[MAFIA] Lost in the warp {TOWN WINS!}

[Kilroy]

Ordinarily, your cargo ship, "The Grey Seer", would have made its monthly trip to and from Scintilla to deliver a large shipment of provisions to the lower class populace. You would have left Scintilla first to travel to each of the outlying agri-worlds to collect their tithe to be paid to the nobles of Scintilla. You would have then made the return journey to deliver them.

However this time is not ordinary.

Upon having your warp drive turn on however, it exploded on you and propelled deep into the mad dark ness that is the warp.

Several died due to ship related complications. Many more died to minor daemonic incursions. The majority of the crew however were driven insane. They were Weak willed and hopeless. They soon mutated into an assortment of frenzied freaks, with no force of will, completely and utterly driven to kill. They drove the crew members who were stronger of mind deep into the cargo hold, fortunately, where much food could be found. The strong baricaded themselves into the cargo hold and decided to wait out the time for the Weak to eventually starve and die.

Little did the majority of the Strong realise, however, is that the Weak were with them in the hold. They mimicked the Strong upon the changing of their brethren, and managed to contain they're bloodlust. Strange visions came to them and the Four Angels told them what they had to do. They were to follow the Strong, and when the Strong were to least expect it... They were to give them to the Four Angels...

I'd like between 18 and 24 players...

Alive







8-Grotfang


11-Dark_Assassin (Lance Warrior)



15-Doohicky
16-Boltrig (Malkthe2nd)
17-Tarion


Dead

1-Kilroy's Zombie Bondage Goat Minion- Hopeless Meat Shield- Explodified
10-Scythes- Hopeless Cook- Lynched day 1
18-Mephaine- Navigations Officer- Lynched day 2
12-MightyEddy- Pilot- Shot through the head Night 2
4-Novasry- Quartermaster- Lynched day 3
9-Treehugger- Guard- Eviscerated by an axe Night 3
3-Gnome -Pet to the angel of disease- Shot reapetedly through the head Night 3
7-Baragash -Minion to the angel of Change -Lynched day 4
5-EC -Trainee Medic- Face chopped in half by an axe
14-Shotcoder -Soldier to the angel of Vengeance- Lynched day 5
2-Moz -Repairman- Lynched day 6
13-ajrk -Communications officer- Lynched day 7
6-Sub -Chaplain- Lynched day 8
Reserves...

Rules (Stolen from EC... heheheh)
1) You may only post in the thread if you are a) alive and b) it is during a Day Phase. Contentless death posts are allowed, but only if they are absolutely contentless.
2) You may not communicate privately at any point unless told so by me.
3) I expect you to post at least once every week. If you don't post within a day phase I'll send you a reminder PM; if you don't post within the day phase after that I'll start looking for a replacement and mod-kill you if I can't find one.
4) Day phases last 1 week (168 hours...), Night phases last 3 days (72 hours) EDIT: now 48 hours...
5) You may not directly quote anything I s
end you privately, including roles.

[ForlornAmour]

IN

[Mozric]

oooh, full sized mafia. In of course.

[Gnomesbane]

In, as always.

[Novasry]

more mafia.. in

[Enigmacookie]

RAWRIN!

(Btw, I stole my rules from Forlourn who stole them from sub :P)

[Subzero]

So if I steal them from Kilroy it will come full circle. Just as nature intended :/

In, as well.

[Baragash]

In

[Grotfang]

Also in

[Treehugger]

sure will give it a shot

[scythes]

I don't know how I'll ever keep up with 3 mafia games, but I'll get in on this one, full sized mafia are fun! :mrgreen:

[Dark_Assassin]

I'm in.

[Kilroy]

more than half the number we need...

[MightyEddy9215]

Mafia game?
...
...
..
....
In

[ajrk32]

IN
for the record i Did not VOTE KILROY
your welcome

[Kilroy]

Anybody else?

[Grotfang]

I think the problem you may have is that there are three other mafia games on at the moment. It is quite a lot and people can only invest so much time in these things.

[Treehugger]

People may assume that they cant sign up for more than 1 mafia game at a time, which is incorrect. You can be in as many as you feel you can keep seperated and handle.

[Kilroy]

Also keep in mind, those are mini-mafias... This ones full sized. For my murder/investigation related ACTION!!!

[Mozric]

People may assume that they cant sign up for more than 1 mafia game at a time, which is incorrect. You can be in as many as you feel you can keep seperated and handle.
hence why I avoided signing up like a bastard for every single mini mafia. Playing two at a time is difficult enough.

[MightyEddy9215]

Hey killroy are you gunna wait for more players or start the game anyway since there are 3 other mini-mafias going on at the moment?
...
*hopes killroy will wait for more players*

[Gnomesbane]

Yeah, quite a few mini mafia games appeared at once. I learned the hard way after the last "session" of games not to play 3 at once. It's just too damn much to think about! :lol: I believe this is most of the usual crowd of mafia players. I guess spam the IRC chat?

[Kilroy]

Yeah I'm going to wait, maybe put it on hold for the minis to end...


Just 5 more people and we can start...

[EcoTerrorist]

Ok Kilroy I'm on board.
It will be tough as this will be my fourth running at one time and I have oh so little time weekdays right now, but i will do my best to keep up with this as well as the others.

a full sized game appeals to me... I've only been in one BIG game and died day 1... my first game... It's all Enigma's fault... he was not even in the game yet but I blame him anyways...

[ajrk32]

SPIDERS!!!!!!!!!!!!! IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi LLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVEE YYYYYYYYYYYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUU GGGGGGGGGGGGGUUUUUUUUUYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Grotfang]

ajrk32 - this is still the off topic forum. Spam should be avoided if possible.

On topic - I don't think it would do any harm to let this one sit for a while. In addition to giving other players a chance to sign up if they want, I think most of the regular players who are currently playing the mini mafias would be better able to cope with a large game once some of the smaller games start to draw to a close.

[Subzero]

Forlorn's game (72-hour deadlines on day phases) and Tree's (8 players) shouldn't take too long. Mind you, once they're done I'd like to see RMA started up again, but by that point there will only be 2 Mafia games running (yours and EC's) so there shouldn't be a big strain. In any case it's good to know the current limit on games, with said limit being 3-4 with a total of 50 places in games.

[Doohicky]

I'll sign up to this one. I didn't want to at the start, because of my other games, but now they have started this one is okay to play.
3 starting at the same time would have been too many for me.

[Kilroy]

3 spots left... HURRY UP BEFORE THEY'RE ALL GONE!!! It's a blowout sale!

[Boltrig]

Ive never played a mafia before so this is somewhat the deep end.

Incoming!

[Grotfang]

Hooray! A new player :D

[ajrk32]

Grotfang: where you in the last game I was in?and sorry I spazed out. I've calmed down and trying to be less noob than I was in LOCKDOWN. Sorry bout the spider thing. I like them. But I've calmed down since then (hense what I said above) plus my pc broke

[Treehugger]

2 more? Hmmm we should be able to find 2 more people.

[Tarion'Maseth]

1 more place required because [spoiler:2lg5cimp]I'm in[/spoiler:2lg5cimp]

[scythes]

Lol, everyone loves that spoiler thing now-a-days. :mrgreen:

[EcoTerrorist]

Sorry ya'll...

Kilroy go ahead and take me off the list.
I just do not have the time to dedicate to the games right now.
Too much work and working on my Thesis and all... I just cannot spend a lot of time right now, and it is showing in other games as well.

[ajrk32]

quitter. thats ok we all have our own problems[spoiler:7ijqlbd1]gotcha![/spoiler:7ijqlbd1] 2 spots!

[Tarion'Maseth]

Bump? Is this dying due to the masses of mafia recently?

[Boltrig]

A sad day. Im modding a mafia before ive played one!

Looking forward to this either way!

[shotcoder]

I'm already in 2 but I'll join this one as well I guess.

[Subzero]

Fairly sure that means we have enough players.

[scythes]

Naw, we're still one short because Eco dropped out. Shot took the #14 spot so we still need one more. Come on people, one more entrant and we can get this started. Though Kilroy will have to PM everyone to let them know because I'm suresome have forgotten this even exists.

[Baragash]

At least topic notifications are working now.

[Treehugger]

Well my mini ended so maybe we will get someone else signing up for this to get started. It looks like Forlorns mini is going on hold due to the mod not being online also.

[Kilroy]

*Bump*

[MightyEddy9215]

*bump* *bump*

[Mephaine]

Last player here. Got nothing better to do as long as I get to point me finger at peoples

[Enigmacookie]

Feel the need to point out that Forlorn has been missing about 10 days, so you should probably take him off the list.

[MightyEddy9215]

:o if thats true, ... :x ugh so close!

+ thx Mephaine for joining :mrgreen:

[Boltrig]

MORBO DEMANDS MAFIA!

[ajrk32]

MAfia!! MAfia!! mafia!!!!

[Kilroy]

Forlorn has been gone for ten days... For now... We're at 17 again...

[MightyEddy9215]

pls can i have mafia?
http://www.mockingbirdcats.com/images/kitten_begging.gif

[scythes]

OMG! Gods be praised! We have enough to get this game started. It's a miracle!

[Dark_Assassin]

^When Kilroy gets back from vacation.

[Treehugger]

2 questions.

1) Is this still happening or has Kilroy gone absent again and this is dead in the water?

2) The rules state there is 1 week between phases? Does that mean a week for the night phase also? that seems excruciatingly and unnecessarily long for a night phase.

[Tarion'Maseth]

Kilroy should be back any day now... In theory. He said 10 days about that long ago.

[Grotfang]

Who signed up as 18th player?

Mighty Eddy is already on the list...

[Kilroy]

Starting with 17 people... Unless Forlorn is back...

[Treehugger]

welcome back

[Kilroy]

You woke up. Ever since the Cataclysm (as some of you like to call it) happened, things have been calm. You ate, slept, and tried to ignore the screaming, raving voices, coming from the other side of the blast doors. This morning however was different. You woke up to find Kilroy's Zombie Bondage Goat Minion dead. A knife planted firmly between his ribs. You realised he had been nothing but a Hopeless Meat Shield. However, who amongst you could have commited such a heinous act? Your attentions quickly turned to one another in suspicion.

IT IS NOW DAY 1

Start your voting people.

[scythes]

Vote: Treehugger
Because he was the last person to post in this thread before the day started, he's obviously guilty!

[Tarion'Maseth]

Vote: Scythes

No-one that quick to respond could be a good guy.

[scythes]

Unvote: Treehugger

Vote: Tarion

Complete and absolute retalitory vote! :mrgreen:

[ajrk32]

vote: Treehugger

we cant have ties now!

[Mozric]

Hmmm, looking at the opening description, I fear that those who are led by the "four angels" may have succumbed to chaos. How many chaos gods are there? Four. Heresy abounds.

So I guess I'll vote for the player with the most heretical looking name.

Vote: Mephaine

Sounds like a nurgly name to me!

[Gnomesbane]

VOTE: KILROY

We can't let him survive...

[Mephaine]

Vote: Scythes
At this point its a one in seventeen or eighteen chance of guessing right so go for the first person I seen vote :P

[Grotfang]

Vote: Gnomesbane

For conforming to cliches!

[Baragash]

Vote: Enigma

He's slippery one.... :eek: :P

[Subzero]

Oh God

my penis

is on fire

Vote: Baragash

[Treehugger]

First off Kilroy i LoLed so hard at "Kilroy's Zombie Bondage Goat Minion". Secondly.....thats way too much information Sub....

Vote Subzero
He obviously had relations with an un-clean woman (or man, i make not judgments) and we dont want his 'infection' to spread.

[Enigmacookie]

Vote: Baragash
:evil:
:twisted:
:D

[Tarion'Maseth]

First off Kilroy i LoLed so hard at "Kilroy's Zombie Bondage Goat Minion":lol:.I'm really hoping the game continues like this. Much lulz to be had, I guess.

Anyway

4-Novasry
11-Dark_Assassin
12-MightyEddy
14-Shotcoder
15-Doohicky
16-Boltrig

They're the people still to post today. Considering how quickly everything took off, I think we're looking to be in for a fairly active game.

[Treehugger]

6 people out of an 18 person game and its only been up for a few hours? Not bad at all. I was kind of worried we would have more people who lost interest considering the time it took for the game to start.

[Dark_Assassin]

I just checked my messages. Woo hoo!

STD's are ugly and perhaps permanent.

VOTE: Sub

[Tarion'Maseth]

6 people out of an 18 person game and its only been up for a few hours? Not bad at all. I was kind of worried we would have more people who lost interest considering the time it took for the game to start.
I know, and it's up one thanks to Dark_assassin. With any luck, we'll get everyone posting before anything serious happens. MightyEddy is the only one left in the list who's not a super-regular poster. Bolt, Novasry, Shotcoder and 'Hicky will be around shortly for sure.

[Doohicky]

Vote : Shotcoder

Taking too damn long to post. Even I have already posted... :P

Gonna make sure I keep on top of this game.

Just to let you guys know now. I will be away from comp from Sunday until Wednesday, but will try and pop in any chance I get over that time.

And echo the sentiments of the rest, this is really quick to get so many posting. Especially after such a long wait!

[Novasry]

...Vote - Tarion...

pointing out non-posters to draw attention away from himself

[Tarion'Maseth]

...Vote - Tarion...

pointing out non-posters to draw attention away from himself
Actually, I was doing it to get them to post. And look, it worked :wink:

Also, guys, I'm noticing a lot of people slipping. I thought it was pretty common practice that votes needed to be bold

[ajrk32]

I din not know. Sorry!
(I'm sure im not the only one) :wink:

[Tarion'Maseth]

I din not know. Sorry!
(I'm sure im not the only one) :wink:Oh, no worries. I'm not trying to pick on anyone in particular. Just thought it should be mentioned. I know that when I was modding my game, lack of bolded Vote:'s would have been hell (Same for lack of Unvote: Name)

[Treehugger]

Unvote Sub
Vote Tarion

He's trying to wrestle control of modding the game away from Kilroy!
Bolding is important for certain, but more important is seperating the vote from anything else:

lack of bolded Vote:'s would have been hell
Because even if its bolded, but inside a sentence it is very hard to see. Where as unbolded and in a line of its own is easier. Though of course bolded and on lines of their own are best. Just my opinion on it.

