|
I'm lynching Ver. I don't see at all why so many people think Ace is dirty this game (especially when compared with Ver's inactivity) and I do not agree with lynching him just to be safe at the next vote.
As for lynching Dreamflower, while both BC and I came up with (differing) sets of clues pointing to her, I feel it would be more sensible to kill off Ver (who I believe is red) based on clues/behavior rather than just Dreamflower off of clues alone.
And would you mind telling me exactly why you voted for me, Caller? You don't have to, I'm really just curious. :p
|
On May 21 2009 07:41 nemY wrote:Here's what I think I think (which everyone will call me retarded for) -This whole late bandwagon of votes for Ver is very suspicious... I don't like it one bit. -I don't understand the initiative to lynch Plexa... Camilito's has almost been just as inactive yet no one's gone after him -Ace is at best traitor, at worst mafia -L's is at best townie, at worst traitor -No one's PMed me about being the other DT yet... which means he or she doesn't trust me -Our lack of unity is something that needs to be addressed!
- This isn't really a late bandwagon. In fact, I'm more fearful of the one I feel is approaching. Namely, the one that comes right after Ver posts a novel in a few hours, just before the vote closes.
- I agree about the initiative to lynch Plexa. It's absurd.
- I don't think either of them is traitor or Mafia, and saying that somebody is suspicious of something without saying why doesn't really give anybody a reason to feel the same.
- I'm glad the other DT hasn't PMed you yet. I voted for you to be in office and I don't fully trust you, either. There are only two reasons why they possibly should: they checked for clues and got the same red herring picture or they rolechecked you, which I'd strongly advise against.
- Lack of unity is something we're going to have to deal with in this game, especially in the first few days. Too many headstrong people who believe different things and are unwilling to relent. Nothing wrong with that, as it just means that, no matter the alliance that is in power, it will not have many townies that are sheepishly following it's every word.
|
On May 21 2009 08:59 Showtime! wrote: How is it absurd?
Look at all the time we've wasted.
Based on my analysis Plexa looks just as guilty as them.
Putting forth your analysis would help in the cause of proving it isn't absurd.
As is it's just "he's being quiet" which is not entirely unusual for Plexa and nor is it always indicative of Mafia.
|
On May 21 2009 09:34 Bockit wrote:Regarding camlito, he has a habit of not posting anything constructive or analytical pretty much till about day 3 or so. I don't know why it's just what he does. Doesn't mean I'm not suspicious, I'm just saying it matches his behaviour as far as I know it. Plexa on the other hand.. If you want to know how active Plexa can be, go check out Mafia 2. It's the exact opposite of this time around. Dunno what to call him yet, but it doesn't look good for him
To be fair, he played a much more low-key game in Ace's Mafia World. He really didn't show up in force until near the very end of the game. And if I'm recalling correctly, he and, as you mentioned, Camlito both are usually pretty quiet during the first few days of the game.
Not talking at all in the thread is unusual, though.
On May 21 2009 09:43 Infundibulum wrote:
If he was mafia and didn't want to die, wouldn't he have taken more initiative in being active?
That is a good question. Perhaps by posting late, it gives him a potential excuse if the vote suddenly shifts to his favor? It's entirely likely that he is just busy in real life, however. I know at least two players who have had to skip out on activity in the game because of real duties, even though it did nothing good for their image in the game.
|
On May 21 2009 10:13 L wrote: So yeah, I'm going to have to ask the town again:
What if Ace and Ver are both mafia?
Everyone seems to have ignored that.
Then that will become apparent with time and we can still win, even though Ace would be able to Pardon a single fellow Mafia member.
As is, there isn't sufficient proof for me (or for the majority of people, it seems) to go along with this "safest route" plan.
|
On May 21 2009 10:18 L wrote: How? Ace would be the least scrutinizable individual in the game: he's got a group of followers that have consistently defended him since day 1, cannot be rolechecked, and cannot even be looked at during a double lynch.
You don't need a role check to identify him with time (you can't fake away clues even if you can fake behavior) and I'm quite sure that if those defending him were not Mafia, they would stop doing so in the face of clear evidence. If not, then you were right.
On May 21 2009 10:18 L wrote: This is the equivalent of the argument we made for Qatol earlier: "Well, its cool, we'll just kill him a turn later if we find out something's fishy" in the face of a mountain of evidence against him.
