PDA

View Full Version : 40kforums: A Tale of Woe [Internet Mafia] (Game Over)



Pages : [1] 2

Mozric
5th October 2007, 04:59
If you are unfamiliar with the game Mafia, either take a look at Subzero's Handy Topic (http://www.40kforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=31535) (so handy) or try to work it out as you go along – it's a fairly intuitive game. Just follow instructions, send your actions to me if necessary and vote to lynch people. You will get a PM with your role and victory conditions.
Feel free to join in if you haven't played before, it's good fun.
Anyway, on to the game!

40kforums: A Tale of Woe, Convenient Holidays and Elite Hacks

The game is set on 40kforums.
With his $50 winnings at Thursday night poker (true story, honest), Moderator Mozric has shouted Administrator Darkness and the other moderators a holiday to Hawaii (definitely true). In order to try to prevent trouble brewing while they're away, Darkness has temporarily disabled new account registration. In addition, you need to be logged on to access any part of the forum. It is a closed circle. Darkness has also enabled an automated system where people can be banned by majority vote, once per day (note: "day" here is not a literal day of real time. Days can go on for however long it takes, although it's better that they don't drag out too long, 2-5 days of real time is generally a good amount of time for one in-game day).
Unfortunately, some of the forum members have taken advantage of Darkness' absence to cause trouble. Somebody has hacked into the control panel of 40kforums and has been banning people. Luckily, they do not have full access and they're banning only one person a day.
The evil hacker must be one (or a group) of the forum members. Each day the unbanned members must vote to try to ban the hacker(s).
The ban system is a poll which contains the names of all members of the forum (i.e. Players of this game) and an abstain option – nominate your action by posting Vote: [person] (making it bold helps). Players can change their vote. Once any single option has more than 50% of votes, the day ends, that person is banned, and can no longer participate in the game. The ban-o-meter then recharges overnight. Certain events may or may not take place and they may or may not be caused by players.
You may post in the topic and pm each other in both the “day” and “night” phases. If you have been banned, however, you may not give any sort of advice, hints or suggestions.
You are also not allowed to quote your role pm to anyone else. You may explain what your role is (you can lie, of course) if you so wish, but if you directly quote anything that I PM to you, I reserve the right to remove you from the game suddenly and unexpectedly. The reason for this is that in past games people have compared the wording of their pms to try to verify their truth, and this is a quite bastardly metagaming type thing to do.

It will basically work like a normal mafia game, where everyone is a forum member and the mafia are the hackers.
Some of the roles will be based on past and present forum members.

Now I need you dudes and dudettes to sign up for the game. I haven't worked out the roles yet (I have a few ideas :P), so I should be able to handle any number of people signing up.

EDIT: Game Started!

Alive
1. Dreadknot10
3. yWizePapaSmurfy
4. p3990013
6. Doohicky
10. Magnus777z
11. Spam-Robot
14. cubez
15. lefthandedyeti
18. Crimthaan
19. the cow

Banned!
gralph!?! (NPC) – Banned under mysterious circumstances, Night 0.
Kilroy (Cookster, Bearer of Peace and Tranquillity) - Banned by reduced (by 1) majority vote, Day 1.
Gnomesbane (The Infernal Penguin) - Banned after an argument with a troll, Night 1.
Warlock Chris (tough_tom_22) - Banned under mysterious fedora-related circumstances, Night 1.
Sohungry (SonsOfStalingrad) - Banned by reduced (by 2) majority vote, Day 2.
Foamy666 (CitizenErased, the Californian) - banned by flaming troll, Night 2.
Subzero (The Grand Beef) - banned by mysterious means, Night 2.
Andon (DURENDIN, 40kforums fanatic) - banned by lynch, Day 3.
Sammy2028 (Killfrenzy the Zerger) has been banned by flaming troll, Night 3.
Tarion'Maseth (Touchingcloth) has been banned by Anonymous, Night 3.

dreadknot10
5th October 2007, 05:11
i definitely want to take part in this mafia game, count me in

Dark Lord Foamy
5th October 2007, 06:49
Sweet count me in.

yWizePapaSmurfy
5th October 2007, 06:53
Surely. :D Hopefully this one will cause more panic and get people moving in the game.

p3990013
5th October 2007, 07:46
Count me in!

P.S. Shower iz still beneficial for your inspiration Mozric :lol:

sammy2028
5th October 2007, 08:17
Count me in please :D

Doohicky
5th October 2007, 09:02
'Here I come.... walking down the street.... get the funniest looks from..'

'What? Mafia game? Get me some of that'

*Jumps onto Mafia bandwagon*

'Choo choo'

(I'm in)

Rifleman Lizard
5th October 2007, 16:44
Ok I'm in.

Subzero
5th October 2007, 17:36
In like a zombie on brains.

Tarion'Maseth
5th October 2007, 17:43
In. Without a doubt.

Magnus777z
5th October 2007, 23:26
I want in.

Spam-Robot
5th October 2007, 23:59
IN IN IN

Kilroy
8th October 2007, 14:49
I join.

Andon
8th October 2007, 15:39
ME! ME! ME!

cubez
8th October 2007, 19:39
yes more, please more :D:D

lefthandedyeti
9th October 2007, 03:46
Cant...Resist...Much...Longer....

I'm in.

Mozric
9th October 2007, 05:11
Nice. One more person would be good, I'd be happy to run the game with 16 players (easily divisible).

I'll probably start the game on Friday: the topic will have been up for one week.

Gnomesbane
9th October 2007, 21:39
Oh wow! How did I miss this? If there is space sign me up!

sohungry
9th October 2007, 22:18
im in if there is still room.

Crimthaan
10th October 2007, 10:04
OH as I am. I'd love to play again...as long as I'm not the first one to get killed again on night one and not be able to play for a couple months ;)

Tarion'Maseth
10th October 2007, 10:13
Suggestion - Can start on a day phase? Have the first "kill" be an NPC? That way everyone plays based on their skill, rather than being killed with luck.

Kilroy
10th October 2007, 21:19
I'm not a crook! :roll:

Mozric
11th October 2007, 03:04
Suggestion - Can start on a day phase? Have the first "kill" be an NPC? That way everyone plays based on their skill, rather than being killed with luck.

Hmmm, good idea.

The idea of a preliminary night kill is to give a basis for accusations and suchlike, but as this is an internet forum, it's harder to go "Tarion SO would have killed Killroy" or something. So I may do as you say.

I'll probably still have a preliminary phase where non-killy abilities can be used.

Mozric
14th October 2007, 09:15
zomg double post

This topic is not dead! Honest.

I was planning on starting the game on friday (2 days ago), but things came up and basically i'm very, very tired. I'll see if I can burst out of my gloomy exterior and get the game in progress in a flurry of activity sometime next week.

Stay tuned, folks.

More people, feel free to join. Yeah, you.

the cow
16th October 2007, 21:15
Im In!

Mozric
19th October 2007, 05:06
Note: I previously deleted some spam posts. This isn't the wastes.

Anyway, I've written up the roles!
*and there was much rejoicing*

Just got to roll up who gets what.

I will just explain something first. (Almost) every role is named after a past or present forum member. This doesn't have any effect on the game, it's just to add a bit of flavour (the roles are loosely based around the character of the named forumer).
I'll say now that I've kept the roles fairly simple. My evil sadistic side has been reigned in. So the focus on the game will be how you play, vote and PM, rather than the exploitation of strange roles. There are still a few roles and not all of them are standard. But not everybody will get a unique role -- but even the innocents are named after forum members.

Also, I do not mean to judge harshly any named forum members by the roles I've given them. The roles that could be seen as insulting I've left for members who have been banned in the distant past. The rest of the roles are intended to be light-hearted and to have little if any connection to reality. I'm assuming that none of the relevant forum members will get upset if they see their name being used in these roles without permission, but if you have any concerns feel free to PM me and I'll remove your name from the game (although don't assume that your name is in the game, I couldn't include all 8864 forum members).

Game should be starting soon.

sohungry
19th October 2007, 05:13
about time! i thought this thing was dead

WarEagle
19th October 2007, 05:15
I guess ill join....

dreadknot10
19th October 2007, 05:38
sounds awesome mozzy, this game should one of the best yet in my opinion. if my name is one of the ones mentioned (i find it doubtful myself) then i am truly flattered

Mozric
19th October 2007, 05:41
I guess ill join....

Sorry man, I've already assigned all the roles and it's balanced (I hope) for 19 people.
I would like to have you playing, but to be fair, you had two weeks to join!

Role PMs being sent out...


The game starts as a night phase. However, no banning (this game's equivalent of killing) roles may act in this preliminary night phase.

Remember, you may PM each other at any time, but you cannot quote your Role PM.

Have fun and good luck to all.

WarEagle
19th October 2007, 05:42
meh.. its ok i didn't have a strong grasp on how it works so it most likely woundn't have been that fun for me

Mozric
19th October 2007, 06:09
I encourage you to join the next one dude. There'll probably be another one in about a month.

Roles sent out!

Magnus777z
19th October 2007, 06:51
Woot! game on!

Tarion'Maseth
19th October 2007, 13:09
:D
:D
:D
:D

... yes, I'm slightly excited. Mozric, how obscure are the role names, out of curiosity? I'm quite looking forward to seeing what you used.
I definitely got the significance of mine, but I want to know if you're going to be abusing your many years on this site to confuse newer guys :wink:

p3990013
19th October 2007, 13:56
Yes let's abuse the n00bs. Man am I bored or what. 'nuff said.

EDIT:

(I'm already roleplaying. Oh boy, I'm really gonna enjoy this role...)

Mozric
20th October 2007, 00:56
:lol:

Don't push your luck p.

And, Tarion, most of them are current forumers on the first two pages of the memberlist (sorted by post count).

I'm still deciding on which NPC forumer to "ban" for the first night phase. Perhaps whoever annoys me the most between now and then :P

Andon
20th October 2007, 17:21
Hrm... this'll be interesting.

Mozric
21st October 2007, 08:08
And now for a bit of story and night results, as the game begins!

*clears throat; finds armchair, notes; puts on serious face*

Ahh, isn't it relaxing. The moderators are on holiday and the forum is peaceful and idyllic.
But wait, something's wrong! What could it be? The gathered forumers look to the chaos wastes. They discover a disturbing lack of anime references. Cat macroing has also dropped off significantly.
For a moment there is rejoicing from some. But then, after strategic kicking and speen-stealing suitably solemn faces appear. gralph!?! (NPC) has been banned under mysterious circumstances. There must be some dastardly hacking going on. Who could have done such a dirty deed?
In the midst of this confusion, a mysterious figure shares some sage wisdom:
would the real hackers please stand up, please stand up, please stand up Who is this man!?!
The forumers gather nervously around the giant banning poll, looking for a scapegoat to blame for gralph!?!'s death.

It is now Day 1. The day will continue until a majority vote for bannage is reached.

Banned:
gralph!?! (NPC) – Banned under mysterious circumstances.

Dark Lord Foamy
21st October 2007, 08:14
Noooo not gralph anyone but gralph oh well let the game commence.

p3990013
21st October 2007, 09:14
WTF man?
Goodbye dear friend, your anime references will be missed...

At least we know the hacker does not appreciate anime!

Doohicky
21st October 2007, 11:11
Right the game begins.

Let the discussions commence. It's the only way to hope to avoid a random lynching of an innocent.

Subzero
21st October 2007, 11:59
To start things off I'm going to make a vote for a completely arbitrary reason:

Vote: Tarion

Because he's below me on the player list.

Kilroy
21st October 2007, 14:31
VOTE: ABSTAIN


I can't bold it so I'm capitaling it.

Tarion'Maseth
21st October 2007, 14:31
Fair enough. For that same reason, I'm going to

Vote: Magnus777z . Oh, and he also hasn't posted yet, giving me further reason :wink:



NB: Still being completely arbitrary, I'm just trying to encourage Magnus777z to post.

sohungry
21st October 2007, 16:27
alright

vote: p3990013


because i dont know how to pronounce his name!

Spam-Robot
21st October 2007, 16:32
Yay, lets start some discussion!
Vote:Abstain

I'm not being serious about abstaining, just wanted to get some vote in

Kilroy
21st October 2007, 22:09
VOTE: ABSTAIN

Spam-Robot
21st October 2007, 22:22
VOTE: ABSTAIN

There you go.

cubez
21st October 2007, 23:29
ohh ohh

he being too nice :O

vote : spam

Magnus777z
21st October 2007, 23:33
Vote: Tarion'Maseth
reason: He voted for me, this is such a well thought out and technical explanation.

lefthandedyeti
22nd October 2007, 00:01
vote:Kilroy

Because he's promoting abstinence in all its forms.

Andon
22nd October 2007, 00:02
Vote: Kilroy

Because Yeti said so. And to see who does what

Rifleman Lizard
22nd October 2007, 00:03
Vote:Kilroy

Because idleness leads to heresy... obviously.
Lets just get the ball rolling.

yWizePapaSmurfy
22nd October 2007, 00:08
Quite random choice, bah

Vote: Yeti

Because Andon said he said so.

dreadknot10
22nd October 2007, 00:32
if i voted in the way subzero did then i could vote for anyone, being the first on the player list, although i am with holding my vote because i want some minor evidence of evil doings

p3990013
22nd October 2007, 09:04
lefthanded yeti, Andon and Warlock chris seem to be setting up something. All of them voting together for Kilroy is very weird. They probably are the hackers and want to get rid of an innocent soon in the game. Let's see if they can take the heat too :lol:

Vote: Warlock Chris

This is just odd.

P.S.


alright

vote: p3990013


because i dont know how to pronounce his name!

friends call me P3 :lol:

Dark Lord Foamy
22nd October 2007, 09:13
I don't think they all are P3 but at least one of them is which one I'm not sure yet but I definitely think one of them is a hacker as I doubt 3 innocents would try and kill another someone so quickly. I'm holding my vote off for now as I don't want to end up killing an innocent but I'm definitely keeping an eye on you 3.

Doohicky
22nd October 2007, 09:16
Don't have enough eveidence for anyone at the moment.

Let's go for...

Vote : Andon

Don't think he has any votes yet and I don't want to add to a quick lynch. But I do want to be seen about.
I get annoyed by people lurking and using the excuse of 'but I don't know anything', so I won't do it.

Whether you know something or not people. Post up and let yourself be known.

Subzero
22nd October 2007, 14:56
Okay, looks like the game has started moving...here are some of my suspicions (not all of them, just the ones where the reasons are the most obvious):

1) Kilroy and Spam - both voting to abstain. Voting to abstain just because you don't want to vote for someone else or because you're trying to create discussion isn't a valid reason - if you don't want to vote for someone then you shouldn't be voting, and if you're trying to create discussion then voting for nobody isn't a very good way to do it, given that Mafia is a game all about suspicion. Kilroy particularly stands out to me due to the fact that he voted to abstain without any reason.

2) Andon and Warlock Chris - trying to form a bandwagon this early on isn't a very good idea. Warlock Chris is particularly suspicious - 'trying to get the ball rolling' is not the same as bandwagoning someone and usually involves at least accusing them of something rather than just making a vote without good reason for a person who already has several votes.

Anyway, those are just a few things that have happened so far, as I said before. For the moment I'll Unvote, now that the random/arbitrary voting stage is over.

Andon
22nd October 2007, 20:37
Unvote

I am in no way affiliated with Chris. I just was checking people's reactions.

Gnomesbane
22nd October 2007, 20:40
VOTE: SMURF

because his cube avatar has a pink heart on it, which kinda creeps me out. Anyone agree?

Also, does anyone feel this is weird without the "random" kill from night 0? I dunno, even though it is hard to tell the motives behind it, there was at least some speculation that could be done. :? /end ramble

Spam-Robot
22nd October 2007, 20:57
VOTE: SMURF

because his cube avatar has a pink heart on it, which kinda creeps me out. Anyone agree?

Also, does anyone feel this is weird without the "random" kill from night 0? I dunno, even though it is hard to tell the motives behind it, there was at least some speculation that could be done. :? /end ramble

Vote:Gnomesbane

For the sheer fact of not knowing the companion cube.

Kilroy
22nd October 2007, 21:51
Alrighty

UNVOT

sohungry
22nd October 2007, 22:34
unvote

vote: warlock chris

he was aweful quick to hop on the bandwagon against kilroy for absolutly no good reason. Andon started the bandwagon so i also have my suspicions about him. Andon's starting the bandwagon however may have just been to get a reaction so i wont hold it agianst him just yet.

quickly following a trend against a potential inocent just screams "im guilty, and need to point the blame at someone else fast"

so yeah...that's my vote

Mozric
23rd October 2007, 01:51
Votes:
Magnus777z (1): Tarion'Maseth
spam (1): Cubez
Tarion'Maseth (1): Magnus777z
Kilroy (3): lefthandedyeti, Warlock Chris, yWizePapaSmurfy
Warlock Chris (2): p3990013, sohungry
Andon (1): Doohicky
yWizePapaSmurfy (1): Gnomesbane
Gnomesbane (1): Spam-Robot

Number needed for majority: 10
Current vote leader: Kilroy (3)
People not voting at the moment: Dreadknot10, foamy666, sammy2028, Subzero, Kilroy, Andon, Crimthaan, the cow (8 )

Note: taking note of "people not voting" is intended to encourage activity on the part of players. That's not to say that you have to be voting to be active, but if a person's name is consistantly on that list players may draw their own conclusions.
I may also add a "people who haven't posted in this day phase" counter.

Just for kicks:
Majorities attainable without any unvoting: Kilroy, Warlock Chris


EDIT: If the game starts to drag out I will enforce a new rule -- if any single player consistently has more votes than any other player for 48 hours, they will be lynched. This is to avoid having the problem of not having enough people active to actually get a lynch through

dreadknot10
23rd October 2007, 01:55
vote: warlock chris

like others have stated he has formed a mild bandwagon sorta speak, and i find that very suspicious

p3990013
23rd October 2007, 06:59
I'd like to hear what Warlock Chris has to say on his actions. It seems he's becoming popular in the lynch group!

yWizePapaSmurfy
23rd October 2007, 07:08
Excuse me! that vote count sez I voted Kilroy! I DID NO SUCH THING!, I voted Yeti...

Rifleman Lizard
23rd October 2007, 08:09
Wait a second. I formed a bandwagon? I was the third to vote for Kilroy. If anything that's jumping on the bandwagon, not forming one.


I'd like to hear what Warlock Chris has to say on his actions. It seems he's becoming popular in the lynch group!

Not alot really. I've got no solid defense against the usual first day "bandwagon" lynching. You should all know how those kills go by now.
Do as you please really, because all I can do is plea innocent and you all know as much as I do in how little that is going to help.
So if I do end up hanging from an oak tree I suggest you all look at the first persons who put me there.

p3990013
23rd October 2007, 08:15
I'd like to hear what Warlock Chris has to say on his actions. It seems he's becoming popular in the lynch group!

So if I do end up hanging from an oak tree I suggest you all look at the first persons who put me there.

Nice counterattack may I say!

Doohicky
23rd October 2007, 09:10
I'm not going to unvote Andon. Not because I think he is guilty, but because I don't see a need to do so until I find someone who seems guilty (He is in no danger so I see no problem with leaving my vote oninstead of yo yo ing about.

Anyway. I am sure there must be a few investigative roles that have some ideas about what is going on. Unfortunately the first few nights don't seem to be useful until the person works out how valid their powers are.

Since no one is forthcoming with any kind of evidence (Unsurprisingly) I am beginning to think that the only chance of getting mafia is through a lucky lynch.

My final thought is this. Mafia are not going to be bandwagoning at this early stage. They have no need to and are more likely to be keeping their heads down and hoping to survive the first few rounds without drawing attention.
For this reason I do not think that Warlock Chris is Mafia.

sammy2028
23rd October 2007, 09:29
I agree i belive the mafia would keep their heads down until the game has gotten going a bit before attempting to start up a bandwagon. For this reason i will currently not vote but i will keep my eye on other people who haven't voted or haven't posted.

Mozric
23rd October 2007, 10:01
Votes:
Magnus777z (1): Tarion'Maseth
spam (1): Cubez
Tarion'Maseth (1): Magnus777z
Kilroy (2): lefthandedyeti, Warlock Chris,
Warlock Chris (3): p3990013, sohungry, dreadknot10
Andon (1): Doohicky
yWizePapaSmurfy (1): Gnomesbane
Gnomesbane (1): Spam-Robot
lefthandedyeti(1): yWizePapaSmurfy

Number needed for majority: 10
Current vote leader: Warlock Chris (3)

Apologies to Smurfy and his weighed companion cube.

