EPTFor the hosts, this is my second game, the first was newbie mini mafia IV under a hydra account.
Newbie Mini Mafia XVIII
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
For the hosts, this is my second game, the first was newbie mini mafia IV under a hydra account. | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
7. Whomever has the most votes at the end of the day will be lynched! So just to double check, we're not using a majority lynch system? | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
On June 22 2012 14:29 BassInSpace wrote: So just to double check, we're not using a majority lynch system? Um just gonna ask again since it seems my question got buried. Sorry if it seems like a stupid question but I just wanted to double check since from what I've seen most TL games use a majority lynch system? | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
On June 24 2012 00:24 JieXian wrote: erm actually since I'm at +8 gmt wouldn't there be a problem for me when it comes to voting? I'd have to vote a lot earlier than everyone else You're not the only one, I'm at +10 GMT. | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
Now, I interpreted hopeless1der's post to mean that we should lynch those who are actively lying/trying to mislead town (aside from blues protecting themselves, of course). Release, I do really think you were arguing semantics here. Obviously someone putting effort and logic into building their case, but turns out to be wrong shouldn't be lynched even though that could be technically considered "being caught in a lie". That's all I'm going to say about this argument, which has wasted a lot of discussion time IMO. Esspen, your contributions to the thread so far: On the policy: I believe we should try to identify and lynch mafia first. Simple policy, but with great results Which is the whole point of the game and stating the obvious... I do not get all that "lynch the liar" for several reasons. Townies obviously cannot know whether someone lied or not, only clues they can grasp onto are inconsistencies and vagueness. The only players who know the truth are scums and if the whole game is going to revole around us identifying who lied, mafia is going to win rather easy. Mafia can win just by ereasing their memory that they are mafia and simply playing with a mindset of a townie, leaving townies lyinching each other as they find innocent inconsistencies in their speeches (ie posts). Secondly, even blues have to lie in order to survive. But that also means when I say "I am mafia." you should lynch me no matter whether it is true or not, as if I'm telling the truth, you just lynched mafia, and if it is not true you lynched liar. (breaks my heart ) But I believe we should try to identify and lynch blues first, confusing mafia and leaving them vulnerable... And this post. No one is saying we should focus on finding liars. Lies will be just some of the evidence we will use to build up cases against the mafia. And did you just say we should actively find and lynch blue roles? This is some pretty bizarre logic, and you can bet that the rest of the players in this game will be questioning you when they see that post. That had better be some catastrophic typo, or you'd better have a good explanation for that. If you don't, by the next time you post, I will be placing my vote on you for trying to fish for blue roles. | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
I don't see how a lie could possibly help town. Town players are supposed to establish their innocence by being open and honest in their posting, lying does not help to achieve this. Special cases apply where blue roles are concerned of course, but we shouldn't be trying to find blue players and forcing them to lie in the first place. Thus, I am inclined to lynch all liars. As for lynching lurkers, things get a bit murky for me. Both lynching and not lynching lurkers hurt town in my first game, so this is something that depends on the situation. I am of the opinion that we should stick to our convictions and vote for who we actually think is mafia, rather than stack our votes on a lurker because of pressure from other players (remember, lurkers are easy targets for mafia to bandwagon). This is where I stand on those 2 policies. | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
Okay then...which lurker are we lynching? Im seeing Aegon, NrGmonk and BioSC as our prime candidates. You have a FOS on esspen, who you already said you find suspicious for trying to bring attention back to release, but then you ask which of our "prime candidates" out of those 3 we should lynch? If policy lynching really is the last resort, should you not be pressuring esspen more, or waiting closer to the voting deadline when there has been more activity before you start wanting to lynch lurkers (by my count there are still 22 hours until the deadline)? That is the whole point of a last resort. I really don't like how much attention you were putting on voting for lurkers before BiosC responded to you. I'm not sure if you'll get to see this and respond any time soon because of time zones, but I will hold off putting my vote on you until I go to bed just in case you manage to post before then. As for esspen, I really don't know. That really is just way too obvious a move for mafia to make as others have said, but I am getting a stronger read from hopeless1der. | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