You're either making the assumption that there is a mountain of evidence against Ace right now that nobody is seeing except you or that there will be a mountain of evidence later with which town will do nothing with. I'm guessing the former. I don't think there's really anything constructive to say if either option is correct, though.
|
On May 21 2009 10:30 L wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 10:25 Bockit wrote: Holding back the double lynches because you are afraid that he might pardon them is stupid and I really hope that doesn't end up happening. No, it just removes our ability to hit Ace during the double lynches, which makes him invulnerable until Day 5 if we do 2 back to back. Do you understand why I'm not super peachy keen on waiting for 'clues' to build up if he's already got a bunch of suspicion on him? He's a fantastic tool to push town down the wrong paths. Its not 'oh we'll kill Ace if he's suspicious', because we simply can't kill him during a double.
Uh.
Pardoner - You are the secondary elected role of the game; the runner up in the election. You may twice pardon a person who is to be lynched. You may use this ability on the mayor's first lynch. If you use this ability during a double lynch, each pardon use spares one player (so you must use both pardons to completely stop a double lynch). You may not pardon yourself. You show up as Pardoner for all Rolechecks.
I thought that would be common sense. At least check before you build up a worry based on it, y'know?
|
On May 21 2009 10:34 L wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 10:30 MTF wrote:On May 21 2009 10:18 L wrote: How? Ace would be the least scrutinizable individual in the game: he's got a group of followers that have consistently defended him since day 1, cannot be rolechecked, and cannot even be looked at during a double lynch. You don't need a role check to identify him with time (you can't fake away clues even if you can fake behavior) and I'm quite sure that if those defending him were not Mafia, they would stop doing so in the face of clear evidence. If not, then you were right. On May 21 2009 10:18 L wrote: This is the equivalent of the argument we made for Qatol earlier: "Well, its cool, we'll just kill him a turn later if we find out something's fishy" in the face of a mountain of evidence against him. You're either making the assumption that there is a mountain of evidence against Ace right now that nobody is seeing except you or that there will be a mountain of evidence later with which town will do nothing with. I'm guessing the former. I don't think there's really anything constructive to say if either option is correct, though. I didn't say we needed a role check. I said he's the least scrutinizable player in the game. Is that correct or not? No rolecheck. Large bandwagon behind him. Cannot vote for him until day 5 or vig hit if we do back to back double lynches. Consistently contradictory posts. Has supported mafia players in the past. The target of a massive voteswing. I mean, 2+2. There's evidence.
First, the so-called large bandwagon behind him is pretty small to the very consistent core that voted Ver in and people can defend Ace without being die-hard about it. Like me, right now. Second, the "cannot vote for him" bit is incorrect, unless you assume that we can't vote for him because he'd pardon whoever the other person was. Which is incorrect. I haven't seen that many contradictory posts and I'm not sure what you mean by his having supported mafia players in the past, unless you somehow have them figured out already. Finally, the massive voteswing you're talking about happened because of the Nemy situation. Nemy was close to being pushed into a position and many players did not like that, so there was a movement to vote in either Mynock or Ace in behind Ver. Ace ended up being the one that got the votes.
|
EBWOP: "Which is incorrect" was not to imply that he could not do it, merely to say that it is incorrect to assume that we could not kill Ace off early on (we don't need to double lynch constantly) or that we could not kill Ace off at all due to his Pardoner role.
