Re: A Mafia of Unfortunate Events [DAY 0]
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:20 pm
I agree. It's arguing policy again. Let glorf be glorf.Dom wrote:I don't see the merit in the discussion.
Murder, Mayhem, and Mafia
https://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/
I agree. It's arguing policy again. Let glorf be glorf.Dom wrote:I don't see the merit in the discussion.
Odd... I've only read yours and snow dog's as well...Metalmarsh89 wrote:I've only read my role and your role.Snow Dog wrote:Besides my role, I haven't read any of the other roles yet. This is true. I intend to fix this.
Good point Scotty. I think I'll join you there.Scotty wrote:I'm making a blanket statement that I trust none of you and will be voting a no-show or low poster. That there are 12/25 people not being civs, a coin flip isn't the worst thing in the world atm
It would be insanely broken if you could infodump or if nightkills weren't immediately janitored - as it is, he could use both on baddies and we might never figure it out if he doesn't play it carefully.Nachomamma8 wrote:Klaus role seems insanely broken but I don't see why he would do anything except investigate two baddies.
I'm really liking JackJackofhearts2005 wrote:Oh yeah? Can't figure out how to use the polls either, then?Epignosis wrote:Well, for what it's worth, I won't be voting for you Day 1 either, Jack. It has nothing to do with your alignment (or his).Jackofhearts2005 wrote:@Epi
You never said Snow Dog was good, true.
What you said was "I won't be voting for him."
I agree with this assessment in principle.Jackofhearts2005 wrote:Mirrors my thoughts.Long Con wrote:Explain... sounds like he could recruit baddies and help finish the game earlier in the Civs favour. I guess it works in reverse if he recruits Civs?Dom wrote:Uhhh
ishmael, given those recent revelations is a huge threat.
Could put us in the awkward situation where the cult and the town are the only groups left plus one scummer so that cult suddenly is motivated to not lynch the last scum.....then the entire cult disappears (I guess?) and the town kills the last scummer.
I mean, basically, this type of cult appears to be a super delayed serial killer that misses 50% of the time or if anyone else kills his targets in the next 1-6 phases. Plus he only has to "kill" half the other players instead of all of them and if he "kills" the last scum player, they die instantly instead of on a delay.
Overall, I'm not understanding the "Ishmael is a huge threat" thought process. He's a pretty freaking weak cult leader.
This exact dilemma has always made me pause in the no-info-dumping games. If I were in that position I'm not sure what I would do- I haven't yet had a role that I could do that, but I'm nervous in case I ever get it- I dunno if I would constantly go after the found Olaf in hopes that I will be some kamikaze and be lynched, thus making it glaringly obvious that the player I was jumping on is Olaf, or attempt to sprinkle on subtle suspicions over time, but not making it clear that he is bad. Either way, it's all down to making sure you don't get NK'd too early.Golden wrote:It would be insanely broken if you could infodump or if nightkills weren't immediately janitored - as it is, he could use both on baddies and we might never figure it out if he doesn't play it carefully.Nachomamma8 wrote:Klaus role seems insanely broken but I don't see why he would do anything except investigate two baddies.
Here is a civilian Klaus might look for - Hal.
It's a tough road to travel, for sure.Scotty wrote:This exact dilemma has always made me pause in the no-info-dumping games. If I were in that position I'm not sure what I would do- I haven't yet had a role that I could do that, but I'm nervous in case I ever get it- I dunno if I would constantly go after the found Olaf in hopes that I will be some kamikaze and be lynched, thus making it glaringly obvious that the player I was jumping on is Olaf, or attempt to sprinkle on subtle suspicions over time, but not making it clear that he is bad. Either way, it's all down to making sure you don't get NK'd too early.Golden wrote:It would be insanely broken if you could infodump or if nightkills weren't immediately janitored - as it is, he could use both on baddies and we might never figure it out if he doesn't play it carefully.Nachomamma8 wrote:Klaus role seems insanely broken but I don't see why he would do anything except investigate two baddies.
Here is a civilian Klaus might look for - Hal.
Good thing I'm not that role this game. But I intend to study the posts made by both Hal and Klaus once the game ends and I know who you all are, because I'm sure you'll do a great job.
What have you learned? (I'm not caught up)Golden wrote:And.... I'm caught up finally.
Remarkably little. I have to get ready for work, but I'll post something slightly more detailed later.Metalmarsh89 wrote:What have you learned? (I'm not caught up)Golden wrote:And.... I'm caught up finally.
