Thanks for making that list. Have to check later, if what you say is true. (Can't be too carful *g*)
But if everything is correct and we decide to lynch someone today, I'd go with MattyG, who seems to be the least productive one at the moment.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Thanks for making that list. Have to check later, if what you say is true. (Can't be too carful *g*)
But if everything is correct and we decide to lynch someone today, I'd go with MattyG, who seems to be the least productive one at the moment.
I noticed how Timeaisis has been pushing for the "leader" role now that Barry's gone and everyone has been pretty accepting of it.
Something stood out to me though.
---
If we lynch him, worst case scenario is that he's really is a hunter (even though I doubt it). We don't have much solid evidence and it's more probable that he'd drag another townie to death with him rather than shooting a maf.
And if he's fool...well, ending the game on the second day would be pretty anticlimatic.
I think no lynch is still the safer and more reasonable option, until we hear from the cop. On the other hand, lynching would get things rolling, even if we kill a townie. It would give us an idea on who's trusting who, at least.
Something stood out to me though.
Does he? Didn't look to me like he really said much. People called him suspicious and he didn't have much of an answer, all he did was agreeing with you and pointing the finger at nin and Palmer. Also, throwing 2 new names into the list just because. Considering your grudge on nin, whose actions were pretty consistent (all he wanted was to speed the game up), you let him go pretty easily. You've been pretty quick to suspect other people too.
---
Hmm I don't know. My gut says basic villager who feels like he's not important and doesn't have much to lose. If he had a classic town power role, he'd definitely try harder to defend himself. If he was mafia, probably too. Unless he's pulling some reverse psychology mindgames, which I guess isn't out of question either.
If we lynch him, worst case scenario is that he's really is a hunter (even though I doubt it). We don't have much solid evidence and it's more probable that he'd drag another townie to death with him rather than shooting a maf.
And if he's fool...well, ending the game on the second day would be pretty anticlimatic.
I think no lynch is still the safer and more reasonable option, until we hear from the cop. On the other hand, lynching would get things rolling, even if we kill a townie. It would give us an idea on who's trusting who, at least.
AbsolutBro
Member
This is also sort of where I was going in my (much) earlier post. I feel like players who aren't posting as much (or at all) will tend to be townsfolk. No one wants to say a bunch of things only to find themselves dead like our poor friend the Colonel. /salute
For Mafia though, both being an avid participant ("look he's giving us useful information") and a quieter participant (saying just enough to not be noticed) are valid strategies. Keeping completely quiet doesn't seem to work. Now, I suppose it's possible a player is active on whatever forum that the mafia are using to pick targets instead of here in the main thread, but that seems like something the wiser wise-guys might point out as needing correcting.
Either way I have nothing concrete yet. No one I can definitely point at and say "YOU!".
As to stepping up my own posting, hopefully work will calm down. I can usually lurk with ease, but we're doing a reorg at work so we've had top brass where normally it would be quiet.
I'll be interested to to hear why you picked or didn't pick particular roles for our game size after this is all over.
irfaanator
Banned
I'll post later when I get more time to digest the thread again, but I was also thinking that there is a chance that timeasis could be a mafia player just trying to hook people on, which I say bravo since he seems to be doing a good job. But in the end we have no idea who's who. Yes we have a chance of killing a townsfolk or power player, but we also have the chance of killing a mafioso. I will say that I'm split on how the mafioso are playing. I feel some are outspoken in the thread, while I feel others are holding back which also was part of my line of thinking.
irfaanator
Banned
I will say that I usually play off of gut feelings, and usually they are correct. Not seeing how people are reacting is throwing me off a bit still
It is so fucking weird to not see faces! Makes me wish this exact group could somehow meet up at gencon or something for a rematch in person.
Well, to be fair, it's all kind of hunches at this point. So his reasoning of "just because a hunch" for including 2 random people on his list doesn't really strike me as super odd. He didn't go out and vote lynch on them or anything. I kind of figure he suspected them simply for being somewhat inactive.
As for nin, I've stood by my opinion nin that is suspect since I first called it out.
