|
Did unvote ghost >_< Mustafa not shown up, I was leaning ghost so that I could see if sloosh was suspicious, but chocolate seemed like he was the only one who has going to get lynched and I hate no lynches(unless it is analytically the best move) as I said before there is no reason a healthy town should ever no lynch. I stand by that.
Well not only did your unvote not show up, I also don't see where you placed your actual vote. It is still under ghost in the voting thread. So I take it you're saying you meant to vote for chocolate?
|
hmm I thought I actually did vote for chocolate but apparently your right, my bad , lynch me(I really wanna see this stick).
|
This is not enough for me to lynch you personally. It's just something that phagga brought up that I didn't catch, and I wanted to hear what you had to say. I really don't have much of a scum read on you at all.
BassInSpace
|
Oh wait, you were using the FourFace sign off, haha.
|
what about my second question, gumshoe?
On February 28 2012 21:35 phagga wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 11:27 gumshoe wrote:
god I hate no lynches ) : like unless its analytically the right move(as was the case last game when we had a potential inactive townie) I feel like were just depriving ourselves of information
If chocolate flips green(which he probably will considering it looks like he's getting bussed, not gonna lie about that) i'll take responsibility. Why do you want to take responsibility for it?
|
Off to bed now, looking forward to all your posts.
BassInSpace
|
On February 28 2012 23:26 phagga wrote:what about my second question, gumshoe? Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 21:35 phagga wrote:On February 28 2012 11:27 gumshoe wrote:
god I hate no lynches ) : like unless its analytically the right move(as was the case last game when we had a potential inactive townie) I feel like were just depriving ourselves of information
If chocolate flips green(which he probably will considering it looks like he's getting bussed, not gonna lie about that) i'll take responsibility. Why do you want to take responsibility for it?
Because i wanted it to happenat the time more so than anyone else, that said i felt there was a good chance chocloate wasnt scum becaise it looked like he was getting bussed, to that end i knew someone would have to pay if he flipped green, i was willing to take on that responsibility to get information, but dyh sorta talked me out of it when he said lynching for info is bad, to sum it up as i said before i hate no lynches, i feel like they make town stagnate, that said i was aware that chocolate could be town, in which case if i was willing to lynch him for information i had to be willing to take the fall for it if he turned out to be a mistake. Thats how my thought process worked, i wanted it the most i had to be willing to take the heat for it, besides in my opinion everyone should fall under a bit of suspiciun early in the game so scum cant pull a " you know this guy mightve been playing us the whole time" stunt. Is that wrong? I dont know lynch me.
|
On February 28 2012 23:26 phagga wrote:what about my second question, gumshoe? Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 21:35 phagga wrote:On February 28 2012 11:27 gumshoe wrote:
god I hate no lynches ) : like unless its analytically the right move(as was the case last game when we had a potential inactive townie) I feel like were just depriving ourselves of information
If chocolate flips green(which he probably will considering it looks like he's getting bussed, not gonna lie about that) i'll take responsibility. Why do you want to take responsibility for it?
That last point was me bieng transparent, now im going to be anylytical. If chocolate flips red ive killed my own teamamte, if chocolate flips green i fall under suspiciun, as scum its an all around bad move, as town its a calclated risk. Now unless you want invole the m word(i dare you to say it) theres not much all to discuss about the matter. Any other questions?
|
|
|
Alright. It's morning for me here and it is good to see some discussion and activity happen, especially with the replacements chiming in. Please continue to catch up and start discussing, as it will be greatly beneficial to us - otherwise it may give mafia more opportunities to lurk / bandwagon on you guys.
Hopefully will find time during the day to follow up and drive discussion.
|
On February 29 2012 00:15 gumshoe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 23:26 phagga wrote:what about my second question, gumshoe? On February 28 2012 21:35 phagga wrote:On February 28 2012 11:27 gumshoe wrote:
god I hate no lynches ) : like unless its analytically the right move(as was the case last game when we had a potential inactive townie) I feel like were just depriving ourselves of information
If chocolate flips green(which he probably will considering it looks like he's getting bussed, not gonna lie about that) i'll take responsibility. Why do you want to take responsibility for it? That last point was me bieng transparent, now im going to be anylytical. If chocolate flips red ive killed my own teamamte, if chocolate flips green i fall under suspiciun, as scum its an all around bad move, as town its a calclated risk. Now unless you want invole the m word(i dare you to say it) theres not much all to discuss about the matter. Any other questions?
