Re: Arkham Mafia [Night 2]
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 2:56 am
So we just eliminated one from the team that would have become 3 last night right? The Mafia team that just took a hit now have the gun. Retribution looms.
SureEnrique wrote:I believe you Sorsha.
TH would you like to come to Arkham with me?
Bubbles is the player who put the vote 1 ahead of Matt. Scotty proceeded to very quickly attempt to cast doubt against Bubbles. I read it at the time as a possible Mafia scrambling to put a vote on Bubbles but since Nero was lynched it could very well be not only that but also an attempted defense of Nero. Lorab is the other that cast doubt on Bubbles, but Lorab proceeded to vote for Nero as well, at a point that in my mind rules her out as a teammate.Scotty wrote:Welcome to the thread, Bubbles.Bubbles wrote:soo i looked over matt's posts since he is the most voted right now, and i don't see it, don't think he is bad. suspicious of people who voted for him, gonna throw my own vote in for nero
This post and vote is shady as hell.
Nerolunar wrote:@Zebra
Why vote for anything randomly? I really believe its in our best interest to discuss or think about what effect our choice has on the game.
Why vote randomly yet still be suspicious of us who voted for what we actually think helps us? Can you please elaborate?
His first interaction with Zebra was a question that allowed Zebra to embark on a waffly explanation as to why she was finding Arkham voters suspicious while under fire. Perhaps she requested he ask this question of her. The interaction isn't THAT bad.a2thezebra wrote:It is not entirely a random vote. Like I said, I narrowed down the options by eliminating the ones which I am cautious of choosing to the ones that I don't think could have much of a bearing on the game, and picked randomly from those (although I do like docks). I want Day 1 to be as regular of a day as possible, where we look for who's the most suspicious and lynch them with no lynch switches, vote manipulation, basically as little foul play as we can hope for. I also believe its in our best interest to look at what options effect the game the most, and I haven't heard a good case for why Arkham Asylum would be in any way ideal.Nerolunar wrote:@Zebra
Why vote for anything randomly? I really believe its in our best interest to discuss or think about what effect our choice has on the game.
Why vote randomly yet still be suspicious of us who voted for what we actually think helps us? Can you please elaborate?
Like I said, I am not suspicious of anyone in particular who voted for Arkham Asylum (even in Matt's case I'm suspicious of him for other more recent reasons), I am only suspicious of the option itself.
And he accepted her answer without much issue.Nerolunar wrote:Yeah okay, thanks for explaining.
.
Note, he civ reads her AND defends her from MP at the same time. This is both a bad look for Zebra and good look for MP in terms of potential for teammates. Then he actually kinda slips next time he mentions her.Nerolunar wrote:Time for some reads, though mostly tone reading.
Zebra: A frustrated civvy. People tunneled on her waaay too much.
MovingPictures: Neutral/sligtly scum. Rubs me the wrong way how he went for Zebra. Doesn´t seem to me like there was much to deduce from her choice of poll option, yet he kinda pushed her for it. Seems really forced.
STILL reading her as scummy? He blatantly said she was a frustrated civ. Now he reads her as slightly scummy WHILE defending her. Did Zebra call him out on this at any stage? If not ... well that's damning.Nerolunar wrote:Im lacking scum reads on people right now. I don´t like how Metalmarsh instantly voted for Zebra, especially when we had a whole day ahead of us. Im still reading Zebra as slightly scummy, but Metals behavior still strikes me as odd. Elaborate on that please.
Defender of Zebra's honour appears again.Nerolunar wrote:Metalmarsh please explain why you voted for Zebra at the beginning of Day 1. To me it felt very rushed, especially considering we had a whole day ahead of us to discuss.Nerolunar wrote: Im lacking scum reads on people right now. I don´t like how Metalmarsh instantly voted for Zebra, especially when we had a whole day ahead of us. Im still reading Zebra as slightly scummy, but Metals behavior still strikes me as odd. Elaborate on that please.
And again.Nerolunar wrote:My scum reads are Dharmahelper, Matt and Metalmarsh. Especially Metal as he has not explained his weird behavior of voting Zebra at the beginning of day 1. I have ased him that question a few times now and keeps ignoring it. If he doesn´t answer I might go ahead and vote him.
Here Zebra fed him a line.Nerolunar wrote:Partly. Enrique made a great case on him. I know for a fact that Im not the Joker, so Matt obviously targeted the real Joker but is trying to frame me, I think.a2thezebra wrote:Because of his desperation to suspect you?Nerolunar wrote:Im becoming more and more tempted to vote for Matt.
Linki I still don´t get why Im your top suspect?
a2thezebra wrote:A slight ping on Nero, but full blown on DH. As most are want to do with casting mild dispersions against their own team they cast louder ones against someone else.Dom wrote:The only ones that I'm not sure handled the conflict genuinely would be Nerolunar and DH, especially DH.
