides the hull. But like the fishing rod (a paper clip can serve as a hook) the auger can be replaced by the swiss knife to make holes. So maybe not today will this poll matter but in a couple of days yes I would say this poll matters. Imo I will most likely vote for someone who voted for the auger or maybe even the fishing rod.

I know this, but you have no other reason? Just because I and others made their votes on a Day 0 poll with whatever logic they decided, it makes them baddie? I'm not sure I follow. I realize you received some sort of benefit from the poll; did you have information?

#120

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, I'm not too sure who to vote at this point, but I'll have to before I leave for night class.
Not sure why you are so dead set against a randomiser. With absolutely nothing else to go on how does one vote? It is a shame for anyone to leave the game so early.
Let me explain it this way.

A randomizer is basing your vote off of absolutely nothing, thereby leaving it to odds. If you are a civvie in this game, for example, and then there are 11 other civvies and 4 baddies. All you're doing is giving the randomizer a list of those names and letting it choose for you, and your odds are 4 out of 15.

Not only does that discourage discussion of who is suspicious, but it allows the baddies to sneak by in Day 1 votes by saying they're going to "randomize", when in reality they're likely voting for someone they know isn't on their team. When asked to explain why, they just can say they were randomizing.

It completely absolves a baddie of their reasoning behind their vote, which is very disadvantageous as you can often catch baddies by their voting habits. Not only that, but it can allow discussion to go unsaid and it leaves everything to random chance.

The only thing worse than a randomized vote is a self-vote, IMO.

Linki with others

MP if I'm remembering correctly you are ok with voting a low poster as that is a reason versus complete randomizing. When I randomize on day 1 it is usually among low posters.

#121

Well, I've been told!

#122

juliets wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Well, I'm not too sure who to vote at this point, but I'll have to before I leave for night class.
Not sure why you are so dead set against a randomiser. With absolutely nothing else to go on how does one vote? It is a shame for anyone to leave the game so early.
Let me explain it this way.

A randomizer is basing your vote off of absolutely nothing, thereby leaving it to odds. If you are a civvie in this game, for example, and then there are 11 other civvies and 4 baddies. All you're doing is giving the randomizer a list of those names and letting it choose for you, and your odds are 4 out of 15.

Not only does that discourage discussion of who is suspicious, but it allows the baddies to sneak by in Day 1 votes by saying they're going to "randomize", when in reality they're likely voting for someone they know isn't on their team. When asked to explain why, they just can say they were randomizing.

It completely absolves a baddie of their reasoning behind their vote, which is very disadvantageous as you can often catch baddies by their voting habits. Not only that, but it can allow discussion to go unsaid and it leaves everything to random chance.

The only thing worse than a randomized vote is a self-vote, IMO.

Linki with others
MP if I'm remembering correctly you are ok with voting a low poster as that is a reason versus complete randomizing. When I randomize on day 1 it is usually among low posters.

I am OK with voting low posters if I believe there's literally nothing else to base a good decision on since it isn't complete randomizing. It can still sometimes be used by baddies to hide, but I don't think it is as often.

#123

Although I bet I can find as many games where people used really weak reasoning and lynched a civ Day 1 as when people random'ed with the same results.

#124

Yep it is my reasoning Socko and no I did not info on the Day 0 poll.

#125

Weak reasoning is used by baddies as well to give them cover for their baddie votes.

#126

Roxy wrote:Weak reasoning is used by baddies as well to give them cover for their baddie votes.

Any reason by anybody on this first vote will be weak reasoning.

#127

Roxy wrote:Although I bet I can find as many games where people used really weak reasoning and lynched a civ Day 1 as when people random'ed with the same results.

Let's not turn this into a randomizing vs. not argument because lord knows I've had enough of those on Day 1's before.

I just do not understand the logic behind randomizing, sorry. It completely absolves someone of their responsibility to vote responsibly. Coming up with a reason to vote someone, even if it is shit, can at least provide information off of which people can base later decisions.

