|
On July 21 2010 05:56 DarthThienAn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2010 05:51 Pandain wrote:On July 21 2010 05:46 DarthThienAn wrote:
Actually, the mafia made a huge mistake - one of their hits failed, or they stacked their hits on Foolishness, a townie. A smart/good player, but only 1 townie nonetheless. The less people there are, the greater their voting power, it's stupid to stack on night 1. So to me, the statement IS false, but the reason why it's suspicious is that no one would ever genuinely say that -> mafia. Haha, you're right about that mistake. However, I thought it had been determined that D3 was also hit but protected by a medic. So they didn't stack their hits, one of their hits simply failed. And the more important thing is why would no one say that? Heck, I might say that. "Hey the mafia are doing pretty good." Just to be sure when I'm voting, please explain more. + Show Spoiler +If Subversion IS mafia, i'm so going to kill myself. There's the possibility that d3 is a mafia faking taking a hit. It's low chance, but not 0% so I didn't leave it out. Other than that, he's either a veteran and/or got medic protection. What do you mean? My thoughts: Mafia FAILED last night strategically. Subversion was NOT being sarcastic/joking (look at his post). So why would he say that? Furthermore, even if the mafia HAD failed, saying that "mafia aren't making too many mistakes" is an extremely odd statement to make. Sure, it's not the best lead, but it's better than me, and I'm willing to let BB redeem himself if he happens to be a terrible townie. Subversion, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be on the path to correction at all.
I don't know... I am leaning with Pandain here. Subversion is a brand new player who does not know what to expect in these games. I can see him think... "How do you catch mafia? You watch for mistakes! Have we caught any? Nope. Ah - so thus far they aren't making too many mistakes."
I see no huge red flag. That said, he does not strike me as someone useful for the town so I am OK losing him if there are no better candidates.
|
On July 21 2010 06:09 citi.zen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2010 05:56 DarthThienAn wrote:On July 21 2010 05:51 Pandain wrote:On July 21 2010 05:46 DarthThienAn wrote:
Actually, the mafia made a huge mistake - one of their hits failed, or they stacked their hits on Foolishness, a townie. A smart/good player, but only 1 townie nonetheless. The less people there are, the greater their voting power, it's stupid to stack on night 1. So to me, the statement IS false, but the reason why it's suspicious is that no one would ever genuinely say that -> mafia. Haha, you're right about that mistake. However, I thought it had been determined that D3 was also hit but protected by a medic. So they didn't stack their hits, one of their hits simply failed. And the more important thing is why would no one say that? Heck, I might say that. "Hey the mafia are doing pretty good." Just to be sure when I'm voting, please explain more. + Show Spoiler +If Subversion IS mafia, i'm so going to kill myself. There's the possibility that d3 is a mafia faking taking a hit. It's low chance, but not 0% so I didn't leave it out. Other than that, he's either a veteran and/or got medic protection. What do you mean? My thoughts: Mafia FAILED last night strategically. Subversion was NOT being sarcastic/joking (look at his post). So why would he say that? Furthermore, even if the mafia HAD failed, saying that "mafia aren't making too many mistakes" is an extremely odd statement to make. Sure, it's not the best lead, but it's better than me, and I'm willing to let BB redeem himself if he happens to be a terrible townie. Subversion, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be on the path to correction at all. I don't know... I am leaning with Pandain here. Subversion is a brand new player who does not know what to expect in these games. I can see him think... "How do you catch mafia? You watch for mistakes! Have we caught any? Nope. Ah - so thus far they aren't making too many mistakes." I see no huge red flag. That said, he does not strike me as someone useful for the town so I am OK losing him if there are no better candidates.
No huge red flag, but it's better than BB and myself. ^_^.
|
On July 21 2010 06:09 citi.zen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2010 05:56 DarthThienAn wrote:On July 21 2010 05:51 Pandain wrote:On July 21 2010 05:46 DarthThienAn wrote:
Actually, the mafia made a huge mistake - one of their hits failed, or they stacked their hits on Foolishness, a townie. A smart/good player, but only 1 townie nonetheless. The less people there are, the greater their voting power, it's stupid to stack on night 1. So to me, the statement IS false, but the reason why it's suspicious is that no one would ever genuinely say that -> mafia. Haha, you're right about that mistake. However, I thought it had been determined that D3 was also hit but protected by a medic. So they didn't stack their hits, one of their hits simply failed. And the more important thing is why would no one say that? Heck, I might say that. "Hey the mafia are doing pretty good." Just to be sure when I'm voting, please explain more. + Show Spoiler +If Subversion IS mafia, i'm so going to kill myself. There's the possibility that d3 is a mafia faking taking a hit. It's low chance, but not 0% so I didn't leave it out. Other than that, he's either a veteran and/or got medic protection. What do you mean? My thoughts: Mafia FAILED last night strategically. Subversion was NOT being sarcastic/joking (look at his post). So why would he say that? Furthermore, even if the mafia HAD failed, saying that "mafia aren't making too many mistakes" is an extremely odd statement to make. Sure, it's not the best lead, but it's better than me, and I'm willing to let BB redeem himself if he happens to be a terrible townie. Subversion, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be on the path to correction at all. I don't know... I am leaning with Pandain here. Subversion is a brand new player who does not know what to expect in these games. I can see him think... "How do you catch mafia? You watch for mistakes! Have we caught any? Nope. Ah - so thus far they aren't making too many mistakes." I see no huge red flag. That said, he does not strike me as someone useful for the town so I am OK losing him if there are no better candidates.