5. In the event of a tie the person with the most votes first is lynched. 6. Voting is mandatory. You may NOT abstain. 7. Whomever has the most votes at the end of the day will be lynched! Because of this, I am very hesitant to decide between BioSC and hopeless1der right now with the current info in the thread, since this will be my last post for the night and I may not be around in time for the deadline. Both players' cases against each other are not enough to convince me, and I would love to be able to analyse both players' posting more. Hopefully I have the time in the morning to read more, but I doubt I will have time to post thorough reasoning for my vote (will be on my phone as well). For now however, I am going to vote for roflwaffles55. On June 25 2012 14:37 roflwaffles55 wrote: Good to see that we already have some conversation going + Show Spoiler + even if it is just Release flailing his FoS everywhere. :D Figure I'll address a couple of the policy points with my opinions while I'm here. I haven't really seen a good reason to NL early game, so I'd prefer a mislynch to a NL day 1/2. As for Release's strategy, at the moment, it is likely just scaring scum from posting. I'm exhausted, going to sleep now, I'll contribute something more meaningful in the morning. He didn't post anything useful in his first post, and hasn't made good on his promise to post "something more meaningful in the morning" If I don't see anyone who sticks out more to me in the morning (or I don't get the time to check), then I am leaving my vote on him/her. ##Vote rofflewaffles55 | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
On June 26 2012 05:33 NrGmonk wrote: I can /in if I'm allowed to play 2 newbie games at the same time and as long as this doesn't start for another week. I have a shitload of TL-related stuff to do this week. Just something I thought I'd bring up for others to keep in mind. We seem to disagree on roflwaffles55. His commenting negatively of release isn't "very early" as you put it was easy for him to do. Release's early vote/fos style is brash and sure to attract attention/criticism. Plenty of people thought it was the wrong move due to the lack of information, and roflwaffles55 was third to comment on it negatively, after Hopeless1der and dNa. | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
We seem to disagree on roflwaffles55. His commenting negatively on release was easy for him to do; release's early vote/fos style is brash and sure to attract attention/criticism. It's not a bold move or particularly townie to disagree with it; plenty of people thought it was the wrong move due to the lack of information. Also, roflwaffles55 was third to comment on it negatively, after Hopeless1der and dNa. Sorry, the first version read like crap. | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
through properly. | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
Esspen: On June 27 2012 08:14 Esspen wrote: There are cases, but those cases are not going to be lynched anyway as now it's either Hopeless or Rofl. I unfortunately cannot vote for Hopeless as only thing he's done is gone maybe too far with attacking you, otherwise I completely agree with him. On June 27 2012 08:53 Esspen wrote: ##Vote Hopeless1der What was that? I gave you the benefit of doubt at first, but I'm gonna be looking at you very closely again. | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
Some of this has already been covered, but I'll just consolidate it all in this post. On the policy: I believe we should try to identify and lynch mafia first. Simple policy, but with great results. States the obvious with his very first post On June 25 2012 20:23 Esspen wrote: I do not get all that "lynch the liar" for several reasons. Townies obviously cannot know whether someone lied or not, only clues they can grasp onto are inconsistencies and vagueness. The only players who know the truth are scums and if the whole game is going to revole around us identifying who lied, mafia is going to win rather easy. Mafia can win just by ereasing their memory that they are mafia and simply playing with a mindset of a townie, leaving townies lyinching each other as they find innocent inconsistencies in their speeches (ie posts). Secondly, even blues have to lie in order to survive. But that also means when I say "I am mafia." you should lynch me no matter whether it is true or not, as if I'm telling the truth, you just lynched mafia, and if it is not true you lynched liar. (breaks my heart  )But I believe we should try to identify and lynch blues first, confusing mafia and leaving them