|
Post by Pleonast on Jan 20, 2014 15:43:47 GMT -5
for their better explanation of assumptions about story's vote. That should be " story's reveal". I'm stretched way too thin at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Jan 20, 2014 16:53:05 GMT -5
I did not remember that you were not around on the weekends, although you did have all day Friday to post. "Disappearing act" was perhaps a poor word choice, based on the fact that you were around Yesterday, posting but not voting, and then "disappeared" and were not around Today. I will continue to pressure everyone to vote, whether you find that to be "exceptionally lazy" on my part, or not. I find it both anti-town and scummy not to manage to get a vote down. 1. I didn't mean to offend with my choice of language. I firmly disagree with your premise - I think Scum are generally more likely to be sure they have a vote down than not, though this is by no means universal. I think using participation in and of itself - particularly when it's only one Day's worth of a record - as an indicator of anything at all is not likely to be accurate. 2. I have perhaps been insufficiently blunt. Was your choice of wording meaningful in any way beyond what you've said here? A simple yes or no would suffice as an answer for the time being. 1. We do disagree then. 2. No. I'm not seeing whatever hidden meaning that you imply that you are seeing.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Jan 20, 2014 22:00:10 GMT -5
Every single last one of you would rather not be investigated. Stop being so damn hypocritical. The band wagon to investigate me is a personal attack, and I have responded in kind.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Jan 21, 2014 0:46:21 GMT -5
I think it's likely that Scum do not have the extra win conditions, but that's not the only reason I soft-cleared Story. If he were Scum with such a condition, he wouldn't be at all sure that some Townies also had such a condition. Even if he guessed as much, the nature of the condition might be different, and he might be exposed eventually when asked to explain. (In hindsight I should have given this fuller explanation before, rather than a cryptic single sentence.) Okay, your fuller explanation reassures me somewhat. I do not think it's plausible that scum do not have an extra victory condition; in fact I think it's quite likely that they do have an extra kill condition. That fits very nicely with the standard scum victory conditions. So instead of having to eliminate X number of town, each scum also has to an eliminate one other player. I'm also tempted to think that all the scum have the extra victory condition and some town have been given one as well for cover. Not actionable at this point though, because we don't have good info on who actually has the secondary condition. I'm not expecting the claims to be complete or accurate. But I agree that scum are less likely to have made the first reveal about the secondary victory condition, although I disagree with your reasoning. Anyway, unvote swammerdami for their better explanation of assumptions about story's vote. vote Silver Jan for their mixed-up victory conditions. My read is that they are non-town rather than scum, but without more information, I'm going to assume anyone not town needs to be lynched. This is just silly, I am Town but if you think I am non Town then why couldn't it have been a non Town that I needed dead? You would rather see me dead than have an extra bit of information everyday before I am NK'd. I have already achieved the first part of my wincon so I don't have to worry about that any more, I will win with Town whether I am alive or dead.
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on Jan 21, 2014 1:34:11 GMT -5
Has me confused. Why is this bad news? If Sister C was both Town and your target, and she is now dead, then if you pull out a Town win then you clinch a win for both you and for her (postmortem). Are you surprised that your individual target was Town and not Scum? I'm not sure a win condition requiring the death of someone you already needed dead to win would have made much sense. I'm sure all of us with individual targets have Townies as targets (or perhaps third parties). I also think there's probably a chance that one or more Scum players have Scum win + death of a fellow Scum as a win condition, which will greatly influence the way we look at behavior.
i doubt if scum needs fellow scum to die to win. that would put a lot of pressure on the team. mistakes happen all the time - Yesterday towards the end of the day someone posted my name on a list of players without a vote down. So I checked to make sure my vote had been counted by the mod (which it was) and went on. Different people react to things in different ways but TexCat seems to be over the top with this simple error of who asked the mod about colors for posts. But is this a reason to vote her? Maybe, I don't have a strong scum vibe on anyone yet. I too would also like to poke the non active players so maybe a vote on one of them? I happy to learn more about Meeko with a Investigation first as he always pings me so no vote on him as of yet For now I'm going to make a placeholder vote on Vote: GnarlyCharlie simply for placing both a vote and a investigation on Paranoia which is a waste. i have since changed my vote, TWICE. and voting for Paranoia for investigation isn't a waste. it's stating a preference. do you want me to vote for Meeko when it's an easy choice and long been decided?