I stand by my current suspect list:
Duress - posted a bunch, but not much substance. Trying to be active without contributing is a mafia tactic.
nin - Simply for day one flip-flopping on no-lynch day 1 and afterwards calling out people as suspect for voting no-lynch without reason. Goes with the flow d1, then points fingers.
tomak - See conversation at the top of this page.
I'd like to hear anyone else's opinion of who I've got.
Interesting how you completely ignored what I said about your behavior, just to suddenly turn against Timeaisis.
So I don't know how this normally goes in Internet Mafia with voting. I feel like we're at a point where not a lot more is going to be learned unless we start voting to see where people's alliances actually fall.
I've come around a bit on the inactive players, and don't think voting for them STRICTLY on that reasoning is the best idea for Tourists.
For a Lynch right now, we'd need 13 or 14 votes for a specific person, and our deadline is sometime Monday, right?
I don't want us to wait so long that we fail to get a majority due to time issues. If we go No Lynch because that's what people want, that's a different story.
Could the people with more experience chime in on my thoughts?
I've come around a bit on the inactive players, and don't think voting for them STRICTLY on that reasoning is the best idea for Tourists.
For a Lynch right now, we'd need 13 or 14 votes for a specific person, and our deadline is sometime Monday, right?
I don't want us to wait so long that we fail to get a majority due to time issues. If we go No Lynch because that's what people want, that's a different story.
Could the people with more experience chime in on my thoughts?
Yeah, this just set off a big red flag for me as well. Not only did he dodge your suspicion, he also turned on the person (me) that was defending him.
Weird move.
irfaanator
Banned
What behaviour? Everybody has people they are suspicious of. The ones I posted are the ones I believe are mafioso. If they aren't, I fucked up. I'm not turning my back on timeasis, but who can be in your mind not a mafioso 100%? Like I said, if timeasis is a mafioso, he's doing a great job of playing the leader, and I gotta be careful that I don't fall into that trap.
The one with the most votes at the end of the day phase gets lynched. So if, for example, there are 6 votes for me, 5 votes for you, 3 no lynch and a few random ones, I get lynched at the end of the day, even though there might be 30 active players.
If more then half of the total participants vote the same person (or no lynch), the day ends early.
irfaanator
Banned
I try not to bandwagon with other players again since I don't know their agendas, but I did have issue with how nin1000 was posting without looking at timeasis posts. Palmerv1 again was just myself based on how he was posting, and the other two were just gut suspicions, nothing more, nothing less till more info comes out
From the OP:
That sounds like we absolutely need a majority for a Lynch. Anything less is a No Lynch.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
D'oh, that should say "plurality" not "majority". Foshy is right, good catch.
tomakasatnav
Member
Can you expand on (pro)active players being likely town? I can see why that could be a 'don't lynch yet' for interest in keeping active players in the game, but not entirely sure how it relates back to being likely town? Just that the Mafia would want to stay out of the spot light?
I trust Crab has things under control with prods in regards to not very active players, so not sure about lynching them?
I need to go back over the first day voting as I only quickly went through it after my prod.
I've never been in a game where the roles in the game were secret - is that usual elsewhere?
Well, what I mean by pro-active is someone who seems to try to generate discussion and move the game forward in the best interest of the town. In my opinion, irfaan was doing this, but as others have pointed out, and his recent posts, I don't know if I still feel the same way.
Palmer, on the otherhand, has been generally active and agreeable and gives sound reasoning for his accusations. He doesn't bandwagon, and generally tries to ask good questions and share his opinion to move the game forward.
Ah good to know. I'm less worried than.
Lord of Castamere
Member
I'm still leaning lynch, but I'm willing to go another week without it. I can see why people don't want to. Every lynch brings us closer to defeat and we still have nothing concrete to go on. I'm not sue what the solution is though, besides waiting for our potential rolers to get lucky.
Back from work. Damn this thread moved very fast!
Hurts to see me being number one of several players as being suspicious. As I stated before on day one, I wanted to speed things up and on regards to 'pointing fingers' I only did it to hear from players who were either not that active or did not gave a good reason (in my opinion) on why they voted as they did.