Subzero
23rd October 2007, 10:16
Warlock Chris, Doohicky and p399: Warlock Chris made the third vote on someone during the random voting stage for which there was no adequate reason given. As I’ve already explained, ‘getting the ball rolling’ is not the same as bandwagoning someone (and yes, Chris, you did effectively try to start the bandwagon, unless you want to try and argue that every single vote on anybody which precedes several other votes is someone starting a bandwagon). Later he then tries to use the standard ‘if you lynch me you’ll be sorry!’ excuse to try and avoid being lynched:


Not alot really. I've got no solid defense against the usual first day "bandwagon" lynching. You should all know how those kills go by now.
Do as you please really, because all I can do is plea innocent and you all know as much as I do in how little that is going to help.
So if I do end up hanging from an oak tree I suggest you all look at the first persons who put me there.
He doesn’t provide any defence for his vote whatsoever, because apparently there’s nothing he can say to defend it. Saying that isn’t a defence in itself, it’s an admission of not being able to explain your actions, which I find rather suspicious.

Note that in the last part there he also tries to throw suspicion at the people who first vote for him, without providing any adequate reasons why we should actually suspect them (given that he’s trying to influence people by using the aforementioned ‘I’m innocent’ excuse, I think it’s highly likely that he’s just trying to make himself appear innocent before being lynched so that he can then throw undue suspicion at the people who vote for him, who would probably find his actions the most suspicious and would therefore be a threat to him).

Despite his last post there completely lacking an argument and containing several logical flaws, someone actually commends it: p399. I see no reason why Chris’ post should be commended as any sort of viable or convincing defence, and in fact what p399 is agreeing with is Chris throwing suspicion at random people (presumably trying to make it seem as if there’s support for that idea). In fact p399 was the person who called out Chris to defend his actions – that makes it rather convenient that he should be the first one to respond afterwards and with congratulations and support for Chris, despite the fact that he freely admitted that he had no defence for his vote. p399 also tries to draw attention to the last part of Chris’ post, again trying to get people to see what he’s saying, see that someone supports it and then follow it.

Additionally, previously p399 posted the following:

lefthanded yeti, Andon and Warlock chris seem to be setting up something. All of them voting together for Kilroy is very weird. They probably are the hackers and want to get rid of an innocent soon in the game. Let's see if they can take the heat too

Vote: Warlock Chris
p399 points the finger at all three of them, despite the fact that Andon and Yeti may not have actually had anything to do with it. He then makes the allegation that they are all hackers, based on very little or no evidence (alright, you could suspect them a bit based on what happened, but fully accusing them of being the Mafia is a bit too much when the random voting stage has only just ended). He doesn’t even try to bring any argument against them whatsoever. Note that he then votes against Chris, who had already been put under suspicion and was therefore a liability – as I see it, this is the fairly common distancing tactic of Mafia voting for one another early on in the game (I’m not basing that on just his vote, but on everything that has happened so far). Additionally, despite his certainty that Warlock Chris is Mafia, even going so far as to directly accuse and vote for him, he then immediately sides with Chris after the latter produces no defence whatsoever for his actions (and doesn't actually seem to have any suspicions of him).

The last person on the list is Doohicky. Firstly, he also joins in with the support for Chris, very soon after Chris’ complete non-defence of his actions, which doesn’t really help his case. In the same post he also tries to divert suspicion away from Warlock Chris and, really, any active posters towards lurkers by saying, essentially, ‘this is what we’re doing, this is what we say the mafia will be doing, look at how they’re completely different!’. Any Mafia member could simply say that the Mafia do x, then do the exact opposite of x to supposedly clear themselves. Of course, there are different ways of interpreting his actions, but then he also makes a veiled request for investigative roles to reveal information earlier in the post (I can’t see how revealing the investigative roles would be any help this early on, nor how it would be wise to reveal them so soon before they can actually investigate more than just one person). Lastly, in this post he also tries to encourage the view that the Mafia will only be caught through luck this early on (despite saying that ‘[discussion] is the only way to hope to avoid a random lynching of an innocent’ at the beginning of the game), when in fact a bit of rational discussion should be able to create a few accurate suspicions of people so that even if an innocent is lynched during this day something was still gained from it.



Knowing me this is probably all horribly inaccurate, but who cares!11!!!1shiftone

Doohicky
23rd October 2007, 11:09
Just a quick reply to Subzero.

I think my post has came across in the wrong way. I wasn't calling people out to reveal investigative roles, I was actually trying to explain why people with investigative roles were not forthcoming yet.
I thought that was clear in my post, but obviously not.

Obviously people will be unsure if they are sane investigative roles at this stage and will not be willing to reveal themselves as targets from the Mafia.

As regards the Warlock Chris defence. I am not supporting him because of his defence or lack thereof. I honestly think that a Mafia member would not put themselves into a position where they are open for accusations this early on when there is no need.

Gnomesbane
23rd October 2007, 20:24
I am still going to keep my vote on smurf. I have no suspicions on him, but at least it is a vote. Once something with substance turns up I will look into it and possibly vote that way. I just can't see anything right now that is definitive proof of anyones misdoings.

the cow
23rd October 2007, 21:49
Vote Warlock Chris

just seems a bit shechy around him if you ask me

Kilroy
23rd October 2007, 22:50
VOTE: ANDON

When Doohicky voted Andon, he backed off saying he was not affiliated wth/chris and that he just wanted to see peoples reactions. That sounds pretty wonky to me.

lefthandedyeti
23rd October 2007, 23:05
To clarify, neither Warlock Chris nor Andon started the voting for Kilroy. That was me.

Using the reasoning put forth by those voting for Chris, I could say that P399, Dreadknot, sohungry and the cow are attempting to start a bandwagon, and as such are mafia.

And lastly,
unvote: Kilroy

Crimthaan
24th October 2007, 00:55
VOTE:Abstain I never like the first round of these games because no one is really voting on anything substantial.

sohungry
24th October 2007, 02:22
To clarify, neither Warlock Chris nor Andon started the voting for Kilroy. That was me.




wrong.

you were the first to vote for him, but that does not mean you started the bandwagon. When you voted for him it was just an arbitrary vote. It was random just like all the other votes that had been made, And since kilroy didnt have any other votes at that point it wasnt really doing any harm.

After you cast your vote, kilroy was just in the same position as several other people with one vote for them. He may as well of had no vote for him.


However, after ANDON voted for kilroy things got serious. With two votes two his name Kilroy was in serious trouble. being the only person with 2 votes against him he stood out, making him an easy lynching target.

When Warlock chris voted for kilroy things just got out of control. with three votes against him kilroy was on his way to being lynched for absolutly no reason.

This is why im voting for chris. Andon officially started the bandwagon in my eyes, and chris was the first to join the bandwagon.

in my opinion that makes Andon and Chris the most likly hackers at this point in the game.

I chose Warlock chris over andon because he jumped on the bandwagon very quickly against a person with no evidence agaisnt him, which is a sure sign of guilt.

Andon doesnt seem AS guilty because in a way i feel that what he did was nessesary. Otherwise everyone would just have one vote against him and the game goes no where. Whether he did it because he's guilty and wanted to lynch an inocent, or because he simply wanted to break the stalemate and make the game interesting is still unclear


In conclusion, Andon and Warlock chris seem the most suspicious at this point but I personally think chris is more suspicious

Andon
24th October 2007, 02:43
I did it to get the ball rolling. I figured that 'starting a bandwagon' would get people really thinking, especially if I knew that the bandwagon wouldn't really go anywhere. bandwagons also can help reveal mafia/hackers - They don't want to do anything suspicious, so they could logically join one. Thus Chris is suspicious in my eyes.

Not suspicious enough to earn a vote, however.

Oh, and Kilroy - That was in response to Sub's post. I was going to unvote anyway, as it was only to get things going.

Mozric
24th October 2007, 05:59
Votes:
Magnus777z (1): Tarion'Maseth
spam (1): Cubez
Tarion'Maseth (1): Magnus777z
Kilroy (1): Warlock Chris,
Warlock Chris (4): p3990013, sohungry, dreadknot10, the cow
Andon (2): Doohicky, Kilroy
yWizePapaSmurfy (1): Gnomesbane
Gnomesbane (1): Spam-Robot
lefthandedyeti(1): yWizePapaSmurfy
ABSTAIN (1): Crimthaan

Number needed for majority: 10
Current vote leader: Warlock Chris (4)


(I will post this only once per page. If you want to know how many votes there are then look at my most recent post of this style and count however many more votes were made after that)

Keep the voting active, peoples. Remember, if the day drags out too long I will eventually just lynch the person with the highest vote count. Although I'm not enforcing any time limit yet as the highest vote count is still only 4/19.

Magnus777z
24th October 2007, 07:21
I'm changing my vote too Vote: Warlock chris as I think that the arguements presented against him have some merit.

p3990013
24th October 2007, 07:31
My opinion stands for Warlock Chris. I think it's a good start. If I'm wrong...I'm wrong. Everything is based on assumptions regarding peoples' actions anyway...

Spam-Robot
24th October 2007, 20:06
:eek:
Wow, you guys sure are quick to start this game off
unvote

So far, I see little evidence pointing to Anyone.

sammy2028
24th October 2007, 20:21
Vote: Abstain

I've decided to abstain because currently i don't belive their to be any hard evidence pointing me in the direction of any hackers. I will continue to watch how this day progress's with interest.

Kilroy
24th October 2007, 21:30
Meh... UNVOTE

Subzero
25th October 2007, 16:01
I'm going to add my vote to Warlock Chris as well: Vote: Warlock Chris

At the moment that's only 6 votes whilst 10 are required to lynch someone, so he can't really be bandwagoned from this position.

Gnomesbane
25th October 2007, 18:07
UNVOTE: SMURF
VOTE: SOHUNGRY

In his post at the top of this page he seems to really be trying to play the guilt card on Warlock. To me this just seems like a way to try and press a vote on a possibly innocent person who just made an honest mistake of voting the wrong way.

yWizePapaSmurfy
25th October 2007, 18:53
Agreed there,

Why are you trying to lead us to lynch Chris, Sohungry? Surely if he was suspicious enough we would all turn to vote towards him on our own accord.

Kilroy
25th October 2007, 22:43
VOTE: WARLOCK CHRIS

I don't think that he can be saved and I want to get to the night phase as quickly as possible.

Tarion'Maseth
26th October 2007, 03:31
I'm wavering between Chris, who I think screwed up earlier, and Sohungry who came on far, far too hard at the top of this page (If we're still on page 5 after this post :wink:)

I do believe Chris is getting unfairly bandwagoned here, as I don't think he was actually trying to form a bandwagon. It's been a fairly common trick in our Mafia games to get a decent number of votes on people in order to put pressure on them. I'm guessing he's just doing this, but it's pure speculation at this point. He's definitely high on my list.

Sohungry on the other hand, has jumped on the Chris bandwagon with a passion, trying to rally people to his cause. He seems to be going for the safe route - He wasn't the first on, but he's putting a lot of pressure. If he was Mafia, and he knew Chris to be innocent, it would be the smart way to get him lynched. He wouldn't want to be in the initial 3 voters (As he's drawing attention to them specifically -
1 - Initial voter
2 - Making an easy lynching target
3 - "Serious trouble")
but instead, he's getting in in that all important number 4, as an innocent member of a bandwagon gone awry. If (Big emphasis on the "if" there) Chris turns out to be innocent, I wouldn't follow Sohungry in a vote against those who lynched Chris. It's a distanced tactic to voting that might give him two or three easy kills if he were Mafia - Let suspicion fall on his next target and get an easy lynch.

Crimthaan
26th October 2007, 05:40
VOTE: WARLOCK CHRIS

I don't think that he can be saved and I want to get to the night phase as quickly as possible.

I am removing my vote of Abstain and..

VOTE:Kilroy

Why are you so pressed to get to the night phase so fast, neh? It's clear that Warlock is probably going to be the one lynched, but you had to add fuel to the fire and than specially say you wanted to get to the night phase. I dont know about anyone else, but I'm generally wary about anyone who wants to rush the day phase.

sohungry
26th October 2007, 06:21
@ Crimthaan: i think kilroy wants to move onto the night phase because the first day phase is boring as hell.

@everyone else:
Right now, there isnt much basis to accuse anyone. Even my argument against chris is flimsy as hell and full of holes. I'll admit that. But with the limited info we have right now it's the best guess i can come up with.

Feel free to be suspicious of me for offering a long explanation of my vote. There is probably just as much reason to vote for me as anyone else.

The point is, someone has to be the first to go. Chris makes more sense to me than anyone else right now. so why not?

this day phase is taking forever and im growing bored.

Mozric
26th October 2007, 07:04
Just a quick clarification...
If you are on a team, like innocents or hackers, you win if your team wins, even if you die in the process. This is normal procedure in the mafia games, but just thought that I'd make sure everybody knew. Survival is not necessary unless your role specifically says so.

Dark Lord Foamy
26th October 2007, 07:24
Ugh I really hate the first days of these things but I'm going to stick with my suspicions and

Vote: Warlock Chris

As I said earlier I was suspicious of him when he jumped onto get rid of Kilroy so early in the game and he's done nothing really to change my suspicions.

Subzero
26th October 2007, 09:09
Vote: Abstain

I've decided to abstain because currently i don't belive their to be any hard evidence pointing me in the direction of any hackers. I will continue to watch how this day progress's with interest.
Vote: Sammy

I'll be moving my vote for now, because Sammy seems to be trying to get away with lurking. The abstain vote makes him even less visible because a vote for an actual player would probably cause some discussion.

Additionally, sohungry, I find it odd that you've backpedaled and said that no arguments are truly valid at this early stage in the game ("Right now, there isnt much basis to accuse anyone"), when at the top of the page you were utterly convinced that Warlock Chris was guilty ("a sure sign of guilt"). Is this because you've also come under suspicion and would prefer to try and neutralise all suspicion than go ahead in lynching someone who has come under suspicion?

As with some other people, I'm also suspicious of both you and Kilroy for wanting to get to the night phase as soon as possible ("this day phase is taking forever and im growing bored" and "I want to get to the night phase as quickly as possible" respectively). This is a game where a large number of players are innocents, as Mozric said earlier (or at least, a larger number than in most games), so nobody really has the excuse that 'everyone wants to get to the night phase to use their ability'. Thus, as people who have both come under suspicion and both want to get to the night phase as soon as possible, you two are seeming increasingly like anti-town roles.

That said, I do feel that Warlock Chris is still suspicious in some ways.

Doohicky
26th October 2007, 09:11
2 more votes need for a lynch if I am adding correctly here.
This means that things could very easily grind to a halt.
In all honesty, there is not overawing evidence against anyone. That's no surprise in day one.
Heck, chances are it will be day 3 before good evidence starts to come forward.

Anyway, my point here is that Chris is as likely to be innocent as anyone else here which means that people putting the final votes on Chris (if he turns out to be innocent) will be pointed out as mafia due to 'finishing' him off.

I would like to state that, whilst I will be suspicious of those people, that will not make me think of them as Mafia straight away as otherwise no one will ever finish a lynch majority for fear of being lynched themselves straight away.

At the moment my suspicions are moving towards so hungry.

Unvote - Andon

Vote - Sohungry

p3990013
26th October 2007, 09:26
VOTE: WARLOCK CHRIS

I don't think that he can be saved and I want to get to the night phase as quickly as possible.

Unvote: Warlock Chris

Vote: Kilroy

OK I got the reaction I wanted. Lame excuse for lynching!

Tarion'Maseth
26th October 2007, 09:36
I do think that Kilroy just leapt straight to the top of my list of suspects. At the moment, jumping straight to the night phase means the majority of players losing their key power - the Lynch. The night phase is important if (And only if) you've got powers. So everyone wanting to rush to night phase probably has a power. If we assume the majority of players with power are anti-town (A bit of a stretch, true, so take it with a pinch of salt), then the majority of the players who want to rush to night phase would be anti-town.

Subzero - In defence of Sammy2028, there is no hard evidence. It is speculation. However, either he genuinely believes that, or he's using it as an excuse because Sammy doesn't want to be involved in a lynch... or he could be anti-town. Either way makes him a target - His strategy is timid, which isn't hugely helpful. We need decisive moves, which abstaining is distinctly not. So, we have the choice of timid or a anti-town. To be honest, whichever way we look at it, he's a valid lynch. If he's not anti-town, he's definitely drawing the wrong sort of attention and not being all that useful.

EDIT: Changed the formatting on Subzero's name. Don't want it to look like a vote :oops:

sammy2028
26th October 2007, 11:23
Well after looking over the thread a few more times i've decided to change my vote. Unvote: Abstain Vote:Kilroy I belive Kilroy is a little suspicous for wanting to get to the night phase as quickly as possible. Admittidly the first day phase is usually boring but i still think its an improtant time. To discuss and work out who we think could be mafia.

In my defence i voted abstain earlier because i geinuenly did not know who to vote for. I didn't think Warlock Chris was all that suspicsious and nobody else caught my eye so i abstained. Also why am i the one who got targetted when Crimthaan abstained as well? I know he has voted now but i am merely interested for the reasoning of picking me instead of him.

Andon
26th October 2007, 12:09
Vote: Kilroy

He's a bit too eager. Sohungry looks a bit suspicious as well, but he's not likely to be lynched

Kilroy
26th October 2007, 22:22
Foamy did the same thing for the exact same reason, am I not wrong?

Subzero
26th October 2007, 22:30
Instead of directing suspicion away from yourself perhaps you'd like to actually address those suspicions?

Dark Lord Foamy
26th October 2007, 23:07
Foamy did the same thing for the exact same reason, am I not wrong?

Errrr what lets look at each others posts shall we.


VOTE: WARLOCK CHRIS

I don't think that he can be saved and I want to get to the night phase as quickly as possible.


Ugh I really hate the first days of these things but I'm going to stick with my suspicions and

Vote: Warlock Chris

As I said earlier I was suspicious of him when he jumped onto get rid of Kilroy so early in the game and he's done nothing really to change my suspicions.

So you are just voting for him because you think he's a goner might as well join in and kill him and get over with so we can get to the night phase as quickly as possible.

I on the other hand am stating I hate first days not saying I want to go to the night phase as I don't want to until someone who looks like they should be hanged is and voting for chris because of my earlier suspicions not because I just want him to die and get it over with.

So in my opinion you've done a shit job trying to remove attention from yourself and really Kilroy the way your acting you might as well have big flashing sign saying "I am anti-town" over your head the way your going.

Unvote: Warlock Chris
Vote: Kilroy

sohungry
26th October 2007, 23:19
well now i just dont know who to vote for.


I feel really hypocritical changing my vote....but i was never realllly certain of chris.

unvote chris

vote kilroy


now i bet i look suspicious as hell eh?

Kilroy
26th October 2007, 23:21
Ah, as usual first to be killed off :roll: .

Never the less, UNVOTE.

To defend myself I have to say that I honestly thought he was as good as dead so to make it quicker, I voted for him (That is of course until you guys started voting for me). I made my comment earlier cause I was really sort of annoyed that you guys started voting for me because I was voting for the same person as you. Sorry Foamy.

Plus, when I posted earlier I was brutally honest. If I was lying I would have said something like, oh I think he's suspicious because of the reasons formerly noted down.

sohungry
27th October 2007, 00:01
actually. fuck that

unvote: Kilroy

i dont feel right voting someone off saying they want they game to progress faster.

i said that myself...

this day 1 has taken like a week. Wanting to progress to the night phase doesnt nessesarily mean he's guilty. I want to progress and i know im an innocent. These games tend to get more interesting after the first night. like i said, this phase is tedious and boring. I really think we'll have more to go on after the hackers actually make thier first kill.

thats why i feel horrible for changing my vote to...

vote: Crimthaan

I really dont think kilroy is guilty, and im definitly not certain about chris anymore.

now lets look at crimthaan. He origonally voted to abstain which in my opinion is something a hacker would do as they dont want to draw attention to themselves by throwing out accusations this early in the game.

now he changes his vote to kilroy. why? personally i dont think kilroy saying he wants it to be the night phase is suspicious. At this rate we'll be playing this game for a year. The first night has to come eventually whether we like it or not.