[Tarion'Maseth]

... And people wonder why there's so much lurking. A guy tries to contribute and suddenly he's the closest to being lynched!

[Enigmacookie]

Vote: Treehugger
That's how voting/unvoting should be ;)

Also, I think that brings Tarion and Tree at equal amounts of votes?

[Treehugger]

Oh snap ;D
btw I assume you are useing over 50% for lynch Kilroy? Which would mean someone would need 10 votes to be lynched this day phase. I havent paid attention to where peoples votes have fallen and in what numbers but I seriously doubt anyone is in any danger of getting lynched at this point in the joke vote phase, so thats a bit of an overreaction Tarion.

[MightyEddy9215]

VOTE: Dark_Assassin

got a baaaad feeling 'bout him... :?

[ajrk32]

UNVOTE: TREEHUGGER

VOTE: MightyEddy9215

[Novasry]

UNVOTE TARION

Vote Arjk32

didnt give reasons for his vote

[ajrk32]

Just felt like i had no reason for tree hugger and it didnt seam like MightyEddy9215 had a reason for his. should have posted that with my vote :smt005

[Tarion'Maseth]

so thats a bit of an overreaction Tarion.Perhaps, but its still annoying that the votes start piling on that I wouldn't have had if I'd kept my mouth shut.

[Enigmacookie]

so thats a bit of an overreaction Tarion.Perhaps, but its still annoying that the votes start piling on that I wouldn't have had if I'd kept my mouth shut.

Know the feeling ;)

Well, to put some less pressure on you, and get this ball rolling, let's make someone else look more suspicious..
hmm, how about...me?

Unvote: Treehugger
Vote: Tarion

O_O

[ajrk32]

wait... EC...he wants us to think he anti town... but if he really was anti town it would be the other way around, unless he is un alinged... now thats just confusing!

Speed edit!
i hate reverse psycology!

[Novasry]

wait... EC...she wants us to think she anti town... but if she really was anti town it would be the other way around, unless she is un alinged... now thats just confusing!

thus another reason to vote for you..EC is a guy...

[ajrk32]

damn! i called EC a girl again! that happened last time i played too.

[Treehugger]

Unless im wrong we only have two people who havent checked in yet (Shotcoder and Boltrig). I figure that once either they check in or we decide it is unlikely they will check in, that we despense with the joke vote phase and actually get down to it. Or if you prefer we can skip it and go straight to real voting now, im game for it (I think the sooner we get there the better).

Tarion, its way too early to be getting your feathers ruffled about the game, honestly it looks kind of bad. Considering you only had 3 votes on you, that can hardly be considered "pileing on the votes" and making that accusation at this point sounds hollow all things considered.

Once the game starts in ernest then you will have grounds to complain that being an active poster is making people vote for you (because it will happen, it happens to me in every game I play), because at that point it will be true. People who post, and add things to the game give themsevles more chances to look suspicious than people who lurk, and people who try and get votes going on lurkers end up looking bad also. It sucks but its true.

Anyways I looked over the thread and I think this vote count should be accurate in case anyone is wondering where things stand. If I made a mistake...eh oh well im not the mod ;P so im not gona worry too much about it.

2 Scythes: Tarion, Mephane
3 Tarion: Scythes, Tree, Enigma
1 Mephane: Mozric
1 Kilroy: Gnomes
1 Gnomes: Grotfang
1 Enigma: Baragash
1 Baragash: Subzero
1 Subzero: Dark
1 Shotcoder: Doohicky
1 Dark: Mighty
1 Mighty: Ajrk
1 Ajrk: Nova

[shotcoder]

Oh Sorry can I submit joke vote now plx?

VOTE: Boltrig

He haz no vote!

[scythes]

I'm chainging my jokevote on Tarion to a real vote on Tarion, he just seems way too defensive in the joke phase, we need 9 or 10 votes for a lynch and he has 3, not even close, but he's all worked up about it. Seems he's trying a little too hard to get those off him.

[Tarion'Maseth]

I'm chainging my jokevote on Tarion to a real vote on Tarion, he just seems way too defensive in the joke phase, we need 9 or 10 votes for a lynch and he has 3, not even close, but he's all worked up about it. Seems he's trying a little too hard to get those off him.
Not worked up at all. I just think this is what is wrong with a lot of the mafia games at the moment. The lurking is the fault of people jumping on everyone else.
Plus, if you'd check, I've only made one serious post about it.

Perhaps, but its still annoying that the votes start piling on that I wouldn't have had if I'd kept my mouth shut. All I said was that it was annoying. And it is!


... And people wonder why there's so much lurking. A guy tries to contribute and suddenly he's the closest to being lynched!This was meant to be a joke, but obviously, people haven't really taken it as one.

And now I've hit the dilemma. I can continue to try to argue that I'm innocent, but people will just be saying that I'm getting "worked up" about it.

[Tarion'Maseth]

Was just about to add a vote for Scythes, but I realised I was already voting for him :P

Why? Worst argument in Mafia ever.
Seems he's trying a little too hard to get those off him. The idea being, of course, that if I was innocent I wouldn't mind people voting for me. How that follows, I have no idea, but people seem to think that if you're defensive you're clearly mafia. Obviously, no-one wants to be lynched. Particularly when you know that it puts you one step closer to losing the game.

So yes, Scythes is trying to lynch me based on the fact that I don't want to be lynched. And of course, if he's innocent, he won't mind people voting for him... right?

[Kilroy]

Vote count of "I'm sorry Tarion, The Zombie Bondage Goat Minion was a last second thing..."

Tarion (3): Scythes, EC, Tree
Scythes (2): Tarion, Mephaine
Mephaine (1): Moz
Kilroy (1): Gnome (Don't be surprised if his head explodes sooner or later :P )
Gnome (1): Grotfang
EC (1): Baragash
Baragash (1): Sub (Purell?)
Sub (2): Treehugger, DA
Shotcoder (1): Doohicky
DA (1): Eddy
Eddy (1): Ajrk
Ajrk (1): Nova
Bolt (1): Shotcoder

Over six days left... Needed for lynch 10

Only Boltrig hasn't posted...

[ajrk32]

UNVOTE: EDDY
there was no reason to vote for him in the first place, and now that people are starting to get serious i want to see how things unfold.

[Grotfang]

Unvote: Gnomes

I am thinking that I will discount this whole "Tarion's being defensive" thing pretty quickly as I think he has a point. He did not come across as defensive in my eyes, until he was forced to be defensive because he was challenged on his "defensiveness". Given that I am confusing myself right now, I don't feel I can vote for him on that basis.

I will say now that I was not overly impressed by scythes' reasoning. It smelt a little bit of "doesn't want to think for himself" as he didn't really say anything new and his vote had little purpose to it, as it didn't really back up his argument and we have only just moved out of the "joke" stage, so are unlikely to lynch immediately.

I am not going to vote for him right now, however, as scythes is already on two votes and I feel it would be hypocritical to put him up to three at this stage. I am keeping an eye on him though.

[Tarion'Maseth]

A lot of senseThanks Grotfang. Glad to see I'm making sense.

[Mozric]

Unvote: Mephaine

Vote: Scythes

This puts Scythes to equal votes with Tarion. And really I think it's the most suspicious thing I've seen. Treehugger started the "argument" against Tarion, but Scythes fell to it a bit too enthusiastically. It's obviously a silly argument.

Of course, Tarion could be mafia, but we should base it on things other than him asking for activity then defending himself for doing so.

[Baragash]

@Kilroy: what happens if the vote is tied at Day end?

Unvote: Enigma

[Treehugger]

Actually Moz id like to point out that I didnt "start" any argument against anyone. I put a joke vote on Tarion and then pointed out to him that he was over-reacting to it. Never accused him of anything nor even said I thought it was particularly suspicious.

However as it seems we are moving out of the joke vote phase now im going to leave the vote where it is for the moment. Not because im convinced he's mafia by any means, but because I have no where better to place it. He did react oddly given the number of votes that were out there, and mafia players have a tendency to slightly over-react to suspicion more than townies. That is of course not to say townies want to get lynched because of course no one does, but mafia players tend to be more sensetive to suspicion as a whole and at this point i have nothing better to go on.

[ajrk32]

I feel that he is not acting suspicious taron is just being active. and as i have seen the more active you are the more chances you have of being put into a corner.

@ tree: what do you mean
That is of course not to say townies want to get lynched because of course no one does, but mafia players tend to be more sensetive to suspicion as a whole and at this point i have nothing better to go on. Are you saying townies do not try as hard to survive? i think it depends more on who is playing than weather they are pro-town or not.

[Treehugger]

No Ajrk im not saying that at all (in fact I specificaly say that no one wants to get lynched, townies included). What I said is that the mafia tends to be more sensative to any amount of suspicion than a towny will be.

Its just theory of the game, and by no means conclusive or always right and it certainly depends on who the players are. But all things being equal; a player who is mafia tends to over react more to suspicion than that same player would if they were a towny. Notice the emphasis on the *tends to*. Its not a "they will always" or a "a towny never will". Its just a soft theory.

Dont take this as me trying to continue going after Tarion, because im not. I stated why my votes staying where it is for the moment (I have nothing better to go on yet, but its early in the game). And now im explaining the theory because Ajrk (a new player) asked what I meant.

Also Ajrk

and as i have seen the more active you are the more chances you have of being put into a corner.
This is 100% correct. The more active you are the more chances you have to say something that someone find suspicious and therefor get lynched. This is why so many people lurk. I personaly say "to hell with that" and play the game anyways because I dont see the point in joining games and then sitting in the background doing nothing, its not fun and it hurts the games.

I urge everyone to adopt the same policy. Especialy since there are multiple people wanting to run more games, so there should be opportunities to join other games even if you get lynched for being active.

[shotcoder]

Unvote: Boltrig

I have to agree with Treehugger, the reason people lurk is because they want to be in the game longer. They want to fly under the radar in a normal game. BUT, this is also a double edged sword because sometimes the most active players also appear innocent if they call out the right people or conform to the majority. Which in turn gives them some leeway. So basing your judegment Wholely on the fact on whether someone votes or not is the wrong way to go in this situation.

But again i like Treehugger's approach to the game saying that if you speak up then we have more to go on and if you speak up the game will in turn be more fun and keep people more interested.

Another thing we need o look at in this game is try to not base your feelings off of previous games. I know me and Treehugger have gone at it a few times, and me and Moz, and I believe me and Grotfang as well, but for the sake of the newbies don't take a personal vandetta JUST because you dislike the person or because they were mafia last game.

At this point I refuse to use the whole "Tarion is being way too defensive approach" as the reason for voting. In my opinion this is just a gut reaction to the fact Kilroy isn't here, because we know atleast 3 people would have voted on him with their joke vote and as usual we might have lynched him just because of "tradition". So I remain with no vote at this point.

[Mephaine]

So we either Scythes or Tarion......wondering if I voted for the right guy now.

[Tarion'Maseth]

So we either Scythes or Tarion......wondering if I voted for the right guy now.
I don't think it's to the stage of killing off either me or Scythes. Still plenty of time, right?

We've got until the 17th.

[Treehugger]

So we either Scythes or Tarion......wondering if I voted for the right guy now.
Yea I think its a good bit early to say these are deffinatly the people we are looking at. Why is it you assumed that btw?

[Doohicky]

Mephaine, that is a real big jump assuming that we are going to lynch one of those two.

However for now I will take it as just the way you go on. In other threads I see you post in the same way. Very quick to jump on conclusions.

Sorry if it's obvious, but what are the time frames for each phase or is there one?

[Tarion'Maseth]

Mephaine, that is a real big jump assuming that we are going to lynch one of those two.

However for now I will take it as just the way you go on. In other threads I see you post in the same way. Very quick to jump on conclusions.

Sorry if it's obvious, but what are the time frames for each phase or is there one?
1 week - Day
3 day - Night

[Mephaine]

It is my flaw, I am a quick calculator. I have had the habit of doing anything swiftly so guess I need to teach myself patience for once.

[scythes]

I'd be tempted to sway my vote toward Mephaine, but I've also seen him act the same way in other games. Not sure where else to look right now, and since there's plenty of time and noone is near a lynch yet, I'll leave my vote where it is. Having a vote makes me feel important atm, and I'll apologize now if somehow Tarion builds up 7 more votes between now and the time I log in when I get in another three hours. :roll:

[Gnomesbane]

UNVOTE: KILROY

Fine, but you guys are letting him get away this time... :lol:

I'm not totally sure right now about things. It still feels like the very early stages of discussion, and I don't want to hop onto something prematurely and end up causing a bandwagon out of it.

[Treehugger]

ok well this is going places quickly. And in the middle of not alot happening there is the very obvious missing presence of Boltrig who does not seem to have made an appearance as of yet. Anyone know if hes around, or just ignoring the game?

[Enigmacookie]

ok well this is going places quickly. And in the middle of not alot happening there is the very obvious missing presence of Boltrig who does not seem to have made an appearance as of yet. Anyone know if hes around, or just ignoring the game?

I think Boltrig comes and goes in waves...if that makes sense :P

Unvote: Baragash

It's great that this game seems to have garnered a lot of interest. I see a lot of intriguing comments around, but nothing too suspicious as of yet.

[Subzero]

I'll voice my support for the people who suspect scythes. What has been said is pretty much my opinion on this.

In addition there are two other players who've struck me as acting a little odd:

1) Novasry voted for Tarion after Tarion listed the people who hadn't posted at the time, on the basis that Tarion was trying to divert attention. At this stage in the game there's no real, worthwhile attention to divert, nor was Tarion under any particular suspicion at the time (this happened at the bottom of page 4)

2) EC putting Tarion at 3 votes to 'get the ball rolling' by making himself seem more suspicious. Of course, if you point this out you make yourself seem less suspicious, not more, because promoting discussion is in most cases a pro-town thing. In other words it's a nice and safe way of making yourself seem a little more pro-town. He also just unvoted on Baragash, despite his most recent vote being on Tarion, the suspicion against whom has been debunked.

[Doohicky]

Not much to add at this stage, but just wanted to post up anyway to show I am still here.

One thing to mention, please do not start talking about abstaining. It's a bad idea and let's just make sure the idea is out of the way now.

Apart from that nothing to add so far.

