View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:03 pm

User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
#2 (ISO #1)  Re: Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
Looks interesting -- are rooms randomly assigned to players at the beginning of the game?

What happens if an empty room is targeted? Nothing? A public message? Is the player informed?


[in]

Sun Jul 10, 2016 5:54 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
#9 (ISO #2)  Re: Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
[Something I wanted to post in the other game but couldn't due to, y'know, getting shot R1]


Also, on the topic of "activity makes you die" -- in terms of general game knowledge:


Wolves want to blend in with the village. If the majority of village are pretty afk, then the wolves will likely act afk-ish too in order to blend in (after all, they don't want to be seen acting differently from the rest of the crowd). Moreover, the wolves LIKE it when they can hide and act afk, because it means they have to put less effort into blending in and have fewer chances to fuck up.



The solution to this, of course, is that every villager should attempt to be as active as possible, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY MAY GET KILLED FOR IT. This way, if the mafia continue to act afk-ish, they now stand out and can be investigated.

This means, of course, that if the village itself is active, the mafia will be forced to become more active as well. And if the mafia are more active, this means they have more exposure to the villagers and therefore more chances to fuck up and give themselves away.





You will notice that (especially as a villager) you do NOT have to be alive at the end of a game to win. It's like playing Dota or LoL -- if you die but your team still manages to win the game, you will win with them.

If you just stand afk at spawn, sure, you'll never die -- but your team will be worse off without you (unless you're Maki) and it will be likely that you will lose the game .



This whole attitude of "active people get killed, so I'll just be afk and not die" is selfish and honestly makes your team more likely to lose. The village controls a lot of more than it thinks it does, but the change in attitude has to start at the individual level before it can affect the game as a whole.

Mon Jul 11, 2016 3:19 am Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
#21 (ISO #3)  Re: Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
Emziek wrote:
HATER wrote:
-snip-

I hope you take your own advice this game. ;)


hm? I wasn't inactive last game because I chose to be -- I just happen to have a extremely busy work schedule that involves some very long hours with very few substantial breaks. That combined with the fact that I only lived one round before the mafia targeted me and that the rounds were 24 hours long didn't leave me much of a window to make an impact on the game. Hopefully this game will bring some better options via 48hr rounds.

Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:59 am Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
#46 (ISO #4)  Re: [R0] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
Usually any faction that has a roundly nightkill gets a r0 hospitalize... I doubt this game is any different since the first post implies that a non-mafia also tried to kill him.


As for konijn, he's somehow become the "default" hospitalization target since I targeted him n1 in k0ntra's game a month or two ago... seems like I accidentally started a trend. Unfortunately this now tells us very little about his alignment because it's now "tradition" -- if konijn was mafia, his best bet would be to hospitalize himself, otherwise he'd look suspicious (because it's a break from what is now considered "normal").

Fri Jul 15, 2016 11:56 am Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
#55 (ISO #5)  Re: [R0] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
The SK and hotel manager can switch the rooms of players. My questions are thus:

May the hotel manager target his own room?

and most importantly, when do room switches happen? if they happen before protections and other night actions, interesting shenanigans could definitely arise (a la busdriver).

Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:04 am Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
#97 (ISO #6)  Re: [R1 ends 17 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
I'm not terribly sure about this wagon on crisp0.

[vote ultor]

Finger of suspicion on SiX, just a gut feeling.

Mon Jul 18, 2016 3:21 am Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
#132 (ISO #7)  Re: [R1 ends 17 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
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.

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!


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]


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

Mon Jul 18, 2016 5:43 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
#135 (ISO #8)  Re: [R2 ends 19 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
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.



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.


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

Side note: IF YOU ARE THE JOURNALIST (COP) PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND COUNTER-CLAIM EMZIEK. IF YOU ARE THE JOURNALIST, THIS MEANS HE IS LYING.

Mon Jul 18, 2016 5:50 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
#163 (ISO #9)  Re: [R1 ends 17 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
SiX wrote:
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.


No, you aren't -- you're not using logic of ANY kind here.

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.

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.




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.




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.

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".



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.

You can't equivocate the two, and I resent your attempt to. It only shows that you're trying to obfuscate the logical process by attempting to bring in unrelated events and pass them off as some kind of fucked-up evidence.



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.


It wasn't meant to have any relevance to my gut feeling that I had at the beginning of the round; this is directly related to your so-called "reasoning" for why you attempted to shift blame from yourself onto me.

