Everyone can make their own guesses with a bit of information on day 2, but right now a lynch will be purely random.

 

I disagree. I think that we've actually got some decent back and forth going that voting today wouldn't be a total guess. Plus, we're going to a lot more equip on day two with all this discussion and voting/unvoting than we would be with only a cop investigation.

 

I'd follow suit and give an FOS on KF2001 as well, but I don't find it suspicious, instead I think he's just not really involved. If it were someone I had played with before who had been doing the same thing, someone I knew to have made better rationale votes, I might feel differently.

 

As far as SirCrocodile, I think he has now had all his fair warnings. I'd be tempted to vote for him if he continued to post edit, but I'd rather leave that up to the mod. On the other hand, it's a matter of trust. I can't trust someone to follow the rules, and stick to what they say, they'll have to go.

As far as SirCrocodile, I think he has now had all his fair warnings. I'd be tempted to vote for him if he continued to post edit, but I'd rather leave that up to the mod. On the other hand, it's a matter of trust. I can't trust someone to follow the rules, and stick to what they say, they'll have to go.

The last time I post-edited was when EM told me to stop.

Oh lol

 

BeeBs pointed out that I might be connected to Imran Ehsan

because we chose a single target...

 

and then we see SirCrocodile following BeeBs's vote

very quickly

See if everyone voted no lynch immediately we wouldn't

have this much discussion

So since we already had quite a bit of discussion and it has been interesting and we saw some voting patterns maybe its time to reach a general consensus. As it sounds now I think the voting is split between me, SirCrocodile and no lynch. I didnt like a flurry of no lynch votes with no discussion, picking a target revealed quite a bit already I think. if the majority agrees, I would be happy for a no lynch option for Day 1 and see who the scum target on the first night and also if we get some info from the cop (if hes around).

Where is the vote-count?

I agree that the discussion is good and can be used in future days.

 

I would like to think that anybody that wants to lynch must be scum, but there are too many of you!

I think the vote count atm is

 

No Lynch - Kevin H, Reign of Terror

Kevin H - ccabal86

Sir Crocodile - Imran Ehsan, Kaziocore

Imran Ehsan - BeeBs, SirCrocodile, KF2001

BeeBs - EM

Not Voting - ABigDeer, d3mon

 

Mod: plz confirm

 

@KevinH

 

Thats the way I look at it and except Kazio (because he does this in every game ), I still think its a good indicator of who might be scum.

Oh lol

 

BeeBs pointed out that I might be connected to Imran Ehsan

because we chose a single target...

 

and then we see SirCrocodile following BeeBs's vote

very quickly

 

I noticed this, and I wish it wouldn't have happened. Imran Eshan got two votes because of, more or less, i agree....vote! On the other hand, if they do actually agree that's fine, it would just be nice if new votes could provide additional or backup reasoning for the proposition they support.

 

However, I'd like to clear up something here. I didn't vote for Imran Eshan because of you following him. That was more of a corollary that I just wanted to point out/a relationship I noticed.

I voted for Imran Eshan because he maintained a vote on a player even after he realized the logical crux of his vote was faulty. Whether that is a scum tell or not (certainly not definitive, but still telling), its not an attitude that will be productive to the town. His original vote had no reasoning, just "im suspicious". The later reasoning should have been posted in the first place. Later, he has gone on to say he doesn't want to change his vote and be influenced by other players. However, he pointed out his own weakness in his vote. Therefore, I think he should not have maintained his vote on SirCrocodile.

I noticed this, and I wish it wouldn't have happened. Imran Eshan got two votes because of, more or less, i agree....vote! On the other hand, if they do actually agree that's fine, it would just be nice if new votes could provide additional or backup reasoning for the proposition they support.

 

However, I'd like to clear up something here. I didn't vote for Imran Eshan because of you following him. That was more of a corollary that I just wanted to point out/a relationship I noticed.

I voted for Imran Eshan because he maintained a vote on a player even after he realized the logical crux of his vote was faulty. Whether that is a scum tell or not (certainly not definitive, but still telling), its not an attitude that will be productive to the town. His original vote had no reasoning, just "im suspicious". The later reasoning should have been posted in the first place. Later, he has gone on to say he doesn't want to change his vote and be influenced by other players. However, he pointed out his own weakness in his vote. Therefore, I think he should not have maintained his vote on SirCrocodile.

 

I never admitted that my logical deduction for suspecting SirCrocodile was faulty. I still hold on to my reasoning that he received his role PM much earlier than me and some of the others. It IS suspicious because I remember seeing him post his confirmation and then checking my mail and seeing that I hadn't received any and thinking..hhmm..there must be something different about his pm. My only mistake was thinking he received the mail 12 hrs early...but it was actually 2 hrs..which I have admitted. It may be a weak reason to suspect someone but logic was not faulty. And in Day 1 with so little information, the little things are all we have to go on. And throwing suspicion on someone and seeing how they react is much better than going with a boring "No Lynch" vote before any discussion has taken place.