As this is the first forum mafia game I am playing I agree though that my choice of words has not been very good in the past and I will try to improve upon it in order to keep things clear.
I can't really give an opinion about lynching somebody as I have not been able to really review every single post. The weekend is coming and I hope to invest some more time into this game.
Hurts to see me being number one of several players as being suspicious. As I stated before on day one, I wanted to speed things up and on regards to 'pointing fingers' I only did it to hear from players who were either not that active or did not gave a good reason (in my opinion) on why they voted as they did.
As this is the first forum mafia game I am playing I agree though that my choice of words has not been very good in the past and I will try to improve upon it in order to keep things clear.
I can't really give an opinion about lynching somebody as I have not been able to really review every single post. The weekend is coming and I hope to invest some more time into this game.
The problem I have is that I don't see any particular logic in who you're accusing and who you're considering "likely town". I know it's largely gut feeling at this point (same goes for me), but I don't see much consistency.
nin, to me, just seems like a guy who wants the game to pick up speed. Everything he said so far is consistent with that. He listed the people who were inactive and those who voted "No Lynch" without offering a comment, but other than that, not much really. But I can understand your reasoning for him, at least. Makes sense to keep an eye on him.
However, for the others: Duress and tomak were inactive the first day, but so was egruntz. He gave his reasoning, which seems fair, but so did they. Why didn't you consider him at all?
They're also hardly the only ones who posted without saying much. Most players so far probably fall in that category because honestly, there's not much to talk about as of now. After getting a warning for being inactive, you'll probably want to speak up a bit even if you offer no real insights.
Plus, you had irfaanator on your ok-list when he didn't do much to deserve it. Considering how you held on to your other opinions, it seemed weird how you just waved him off as "probably town" without the analysis you put up for the others, as if you wanted to protect him.
Of course, when he instantly turned on you, this changed my views too. Doesn't make much sense if you two were mafiosi, unless you're trying to throw each other under the bus.
We probably shouldn't be so quick to throw out accusations based on instinct and making long lists of who we think might town/mafia at this point. Especially not town, because it's still too easy for a mafioso to blend in right now. We should try focusing on individuals and laying out our thoughts on them instead of throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.
pants votes no lynch, but in the same sentence states he is okay lynching an in-active. It seems strange he is open to lynching an inactive when he earlier stated lynching day 1 gives the mafia an advantage.
In three consecutive posts three different players float the idea of lynching an inactive. Posts 103, 104, 105.
pants states the mafia does not have an assassin, which I feel we can't assume anything. That was part of three consecutive posts on mafia role speculation, 213, 214, 215.
In three consecutive posts three different players float the idea of lynching an inactive. Posts 103, 104, 105.
pants states the mafia does not have an assassin, which I feel we can't assume anything. That was part of three consecutive posts on mafia role speculation, 213, 214, 215.
Oops, sorry! I should've let you guys know that I'd be busy for a couple days there. I'll try to be more involved now.
YouAreAlreadyDead.jpg
I've just caught up on the thread, and I'm still having quite a hard time getting a good read on anybody. I think picking a random player to lynch is still too risky at this point, as we have very little to go on, but by not lynching we run the risk of losing another towns member with a valuable role.
pants
Member
Hmm yeah, I wasn't going to try and rock the boat round 1. I'm delighted we didnt lynch though, that's what I wanted.
I think it's very safe to assume there is no assassin or that if we have a role blocker they got lucky (and should probably go back to what they voted night one if the mafia scores multiple kills) or long shot the replaced guy was an assassin like floated.
If you haven't been paying attention I'm one of the few people leaning towards no lynch even round 2.
Been dealing with some really freaky shit in my life right now, so I hope a lengthy post of my thoughts will make up for my lack of frequent participation. Caught up through page seven this morning and decided that I'd pick a few people to focus on for now. These three are players who for whatever reason just rubbed me the wrong way, whether it be through a sense of spuriousness or otherwise. For reference, I multi-quoted every single one of their posts up until page 7 and will make comments on ones that stand out to me.