Subversion isn't that new. He played in BM's Harry Potter mafia, not sure if he's played in others... don't discount someones skill because they haven't played mafia on these boards before.
|
On July 21 2010 06:13 DarthThienAn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2010 06:09 citi.zen wrote:On July 21 2010 05:56 DarthThienAn wrote:On July 21 2010 05:51 Pandain wrote:On July 21 2010 05:46 DarthThienAn wrote:
Actually, the mafia made a huge mistake - one of their hits failed, or they stacked their hits on Foolishness, a townie. A smart/good player, but only 1 townie nonetheless. The less people there are, the greater their voting power, it's stupid to stack on night 1. So to me, the statement IS false, but the reason why it's suspicious is that no one would ever genuinely say that -> mafia. Haha, you're right about that mistake. However, I thought it had been determined that D3 was also hit but protected by a medic. So they didn't stack their hits, one of their hits simply failed. And the more important thing is why would no one say that? Heck, I might say that. "Hey the mafia are doing pretty good." Just to be sure when I'm voting, please explain more. + Show Spoiler +If Subversion IS mafia, i'm so going to kill myself. There's the possibility that d3 is a mafia faking taking a hit. It's low chance, but not 0% so I didn't leave it out. Other than that, he's either a veteran and/or got medic protection. What do you mean? My thoughts: Mafia FAILED last night strategically. Subversion was NOT being sarcastic/joking (look at his post). So why would he say that? Furthermore, even if the mafia HAD failed, saying that "mafia aren't making too many mistakes" is an extremely odd statement to make. Sure, it's not the best lead, but it's better than me, and I'm willing to let BB redeem himself if he happens to be a terrible townie. Subversion, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be on the path to correction at all. I don't know... I am leaning with Pandain here. Subversion is a brand new player who does not know what to expect in these games. I can see him think... "How do you catch mafia? You watch for mistakes! Have we caught any? Nope. Ah - so thus far they aren't making too many mistakes." I see no huge red flag. That said, he does not strike me as someone useful for the town so I am OK losing him if there are no better candidates. No huge red flag, but it's better than BB and myself. ^_^.
Thanks for the honest comment, I understand where you are coming from.
I am a bit puzzled as to the rest of the players though. Every time someone screams out a name for some trivial reason, there is a voting train:
BB is playing bad, omg! DTA is playing different!!! Subversion said the mafia made no big mistakes thus far, wow!I Hyperbola did... whatever he did, he deserved it!
Voting like this can turn out OK if you are lucky, but in most cases does not really help the town. Zero cost to cast a vote I guess... if you are wrong... so was everyone else... if you are right... ZOMG THIS KID IS PRO!!!!
|
On July 21 2010 06:27 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2010 06:09 citi.zen wrote:On July 21 2010 05:56 DarthThienAn wrote:On July 21 2010 05:51 Pandain wrote:On July 21 2010 05:46 DarthThienAn wrote:
Actually, the mafia made a huge mistake - one of their hits failed, or they stacked their hits on Foolishness, a townie. A smart/good player, but only 1 townie nonetheless. The less people there are, the greater their voting power, it's stupid to stack on night 1. So to me, the statement IS false, but the reason why it's suspicious is that no one would ever genuinely say that -> mafia. Haha, you're right about that mistake. However, I thought it had been determined that D3 was also hit but protected by a medic. So they didn't stack their hits, one of their hits simply failed. And the more important thing is why would no one say that? Heck, I might say that. "Hey the mafia are doing pretty good." Just to be sure when I'm voting, please explain more. + Show Spoiler +If Subversion IS mafia, i'm so going to kill myself. There's the possibility that d3 is a mafia faking taking a hit. It's low chance, but not 0% so I didn't leave it out. Other than that, he's either a veteran and/or got medic protection. What do you mean? My thoughts: Mafia FAILED last night strategically. Subversion was NOT being sarcastic/joking (look at his post). So why would he say that? Furthermore, even if the mafia HAD failed, saying that "mafia aren't making too many mistakes" is an extremely odd statement to make. Sure, it's not the best lead, but it's better than me, and I'm willing to let BB redeem himself if he happens to be a terrible townie. Subversion, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be on the path to correction at all. I don't know... I am leaning with Pandain here. Subversion is a brand new player who does not know what to expect in these games. I can see him think... "How do you catch mafia? You watch for mistakes! Have we caught any? Nope. Ah - so thus far they aren't making too many mistakes." I see no huge red flag. That said, he does not strike me as someone useful for the town so I am OK losing him if there are no better candidates. Subversion isn't that new. He played in BM's Harry Potter mafia, not sure if he's played in others... don't discount someones skill because they haven't played mafia on these boards before.
