The Syndicate

thellama73 wrote:

A Person wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Mafia is not about fairness. It's about trying to win by finding the members of the opposing team and killing them. Brutally.

At this point voting randomly seems likely to result in voting for someone not on my team, and since I can't pretend I have anything to go on I might as well try that.

I got some Maytag blue cheese today.

If you are a civ, this is certainly not true. Out of thirty-six players, only eight are baddies (ten if you count the indies.) So the odds are you will vote for someone on your own team if you vote randomly. Unless you are bad, or an indie, in which case, we should probably lynch you.

But from what I understand most teams seem to win as long as their not dead. That's a civvy win in my book :P

A Person wrote: But from what I understand most teams seem to win as long as their not dead. That's a civvy win in my book :P

And how do you propose they stay not dead, if you're randomly lynching civs and not the baddies who kill civs at night?

nutella is totally a baddie. Lynch that nub!!!

There's no way for me to know who's a baddie on day 1, and even if I did know I might be wrong, therefore I choose to randomize. As a ture communist I toss a Russian coin (20 копеек, CCCP 1979), and this is what I get:

tails
-> (1-18)

tails
-> (1-9)

heads tails tails (4-6)
tails tails tails (1-3)
heads tails tails (1-3)
-> (1-3)

tails tails tails (3)
heads heads heads (2)
tails tails heads (2)
- (2)

*votes AceofSpaces*

If you are going to randomize, I don't see why you would do it so early. What if some better evidence emerges tomorrow that would make Aces look good or someone else look bad? I don't understand the determination not to even try to find baddies on Day 1.

thellama73 wrote:

A Person wrote: But from what I understand most teams seem to win as long as their not dead. That's a civvy win in my book :P

And how do you propose they stay not dead, if you're randomly lynching civs and not the baddies who kill civs at night?

And how do you know who is a baddie then, unless you are one yourself and know your team mates? Randomising or going after someone based on their posts at this point (but from what I've seen, even during the last phases of the game) is the exact same thing. So I'd rather randomise or find excuses like the OT one and go along with it than act pseudo-suspicious about one's post.

I don't think it is the same thing to randomize or to make an educated guess. Of course you may be wrong, but going after something is better than going after nothing. Why not just randomize the entire game? YOu can never really be sure who the baddies are by their posts and votes, can you?

thellama73 wrote:I don't think it is the same thing to randomize or to make an educated guess. Of course you may be wrong, but going after something is better than going after nothing. Why not just randomize the entire game? YOu can never really be sure who the baddies are by their posts and votes, can you?

Still a guess, regardless of the attribute.

And that is exactly what's happening when you are civ. Oh I get bad vibes from X, Imma gonna vote for them k. Omgogmgo they're civ, i'm so sorry k.

How does someone "looking bad" on day 1 when practically nothing has happened in the game make them any more likely to be bad than good?

A Person wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

A Person wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Mafia is not about fairness. It's about trying to win by finding the members of the opposing team and killing them. Brutally.

At this point voting randomly seems likely to result in voting for someone not on my team, and since I can't pretend I have anything to go on I might as well try that.

I got some Maytag blue cheese today.

If you are a civ, this is certainly not true. Out of thirty-six players, only eight are baddies (ten if you count the indies.) So the odds are you will vote for someone on your own team if you vote randomly. Unless you are bad, or an indie, in which case, we should probably lynch you.

But from what I understand most teams seem to win as long as their not dead. That's a civvy win in my book :P

Ok. After catching up this statement regarding randomizing pings me... A lot. Specifically rationalizing that randomizing gives you better odds of voting for an enemy. If you are a civy this would not be the case... Vomps' coin toss hurts my brain more than it pings me.

Linki: Lizzy: I don't have a huge problem with randomizing when there is nothing to go on. It's the reasons given that sometimes bug me.

Linki: Llama: I agree with this statement, however, this is Day 1 and there is almost nothing to go on. It is almost impossible to make an educated guess.

Vompatti wrote:How does someone "looking bad" on day 1 when practically nothing has happened in the game make them any more likely to be bad than good?