It just came out of nothing. You mentioned Chocolate a few times, but failed to vote on him. You barely pushed him. I tried to push Chocolate the whole day, so why not make me responsible if he would flip green? Or what about Alderaan, who made the first case on Chocolate?
Also, if a majority of people is voting Chocolate, everyone has some responsibility in it. Why would town want to single out a person only because of that one vote and make him/her responsible for a mislynch? That does not make any sense, sometimes townies get lynched because wrong decisions are made. But then you don't go and point finger at single person, instead you start analyzing who voted for that townie when and for what reason. Claiming responsibility before the lynch has even happened and before it is clear if it is a myslynch or not is utterly pointless.
Unless you want to put focus on how you are helpful and care about town. But a townie normally does not have to do that.
On February 29 2012 00:15 gumshoe wrote:
the m word(i dare you to say it)
uh, Marry me?
(I am not sure which word you mean. If you mean mafia, why not just write it? It's not like you're reading the insignia of The One Ring and Sauron can hear you.)
|
On February 29 2012 00:53 phagga wrote:
(I am not sure which word you mean. If you mean mafia, why not just write it? It's not like you're reading the insignia of The One Ring and Sauron can hear you.)
DON'T SPEAK OF SUCH THINGS.
@gumshoe You claiming that a chocolate mislynch would be "your" fault is strange. Not sure what to make of that.
Now, let's see what I missed.
|
On February 29 2012 00:53 phagga wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 00:15 gumshoe wrote:On February 28 2012 23:26 phagga wrote:what about my second question, gumshoe? On February 28 2012 21:35 phagga wrote:On February 28 2012 11:27 gumshoe wrote:
god I hate no lynches ) : like unless its analytically the right move(as was the case last game when we had a potential inactive townie) I feel like were just depriving ourselves of information
If chocolate flips green(which he probably will considering it looks like he's getting bussed, not gonna lie about that) i'll take responsibility. Why do you want to take responsibility for it? That last point was me bieng transparent, now im going to be anylytical. If chocolate flips red ive killed my own teamamte, if chocolate flips green i fall under suspiciun, as scum its an all around bad move, as town its a calclated risk. Now unless you want invole the m word(i dare you to say it) theres not much all to discuss about the matter. Any other questions? It just came out of nothing. You mentioned Chocolate a few times, but failed to vote on him. You barely pushed him. I tried to push Chocolate the whole day, so why not make me responsible if he would flip green? Or what about Alderaan, who made the first case on Chocolate? Also, if a majority of people is voting Chocolate, everyone has some responsibility in it. Why would town want to single out a person only because of that one vote and make him/her responsible for a mislynch? That does not make any sense, sometimes townies get lynched because wrong decisions are made. But then you don't go and point finger at single person, instead you start analyzing who voted for that townie when and for what reason. Claiming responsibility before the lynch has even happened and before it is clear if it is a myslynch or not is utterly pointless. Unless you want to put focus on how you are helpful and care about town. But a townie normally does not have to do that. uh, Marry me? (I am not sure which word you mean. If you mean mafia, why not just write it? It's not like you're reading the insignia of The One Ring and Sauron can hear you.)
the m word is meta.
From my perspective at the time of the vote, I did vote for chocolate(it was an accident that I did not), so chocolate was one vote or two votes away from a lynch. I felt by putting myself out there I could get that last vote, but if chocolate did flip green then it would probally be because of that guy who said cmon this guys definitley scum that he died so I was willing to proactively adress that and perhaps take some of the pressure of a townie who might feel scared voting for someone who could be getting bussed. The point was I was trying to make something happen and was willing to say whatever to do so, even put my self out there, which as I said would either a) convince a townie to take the risk because he wouldnt be suspected or b) convince scum to take the risk and also put himself out there. It was not an effort to convince town that I am helpful, it was an effort to make something happen.
No nothing did happen, and no you couldnt have know that i was trying take pressure off the next voter, so I wont blame you for suspecting me, but I have made my intentions clear, I am for allowing events to take place so that we always have more to discuss, is that wrong? I dont know lynch me.
Any other questions?
|
@gumshoe I see what you were doing, that makes a bit more sense. I don't quite agree, but no problem there.