I think the real one pushing for the ngiht phase here is crimthaan. He started off conservativly, voting to abstain. But he's starting to get antsy. As a hacker he obviously watches the topic like a hawk. I know that's what i did in past games when i was mafia.

all that lurking without posting to draw attention to yourself gets hard. he couldnt take it anymore, So he throws out an accusation out of no where. He saw soemthing he could use against someone else, and he used it.

Somehow, it worked. He got you all voting kilroy didnt he?

so...yeah...there that is

Tarion'Maseth
27th October 2007, 00:01
now i bet i look suspicious as hell eh?

Heh, it's the beauty of these games. Everyone not you is suspicious as hell. But to be fair, you need to be able to change your vote without instantly becoming a target. You made a stab; logical reason swayed you. Not saying you're not still suspicious in my eyes, just saying the vote change didn't cause it.

EDIT: I like the way you think (and post again while I'm posting). For those who don't get what I mean, Sohungry's been wavering. Not that I blame him mind. But my post has been decontextualised now, so give me a second to come up with something new. It was initially in response to his post slightly further up the page.

I like the Crimthaan route, and eagerly await how that will turn out. However, it is just a blind stab. Yes, he's suspicious. In fact, I believe he may be slightly more suspicious than Kilroy.

Hence
Unvote: Random stab to set off game (I.e. magnus)
Vote: Crimthaan

Subzero
27th October 2007, 00:40
Vote: Sohungry

This is partly due to your inconsistencies when under suspicion, as I explained before, but also due to your most recent post. You're both adamant that you're innocent (despite us having no evidence to support that):

i know im an innocent.
and try to put that forward in a more subtle way:

I know that's what i did in past games when i was mafia.
which doesn't really help your case.

You're also constantly completely going back on things you've said - first it was that Warlock Chris was guilty, now it's that Kilroy is guilty. Instead you're saying 'actually, I have no idea whatsoever, in fact they could both be completely innocent'. If you're ever suspicious of someone then I don't see how a little bit of discussion is going to completely reverse your view on them. Sure, you might not be as suspicious of them as you were before, but it's a bit of a stretch to completely recant your suspicions twice.

Additionally, the circumstances of you withdrawing your suspicions in both cases are quite odd; in the first case, as I pointed out, you joined the accusations against Warlock Chris (supposedly completely sure of his guilt), then withdrew your vote as soon as suspicion went your way (saying that it was impossible to be sure of anyone's innocence or guilt this early on).

In this case, you've withdrawn your vote for Kilroy (against whom accusations were directed because he wanted to end the day phase as soon as possible) because he said the same suspicious thing that you said, and you suddenly didn't want to vote for someone in a way that could backfire against you. Instead, you've now tried to make it clear to everyone that their suspicions of Kilroy (which are based primarily on that suspicious comment he made) are baseless - coincidentally, those same allegations could be directed against you.

Also coincidentally, you've leaped from one large group of voters to another as suspicion falls on you, always trying to divert suspicion away from yourself and clear people who do the same suspicious acts that you do.

I'd also like to see Spam post a bit more. So far all he's done has been to vote: abstain and say that there's nothing to see so far, thus handily giving him an excuse to lurk and not make his presence known.

Tarion'Maseth
27th October 2007, 01:32
Damn Sub, I like that. Makes me feel all the better for still holding Sohungry on my "list" (The list of people who scare me :|)

As you say, Spam obviously is lacking in posting. Hopefully he'll see that there is a lot to see here.

Gah, I hate the first round. I'm always so indecisive. Give me a while to catch my thoughts. I'm technically on my break from work now. I'm not trying to shadow people's voting. I'll have a run through of my thoughts either later or tomorrow.

Crimthaan
27th October 2007, 12:26
actually. f*** that

unvote: Kilroy

i dont feel right voting someone off saying they want they game to progress faster.

i said that myself...

this day 1 has taken like a week. Wanting to progress to the night phase doesnt nessesarily mean he's guilty. I want to progress and i know im an innocent. These games tend to get more interesting after the first night. like i said, this phase is tedious and boring. I really think we'll have more to go on after the hackers actually make thier first kill.

thats why i feel horrible for changing my vote to...

vote: Crimthaan

I really dont think kilroy is guilty, and im definitly not certain about chris anymore.

now lets look at crimthaan. He origonally voted to abstain which in my opinion is something a hacker would do as they dont want to draw attention to themselves by throwing out accusations this early in the game.

now he changes his vote to kilroy. why? personally i dont think kilroy saying he wants it to be the night phase is suspicious. At this rate we'll be playing this game for a year. The first night has to come eventually whether we like it or not.

I think the real one pushing for the ngiht phase here is crimthaan. He started off conservativly, voting to abstain. But he's starting to get antsy. As a hacker he obviously watches the topic like a hawk. I know that's what i did in past games when i was mafia.

all that lurking without posting to draw attention to yourself gets hard. he couldnt take it anymore, So he throws out an accusation out of no where. He saw soemthing he could use against someone else, and he used it.

Somehow, it worked. He got you all voting kilroy didnt he?

so...yeah...there that is


Actually I didn't get anyone to vote for kilroy, I just made a very valid statement in regards to kilroy blatently wanting to get to the night phase a little bit too fast, and also for a the personal reason that I do not like it when people bandwagon.

If your going to vote for someone, raise a valid statment or at least throw in your own ideas supporting another players reason for voting for someone, dont just vote for someone "because I was sure he was dead anyways and wanted to get the game going". Have I been wrong before in a vote? Yes, I led 2 crap votes in the last game and nearly lost the game because of it. I personally dont care how long the day phase is as long as it means we are arguing and debating on a good vote, not just a bandwagon vote.

As far as "watching the topic like a hawk" I really wish I could. Between work and school fulltime I dont even have time to see the girl very often, let alone check this every 30 minutes...that's all I can really say about that.

I maintain my vote.

Tarion'Maseth
27th October 2007, 18:48
Right, I said I'd post it.

Warlock Chris - Was part of what was nearly our very first bandwagon. I think I've defended it already - Lots of votes early on as a pressure tactic. I'm thinking "no harm, no foul" as far as this one, as he didn't actually cause a bandwagon. He just added a vote to someone. Not a huge deal, really. Still suspicious

Sohungry - Jumped on Chris, followed by changing his position multiple times. Subzero has him more or less nicely covered. Suspicious

Subzero - Playing as he always does. I think we need to see how his votes turn out to see which side he is, right now. However, I would caution him to avoid reading too much into things, something he tends to do a lot. Not every mistake is a slip. Most are just innocent mistakes.

Kilroy - Rushing, but I can understand why. At the moment, we've got no "evidence" as no-one has been able to utilise any more abilities since we started. I understand the desire to move on. If nothing else, we do need to progress eventually. Not really suspicious, IMO. Just timid.

Crimthaan - Not suspicious. Sub covered why Sohungry's argument isn't huuuugely valid. But I think he's being a bit too aggressive against Kilroy. However, I covered why Kilroy's tactic's won't help us earlier. He's either being timid or anti-town. Neither is good.

Spam - Post damnit.

sohungry
27th October 2007, 19:55
if we cant all agree on a suspicious party to lynch. then why dont we just get rid of an inactive?

the way things are going it doesnt look like we are gonna get people to agree on anything.

my suggestions:

cubez He hasnt posted in this topic since sunday (6 days ago) and his only vote was a random one aimed at spam.

lefthandyeti hasnt voted yet and his last post was on tuesday (4 days ago)

the cow randomly voted for chris on tuesday (4 days ago)

sammy abstained on wednesday

spam unvoted on wednesday

Tarion'Maseth
27th October 2007, 20:33
The problem is that the person suggesting that is you, who has come under vote. A suspect telling people to vote for someone else?

sohungry
27th October 2007, 20:44
true, i am rather suspicious.

hell, im pretty sure i'd vote for me if that wasnt counter productive to me winning the game.

cubez
27th October 2007, 20:54
oi oi oi im here, i just have nothing to add,

im gona stick, with spam, he normaly alot more noisy.

Subzero
27th October 2007, 21:11
if we cant all agree on a suspicious party to lynch. then why dont we just get rid of an inactive?
"There's a good deal of discussion about who to lynch and people are putting forward more and more suspicions, some of which have been directed at me recently. So instead of actually following that discussion until the majority agrees on something, let's all lynch someone completely different who likely won't fight back and will be an easy target."

I'm all for getting inactive people to post, but lynching one of them isn't going to be very helpful if doing so completely disregards everything else that has happened so far. Additionally, wasting the day's lynch on someone who's inactive (and, according to you, for no other reason) purely because people haven't yet agreed on someone that they actually suspect is not a very good move at all. Really, I don't see the logic in lynching someone for the sole reason that they're inactive, just because people haven't yet lynched someone who they find suspicious.

You also haven't really bothered to address any of my suspicions of you. Given that instead of trying to clear your own name you're trying to direct suspicion onto other people you seem even more suspicious.

sohungry
27th October 2007, 21:50
It was just a suggestion...

clear my own name you say?

i dont even know why im a suspect! All I've been doing is trying to logic my way to a guilty party. Is that why im "suspicious"? Because i post alot and change my vote frequently?

Drawing so much attention to myself should make me the least suspicious! why the hell would I change my vote so much if i was mafia?

I could have easily left my vote for warlock chris earlier and no one would have questioned it. I gave my reasoning, people agreed with me. I was safe.

I've been voting the way I have because im actually trying to find the real mafia members. I see someone do something suspicious, so i call them on it. what's wrong with that? I change my vote for whoever i feel to be the most suspicious. I change my mind alot, because really, Its friggin hard to determine who the most suspicious is.

Also, there is more than one hacker out there, and they are working together.

If i was a hacker, who the heck would i be working with? My voting patterns dont follow anyone elses that i know of. And if they do then it's pure coincidence.

and i know what you're thinking: "of course his voting patterns dont follow anyone elses, mafia would be careful not to let anyone know they are working together so they would plan to vote for different people"

in answer to that, not only have a disagreed with alot of people so far, i have also done my share of agreeing.

why else do you suspect me? if you have any other concerns i'd be happy to address them. I have nothing to hide

sammy2028
27th October 2007, 22:23
sammy abstained on wednesday

I belive you may have missed my post further to the top of this page so i will quote myself again.


Well after looking over the thread a few more times i've decided to change my vote. Unvote: Abstain Vote:Kilroy I belive Kilroy is a little suspicous for wanting to get to the night phase as quickly as possible. Admittidly the first day phase is usually boring but i still think its an improtant time. To discuss and work out who we think could be mafia.

In my defence i voted abstain earlier because i geinuenly did not know who to vote for. I didn't think Warlock Chris was all that suspicsious and nobody else caught my eye so i abstained. Also why am i the one who got targetted when Crimthaan abstained as well? I know he has voted now but i am merely interested for the reasoning of picking me instead of him.

Now as to what's currently going on i still belive Kilroy to be slightly suspicious as i think its still odd that anyone innocent would want to get on with the night phase. I am currently enjoying the discussion going on and pleased with it as it gives us townsfolk plenty of time to get our earlier suspicouns straight. Other people i belive to be suspicious are currently Sohungry but i do think he's just trying to get a bit more discussion going. I will keep my eye on everyone though.[/b]

sohungry
27th October 2007, 22:46
sorry sammy, i must have missed that post when skimming for inactives.

sammy2028
27th October 2007, 22:59
No problem i thought it was just a case of missed post :D

Subzero
28th October 2007, 00:00
It was just a suggestion...
Yes, that's exactly what I said. You suggested that we ignore the discussion and instead lynch an inactive player. I find this suspicious for the reasons I mentioned earlier.


i dont even know why im a suspect! All I've been doing is trying to logic my way to a guilty party. Is that why im "suspicious"? Because i post alot and change my vote frequently?
I've made it pretty clear why I find you suspicious. Hell, previously you said that you found yourself pretty suspicious (in that you would vote for yourself if it wouldn't jeopardise your chances of winning) so I don't see how you could say something like that without knowing why people find you suspicious. Additionally, you're trying to make a straw-man out of people's arguments against you by presenting them as completely insubstantial, or making inoccuous things seem suspicious (personally, I don't find you suspicious because you 'post a lot and change [your] vote frequently', I find you suspicious for the reasons I've already explained and will continue to explain).


Drawing so much attention to myself should make me the least suspicious! why the hell would I change my vote so much if i was mafia?
I've already mentioned this to Warlock Chris - saying 'this is what the Mafia will do, so I'm innocent because I'm not doing that' does not make you innocent. It just makes you more suspicious for trying to make yourself seem innocent on the basis that you can't be guilty (which is a logical inconsistency).


I could have easily left my vote for warlock chris earlier and no one would have questioned it. I gave my reasoning, people agreed with me. I was safe.
This is the same as above.


I've been voting the way I have because im actually trying to find the real mafia members. I see someone do something suspicious, so i call them on it. what's wrong with that? I change my vote for whoever i feel to be the most suspicious. I change my mind alot, because really, Its friggin hard to determine who the most suspicious is.
The difference between what a lot of people are doing and what you're doing is that you're completely going back on what you said before whenever something might be used on you or whenever you come under suspicion. I've already explained this in greater depth before.


If i was a hacker, who the heck would i be working with? My voting patterns dont follow anyone elses that i know of. And if they do then it's pure coincidence.
You know, I just can't help but say that if you were innocent, you probably wouldn't be checking your voting patterns to make sure they didn't coincide with anyone else's and you probably wouldn't be trying to cover your tracks. Aside from that, saying 'whenever I act suspiciously it's all just a coincidence' is not a proper defence and only makes you look even more suspicious.


and i know what you're thinking: "of course his voting patterns dont follow anyone elses, mafia would be careful not to let anyone know they are working together so they would plan to vote for different people"
No, I've been thinking what I said above.


in answer to that, not only have a disagreed with alot of people so far, i have also done my share of agreeing.
Irrelevent.


why else do you suspect me? if you have any other concerns i'd be happy to address them. I have nothing to hide
Address my concerns? So far you haven't addressed anything that I've said; all you've done is use some very flawed logic to 'prove' your innocence. The closest you came to addressing any of my arguments was near the beginning of your post, where you straw-manned them and presented them as being extremely weak arguments (in fact, the examples you mentioned bear little resemblance to what I've been saying). Since then you're only been talking about your own posts.

In summary, all you've done so far in the game has been to follow two large voting groups (in fact, at the moment the two most likely to have ended in a lynch), be completely inconsistent with your logic and arguments, go back on any arguments you've made which could be used against you, constantly divert suspicion away from yourself (sometimes onto people who have nothing to do with the suspicions others have of you, and sometimes onto point who can't counter those suspicions), present some extremely faulty logic here and straw-man or ignore any arguments made against you. To me, that makes you pretty damn suspicious. For the most part, all the evidence you've presented to support your innocence relies on people already trusting you and believing that you're innocent, thus taking away the point of it.

the cow
28th October 2007, 05:57
sohungry, just cuz I don't say much does not mean that I do not pay attention.. [-(

you should be careful to pull a stunt like this because you have now made my list of people to suspect.....

sohungry
28th October 2007, 07:02
fuck this

vote for me, i dare you


when you all see that im inocent remember the role subzero had in my lynching.

seriously, vote sohungry

hell i change my vote.

unvote: crimthaan

vote:sohungry

im drunk right now so i'll probably change this in the morning.

yWizePapaSmurfy
28th October 2007, 07:10
:lol: Lovely action for a first day phase, I haven't much to say other than I'm trying to not focus on the biggest posts more than the others...

My vote is a random one, I guess it's a bad decision to do that if Yeti is innocent, but he has yet to say anything to me or all of us to convince us that he doesn't deserve my vote, so I'm just gonna pressure him with it if no one minds.

Anyways, I'm a bit more inclined to vote for sohungry now, because I wasn't considering voting him before but now he's going so far to make us feel guilty for sub's reasoning. Why should we all pay where it's just sub pointing out your flaws?

Eh, I'll be on tomorrow, just I think you are getting over-protective of yourself, sohungry.

sohungry
28th October 2007, 07:18
im getting over protective because im getting all these votes thrown my way when i havn't done anything.

i just dont see why me being suspicious of people makes me a target.

i really dont.

im vocal, so what? im trying to actually play the game here. but for some reason that's being held against me as a sign of guilt.

sure, i'll admit i made some mistakes and inadvertanly made myself a suspect. but my motives are pure. I'm just trying to find the true guilty party.

yWizePapaSmurfy
28th October 2007, 07:27
Yeah i don't doubt ya, I'm not hopping aboard the bandwagon just yet.

Tarion'Maseth
28th October 2007, 12:22
Subzero - I'd like you to give me some evidence that Suhungry is actually guilty. All you've done is said "Well, he can't prove he's innocent". That's crap, no-one can. All he's done is try to move the game on. I'm actually seeing his point of view.



In summary, all you've done so far in the game has been to follow two large voting groups (in fact, at the moment the two most likely to have ended in a lynch), be completely inconsistent with your logic and arguments, go back on any arguments you've made which could be used against you, constantly divert suspicion away from yourself (sometimes onto people who have nothing to do with the suspicions others have of you, and sometimes onto point who can't counter those suspicions), present some extremely faulty logic here and straw-man or ignore any arguments made against you. To me, that makes you pretty damn suspicious. For the most part, all the evidence you've presented to support your innocence relies on people already trusting you and believing that you're innocent, thus taking away the point of it.

And everyone has been oh-so-consistent with their arguments? It's the first phase, everyone is throwing ideas around.
As for following two large voting groups... That is what tends to happen in these games. So far, he's voted for Chris (Who you also voted for) and he abandoned his vote of Kilroy before it reached a critical stage.
"constantly divert suspicion away from yourself " - So you expect someone to stand up and say "Yes, suspect me" if they're innocent? What the hell Sub? That's an absolutely appalling argument. You're saying that because he doesn't want to be lynched, he's guilty. :roll:
As for the ignoring any arguments made against him - You are aware that you haven't made an argument against him, just huge masses of speculation. If you levelled that at me, I'd just say "... OK" and move on. Because there IS no argument he can give you. He can't prove he's innocent. And he has already explained his reasoning with other things. Perhaps instead of trying to overwhelm everyone with a body of text, you'll actually express some genuine issues? Maybe a question that he can answer?


Anyway, I'm not saying I trust sohungry, but the way Sub is going here is ridiculous. Just because you post more, doesn't make your "argument" (Which I can't seem to find) more valid. All you've done is make some baseless accusations based on the fact that he's got no evidence to go on, the same as everyone else.



You know, I just can't help but say that if you were innocent, you probably wouldn't be checking your voting patterns to make sure they didn't coincide with anyone else's and you probably wouldn't be trying to cover your tracks. Aside from that, saying 'whenever I act suspiciously it's all just a coincidence' is not a proper defence and only makes you look even more suspicious.
Of course he's checking his voting patterns and trying to cover his tracks. Did you miss the bit where he's suddenly being bandwagoned and looking for defence? Since you've got no solid arguments against him, he needs to find something to defend himself with. He can't counter your arguments, they're not there!



You're also constantly completely going back on things you've said - first it was that Warlock Chris was guilty, now it's that Kilroy is guilty. Instead you're saying 'actually, I have no idea whatsoever, in fact they could both be completely innocent'. If you're ever suspicious of someone then I don't see how a little bit of discussion is going to completely reverse your view on them. Sure, you might not be as suspicious of them as you were before, but it's a bit of a stretch to completely recant your suspicions twice.
You're attacking Sohungry for doing what everyone else is doing. He has a vague suspicion, a hunch, and he acts on it. With further thought, it doesn't pad out. Just because you're suspicious of someone doesn't mean they're guilty. It means they've acted in a way that you construe as potentially guilty.


Additionally, the circumstances of you withdrawing your suspicions in both cases are quite odd; in the first case, as I pointed out, you joined the accusations against Warlock Chris (supposedly completely sure of his guilt), then withdrew your vote as soon as suspicion went your way (saying that it was impossible to be sure of anyone's innocence or guilt this early on).
So, you suggest that if the hunch doesn't draw enough attention to work, and he has no evidence with which to argue, he should just leave his vote on whoever he thought of first? That makes no sense. Also, it tends to be smart policy to follow a bandwagon, if you suspect it's going to follow through. Because doing otherwise draws attention to you. That's a very bad thing in this game.



