Murder, Mayhem, and Mafia
https://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/
I encourage you to ask questions! Off topic just means your post has absolutely nothing to do with the game at all. For example:Snow Dog wrote:I have a question. When is a post considered off topic and needing to be green?
My last noob question. I promise, promise, promise....
Thanks Rob!Epignosis wrote:I encourage you to ask questions! Off topic just means your post has absolutely nothing to do with the game at all. For example:Snow Dog wrote:I have a question. When is a post considered off topic and needing to be green?
My last noob question. I promise, promise, promise....
Last night, I roasted a chicken and whipped up some creamy shiitake risotto to go with it.
Vompatti wrote:I wouldn't mind whipping up some creamy shiitake risotto, if you know what I mean.
Vompatti wrote:I wouldn't mind whipping up some creamy shiitake risotto, if you know what I mean.
You're hungry?MP, I had accepted your explanation, and I can well understand being protective of new players to your site (I have done the same at RM), however, you are really hammering this thing home and they are not all new players. Now you have noted that the first person to bring up non-voters was also a newbie... but excuse llama on the basis that it was "logical". I did go back and read through what He-Man said, and he actually mentioned that it was a good way to get discussion going. To answer your question, no, I did not think it a weird thing for someone to say considering it is Day 1 and we have to look somewhere.MovingPictures07 wrote:This is a decent observation. I could just as easily foresee both scenarios, but you're right in that it did sound a tad overly-defensive. Now what that means, good question. Maybe Boomslang can clarify? I assume he'll claim the latter of your two proposed thoughts here, but it helps to get a person's response to gauge the intention, as I've stated previously.thellama73 wrote:He seemed annoyed that people were suspecting the non-Stridor voters as baddies. Since he is a non-Stridor voter, if he were a baddie he would probably react as such. On the other hand, he may just be a fearful civvie who happened not to vote for Stridor (a position I can certainly relate to.) Still, the tone in the post seemed a little desperate to me.MovingPictures07 wrote:That's an interesting observation re: Boomslang, care to elaborate?thellama73 wrote:I still like the idea of voting off non-participants, not for any strategic reason, but to make the game more fun. However, Boomslang's defensive response to the Stridor theory struck me as a little suspect.
I know you said it makes sense now, but I wanted to clarify this, especially because, looking at He-Man's post again, it still strikes me as strange.LittleTiger wrote:Wow, what an excellent start to what looks like it will be an EPIC game! Posts are phenomenal, Epignosis!
The discussion so far is awesome for a Day 1. Personally, I am going to look at all players - regardless of which vehicle they chose. I will base my suspicion on thread activity.But I love all the ideas and theories so far.
It did ping me a little that MP didn't want the non-voters looked at - my first thought was, ah, maybe he has a team mate or two in that groupHowever, his later explanation makes sense.
Oh and FYI - I totally phase out on the math so will be skimming those posts
Hi Snow Dog - welcome to your first game!Just wanted to point out that you cannot edit your posts in mafia
Love the first game picture, Spaghetti!
I thought it was weird that only after 24 hours someone as their first post of the day would be all, Let's look at non-posters! Let me again emphasize that Day 1 had barely started. It would be a different story if later in the game, and even if near the end of Day 1. That's totally understandable. Hell, I've voted for no shows on Day 1's before because I felt there was nothing better to go off of (as recently as Futurama over on RM, where I almost got lynched for that vote and was a civvie), so I wasn't squashing discussion.
Don't you think it was a weird thing to say? It struck me as particularly opportunistic in a possibly baddie way. I'm still waiting on He-Man's response to my inquiry because honestly that's my biggest ping thus far, combined with the fact that he echoed Dom's post here:
Still giving him the BOTD, obviously, as what he could respond with could clear my ping -- but that's the only occurrence that really made my eyebrow crick. Though we have more than 24 hours still, so I have to echo that the discussion level has been insightful and beneficial so far.He-Man wrote:I agree with this we seem in the midst of chaosDom wrote:This is likely a chaotic discussion that the baddies are using against us.
