Murder By The Book - Ender's Game

I have more/other powers and don't want to stand out as a nightkill, my power isn't oneshot and I don't want to stand out as a nightkill, my power has drawbacks I don't want scum to take advantage of, etc etc etc

I believe it was mentioned earlier that town tend to lurk more often. In my opinion it would be a good idea to target those active members that are acting suspiciously. Logically that should lead to fewer mis-lynches which I see as the greater threat. If we can kill a couple mafia members it will reduce their effectiveness, if we solely target lurkers it will likely only hurt us. Admittedly it would be less damaging than an active mis-lynch but I see it as a death by a thousand cuts scenario.

Nononononono.

No.

The majority of the playerlist are lurking/inactive. They outnumber the active players. Inactive players are wary of saying the wrong thing and ending up in the spotlight, though for fundamentally different reasons.

Inactive town who are new to Mafia don't want to get lynched, which makes sense from their standpoint because they only know one player who's town, right? That, or they have a night action and don't want to draw attention to themselves. However, they are passively working against the town with this philosophy.

Inactive town who are experienced with mafia need to a) go set themselves on fire and b) stop joining games they can't be fucked properly playing.

Lurky/inactive scum want to coast through the game without having to defend themselves, until a point is reached where there's no active town leaders to drag them out into the open. They can sit with their thumbs up their butts all damn game and let No Lynches keep happening, because they'll still win. Town don't have that luxury.

And guess what you need to drag said inactives kicking and screaming into the discussion? Active players. If the active players end up lynching each other, and the mafia kills the rest, the endgame is going to be a fucking chore.

From a utilitarian standpoint where we want to maximise fun (because this is a game oh jesus fucking christ someone kill me I'm being serious about how to have fun), we're better off killing lurkers early, so people actually playing the game get to stay in longer. Having active town and scum alive at endgame makes for more entertaining discussion, too!

Lurking/inactivity stifles discussion. Stifling discussion is anti-town.

By extrapolation, espousing a philosophy which encourages lurking/inactivity (like Granola has done, and I suspect you (Truegreen) of doing now) is anti-town.

---

Alternative scenario: We pile onto, say, AgentBlue, until they're at soft lynch. At this point they're either going to say "ok ok jeez I'll participate" and hooray! One less lurker; or, they eat lynch like the sad limp lettuce I'm making them out to be.

We'll be able to continue discussion with one less active player (due to nightkill) instead of two (due to the alternative where we lynched an active player then the mafia nightkilled another one), and either way we get a wagon to analyse. Sounds pretty good by my book!

I can't say I agree with you Schazer, I believe you have polarized the argument too much. To say either side is 'town' or 'anti-town' is going a bit too far.

Both are simply strategies which are highly personal in nature, depending on what each individual player sees as valuable to the game. Though your use of 'Lynching' as a motivator is distasteful in my opinion.

While inactivity does indeed stifle discussion, killing inactive players gets us little or no information where as successfully lynching a mafia member gets us a lot closer to winning the game. Also, it seems to me that more players are likely to participate towards the midgame where there is more information to work off of. I understand your thoughts, but I don't see it being very effective during the first few days. We might accidentally toss out players that are busy, or too wary to post right away but are far more open later in the game. By the same merit we might leave in players that are truly absent and would be a lot more obvious later on.

I say we target active now, and shoot for your lynch inactivity strategy after we reveal one or two people's alignments.

Besides, intrigue and discovery are better motivators than fear, at least when it comes to games. Those that choose to become active and stay active will do so out of curiosity and interest, not by some uncomfortable obligation or proxy survival instinct.

Ignoring active players when it comes to lynching defies the whole spirit of the game. We are supposed to be paranoid, fire accusations back and forth, engage in glorious verbal combat with one another. The game is supposed to be fun the whole way through, it's not about slogging through a grind of inactive lynches to try to fabricate an interesting ending. Our choices are supposed to mean something They are supposed to have weight and consequence. It isn't supposed to be a cookie cutter auto-lynch of inactive players, with predictable and almost useless information on every kill with the mafia in the background picking off active players one by one as we spiral the drain of mediocrity. I at least want to fire a few parting shots before I get shot in the dark.