Your logic is sound and I can see where you're coming from, but there's an obvious flaw.

 

None of us know for sure the order that the PMs were sent in. For all we know, the mod could have had something come up and he needed to leave the computer for a bit.

I want to make sure everyone understands that three votes at the deadline will be enough to lynch.

 

If you are the only vote on a player, in a way it doesn't really matter.

 

If you are one of three votes on a player, you stand a good chance of lynching a townie and hearing me say "I told you so".

I never admitted that my logical deduction for suspecting SirCrocodile was faulty. I still hold on to my reasoning that he received his role PM much earlier than me and some of the others. It IS suspicious because I remember seeing him post his confirmation and then checking my mail and seeing that I hadn't received any and thinking..hhmm..there must be something different about his pm. My only mistake was thinking he received the mail 12 hrs early...but it was actually 2 hrs..which I have admitted. It may be a weak reason to suspect someone but logic was not faulty. And in Day 1 with so little information, the little things are all we have to go on. And throwing suspicion on someone and seeing how they react is much better than going with a boring "No Lynch" vote before any discussion has taken place.

Okay, I concede that. I may have used the word logic incorrectly. But, in the sense that because someone got their role pm 12 hours earlier and someone got their role pm 2 hours earlier, therefore the mod prioritized their role, the first seems much more likely to follow. That said, your premises don't demonstrate your conclusion. First, you have no idea the mods intention. Second, if it was only two hours they could have checked it and not posted immediately, ie they could have received it earlier than you think as well. Etc. my point is, whether it is a problem in your formal logic or not, the reasoning is weak.

I think the vote count atm is

 

No Lynch - Kevin H, Reign of Terror

Kevin H - ccabal86

Sir Crocodile - Imran Ehsan, Kaziocore

Imran Ehsan - BeeBs, SirCrocodile, KF2001

BeeBs - EM

Not Voting - ABigDeer, d3mon

 

Unvote: Beebs

Vote: d3mon

 

Reason: He's only 1 of 2 people that haven't voted yet.

 

If this is like most other games I've played, both Sir Crocodile and Imran Ehsan are both townies and today's lynch will probably come down to choosing between one of those two. Meanwhile, the scum sit back and watch townies argue back and forth while at no time ever putting themselves in harms way, choosing instead to stand by in the shadows and trying to blend in as a helpful townie as much as possible. Those that sit by and don't vote catch my eye.

Vote count

 

No Lynch - Kevin H, Reign of Terror

Kevin H - ccabal86

Sir Crocodile - Imran Ehsan, Kaziocore

Imran Ehsan - BeeBs, SirCrocodile, KF2001

d3mon - EM

 

Not Voting - ABigDeer, d3mon

Etc. my point is, whether it is a problem in your formal logic or not, the reasoning is weak.

 

Which I have admitted. --->

 

It may be a weak reason to suspect someone but logic was not faulty.

 

My answer to that was and is I wanted a lynch vote in place of a no lynch vote and he was the one who caught my eye.

... are both townies and today's lynch will probably come down to choosing between one of those two

 

Stop the madness!

Unvote: Beebs

Vote: d3mon

 

Reason: He's only 1 of 2 people that haven't voted yet.

 

If this is like most other games I've played, both Sir Crocodile and Imran Ehsan are both townies and today's lynch will probably come down to choosing between one of those two. Meanwhile, the scum sit back and watch townies argue back and forth while at no time ever putting themselves in harms way, choosing instead to stand by in the shadows and trying to blend in as a helpful townie as much as possible. Those that sit by and don't vote catch my eye.

 

Why D3mon instead of ABigDeer then? Also, the way things are going, its probably more likely the scum are voting if they want to blend in, knowing that not voting for something at this point makes them suspicious.

 

Which I have admitted. --->

 

My answer to that was and is I wanted a lynch vote in place of a no lynch vote and he was the one who caught my eye.

 

Right, but it seems from your posts that he caught your eye for reasons that have now been alleviated (the difference between 12 and 2 hours).

Why D3mon instead of ABigDeer then? Also, the way things are going, its probably more likely the scum are voting if they want to blend in, knowing that not voting for something at this point makes them suspicious.

 

d3mon is the more seasoned player out of the two. I can only vote for one and I'm giving ABigDeer more leeway than d3mon based off of that. Also d3mon seems like he is trying to appear helpful but not risking saying anything that could be used to build a case against him. (i.e. posting vote counts, etc)

 

I agree that scum want to blend in but feel that on Day 1 they would not risk stretching at reasons to incriminate someone based on such little evidence to back them up. I feel they would be more comfortable letting the town gang up on each other early in the game.