Llama's posts on the other hand, while he did bring up the idea of voting for no-shows, have struck me as logically-based (he seems to consistently consider many possible scenarios to items that he and others bring up) and he does seem like he is throwing many theories/thoughts out there to see how people react (which he also admitted), so his behavior didn't strike me the same way that He-Man's has.
Also, Re: Kate's point, you guys ignored those players for MANY day periods in that game. If we still have quiet players after 2 night periods, I'm pretty much always more than willing to give them the good old(and we all should be) because I try to encourage them to participate so that we can get as much information and people's thoughts in the thread as possible. I just think it's a bit weird and counter-productive to fly out of the gate and accuse them as lynch topics, especially in a game with total mafia newbies.
on you.I sure am!Kate wrote:Vompatti wrote:I wouldn't mind whipping up some creamy shiitake risotto, if you know what I mean.
I understand that. I would agree with your assessment here. Thanks for the response.AllAlongTheBoardwalk wrote:MovingPictures07 wrote:Understandable. What do you think of the Non-Stridor theory that baddies might have spread teammates across the non-Stridor options or do you think that it's null and void? And do you have any idea whom you might vote for yet?Snow Dog wrote:MovingPictures07 wrote:Alright, we still have over 24 hours left, but whom haven't we heard from still? Reptar, DP, Ishar, KL05? Looking at who has posted, there are still quite a lot of names I want to hear more from as well. Any thoughts, Aces, AATB, Anna, DH, Snow Dog, SD, Vomps, etc.? Doesn't even have to be a suspicion, but at least something regarding what has happened so far?
Well I'm new to this. This is my first game. I hadn't even heard of this mafia thing until a few days ago. Interesting to read peoples theories so far but got nothing to add at the moment.
It's my first time playing as well and I feel like I'm still taking things in like Snow Dog.
But to answer your question- I could see a baddie having the forethought to see this argument coming, or a goodie wanting to go for the prize. It seems to be agreed upon, if I’m reading this right, that the odds aren’t great either way so I don’t think anyone deserves a pass. Thus, I really don’t feel comfortable singling anyone out at this point but I'm open to suggestion.
Woah, defensive mode much? Hammering, how? I mentioned my initial observation it was weird, then explained my actions because people questioned it, and then elaborated on my only big ping so far. And that's hammering? I even stated more than once I was giving He-Man the benefit of the doubt, but that I found it was a weird observation. I still don't see how it's not weird; could you perhaps explain that to me? It really screams to me here like you might be defending a baddie teammate if He-Man is indeed bad. I am still more than open to the possibility that he is not, but he has not yet responded to me.LittleTiger wrote:
MP, I had accepted your explanation, and I can well understand being protective of new players to your site (I have done the same at RM), however, you are really hammering this thing home and they are not all new players. Now you have noted that the first person to bring up non-voters was also a newbie... but excuse llama on the basis that it was "logical". I did go back and read through what He-Man said, and he actually mentioned that it was a good way to get discussion going. To answer your question, no, I did not think it a weird thing for someone to say considering it is Day 1 and we have to look somewhere.
To me, it appears that you are over-explaining, trying hard to refocus us to look at dom and he-man. Perhaps you are being over-defensive, MP as you accuse boomslang of being? So, now I have an
I dont think I said let's look at no shows I said I liked the a da city of the OP in stepping forward and starting talking and i felt you came in and tried to stifle that.MovingPictures07 wrote:Dom gave me an acceptable answer and clarification as to his post, so I never found him suspicious. I specifically earlier said (and look at my posts) that I had a few people on my radar but was waiting to see how they'd respond. llama and Dom made me wonder a bit with what they had posted, but later on clarified, and I never outright voiced suspicion of them.
