Rolling Stones Mafia Game Over!

#101

Who is out of tune?

Poll ended at Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:47 pm

A Person
3
Lizzy (4), Epignosis (10), juliets (12) 25%
birdwithteeth11
1
Mongoose (11) 8%
DisgruntledPorcupine
2
thellama73 (5), A Person (9) 17%
Epignosis
0
No votes
Hedgeowl
0
No votes
Juliets
1
DisgruntledPorcupine (3) 8%
Lizzy
0
No votes
Mongoose
1
Hedgeowl (8) 8%
Russtifinko
0
No votes
SVS
0
No votes
Thellama73
1
S~V~S (6) 8%
Me and Mr. D/Nons
3
Roxy (1), Mr. D (2), Spacedaisy (7) 25%
Total votes : 12

#102

Long story short, someone called in at work tonight and I had to stay almost 2 hours later to make up some for them. I just got home a few minutes ago and would have been able to vote easily today if it hadn't been for that. Sorry Roxy!

#103

Bummer for Day 1
but aren't most Day 1's like that?

Thanks for playing A Person! <3

It is now time for the Night!

I need to get this to a time I can handle. 8 PM EDT is not that time lol

I will be ending the night at 630 EDT so get your PM's in quick. Your results for Night 0 are on the way!

#104

MovingPictures07 wrote: As to S~V~S, her vote for llama really confuses me, but I've accepted the fact that she and I just don't see eye to eye at all. I just don't understand how she called him out for voting for low posters because they often post low, yet llama does this every time and yet she still votes for him. Seems like both are consistent yet she finds one worthy of a vote but another one not? Can S~V~S or someone explain this to me? I don't think it makes her bad, I just don't get it.

As always, Day 1 votes are really worthless. I don't see anything suspicious from anyone here, honestly, just differences in opinion.

I think it just comes down to different playing styles and philosophies about mafia. I tend to empathize with llama because I feel the same as him often (although I don't always vote that way). And I think it's just something about S~V~S' approach to the game that it doesn't seem fair when llama does this. Especially since llama is essentially voting for DP because of his style of play. Which is understandable.

So I guess I lied. :P I can see both sides of the coin in this case.

I think Day 1 votes initially are worthless. The only time they ever end up meaning everything is if you get to Day 4 or 5 and can start to discern certain patterns based on how people are voting. But yeah, to go after someone early on for a Day 1 vote is pointless and will only get eyebrows from me.

#105

Weird. I didn't get any linki from that. Oh well. RIP AP!

#106

Sorry for so many posts in a row! I'll stop after this one.

Since I get to pick the first box, I'm going with the logic of a multiple choice test. They say B is the most common answer if all 4 answers appear to be correct, so I went with Box B.

Nicol Bolas · #107

So, my last dance partner was a little shabby. They stepped all over my feet and ignored me half the night

Who to pick next? hmmm

#108

Sorry to see Matt go. RIP. Hopefully we will have a better idea of what to do tomorrow. For now, I'm voting box C, because I just had a box of Chinese food and Chinese starts wit a C, as does Cookie, as in Fortune Cookie, and I want good fortune. It makes total sense.

#109

I picked C because all of my cars have had C names (Cricket, Coronado, Clover, Cairo, and Cassavetes).

#110

thellama73 wrote:Sorry to see Matt go. RIP. Hopefully we will have a better idea of what to do tomorrow. For now, I'm voting box C, because I just had a box of Chinese food and Chinese starts wit a C, as does Cookie, as in Fortune Cookie, and I want good fortune. It makes total sense.

Was it Lo Mein? That's not Mo' Lame. Yum. But if you talk insanified, how will we know if it's you or the MSG?

#111

This always hurts me to do
but you had your bummer so here is mine.

We've missed you Russti! Sorry to have to ModKill ya I hope this does not make you hate all walruses in general and keep you from playing another game <3

This song is NOT a reference to his role!!
That will not be revealed until end game just in case he decides he wants to re-enter which I would consider.

#112

Mr. D wrote:So, my last dance partner was a little shabby. They stepped all over my feet and ignored me half the night

Who to pick next? hmmm

Me me me! Pick me, I'm a fun girl.