In this case, you've withdrawn your vote for Kilroy (against whom accusations were directed because he wanted to end the day phase as soon as possible) because he said the same suspicious thing that you said, and you suddenly didn't want to vote for someone in a way that could backfire against you. Instead, you've now tried to make it clear to everyone that their suspicions of Kilroy (which are based primarily on that suspicious comment he made) are baseless - coincidentally, those same allegations could be directed against you.


Again, I'd suggest you're over-reading this. Take this scenario: He voted for someone because they said something he thought was suspicious. He then realised "Wait a second, that's a pretty innocent thing to say. Hell, I've said it". So, he unvoted.



Also coincidentally, you've leaped from one large group of voters to another as suspicion falls on you, always trying to divert suspicion away from yourself and clear people who do the same suspicious acts that you do.

Again Subzero, you're working on the theory that he's guilty. Every supposition you make has been from that angle. If you assume he's innocent, and spin those expressions slightly, it's a positive thing! If he's innocent, he should divert suspicion away from himself!



Anyway, sorry for the very long rant. I don't like the way Subzero is arguing here. We shouldn't be led around by the man with the superlong posts (Ironic, as I suspect this'll be a long one). I'm not saying that Sohungry is innocent. What I am saying is that we don't know whether he's innocent or not. Subzero has yet to propose any argument as far as I can see.

Sub, my challenge to you - Come up with an argument proving him guilty. Summarise it. Give him something he can answer. And if he doesn't, or answers badly, then bandwagon him.

Crimthaan
28th October 2007, 14:28
:eek: :eek: :eek:

Holy balls that's a lot of reading....

Hats off to you Tal, hats off. /me crindges while awaiting Sub's responce

Subzero
28th October 2007, 16:21
Tarion, I did have a large reply typed out here before I realised that your argument can be broken down into three main things (which makes this post a lot shorter than it was before, although I hyave the original post saved if anyone wants to see it):

1) That my arguments against Sohungry are insubstantial.

2) That the things Sohungry has done don't make him suspicious, they make him seem more innocent, or at least place him in a neutral light.

3) That I can't prove Sohungry's guilt and therefore I can't argue against Sohungry with the arguments I have.

In response to that:

1) I've made a fairly comprehensive argument a few posts back about why I find Sohungry to be suspicious. I then summarised what I said at the end of the post. Asking me to do all that again is pointless. Additionally, if my arguments were so weak, then as you say Sohungry would not be pressured by them. Why, then, has he gone so far as to vote for himself and not even provide counter-arguments to my own arguments? Why has his defence pretty much broken down. Saying that he can't defend against an argument that isn't there is ridiculous. If my argument really wasn't there then he wouldn't need to defend against my accusations and he would just say that - besides which, even if my argument was completely invalid in all respects that would just make it very easy to argue against. It makes no sense to say that a weak argument can't be argued against - if my argument was weak, then Sohungry would be able to argue against it. However, he's pretty much gone into the 'guilt the accusor' territory by saying things like:

when you all see that im inocent
I'd say that's pretty far gone towards having no argument and no defence whatsoever.

2) There are several major things which make me suspect him and which are pretty damn suspicious, and which can't be written off as a biased interpretation. For example, he checked his voting patterns and covered his tracks, which an innocent player simply would not need to do. Check any Mafia game on the internet (with the exception of the Chaos Wastes game) and you'll find that the Mafia always try to avoid patterns of voting and thus cover their tracks to make themselves seem less suspicious. The fact that Sohungry brought it up (and remember that it ws he who brought up the thing about his voting patterns) makes me think that he made sure that he didn't follow any voting patterns (which Mafia, as a rule, do) so that he could later bring it up in his defence to prove his innocence. He's done something which Mafia typically do, and then tried to prove his innocence without any evidence. How does this then prove his innocence?

Another example would be where he came under greater suspicion and then suggested that we lynch an inactive player solely because they are inactive and currently, we can't decide on someone to lynch. That's a ridiculous idea, and one which even you didn't argue against my suspicions of. Put simply, he wanted us to lynch a player who wouldn't be able to argue back, and at a time when he himself was being suspected so that he could divert suspicion away from himself. The inactive players were also a good choice there because he wasn't making any major accusation against one person, and was just asking people to lynch one out of five inactive players. Lastly here, might I remind you and everyone else that the Mafia (which Sohungry was a part of) did pretty much the same thing during The Infection Spreads - they asked thta several inactive players be mod-killed, rather than just asking them to get back into the game. Sohungry asking everyone to lynch an inactive player now is pretty much the same thing - instead of trying to get inactive players to talk in the game, he just wanted people to kill one of them off, because they're relatively easy targets.

One last example I'll use is the way he is constantly diverting suspicion away from himself. Unlike what you believe, that is not a definitive sign of being pro-town. Pro-town players can defend themselves against suspicion, because they aren't guilty and should therefore have perfectly valid reasons for doing what they do in most, if not all cases. Sohungry, however, hasn't really defended what he's been doing and saying that much, and has instead tried to divert suspicion away from himself several times, an example of that being the aforementioned time when he diverted people's attention towards inactive players when he was being suspected rather than allowing people to have a proper discussion about who to lynch.

3) This is completely ridiculous. Don't deliberately ask me to do something impossible just so that you can say that I couldn't do it. The game isn't a courtroom, where reliable evidence can be brought forwards to prove someone's innocence or guilt. Nobody in this game or in any game can prove the innocence or guilt of anyone else (with the exception of sane/insane cops who are absolutely sure that they're sane/insane). All anyone can do is say that they find what someone else has said or done to be suspicious. If we can't even vote on that then we'd be pretty close to just voting based on whether people are inactive or not, and that sort of thing. In short, of course I can't prove that Sohungry's guilty, but I can say that I find him suspicious, and say why.

sohungry
28th October 2007, 16:22
oh shit...thanks alot man

that's way more effective then whatever the hell i said last night.

I await sub's reply.

also

unvote

sohungry
28th October 2007, 16:42
oops, posted a second too late.

@sub

You fail to bring anything new to the table. Tarion already addressed every point you just made in his previous post.

this part i find a bit stupid:


One last example I'll use is the way he is constantly diverting suspicion away from himself. Unlike what you believe, that is not a definitive sign of being pro-town. Pro-town players can defend themselves against suspicion, because they aren't guilty and should therefore have perfectly valid reasons for doing what they do in most, if not all cases.

you're saying that if i was truly innocent i wouldnt have to defend myself because my innocent actions wouldnt be suspicious? well i know that's bullshit because here i am having to defend myself against your baseless accusations. Anyone's actions would look suspicious if viewed under the assumption that they are guilty. You're going over every one of my posts looking for evidence that im guilty and completely ignoring or trying to discredit evidence that im innocent. That can be done with anyone, it's just easier to do against me because i have made more posts to be scrutinized.

I'm not going to try to defend my actions to you anymore. If you want an explanation for why i voted a certain way or why i've accused who i've accused just look back at my previous posts. I didnt vote for anyone without explaining why i did so. so there is no reason for me to repeat my resoning here.

Subzero
28th October 2007, 17:14
You fail to bring anything new to the table. Tarion already addressed every point you just made in his previous post.
I haven't brought much that's new because you haven't made very many significant posts between my last post and tarion's post (and there was at least one thing I did take from one of the posts since my last post). Additionally, sure, I haven't brought many new things into the argument, but you haven't argued against what I actually have put forward. As for what Tarion said, the post I just made counters his post - I've already made my reply to his argument. Therefore, everything you said there is pointless, because it doesn't apply to the argument or it doesn't make any sense logically.

By the way, just because I haven't added much to my arguments since your previous posts it doesn't mean that my argument doesn't stand or that it's invalid.


you're saying that if i was truly innocent i wouldnt have to defend myself because my innocent actions wouldnt be suspicious? well i know that's bullshit because here i am having to defend myself against your baseless accusations.
No, so don't try to misrepresent my arguments. I said that someone who's innocent can defend what they do. You, on the other hand, haven't really defended what you've said and done for the most part and have intsead resorted to diverting attention and suspicion away from yourself to try and avoid being suspected.


Anyone's actions would look suspicious if viewed under the assumption that they are guilty. You're going over every one of my posts looking for evidence that im guilty and completely ignoring or trying to discredit evidence that im innocent. That can be done with anyone, it's just easier to do against me because i have made more posts to be scrutinized.
If I just assumed that you were guilty and looked at your posts with a complete bias against you then nobody else would have voted for you. Hell, Tarion wouldn't have agreed with me earlier. Aside from that, right now you're the one trying to discredit me (which you have done constantly) whereas I'm actually trying to provide arguments as to why I find you suspicious. Additionally, you haven't actually provided a lot, or any information to show that you might be innocent. Your attempts to prove your innocence mainly involve straw-manning my arguments, diverting suspicion away from yourself, using 'evidence' which would have to have been prepared well in advance (such as your comment about voting patterns), or just plain saying that you're innocent.


I'm not going to try to defend my actions to you anymore. If you want an explanation for why i voted a certain way or why i've accused who i've accused just look back at my previous posts.
I have looked at your previous posts, and using what I found there I've created the argument I have for why I find you suspicious. Additionally, you haven't yet properly defended yourself against much of what I've said, instead resorting to ignoring it or straw-manning my arguments to misrepresent them as ridiculous, easily-refuted bullshit that nobody in their right minds would use to argue that somebody is guilty, and which, most importantly, I haven't actually used in my arguments.


I didnt vote for anyone without explaining why i did so. so there is no reason for me to repeat my resoning here.
There are many other things that I've found other than just who you voted for which are reasons why I find you suspicious. Your suggestion that we lynch an inactive player who we actually have very little information about, for example (your defence of which was 'it was just a suggestion', which is not a defence as I've already explained). Alternatively, your comment about voting patterns and how your votes do not apparently follow anyone. I've already explained how these two examples make you seem suspicious to me, as well as several other things.

Lastly, you haven't properly defended yourself against almost anything that I've said, but now you act as if you're free to just ignore everything I say from now on? That doesn't exactly make you seem innocent to me.

lefthandedyeti
28th October 2007, 18:51
I am watching this back and forth as attentively as I can, and I have come to a conclusion:

Sohungry has a very feeble defense.
AND
Subzero assumes the worst.

Let me break it down.

Sohungry uses phrases like "You'll see after I'm dead that I was innocent" and "I look suspicious if you assume I'm guilty", which don't really help his case. He should explain why he did what he did, rather than defend his actions.

Subzero, on the other hand, is using the reasoning that "Since an innocent person has nothing to hide, why is he hiding something?" And his extremely long logical posts are helping his case more than Sohungry's "Go ahead and do it, don't say I didn't warn you." posts

sohungry
28th October 2007, 18:54
okay clearly you are set in your ways and nothing i say will change that. I'm tired of trying to defend myself against you. Instead I'm going to try to advance things and move onto other suspects if that's alright with you. I know you're just going to come back at me with something like "ha! there he goes again, trying to divert suspicion from himself by accusing other people, and obviously thats suspicious because only someone who was guilty would accuse people of being guilty"

okay, taking yet another look at the whole situation i want to shine light on a few individuals.

#1. Subzero:

believe it or not, he's one of the least suspicious people in my mind right now. Personally, because i know that I am innocent. If subzero was mafia he would know who the other mafia members are, and therefore would know that I am not one of them. If all his arguments against me actually lead to a lynching, at which point i would be revealed to be innocent, then he would immediately fall under suspicion because he lead the crusade against an innocent. This is something no mafia in his right mind would do.

however, i am the only one who can be certain of my not being guilty, so that logic obviously wont work for everyone.

so my other reason for him not being mafia is the fact that he posts so much and draws alot of attention to himself. This is how subzero has always played the game, so obviously he would have to keep a similar playstyle if he was guilty so as not to fall under suspicion. However, this game subzero has been particularly accusatory in his posts. It's generally not good practice for mafia to be making enemies this early on (ie. Me).

conclusions: Subzero doesn't seem to be mafia. This does not rule out the possibility however of him having some other night role which could be anti-forum.


#2. The cow:

He was very quick to post when i mentioned him in my list of inactive players.

sohungry, just cuz I don't say much does not mean that I do not pay attention..

you should be careful to pull a stunt like this because you have now made my list of people to suspect.....

This is the first post from him in a week. So far he has managed to avoid any suspicion, which concerns me. He's clearly watching the topic because he was quick to respond when his name was mentioned. So why isn't he posting more? I understand that we all have lives and cant spend all our free time typing out long winded posts like me. But that doesn't excuse his inactivity. Sure, he hasn't posted anything that makes him suspicious, but he also hasn't posted anything that would help us find the hackers. Staying under the radar and not helping flush out hackers makes him suspicious in my eyes.

#3. Crimthaan:

I wont say much here because i already explained my suspicions for him on page 6. My suspicions still stand.

#4. Gnomesbane:

He has also done a good job staying relatively under the radar. All of his votes so far seem to lack conviction. He offers very little reasoning for why he is voting the way he is. Seems like something a mafia member would do

thoughts anyone?

Tarion'Maseth
28th October 2007, 19:58
1) That my arguments against Sohungry are insubstantial.

2) That the things Sohungry has done don't make him suspicious, they make him seem more innocent, or at least place him in a neutral light.

3) That I can't prove Sohungry's guilt and therefore I can't argue against Sohungry with the arguments I have.


Actually, it's slightly different.

2 - What he was doing can be interpreted either way.
1 + 3 - You can argue, but your argument doesn't strike me as hugely substantial. As I said, it can be taken either way.

One thing I need to remind people - I'm not defending Sohungry from a lynching, I'm saying that if we do want to vote for him, let's reason it out fully. I'm playing Devil's advocate.

Gnomesbane
28th October 2007, 20:33
I am not trying to stay under the radar, Sohungry. I am watching this game progress, and am reading everyones arguments. I could continue to post my growing suspicions of you, yet they would seem redundant, as Subzero and others get them out first, and with much more eloquence than I can manage. That being said, you are doing an absolutely awful job of trying to defend yourself. I have not seen ONE reason given by you for your actions. All you have done is when the votes start rolling in against you, you try and point the finger at someone else in a mad scramble to make someone else look bad. That, combined with your "guilt tactics" played last night really set my reasons for finding you suspicious into stone. So again, do not try to accuse people of not posting then immediately defending themselves of being suspicious. We just don't like to clutter the thread with useless banter.

sohungry
28th October 2007, 22:14
I have not seen ONE reason given by you for your actions.

then you obviously have not been following the topic.

Action the 1st: voting for p3




vote: p3990013


because i dont know how to pronounce his name!

not much reason given for my action, but in all fairness this was at the start of the game when we were all throwing out random votes. i had no intention of sticking with it

Action the second: voting for warlock chris


unvote

vote: warlock chris

he was aweful quick to hop on the bandwagon against kilroy for absolutly no good reason. Andon started the bandwagon so i also have my suspicions about him. Andon's starting the bandwagon however may have just been to get a reaction so i wont hold it agianst him just yet.

quickly following a trend against a potential inocent just screams "im guilty, and need to point the blame at someone else fast"

so yeah...that's my vote

i clearly gave my reasoning for the vote. At the time there was very little to go off of. The small bandwagon against kilroy was the first real vote after the random voting phase. I picked who i thought was the most guilty for starting the bandwagon.

Action the 3rd: long post at the top of page 5 giving further reasoning for my warlock chris vote.

people seemed to find that i was a little to adament about voting for someone with not all that much evidence against him. Fair enough i suppose. But i still say that at the time chris had the most evidence against him and that i had no reason not to be firm in my vote for him.

Action the 4th: changing my vote to kilroy and then quickly changing my mind


actually. f*** that

unvote: Kilroy

i dont feel right voting someone off saying they want they game to progress faster.

i said that myself...

Kilroy and I both had similar feelings at that point. The first day phase has been drawn out for a week. I wanted the game to progress. I saw a bandwagon forming for kilroy. So in a moment of weekness i hopped on, hoping it'd speed things up and we could get on with the game.

I then realized that it didnt make any sense voting for someone who wanted to get on with the game when i wanted the very same thing, so i changed my vote.

Action the 5th: voting for Crimthaan




vote: Crimthaan

I really dont think kilroy is guilty, and im definitly not certain about chris anymore.

now lets look at crimthaan. He origonally voted to abstain which in my opinion is something a hacker would do as they dont want to draw attention to themselves by throwing out accusations this early in the game.

now he changes his vote to kilroy. why? personally i dont think kilroy saying he wants it to be the night phase is suspicious. At this rate we'll be playing this game for a year. The first night has to come eventually whether we like it or not.

I think the real one pushing for the ngiht phase here is crimthaan. He started off conservativly, voting to abstain. But he's starting to get antsy. As a hacker he obviously watches the topic like a hawk. I know that's what i did in past games when i was mafia.

all that lurking without posting to draw attention to yourself gets hard. he couldnt take it anymore, So he throws out an accusation out of no where. He saw soemthing he could use against someone else, and he used it.

Somehow, it worked. He got you all voting kilroy didnt he?

so...yeah...there that is

i clearly explained that vote

Action the 6th: sugesting we lynch an inactive.


if we cant all agree on a suspicious party to lynch. then why dont we just get rid of an inactive?

the way things are going it doesnt look like we are gonna get people to agree on anything.



no one was agreeing at the time, so it made sense. Voting for inactives would at the very least encourage them to post, giving us more to base our suspicions on.

Action the 7th Voting for myself in drunken stupidity.

yeah...i was drunk...sorry about that one.


OKay, so i think that cover's all of my "suspicious actions".

Anything else you need me to explain?[/b]

dreadknot10
28th October 2007, 22:19
wow, this is getting confusing for me, i haven't been inactive, simply trying to catch up on what the hell has been happening, i shall post more when im done reading all the posts

Crimthaan
28th October 2007, 23:06
hhaha your not the only one confused as all get-out Dread...

My head hurts :(

Magnus777z
28th October 2007, 23:23
I think Sub is way overplaying this. He's just keeps pilling overly suspicious theories on sohungry, and I for one think sohungry isn't looking overtly guilty of anything yet. Why oh why do you want sohungry so badly Sub?

VOTE: SUBZERO

Subzero
28th October 2007, 23:40
i clearly gave my reasoning for the vote. At the time there was very little to go off of. The small bandwagon against kilroy was the first real vote after the random voting phase. I picked who i thought was the most guilty for starting the bandwagon.
The issue is not with the fact that you voted for Warlock Chris, it's with the fact that you withdrew your vote and did a complete 180 on your initial position once you started to come under suspicion.


I then realized that it didnt make any sense voting for someone who wanted to get on with the game when i wanted the very same thing, so i changed my vote.
I will admit that this was not the strongest point of my argument. However, previously you had already gone back on your reasoning once before. That, and the fact that you want to get to the night phase as soon as possible makes you seem suspicious to me - to act as if the first few day phases aren't really that important is extremely reckless - the modern setups tend to include Serial Killers, or at least factions other than the Mafia which have reason to kill every night, so it would be sensible to be cautious. If, say, the first three day phases aren't taken that seriously then almost half of the players will die by the end of that day, many of whom likely won't be anti-town (7 will die, assuming that 2 players/group kill someone each night).


no one was agreeing at the time, so it made sense. Voting for inactives would at the very least encourage them to post, giving us more to base our suspicions on.
This is where you're diverting suspicion away from yourself (which also happened above, as you note yourself). I've already explained why lynching an inactive player simply on the basis that they're inactive and everyone else can't decide on who to lynch yet is a bad idea and a suspicious action. I doubt that you were just trying to get them to post more often, given that you specifically asked people to lynch an inactive player, and are in such a rush to get to the end of the first day phase (you're also being contradictory here, wanting people to post more but wanting the day phase to end as soon as possible - had we actually gone through with lynching an inactive player there would be a lot less discussion given that a lot of these long, comprehensive posts happened after you said that).


OKay, so i think that cover's all of my "suspicious actions".
No, not really. I never even mentioned your random vote or your vote for Crimthaan in any of my arguments, and your argument relating to your vote for Warlock Chris doesn't address the point that I made. All in all, you've only responded to maybe half at most of the points I've made.