vulnerable... We've already talked about how anti town this tactic would be. On June 26 2012 02:43 Esspen wrote: To be quite honest, just to see reactions of people. And maybe catch some scummy behaviour. Btw I must say that Release seems to be the scum as all reacted to my post it the form of "wtf? please explain" etc. wanting some explanation, yet Release is the only one actually attacking. Goes with the flow of the thread by casting yet more suspicion on release, saying he was "the only one attacking" him for that post regarding blues. This isn't true, as he'd raised most active posters' alarm bells, and release's reaction was not any more aggressive than the others. + Show Spoiler + On June 27 2012 04:12 Esspen wrote: Originally I planned to vote for either BioSC or Release, but now reading posts about Hopeless makes me want to lynch him too... anyway I'll probably vote for what majority votes, no sense in a No-lynch. Case on BioSC: His posts before someone accused him as lurker: So far he has said the obvious, embraced the discussion (while not adding anything to it - this is just weird) and answered a question. Contribution to town - zero. But after he gets mentioned as a possible target for lynch for being a lurker, he gets active and tries to put the focus on the other lurker who is even more lurkerious. He also mentiones he's not lurker which can only mean that he saw himself being active - might indicate that he wrote such vacuous things for a reason. Also he attacks the one who proposed him for the lynch. His posts after getting accused for being a lurker: Now on Release: There is just something wrong with him. Seems like a smart guy, might as well be the most heard one so noone would assume he's mafia. Why would anyone assume that the most outgoing person is mafia? That's it on him. Anyway we should all reach some consensus for whom to vote, and then all vote for him. Then this post, where he basically rehashes everything hopeless1der said about biosc with reworded commentary. Also note how he basically spams biosc's entire filter in this post towards the end with no commentary at all, padding out his post and making it look like he's contributing more than he really has. Note also that he is very indecisive; he planned to vote for biosc or release, then hopeless1der, makes a case against biosc and then votes for roflwaffles55 I know we gave him the benefit of the doubt after that bizarre post saying we should lynch blues, but he can't hide behind this cover forever. I think this is something we should deal with now rather than later. For now I'm voting for him, but this is of course subject to change if a better target presents themselves. Jinglehell, I might have something to add to your vivax case later, but I have to rush now, so it'll have to wait. ## Vote Esspen | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
Massive screw up in the second last paragraph, it's meant to read: Note also that he is very indecisive; he planned to vote for biosc or release, then hopeless1der, makes a case against biosc and then votes for hopeless1der despite saying he wouldn't. On June 27 2012 08:14 Esspen wrote: There are cases, but those cases are not going to be lynched anyway as now it's either Hopeless or Rofl. I unfortunately cannot vote for Hopeless as only thing he's done is gone maybe too far with attacking you, otherwise I completely agree with him. This is his last post btw. | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
@Jinglehell, while you raise an interesting point about him making his presence known in a relatively inactive game to appear towny, my case doesn't actually revolve around any of that. My case against Vivax: The post that made me suspicious of Vivax was this one: On June 27 2012 19:25 Vivax wrote: Esspen voted for hopeless when rofl was set to lynch, as already mentioned. If one of them is scum, the other most likely is, too. With the current information available, I would go for one of them. Also remember that posting cases during the night can make you a target for scum. Speaking of it, I think I'm the designed nightkill simply cause noone suspected me yet. Townies who are believed to be townies are dangerous for scum, and I didn't see any blue role vibes for them to use yet, so they don't have many alternatives. What exactly makes you so special Vivax? If your definition of a townie believed to be a townie is someone who hadn't had suspicion cast on them yet, then at the time of that post, dNa, keirathi, JieXian and myself all fit the bill. Why would you be the only candidate for being shot? I think you're trying to make yourself look more towny than you really are. Now for this next part I'd like people to follow his filter as they read my post, because there are too many suspicious posts for me to place here: The other thing that I find suspicious is your habit of going after easy targets, and insistence in voting for JingleHell over esspen. Your basis for voting rofl in the first place was his lurking. Jinglehell has already posted