|
Day One
Jan 27, 2013 18:05:40 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Jan 27, 2013 18:05:40 GMT -5
I haven't been "quiet" in a game play way - just busy with RL. Anyway, the bottom line is I don't think Marfia is a game for me because getting my point across in words has always been hard for me - that being said I guess with will be my last "very short" game. but for my teammates one more try - What I wanted to point out is that Light posted two hints and then Guiri said she had a third - as I have three as well I was trying to point out Lightfoot and what I felt was a slip then she explained she had three as well and everyone dog piled me. so I posted about not having a cardinal sin - which I don't but I do have initial sin - I posted that to point out and to show that there are different types of sin but I guess I'm the only one with a initial sin I feel I got all three hints because I think I could commit a cadinal sin during game play. Hope that clears things up a little for my teammates as I would like to see my team win with or without me In response to others asking about our win-con I posted the 2 'hints' I was given----- the third point was NOT a hint for the team win so I excluded it
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2013 18:32:32 GMT -5
Post by mistervisceral on Jan 27, 2013 18:32:32 GMT -5
I hate everything I really. Really do. Fire (lol I meant first and typed this FURIOUS FREUDIAN SLIP) of all hey guys I was out over the weekend and now I'm back and ready to PLAY. Except I just typed out this whole big post and I clicked "back" or something and now THAT POST IS GONE. So here's the basics.
Ginger is wrong but isn't being misleading or insidious or anything so I think she's TOWN.
Chucara IS being misleading and insidious, attack ryjae on page 3 for something really stupid and casting doubt on ryjae's alignment.
LightFoot is similar to Chucara but is being a little bit more helpful and pro-tow.
Patricia was A Thing but I would think that scum would just say "oh yeah I have the same PM as everyone else" rather than take the risk and point out a discrepancy.
Vote Chucara Vote LightFoot
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2013 18:38:03 GMT -5
Post by mistervisceral on Jan 27, 2013 18:38:03 GMT -5
Vote Chucara Vote LightFoot[/color]
Whatever.
AS FOR SEMANTICS. There's probably not just one sin-absolving role. If sin is as important of a mechanic as it seems to be so far, then its absolution in the hands of one person who could day night one (day one even) would mean ~MAJOR SETUP BALANCE ISSUES~
and I for one trust the intelligence of our moderator overlords.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2013 18:48:11 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Jan 27, 2013 18:48:11 GMT -5
I hate everything I really. Really do. Fire (lol I meant first and typed this FURIOUS FREUDIAN SLIP) of all hey guys I was out over the weekend and now I'm back and ready to PLAY. Except I just typed out this whole big post and I clicked "back" or something and now THAT POST IS GONE. So here's the basics. Ginger is wrong but isn't being misleading or insidious or anything so I think she's TOWN. Chucara IS being misleading and insidious, attack ryjae on page 3 for something really stupid and casting doubt on ryjae's alignment. LightFoot is similar to Chucara but is being a little bit more helpful and pro-tow. Patricia was A Thing but I would think that scum would just say "oh yeah I have the same PM as everyone else" rather than take the risk and point out a discrepancy. Vote Chucara Vote LightFootNice of you to join us can you tell me WHERE I have been misleading or insidious or anything else that drew your vote? make a case to walk with it
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2013 19:16:43 GMT -5
Post by mistervisceral on Jan 27, 2013 19:16:43 GMT -5