I'd also like to bring up a few things Tarion said earlier:

Sohungry on the other hand, has jumped on the Chris bandwagon with a passion, trying to rally people to his cause. He seems to be going for the safe route - He wasn't the first on, but he's putting a lot of pressure. If he was Mafia, and he knew Chris to be innocent, it would be the smart way to get him lynched. He wouldn't want to be in the initial 3 voters (As he's drawing attention to them specifically -
1 - Initial voter
2 - Making an easy lynching target
3 - "Serious trouble")
but instead, he's getting in in that all important number 4, as an innocent member of a bandwagon gone awry. If (Big emphasis on the "if" there) Chris turns out to be innocent, I wouldn't follow Sohungry in a vote against those who lynched Chris. It's a distanced tactic to voting that might give him two or three easy kills if he were Mafia - Let suspicion fall on his next target and get an easy lynch.

sohungry
29th October 2007, 00:23
you keep using the fact that im "diverting suspicion from myself" as a sign of guilt.

what else am i supposed to do? There are very few things i can do to prove my innocence at this point. I said some things that you clearly think are suspicious. I've attempted to explain myself the best i can. My explanations just dont seem to meet your standards.

so can we please move on?

At this point im pretty sure everyone has a good idea of why you suspect me, and a good idea of why i think you shouldn't suspect me.

Our long winded back and forth posts seem to be making people lose interest in the game.

anyway, I would like to take this opertunity to

vote: Gnomesbane

for reasons stated on the previous page. Also, for jumping on the bandwagon against me. This doesnt mean im voting out of spite, otherwise i'd cast a vote for subzero.

Gnomesbane was already suspicious in my eyes. With all the current suspicion on me, no one would question his voting for me. Right now im basically a safe bet. Mafia members can vote for me and not really be questioned.

Mozric
29th October 2007, 03:20
Apologies for the delay in time between vote counts.

Votes:
Spam-Robot (1): Cubez
Kilroy (5): Warlock Chris, Crimthaan, p3990013, Andon, foamy666
Warlock Chris (2): dreadknot10, the cow
sohungry (3): Gnomesbane, Doohicky, Subzero,
Gnomesbane (1): sohungry
lefthandedyeti (1): yWizePapaSmurfy
Crimthaan (1): Tarion'Maseth
Subzero (1): Magnus777z
ABSTAIN (1): sammy2028
Not currently voting (3): Spam-Robot, lefthandedyeti, Kilroy

Number needed for majority: 10
Current vote leader: Kilroy (5)


I'm surprised, EVERYBODY has been active in some way this day phase. Very good. But it is dragging out a bit.
This Day Phase, while it has been delightfully active has now been going on for 8 days.

In response, I am going to lower the majority needed for lynch by 1 for every day after the week is out. I think this is the fairest way to push for a decision to be made, while still giving people the chance to have a say and not prejudicing things too hard against the current vote leader. This system may change in future day phases, but I'll probably keep it going if it works well.

So...

Official Announcement
The Day Phase has been going on for longer than a week. As of the time that this post has been made, the majority for lynching has been lowered!

Number of votes needed for majority: 9

This means that if any option (including abstain) gets more than 9 votes for it, we will instantly move to the night phase (no unvoting before I post is allowed).
The majority will be reduced further (to 8 ) in approximately 24 hours.

Gnomesbane
29th October 2007, 07:07
Lets just clear one thing up here...I didnt "jump" on the bandwagon, I STARTED it! Though it wasn't a bandwagon at the time. Go back a few pages, and you will see I was the first one to point the finger at you. Other followed suit. I still stand by my beginning suspicions that you trying the guilt card caught my attention, and thus, the vote. If someone else in my eyes begins to look more suspicious, then I will gladly change my vote, and if you do prove to be innocent, then accept my humblest apologies.

p3990013
29th October 2007, 07:58
I stick with Kilroy who is top on my list. Let's see what happens after that...

Doohicky
29th October 2007, 10:52
As others have said, my head REALLY hurts trying to read the back and forths between Sohungry and Subzero.
For now my vote stands as I haven't seen enough evidence against anyone else to make me change my mind.

Tarion'Maseth
29th October 2007, 11:31
I'm thoroughly confused myself... But I suspect we need to take the opportunity to finish a lynch, before Father Time (Mozric :P) finishes it for us.

The current options are, as far as I can tell:
Sohungry or Kilroy. Those are the two who have drawn the attention. Now, purely because I feel it'd be silly to vote Sohungry after laying a defence out for him, I'm tempted towards Kilroy. Looking back at voting patterns, is it odd that the first three votes for Kilroy were within minutes of each other? :?

Anyway, Unvote:Crimthaan
Vote: Kilroy

(If anyone can provide good reasoning for another player, my vote will change. This is, sadly, a bit of a random stab)

the cow
29th October 2007, 16:06
good point Tarion. While Sohungry screams to be voted for, this day phase has gone on too long

Unvote Warlock Chris
Vote Kilroy

p3990013
29th October 2007, 16:38
So Kilroy gets banned in 2 days. Anyone comes to his defence?

Gnomesbane
29th October 2007, 16:54
To hell with this. Kilroy seems to be done for, and I am tired of this day going nowhere..
VOTE: KILROY

sorry, mate. :cry:

Rifleman Lizard
29th October 2007, 17:40
:lol: This is just delectable.
I only just missed horns and now others have taken the same stance that got me there.
I guess we'll see.

Doohicky
29th October 2007, 19:42
:lol: This is just delectable.
I only just missed horns and now others have taken the same stance that got me there.
I guess we'll see.

I was thinking the same thing. After the furor about speeding up the day phase earlier I can't believe people are jumping on like this giving no more reason than 'He looks buggered'
Not saying these people are mafia due to this, but I for one will be watching them closely to be sure in the future rounds.

sammy2028
29th October 2007, 19:57
Mozzie i changed my abstain vote to kilroy a while back now so i'll bold it again for you vote kilroy i am voting for kilroy as he is the only one who seems the most suspicious

sohungry
29th October 2007, 21:01
To hell with this. Kilroy seems to be done for, and I am tired of this day going nowhere..
VOTE: KILROY

sorry, mate. :cry:


i find this vote very ironic. The main argument against kilroy is that he wanted to progress things to the night phase. And here you are casting a vote for him because you think he is a gonner and want the game to progress?

that's horrible logic, i have to say.

I just think there are more suspicious people that we should be looking at.

EDIT: and also, Tarion raises a very good point. Why the hell were the first 3 votes for kilroy so close to eachother?

EDIT2: for now im gonna leave my vote on gnomesbane, But i would just like to let it be known that i am equally as suspicious of The cow. Both of them are voting for kilroy for hugely ironic reasons. Also, the cow loves jumping onto bandwagons. he is yet to vote for someone who doesnt have at least 3 votes for him.

Gnomesbane
29th October 2007, 21:11
My vote is ironic? I never had an issue with Kilroy wanting to speed the game up. And frankly, this first day phase is not going anywhere. Moz said he was going to mod kill someone sooner or later. I can understand the vendetta against me on this, and perhaps down the road I may find I was wrong about you, Sohungry.

sohungry
29th October 2007, 21:17
If you go back and read the topic you will find that the only argument that was brought to the table against him was that He wanted to speed things along and get to the night phase.

People found this suspicious for some reason.

What reason do you have to vote for him? he already has the most votes for him so it'd be easy to get him lynched?

I direct the same question at the cow. Who I am also suspicious of. Actually maybe even more suspicious of.

offer me a semi-solid defence gnomesbane and i will change my vote to cow

Gnomesbane
29th October 2007, 21:23
My solid defence is that there is nothing I can do to save him. He doesn't post very often, and I can either wait a day for Moz to lower the minimum requirement by one, and we can all banter and go back and forth. Or, we just get this day over with and move on, see the results of the night, and work from that. I am not pleased with how I am currently voting, but I hardly see it making a difference.

sohungry
29th October 2007, 21:34
every vote can make a difference.

unvote: gnomesbane

vote: The Cow

for example, if you were to change your vote to someone who has been acting more suspiciously than kilroy, for example the cow, than we'd have 2 votes for him which can easily be turned into 3 or more votes once others come around and see how little sense voting for kilroy makes.

im not saying that i am certain of kilroy's innocence. but i am less certain of the cow's innocence

lefthandedyeti
29th October 2007, 22:10
Where is Kilroy?

I want to read his defence before I vote.

Gnomesbane
29th October 2007, 22:41
True, one vote can make a difference. But so many people have been set on him for so long, time seems against those who defend Kilroy. With every passing day people will grow bored with this and wish to speed move things along. Also, each passing day makes this take less and less votes to lynch him. Though, I do feel guilty voting for someone who hasn't been around to defend himself. So...UNVOTE: KILROY he has untill by the time I get home from work, which should be late tonight, to give even a half-assed reason as to why I should not vote for him.

Sohungry, I can't see really why the cow looks suspicious in your eyes. All I see is you pointing the finger at anyone who has put a vote up for you.

Kilroy
29th October 2007, 22:53
Oy! One vote away from being lynched!

I find Sohungry's point very true. Several people are voting for me because of the same reason I voted for Warlock chris!

Though I just find it interesting that I'm suspicious for doing something different then other people. I'm the only one who says, screw it lets lynch Chris, almost everybody starts pointing fingers at me. Now Gnomesbane just did the exact same thing as me, and I only see one finger pointed at him!

I also find it interesting that the cow's two main posts were against the bandwagon leaders (myself and Chris) Hardly giving a reason. The reasons that he gave for voting for Chris were that he found him suspicious and for me was that he agreed with Tarion (who wasn't even sure of himself)

Thus I write VOTE: THE COW.

lefthandedyeti
29th October 2007, 23:05
Thus I write VOTE: THE COW.

Fixed it for you.

I don't know...I voted for Kilroy early on, and I don't see a reason to vote for him again, so vote:abstain

dreadknot10
30th October 2007, 00:00
unvote: chris

i find my original reason to vote for him we not very justified, as of right now i dont see a clear reason to vote for kilroy, but maybe im missing something

the cow
30th October 2007, 03:43
I like how Sohungry feels the need to point a finger at everyone who changes a vote

Sorry Kilroy I kind of skipped a few pages and didn't realize that you were still playing (you were absent for a little while) I admit to jumping on a bandwagon without auctually reading
sorry mate I'll try to make it up to you

Unvote Kilroy

I don't know who to auctually suspect anymore so I guess I will wait for my night phase like a good boy instead of just trying to lunch someone to get it faster

Vote Abstain

Hmmmm..... you know if you stay real quiet, you can hear the beginings of Sohungry's rant about how this post Obviously makes me gulty

Just kidding Sohungry (not like the sorry will change anything in your mind)

Mozric
30th October 2007, 04:20
Kilroy has been banned by majority vote.

No dice people. All votes after Gnomesbane changed to Kilroy and sammy2028 bolded his vote for Kilroy do not count. I have allowed discussion during night phases, though, so the discussion in the posts is legitimate.

If you look at my last post when I lowered the lynch majority to 9, Kilroy had 5 votes, not including sammy.
Tarion'Maseth, the cow, Gnomesbane voted for Kilroy, and sammy2028 clarified that he was voting for Kilroy.
5+4 = 9


I will edit in the death scene and Kilroy's role momentarily. It is now the night phase, and people with roles can send me their PMs when they are ready.

EDIT: Anyway...

Death Scene
Kilroy was sitting quietly by the computer when the accusations came flying at him. He tried to defend himself, he tried to make the frantic mob calm down. But they wouldn't listen.
“Why me?” Kilroy asked. “What have I done?”
The mob would not relent and Kilroy came to resign himself to his fate. He posted one last topic,

Now I know Gojira doesn't like these topics (he calls them stoner topics) but its the wastes ...

So my question is what has heavily influenced your life?

List music, artist, art, events, jobs, people, culture, religion, philosophies, activities, events, books, ... you get the jig...
Kilroy shaved his head and drifted off, away, to sit on beanbags and contemplate greater matters.
Kilroy has been banned. He was Cookster, Bearer of Peace and Tranquillity.

Sucks to be you guys.
It is now night 1.

sohungry
30th October 2007, 04:47
goddamnit....

i have a feeling im not going to live til morning.

cubez
30th October 2007, 17:37
see you shoulda listened to me, spam!

gah! lol

Kilroy
30th October 2007, 21:56
*mumbles angrily*

the cow
30th October 2007, 22:37
goddamnit....

i have a feeling im not going to live til morning.

please take note the following is momentary joking around for fun and to break the tension while i wait to get shot

ohhhhhh sohungry we should make a club for people who think that if we manage to not get lynched we will get shot for sure! we could have t-shirts with bullseyes on the back it would be great!

end happy relaxation from tension. Laughing will stop.......right about.......now

cubez
31st October 2007, 20:56
ok....

Andon
31st October 2007, 21:03
NOOO!!! NOT Cooksteroy!

Subzero
1st November 2007, 11:35
Okay, seeing as we're allowed to discuss things during the night phase as well I might as well use this chance to state my thoughts on the previous day phase and some of the people who are still alive.

Chris

What I said earlier still stands. He was also the third person to vote for the same person in the random voting stage, which makes him suspicious. He also remained very quiet after he came under suspicion until it appeared that nobody suspected him or at least argued for his lynch any more (he didn't post for 6 days, starting shortly after I and a few others put forward arguments as to why we found him suspicious). Sohungry also missed Chris out on his list of inactive people which he made on page 6 (4 days after Chris' last post at that point) despite the fact that he included The Cow, who also made his last post 4 days ago at that point.

Tarion

May be Mafia. If Sohungry is Mafia I wouldn't be surprised to find that Tarion is. Whilst he said that his lengthy defense of Sohungry was just him playing the devil's advocate the very argumentative tone and language doesn't seem to me to be that of someone trying to better the town, but someone trying to strongly defend someone else. Note that he repeatedly asked me to do something impossible - prove someone's guilt. Of course, the only way I could prove someone's guilt would be if I was a guaranteed Sane Cop with a guilty investigation on Sohungry - in which case, proving Sohungry's guilt would prematurely reveal my role and get me killed in night 1. The 'devil's advocate' excuse also handily absolves him of any guilt should Sohungry actually be lynched or killed and shown to be guilty, thus distancing himself from a guilty player. He also pretty much completely reversed his stance on Sohungry which he made on pages 5 and 6 when he made that long response to my posts (which was on page 7). Additionally, he didn't even commit himself to any real vote until page 6.

His defense for Sohungry also handily excused him from voting for Sohungry when he made a choice between that or voting for Kilroy (who we now know is an innocent player). I'd also just like to say that it's very rare for one player to come to another's defense, especially this early on in the game and especially when there are so many different tactics for playing Mafia. Personally, I was just collecting things I found suspicious and explaining them, but I could have been trying to get Sohungry to contradict himself by getting lost in such a huge post, or trying to get him to make a mistake by presenting an overwhelming case against him to make him afraid that he might get lynched. Tarion knows that there are different ways to play the game, so I'm not sure exactly why he'd jump to Sohungry's defense like that.

He's also done things like defend Warlock Chris whilst still saying that he suspects Chris, which I suspect may be to try and convince people of his innocence whilst avoiding appearing to be the 'odd-one-out'.

Magnus777z

I don't have any strong opinions on him, but he and Tarion voted for each other in the random voting stage, something which Mafia commonly do do distance themselves from one another. He also voted for me for doing a fairly standard (for me, at least) analysis of Sohungry's posts and making a case against Sohungry. What he referred to as 'piling overly suspicious theories on Sohungry' is making a case against someone - by examining everything they've said, extracting the suspicious things and commenting on them.

Sohungry

I'm sure everyone knows my position on Sohungry by now. He has also played the emotional card at some points and tried to make people feel guilty about voting for him, and lately has taken to ignoring what I've been saying. His voting has always been pretty unstable as well.



I'd also just like to say that it's extremely likely that at least one Mafia member was on the vote against Kilroy. I wouldn't be all too surprised if two Mafioso had voted for him, although three or more might be a bit too many (although still possible).

Tarion'Maseth
1st November 2007, 18:42
Subzero - I'll be honest, and say that if Sohungry is Mafia, I fully expect to be lynched. It will be the wrong decision*, but with what you've seen so far, it's understandable. I can see your position.

Allow me to explain mine. I see my role regarding Sohungry as that similar to a defence lawyer, with you as the prosecutor. He may be guilty. But, if we don't discuss both sides fully, we will waste our lynches. Normally, the player under suspicion is required to do this. However, in this case, I felt Sohungry's defence was weak. I bolstered it based on the information, readily available to all, found in the topic. By arguing for him, we had a very full day phase. I believe we explored a lot of potential suspects, rather than just jumping onto Sohungry. Still, I do believe that he's getting more suspicious now.

I don't quite understand his desire to hunt down the Cow. I can't really see what he's done that's been suspicious. No more so than any other of the people who are hardly posting, anyway. To be honest, right now Sohungry is the most suspicious of players as far as I'm concerned (Partly because most people aren't huuugely suspicious). Unless some new evidence comes to light, I expect to be lynching him in the next round. I initially helped him, as I felt he was getting unfairly targeted. However, his actions have been increasingly irrational.

*Yes, Subzero, I know how much this will irritate you :P Sadly, it's true. I do believe that it will be the wrong decision, but obviously, I realise you cannot accept this without evidence.

sohungry
1st November 2007, 20:52
Sorry about missing chris on my inactive players list. I guess i just assumed he was active becaus eof all the tlak about him so i didnt bother to check when his last post was.

I also have to agree with the point sub made about one or more of the mafia members being in on the kilroy vote.

Like I said many times before the lynch, voting for kilroy made very little sense. He was an easy target because he already had 3 votes against him.

I will have to wait for the night phase to play out before i bring fourth my other suspicions.

the cow
1st November 2007, 20:56
I also think that Sohungry has acted very odd. For one thing I thought that his being open about how he thinks that he will be shot as the night phase started was a bit odd. Sorta struck me as a "HEY LOOK I'M INNOCENT SO I SHOULD BE WORIED ABOUT GETTING SHOT RIGHT......RIGHT (right about here is when he falls into a fit of laughter verging on insane)"

But in all honesty He has been acting more eraticly as more people become more suspicous of him. He seems to be trying harder and harder to cover himself and shove the blame on someone else. In all honesty he could just be bad at people skills and if he was innocent i would not be to suprised although I still think that he is an interesting figure to say the least.


Also I am still interested in Chris. He dissapeared when things looked bad for him but as soon as it looked like he would not be lynched he showed back up to the group (although it was only a small comment I think)

But they are my top 2 as of now.

Mozric
2nd November 2007, 01:25
Uh oh guys...

And it was another sunny morning on the cyber-paradise that was 40kforums. But, yet again, the peace must be broken with some horrifying news.
Last night was a very interesting night for many of the forumers.
None had a more interesting night than Gnomesbane. He seems to have been drawn into an argument with one of those dangerous internet trolls. I must regretfully inform his family that after the incident we could only find a few of his feathers. Kids, remember, when trolls try to argue with you just say no. Anyway, it seems that... wait, feathers? Ah, Gnomesbane must have been in fact The Infernal Penguin!
Sadly, last night's brutal carnage didn't end there. We have reports that Warlock Chris was just going about his normal buisness, when out of nowhere, a hacker in a fedora hat gave a snappy one-liner, pressed a few buttons and then, sadly, Warlock Chris was no more, he was gone, banned.
On the bright side, we have learnt two things. It seems that Warlock Chris was secretly actually tough_tom_22! And the other thing? Well, the hackers seem to be using some form of Linux. What you say? That doesn't help at all? Oh well. Maybe you'll have better luck with today's lynch.
In addition to all this, we had a special visit on 40kforums... It was in fact the famous Chuck Norris!

Come on boys we gotta get ourselves some mafia! Keep your eyes open and your roundhouse kick close!


Anyway, for those with a macabre leaning, here is the casualty list!
Gnomesbane was banned after an argument with a troll. He was The Infernal Penguin.
Warlock Chris was banned under mysterious fedora-related circumstances. He was tough_tom_22.

It is now Day 2. The day will continue until a majority vote for bannage is reached.
16 players alive.
Current Majority needed: 9
(if the day phase lasts longer than a week, the majority will be lowered)

the cow
2nd November 2007, 01:53
Vote Sohungry

sorry buddy no dice funny that 2 of your former votes for lynching (happen) to die

you tried to play the innocent card, the c'mon guys lets get the mob card and lastly the Ohs no im gona die! card

I don't buy it

yWizePapaSmurfy
2nd November 2007, 01:58
Reading through the last day phase and ignoring Subzero's and Sohungry's posts, before I enact my vote.

sohungry
2nd November 2007, 03:09
vote: the cow

for being stupid enough to think that if i was actually mafia i would vote off someone i had previously accused


I have also previously posted evidence against the cow earlier in the topic. His voting paterns seem awefully sketchy. Only following trends. (technically he was the first person to vote for me in the game, but he was not the first to bring evidence against me. at the time i consider his vote to be following a bandwagon, even if it was just a bandwagon of accusations and not votes).