way more than rofl has, yet you still prefer his lynch over esspen because you think a Jinglehell lynch would yield more information. We now know rofl didn't post because of RL issues; he was replaced. He wasn't lurking with a mafia agenda. His replacement is now active, not lurking. Why are you still going after him over esspen or dNa? Your main target now is Keirathi. Again, the easy target because he hasn't done anything in awhile. But again, why Keirathi over esspen or dNa? Since the policy discussion on day 1, Keirathi didn't even vote, and should have been modkilled/replaced by now. Keirathi is not lurking with a mafia agenda either. I'm thinking you're trying to leave the esspen vs jinglehell lynch alive as long as possible by going for Keirathi. This way, town will have to deal with the potential relationship between esspen and jinglehell and lynch one, when YOU know that neither one is mafia. He put a lot of effort into discussing policy the entire game (look at how detailed and thorough his first post in the game is compared to the rest), and has not made a single case against anyone. I don't count casting suspicion all over the place (especially with regards to esspen and jingle) and then wanting to go after keirathi for lurking (which i already pointed out as flawed) as making cases. Lastly: + Show Spoiler + On June 28 2012 20:41 Vivax wrote: If we kill Esspen and he is scum, then JingleHell most likely is scum, too. (For being protected by Esspen against his own beliefs) If we kill Esspen and he is townie, then JingleHell can be anything. If we kill Jinglehell and he is scum, then Esspen is either scum or a misled townie with confusing playstyle. If we kill Jinglehell and he is town, then Esspen probably isn't scum cause scum would have known Jinglehell (roflwaffle55) was town, and wouldn't have had to vote like that. I still find these options to be risky overall, so I went on with looking at other information: Let's have a look at the nightkill, scum has to be sloppy to use it to kill people suspecting them openly. They would rather use nightkills to cast suspicion upon others. However, in this case, Release had a lot of interesting interactions at the start: -He was the first to suspect Hopeless1der -dNa was the first to suspect Release -immediately after, Keirathi put his FoS on him aswell based on the same argument dNa used (using votes so early isn't good, they said.) + Show Spoiler + Ok, I got suspicious about Keirathi here, so I had a quick look at his filter, and -Keirathi tried to put doubt on the most active townie soon and only after another one did. -He doesn't post anything suspicious about Release on his own, instead he tries to encourage more policy discussion. When he's done with that, he suddenly drops his Release FoS cause 'he's putting himself too much into the limelight for a townie'. After dropping the FoS, he immediately follows other townies into the attention switch onto Esspen. Keirathi: Bandwagony, really weak contributions, tries to blend in, keeps activity to a minimum. - JieXian posted a case against Release. - After the lynch, Release called out BioSC for his criticism of high activity. No real threat for Bio here yet. Then, he got killed. I'd like to hear some more regarding Release's death and especially Keirathi. Latter has a very passive, safe playstyle, the mafiavibes are strong with this one. FoS: Keirathi You can't speculate on night kills like this. I could just as easily say mafia killed the people who WERE suspecting them openly because they figure people would never think they'd do something that obvious. I believe prompting discussion about night kills like this (half of that whole post) and your constant focusing on "lurkers" who aren't actually lurking in a scummy fashion is an attempt at confusing town and stifling useful discussion. For now, I am getting off esspen and going for you Vivax | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
I'm thinking you're trying to leave the esspen vs jinglehell lynch alive as long as possible by going for Keirathi. This way, town will have to deal with the potential relationship between esspen and jinglehell and lynch one later in the game, when YOU know that neither one is mafia. | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On June 29 2012 11:11 dNa wrote: I really enjoy where you put out all the reasoning behind my vote and just quoted the one thing that does not 100% point into esspen's direction, although part of it does. really great manipulation in this post, i'll give you that. to your points against vivax i'm only seeing alot of "metagaming" on your end, no actual tells in this game. in regards to your points about Esspen i agree, this is one thing not many scum players would have done... then again maybe he saw that after the history he has gotten in this channel, he has lost his value as a scum asset and therefore - after consolidating with his teammates, decided to make this move to: 1. appear not scummy for once 2. increase the amount of attention in