Says he hasn't pinged her, even though we know he had.. Also defended him with this post plus.a2thezebra wrote:Perhaps you could call it WIFOM but I just don't see how he would be playing like this as a baddie fairly new to the game. And even if he's not new, he's simply yet to ping me. I've disagreed with a lot of what he's said but he's yet to come across to me as opportunistic or manipulative.Turnip Head wrote:If you could elaborate re: Nero that would help.a2thezebra wrote:I'm not sure about bea or BR but I would oppose a Nero or Glorfy lynch. I don't share anyone's suspicions of either of them.Turnip Head wrote:Right now it's Bea, BR or Nero, though I want to look at Glorfy to see what the hub bub is about re: the difference between his civ and baddie games.a2thezebra wrote: Thank you, that's an interesting selection of potential votes for the day. Is there anyone in that list that's especially likely to get your vote?
Compare to sig...
This one.a2thezebra wrote:I am shocked that people are choosing to vote for Nerolunar - a player who none of us are very familiar with - over sig, who is clearly demonstrating his baddie meta moreso than his civ meta, and who has openly advocated what the host has said is not in our best interest, even voicing suspecion (and because of this, pressured) of those who didn't follow his lead. I don't see how anything Nerolunar has done tops this, especially since we are unfamiliar with his meta.
and this one.a2thezebra wrote:I completely agree that people seem to be jumping on Nero out of convenience and I don't like that either one bit.DFaraday wrote:I do have a bit of suspicion of Nero, but it seems like a lot of people are just jumping on him because it's convenient, which is seeming shady to me. If anything, Sig's recent comments are making me feel worse about him (I had no real opinion of him before).a2thezebra wrote:I am shocked that people are choosing to vote for Nerolunar - a player who none of us are very familiar with - over sig, who is clearly demonstrating his baddie meta moreso than his civ meta, and who has openly advocated what the host has said is not in our best interest, even voicing suspecion (and because of this, pressured) of those who didn't follow his lead. I don't see how anything Nerolunar has done tops this, especially since we are unfamiliar with his meta.
a2thezebra wrote:What about sig?DharmaHelper wrote:Why? Because I don't want to lynch Matt right now and Nero has a couple of votes.
a2thezebra wrote:A slight ping on Nero, but full blown on DH. As most are want to do with casting mild dispersions against their own team they cast louder ones against someone else.Dom wrote:The only ones that I'm not sure handled the conflict genuinely would be Nerolunar and DH, especially DH.
Says he hasn't pinged her, even though we know he had.. Also defended him with this post plus.a2thezebra wrote:Perhaps you could call it WIFOM but I just don't see how he would be playing like this as a baddie fairly new to the game. And even if he's not new, he's simply yet to ping me. I've disagreed with a lot of what he's said but he's yet to come across to me as opportunistic or manipulative.Turnip Head wrote:If you could elaborate re: Nero that would help.a2thezebra wrote:I'm not sure about bea or BR but I would oppose a Nero or Glorfy lynch. I don't share anyone's suspicions of either of them.Turnip Head wrote:Right now it's Bea, BR or Nero, though I want to look at Glorfy to see what the hub bub is about re: the difference between his civ and baddie games.a2thezebra wrote: Thank you, that's an interesting selection of potential votes for the day. Is there anyone in that list that's especially likely to get your vote?
Compare to sig...
This one.a2thezebra wrote:I am shocked that people are choosing to vote for Nerolunar - a player who none of us are very familiar with - over sig, who is clearly demonstrating his baddie meta moreso than his civ meta, and who has openly advocated what the host has said is not in our best interest, even voicing suspecion (and because of this, pressured) of those who didn't follow his lead. I don't see how anything Nerolunar has done tops this, especially since we are unfamiliar with his meta.
and this one.a2thezebra wrote:I completely agree that people seem to be jumping on Nero out of convenience and I don't like that either one bit.DFaraday wrote:I do have a bit of suspicion of Nero, but it seems like a lot of people are just jumping on him because it's convenient, which is seeming shady to me. If anything, Sig's recent comments are making me feel worse about him (I had no real opinion of him before).a2thezebra wrote:I am shocked that people are choosing to vote for Nerolunar - a player who none of us are very familiar with - over sig, who is clearly demonstrating his baddie meta moreso than his civ meta, and who has openly advocated what the host has said is not in our best interest, even voicing suspecion (and because of this, pressured) of those who didn't follow his lead. I don't see how anything Nerolunar has done tops this, especially since we are unfamiliar with his meta.
a2thezebra wrote:What about sig?DharmaHelper wrote:Why? Because I don't want to lynch Matt right now and Nero has a couple of votes.
