View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:58 am

User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#11 (ISO #1)  Re: Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
[In]

Mon Jul 11, 2016 8:55 am Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#29 (ISO #2)  Re: [R0] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
I think I got the wrong room.

Thu Jul 14, 2016 9:49 am Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#33 (ISO #3)  Re: [R0] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
Emziek wrote:
Some of you guys are alright, Don’t go to room nr 2 tomorrow.


-Feels rebellious-

Thu Jul 14, 2016 12:27 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#40 (ISO #4)  Re: [R1 Ends 16 July at 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
WaywardVole wrote:

[injure Konijn]



Image

Fri Jul 15, 2016 7:32 am Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#43 (ISO #5)  Re: [R0] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
Ultor wrote:
Since ko9 was stabbed by both parties, does that mean there is a high chance of him being a villager?


The SK can't injure anyone R0. Only the Mafia can.

Fri Jul 15, 2016 9:38 am Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#53 (ISO #6)  Re: [R0] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
POOOOO wrote:
[Vote SiX]
He is active and knows how to play but he is still not posting about the things going on, for example ko9 getting injured. Suspicious to me, not completely sure though.


Because there's nothing actually going on right now. KO9 being hospitalized tells us absolutely nothing.

Fri Jul 15, 2016 8:45 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#57 (ISO #7)  Re: [R0] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
Wayward, when does round end?

Sat Jul 16, 2016 11:18 am Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#61 (ISO #8)  Re: [R0] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
@Ish, you seem suspiciously hung up on finding the Serial Killer this game.

Ish wrote:
Janitor (SK) : Chooses one room per night and kills occupants. In addition, chooses a new room each night, switching the current inhabitant to his previous room. Can not be targeted by night actions (peeks and nightkills) but can be targeted by the Sniper and Veteran. Need to lynch/kill him asap, not entirely sure how to approach it though...


Reading this, somewhat puts me at unease. Why are you so worried about finding the Serial Killer? Depending on how the game goes, the Serial Killer may be a needed asset for the Town, to avoid Mafia majority.

But there is some truth to what you say. The ideal situation, for the Mafia, would be to keep the Serial Killer alive, assuming he kills off the Town Members. If the Serial Killer dies, the risk of the Mafia getting caught increases. As such, the Mafia often lose if the Serial Killer dies too early, due to the lack of night kills. However, the Serial Killer mustn't live too long either. For the longer he lives, the greater the risk of him posing a threat by killing the Mafia instead of the Town. The ideal case for the Town would be to kill the Serial Killer as soon as possible, to lessen the amount of nightkills in game. But were the game to progress, Town ought to rethink. The later the game goes, and the more Mafia alive, the more the Town needs the Serial Killer to cooperate with them.

So we should kill the Serial Killer asap, but if we don't find him (which we are likely won't), we should keep him alive, for the time being.

Ish wrote:
Veteran: Able to shoot and kill one player (targets a player directly, not their room) during the game.Super beneficial, as its the only village night action we can carry out on the SK, to remove him from the game. Otherwise we'll have to predict who the SK is by voting style/posts etc.


With all the above said, lets say we decide to kill the Serial Killer. The ideal situation for the Mafia would be exactly what you suggest, to let the Veteran shoot him. By doing so, the Sniper will still have a bullet to shoot one of the Town Members. As such, I highly recommend the Veteran not to attempt to shoot the Serial Killer. Because as long as the Serial Killer lives, and the Veteran refuses to shoot him, the Sniper can't use his shot. Out of self-preservation, he'll decide to wait for the moment he may need it. If he still decides to use his bullet to shoot someone who's not the Serial Killer, then the Mafia will desperately want to lynch the Serial Killer. But they can't. By attempting to vote the Serial Killer, they'll reveal themselves, allowing the Veteran to kill 1 of them and us to lynch them afterwards. As such, the Sniper will preserve his bullet.

Ish wrote:
Hotel Manager: Once per night, can choose any two rooms and swap the occupants.Will want make use of the empty room as much as possible, i think? because it can lead to a lot of mafia/sk actions being rendered useless


I've to disagree with you. Rather than rendering actions useless, it's better for the Hotel Manager to attempt to have the Mafia teamkill one another. And if it's not a teamkill, the Hotel Manager will get a lead on who the Mafia attempted to kill in the first place (someone likely innocent, unless the SK also switched rooms or the Mafia targeted one of their own).

In regards to your alignment, I've mixed feelings. I want to vote for you, but I also don't want to.

Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:10 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#71 (ISO #9)  Re: [R0] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
Ish wrote:
Can you explain why you don't want to vote me in more depth? At the moment I can see why you want to vote for me, as I have left a lot things out/could have explained a lot better, but granted I'm not the only one that should come with stuff etc and I also asked for ppls opinions, which only you have responded to. My read on you is currently village atm.


Because on one hand I suspect you (wanting Veteran to shoot the SK, wanting the Hotel Manager to swap people with empty rooms) but on the other hand I'm also pondering your thoughts on killing the SK asap, which would benefit the town, as well that my reasoning for suspecting you before (along with sweedygonzales and apekiller) without conclusive proof, just guts based on your plays, turned out to be incorrect. Not really sure how to read you. If you are Mafia, or if you are Town saying Mafia-like things. I'm like standing between 2 piles of hay.

Sat Jul 16, 2016 5:09 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#77 (ISO #10)  Re: [R1 ends 16 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
We shouldn't start a new bandwagon this late into the round to avoid lynching someone who can't defend themselves. Would be bad if that someone was a PR.

Anyhow, I'll [Vote Crisp0] out of self-preservation.

Sat Jul 16, 2016 8:34 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#85 (ISO #11)  Re: [R1 ends 16 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
Well, it's good for us that the round got extended by 24 hours. Lets see if we can get some more information by the end of this round. Because of now, we unfortunately don't have much to go by.

Sun Jul 17, 2016 10:14 am Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#100 (ISO #12)  Re: [R1 ends 16 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
Lien~ wrote:
[vote no lynch]

I work nights and as such only just been able to check up on the topic, so far not much to go by. I am off work the next 3 days, although occupied with other stuff too. Just saying so people will understand the somewhat semi-afk moments.


I'll [Vote Lien] this round out of familiar Mafia behavior. From what I can remember, this is how you, Lien, have posted whenever a Mafia role has been given you. There's two possibilities for this. A) You act like this when you are a Mafia or B) It's a coincidence that you were given a Mafia role in busy times. Either way, unless something better comes up, I'll place my vote on you.

Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:31 am Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#101 (ISO #13)  Re: [R1 ends 17 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
HATER wrote:
I'm not terribly sure about this wagon on crisp0.

[vote ultor]

Finger of suspicion on SiX, just a gut feeling.


And I'm not terribly sure about this wagon on Ultor either.
Finger of suspicion on HATER for placing his vote on Ultor rather than on crisp0, who was bound to flip innocent, so he could have a motive to point fingers at others.

Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:36 am Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#110 (ISO #14)  Re: [R1 ends 17 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
Emziek wrote:
SiX wrote:
HATER wrote:
I'm not terribly sure about this wagon on crisp0.

[vote ultor]

Finger of suspicion on SiX, just a gut feeling.


And I'm not terribly sure about this wagon on Ultor either.
Finger of suspicion on HATER for placing his vote on Ultor rather than on crisp0, who was bound to flip innocent, so he could have a motive to point fingers at others.

You've yet to explain your reason for keeping your vote on Crisp0 even after you being out of danger. SiX you reek of anti-town this game.


There's 2 simple answers for this.
(1) Someone had to be lynched, not necessarily Crisp0, but someone. And that someone happened to be CrisP0 whom I kept my vote on.
(2) The round ends far after I've gone to bed. The host's timezone is UTC -4, mine is UTC +3, meaning the round ends about 7 in the morning for me. Basically about 5 hours before I went offline.

Mon Jul 18, 2016 4:34 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#112 (ISO #15)  Re: [R2 ends 19 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
!!!*-Leo-*!!! wrote:
You switched his vote on him for the word "self preservation" a bit low explanation from an analysis guy like you.


Assume I am a Town Member, Vanilla villager or a power role; doesn't matter, and we are lynching someone R1 without any clues, then I'm certain that if I die, a Villager's life will be lost. But should I lynch someone else, there's a 5 / 14 chance that we'll lynch a Non-town member.

Of course I would also attempt to pull this off as a Mafia or SK. But believe me, I'd be more subtle than to use the word "self-preservation" publicly, unless of course my plan was to use reversed psychology on you and to make you believe just that.

!!!*-Leo-*!!! wrote:
The more i get the feeling it was the easiest for you to use this words after you saw that a lot voted on him and that you risk that a villager get lynched was not so obvisious then.