How does one of these statements follow the other?Scotty wrote:I'm making a blanket statement that I trust none of you and will be voting a no-show or low poster. That there are 12/25 people not being civs, a coin flip isn't the worst thing in the world atm
But a single vote on its own is completely wasted. Your vote also should consider the other votes on the poll, or at least some prevailing suspicions.Scotty wrote:I'm making a blanket statement that I trust none of you and will be voting a no-show or low poster. That there are 12/25 people not being civs, a coin flip isn't the worst thing in the world atm
Neither... you study Olaf and learn to understand what the baddie motivation is behind his votes, his buddying, the sincerity of his accusations, and whatever else you can, and you build a case. Then, provided you are lucky enough to still be alive, you lay out the case, you vote for him, and dust off your hands. A good case, especially if you are earnest about it, should win hearts and minds enough.Scotty wrote:This exact dilemma has always made me pause in the no-info-dumping games. If I were in that position I'm not sure what I would do- I haven't yet had a role that I could do that, but I'm nervous in case I ever get it- I dunno if I would constantly go after the found Olaf in hopes that I will be some kamikaze and be lynched, thus making it glaringly obvious that the player I was jumping on is Olaf, or attempt to sprinkle on subtle suspicions over time, but not making it clear that he is bad...
Probably because the story starts with a fire in the movie and presumably the books.Scotty wrote:I don't wanna talk about Glorf's moral principals.
Look y'all, life is like a box of chocolates mmk? Sometimes you get cherry cordial, and you didn't want cherry cordial. Sometimes you pop an almond in your mouth and you're allergic to almond. Next time just stick to an apple or something that has no chance to let you down.
FUJI APPLE FOR OFFICE 2020Here's what I wanna talk about: the fires at the beach. Why were there fires at the beach?
And has anyone not checked in yet?
The underlined section is 100% false. As previously discussed, I considered the option of "lying town" and have several times posted about how such a play would be poor strategy in my opinion. Because it would be such poor strategy, I dismissed the scenario outright.Golden wrote:Their statements were incredibly definitive. DDL said Snow Dog should either be policy lynched if not lying or, if lying, there was a 99% chance of being bad.Soneji wrote:The easy route doesn't allow you to paint people as scum. For all the angles Zebra expects DDL and Jack to have considered, at a time when no decision or claim can even be close to final, she overlooks angles herself like culture clash and approaches their statements as definitive in terms of Snow Dog being their day one lynch.
I'll be voting Zebra for now.
JoH listed three possibilities, truthful scum, truthful town, lying scum, but did not consider lying town. That's not 'all the angles zebra expects them to consider'. It was one - and a pretty blatant one at that. It's not hard to look at that list and see JoH as potentially deliberately not considering one option.
Zebra did not (although others did) expect them to consider the 'it's just day zero banter, referencing monkey island' angle, which might be what you would call 'culture clash'. By the way, DDL has been at this site nearly as long as me, and he's an ambassador, so I hardly think his views can be construed as 'culture clash'. He knows what to expect.
And in all of that, I did not see zebra rushing to call either Jack or DDL as scum. She just engaged them in a dialogue about why their perspective was limiting (which it was). I haven't really got a sense of how firmly Jack or DDL have stuck to their guns yet since I haven't finished a catchup, but I'd hope that they'd listen to the many people who (correctly) identified that Snow Dog was referencing Monkey Island.
Also, votes are permanent, so forget 'for now'... you voted zebra.
This is the most suspicious thing I've seen. It's incredibly misrepresentative of what occurred, and it's just a bizarre vote, almost like 'I'm voting zebra because I also experience culture clash at this site, and zebra doesn't seem to consider that'. I'm going to be strongly considering a vote for soneji.
Your eloquence has been rewarded, my friendGolden wrote:I agree. It's arguing policy again. Let glorf be glorf.Dom wrote:I don't see the merit in the discussion.
Do you disagree that you set out three but not a fourth in that post? Do you disagree that zebra primarily was pointing out views about that fourth position that you did not include?Jackofhearts2005 wrote:I could get behind splitting the difference with alignment only flips. While no janitoring is more comfortable to me, I'm big on trying new things.
This seems like a terrible idea.Snow Dog wrote:I'm playing without reading my role.
If you're being truthful and you're town, this only hurts your performance.
If you're being truthful and you're scum, maybe you don't accidentally give yourself away with a scumtell.
You could also be scum and lying, using this as a shield. "Anything scummy I say can't actually be scummy cause I don't even know my alignment."
I'm with the marmot. You seem like a great first lynch.
Ooooh, I see what you mean.Glorfindel wrote:Your eloquence has been rewarded, my friendGolden wrote:I agree. It's arguing policy again. Let glorf be glorf.Dom wrote:I don't see the merit in the discussion.
I fixed that for you.Long Con wrote:He also didn't list "one of the secret abilities could be forcing you to claim this", "you may have a secret that results in a Civ benefit for saying these things", or "you're just kidding around".
There's not just four options any more than there are just three. And he never said those are the only three options. He just listed some options.