regards to Vivax's case. If indeed esspen is scum (and is now seen as a liability to his team) and vivax is town, he could very well just be adding another vote to vivax to force the lynch, not caring that he will be up next if the flip reveals vivax is town, hence his fearlessness in saying that we should lynch him should vivax flip town to give himself town cred (what do you think of this Miltonkram? This was your soft defense of him after all). Even though I've switched to pressuring Vivax now, I'm still very suspicious of esspen; I feel that my original case against him from a few days ago is still valid, and what I've discussed here doesn't help improve my opinion of him. However... Vivax, as it is, I cannot change my vote from you, because I haven't read your secret defense post. Again, I sincerely did want to, because I did agree with you that it was hard not to target lurkers considering that amount of activity in the thread at that point. It was that post I highlighted in my case (where you said you thought you were the most towny and therefore most likely to be shot) and your choice in exactly which lurkers to target that pushed me to making a case on you. I will try to get online before the deadline to read it, and if it is convincing enough, change my vote accordingly. | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
##Vote Vivax | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
On June 29 2012 16:15 JieXian wrote: WTF? You start the post attacking and linking Bio and Vivax together and end by putting the 2 people who are most likely to be lynched on the line? To gain what? You don't make any sense Esspen.................................... For now you're next on my list after Vivax. I'm giving you the BOTD for now in abscence of much evidence but HOLY SHIT that really sounds like a scumslip: How the hell can you be so dead sure of yourself? That defense of Esspen isn't a defense at all imo, everyone knows both of them are on the chopping block either way. However if Esspen is scum you won't be feeling good about yourself. So I'm not linking both of you together as scum. Rather I see it as a pretentious defense of Esspen for townie cred since he's probably going to die anyways and you would know that he's townie. If both Vivax and Esspen flip townie I'm going to hunt for Milton. (Unless of course either Bio or Dna flip scum) ok I'm quite worried about dying now so IF I GET SHOT TONIGHT FUCKIGN HUNT MILTON DOWN If I'm wrong and I know it's a long shot with a lot of ifs, Milton sorry for being crazy. If either 3 of them from your list flip scum you're gonna get some townie cred from me. This is another take regarding esspen that I had considered earlier. That nagging feeling that in fact esspen is town and we're all being played by mafia. However, JieXian, I disagree with you holding Miltonkram's confidence against him. Him saying that he feels "pretty good about the game" is a rather trivial remark. I think we both agree that his soft defense of esspen may warrant further discussion though, but that is for another day I think. | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
## Vote JingleHell | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
On June 29 2012 23:18 JingleHell wrote: So a false roleclaim and a false accusation is your "perfect" proof? Again, an effort to contravene the weight of evidence based on trying to force a reaction. I suppose, Vivax, that on night 1, you checked every single individual who was going to make a case against you today, and everyone is scum, right? Tell me, out of your "scumlist" you posted earlier, of listed in that order, why would you not have listed or weighted the names differently? Why would you discuss lynching for information that you already have and aren't uncomfortable giving out with a roleclaim? Something doesn't add up here, so I'm going to accuse you of a false roleclaim to get your head off the chopping block. Jinglehell, the DT is meant to play like a normal town player. He is allowed to have a scumlist, based on relationships he believes exists between players. It can be argued that a relationship exists between Miltonkram, Esspen and yourself, for instance. He doesn't need to check a person before making a case against them. People would then be asking why he is so slow to make cases or confirm his position, and could make others supicious of his true role. Also, the way he formatted the list is something that is trivial at best IMO. Esspen, same points apply to you. He is allowed to accuse more than one person even though he has a positive check on one. His decision to vote keirathi is strange, I'll admit, and hopefully he can explain it before I sleep. However, I'm still leaving my vote on you jinglehell. | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