I do look forward to what He-Man has to say just so I can better understand his train of thought -- because to me, it seemed he was latching onto the let's look at no-shows, and then with his agreement with Dom, AND then LT's OTT defense, it all strikes me as pingy. I'd say He-Man and LT, and then followed by Boomslang because I think llama had a good observation there, would be where I think my vote might be going at this point. Again, I'd love to hear more from He-Man and Boomslang, as well as those other players I called out earlier. I noticed Snow Dog didn't respond to my post, so I'd like to hear more from him too.
I've gotten a lot of studying done today and taken breaks reading/posting, but I'll be busier after 4:30PM EST. I'll be around before the vote ends early tomorrow afternoon, and likely will be able to pop in once or twice before then, but that's probably it.
I meant to ask you this last night, but I never got back on to ask it and forgot until just now. You did say last night that the Stridor voters should be given a pass for this lynch, did you not? Anyway, my question was this...You said that you thought the baddies can be found in the non-Stridor voters based on the fact that Stridor voters got info. I can understand the logic there except for the fact that you are basically saying that civvies wouldn't be interested in actually winning the race but that they would be more interested in getting the info. IIRC, there were 2 vehicles that were basically "favorites" to win, there was one with info, and then there were two vehicles that everyone pretty much agreed had no chance of winning. I was curious why you didn't factor this into your thoughts about the non-Stridor voters?blindfaeth wrote:The boomslang mention made sense to me.
Also, as far as I'm aware, no one was even close to saying "lets lynch someone solely on vehicle choice" - rather, it was a starting point to narrow down the choices. I think its very likely the majority of them are in the group of non-stidor voters for reasons I've already explained. That being said, I was hoping to get discussion started on people within that group who have done something suspicious/cricked eyebrows. I think its a stretch/overreaction to explain it away as "don't lynch someone for what they picked in the poll dude"
Umm... I am not being "defensive", I was pointing out that despite me saying that I had accepted your explanation (which I found, you know, acceptable), you had to reassert what I had already accepted. So, it makes me wonder why all over again. You seem overly defensive, to be honest. Especially when you categorize my post as "OTT" which it certainly was not. I was simply stating my observation of your continued "defense" of your post casting aspersions on those who wanted to look at non-voters.MovingPictures07 wrote:Woah, defensive mode much? Hammering, how? I mentioned my initial observation it was weird, then explained my actions because people questioned it, and then elaborated on my only big ping so far. And that's hammering? I even stated more than once I was giving He-Man the benefit of the doubt, but that I found it was a weird observation. I still don't see how it's not weird; could you perhaps explain that to me? It really screams to me here like you might be defending a baddie teammate if He-Man is indeed bad. I am still more than open to the possibility that he is not, but he has not yet responded to me.LittleTiger wrote:
MP, I had accepted your explanation, and I can well understand being protective of new players to your site (I have done the same at RM), however, you are really hammering this thing home and they are not all new players. Now you have noted that the first person to bring up non-voters was also a newbie... but excuse llama on the basis that it was "logical". I did go back and read through what He-Man said, and he actually mentioned that it was a good way to get discussion going. To answer your question, no, I did not think it a weird thing for someone to say considering it is Day 1 and we have to look somewhere.
To me, it appears that you are over-explaining, trying hard to refocus us to look at dom and he-man. Perhaps you are being over-defensive, MP as you accuse boomslang of being? So, now I have an
Not all new players? Let's see, looking at the poll: AllAlongtheBoardwalk, AnnaDanielle, Elohcin, Ishar, KeaponLaffin, reptaronice, Russtifinko, Snow Dog have all never played an online mafia game ever before. Boomslang, JJLehto, Vompatti, and SpaghettiEverywhere have what I would call limited experience. I was also pretty sure llama73 was completely new but he did indicate he has played games similarly to this, but that's another player as well. How many of these players have put more than 1 or 2 posts into the thread so far, LT, and did so after only 24 HOURS when the Prologue was over?