If you pay attention, I was the second player to vote on CrisP0. Prior me placing my vote, there were about 5 candidates who had 1 vote placed on them, with Emziek been the first one to place his vote on CrisP0. Being the LHLV, it was thus natural for me to place my vote on 1 of the other 4 candidates, and that candidate ended up being CrisP0.

!!!*-Leo-*!!! wrote:
I'm happy that i didn't put a vote of those who get lynched or stabbed or killed so i don't Need to blame me for anything. It actually shows that i really care about our town. You can also look how i asked why they wanna vote on Crispo (more Information than all others?) and why no one changed his vote from him to an other. All stand on their votes and the fact is he is dead what is really sad.


You not voting for those who end up killed tells absolutely nothing. But the fact that you believe it proves you innocent is bullocks. This quote really reeks of a scum trying too hard to appear as Town. "i really care about our town", no natural town member would ever have to say that.

!!!*-Leo-*!!! wrote:
Also a small note before i tell later more about my thoughts, before the game started i thought about it to not post much and stay in the background, because all games i tried to help the village town i got vote lynched if i was active or got killed by mafia guys if they saw I had some thoughts that bring us villagers closer to the real mafia guys.


Or you are not certain how to proceed given a Mafia role and uses this as an excuse. Activity, whether or not you are lynched, is a town member's obligation. ONLY a Mafia member want to remain in the background, unnoticed.

!!!*-Leo-*!!! wrote:
So for my thoughts SiX and you Ultor are the most suspicious...SiX voted on Crispo first and dind't changed his vote off from him and he is an experienced player so he could easy found a more suspicious guy like Crispo. And as i said your self preservation post was to low for me specially if it was 48hour rounds and you were many times on in the game here too.


Whether the round was 24 hours or a 100 hours, at the rate the game was progressing, we didn't seem to get any more clues. As such R1 is typically a random lynch where luck decides whether the lynched person is a Mafia or a Town Member. About the rest, I explained it to you in the first quote as well as to Emziek in my post above.

SiX wrote:
There's 2 simple answers for this.
(1) Someone had to be lynched, not necessarily Crisp0, but someone. And that someone happened to be CrisP0 whom I kept my vote on.
(2) The round ends far after I've gone to bed. The host's timezone is UTC -4, mine is UTC +3, meaning the round ends about 7 in the morning for me. Basically about 5 hours before I went offline.


My current reads.

Town: Ultor

Neutral (uncertain): Ish
Neutral (suspicious): Lien and HATER

Mafia: Leo and Emziek

[Vote !!!*-Leo-*!!!] (unknown target)

Mon Jul 18, 2016 4:53 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#119 (ISO #16)  Re: [R1 ends 17 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
Emziek wrote:
(1) True enough but the round was extended a full extra 24 hours and you had plenty of time to withdraw your vote and start investigating someone. Instead you kept your vote, which held no reason behind it anymore. This is anti-town.


What do you mean when you say "your vote held no reason behind it anymore"? What you state is that simply because POOOOO decided to unvote me, I should have unvoted CrisP0 as well. But I hope you realize that self-preservation isn't the only reason to participate in the lynch. Another, far more important motive, is to participate in the lynch for the sake of it, to ensure that town members, no matter the outcome, are the ones directing who lives and who dies. As such, my motive to participate in the lynch just for the sake of it, was not removed. And that, is Town. Not anti-town.

You also speak of investigating, something I genuinely believe myself to have done and still do. But information and what you can get out of people R1 is limited, at least for a player like me. To state that I can correctly pinpoint people's alignments R1 is an exaggeration of my abilities. But you on the other hand, what have you done? For the most part, I've seen you mainly asking questions rather than reaction baiting people by voting these who you suspect. Lets take a look at your posts:

Emziek wrote:
Ish wrote:
Ultor wrote:
[vote Lawliet]


Why do you want a vote on lawliet?? At that moment in time he would have been guaranteed a lynch, if emziek didn't unvote.

@Emziek, your reason for unvoting??

Don't want to start a bandwagoon for no reason


While I understand that you do not want to start a bandwagon for no reason (that would be a random lynch if there were no motive behind), you also stated the following:

Emziek wrote:
3 out of 14 votes isn't a bw


Firstly, at the time, your vote was the only one placed on Lawliet. So to me, that seems like a contradiction. Secondly, saying my thoughts out loud, there's 2 things that comes to mind:

(1) Are you sure that Lawliet didn't convince you to unvote him by poking you @steam?