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on Jan 21, 2014 5:49:30 GMT -5
Every single last one of you would rather not be investigated. Stop being so damn hypocritical. The band wagon to investigate me is a personal attack, and I have responded in kind. Nonsense. I'd suggest myself for Investigation, but I know it would have no value to Town. (There might be a fellow Townie who learns she needs me dead for her extra win-con, but, to quote Martin Luther King, Jr.:
|
|
|
Post by dizzymrslizzy on Jan 21, 2014 8:55:56 GMT -5
Exactly like Swammer said, I would have no issues with an investigation on me. I have absolutely nothing to hide...
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Jan 21, 2014 10:27:27 GMT -5
Exactly like Swammer said, I would have no issues with an investigation on me. I have absolutely nothing to hide... I have even offered to get 2 investigation results on me, I have nothing to hide either.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Jan 21, 2014 10:57:44 GMT -5
Every single last one of you would rather not be investigated. Stop being so damn hypocritical. The band wagon to investigate me is a personal attack, and I have responded in kind. No, Meeko, I'm fairly sure you're the only one who cares whether or not they're investigated. This is just silly, I am Town but if you think I am non Town then why couldn't it have been a non Town that I needed dead? You would rather see me dead than have an extra bit of information everyday before I am NK'd. I have already achieved the first part of my wincon so I don't have to worry about that any more, I will win with Town whether I am alive or dead. Okay, let's review exactly what you said: I don't like the fact that I needed a Townie to die for me to win, up until toDay I was fairly convinced it would be a scum that I needed dead. Yep, you said in Post #2 you expected the player you needed to be dead was "scum". You did not say "non Town" like you just said in Post #63. Which is more likely, A) a townie knows that they need all scum dead, plus they think they need another scum dead? Or, B) a third-party knows they need to meet whatever their victory condition is, plus they think they need a scum dead? I see A) as not very likely, while B) is likely. Or you're simply scum gotten trapped by your lies. I'm very willing to allow third-parties to live, if they can provide some reassurance they're not win stealers. The fact that you've doubled-down on claiming town, while luring us with extra information, makes me think you are not so benign.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Jan 21, 2014 11:24:35 GMT -5
Every single last one of you would rather not be investigated. Stop being so damn hypocritical. The band wagon to investigate me is a personal attack, and I have responded in kind. No, Meeko, I'm fairly sure you're the only one who cares whether or not they're investigated. This is just silly, I am Town but if you think I am non Town then why couldn't it have been a non Town that I needed dead? You would rather see me dead than have an extra bit of information everyday before I am NK'd. I have already achieved the first part of my wincon so I don't have to worry about that any more, I will win with Town whether I am alive or dead. Okay, let's review exactly what you said: I don't like the fact that I needed a Townie to die for me to win, up until toDay I was fairly convinced it would be a scum that I needed dead. Yep, you said in Post #2 you expected the player you needed to be dead was "scum". You did not say "non Town" like you just said in Post #63. Which is more likely, A) a townie knows that they need all scum dead, plus they think they need another scum dead? Or, B) a third-party knows they need to meet whatever their victory condition is, plus they think they need a scum dead? I see A) as not very likely, while B) is likely. Or you're simply scum gotten trapped by your lies. I'm very willing to allow third-parties to live, if they can provide some reassurance they're not win stealers. The fact that you've doubled-down on claiming town, while luring us with extra information, makes me think you are not so benign. "Your name is (redacted). You are (redacted), and in fact prior to this excursion you had never actually left (Redacted). You don't know why you're here. You are a clerk, not a spy. You aren't trained for cloaks and daggers, you're not trained for fighting and murder. You analyze gathered intelligence, you coordinate communications, and, mostly, you organize files. You understand those things. You don't understand how to kill or be killed. And furthermore you don't understand how a Russian national ended up at this conference. You barely understand how you got here, honestly, but your superiors decided that they needed to contribute to the summit and wanted someone with your logistical talents to be that contribution. And now you're here, and now THIS is happening, and you're the only one who knows there's a damn Russian on top of it all. Well, if you're here, you're at least going to contribute any way you can, and make sure that Soviet weasel doesn't make it out. Every