#113

Mongoose wrote:Voting Birdy because forgot about the gym and see he doesn't have any votes. He doesn't look like he will get any votes unless people find voting for wire suspicious. Yes, it's a cop-out vote, but it's day one.

No worries, Hedge. That's pretty funny.

Whew! It had to happen eventually, so I figured I'd just take the white elephant in the room by the tusks and go for it. Glad that's over with now.

RIP AP, iywg. Were you?

I am picking D for Mr. D. Duh! Oh, and dancing

...and drinking

and donuts and daisies

and

#114

RIP AP. And I guess RIPIYWG Russ?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote: As to S~V~S, her vote for llama really confuses me, but I've accepted the fact that she and I just don't see eye to eye at all. I just don't understand how she called him out for voting for low posters because they often post low, yet llama does this every time and yet she still votes for him. Seems like both are consistent yet she finds one worthy of a vote but another one not? Can S~V~S or someone explain this to me? I don't think it makes her bad, I just don't get it.

As always, Day 1 votes are really worthless. I don't see anything suspicious from anyone here, honestly, just differences in opinion.
I think it just comes down to different playing styles and philosophies about mafia. I tend to empathize with llama because I feel the same as him often (although I don't always vote that way). And I think it's just something about S~V~S' approach to the game that it doesn't seem fair when llama does this. Especially since llama is essentially voting for DP because of his style of play. Which is understandable.

So I guess I lied. :P I can see both sides of the coin in this case.

I think Day 1 votes initially are worthless. The only time they ever end up meaning everything is if you get to Day 4 or 5 and can start to discern certain patterns based on how people are voting. But yeah, to go after someone early on for a Day 1 vote is pointless and will only get eyebrows from me.

Points well illustrated on all counts, so thank you. This is true re: Day 1.

#115

Also, Hedge, what's your favorite smiley? I'm sorry I've been so behind on stuff like that. I uploaded a few the other day and was going to have S~V~S add them for me. I need to just go through and add a bunch more as well.

#116

Hedgeowl wrote:
Mongoose wrote:Voting Birdy because forgot about the gym and see he doesn't have any votes. He doesn't look like he will get any votes unless people find voting for wire suspicious. Yes, it's a cop-out vote, but it's day one.

No worries, Hedge. That's pretty funny.
Whew! It had to happen eventually, so I figured I'd just take the white elephant in the room by the tusks and go for it. Glad that's over with now.

RIP AP, iywg. Were you?

I am picking D for Mr. D. Duh! Oh, and dancing ...and drinking and donuts and daisies and

Sometimes I am a bit ambiguous but not today. The song is from the album Goats Head Soup therefore A Person was a civ. <3

Also to everyone all Night 0 results are out if you did not receive a Night 0 results PM lemme know.
First page is completely updated.

#117

Also, picked Box A for Alex (and awesome).

#118

MovingPictures07 wrote:Also, Hedge, what's your favorite smiley? I'm sorry I've been so behind on stuff like that. I uploaded a few the other day and was going to have S~V~S add them for me. I need to just go through and add a bunch more as well.

Oh crap, i forgot that. I will get on it within the next day~!

And RIP A Person

And MP, I have clearly said this repeatedly in many other games, i think voting people for low posting on Day One (especially when the person they vote for is a low poster habitually) is very often a baddie ploy. They get to lynch a civvie, and they get to say "Oh well, but he wasn't posting". Win/win for the baddies. And i don't think this just about llama, i think it about everyone

this is not at all the same for voting Llama for always voting low posters, becasue i think voting for low posters on day one is a baddie tell. Llama does not claim this to be the case.

#119

I'm really sad about how early Matt tends to be lunched. And lunched on D1. Let's break through the same ole same ole this game. New horizons shall be explored.

#120

S~V~S wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Also, Hedge, what's your favorite smiley? I'm sorry I've been so behind on stuff like that. I uploaded a few the other day and was going to have S~V~S add them for me. I need to just go through and add a bunch more as well.
Oh crap, i forgot that. I will get on it within the next day~!