I am not discounting his skills. I am saying I can understand a new player thinking "the mafia have not made big mistakes thus far". That is all. Playing 100x games matters much less than thinking clearly for yourself.
|
On July 21 2010 06:28 citi.zen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2010 06:13 DarthThienAn wrote:On July 21 2010 06:09 citi.zen wrote:On July 21 2010 05:56 DarthThienAn wrote:On July 21 2010 05:51 Pandain wrote:On July 21 2010 05:46 DarthThienAn wrote:
Actually, the mafia made a huge mistake - one of their hits failed, or they stacked their hits on Foolishness, a townie. A smart/good player, but only 1 townie nonetheless. The less people there are, the greater their voting power, it's stupid to stack on night 1. So to me, the statement IS false, but the reason why it's suspicious is that no one would ever genuinely say that -> mafia. Haha, you're right about that mistake. However, I thought it had been determined that D3 was also hit but protected by a medic. So they didn't stack their hits, one of their hits simply failed. And the more important thing is why would no one say that? Heck, I might say that. "Hey the mafia are doing pretty good." Just to be sure when I'm voting, please explain more. + Show Spoiler +If Subversion IS mafia, i'm so going to kill myself. There's the possibility that d3 is a mafia faking taking a hit. It's low chance, but not 0% so I didn't leave it out. Other than that, he's either a veteran and/or got medic protection. What do you mean? My thoughts: Mafia FAILED last night strategically. Subversion was NOT being sarcastic/joking (look at his post). So why would he say that? Furthermore, even if the mafia HAD failed, saying that "mafia aren't making too many mistakes" is an extremely odd statement to make. Sure, it's not the best lead, but it's better than me, and I'm willing to let BB redeem himself if he happens to be a terrible townie. Subversion, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be on the path to correction at all. I don't know... I am leaning with Pandain here. Subversion is a brand new player who does not know what to expect in these games. I can see him think... "How do you catch mafia? You watch for mistakes! Have we caught any? Nope. Ah - so thus far they aren't making too many mistakes." I see no huge red flag. That said, he does not strike me as someone useful for the town so I am OK losing him if there are no better candidates. No huge red flag, but it's better than BB and myself. ^_^. Thanks for the honest comment, I understand where you are coming from. I am a bit puzzled as to the rest of the players though. Every time someone screams out a name for some trivial reason, there is a voting train: BB is playing bad, omg! DTA is playing different!!! Subversion said the mafia made no big mistakes thus far, wow!I Hyperbola did... whatever he did, he deserved it! Voting like this can turn out OK if you are lucky, but in most cases does not really help the town. Zero cost to cast a vote I guess... if you are wrong... so was everyone else... if you are right... ZOMG THIS KID IS PRO!!!!
This. It's not a good tactic as town to just bandwagon everyone who looks suspicious.
Because of this, and because nobody has yet managed to confince me that anyone is mafia, for now I will
##Vote: Abstain
at least until somebody either scumslips (lol citi.zen in GF mafia) or people uncover enough evidence against a candidate to convince me.
|
Actually, I've begun to grow suspect of a new villian. I was unsure about it now, but feel like I've gathered enough evidence to share it so then we can debate whether or not he is to be suspected of mafia.
Chaosers vote for day 1
:On July 19 2010 00:50 chaoser wrote:
##vote abstain
for now, didn't want to get modkilled
For now, he says. Implying he's going to change it later. Now as I think it's been pretty implied that abstaining was the worse decision, just has vibes of mafia in it.
Then look at this, a later post.
On July 19 2010 03:46 chaoser wrote:
It's already been established that not lynching someone on the first day is a horrible decision, why are you still pushing for it?
What the fuck? You've just majorly contradicted yourself. Especially since you never changed your vote from abstain.
Just to note this for the future, in case it turns out that BB was innocent.
On July 19 2010 09:05 chaoser wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 19 2010 08:36 BrownBear wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 08:08 Hyperbola wrote:Brown BearOn July 19 2010 06:29 BrownBear wrote:
Ahhhh shti!
I am back, sorry. Is it too late to avoid modkill? On July 19 2010 06:30 BrownBear wrote:
###Vote: Hyperbola On July 19 2010 06:31 BrownBear wrote:
Whew, looks like I got back in time. Sorry about that. Time to go read the thread. Really dude? Jumping on a bandwagon before even reading the thread? My bad, didn't realize you could abstain. Should have done that, but at this point it's not like it really matters :/ So basically you just said: "lawl, i messed up/made a mistake but oh well, not going to change." Anyone else find that suspicious?