day, the town may elect a player to be investigated; if at the end of the day, your vote is on the player that is investigated, you will use your experience in analyzing intelligence and documents to reveal some extra information about the investigated player. You are a town-aligned investigation booster. As a member of the town, you win when all threats to the town are eliminated. However, you must also ensure that the Russian character is killed before the game ends: if the town is victorious but the Russian character is alive at the game's end, you do not win. You can win whether you are alive or dead so long as the town wins and your target is eliminated." I redacted my name and the country I am from in case someone needs me dead, I am failry sure this information will be revealed with an investigation but I would rather keep it like this for now.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Jan 21, 2014 11:26:01 GMT -5
There is nothing there that I haven't already told everyone but if you read it you might understand why I thought my target might not be Town.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 21, 2014 12:42:34 GMT -5
"Your name is (redacted). You are (redacted), and in fact prior to this excursion you had never actually left (Redacted). You don't know why you're here. You are a clerk, not a spy. You aren't trained for cloaks and daggers, you're not trained for fighting and murder. You analyze gathered intelligence, you coordinate communications, and, mostly, you organize files. You understand those things. You don't understand how to kill or be killed. And furthermore you don't understand how a Russian national ended up at this conference. You barely understand how you got here, honestly, but your superiors decided that they needed to contribute to the summit and wanted someone with your logistical talents to be that contribution. And now you're here, and now THIS is happening, and you're the only one who knows there's a damn Russian on top of it all. Well, if you're here, you're at least going to contribute any way you can, and make sure that Soviet weasel doesn't make it out. Every day, the town may elect a player to be investigated; if at the end of the day, your vote is on the player that is investigated, you will use your experience in analyzing intelligence and documents to reveal some extra information about the investigated player. You are a town-aligned investigation booster. As a member of the town, you win when all threats to the town are eliminated. However, you must also ensure that the Russian character is killed before the game ends: if the town is victorious but the Russian character is alive at the game's end, you do not win. You can win whether you are alive or dead so long as the town wins and your target is eliminated." I redacted my name and the country I am from in case someone needs me dead, I am failry sure this information will be revealed with an investigation but I would rather keep it like this for now. You say that you are Town. In order to win, you need to have all "threats to Town" eliminated. You also need to have "the Russian" killed. That means that "the Russian" must not have been a "threat to Town", or else there would be no point in specifying her death as an additional condition; the standard Town wincon takes care of that. Of course, we know that to be true now...but it also holds true for others with similar win conditions. Now, I'm not sure the above occurred to you before Today; I know it didn't occur to me until I read the last couple posts by Pleonast where he calls you out. So I can't say at this point that I share his suspicion of you. But it is worth noting, since any Town person with a wincon that requires the death of another player should realize that their 'special target' must be either Town or Non-Malicious Third-Party.
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Jan 21, 2014 13:26:18 GMT -5
Is it weird for anyone else that her PM has the nationality of one person? My secondary win requirement requires a person with a certain name to be killed, is everyone else's like that?
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Jan 21, 2014 13:51:38 GMT -5
Is it weird for anyone else that her PM has the nationality of one person? My secondary win requirement requires a person with a certain name to be killed, is everyone else's like that? I did ask the mod if SisC was the Russian that I needed killed and he said yes, more than that I can't say cos I don't know why it says Russian and not the name.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 21, 2014 14:16:46 GMT -5
Is it weird for anyone else that her PM has the nationality of one person? My secondary win requirement requires a person with a certain name to be killed, is everyone else's like that? I don't think it's weird. It seems that one of the pieces of information that we might discover about a Player is their Name, and another is their Nationality. So it makes sense that some people need to find another Player by Name, and others by Nationality. We only got both pieces of information about Bill because of Silver Jan's power.
