Murder, Mayhem, and Mafia
https://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/
WIFOM stands for "wine in front of me" and reverse to the kind of circular reasoning scene in the iconic scene in the Princess Bride. "A baddie would do X, but you knew that so you wouldn't do X, but you know that I know that, so you WOULD do X... etc."Ricochet wrote:What is WIFOM-ing?
Ah, I see. I'm also inclined to believe the silenced is blocked the following night, not the one before, given how the role is phrased, but Mongoose still hasn't confirmed this. I thought you meant you have your own theory on why revealing if you were silenced or not is beneficial or not, but thanks for clarifying.Canucklehead wrote:I think the Waters role works such that the targeted player is silenced for a day period and blocked the following night period not, as people in the thread have suggested, that the player is blocked the night s/he is targeted and silenced the following day. This, of course, is just rampant speculation on my part.Ricochet wrote:What is WIFOM-ing?
Canuck, I get it you won't reveal if you were silenced or not (you said you have a special theory on what effects that has - could you kindly elaborate?), but I wonder if you could tell me why you voted MP. Your early vote, the first for him, is also the only unaccounted one right now.
I'm not telling you how to vote, I'm just saying that your voting record looks suspicious. Can you acknowledge that? Suppose the shoe were on the other foot, and someone you thought was bad kept narrowly avoiding lynches thanks to the votes of a few players. Wouldn't you think that worth looking into? It's not like I'm making this up out of nothing. Look at the vote record. It's there for anyone to see.Roxy wrote: llama - you did not even respond to the reason I did not vote for Vomps. If you were so concerned why wouldn't you have said something before now? Should I have just went along like a good little poppet and voted the way you like? I am sorry but that is not the way I play. And I know it is not the way you play. Give my posts a good long look I have nothing to hide - if you have any questions I will be happy to respond.
Who would you like to lynch?Made wrote:Comment on the above if applicable, if not, then pursue other leads.Dom wrote:What do you propose we do today?Made wrote:The case against him as I understand it: He's bad for surviving 2 close lynches, and talking off topic is pretty bad, but there might be something there. If there is, it would be found in his person reaction to his own suspicion by those who know his play the best.Dom wrote:Made-- I'm confused-- what exactly is your stance on Vompatti????
RIPIYWG FZ.
At this exact moment I would vote Vompi, But i would like to hear other players opinion on my read of SVS, or just any feedback at all due to my crippling need for others approval.Dom wrote:Who would you like to lynch?Made wrote:Comment on the above if applicable, if not, then pursue other leads.Dom wrote:What do you propose we do today?Made wrote:The case against him as I understand it: He's bad for surviving 2 close lynches, and talking off topic is pretty bad, but there might be something there. If there is, it would be found in his person reaction to his own suspicion by those who know his play the best.Dom wrote:Made-- I'm confused-- what exactly is your stance on Vompatti????
RIPIYWG FZ.
For further judgment of SVS, I await to see if Vomps is bad or not.Made wrote:At this exact moment I would vote Vompi, But i would like to hear other players opinion on my read of SVS, or just any feedback at all due to my crippling need for others approval.Dom wrote:Who would you like to lynch?Made wrote:Comment on the above if applicable, if not, then pursue other leads.Dom wrote:What do you propose we do today?Made wrote:The case against him as I understand it: He's bad for surviving 2 close lynches, and talking off topic is pretty bad, but there might be something there. If there is, it would be found in his person reaction to his own suspicion by those who know his play the best.Dom wrote:Made-- I'm confused-- what exactly is your stance on Vompatti????
RIPIYWG FZ.
What is irrational about this vote?Ricochet wrote:For me, Vompatti's own behaviour weighs more right now. First two day votes, he acts in a self-described zany way, throwing votes around. Then on Day 2 he suddenly acts serious and bandwagons (in, as I've already mentioned, an irrational way and also instead of backing up some serious baddie-naming...or at least vote for one of them accordingly) . Even if he wouldn't be a polarizing part in how voting went lately, I'd still find that suspicious by default. I may, thus, also vote again for him.
Vompatti wrote:Because it's essential to the civilian cause that I save myself.Metalmarsh89 wrote:Why not FZ?
If you're implying that he's hinting, Idgaf, nor should anyone else, especially if he doesn't defend himself.Metalmarsh89 wrote:Vompatti wrote:Because it's essential to the civilian cause that I save myself.Metalmarsh89 wrote:Why not FZ?
what does this mean?Made wrote:If you're implying that he's hinting, Idgaf, nor should anyone else, especially if he doesn't defend himself.Metalmarsh89 wrote:Vompatti wrote:Because it's essential to the civilian cause that I save myself.Metalmarsh89 wrote:Why not FZ?