And RIP A Person

And MP, I have clearly said this repeatedly in many other games, i think voting people for low posting on Day One (especially when the person they vote for is a low poster habitually) is very often a baddie ploy. They get to lynch a civvie, and they get to say "Oh well, but he wasn't posting". Win/win for the baddies. And i don't think this just about llama, i think it about everyone

this is not at all the same for voting Llama for always voting low posters, becasue i think voting for low posters on day one is a baddie tell. Llama does not claim this to be the case.

No worries! There are still others I need to look through and add too. I'll try to that soon.

Sure, it could be, but llama always says that, so that was my only point -- for llama, it's hard to say whether it's any kind of tell because I've seen him say that countless times and it seems to indicate nothing about his alignment.

But I won't argue with your logic, I do agree a baddie could have motivation to do that.

#121

Mongoose wrote:I'm really sad about how early Matt tends to be lunched. And lunched on D1. Let's break through the same ole same ole this game. New horizons shall be explored.

Agreed. It sucks. I hate it, but I guess someone had to go. Why did people vote for AP again?

Honestly, I would say I'm a bit pinged by juliets's randomizing between those who had votes, but it's totally in character for her and not telling of alignment, so eh. I don't really feel there are any leads to be had right now, probably. Time will tell.

#122

There is a difference between a low poster and someone who has not even checked in. I have no patience for people who refuse to play at all, and I want them voted out. Always. Since I can't know their alignment on Day 1 (I dispute the notion that goodies are more likely to be inactive than baddies) I would rather get rid of someone who is not playing than someone who is. On a case like today, I felt that everyone has an equal chance of being bad, so why not go for someone who doesn't show respect for the game or the host?

#123

thellama73 wrote:There is a difference between a low poster and someone who has not even checked in. I have no patience for people who refuse to play at all, and I want them voted out. Always. Since I can't know their alignment on Day 1 (I dispute the notion that goodies are more likely to be inactive than baddies) I would rather get rid of someone who is not playing than someone who is. On a case like today, I felt that everyone has an equal chance of being bad, so why not go for someone who doesn't show respect for the game or the host?

I actually empathize with this line of thinking, so I don't understand why it would warrant a vote in your direction, hence my earlier thoughts.

That said, I don't think anyone really warranted a vote today, but that's Day 1 for you; someone has to go.

What are your current thoughts, sir?

#124

I have no patience with people who want to lynch people for reason unrelated to whether or not they are civs

#125

S~V~S wrote:I have no patience with people who want to lynch people for reason unrelated to whether or not they are civs

So you agree with me about randomizers. Good. I look forward to seeing you go after those people in the future.

#126

RIP person!

#127

Russtifinko has escaped my clutch of death and is in fact very much alive!!

Srsly I got a PM from him a few mintues before my bedtime. I decided to let him play his part since he only missed 1 lynch.

He cannot be NK'ed tonight.

Lets all give him warm welcome to the game.

#128

Going with "D" for Mr D~

thellama73 wrote:There is a difference between a low poster and someone who has not even checked in. I have no patience for people who refuse to play at all, and I want them voted out. Always. Since I can't know their alignment on Day 1 (I dispute the notion that goodies are more likely to be inactive than baddies) I would rather get rid of someone who is not playing than someone who is. On a case like today, I felt that everyone has an equal chance of being bad, so why not go for someone who doesn't show respect for the game or the host?

As someone who has hosted extensively, i can tell you that civvies can often tend to be more quiet than baddies at the start of a game. later on maybe not so much, but at the beginning, yes. Quite often the first few posters are baddies, becasue they have been talking and hatching plots and are all excited~ not always, but often. The civvies, not so much. So dispute if you like, but it is true. And

On a case like today, I felt that everyone has an equal chance of being bad

Explain how this works with 3 baddies and 6-9 civvies (last three listed before the baddies, not totally sure about them~ they are listed under "Respectable" without a different heading, but are in a different color, so

)? How is it with 2 or 3 to one odds of a A Person (or a person) being a civvie, everyone has an equal chance?

People disrespect hosts in many ways, and pissing on their beloved roles by not playing is one of them. But it is the hosts job to deal with them, and it is the baddies job to kill civvies. So killing civvies while saying you are doing the host a favor will never seem like a good policy to me, or a civvie policy, since the people who are actually benefitting from this situation is the baddies. Yay for them! One civ down, and one less night kill to waste on a non threatening low poster :yay:

Net result = dead civvie and the poor abused hosts beloved role is still dead. Not saying this makes YOU a baddie. But on day one, voting for you based on this is better than random, right?