That's the thing k, it doesn't. Day 1 arguments for argument's sake. :O
Also, your randomising method is just sublime. I almost shed a tear. :oOoOO

I realize we have the randomizing argument every game, and it really comes down to a difference in play style, so it doesn't really ping me about the randomizers. I still think they are wrong though, but I'll leave it at that.

thellama73 wrote:I realize we have the randomizing argument every game, and it really comes down to a difference in play style, so it doesn't really ping me about the randomizers. I still think they are wrong though, but I'll leave it at that.

That's fair I guess. It just seems to me it takes several days until guesses start to get baddies. Maybe it's because it takes a while for habits to form or for the numbers to dwindle to a point where individual players start making an obvious impact, maybe I'm too cautious for mafia.

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with randomizing. :P

thellama73 wrote:I realize we have the randomizing argument every game, and it really comes down to a difference in play style, so it doesn't really ping me about the randomizers. I still think they are wrong though, but I'll leave it at that.

Well, this game is a bit unique in that there are so many different win conditions. Usually, randomization is going to kill a civvie, as there are more of them than there are baddies. Here, however, there are effectively three teams of equal size: Ryan, Morally Ambiguous Civs (MACs, for short), and Fontaine/ADAM/Cohen (baddies). There's a lot of individual differences, but I believe I am correct in saying that each of these groups would be happiest if the other two groups were dead. Infighting can happen among the baddies, but it's not going to get them closer to victory than killing civs would. Long story short, I don't think randomization is as bad a way to go for the first vote this game than in other ones. However, I'd prefer to be more informed.

Vompatti wrote:

Nevinera wrote:linki: wtf vomps?

tl;dr: I'm probably going to randomize.

Bloody awesome, Vomp!!! (note that I did not quote the very long post with the stats on your coin flipping to lead to the post I quoted).

Still catching up....

I really do not want to randomize, so I am going to take an educated guess when the timing is right. I suppose this will parse us out by our opinions on collateral damage.

thellama73 wrote:I strongly discourage randomizing on day 1.

I am leaning towards a vote for llama - simply for starting the whole "random voting" AGAIN. It is never resolved, it always ends up with a long drawn out argument and people still will randomize on day 1 because, well, they see no reason at the time to vote anyone.

Also, some earlier comments you made were pingy (I quote them latest to earliest):

thellama73 wrote:Mafia is not about fairness. It's about trying to win by finding the members of the opposing team and killing them. Brutally.

Sounds like you are a killer.

thellama73 wrote:It is still very early, but I have two thoughts so far.

Thought the First: Nevinera is being very, very quiet. No doubt, a desperate attempt to survive longer than a couple of days for once, but it strikes me as odd. Could be nothing, could be a baddie lying low.

Thought the Second: I agree that there is probably at least one baddie hiding in the OT posts (although now that people have started saying that, it makes me nervous because I was having a lot of fun posting OT and now people will think I'm bad! Oh noes!) Lizzy seems to have deliberately drawn DH's vote, which seems unlikely to be a baddie move. Of the OT posters, Hedgeowl feels the most like a baddie to me with her "for sers, we need to get a baddie" talk, that sounds rather forced. Mind you, this is very, very weak evidence, but it is Day 1 and I wanted to post my thoughts to foster discussion. All this is subject to heavy revision depending on how the rest of the day progresses.

thellama73 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Sorry indiglo! Better luck next time!

So the game is now afoot. Time for some baddie-hunting!

Any suspects yet? We need to start making people sweat.

Consider yourself in sweat mode

Lastly:

thellama73 wrote:

nutella wrote: Boats' two posts here gave me a bit of a twitch. The "excited"/reckless/thrillseeking vibe is slightly off-putting, especially in regards to the "murderous" comment, which most of us took as a reason NOT to take it. I'm more inclined to brush off the several players who eagerly chose the plasmid immediately, but Boats pings me because he said this after much discussion of hesitancy/wariness.

It's a little early to be pointing fingers, don't you think? It's not even day one yet.