I'm not implying anything of the sort.Made wrote:If you're implying that he's hinting, Idgaf, nor should anyone else, especially if he doesn't defend himself.Metalmarsh89 wrote:Vompatti wrote:Because it's essential to the civilian cause that I save myself.Metalmarsh89 wrote:Why not FZ?
Dom, maybe it has something to do with this, and the fact that llama approves.Made wrote:At this exact moment I would vote Vompi, But i would like to hear other players opinion on my read of SVS, or just any feedback at all due to my crippling need for others approval.Dom wrote:Who would you like to lynch?Made wrote:Comment on the above if applicable, if not, then pursue other leads.Dom wrote:What do you propose we do today?Made wrote:The case against him as I understand it: He's bad for surviving 2 close lynches, and talking off topic is pretty bad, but there might be something there. If there is, it would be found in his person reaction to his own suspicion by those who know his play the best.Dom wrote:Made-- I'm confused-- what exactly is your stance on Vompatti????
RIPIYWG FZ.
Timing and context. Self-preservation votes are understandable, but less so when you're most surely no longer in danger (i.e. the vote gap between him and MP at that time). And it's even less understandable, imo, when before that you outright called two other players to be "terrorists" latching on to Llama's theory. I know it's been said, in case of major voting trends, that baddie behaviour is more likely to be reflected in votes outside those trends, but in this case I personally would have prefered to see Vomps back up his baddie-naming. Him bandwagoning for MP certainly doesn't make him look any better to me.Metalmarsh89 wrote:What is irrational about this vote?Ricochet wrote:For me, Vompatti's own behaviour weighs more right now. First two day votes, he acts in a self-described zany way, throwing votes around. Then on Day 2 he suddenly acts serious and bandwagons (in, as I've already mentioned, an irrational way and also instead of backing up some serious baddie-naming...or at least vote for one of them accordingly) . Even if he wouldn't be a polarizing part in how voting went lately, I'd still find that suspicious by default. I may, thus, also vote again for him.
Vompatti wrote:Because it's essential to the civilian cause that I save myself.Metalmarsh89 wrote:Why not FZ?
The vote gap was only two, and there were around seven or eight votes still missing (most of which never came). Also. Llama's theory had already been disputed when FZ and niogigouugykyu for some reason chose to follow it.Ricochet wrote:I don't think I see the hinting part in Vompatti's vote.
Timing and context. Self-preservation votes are understandable, but less so when you're most surely no longer in danger (i.e. the vote gap between him and MP at that time). And it's even less understandable, imo, when before that you outright called two other players to be "terrorists" latching on to Llama's theory. I know it's been said, in case of major voting trends, that baddie behaviour is more likely to be reflected in votes outside those trends, but in this case I personally would have prefered to see Vomps back up his baddie-naming. Him bandwagoning for MP certainly doesn't make him look any better to me.Metalmarsh89 wrote:What is irrational about this vote?Ricochet wrote:For me, Vompatti's own behaviour weighs more right now. First two day votes, he acts in a self-described zany way, throwing votes around. Then on Day 2 he suddenly acts serious and bandwagons (in, as I've already mentioned, an irrational way and also instead of backing up some serious baddie-naming...or at least vote for one of them accordingly) . Even if he wouldn't be a polarizing part in how voting went lately, I'd still find that suspicious by default. I may, thus, also vote again for him.
Vompatti wrote:Because it's essential to the civilian cause that I save myself.Metalmarsh89 wrote:Why not FZ?
Why would you vote for SVS, if you could?
Is that regardless of her role, or do you know her role?Vompatti wrote:Were they any more inclined to vote MP though? If Lizzy was here she would defend me.
Yes.Metalmarsh89 wrote:Is that regardless of her role, or do you know her role?Vompatti wrote:Were they any more inclined to vote MP though? If Lizzy was here she would defend me.
That's what I figured.Long Con wrote:I think Lizzy and Vomps support each other in all games, isn't that right?
You didn't seem invested in voting a baddie rather than voting a civ yesterday, though.Vompatti wrote:I've never pretended not to be useless, yet I don't understand why the civs would rather vote for me than any of the baddies.