[Enigmacookie]

2) EC putting Tarion at 3 votes to 'get the ball rolling' by making himself seem more suspicious. Of course, if you point this out you make yourself seem less suspicious, not more, because promoting discussion is in most cases a pro-town thing. In other words it's a nice and safe way of making yourself seem a little more pro-town.

Yep :)


He also just unvoted on Baragash, despite his most recent vote being on Tarion, the suspicion against whom has been debunked.

That's not a good point, though. I simply wanted to unvote, because we're entering serious mode, and forgot who my vote was on :P

[Grotfang]

EC, by taking an action and saying you want to generate discussion, you do one of two things. You either kill discussion, or you create it in an area that is too obscure to be worthwhile. If you truly want to generate discussion in a worthwhile direction, it is better to simply vote and see what happens.

Let me explain what I mean about obscurity though. If you have told us you mean to generate discussion by placing your vote, what you are saying is that your vote has nothing to do with the player you are voting for, and therefore we are unable to analyse your motives for voting for him. What we are forced to do instead is try and think about your motives for placing a third vote in order to "generate discussion", and here is where the whole thing gets cyclical. You are either a mafia trying to slip a vote under the radar, or a pro-town player who simply wants to confuse things and hopes that the effect will be the former of the two possibilities I mentioned above.

So, scythes and EC are now the individuals on my "suspicious" list.

The next few paragraphs can be skipped if you don't like reading long posts, it has nothing to do with this game, more a preference of playing style. Please note there is a vote at the end though.

I do realise this next paragraph will come under suspicion, but please try to understand what I am saying with it and don't simply make assumptions too soon (based purely on the first sentence).

I do believe that the best way to take the first day phase is with a quick lynch. The reason for this is mainly because in the first day phase we see waves of suspicion come and go. Attention goes from one person to another, with votes building up and then being taken off, only to go to someone different. By extending the day phase, all we really do is allow the maximum time of the phase to dictate who is lynched. In other words, it is generally the person who the wave happens to be focussed on who gets lynched when the time is close to running out. Now, this element I am not overly concerned with; after all, the first lynch is generally random and a random lynch is a random lynch, right? So, what are the negatives of a prolonged first day phase?

Firstly, I will flag up now the fact that a key assumption in this is that I believe the first day phase to be fairly random in who gets lynched. In other words, I don't believe we hit mafia any more times over lots of games than pure chance would predict. So really all the first phase does is provide us with analysable content for the next phase. However, there is a point when people stop contributing to the phase and it develops into a discussion of the few with a voting of the many. This is less productive, especially when the arguments begin to get more complex than the evidence backing them up really allows. In week long phase, my personal opinion is that by day five we normally have gained all the useful information we are going to get from the phase (in the first phase only, I would add). Therefore, assuming longevity in phases encourages disinterest, it is in the town's benefit to end the first phase earlier rather than later, with the optimum time, in my opinion, being around the fifth day. As I said before, I don't believe this will impact on the probability of hitting a mafia player (it shouldn't improve or decrease the chances) and it should also not drastically reduce what we have to analyse in the following day phase.

The only real outcome of this idea of speeding through the first day phase is to ensure the game starts snappy and maintains interest. This is more true in games with two week limits, although even with a one week limit I think there is a point to be had for doing this. What these opinion mean to me in real terms is that after the first couple of days in the first day phase, I no longer believe refraining from voting to be worthwhile. I believe that accepting these waves of activity and voting is a good thing and that we should be more amenable to the idea of allowing them to rise to a lynch earlier. What we currently see is that as soon as someone is halfway to a lynch vote, someone else steps in with a classic "but we don't have enough evidence to be sure they are mafia". Of course we don't. We won't have later, either, but we have to lynch someone.

Back to reality. Scythes still seems more suspicious than EC to me, simply because EC's playing style is always a little cooky, trying to second guess people, so I am more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

Therefore:

Vote: Scythes

[Subzero]

Yep :)
Did you note the word 'seem'?

[Doohicky]

Grotfang: I agree that in day one bouncing back and forth is not a good idea. The Mafia types tend to keep it a little tight at this stage anyway and all we seem to do is make a lot of innocents look suspicious which only helps the mafia.

At the moment though, I would be for lynching the lurker. I think it makes the game much better if all are contributing. Even if they are not saying much more than whether they agree with what others are saying.

Unvote

Vote: Boltrig

[Treehugger]

Thats a good post Grot and its an accurate point in my opinion. Ive never liked day 1 simply because if it drags on too long people lose interest, and you rarely gain much information that can be used (on that day phase) to find the mafia. Notice I say information that can be used on that phase, there are times you will get clues or hints that you can use later in the game but that by themselves wont point you anywhere useful.

So that leaves us trying to decide where the axe falls, which is where we were anyways, so on that front even accepting your points Grot we havent changed our positions. I think the best point made by you is actually one you didnt make....yea I know that doesnt make sense, but it does. You never actually said it, but to me the conclusion your post leads to is this:

"Eventually someone will get to about half the number of votes needed for a lynch, then someone will say 'we dont have any real evidence and you are just trying to bandwaggon' once that happens the person under suspicion is unlikely to be lynched because people dont want to be seen as bandwagoning and the last person to vote will become the new target of suspicion and the cylce starts over again. So we shouldnt condem people for bandwagoning day 1 because its going to happen anyways or we will run into a deadline lynch."

Personaly im kind of split at this point. Tarion still looks like a acceptable lynch to me. Its by no means damning evidence but the extreamly sensetive way he responded to the slightest amount of suspicion (which were joke votes at the time) makes me wonder about him. Add to this the fact that he said "I was just trying to get people talking" and since then hasnt really added much to the conversation and it seems kind of odd. Of course he is by no means the only person who hasnt been adding to the covnersation.

The second person follows my long standing theory that for some reason always seems to annoy people. And that is "Lynch the lurkers", dont give people a reason to lurk by killing the people off who do.
So far in this game there are multiple people who fall under the catagory of lurking in my mind (about 1/4 to 1/2 of the players I would say). But none of them as much as Kilroy, he hasnt added anything to the conve.....oh wait he's the mod (hehe just kidding ;P).
But in all seriousness out of all of the lurkers there is one who sticks out the most and thats Boltrig. Though you cant really call him a true lurker since he just isnt actually playing the game at all. Which means he will never add anything to the game and the longer the game goes on the more of a liability that will become for us.

So since its day 1 and its basically a random vote anyways I think its better to oust someone who is gauranteed to do us no good even if he happens to be a towny, and if he is mafia then even better. He has had plenty of time to post something....anything but he hasnt. And he has been online (he was online yesterday in fact) so it isnt a case of him not having had the chance to post for some reason, it is a wilful decision to not participate.

Hmm ok im not really of that much of a split mind anymore, think I talked myself into it.

Unvote Tarion
Vote Boltrig

[Tarion'Maseth]

Hopefully Boltrig will notice this. He has been around, so if he begins posting again we'll be sorted.

I do like the idea of cracking down on a lurker with the mostly useless first day phase. Even if we just threaten to lynch the lurkers until they begin posting.

No private communications means we can't tell him to post, which is annoying. And he won't get PM'd until the end of the phase (Kilroy's reminder period is after a week)

[Baragash]

It's a 17 player game, so cracking down hard on a non-participant (if he chooses to remain so) on the first day sets an example for the rest of the game that should keep the Mafia talking (and thus increase the chances that they'll slip up). I've got to agree with Tree here.

Vote: Boltrig

[Grotfang]

I think that is a very reasonable supposition. Setting a precedent of being heavy handed with lurkers is useful, especially if we can maintain a momentum to our posting that keeps the game moving. This second point is important because it means we can be more sure that lurkers are doing so as a method of gameplay more than simply because they are getting bored.

In addition, treehugger. I wholeheartedly agree with your addition to my post:


"Eventually someone will get to about half the number of votes needed for a lynch, then someone will say 'we don't have any real evidence and you are just trying to bandwagon' once that happens the person under suspicion is unlikely to be lynched because people don't want to be seen as bandwagoning and the last person to vote will become the new target of suspicion and the cycle starts over again. So we shouldn't condemn people for bandwagoning day 1 because its going to happen anyway or we will run into a deadline lynch."

I had alluded to having these sentiments and you summed them up quite nicely. However, I do still disagree with your suspicions of Tarion. You seem to be seeing something that I am not.

Unvote: Scythes

Vote: Boltrig

[Baragash]

He has been on since I voted for him, although he didn't post.

[Novasry]

i rekon it is a good idea to vote lurkers in the early phgases, esspecially day one, this way we can get some night actions going and hopefully get some decent info out of them...

so... UNVOTE - whoever im voting for right now... VOTE BOLTRIG

[MightyEddy9215]

Unvote: assasain

Vote: Boltrig

You know it makes sense :smt016

[Enigmacookie]

Hmm..

Vote: Boltrig

[Mozric]

Being heavy handed towards lurkers may well be useful to set a precedent, but are we planning on killing boltrig right now?

I'm leaving my vote on scythes for now.

[scythes]

I have one major problem with voting off lurkers. In general, people are more active when they have a role, be it a pro-town role or mafia role or whatever, something besides a plain townee. If Boltrig has been on the forums, but not posting or checking here or anything, he most likely doesn't have a role, since Kilroy did send everyone their role PM's. If he does not have a role then he cannot be mafia. Someone who just posts now and then could be mafia trying to stay under the radar, but someone not participating falls into my no-role category. Leaving my vote on Tarion, not that it matters at this point as he has almost no votes on him anyway. :roll:

[Baragash]

IMO there's been a couple of situations in recent games where Mafia were lurkers or otherwise forgot or ignored the game, so whilst I understand what you're saying, I don't think it's certain.

Also:

It's a 17 player game, so cracking down hard on a non-participant (if he chooses to remain so) on the first day sets an example for the rest of the game that should keep the Mafia talking (and thus increase the chances that they'll slip up).

It's about setting down a marker to the Mafia for the rest of the game. Most first day lynches are non-Mafia anyway, if Boltrig does get sacrificed but the Mafia play more actively and slip up, his death is of value to us.

[Treehugger]

Scythes what you describe sounds right in principle but it doesnt pan out like that in actuality. While some people see they have a normal plain jane role and stop playing, this is relatively rare as a reason. More often they would have gone inactive/quite no matter what type role they had. Ive seen mafia do it, and ive seen people with very powerful roles do it also. Actually I saw it happen to a Mafia player who had a very powerful role in the Cthulhu game I ran. So someone being inactive and not playing is not any indication of their role or their affiliation.

Secondly, it honestly doesnt matter if he is a towny or not to me. If he isnt going to play the game then he hurts the town by being alive. Its small at the beginning, but the longer the game goes on it becomes more and more of a problem. The reason is this:

Say your down to 3 players, 2 town 1 mafia. 1 of the town is inactive. You need 2 votes to secure a lynch, with that 1 town player being inactive and not voting it becomes impossible to lynch the mafia even if you know who it is. Because the mafia will vote on someone beside himself, and the most the remaining towny can do is tie the vote up. The day will end in deadlock then go to night phase and the mafia wins. Yes thats an extreme example but the problem is relevant even in less extreme situations.

To Moz: When we lynch him is up to you others really. Unless someone really slips up i doubt i will change my vote at this point. Though I think we should lynch him as opposed to having it be a deadline lynch. It sends the message that not only are we willing to vote lurkers, but that our threat has teeth and we are willing to go through with it. If it doesnt have teeth then the threat is worthless. Just my opinion on it.

[ajrk32]

Just to get the ball rolling...

VOTE BOLTRIG

[ajrk32]

Boltrig has 7 votes

[shotcoder]

As much as I hate to lynch someone who hasn't even spoken you have to realize he has probably seen this thread and even if he hasn't is a detriment to the town and the game as a whole....


Vote: Boltrig

[Tarion'Maseth]

Being heavy handed towards lurkers may well be useful to set a precedent, but are we planning on killing boltrig right now?

I'm leaving my vote on scythes for now.We gain nothing by killing Bolt right now. Leave it a day or so to let him show up (Serious Boltrig, we're missing you!)

Kilroy, any chance of PMing him? If he doesn't want to play, he can opt out now by asking to be lynched, he's most of the way there :P

[scythes]

Just to get the ball rolling...

VOTE BOLTRIG
Ball rolling? It's been rolling pretty well, and towards Boltrig really quite fast. And as for the vote count against him, are you trying to remind us all how close he is so the last couple people vote and finish him off so we can get to the night phase faster?

I posted my problem with this all, and I'm on board with Tarion and Moz here, how much do we really gain by killing Boltrig right away? I can see killing him off for lurking, I guess, but is it necessary to do it as soon as possible? The longer this takes the more info we find out about people. And it can't just die as there is a time limit on the day phases. I say we hold out for a bit and let time lyknch Boltrig if he's truely the first to go.

[Enigmacookie]

Hmm, I think Boltrig migh have just, you know, forgotten about the game?
shame to vote him out so early, tbh. I haven't played a game with him in it yet.

Unvote: Boltrig

I suggest Kilroy either change the thread title or send Boltrig a PM...or, you know what?

*sends Boltrig a PM*

[Doohicky]

In one way I do agree that we shouldn't rush the lynch of Boltrig, but at the same time I think if he doesn't post soon we HAVE to lynch him.

As said earlier, the result of the lynch isn't as important as actually putting out the message that Lurking is not going to be tolerated. If we pull out of the lynch now it sends the message that we, as a town, are not willing to follow through with our threats.

[Subzero]

I don't think that's the case. Conversely, in my opinion it would show that people are willing to consider the various possibilities that might lead to someone not posting, and won't immediately lynch someone just because they haven't posted.

[Subzero]

Just to put things into perspective, his last post in this thread was about 2.5 weeks ago and it's possible he may not check his PMs regularly.

Aside from that, EC:

Did you note the word 'seem'?
Could you answer this?

[Enigmacookie]

Aside from that, EC:

Did you note the word 'seem'?
Could you answer this?

Yep, I noticed.

[Subzero]

What would your reaction be if I were to say that seems suspicious?

[Boltrig]

Christ! A man takes a little longer than some to find his way to the cargo hold and you all turn on him! (yes I had forgotten about the game :oops: )

VOTE: Doohicky

Going for the OMGUS vote on Doohicky since he started the bandwagon thats nearly led to me being thrown to the wolves!

[ajrk32]

Well hes back,

UNVOTE: BOLTRIG

[Boltrig]

And my apologies to all, and thanks to EC for PMing me!