 

As Kevin stated, voting no lynch, not at all, random voting, or voting for someone who doesn't have a chance of being lynched are ways they try not to bring attention to themselves.

d3mon is the more seasoned player out of the two. I can only vote for one and I'm giving ABigDeer more leeway than d3mon based off of that. Also d3mon seems like he is trying to appear helpful but not risking saying anything that could be used to build a case against him. (i.e. posting vote counts, etc)

 

I agree that scum want to blend in but feel that on Day 1 they would not risk stretching at reasons to incriminate someone based on such little evidence to back them up. I feel they would be more comfortable letting the town gang up on each other early in the game.

 

As Kevin stated, voting no lynch, not at all, random voting, or voting for someone who doesn't have a chance of being lynched are ways they try not to bring attention to themselves.

 

Well.. I had voted for no lynch and have repeatedly expressed my support for it. But, I guess your reason for suspecting me (being helpful??) is as good as mine for suspecting all the players that are voting for a lynch, this by extension implies that any action/in action can be construed as a proof of scumminess and just validates what I have been saying all along i.e. we dont have enough information on day 1 to lynch..

d3mon is the more seasoned player out of the two. I can only vote for one and I'm giving ABigDeer more leeway than d3mon based off of that. Also d3mon seems like he is trying to appear helpful but not risking saying anything that could be used to build a case against him. (i.e. posting vote counts, etc)

 

I agree that scum want to blend in but feel that on Day 1 they would not risk stretching at reasons to incriminate someone based on such little evidence to back them up. I feel they would be more comfortable letting the town gang up on each other early in the game.

 

As Kevin stated, voting no lynch, not at all, random voting, or voting for someone who doesn't have a chance of being lynched are ways they try not to bring attention to themselves.

 

So does that mean in order to not be "suspicious" I need to bring attention to myself? Or does it change? Because to be quite frank, by the looks of things weather you post once, you post multiple times, you don't post, you random vote, you vote, you don't vote, you try to get someone lynched, you vote without enough evidence.. whatever, it always seems to be 'suspicious activity'. I have no one to vote for and the only "proof" I, myself can find is SirCrocodile and KF2001 but you said in an earlier post that SirCrocodile was a townie or something? So why would I vote for a townie? If I vote for someone who has a lot of votes it always seems to be considered "bandwagoning" which is "suspicious" BUT if I vote for KF2001 that would be 'voting for someone who doesn't have a chance at being lynched' (currently) or 'random voting which is also "suspicious"' so where does that leave me? No matter what I do, even what I'm doing now, apparently I'm mafia.

 

The reason why I am not voting yet is because I have no idea who to vote for. Someone says this but the person being blamed says this while the other few people say this and that, and if I vote for ANY one of them it'll be 'suspicious' but if I fence sit I'll be 'suspicious' for not doing anything about it so that leaves me trying to join in the conversation but what am I supposed to do with no proof or experience of this game (well.. one short game with no discussion). So I can't win. Think me of mafia as you wish but I am being honest here I have no idea what I'm supposed to do.

Heh, ABD is pretty spot-on with the suspicious thing. Basically anything you do can be explained as "suspicious activity" from a point of view.

 

Really, the best bet on day 1 is to get some discussion going, then see how events unfold. That sounds generic, but truth is there's no way to draw any conclusions without a lynch and/or nightkill - an action where a person's alliegence is revealed.

Well.. I had voted for no lynch and have repeatedly expressed my support for it. But, I guess your reason for suspecting me (being helpful??) is as good as mine for suspecting all the players that are voting for a lynch, this by extension implies that any action/in action can be construed as a proof of scumminess and just validates what I have been saying all along i.e. we dont have enough information on day 1 to lynch..

 

How long have you been on the Day 1 No Lynch band wagon? Granted, I haven't played Mafia recently, but KevinH is the only person I remember playing with that has always been a staunch supporter of that strategy. Please correct me if I'm wrong but if you've suddenly changed your playing style then I would find that suspicious.

 

 

So does that mean in order to not be "suspicious" I need to bring attention to myself?

 

Yes. In order for the town to win they must find out who the mafia are before it's too late. We need as much information as we can in order to intelligently connect the dots that will lead us to a win. How can we know what to think about people that do not share their thoughts, opinions, or votes.

 

 

Heh, ABD is pretty spot-on with the suspicious thing.

 

Your support of ABigDeer's opinion is interesting.

Your support of ABigDeer's opinion is interesting.

 

No it's not, it's the truth - which is also unrelated to ABD's particular case here.

 

It's all too easy to fall into the WIFOM trap - something "suspicious" catches your eye about someone, then everything else that person does only serves to reinforce your suspicion, regardless of what he does. Saw many people fall victim to this, myself included.

You are all suspicious.

 

Welcome to Mafia!