Lynching is not a bad idea for tourists. Lynches are the town's primary tool to get rid of the Mafia. A townie shouldn't be consider a lynch bad even if it was on them, as that would provide the other townies more information to secure a win. This isn't a serious issue but it's interesting to me that your initial connotation with lynches is that it's bad.
Needless words are filler words, generally. You seem to be an experienced player, so I can only take commentary on a moderator's rules as filler. For the record, filler isn't necessarily scummy. Just suggests that you feel the need to appear active.
"I definitely wouldn't know." Seems to be the implied message here.
Even on the first day, blind accusations shouldn't be the perspective here. The perspective is, "How can we best used so little information?" That said I liked this post--just felt the need to provide my own perspective on Day 1 chaos.
"In the guide. Not in my role PM or anything."
Blegh...There's no rush. Even on Day 1, there's no rush. Communication is essential. We can and should take our time to discuss. We get more information from posts made and votes played rather than kills at night. We may not even have a report power role, so there's no guarantee that a cop is gonna have something good for us the next day. We should be relying on our own hunches and discussion of those hunches for lynches.
Filler.
Why did you feel the need to highlight this fact? No one at this stage of the game should be quite so defensive of their actions/posts so far. This appears to me that it is essential to you to make a good impression and remove any shred of doubt that you are town. That's not possible, for one, and is pretty suspect.
Wording seems forced here. "Let's see who dies, cause it'll be a surprise to me!"
Elaborate discussion on subjects not directly related to the game at hand doesn't do much to progress the game. Sure shows you've been active though. Basically, filler.
Filler.
Filler.
Pointing out the obvious. The obvious that's already been stated in this case.
Martyr projection.
Martyr projection repeated.
My thoughts are still kind of jumbled, but this hopefully gives more content to discuss. At the time being, I would say that my suspicions lie with these three players in particular. I'll do a third review through page seven just to make sure and I'll provide more thoughts if I come across anything more.
Lynching is not a bad idea for tourists. Lynches are the town's primary tool to get rid of the Mafia. A townie shouldn't be consider a lynch bad even if it was on them, as that would provide the other townies more information to secure a win. This isn't a serious issue but it's interesting to me that your initial connotation with lynches is that it's bad.
Needless words are filler words, generally. You seem to be an experienced player, so I can only take commentary on a moderator's rules as filler. For the record, filler isn't necessarily scummy. Just suggests that you feel the need to appear active.
"I definitely wouldn't know." Seems to be the implied message here.
Even on the first day, blind accusations shouldn't be the perspective here. The perspective is, "How can we best used so little information?" That said I liked this post--just felt the need to provide my own perspective on Day 1 chaos.
"In the guide. Not in my role PM or anything."
Blegh...There's no rush. Even on Day 1, there's no rush. Communication is essential. We can and should take our time to discuss. We get more information from posts made and votes played rather than kills at night. We may not even have a report power role, so there's no guarantee that a cop is gonna have something good for us the next day. We should be relying on our own hunches and discussion of those hunches for lynches.
Filler.
Why did you feel the need to highlight this fact? No one at this stage of the game should be quite so defensive of their actions/posts so far. This appears to me that it is essential to you to make a good impression and remove any shred of doubt that you are town. That's not possible, for one, and is pretty suspect.
Wording seems forced here. "Let's see who dies, cause it'll be a surprise to me!"
Elaborate discussion on subjects not directly related to the game at hand doesn't do much to progress the game. Sure shows you've been active though. Basically, filler.
Filler.
Filler.
Pointing out the obvious. The obvious that's already been stated in this case.
Martyr projection.
Not really lurking, not intentionally atleast! Just all my posts have been after 5PM UK time, let's solve that one
I'd be .. not happy, but willing to fall on the sword for not being very active though, that'll teach me a lesson for (hopefully) next time.
Martyr projection repeated.