Now seems more town than he did in the early game, but I'd still rank him mild anti-town. Not for his Scotty stuff, though, I disagree intensely with that reason for voting him.sig wrote:@Golden what do you think about MP?
He then put him afterwards at blue in the rainbow, which clarified those words somewhat.MacDougall wrote:Yeah you have a point. I did question whether Wilgy was actually targeted by Two Face who was the one who was hit.DharmaHelper wrote:Correlation vs. Causation Juliets. I think it drastically reduces the theory that Wilgy was Robin, or at the very least drastically reduces the idea that the mafia figured out he could be Robin and killed him for it. As a result, I don't take any stock in "Scotty must be civ"
The wording that Wilgy actually used was "would not try to lynch him again". Interesting choice of words.
No idea, but that doesn't mean I'm not open to the possibility.Black Rock wrote:How would it be forced at this point of the day?Golden wrote:This is insane. I don't know if something like Enrique's recent posting is genuine or forced, and it makes me paranoid either way.
I'm barely going to be around before deadline and definitely don't have time to keep up with all of the developments. I feel that it's kind of ironic that I'm in a position where I'm picking between Matt or Nero for my vote given they are in opposition to each other, but my vote comes down to 'do I trust Matt or not'.
I'm hoping to see at least a bit more to help make up my mind before deadline.
Though, subsequent to me making that post Enrique's behaviour seemed pretty non-forced.Black Rock wrote:How would it be forced at this point of the day?Golden wrote:This is insane. I don't know if something like Enrique's recent posting is genuine or forced, and it makes me paranoid either way.
I'm barely going to be around before deadline and definitely don't have time to keep up with all of the developments. I feel that it's kind of ironic that I'm in a position where I'm picking between Matt or Nero for my vote given they are in opposition to each other, but my vote comes down to 'do I trust Matt or not'.
I'm hoping to see at least a bit more to help make up my mind before deadline.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the Bubbles suspicion either. I think she is town.MacDougall wrote:The bubbles attack sounds like Mafia circling an easy person to put a throw away vote on tbh.
You have to admit, though, this thread is not exactly 'easy' to keep up with.LoRab wrote:I've been waiting since yesterday for an answer from Bubbles. That's all I really want. I still cannot fathom a way that her post about Dom yesterday wasn't made up.
I don't know. I think of indy's as potentially town-aligned, as usually there will be situations in which they can win with the town.a2thezebra wrote:I'm not arguing that they are pro-town, I'm arguing that they are not all automatically anti-town just for being indys. Why is this concept always impossible for people to wrap their heads around?
They ARE independents. By any measure of mafia game construction. There is absolutely no ambiguity about that fact. My declaration doesn't make a blind bit of difference. It's just a basic fact.Enrique wrote:They're listed under "Arkham Asylum" they weren't independents until Golden declared them such on Day 0.
No, zebra is deciding when they are MAFIA and when they are indys.Enrique wrote:It's such a pointless convo really because we lynch whoever we get, but Zebra is just arbitrarily deciding when they are baddies and when they are indies.
Oh, now look at this...MacDougall wrote:You've pretty much got him night killed now anyway so you might as well out with it.
Um no you don't get it.Golden wrote:Oh, now look at this...MacDougall wrote:You've pretty much got him night killed now anyway so you might as well out with it.
Both Scotty AND Matt are going to have to be nightkilled tonight. All this target painting, EVERYONE will die.
Or... you know, we solve he game and label so many people civilian on a day that the mafia can't kill them all.
This is exactly why I was saying the points on Scotty from last night are dumb. Now Matt is apparently the one being target painted. So Scotty is forgotten? If you do well enough to solve the game without the mafia being able to keep up, civs win.
The target painting argument is such a silly one. Encouraging civs to let people be lynched who they strongly believe are town, instead of stopping them being lynched in case they are nightkilled, just doesn't make any sense.
What is it that I don't get?MacDougall wrote:Um no you don't get it.Golden wrote:Oh, now look at this...MacDougall wrote:You've pretty much got him night killed now anyway so you might as well out with it.
Both Scotty AND Matt are going to have to be nightkilled tonight. All this target painting, EVERYONE will die.
Or... you know, we solve he game and label so many people civilian on a day that the mafia can't kill them all.
This is exactly why I was saying the points on Scotty from last night are dumb. Now Matt is apparently the one being target painted. So Scotty is forgotten? If you do well enough to solve the game without the mafia being able to keep up, civs win.
The target painting argument is such a silly one. Encouraging civs to let people be lynched who they strongly believe are town, instead of stopping them being lynched in case they are nightkilled, just doesn't make any sense.
Yeah, yeah, Mac knows best.MacDougall wrote:It's better that you don't tbh.