This is the heart of my argument, both strategies have the potential to help us win the game, but I say Lynch active is better for one basic and simple reason. Lynching Nobodies is BORING. We are here to have fun, we are here to be paranoid. We are here to second guess each other's motivations and claims. To call out our foes, to suss out the wolves in sheep's clothing. Who cares about the meta-game, the endgame, or even who wins, if the journey to get there is boring.

And in accords with this sentiment...

Slorange, despite your great sportsmanship and all around good attitude, I find your claim from early in this day to be highly suspect. Due to the nature of the game, you can be a good person and mafia. So my choice is clear, and my decision final. I shall not change my vote again until the sun rises on the third day.

Unvote,

Vote: Slorange

Erroneous omission, sure, but that still gives us Solaris, donut (who's active-ish but not in a useful way), Dalm, Gnauga, Mirdini, even Garuru and Akumu to some extent!

[...]

You're going to need to poke your face in here sooner or later, so here's a question or two so when you start analysing the game so far, you can focus a bit better:

-What's your take on this debate between Granola and I? Do you think one of us is mafia? Do you think we're both town and being very clueless and silly?
-Look at Garuru's posts, and have a look at who mentions him in turn. Do you see any possible connections there? Who calls attention to their suspicious behaviour? Who tries to drive discussion away from them?
-For extra homework, do the same with Gnauga (I chose Garuru arbitrarily, honestly do it for as many people as you can manage. Heck, everyone try it for as many players as you can manage!)

everyone who Schazer listed should be answering these

Also uh, I guess for people voting Slorange I'd ask what you think happened with cyber and why the mafia chose him of all people. And also why Slorange chose to explicitly stablish that cyber could have been any alignment while making his claim. Hmm, I guess if you wanted to really go out on a limb you could say the latter might tangentially be seen as making sure Schazer's speedlynch push wasn't seen in a bad light.
But I don't really see mafia claiming with no pressure on them for little reason. Weird unprovable claims are really likely to get the claimant lynched. They're not a ticket to townfirmed heaven as granola seems to be implying.
Also dang, I was feeling neutral about granola until Schaz's postmining reminded me of that time he said we should lynch Chwoka "for info." What was up with that?

As long as we're talking about "lynching inactive players" and "lynching people who will actually give us info" I'd like to point out that Akumu is in a tangled web of interactions and also hasn't made a post that consists of more than a few responses to my increasingly frenzied exhortations in 3 goddamn days.
Seriously. They're paying enough attention to answer my questions but haven't done anything else. If that's not scummy behavior then I don't know what is.

I find your claim from early in this day to be highly suspect.

Explain what about my claim makes you certain I am scum and why. All you've done so far is said "Your claim makes me suspicious" without providing any substantive reasoning as to why. That makes me suspicious, which is only further compounded by your declaration that you have no intention of changing your vote no matter what. The only reason you should ever lock in like that is if you're 100% certain the flip will go the way you want, which is possible only if you're a) a cop and know my alignment or b) scum and know it's a mislynch. Even if it's the former, there are a non-negligible number of ways your investigation could have been interfered with or inaccurate, which is worth considering this early on before tunneling so thoroughly.

Basically what I'm saying is the reasons you're voting for me and the way you're doing it are either bad or anti-town. On top of that, your voting habits have become very opportunistic (well Slorange is a no-go, don't want to draw town's ire by trying to push too hard, oh wait Slorange is back on the table heck yes I'm gonna vote there), which is, again, scummy.

EBWOP I felt like my play today deserved a new signature.

Oh boy ok I can feel my blood rising a bit. I'm gonna do my best to counterargue you rationally, but anyone's free to tell me to take time out if I step over a line.

While inactivity does indeed stifle discussion, killing inactive players gets us little or no information

The only information you lose lynching an inactive player versus an active player is the lynch target's interactions. You still get a wagon. You still get other players' opinions of them. Threatening a lurker with a lynch usually yields discussion which gains you the missing factor anyway.

where as successfully lynching a mafia member gets us a lot closer to winning the game.

Lynching scum and lynching lurkers is not mutually exclusive? This makes the very faulty assumption that mislynches of active players does happen? A lot????