In addition, you yourself disagree with your own vote. I find that suscipious.
On July 19 2010 22:44 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +Vote Count:
6] Hyperbola (Divinek, Pandain, SiNiquity, bumatlarge, BB, Subversion)
4] YoungMinii (XeliN, Amber[LighT, Roffles, Infizzleundibulumizzle)
2] DarthThienAn (d3_crescentia, Pyrrhuloxia)
2] ketomai (citi.zen, lakrismamma)
2] Amber[LighT] (jayme, DarthThienAn),
2[ BloodyC0bbler (~OpZ, Foolishness)
2] LaXerCannon (Misder, citi.zen)
1] citi.zen (rastaban)
1] SiNiquity (Hyperbola)
1] Pandain (BC)
1] Infundibulum (youngminii)
5] abstain (LaXerCannon, tricode, SouthRawrea, Chaoser, protactinium, zeks) Voting ended at 10:10Subversion votes for Hyperbola at 9:16 - "No other clear choice" zeks unvotes Hyperbola, abstains at 8:58 - "Unvote like I promised" Misder unvotes Hyperbola, votes for LaXerCannon at 8:38 - "His posts don't have substance" Fooliahness votes for BC at 8:25 - "Bad vibes" Jayme unvotes Hyperbola, votes Youngminii at 7:53 - "Youngminii has is crazy sketch" BrownBear votes for Hyperbola at 6:30 - "oops mistake, didn't know you could absain, oh well, nothing I can do now."
Those were the votes of people in the last 4 hours, starting with BrownBear's vote for HyperbolaJust putting the info out there
One of his few posts that appear to help the town. However, even with this it is incredibaly skewed. As Zeks said right after this, he's picking out the choice words. In addition, note the italizied part. Possibly still trying to bandwagon BB.
When pointed out by Zeks, he links back to each post but still, the original post is still in suspect. Perhaps he just decided to link to cover up the fact he was leading everyone astray.
On July 20 2010 23:02 chaoser wrote:
And to be truthful, I don;t really believe that BrownBear is townie just from the way he's posting. For the first day he pretty much posts nothing and bandwagons with no real reason. When people point him out of it (that he voted before reading) he goes oh well, it doesn't matter now when it CLEARLY did, the vote ended 6-5. Then, after a whole DAY of people pointing fingers at him he decides to come in and post about vets claiming and basically giving horrible advice. I'm inclined to say he's mafia who fucked up the first day and now he's trying to play dumb townie. Also, his whole ramble about claiming is pushing us off the topic of Subversion's suspicious vote as well as his little statement about how mafia isn't really making mistakes.
I'm not 100% clear on my vote yet but I'm watching BrownBear for now. And I also think we should vote double lynch. It's going to be 52 hours till the next lynch give or take, you guys don't think we'll have more than enough information then?
Damn boi, you really hate brownbear don't you?
Spoilering this as I do with most of my posts, because this is the weakest point and very easily just a coinicidence.
+ Show Spoiler +On July 21 2010 05:49 chaoser wrote:
Does anyone know when day is ending? Tomorrow at 12?
So far the votes have been
Divinek votes for BrownBear at 13:59
DarthThienAn votes Divinek at 13.59
tree.hugger votes Subversion at 14:03
DarthThienAn unvotes Divinek, votes BrownBear at 14:34
d3_crescentia votes DarthThienAn at 14:50
Amber[LighT] votes BrownBear at 22:15
bumatlarge votes DarthThienAn at 22:59
~OpZ~ votes BrownBear at 1:01
rastaban votes BrownBear at 1:59
Misder votes DarthThienAn at 3:18
Tricode votes BrownBear at 4:02
Pyrrhuloxia votes DarthThienAn at 4:57
bumatlarge unvotes DarthThienAn, votes Subversion at 5:25
DarthThienAn unvotes BrownBear, votes Subversion at 5:30
End result:
BrownBear - 5
DarthThienAn - 3
Subversion - 3 Very possible that he just wanted to quote the votes at this specific time so then people checking in will be like "Hey, look at that brownbear. People think he's mafia!"
Finally, this last post is very interesting. It can be taken to mean alot of different things.
On July 21 2010 06:02 chaoser wrote:
Also, I'm going to put in my vote for Subversion. So far I don't know how I feel about BrownBear. At first I wanted to vote him. He's been playing badly and didn't do anything day one. But then at the same time people jumped all over voting for him in the beginning until just recently when people switched to Subversion, or at least it feels like that.
Subversion's little mafia mistake statement is just weird all in all and was part of that voting block (everyone's already mentioned this) so I'll put my vote on him for now but I'll have to see. Still a full day left.
##vote Subversion
After rallying so much against BB, he decides to vote subversion? As other people have mentioned, it is very possible for mafia to start to incite a bandwagon against someone and then just slip out once its started.
