Murder, Mayhem, and Mafia
https://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/
Get the hell out of here you lousy Brit.zeek wrote:Just going to bed and what do I see? My bloody name.
Announcement: Britain is declaring war on newts.
What? She would not have to "try too hard" by posting one sentence :PMovingPictures07 wrote:Seems to me she's trying too hard to fit a preconceived notion about her behavior.
^^^^^fingersplints wrote:So announcing a probable random is less suspicious then announcing that far in advance wanting to lynch a low poster?
Yes.fingersplints wrote:So announcing a probable random is less suspicious then announcing that far in advance wanting to lynch a low poster?
Roxy wrote:where is the pout smiley?
This is a good point, do you also think this is suspish, MP?fingersplints wrote:So announcing a probable random is less suspicious then announcing that far in advance wanting to lynch a low poster?
Not really. I can see it now "oh sorry but they didn't post much it isn't my fault"MovingPictures07 wrote:Yes.fingersplints wrote:So announcing a probable random is less suspicious then announcing that far in advance wanting to lynch a low poster?
Low poster voters take responsibility for their votes.
Randomizers do not.
As I pointed out in defending Roxy, I didn't commit to such a vote. I was just mulling it over.fingersplints wrote:So announcing a probable random is less suspicious then announcing that far in advance wanting to lynch a low poster?
This is now going to be problematic for me.Epignosis wrote:Hello. I just wanted to let you all know that you can't change your vote.
Not true, you're wrong.fingersplints wrote:Not really. I can see it now "oh sorry but they didn't post much it isn't my fault"MovingPictures07 wrote:Yes.fingersplints wrote:So announcing a probable random is less suspicious then announcing that far in advance wanting to lynch a low poster?
Low poster voters take responsibility for their votes.
Randomizers do not.
It can work that way in a full game, but not sure in this format.Made wrote:But wouldn't announcing you plan to vote for a low poster that far in advance be a bad idea, worst than saying you're going to vote random because it would encourage mafia to talk more, making it harder to find them?
How often have I actually randomed on Day 1 though MP? I don't even know myself but I do not do it as often as I used to.MovingPictures07 wrote:Seems to me she's trying too hard to fit a preconceived notion about her behavior.
Unless my aim was simply to encourage conversation, affording more chances for slip ups.Made wrote:But wouldn't announcing you plan to vote for a low poster that far in advance be a bad idea, worst than saying you're going to vote random because it would encourage mafia to talk more, making it harder to find them?
I don't think it's not true and I do not think I am wrong.MovingPictures07 wrote:Not true, you're wrong.fingersplints wrote:Not really. I can see it now "oh sorry but they didn't post much it isn't my fault"MovingPictures07 wrote:Yes.fingersplints wrote:So announcing a probable random is less suspicious then announcing that far in advance wanting to lynch a low poster?
Low poster voters take responsibility for their votes.
Randomizers do not.
That low poster voter bears that responsibility nonetheless. It's gotten Llama lynched MANY of times.
A randomizer, when questioned about their vote, which is hardly ever, just says "I randomized".
You mean like, getting lynched on Day 1 for you?MovingPictures07 wrote:Consequently, I will look for players trying to seem too hard to appear like their normal playstyle without genuinely contributing.MovingPictures07 wrote:So let's think about this.
Given people's responses, apparently it is more suspicious for one to change up one's own playstyle from game to game than it is to not, regardless of whether the circumstances were different (in this case, this type of game is very different from a full mafia game).
Therefore, it would be more logical for a baddie to try to confine oneself to one's usual playing style.
It encourages discussion. Discussion, aka more posting, gives more time for baddies to "slip up", as Logan pointed out.Made wrote:But wouldn't announcing you plan to vote for a low poster that far in advance be a bad idea, worst than saying you're going to vote random because it would encourage mafia to talk more, making it harder to find them?
Give it another ten minutes or so and I'll tell you. I want to see where things go without putting anyone on defense.juliets wrote:what is your ping llama?
I can assure you that Llama getting lynched for gunning after low posters on multiple occasions proves you wrong, but you're entitled to your beliefs.fingersplints wrote:I don't think it's not true and I do not think I am wrong.MovingPictures07 wrote:Not true, you're wrong.fingersplints wrote:Not really. I can see it now "oh sorry but they didn't post much it isn't my fault"MovingPictures07 wrote:Yes.fingersplints wrote:So announcing a probable random is less suspicious then announcing that far in advance wanting to lynch a low poster?
Low poster voters take responsibility for their votes.
Randomizers do not.
That low poster voter bears that responsibility nonetheless. It's gotten Llama lynched MANY of times.
A randomizer, when questioned about their vote, which is hardly ever, just says "I randomized".
Already fixed.Epignosis wrote:This is now going to be problematic for me.Epignosis wrote:Hello. I just wanted to let you all know that you can't change your vote.
That's not playstyle.Epignosis wrote:You mean like, getting lynched on Day 1 for you?MovingPictures07 wrote:Consequently, I will look for players trying to seem too hard to appear like their normal playstyle without genuinely contributing.MovingPictures07 wrote:So let's think about this.
Given people's responses, apparently it is more suspicious for one to change up one's own playstyle from game to game than it is to not, regardless of whether the circumstances were different (in this case, this type of game is very different from a full mafia game).
