Moderator: Community Team
With the first part, I fail to see how that is necessarily a bad thing. Even with someone being an outed civvie. I don't see why the mafia would want to bother spending the time essentially double-targeting a role for death like that. I'm not sure if it's that I think your being disingenuous, or if it's just a difference of opinion, but I just don't see why it's bad that we had a do-over for a lynch when we gain information from it.Long Con wrote:Delaying the progress of the game... meaning we wait 48 hours for a lynch post, and instead of a lynch post, we get a Civvie outed and saved, and another 48 hours before we get to see a lynch result. It's good for the Civs, and it's annoying to me as a player. In an impatient way. I hope my response has interested you further.birdwithteeth11 wrote:Okay. I can see where FZ is coming from with LC. It comes off to me as being a bit "overly helpful" for sure. But the part that really stuck out to me was:
To me, I don't understand how this is "delaying the progress" of the game if we lynch a civvie and Kubrick uses his power. It lets us restart the day over again, we're not down a civ, and we have plenty of new information to make a new decision on.Long Con wrote:This will annoy us at some point by delaying the progress, but at least it's a Civvie that we won't lynch.Stanley Kubrick Realist, perfectionist director and genre hopper. He can once reshoot a day period.
I'll wait to hear what LC has to say on the matter himself. But I am now very interested in his response.
I often post a role analysis near the start of a game. If you want to call it 'overly helpful' then that's your opinion. I think it opens people up to thinking about the roles creatively, and to keeping some things in mind in their general gameplay.
Why do you think MM is bad? Did I miss this?Vompatti wrote:Mongoose do you recognize all of the quotes/references in Histoire(s) du cinéma? I used to know someone who had written (or was going to write?) a book that listed and analized all of them but I don't think it ever got published.
Also of the current lynch candidates I'm strongly leaning towards MM as MP always plays like a baddie and Llama currently seems like the epitome of a helpful civ to me.
Agree to disagree. I don't agree with you that it's wrong to question a civ (sabie.) I don't agree with you that it's hostile to question a new player. Ricochet doesn't seem to bear me any ill will or have any hurt feelings. If he does, I hope he will say so and we can work it out, but as I see it, this is how you play the game, and I assume Ricochet wants to play the game, since he signed up. I don't see any reason to wait until Day 2 to ask a question I wanted answered on Day 1. I believe in welcoming people by engaging them and treating them like a regular player, rather than treating them with kid gloves.Roxy wrote:llama - pahtaytoe/pawtaytowe - ask questions/come after - same difference. making a big deal out of something a noob does on Day 1 is becoming standard practice around here (which I am sorry but I will never understand the logic of doing it) - you are doing it for a second time that I am noticing - which is the main point of that post - to remind you that you were not right for questioning Sabie in her first game as she was civ and you are not right this time even without knowing Ricochet's alignment. It's just not a very friendly way to welcome new members to the site - as a mod I would have thought you would be far more welcoming and helpful instead of coming straight out of the gate with a question (which he politely answered I might add) - idc if you only asked one question - could it have waited for, at the very least, Day 2?
I find your list to be nose twitching. I do not think I have EVER seen you make a list like that especially not on day 1. I have to wonder why? Why now? Why start doing a list this game? Why is everyone on the list even those you have no opinion on? So strange - strange as in odd bc you never make lists like these.
I think Canuck's post about MP is quite worthy of thought. And deffo something I will be keeping in mind as we progress through the game.
Lizzy's style this game is reminding me of her WIFOM baddie game. Not quite sure yet so again something to keep an eye on.
I am working so I should be around in time to vote.
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
He could be either good or bad, but since he already voted for himself it seems he wouldn't mind being lynched so I think it's slightly more fair to vote for him than to randomize. I don't have any particular suspicions towards anyone yet, although I do disagree with the llama votes.S~V~S wrote:Why do you think MM is bad? Did I miss this?Vompatti wrote:Mongoose do you recognize all of the quotes/references in Histoire(s) du cinéma? I used to know someone who had written (or was going to write?) a book that listed and analized all of them but I don't think it ever got published.
Also of the current lynch candidates I'm strongly leaning towards MM as MP always plays like a baddie and Llama currently seems like the epitome of a helpful civ to me.
I never once said it was strange, Dom. I just was hoping you'd clarify since I knew you questioned Llama but you seemed to feel better after his response, but I really couldn't tell what was going on in your mind, so that's why I asked.Dom wrote:You find it strange that SVS would have a sentimental reason for not voting new players? You find it strange that SVS would place principle over pragmatism-- especially early on in a game?thellama73 wrote:You really wouldn't vote for someone you thought was bad because they are new, SVS? I find that very strange.