My thoughts are still kind of jumbled, but this hopefully gives more content to discuss. At the time being, I would say that my suspicions lie with these three players in particular. I'll do a third review through page seven just to make sure and I'll provide more thoughts if I come across anything more.
Great post! Unfortunately, if that kind of comment is filler to you, you'll probably find me at odds to you most of the game. I'm just genuinely excited to be playing and I like to play up the fluff a bit sometimes.
As for being experienced, that's true for the in-person games, but this web mafia stuff is taking some getting used to. There is a lot less info to be gleaned and I'm asking a lot of questions to educate myself on the differences. I spent about an hour before this just going through the wiki to see what the common roles are. I'm usually posting from work where the stuff is blocked.
Anyway, long ass posts aside, I'm glad to see you participating and hope your real life stuff turns out okay so you can continue posting.
tomakasatnav
Member
I guess you could see it as that, from my point of view it was "oh shit, I've been prodded and missed the first day entirely, best post to show I'm here while I catch up with all the posts"
And now I will look up this martyr reference, though I guess it's the lynch win stuff mentioned before.
johnnyquicknives
Member
Guess its time to jump on the defensive then. There are fair points in your post egruntz, and my accusations are definitely just as hunch based, but I do feel I need to point out a couple of things.
Firstly you seem to have a really strange definition of filler. In that post you class an Unvote from Palmer as filler and a direct question from me as filler. It seems you class discussing Mafia in general (trying to get a handle on roles etc.) as filler since its not a specific accusation or response? It also seems odd pointing out some tenuously filler posts from people who are also posting more substantial stuff (which you presumably don't quote here as it negates your point).
I'd also take issue with this part
my post was intended as a direct response to QuantumBro, who doesnt seem to find it that obvious.
there are a handful of posts in between but my reply is the first one to address it. I should probably have quoted QuantumBro to make it more obvious what I was responding to so I'm not sure if you missed this because you multi-quoted all of our posts and then read them back without everyone elses to give you context or something but I stand by the fact that was relevent to post in the context of the discussion.
My day one posts you quote are fair enough and I feel we've been through the lynch/no-lynch stuff for day one enough. Really though if you were so strongly pro-lynch maybe you should have posted about it then?
Firstly you seem to have a really strange definition of filler. In that post you class an Unvote from Palmer as filler and a direct question from me as filler. It seems you class discussing Mafia in general (trying to get a handle on roles etc.) as filler since its not a specific accusation or response? It also seems odd pointing out some tenuously filler posts from people who are also posting more substantial stuff (which you presumably don't quote here as it negates your point).
I'd also take issue with this part
my post was intended as a direct response to QuantumBro, who doesnt seem to find it that obvious.
there are a handful of posts in between but my reply is the first one to address it. I should probably have quoted QuantumBro to make it more obvious what I was responding to so I'm not sure if you missed this because you multi-quoted all of our posts and then read them back without everyone elses to give you context or something but I stand by the fact that was relevent to post in the context of the discussion.
My day one posts you quote are fair enough and I feel we've been through the lynch/no-lynch stuff for day one enough. Really though if you were so strongly pro-lynch maybe you should have posted about it then?
You're talking about this post below?
The bolded is undeniably filler. As for your own post--yes--for the most part, metgame discussion is hardly helpful. Commonly it is the topic of choice for those who don't want to stir up scumhunting but still would like to appear contributive. We're on Day 2. There's plenty to go off of at this point. In closed-role games such as this, discussions on possible roles really don't do much anyway.
Fair enough. Didn't realize since there was no quote accompanying it.
For the record I would have undoubtedly no-lynched Day 1. I'm just saying that the first day isn't nearly as trivial/useless as some people are saying.
tomakasatnav
Member
Thanks. I might see it in a slightly different way when it comes to being active at this early stage.
Feel like it's easier for the Mafia to be active early on because they (presumably, depending on the version of this game) know exactly who's mafia. They can appear to be doing it in the best interest of the town, we'd only pick up on it it we lynch multiple town people.
Compare that to tourists who, even those with powers, know very little (maybe a seer knows one other role at the moment, still limited) which can lead to being quiet if you don't pick up on certain things.