+ Show Spoiler +Special thought just for funsies: Chaoser also mentioned the double lynch. It is entirely possible the mafia wants us to use double lynch on both of these people. I was originally agianst BB, but it just seems to me that Chaoser is way for suscipious.
With that, I hereby vote.
###Vote Chaoser.
Other people's thoughts?
|
Crud, also remember (since this isn't specifically stated where it should be) that Chaoser never changed his vote from abstain for day1.
|
Double crud( I am the epitomy of epic fail  )
On July 21 2010 06:53 Pandain wrote:Just to note this for the future, in case it turns out that BB was innocent. Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 09:05 chaoser wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 19 2010 08:36 BrownBear wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 08:08 Hyperbola wrote:Brown BearOn July 19 2010 06:29 BrownBear wrote:
Ahhhh shti!
I am back, sorry. Is it too late to avoid modkill? On July 19 2010 06:30 BrownBear wrote:
###Vote: Hyperbola On July 19 2010 06:31 BrownBear wrote:
Whew, looks like I got back in time. Sorry about that. Time to go read the thread. Really dude? Jumping on a bandwagon before even reading the thread? My bad, didn't realize you could abstain. Should have done that, but at this point it's not like it really matters :/ So basically you just said: "lawl, i messed up/made a mistake but oh well, not going to change." Anyone else find that suspicious?
When I say "just in case BB is innocent." I am saying that chaoser was the one who started the bandwagon.
|
lol, I'mma straight out respond to that.
On July 19 2010 00:50 chaoser wrote:
##vote abstain
for now, didn't want to get modkilled
I got a pm from BM saying please vote, I voted by abstaining. Later on, I couldn't make up my mind on whether I should vote for Hyperbola or not and I didn't want to vote for anyone else because no one else struck me as suspicious. So I decided to abstain. I felt that no one deserved my vote. If i had voted for someone and later somehow that vote ended up painting me as mafia and the only explanation I had was, I didn't want to vote Hyperbola so I voted a random dude, I'd be digging my own grave.
On July 19 2010 03:46 chaoser wrote:
It's already been established that not lynching someone on the first day is a horrible decision, why are you still pushing for it?
How did I contradict myself? I said it would be bad if we all abstained and no one was lynched. Clearly someone was going to be lynched. Just because I vote abstain doesn't mean I didn't want anyone lynched. I didn't contradict myself.
On July 19 2010 09:05 chaoser wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
So basically you just said: "lawl, i messed up/made a mistake but oh well, not going to change." Anyone else find that suspicious?
and no one else has made that claim? I noticed his statement was weird and pointed it out so others could analysis it too. If you've noticed, that's what I do. I organize/point out information so that others can have an easier time thinking about things.
BrownBear votes for Hyperbola at 6:30 - "oops mistake, didn't know you could absain, oh well, nothing I can do now."
Those were the votes of people in the last 4 hours, starting with BrownBear's vote for Hyperbola
Just putting the info out there
How did I disagree with my own vote? I was pointing out that his reasoning is FLAWED. He said he voted Hyperbola cause he didn't know he could abstain and then said, oh well, I'm not going to change. I voted abstain because that was the choice I agreed with most at the time. I didn't think anyone was suspicious enough in my mind that I would want to vote for them and also give a good reason as to why I thought they were suspicious.
On July 20 2010 23:02 chaoser wrote:
And to be truthful, I don;t really believe that BrownBear is townie just from the way he's posting. For the first day he pretty much posts nothing and bandwagons with no real reason. When people point him out of it (that he voted before reading) he goes oh well, it doesn't matter now when it CLEARLY did, the vote ended 6-5. Then, after a whole DAY of people pointing fingers at him he decides to come in and post about vets claiming and basically giving horrible advice. I'm inclined to say he's mafia who fucked up the first day and now he's trying to play dumb townie. Also, his whole ramble about claiming is pushing us off the topic of Subversion's suspicious vote as well as his little statement about how mafia isn't really making mistakes.
I'm not 100% clear on my vote yet but I'm watching BrownBear for now. And I also think we should vote double lynch. It's going to be 52 hours till the next lynch give or take, you guys don't think we'll have more than enough information then?
After the first day had passed, I started to get a better inkling of what was going on and there was information I could work with. I pointed out BrownBear again and tried to be logical about why I thought his actions were suspicious. What's wrong with that?
On July 21 2010 06:02 chaoser wrote:
Also, I'm going to put in my vote for Subversion. So far I don't know how I feel about BrownBear. At first I wanted to vote him. He's been playing badly and didn't do anything day one. But then at the same time people jumped all over voting for him in the beginning until just recently when people switched to Subversion, or at least it feels like that.
Subversion's little mafia mistake statement is just weird all in all and was part of that voting block (everyone's already mentioned this) so I'll put my vote on him for now but I'll have to see. Still a full day left.