Therefore, it would be more logical for a baddie to try to confine oneself to one's usual playing style.
Ok so thats ONE PERSON. what about everyone else that isnt llama? several of us said we might vote boogsMovingPictures07 wrote:I can assure you that Llama getting lynched for gunning after low posters on multiple occasions proves you wrong, but you're entitled to your beliefs.fingersplints wrote:I don't think it's not true and I do not think I am wrong.MovingPictures07 wrote:Not true, you're wrong.fingersplints wrote:Not really. I can see it now "oh sorry but they didn't post much it isn't my fault"MovingPictures07 wrote:Yes.fingersplints wrote:So announcing a probable random is less suspicious then announcing that far in advance wanting to lynch a low poster?
Low poster voters take responsibility for their votes.
Randomizers do not.
That low poster voter bears that responsibility nonetheless. It's gotten Llama lynched MANY of times.
A randomizer, when questioned about their vote, which is hardly ever, just says "I randomized".
I was going to point out that I always go after low posters, absent a better ping, but then I realized tha this would condemn me under your theory of acting normal being suspicious.MovingPictures07 wrote:[It's gotten Llama lynched MANY of times.
So in 10 minutes everyone will rush to vote in a bandwagon? You are trying to provoke a bandwagon?thellama73 wrote:Give it another ten minutes or so and I'll tell you. I want to see where things go without putting anyone on defense.juliets wrote:what is your ping llama?
I already told you: this has happened several times on this site, with Llama typically being the victim.fingersplints wrote:I have seen many times a low poster get lynched, turn up a civvie, and its the posters fault for not posting not the people who voted them.
I don't like MP saying its not true and I am wrong. If I had time to go find examples I would but I dont
having hosted a lot I know this to be true as well - MP search your heart you know this to be truefingersplints wrote:I have seen many times a low poster get lynched, turn up a civvie, and its the posters fault for not posting not the people who voted them.
I don't like MP saying its not true and I am wrong. If I had time to go find examples I would but I dont
Umm right now? Rox was getting called suspicious for randomizing.MovingPictures07 wrote:I already told you: this has happened several times on this site, with Llama typically being the victim.fingersplints wrote:I have seen many times a low poster get lynched, turn up a civvie, and its the posters fault for not posting not the people who voted them.
I don't like MP saying its not true and I am wrong. If I had time to go find examples I would but I dont
Tell me this, splints:
When has a randomizer ever been held truly responsible for their vote?
I have been lynched plenty bc of my randomed votes - you know this alsoMovingPictures07 wrote:I already told you: this has happened several times on this site, with Llama typically being the victim.fingersplints wrote:I have seen many times a low poster get lynched, turn up a civvie, and its the posters fault for not posting not the people who voted them.
I don't like MP saying its not true and I am wrong. If I had time to go find examples I would but I dont
Tell me this, splints:
When has a randomizer ever been held truly responsible for their vote?
When the game is over halfway complete? Yes.Roxy wrote:having hosted a lot I know this to be true as well - MP search your heart you know this to be truefingersplints wrote:I have seen many times a low poster get lynched, turn up a civvie, and its the posters fault for not posting not the people who voted them.
I don't like MP saying its not true and I am wrong. If I had time to go find examples I would but I dont
Rox didn't randomize either though she said she might.MovingPictures07 wrote:Splints, re: Boogs, an intent to vote someone is not an actual vote.
Llama has voted low posters on D1 and gotten eyed heavily for it. So have I, even, though I don't do that nearly as often because I almost always find a better reason on D1.
No, I don't want a bandwagon. I want people to come to their own conclusions, which is why I'm not revealing my ping yet.S~V~S wrote:So in 10 minutes everyone will rush to vote in a bandwagon? You are trying to provoke a bandwagon?thellama73 wrote:Give it another ten minutes or so and I'll tell you. I want to see where things go without putting anyone on defense.juliets wrote:what is your ping llama?
Rox is known for randomizing.fingersplints wrote:Rox didn't randomize either though she said she might.MovingPictures07 wrote:Splints, re: Boogs, an intent to vote someone is not an actual vote.
Llama has voted low posters on D1 and gotten eyed heavily for it. So have I, even, though I don't do that nearly as often because I almost always find a better reason on D1.
So, the intent there is suspicious but not the intent to vote a low poster. Right
Why are you pretending like this game is a normal mafia game anyways? It clearly isn't. So because people didn't use it as an excuse to vote someone after 4 RL days they might in a game where they only have an hour to find suspicionsMovingPictures07 wrote:I cannot recall any game in the history of this site where anyone was voted on D2 for "randomizing" D1.
Maybe not here on this site that has not been around long but on TP, RM, STV and poss HV I can't remember on HV so we will not count itMovingPictures07 wrote:I cannot recall any game in the history of this site where anyone was voted on D2 for "randomizing" D1.
I'm not pretending this game is like a normal game, anywhere.fingersplints wrote:Why are you pretending like this game is a normal mafia game anyways? It clearly isn't. So because people didn't use it as an excuse to vote someone after 4 RL days they might in a game where they only have an hour to find suspicionsMovingPictures07 wrote:I cannot recall any game in the history of this site where anyone was voted on D2 for "randomizing" D1.
I don't want you looking at me because of consistency. I'm trying to avoid suspicion.MovingPictures07 wrote:I don't like how subdued Epig is being.