I have to answer this, my set of clues are similar but not the same as Idle's and I was wrong about what I picked up from you about exceptions. I am so mixing up things in this game. So there are other players with additional clues that may help Town- one wonders when/if they will be shared Or are they clues to help Scum? oh the wheels- they turn Calling doubt to the fact that the information is helpful to town. Seriously? I'm pretty sure it's helpful. ~~snipped ~~ What player have I unvoted that acted suspect towards Town? Idle Thoughts? I've already said I didn't think he deliberately lied, and why. His mistake could've been a townie making a mistake, or scum. I don't think the fact that he MADE that mistake says anything about his alignment. Right now he's giving us a lot of potentially helpful, checkable information and I don't want to discourage that. It was not a mistake It was a deliberately misleading comment Idle is not a n00b there is that whole URL on the site So there was something behind his reasoning and I don’t think it was pro-Town now it could have been a fishing expedition- but fishing the way he did- by using an absolute to give his vote a toe hold- is not pro Town to me This whole debacle. Instead of starting the dispute by confronting Idle about it directly (the thing that made me think Gingertown), you start slinging doubt on Idle. And then you don't let go even once it's suggested that your case on Idle is specious. Then Moley makes a valid point on the subject: " I don't know what motivation Idle would have to post a direct statement about his role PM, then make another post directly contradicting himself. You say it's not a mistake. What possible motivation would there be to do that deliberately, if he's scum? If he is, it seems to me it almost has to be a mistake. As scum, you don't go out of your way to contradict yourself and then rely upon the one guy who says "Wait a sec, this doesn't seem scummy" when there might be three or four other guys saying "You contradicted your own story! You must be scum!" " And you refuse to clarify: You are missing my point ( but I’m getting used to that happening- in game ) I dare not repeat myself for fear it brand me Bill is looking at it as well so I do not feel unfounded. the URL reference= what board are we on? Refusing to clarify = obscuring information = deceptive That's just page 6. :u Also that patricia-wagon. Another reason I think she's probably town. I wonder if every time we lie in this game it counts as a sin
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2013 19:42:19 GMT -5
Post by LightFoot on Jan 27, 2013 19:42:19 GMT -5
I've been lynched for trying to figure things out
and thinking out loud
before
it's not new
you just got here- nice job throwing rocks at players that have been playing
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2013 19:52:20 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jan 27, 2013 19:52:20 GMT -5
I hate everything I really. Really do. Fire (lol I meant first and typed this FURIOUS FREUDIAN SLIP) of all hey guys I was out over the weekend and now I'm back and ready to PLAY. Except I just typed out this whole big post and I clicked "back" or something and now THAT POST IS GONE. So here's the basics. Ginger is wrong but isn't being misleading or insidious or anything so I think she's TOWN. Patricia was A Thing but I would think that scum would just say "oh yeah I have the same PM as everyone else" rather than take the risk and point out a discrepancy. I don't agree on Ginger (I don't recall her ever being "indisious" when she was scum in "Wonderland") and Lightfoot seems more aggressive and observant than I'd expect from her as scum. Both observations, I admit, are meta-gamey; but regarding Ginger, I would say this: don't rule her out because of an "attitude". I'm going to re-read Patricia, but this is actually a really good point, if it holds up. I will also re-read Chuchura, given what you say. I haven't looked at him closely yet. Until I check that Patricia point, at least: Unvote: MisterVisceral.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2013 21:33:15 GMT -5
Post by crys on Jan 27, 2013 21:33:15 GMT -5
Ok I have a clear mind this evening and I am going to be reading and putting some thoughts down. My surgery went well and I haven't taken any of the strong pain killers today so my thoughts should be relatively clear.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2013 22:03:50 GMT -5
Post by crys on Jan 27, 2013 22:03:50 GMT -5
ok, so Patricia has pinged me. I don't like all the talk about sins and pms etc. I think we should avoid discussing them at all. It feels like she is fishing.