Also, it seems to me that more players are likely to participate towards the midgame where there is more information to work off of[...] or too wary to post right away but are far more open later in the game.

This isn't a thing that happens, unless by some godawful RNG antics all of the inactive players happen to be the town power roles. Lurky town is liable to stay lurky town all game, unless drawn out with the threat of a lynch. Lurky scum will come out of their shell once nobody's around who gives enough of a crap to force lynches.

By the same merit we might leave in players that are truly absent and would be a lot more obvious later on.

These players need to be removed from the game, and we're hard up for replacements. They make it an unfun slog for the active players, and don't deserve whatever team victory they might get.

I say we target active now, and shoot for your lynch inactivity strategy after we reveal one or two people's alignments.

But the mafia will do that for us by the start of D3??????

The game is supposed to be fun the whole way through, it's not about slogging through a grind of inactive lynches....

This is all very valid, but still ignores the fact that Lurkers do not stop lurking without pressure. It is. Not a thing that happens, especially so in a setup where we've been told there are lots of vanillas. Lurkers need some kind of personal motivation to have any investment in the game, and learning to look at how players other than you interact can come later. For your average joe townie the lynch vote is all they have to coerce lurkers.

The mob will have to start stringing up lurkers sooner or later, and for some lurkertypes I imagine Deadchat would be more fun because they can passively watch the game play out (which was what they were basically doing anyway) and puzzle the setup out without any pressure. It is so shitty to watch two/three active players (at least one of whom is scum) try to make lynches happen on lurkers come D4/5/6/etc.

You also seem to not acknowledge that two active town players can end up arguing each other into the ground, thinking the other is scum. So you can't ignore lurkers to only examine the interactions between the active players only, because scum will feature in both of those groups and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

Oh my gOD WHAT HAPPENED HERE.

ALL I WANT IS FOR SOL TO TELL ME WHY HE FELT THE NEED TO DICKSLAP US. ; A;

...Yeah fuck it my vote is useless where it is Unvote

And that is all I feel comfortable doing at this level of intellectual capacity, I'll be back with a read when I'm not spry as a corpse

hi

as i read stuffs

So @Solaris and @Granolaman: What are your th1oughts both on Eberron and the votenangans that happened yesterday?

eberron is new so i feel like unless he were to overboard im not likley to vote him or anything? other than your last minute GOTTA GET CYBER i feel like theres a chance of scum trying for the flimsly eberron day one lynch? like i said from last day that would probbaly be at least one of kumu, pala, nola, and nova

re:slorange, theres no reason for people to be skeptical of his claim unless they are scum/tracker/flavor investigative, i dont think it absolves him of suspicion either though, using a one shot on day one is Risky Buisness but i guess gnauga's right about "could die any other day"

i think its a janitor dealie btw sorta makes sense to do that

"let's not kill all the active players, at least for N1, let's kill a lurker instead."

i guess if we are playing with that logic then we've got uh
one of you, me, dini, and you really? and maybe seedy but seedys blood thirsty

you've got a point that true/amosslot is alive and well, but alternative reasons for keeping that slot alive is probably "lets keep it around for a mislynch" but then again they killed cyber so

really i think crowsy would have been Most Polite Kill and i can say that because she replaced out :I and then cyber or amos probably would have been Lynchy Lynchy?

then again, if thats true, no one has really been aiming for truegreen so going back that leds crecedence to whatever slorange claimed

various thoughts recompiled

dont like truegreen for completly deciding slorange is impossible,

think garu is a bit meh overall, with his one note post and his grrr at the tek who imo would be pretty easy to mislynch (neautral on him rn tho)

gnauga started off hrm but got pretty good imo

dont really like pala

nola is all over the place he might be a third party if those are even in this game

still dont really like akumu but its lessening

i think that if we are going to go after an active player either granola or truegreen are our best bets, the former for his hard boner on people and the latter for being overly weird and super dedicated to having slorange be wrong

if we are going for a lurker id say bigros posts make him sort of unpleasant but pbbt???