|
|
|
Post by FruitAndGarbage on Jan 21, 2014 14:38:21 GMT -5
Votes: gnarlycharlie [3]: Paranoia (24), texcat (37), patricia (48) texcat [3]: gnarlycharlie (26), gnarlycharlie (40), Silver Jan (42), dizzymrslizzy (45) Silver Jan [1]: Pleonast (51), Pleonast (59) Swammerdami [1]: Pleonast (51), Suburban Plankton (52) Suburban Plankton [1]: Swammerdami (58) Paranoia [0]: Swammerdami (16), gnarlycharlie (25) Chameleon [0]: gnarlycharlie (30) Meeko: [0] Pleonast (51) storyteller0910 [-1]: texcat (17), Swammerdami (-35)
Investigations: Meeko [8]: Captain Klutz (9), Meeko (-11), Silver Jan (12), Swammerdami (16), texcat (17), patricia (18), dizzymrslizzy (20), Paranoia (24), Chameleon (29), Mahaloth (33), Swammerdami (-35), storyteller0910 (46), Suburban Plankton (55) Paranoia [2]: gnarlycharlie (25), Swammerdami (35) Captain Klutz [1]: Meeko (11) Silver Jan [0]: Chameleon (13)
With these votes, no player will be lynched and Meeko will be investigated. Day two ends in 32 hours on January 22nd.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Jan 21, 2014 16:24:33 GMT -5
Another lackadaisical day of voting. Not voting: Colby, BillMc, Meeko, Mahaloth, Chameleon, CaptKlutz, Storyteller Mahaloth's only contribution to the Day. Yesterday he voted for Colby, the claimed doc, insisting that he wanted a full claim. Why would he fish for a full claim? Because scum need some examples of town PMs to use? Unvote: Gnarlycharlie Vote: Mahaloth
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Jan 21, 2014 16:45:23 GMT -5
Investigate me. I have nothing to hide.
|
|
|
Post by Chameleon on Jan 21, 2014 18:37:17 GMT -5
Wow this day has been confusing. I honestly have no idea who to vote for. I feel that SilverJan has either constructed a very clever lie, or that she's telling the truth. I'm inclined to go with the simpler answer that she's telling the truth. Unfortunately, up until she revealed most of her role, she was who I found the most suspicious based on my colour theory - but her PM explained away my issue. Now I have nothing I'm a bit surprised that no one has any info at all from the night. Obviously powers don't want to reveal who they are, but maybe someone has been on the receiving end? There's no vanilla in this game so you'd think something more than (presumably) a Scum kill would have happened overnight. Nothing happened to me anyway. I know it's not good to not have a vote, but what I was focusing on crumbled so I don't find anyone particularly Scummy. I do think that everyone is over-reacting to Texcat's "over-reaction" about being misvoted by Gnarly. I think most of us would be like: WTF, you build a case on someone else and then vote for me?!? So because of that I will: Antivote: TexcatI actually think that someone voting for her might be Scum as it's an easy excuse. Vote: GnarlyCharlieFor now I feel SilverJan is most likely telling the truth and Dizzy hasn't contributed enough to get a read but did offer to be investigated. That leaves Gnarly, who was also on the list of voters for Guiri, who was Town.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Klutz on Jan 21, 2014 18:53:52 GMT -5
A number of players have stated that townie's targets must be town (or benign third party), otherwise the extra condition is redundant. If this is true then we should all reveal our targets. Then scum cannot kill us without confirming a townie. In addition, if any scum have scum as targets, they will be in a bit of a pickle: do they make up a name, or do they potentially expose a fellow scum?
So here we are again: is it worth all of us revealing our targets?
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Jan 21, 2014 19:00:17 GMT -5
So here we are again: is it worth all of us revealing our targets? I don't mind.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Jan 21, 2014 19:26:05 GMT -5
A number of players have stated that townie's targets must be town (or benign third party), otherwise the extra condition is redundant. If this is true then we should all reveal our targets. Then scum cannot kill us without confirming a townie. In addition, if any scum have scum as targets, they will be in a bit of a pickle: do they make up a name, or do they potentially expose a fellow scum? So here we are again: is it worth all of us revealing our targets? I don't get this. SilverJan revealed that she needed the Russian dead. How would killing her confirm a townie? Won't the scum be able to just say something like I need the Japanese dead? How is that going to confirm anyone, even if there is a Japanese player? I am innately suspicious of giving info away with questionable benefit.
Did anyone else find it suspicious that Mahaloth who has made no comment on anything Today, appeared immediately after I voted him, still without much to say on the game or who he might find suspicious?