I'd like to point out that your above statement is simply a dodge to avoid having to answer the step-by-step, logical argument I laid out. You STILL haven't answered the implicit question that follows logically from my post (which I thought you were smart enough to extrapolate -- guess not!). The question is as follows:

Given the four possible options I had, from the perspective of a villager with the info I had, what, in your opinion, SHOULD I have done instead of vote for the person I voted for? In other words, if I'm suspicious for voting how I voted, then what would be the better alternative in your opinion?

If you can't come up with a better alternative, then we can effectively consider your point null (as if it wasn't already),

You're very fucking quick to accuse someone of being suspicious for making a complete logical decision with (I might add) very few other viable options?




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.

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.


SiX wrote:

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.


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.



Okay, you want to argue from the "perspective of me being a mafia"? Let's fucking DO this:



Jesus fucking christ -- did you not read?

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,


Voting Ultor would be literally one of the WORST plays for me as a mafia -- it would have put me in a place of highly unnecessary risk. In fact, not voting at all would be a better option than voting for ultor if I was mafia.





Quote:

You clearly need to pay more attention to the details before trying to make someone look bad for something they didn't say.



You know, that's fucking funny -- I could say the same thing to you.


Let's break it down here --

SiX:

-Creates false dilemma (if I vote for the person I think is more likely to be mafia, then I'm obviously mafia, because I chose the one less likely to be suspicious?). Jesus christ, idiot. If we all followed that logic we would never FUCKING LYNCH A MAFIA EXCEPT BY ACCIDENT (which is what the village is kinda on track to do this round, I might add).

- Tries to dodge my breakdown of the above false-dilemma by bringing up that my (mostly unrelated) FoS on him R1 was due to a gut feeling -- this is true, but that gut feeling isn't what I'm confronting him on. Now we're arguing facts, not gut feelings.

- Attempts to equivocate my arguments to his own flimsy "reasoning" (not only is this highly inaccurate, it's also quite insulting if you think about it!)


-Tries to use the "perspective of HATER as a mafia" as some kind of evidence without even CONSIDERING there were clearly better options for me as a mafia


This, to me, looks like the efforts of a man DESPERATE to paint another as guilty without considering ANY substantial points of logic.








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


So, I've talked with Ezmiek. Since he is our non-counterclaimed Cop claim...

Obligatory PSA:

(AGAIN, IF YOU ARE THE JOURNALIST, PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND CLAIM PUBLICLY NOW, OTHERWISE EMZIEK IS ASSUMED COP BY DEFAULT)



But unless someone counterclaims, we can assume Emziek is the Cop. He's claimed to have peeked Ish as evil -- and since there are no roles that can mislead peeks to read "guilty", he can be assumed to be evil unless there is a cop counterclaim.


As much as I'd love to lynch SiX, I have to go with what simple logic dictates. Nobody has counterclaimed Emz yet, so:


[vote Ish]


Also, if you're the Hotel Manager, PLEASE switch Emz. Make sure he keeps switching rooms so that he can't be killed.


I encourage everyone else to do the same UNLESS someone counterclaims publicly in the thread.

Tue Jul 19, 2016 5:56 am Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
#165 (ISO #10)  Re: [R2 ends 19 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
POOOOO wrote:
[vote no lynch])
SiX and ultor are villagers (why? because the way these 2 defend themselves shows that they really want to survive the game and win)



First off -- a player that's extremely focused on their own personal survival is much more likely to be mafia/3rd party. This is because the SK is his entire team (he makes up 100% of the members on his team-- so if he dies, he loses), each mafia is 25% of their team, and each one plays a generally vital role (if even one mafia member dies, the chances of the mafia winning are drastically lowered), but each villager is only about 11% of their own team -- the village can afford to lose a couple players and still be okay.


Therefore, if you are a villager, you should care less about your own survival compared to what information your team can gain. In pretty much any game, if I have the option to die so that my team could learn the name of a mafia, I would choose that option every time (unless there were so few players left that me dying would cause the wolves to instantly win). This is because the village will always win an equal war of attrition.

If you've done something useful for your team as a villager, and you die, your team can still win without you a lot of times. On the other hand, if you're a mafia or SK and you die, your team is put at a severe disadvantage.


Hence, Mafia and SK tend to value their own survival more than anything else. Villagers know they can die and their team will carry them. Mafia and SK often do not have that option.







Secondly, we have a non-countered cop claim who claims to have peeked Ish as mafia. In the absence of any other person claiming to be the cop, we can assume he is telling the truth. Ergo, we should be voting Ish.

Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:33 am Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
#176 (ISO #11)  Re: [R2 ends 19 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
Ultor wrote:
And still waiting for any counter-claims... I have 1 HM claim and we all know that Emziek publicly claimed to be a Journalist. If you are the real one for either of roles, please send me a PM. Don't do it publicly as it might get you killed.



This right here is wrong. DO claim puclicly if you have a counterclaim -- this is how the entire village can know at once that Emziek's claim is contested. This is much more important than personal survival (see: my last post) and almost 100% guarantees that one of the two is mafia.


Ultor has absolutely NO grounds upon which to be trusted. Do NOT claim privately to him if you have a counterclaim (or anyone else, including me). Claim publicly if you wish to contest emziek's claim.

Tue Jul 19, 2016 5:41 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
#180 (ISO #12)  Re: [R2 ends 19 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
Whatever the outcome of today's lynch, the hotel manager needs to switch emziek with someone else tonight -- someone who (hopefully) is likely to be a mafia.

Tue Jul 19, 2016 11:24 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
#190 (ISO #13)  Re: [R2 ends 19 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
tfw no doc

Wed Jul 20, 2016 11:20 am Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
#204 (ISO #14)  Re: [R3 ends 21 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
Emziek wrote:
Konijn ISO: isolation.php?tid=26287&pid=3919

Only 2 game related posts that contribute next to nothing.

[vote Konijn]

Get active and start posting.


Agreed. It's actually highly out of character for Konijn to be this devoid of any opinions on the game. Even if he isn't maf, I'd certainly like to hear his thoughts more than we've been hearing them.

(Also, FoS on Lien)


[vote konijn]

Wed Jul 20, 2016 2:46 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
#207 (ISO #15)  Re: [R3 ends 21 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
Konijn wrote:
Check the last couple of games, where I have been village and equally as afk/not really posting. Just kinda busy to read through walls of text to come up with reads.

I have some ideas for who are likely mafia suspects based on the previous round but need some time to properly think about thinks and formulate a comprehensive reply. Will update later, playing LoL atm.

Still waiting on that post bruh.

Wed Jul 20, 2016 4:57 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
#208 (ISO #16)  Re: [R2 ends 19 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
Ish wrote:
Welp I guess that's my fate sealed, just lynch the Emziek when I flip village, as well as Leo and Lien. Then we should be sorted :). Hope you guys carry me.

I'm also gonna guess one of these two is maf -- knowing that he would flip mafia, it makes sense to "implicate" 1 maf and 1 non-maf (thus siding them with emziek).

It would be what I would do as mafia, albeit non as clumsily.

Wed Jul 20, 2016 5:02 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
#210 (ISO #17)  Re: [R3 ends 21 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
Ultor wrote:
Its best for the village to lynch Leo. It would reveal the remaining 2 mafias.


Isn't this what you said last round, when voting Ish was the obvious best choice (since we had an uncontested cop claiming Ish was guilty)?

Wed Jul 20, 2016 5:36 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
#252 (ISO #18)  Re: [R4 ends 23 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
Pr0Gr4mm4 wrote:
yea sorry man guys i couldn't be active:(

>continues to be inactive and contribute nothing to the game

Fri Jul 22, 2016 10:13 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
#253 (ISO #19)  Re: [R4 ends 23 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
Konijn wrote:
Ultor wrote:
My recent chatlog with Leo:

Spoiler: show
strande65: is that allowed?
Ultor: i think so
Ultor: screenshot is not
strande65: well im not sure im allowed to do it..i will ask him before i do it
Ultor: its allowed
Ultor: but not screenshot
Ultor: I did the same thing for last game
Ultor: i asked six
strande65: okay let me see how i can do it and you should ask that question poo too to see his role
Ultor: six said he doesnt know
Ultor: ask the host
Ultor: what was the most recent thing u said to poo?
strande65: i cant find the role post..i think i delted it...yes im mafia i know...to poo i didn't talked i only called him mafia today in the server and he said nah, so i called him SK then and he didn't said anything more
Ultor: so u admit ur a mafia?
strande65: nah but i know how stubborn you are and if i can't find my evidence for you...what chance i have that you trust me?
Ultor: ok lol this aint gonna help u
Ultor: you didnt delete it, u just dont know how to fake it
strande65: i never would fake anything
strande65: i hold my folder small as i can
strande65: have only the things in it where i told the admins things to back it up


Basically he started begging me to not lynch him. I asked him to give me his role PM. He said he deleted it and some silly reasons like "i hold my folder small as i can".

RIP Leo, mafia scum!