You're twisting my words. I did not say the way llama did so with regards to no-shows was logical, I said that his behavior throughout the game has been logical. He has been vocal, more than willing to consider more than one side of the coin, etc. I could be wrong about him, but he hasn't pinged me. He-Man has. Do you have reason to believe He-Man is a civvie? Because if you do, and it's logical, I'm more than willing to listen to you.
Also, please point where I ONCE mentioned Dom in my posts. Where? I don't find Dom suspicious currently. This response is incredibly over the top of you.
Let's just quote my original post for reference.reywaS wrote:I meant to ask you this last night, but I never got back on to ask it and forgot until just now. You did say last night that the Stridor voters should be given a pass for this lynch, did you not? Anyway, my question was this...You said that you thought the baddies can be found in the non-Stridor voters based on the fact that Stridor voters got info. I can understand the logic there except for the fact that you are basically saying that civvies wouldn't be interested in actually winning the race but that they would be more interested in getting the info. IIRC, there were 2 vehicles that were basically "favorites" to win, there was one with info, and then there were two vehicles that everyone pretty much agreed had no chance of winning. I was curious why you didn't factor this into your thoughts about the non-Stridor voters?blindfaeth wrote:The boomslang mention made sense to me.
Also, as far as I'm aware, no one was even close to saying "lets lynch someone solely on vehicle choice" - rather, it was a starting point to narrow down the choices. I think its very likely the majority of them are in the group of non-stidor voters for reasons I've already explained. That being said, I was hoping to get discussion started on people within that group who have done something suspicious/cricked eyebrows. I think its a stretch/overreaction to explain it away as "don't lynch someone for what they picked in the poll dude"
#1, please tell me where I said we should give the Stridor voters a pass. All I was inferring, was that if I were on a baddie team, I would have strongly recommended that only one of my teammates vote the stridor option to get the info. Since we wouldn't have needed the info more than once, the rest of us could all vote for another option & try to win the race. That being said, I think that it is very likely that 10 baddies are all among the non-Stridor voters. I could be wrong, but I think it makes a lot of sense, and is really logically sound.blindfaeth wrote: Another awesome post, Epignosis
Thanks for posting this llama! So, I didn't want to say anything during the time the poll was up, but now I can speak my mind. I really think a good bit of the baddies will be among the non-stridor votes, and here's why.
Under the assumption that you are going to get the same info for picking Stridor as anyone else who picked it, I think a baddie team with BTSC would have one person pick Stridor to have an opportunity to get the info. Since they only need to get the info once in theory, the others would probably try to pick something that would win the race and get there first. So that is my thought process. What do others think? Obviously, the same applies to civvies, and there are several civvie BTSC teams. But I am definitely keeping this list handy, because I think a lot of the baddies will be among the non-stridor votes.
list.I have played the in-person party game before, but not the online version, and not with such complex roles. Your support is appreciated, nevertheless!He-Man wrote:Also Mp I tbought llama was new to mafia and I wanted to encourage his keeness by supporting his post regarding no shows. Inever once said I agreed with it or was going to follow him.
Hey llama dont confuse me supporting your eagerness to supporting your method having played many games I predicted you saying what you did would lead to a wealth of discussiion. Which is what I supoortedthellama73 wrote:I am satisfied my MP's explanation of his initial comment, at least for the time being. It's understandable why he would be suspicious of He-Man's and my eagerness to lynch non-participants. Personally, I don't find his actions suspicious so far. Plus, he called me logical, which makes me happy.
blindfaeth wrote:that doesn't matter, because before we got the info, we didn't know the answer to that question.
Here ya go:blindfaeth wrote:Let's just quote my original post for reference.reywaS wrote:I meant to ask you this last night, but I never got back on to ask it and forgot until just now. You did say last night that the Stridor voters should be given a pass for this lynch, did you not? Anyway, my question was this...You said that you thought the baddies can be found in the non-Stridor voters based on the fact that Stridor voters got info. I can understand the logic there except for the fact that you are basically saying that civvies wouldn't be interested in actually winning the race but that they would be more interested in getting the info. IIRC, there were 2 vehicles that were basically "favorites" to win, there was one with info, and then there were two vehicles that everyone pretty much agreed had no chance of winning. I was curious why you didn't factor this into your thoughts about the non-Stridor voters?blindfaeth wrote:The boomslang mention made sense to me.