Throughout the game the cow has been a notorious bandwagon follower.

He also voted for killroy for INSANELY hypocritical reasons. You want to speed up the game so you vote for someone who...wanted to speed up the game?

if wanting to speed up the game is considered guilty, then consider the cow guilty. Hell, his voting for killroy suggests that even he himself considers wanting to speed up the game guilty. So yeah...you basically fingered yourself with that one.

in retaliation to my accusations all he has done is point the finger at me, his main accusor, without offering any real defence for his actions.


Like subzero said, we need to be looking at those who bandwagoned kilroy, and the cow certainly was part of the bandwagon.

this vote definitly isnt set and stone and will likely change. Though the cow is definitly the person i find to be the most suspicious right now. I need to look over the topic for more evidence. Specifically in regards to the nights killings. The hackers probably would have distanced themselves from the people that they killed so as not to be suspected. Unlike the cows crazy logic, i think we need to look for people who did not accuse either of the deceased in the first day phase.

yWizePapaSmurfy
2nd November 2007, 03:34
Actually, I am looking at Kilroy right now for my own suspicions. And now that you have forgiven Subzero overnight for his critical-ness, I am beginning to suspect both of you putting up a big act last phase.

sohungry
2nd November 2007, 03:54
when was i ever accusing subzero? you will see from my previous posts that i never once accussed him of being guilty, because i do not believe him to be.

me and subzero's back and fourth posting was about me defending my innocence. I did not once throw an accusation in his direction.

and dude....kilroy was lynched yesterday. im 100% sure he isn't guilty

yWizePapaSmurfy
2nd November 2007, 03:58
Ah, see, that's the problem reading through everything, I missed stuff like that. :roll:

Gnomesbane
2nd November 2007, 08:13
Ouch. Killed by a troll. Ironically, that is the term I introduced myself as on these forums... :lol:

p3990013
2nd November 2007, 08:35
vote: the cow

Yeah, I don't buy it either. You don't kill the people you messed with in public. I think sohungry was framed.

What the hell man.

What

the

hell

Doohicky
2nd November 2007, 10:32
I will only be on sparingly this weekend. Not sure if I will have much time as I will be home at parents house.

Anyway. My opinion is that the Cow is a Troll. My reasons? I am glad you asked. :P

He came out and accused Sohungry due to the people being banned that Sohungry had altercations with.
Now, people that have played this before will know that the Mafia as a group will be smarter than that and normally target someone they have no ties too to avoid suspicion. In fact targeting a person who had an argument with someone else is a common tactic.

The Cow is new to this, so he will not have realised that we would see through that ploy pretty quickly.

Now. Why Troll and not Mafia? Simple. The other members of the Mafia would have explained to Cow what was going on and not to do what he just did.
Therefore I believe he is a Troll. He figured he could kill someone and then accuse Sohungry of the crime and get away with it.

Vote : Cow

Tarion'Maseth
2nd November 2007, 12:45
A couple of points:

Subzero - Plays like this either way. It's neither an admission of guilt, nor proof of innocence. If he is one of the hackers, he needs to be caught out. Problem is, it's a huge waste of a kill for the Town if he turns out to be good... He's one of the better players.

The Cow/Sohungry - Could they be working together? As a distancing tactic. After all, we know one of them was likely to die - I assumed Sohungry, but we'll see - so he and the Cow arrange a rivalry, hoping to preserve the identity of the Mafia.

cubez
2nd November 2007, 22:00
the cow

i just think that hes makign sill mastakes, the same as i did when i was bad for teh first time,

the cow
3rd November 2007, 03:10
so when I am dead how many towns people will be left honestly?

cuz u people are going to lynch me see that I am innocent (somewhere around here you will hit yourself on the head) and then those of you who are auctually left will proiabablly be in a bad way.

to the note of Sohungry thinking i will change my vote, frankly I think that you are mafia it is that simple i will not change my vote even if casting it will get me lynched so people when I am innocent I am telling you (since i can still win really if the town somehow pulls it off) vote out Sohungry

that is, if I am innocent (which you will find) I ask that you lynch Sohungry (or at least keep him on the shortest leash in recorded history -like guiness book style-) if I am mafia feel free to forget about me and move on (but I know that we will see the first option)

well see you all on the other side (though I do hope you will reconsider)

oh and Doohicky wow man I know that I am new at the game but geez that doesn't mean that I would pull a stunt like that if i was Mafia I mean the game is just a strategy type game (which I really enjoy) so I am just a

little tiny bit smarter than that

Mozric
3rd November 2007, 04:40
Votes:
sohungry (1): the cow,
the cow (4): sohungry, p3990013, Doohicky, Cubez
Not currently voting (11): Spam-Robot, lefthandedyeti, sammy2028 Magnus777z yWizePapaSmurfy Tarion'Maseth, Subzero, dreadknot10,Crimthaan, Andon, foamy666

Number needed for majority: 9
Current vote leader: the cow (4)

sohungry
3rd November 2007, 06:11
@ the cow

when did i say i was expecting you to change your vote exactly? because im 99% possitive you're gonna keep your vote how it is.

You may want to start countering some of the arguments i've brought against you instead of just saying "when i turn out to be innocent, you'll all be sorry". Mafia have been known to try this tactic in the past, frankly i aint buying it. If it does turn out you're innocent, then i do appologise, but understand that im only voting this way because it is where the evidence is pointing me right now, and your arguments for your innocence are non-existance as of now.

despite what you think, this is not some crazy vendetta agianst you. Your actions just seem highly suspicious. If you could explain your actions in a logical way, then i'm more than willing to listen.

But right now, all this "u people are going to lynch me see that I am innocent" stuff isn't enough to convince anyone of anything.

EDIT: Im also finding sammy2028 to be a somewhat suspicious. It's late now, but i intend to investigate him a little more tomorrow.

sammy2028
3rd November 2007, 07:49
Yeah i think the cow is looking quite suspicious at the minute and with his last post he seems to be digging his own grave.

He doesn't seem to be able to come up with any defense and that really isn't giving him any help either. I'm afraid i'm going to vote for the cow

Vote: The Cow

the cow
3rd November 2007, 11:13
this vote definitly isnt set and stone and will likely change.

um yeah misread this
sry :lol:

oh and I do not think that you all have a vendetta out against me I admit that i have not been to smart with timing.

It was kind of late where I live (east U.S.) when Morzic made the kill post so I was a bit tired and pretty rash. I posted immediatly in the excitment of thinking I figured out something and regardless, I realize that that was pretty stupid even if there was a lot of evidence against you I really should have waited for time to pass and more to be said.

(and at the risk of angering you when u are almost going to listen) dont say thay u did not try the (you will be sorry bit) :)

Subzero
3rd November 2007, 12:22
Currently, I think that some of the main points that have been brought up to support suspicion of The Cow could easily apply to several other people. For example, his 'sketchy voting' (i.e. following several bandwagons) applies to maybe half or more of the people who voted for Warlock Chris and the initial vote against Kilroy.

For example, Magnus777z has so far only posted in the random voting stage, voted for Warlock Chris (by essentially saying 'me too'), voted for me because I formed a proper argument against Sohungry and then disappeared. He's gotten away with lurking for the best part of day 1 and for all of day 2 currently.

That's just one example, but I might find more later if I have time.

Additionally:

He also voted for killroy for INSANELY hypocritical reasons. You want to speed up the game so you vote for someone who...wanted to speed up the game?
That's not really all that hypocritical. Wanting to speed up the game means that they probably don't care too much about who gets lynched. If you read his vote you'll notice that he doesn't mention that he finds Kilroy particularly suspicious, just that he wants to speed up the game. Several other people do the same thing in various different ways. I think it's also fairly understandable to want to speed up the game when even the mod is trying to speed up the game.

Note that this isn't saying that The Cow is innocent. I'm saying that yes, there're some things that he's said and done which appear suspicious, but to focus exclusively on him and to make it seem as if he's the only one doing those things is counter-productive (especially when the lynch is approaching so quickly).

I'm also finding Doohicky to be increasingly suspicious due to his most recent post. In that post he constantly makes people believe that the Troll is a single player and not a group of Trolls, so therefore The Cow must be a Troll (for the reasons Doogicky has given). However, currently all we know about the Troll(s) is that they have the ability to kill players, and that they are likely anti-town given the game's theme. It makes me suspicious of him that he speaks with such authority on them despite our complete lack of information on them. If the Troll is a Serial Killer-type role then what he's saying is probably fairly accurate of The Cow's situation. However, if the Trolls are a Mafia-type group of roles then Doohicky may be setting The Cow (who is a player who has come under heavy suspicion since the start of day 2 and is therefore both a liability to the Trolls and an easy fall guy) to appear as a Serial Killer who the town can then lynch. This would be a fairly risky tactic but not exactly uncommon when a Mafia member comes under heavy suspicion. This would also have the effect of making the town believe that there was only one Troll, which would allow the Trolls to act behind the scenes for a little while.

It all comes down to whether the Troll(s) is a Serial Killer or a Mafia group. We have no information in either case, but Doohicky's apparent authority on the matter makes me suspect him.

Lastly, I find Tarion's reason for not voting for Sohungry to be a little suspect, but not of utmost importance here. I find it odd that he suspected Sohungry in day 1 (and seemingly still does suspect him a bit) and gave his reason for defending Sohungry as being that he found my arguments to be weak, but then didn't vote for Sohungry and instead voted for Kilroy when Kilroy was just being bandwagoned because the day needed to end and Sohungry had come under some proper suspicion (which he himself agreed with).

Tarion'Maseth
3rd November 2007, 13:37
I'm also finding Doohicky to be increasingly suspicious due to his most recent post. In that post he constantly makes people believe that the Troll is a single player and not a group of Trolls, so therefore The Cow must be a Troll (for the reasons Doogicky has given). However, currently all we know about the Troll(s) is that they have the ability to kill players, and that they are likely anti-town given the game's theme. It makes me suspicious of him that he speaks with such authority on them despite our complete lack of information on them. If the Troll is a Serial Killer-type role then what he's saying is probably fairly accurate of The Cow's situation. However, if the Trolls are a Mafia-type group of roles then Doohicky may be setting The Cow (who is a player who has come under heavy suspicion since the start of day 2 and is therefore both a liability to the Trolls and an easy fall guy) to appear as a Serial Killer who the town can then lynch. This would be a fairly risky tactic but not exactly uncommon when a Mafia member comes under heavy suspicion. This would also have the effect of making the town believe that there was only one Troll, which would allow the Trolls to act behind the scenes for a little while.

It all comes down to whether the Troll(s) is a Serial Killer or a Mafia group. We have no information in either case, but Doohicky's apparent authority on the matter makes me suspect him.

I'm thinking the Troll is a one man thing. After all, the Hackers are the main anti-town grouping, and this game only has 19 people. I'm guessing it's a bit small for 2 proper Mafia groups.

sohungry
4th November 2007, 19:57
hrmm, this topic seems suspiciously inactive.

anyway, i currenly have a few suspicions

the cow: I really dont think i need to explain this one anymore.....see previous posts by me

Sammy2028 his very first post in this topic:

I agree i belive the mafia would keep their heads down until the game has gotten going a bit before attempting to start up a bandwagon. For this reason i will currently not vote but i will keep my eye on other people who haven't voted or haven't posted.

for someone who believes that the mafia would keep thier heads down, he certainly has been doing a good job...keeping his head down. His next post in this topic was to vote abstain, followed by a vote for kilroy. Abstaining to keep his head down, followed by a quick jump onto the bandwagon. I already explained earlier why i believe at least a couple mafia members were in on the kilroy vote. He also reaffirmed his vote a while later, which i find suspicious because at the time he did this many very valid reasons for kilroys innocence were being brought forward.

Magnus777 i think subzero says it best:


Magnus777z has so far only posted in the random voting stage, voted for Warlock Chris (by essentially saying 'me too'), voted for me because I formed a proper argument against Sohungry and then disappeared. He's gotten away with lurking for the best part of day 1 and for all of day 2 currently.

dreadknot10
4th November 2007, 20:00
wow, lots more to read now, well with the bit about magnus only posting during the random voting stage, it seems he has done so. and now i await for his post for a counter-argument

Crimthaan
4th November 2007, 20:09
*completely out of the game*

Just wanted to apologize to you guys, I've been real busy with school the last few days and havn't had a chance to read threw all these threads and posts. I'll try my best to look it all over, take everything in and than decide where my insignificant vote will go.

Spam-Robot
4th November 2007, 22:09
Wow :eek: This got off fast.
Anyways, I've read the last couple of pages, and the cow is definetly acting suspicious.

So for now

Vote:The Cow

Dark Lord Foamy
4th November 2007, 22:43
Okay I'm busy at course at the moment with 2 assignments so I've only had a quick flick through of whats happened so far this day phase and yeah I'm leaning towards cow but I'm going to read through the rest of this day phase more properly as some interesting points on others have been made as well.

Mozric
4th November 2007, 23:12
Votes:
sohungry (1): the cow,
the cow (5): sohungry, p3990013, Doohicky, Cubez, Spam-Robot
Not currently voting (10): lefthandedyeti, sammy2028 Magnus777z yWizePapaSmurfy Tarion'Maseth, Subzero, dreadknot10,Crimthaan, Andon, foamy666

Number needed for majority: 9
Current vote leader: the cow (5)


This day phase started at Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:25 am (my time). On Fri Nov 09 (my time) the number of votes needed for lynch will move from 9 to 8. On saturday it will be 7. And so on. Just giving you guys advance warning.

the cow
5th November 2007, 01:50
Sohungry cmon if I wanted to keep my head down I would not have choosen to abstain at the end of the Kilroy vote really it is a very visable thing to do now isn't it. I already explained why I did that so you can go and look.

on the subject of the troll, has anyone concidered it a vigalinte (spelling I know) keep in mind that warlock chris was once under a lot of suspect

yWizePapaSmurfy
5th November 2007, 02:17
I'll be gone the next few days, and I have been for the most part inactive, I'm sorry...but here I go with what I can tell.

I really feel awkward getting between a heated debate between the main players right now, arguments all which soak up a page with information that might be valuable, or misleading. I have had trouble following these player's logic because, it's still only speculation on just how people post, as far as I can tell. Maybe that's the game and I still haven't got it yet, but I have been playing trying to figure out what someone's role could be rather than how they suspect another person.

Anyways, I see no real reason to still vote for Cow, he got offensive towards some members, so did Sohungry. No serious suspicions yet because, really, we still have too little to go off in these first turns, in my opinion.

More to come in a bit, late dinner for me here, but I'm sure I'll be able to come on again before I go to bed

Andon
5th November 2007, 03:55
Sohungry cmon if I wanted to keep my head down I would not have choosen to abstain at the end of the Kilroy vote really it is a very visable thing to do now isn't it. I already explained why I did that so you can go and look.

on the subject of the troll, has anyone concidered it a vigalinte (spelling I know) keep in mind that warlock chris was once under a lot of suspect

Chris was only under suspect because it was the first day phase.

And your other argument makes perfect sense. Too perfect sense. You can easily say 'If I was mafia I would...' and insert something logical. But you would know that would be something you could do, and if you were mafia or troll, you'd not do whatever that was so you could pull that line. It's one of the worst mistakes that can be made in this kind of game.

Vote: The Cow

Magnus777z
5th November 2007, 05:54
keep in mind that warlock chris was once under a lot of suspect

That looks to me like you trying to direct blame directly at another person, now would an innocent do that???

Vote: The Cow

Subzero
5th November 2007, 07:43
This day phase is ending way too early.

Is it possible to ask that nobody lynch anyone between now and this evening (GMT)? That's about 9 hours from now.

sammy2028
5th November 2007, 08:17
Personally i'm not too sure whether The Cow is actually a Troll or mafia. I do however think he is being a bit sloppy but as far as i know it is only his first game. I will however be keeping a close watch on him to see if he slips up and provides me with any reason to vote for him.

Doohicky
5th November 2007, 09:16
Okay.. back again after a nice weekend.

Subzero... The reason I feel he is a Troll is already outlined in my post, so I won't go into them.
The reason why I think the Troll is a single person and not a group is as follows.
We are all pretty certain that it's a bunch of Hackers are the main group of mafia. A second group just wouldn't make sense.
Also, if the Cow was acting as part of a group I don't think he would have made the mistake of pointing the finger due to 'arguements' in the last day phase.

To the Cow, Troll a Vigilante? I seriously doubt that. Trolls are always bad members in internet groups and Trolling is a warnable offence here. Therefore it makes sense that they will be 'evil' in the game.

Rifleman Lizard
5th November 2007, 11:56
Post edited. I was dead when I wrote it. :eek:

sohungry
5th November 2007, 13:42
as per subs request

unvote: the cow

i also think this is moving too fast, voting for the cow was meant as a starting point to get things rolling. but i feel they are rolling a bit too fast.

lets look at all our options before doing anything rash

Tarion'Maseth
5th November 2007, 15:50
To the Cow, Troll a Vigilante? I seriously doubt that. Trolls are always bad members in internet groups and Trolling is a warnable offence here. Therefore it makes sense that they will be 'evil' in the game.

But, there's a difference between a bad member of the group, and a hacker. Generally, trolls are still members of the group, just ones who cause fights. Hackers are more malicious.

Doohicky
5th November 2007, 16:06
To the Cow, Troll a Vigilante? I seriously doubt that. Trolls are always bad members in internet groups and Trolling is a warnable offence here. Therefore it makes sense that they will be 'evil' in the game.

But, there's a difference between a bad member of the group, and a hacker. Generally, trolls are still members of the group, just ones who cause fights. Hackers are more malicious.

You make a good point. I can see where they could be a simple neutral vigilante now, but I would still lean towards a Troll being on the 'evil' side

lefthandedyeti
5th November 2007, 22:05
Alright, so we've brought the cow into the limelight. So, now what? If he is a Troll (or any other important killing/investigative role, for that matter), the Hackers will target him to prevent any sort of lucky stab in which a mafia member is killed/revealed. If we lynch him, we'll save them the trouble.

the cow
5th November 2007, 23:05
Considering his hopeful ricochet of suspicion I'm very tempted to vote for Mr Cow here. However, I'm not sure if Sub's request of holding back the lynch is an innocent one. Perhaps he's waiting to speak with others through private messaging. That's just a thought and it is certainly not an accusation of guilt.

Vote: The Cow

That hasn't lynched him yet. We need one more for majority. I don't expect anyone to hastily show a face and cast the final vote, mainly through fear of catching some dodgy looks after a lynch.

dude I hate to break it to you. as a matter of fact you might want to sit down because I have bad news. We did everything we could but.....

you died on page 9

I'm.......

I'm so sorry

sohungry
5th November 2007, 23:11
ahahahhaa wow

that made my night.

even if the cow is mafia we might want to keep him around just for his sense of humour

Rifleman Lizard
5th November 2007, 23:22
[quote="Warlock Chris":14tarh97]Considering his hopeful ricochet of suspicion I'm very tempted to vote for Mr Cow here. However, I'm not sure if Sub's request of holding back the lynch is an innocent one. Perhaps he's waiting to speak with others through private messaging. That's just a thought and it is certainly not an accusation of guilt.

Vote: The Cow

That hasn't lynched him yet. We need one more for majority. I don't expect anyone to hastily show a face and cast the final vote, mainly through fear of catching some dodgy looks after a lynch.

dude I hate to break it to you. as a matter of fact you might want to sit down because I have bad news. We did everything we could but.....

you died on page 9

I'm.......

I'm so sorry[/quote:14tarh97]

Hahahaha! I thought I was missing something. I read page 9 but I must have missed a few posts back then. Oh man I cried laughing.
Noooo!
*wipes tear from eye*

Mozric
6th November 2007, 00:08
:lol: I didn't even notice that. You just sounded so alive Chris.

Okay, I think I'm going to sit down and laugh myself to death.

Rifleman Lizard
6th November 2007, 00:16
That's good to know. I guess I'll fade away into bannage now. ;)

Magnus777z
6th November 2007, 01:33
Does that mean no more Duncan Hills? NOOOOOOOO I must have my DUCAN HILLS!!!!!