Also, as for randomizing. Not a fan of it, for the most part. I think it is at its most useful when randomizing between a pool of suspects. I would rather people vote on the smallest ping than random, but, BUT at least randomizers admit they got nothing.

#129

To clarify for you SVS the first 8 listed under respectable are civ. One is in orange bc it is the dead role of A Person. Some Girls is an indy role and the rest are baddies (3). Hope that helps. For those looking for my linkys to the host posts please refer to the player list on page one.

#130

S~V~S wrote:
On a case like today, I felt that everyone has an equal chance of being bad
Explain how this works with 3 baddies and 6-9 civvies (last three listed before the baddies, not totally sure about them~ they are listed under "Respectable" without a different heading, but are in a different color, so )? How is it with 2 or 3 to one odds of a A Person (or a person) being a civvie, everyone has an equal chance?

If we assume the Midnight Rambler is civvie-friendly, then there are 9 civvies and 3 baddies. With no other information (we have very little on Day 1) the odds of any given person being bad are 1/4. As I said, everyone has an equal chance(1/4) of being a baddie. I clearly did NOT say that there is a fifty-fifty chance of a given person being a baddie. You said that.

#131

I feel like I have played this game before.

SVS and Llama arguing and disagreeing from Day 1, SVS votes for llama (although he wasn't lynched this time).

As for the philosophical debate, the more I play the more I empathize with randomizers. Day 1 blows for everybody. If you are a civ you don't want to seem like a baddie with a vote and if you're baddie you want to seem as civ as possible. The more I play the harder it seems to make it through Day 1 with any good reasons.

The real secret is that civs are not actually on a "team" together. Civs don't win together if they die. You only win as civ if you're alive. Every civ is out to save themselves over other civs. Hence why you vote for someone else to save yourself sometimes even if they are civ. It's more like LMS with a team goal that is the same. So I have become a little cynical about civ friendly actions, etc. The reality is that civs have to die in a game either when NK'd or lynched sometimes or games would be really boring and short. So in the first few days I feel like everyone is a baddie because everyone is glad if it wasn't them lynched or NK'd. It's an added bonus if a baddie is lynched (and amazingly good luck) and all civs are closer to their win condition.

If you think it more likely that a baddie is a high poster or a low poster than randomize between those pools would increase the odds correct?

Top posters:
Llama
Juliets
Mongoose
MP
SVS

Low posters:
Hedgeowl
BWT
DP
Epignosis
Lizzy

#132

Ebwop : no poster - russtifinko

#133

I killed Matt. It's all my fault...

Also, in regards to the high vs. low posters, that depends from player to player and in some instances, from one game to another. I can only speak for myself, butt I always try to have a different approach each game, butt that mostly has to do with keeping myself interested and entertained because of my slightly short attention span.

Box D for Mr D

#134

I will vote Box A in honor of the Alabama Crimson Tide, best in the nation (well, this week at least). Also for all the "A" Rolling Stones songs like Angie.

#135

I found this, so I pick Box D:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rolling-Stones- ... 1076169446

#136

To add to the discussion, I have to say this:

I always hated randomizing, but the more and more I've played, particularly this year, I think I feel somewhat similar to Hedgeowl in that I have come to empathize with their cause. As a civvie, you really have no idea who is baddie, and I find that personally in the past I always felt pressured to scrutinize everyone's words and actions more just so I wouldn't seem like I was blending in -- after countless failures of any of my leads being accurate so early on, game after game. For many games, I felt my observations and leads were legitimate at the time, but realizing that my success rate was terrible, I started wondering if I wasn't just making incorrect conclusions time and time again. Taking this into consideration, I tried randomizing on two separate occasions, both of which nearly got me lynched because of my previous expressed hatred for randomizing. It was almost as if I've trapped myself with my inability to randomize and sometimes now I feel like I have to come up with a reason that I convince myself to be true in order to find someone to vote for on Day 1.

Yes, someone who randomizes avoids blame and responsibility. It is so much easier to randomize than it is to come up with a legit reason for voting someone as a baddie and explaining it. Thus, baddies can use it to their advantage. But on the flipside, as a civvie, sometimes you really just don't know.