nova has made a commendable effort but i dont like the reliance on the past esp since i havent played this game fo realz yo in ages

overall people i like and would stop the deaths of are seedy, schazer, and mirdini on principal

people i like but would Not Kiss are slor, nova, donut if he continues to be a cool chap, ron, gnanuga

people i dont like but would still hug are pala, garu, and L U R K S Q U A D

people who, in the context of this game do not even get hugs are green, bigro, granola, and akumu

so that said, for now im going to Vote: Granolaman unless we are more interested in the other No Huggers

wow not even on the cheek
awfulerrible

i have high standards and those standards apparently involve murdering me which is the only thing that i can FOR CERTAIN say that all three of those people have done in mafia towards me

"let's not kill all the active players, at least for N1, let's kill a lurker instead."

i guess if we are playing with that logic then we've got uh
one of you, me, dini, and you really? and maybe seedy but seedys blood thirsty

you've got a point that true/amosslot is alive and well, but alternative reasons for keeping that slot alive is probably "lets keep it around for a mislynch" but then again they killed cyber so

really i think crowsy would have been Most Polite Kill and i can say that because she replaced out :I and then cyber or amos probably would have been Lynchy Lynchy?

then again, if thats true, no one has really been aiming for truegreen so going back that leds crecedence to whatever slorange claimed

Provided Slorange is town+telling the truth, Mafia probably didn't kill Cyber; my whole Headologising was explained out of existence when Slorange claimed he forced a redirect. We don't know who the mafia targeted last night.

Also Crowsy wouldn't be Most Polite Kill because a) they weren't declared as inactive until D2 begun, and they're a mafia newbie I'm pretty sure?

I did give Truegreen the benefit of the newbie doubt, but I'm starting to suspect their push on Slorange (and their vehement protests on lurker-lynching) make me think they're trying to discredit me and make me look like scum?

I was planning to stay mostly silent today after it became clear that roleplaying was anathema. I even had a medium-size fear-filled tirade from Alice, but having refrained from posting that, I found myself without many words, though not without suspicions.

Regarding Slorange's claim, I'm tempted to agree with truegreen's analysis that his actions, along with the coincidental(?*) confluence of a Janitoring/Commuting(?) have caused us to enter Day 2 without any more substantial information that we entered with. However:

Truegreen is a self-professed beginner at this game. While this is edging into the evil and swampy depths of metagaming, which we should never do, obviously the truthful green one is a very fast learner - or - they have been instructed and given a script to read from by the undercover Undercover, placing suspicion on...okay, I just realized how little sense that makes. Yet it's a point to look at, how a beginner is suddenly a statement surgeon. I'm suspicious of truegreen, and conversely, leaning town for Slor.

Let's move on. Schazer, may I please ask you about the alleged connection in between Mirdini and Slorange? You stated that your thoughts into the mafia mindset led to two suspects who 'would' put forward a scum course of action consistent with what we know (again, very little). Having just pulled free, we wade right back into metagaming. I won't disagree with your assessment, though. Since we're so obviously supposed to focus on Slorange, why don't we look into Mirdini?

With regard to behavior regarding Granola and you, Schazer:

(still reading...god. so much text.)

I understand the incentive to lynch lurking peeps, as this is an argument that has been driven deep into the ground. Congratulations. It has worked. Here I am, completely not-roleplaying and hence not being a fucking idiot, apparently. And in our current information-starved state, I'd rather lynch a lurker and get more information out of them, rather than lynch an active player and have one less vote. On that particular debate, I'm siding with Schaz except for the support for a Granolalynch (Granolynch sounded far too much like a no lynch). I'd rather kill someone who isn't here and then get more information than risk mislynching AND losing an active player. But my suspicion stands, mostly centered around his view of Garu as entertainment value. Now that Danielle Steel has stopped posting her copious boatload of volumes, where does that value go now? Can I get your opinion on that, Nola?

Gnauga still seems questionable. Feels as if they're trying to hitch on to Slor to stave off suspicion. That vote doesn't feel nice either, even if it is due to lurking**. But their defense of Slorange has been strong, if a bit sudden, so I would lean more town in his case.

/me sets herself on fire.

Two hours woo! Preparing for all the ninjas.