[Treehugger]

Boltrig acting indignant about your situation seems very disingenuous, you have no one to blame for it but yourself. It took you almost a week to post anything. Now I dont think ive ever played a game with you before so I dont know if this is par for the course with you or not, but I really dont like letting those things slide. Lurking and being inactive and not participating really hurts games.

That being said I am willing to back off for the moment and see if you start playing the game or not, but im giving you fair warning that I will come back after you in a heartbeat if it seems you are lurking again. In a recent game someone likened my play style to a pitbull because once my teeth get in something I dont let go until I rip it to shreds. And if it isnt already obvious, lurking is something that really annoys me and I have no sympathy for it.

unvote Boltrig

That out of the way where to look next. And it brings me to something of a meta-game theory. I know not everyone likes that, but oh well I think it is valid. I was talking to Eco (who isnt in this game so its breaking no rules) and he brought up a good point. In our last game, when we were both Mafia, there was an inactive player (kilroy). Now he would have been an easy target to go after since he couldnt defend himself. However we didnt, we ignored him on purpose. Why? Because that was the smart play. An inactive townsperson is in fact an ally to the Mafia, and they would not want to have them killed off.

So now I am looking at the people who were defending Boltrig when he was not around. Im having to go off of memory here (im borrowing a lap top and dont have time to go back and look over things atm) but the names that come to mind are: Scythes, Mozric, Tarion. Out of those three Ive already posted why I am somewhat suspicious of Tarion, and Mozric has been less active than normal (though this could be a product of the lack of anything to go on so far).

Im not wanting to put blinders on and confine myself to only a single issue so the other people im looking at are:
MightyEddie (lurking and coming around to toss a vote on people with no real reason given)
Dark (same as above)
Ajrk (again same as above though he hasnt been really lurking since hes been posting, just not giving alot of info in those posts)

I would like to hear other peoples thoughts and responses from the people ive listed before putting out a vote. We have until Tuesday (I think) so there is a little time left. I may not be able to get back on today (attending a wine dinner with the Attorny General for Oklahoma tonight).

[Enigmacookie]

What would your reaction be if I were to say that seems suspicious?
My reaction would not be anything in particular. After all, my attempt with said comment was to make myself seem suspicious, to get some discussion going. :P

Great that Boltrig is back :)
At the moment, Ajrk32 seems the most suspicious in my eyes, as he really wanted to lynch Boltrig. This might just be his style of play, though.

[Tarion'Maseth]

So now I am looking at the people who were defending Boltrig when he was not around. Im having to go off of memory here (im borrowing a lap top and dont have time to go back and look over things atm) but the names that come to mind are: Scythes, Mozric, Tarion. Out of those three Ive already posted why I am somewhat suspicious of Tarion, and Mozric has been less active than normal (though this could be a product of the lack of anything to go on so far).Actually, myself and Mozric (Not sure about Scythes) weren't arguing against lynching Boltrig. We were wanting Boltrig to begin posting. If he hadn't, we would have lynched him. That's different to what you're implying. You're saying that if we'd left him, he would have hurt the town through inactivity. But that was never one of the options. The idea was that if he wasn't posting, he was lynched. And if he began posting, it would help the town.

And look, thanks to slowing down the lynch (Am I wrong in thinking of myself and Mozric had voted for him, we would have lynched Bolt?) we've increased the effective number of players.

Also, Treehugger, you seem to be reading people as much more sensitive than they actually are. You took me as being very defensive, and Boltrig as "indignant". Now, I was mostly kidding, and reading Boltrig's post I get the same sort of vibe. I think you're taking people's comments to people voting for them as far more serious than they are actually intended.

[Subzero]

EC, overall what you did and what you're saying makes little sense to me but I'll leave that for now.

Unvote

Vote: Treehugger

You were second after Doohicky arguing that Boltrig should be lynched for lurking. You also argued the most that he should be lynched. Immediately after he posts you unvote then come out with the argument that those that disagreed with lynching him so quickly are more likely to be guilty. All this based on something you decided in a different game in a different situation.

This also goes against what you (and Grotfang) said earlier - that in your words people shouldn't condemn day 1-bandwagoneers. Firstly you were pushing for Boltrig's lynch as soon as possible (and have said that others were suspicious for wanting to delay things a little), now you're saying we should get more discussion going until the end of the phase. As a side note, people are unlikely to go ahead and lynch a lurker right after they post, so I expect that most people will unvote on Boltrig.

Personaly im kind of split at this point. Tarion still looks like a acceptable lynch to me. Its by no means damning evidence but the extreamly sensetive way he responded to the slightest amount of suspicion
You wanted to lynch Tarion for (not that obscurely) joking about the number of votes he had very early in the day phase. You also say Tarion was defending Boltrig when he wasn't (see his post). That and overall you were far too eager to lynch Boltrig, saying that it was unlikely he would contribute anything to the game just because he hadn't posted by Thursday.

[Baragash]

(yes I had forgotten about the game :oops: )

This is why there is the "subscribe topic" function.

*shrugs* Well, as Boltrig isn't close to being lynched, I'm leaving my vote there as a "gentle reminder" for the moment.

[Tarion'Maseth]

Sub - I see your points on Treehugger, but I'm not sure it proves anything. He's been jumping around a lot, it's true.


To Moz: When we lynch him is up to you others really. Unless someone really slips up i doubt i will change my vote at this point. Though I think we should lynch him as opposed to having it be a deadline lynch. It sends the message that not only are we willing to vote lurkers, but that our threat has teeth and we are willing to go through with it. If it doesnt have teeth then the threat is worthless. Just my opinion on it.Let's just look at this for a while. He doubts he'll change his vote unless someone "really slips up". That is a bit of a strong position, considering:

That being said I am willing to back off for the moment and see if you start playing the game or not, but im giving you fair warning that I will come back after you in a heartbeat if it seems you are lurking again. In a recent game someone likened my play style to a pitbull because once my teeth get in something I dont let go until I rip it to shreds. And if it isnt already obvious, lurking is something that really annoys me and I have no sympathy for it.

unvote BoltrigSo, by posting, Boltrig really slipped up? :wink:

I think Treehugger kind of missed the point of trying to encourage Boltrig to post. Yes, I get it. Tree' doesn't like people lurking. However, he seems to be wanting to punish Boltrig for lurking, rather than put a stop to it. Boltrig said he forgot about the game, I don't see any reason to doubt that. Now that he's back, there's no reason to imagine he'll somehow "forget" about it again.

[ajrk32]

These are some convincing arguments aginst treehugger. particualarly subzeros. he wrote a lot of sense, for this reason im leaning towards tree.

[Mephaine]

*sits and thinks.
Christ never knew there was so much to consider in saying a single person's name. Trying to draw any conclusion at this rate is making my head hurt alot.

[shotcoder]

unvote: Boltrig

as everyone else he has finally started posting so i have no reason to keep my vote posted against him...

Looking at the Tarion, Sub, Treehugger discusssion and I am really not too suspicious about either of them because this is how they play, but the thing that bothers me is the lack of input from the other parties(including myself).... we can't always sit back and base our votes off of just their discussions. I think we all need to get involved and decide as a group. I really can't expect everyone to follow this but it's atleast a bigger step toward what treehugger wants out of these games and I agree with his precedents for activity.

[Kilroy]

Tarion (1): Scythes
Scythes (3): Tarion, Mephaine, Moz
Sub (1): DA
Bolt (6): Doohicky, Baragash, Grotfang, Nova, Eddy, EC
Doohicky (1): Boltrig
Tree (1): Sub

2 days and 4 hours left...
Bolt has the most votes
9 needed for lynch...

[Gnomesbane]

VOTE: TREEHUGGER

You really seemed to attack Boltrig for pretty much forgetting the topic, calling his reply "indignant." I understand in a way that it is your playstyle, but this time it seemed even moreso than usual.

[Treehugger]

A few responses because these statements need to be answered.


Also, Treehugger, you seem to be reading people as much more sensitive than they actually are. You took me as being very defensive, and Boltrig as "indignant". Now, I was mostly kidding, and reading Boltrig's post I get the same sort of vibe. I think you're taking people's comments to people voting for them as far more serious than they are actually intended.
That is entirely possible. You have to remember that the "inflections" you put on your words do not carry over the internet so you need to be aware that people may tend to take you literally. And Tarion I still dont think you were just kidding, you even responded to peoples posts by saying it was upsetting, so I think I read your reaction correctly. Bolts i could have misread, but again dont fault a person for taking you literally when they have no way of knowing what you mean except by what you actually say.


You were second after Doohicky arguing that Boltrig should be lynched for lurking. You also argued the most that he should be lynched. Immediately after he posts you unvote then come out with the argument that those that disagreed with lynching him so quickly are more likely to be guilty. All this based on something you decided in a different game in a different situation.
Yes I decided that the people not wanting to lynch an inactive player were suspicious because of another game, as I said its a meta game reason so thats exactly what it means. And it still stands. The mafia gains nothing by lynching or killing an inactive player because that person was not a threat to them. And by getting someone else (beside the inactive) lynched they are increasing their chances of killing off a threat to them (whether it be a threat from that person having a role ability, or because that is someone who can apply thought to the situation and ferret out the mafia by logic where as someone who is inactive can not be a threat in either of those ways).


This also goes against what you (and Grotfang) said earlier - that in your words people shouldn't condemn day 1-bandwagoneers. Firstly you were pushing for Boltrig's lynch as soon as possible (and have said that others were suspicious for wanting to delay things a little), now you're saying we should get more discussion going until the end of the phase.
How does anything I said go against the bandwagon issue? Im not voting on anyone who bandwagoned, the opposite is in fact true im saying im looking at the people who DIDNT bandwagon. Thats a pretty big discrepancy for you to miss Sub, your normally a much more insightful player than that.
As for wanting discussion now...of course. In my mind the Boltrig issue has been set aside (until and unless such a time comes around where it appears he is a detriment to the town in one way or another), so of course I would like to have more discussion to see which way I need to be leaning.


Let's just look at this for a while. He doubts he'll change his vote unless someone "really slips up". That is a bit of a strong position, considering:

So, by posting, Boltrig really slipped up?
That is at best an idiotic statement, try applying a bit of critical thinking. I said it was unlikely I would change my vote because I honestly didnt think Boltrig was going to participate in the game at all. While that stood he was a detriment to the town and only helped the mafia. He then came in and posted, once so far, but its participation to some degree. By doing that he invalidated my reason to vote on him. So I was willing to take my vote off since my vote was 100% there because I thought he would not be playing the game, once that reason was gone I then have no reason to keep my vote on him. Hence I took it off. How exactly is that hard to understand?


I think Treehugger kind of missed the point of trying to encourage Boltrig to post. Yes, I get it. Tree' doesn't like people lurking. However, he seems to be wanting to punish Boltrig for lurking, rather than put a stop to it.
How? Explain how I am trying to punish him for "lurking" when I took my vote off after he posted? That would in fact be the opposite of punishing him.
Secondly, actually lynching a lurker (be it Boltrig or anyone else) IS attempting to put a stop to lurking because if you lynch them then people will stop doing it. The only reason to lurk is because people perceive it as an effective way of staying alive. If you remove that safety then there is no reason to do it anymore. This is a concept that people on these forums seem to be unable to comprehend because, for the most part, you all try to defend lurkers instead of going after them.


You really seemed to attack Boltrig for pretty much forgetting the topic, calling his reply "indignant." I understand in a way that it is your playstyle, but this time it seemed even moreso than usual.
Am I missing something? Because this is the same type of flawed logic that Tarion tried to apply. I attacked Boltrig because he wasnt playing the game at all, I think thats a valid reason to lynch someone. Hell id be happy if people would get mod-killed for not playing games, theres no reason to sign up for a game and then not actually play it. Once Boltrig posted and said he would start playing (because he had forgotten about the game) I took my vote off of him. So how is that attacking him for that? Its not.

Now im in a bad position because I have been forced to defend myself, and being defensive looks suspicious. You have no reason to think I am pro-town, and you shouldnt take it on faith that I am any more than you should anyone else. However what you need to ask yourself is this: Has what Ive been saying and doing been something that has the potential to help the town or not? I think its obvious that everything Im saying comes from the standpoint of maximizing the towns chances of winning. And im doing it in a pro-active way rather than sitting on the sidelines "playing it safe". Can you say the same?

[MightyEddy9215]

Unvote: Boltrig :cry:

soz man day 1 is quite random for voting so i made it easier for myself to vote off the guy that wasnt here and had alot of votes, my next vote will quite calucated 8)

[Tarion'Maseth]

... And people wonder why there's so much lurking. A guy tries to contribute and suddenly he's the closest to being lynched! Notice - "Closest to being lynched". This one was genuinely a joke. It's after this, when people started taking this as me being defensive that it annoyed me.
Christ! A man takes a little longer than some to find his way to the cargo hold and you all turn on him! (yes I had forgotten about the game :oops: )

VOTE: Doohicky

Going for the OMGUS vote on Doohicky since he started the bandwagon thats nearly led to me being thrown to the wolves!

The first bit is in character, talking about being last into the cargohold.

Also, pay attention to the use of exclamation marks. As in, both Boltrig and I were "exclaiming". The posts from both of us are clearly over the top (As noticed by Subzero, who described my comment as "not obscurely" a joke).

That is entirely possible. You have to remember that the "inflections" you put on your words do not carry over the internet so you need to be aware that people may tend to take you literally. And Tarion I still dont think you were just kidding, you even responded to peoples posts by saying it was upsetting, so I think I read your reaction correctly. Bolts i could have misread, but again dont fault a person for taking you literally when they have no way of knowing what you mean except by what you actually say. Now, what you're missing is that it is perfectly possible to read both Boltrig and myself from these posts. Other people clearly have. Your inability to pick out our inflection doesn't mean it isn't there. The use of in character comments, exaggeration from myself and exclamation marks all around made it quite obvious to at least some people what we meant.

I'd go into more detail on this and the next bit, but I have to go to work.

What I meant by trying to "punish" Boltrig was your assumption that he wouldn't contribute at all. If you read the rules for the game, you'd see that mod-killing was definitely an option. As such, if you're looking to avoid lurkers, the easiest way would have been to ignore Boltrig and had him Modkilled if he didn't respond. However, most people seem to have preferred the idea of actually getting them (Lurkers) to play.