All of this to say I'm not sure I feel the way I always did on randomizing anymore. I still don't like it, but sometimes what else do you have so early in the game? And the correlation of randomizing players to being civvie or baddie doesn't seem to be anything enlightening. Similar with self-voting, despite what others may say, and despite the fact that I don't like that even more than randomizing (at least randomizing, if you are a civvie, has at least SOME chance to catch a baddie; if you're self-voting, you're doing nobody a service).

#137

So I guess in the end, every civvie has to make a judgment call. Is what I've observed anything of note; if so, does it lead me to believe the person might be baddie? To conclude such, you have to consider what motivation a civvie would have in doing such a thing, whether someone normally acts that way, etc.

Because it's so impossible to know so early on, a civvie can either take the safe route (randomizing) or go with their gut if they truly believe it to be right (what I often do). It's all a matter of calculated risk and how each person wants to play their game. I always constantly try to improve my game, personally, but on the other hand I've realized that's nearly impossible to do.

And I forgot to say, welcome back, Russ!!

#138

MovingPictures07 wrote:To add to the discussion, I have to say this:

I always hated randomizing, but the more and more I've played, particularly this year, I think I feel somewhat similar to Hedgeowl in that I have come to empathize with their cause. As a civvie, you really have no idea who is baddie, and I find that personally in the past I always felt pressured to scrutinize everyone's words and actions more just so I wouldn't seem like I was blending in -- after countless failures of any of my leads being accurate so early on, game after game. For many games, I felt my observations and leads were legitimate at the time, but realizing that my success rate was terrible, I started wondering if I wasn't just making incorrect conclusions time and time again. Taking this into consideration, I tried randomizing on two separate occasions, both of which nearly got me lynched because of my previous expressed hatred for randomizing. It was almost as if I've trapped myself with my inability to randomize and sometimes now I feel like I have to come up with a reason that I convince myself to be true in order to find someone to vote for on Day 1.

Yes, someone who randomizes avoids blame and responsibility. It is so much easier to randomize than it is to come up with a legit reason for voting someone as a baddie and explaining it. Thus, baddies can use it to their advantage. But on the flipside, as a civvie, sometimes you really just don't know.

All of this to say I'm not sure I feel the way I always did on randomizing anymore. I still don't like it, but sometimes what else do you have so early in the game? And the correlation of randomizing players to being civvie or baddie doesn't seem to be anything enlightening. Similar with self-voting, despite what others may say, and despite the fact that I don't like that even more than randomizing (at least randomizing, if you are a civvie, has at least SOME chance to catch a baddie; if you're self-voting, you're doing nobody a service).

I agree with you on most of this and I am not as hostile towards randomizers as I initially was. What I do not understand, however, is when people go after each other for having a "weak" reason behind their Day 1 vote, yet give randomizers a pass. There is no weaker reason than "random.org told me to do it."

#139

thellama73 wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:To add to the discussion, I have to say this:

I always hated randomizing, but the more and more I've played, particularly this year, I think I feel somewhat similar to Hedgeowl in that I have come to empathize with their cause. As a civvie, you really have no idea who is baddie, and I find that personally in the past I always felt pressured to scrutinize everyone's words and actions more just so I wouldn't seem like I was blending in -- after countless failures of any of my leads being accurate so early on, game after game. For many games, I felt my observations and leads were legitimate at the time, but realizing that my success rate was terrible, I started wondering if I wasn't just making incorrect conclusions time and time again. Taking this into consideration, I tried randomizing on two separate occasions, both of which nearly got me lynched because of my previous expressed hatred for randomizing. It was almost as if I've trapped myself with my inability to randomize and sometimes now I feel like I have to come up with a reason that I convince myself to be true in order to find someone to vote for on Day 1.

Yes, someone who randomizes avoids blame and responsibility. It is so much easier to randomize than it is to come up with a legit reason for voting someone as a baddie and explaining it. Thus, baddies can use it to their advantage. But on the flipside, as a civvie, sometimes you really just don't know.