* or not, as Slor claims that janitoring is rarely a separate action to the kill itself, in which case according to his interpretation the Janitor said 'I'll janitor tonight' and the nexus went wheeeeeeee cyber dies and gets janitored

**though a genuine wagon attempt can be passed off as a prodvote, especially given the precedent set by Slor.

Also Crowsy wouldn't be Most Polite Kill because a) they weren't declared as inactive until D2 begun, and they're a mafia newbie I'm pretty sure?

But none of that has changed, wouldn't she still be the Most Polite Kill now?

think garu is a bit meh overall, with his one note post and his grrr at the tek who imo would be pretty easy to mislynch (neautral on him rn tho)

[...]

people i like but would Not Kiss are slor, nova, donut if he continues to be a cool chap, ron, gnanuga

What's a tek and who's Ron?

sotek is tek and eberron is ron

@schaz, i guess its possible that ive gotten muddled with time but i guess i thought that croswy wasnt As New for whatever reason but the more pertinent topic re: politeness is that she posted once although yea, if slors truthsing then it doesnt really matter

while we are on the meta topics do you think that the mods would have let the other scummates talk to truegreen if he replaced in as scum? i dunno and i feel like if he did then he would be a bit less.... This.

but at the same time, if he's so Against Killing Lurkers then maybe there... wasnt really a scum team to coach him??????????????

I don't think roleplaying is Totally Verboten or anything, it's just petered out because it's hard to reconcile it with serious discussion. But not impossible, and I doubt anyone (read: me) would be upset with someone who continued to do it but was still contributing. Heck, that's probably why a fair few people signed up.

Let's move on. Schazer, may I please ask you about the alleged connection in between Mirdini and Slorange? You stated that your thoughts into the mafia mindset led to two suspects who 'would' put forward a scum course of action consistent with what we know (again, very little). Having just pulled free, we wade right back into metagaming. I won't disagree with your assessment, though. Since we're so obviously supposed to focus on Slorange, why don't we look into Mirdini?

No connection between the two. It was simply my thought process when I saw Cyber had been killed N1, along the lines of "hmm who would do this?"

Mirdini is a dude I have talked with about the Sad State Of Mafias, what with the lurker problem and strategies that make sure newbies get valuable experience out of their first games. Slorange? I legally own his vital organs; all I gotta do is toss them out on a velvet mat and get my augur eagle to peck out a message and I can get a good read on whatever he's thinking.

My initial observed event was "Cyber was killed N1", which made me assume the cause was "one of Mirdini or Slorange is scum and chose him as the kill." Seeing as the updated event is "The mafia killed someone N1, and Slorange used his redirect and made Cyber the target", this means I can't suspect Mirdini or Slorange for being in the mafia for that reason alone. (I'm allowed to suspect them for other reasons, but I'm not seeing any right now.)

And I agree! Mirdini can definitely be looked at. Because he's lurking, though. Not because of the Cyber dying thing. Why don't you stick a vote on him and see where it leads?

Also Crowsy wouldn't be Most Polite Kill because a) they weren't declared as inactive until D2 begun, and they're a mafia newbie I'm pretty sure?

But none of that has changed, wouldn't she still be the Most Polite Kill now?

Ah, I meant "Crowsy wasn't a valid choice for "Most Polite Kill" in N1 like Solaris is suggesting, because blah blah blah.

Forgive my pessimism, but the only reason we got a "Polite Kill" on N1 was because of Slorange's one-shot. I doubt the mafia will indulge us tonight, seeing as there's zero evidence to suggest they were ever polite in the first place. (I mean yeah, scum, if you want to throw town and the Moderators a bone, that'd be swell of you, but I can see why you wouldn't)

What's a tek and who's Ron?

Unless someone ninja'd me, Sotek and Eberron most likely.

even Garuru to some extent!

disagree and also i take a little bit of offense but here goes (thanks seedy?)

-What's your take on this debate between Granola and I? Do you think one of us is mafia? Do you think we're both town and being very clueless and silly?

Granola doesn't really look much better than he did to me originally (scum scum scum). Schazer on the other hand looks a bit better for at least trying to keep things in control.

-Look at Garuru's posts, and have a look at who mentions him in turn. Do you see any possible connections there? Who calls attention to their suspicious behaviour? Who tries to drive discussion away from them?

(◔ ◡ ◔✿)

-For extra homework, do the same with Gnauga.