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on Jan 21, 2014 22:00:29 GMT -5
Wow this day has been confusing. I honestly have no idea who to vote for. I feel that SilverJan has either constructed a very clever lie, or that she's telling the truth. I'm inclined to go with the simpler answer that she's telling the truth. Unfortunately, up until she revealed most of her role, she was who I found the most suspicious based on my colour theory - but her PM explained away my issue. Now I have nothing I'm a bit surprised that no one has any info at all from the night. Obviously powers don't want to reveal who they are, but maybe someone has been on the receiving end? There's no vanilla in this game so you'd think something more than (presumably) a Scum kill would have happened overnight. Nothing happened to me anyway. I know it's not good to not have a vote, but what I was focusing on crumbled so I don't find anyone particularly Scummy. I do think that everyone is over-reacting to Texcat's "over-reaction" about being misvoted by Gnarly. I think most of us would be like: WTF, you build a case on someone else and then vote for me?!? So because of that I will: Antivote: TexcatI actually think that someone voting for her might be Scum as it's an easy excuse. Vote: GnarlyCharlieFor now I feel SilverJan is most likely telling the truth and Dizzy hasn't contributed enough to get a read but did offer to be investigated. That leaves Gnarly, who was also on the list of voters for Guiri, who was Town. wow! great logic. there HAS to be scum among guiri. then, it can't be Dizzy because she offered to be investigated. the investigations show nationality and name not alignment, both if Jan voted for that person as well. that wouldn't scare scum. those investigations might be more beneficial for players who need other players to die to win. if that's your logic we should lynch Meeko. just because i haven't said so it doesn't mean i don't want to be investigated. i have no issue with that. you're just trying to make up a reason to vote and because i usually react strongly to being voted, you're hoping i will and others will take it against me. i'd switch my vote back to you if i thought you'd a chance of being lynched. a FOS will have to do.
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on Jan 21, 2014 22:03:48 GMT -5
NETA: you have voted me despite Texcat unvoting me. what does that say?
|
|
|
Post by Chameleon on Jan 21, 2014 23:26:44 GMT -5
Wow this day has been confusing. I honestly have no idea who to vote for. I feel that SilverJan has either constructed a very clever lie, or that she's telling the truth. I'm inclined to go with the simpler answer that she's telling the truth. Unfortunately, up until she revealed most of her role, she was who I found the most suspicious based on my colour theory - but her PM explained away my issue. Now I have nothing I'm a bit surprised that no one has any info at all from the night. Obviously powers don't want to reveal who they are, but maybe someone has been on the receiving end? There's no vanilla in this game so you'd think something more than (presumably) a Scum kill would have happened overnight. Nothing happened to me anyway. I know it's not good to not have a vote, but what I was focusing on crumbled so I don't find anyone particularly Scummy. I do think that everyone is over-reacting to Texcat's "over-reaction" about being misvoted by Gnarly. I think most of us would be like: WTF, you build a case on someone else and then vote for me?!? So because of that I will: Antivote: TexcatI actually think that someone voting for her might be Scum as it's an easy excuse. Vote: GnarlyCharlieFor now I feel SilverJan is most likely telling the truth and Dizzy hasn't contributed enough to get a read but did offer to be investigated. That leaves Gnarly, who was also on the list of voters for Guiri, who was Town. wow! great logic. there HAS to be scum among guiri. then, it can't be Dizzy because she offered to be investigated. the investigations show nationality and name not alignment, both if Jan voted for that person as well. that wouldn't scare scum. those investigations might be more beneficial for players who need other players to die to win. if that's your logic we should lynch Meeko. just because i haven't said so it doesn't mean i don't want to be investigated. i have no issue with that. you're just trying to make up a reason to vote and because i usually react strongly to being voted, you're hoping i will and others will take it against me. i'd switch my vote back to you if i thought you'd a chance of being lynched. a FOS will have to do. I never said it was a strong vote, and I did say I'm at a bit of a loss as to who I find scummy. The high pressure to vote makes me nervous not to though. I'm going to do my best to pay attention until the end of Day and hopefully see something really scummy float to the surface. How is it that you're so certain that the investigations will only ever show nationality and name? I thought it was random. Did I miss something or do you know something the rest of us don't?
|
|
|
Post by Chameleon on Jan 21, 2014 23:27:22 GMT -5
NETA: you have voted me despite Texcat unvoting me. what does that say? It says that I'm not Texcat?