My stance today is that we should vote on day 2 (no idea who yet though!) but not necessarily inactive players yet as crab has ways of dealing with them. Going to have a good old re-read tomorrow.
So, after some of thinking I decided to go with no lynch again today.
Some posts may have looked a little bit suspicious to me. But nothing big enough to lynch the player for it.
The only alternative to not lynching for me still is to pick an inactive player.
But I think the chances of picking a townie are too big, to lynch some player based on the little suspicions I have.
VOTE: NO LYNCH
For now at least.
Some posts may have looked a little bit suspicious to me. But nothing big enough to lynch the player for it.
The only alternative to not lynching for me still is to pick an inactive player.
But I think the chances of picking a townie are too big, to lynch some player based on the little suspicions I have.
VOTE: NO LYNCH
For now at least.
johnnyquicknives
Member
OK, the point kind of remains though, if you wanted the day to run its course why not explain why and write up some thoughts that might stimulate discussion? After a lot more discussion in day 2 I can totally see the merit in your point, it was pretty clear from sign ups onwards that quite a few players are inexperienced and with nothing at all to go on in the first day it shouldn't be hard to see why there was a quick no lynch vote.
Hmm I feel that although I was posting inappropriate metagame stuff I was also posting a bit about my suspicions.
I feel theres quite a few things that I just didn't realise and after a few games will probably seem obvious. Maybe it would be good in future games to have a post on general etiquette at the beginning or a separate thread where less experienced people can ask questions?
So, egruntz smells scummy right now. Not only did he just post some really long analysis where he claims everyone is just writing filler, he's also analyzing everyone's phrasing to an extreme degree, which, in my mind, seems super forced.
Not gonna lie, egruntz looks like he's grasping at straws to accuse people because he knows he's the suspect in a few eyes:
- Palmer is an obvious pick for him to target because he's active and a couple people have suspected him, essentially jumping on a bandwagon
- tomak because people started calling him a martyr and is suspected by lots right now. again, bandwagon.
- johnny because johnny is active and a good player and had a little disagreement in the last couple pages
Just seems like he's
a) repeating what others have said about people, but magnifying it. E.g. "All you are saying is filler"
and
b) Twisting words to make it looks like someone's hiding something when there's no reason to suspect this. E.g. Asking a question about mafioso abilities means the person asking is mafioso
Furthermore, why isn't he calling out Duress for filler? Look at every single one of Duress' posts and you'll see they are mostly filler. But, apparently, those aren't suspicious in egruntz mind. Instead, it's random stuff Palmer says in between contributing good posts. My point being, there are plenty of people more deserving of being called out on writing "filler" on than Palmer and johnny, who definitely have contributed to the game. Maybe egruntz and Duress are both mafia? Long shot, and kind of layered logic, but worth bringing up.
Calling out filler on people who are contributing in between their contributions seems like a weird choice. Especially that instance where he calls filler on Palmer in the same post he votes no lynch...I mean...what?
Not gonna lie, egruntz looks like he's grasping at straws to accuse people because he knows he's the suspect in a few eyes:
- Palmer is an obvious pick for him to target because he's active and a couple people have suspected him, essentially jumping on a bandwagon
- tomak because people started calling him a martyr and is suspected by lots right now. again, bandwagon.
- johnny because johnny is active and a good player and had a little disagreement in the last couple pages
Just seems like he's
a) repeating what others have said about people, but magnifying it. E.g. "All you are saying is filler"
and
b) Twisting words to make it looks like someone's hiding something when there's no reason to suspect this. E.g. Asking a question about mafioso abilities means the person asking is mafioso
Furthermore, why isn't he calling out Duress for filler? Look at every single one of Duress' posts and you'll see they are mostly filler. But, apparently, those aren't suspicious in egruntz mind. Instead, it's random stuff Palmer says in between contributing good posts. My point being, there are plenty of people more deserving of being called out on writing "filler" on than Palmer and johnny, who definitely have contributed to the game. Maybe egruntz and Duress are both mafia? Long shot, and kind of layered logic, but worth bringing up.