All of this to say I'm not sure I feel the way I always did on randomizing anymore. I still don't like it, but sometimes what else do you have so early in the game? And the correlation of randomizing players to being civvie or baddie doesn't seem to be anything enlightening. Similar with self-voting, despite what others may say, and despite the fact that I don't like that even more than randomizing (at least randomizing, if you are a civvie, has at least SOME chance to catch a baddie; if you're self-voting, you're doing nobody a service).
I agree with you on most of this and I am not as hostile towards randomizers as I initially was. What I do not understand, however, is when people go after each other for having a "weak" reason behind their Day 1 vote, yet give randomizers a pass. There is no weaker reason than "random.org told me to do it."

This is very true and precisely what used to tick me off when it seemed everyone gave me the eyeball, especially in games this year it seems, for "weak" reasoned votes, when there were plenty of other players who randomized. Perhaps that increased my dislike of the position I dug for myself.

#140

Hello everyone! I'm sorry for my tardiness, especially for Roxy's sake. Thanks a lot for letting me back into what looks to be an exciting game! And thanks to the Sockmeister for alerting me that we had started. Somehow I didn't receive an email like I usually do when I get PM'ed; hopefully you guys won't think too much less of me.

Pretty strong words from llama, here!

thellama73 wrote:There is a difference between a low poster and someone who has not even checked in. I have no patience for people who refuse to play at all, and I want them voted out. Always. Since I can't know their alignment on Day 1 (I dispute the notion that goodies are more likely to be inactive than baddies) I would rather get rid of someone who is not playing than someone who is. On a case like today, I felt that everyone has an equal chance of being bad, so why not go for someone who doesn't show respect for the game or the host?

I could decide not to take this personally, but it seems more fun to be argumentative. Llama, I see your point about wanting people who refuse to play out, but on Day 1? You're not even willing to give someone one day to check in and to find out the game has started?? I'm curious why you seemed so stuck on me. I counted 5 posts where you mentioned wanting to vote for me, and iirc 2 of those came AFTER Rox told you I was being modkilled anyway. Why the crusade? And "doesn't show respect for the game or the host?" Really? That if nothing else actually does strike me as personal. You've played with me plenty of times and know damned well that I do my best to respect the game. I don't recall if you've ever hosted me (besides in Minimalism Mafia now), but I do put a lot of thought into my posts, try to make the game enjoyable for others, and express gratitude to the hosts for putting in what I know is an incredible amount of work. So in the politest way possible, BACK OFF.

#141

Russtifinko wrote: You've played with me plenty of times and know damned well that I do my best to respect the game. I don't recall if you've ever hosted me (besides in Minimalism Mafia now), but I do put a lot of thought into my posts, try to make the game enjoyable for others, and express gratitude to the hosts for putting in what I know is an incredible amount of work. So in the politest way possible, BACK OFF.

Welcome Russ! Glad you could make it. One at a time:

Russtifinko wrote: I could decide not to take this personally, but it seems more fun to be argumentative. Llama, I see your point about wanting people who refuse to play out, but on Day 1? You're not even willing to give someone one day to check in and to find out the game has started??

You had Day 0 as well, so in a word, "yup!"

Russtifinko wrote: I'm curious why you seemed so stuck on me. I counted 5 posts where you mentioned wanting to vote for me, and iirc 2 of those came AFTER Rox told you I was being modkilled anyway. Why the crusade? And "doesn't show respect for the game or the host?" Really? That if nothing else actually does strike me as personal.

I could have made no posts and been all "derpy derp I don't know. Randomized," and avoided all scrutiny, but I think that is a lazy way to play and it is not my style. If you don't like me coming after you, be around to defend yourself.

Russtifinko wrote: You've played with me plenty of times and know damned well that I do my best to respect the game. I don't recall if you've ever hosted me (besides in Minimalism Mafia now), but I do put a lot of thought into my posts, try to make the game enjoyable for others, and express gratitude to the hosts for putting in what I know is an incredible amount of work.

True, and I like you as a player and as a person. I'm sorry if you took what I said personally. I was responding to the behavior, not the man. I am exceedingly glad you are here now. The game will be more fun with your presence.

Russtifinko wrote: So in the politest way possible, BACK OFF.

We'll see.

#142

That was obviously my biggest ping/niggle (thanks for the vocabulary expansion, juliets) of the past day. I'll admit up front that it's biased, but it doesn't mean it's not suspicious. Looking for others now.