You really find THAT strange?
MP, what did you mean to indicate by "serious assumptions", then? Do you intend to make them in your vote?MovingPictures07 wrote:LOL, seriously guys? Where did I say my D1 vote wouldn't involve zero assumptions? And way to cut out the rest of my post, Llama, to misrepresent what I was saying.Dom wrote:^^^^^thellama73 wrote:I am eager to hear the rationale for your Day 1 vote that involves zero assumptions.MovingPictures07 wrote: Llama, are you insane? Sure, you could say that's one explanation for Ricochet just didn't say "No", but if you want to believe that's most likely, then it seems to me you have to make some serious assumptions.
Now, MP, is that really strange for me at Day 1?MovingPictures07 wrote:And one last thing, I'd appreciate to hear what Dom's thinking, since I haven't really seen what he's thinking re: suspects or anything yet other than questioning people.
I think it's pretty obvious what I'm thinking.
Is questioning people bad?
Why are you concerned with my questions?
Is this an unusual way for me to play?
(Hint: it's not)
So yeah, Llama's got my eye. I thought that much was obvious.
Wait, what? I didn't back down immediately. I don't understand why you got that interpretation. I have merely been clarifying, but I tell you what, I haven't backed down. I still feel like harboring an environment based on analyzing someone's OT usage would create a witch hunt like atmosphere that I don't like, which is why I was hesitant to consider the idea -- even though I was saying that WASN'T was necessarily happening here. I just didn't want to make it a go-to in future games. I thought you agreed with me on that? Even if not, I don't understand why you interpret my actions as backing down.Canucklehead wrote:I'm not 100% sure that I'll be around again tonight before the vote ends, so I'm going to go ahead and put my vote on MP for now. My suspicions of him are not super strong, but they're more than I have for anyone else at this point. He just seems to be very much poking at small things using strong language (cf "witch hunt", "serious assumptions"), and then backing down immediately when called out on this strong language, or when no one seems to be on board with his directions. He also seems to be bending over backwards to make sure that he is seen to be listening and considering everyone's opinions....which is, of course, not in itself a bad thing, but the amount of couching and caveat-ing just seems very excessive in MP's case.
Not a strong suspicion (MP possibly always does this to some extent, but it seems even more over-the-top this game), but enough for Day 1 for me in the absence of other strong cases. If I do get a chance to get back to the thread later, I will consider revising, but for now I'm voting MP.
So where are you getting me backing down from?MovingPictures07 wrote:Llama, are you insane? Sure, you could say that's one explanation for Ricochet just didn't say "No", but if you want to believe that's most likely, then it seems to me you have to make some serious assumptions. Ricochet obviously has some idea of what he was getting into, so I just can't believe that anyone over the age of 5 would actually refuse to say just "No" because they're baddie. What's the logic or motivation in that, in a game of deception? Any adult human being should be able to recognize that answering your question with "Yes" would be ridiculous and self-destructive. I frankly found Ricochet's responses incredibly reasonable. I don't know whether he's bad or not, but this incident has not influenced my view of you or him.
Also, why does you not understanding someones reasoning make them bad? I always wonder about this, not just in the context of this game. I get lynched for this very thing all the time when i am civ. Someone does not understand what i said, or someone thinks what I said makes no sense, therefore I am bad.birdwithteeth11 wrote:I'm going to be out with my grandparents for most of the afternoon, so I'm going to go ahead and vote now. And for the reasoning, we shall refer back to this post:
With the first part, I fail to see how that is necessarily a bad thing. Even with someone being an outed civvie. I don't see why the mafia would want to bother spending the time essentially double-targeting a role for death like that. I'm not sure if it's that I think your being disingenuous, or if it's just a difference of opinion, but I just don't see why it's bad that we had a do-over for a lynch when we gain information from it.Long Con wrote:Delaying the progress of the game... meaning we wait 48 hours for a lynch post, and instead of a lynch post, we get a Civvie outed and saved, and another 48 hours before we get to see a lynch result. It's good for the Civs, and it's annoying to me as a player. In an impatient way. I hope my response has interested you further.birdwithteeth11 wrote:Okay. I can see where FZ is coming from with LC. It comes off to me as being a bit "overly helpful" for sure. But the part that really stuck out to me was:
To me, I don't understand how this is "delaying the progress" of the game if we lynch a civvie and Kubrick uses his power. It lets us restart the day over again, we're not down a civ, and we have plenty of new information to make a new decision on.Long Con wrote:This will annoy us at some point by delaying the progress, but at least it's a Civvie that we won't lynch.Stanley Kubrick Realist, perfectionist director and genre hopper. He can once reshoot a day period.