The classic baddie move - stifling convo.

So, in summary, I find you suspect because you attempt to make people feel bad for deciding to randomize, additionally, bringing up a subject that is commonly used to cast aspersions on those that choose to randomize AND HAS NO END conclusion. It is a typical baddie argument, imo. You gleefully participated in the OT convo, boosting your post count, and then blithely agreed that a baddie could be hiding amongst said OT posters (a little honesty there, in that you are, indeed a baddie hiding in the OT?) and you are guilty of trying to stifle discussion of possible pings by LA, citing that it was too early for pings... in a mafia game.

You, sir, will probably get my vote today.

LittleTiger wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I strongly discourage randomizing on day 1.

I am leaning towards a vote for llama - simply for starting the whole "random voting" AGAIN. It is never resolved, it always ends up with a long drawn out argument and people still will randomize on day 1 because, well, they see no reason at the time to vote anyone.

Also, some earlier comments you made were pingy (I quote them latest to earliest):

thellama73 wrote:Mafia is not about fairness. It's about trying to win by finding the members of the opposing team and killing them. Brutally.

Sounds like you are a killer.

thellama73 wrote:It is still very early, but I have two thoughts so far.

Thought the First: Nevinera is being very, very quiet. No doubt, a desperate attempt to survive longer than a couple of days for once, but it strikes me as odd. Could be nothing, could be a baddie lying low.

Thought the Second: I agree that there is probably at least one baddie hiding in the OT posts (although now that people have started saying that, it makes me nervous because I was having a lot of fun posting OT and now people will think I'm bad! Oh noes!) Lizzy seems to have deliberately drawn DH's vote, which seems unlikely to be a baddie move. Of the OT posters, Hedgeowl feels the most like a baddie to me with her "for sers, we need to get a baddie" talk, that sounds rather forced. Mind you, this is very, very weak evidence, but it is Day 1 and I wanted to post my thoughts to foster discussion. All this is subject to heavy revision depending on how the rest of the day progresses.

thellama73 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Sorry indiglo! Better luck next time!

So the game is now afoot. Time for some baddie-hunting!

Any suspects yet? We need to start making people sweat.

Consider yourself in sweat mode

Lastly:

thellama73 wrote:

nutella wrote: Boats' two posts here gave me a bit of a twitch. The "excited"/reckless/thrillseeking vibe is slightly off-putting, especially in regards to the "murderous" comment, which most of us took as a reason NOT to take it. I'm more inclined to brush off the several players who eagerly chose the plasmid immediately, but Boats pings me because he said this after much discussion of hesitancy/wariness.

It's a little early to be pointing fingers, don't you think? It's not even day one yet.

The classic baddie move - stifling convo.

So, in summary, I find you suspect because you attempt to make people feel bad for deciding to randomize, additionally, bringing up a subject that is commonly used to cast aspersions on those that choose to randomize AND HAS NO END conclusion. It is a typical baddie argument, imo. You gleefully participated in the OT convo, boosting your post count, and then blithely agreed that a baddie could be hiding amongst said OT posters (a little honesty there, in that you are, indeed a baddie hiding in the OT?) and you are guilty of trying to stifle discussion of possible pings by LA, citing that it was too early for pings... in a mafia game.

You, sir, will probably get my vote today.

I get where you are going with this, but to play Devil's Advocate, I feel like llama would have said this exact thing no matter what his allegiance.

If you've played with me before, you know how I feel about randomizing. (If you haven't: I hate it and think there's never, ever a good reason to do so.)
There's still >24 hours left so I will see how the discussion goes.


linki: Interesting thoughts on llama, LT. hmm. I hadn't gotten a weird vibe from llama but you have compiled some odd things from him.

also, has Boats been around? I don't think he's posted since my post about him. Wonder if I'll get a (somewhat belated) response.

LittleTiger wrote:You gleefully participated in the OT convo, boosting your post count, and then blithely agreed that a baddie could be hiding amongst said OT posters (a little honesty there, in that you are, indeed a baddie hiding in the OT?)