Emziek wrote:
[vote Lawliet]

Poke


Emziek wrote:
[unvote]


But for some unfortunate reason, he's no longer alive.

WaywardVole wrote:
[Kill Lawliet, stab]
Lawliet was a Vanilla Villager


Could this mean that you are the Serial Killer?

The second thing to come to mind is that while you may not want to start bandwagons, you gladly join one? That's typical scum (or SK in this case) play.

Emziek wrote:
I'm slightly suspicious about both Ish and Ultor. I get some mafia reads from some of what Ish was writing earlier in the thread. I also find it curious how Ultor got nothing to say about Ish and SiX, comparing to how he observed and commented on most stuff last game, something feels of. I get it he might just busy with real life as he says himself, but real life is also a convenient excuse to avoid having to move into the spotlight.

Therefor Ultor takes my vote for now
[vote Ultor]


A third thing coming to mind from reading this, you suspect Ultor and Ish, but you do not bring up Lien's activity and her real life excuse. That's very suspicious.

As for what I originally referred to, you ask questions, but you do not do anything to investigate more than necessary:

Emziek wrote:
Pr0Gr4mm4 wrote:
[vote Ultor]
ill just follow this wagon

why?


Emziek wrote:
(2)The following happened more than 24 hours before the round end.
It would seem your argument holds no grounds.


But without anything breaking the status quo, the information, whether 24 hours or 100 hours, remains the same and as such my motive for voting is also the same.

This was what I originally wanted to post, but I see you revealed yourself as the Journalist, so I'll read up on that in a bit.

Mon Jul 18, 2016 5:20 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#121 (ISO #17)  Re: [R2 ends 19 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
Emziek wrote:
Lien is always inactive, except when shes mafia.


She's always inactive, especially when she's mafia, is what I'd say. Not except.

Mon Jul 18, 2016 5:25 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#123 (ISO #18)  Re: [R2 ends 19 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
I believe that Emziek is bullshitting his Journalist claim. And no, I'm not counter-claiming Journalist. I'm referring to what he just said:

Emziek wrote:
I'm the Journalist (Village peeker) R0: Lawliet (not suspicious), R1: Ish (suspicious).


If you truly were the Journalist, and got Lawliet as your R0 negative, it makes no sense for you to vote him in the topic. What you would have done is to poke him on steam or to send him a nD PM, not to vote him and ask him to poke you on steam. To me it sounds as though you use the fact (1) that Lawliet is dead and (2) you happening to ask him to poke you on steam as ground for your R0 negative. If you had claimed that any of the living players were your R1 negative, they would be suspicious why you didn't poke them up to now. Eitherway, your way of contacting Lawliet was weird as hell for a Journalist, or you are not the Journalist to begin with. Everyone, be cautious of providing Emziek with your roles.

Mon Jul 18, 2016 5:32 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#126 (ISO #19)  Re: [R2 ends 19 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
Emziek wrote:
1/13 chance of him being the Godfather, Yeah I'm going to send him a PM through the website asking to be killed.


You wanted to poke him regardless, be it the PMs or on Steam. Either way, as a Journalist, I believed you'd have taken that risk. You could also have waited until he logged in on your steam chat. To vote him, with there being a 12 / 13 chance of him being Town, makes no sense. That VOTE makes no sense.

Mon Jul 18, 2016 5:35 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#129 (ISO #20)  Re: [R2 ends 19 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
Emziek wrote:
SiX wrote:
Emziek wrote:
1/13 chance of him being the Godfather, Yeah I'm going to send him a PM through the website asking to be killed.


You wanted to poke him regardless, be it the PMs or on Steam. Either way, as a Journalist, I believed you'd have taken that risk. You could also have waited until he logged in on your steam chat. To vote him, with there being a 12 / 13 chance of him being Town, makes no sense. That VOTE makes no sense.

http://steamcommunity.com/id/kaebbel/

Go through my friendlist, I don't even have Lawliet on my friendlist.


Then how did you expect him to poke you? By quoting "sup?" in the topic, or by sending you a PM? If the former, you'd not claim Journalist. If the latter, you would still discuss over PM. If you didn't want to discuss with him, there wouldn't have been any point to poke him to begin with.

Mon Jul 18, 2016 5:39 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#131 (ISO #21)  Re: [R2 ends 19 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
Emziek wrote:
The poke means nothing SiX, infact no PMs were exchanged between me and Lawliet at all.


It means that you wanted to get in contact with him. That's at least how I interpret it.