I'll wait to hear what LC has to say on the matter himself. But I am now very interested in his response.
I often post a role analysis near the start of a game. If you want to call it 'overly helpful' then that's your opinion. I think it opens people up to thinking about the roles creatively, and to keeping some things in mind in their general gameplay.
As for the second part, yes, you have done that several times from what I've seen. I'll give you that. I guess it was more your tone that felt off to me.
Votes LC
If those people do vote for him, and he gets lynched, you have kinda absolved yourself in advance, haven't you?I don't know if I feel any worse about you after your response, but I don't feel any better about you either, LC. And given my lack of time to look further, plus the fact I don't really feel comfortable with anyone else right now, I'm going to vote for you. It's a weak case, sure, but it's the best I feel my gut has to go on for now. So think of this as an "I'm keeping an eye on you" vote.
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
I'll explain my vote happily. If you'll refer to my above list, I mentioned that BWT caught my eye for trying to make excuses for another player, which I always find suspicious. His vote on LC then followed, and felt very "safe" and opportunistic, as SVS pointed out. He left himself an easy out if he was wrong.FZ. wrote:While I see the point in the votes for BWT, because his last post did seem like he wanted a reason to vote LC, I don't see how LC's response felt genuine. Can anyone explain it? And I don't get why people are not more suspicious of Vomps. So I guess I'm between these three. Any response would be appreciated.
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
FZ, I have played a game with LC where he laid out an analysis of all the roles like that, and we lynched him on Day 1, and he was a civ. I see what you're saying, about how his post could be baddie-tinged ambivalence toward civvie power, but that's not how I interpreted his post, and he's felt like normal LC to me so far.FZ. wrote:While I see the point in the votes for BWT, because his last post did seem like he wanted a reason to vote LC, I don't see how LC's response felt genuine. Can anyone explain it? And I don't get why people are not more suspicious of Vomps. So I guess I'm between these three. Any response would be appreciated.
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
I don't know why you would decide to interpret my analysis as being pissed off. I wasn't pissed off, and I reread it, and it doesn't read as pissed off. I'll be back in a bit to decide how to vote.FZ. wrote:Lastly, was I the only one pinged by LC's analysis of the roles post? Sounded to me like a baddie who thinks the civvies have the upper hand in terms of roles and can't come out and say that he's pissed, so he puts it out there in the form of the many ways the civvies can have BTSC and get stronger. It's something I've seen baddies do too many times. To me, that's a baddie indication...
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
I did. Because I asked.Turnip Head wrote:I didn't realize voters weren't changeable this game.
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
You seemed way more suspicious of LC and Vomps though. Who cares if there's no point in voting anyone else? That's never stopped you before from voting your biggest suspicionFZ. wrote:Okay, I hope this isn't a mistake, but I'm going to vote for BWT, because I see no point in voting for anyone else at this time.
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
Flash back to roughly 48 hours ago when I said:Ricochet wrote:Back from movie with less time to even go through what was posted, let alone process it. I've given an entirely aleatory vote.
thellama73 wrote: I generally think it is less productive for everyone to roll in five minutes before the lynch and say "no time to catch up, voting so and so."
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
Usually I vote for someone I most suspicious of either when the votes are changeable and there's a chance people will follow me, or votes are not changeable, when none of the people that have many votes seem suspicious to me at all. Since I do see the case on BWT, and my vote on Vomp would be a complete waste, and everyone keeps saying I'm wrong about LC, that's what I had leftTurnip Head wrote:You seemed way more suspicious of LC and Vomps though. Who cares if there's no point in voting anyone else? That's never stopped you before from voting your biggest suspicionFZ. wrote:Okay, I hope this isn't a mistake, but I'm going to vote for BWT, because I see no point in voting for anyone else at this time.
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
Thanks - no one would have ever guessed from my own postthellama73 wrote:Annnnnnd.... TIME!
The people who failed to vote are:
Sabie
Roxy
Blooper
Dfaraday
Bass
Long Con
Made
Black Rock
Epignosis wrote:If llama is good, it means we exist in a universe in which multitasking llama can call out the first of two mafia while simultaneously calling out two civilians.
I don't want to live in that universe.
That's nice, but I didn't do that. I announced my plans in advance. Had I realized I wont mansge to vote after the movie, I would have voted (the same way) before heading out.thellama73 wrote:Flash back to roughly 48 hours ago when I said:Ricochet wrote:Back from movie with less time to even go through what was posted, let alone process it. I've given an entirely aleatory vote.
thellama73 wrote: I generally think it is less productive for everyone to roll in five minutes before the lynch and say "no time to catch up, voting so and so."