I like your logic that me saying that there is probably a baddie posting OT makes you think I am bad, when you also think there is a baddie posting OT.

Vote for me if you like. It is better than randomizing.

I don't have much of a problem with randomizing, but I do think voting super early on day 1 without a real reason is kinda weird... LT seems to have brought up some good points about Llama though, might be worth considering.

thellama73 wrote:

LittleTiger wrote:You gleefully participated in the OT convo, boosting your post count, and then blithely agreed that a baddie could be hiding amongst said OT posters (a little honesty there, in that you are, indeed a baddie hiding in the OT?)

I like your logic that me saying that there is probably a baddie posting OT makes you think I am bad, when you also think there is a baddie posting OT.

Vote for me if you like. It is better than randomizing.

In my lengthy mafia game playing experience, sometimes, people tell the truth of their alignment... unwittingly.

LittleTiger wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

LittleTiger wrote:You gleefully participated in the OT convo, boosting your post count, and then blithely agreed that a baddie could be hiding amongst said OT posters (a little honesty there, in that you are, indeed a baddie hiding in the OT?)

I like your logic that me saying that there is probably a baddie posting OT makes you think I am bad, when you also think there is a baddie posting OT.

Vote for me if you like. It is better than randomizing.

In my lengthy mafia game playing experience, sometimes, people tell the truth of their alignment... unwittingly.

In that case, I'll remind you that the "baddie in the OT" idea was mentioned by bea, DH and BWT before me.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
In addition, this was something else I noticed:

DFaraday wrote:I just missed voting! Although, I probably wouldn't have gotten a Plasmid anyway.

Something about this strikes me as....off in some way. I'm not entirely sure what it is. But there you have it

If you want me to elaborate, I thought there may well be some secret drawback, and didn't feel like taking a gamble on it. That's about it.

thellama73 wrote:

LittleTiger wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

LittleTiger wrote:You gleefully participated in the OT convo, boosting your post count, and then blithely agreed that a baddie could be hiding amongst said OT posters (a little honesty there, in that you are, indeed a baddie hiding in the OT?)

I like your logic that me saying that there is probably a baddie posting OT makes you think I am bad, when you also think there is a baddie posting OT.

Vote for me if you like. It is better than randomizing.

In my lengthy mafia game playing experience, sometimes, people tell the truth of their alignment... unwittingly.

In that case, I'll remind you that the "baddie in the OT" idea was mentioned by bea, DH and BWT before me.

I refer you to my post which you quoted earlier.

thellama73 wrote:

nutella wrote: Boats' two posts here gave me a bit of a twitch. The "excited"/reckless/thrillseeking vibe is slightly off-putting, especially in regards to the "murderous" comment, which most of us took as a reason NOT to take it. I'm more inclined to brush off the several players who eagerly chose the plasmid immediately, but Boats pings me because he said this after much discussion of hesitancy/wariness.

It's a little early to be pointing fingers, don't you think? It's not even day one yet.

thellama73 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

nutella wrote: Boats' two posts here gave me a bit of a twitch. The "excited"/reckless/thrillseeking vibe is slightly off-putting, especially in regards to the "murderous" comment, which most of us took as a reason NOT to take it. I'm more inclined to brush off the several players who eagerly chose the plasmid immediately, but Boats pings me because he said this after much discussion of hesitancy/wariness.

It's a little early to be pointing fingers, don't you think? It's not even day one yet.

Quashing discussion again?

Shh! No talking!

This discussion-stifling is a bit pingy, especially as it has to do with choosing the plasmid. Llama also took the plasmid, and did so rather early, showing the same excited vibe. I look forward to seeing what Boats has to say about it.

I will just respond that I thought Boats' eagerness was a little odd, considering how early it was. In most games I've played, people spend a few days getting the feel of one another before the accusations start flying. I remember in my first game as soon as day 1 started I said something like "So, who are we going to lynch?" and was jumped all over for it as being overly eager. Boats' post struck me the same way, that is all.