Also, as far as I'm aware, no one was even close to saying "lets lynch someone solely on vehicle choice" - rather, it was a starting point to narrow down the choices. I think its very likely the majority of them are in the group of non-stidor voters for reasons I've already explained. That being said, I was hoping to get discussion started on people within that group who have done something suspicious/cricked eyebrows. I think its a stretch/overreaction to explain it away as "don't lynch someone for what they picked in the poll dude"
#1, please tell me where I said we should give the Stridor voters a pass. All I was inferring, was that if I were on a baddie team, I would have strongly recommended that only one of my teammates vote the stridor option to get the info. Since we wouldn't have needed the info more than once, the rest of us could all vote for another option & try to win the race. That being said, I think that it is very likely that 10 baddies are all among the non-Stridor voters. I could be wrong, but I think it makes a lot of sense, and is really logically sound.blindfaeth wrote: Another awesome post, Epignosis
Thanks for posting this llama! So, I didn't want to say anything during the time the poll was up, but now I can speak my mind. I really think a good bit of the baddies will be among the non-stridor votes, and here's why.
Under the assumption that you are going to get the same info for picking Stridor as anyone else who picked it, I think a baddie team with BTSC would have one person pick Stridor to have an opportunity to get the info. Since they only need to get the info once in theory, the others would probably try to pick something that would win the race and get there first. So that is my thought process. What do others think? Obviously, the same applies to civvies, and there are several civvie BTSC teams. But I am definitely keeping this list handy, because I think a lot of the baddies will be among the non-stridor votes.
#2, I never said that civvies wouldn't be interested in winning the race. I basically said that among the 21 or whatever non-Stridor votes, I think theres 10 baddies. That's kind of an odd statement to even make, rey. Why would I think there are 21 baddies when I can look on the front page and count to 12? Basically, you're trying to say that civvies would be more interested in getting info, but what I'm really trying to say is that only one baddie on each team would be interested in getting the info. Therefore, there are a lot more baddies among the non-info gaining vehicle.
#3, I didn't factor that into my theory because it doesnt make sense
linki x3
and you responded with this...now, you didn't quote me, but you responded directly after my above post:reywaS wrote:Just so I'm understanding you correctly, are you saying that we should be looking at all non Stridor voters today and giving the Stridor voters a pass because the more you post the more it sounds like this is the case???blindfaeth wrote:it's also possible that the baddies are trying to dissuade us from thinking my theory is a good idea, which is what I think is happening
blindfaeth wrote:That's exactly what I'm saying TBH o.o
I agree 100%timmer wrote:As someone who promoted the idea that the baddie teams likely only had one member each in the Stridor group, I'm starting to feel antsy about the whole thing. Yes, the logic is sound, and yes, The Maths suggest that the other group has better odds of containing baddies but
1. We don't know what the teams decided.
2. If they decided differently, we're walking into their game plan.
3. At this point, we need to move on.
Concentrate on who you think is suspicious, imo. I'm starting to feel like this constant chatter about Stridor vs non-Stridor is a way to suck up the hours, so we'll all panic and randomize.
Makes sense to me too. I'm willing to say at this point that I am leaning towards voting for Boomslang, as I find his defensiveness and then sudden silence to be suspicious. I could still change my mind though, depending on what happens tomorrow.reywaS wrote:I agree 100%timmer wrote:As someone who promoted the idea that the baddie teams likely only had one member each in the Stridor group, I'm starting to feel antsy about the whole thing. Yes, the logic is sound, and yes, The Maths suggest that the other group has better odds of containing baddies but
1. We don't know what the teams decided.
2. If they decided differently, we're walking into their game plan.
3. At this point, we need to move on.
Concentrate on who you think is suspicious, imo. I'm starting to feel like this constant chatter about Stridor vs non-Stridor is a way to suck up the hours, so we'll all panic and randomize.