##vote Subversion
Please read my post, I 100% explained why I didn't vote BrownBear. I also state I'll have to see about the Subversion vote. He has yet to respond so I'm waiting for that before 100% deciding.
All in all, I don't think I've done anything scummy. You've tried to paint a lot of my actions as scummy even though they weren't. I can't tell if that's because you just came to the wrong conclusion or if you're trying to divert attention away from the BrownBear/Subversion/Darth situation on voting right now.
Maybe you could look at the situation better if I organized all my posts together into one post for you?
|
On July 21 2010 07:00 Pandain wrote:Double crud( I am the epitomy of epic fail ) Show nested quote +On July 21 2010 06:53 Pandain wrote:Just to note this for the future, in case it turns out that BB was innocent. On July 19 2010 09:05 chaoser wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 19 2010 08:36 BrownBear wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 08:08 Hyperbola wrote:Brown BearOn July 19 2010 06:29 BrownBear wrote:
Ahhhh shti!
I am back, sorry. Is it too late to avoid modkill? On July 19 2010 06:30 BrownBear wrote:
###Vote: Hyperbola On July 19 2010 06:31 BrownBear wrote:
Whew, looks like I got back in time. Sorry about that. Time to go read the thread. Really dude? Jumping on a bandwagon before even reading the thread? My bad, didn't realize you could abstain. Should have done that, but at this point it's not like it really matters :/ So basically you just said: "lawl, i messed up/made a mistake but oh well, not going to change." Anyone else find that suspicious? When I say "just in case BB is innocent." I am saying that chaoser was the one who started the bandwagon.
Also, how did I start the bandwagon? I noted what I thought about him but didn't VOTE. How did I start a bandwagon against him? I was posting my own thoughts on the situation and seeing how other people thought about it.
|
I wouldn't go so far as to say chaoser started a bandwagon on me, as others were already against me to begin with. But there's been so much hate against me coming from him.
So. Much.
:'(
|
On July 21 2010 07:31 BrownBear wrote:
I wouldn't go so far as to say chaoser started a bandwagon on me, as others were already against me to begin with. But there's been so much hate against me coming from him.
So. Much.
:'(
Hey, look on the bright side, at least I didn't vote for you =]. I'll go buy you a snow cone later if you're not mafia.
|
On July 21 2010 07:10 chaoser wrote:lol, I'mma straight out respond to that. Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 00:50 chaoser wrote:
##vote abstain
for now, didn't want to get modkilled I got a pm from BM saying please vote, I voted by abstaining. Later on, I couldn't make up my mind on whether I should vote for Hyperbola or not and I didn't want to vote for anyone else because no one else struck me as suspicious. So I decided to abstain. I felt that no one deserved my vote. If i had voted for someone and later somehow that vote ended up painting me as mafia and the only explanation I had was, I didn't want to vote Hyperbola so I voted a random dude, I'd be digging my own grave.
You vote an inactive in order to get them to talk more, you vote someone who you think has to justify a certain response. But you don't just abstain because you don't know who to vote for,
But then you don't say to youngmini, who was abstaining for the same reason you were (We have to be sure), that he's stupid.
On July 21 2010 07:10 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 03:46 chaoser wrote:
It's already been established that not lynching someone on the first day is a horrible decision, why are you still pushing for it? How did I contradict myself? I said it would be bad if we all abstained and no one was lynched. Clearly someone was going to be lynched. Just because I vote abstain doesn't mean I didn't want anyone lynched. I didn't contradict myself.
Yes. Yes it does mean you contradited yourself. You said it was bad if we abstain, and then you abstained. And Yes, if you vote abstain it means you didn't want anyone lynched. What else does it mean?
On July 21 2010 07:10 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 09:05 chaoser wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
So basically you just said: "lawl, i messed up/made a mistake but oh well, not going to change." Anyone else find that suspicious? and no one else has made that claim? I noticed his statement was weird and pointed it out so others could analysis it too. If you've noticed, that's what I do. I organize/point out information so that others can have an easier time thinking about things.
I'm just noting that you made the claim first. This is all part of my own theory that you wanted the town to double lynch Subversion and Brown Bear. After making sure people were suscipious of Brownbear, you decide to jump on Subversion.
And agian, you did the same thing. You say your going to change the vote from abstain later, but then you don't. You don't even say "Hey, I'm unsure who to lynch. Can (person) please clarify what they mean by this.) And yes you do organize/point out information. But as I point out, it isn't always unbiased.
On July 21 2010 07:10 chaoser wrote:
How did I disagree with my own vote? I was pointing out that his reasoning is FLAWED. He said he voted Hyperbola cause he didn't know he could abstain and then said, oh well, I'm not going to change. I voted abstain because that was the choice I agreed with most at the time. I didn't think anyone was suspicious enough in my mind that I would want to vote for them and also give a good reason as to why I thought they were suspicious.
Mmm... nice. That responds to my argument in no way at all. Maybe you quoted the wrong thing?