Quoting or screenshotting the role PM is forbidden according to the WW rules, see viewtopic.php?f=178&t=24591 - rule 2, unless explicit permission is given.

Also this is in the OP for SiX's last game:
Quote:
(2) Quoting the host's private messages. You are only allowed to quote A) what I type in this topic and B) What I give permission to quote. In other words, I don't want you to quote my private messages to you, e.g. your role PM. It can be abused to prove a point and if you are found out doing so, you'll be modkilled.


I do not believe he would have given you permission to quote/SS the PM.

Also, I really wish someone would address the issue of screenshotting conversations. Copy-pasting is one thing as text can be easily manipulated and so conversations can be disputed, but screenshots are much harder to fake and nobody would spend the time doing that for this game.



In my experience, screenshots of convos between players has always been allowed, but no direct quoting (via copypaste, screenshot, teamviewer, or otherwise) of a HOST pm is ever allowed.

Fri Jul 22, 2016 10:15 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
#258 (ISO #20)  Re: [R4 ends 23 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
[vote Leo]


Confirmed cop says to lynch someone? I'm gon' lynch 'em.

Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:35 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
#260 (ISO #21)  Re: [R4 ends 23 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
!!!*-Leo-*!!! wrote:
I won't try to convince one anymore. And i won't admit anything.

As i can see i will die this round and it is okay.
I agree on Konijns post that i would never agree to given screenshots of my PM (role) away, that is just dumb to ask for that as a evidence Ultor and it kinda sucks. That mean Emziek as the one who got shown as a 100% villager after Ish died, could ask all allive players for a screenshot of his PM they took from the host.
And also in my opinion that this game need screenshots of/or anything to win this game is ridiculous and take my fun to be honest.



Again, nobody should be asking for or sharing screenshots of PMs from the host. That is strictly against the rules, and always has been.

From what I understand, you're being lynched because you weren't in the room you claimed to be in when emziek peeked it last night, and refused to tell him which room you were in.

This has nothing to do with screenshots of any kind -- simply logic.

Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:33 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
#276 (ISO #22)  Re: [R1 ends 17 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
Ultor wrote:
[unvote]

1 is the sniper and 1 is the spy. I'm guessing Pr0Gr4mm4 is sacrificing his teammate to use his extra shot this round. We still have 2 days so plenty of time before conclusion.




Goddamn, ultor -- use some logic for once. As you can see in the R1 post by wayward, there was an extra shot besides the R1 shot that Emziek survived:

WaywardVole wrote:
[Dusk]

[Kill CrisP0, lynched]
CrisP0 was a Vanilla Villager

[log Emziek, survived shot]


[Kill earliergray, stab]
earliergray was a Doctor

As the faintest hint of drawn streaks through the sky, one final person moves through the halls. Carrying a small gun, they quickly dart to Room 2 and slip inside. Once again, the gunshot is barely discernible, but this time, it hits its target.

[Kill Lawliet, shot]
Lawliet was a Vanilla Villager

[Dawn]



Since I used my shot on Lien (confining me as Vig!), we can safely assume that the extra shot r1 was indeed from the sniper.

Ergo, there is no shot for the sniper to use.



This round is something we call "LyLo" or "Lynch or Lose". It's when there's only 1 more village than mafia and we have to lynch a mafia this round in order to not lose.

Every village player should be actively trying to prove their own innocence.

Sun Jul 24, 2016 3:21 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
#278 (ISO #23)  Re: [R5 ends 25 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
Ultor wrote:
Quote:
Goddamn, ultor -- use some logic for once.


So far, I was the only one using logic in this game. I simply missed the fact about Emizek surviving that shot.

Anyway, its POOOO and Pr0Gr4mm4 so it should be easy.


Don't make me laugh, please. Between attempting to lynch Emziek after he claimed, to asking for private claims before you were peeked safe, you've done a lot that can safely be categorized as "not logical".



I'd argue it's pr0Gr4mm4 and panda -- but

[vote pr0gr4mm4]

since he's the one we both agree on.

Sun Jul 24, 2016 3:41 pm Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
#285 (ISO #24)  Re: [R5 ends 25 July, 23:59 EST] Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
[vote pandaboyii]

Tue Jul 26, 2016 4:19 am Profile Send private message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:20 pm
#292 (ISO #25)  Re: Mafia XXXI: L'Hôtel de la Mort
gg all

Thanks for hosting, Wayeward -- a stellar game considering you're a first-time host. :)

A damn shame the mafia were so afk though.

Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:22 am Profile Send private message
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.