"It's not hard to look at this list and see JoH deliberately blatantly ignoring an option."Golden wrote:@Jack - I didn't miss those posts, but they represented a progression from the starting point. In the particular post that really set zebra out, you did LIST three possibilities, and not the fourth. I don't know how you can say that's 100% false - here's the post:
Do you disagree that you set out three but not a fourth in that post? Do you disagree that zebra primarily was pointing out views about that fourth position that you did not include?Jackofhearts2005 wrote:I could get behind splitting the difference with alignment only flips. While no janitoring is more comfortable to me, I'm big on trying new things.
This seems like a terrible idea.Snow Dog wrote:I'm playing without reading my role.
If you're being truthful and you're town, this only hurts your performance.
If you're being truthful and you're scum, maybe you don't accidentally give yourself away with a scumtell.
You could also be scum and lying, using this as a shield. "Anything scummy I say can't actually be scummy cause I don't even know my alignment."
I'm with the marmot. You seem like a great first lynch.
You say 'you dismissed it outright'. Well, you dismissed it outright to the point you did not consider it in your post. No-one can be expected to know (in that moment) that you had considered it in your mind.
My post that you are objecting to is analysing why I do not agree with soneji's assertions about zebra. Do you agree with them? Let's not make it about you for a second - for the purposes of my point, you're just a bystander who happened to be there when the action went down. Do you think zebra asked you to consider 'so many angles'? Do you think zebra was trying to paint you (and/or DDL) as scum? Do you disagree that your statements (and DDL's) were quite definitive in your perspective of lynching Snow Dog?
Do you, yourself, find zebra suspicious for the way in which she engaged you?
Do you, yourself, find soneji's synopsis of zebra's behaviour compelling and genuine?
There are infinite possibilities. My own explanation (Snow Dog is just having a bit of banter) is none of the four. But the way in which you framed that post (truthful town, truthful baddie, lying baddie...) invited seeing "lying town" as the option you missed. Just because of the way you framed your post. (For clarity, I don't give a flying fuck how many options Jack listed and how many others exist, that's what I was getting at to LC. It's not relevant to the point I was trying to make. What is relevant is whether Zebra's reaction was a genuine and reasonable one in the circumstances. Soneji thinks it was not. I disagree)Jackofhearts2005 wrote:"It's not hard to look at this list and see JoH deliberately blatantly ignoring an option."
That's the bit of your post I don't like cause I wasn't and my later posts addressed it. But I see what you're saying. As of that first post, okay. It was an assumption on Zebra's part and perhaps an understandable one but like LC said, there are infinite possibilities and removing the far fetched ones is reasonable.
Yes, sorry, that was more clear after your clarification.Jackofhearts2005 wrote:I'm going to disagree with your summary of my read on Zebra as "genuine."
I do not view the way she went about that as "genuine."
She saw a very weak attack on a player, mischaracterized the severity and completeness of the reasoning of said attack, put forth a nonsensical and unnecessary defense of what was probably a joke and then didn't answer multiple questions regarding her posts.
I don't view that as a townie trying their best.
@Snow
What did you think of Zebra's initial defense of you?
I do understand that now. But it wasn't clear to me on my first read through (bearing in mind I haven't played with you before). It's probably culture clash to some extent.Jackofhearts2005 wrote:In my mind, it should have been clear that I and MM were not strongly against Snow.
I seriously don't suspect Snow Dog for his antics.Golden wrote:I do understand that now. But it wasn't clear to me on my first read through (bearing in mind I haven't played with you before). It's probably culture clash to some extent.Jackofhearts2005 wrote:In my mind, it should have been clear that I and MM were not strongly against Snow.
I knew MM wasn't, because 'chaos marmot'. I never took his posts about Snow Dog seriously to begin with.
Scotty wrote:That didn't answer my question.insertnamehere wrote:They don't sleep anymore on the beach.Scotty wrote:I don't wanna talk about Glorf's moral principals.
Look y'all, life is like a box of chocolates mmk? Sometimes you get cherry cordial, and you didn't want cherry cordial. Sometimes you pop an almond in your mouth and you're allergic to almond. Next time just stick to an apple or something that has no chance to let you down.
FUJI APPLE FOR OFFICE 2020Here's what I wanna talk about: the fires at the beach. Why were there fires at the beach?
And has anyone not checked in yet?
Cuz of the fire.
Did you start the fire?
4) Sudden superficial analysis. He asks Nacho a no-win question about another obvious piece of banter, he disagrees with daisy's comment about mafia avoiding the Snow Dog conversation entirely (something to note for later if he is bad, but as shown in the above quote he basically avoided it entirely), and he flips around his earlier comments about zebra and Snow Dog where he had dismissed the whole thing, to this:Soneji wrote:Seems the issue with SD, INH, JoH, DDL and Zebra here is more tolerance of specific "playstyles". Not reading your role is basically akin to cheating in my eyes. Given Wilgy doing this in the Monkey Island game, which Snow Dog was part of, I wouldn't jump on it d1 unless other factors added onto it.