Linki with Rox: Oh, okay. Well, I know I'm not baddie and I didn't receive any info for the poll, and I didn't notice any suspicious behavior regarding the Day 0 poll, so if there was information for that poll, people hid it well. Consequently, I'm thinking that there is a possibility that no one had info (civs nor baddies) and that certain options must have benefited certain people, but that there was no way of people knowing beforehand.

If this is a possibility, why are you voting that way? Unless I'm missing something here.

#128

Snow Dog wrote:
Roxy wrote:Weak reasoning is used by baddies as well to give them cover for their baddie votes.
Any reason by anybody on this first vote will be weak reasoning.

QFT

#129

Roxy wrote:Weak reasoning is used by baddies as well to give them cover for their baddie votes.

How? I get called out for weak reasoning on Day 1 votes all the time. No one ever calls out randomizers (except for me, it seems) and seriously thinks they are baddie because they randomize.

Look at Futurama, where I was civvie. I nearly was lynched on Day 1 because I was a civvie, had to vote early, and actually based my vote on something, a very weak reasoning (and in my haste, I didn't elaborate upon it, but it was very weak either way), and people jumped on me because of it.

If I was DP and instead it was normal for me to randomize every Day 1, then I could be a baddie DP, randomize on Day 1 with no consequences, and then I wouldn't have to explain my vote.

Your argument just doesn't make sense to me.

#130

thellama73 wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
Roxy wrote:Weak reasoning is used by baddies as well to give them cover for their baddie votes.
Any reason by anybody on this first vote will be weak reasoning.
QFT

This is usually true, but may not be necessarily.

Llama, your reasoning to vote Boomslang on Day 1 in MOTU wasn't the strongest ever, but it nailed us a baddie, correct? How is that NOT better than randomizing?

#131

MovingPictures07 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
Roxy wrote:Weak reasoning is used by baddies as well to give them cover for their baddie votes.
Any reason by anybody on this first vote will be weak reasoning.
QFT
This is usually true, but may not be necessarily.

Llama, your reasoning to vote Boomslang on Day 1 in MOTU wasn't the strongest ever, but it nailed us a baddie, correct? How is that NOT better than randomizing?

Hey, I am on your side here. My point was that singling out people for weak reasoning as potential baddies is not necessarily a good strategy on Day 1, since any reasoning we can come up with is weak. I heartily agree that weak reasoning is better than no reasoning.

#132

thellama73 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
Roxy wrote:Weak reasoning is used by baddies as well to give them cover for their baddie votes.
Any reason by anybody on this first vote will be weak reasoning.
QFT
This is usually true, but may not be necessarily.

Llama, your reasoning to vote Boomslang on Day 1 in MOTU wasn't the strongest ever, but it nailed us a baddie, correct? How is that NOT better than randomizing?
Hey, I am on your side here. My point was that singling out people for weak reasoning as potential baddies is not necessarily a good strategy on Day 1, since any reasoning we can come up with is weak. I heartily agree that weak reasoning is better than no reasoning.

Agreed.

#133

thellama73 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
Roxy wrote:Weak reasoning is used by baddies as well to give them cover for their baddie votes.
Any reason by anybody on this first vote will be weak reasoning.
QFT
This is usually true, but may not be necessarily.

Llama, your reasoning to vote Boomslang on Day 1 in MOTU wasn't the strongest ever, but it nailed us a baddie, correct? How is that NOT better than randomizing?
Hey, I am on your side here. My point was that singling out people for weak reasoning as potential baddies is not necessarily a good strategy on Day 1, since any reasoning we can come up with is weak. I heartily agree that weak reasoning is better than no reasoning.

I figured you were on my side, so I wasn't arguing with you, just more so bringing up a point.

I'm trying to emphasize that even what we think we may be weak reasoning can actually be right on occasion and indeed nail a baddie, rather than leaving it to chance.

#134

I have to vote any minute now, but I was hoping Rox would respond to me first, and I am curious to hear what reywaS and others who haven't weighed as much on discussion yet have to say.

#135

thellama73 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
Roxy wrote:Weak reasoning is used by baddies as well to give them cover for their baddie votes.
Any reason by anybody on this first vote will be weak reasoning.
QFT
This is usually true, but may not be necessarily.