On June 30 2012 00:11 JieXian wrote: Vivax I'm ready to give you the BOTD and unvote you since I mainly voted you to get because you were really irritated me by wanting to post after feeling threathened, if you can clarify a few things: Why are you as a DT asking to be killed? Especially since you didn't breadcrumb anything as insurance? And that gives me seeeeeeeeeeeerious doubts about for roleclaim right there. Why the hell delay if you knew he was scum? | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
On July 01 2012 09:18 JingleHell wrote: Well, answering that requires that we understand what the scum were thinking. We don't, so all we can do is drive ourselves into a state of paranoia trying to metagame the people who know more than us. The best thing we can do is try to find the case where Milton being dead is beneficial to the scum. Look at his discussions, look at his thought process, look at other people's thought processes about him. Time to dive into the filters and start trying to piece things together, IMO. + Show Spoiler + On July 01 2012 09:30 JingleHell wrote: Milton calls Keirathi scummy. Which was something Vivax also thought before the OMGUS against me exploded into a rather unfortunate shitstorm. + Show Spoiler + On June 30 2012 07:59 Miltonkram wrote: Keirathi, the question doesn't come down to "what does town lose if player X is telling the truth." It comes down to who you think is scum. The fact that you acknowledge that there is a decent case against him but you does not reflect well on your alignment. Here is why I'm voting Vivax over JingleHell: Vivax's play has been incredibly scummy, JingleHell's has not. It's that simple. On June 30 2012 08:02 Miltonkram wrote: EBWOP: "The fact that you acknowledge that there is a decent case against him but you don't vote for him does not reflect well on your alignment." Keirathi, of course, was right in the thick of a lot of the hot points of that mess, and now he's trying to discuss policy when we're in a world of trouble numerically. Milton's other suspicion mentioned at one point... Bear in mind, even though yesterday went terribly, Milton was one of the few people really trying to consider the cases, and look at alternatives even after it started exploding. This isn't even a read, this is ONLY Milton's last couple of times saying someone looked scummy, which gives us a place to start looking. After the debacle, I'm going to be as methodical as possible to avoid a town loss because of another OMGUS shouting match. These are only highlights, please read filters and help with this, the last thing we want is for scum to poke and prod us into a horrid bandwagon. JingleHell, I feel like your second post is doing exactly what you cautioned against in your first post: metagaming the people who know more than us. Besides, I don't think Milton's point against keirathi holds any weight anymore, considering how Vivax flipped. On July 01 2012 10:22 Keirathi wrote: While I agree that we have to find some credible evidence to decide on who to lynch eventually, it's pretty counter-productive to discuss it today if we do decide to no-lynch. If we have even the slightest evidence against someone, and lay it out, then decide to no-lynch and they are in fact town, then there is virtually 0% chance that the mafia night-kills that person, which just leads to more suspicion towards them the next day, giving mafia a stronger case to get them lynched and win the game. No-lynching gives us one less person to have to try to build a case against. Like I said, its not that I don't agree with you, its just that no-lynching is our best solution, and until it happens, any information we disclose can give mafia ammunition to use during the next day. This might be true if it wasn't for one factor: Esspen. There is already evidence against him (and 2 votes currently against him from NrGmonk and dNa). We have to come to a consensus regarding him as soon as possible. He has been suspected the entire game so far and with good reason. If we decide on a no lynch, people will still be arguing about him the next day and mafia knows it. As you said, they won't shoot him; he's too valuable an asset for them if he's town (granted at this point even if he is mafia, he could still be considered an asset, just look at how many cases have been made against him or revolve around him, and he is STILL alive with no mafia lynched). If you want to no lynch, this point, combined with JieXian's points, must be considered. I also feel we are wasting our nights because we are too afraid of posting some revolutionary new idea or case that will get us shot. If it is posted and gains enough momentum during the night with enough people agreeing, I don't see why mafia would choose to shoot that person over any other player who agreed. This no lynch is something that we could definitely have discussed in the night. Keirathi, you could've posted your no lynch idea earlier in the night for others to discuss. Had we reached a consensus before the day started, I see no reason for mafia to target you over any other player. Even if we did not reach a consensus during the night, your idea and posts during the night would still have been there for us to reflect on while discussing a no lynch. Anyway, I am opposed to a no lynch for the above mentioned reasons for now, and am very likely to vote for Esspen. | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