vote patricia
I'm not sure on the whole idle scenario.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2013 23:06:08 GMT -5
Post by mistervisceral on Jan 27, 2013 23:06:08 GMT -5
ok, so Patricia has pinged me. I don't like all the talk about sins and pms etc. I think we should avoid discussing them at all. It feels like she is fishing. vote patriciaI'm not sure on the whole idle scenario. There are a few other instances of other people doing things that look like fishing... Anything else look off about patricia for you? Also explain how you feel about Idle. Do you love him?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2013 23:09:52 GMT -5
Post by mistervisceral on Jan 27, 2013 23:09:52 GMT -5
you just got here- nice job throwing rocks at players that have been playing Better late than never. No hard feelings. I usually get lynched a lot, too. I'm not used to your play though, so apologies if I mislynch you and that's a thing that happens a lot. It just looks not-good to me.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2013 23:41:09 GMT -5
Post by crys on Jan 27, 2013 23:41:09 GMT -5
ok, so Patricia has pinged me. I don't like all the talk about sins and pms etc. I think we should avoid discussing them at all. It feels like she is fishing. vote patriciaI'm not sure on the whole idle scenario. There are a few other instances of other people doing things that look like fishing... Anything else look off about patricia for you? Also explain how you feel about Idle. Do you love him? Yes, there are a few other instances with fishing, however when called on it Patricia behaves oddly imo. To me it seems more like she is trying to cover her ass with the posts following that instance. How do I feel about idle? I am not sure. I can see why some would call that misleading. However I am not sure that he posted with the intention of misleading others. I don't like dishonesty and if I thought he wasn't being genuine I would be voting him. Oh and vote: paranoiaI really really dislike vendetta votes from some wrong in a past game. It's a good spot for scum to hide on a mislynch.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 27, 2013 23:47:38 GMT -5
Post by Paranoia on Jan 27, 2013 23:47:38 GMT -5
There are a few other instances of other people doing things that look like fishing... Anything else look off about patricia for you? Also explain how you feel about Idle. Do you love him? Yes, there are a few other instances with fishing, however when called on it Patricia behaves oddly imo. To me it seems more like she is trying to cover her ass with the posts following that instance. How do I feel about idle? I am not sure. I can see why some would call that misleading. However I am not sure that he posted with the intention of misleading others. I don't like dishonesty and if I thought he wasn't being genuine I would be voting him. Oh and vote: paranoia I really really dislike vendetta votes from some wrong in a past game. It's a good spot for scum to hide on a mislynch.You realize that was a joke vote right? Like Man, I have not seen people misrep. something I have said quite like this in awhile. Enough so that I wouldn't mind lynching you now. Vote: Crys
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2013 5:09:35 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Jan 28, 2013 5:09:35 GMT -5
Unvote: mistervisceral
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2013 11:01:59 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 28, 2013 11:01:59 GMT -5
Happy Monday everyone!
I was sick for the last 3 or 4 days, so I've just caught up on the last hundred or so posts this morning.
Unvote: Idle Thoughts
I don't think he deliberately mislead us by omitting the 'exceptions' to his information. And I don't think that Scum would have posted that information for all to see, or made up something as detailed and plausible as that on Day 1.
Vote: Holy Moley!
Others have already pointed out most of the things that bother me here, but I'll sum up...
You voted for everyone, promising to hold us hostage until we can answer a series of questions that no Townsperson can be expected to know. You unvoted a number of people even though they made no attempt to answer your questions When called on the above, you backtracked to tell us "I never said that was the only reason I'd unvote!" And this one that just bugs me to no end: you pointed the Finger Of Suspicion at a player you are currently voting for. Does this mean you're not actually suspicious of the other 17 people you're voting for?
I still need to reread on patricia. Hope to do that shortly.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2013 11:10:54 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 28, 2013 11:10:54 GMT -5
It doesn't appear this vote has been counted. You might want to try again, and make sure it's formatted correctly. Either use , or you can use the [vote ] tag.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2013 12:12:45 GMT -5
Post by mistervisceral on Jan 28, 2013 12:12:45 GMT -5
I'm overwhelmed by how reasonable hol-mol's MO is, and how people are using it to incriminate him like some... Criminal!
It's like... Guilty until proven innocent. It keeps scum from flying under the radar by doing little shitstain posts and not really contributing. Also he didn't backtrack, because /he had already started unvoting people/. If he were backtracking he wouldn't have unvoted them and blah blah blah his intentions are pretty clear.
Seriously, there are bigger problems than /hol-mol being aggressive/. Like Patricia's wagon has anyone else noticed how awful that is?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2013 12:13:08 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 28, 2013 12:13:08 GMT -5
I've completed my reread on patricia. Here are my findings:
Post 38, LightFoot reveals two hints that were in her PM: a. Lynching or killing Devils will always help your team. b. Removing your sins will always help your team, but increasing them may or may not be beneficial.
