Insane Mafia - Page 30

On October 30 2010 09:41 Fishball wrote:
As for people bringing up the idea of having the circle come forward, I've put some thought into it.

If the circle remains hidden to the public, the Mafia can try to remain within and get as much intel as possible, while we'll be trying to do the same thing as well. If the circle comes public, the Mafia might as well off these members one by one. Keep in mind, there is a chance that there are no Mafia members in the circle (though very not likely), but regardless of this possibility, Mafia can plant confusion among the remaining members, and mislead the town.

Also, if the circle comes forward and god forbids, gets eliminated, it would defeat the entire purpose.

I'm not exactly against this idea, but I just want everyone else to think it through a bit more and provide more input, possibility a better alternative. At the end, this would not be my decision, but the other players'.

PS. A correction I have to make. I said I've came in contact with 4 other players earlier, this was a mistake. I've only came in contact with 3. The remaining 2 have not contacted me. This does not mean they haven't contacted each other, which I would not know.

On October 30 2010 09:40 Hyperbola wrote:
It's really pointless for me to vote for myself at this point so I guess I'll vote for Pandain. The other two prime candidates are all discussing secret societies and whatnot, and even though I'm all for those types of roles, I believe the mayor should really be a figurehead for the whole town.
1. It would be really difficult, and not to mention disadvantageous, for the mayor to prove they are a free mason or something along those lines
2. The mayor keeps the rest of the town out of the loop (because there wouldn't be a way to transfer secret data) and therefore causes confusion which can lead to unwarranted bandwagoning.
3. If the mayor dies, how will the circle prove itself to town afterward? After losing all leadership, the town will flop and scum will have it's way with the remains.
And as for Pandain, I have seen his play style from the previous game and think he would make a good mayor. If he turns out to be mafia, and unless he has flawlessly acted out the role, people would notice and he'd be gone in a blink of an eye.

On October 30 2010 03:40 Fishball wrote:
If town wants to play it safe, a quick alternate scenario I can think of is to let me roll and try to gather as much information as I can for a few cycles. I then may or may not announce the remaining members, and release whatever information I can (depending on situation), and have myself lynched to prove my role and alignment.

On October 30 2010 09:45 Infundibulum wrote:
Also anybody running on the platform of "I will roleclaim if I am Mayor" needs to reconsider their platform in light of the fact that the mayor can be rolechecked.

Additionally, Artanis alluded to the possible existence of elements that can tamper with role check results - e.g. a framer or insane DT - meaning that a rolecheck on the mayor night 1 is possibly useless, as any rolecheck-tampering would almost certainly be directed the mayors' way.

Finally, remember confirming a players role ability != confirming a players alignment.

On October 30 2010 09:45 Infundibulum wrote:
Also anybody running on the platform of "I will roleclaim if I am Mayor" needs to reconsider their platform in light of the fact that the mayor can be rolechecked.

Additionally, Artanis alluded to the possible existence of elements that can tamper with role check results - e.g. a framer or insane DT - meaning that a rolecheck on the mayor night 1 is possibly useless, as any rolecheck-tampering would almost certainly be directed the mayors' way.

Finally, remember confirming a players role ability != confirming a players alignment.

On October 30 2010 09:42 Coagulation wrote:


DocH
Anyone that doesn't fucking vote for you must be scum?
Are you fucking serious ?

no because I never said that. that's a great way to start off by making me look really radical though.

i voted for Pandain because it was a choice between Him And Fishball at the time (bum withdrew his candidacy before i voted or I would have voted him for my placeholder instead of pandain)
I posted many reasons why i chose pandain over fishball MANY Logical reasons.
i will repost them for you ****This was before you had decided to run for mayor

This was the same reason I voted for Pandain, that's satisfying.



Is that not a reasonable reason considering the two choices?? maybe not the greatest reason but I FEEL CONFIDENT we are not getting FUCKED BEHIND OUR BACKS.

Well in retrospect and considering what fishball has now said, no I don't think it's reasonable. If he lies he has put himself in an extremely precarious position that could blow up in the mafias face too easily. In fact I think if he were mafia this play, most likely, will end up benefiting the town. whereas the potential payoff of fishball as a townie mayor vs pandain as a townie mayor are much higher. fishball also won't be as easily manipulated by poor mafia bandwagoning.



Is that not a reasonable reason?? YOU SAID THE SAME THING EARLIER.

Now i am sticking with pandain because he is most likely not a red trying to gain control of town based on the fact that he is not campaigning relentlessly.

yet he seems to be doing pretty well in the polls despite this. he's bringing little suspicion onto himself and staying out of the heat of the argument while attracting voters who are too afraid to take a real position. good scum play if anything.