I think I'll try Box D, by the way. My name starts with a D, D's stand for "Don't have to take this class again.", etc. Basically everything good in life starts with a D. (Except ice cream, but that's a Dessert, so it still kind of counts.)

#143

Well, there doesn't seem to be a whole ton of a lot to go on. Hedgeowl, I thought your Scottish joke was hilarious, but I'm onto your strategy of seeming nonthreatening by having the cutest possible avatar. I liked your thoughts about civs having the same conditions as each other but being somewhat LMS-y; it made me think about the game differently.

Something struck me as a teensy bit off about juliets, but I'm far from certain she's bad. I guess I was just minorly pinged by her saving her vote so early and then randomizing and getting A Person.

I do agree with llama about one thing (something both I and he have said many times before and probably will many times again): I think accountability in votes is super important for civs to be able to win. That's the main reason I'm sorry for missing Day 1; you guys basically have no read on me yet. It's also why I'm so bummed that A Person was voted off with 2 random votes (and one vote from Epi, the reason for which I wasn't 100% clear on).

thellama73 wrote:
Russtifinko wrote: I'm curious why you seemed so stuck on me. I counted 5 posts where you mentioned wanting to vote for me, and iirc 2 of those came AFTER Rox told you I was being modkilled anyway. Why the crusade? And "doesn't show respect for the game or the host?" Really? That if nothing else actually does strike me as personal.
I could have made no posts and been all "derpy derp I don't know. Randomized," and avoided all scrutiny, but I think that is a lazy way to play and it is not my style. If you don't like me coming after you, be around to defend yourself.

I also think that, while we're talking about accountability, your response here is just silly, llama. The rest of it, sure, fine. Since it was actually 2 days (Day 0 and 1) I feel you're somewhat more justified in wanting me gone. However, if we're talking about "lazy ways to play" and "not your style", then going after the only person not defending themselves takes the cake. Especially after you find out that person will be modkilled and their role won't be revealed. It's absolutely the antithesis of accountability, because no one will know whether your actions are noble, malicious, or just indifferent until the game is over.

I'm saying this because you and I have argued for accountability in voting in almost every game I've played with you. It's just so blatantly against everything you stand for in early-game mafia that it really makes me question your civvieness.

#144

I don't understand your last point, Russ. I didn't vote for you after Roxy told me not to. I do not plan to vote for you tomorrow now that you've shown up (that could always change.) So how am I not being accountable to my votes? If I had actually cast a vote for you, you may have had a point, but I never expressed any intention of doing so after Roxy said you would be modkilled, only regret that I had to rethink my initial plan. You were the only thing I had to go on, and in the my vote for DP might as well have been random for all the info I had, so I was frustrated by that. I don't see how I am ducking accountability though.

#145

Welcome Russti! I agree on the addition of ping/niggle cause it makes me giggle. Glad sooomebody appreciates bad scottish humor! You are right. I have not changed my avatar since the Mario game when I thought everyone read everything I posted as angry, due to my cranky Archimedes owl. In my head most of my posts should be read as calm thoughtful contributions, unless caps or smileys appear out of excitemnt or possible frustration or I start calling people things like Mr. Fussy Russ or Mr. cRusstipants (we called an old PE teacher in highschool that).

This is for MP from the smiley request forum. It should be in green:

[quote="Hedgeowl"]Need a ferret smiley!! Also this one dear Lizzy found cause it is 100% essential in order to play mafia.

[/quote]

#146

Russtifinko wrote:
Something struck me as a teensy bit off about juliets, but I'm far from certain she's bad. I guess I was just minorly pinged by her saving her vote so early and then randomizing and getting A Person.

Russti, I'm not sure what you mean by me "saving her vote so early". What I did was once i got a vote I then saved mine in return in case I had to vote to save myself. The votes seemed to be spreading,i.e., one here, one there which is how a baddie would want it. You can then lynch someone with only 2 votes if the votes were spread far enough so on a day one when there is so much randomizing it's smart to save your vote if you get one of those random votes. Then, toward the end if I'm remembering right there were two people with two votes. I did not see the need to save myself but if I randomized, which is what i had originally planned to do, I would have just spread the vote more or tied somebody else up with DH and AP. So, I randomed between the two of them. This method has been used in many games before to keep from spreading the vote. In fact, in one game I played I went ahead and randomed in this sitaution and was accused of spreading the vote, a baddie tactic. That's really all I can tell you about my vote and I see that you are not saying I'm bad, I just wanted to be sure and clarify my vote for you.