In Post 45, guiri mentions getting 3 hints. patricia (Post 49) asks guiri to post his third hint. guiri responds (Post 51) "The third hint is a warning not to reveal a specific part of my role, I won't.", to which patricia replies (Post 52) "ok Guiri I got that as well then"
This seems to indicate that patricia did receive the 'third hint' that warns players not to reveal something about their role.
Later, in Post 78 patricia says "ok - I only have the two hints that Lightfoot listed above so when guiri said three I was trying to find out what the third hint was and when I found out it was about sins I realized that some must have started the game with sins"
This seems to indicate that she did not receive a 'third hint', and directly contradicts what she said in Post 52.
Also, Post 78 implies, though it does not state directly, that patricia did not sart the game with any sins, since it implies that it was only after guiri's post that she "realized that some must have started the game with sins"
Then in Post 90 she seems to reveal her 'third hint': " c. Never reveal to another player nor allow another player to figure out your Cardinal Sin. " she also reveals that she started the game with "Initial Sins: 1 Cardinal Sin: None"
I will note that patricia does not in Post 90 actually state that the 'third hint' is part of her PM; Idle Thoughts had posted the same text back in Post 82, so she may be referring to Idle's PM rather than her own. But in either case it does seem to be troublesome, since she tells us here that she does not have a Cardinal Sin. It seems unlikely that she would receive a warning about revealing her Cardinal Sin if she does not have a Cardinal Sin to reveal.
Also her post 90 doesn't jibe with her Post 78; if she started the game with an initial sin, then why would she not realize that some players started the game with sins until guiri pointed it out?
There are just too many inconsistencies, contradictions, and uncertainties here.
Vote: patricia
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2013 13:48:37 GMT -5
Post by crys on Jan 28, 2013 13:48:37 GMT -5
Yes, there are a few other instances with fishing, however when called on it Patricia behaves oddly imo. To me it seems more like she is trying to cover her ass with the posts following that instance. How do I feel about idle? I am not sure. I can see why some would call that misleading. However I am not sure that he posted with the intention of misleading others. I don't like dishonesty and if I thought he wasn't being genuine I would be voting him. Oh and vote: paranoia I really really dislike vendetta votes from some wrong in a past game. It's a good spot for scum to hide on a mislynch.You realize that was a joke vote right? Like Man, I have not seen people misrep. something I have said quite like this in awhile. Enough so that I wouldn't mind lynching you now. Vote: CrysMeh vendetta votes and joke votes still fall in the same place for me. In my short mafia experience those joke/vendetta votes bite town in the ass every time. The only reason I didn't vote Holey Moley immediately is because it appears they have a strategy. Not a strategy I agree with or would even use, but a strategy just the same.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2013 13:51:52 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 28, 2013 13:51:52 GMT -5
A working theory here:
I believe that "Cardinal Sins" == "Seven Deadly Sins" is a plausible assumption (Wikipedia at least seems to think so). Based on that, we might conclude that players who start with a Cardinal Sin are "Power Townies" and players that start without Cardinal Sins are Vanilla Town or Scum (or possibly third-Party).
I would think it unlikely that the Devils would start with any sins at all, since 'sin' is a human concept; Devils would be 'beyond sin' since they're already damned.
Since it seems that Cardinal Sins provide an extra avenue for the Devils to corrupt souls, I think this provides a nice balance if the Town Powers are the only ones with Cardinal Sins; players would have to be careful with the use of their powers so as not to reveal their secrets.
Following that line of thinking, that suggests a Scum power that can somehow discover people's Cardinal Sins. In fact, I'm thinking that must be the case. The warning was "Never reveal to another player nor allow another player to figure out your Cardinal Sin". If it were as simple as remembering never to say "Hey guys...my Cardinal Sin is Lust!", then there wouldn't really be much point to it, I think. My gut tells me that "using a Power" means in some way "exposing your cardinal Sin", which means "giving the Scum a chance to discover your Cardinal Sin and damn you to Hell for all eternity".