Sorry this is really jumbled. I'll try to clarify later, but I'm now late.


EDIT:
That is at best an idiotic statement, try applying a bit of critical thinking.Fuck it, I'll stick around. I like the deliberate misquote, by the way, with regards to my "really slipped up" comment. The wink was intended to show that it was clearly a joke (Another way of showing inflection! Look, they're all around us. Isn't that odd). Removing it, and trying to take it as a serious argument is more than a little silly.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that you probably copied and pasted, and didn't bother to sort it out, but in the future, if you're going to quote me, quote me properly. Arguing about my lack of inflection, while removing the things I put in to make it obvious is just annoying.

[Novasry]

Unvote Boltrig

...right, i have to agree with people that Tree is playing very stangely, i've only played a few games with tree and this doesnt seem like him at all, he's been jumping about with votes and opinions for most of the day phase and just doesnt seem to be making any sense to me...

anyone ever hear the phrase "a politician can speak a million words and not say a thing at all"? this is what i'm getting from tree...

for now Vote Treehegger

[ajrk32]

It seams that many people are swiniging from one target to another very quickly and attacking them without any reason. some small mistake and it gets blown out of proportion. holding my vote for now but looking...

[Mozric]

Ahhhh! Epic Post!

Unvote: Scythes

Vote: Treehugger

I just think that Treehugger and Doohicky were wrong in their reasoning. Nothing really wrong with killing a lurker day one, but Tree now seems to be criticising me and Tarion for not wanting to kill him straight away!
As to game theory... IMO It's actually pretty good killing somebody active day one, so that people get all worked up and have some suspicions to go on. And now it seems that everybody is active (I think), so there's no way of copping out of a meaty lynch by killing a lurker (which is beneficial to the town at least to a degree).


At this point Treehugger is the most suspicious to me. His last post especially seems like a bit of an over-the-top defense. Day one it's mostly gut. Treehugger seems to want to appear the smart pro-town player, when really nobody has any reason to suspect anyone too much. So my gut is going for treehugger at the moment.

As is always the case in day one, we'll probably lynch an innocent, but at the moment Treehugger seems like the best target IMO.

[ajrk32]

might not be on in the next day so ill vote now, i feel like tree is the most sucpicious, he is directing everyones attantion and tries to start a swarm of votes to who ever we are looking at.

nay way,.

VOTE: TREEHUGGER

[Subzero]

The point about metagame theory is that in one game we have your confirmed alignment and players who may have been largely inactive for most of the game and in the other game we have a player who wanted to get someone who hadn't posted for a few days lynched, said they would never contribute etc. and whose alignment is currently unknown.

How does anything I said go against the bandwagon issue? Im not voting on anyone who bandwagoned, the opposite is in fact true im saying im looking at the people who DIDNT bandwagon.
The point is that you are a day 1-bandwagoneer, or were until Boltrig posted thus reversing the movement to lynch him, and had previously stated (as did Grotfang) that such actions shouldn't be condemned and that relatively quick day 1 lynch was better (and that the whole thing was effectively random). After Boltrig posted you then stated that we should spend our time discussing things more and looking at specific people.

[Boltrig]

Im not wanting to vote treehugger here, as his aggressive playing style may simply be just that. Ive never played a mafia with him before so I cant say one way or another. Im going to

UNVOTE DOOHICKY

since I dont really have a valid reason for voting him. OMGUS does indeed suck. That being said, Treehuggers style does intimidate me, as I seem to have offended him right from the off. Granted he removed the vote from me as did most when I started playing, but I have a niggling feeling that he is just waiting for me to slip up. A misinterpreted joke here (as has happened) an absence deemed too long there and Id be right back up as a candidate for lynching.

As Ive said so-one sticks out as not playing their usual way because Ive not played with any of you before, so for just now Im leaving my vote uncast.

[Doohicky]

Can I have a clarification on what OMGUS is please?
Was it a joke vote on me or a real vote?

For now I will Unvote: Boltrig

But I have a question. You said thanks for the PM to let you know to come to the game. Surely the original role PM should have let you know about the game, or had you decided you wanted to lurk?
No attack here would just like to know how come you weren't participating.

[Baragash]

Oh My God U Suck!

Basically when someone votes in retaliation just because someone voted for them.

[Tarion'Maseth]

anyone ever hear the phrase "a politician can speak a million words and not say a thing at all"? this is what i'm getting from tree...Funnily enough, that's my issue with mammoth posts. Anyone can do it, so it's not a sign of some sort of skill. In fact, I think its the opposite. Being able to condense your arguments down is much more useful than trying to bludgeon people with a wall of text.

Sadly, my arguments in this game have been rather clumsy so far. Limited time at the PC, etc.

[Treehugger]

Again I am borrowing a laptop (my 14month old neice is asleep in the room with my computer so I cant use it), and I am not good at using these to quote people so im not going to go through the hassel and will just go off memory.

Yes Tarion I was quoting you and the emoticon didnt go through. But again you made a statement that could easily (and was) taken as a actual point against me and not a joke. Why is it that everything I quote from you you end up saying was a joke? Do you plan on making an actual point that is not a joke and therfore avaliable for you to recend?

Nova what do you mean iv been jumping around with votes and opinions all day? Ive made 3 votes so far (which is not alot for day 1). The first was a pure joke vote on Sub, the second was a joke vote on Tarion that I later kept on him as a real vote, and then I voted for Boltrig for not having posted anything at all. That is by no means jumping around with votes. And yes ive had opinions of my own that ive posted. I dont see how that is a bad thing, maybe you should try it. You accuse me of saying too much without "saying anything". What exactly have you added to the converstion? Not alot.

Ajrk that statement makes no sense. "He directs our attention tries to start a swarm of votes on whoever we are looking at" Seriously? I havent been directing anyones attention, and certainly are not getting people to vote alonside me. You on the other hand have done nothing but post a few sentences saying you agree with someone else then following their vote.

Mozric...I am a smart town player. I like to think that im at least a decently smart player at these games and unlike alot of players im very active in them so I at least add to the game and by lynching me all your doing is getting rid of someone who will try to keep the game from going inactive.
Notice I said I like to think im a smart player, not particularly a good player. My play style is far too abrasive and confrontational to make me a particularly good player because it gets me in these situations where people are voting for me because im abrasive as opposed to actually having a good reason to vote for me.

What everyone seems to be ignoring is that if I were mafia then I wouldnt have done the things ive been doing:
1) Going after Boltrig, because an inactive player isnt a threat to the mafia I wouldnt have tried to lynch him
2) Going after Boltrig, second reason I wouldnt have is because when I voted on him Scythes had more votes on him (im pretty sure he did at least) so would have been the easier person to bandwagon to a lynch
3) Making myself this visible of a target. Its a better play for the mafia to not be as controversial as I have been. This argument can be countered of course by saying "your trying to make yourself look like a non mafia by being visible" and thats fair, I cant prove its not true.
4) My playstyle is abrasive and confrontational, thats just how I am. Dont lynch me just for that reason (which is what several of you are doing).

Lynching me would be a mistake. Im an active player and I provide alot of input. Besides the mafia is likely to kill me within the first three nights anyways (myself, Mozric and Sub) are the obvious targets for mafia kills.

I honestly cant decide if the mafia is behind the push to vote for me or not. Having me voted off so they can save the night kill would be exactly what I would do in their position (in fact its what I did to Mozric in the Death Note game). On the other hand there are a couple of very suspiscious lurkers who change their votes directly to the person with the most votes.

In all honesty as the mafia in Day 1 you shouldnt try and push for a lynch of anyone in specific. It doesnt make sense to considering that more likely than not a towny will be lynched off anyways. So its a better play to let the town go in circles and pick one of their own and possibly toss a vote or two in the mix once that person gets a few on them. Any dead towny Day 1 is as good as another really since you have the random chance of hitting a power role.

Im going to proceed based on that thought. The two people who fit that mold the most at the moment are Ajrk and MightyEddie (with Dark coming in a close third). Neither has added anything of their own to the conversation but have consistently followed other votes by saying "I agree this makes sense" and hardly anything more.

Vote Ajrk

Kilroy could we get a vote count? Im curious as to how close I have been moved to the line.

[scythes]

I don't know what to think of Treehuggers posts. He really isn't showing any of his own theories or suspicions much, just talking about meta game and how it helps when more people chat and such. Now in his last post he mentioned a couple people, but so far it's all defensive posts and trying to get more people to chat. Do you have any theories of your own or are you trying to jump on someone elses ideas, the whole bandwagonning theory posted early.

Unvote:Tarion

Vote:Treehugger

This vote is for lack of any real contributions, jumping around with votes, and those huge text walls which I hate! :smt016

[Subzero]

What everyone seems to be ignoring is that if I were mafia then I wouldnt have done the things ive been doing:Given that you've repeatedly talked about metagame concepts (what the mafia are likely to do in any given situation, for example), it doesn't seem to me as if there's any reason anyone should believe any statements you make about how what you've said and done is completely different from what a Mafioso would do in the same situation. Could you provide a reason to do so? Aside from that emotional reasoning such as the following examples doesn't really do much to help you:
. . .people are voting for me because im abrasive as opposed to actually having a good reason to vote for me.
Lynching me would be a mistake.Lastly, some of what you're saying is inconsistent. For example, you say that the Mafia will likely hang back and just go for anyone they can lynch, but also that they will go for specific targets (you mentioned yourself, Mozzie and myself) to get them killed off as soon as possible.

However, I will concede that ajrk hasn't done anything particularly worthwhile, and scythes isn't doing anything to help his case what with his most recent post:
This vote is for lack of any real contributions, jumping around with votes, and those huge text walls which I hate!There isn't really much to go on on Day 1 to formulate complex theories and in any case he has contributed relatively consistent suspicions (for example, those of ajrk, Dark Assassin and MightyEddy). Plus he hasn't changed his vote that much (me, then Tarion then Boltrig).

[Baragash]

What everyone seems to be ignoring is that if I were mafia then I wouldnt have done the things ive been doing:

As you've been reading other sites, you'll almost certainly have encountered WIFOM. (http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=Wine_in_Front_of_Me)

[Tarion'Maseth]

What everyone seems to be ignoring is that if I were mafia then I wouldnt have done the things ive been doing:

As you've been reading other sites, you'll almost certainly have encountered WIFOM. (http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=Wine_in_Front_of_Me)
That was my thought. Saying "I wouldn't do X if I were Mafia..." is a good motive for doing just that, as a Mafia.

Yes Tarion I was quoting you and the emoticon didnt go through. But again you made a statement that could easily (and was) taken as a actual point against me and not a joke. Why is it that everything I quote from you you end up saying was a joke? Do you plan on making an actual point that is not a joke and therfore avaliable for you to recend?I'd actually ask why you keep taking my jokes and attempting to use them to make an argument against me?

I've made lots of posts (and comments within posts) that you've not decided to pick out. Have you considered that you've got nothing to say on my serious comments?

From now on, I might make a point of adding in tags, just for you :wink:

[Boltrig]

Can I have a clarification on what OMGUS is please?
Was it a joke vote on me or a real vote?

For now I will Unvote: Boltrig

But I have a question. You said thanks for the PM to let you know to come to the game. Surely the original role PM should have let you know about the game, or had you decided you wanted to lurk?
No attack here would just like to know how come you weren't participating.

The OMGUS thing has been explained so no need to go into that. I got my role PM and wandered off the site for a day or two. When I came back I forgot I had signed up to play. Anyhow, back to the gaming!

[Mozric]

Argh, another epic post.


Mozric...I am a smart town player. I like to think that im at least a decently smart player at these games and unlike alot of players im very active in them so I at least add to the game and by lynching me all your doing is getting rid of someone who will try to keep the game from going inactive.

Well, in the other game you may recall that I argued a similar thing, but I think that this time around we have plenty of active players. Being "active" is not a defense, because then we'd probably have to rule out Tarion, Sub and Grotfang too (picking off the top of my head the three who have seemed the most active this game).

Treehugger, your arguments aren't stong enough to change my mind at least. It's day one so nothing's super-solid. Making epic posts trying to justify every step of your actions this early just makes you come across as defensive and scared....

[ajrk32]

Someone has to die, so my vote stays. tree seams to be out best bet. cant pick up on anyone else.

[Grotfang]

Being "active" is not a defense, because then we'd probably have to rule out Tarion, Sub and Grotfang too (picking off the top of my head the three who have seemed the most active this game).

Hooray! People think I am active :-D

I feel I should apologise for barely having said anything so far this game; life is pretty hectic at the moment with a large number and variety of competitions (one of which I won last night!). Anyhoos, onto more serious discussion. (Summary at the bottom for those too lazy to read.)

My vote on the moment is on Boltrig and I am going to stick to it. He still hasn't said anything that valuable, just consistently trying to defend his earlier inactivity. Now, I realise that that has been the focus of criticism on him, but you can't play a game purely trying to defend yourself. You have to contribute somehow too. Boltrig has moved from being inactive to being actively inactive, and therefore I am keeping my vote on him for similar reasons as before.

I think Treehugger's arguments are poor, but don't indicate his guilt. I dislike "If I were mafia I wouldn't do this" arguments, because generally if I were mafia I would be doing exactly that. Sometimes obvious manoeuvres are a good strategy. It depends on who the mafia is and how they want to come across. There is no standard mafia behaviour. I will repeat this. There is no standard mafia behaviour.

A quick point about long posts. It has been said (I believe by Tarion) that large posts take no skill to write and have less real content than short posts. I will agree that there is no more skill in writing them, and in addition they tend to have a lower density of points, but they do tend to be heavier on the analysis. In addition, I find them to be more expressive as they better reveal trains of thought and feelings, which makes substantive analysis simpler. Finally, I like to post in a similar way to how I would speak, and I find it easier to explain myself if I can be fully expressive. As much as possible I try to put summaries and sidenotes in order to allow those who don't want to read the entire post to still get the gist of what is being said. However, I do so believing that those who skip past content won't truly understand my motivations and therefore will require further clarification at a later point.

Summary:

Keep the long posts! I enjoy them and they can often be skimmed through if you are that averse to them.
Boltrig still seems suspicious to me. I will keep my vote on him.