With that, please quote MY statements, not yorus. Makes it incredibally hard since I have to scroll up and down and just takes alot of effort.
On July 21 2010 07:10 chaoser wrote:
After the first day had passed, I started to get a better inkling of what was going on and there was information I could work with. I pointed out BrownBear again and tried to be logical about why I thought his actions were suspicious. What's wrong with that?
Its not neccesarily wrong, but this was part of me showing how in almost every post you argued against Brown bear, argue for double lynch and then start to vote Subversion for a silly sentence(which I believe has no bearing that he's mafia). It's just part of my theory that you are trying to get the town to double lynch BB and Subversion.
On July 21 2010 07:10 chaoser wrote:
Please read my post, I 100% explained why I didn't vote BrownBear. I also state I'll have to see about the Subversion vote. He has yet to respond so I'm waiting for that before 100% deciding.
All in all, I don't think I've done anything scummy. You've tried to paint a lot of my actions as scummy even though they weren't. I can't tell if that's because you just came to the wrong conclusion or if you're trying to divert attention away from the BrownBear/Subversion/Darth situation on voting right now.
Maybe you could look at the situation better if I organized all my posts together into one post for you?
Mmmm... I did read your post. That's why i quoted it. So all this time you were arguing agianst BB, even more so than Subversion, and you don't vote against him? But then you change to Subversion because of ONE sentence (not as big as BB's, which I honestly believe would be more convincing that he's mafia.) And you even VOTE for him, despite it seeming that you at the time of you arguing agianst BB you were more convinced than you are now of Subversion. Yet you only vote for Subeversion.
On July 21 2010 07:15 chaoser wrote:
Also, how did I start the bandwagon? I noted what I thought about him but didn't VOTE. How did I start a bandwagon against him? I was posting my own thoughts on the situation and seeing how other people thought about it.
You dont have to vote for someone to start a bandwagon  . But you have been the one who first pointed that out, than probably the one who has been the most active against BB. I would consider that "Starting the bandwagon."
On July 21 2010 07:31 BrownBear wrote:
I wouldn't go so far as to say chaoser started a bandwagon on me, as others were already against me to begin with. But there's been so much hate against me coming from him.
So. Much.
:'(
:'(. Haters gonna' hate. I believe the very first one was Hyperbola, but I think that was just more anger against you. There are a variety of reasons you could've voted for Hyperbola first. Yet Chaoser is the second one after. You're right, perhaps he wasn't the one who "literally" started. But he has definitely been one of, if not the, most active against you.
|
Also, when you respond(As you should, as I may reconsider if you defend yourself adequedtely), please quote my arguments, not the ones I quoted when doing mine.
|
On July 21 2010 07:31 BrownBear wrote:
I wouldn't go so far as to say chaoser started a bandwagon on me, as others were already against me to begin with. But there's been so much hate against me coming from him.
So. Much.
:'(
Actually, I do have one final question for you Brown Bear. Why DID You vote for Hyperbola in the begining.
|
You vote an inactive in order to get them to talk more, you vote someone who you think has to justify a certain response. But you don't just abstain because you don't know who to vote for,
But then you don't say to youngmini, who was abstaining for the same reason you were (We have to be sure), that he's stupid.
I've never voted like that before but I can see where you're coming from. Usually when I vote I just vote for who I actually believe is suspicious. Next time I'll be sure to use my first day's vote to get people to talk.
Also, I don't think I said youngminii was stupid.
Yes. Yes it does mean you contradited yourself. You said it was bad if we abstain, and then you abstained. And Yes, if you vote abstain it means you didn't want anyone lynched. What else does it mean?
I said it was bad to use the strategy of "no-lynch" on the first day, I didn't say it was bad to abstain. If I did I met it as part of the "no-lynch" strategy and not that abstaining by itself is bad. If i really thought abstaining was bad 1) I wouldn't have abstained lol and 2) I would have been vocal about others abstaining that first day.
I'm just noting that you made the claim first. This is all part of my own theory that you wanted the town to double lynch Subversion and Brown Bear. After making sure people were suscipious of Brownbear, you decide to jump on Subversion.
And agian, you did the same thing. You say your going to change the vote from abstain later, but then you don't. You don't even say "Hey, I'm unsure who to lynch. Can (person) please clarify what they mean by this.) And yes you do organize/point out information. But as I point out, it isn't always unbiased.
I don't think I was the first to make the claim and I don't want to double lynch BrownBear and Subversion, that's not even possible, if we vote double lynch today we'd get it the NEXT day in which case, if things are as they are now, either Subversion or BrownBear will have been lynched. Ok so I didn't reaffirm my decision about abstaining the first day. I'll make sure to do it if I continue to believe Subversion is the one I want to vote for after he talks ok?
Mmm... nice. That responds to my argument in no way at all. Maybe you quoted the wrong thing?
With that, please quote MY statements, not yorus. Makes it incredibally hard since I have to scroll up and down and just takes alot of effort .