I like the idea that the Devils need to 'convert' a number of Christians in order to win. I think the way this 'conversion' would generally happen would likely have to do with souls in Purgatory. I think a Christian dying with no sins, and going to Heaven, would be beyond the reach of the Devils, but a Christian dying with unresolved sins and going to Purgatory would still be in danger.
This would imply the existence of a couple Town roles. One is a 'forgiver of sins', as Idle has already alluded to. His job would be to absolve people of their sins so that they can go directly to Heaven when they die. Another role would have to have the ability to cleanse people of their sins after death (or assist the dead souls in purging their own sins) so that they can move from Purgatory to Heaven, instead of being dragged down to Hell.
I hope this all makes some sense...I started with one thought and then jumped around a bit as things came to me.
Note: I have no direct knowledge regarding the validity of any of these theories. I put them here for purposes of discussion. I don't think that I'm 'giving anything away' by posting any of this; I always subscribe to the notion that if something occurs to me then it's probably occurred to someone else as well, and since the Scum have the advantage of having a 'shared mind' it's probably occurred to them. Therefore any thoughts on game design, role makeup, etc. are best shared openly, because I assume the Scum have already thought of it, so if there's any advantage to be had they already have it.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2013 14:03:01 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Jan 28, 2013 14:03:01 GMT -5
Vote crys
To have a vote on the table. I'm voting for her because both her votes look less like scum hunting and more like finding a place to put her votes. Obviously town votes for people they think are scum, but scum have to, essentially, find excuses to vote for people. Crys' votes scream excuses to me.
I disagree with the Moley pile on. I think he's making up the "I play differently" vote this time around, that mantle is usually taken up by Pleonast or Idle but Moley's become the big blinking target this time. Considering he's the only one employing his strategy, does it make sense for scum to stick their neck out like that and draw attention to themselves? I don't think so. As much as I was suspicious of his fishing for information, I can't in my right mind think he would spend so much time drawing attention to himself if he were scum. I always have a tough read on Mr. Moley, but usually when he's scum he's helpful but not too helpful. Whenever he sticks out like this he's usually town.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2013 14:20:46 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jan 28, 2013 14:20:46 GMT -5
Happy Monday everyone! I was sick for the last 3 or 4 days, so I've just caught up on the last hundred or so posts this morning. Unvote: Idle Thoughts [/color] I don't think he deliberately mislead us by omitting the 'exceptions' to his information. And I don't think that Scum would have posted that information for all to see, or made up something as detailed and plausible as that on Day 1. Vote: Holy Moley! [/color] Others have already pointed out most of the things that bother me here, but I'll sum up... You voted for everyone, promising to hold us hostage until we can answer a series of questions that no Townsperson can be expected to know. You unvoted a number of people even though they made no attempt to answer your questions When called on the above, you backtracked to tell us "I never said that was the only reason I'd unvote!" And this one that just bugs me to no end: you pointed the Finger Of Suspicion at a player you are currently voting for. Does this mean you're not actually suspicious of the other 17 people you're voting for? I still need to reread on patricia. Hope to do that shortly.[/quote] I think Visceral pointed this out, but the first person I unvoted was Ryjae. He didn't answer any of my questions. And it wasn't backtracking. However, THIS: "You voted for everyone, promising to hold us hostage until we can answer a series of questions that no Townsperson can be expected to know." Wait wait wait wait. How exactly do you know that no townsperson can be expected to know the answers to those questions (which, as I've pointed out about three times now, are all related to game mechanics?) Don't think I've ever thrown out TWO OMGUS accusations in a single round before, but hey, this seems like the time for it. FOS: SUBURBAN PLANKTON for one helluva bit of "perfect information syndrome". And yes, I did just point the finger of suspicion at somebody I'm already voting for, again. You think it's scummy for a player doing what I'm doing to differentiate between votes based on genuinely suspicious activity, and votes based on the fact that the person I'm voting for just hasn't done anything that looks particularly town-like yet?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2013 14:39:39 GMT -5