I don't think anyone was planning on lynching him at this point? Not target painting =/= lynching civvies; rahter an extreme example?Golden wrote:Oh, now look at this...MacDougall wrote:You've pretty much got him night killed now anyway so you might as well out with it.
Both Scotty AND Matt are going to have to be nightkilled tonight. All this target painting, EVERYONE will die.
Or... you know, we solve he game and label so many people civilian on a day that the mafia can't kill them all.
This is exactly why I was saying the points on Scotty from last night are dumb. Now Matt is apparently the one being target painted. So Scotty is forgotten? If you do well enough to solve the game without the mafia being able to keep up, civs win.
The target painting argument is such a silly one. Encouraging civs to let people be lynched who they strongly believe are town, instead of stopping them being lynched in case they are nightkilled, just doesn't make any sense.
That's usually how conversation works. One person says something, the other responds, then the first person responds.a2thezebra wrote:Sorry, I didn't know you wanted me to answer...a statement.LoRab wrote: Also, you didn't answer my response to you that literally nothing I said about Bubbles in that one post was something I had done.
I think Epi, and LC for that matter, would absolutely design a game where half of the players are anti-town. Why do you think they wouldn't?a2thezebra wrote:So Enrique you really think that Epi designed a game where HALF of the players are anti-town. You really think that.
linki - It's hard to tell with you, sig. I could easily see you actually trying to convince people that you were pinged by that. People have suspected me just for saying that I don't think indys are inherently anti-town in other games as well so it wouldn't be the first time for such horse shit. If it was sarcasm then put it in orange font next time please.
linki - See now you ARE serious. Which is it?
I'm more curious about her posts than truly suspicious of her. Because, especially that one post, doesn't really make sense.Golden wrote:Yeah, I'm not a fan of the Bubbles suspicion either. I think she is town.MacDougall wrote:The bubbles attack sounds like Mafia circling an easy person to put a throw away vote on tbh.
I agree. However, if she isn't keeping up, then this post still confuses me:Golden wrote:You have to admit, though, this thread is not exactly 'easy' to keep up with.LoRab wrote:I've been waiting since yesterday for an answer from Bubbles. That's all I really want. I still cannot fathom a way that her post about Dom yesterday wasn't made up.
How does she know how vocal Dom is being if she hasn't been reading? And, I don't know about anyone else, but I don't think I've ever seen Dom not be vocal in a game, so that's also odd. But, the fact that she is able to comment on any player's relative participation doesn't make sense to me in the same post as someone saying they haven't been keeping up.Bubbles wrote:city hall sounds like an interesting location so i'm voting that. also sorry for missing the last vote and the lack of thread-related posts, i haven't been keeping up with the thread![]()
but for now dom seems more vocal than usual
You are just as correct as Mac IMO. Making a big deal about how someone is obviously a civ - especially one of the most important ones - IS going to get them killed and there's not a lot to be done about it. However if you have reason to believe someone is an important civ then you probably shouldn't sit by and watch them get lynched. It's kind of a Catch-22 I guess.Golden wrote:Oh, now look at this...MacDougall wrote:You've pretty much got him night killed now anyway so you might as well out with it.
Both Scotty AND Matt are going to have to be nightkilled tonight. All this target painting, EVERYONE will die.
Or... you know, we solve he game and label so many people civilian on a day that the mafia can't kill them all.
This is exactly why I was saying the points on Scotty from last night are dumb. Now Matt is apparently the one being target painted. So Scotty is forgotten? If you do well enough to solve the game without the mafia being able to keep up, civs win.
The target painting argument is such a silly one. Encouraging civs to let people be lynched who they strongly believe are town, instead of stopping them being lynched in case they are nightkilled, just doesn't make any sense.
I can't even be bothered skimming through it because I know it'll be disappointing. No idea how they can salvage Mania with so many top guys injured and Reigns/HHH as the main event.DFaraday wrote:I watched it too! Stupid Reigns...MacDougall wrote:I'm working from home because my daughter is sick, but I'm actually watching WWE Fast Lane because yolo.sig wrote:I'm watching breaking bad, to bad I'm not a meth dealer in this game I could use the tips I learned from the show.
This post makes no sense, lol. "Indies" can be Mafia now? Jeesh. "Just because an indy is bad does not make him mafia." But... I don't understand, isn't that an argument against Zebra? When did I say anything like that?Golden wrote:No, zebra is deciding when they are MAFIA and when they are indys.Enrique wrote:It's such a pointless convo really because we lynch whoever we get, but Zebra is just arbitrarily deciding when they are baddies and when they are indies.
This isn't hard to understand.
Both mafia and indys can be 'baddies'. Just because an indy is bad does not make him mafia.
I don't remember where you left off, but the current thing is basicallyTyphoony wrote:Enrique, cliffnotes, now. Thanks.