I don't know what you're referring to and I think I was confused on what you were referring to in your original statement with this line:
In addition, you yourself disagree with your own vote. I find that suscipious.
Mm, I think that's all of it? To conclude, I'm not mafia. And I don't want to continue this thread of conversation. There is more evidence/weird things going on for BrownBear/Subversion than for me at this moment. I'd be more than happy to continue the next day but for now I'd like to focus on the issue that was being talked about before. Right now I feel like I'm just helping you in derailing the thread and so I'd like to continue this conversation in PMs and post those up if people want later.
|
On July 21 2010 07:39 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2010 07:31 BrownBear wrote:
I wouldn't go so far as to say chaoser started a bandwagon on me, as others were already against me to begin with. But there's been so much hate against me coming from him.
So. Much.
:'( Hey, look on the bright side, at least I didn't vote for you =]. I'll go buy you a snow cone later if you're not mafia.
Yaaaaaaay! :D
|
On July 21 2010 07:45 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2010 07:31 BrownBear wrote:
I wouldn't go so far as to say chaoser started a bandwagon on me, as others were already against me to begin with. But there's been so much hate against me coming from him.
So. Much.
:'( Actually, I do have one final question for you Brown Bear. Why DID You vote for Hyperbola in the begining.
1) Forgot mafia had started
2) got PM from BM reminding me that there is a game going on
3) Panicked, ran into the thread and voted for the first person I saw who had votes against him (Hyperbola)
4) reread rules, realized I could abstain, realized it didn't matter that much at that point anyway, as Hyperbola was dead, so didn't bother to change vote.
|
Protactinium’s thought processes and actions of last night:
1) Spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about the night deaths
2) Ponder how to use options delineated to work around the semi-open setup.
3) Realize that the setup is, in actuality, fully open.
4) Curse self.
5) Begin to scroll backward through thread.
6) Fall asleep.
7) Wake up thanks to overly-shrill alarm clock.
8) Get halfway through Proleague, fall asleep again.
9) Wake up late in the afternoon.
10) Check Mafia thread.
Four new pages, and they’ve been pretty good. Time to go through and comment on stuff.
On July 20 2010 22:55 chaoser wrote:
Sorry if this is a little off topic since we're not really talking about double lynches yet but if we vote double lynch today, it get activated next day cycle right? So why wouldn't we vote for it today? It's probable we'll have a wealth of information by the next day.
Yes, you vote the day prior to activate the double lynch for the next day. Since it’s been brought up, just to further expound upon the double lynch debate: it may be okay to use Day 3, meaning we’d have to vote for it now. Given the nature of this game, a lot of confirmation can be found at night—any medic save will result in a confirmed townie, and disregarding the 1/soon-to-be-27th chance of hitting the Godfather with a check, Detective checks will come back with a confirmation as well. However, at this point it’s still much easier to strike green (or blue) with checks, meaning that there’d still be no definite, not to even think of having two locked choices, for a Day 3 double lynch. As the game goes on, the town gets exponentially stronger information-wise through confirmations and PMs, and we only have two double lynches. However, since it seems like there is a lot of finger pointing. Best to save the double lynches, in my opinion, for when the town is more united.
This might have been discussed to death already, but I do not agree with BrownBear’s Veteran roleclaiming plan. As Amber[LighT] has said, a Veteran has one vote regardless of how long he/she remains alive. In reality, until a Veteran is “confirmed” either through taking a hit or being the target of a Detective check, he/she is nothing more than a Townie. BrownBear has said that Mafia would not dare claim Veteran since when the third claim surfaces one red is guaranteed to go down (unless it’s the Godfather) but I agree with Amber when he/she (guy, right?) says that the Veterans would then just serve as a shining beacon of “hey, don’t waste your KP on me.” Even if two people claim Veteran, Detectives would still want to check them to make sure—what if one of our Veterans is an inactive player and hasn’t read the thread? Since pretty much any Detective check will confirm somebody, essentially wastes a check where Detectives could be trying to find reds, since once again a lot of fingers are being pointed right now. Mafia don’t have to hit the Veteran—they simply just have to use the Bomber on one, in hopes that a Detective will try to confirm. This has been talked about below, so I don’t think I’m going to talk about it more. iNfunDiBuLuM has also said this too. Whoops, how did I miss his post. In short, I do not agree with a Veteran claiming plan.
BloodyC0bbler’s plan is nice, and he really does highlight how advantageous the town has it this game. Also, it serves to show how much more of an advantage we have as compared to a regular game the longer we wait.
As for the last two pages, I’ll over them separately. It seems right now that there’s just a lot of flak being thrown around randomly. If I check the pages, I see DarthThienAn, citi.zen, Subversion, Chaoser, and BrownBear seem to be accused. We’ve still got more than a day left, so I’m going to take my time and do some reading. I guess I’ll compile my thoughts on these people by looking at posts.
Dinner (first meal of the day!) now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