Mon Jul 18, 2016 5:41 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#134 (ISO #22)  Re: [R2 ends 19 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
!!!*-Leo-*!!! wrote:
And yes my fault you voted as 2nd on Crispo but you still didn't changed your vote to another.

Because there was no reason for me to change my vote. The certainty of Ultor being evil, or anyone else for that matter, wasn't higher than it was for CrisP0 at the time.

!!!*-Leo-*!!! wrote:
And for your thoughts SiX you can watch in the games before i've played i care much about our town. And guess what i was = villager.

Maybe you care for the town, but it feels very forced that you have to say that you care for the town. Show it through actions (town), not through words (mafia).

!!!*-Leo-*!!! wrote:
And i change my votes not to get not seen as a mafia, i'll do it to try all to hold our village mates/town allive.

You vote those you suspect and to ensure that the Town controls the lynch, you don't vote to avoid being seen as a mafia. That's what the Mafia do.

!!!*-Leo-*!!! wrote:
And in my opinion to hear all the time better vote on him or another is "sry" ridiculous in my opinion...all vote lynch that risk to get villager friends killed, lead to lose mates we need to fight against mafia ones with power roles. Mostly like it happend again direct 3 villagers get killed and that is way much for me. So this lynch votes on "maybe" mafia lead all the time to lose 1 more villager as mafia kill with their power.


It's better to lynch a town member than not to lynch at all. The lynch is the town's primary way of gathering information and without any progress being, the Town would just sit around like sheep, waiting for the wolves to take them. That's why the town needs to lynch, even in times of uncertainty.

!!!*-Leo-*!!! wrote:
And that if randomly votes get made on players, on what the most can't be sure that he is definitely a mafia guy.

And if so, we can use that as a lead, to suspect these people. That's why we lynch.

!!!*-Leo-*!!! wrote:
[In my opinion i would like to play more a round where no one get lynched if not 100% sure mafia, than to vote and risk to kill a villager. And that happend all the time.


That would stagnate our progress. There will always be a R1, be it R1, R2, R3 or even R7 if the game takes that long. There will always be someone who has to be lynched first in times of uncertainty. You can't ever (well almost never) be 100% sure and the sooner the town lynch someone, the better.

Mon Jul 18, 2016 5:48 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#136 (ISO #23)  Re: [R2 ends 19 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
HATER, you are clearly taking things out of context. How haven't you realized that I'm perspective-taking? I'm entertaining the thought of you being a Mafia and explaining your actions based on that.

Mon Jul 18, 2016 5:52 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#137 (ISO #24)  Re: [R1 ends 17 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
HATER wrote:
SiX wrote:
HATER wrote:
I'm not terribly sure about this wagon on crisp0.

[vote ultor]

Finger of suspicion on SiX, just a gut feeling.


And I'm not terribly sure about this wagon on Ultor either.
Finger of suspicion on HATER for placing his vote on Ultor rather than on crisp0, who was bound to flip innocent, so he could have a motive to point fingers at others.


.... wait a second here. According to you, any way I could have voted would be the "wrong" vote.


I'm simply showing you how faulty your logic is.

HATER: Not sure about the wagon on crisp0
HATER: Finger of suspicion on six for voting crisp0, that's essentially what you are trying to say.

Six: Not sure about the wagon on Ultor
Six: suspicion on HATER for voting Ultor

Your logic can be used AGAINST you. It's hypocritical of you to suspect someone for doing the same thing you yourself do. And I tried to prove that to you by using sarcasm in my post.

Code:
Because I wound up getting off work and voting so late in the round, I had essentially 4 options:

#1: Vote Crisp0. Something wasn't quite right about the wagon on him, and I had a feeling he was a villager. I quite frankly just didn't feel comfortable voting for him. And as it turns out, he was indeed a villager -- so I was correct to not vote for him. Obviously voting for him would have made me suspicious (seeing as how

#2: Vote Ultor. This is who I thought looked more suspicious, and this is who I ultimately ended up voting for. I needed to make a decision as to whom I suspected more,  and Ultor came out on top. I can't see why I'm being faulted for this -- if I was really just a mafia looking to throw in a vote to look active, there were better options for me (see #4).

#3: Vote No Lynch. I hate voting no lynch round 1 -- it essentially gives the wolves a free kill. I have never encouraged this practice in any standard game I've ever been in (see: any of my previous walls of text on this topic in other games), and I don't intend to start now.