Rondomizing. At first I had no problem with it for Day 1. It is early and there is not much to go one. But what Llama said makes sense.

thellama73 wrote:
If you are a civ, this is certainly not true. Out of thirty-six players, only eight are baddies (ten if you count the indies.) So the odds are you will vote for someone on your own team if you vote randomly. Unless you are bad, or an indie, in which case, we should probably lynch you.

If you're a civ, you should at least try to find something to go on and make an educated guess. And, if you must randomize your vote, at least wait until the end of the "day" so you are sure there is nothing to go on.

Also, A Person said, "At this point voting randomly seems likely to result in voting for someone not on my team, and since I can't pretend I have anything to go on I might as well try that." If he/she is more likely to vote someone NOT on his/her team with a random vote, then he/she must be bad.

And, I must agree with Mongoose about the accusations against llama. I don't see what LT sees. She seems to be reaching which is pingy to me. LT quoted llama's comments that she thought were pingy but never really explained why they ping her.

To sum up, so far I see civvie behavior in Llama and baddie behavior in LT and and A Person. Looks like there is enough info to make an educated guess

See? Far from stifling discussion, I have stimulated a lot of it. Yay me.

Elohcin wrote:
And, I must agree with Mongoose about the accusations against llama. I don't see what LT sees. She seems to be reaching which is pingy to me. LT quoted llama's comments that she thought were pingy but never really explained why they ping her.

To sum up, so far I see civvie behavior in Llama and baddie behavior in LT and and A Person. Looks like there is enough info to make an educated guess

Perhaps you missed my "Summary"? I shall quote my entire post below, so that you can read it again.

In addition, Mongoose agreed but said he would play Devil's Advocate.

Something tells me that I may have hit a nerve

LittleTiger wrote:

thellama73 wrote:I strongly discourage randomizing on day 1.

I am leaning towards a vote for llama - simply for starting the whole "random voting" AGAIN. It is never resolved, it always ends up with a long drawn out argument and people still will randomize on day 1 because, well, they see no reason at the time to vote anyone.

Also, some earlier comments you made were pingy (I quote them latest to earliest):

thellama73 wrote:Mafia is not about fairness. It's about trying to win by finding the members of the opposing team and killing them. Brutally.

Sounds like you are a killer.

thellama73 wrote:It is still very early, but I have two thoughts so far.

Thought the First: Nevinera is being very, very quiet. No doubt, a desperate attempt to survive longer than a couple of days for once, but it strikes me as odd. Could be nothing, could be a baddie lying low.

Thought the Second: I agree that there is probably at least one baddie hiding in the OT posts (although now that people have started saying that, it makes me nervous because I was having a lot of fun posting OT and now people will think I'm bad! Oh noes!) Lizzy seems to have deliberately drawn DH's vote, which seems unlikely to be a baddie move. Of the OT posters, Hedgeowl feels the most like a baddie to me with her "for sers, we need to get a baddie" talk, that sounds rather forced. Mind you, this is very, very weak evidence, but it is Day 1 and I wanted to post my thoughts to foster discussion. All this is subject to heavy revision depending on how the rest of the day progresses.

thellama73 wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Sorry indiglo! Better luck next time!

So the game is now afoot. Time for some baddie-hunting!

Any suspects yet? We need to start making people sweat.

Consider yourself in sweat mode

Lastly:

thellama73 wrote:

nutella wrote: Boats' two posts here gave me a bit of a twitch. The "excited"/reckless/thrillseeking vibe is slightly off-putting, especially in regards to the "murderous" comment, which most of us took as a reason NOT to take it. I'm more inclined to brush off the several players who eagerly chose the plasmid immediately, but Boats pings me because he said this after much discussion of hesitancy/wariness.

It's a little early to be pointing fingers, don't you think? It's not even day one yet.

The classic baddie move - stifling convo.