And I won't be voting a baddie today either.Ricochet wrote:You didn't seem invested in voting a baddie rather than voting a civ yesterday, though.Vompatti wrote:I've never pretended not to be useless, yet I don't understand why the civs would rather vote for me than any of the baddies.
I'm planning on voting Vompatti, but this is kind of BS. I would have voted to preserve myself if I were in Vompatti's situation as well. There WAS a very real possibility he would be lynched. Why do you think we're discussing the "saves"? Non active players could pop in and vote, things change peoples minds... this is a rather contrived shot at a player who I think has enough suspicion around him already to vote for. You are justifying your vote for someone in the worst possible way, tbh.Ricochet wrote:Of the seven votes remaining, half were inactive players (out of which the only thing Lizzy did so far in this game was to actually defend you) and the other half had offered no real feedback on you or were not inclined to vote you. The momentum of voting you was pretty dead and gone. Llama's initial theory has been disputed and contested (including by me), but your own behaviour and the voting patterns of the last two lynches have since aggravated things.
I'll be voting Vompatti today. Made wrote:The reason I'm quick to explain away voting specifically, is because of how easy it is for a civvie to have a shitty voting record. That said, I just read Vomp....wtf dude?
Let' take it this way: Vomp, Do you have any opinions at this point on any player, or things you want to investigate, or defenses of your play (IE, love for the theme, or lack of time) that you'd like to commit to?
If you don't answer this questions, I might have to vote you.
Just vote for me, I think I've deserved it.Made wrote:Riddle me this Vomp:Made wrote:The reason I'm quick to explain away voting specifically, is because of how easy it is for a civvie to have a shitty voting record. That said, I just read Vomp....wtf dude?
Let' take it this way: Vomp, Do you have any opinions at this point on any player, or things you want to investigate, or defenses of your play (IE, love for the theme, or lack of time) that you'd like to commit to?
If you don't answer this questions, I might have to vote you.
You are wrong in assuming I meant Vomps' D2 vote is the only aggravating thing in his behaviour or that I'll vote him just on those grounds. You may be right in me being too pinged by his save-vote and by him not backing up possibly the only serious thing he stated (or defence he made) in the game, but that's just how I felt.Dom wrote:I'm planning on voting Vompatti, but this is kind of BS. I would have voted to preserve myself if I were in Vompatti's situation as well. There WAS a very real possibility he would be lynched. Why do you think we're discussing the "saves"? Non active players could pop in and vote, things change peoples minds... this is a rather contrived shot at a player who I think has enough suspicion around him already to vote for. You are justifying your vote for someone in the worst possible way, tbh.Ricochet wrote:Of the seven votes remaining, half were inactive players (out of which the only thing Lizzy did so far in this game was to actually defend you) and the other half had offered no real feedback on you or were not inclined to vote you. The momentum of voting you was pretty dead and gone. Llama's initial theory has been disputed and contested (including by me), but your own behaviour and the voting patterns of the last two lynches have since aggravated things.
Vompatti wrote:Just vote for me, I think I've deserved it.Made wrote:Riddle me this Vomp:Made wrote:The reason I'm quick to explain away voting specifically, is because of how easy it is for a civvie to have a shitty voting record. That said, I just read Vomp....wtf dude?
Let' take it this way: Vomp, Do you have any opinions at this point on any player, or things you want to investigate, or defenses of your play (IE, love for the theme, or lack of time) that you'd like to commit to?
If you don't answer this questions, I might have to vote you.
thellama73 wrote:I'm self voting today.
My mind has changed on Made. He's no longer on my radar.Roxy wrote:Llama - yes I understand my votes look bad but you are wrong when you say MP was not on my radar when in fact I said I thought Canuck had made some decent points - but - the top 3 vote getters last round were MP, Vomps and MM I had not read back on MP and bc I was unsure of my vote rather than use someone else's opinions/suspicions for my vote reasoning I like to use my own. Out of the 3 MP's game stood out the most bc this game he was very back track-y but in the beginning of Dr Who he was laser focused and unbending in his suspicions so I went with MP.
i am sorry but I have to play my own way. I can tel you in the 100's of games I have played I have never tried to save a teamie mostly I am one of the first to vote a teamie or even make the case myself - in other words I have never once voted to save a teamie nor have I ever defended one ofc this is all wifom but it is checkable. if Vomps was my teammate I would have been the first to make the case or held onto your coattails of suspicion.
Wow Timmer has done a swift back stroke there.
I am voting for my own suspicion today Made but I have time.