Subzero
6th November 2007, 01:50
Sorry about making the request and making everyone wait to hear the actual reason - I made it just before I had to go to school so I didn't have time to write anything else, and I was also quite busy for a few hours after I got back (plus it's the 5th of November).

Here's the reason why I don't want The Cow to be lynched just yet:

A certain player (who is not The Cow, which is why I asked that he wouldn't be lynched yet) has claimed to me, in private, that they are the Troll. Their claim states the following (paraphrased):

They have a nightkill ability, are an independent role and must survive until 9 players die.

Thus the two ways of interpreting the claim are that they are an extremely convenient Serial Killer or an extremely unbalanced Survivor. I say Serial Killer because they have a nightkill ability and need to kill people; this is very convenient because not only do they only have to kill half the required number of people, they can also win with any player and can play on any side. They could help the Mafia by killing off random people, or they could help the town by killing off suspected Mafioso and other anti-town roles. I say Survivor because they have to survive for a specific length of time; this is quite unbalanced because not only do they only have to survive for a shorter length of time (probably between a third to two thirds of the length of the game), they also get to kill people off, thus decreasing the time they have to be alive by about 50% (assuming there's a lynch each day and a Mafia kill each night).

I have no confirmation on whether they're telling the truth about their role or whether they even have that role. Personally, I do find the role a bit unbelievable for the reasons stated above.

I won't state who claimed this yet, but some people can probably hazard a guess.



I do still find The Cow a little suspicious, because his arguments are so weak, but it's difficult to tell whether he's just making newbish mistakes or is actually a member of the Mafia or is another anti-town player. However, Sohungry and Doohicky both stand out to me as people who really want The Cow to be lynched, but aren't really providing good arguments. Most of the arguments they use are hypocritical or extremely weak and along the lines of those The Cow is using to defend himself.

An example of this hypocrisy and weak arguments would be Sohungry's post near the top of page 10. For example, Sohungry says that The Cow has been 'following trends', but as I've pointed out a reasonably large number of people have done just that at one point or another. Following both of the early bandwagons does make him a little more suspicious than someone who only voted on one bandwagon, but he doesn't really stand out from some of the other people who voted on those bandwagons (I also think that Sohungry's really scraping the barrel for something to throw at The Cow here when he's accusing The Cow of following a bandwgaon by placing the first vote against Sohungry himself on day 1). I've already explained how his so-called hypocrisy in voting for Kilroy in the second bandwagon isn't really hypocrisy at all. Sohungry's post also uses some rather dubious logic, of the usual 'Mafia do x, I do y, so I'm innocent' kind. How do we know that you're not double-bluffing and that you didn't kill someone you accused? After all, it seems like a lot of people think that a member of the Mafia wouldn't do that, a fact which you seem hasty to repeatedly point out. If it's something that people think the Mafia aren't going to do, then good Mafioso will probably do it* (which makes catching good Mafioso very hard because you can sometimes get locked in a Catch-22-esque loop of suspicion). Aside from all that, Sohungry seems to forget that he too voted for Kilroy during the second vote against Kilroy. Even if he unvoted close to the lynch, it's still a vote against Kilroy. Therefore his assertion that we should look at those who voted for Kilroy whilst diverting suspicion towards them and away from himself is odd.

Later he says that he "doesn't buy" the 'I'm innocent' excuse that The Cow uses. This after having used the very same excuse several times in the previous day. Lastly, his post right after Kilroy's death makes me a little more suspicious of him. The whole 'what have we done!' thing gives me the impression of a Mafioso who wants to look as if they've realized people have made the wrong choice in lynching an innocent player, and the 'I won't survive through the night' talk is him making it seem as if he's afraid he'll end up dead so that he can make it seem like a miracle the next day that he's still alive (I've said that kind of thing before in previous games a lot of the time, but personally I feel it was justified because I tended not to survive beyond day 1/2, and I actually was innocent in almost all of them).

Doohicky's own arguments for The Cow's guilt mainly rely on The Cow being a newbie at Mafia, and therefore making newbish mistakes, which have been interpreted as Mafia mistakes. I think it's a very likely possibility, along with The Cow possibly being guilty, that he's just an innocent player who's new to the game and is therefore making the sorts of mistakes that people new to the game make.

Aside from that, his posts tend to be based on very unstable arguments (partially outlined above) but also including trying to out-guess Mozric and sounding quite authoritative when talking about anti-town groups. Currently, we know that there must be one Mafia group (it just wouldn't be Mafia without one) and that there is an additional killing role or group of killing roles. A second Mafia would not be particularly unbalanced, considering that for each Mafia group it would be the same situation as one Mafia group vs 16 town players (not counting any other anti-town or neutral roles) and for the town the situation would be helped considerably by the fact that the Mafia groups would be in competition. Thus a situation with 2 small mafia groups isn't out of the question, but you seem fairly insistent that the Troll must be an independent role (this is, of course, ignoring the claim I received, but I'm not sure if I can trust that very much yet so at the moment I'm not taking it into account except for the fact that The Cow wasn't the one who made it).

Overall, the feeling I get from the current vote is that The Cow is being thrown to the lions, either for making newbish mistakes which make him seem like Mafia (thus being a desirable target for the Mafia who can get an easy lynch, backed up by the large number of votes for The Cow that appeared in a very short space of time) or for making newbish mistakes that reveal him to be a Mafioso (in which case he might be being sacrificed to make some of the Mafia seem more innocent).

Lastly, Magnus still hasn't really responded to my suspicions about him and has instead voted for The Cow based on a rather weak argument that he was diverting suspicion; at the time The Cow wasn't under any great deal of suspicion (in fact Sohungry was the only person to voice anything against him before) and in doing something like making a list of people he found suspicious he wasn't diverting suspicion, because there wasn't much suspicion regarding him. My earlier suspicions about Magnus still stand - he barely posted in the previous day phase, only posting after the random voting stage to vote for Warlock Chris (who was quickly being bandwagoned) and then for me when I made a case against Sohungry. So far the only thing he has done in this day phase has been to vote for The Cow (putting him in quite a precarious position at 7 votes when 9 are needed to lynch) with a shaky reason as I mentioned above.

Currently, my opinion on The Cow is divided. On the one hand, what he's said has been pretty suspicious. However, at the same time it's very possible that he's making the same mistakes other people made when they first started playing the game.

Lastly, I want to reply to something Tarion said during the night:

Allow me to explain mine. I see my role regarding Sohungry as that similar to a defence lawyer, with you as the prosecutor. He may be guilty. But, if we don't discuss both sides fully, we will waste our lynches. Normally, the player under suspicion is required to do this. However, in this case, I felt Sohungry's defence was weak. I bolstered it based on the information, readily available to all, found in the topic. By arguing for him, we had a very full day phase. I believe we explored a lot of potential suspects, rather than just jumping onto Sohungry. Still, I do believe that he's getting more suspicious now.
Actually, the majority of people who fell under any real suspicion or who were in danger of being lynched came under suspicion before my argument with Sohungry. In fact the only major thing to happen afterwards was the bandwagoning of Kilroy. The defence that "more suspicions were explored" therefore doesn't really make sense. Additionally, that early on in the game there was no reason for you to get involved when you already suspected Sohungry (as your own posts back then show) and when it was so early in the game. Additionally, if his defence was weak then that was his problem (in fact if someone's defence was weak then that's going to make people think they're guilty, so interfering could potentially but the town in a bad situation), and there was no reason for you to defend someon else when you had no information on their alignment.



*Note: it's very difficult to catch Mafia who are doing a good job; it's much easier to catch those who aren't. The whole point of the Mafioso is that they have to evade suspicion, so if they do things which people won't find suspicious or which will deflect suspicion away from themselves then they're doing a good job and will be much harder to catch.

sohungry
6th November 2007, 04:11
very heafty post.

You'll note that i retracted my vote from the cow, because i also thought that we were making a really quick lynch without looking at all the angles.

i know i've accused him pretty heavily, but thats just how I go about things. no half assin' kinda mentality. But i did clearly say that it was just a starting point and my vote would likely change

I support the lynching of magnus right now more than the cow personally. I cant argue with any of the points you've made against him. He needs to step up and defend himself soon.

and to encourage that:

vote: Magnus777

Crimthaan
6th November 2007, 05:07
Vote: Tarion

His defense of sohungry in the last day phase seems too much like a staged thing to me. Since the beginning of the game its seemed to me that he and sohungry have been working together some how which could imply mafia. However, what if Tarion is the troll? If he defended sohungry and sohungry was lynched only to be found innocent, Tarion could argue that peope should have listened to him. If sohungry was mafia than Tarion could fiegn ignorance to the whole matter saying it was only him trying to stop a bandwagon or an il advised vote. Either way it just isn't sitting right with me.

Btw, I will be posting more on this, it's just that I'm at work which seems to be the only place I can really take a look at the game. I apologize again for not being so active. People could vote for me as well as Magnus for only saying a few things here and there. If my inactivity continues I'll see what I can do about giving up my role to someone waiting to play, but I dont think it'll come to that...my 10 page paper is done with thursday.

Magnus777z
6th November 2007, 06:50
Lastly, Magnus still hasn't really responded to my suspicions about him and has instead voted for The Cow based on a rather weak argument that he was diverting suspicion; at the time The Cow wasn't under any great deal of suspicion (in fact Sohungry was the only person to voice anything against him before) and in doing something like making a list of people he found suspicious he wasn't diverting suspicion, because there wasn't much suspicion regarding him. My earlier suspicions about Magnus still stand - he barely posted in the previous day phase, only posting after the random voting stage to vote for Warlock Chris (who was quickly being bandwagoned) and then for me when I made a case against Sohungry. So far the only thing he has done in this day phase has been to vote for The Cow (putting him in quite a precarious position at 7 votes when 9 are needed to lynch) with a shaky reason as I mentioned above.
now.

Personally I don't see it as a shaky reason for voting for the cow, not any thinner than anyone else's reason at least.

He's not just diverting suspicion. By mentioning someone else directly by name and reminding us that he had a good number of votes at one time, it appears to me as if he is trying to pass the buck. I fail to see an innocent redirecting blame towards another who may also be an innocent. However a Troll/Mafia could easily place blame at the feet of another quite freely, as they would know who was with them. Warlock Chris may or may not be guilty of something, but that has nothing at all to do with the reasons people are voting for the cow.

Anyway, that was my reasoning.........And somehow I missed that Warlock was dead (WTF dont know how I managed that). So my arguement really isn't valid. Sorry Cow. Other then my proscribed invalid reasoning, I don't really feel that the cow is overly suspicious. His verbal stuttering could mean that he's on his backfoot from being pushed, or simply that he really is a NOOB to this. Either way I fail to see another arguement that truely villifies him.
Unvote: the cow

Doohicky
6th November 2007, 09:08
In light of what Subzero says, it really does look like the Cow is not the Troll. (I still believe there is not more than one Troll unless they work seperately)
If that is the case, then maybe he has just made silly mistakes and put himself in the Limelight unnecessarily.

If he is not a Troll, then I seriously doubt he is a Mafia member either. My reasons are stated in my initial post against the cow and I am not going to repeat myself as people can read :P .

This annoys me, as I really had thought I had something with the Cow.

Unvote: The Cow

Tarion'Maseth
6th November 2007, 13:38
Vote: Tarion

His defense of sohungry in the last day phase seems too much like a staged thing to me. Since the beginning of the game its seemed to me that he and sohungry have been working together some how which could imply mafia. However, what if Tarion is the troll? If he defended sohungry and sohungry was lynched only to be found innocent, Tarion could argue that peope should have listened to him. If sohungry was mafia than Tarion could fiegn ignorance to the whole matter saying it was only him trying to stop a bandwagon or an il advised vote. Either way it just isn't sitting right with me.

If I had thought of that, and I was the troll, that would have been brilliant. Instead, I genuinely felt sorry for sohungry. I figured he'd be lynched very quickly if he didn't get some support. On the other hand, I didn't expect all suspicion to fade away from him for no reason.

Vote:Sohungry

He's still just as suspicious as he was then. If you look, his initial comments were what got me supporting him. However, as the conversation goes on, it got harder and harder to try to defend him. His argument were getting weaker, and he started to seem much more guilty to me. I was loathe to just stop defending him, after I'd started, but on the other hand, I don't see why he's suddenly suspicion free.

Andon
6th November 2007, 13:53
Unvote: The Cow

Subzero
6th November 2007, 17:07
He's not just diverting suspicion. By mentioning someone else directly by name and reminding us that he had a good number of votes at one time, it appears to me as if he is trying to pass the buck. I fail to see an innocent redirecting blame towards another who may also be an innocent. However a Troll/Mafia could easily place blame at the feet of another quite freely, as they would know who was with them. Warlock Chris may or may not be guilty of something, but that has nothing at all to do with the reasons people are voting for the cow.
You can't divert suspicion unless people suspect you, and at the time that he made that post the only person who had said anything against him (and even that hadn't been taken into account as the lynch of Kilroy soon after Sohungry voted for The Cow shows) was Sohungry, and even then it wasn't really a major case against him.

I'd also like to know why you had to edit your post there. Doohicky posted between the time you posted it and the time you edited it, but you still decided to edit it (which might I remind everyone is bad practice anyway in a Mafia game). So was there something you had to hide there?

Aside from that, I still don't see The Cow as being particularly innocent. As I said early, it's difficult for me to tell whether he's making newbish mistakes or whether he's making slips that reveal him as a Mafioso. As I also said before, I got the feeling from the bandwgaon against The Cow that, if he was Mafia, he was probably being sacrificed to make other members of the Mafia look innocent (and he would make a good target, given that he's new to the game so there wouldn't be much experience lost if he died and he'd probably make some easily identifiable mistakes along the way which innocent people might pick up on and use against him as well). If he's Mafia, it might be the case that some of those who have suddenly backed out of the vote against him were the Mafia members trying to kill him and have now decided that it's a little too risky.

Lastly, we can't really even trust the claim I have. [tinfoil hat]It may be the case that the player who claimed to me is actually a member of the Mafia and not an independent role (certainly, their actions don't suggest someone independent to me), who has claimed to be a kind of very convenient or powerful Serial Killer or Survivor who's a very good neutral role to try and get me to help him out a little and see him as an ally. The real Troll, if that were the case, might actually be a real Serial Killer and would therefore be unable to counter-claim.[/tinfoil hat]

That said, currently I have little reason to believe or disbelieve the claim, so I'm just going to wait until there is something reliable for me to make an opinion on.

One more thing:

Vote: Sohungry

Andon
6th November 2007, 17:31
Subzero makes some very good points. Sohungry has payed this before - The cow has not. The Cow just doesn't know what is going on as much as the more experienced player

Edit: Vote: Sohungy

Mozric
7th November 2007, 00:36
Votes:
sohungry (4): the cow, Tarion'Maseth, Subzero, Andon
the cow (3): p3990013, Cubez, Spam-Robot
Magus777z (1): sohungry
Tarion (1): Crimthaan
Not currently voting (7): lefthandedyeti, sammy2028, yWizePapaSmurfy, dreadknot10, foamy666 Magnus777z, Doohicky

Number needed for majority: 9
Current vote leader: sohungry (4)

p3990013
7th November 2007, 07:52
ok you convinced me

unvote: the cow

vote: sohungry

sammy2028
7th November 2007, 08:11
Subzero definatley made some very good points. The Cow is an inexpierenced player whilst sohungry is not. The Cow could be just making newbie mistakes as he hasn't played before. Therefore i belive sohungry is more suspicous and suspicion from last round hasn't died yet.

Vote:sohungry

sohungry
7th November 2007, 08:31
woah woah woah, slow down a minute here.

why is everyone voting for me exactly?

all im seeing is "sub has a good point, sohungry has experience playing these games and the cow does not"

there are alot of us who have experience playing these things. I fail to see how that makes me more guilty.

I agree with the fact that the cows mistakes can be blamed on his lack of experience. But i am yet to see how that get's people like Magnus777 off the hook. You all seem to be just blindly following subzero. If you all believe subzero to be so damn smart then why not listen to some of his other suspicions. I am not the only one under suspicion, i think it would be wise to wait for other suspects to offer some answers for thier suspicious behavior before you lynch the one suspect who is trying to be reasonable.

I get it, you all find me suspicious. You're welcome to. Im just asking that you slow things down a little and look at all the angles before deciding if im the most suspicious.

we are ALL suspicious. No one knows for certain the rolls of anybody else.

The arguments presented against me can be made against any one of us.

sohungry
7th November 2007, 09:00
yeah, double post

sue me

I want to address subzero a little further. Why the fuck hasnt he fallen under suspicion yet. I currently dont believe him to be mafia....but i cant expalin WHY i dont suspect him.

for some reason it seems that we have all just accepted sub to be innocent. He's basically made himself the allknowing leader. You're all following him blindly.

form your own opinions. That's all I ask. Right now me and sub seem to be the only ones reading through the topic and looking for evidence against people. Everyone else is just reading what sub posts, desiding if it makes sense, then casting thier vote.

everyone playing this game has an equal chance of being mafia. Mozric rolled a die to determine our rolls. It is completely random. And that is why it is so hard to find mafia.

Andon, p3990013, doohicky, sammy, Tarion, sub, everyone else

you are all pretty damn suspicious.

I have not read your PMs, I dont know who you are. YOu could be anyone. The only person any of us can be sure of is ourself.


I have devised a plan of sorts that we could try to find out for sure who is guilty.

we aren't allowed to directly quote our roll pms, correct? But nothing is stopping us from revealing our own rolls in a non-quoting fashion. What I suggest is that we all pm our roll to some third party. I dont knwo who this third party would be. I guess it'd have to be someone playing the game. the thing is no one can for sure trust anyone else playing the game.

anyway, my plan is that after we all pm this person our roll, he posts a master list in this topic saying who everyone claims to be. MAfia members will likely lie about thier rolls in order to cover up thier identity by assuming the roll of a random forumer who would be innocent (ie, not like perturboro, or some other undesirable from forum history). So we could potentially find doubles on the list and thus determine who is lying.

to avoid this of course mafia members could just choose completely random forumers who no one has every heard of. Mozric likly wouldnt have chose such people to be characters so we can catch them that way.

does any of that make sense or am i just tlakign crazy?

we just need to think of a way to swing it so we can be sure that the person we all pm isnt altering who we claim to be.

Doohicky
7th November 2007, 09:37
While I applaud you trying to find a way of us collaborating to find the mafia, there are a flaw in your plan.

:- Doing this will mean there is a large possibility of the investigative roles being discovered by the mafia. This would mean that the Mafia will be able to target the people with the most power to stop them early on in the game. Of course the counter to this is that the possible unvieling of the Mafia could be worth those losses.

I am not sure of it at the moment, but am will ing to see what the rest of the people think.

Also, for the record, after the Cow (Who now seems innocent) I had found Sohungry the most suspicious thus far (As shown by me voting for him last round).
I am not putting a vote on him yet as I want to see how this idea goes first though.

Magnus777z
7th November 2007, 12:35
I agree with the fact that the cows mistakes can be blamed on his lack of experience. But i am yet to see how that get's people like Magnus777 off the hook.

LOL This is just too funny LOL. Ahem, this is my very first mafia game. Taking that in to account I fail to see how anything that applies to the cow fails to apply to me as well.

Next time you attempt to open your mouth to insert a foot, check to make sure the shoe fits. Otherwise you might break some teeth.

Sorry if this sounds a little angry, I'm just in a bad mood. I don't mean anything personnal by it. My xbox 360 broke.

Also:


for some reason it seems that we have all just accepted sub to be innocent. He's basically made himself the allknowing leader. You're all following him blindly.



Everyone else is just reading what sub posts, desiding if it makes sense, then casting thier vote.


My aren't you the hypocrite
-->
I support the lynching of magnus right now more than the cow personally. I cant argue with any of the points you've made against him. He needs to step up and defend himself soon.

and to encourage that:

vote: Magnus777

You say that relying on Subzero for reasons to vote is a blind and foolish way to go about things, yet you are guilty of it yourself.

I'll tell you again, size 12 feet dont fit in a size 8 mouth.

As too:


I want to address subzero a little further. Why the f*** hasnt he fallen under suspicion yet. I currently dont believe him to be mafia....but i cant expalin WHY i dont suspect him.

for some reason it seems that we have all just accepted sub to be innocent. He's basically made himself the allknowing leader. You're all following him blindly.