So, in summary, I find you suspect because you attempt to make people feel bad for deciding to randomize, additionally, bringing up a subject that is commonly used to cast aspersions on those that choose to randomize AND HAS NO END conclusion. It is a typical baddie argument, imo. You gleefully participated in the OT convo, boosting your post count, and then blithely agreed that a baddie could be hiding amongst said OT posters (a little honesty there, in that you are, indeed a baddie hiding in the OT?) and you are guilty of trying to stifle discussion of possible pings by LA, citing that it was too early for pings... in a mafia game.

You, sir, will probably get my vote today.

Boomslang wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

nutella wrote: Boats' two posts here gave me a bit of a twitch. The "excited"/reckless/thrillseeking vibe is slightly off-putting, especially in regards to the "murderous" comment, which most of us took as a reason NOT to take it. I'm more inclined to brush off the several players who eagerly chose the plasmid immediately, but Boats pings me because he said this after much discussion of hesitancy/wariness.

It's a little early to be pointing fingers, don't you think? It's not even day one yet.

thellama73 wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

nutella wrote: Boats' two posts here gave me a bit of a twitch. The "excited"/reckless/thrillseeking vibe is slightly off-putting, especially in regards to the "murderous" comment, which most of us took as a reason NOT to take it. I'm more inclined to brush off the several players who eagerly chose the plasmid immediately, but Boats pings me because he said this after much discussion of hesitancy/wariness.

It's a little early to be pointing fingers, don't you think? It's not even day one yet.

Quashing discussion again?

Shh! No talking!

This discussion-stifling is a bit pingy, especially as it has to do with choosing the plasmid. Llama also took the plasmid, and did so rather early, showing the same excited vibe. I look forward to seeing what Boats has to say about it.

(Sorry, I've been having a bit of an emotional breakdown/restructure the past couple days, but I think everything's fine now)

Don't have much to say about it, really. I recognize that my posts seem like they would come from a character who would want the baddies to win. But at the same time, I would hope that many can recognize that if I were a baddie, I wouldn't be so blatant with my in-game motives. Hedonism is damn fun.

Hi everyone - back early. Seems like I missed a lot. Out of everything I read, what really struck me was what Elohcin said about A Person

Elohcin wrote: <snip>
Also, A Person said, "At this point voting randomly seems likely to result in voting for someone not on my team, and since I can't pretend I have anything to go on I might as well try that." If he/she is more likely to vote someone NOT on his/her team with a random vote, then he/she must be bad.
<snip>

A Person, do you understand why this makes you seem like a baddie? Or did I miss where you corrected yourself (I was scanning posts on my phone so I could have missed something)

Speaking of my phone, I have half a mind to vote Vomps for posting that long-ass randomizing explanation and then having at least two people quote it! LT, thank you for refraining from quoting it! (just to make sure everyone understands, I am joking about voting Vomps for that reason)

A Person wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

A Person wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Mafia is not about fairness. It's about trying to win by finding the members of the opposing team and killing them. Brutally.

At this point voting randomly seems likely to result in voting for someone not on my team, and since I can't pretend I have anything to go on I might as well try that.

I got some Maytag blue cheese today.

If you are a civ, this is certainly not true. Out of thirty-six players, only eight are baddies (ten if you count the indies.) So the odds are you will vote for someone on your own team if you vote randomly. Unless you are bad, or an indie, in which case, we should probably lynch you.

But from what I understand most teams seem to win as long as their not dead. That's a civvy win in my book :P

Here is the whole convo that Elohcin referenced regarding A Person. Possibly a baddie slip up...

LittleTiger wrote:

A Person wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

A Person wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Mafia is not about fairness. It's about trying to win by finding the members of the opposing team and killing them. Brutally.

At this point voting randomly seems likely to result in voting for someone not on my team, and since I can't pretend I have anything to go on I might as well try that.

I got some Maytag blue cheese today.

If you are a civ, this is certainly not true. Out of thirty-six players, only eight are baddies (ten if you count the indies.) So the odds are you will vote for someone on your own team if you vote randomly. Unless you are bad, or an indie, in which case, we should probably lynch you.

But from what I understand most teams seem to win as long as their not dead. That's a civvy win in my book :P

Here is the whole convo that Elohcin referenced regarding A Person. Possibly a baddie slip up...