Calling out filler on people who are contributing in between their contributions seems like a weird choice. Especially that instance where he calls filler on Palmer in the same post he votes no lynch...I mean...what?
That's not filler, that's commentary. He's still voting.
I have to agree with you on this. While some of the posts could be defined as "filler" others were normal actions for a game such as Palmer's unvote to let Barry post his thoughts.
I've been changing my mind a lot about who I suspect. egruntz seems like a experienced player and that factor makes me trust them and also suspect them at the same time. Reading their long post it just felt like accusing people purely because they have been actively posting in the thread.
Some people have mentioned throwing out votes so we can get voting habits so I'm going to vote now. I'm not committed to this vote so I'm willing to change it at any point but it is purely because I'm curious to see what other people would vote.
VOTE: egruntz
What an odd thing to say. Scrupulous wording is one of the most common scumtells. Analyzing posts for their wording and notions is the entire method of scumhunting.
Not really sure how I'd reckon I'm suspect at this point. People have been calling me out for inactivity, sure, but nowhere would I have been able to infer I'm in the frying pan. Even if I was under heat, it wouldn't dictate my participation. Life does that one. Am I suspected by people? Great. Talk about it. I'll keep sharing my thoughts on other hunches. Am I not suspected by people? Great. I'll keep sharing my thoughts. Either is the same.
So your argument is that I'm scummy for focusing on the obvious picks? In my experience, the obvious is usually the best place to start. Regardless of any lynch is taken against them, it at the very least prompts discussion. I'm a bit confused why you're so defensive of these guys when I haven't even placed a vote. Even the ones I've focused on hardly took offense to my points and just responded with a basic explanation/defense. Seems like a hard misdirection. Got a teammate in there, maybe?
Where have I twisted words? I'll admit that my own thoughts may echo what's already been said, but that's not a bad thing anyway. It's good to know where everyone's thoughts are, and I'll be making sure to share mine regardless of what sort of bangwagon has already started. You should be confident in your hunches and be willing to share your thoughts regardless of appearing like you're boarding along. That can only help us progress.
You accuse me of taking leaps and then make a drastic on yourself. That's...something else. Remember that "filler" isn't the primary reason why I'm suspicious of these three. I even stated at the start of the post: spuriousness and scrupulosity. Pointing out each post I felt was just bonus so I can identify all the junk.
The unvote isn't filler. The commentary is. "Filler" doesn't have to be an entire post dedicated to nothing. Even partial filler is filler.
Of course, but my point was that you were analyzing it to an extreme degree. Calling out Palmer because he asked for some rules clarifications, then johnny for clarifying the rules starting with "it says in the rulebook".
egruntz said:
Seems like grasping, as I said.egruntz said:
Cool, that's exactly what I'm doing here. And yeah, your name was mentioned a few times during the inactivity discussion a few pages back.
No, you aren't scummy for picking the obvious. You are scummy because you picked the obvious and gave weird reasons for picking those players, as outlined above. The fact that no one took offense to your accusation hardly matters. I'm focusing on the content of your accusations here.
Well, agreed on the last part. By twisting words I mean painting Palmer as some scum for making some additional commentary in his posts and making a joke or two. In addition to asking for a rule clarification. Oh, and this of course.
Making assumptions about the intent of his sentence. You say it's to misdirect suspicion, but it looks to me like he's just adding more content to make it less dull.egruntz said:
I stated that I made a leap in logic there . I said it was a long shot but was worth bringing up. The real interesting bit here is that you've completely disregarded my point about Duress that I brought up. I know filler isn't your primary reason, but you damn sure did focus on it a lot.
I'm really confused. So we're all supposed to be completely efficient with our wording everywhere or we'll look like mafia to you? A random line taken at the end of a post about how they are having fun with the game makes someone looks like mafia now?
Sorry, you're not convincing me.
VOTE: egruntz
johnnyquicknives
Member
I'm not quite ready to string up egruntz yet. The main reason is that I find his posts really confusing rather than outright suspicious, like it just seems a strange tactic for the mafia to go for.