Llama, your reasoning to vote Boomslang on Day 1 in MOTU wasn't the strongest ever, but it nailed us a baddie, correct? How is that NOT better than randomizing?
Hey, I am on your side here. My point was that singling out people for weak reasoning as potential baddies is not necessarily a good strategy on Day 1, since any reasoning we can come up with is weak. I heartily agree that weak reasoning is better than no reasoning.

This is the whole anti-randomizing argument in a nutshell.

#136

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Roxy wrote:Weak reasoning is used by baddies as well to give them cover for their baddie votes.
How? I get called out for weak reasoning on Day 1 votes all the time. No one ever calls out randomizers (except for me, it seems) and seriously thinks they are baddie because they randomize.

Look at Futurama, where I was civvie. I nearly was lynched on Day 1 because I was a civvie, had to vote early, and actually based my vote on something, a very weak reasoning (and in my haste, I didn't elaborate upon it, but it was very weak either way), and people jumped on me because of it.

If I was DP and instead it was normal for me to randomize every Day 1, then I could be a baddie DP, randomize on Day 1 with no consequences, and then I wouldn't have to explain my vote.

Your argument just doesn't make sense to me.

Yep you were lynched with weak reasoning for your weak reasoning.
But I do stand by when I say as many civs have been lynched Day 1 with little and/or weak reasoning as with random'ing. I hate that people pick on randomizer'ers when I am a random voter a lot of the time. Sometimes the reasons people find to vote for people on day 1 are quite funny imho. Remember when I was lynched by BLL b/c of a smiley I used and was civ. Hahahahaha good times, good memories.

#137

Roxy wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Roxy wrote:Weak reasoning is used by baddies as well to give them cover for their baddie votes.
How? I get called out for weak reasoning on Day 1 votes all the time. No one ever calls out randomizers (except for me, it seems) and seriously thinks they are baddie because they randomize.

Look at Futurama, where I was civvie. I nearly was lynched on Day 1 because I was a civvie, had to vote early, and actually based my vote on something, a very weak reasoning (and in my haste, I didn't elaborate upon it, but it was very weak either way), and people jumped on me because of it.

If I was DP and instead it was normal for me to randomize every Day 1, then I could be a baddie DP, randomize on Day 1 with no consequences, and then I wouldn't have to explain my vote.

Your argument just doesn't make sense to me.
Yep you were lynched with weak reasoning for your weak reasoning.
But I do stand by when I say as many civs have been lynched Day 1 with little and/or weak reasoning as with random'ing. I hate that people pick on randomizer'ers when I am a random voter a lot of the time. Sometimes the reasons people find to vote for people on day 1 are quite funny imho. Remember when I was lynched by BLL b/c of a smiley I used and was civ. Hahahahaha good times, good memories.

I agree, reasons for these votes can be very silly, but it's reasons like those that, while they can lead to Day 1 civ lynches on occasion because of baddies bandwagoning, can also lead to successful baddies being found because they are using terrible reasoning and can't back up their votes -- because they don't really care who they lynch as long as it's not anyone on their team.

Why should I have been lynched though? I was a civvie with a very busy day ahead of me and I had to vote. Does that mean I deserve to get lynched because I didn't hide behind a completely randomized vote?

#138

Okay, well, here's where I'm at. Unfortunately, I have to vote now; class starts in just over a half hour.

Boo's behavior was a bit weird in that he seemed incredibly fixated on voting BWT who had not shown and there was still plenty of discussion to be had. LT's early vote seems a bit weird, and I'm not sure I buy that it was because she mixed up the poll times, although it could be a genuine mistake. Additionally, Rox's behavior to try to get some sort of response out of me with my reasoning behind my Day 0 vote, as well as her reasoning for her planned vote today (randomized based off of fisherman and auger voters only) and her recent posts about randomizing just don't make sense to me and make me wonder if she did have info regarding the Day 0 poll.

That being said, I don't feel confident at all any of those players are even baddie at this point, but that's what I've noticed. I think it's too early to be going after low posters or no shows, personally, since I do have those three observations.