Post by crys on Jan 28, 2013 14:39:39 GMT -5
Vote crysTo have a vote on the table. I'm voting for her because both her votes look less like scum hunting and more like finding a place to put her votes. Obviously town votes for people they think are scum, but scum have to, essentially, find excuses to vote for people. Crys' votes scream excuses to me. I disagree with the Moley pile on. I think he's making up the "I play differently" vote this time around, that mantle is usually taken up by Pleonast or Idle but Moley's become the big blinking target this time. Considering he's the only one employing his strategy, does it make sense for scum to stick their neck out like that and draw attention to themselves? I don't think so. As much as I was suspicious of his fishing for information, I can't in my right mind think he would spend so much time drawing attention to himself if he were scum. I always have a tough read on Mr. Moley, but usually when he's scum he's helpful but not too helpful. Whenever he sticks out like this he's usually town. The only person that reads like they are looking for a place to put their vote is you. Is this a ditch effort to save a scum buddy? This is extreme laziness from you pollux and I would have expected better.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2013 14:41:14 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Jan 28, 2013 14:41:14 GMT -5
However, THIS: "You voted for everyone, promising to hold us hostage until we can answer a series of questions that no Townsperson can be expected to know." Wait wait wait wait. How exactly do you know that no townsperson can be expected to know the answers to those questions (which, as I've pointed out about three times now, are all related to game mechanics?) Let's take a look at your questions and see... 1) Which group has the most power to affect the outcome of this game - the living, or the dead? How do death mechanics work? Can any players kill themselves in order to "become" dead and thereby gain an advantage for their team? I don't see how anyone who is unspoiled could answer this question. Certainly no living Townsperson could be expected to have this knowledge... I submit that the only people who can answer your questions about the Devils identities, group mechanics, etc. are the Devils themselves. OK, it's possible that some Town players might have some information here. But I think it would be decidedly anti-Town to reveal that at this stage of the game. Here again, I see no way for non-spoiled people to have any knowledge of recruitment mechanics at this stage of the game. So perhaps my original statement ("a series of questions that no Townsperson can be expected to know") was technically less than perfectly accurate. I should have said that they were "a series of questions, only one of which there might be any reasonable expectation that a Townsperson might have an answer to, and where in that one case the information requested would not be in Town's interest to reveal at this stage of the game". My original point stands until you point out where I made a substantial error.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2013 14:41:54 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jan 28, 2013 14:41:54 GMT -5
You realize that was a joke vote right? Like Man, I have not seen people misrep. something I have said quite like this in awhile. Enough so that I wouldn't mind lynching you now. Vote: CrysMeh vendetta votes and joke votes still fall in the same place for me. In my short mafia experience those joke/vendetta votes bite town in the ass every time. The only reason I didn't vote Holey Moley immediately is because it appears they have a strategy. Not a strategy I agree with or would even use, but a strategy just the same. Fun fact... I've been lynched three times now on day one, as town. (It's become something of a running joke here.) I don't think I've received more than a single vote on day one as scum, ever, with the exception of the Gastards game (where I played the worst Scum Godfather who ever polluted the annals of this board with his awfulness). I could be wrong, but I believe the only day-one vote I've ever received in any of the other four scum games I've had here was Scathach voting me in "Smasher Mansion". My point being, I'm such an outspoken townie early in the game that I always get targeted by the scum. Last time it was Ginger and Lightfoot, who both threw early votes at me. My point being, I don't play conventionally as town because when I'm scum my first action is usually to try and exploit townies who do play conventionally. If that gets me votes, so be it. Scum votes can be detected. It's at least a chance for town to see who stands where. Anyway, Paranoia's joke vote. Even I didn't bother bringing that one up, and I was the person voted for. I can understand not agreeing with it, but I don't vote for people just because I "don't agree with them". (Not even in this game.) Why would you regard this as a tell of either scumminess or towniness?