Man, I don't see the point. Gnauga is kind of under the radar right now, but I do feel that his posts have been helpful and constructive at least. For that matter, I can't help but feel annoyed by people throwing about "lurkers answer this complicated set of questions please", as it seems like a really easy way to make yourself appear "active" and "contributing". For some reason, though, I feel like Schazer is exempt from this, because she really has put a lot of effort in encouraging/advocating lurkers to either stop lurking or be lynched.

Granola's attempt to do the same though feels highly suspect.

REFERENCE:

Alternative/additional talking point for people: if you could cop, track or watch anyone, but only twice, who would you target?

Pretty much the tired CDV question with a twist that doesn't really make sense to me, and just generally feels forced.

(I'd cop/track [they're essentially the same] truegreen or you, and I'd not reveal who I would watch because nothing good can come out of openly predicting who will get killed tonight)

Re: Truegreen: Town works in town's best interests, and mafia works against the town. Lurkers don't do anything, so they're harmful to whichever side they're on. So, if you lynch a lurker and he's town then at least it didn't harm anyone (except for town's overall numbers i guess), but if you lynch scum then yay! That being said, lurker lynches are best held until we don't have much to go on anymore or cannot tell for sure who is scum. I guess today is a good day for that so I don't blame people for wanting to lurkerlynch, but I sure don't want to.

Also yeah much too much attention on Slorange's claim which really should not be a thing as it can lean either way anyways.

I want to lynch either Truegreen or Granola today and I will go with (vote:) Granola. (largely based on general attitude and a lot of little tells, such as being jumpy towards putting down others and just generally being contrary.)

seedy probably needs to chill because at this point she's pretty much tunneling. Also maybe Akumu doesn't want to answer your questions because they're buried in huge textwalls. (not saying Akumu is okay for dodging questions, I'm just playing the devil's advocate here, and saying that if he doesn't want to answer your questions, asking more questions probably isn't going to help? Also, there's been a lot of Akumu focus and little focus on other people.) to me akumu seems kiiind of a little better for your intense focus on him? still vaguely scum but his responses make sense to me, if i were in his shoes i would probably do the same, because gosh textwalls against you are intimidating.

sotek feels more eh now with his revelation of being 2busy4this, and granola's flip will tell me what I need to know about him anyways.

I guess I can't really blame people for standing on the sidelines as jumping in at this point takes a lot of effort, and some people pretty much were pressured into joining this. But, for the record, I'm okay with minimal-effort posts, as long as they reveal the ~true depths of your soul~

solaris what is a one note post

also also agen uh sorry i think i was one of the people who implied that People Who Roleplay Are Stupid and i just wanted to say i didnt mean to imply that at all, honest! like, this game was advertised as roleplaying-welcome so im okay with people doing that initially, i just happen to have a pet peeve against roleplaying in a game type that doesnt really call for it (such as mafias) so i guess my issue is more with the initial set of rules that encourages quirks. just aimless complaining really.

(i am fully aware of the irony what with my Steeling it up but the book covers can be largely ignored anyways)

Also, if lurker lynches are going to be a big debate in this game, then could people clarify what they consider to be a lurker? Like, maybe there are some people who have only made one or two substantial posts, but those posts are still substantial and can therefore be read/votes be analyzed. If they aren't lurkers, then the only person who is a "lurker" is Mirdini. (Probably Dalm as well as she has been quiet today) With that particular criteria, the intense ANGST towards lurkers kind of feels misplaced.






(people should post more though)

Thanks for answering, Garuru!
The reason I pose questions in the vein of "what do you think of this one guy" is that a) if you're a lurker who's been keeping up with new posts in the thread, but haven't really been synthesising the information, then narrowing the focus helps you see connections without getting bogged down. I imagine most people do it by instinct for all mentions of themselves (which is why the easiest player to defend is yourself), but the trick's to extrapolate that skill to analyse your fellow players.

By contrast, slapping votes on a lurker/newbie and saying "get in here and talk" doesn't give them much to work with. It's not a dammingly anti-town sentiment, but I feel giving key questions to help a re-reader focus their search is a more pro-town strategy. On the bigger scale, I like to see who parrots who, what posts people interpret differently, things like that.