#147

Llama, fair enough. I read your posts after being told not to vote me by Roxy as being frustrated that you could not vote for me, whereas you apparently were really frustrated by having nothing else concrete, which I can understand. I do, however, agree with S~V~S that "He didn't post, so it's his own fault I voted for him!" is only marginally better than "random.org made me do it." in terms of avoiding blame, so I'm just surprised that you wanted to vote me at all. It seems un-llama-like. But your playstyle is your playstyle, and I can't dictate it to you nor read your mind.

Hi Hedge! Now I need to come up with some insulting names for you in case we get in a fight, because you already seem really well-prepared. I don't know if anything can top Mr. cRusstipants. That poor PE teacher....

Thanks for the clarification, juliets. I'm not sure I agree that baddies like big vote spreads on Day 1. In my experience, yes, a civ almost always dies, but when I've been bad it's always been a nightmare for my team to decide where to put votes so we aren't actually the ones who kill the unlucky civ, because Day 2 is a revenge lynch as often as not. It actually seems to me that a tie is the best possible outcome for civs on Day 1. We learn about lynch mechanics and/or vote manipulations, and sometimes no one dies. However, that's all fairly academic at this point. Now that I'm hopping back into mafia I'm trying to get new perspectives and not play just like I did before. I appreciate your willingness to explain, and for now I have no reason to doubt you.

#148

Russtifinko wrote: Hi Hedge! Now I need to come up with some insulting names for you in case we get in a fight, because you already seem really well-prepared. I don't know if anything can top Mr. cRusstipants. That poor PE teacher....

What about Hedge-Foul, or Dredge-Bowell?

Russtifinko wrote: Thanks for the clarification, juliets. I'm not sure I agree that baddies like big vote spreads on Day 1. In my experience, yes, a civ almost always dies, but when I've been bad it's always been a nightmare for my team to decide where to put votes so we aren't actually the ones who kill the unlucky civ, because Day 2 is a revenge lynch as often as not. It actually seems to me that a tie is the best possible outcome for civs on Day 1. We learn about lynch mechanics and/or vote manipulations, and sometimes no one dies. However, that's all fairly academic at this point. Now that I'm hopping back into mafia I'm trying to get new perspectives and not play just like I did before. I appreciate your willingness to explain, and for now I have no reason to doubt you.

I made a long and well-reasoned argument a few games back that a spread out vote on Day 1 basically guarantees a civ lynch, since one vote can tip the balance so easily, whereas if there is unity, the baddies cannot affect the outcome without outing themselves. This was mostly ignored, but someone did offer the compelling counterargument that if we unite and lynch a civ, there is no information to be gained by analyzing the voting record.

#149

Wow, so glad to see Russ here and in full presence! Great to play a game with you again, good sir!

Am I interpreting your posts correctly in that you would currently say Llama is your top suspicion, or is that incorrect?

Regarding spreads vs. not on Day 1, I would think spread votes would be in a baddie team's favor more so than a straight up lynch. They can much more easily control the vote and avoid a Day 1 baddie lynch and cause some chaos. However, they could also run the risk of outing themselves, so that's a consideration. Additionally, a not spread vote can give very little information, especially when it is a civvie lynch, and many baddies can bandwagon. So I guess it does depend on strategy and what actually happens.

#150

MovingPictures07 wrote: Regarding spreads vs. not on Day 1, I would think spread votes would be in a baddie team's favor more so than a straight up lynch. They can much more easily control the vote and avoid a Day 1 baddie lynch and cause some chaos. However, they could also run the risk of outing themselves, so that's a consideration. Additionally, a not spread vote can give very little information, especially when it is a civvie lynch, and many baddies can bandwagon. So I guess it does depend on strategy and what actually happens.

Excellent regurgitation of the post just above yours, MP.

Who is going to play The Donner Party Mafia?