#4 Vote someone else/ not vote at all: neither of these things would do ANYTHING to change the outcome -- if I was truly a mafia (who would be happy about crisp0 getting lynched) I would be voting someone unrelated to this -- it makes me look active, doesn't generally piss off anyone, and keeps me in the game without changing the outcome of the lynch. THAT would be the best play as a mafia.

None of these options, except maybe #2, look all that appealing. I voted for the most suspicious person I saw based off of who was up for lynch. You've created a false dilemma, a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If I vote for someone I think is a villager, I'm suspicious. If I vote the other guy who I think is more likely to be mafia, I'm suspicious. If I vote no lynch, the village gains no info. If I don't vote at all I'm afk. If I vote someone else entirely, sure I'm not suspicious, but I don't change anything!


Nothing of this has any relevance to your gut feeling whatsoever. This is your subjective read, just like I have mine.

HATER wrote:
Fuck. That. Shit.

It seems that you're deliberately using faulty logic to try and implicate me -- perhaps to get me out of your way?

[vote SiX]


Sarcasm all the way, sir. I wasn't even remotely interested in voting for you, at least not at the time.

HATER wrote:
Furthermore, if Crisp0 was "bound to flip innocent", then why the FUCK were you voting him?


This is exactly what I mean with you taking thing out of context to make me look bad by assuming I said something I didn't say. From the very beginning, I argued from the perspective of you being a Mafia. Knowing CrisP0 wasn't a Mafia, he was bound to flip innocent (or SK which I didn't include at the time). With that in mind, you decided to vote for Ultor so you could use that as a motive to point fingers at me. That's basically what I said, but you assume I somehow knew that CrisP0 was a Town Member while I in fact referred to you being a Mafia with CrisP0 not being on your team. You clearly need to pay more attention to the details before trying to make someone look bad for something they didn't say.

Mon Jul 18, 2016 6:06 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#138 (ISO #25)  Re: [R2 ends 19 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
HATER wrote:
SiX wrote:
!!!*-Leo-*!!! wrote:
And yes my fault you voted as 2nd on Crispo but you still didn't changed your vote to another.

Because there was no reason for me to change my vote. The certainty of Ultor being evil, or anyone else for that matter, wasn't higher than it was for CrisP0 at the time.


CrusP0 = 5 / 14 chance of being evil.
Ultor = 5 / 14 chance of being evil.

Conclusion: Subjective reads aside (which were limited at the time), they had about the same odds of being evil. As such, the certainty wouldn't increase significantly no matter who you voted for R1.


HATER wrote:
And yet...


SiX wrote:
Finger of suspicion on HATER for placing his vote on Ultor rather than on crisp0, who was bound to flip innocent, so he could have a motive to point fingers at others.


Since he was given a Town role by the host, he was bound to flip innocent, regardless of what you, I or anyone else has to say about it. That's a matter of fact. But since you rolled mafia (entertaining the thought), you knew the chance of him being innocent was significantly higher, 8 / 9 to be exact.

Mon Jul 18, 2016 6:11 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:30 pm
#172 (ISO #26)  Re: [R2 ends 19 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
HATER wrote:
If you look back on my actual post, you'll see I gave my FoS for a gut feeling -- which was then nothing else -- simply a gut reaction. Nothing major yet, just something didn't feel right about you.

My feeling on the bandwagon for crispo was mostly unrelated for why I put the FoS on you.


It was mostly unrelated you say, but the most straight forward thinking would be to assume there was a connection (which you do not deny when you say mostly unrelated).

A = The bandwagon on CrisP0 is suspicious
B = Six votes for CrisP0
Therefore...
C = Six is suspicious (gut feeling).

You should realize that saying "just a gut feeling" is very vague when you clearly present that the entire bandwagon on CrisP0 is suspicious, a suspicious bandwagon on which Six votes, then that's no longer just a gut feeling. It's a connection.

HATER wrote:
The problem here is you're not using any logic, let alone my own -- you're simply jumbling together random straw man arguments. If you can't see that there's a distinct difference between your haphazard claims and my methodical refutations, then you're wayyy fucking thicker than I thought.


Using the most straight forward thinking, then no, there's no distinct difference. A suspicious bandwagon includes suspicious voters, therefore the voters are also suspicious. That's what you said prior to saying Six is suspicious based on an gut feeling. And that equation can be used AGAINST you. Why? Because this is a matter of subjectivity when it comes to reads. This was your take on the CrisP0 bandwagon. Now lets assume someone has a different opinion than you, and finds that the Ultor bandwagon is suspicious. In that matter, you would be the one suspicious for voting on Ultor. And that's why your logic is faulty. For the same reason you suspect someone else, you yourself can be suspected. And if you are a Town Member, then you should realize that the possibility of me being a town member also exists. But if you stubbornly pursue the logic of:

X and Y does the same thing
X is suspicious
Y is not.