[Treehugger]

I don't know what to think of Treehuggers posts. He really isn't showing any of his own theories or suspicions much, just talking about meta game and how it helps when more people chat and such. Now in his last post he mentioned a couple people, but so far it's all defensive posts and trying to get more people to chat. Do you have any theories of your own or are you trying to jump on someone elses ideas, the whole bandwagonning theory posted early.

Unvote:Tarion

Vote:Treehugger

This vote is for lack of any real contributions, jumping around with votes, and those huge text walls which I hate! :smt016
Really Scythes? Show me what youve contributed to the game. Show me your amazingly elucidate theories that youve been so gracious to expound on and make what I have said seem paltry in comparison. Oh you cant because youve done nothing. I dont mind people voting on me if they have an actual reason, but this kind of crap annoys me. Because what your saying is "Please do it for me so I dont have to and if you dont then im going to vote for you because you should". If you think im mafia thats fine, thats part of the game. But saying that I dont contribute to the games is a bunch of bullshit because I am typically the most active player in most of the games and I do my damnedest to pick up the slack from people who just hang around the edges of the conversation.

"Oh Tree you talk too much and say too much and make long posts" I get attacked on this all the time and its annoying also. At least im trying to participate in the game. Maybe I should become like one of the lurkers, would that make you happier? Yet another person who does nothing in the games, oh what fun.


I've made lots of posts (and comments within posts) that you've not decided to pick out. Have you considered that you've got nothing to say on my serious comments?
This is something else that gets me. People bitch at me for posting too much all the time. But then they consistently come back and say "Oh well there were other things I said that you didnt comment on whys that huh?". If I quoted and commented on everything someone said then my posts would be even longer. So I pick out what seem to be the most salient points and/or the statements that most need responding to and respond to them.


Yes the "wine in front of me" argument clearly can be applied to everything I say, but then again it can be applied to everything anyone says. So saying "You shouldnt use that defense of yourself" because of it is stupid because it would mean people shouldnt ever try to defend themselves at all.

Sub there is nothing I can say to prove innocence, you know that. There is nothing I can say that will convince someone that im being genuine if they want to believe im not, which is what im faced with. Alot of people who want to believe their own individual reasons for voting me. There is no possible way I can answer them all. So im trapped with absolutely nothing I can do about it because If I do defend myself you will just say "look he's being defensive and what hes saying doesnt prove anything (because it cant), so he must be guilty" and if I dont defend myself you will say "Oh look he has no good defense of himself he must be guilty".

I would like to point out the interesting fact Tarion that when I left my vote on you because i thought you were being "overly defensive" and you said how wrong that was. Now you and others are doing exactly the same thing to me. Oh the irony.
And yes im being a bit more emotional about this than I normally am there are two reasons for this.
1) This game has several good and generally active players in it and I really want to play in a game with them instead of always being stuck in a game filled with people who arent doing anything at all.
2) People are making personal attacks against me outside of the game for posting sign ups for another mini-mafia and it has gotten under my skin and im starting to wonder if its worth the frustration to even bother anymore with these games. This has nothing to do with this game, but its part of what has to do with my general emotional state at the moment.

[Enigmacookie]

Hmm, I really don't know what to say. I think people might be jumping the gun (is that even an expression?) with voting on Treehugger... I mean, even if he actually IS mafia, he's IMO a great contribution to the game. Also, I feel that comments on play style, not directly tied to the game, should be reserved for the mafia discussion thread.

Ajrk32 strikes me as the most suspicious one, tbh. Voting without really commenting much, just following the wagon around.

So, for now: Vote Ajrk32

[Tarion'Maseth]

I would like to point out the interesting fact Tarion that when I left my vote on you because i thought you were being "overly defensive" and you said how wrong that was. Now you and others are doing exactly the same thing to me. Oh the irony.Wait, I'm voting for you? When did that happen?

This is something else that gets me. People bitch at me for posting too much all the time. But then they consistently come back and say "Oh well there were other things I said that you didnt comment on whys that huh?". If I quoted and commented on everything someone said then my posts would be even longer. So I pick out what seem to be the most salient points and/or the statements that most need responding to and respond to them.My point was that you're picking out the comments I intended as jokes, perhaps showing that the main body of what I've been saying is probably fairly safe.
1) This game has several good and generally active players in it and I really want to play in a game with them instead of always being stuck in a game filled with people who arent doing anything at all.I'm going to be honest here, as much as it's unpleasant... But have you considered that posters like you are the reason for a lot of inactivity? Throughout this thread you have been caustic, rude and generally unpleasant. I can cite individual bits if you'd like. Now, you've got pretty mean with Scythes for voting for you.
You remind me of a guy in one of my lectures, with a confrontational argument style. Other people in the class tended to be quiet, because disagreeing with him meant that he'd attack your argument in a vicious way. Even when he was wrong, he was rarely challenged on it - It just wasn't worth the effort. I was one of the few who bothered, and even then it left me feeling as if I'd just narrowly avoided a fight afterwards. It was unpleasant. Funnily enough, he's failed about half his modules, because he ended up with fairly limited understanding of the material.

I was genuinely considering giving up on playing Mafia games with you in them on Friday night after the posts on this page (http://40kforums.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=58798&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=160). I found it really uncomfortable.

So, in short, please chill. Its a game, stop getting personal.
Yes the "wine in front of me" argument clearly can be applied to everything I say, but then again it can be applied to everything anyone says. So saying "You shouldnt use that defense of yourself" because of it is stupid because it would mean people shouldnt ever try to defend themselves at all.Actually, its more of an argument against relying on metagame theory to defend yourself.
2) People are making personal attacks against me outside of the game for posting sign ups for another mini-mafia and it has gotten under my skin and im starting to wonder if its worth the frustration to even bother anymore with these games. This has nothing to do with this game, but its part of what has to do with my general emotional state at the moment.Over-reaction much? The only thing close to a "personal attack" was someone describing your actions as "a tad hypocritical". This, coupled with number one, look like a bit of an emotional plea to me. "Please don't lynch me, I'm really enjoying this game and having a bad time".

[Enigmacookie]

Right, this has the potential of getting really ugly. Remember, guys, forum rules apply even if it is a game.

[Kilroy]

Scythes (2): Tarion, Mephaine
Sub (1): DA
Bolt (2): Baragash, Grotfang
Tree (6): Sub, Gnomesbane, Nova, Moz, Ajrk, Scythes
Ajrk (2): Tree, EC

1 day and 1 hour left...
Tree has the most votes
9 needed for lynch...

[ajrk32]

The reason I follwo people around is because I Feel that they take little things and Blow them out of proportion. As more people join in to this ball I dont see Convincing defense statements. due to this unconvincing and sometimes pathetic defense i join the mob. Because I try not to get worked up over small things (that get the band wagon going) i dont have anyone i really want to vote for.

looking over the posts i see a lot of epics, sometimes when i vote ill Skim and might miss things. because i might miss things some people apperar very suspicious. however, I'll try to read the posts in more detail and contribute better.

Unvote Tree

and how is this going to get ugly? we should all just play the game.

[Treehugger]

I thought you did have a vote on me Tarion, I was wrong and im sorry. But you kept making post against me (among other people also) so I assumed you had a vote there also. My mistake.


I'm going to be honest here, as much as it's unpleasant... But have you considered that posters like you are the reason for a lot of inactivity? Throughout this thread you have been caustic, rude and generally unpleasant. I can cite individual bits if you'd like. Now, you've got pretty mean with Scythes for voting for you.
First off its not unpleasant. I dont mind it Tarion, I dont hold it against people if they have a problem with me and it is for an honest reason (which yours is). I know how I play is abrasive and confrontational. Again im sorry if you dont like that. Have you considered that I developed that trend because its one of the few ways that you provoke responses from people who would otherwise sit back and not say anything? I really dont want to make people upset, but alot of times it seems like it is the only way to get people to say anything. Im not trying to start fights or to make people uncomfortable, im just trying to get people talking. Is it the best way? Of course not, but it is effective and its a hard habit to break.

And no I honestly dont think im the reason for inactivity. Trying to say its my fault is just wrong imo. People are inactive because thats how they think they can get away with playing and it requires less effort and thought from them to do so. Trying to say its my fault is not making people take responsibility for themselves. Add to this that the games I run (so im not saying anything in them) are filled with inactivity alot of the time also and its pretty obvious that its not me.

As for Scythes, I make no apologies for how i responded to him. He makes accusations against me saying its a good enough reason to vote me, when he is in fact the one who is guilty of everything hes accusing me of but much more sever in nature. No sorry that annoys me to no end. You can accuse me of alot of things (being an asshole in the games, having an abrasive play style, being too confrontational, even having faulty logic from time to time) and thats fine because your probably right, but the one thing you cant accuse me of is not adding to the game or putting my ideas and thoughts out there.

EC your right, tempers could easily flare and Im sorry for my part of it. I will try to "chill" a bit.

[Baragash]

2) People are making personal attacks against me outside of the game for posting sign ups for another mini-mafia and it has gotten under my skin and im starting to wonder if its worth the frustration to even bother anymore with these games. This has nothing to do with this game, but its part of what has to do with my general emotional state at the moment.Over-reaction much? The only thing close to a "personal attack" was someone describing your actions as "a tad hypocritical". This, coupled with number one, look like a bit of an emotional plea to me. "Please don't lynch me, I'm really enjoying this game and having a bad time".

Applying moderation in a Mafia game is not something I have decided to do lightly.

This tangent needs to stop. Mafia games must be taken in isolation from both the rest of the Forum, and other games. Grotfang's criticism of Treehugger's actions in Sign-up are an external matter to this game (see that topic (http://www.40kforums.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=59616&start=20)), and should not be raised in here.

Personal attacks are a legitimate tactic in Mafia provided they attack a person's argument, and not the person themselves. This line can be fuzzy, which is why we must remember that comments made in one game apply only to that one game.

Deep breaths people, and let's get back to having fun.

EDIT: whoops, didn't realise EC had slipped one in there between Tarion and Kilroy.

[ajrk32]

Thanks Baragash! That was getting out of hand.

[Tarion'Maseth]

This tangent needs to stop. Mafia games must be taken in isolation from both the rest of the Forum, and other games. Grotfang's criticism of Treehugger's actions in Sign-up are an external matter to this game (see that topic (http://www.40kforums.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=59616&start=20)), and should not be raised in here.No problem B. Just in my defence (Although, I'm sure you're already aware of this), I didn't raise the issue.

Anyway, Unvote: Scythes (Yes, my vote was still on him... Wow. Been there a while) and
Vote: Baragash

(yes I had forgotten about the game :oops: )

This is why there is the "subscribe topic" function.

*shrugs* Well, as Boltrig isn't close to being lynched, I'm leaving my vote there as a "gentle reminder" for the moment.
Oh My God U Suck!

Basically when someone votes in retaliation just because someone voted for them.

What everyone seems to be ignoring is that if I were mafia then I wouldnt have done the things ive been doing:

As you've been reading other sites, you'll almost certainly have encountered WIFOM. (http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=Wine_in_Front_of_Me)Posting enough to be "active", but many of the posts are definitional, or picking individual pieces out of an argument.

My vote isn't going anywhere, just pointing it out.

[Baragash]

This tangent needs to stop. Mafia games must be taken in isolation from both the rest of the Forum, and other games. Grotfang's criticism of Treehugger's actions in Sign-up are an external matter to this game (see that topic (http://www.40kforums.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=59616&start=20)), and should not be raised in here.No problem B. Just in my defence (Although, I'm sure you're already aware of this), I didn't raise the issue.

Was directed at everyone (or, no-one in particular), just so happens your quote was the best place to cut it when I was deciding what to highlight.


Posting enough to be "active", but many of the posts are definitional, or picking individual pieces out of an argument.

My vote isn't going anywhere, just pointing it out.

Is this "irony" (I can never tell these days as "irony" is so over-used)?

This is my playing current style, and has been for several games (4 IIRC). Ever since the epic post issue reared it's head in Red Moon Atrocity (IIRC - the Sub-Tree then Sub-Bara battle), where some people actually commented in-game about how they disliked them, I basically skim read and make points here and there, posting epically only if I feel it is necessary, or I have built a case (see my misguided targeting of Forlorn in Strange Eons).

[ajrk32]

This is my playing current style, and has been for several games (4 IIRC). Ever since the epic post issue reared it's head in Red Moon Atrocity (IIRC - the Sub-Tree then Sub-Bara battle), where some people actually commented in-game about how they disliked them, I basically skim read and make points here and there, posting epically only if I feel it is necessary, or I have built a case (see my misguided targeting of Forlorn in Strange Eons).


Is that when you come out of the pit? when you have a scientific report? scary!

[Tarion'Maseth]

Was directed at everyone (or, no-one in particular), just so happens your quote was the best place to cut it when I was deciding what to highlight.I thought as much, but wanted to be sure
Is this "irony" (I can never tell these days as "irony" is so over-used)?

This is my playing current style, and has been for several games (4 IIRC). Ever since the epic post issue reared it's head in Red Moon Atrocity (IIRC - the Sub-Tree then Sub-Bara battle), where some people actually commented in-game about how they disliked them, I basically skim read and make points here and there, posting epically only if I feel it is necessary, or I have built a case (see my misguided targeting of Forlorn in Strange Eons).Actually, I was quite serious. I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just sort of curious as to where you're standing. You pushed for Boltrig, but since he began posting all you've really done is make it clear that you're still reading, without really pushing for anyone (Which is fair enough). However, you have made a criticism over Treehugger's post. Does that mean you think he's Mafia and want to lynch him? Not necessarily, it just shows that you disagreed with that part of his argument.

However, if both yourself and Treehugger were Mafia, that's the sort of argument you would want to be making at this stage. Doesn't put him at risk, but distances you from him letting you cite it later if someone tries to connect you.

Mostly rambling here, I apologise. Very tired, and knee deep in Hegelian metaphysics.

[Boltrig]

Ajrk32 strikes me as the most suspicious one, tbh. Voting without really commenting much, just following the wagon around.

So, for now: Vote Ajrk32

While he doesnt comment much, he still comments a bit. Even if it is just something as simple as 'I cant find a reason to change my vote so I wont.'

All the text walls and metagame theory is a bit heavy for a first time player so having at least one player who keeps it concise is a great help to me.

I also kind of get what he's on about. It really is quite difficult to draw conclusions from everyone's arguments when a lot of it is 'I wouldnt do this if I were mafia' ... 'ah but you would say that!'. To a new player it all seems like cyclical logic thats hard to grasp intention and manner from.