Pandain is more then capable of using what tools he has at his disposal to help coordinate a good town strategy and i doubt he would run for mayor if he thought his role wasnt capable of contributing greatly as mayor.. and I FEEL HE is the most TRUSTWORTHY candidate so far BASED ON HIS ACTIONS IN THIS GAME. I Dont get the same feeling from you when your Threatening "FOS" On anyone that doesnt vote you..

I'm threatening FOS on people who come off as scummy, like you, or NB. You ignore the fact that I can prove I'm town if I'm elected, which Pandain cannot, so it is ridiculous that you would trust him over me. If I lie, I die, in this case. Don't forget that fact.

IM NOT VOTING on WHOS PROMISING SOME BULLSHIT IF THEY GET MAYOR (town circle?? where??)
IM VOTING ON WHO I TRUST THE MOST IN MY GUT

IS THAT REASON ENOUGH?

No gut feelings are the opposite of reason so I can't say it's reason enough. I would also say please stop using caps lock and getting so emotionally invested in this.

On October 30 2010 09:46 DoctorHelvetica wrote:


I can prove my role is what I say it is without having to be rolechecked and if anyone tries to fake a rolecheck on me they'll be incriminated when I prove them otherwise.

On October 30 2010 09:47 orgolove wrote:


Sorry, that was directed to DrH, not you.

On October 30 2010 09:28 infinitestory wrote:

Your logic for electing Pandain is pretty flimsy. We want a mayor who:
1) Is a good analyzer and an experienced town player
2) Can be scrutinized or somehow confirmed as a townie.
3) Has a role that requires protection
Now, ideally we get a mayor who is strongly all three (and ends up being townie under scrutiny). DrH, according to his posts, satisfies 2 and 3, especially 2, and I feel like he can carry out 1 as well. Fishball claims to satisfy 3, but his circle hasn't materialized, which makes me suspect him. Last in my book is Pandain, who claims SOFTLY to satisfy all 3. Emphasis on softly, because he only said he had a "valuable blue role" and could give "indirect confirmation." No real plan for action, unlike the other two candidates, as far as I saw.
On top of that, you claim that DrH's bandwagon is suspect, but Pandain had an even larger bandwagon before DrH... why does that not trigger your red flag? It feels almost like you're fabricating reasons to put Pandain first and everyone else last. Odd, to say the least. I want to hear a bit more explanation on these points, NB.

On October 30 2010 09:51 Infundibulum wrote:



read my last sentence

role != alignment

not even "standard roles" are 100%, due to the possibility of things like mafia medics or mafia detectives.

On October 30 2010 09:46 DoctorHelvetica wrote:


I can prove my role is what I say it is without having to be rolechecked and if anyone tries to fake a rolecheck on me they'll be incriminated when I prove them otherwise.

On October 30 2010 09:51 DoctorHelvetica wrote:


If you could do the same and point out where I lied that would be great thanks

On October 30 2010 09:27 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
Artanis said something like the mayor will return the role "Mayor" if rolechecked. I'd like it if he confirmed this.

On October 30 2010 09:45 DoctorHelvetica wrote:


As far as I see it if Mafia start killing off town aligned members of the circle, they incriminate themselves really in the end. This puts a lot of pressure on mafia as to how they choose their kills and they have to very carefully consider their activity within the circle.

On October 30 2010 09:52 NB wrote:

i did not make that post while im thinking about the situation. i thought about it first and fishy + Dr.H are the 2 people that i cant trust. For pandain: he is the "left over" so i cant touch him since there is nothing clear against him. I should have analyze mr.fish and Dr.H b4 mentioning panda but what ever....
As you see im still voting for myself but anyone above so dont take that post as im accusing anybody

On October 30 2010 09:51 Infundibulum wrote:



read my last sentence

role != alignment

not even "standard roles" are 100%, due to the possibility of things like mafia medics or mafia detectives.

On October 30 2010 09:53 Divinek wrote:


I can't fathom any way you can do this that doesn't involve the possibility of you just getting your mafia buddies to help you do whatever it is you say you can do

I dont like the idea of just picking someone for what they say they are able to be or capable of. I'm more inclined to go with someone who has shown they can actually be useful instead of spewing confirmability.

Whatever it is you say you can do to confirm yourself i have no doubt the host put in something to make it possible to compromise the integrity of your claim. It's silly that you could try to be concrete on something so unknown to anyone.

I would rather have someone leading with clearly good intentions and capable of doing something instead of saying well guys i can be confirmed, cause once someone gets elected the spot lights so heavy it's ridiculous anyway

On October 30 2010 09:54 orgolove wrote:




I can't trust someone who's so "free" with his supposed" facts."