Yes but did everyone here presume that the info would be the same for everyone? A team may for example make a gamble that each rider would get unique info. Or that Rob had a ten sided dice or somthing and rolled to choose the info for each rider.thellama73 wrote:blindfaeth wrote:that doesn't matter, because before we got the info, we didn't know the answer to that question.
That's true. Rob specifically said that no one had special knowledge of the vehicle choices.
Well take my theory and suck it, because you voted for Stridor and I'm voting for you, totally over itreywaS wrote:You didn't factor "civvies might want to actually win the race" into your theory??? Why not? Why wouldn't civvies want to win? You keep changing your "theory" around seemingly to fit whatever is being said. I don't understand at all.
:Oblindfaeth wrote:Well take my theory and suck it, because you voted for Stridor and I'm voting for you, totally over itreywaS wrote:You didn't factor "civvies might want to actually win the race" into your theory??? Why not? Why wouldn't civvies want to win? You keep changing your "theory" around seemingly to fit whatever is being said. I don't understand at all.
"Desperate" is a little much, don't you think? I was just saying there were legitimate reasons for either option for any player on any team. Vehicle choice is a good data point, but as Sock points out, the probability isn't overwhelming if we make the "one bad per team Stridor" assumption.thellama73 wrote:He seemed annoyed that people were suspecting the non-Stridor voters as baddies. Since he is a non-Stridor voter, if he were a baddie he would probably react as such. On the other hand, he may just be a fearful civvie who happened not to vote for Stridor (a position I can certainly relate to.) Still, the tone in the post seemed a little desperate to me.MovingPictures07 wrote:That's an interesting observation re: Boomslang, care to elaborate?thellama73 wrote:I still like the idea of voting off non-participants, not for any strategic reason, but to make the game more fun. However, Boomslang's defensive response to the Stridor theory struck me as a little suspect.
To be fair, there is a difference between "your theory is logically sound but I don't think it's a good way to look in that direction and here's why:" and "WHY YOU WANNA LOOK AT NON-STRIDOR VOTES BF? HUH?? HUH??!! WHUT IF CIVVIES WANTED TO WIN THE RACE TOO YO?"Boomslang wrote:"Desperate" is a little much, don't you think? I was just saying there were legitimate reasons for either option for any player on any team. Vehicle choice is a good data point, but as Sock points out, the probability isn't overwhelming if we make the "one bad per team Stridor" assumption.thellama73 wrote:He seemed annoyed that people were suspecting the non-Stridor voters as baddies. Since he is a non-Stridor voter, if he were a baddie he would probably react as such. On the other hand, he may just be a fearful civvie who happened not to vote for Stridor (a position I can certainly relate to.) Still, the tone in the post seemed a little desperate to me.MovingPictures07 wrote:That's an interesting observation re: Boomslang, care to elaborate?thellama73 wrote:I still like the idea of voting off non-participants, not for any strategic reason, but to make the game more fun. However, Boomslang's defensive response to the Stridor theory struck me as a little suspect.
As to blindfaeth, you're right, no one was saying "lynch based only on vehicle choice." But in all your posts thus far, your reasons for lynching have been:
1. Vehicle choice.
2. "You don't agree with my vehicle choice theory."
That's a mite reductio ad absurdum of my position, don't you think?blindfaeth wrote:
To be fair, there is a difference between "your theory is logically sound but I don't think it's a good way to look in that direction and here's why:" and "WHY YOU WANNA LOOK AT NON-STRIDOR VOTES BF? HUH?? HUH??!! WHUT IF CIVVIES WANTED TO WIN THE RACE TOO YO?"