Which to me stands in stark contrast to what he'd said before and comes entirely out of nowhere. Jack has confirmed he didn't perceive that Zebra was painting him as scum, and I think there is no evidence zebra was doing so. Yet Soneji sees that as the 'easy move', when soneji has himself done exactly what I said was the easy move... and just said that 'Snow Dog's claim naturally came off as a joke to anyone in Monkey Island'.Soneji wrote:Zebra to me this game comes off as trying to push certain angles where none exist really. Snow Dog's claim of not reading his role naturally came off as a joke to anyone in Monkey Island but Zebra argued for what he did as some baiting tactic, with a catch-all pass to be scummy if you can claim or have it claimed that you were just luring out mafia.
The easy route doesn't allow you to paint people as scum. For all the angles Zebra expects DDL and Jack to have considered, at a time when no decision or claim can even be close to final, she overlooks angles herself like culture clash and approaches their statements as definitive in terms of Snow Dog being their day one lynch.Golden wrote:First read - zebra is town. I love the way he is deconstructing DDL and Jacks arguments around Snow Dog, despite the much easier route being to do what I did and say 'Snow was not 'lying', he was just engaging in referential banter'.
I'll be voting Zebra for now.
I was a bit bemused at first because we didn't get along in the last game at all. Not a bit. So you can imagine my surprise. But this is only my second game with her. I know she can be aggresive towards some and defnesive towards others. She is a conundrum to me at the moment. She is growing on me.Jackofhearts2005 wrote:I'm going to disagree with your summary of my read on Zebra as "genuine."
I do not view the way she went about that as "genuine."
She saw a very weak attack on a player, mischaracterized the severity and completeness of the reasoning of said attack, put forth a nonsensical and unnecessary defense of what was probably a joke and then didn't answer multiple questions regarding her posts.
I don't view that as a townie trying their best.
@Snow
What did you think of Zebra's initial defense of you?
Genuinely random or 'no u' random?Snow Dog wrote:I randomised and voted DDL, k?
eek what?Quin wrote:eek
Snow Dog's 'random' vote just happened to fall on DDL, who is probably a top contender for the lynch.Metalmarsh89 wrote:eek what?Quin wrote:eek
There's no such thing as random.Quin wrote:Snow Dog's 'random' vote just happened to fall on DDL, who is probably a top contender for the lynch.Metalmarsh89 wrote:eek what?Quin wrote:eek
Thats not what random.org saysMetalmarsh89 wrote:There's no such thing as random.Quin wrote:Snow Dog's 'random' vote just happened to fall on DDL, who is probably a top contender for the lynch.Metalmarsh89 wrote:eek what?Quin wrote:eek
Golden wrote:Thats not what random.org saysMetalmarsh89 wrote:There's no such thing as random.Quin wrote:Snow Dog's 'random' vote just happened to fall on DDL, who is probably a top contender for the lynch.Metalmarsh89 wrote:eek what?Quin wrote:eek
That is pseudo-random at best.Golden wrote:Thats not what random.org saysMetalmarsh89 wrote:There's no such thing as random.Quin wrote:Snow Dog's 'random' vote just happened to fall on DDL, who is probably a top contender for the lynch.Metalmarsh89 wrote:eek what?Quin wrote:eek
OK, then, I present to you a second source of pure randomness.Metalmarsh89 wrote:That is pseudo-random at best.Golden wrote:Thats not what random.org saysMetalmarsh89 wrote:There's no such thing as random.Quin wrote:Snow Dog's 'random' vote just happened to fall on DDL, who is probably a top contender for the lynch.Metalmarsh89 wrote:eek what?Quin wrote:eek
Even if everyone random-votes, no one will randomly die.Jackofhearts2005 wrote:What's the advantage of random voting at all?
If you're not the determiner, you might as well not vote.
If you are the determiner....you want to determine who should die randomly?
Touchè.Golden wrote:OK, then, I present to you a second source of pure randomness.Metalmarsh89 wrote:That is pseudo-random at best.Golden wrote:Thats not what random.org saysMetalmarsh89 wrote:There's no such thing as random.Quin wrote:Snow Dog's 'random' vote just happened to fall on DDL, who is probably a top contender for the lynch.Metalmarsh89 wrote:eek what?Quin wrote:eek
Chaos Marmot.
QED.
Not voting as any kind of deliberate choice is very much frowned upon in our history.Jackofhearts2005 wrote:What's the advantage of random voting at all?
If you're not the determiner, you might as well not vote.
If you are the determiner....you want to determine who should die randomly?