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2013 14:42:45 GMT -5
Post by crys on Jan 28, 2013 14:42:45 GMT -5
I'm overwhelmed by how reasonable hol-mol's MO is, and how people are using it to incriminate him like some... Criminal! It's like... Guilty until proven innocent. It keeps scum from flying under the radar by doing little shitstain posts and not really contributing. Also he didn't backtrack, because /he had already started unvoting people/. If he were backtracking he wouldn't have unvoted them and blah blah blah his intentions are pretty clear. Seriously, there are bigger problems than /hol-mol being aggressive/. Like Patricia's wagon has anyone else noticed how awful that is? It might be awful, but it is really the only thing we have to go on at this moment. Just the hemming and hawing and back peddling is suspicious because patricia doesn't usually do that. Which is why I think she may be scum. I don't think patricia would play the dishonest card very well at all. Yes I know, this makes my vote slightly meta. However I don't have much to go on at this point. Day 1 is really hard, and usually results in a mislynch. Sometimes town does get lucky though.
|
|
|
Post by JustBeingGinger on Jan 28, 2013 14:46:09 GMT -5
OOG/ My play may be on and off for the next couple of weeks. Since you all are virtual friends, I was pregnant, they found no heartbeat today, so I have to let nature take its course. My emotions are all over the place. For those that are friends on fb, please don't mention this over there, none of my family or real friends even knew I was pregnant.
Moley, I will answer your posts when I am not on my iPhone. Way to much to respond to using this keyboard
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2013 14:48:23 GMT -5
Post by Paranoia on Jan 28, 2013 14:48:23 GMT -5
You realize that was a joke vote right? Like Man, I have not seen people misrep. something I have said quite like this in awhile. Enough so that I wouldn't mind lynching you now. Vote: CrysMeh vendetta votes and joke votes still fall in the same place for me. In my short mafia experience those joke/vendetta votes bite town in the ass every time. So if I am reading you correctly: My jokey non-serious vote in my first post of the game is clearly me trying to find an easy excuse to put a vote on someone, even though I later unvoted them and made no attempt to push my vote as a legitimate thing so I could keep it there indefinitely. Right.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2013 14:48:45 GMT -5
Post by crys on Jan 28, 2013 14:48:45 GMT -5
Meh vendetta votes and joke votes still fall in the same place for me. In my short mafia experience those joke/vendetta votes bite town in the ass every time. The only reason I didn't vote Holey Moley immediately is because it appears they have a strategy. Not a strategy I agree with or would even use, but a strategy just the same. Fun fact... I've been lynched three times now on day one, as town. (It's become something of a running joke here.) I don't think I've received more than a single vote on day one as scum, ever, with the exception of the Gastards game (where I played the worst Scum Godfather who ever polluted the annals of this board with his awfulness). I could be wrong, but I believe the only day-one vote I've ever received in any of the other four scum games I've had here was Scathach voting me in "Smasher Mansion". My point being, I'm such an outspoken townie early in the game that I always get targeted by the scum. Last time it was Ginger and Lightfoot, who both threw early votes at me. My point being, I don't play conventionally as town because when I'm scum my first action is usually to try and exploit townies who do play conventionally. If that gets me votes, so be it. Scum votes can be detected. It's at least a chance for town to see who stands where. Anyway, Paranoia's joke vote. Even I didn't bother bringing that one up, and I was the person voted for. I can understand not agreeing with it, but I don't vote for people just because I "don't agree with them". (Not even in this game.) Why would you regard this as a tell of either scumminess or towniness? In my limited experience I have noticed that joke votes sometimes hit a runaway bandwagon and when the person that placed the joke vote bites it or game ends they were scum.
|
|
|
Day One
Jan 28, 2013 14:51:06 GMT -5
Post by crys on Jan 28, 2013 14:51:06 GMT -5
OOG/ My play may be on and off for the next couple of weeks. Since you all are virtual friends, I was pregnant, they found no heartbeat today, so I have to let nature take its course. My emotions are all over the place. For those that are friends on fb, please don't mention this over there, none of my family or real friends even knew I was pregnant. Moley, I will answer your posts when I am not on my iPhone. Way to much to respond to using this keyboard Ginger, I am so sorry to hear that. My thoughts and prayers are with you.
|
|