Then you truly are a blockhead. The only way this would make sense if you are a Mafia member, trying to justify your reasons for suspecting someone, in this case me.

HATER wrote:
You trying to throw suspicion off of yourself by targeting me for a completely logical decision (e.g. voting for the person I suspected to be mafia more than crisp0) is the part that's illogical, then saying "he was bound to flip village" on one hand and switching sides and saying you obviously can't be faulted for voting for him because "you had no idea".


Listen HATER, I don't think it's that hard. I don't target you for making a completely logical decision when you decided to vote Ultor (someone you suspected more than CrisP0) over CrisP0. I'm targeting you for assuming your reads are universal. You seem to lack the ability to realize the word called "subjectivity" when it comes to reads. Not just me, but any town member, why do you think they decide to vote someone? The most straight forward answer is because they suspect them. But every town member do not vote on the same person. It's quite a mess with the town members being spread out all over, voting for different candidates. Some vote against the Mafia, some vote against their own. But what you do not seem to realize is that they vote with the same motive, because their subjective read swings a certain way. And in this area, we are the same. I voted for CrisP0, you voted for Ultor. The only difference is that CrisP0 flipped town. But shit like that happens. Now, lets assume you are a town member and Ultor got lynched, flipping town. Would that have made any difference? It doesn't naturally mean you are suspicious, or even Mafia. But you attempt to make it look that way, despite the fact that this could have happened to anyone. And that's why I fault your logic.

Yes, I say he was bound to flip village (which he was because he was given a town role), but that was unbeknownst to us. Yet you try to make a bird out of a feather regarding this. Not realizing that the R1 lynches are 90% of the times purely random, you try to hold me responsible for the death of CrisP0, with you having voted for someone else (Ultor), giving you the position of a "Haha Six, you voted for someone who died and flip Town. I, on the other hand, cannot be held responsible for that person's death. I was even against it, giving me a stronger position than you, which I'll use to have you lynched." - That's the logic I fault you for. No town member would do this, but you do. Either are you thus a blockhead who clearly overestimate yourself, or you are a Mafia /SK trying to take advantage of your position

HATER wrote:
[b]Futhermore -- my FoS was BEFORE crisp0 flipped and was for a different reason entirely at the time. Your FoS was based off of crisp0's flip after the fact and was based only on my vote.


Yes, it was before CrisP0 flipped Village. But assuming you are a Mafia, you would have known that CrisP0 was either a Town member or the SK. Trying to defend him in the topic would thus give you an advantageous position to argue from when you point fingers at others. The fact that it was prior to his death is irrelevant when his outcome was nearly certain, town.

-------------------------------------------------

And let me refute the coded part of your equation then, if it makes you happier.

HATER wrote:
#1: Vote Crisp0. Something wasn't quite right about the wagon on him, and I had a feeling he was a villager. I quite frankly just didn't feel comfortable voting for him. And as it turns out, he was indeed a villager -- so I was correct to not vote for him. Obviously voting for him would have made me suspicious (seeing as how


Something wasn't quite right about the wagon on CrisP0, and you had a feeling he was a villager. And you didn't feel comfortable voting for him, and it turned out he was a Villager. As such, you was correct not to vote for him, but to vote for someone more suspicious. That's what you are saying. But I've addressed this issue of yours in the earlier parts of this post, and that's your belief that your reads are somewhat objective and universal. Just because YOU did something, it doesn't mean everyone else, teammates alike, should do the same. But you expect they should, and anyone who dares to say or do elseway, will be on your FoS. But that logic doesn't work, do you know why? Because anyone could use it. Anyone could say that "if your reads aren't in alignment with mine, then you are suspicious" - and do you know what this would lead to? It would lead to you being suspected for the same reason you suspect someone else. It would be an infinite circle of people suspecting each other for not agreeing, until some people finally see 100% eye to eye. And that isn't Mafia. Mafia isn't that objective and universal. It's a subjective game and you should learn to leave more room for other people's thoughts.