Just my 2p

[Grotfang]

I also kind of get what he's on about.
...
To a new player it all seems like cyclical logic thats hard to grasp intention and manner from.


You are right; a lot of content this game has been cyclical without any real resolution. That's my main reason for staying out of that element of discussion. I don't believe it reveals much and characterising the mafia is simply too risky.

I suppose preference of posting style depends on what level of analysis you look for from people. If you don't care about the analysis, just where someone stands, then obviously long posts are going to wear you down. However, there are some of us who care more about the justification for your position than the position itself. It is simply a matter of preference. Saying one is better than another is foolish, so criticism of one kind or the other is pointless. Let people stick to the style they are happy with is my opinion. On the other hand, not posting does tend to kill the game, so if there is someone who doesn't post anything (or anything worthwhile) then I will pull them up on it.

By the looks of this, most people have sorted out roughly where they stand and are unlikely to change their position a great deal. I will point out at this stage that those who do not vote for anyone are essentially passively laying their vote on Treehugger, as he will be lynched at the deadline. Now is the time to cast your votes, people!

[Treehugger]

Thats a good post Grotfang. And your right some people are obviously looking for different types of information than others are. I very much fall into the camp of caring more about the reasoning behind a persons stance than I do about the stance itself (which is why I dont care if people vote for me for a good reason, but it annoys me if they are doing it for no reason or no good reason). This is why I tend to post so much, because I try and show the reasoning behind my thoughts (since thats what i want from other people).

There is a difference between posting little (those who care more about a persons position than the reasoning behind the position), and lurking also. You can post small amounts but still be active and be putting information and views out there. But posting just "vote for so and so because I agree with person x" and nothing more is lurking.

Its obvious that I take a hardline stance against lurking, I doubt theres much uncertainty about that. I think it hurts games specificaly and it hurts Mafia in general, and I dont think that the players around here do anything at all to curb it. So it will come as no suprise when I say that by allowing my lynch to go through all you are doing is telling the lurkers that they are correct and it is safer to not say anything than to participate (since you are lynching someone who has been the most vocal so far as opposed to one of the people who have made perhaps a single post so far). Because there are several people who have done nothing but lurk for this game and they have been compleatly ignored so far in the witch hunt against me.

There is no need to say that that argument does nothing to prove im innocent, its obvious that it doesnt. Like I said there is nothing that can be said that would prove me innocent. All im doing is pointing out that this course of action is rewarding lurkering instead of punishing it.

Also the points about "its impossible to characterize the mafia behavior" are slightly flawed. Because eventually you have to make a decision about what you think is mafia behavior and what isnt. Otherwise what do you vote on? So yes you will be forced to say "If i were mafia in this game this is what I would do" and go based on that because its the only guiding light you have, otherwise you might as well roll a dice and pick your votes randomly every day phase.

[Tarion'Maseth]

Tree, no time to analyse that most recent post yet. Making this based on your previous posts.

I think Tree is innocent. Look at his massive pleas to emotions, in his previous post (The big one marked [RANT]). Doesn't mean much taken in this game, but its a move that would absolutely destroy his credibility in other games if he's making that move, while being Mafia.

Since Tree is a regular player, I think he wouldn't risk that move. I've got to run, but please, look at the other players who are saying almost nothing. There are a few.

We really don't have long. Doesn't this day phase end just after midnight tonight, GMT?

[shotcoder]

Grotfang, I completely understand that we may be passively putting on our vote on Treehugger, but this is exactly what happens every game. the big discussioners (you, Tree, Tarion, Subzero, and sometime Mozric) always post epic posts in which pushes the other players away. Now luckily we have gotten over that this game and many of us have stayed.

My two top suspicions at the moment are Treehugger and Ajrk. My suspicion for Treehugger is mainly what you guy have been drilling into my head this whole game while I am suspicious or Ajrk for doing what EC said he was doing. Quietly sitting, popping in to vote, and sitting back down. But I don't know if either of these claims is worth a vote actually. Espcially since it is the first day.

[Boltrig]

Also the points about "its impossible to characterize the mafia behavior" are slightly flawed. Because eventually you have to make a decision about what you think is mafia behavior and what isnt. Otherwise what do you vote on? So yes you will be forced to say "If i were mafia in this game this is what I would do" and go based on that because its the only guiding light you have, otherwise you might as well roll a dice and pick your votes randomly every day phase.

Well as soon as you decide what 'Mafia behaviour' is then the mafia will change their behaviour. No matter how I look at it its still cyclical. Once everyone starts relying on metagame theory and characterising behaviours as 'mafia' then you'll still just end up going in circles.

Sad to say it but it seems that day one will be a mostly random vote, but then you can start to extrapolate alignments and question players based on a combination of stance and previous voting patterns.

I know its been consistent, treehugger, but your posts seem unneccesarily aggressive for what is essentially a game made for fun. I agree with your stance on lurkers and have tried to be more active since I was called into question, but the sheer anger radiating from your posts are kinda putting me off playing. Also, I was punished for lurking with quite a hefty number of players voting for me, so you cant really say that lurking is being rewarded. If people aren't voting for the lurkers now its because they've made a choice and are sticking to it.

[Treehugger]

Well as soon as you decide what 'Mafia behaviour' is then the mafia will change their behaviour. No matter how I look at it its still cyclical. Once everyone starts relying on metagame theory and characterising behaviours as 'mafia' then you'll still just end up going in circles.

Sad to say it but it seems that day one will be a mostly random vote
Almost all arguments in Mafia games are "cyclical", its the nature of the game. It reflects something I say all the time and that is; You can never be 100% sure of anything in a mafia game.

Day 1 is almost always random, im not argueing against that its part of the game because you have nothing to go on beside what is said in day 1. Which is part of the problem since (unless you lynch a lurker) that means you are going to lynch someone who is actively participating in the game almost every time (since they are the people who are putting things out there and giving themselves a chance of looking suspicious where as the lurkers are sitting safe in obscurity).


but then you can start to extrapolate alignments and question players based on a combination of stance and previous voting patterns.
Your proving my point about "mafia behavior" and finding those paterns. Eventually you will have to do it and you will have to say that you think such and such is mafia behavior just like your saying with "extrapolate alignments". Its the same thing, all your saying is that you dont think you should bother trying to do it on day 1, where as I believe you should.


I know its been consistent, treehugger, but your posts seem unneccesarily aggressive for what is essentially a game made for fun.
I realize this, and im trying to modify my playstyle because people have made good points against it. I have been for a while now trying my best to help build the game up on these forums and get more interest in them, and if how I am playing is going counter to that then I want to change it. Since the [RANT] post I have been making a concious effort to tone myself down, so if you are still getting "anger" and such from them then it is what you are putting into the posts, not me.


Also, I was punished for lurking with quite a hefty number of players voting for me, so you cant really say that lurking is being rewarded. If people aren't voting for the lurkers now its because they've made a choice and are sticking to it.
I would argue that you were not punished for lurking (in fact I dont think you ever were actually lurking per say, being compleatly missing from a game is different than lurking but thats another topic). You had several people vote for you yes...but those votes are gone and you are not currently in danger of being lynched, so there is no punishment that occured.

That was the point I tried to make much earlier, if you dont carry through with the punishment implied by the threat of a vote, then the threat has no teeth. And that is what has been shown time and time again in our games, that lurking is a safe behavior because the players are by and large unwilling to carry through with the threat of lynching them for it.

[ajrk32]

Also the points about "its impossible to characterize the mafia behavior" are slightly flawed. Because eventually you have to make a decision about what you think is mafia behavior and what isnt. Otherwise what do you vote on? So yes you will be forced to say "If i were mafia in this game this is what I would do" and go based on that because its the only guiding light you have, otherwise you might as well roll a dice and pick your votes randomly every day phase.

Well as soon as you decide what 'Mafia behaviour' is then the mafia will change their behaviour. No matter how I look at it its still cyclical. Once everyone starts relying on metagame theory and characterising behaviours as 'mafia' then you'll still just end up going in circles.

Sad to say it but it seems that day one will be a mostly random vote, but then you can start to extrapolate alignments and question players based on a combination of stance and previous voting patterns.

I know its been consistent, treehugger, but your posts seem unneccesarily aggressive for what is essentially a game made for fun. I agree with your stance on lurkers and have tried to be more active since I was called into question, but the sheer anger radiating from your posts are kinda putting me off playing. Also, I was punished for lurking with quite a hefty number of players voting for me, so you cant really say that lurking is being rewarded. If people aren't voting for the lurkers now its because they've made a choice and are sticking to it.


This entire game goes in circles, it seems that in order to corner the mafia you have to find out how they will respond and look at their reactions, once you think you know how they will respond you look at the next stage after you catch them and cut that off, so instead of going from 1 to 2 than 3 you attack part 1 & 3 at the same time trapping them at two and having a stron argument. so when they go for option 4 they still apper suspicious. seeing as this is still the first stage we dont have very detailed reactions to base our next moves off off.

It seams however that tree is innocent. In his defense posts he is aggresive but that could just be his playing style, it is also a tactic he might use to try and pust the view away from himself, somthing town and mafia want to do.

I am triing to contribute more, so although i might have some flaws in my theory, i still am not lurking.

In my view Enigma has targeted me in an attempt to take peoples attention away from tree. this could mean that he thinks tree is mafia (witch i dont) and he is also, or he honestly belives i am mafia, witch im not. and he is triing to protect tree whom he thinks is town and make people look at me. As i cannot find anything new to attack anyone about, looks like Im still holding my vote.

as ive said i am still new and im just triing to contribute, sorry for any flawed reasoning

[Treehugger]

Ok looks like about 3 hours left until I get lynched. I really hate having to roleclaim day 1 but at this point I have nothing left to lose.

I am pro town, I am a Guard, I have a role ability so I am not a normal towny. My ability may not be the greatest in the world but its better than nothing.

Without quoting what my role PM says all I can give as proof of innocence is that my win condition does not contain the word "threats are removed" or "defeated", instead a different word is used (I am unsure if saying that word would count as quoting the PM or not).

If youve already made up your mind then its unlikely you will believe this but its the truth and its the only card I have to play.

[Baragash]

Actually, I was quite serious.

Sorry, what I was getting at being ironic is that I changed my playstyle partially* as a result of the epic post battles (hence I agree with your view above) and it's you that is making the point you did :wink:

*If you want to know the other reason, ask after the game is completely finished. I do not think that point would go down well under the current circumstances.


However, you have made a criticism over Treehugger's post. Does that mean you think he's Mafia and want to lynch him? Not necessarily, it just shows that you disagreed with that part of his argument.

Correct. I will pick at anything that sticks out. This doesn't mean I feel someone is/isn't Mafia (at least until they respond). This is also related to the point I haven't discussed above.

I will, of course, respond as fully as possible to points raised against me.


However, if both yourself and Treehugger were Mafia, that's the sort of argument you would want to be making at this stage. Doesn't put him at risk, but distances you from him letting you cite it later if someone tries to connect you.

Any response to this is, of course, WIFOM, but I would make a better effort than picking out the token line here and there if I was going to pursue that tactic.

[shotcoder]

Tree, no time to analyse that most recent post yet. Making this based on your previous posts.

I think Tree is innocent. Look at his massive pleas to emotions, in his previous post (The big one marked [RANT]). Doesn't mean much taken in this game, but its a move that would absolutely destroy his credibility in other games if he's making that move, while being Mafia.

Since Tree is a regular player, I think he wouldn't risk that move. I've got to run, but please, look at the other players who are saying almost nothing. There are a few.

We really don't have long. Doesn't this day phase end just after midnight tonight, GMT?

Wow didn't notice this post at first, and I have to say you make a great point. I can believe that actually

Vote: Ajrk32

nothing more than another random vote with a hunch behind it. I don't like the hiding playstyle he played earlier.

Ninjaedit for Baragash's post at the same time:
what is WIFOM?

[Treehugger]

Wine in front of me (http://mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=WIFOM)

[Baragash]

As you've been reading other sites, you'll almost certainly have encountered WIFOM. (http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=Wine_in_Front_of_Me)

[shotcoder]

Alright I understand now.

[Subzero]

Regarding Tree's roleclaim, I'm fairly sure that's evading the rules to quote the PM. Given that nobody has yet responded to contradict what he said it can probaboly be assumed by everyone that the claim is legitimate (unless the Mafia have been provided with false role PMs, a possibility that may require looking into later). There's also the fact that before all of this started Tree could have simply not focused on Tarion instead of posting suspicions of him. I'm still wary of Tree due to his logical holes and self-contradictions, but I'll change my vote for today.

Unvote Vote: Scythes

His last post was opportunistic and contained numerous exaggerations, as I mentioned earlier. There were few proper reasons for voting in the post, if any, and it was the 6th vote on Tree so things were getting close to the lynch.

I think this puts Tree at 4 votes and scythes at 2. I don't think anybody has 3 votes yet but if another voter on Tree shifted to scythes or one of the others with 3 votes then we could avoid lynching him today.

[Subzero]

On a related note, both Tarion and Grotfang are voting for people who have no chance of getting lynched today, yet Tarion has said that he believes Tree is innocent and Grotfang has mentioned the fact that anyone not voting is passively causing Tree's lynch. Their actions and words don't match.

[Baragash]

I think this puts Tree at 4 votes and scythes at 2. I don't think anybody has 3 votes yet but if another voter on Tree shifted to scythes or one of the others with 3 votes then we could avoid lynching him today.

Did we have a confirmation that a tie is a no-lynch?

What do you think the vote count is?

[Baragash]

I've got:
Scythes: 2 - Sub, Meph
Sub: 1 - DA
Bolt: 2 - Bara, Grots
Tree: 4 - Gnomes, Nova, Moz, scythes
Ajrk: 3 - shots, Tree, EC
Bara: 1 - Tarion

EDITED ONLY TO ADD THE NAMES OF VOTERS!

[Enigmacookie]

0,0002 Cents:
Ajrk32 and Scythes seems to be the most suspicious people at the moment. The guys who have been overly vocal, I can't judge really.

[Tarion'Maseth]

On a related note, both Tarion and Grotfang are voting for people who have no chance of getting lynched today, yet Tarion has said that he believes Tree is innocent and Grotfang has mentioned the fact that anyone not voting is passively causing Tree's lynch. Their actions and words don't match.
Don't worry, when I saw your action I decided to follow suit and
Unvote: Bara
Vote: Ajrk

Before I saw the vote count, I thought Tree was further away.