|
On May 21 2009 10:44 L wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 10:40 MTF wrote:On May 21 2009 10:34 L wrote:On May 21 2009 10:30 MTF wrote:On May 21 2009 10:18 L wrote: How? Ace would be the least scrutinizable individual in the game: he's got a group of followers that have consistently defended him since day 1, cannot be rolechecked, and cannot even be looked at during a double lynch. You don't need a role check to identify him with time (you can't fake away clues even if you can fake behavior) and I'm quite sure that if those defending him were not Mafia, they would stop doing so in the face of clear evidence. If not, then you were right. On May 21 2009 10:18 L wrote: This is the equivalent of the argument we made for Qatol earlier: "Well, its cool, we'll just kill him a turn later if we find out something's fishy" in the face of a mountain of evidence against him. You're either making the assumption that there is a mountain of evidence against Ace right now that nobody is seeing except you or that there will be a mountain of evidence later with which town will do nothing with. I'm guessing the former. I don't think there's really anything constructive to say if either option is correct, though. I didn't say we needed a role check. I said he's the least scrutinizable player in the game. Is that correct or not? No rolecheck. Large bandwagon behind him. Cannot vote for him until day 5 or vig hit if we do back to back double lynches. Consistently contradictory posts. Has supported mafia players in the past. The target of a massive voteswing. I mean, 2+2. There's evidence. First, the so-called large bandwagon behind him is pretty small to the very consistent core that voted Ver in and people can defend Ace without being die-hard about it. Like me, right now. Second, the "cannot vote for him" bit is incorrect, unless you assume that we can't vote for him because he'd pardon whoever the other person was. Which is incorrect. I haven't seen that many contradictory posts and I'm not sure what you mean by his having supported mafia players in the past, unless you somehow have them figured out already. Finally, the massive voteswing you're talking about happened because of the Nemy situation. Nemy was close to being pushed into a position and many players did not like that, so there was a movement to vote in either Mynock or Ace in behind Ver. Ace ended up being the one that got the votes. MTF, we already 100% agreed that if Ace is mafia and he's going down, its always in his best interest to pardon the other player, mafia or not. If both Ver and Ace are mafia, your analysis of the 'large bandwagon' is consistent with what most mafia players would do in the current situation. Drop Ver, switch to Ace. And regardless of the nemY situation, if Ace flips red, the voteswing is a voteswing. THIS IS WHY WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO TELL WHICH SIDE HE'S ON.
I agree with everything in the first two sentences. The problem is they are complete "what if" situations to you.
For the third, however...Help me understand this. Assume that you are right, and Ace is Mafia. Why would Mafia not have voted him in sooner or secured him a strong spot in the election earlier on, so as to avoid the very suspicion you are putting on him? Was Nemy just a convenient cover for a sudden five-six votes to switch over to him? And assuming further that both are mafia: Was the plan just to get Ver in first and then the Nemy situation happened, so they figured, hell, why not try to get both of them in? Or was Nemy an intentional part of it?
See the problem I have with your scenario?
|
The point is, L, that you are really the only person who strongly feels Ace is Mafia and wasting a vote on him today does not feel worth it. Additionally, some may feel as I do about the voting pattern in that it is irrelevant for the moment who voted for Ace near the end of the last election, due to the Nemy situation. It only becomes relevant if more evidence builds up against Ace or, tenuously, if Nemy turns up red.
|
O, and seeing as you're looking for voting stuff, look at the current situation:
Ver's Mayoral Voter List:
BloodyC0bbler Caller Scaramanga Mynock 0cz3c dreamflower RebirthOfLeGenD Vivi57 iNfuNdiBuLuM Incognito <-- from Showtime Malongo <-- from Ace LucasWoJ
Ace Current Lynching List:
L nemY dreamflower Amber[Light] Bockit <-- from Ver Plexa BloodyC0bbler <-- from Plexa Scaramanga <-- from Ver
Italics are overlapped. Dreamflower has only ever posted in the thread to defend herself and Scaramanga has been even more inactive, yet they both voted in Ver and are both gunning for Ace.
If Ver is Mafia and some of those who voted for him also are, and now they want to switch over to Ace, they're doing a pretty poor job of it right now.
|
On May 21 2009 11:15 Ver wrote: Now for the overall question for the town
a) Should I modkill myself after the lynch (already confirmed that qatol will do this)?
b) Or should the vigilante hit me?
I suggest everyone vote on what you want me to do after Ace dies. I am determined to prove my innocence in the most direct manner but I don't want this lynch to be wasted on me.
If you've determined that you're going to die anyway, why does it matter if you get lynched today or not?
|
On May 21 2009 11:22 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 11:21 MTF wrote:On May 21 2009 11:15 Ver wrote: Now for the overall question for the town
a) Should I modkill myself after the lynch (already confirmed that qatol will do this)?
b) Or should the vigilante hit me?
I suggest everyone vote on what you want me to do after Ace dies. I am determined to prove my innocence in the most direct manner but I don't want this lynch to be wasted on me. If you've determined that you're going to die anyway, why does it matter if you get lynched today or not? It's a wasted lynch - which we could put to better use (ie killing ace)
He's assuming that we're going to kill Ace tonight and then kill him immediately after, so that reasoning doesn't make any sense at all.
|
On May 21 2009 11:23 BloodyC0bbler wrote: MTF, say we lynch ver today. DO NOT ASSUME THE VIG WILL HIT ACE
So, we have a double lynch tommorrow. Ace will most likely be on said lynch list, we pair him up with X.