Hmm interesting. Could you elucidate a little further? I could possibly be swayed by an AP argument.

Just to point out, "I am voting randomly" means any of several things, including:

1) I am voting randomly, because analysis is a lot of work
2) I am voting randomly, because that is less likely to get me lynched.
3) I am pretending to vote randomly, but actually voting by some other logic. Nobody saw my dice, so I they'll never know!
4) I am bad, and actually voting randomly-ish because that makes it harder to figure out who I am later from looking at my voting record and reasoning.

I really doubt many of the people who claim to be voting randomly actually are. Its just way easier and safer to not explain *why* you're voting as you are. Vomps might be though, he seems hardcore on the topic :-)

That said, everyone's vote today *might as well* be random, because we have so little information.

I'm pretty solidly convinced that Vomps is good, because he seems to have actually voted randomly, rather than just pretending and he did so early in the day. Baddies often vote for other baddies, but they rarely are one of the first to do so when it's unclear who the day's lynch will be. It is too risky.

Here's my summary of today's events:

I tend to agree with llama on randomizing. I've said my feelings on it ad nauseum however so I won't beat on a dead horse here. I will however say that people who justify randomizing today when there has been a decent amount of discussion (especially the ones who have done so with another 24+ hours to go) definitely ping me.

LT, I'm sorry but I just don't see a case on llama yet. That being said, I'm quite tired right now. So that might be why I feel you're grasping at straws. I will re-read what you said tomorrow and see if my mind absorbs it a bit better.

Linki: I do agree about Vomps. I highly doubt he would have taken such a risk by voting so early. Not to mention how long it took him to type out the entire logic of all his coin flips. If that was me, I'd have to randomize my vote just to not let that work go to waste.

Nev, I agree with you, but like I said, I've seen this discussion go this route many, many times before. So that's it. I'm done talking about randomizing on Day 1. Some of us won't do it. And some will. End of story.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Here's my summary of today's events:

I tend to agree with llama on randomizing. I've said my feelings on it ad nauseum however so I won't beat on a dead horse here. I will however say that people who justify randomizing today when there has been a decent amount of discussion (especially the ones who have done so with another 24+ hours to go) definitely ping me.

LT, I'm sorry but I just don't see a case on llama yet. That being said, I'm quite tired right now. So that might be why I feel you're grasping at straws. I will re-read what you said tomorrow and see if my mind absorbs it a bit better.

Linki: I do agree about Vomps. I highly doubt he would have taken such a risk by voting so early. Not to mention how long it took him to type out the entire logic of all his coin flips. If that was me, I'd have to randomize my vote just to not let that work go to waste.

Nev, I agree with you, but like I said, I've seen this discussion go this route many, many times before. So that's it. I'm done talking about randomizing on Day 1. Some of us won't do it. And some will. End of story.

Hi bwt - just straighten me out on one thing - you say that people who randomize today when there has been a decent bit of discussion, especially if there is another 24 hours to go, ping you. It seems like Vomps fits that definition but you also say you dont think he would have taken the risk by voting so early and he typed out his randomizing logic. So why is Vomps exempt from the definition that seems to fit him?

juliets wrote: Hi bwt - just straighten me out on one thing - you say that people who randomize today when there has been a decent bit of discussion, especially if there is another 24 hours to go, ping you. It seems like Vomps fits that definition but you also say you dont think he would have taken the risk by voting so early and he typed out his randomizing logic. So why is Vomps exempt from the definition that seems to fit him?

But that could also be an excellent and intentional tactic for deflecting attention away from oneself.