Honestly, it makes you sound a bit wishy-washy. However, I'm not going to base my vote much on vehicle choices this early on. I think there are more substantial things we could be going off of.blindfaeth wrote:yes, yes i did. the point being my theory thinks its more likely that baddies are in the non-stridor votes, yet I'm voting for the baddie I found in the stridor vote
I agree. But like I said, I'm willing to wait around a bit on that one. Since I think it's more likely that baddies will make sure their teammates check in to participate, whereas unless a civvie has BTSC with someone that may not happen right away. Now if we get around to Day 2 or 3 and someone hasn't checked in, then I am willing to look at non-posters.Boomslang wrote:That's a mite reductio ad absurdum of my position, don't you think?blindfaeth wrote:
To be fair, there is a difference between "your theory is logically sound but I don't think it's a good way to look in that direction and here's why:" and "WHY YOU WANNA LOOK AT NON-STRIDOR VOTES BF? HUH?? HUH??!! WHUT IF CIVVIES WANTED TO WIN THE RACE TOO YO?"
Meanwhile, on other reasons to boot people, let us always remember the dreaded "real life" as a reason for inactivity. It's not like I spent my whole day in the lab or anything... But I do agree that failing to defend at all is suspicious.
I understand. Like I said, I wasn't stifling any discussion, perhaps I misunderstood your intentions.He-Man wrote:I dont think I said let's look at no shows I said I liked the a da city of the OP in stepping forward and starting talking and i felt you came in and tried to stifle that.MovingPictures07 wrote:Dom gave me an acceptable answer and clarification as to his post, so I never found him suspicious. I specifically earlier said (and look at my posts) that I had a few people on my radar but was waiting to see how they'd respond. llama and Dom made me wonder a bit with what they had posted, but later on clarified, and I never outright voiced suspicion of them.
I do look forward to what He-Man has to say just so I can better understand his train of thought -- because to me, it seemed he was latching onto the let's look at no-shows, and then with his agreement with Dom, AND then LT's OTT defense, it all strikes me as pingy. I'd say He-Man and LT, and then followed by Boomslang because I think llama had a good observation there, would be where I think my vote might be going at this point. Again, I'd love to hear more from He-Man and Boomslang, as well as those other players I called out earlier. I noticed Snow Dog didn't respond to my post, so I'd like to hear more from him too.
I've gotten a lot of studying done today and taken breaks reading/posting, but I'll be busier after 4:30PM EST. I'll be around before the vote ends early tomorrow afternoon, and likely will be able to pop in once or twice before then, but that's probably it.
And I do think all the maths is confusing this is Mafia not a maths test some people struggle like me and well I dont get all the maths. And when people are confused I believe the mafia take advantage. Which is why I commented on Dom's post because I felt there has been opportunity to blind side the civvies.
FYI Ilove all the chat its great
I wasn't reasserting, I felt like I wanted to add more to it, and elaborate on my ping for the day after I had given it some thought. I seem overly defensive, how? And your post was OTT, or at least that's how I read it.LittleTiger wrote:
Umm... I am not being "defensive", I was pointing out that despite me saying that I had accepted your explanation (which I found, you know, acceptable), you had to reassert what I had already accepted. So, it makes me wonder why all over again. You seem overly defensive, to be honest. Especially when you categorize my post as "OTT" which it certainly was not. I was simply stating my observation of your continued "defense" of your post casting aspersions on those who wanted to look at non-voters.
Did you or did you not quote Dom in the post I quoted that you wrote? I assumed you were trying to insinuate that he was suspect along with He-Man, so apologies for that assumption.
Okay, thanks for the clarification. I just wanted to try and understand your train of thought, and you have assisted that. I'm not sure it makes me feel any better about you, but I'm far from being bent that you're bad.He-Man wrote:Also Mp I tbought llama was new to mafia and I wanted to encourage his keeness by supporting his post regarding no shows. Inever once said I agreed with it or was going to follow him.