Ace to be a spiteful dick will pardon X and just die himself, wasting our lynch.
Get that ability out of the way first.
Right. But I don't agree with lynching both leaders for information, nor do I think Ace is Mafia. And as predicted, Ver is coming in with a last minute explanation post. I just didn't think he'd roleclaim or that you and Plexa would show up synchronized with him.
|
And with Caller's switch we have Ver & Ace tied at 11 each.
Wonder why Caller voted for me in the first place, after all.
|
On May 21 2009 12:15 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 12:13 MTF wrote: And with Caller's switch we have Ver & Ace tied at 11 each.
Wonder why Caller voted for me in the first place, after all. eh you were fishy along with some other people. I figured that this incredibly poor excuse for a lynching was getting pretty stupid and just randomly picked somebody I thought was fishy ^^
Why switch at all, then? What changed between then and now, ignoring the obvious changes of the time before the vote ends and the arrival of several previously quiet Ver supporters?
|
On May 21 2009 12:18 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 12:16 Ace wrote:On May 21 2009 12:15 Caller wrote:On May 21 2009 12:13 MTF wrote: And with Caller's switch we have Ver & Ace tied at 11 each.
Wonder why Caller voted for me in the first place, after all. eh you were fishy along with some other people. I figured that this incredibly poor excuse for a lynching was getting pretty stupid and just randomly picked somebody I thought was fishy ^^ MTF fishy? ... This is a Veteran's game at least make your bullshit interesting (this goes for you too BC) consider: out of nowhere he comes out with a clue analysis that I quite frankly think is a little bit too directed. Rather than let the clues find somebody, he's finding somebody with the clues-this is always a good way to hide clues as mafia-by impaling townies as red herrings. Especially when these people are considered suspicious already by the general town.
The only person I went into the analysis thinking were suspicious out of those I listed as being possible matches was Ver, and I like to believe I can separate my bias from my analysis. Dreamflower and Infundibulum just came up.
|
On May 21 2009 12:21 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 12:19 MTF wrote:On May 21 2009 12:15 Caller wrote:On May 21 2009 12:13 MTF wrote: And with Caller's switch we have Ver & Ace tied at 11 each.
Wonder why Caller voted for me in the first place, after all. eh you were fishy along with some other people. I figured that this incredibly poor excuse for a lynching was getting pretty stupid and just randomly picked somebody I thought was fishy ^^ Why switch at all, then? What changed between then and now, ignoring the obvious changes of the time before the vote ends and the arrival of several previously quiet Ver supporters? I'd rather not disclose the reason at this time.
That's a laughable argument to use. Really.
It's even moreso in that the only information that you could be wanting to innocently hide, namely that you were a DT and rolechecked either Ace or Ver, is impossible at this point in the game.
|
On May 21 2009 12:25 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 12:22 MTF wrote:On May 21 2009 12:18 Caller wrote:On May 21 2009 12:16 Ace wrote:On May 21 2009 12:15 Caller wrote:On May 21 2009 12:13 MTF wrote: And with Caller's switch we have Ver & Ace tied at 11 each.
Wonder why Caller voted for me in the first place, after all. eh you were fishy along with some other people. I figured that this incredibly poor excuse for a lynching was getting pretty stupid and just randomly picked somebody I thought was fishy ^^ MTF fishy? ... This is a Veteran's game at least make your bullshit interesting (this goes for you too BC) consider: out of nowhere he comes out with a clue analysis that I quite frankly think is a little bit too directed. Rather than let the clues find somebody, he's finding somebody with the clues-this is always a good way to hide clues as mafia-by impaling townies as red herrings. Especially when these people are considered suspicious already by the general town. The only person I went into the analysis thinking were suspicious out of those I listed as being possible matches was Ver, and I like to believe I can separate my bias from my analysis. Dreamflower and Infundibulum just came up. That's the issue though: why is dreamflower being so accepting of your clue analysis? Doesn't it just seem weird that DF is kind of willing to take the lynch up the butt? And more importantly, if this analysis is so strong, then why isn't Infundibulum on the lynch bench? I'm half sleep-deprived atm though, so I am probably rambling.
She isn't accepting of it. She just took it gracefully while saying it's totally possible that I'm wrong. Which is completely possible, as I said in my analysis post. I'm not directing who others view as strong matches or not.
However, I believe the reasoning for some isn't just based on the analysis, but also on the general inactivity that she's shown and the ties to Ver.
|
|
|
|