Just for future reference, I don't find people who vote at the last minute scummy. I find people who vote at any point without good reasons scummy.
This includes the people who couldn't give me a good reason last night when I asked them, such as Janaan and Alderan. I didn't press those at the time being because I felt that it would be better for me to push people who were on the fence towards a Chocolate lynch, as opposed to pointing out scummy behavior.
More on this when I get home tonight.
|
On February 29 2012 01:06 ghost_403 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 00:53 phagga wrote:
(I am not sure which word you mean. If you mean mafia, why not just write it? It's not like you're reading the insignia of The One Ring and Sauron can hear you.) DON'T SPEAK OF SUCH THINGS. @gumshoe You claiming that a chocolate mislynch would be "your" fault is strange. Not sure what to make of that. Now, let's see what I missed.
Wouldve been better if I said the v word 
so what is my great and awesome evil plan ghost? I totally agree with phagga pressuring me, but I really dont like you just popping up and being like "huh isnt that suspicius".
You want to know what it was all about? It was a thing of the moment, I was not laying any grand scheme or making my self look useful, I was trying to scrounge a couple more votes, maybe see if I could bait a mafia into switching onto choclate(seeing as mafia usually lurk in irc around the time of the vote) or get a town to feel comfterble enough to vote.
Until you can offer me a more likely explantation as to why else I would try to make other players feel more comfterble about voting for chocolate I dont want to hear about why what I did was strange seeing as ive provided a perfectley rational reason(that just so happens to be the truth) to explain my actions.
God I miss defending myself its such a rush, gotta get to class now will be back in an hour or so to read through all the filters.
Dont like it? Lynch me.
|
On February 29 2012 01:22 ghost_403 wrote:
@gumshoe I see what you were doing, that makes a bit more sense. I don't quite agree, but no problem there.
Just for future reference, I don't find people who vote at the last minute scummy. I find people who vote at any point without good reasons scummy.
This includes the people who couldn't give me a good reason last night when I asked them, such as Janaan and Alderan. I didn't press those at the time being because I felt that it would be better for me to push people who were on the fence towards a Chocolate lynch, as opposed to pointing out scummy behavior.
More on this when I get home tonight.
awwwwwww im sorry, ignore my last post.
|
TOO LATE.
SUPER VOTE GUMSHOE.
|
Hey guys!
As you know, I'm replacing Steveling. This is my first online game of mafia, but I've played some in person. I'm still catching up on the thread (a little over half way through right now). I'll be up to speed and in the discussion a few hours from now.
|
And I'm back. You beat me to it with your case on Alderan slOosh. I'll go review it again and see if there is anything I want to add or expand on.
|
Response to Sloosh's case:
As for the whole Chocolate/Ghost issue, I think it might be helpful for you to see the timeline of my thought process-
- Searching through filters looking for suspicious people.
- Read Chocolate's filter and think "Hey! All this stuff is absolutely bizarre, no ones made any concise cases yet, let's give it a shot".
- While making post, realize that the voting three times in the first 12 hours of the game is really weird for anyone, scum included, so after I posted the Chocolate post I went back to see why he would have done it.
- Make the "Ghost hypothetical" post prior to checking Ghost's filter.
- Went back to check his filter, realized he was actually not suspicious to me at this point because he is playing far too aggressively, which is why I told Sloosh I had a "hunch" about Ghost.
- Without posting that sentiment, I waited for Ghost to respond (just to get some more info), which he did more than adequately, and I dropped my suspicion of him.
As for the DYH thing, I guess there is no way to corroborate this but the reason I posted in agreement of the idea that the Chocolate lynch was "happening to quickly" is because I legitimately believed that, and in fact had the post typed in the text box, only to be delete as Chocolate still had not responded himself and I wanted to wait and see his response before lowering the axe, if you will. I don't like defending anyone this early in the game prior to them having a chance to respond. Make them post under pressure, that increases the chance of slips exponentially.
As for the end of the day yesterday, I was obviously torn between voting for a no lynch, a weak case, or a lurker who is getting replaced. The reason I appeared so wishy washy in the thread is because I was trying to be as transparent as possible about my decision. Essentially I was thinking aloud in the thread and trying to get people into a back and forth, which is much harder to deal with when you're scum then coming in, making a long post, and coming back in 12 hours.
Hopefully this clears up some stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