Also MP your tone to me sounds aggressive and I wonder why whoever disagrees with you is on your
list because of your post content, not because of the fact that you were necessarily responding to me, if that makes sense.Also, I'm not sure I understand fully why you voted for reywaS, BF, so can you elaborate on this?blindfaeth wrote:Well take my theory and suck it, because you voted for Stridor and I'm voting for you, totally over itreywaS wrote:You didn't factor "civvies might want to actually win the race" into your theory??? Why not? Why wouldn't civvies want to win? You keep changing your "theory" around seemingly to fit whatever is being said. I don't understand at all.
Now that you're here, any thoughts?DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:O_o
Because he was irritating me? Also, I have to admit I thought the vote was todayMovingPictures07 wrote:Also, I'm not sure I understand fully why you voted for reywaS, BF, so can you elaborate on this?blindfaeth wrote:Well take my theory and suck it, because you voted for Stridor and I'm voting for you, totally over itreywaS wrote:You didn't factor "civvies might want to actually win the race" into your theory??? Why not? Why wouldn't civvies want to win? You keep changing your "theory" around seemingly to fit whatever is being said. I don't understand at all.
I don't know if "because somebody irritated you" is a very good reason to vote to kill them... just my thinking. Rereading your back-and-forth with reywaS, he makes some good points about you being a bit wishy washy about your theories. that being said, I'm gonna have to agree with timmer here and say that this whole stridor/non-stridor business doesn't seem to be going anywhere at all.blindfaeth wrote:Because he was irritating me? Also, I have to admit I thought the vote was todayMovingPictures07 wrote:Also, I'm not sure I understand fully why you voted for reywaS, BF, so can you elaborate on this?blindfaeth wrote:Well take my theory and suck it, because you voted for Stridor and I'm voting for you, totally over itreywaS wrote:You didn't factor "civvies might want to actually win the race" into your theory??? Why not? Why wouldn't civvies want to win? You keep changing your "theory" around seemingly to fit whatever is being said. I don't understand at all.
Its better than a random vote on Day 1>SpaghettiEverywhere wrote:I don't know if "because somebody irritated you" is a very good reason to vote to kill them... just my thinking. Rereading your back-and-forth with reywaS, he makes some good points about you being a bit wishy washy about your theories. that being said, I'm gonna have to agree with timmer here and say that this whole stridor/non-stridor business doesn't seem to be going anywhere at all.blindfaeth wrote:Because he was irritating me? Also, I have to admit I thought the vote was todayMovingPictures07 wrote:Also, I'm not sure I understand fully why you voted for reywaS, BF, so can you elaborate on this?blindfaeth wrote:Well take my theory and suck it, because you voted for Stridor and I'm voting for you, totally over itreywaS wrote:You didn't factor "civvies might want to actually win the race" into your theory??? Why not? Why wouldn't civvies want to win? You keep changing your "theory" around seemingly to fit whatever is being said. I don't understand at all.
As for who I'm feeling suspicious of, It's hard for me to say any one person, there are still a lot who have been busy and are catching up or havent even posted yet. I dont think we should target any non voters as of right now, I would be more willing to do that on a day 2 or day 3 vote. The only person thats really pinging me in the slightest would be He-Man, mostly for not posting anything of real substantial analysis and really only saying things like (paraphrasing here) "lets start talking so we can find baddies"
I'm not sure how others feel, but I don't really see that claiming to be a civvie would make you a target. We all know that anything we say is going to be questioned and suspected of being false (as you've just demonstrated.) A civvie might feel that being honest about his role is safe because most people will not assume that he is being honest. Personally, I wouldn't conclude anything about a person's role from a civvie claim.Russtifinko wrote: I was actually pinged a bit by MP, and for different reasons than others have been. He was the first to make a claim to be a civvie on this thread. I don't have time to find the quote, unfortunately (have to go to work). Now, my logic on this could be totally off, so someone please correct me if that's the case, but I think making the first civvie claim of the game only makes sense if he's a member of the first baddie group to get a night kill. If he weren't then he'd be taking a big risk by saying that, because the baddies are trying to kill civvies and they just might believe him. llama also made a civvie claim later, but it seems less dangerous to be the second to do so, as the baddies only have one kill.