That said some of our quotes he posted were definitely deliberately manipulative, as have been outlined by myself and others above. Twisting people words out of the context they were posted in seems pretty shady for sure. He's probably got a pretty promising future in selecting and editing quotes for movie posters!
That said some of our quotes he posted were definitely deliberately manipulative, as have been outlined by myself and others above. Twisting people words out of the context they were posted in seems pretty shady for sure. He's probably got a pretty promising future in selecting and editing quotes for movie posters!
johnnyquicknives
Member
Reading more I am actualy getting more suspicious, I'd quite like to hear egruntz justify his criticism of our day 1 play.
To put it in one place, since its spread over the last couple of pages he said:
Before criticising my choice to no lynch quickly on day 1 because:
Seems kind of a hypocritical attitude to take for someone who apparently always refuses to post on day 1.
I get that there were a lot of posts targetting you but you brushed off my first question about it with (the again pretty hypocritical):
and then didnt respond at all when I asked:
To put it in one place, since its spread over the last couple of pages he said:
Before criticising my choice to no lynch quickly on day 1 because:
Seems kind of a hypocritical attitude to take for someone who apparently always refuses to post on day 1.
I get that there were a lot of posts targetting you but you brushed off my first question about it with (the again pretty hypocritical):
and then didnt respond at all when I asked:
Yes, I'm analyzing to the extreme. And? We're playing the game here, my man. We need to get the ball rolling. The majority of the conversation up until now has been about metagame and rules. That gets us nowhere.
Your kneejerk reaction to my posts are certainly confounding. Realize that I didn't even apply a vote to these three that I'm suspicious of. That's because I'm moving forward with caution. I throw out a tickle their way and you respond with a punch. Talk about extremes.
Yes, the majority of hunches this early on will be grasps. Again, and? We need to start somewhere buddy. I think you seriously misconstrued the purpose of my posts. It's not my goal right now to get someone lynched. I'll wait until Monday before that. It's my goal to stir up conversation. Although I appreciate your contribution in that regard, your focus thereof is rather misplaced.
My name being mentioned as inactive is hardly the same as hard suspicions. I really don't even know where you're going with that one.
Don't even know how to respond to this since it's so baffling. Filler, scrupulosity, and spuriousness. These are not weird reasons. In fact, these practices tend to lead to scum more reliably than not. Whether or not you like the reasons is your own thing, but to claim that mentioning them is detrimental to town? Enough to warrant and immediate vote in retaliation on your end? That's certainly not leading us in the right direction.
You have a strange definition of twisting words.
"Adding more content to make it less dull." That's exactly what filler. So either it's misdirection or filler. Neither are preferable. Neither are hardtells, either, and that seems to be the point that you don't understand. Any one of these posts I've singled out don't show hard signs of scum. Collectively, however, they're worth the consideration. Not to you though. For some reason it's bad to bring that up in your mind. I wonder why that is?
I disregarded it because it's simply not worth a mention. I already said in a past post that my analysis was based on an initial run through.
Such defensive reactions from you. Yes, I'll be scrutinizing each and every one of your posts. Should you feel paranoid about that? I'm not one to say. Seems like you are, though, for whatever reason.
And again, this was never my goal. Not sure where you're coming from in all of this.
I will admit, I do not post anything of importance. Most of my comments have been more like jibes, if anything. Now that people have pointing their fingers at me, makes me believe that they are mafioso.
When a couple people already agree, there's bound to be that group mentality to conform. Especially, when those people are most vocal. It seems like it all came together, suddenly out of nowhere that, everyone has found me suspect.
Why am I being pointed without any specifics? Everyone else has some comments that makes them suspect, but no one has quoted me for any evidence.
When a couple people already agree, there's bound to be that group mentality to conform. Especially, when those people are most vocal. It seems like it all came together, suddenly out of nowhere that, everyone has found me suspect.
Why am I being pointed without any specifics? Everyone else has some comments that makes them suspect, but no one has quoted me for any evidence.
Similar threads
- Locked