I am rather intrigued by the potential slip-up by A Person. Nice catch Elohcin.

juliets wrote:Hi everyone - back early. Seems like I missed a lot. Out of everything I read, what really struck me was what Elohcin said about A Person

Elohcin wrote: <snip>
Also, A Person said, "At this point voting randomly seems likely to result in voting for someone not on my team, and since I can't pretend I have anything to go on I might as well try that." If he/she is more likely to vote someone NOT on his/her team with a random vote, then he/she must be bad.
<snip>

A Person, do you understand why this makes you seem like a baddie? Or did I miss where you corrected yourself (I was scanning posts on my phone so I could have missed something)

Speaking of my phone, I have half a mind to vote Vomps for posting that long-ass randomizing explanation and then having at least two people quote it! LT, thank you for refraining from quoting it! (just to make sure everyone understands, I am joking about voting Vomps for that reason)

I understand why people think it makes me look like a baddie, but my interpretation of the civ teams seems to be that they can all win individually, and since each team has members that can night kill it only makes sense to me for them to exercise that power to the fullest as soon as possible. It could mean lives lost in friendly fire but that happens at the beginning of every game even when people try to make educated decisions. Once the game really gets underway it gets easier to make decisions based on facts that aren't wild guesses and people can be more careful. This is a lynch though, and as far as I can see the validity of the reasons people get lynched for can vary wildly. It's probably just my personality, but I can't trust voting for people based on actions made publicly. Those reasons together make me think it's best to just vote randomly and hope you don't shoot yourself in the foot.
Based on what I've seen from games I've played and paid attention to, the general structure of the game is that there is a culling of players, civilian or otherwise, until individual players start making more of an impact. The winning team also always seems to have had some amount of luck on their side, so that's what I'm hoping for for the civs. I'd also like to say that it could be that I'm just really bad at mafia and only see this because I can't see what people are really doing, so maybe someone can prove me completely wrong.

Also, voting for vomps for anything he says seems pointless, because he's patently insane.

Yes, the civ teams CAN win by themselves, but they are less likely to win if they kill each other off rather than the ones who are actively trying to kill them-the baddies. I am quite disturbed by your cavalier attitude towards lynching civilians.

What do you mean "I can't trust voting for people based on actions made publicly."? What do you base your votes on then? Actions made privately that you have no way of knowing about?

Some interesting discussion so far. I just got home - saw Man of Steel tonight and then played a spirited game of Dominion. My brain is not at its best. I plan to do a bit more watching, waiting, and reading. Fortunately there's plenty-o-time for that!

juliets wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Here's my summary of today's events:

I tend to agree with llama on randomizing. I've said my feelings on it ad nauseum however so I won't beat on a dead horse here. I will however say that people who justify randomizing today when there has been a decent amount of discussion (especially the ones who have done so with another 24+ hours to go) definitely ping me.

LT, I'm sorry but I just don't see a case on llama yet. That being said, I'm quite tired right now. So that might be why I feel you're grasping at straws. I will re-read what you said tomorrow and see if my mind absorbs it a bit better.

Linki: I do agree about Vomps. I highly doubt he would have taken such a risk by voting so early. Not to mention how long it took him to type out the entire logic of all his coin flips. If that was me, I'd have to randomize my vote just to not let that work go to waste.

Nev, I agree with you, but like I said, I've seen this discussion go this route many, many times before. So that's it. I'm done talking about randomizing on Day 1. Some of us won't do it. And some will. End of story.

Hi bwt - just straighten me out on one thing - you say that people who randomize today when there has been a decent bit of discussion, especially if there is another 24 hours to go, ping you. It seems like Vomps fits that definition but you also say you dont think he would have taken the risk by voting so early and he typed out his randomizing logic. So why is Vomps exempt from the definition that seems to fit him?

I know Vomps and talk to him a good deal online outside of here. For the most part he's very inane and a bit crazy, hence why I don't think he would take such a risk as a baddie. Unless he's completely pulling the wool over my eyes, in which case I would congratulate him.

Basically, I don't think the way he randomized warrants more attention from me at this time. Whereas I think some of the other people who have randomized or discussed randomizing (see: A Person) make me question their intent behind it.

nutella wrote:I am rather intrigued by the potential slip-up by A Person. Nice catch Elohcin.

Yeah, I spotted that. I was going to mention it later.

^Not to steal Elohcin's thunder or anything. Sha acted on it first. So her catch.