My choice of you and Gnauga was an arbitrary pick amongst the players in the range from semi-active to lower-end-of-most-active range. You had enough contentful posts that someone re-reading has enough to look at, plus other people mention you guys enough that there's something to work with. With a fifteen-page thread, it's a manageable matter of scrolling through and ctrl-fing the player under investigation's name! Which is arguably superior to an "All posts by user" search because you're stripped of much interpersonal context.

Lurkers? Here's how I'd break up the playerlist:
Active players
The Bitch In Chief
Slorange
Granola
TrueGreen
Akumu
Gnauga
Seedy
Garuru

They exist, but, like, kinda peripherally?
Eberron, since the pressure was removed
Nova
Sotek
donut
Palamedes

Contributed recently, oh baby, keep it up
Dalm
Bigro
Solaris
Chwoka
AgentBlue

Lurking/Inactive
Mirdini
Crowslot

So the five in TE,B,L,KP? should be watched for signs they're slipping under the radar. They've either contributed to discussions earlier, but are fading out more recently (Palamedes, Eberron); or, they've had a persistent thread presence but haven't (to my recollections without re-reading) offered more than minimally-explained votes.

CR,OB,KIU features a lot of the people who (as best I can tell) have less "serious mafia" experience. They need lots of hugs and encouragement so they can have a go accusing all us loud folk of being heinous liars and the like.

-What's your take on this debate between Granola and I? Do you think one of us is mafia? Do you think we're both town and being very clueless and silly?
I don't even know I'd honestly say you're probably not mafia and in turn slorange is probably not mafia and I'm not sure if granola is really confused town or really confused scum

no time to do the analysis about that but apparently this is watts' thing and so yea unvote
analysis maybe coming later today if I can find time in making up my week of homework for being sick woo

Slorange: Keep in mind I lack most of the context from day one. Day two is the day I began to play and so the actions taken this day stand out most in my mind. Your post sets off red flags which I have explained in detail over several posts. Though I admit the information against you is mostly conjecture, and there are others who closely tail you on my suspicion-o-meter (namely Sotek, Granola, and Akuma). My major issue is that I am absolutely sure you are lying about your power and the nature of the kill. It's just too convenient that today started with so little information, I see that as an indicator that you are either scum or a third party. It just sets off red flags for me. Also those defending you kind of tick me off, I see most of their defenses as highly based on personal or dogmatic reasoning and sometimes circular logic. I think a lot of people are overlooking you because of your countenance and I dislike that.

To complicate matters I like making a choice and sticking with it. For me switching to Sotek felt kind of like a copout, it was certainly less interesting. Really, with so little information I just want to make a choice. Looking back, perhaps I have been a bit overzealous in the pursuit of its resolution, and for that I apologise.


Schazer: I am not trying to discredit your strategy. In fact I would argue that you are attempting the same to the strategy I favor. I have acknowledged that your tactic has its own strategic merit, but I dislike it from a gameplay and ideological perspective. Also I dislike your constant polarization of the issue. I do not think you can separate players into 'town' and 'traitor' categories based solely on what tactics they favor and what risks they prefer.

Perhaps it is our difference in experience but I just don't like the idea of threatening people so they will post. If we are coercing players to participate are they having fun?

It is clear that we disagree on some basic aspect of the game. I apologise if any of my posts have made you feel set upon or angry. I promise that was not my intention.


AgentBlue: Your point that I seem to be learning a bit too fast is a good one. I would however like to bring up something that I don't think you have considered. They wouldn't have just tossed a brand new player into a moving game without giving them some support.

I have a private quickchat with Dragon Fogel where I can ask questions about the game. He has not given me any strategic advice (beyond the very basic), but has helped me immensely to figure out the tone of the game and its general workings.

unvote since agent's posted a pretty thing! :D :D :D

Arright I did a reread and kinda skimmed some of it

I think I have actually gotten my bearings now so let's do stuff

Slorange and Granola have been giving me weird vibes since this damn game started and a reread didn't change that at all. 'Nola's done some stuff but most of his posts have been reactive, and he also called for a jailer or something D1? That pings two of my personal scumtells: "Mafia talk about mechanics to waste time" and "Mafia shout into the wind about other roles." He's my most confident scumread rn but I also feel like that lynch is a dead end because I'm reading town on Schaz and will continue to do so if 'Nola flips town, and he hasn't really talked to anyone else in-depth. Btw I am basing this strictly on behavior in this game because I actually don't know either of Schaz or 'Nola's metas that well.