On July 02 2012 12:40 Keirathi wrote: No. That is exactly the opposite of concrete. Does he have the most compelling case against him? Certainly. Does that make it a concrete case? Definitely not. Think about our judicial system. Everything you quoted is circumstantial evidence. Its probably enough to convince a jury of our peers of the defendants guilt, but it is very much not guaranteed. Think about it like this: if you assume that he is mafia, then those quotes can easily feel like indicators of that. But what if you assume he is town? Now, I agree that he probably still has the strongest individual case against him. But it is NOT concrete. But, our only hope for concrete evidence at this point are credible blue role claims, and the slim chance that they actually have useful information. And claiming them during the day today would just be suicide, hence my whole no-lynch policy. What exactly does a mass blue role claim achieve? Nothing. Medic: Only knows as much as the rest of town. Veteran: Same as above, at this stage; there has been a night kill each night so far. Jailkeeper: Also only knows as much as the rest of town at this stage. Vigilante: Dead The ONLY role that would provide us with more information is the detective, and we don't even know if we have one. So please clarify exactly what concrete information would be gained from a mass role claim? You are taking the risk that we actually have a detective, which is not "concrete". You would need EVERYONE to actually trust the role claims if we go ahead with your no lynch in order to get some "confirmed" town. Also: + Show Spoiler + If we have even the slightest evidence against someone, and lay it out, then decide to no-lynch and they are in fact town, then there is virtually 0% chance that the mafia night-kills that person, which just leads to more suspicion towards them the next day, giving mafia a stronger case to get them lynched and win the game. To which I replied: + Show Spoiler + This might be true if it wasn't for one factor: Esspen. There is already evidence against him (and 2 votes currently against him from NrGmonk and dNa). We have to come to a consensus regarding him as soon as possible. He has been suspected the entire game so far and with good reason. If we decide on a no lynch, people will still be arguing about him the next day and mafia knows it. As you said, they won't shoot him; he's too valuable an asset for them if he's town (granted at this point even if he is mafia, he could still be considered an asset, just look at how many cases have been made against him or revolve around him, and he is STILL alive with no mafia lynched). If you want to no lynch, this point, combined with JieXian's points, must be considered. You didn't even address that post, so how can you hope to convince others if you don't even defend the flaws in your idea? + Show Spoiler + It seems that everyone is against the no-lynch then role-claim idea. I really don't understand, but whatever. I'm not going to keep defending the idea over and over and over again. You can't just propose an idea and expect us all to go along with it if you don't even address the points made against it. Or maybe you just didn't read my post, I don't know. | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
The repeat votes on the mislynches go to BioSC, rofl/JingleHell, and Esspen. Turns out all of them were in Vivax's list, but I'm not really sure how much stock we can put into that. It does seem fishy that rofl/Jingle had a large number of votes both days, and got out of it with an Esspen vote change. However, Jingle has his vote on Esspen right now. Has the mafia decided to give up one of their own already? Or is it possible that Esspen is just playing badly and mafia sees a chance to railroad him? IMO Esspen is still the best target out of those 3. I was actually getting suspicious of BioSC, who hasn't said much at all recently, but then I realised yesterday that it was his birthday (he had a birthday icon while I looked through his filter), so I'm not sure if this is really lurking with a mafia agenda or not. I'm not sure about JingleHell, but Esspen's last minute vote switches are either an attempt to save a mafia JingleHell from a lynch, or a continuous attempt at setting up suspicions. If he is a poor town player who just doesn't care (if he is a town player I was ok with the poor posting since it's a newbie game, but that last post was just in poor form), then I'm sorry, but he will still be causing problems for the next day if we leave him alive. | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
can we get a clarification of the jailkeeper role? If a member of the mafia is jailed, does the mafia team's night shot still go through? | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
##Vote no lynch | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
 | ||
| ||