I happen too agree. I think that Subzero just throws up such a withering offense, that you must find cover or be obliterated. And everyone is just so busy ducking that they can't see that he is controling this stage like a puppiteer. I'm not saying he's mafia, but I do believe he is an antitown roll. If he play like this in ever game in this manner doesnt matter to me, I wasn't there. I am HERE. Though he does have some good points I think that mostly he simply fills the role of an instigator. Sending players down a vengful path towards someone he thinks should be removed.

-------------------------


A certain player (who is not The Cow, which is why I asked that he wouldn't be lynched yet) has claimed to me, in private, that they are the Troll. Their claim states the following (paraphrased):

They have a nightkill ability, are an independent role and must survive until 9 players die.


Subzero claims to have been PM'd by someone who claims to be an Nightkiller roll looking to possibly help
Why would someone do that? Unless they have valid reasons to suspect that Subzero is some sort of killer roll as well. And if Sub is an innocent why has he not revealed this player so that we can ban him? Plan on using him as your personnal assasin?
Would an innocent claim to be an Killer? I don't see a reason why, so I think we can rule out pro town. With pro town out of the picture whoever the individual is doesn't have the town's interests in thier best interests. With the kill ability they might take out a mafia, but it could be an innocent just as if not more easily. They have to go.

I haven't been convinced of sohungry's guilt, and I'm already tired of wagons.

so....

I Vote: Subzero once again.[/i]

Tarion'Maseth
7th November 2007, 13:47
The thing you're forgetting is that if Subzero is telling the truth, if he's been contacted by a NEUTRAL player with a kill ability (Remember, in a lot of Mafia games, kill abilities can be both pro- and anti-town) then there are no conclusions to be drawn from it. Nothing logically follows.

Your assumption is that people with kill abilities are the bad guys. Look up the vigilante role. Someone with a nightkill who's working on their own, for a specified goal. I'm wanting to question what is making you associate kill abilities with anti-town. It could just be that it's your first game. Or, you could be Mafia.

Subzero
7th November 2007, 19:11
Okay, starting from the top (well, of the new posts since I last logged on):

Personally, I'm a little concerned at the number of people who have so rapidly changed their vote to vote for Sohungry after I said that The Cow probably isn't the Troll and that the things that have made people suspicious could be due to this being his first game. As I've already said, just because he's not the Troll and just because his mistakes could be explained by the fact that they're the same mistakes a lot of new players make it doesn't make him innocent - it just means that there is another logical explanation for what has happened which is also a fairly good possibility. I would prefer it if there was more discussion, such as about verifying the claim (or proving it false) which I received. Of course, that's likely not an area that anyone has much information on...

Anyway, on to the most recent four or five posts. There will be a summary at the bottom of key points.

Sohungry, post 1

all im seeing is "sub has a good point, sohungry has experience playing these games and the cow does not"

there are alot of us who have experience playing these things. I fail to see how that makes me more guilty.
That might be all you're seeing, but there are all of my other suspicions from this day phase and the previous day phase. Additionally, for someone who seems so quick to say that The Cow is probably innocent (when I merely provided the alternate explanation to his actions that he's a new player)


If you all believe subzero to be so damn smart then why not listen to some of his other suspicions. I am not the only one under suspicion, i think it would be wise to wait for other suspects to offer some answers for thier suspicious behavior before you lynch the one suspect who is trying to be reasonable.
So what you're saying is that bandwagoning someone that I suspect isn't that bad as long as it's not you? That it's fine for people to suspect you as long as they don't vote for you without going through another few pages of discussion? I just get the feeling from this that you wouldn't have said the same thing if someone else I've mentioned had been suspected.


we are ALL suspicious. No one knows for certain the rolls of anybody else.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that we are all equally suspicious (also, some people here definitely know the roles of other people - the Mafia - and there may or may not be other associative roles such as Masons, Siblings, Lovers etc.).


The arguments presented against me can be made against any one of us.
Erm, no, they can't. I spent some time yesterday (game-wise) explaining why several of the things you specifically did made me suspicious of you. There are also several more things that you have done today which make me suspicious of you.

Sohungry, post 2

I want to address subzero a little further. Why the f*** hasnt he fallen under suspicion yet. I currently dont believe him to be mafia....but i cant expalin WHY i dont suspect him.
So you don't suspect me, but you want me to be suspected? It seems that you're just trying to discredit me without appearing to suspect me. It simply doesn't make sense that you would want to discredit someone you think isn't Mafia.


everyone playing this game has an equal chance of being mafia. Mozric rolled a die to determine our rolls. It is completely random. And that is why it is so hard to find mafia.

Andon, p3990013, doohicky, sammy, Tarion, sub, everyone else

you are all pretty damn suspicious.
So basically what you're saying is that everyone should abandon their current suspicions because of random role distribution which assures an equal chance of any of us being a specific role? Random role distribution occurs before the game even begins and the probabilities of being Mafia or any other role are rendered useless from the moment the game begins, because then people start forming their own suspicions based on people's actions, votes, what people say and so on. Probabilities don't matter. At the moment, going by probability, there is an equal chance of you being Mafia as there is of any other specific player being Mafia. If we used probabilities then we'd therefore never be able to accused anyobody, because everybody has an equal chance of being guilty. Therefore probabilities don't matter, because nobody in the game is, say, 25% anti-town or 10% neutral - everybody is 100% what their role is, but the unknown factor here is the role. And that unknown factor is what people find out by the processes of investigation and accusation. I've investigated and accused you, amongst others.

Okay, that was a bit long, but the gist is this: probability doesn't matter because everyone has the same probability (from a purely statistical perspective) of being innocent, guilty or neutral at any one time. However, on an individual, not statistical level, everybody has a fixed role which they are 100% of the time (well, some roles may change as the game goes on but those are very rare). By investigating and accusing people, players in the game gradually uncover what roles people have. Therefore, to say that we all have the same probability of being guilty is meaningless, because it applies only on a statistical level where who actually is Mafia is irrelevant.


I have devised a plan of sorts that we could try to find out for sure who is guilty.
Having read over your plan I can say that a) it's game-breaking if it does work and b) it probably won't work.

a) Mafia is not a puzzle game, except for determining what happens during the night phases sometimes. To do something like a role claim in unison would reveal people to be automatically guilty, and very likely innocent. This completely bypasses the point of Mafia, which is that the town doesn't know who anyone else is and that the Mafia know their own identities and the town then have to try and work their way towards uncovering the identities of the Mafia. Instead it becomes a purely black and white thing where people have definitely made a false claim, or people have very likely made a true claim. That breaks the game, and would be especially game-breaking if we did something like PM someone who isn't even in the game.

b) I believe Mozric said that the role names he chose were from the first page of the 'Total Posts' section of the member list. That's 50 people. There are 19 players, and even then only around 14-15 are pro-town (and would therefore have names so high on the posts list). That leaves a hell of a lot of names for people to choose from.

Magnus

LOL This is just too funny LOL. Ahem, this is my very first mafia game. Taking that in to account I fail to see how anything that applies to the cow fails to apply to me as well.
That may be the case, but the majority of the things which make me find you suspicious are not things which are common newbie mistakes, such as those which almost got The Cow lynched (although, and I want to stress this as much as possible, making newbish mistakes doesn't make The Cow innocent, it's just another possible explanation for his actions).


I happen too agree. I think that Subzero just throws up such a withering offense, that you must find cover or be obliterated. And everyone is just so busy ducking that they can't see that he is controling this stage like a puppiteer.
Being thorough doesn't make me some kind of puppet master. Additionally, just because people are following my vote it doesn't mean that they're doing so blindly, it just means that they agree with me.


Sending players down a vengful path towards someone he thinks should be removed.
So because I think someone is very suspicious and am trying to get them lynched I'm actually suspicious because of that?


Subzero claims to have been PM'd by someone who claims to be an Nightkiller roll looking to possibly help.
I think Tarion pretty much covered this (ability and alignment are independent of one another, although some less common abilities are exclusively or almost exclusively given to pro- or anti-town roles). One thing I will say is that I received a role claim that seemed dubious to me. In my opinion, the best course of action I could take was to post the claim and try to find information or get people's opinions on it. To state the name of the person that made the claim as well would probably have ended up with people misinterpreting the claim and lynching them before a rational course of action could be decided upon.

Summary
The Cow is not innocent simply by virtue of making mistakes which newbies commonly make. I simply offered that up as another explanation as to why he said and did certain things. I would also like to see what he has to say about recent events as he seems to have become very quiet after suspicion turned away from him. If he doesn't begin to post I would not object to the vote swinging back to him.

Personally, I get the feeling that a lot of what Sohungry has been saying in his two recent posts about exploring my other suspicions wouldn't have been said by him if the vote hadn't turned his way. That's just my opinion though.

Currently I have no way of knowing whether the claim is true or not and of the full motivation for claiming to me. If anyone else feels comfortable with coming forward with any other information that's relevant then please do so.

I still stand by most of my suspicions from day 1.

That's some of the important points, but not everything and not in any depth.

sohungry
7th November 2007, 19:45
Personally, I get the feeling that a lot of what Sohungry has been saying in his two recent posts about exploring my other suspicions wouldn't have been said by him if the vote hadn't turned his way. That's just my opinion though.

regardless of what you think my motives are, my point still stands. All of the other people currently under suspicion are being ignored now that the attention has turned to me. We must remember that the mafia will have more than one member. Even if you are 90% sure you've caught one (me, supossedly) you still have others to find.

It's best that we discuss things more before we lynch anyone. And no im not just saying that because im currently closest to being lynched. If you will look back a page you will see that i unvoted for the cow for the exact same reason.

I have class soon, but later tonight expect a fairly large post from me. I'm going to go over every suspicion brought against me one by one and see what i can do to defend my actions.

if there is anything specific you want me to address be sure to post it before i get back. A summary of the charges agaisnt me would be nice. It'd save me having to sift through the whole topic. But that also means someone else would have to sift through the topic for me...so i dont expect much.

Magnus777z
7th November 2007, 21:43
About the so called Nightkiller: My point about him not being protown has to do with his ability. Who's to judge how it's used best? And he is still going to use it, make no mistake someone with an ability will not sit idol. I'm just saying that he's a one man lynch mob that can run wild. He will decided I'm going to take out *blank* tonight because he is mafia, then *blank* turns out to be a cop.
One man judge/jury/executioner's aren't the greatest.

Get my issue?

Tarion'Maseth
7th November 2007, 22:15
About the so called Nightkiller: My point about him not being protown has to do with his ability. Who's to judge how it's used best? And he is still going to use it, make no mistake someone with an ability will not sit idol. I'm just saying that he's a one man lynch mob that can run wild. He will decided I'm going to take out *blank* tonight because he is mafia, then *blank* turns out to be a cop.
One man judge/jury/executioner's aren't the greatest.

Get my issue?

Yes, but if he can team up with someone with an investigator ability, the town suddenly has huge boost. On the other hand, if he decides to help the Mafia, they suddenly double in killing power. Not fun for the town.

Mozric
7th November 2007, 23:46
Votes:
sohungry (6): the cow, Tarion'Maseth, Subzero, Andon, p3990013, sammy2028
the cow (2): Cubez, Spam-Robot
Magus777z (1): sohungry
Tarion (1): Crimthaan
Subzero (1): Magnus777z
Not currently voting (5): lefthandedyeti, yWizePapaSmurfy, dreadknot10, foamy666, Doohicky

Number needed for majority: 9
Current vote leader: sohungry (6)



Also, regarding sohungry's idea: It is not against the rules, and I, as the arbiter, have no problem with it.

dreadknot10
8th November 2007, 00:21
well, for the amount i have read, sohungry is in deep shit

vote: sohungry

sohungry
8th November 2007, 06:44
Alright, here I am Having to defend myself once again. Let's see if i can finally do a good enough job of it.

first, i'll start with a summary of all the points i can find that have been made against me.

1. the first vote cast agaisnt me found on page five made by gnomesbane.
VOTE: SOHUNGRY

In his post at the top of this page he seems to really be trying to play the guilt card on Warlock. To me this just seems like a way to try and press a vote on a possibly innocent person who just made an honest mistake of voting the wrong way.

his major reasons for voting for me was for heavily accusing warlock chris. I would like to note that at the time that gnomesbane voted for me chris already had 6 votes for him, one of which was cast by subzero. Though I may have been agressive in my accusations, i fail to see how that makes me more suspicious than those who were passive int hier voting. either way we all thought chris was suspicious, and we all voted for him. my vote didnt count for anymore because it came with a longer post explaining it.

a post by wisepapasmurf on the same page:

Why are you trying to lead us to lynch Chris, Sohungry? Surely if he was suspicious enough we would all turn to vote towards him on our own accord.
in responce to that, you already were voting for him when i made my post. I was the 4th to cast a vote for him, not the first. Yes my post was strong worded but you cant honestly say i was the only one suspicious of chris at the time.

more people were suspicous of me for the same reason, but not worth quoting. I believe i was justified in voting for chris at the time. 3 people voted for him before me, and several voted for him after me. I was not the only one suspicious of him.

2. Changing my vote to kilroy, and then quickly changing it to crimthaan.

subzero's responce to my flip floppyness:


You're also constantly completely going back on things you've said - first it was that Warlock Chris was guilty, now it's that Kilroy is guilty. Instead you're saying 'actually, I have no idea whatsoever, in fact they could both be completely innocent'. If you're ever suspicious of someone then I don't see how a little bit of discussion is going to completely reverse your view on them. Sure, you might not be as suspicious of them as you were before, but it's a bit of a stretch to completely recant your suspicions twice.

It was still fairly early in the game when all this went down. I was suspicious of warlock chris for what i found to be very valid reasons at the time. but in all actuallity, since it was so early in the game, i was basing my suspicions on very little, since very little had happened to base suspicions off of.

I dont think it is all that unreasonable for my suspicions to change enough to convince me to change my vote in a page an a half's worth of discussion. I mean, isnt that what you did subzero? you were also suspicious of chris, and then you changed your vote me in roughly the same timespan that it took me to change my vote from chris to crimthaan.
I know my very brief vote for kilroy on that page adds to your suspicions against me. But in all fairness, i made that vote before i actually had time to thoroughly examine the situation. In my mind i dont even consider it a vote because i realised it was a stupid way to vote very quickly. I was foolish, and then came to my senses.

In the end both kilroy and warlock chris turned out to be innocent, so i feel i was right to throw away my suspicions of them.

3. suggesting we vote for an inactive

subzero responded with:
"There's a good deal of discussion about who to lynch and people are putting forward more and more suspicions, some of which have been directed at me recently. So instead of actually following that discussion until the majority agrees on something, let's all lynch someone completely different who likely won't fight back and will be an easy target."

i still maintain that voting for inactives is a good idea. this game actually has no truely inactive players, ie. people who havn't posted since the game started, but it certainly has people who dont post very much. and why shouldnt we be suspicious of them? right now they are just getting away with not posting and drifting through the game. what reason would an innocent have not to post? innocents should be posting and discussing thier suspicions openly. being an innactive innocent isnt helping the town find mafia. Being an inactive mafia seems like a good idea right now. you can kill people at night, and no one will suspect you during the day.

at the very least, voting for an innactive would encourage them to post. I still think it was a good idea.

4. My drunken post voting for myself.

at the time i was drunk and frustrated. probably shouldnt have been reading this topic. everyone was voting for me and i couldnt see why. it was very disorienting for a drunk person.

people claimed that i was "getting over protective for an innocent person". I dont see why i shouldn't be over protective. As an innocent i certainly dont want to see myself getting lynched. I wasnt about to go down without a fight. Everyone voting for me is counter productive for me winning the game. first of all because i'd be dead and unable to help in later discussions finding mafia. and secondly because voting for me is a wasted lynch on an innocent, that could be used on a mafia.


5. subzero brought up how me mentioning my voting patterns is suspicious, because an innocent wouldnt be concerned about his voting patterns.

I was trying to defend myself against your very strong accusations. I dont see going back through the topic and looking and my voting patterns and remarking on how they dont coincide with anyone else make me guilty. It's not something i would normally do, but like i said, i was under suspicion so i was looking for anythign that would help show you that im innocent.

6. generally "diverting suspiciosn away from myself"

i can see your point here. It does seem like everytime i come under suspicion i just start listing off people who I am suspicious of.

i dont really see how me diverting suspicion make me suspicious. I see it as me keeping the game moving. I know im not guilty so i see no need to spend time talking about me when we could be focusing on people who im not sure of.

It also give people someone either than me to vote for. If i just sat there defending myself without offering up other people who might be guilty i'd be met with responses like "okay fair enough, that makes you a little less suspicious...but no one else is really under suspicion right now, so i'll leave my vote for you"

we are all suspicious, it's just a matter of finding who is the most suspicious. Me recognising that im comming off as suspicious and then trying to find others who are more suspicious than myself is a fairly good method of ensuring i dont get lynched. Trying not to get lynched doesnt make me guilty. Innocents hate dying just as much as mafia.

I think that about sums up all the reasons you people find me so guilty. now onto things that i feel make me innocent.

the biggest one: defending kilroy just before he got lynched. I knew he was a stupid perosn to vote for. hell, i thought the evidence brought against me was more compelling.

why would i try and stop him being lynched if i was mafia? Mafia are all abotu letting innocents get lynched.

i know what you're thinking "well maybe you just did that to make yourself seem innocent, when really you secretly wanted the lynch to go through". My responce to that is that i could have expresed my dislike of the vote in other ways. I was very forcful in my thinkign and actually swayed a few people away from voting for him. if obstaining myself from guilt was all that i was going for, then i wouldnt have been so forceful as to actually sway peoples opinions.

another reason for my innocense is my general carelessness. I've done a few wonky things this game that drew immediate attention to myself (ie. my forceful vote for chris early in the game, and my flip flip on the kilroy vote). I feel that if i was mafia i would be watching my step alot more.


thats all for now. I'll see what else i can add to my defence tomorrow.

if that managed to convince you to unvote for me and you are wondering where you should turn your suspicions now. I'd start looking at people who are slipping under the radar. No innocent really has a reason not to activly contribute to the discussion. Andon comes to mind, as does p3.

Dark Lord Foamy
8th November 2007, 07:17
I honestly have no clue who to vote for anymore I mean out of the 3 I find suspicious The Cow, Sohungry and Subzero I've got no clue which one I should vote for hell the only person I know I shouldn't vote for is cubez due to the fact I know he's innocent thanks to my role apart from that your all a threat until I can proven otherwise.

sohungry
8th November 2007, 12:41
I honestly have no clue who to vote for anymore I mean out of the 3 I find suspicious The Cow, Sohungry and Subzero I've got no clue which one I should vote for hell the only person I know I shouldn't vote for is cubez due to the fact I know he's innocent thanks to my role apart from that your all a threat until I can proven otherwise.

could you explain that please?

p3990013
8th November 2007, 12:59
I honestly have no clue who to vote for anymore I mean out of the 3 I find suspicious The Cow, Sohungry and Subzero I've got no clue which one I should vote for hell the only person I know I shouldn't vote for is cubez due to the fact I know he's innocent thanks to my role apart from that your all a threat until I can proven otherwise.

could you explain that please?

He's just bluffing... if he had this ability he would not uncover it so soon in the game to be killed by the hackers

unvote

vote: foamy666

Doohicky
8th November 2007, 14:10
I think that Foamy and Cubez must be some sort of Mason group. Or at least a partnership.

Whether this makes him a target for the mafia I don't know. What it does do is the following:

If one of them die, then we can be pretty sure that the other is of the same alignment! DOn't see that helping much at the moment, but it's a piece of info that we should all keep in mind.

Tarion'Maseth
8th November 2007, 16:19
I honestly have no clue who to vote for anymore I mean out of the 3 I find suspicious The Cow, Sohungry and Subzero I've got no clue which one I should vote for hell the only person I know I shouldn't vote for is cubez due to the fact I know he's innocent thanks to my role apart from that your all a threat until I can proven otherwise.

could you explain that please?

He's just bluffing... if he had this ability he would not uncover it so soon in the game to be killed by the hackers

unvote

vote: foamy666

I suspect the same.

Unvote
Vote: Foamy666. Even if we're wrong, they'll be nightkilled by the Mafia anyway. Stupid idea.