Slorange has been a catty bastard since day one and I only realized exactly how catty his response was to my vote on reread. At first I thought the claim would absolve him but the more I think about it, his claim could be a lot of things. Could be 3P, could be town, could be a lie. It's complicated enough that it doesn't seem made up but he could be pulling a Darcy - that is, telling a bit of the truth and a bit of a lie about his role. Mostly I just wanna see that motherfucker flip because he vexes me.

Sol avoiding talking about the NL is interesting /more furious scribbling. But I got him talking at least. Much as Sotes not talking much sets off blaring alarms in my head, I make a point to leave people alone when they say non-mafia concerns are holding them up.

After seriously looking at the Eberron and NL bandwagons, I almost wanna say there's definitely scum somewhere on both of them. Both because it's 14/20 people and because neither one was rationalized well by either side.

So NL had: Slorange, Dalm, eberron, icanhasdonuts, Chwoka, Seedy, Solaris

And Eb had: Akumu, Palamedes, Gnauga, Sotek, Granolaman, me, cyber95

I could cop out and say it's Slorange and 'Nola but not a lot of people on either of these explained themselves well and that's a potential gold mine.

For NL: I fully acknowledge that I've flip-flopped on eberron a lot and I guess I have to live with that, but I am actually getting a legitimate scumread on them now and past D1 my newbie mercy dries up. If that whole bandwagon sweet spot thing can still be trusted then LOOK WHO'S THIRD :L and their behavior has not really done anything to reassure me. Seedy I think is town because they've been aggressive in many directions and have been prodding people a lot. Still think Sol's dodgy. I really don't have a read on donuts, must've skimmed his shit. And... who the fuck is Dalm? Are they here?

As for the Eb lynch, the most suspicious from worst to least imo (excluding cyber of course) are Granola, Pala, me, Sotes, and Akumu. Pala's complicated because his reasoning was arright but then he kinda stuck to the lynch all day and spent a lot of that time flapping his gums or reacting to people?? 'Nola got onto me the next day (and votes for me at the start of D2 were hella safe and pinged me a lil) about the way I voted for eberron but I did it for the same reason as him so that's interesting. And yeah, already promised to leave Sotes alone for a bit, townread on Akumu because he actually advocated the goddamn lynch and most of us should know NLs are bad.

OK SO NOW THAT ALL THAT SHIT IS DONE.

LET'S TALK ABOUT THE PART OF THIS POST THAT MATTERS.

THE BOLD PART.

THIS PART.

VOTE GRANOLAMAN.

I LIKE THIS LYNCH AND TOWN NEEDS TO FUGGEN KILL SOMEONE TODAY.

MAYBE SLORANGE TOMORROW?

MAYBE A LURKER?

WHO KNOWS

FIND OUT NEXT TIME ON DRAGONBALL Z



Now watch somebody will have posted while I was writing this and it'll somehow bring the entire post crashing down because that's what happens when I fuggen put effort into things

Huh. Slorange didn't respond to my secret alliance request. Either he's duller than I thought or he's actually not scum.

I guess it's time to come clean.

I'm a third party bodystacker. Cyber was my partner. I'm otherwise powerless, but cyber had cop/tracker/watcher powers. I tried to poke for the janitor to establish an alliance with scum, but they never responded. Slorange definitely should've seen it and replied so I guess he might actually be telling the truth.

I guess I have no choice but to side with town now. Good job scum missing out on me.

Oh and cyber and I lost daychat after d1. I'm assuming scum did too. That's about all the info I can scrounge up for you guys.

unvote. Vote: eberron I still maintain from a town perspective that this vote yields some solid info (I don't know quite how it compares to mine but it involves my survival so that's my choice)

NOPE NOPE NOPE KILL HIM KILL HIM RIGHT NOW

NEVER TRUST A BODYSTACKER

I SHOULD KNOW, I WAS THE WORST OF THEM ALL