I also don't feel any of these people are pinging me particularly strongly, so I'm randomizing among the three names (well, two, since Rox is not on the poll), and I got LT.

votes LittleTiger

#139

Nope you did not deserve to be lynched but as a player who does give reasons for his vote and rales against randomizing when you voted with little to no reasoning it stands out. Like me during Sesame Street mafia trying to get rey lynched with reasons stuck out b/c I don't usually go all out on Day 1 to find a reason. Understand?

#140

I get what you are saying MP about weak reasoning. Though I disagree with what you say about voting for low posters being better than randomizing...to me they seem exactly the same. I'm generally against outright randomizing...though sometimes I will randomly vote for someone that already has a vote. In that case, there is a chance of nailing someone that is voting for a team mate for distancing purposes. It worked in a game once.....I'm thinking Justice League/Avengers. Not sure though.

#141

I should have said, LT's randomized early vote*, not just early vote. I think it's weird she seems so noncommittal at this point, it struck me as a bit odd. Here's hoping my gut is onto something, but by all means, if you guys find better reasons to vote people, go for it.

Ahhhh linki and I don't have time to read it since I really should be out the door! I'll address these when I get back, I'm already later leaving than I should be.

#142

Nice MP real nice. Just b/c I bust you a little about randomizing vs weak reasoning I am on your list haha funny!

I stand by what I have said. I did not have info on the poll I just used common sense - something Macguyver does often

#143

Roxy wrote:Nice MP real nice. Just b/c I bust you a little about randomizing vs weak reasoning I am on your list haha funny!

I stand by what I have said. I did not have info on the poll I just used common sense - something Macguyver does often

If it makes you feel any better, you're on my list too. You seem overly hostile so early in the game.

#144

MovingPictures07 wrote:I should have said, LT's randomized early vote*, not just early vote. I think it's weird she seems so noncommittal at this point, it struck me as a bit odd. Here's hoping my gut is onto something, but by all means, if you guys find better reasons to vote people, go for it.

Ahhhh linki and I don't have time to read it since I really should be out the door! I'll address these when I get back, I'm already later leaving than I should be.

Seriously?

And your gut is wrong!

I genuinely mixed up the poll end times and I am spending far more time in the other game than this one at the moment, so I randomized my vote. And this whole random discussion pisses me off everytime. If there is nothing to go on, randomizing is perfectly legitimate. It is as effective on D1 as voting "minor pings". Both are more likely to snare a civvie statistically. It is very rare to nab a baddie on D1 - as you well know.

Also, people who are dead set against randomizing as vehemently as you and then go ahead and pursue "randomizing people with votes" or "randomizing insert whatever excuse here" are hypocritical. So, Sock, you are a hypocrit

#145

Does anyone have a record of who voted what?

#146

LittleTiger wrote: And this whole random discussion pisses me off everytime. If there is nothing to go on, randomizing is perfectly legitimate.

Thee are 145 posts in this thread. How is that "nothing to go on?"

#147

Snow Dog wrote:Does anyone have a record of who voted what?

AATB Grip
BWT
Boo Hook
Dex Fisherman
He-Man
INH Auger
Juliets Hook
Kate Grip
LT Grip
Llama Auger
MP Auger
reywaS Hook
Roxy Grip
rustifinko Auger
Snow Dog Fisherman
Vompatti Fisherman

#148

Gah, that was ugly. Sorry/

#149

Lol hostile. At least I am not on the poll - for good reasoning tbs!

I deffo am not hostile I just love a good debate random vs non-random we have had this debate for as long as I have played. Thats like saying you were hostile b/c you disagreed with me hahaha

#150

thellama73 wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:Does anyone have a record of who voted what?

AATB Grip
BWT
Boo Hook
Dex Fisherman
He-Man
INH Auger
Juliets Hook
Kate Grip
LT Grip
Llama Auger
MP Auger
reywaS Hook
Roxy Grip
rustifinko Auger
Snow Dog Fisherman
Vompatti Fisherman

Thank you kind man.

OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE TRAPPED ON THIS BOAT WITH THAT PSYCHO MATLOCK :o