Also, I'm unsure on Tree's roleclaim. It's similar to what I have, but not perfect. Also, I'd debate as to whether it truly is breaking the rules.

Note: This assumes Baragash's votecount is correct :P

[Baragash]

I must say Tarion, that's an awfully convenient piece of timing to step in and save Tree.....(and after Sub pointed out the inconsistency in your stance you didn't really have much of a choice)

If we assume Tree's claim is true, you've suddenly become quite buddy-buddy with him towards the end of the day.



Note: This assumes Baragash's votecount is correct :P

:smt005

Have you considered where a conversation about the ins and outs of guilt if it's not could go?

Tarion: "Baragash falsified the votecount near the deadline to ensure the lynch."
(*stashes that one for a future game*)

Baragash: "It was an innocent mistake guv'nor, Tarion spotted the mistake then laid down the prelude to his defence by claiming he never bothered to check."

[Mozric]

[this was written before baragash's post came up, but I have to say, i agree with his sentiment, though for different reasons]

Well, Treehugger's roleclaim is somewhat convincing. It's a little bit of an abuse of the rules, but now that it's out there there's a reasonable doubt, so.

Unvote Treehugger

As for punishing lurkers... well looking back through the topic I can see that MightyEddy and Mephaine have got away very well with saying almosst nothing. Mind you, this is their first game, so it's somewhat understandable -- but it doesn't rule them out from being mafia. I'd keep an eye on them.

Now this puts arjk up to being lynched... I don't really like this. In fact now I'm not really happy with any of the lynch candidates. But I think Scythes is mildly more suspicious than arjk

Vote: Scythes

I'm a bit surprised at Tarion, voting for arjk without really an argument other than he's trying to lynch anyone other than tree. his last post has no reason as to why he settled on arjk. If it weren't so close to the end of the day phase, I'd vote for Tarion.

At the moment I think the vote is
scythes: 3
Tree: 3
arjk: 4

an annoying way to end the day phase... I was all for lynching somebody before the deadline rather than rolling over to have somebody dead by one vote. Gives too much power to the mafia, if any of these three ARE mafia, a quiet vote shift would save them.

[Subzero]

If possible, could we have one more vote on scythes? That would put both him and ajrk at 4.

However, Kilroy hasn't said whether or not that means everything is delayed or whether both are lynched, unless I'm missing something.

[Tarion'Maseth]

Have you considered where a conversation about the ins and outs of guilt if it's not could go?

Tarion: "Baragash falsified the votecount near the deadline to ensure the lynch."
(*stashes that one for a future game*)

Baragash: "It was an innocent mistake guv'nor, Tarion spotted the mistake then laid down the prelude to his defence by claiming he never bothered to check."Honestly, I love it. What a beautiful way to score an easy kill for a Mafia team.



I'm a bit surprised at Tarion, voting for arjk without really an argument other than he's trying to lynch anyone other than tree. his last post has no reason as to why he settled on arjk. If it weren't so close to the end of the day phase, I'd vote for Tarion.I genuinely began to believe Treehugger is innocent at the top of the page. I still disagree with a lot of his playstyle (Although it seems much improved) but that doesn't make him Mafia. As for why Arjk, he was the only legitimate choice at that point. Scythes was 2 votes behind, but he was the other possibility. Basically, I believe Tree to be innocent. I have no feelings one way or the other for arjk. If by lynching Arjk, I save Tree, then that makes more sense. Also, Treehugger has made enough noise that investigative rolls will probably be checking him out if they're around.


MightyEddie and Mephaine were also possibilities I considered, due to the lack of posting. But they're new. Killing them now might mean they don't come back ever. Also, I wasn't sure I'd get any support for my actions.

At this point, we have an hour or so to discuss which way to take this.

[Baragash]

However, Kilroy hasn't said whether or not that means everything is delayed or whether both are lynched, unless I'm missing something.

Hence my question further up, better to lose 1 than 2.....

@Kilroy: can I make a provisional vote: scythes (I choose scythes only as Tree's roleclaim makes it worthy of investigation tomorrow) if such a vote would tie the lynch and give us a no-lynch?

@Tarion[lols]: let's hope I'm a good accountant then...(obviously, as I don't have several off shore trusts embezzled from my employer, I can't claim to be a great one) :P

[Tarion'Maseth]

You know, if we just want a no lynch, isn't there enough of us here, right now, to just Abstain?

[shotcoder]

I think we can, but I stand against an abstain in almost everygame since it almost equates to an easy mafia kill. But I don't think I've been in a large mafia game like this where it happens.

[Baragash]

You know, if we just want a no lynch, isn't there enough of us here, right now, to just Abstain?

That relies on the assumption that more votes for Abstain means it gets chosen over the person with the highest vote (of course, if it doesn't, that leads to the question, "why vote abstain?" - unless the answer is to pressure everyone else into not voting, or to indicate you aren't lurking).

@shotcoder: the one thing I would say is that we've had quite a lot of discussion (bar some absent members highlighted further up), abstain calls usually arise when everyone's a bit "meh" on where to go.

[Kilroy]

Scythes (4): Mephaine, Sub, Tarion, Moz
Sub (1): DA
Bolt (2): Baragash, Grotfang
Tree (3): Gnomesbane, Nova, Scythes
Ajrk (3): Tree, EC, Shotcoder


2 hours left...
Scythes has the most votes
9 needed for lynch...

If there is a tie, we're going into over-time. If we go into overtime I'm going to put a ban on voting for somebody who is not tied. First person with more votes wins.

[Treehugger]

If there is a tie, we're going into over-time. If we go into overtime I'm going to put a ban on voting for somebody who is not tied. First person with more votes wins.
That is how I assumed it would be, though I honestly didnt think about the ban on voting for someone not in the tie thats an interesting twist. What about unvotes (since unvoting one of the two in the tie would make one have more votes than the other just the same as a vote would)?

I dont think abstaining is the way to go here. Its generally a bad idea and very rarely a good one.

The list of lurkers people have mentioned has been Mephaine and MightyEddie both of whom have done next to nothing in the game so far. Yes they are new to the games and that should give people a *little* leeway, but not this much. However theres a name thats missing from that list: DarkAssassin. He has posted only once I think (could be wrong but i think im either right or very close) and he doesnt have the newbie excuse.

BTW thanks for the votes of confidence, I honestly didnt expect to be given that reprieve, and i welcome any investigation roles in the night phase.


Have you considered where a conversation about the ins and outs of guilt if it's not could go?

Tarion: "Baragash falsified the votecount near the deadline to ensure the lynch."
(*stashes that one for a future game*)

Baragash: "It was an innocent mistake guv'nor, Tarion spotted the mistake then laid down the prelude to his defence by claiming he never bothered to check."
[/lols]
thats so awesome that I now have a note pad memo on my thumbdrive dedicated to keeping a running vote count for any games im playing in so I dont get tricked into this ;D

[Tarion'Maseth]

I'm in.
^When Kilroy gets back from vacation.
I just checked my messages. Woo hoo!

STD's are ugly and perhaps permanent.

VOTE: SubI think Treehugger has a point. And this isn't his first game is it?

[Treehugger]

It is not, he was in fact part of the mafia group with me in the Death Note game.

[Tarion'Maseth]

Well, I'd recommend some people vote for him. I would, but I don't want to be the first. If I go for it, and no-one else does, we end up with a nasty tie.

[Tarion'Maseth]

viewtopic.php?f=86&t=60708 (http://www.40kforums.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=86&t=60708)

And Mephaine is around. Hopefully he'll check in.

[Gnomesbane]

UNVOTE: TREE

Sorry man. I'll be honest in the sea of text this game has already become I have ended up just skimming some of the larger posts, as I'm not up for reading some lengthy tome at the moment. I didn't even see your roleclaim until my eye happened to catch Tarion pointing it out. I need to re-read things to see what the deal is with Scythes right now, and if my suspicions of ark-whats-his-name are enough to try and draw a stalemate out of this.

[Baragash]

Well, I'd recommend some people vote for him. I would, but I don't want to be the first. If I go for it, and no-one else does, we end up with a nasty tie.

Unvote: Boltrig

Pretty much the same reason I had left my vote on Boltrig, not overly sure it's worth anything at this stage though :?

Vote: Dark Assassin

[Mephaine]

Sorry guys, juggling alot around. Between this, Factions and several rl things its mounting up. SO yeah sorry if I go quiet but I am watching drawing my own conclusions however I choose now not to voice myself unless I must defend myself or I notice something I think is important.

Edit: Tarion you can trust me mate, I be a fellow Scotsman :P Then again I am known to be reliable as a plumber's estimate.

[Kilroy]

Scythes has been lynched... Death scene coming up tomorrow probably...

[scythes]

Awe man, I just got home, oh well...

Oooooooohhhhh........*Clanks chains* :mrgreen:

[Kilroy]

The others pounced upon Scythes as he slept. As he woke up he cried out in confusion. The others said nothing. They dragged him towards their makeshift gallows. Upon realising what was going on tears rolled down Scythes face. Not of fear or sadness, but of gratitude. He was just a hopeless cook he could not bring death upon himself to end this nightmare. So he waited for others to do it for him. They pulled him up to the gallows and hung him... They burned his body later, eyeing the others with suspicion the whole way through...

It is now Night 1

[Mephaine]

Damm not the world's greatest killing....we just wacked a cook off. Well just leaves 15 posibilities. Just a quick reminder of what happens in ngith phases be appreciated, cant find the rules for that bit hehe.

[ajrk32]

OK, sorry for the absence, Im back and i missed that entire last close call.

It appears that you are just suspicious of me for not being active in the beggining if the game, for that there is not much i can do but appologise. I am also sorry for the absence.

Wont post more in the night phase now.

[Kilroy]

2 hours to go... If you have anything to send in do it now...

[Novasry]

errrr kilroy?

[Kilroy]

Don't have access to my info right now... Story will come up on Sunday or Monday...

[Grotfang]

Also, topic title should probably be changed...

[Kilroy]

After the Scythes death, people pretty much scattered and avoided each other. They had all certainly killed other people, especially recently, but never had they murdered someone innocent, even if he wanted death. Hours passed without people seeing much of each other. Eventually Doohicky walked into the meeting area, not far from where Scythes was lynched. The various items that were scattered around the room shaped the following words:

"You have done well. This is your Astropath speaking. Saving Treehugger was the right choice. Good luck in the next day. You will need it."

Over to you... Day 2

Needed for lynch is 9...

[ajrk32]

Astropath?

[Mozric]

(if you don't really care too much about the Astropath message or have already thought about that message, skip down to the bottom conclusion for what I think. the rest of this post is systematically stating the obvious)

Okay, so here's my guess... somebody in this game is the Astropath and can send messages during the night phase.
She might not be called the "Astropath" actually, though. It seems like kilroy's just posted a quote.

There are a few possibilities for what's happened here. It's possible that:
The person claiming to be an Astropath is pro-town, neutral or anti-town.
The person claiming to be an Astropath knows as much as we all do, OR she actually knows whether Treehugger is pro-town or not.

We have no way of knowing which of these is true.
The interesting bit is if the Astropath actually does know Treehugger's alignment. She could be a pro-town player helping giving us a confirmed innocent. Or an anti-town player trying to pass off another anti-town player as innocent. Or an anti-town player hoping that we double-guess the quote and lynch Treehugger.

In any case, we don't know enough about the Astropath to make a decision.

MEASURED CONCLUSION:
I suggest we ignore the message. It shouldn't very much influence how we see Treehugger.
Although IMO it leans a little towards him being innocent. It's unlikely that the mafia would draw attention to their own with this sort of bold bluff, and if the role actually is "Astropath" then she's quite likely pro-town, given the theme.

CONCLUDING GUESS:
My working guess would be that the Astropath is a pro-town player who doesn't know any more than the average innocent but can send a message during the night. She thinks that Treehugger is innocent so want to encourage us to trust him.

[shotcoder]

Astropath?

Exactly what I thought, sounds like the same role I had in Sub's DreamWorld game.

Looking through your arguement Moz I have to believe your conclusion is correct since it looks in fact as the same role type as I had in the Dreamworld game. It really doesn't help unless you are completely sure about a player's alignment. Which in Dreamworld was a complete waste, but seeing that they look certain with Treehugger's alignment looks as if they have another ability as well.

[Enigmacookie]

Hmm...Mozric, I must admit that I disagree somewhat to your conclusion.

The fact that we had no night kill probably means that we have a protector/doctor role, who protected Treehugger this night phase, thus the "Saving Treehugger was the right choice" comment. The astropath might just me the GM's voice.

Then again, as you say, the astropath might be a anonymous player voice thingy (like the detective in the Death Note mafia) We can't know whether it speaks the truth (Tree = innocent) or is pro-mafia (Tree = most likely anti-town), and the mafia chose to not kill anyone during night to make the astropath more believable.

Hmmm...

Well, we're lucky that no one died this night, at least.

[Doohicky]

There is of course the final idea that the Astropath is in fact Treehugger.

I don't actually think he would do that, but just putting it out there.

Next, As some of you may have noticed, I was absent from this game for a long time, but not one person commented on it.
I think as a whole we need to be more vigilant of people dropping off and not posting when the discussion starts.

Now I had a valid reason and posted in a few topics that I wouldn't be about, maybe you lot saw them and that's why there were no questions asked, but if that is not the case, let's keep an eye out for lurkers. Especially ones who pop in to raise there head and then dissapear for the rest of the day phase.

Finally, no one killed! (Or did I miss that?)

[Tarion'Maseth]

My working guess would be that the Astropath is a pro-town player who doesn't know any more than the average innocent but can send a message during the night. She thinks that Treehugger is innocent so want to encourage us to trust him.Interesting use of the feminine pro-noun, but that would have been my guess.
There is of course the final idea that the Astropath is in fact Treehugger.Considered this, but it seems a bit... unsubtle.
The fact that we had no night kill probably means that we have a protector/doctor role, who protected Treehugger this night phase, thus the "Saving Treehugger was the right choice" comment. The astropath might just me the GM's voice.Honestly, I didn't even see it that way. Interesting take on it. It makes sense considering we had no night kills.