HATER wrote:
#2: Vote Ultor. This is who I thought looked more suspicious, and this is who I ultimately ended up voting for. I needed to make a decision as to whom I suspected more, and Ultor came out on top. I can't see why I'm being faulted for this -- if I was really just a mafia looking to throw in a vote to look active, there were better options for me (see #4).


Once again, you are not faulted for voting Ultor. You are faulted for expecting me to vote Ultor. Don't you think everyone vote the people they find suspicious? You are not the only one. But expecting everyone who's town should vote the same person as you, now that's fucked up.

HATER wrote:
#3: Vote No Lynch. I hate voting no lynch round 1 -- it essentially gives the wolves a free kill. I have never encouraged this practice in any standard game I've ever been in (see: any of my previous walls of text on this topic in other games), and I don't intend to start now.


A point I finally agree with you on.

HATER wrote:
#4 Vote someone else/ not vote at all: neither of these things would do ANYTHING to change the outcome -- if I was truly a mafia (who would be happy about crisp0 getting lynched) I would be voting someone unrelated to this -- it makes me look active, doesn't generally piss off anyone, and keeps me in the game without changing the outcome of the lynch. THAT would be the best play as a mafia.


Yes, they wouldn't do anything to change the outcome. Then why do you fault me for keeping my vote on CrisP0? Based on your logic, the only other option would be to vote Ultor. You chose Ultor, I chose CrisP0. It's as simple as that.

HATER wrote:
I voted for the most suspicious person I saw based off of who was up for lynch

And you don't assume I did? And everyone else for that matter?

HATER wrote:
You've created a false dilemma, a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. And it's stunning that you don't realize that. If I vote for someone I think is a villager, I'm suspicious. If I vote the other guy who I think is more likely to be mafia, I'm suspicious. If I vote no lynch, the village gains no info. If I don't vote at all I'm afk. If I vote someone else entirely, sure I'm not suspicious, but I don't change anything!


You were the one to create that situation. If I voted for Ultor, who I thought to be a villager, I'm suspicious. if I vote for the other guy (CrisP0) who I thought was more likely to be a mafia, I am suspicious. If I vote no lynch, the village gains no info. If I don't vote at all I'm afk. If I vote someone else entirely, sure I'm not suspicious, but I don't change anything!

Your logic could be used against you all the time, and that's why your logic was flawed.

HATER wrote:
It seems that you're deliberately using faulty logic to try and implicate me -- perhaps to get me out of your way?

You clearly overestimate yourself. There wouldn't be a need for me to bother getting you out of my way. But the fact you do believe that, is nothing but arrogance.

HATER wrote:
[b][color=#00FF00]Of course you weren't Interested in voting me -- you didn't want to start a war you were sure to lose. Welp, I got news for ya buddy, you started it anyways.


Gosh. Were do I even begin? The reason I wasn't interested in voting for you, was because your logic was so hypocritical that it was astonishing. My FoS on you wasn't even a genuine FoS, it was pure sarcasm. And even if I lost the war against you, that would only matter if you are a Mafia or the Serial Killer. As a town member, whether or not you win the war against me, the outcome would be detrimental to the entire town faction. As such, a town member lynching a town member, isn't a win. It's a loss, both for the dead, as well as for the living. But if you are driven by a personal agenda to always appear victorious, then I assume that doesn't matter?

HATER wrote:
As I covered in my last post -- from that perspective, if I was a mafia and knew crisp0 would flip village, blah blah -- why the fuck would I even bother voting for ultor? I could have thrown my vote on Lien, Ish, you, or LITERALLY ANYONE ELSE that it couldn't matter on -- why would I risk someone else voting with me on Ultor and thus changing the outcome of the lynch and making me look guilty or killing a teammate (if ultor is village, I'd be one of the ones that killed him (and therefore somewhat suspicious), if ultor was mafia, I'd have killed one of my teammates). Either way, if I was mafia and someone else voted ultor after I voted,


You do realize you voted ultor about 1 hour prior to the round end when most of the players were offline? You wouldn't have had to worry about anyone changing their outcome. Rather, you could maintain the suspicion on both Ultor and the CrisP0 voters. But that's where your biggest flaw is. You didn't suspect the CrisP0 votes. You suspected me, one of 4 CrisP0 voters. To me, this looks as though you want to make enemies to lynch, but you don't want to make too many at the same time, because you realize the possibility of them ganging up on you exists. Which would backfire, resulting in you dying instead. But if you focus 1 player, you can attempt to lynch them.

Tue Jul 19, 2016 11:20 am Profile Send private message
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.