|
|
|
Post by Captain Klutz on Jan 21, 2014 23:43:08 GMT -5
I don't get this. SilverJan revealed that she needed the Russian dead. How would killing her confirm a townie? Won't the scum be able to just say something like I need the Japanese dead? How is that going to confirm anyone, even if there is a Japanese player? I am innately suspicious of giving info away with questionable benefit. Suppose I reveal that my target is John Smith. Later in the game I die and am revealed as town. That means that John Smith must be town. We may not know who that is yet, but only one player can claim that name. If a player reveals a target but is later revealed as scum, then there is a lot more doubt about their target - it could be town, scum, or a total lie. In your example, if scum lie and say that they need the Japanese dead, then they are running a risk - if there are 2 Japanese players then their claim will look suspicious. Or as the game goes on and there is no Japanese player revealed, they will also look suspicious. In any case, getting scum to lie is GOOD. Every lie we can get scum to make is another opportunity to catch them.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Klutz on Jan 21, 2014 23:51:15 GMT -5
Did anyone else find it suspicious that Mahaloth who has made no comment on anything Today, appeared immediately after I voted him, still without much to say on the game or who he might find suspicious? Yes, I do find that a bit odd. Mahaloth has been unusually quiet all game. His most substantive action on Day 1 was to vote for the claimed Doctor. His contribution toDay has been even less.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 22, 2014 0:45:58 GMT -5
I don't get this. SilverJan revealed that she needed the Russian dead. How would killing her confirm a townie? Won't the scum be able to just say something like I need the Japanese dead? How is that going to confirm anyone, even if there is a Japanese player? I am innately suspicious of giving info away with questionable benefit. Suppose I reveal that my target is John Smith. Later in the game I die and am revealed as town. That means that John Smith must be town. We may not know who that is yet, but only one player can claim that name. If a player reveals a target but is later revealed as scum, then there is a lot more doubt about their target - it could be town, scum, or a total lie. In your example, if scum lie and say that they need the Japanese dead, then they are running a risk - if there are 2 Japanese players then their claim will look suspicious. Or as the game goes on and there is no Japanese player revealed, they will also look suspicious. In any case, getting scum to lie is GOOD. Every lie we can get scum to make is another opportunity to catch them. The one problem I see with this idea is that it doesn't guarantee John Smith (to use your example) is Town; only that he is "not a threat to Town". There is a difference, and it becomes more critical as the game gets into the later stages. The problem is that a Third-Party player generally can achieve a win simply by surviving; he doesn't really care whether or not Town wins. Near the beginning of the game, it's generally more advantageous to "play for Town", as it's much easier to fit in and avoid detection that way. But near end-game, the Third-Party player wants only to survive, and in many cases to bring the game to a close as quickly as possible. Often, this means "playing for Scum". And that can be a big problem, especially if the player has been 'soft cleared' as Town. In short, don't assume that a Town player's 'personal target' is necessarily Town; only that they are 'not Scum'. Furthermore, never underestimate the Mod's ability to create a role that flies in the face of logic, and invalidates everything I've posted above. Or, in other words..."trust no one"
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 22, 2014 0:53:18 GMT -5
Did anyone else find it suspicious that Mahaloth who has made no comment on anything Today, appeared immediately after I voted him, still without much to say on the game or who he might find suspicious? Yes, I do find that a bit odd. Mahaloth has been unusually quiet all game. His most substantive action on Day 1 was to vote for the claimed Doctor. His contribution toDay has been even less. I'm hesitant to read too much into this particular sort of 'drive-by' behavior. If I'm especially busy, and have little time to devote to Mafia, I'll often skim the thread, basically just looking for votes and unvotes, to give myself a feel for how the Day is progressing. If I happen to come across a vote for me, I'm more likely to stop and respond to it. And I usually have a browser window open all day while I'm at work, making it easy for me to pop over every few minutes, hit F5, and see if anything new needs my attention, while still only spending a few seconds each time. And regarding this particular case, it's inaccurate at best to say that Mahaloth "appeared immediately after" texcat voted him. texcat's vote was at 1:24 PM PST. Mahaloth's reply was the very next post, but it was made at 1:45 PM. Almost 20 minutes is not "immediately after".
|
|