View Topic

What about me? I think I've proven that I'm more of a danger to the Townies as a Townie. Remember that game where I led a crusade that killed literally every innocent townie there was while leaving the wolves to do their thing? :]

Hmmmm. Doesn't this kinda justify my vote even if you are town? Though now I have a list of people to watch as well, which is nice. More data!

Nor do I plan to, anymore. You're much too defensive about this.

There's no data, yes, so that is why we discuss things. You could have given your thoughts on what both Doc and Gerrick said, for example, or even chatted to Ruguo to discuss why you would be a bad lynch.

Now, you want to lynch a defender. Why? Is your role objectively more important? If so, then the townie thing to do would have been to simply engage with me and say: "Hey, Lau, what's up with the vote? Why not do x, y or z?"

These seem contradictory, given that in my experience, explaining why you’re not suspicious is one of the worst things you can do in this game.

Anyone could claim defender. Even if you are scanned during the next phase (is you’re still alive), the scout might not want to reveal their role and tell us what role you are.

North, Laurentus, Ruguo, Gerrick, and David all have one vote each. Unless someone votes for one of them, I’ll just leave it up to the random choice between the ones with one vote.

(And what do all the acronyms mean? e.g. NAI,  TWTBW, WIFOM)

To get us all off the chopping block I shall vote for david. That should protect us but I still think that Ruguo is suspicious.

Nor do I plan to, anymore. You're much too defensive about this.

There's no data, yes, so that is why we discuss things. You could have given your thoughts on what both Doc and Gerrick said, for example, or even chatted to Ruguo to discuss why you would be a bad lynch.

Now, you want to lynch a defender. Why? Is your role objectively more important? If so, then the townie thing to do would have been to simply engage with me and say: "Hey, Lau, what's up with the vote? Why not do x, y or z?"

These seem contradictory, given that in my experience, explaining why you’re not suspicious is one of the worst things you can do in this game.

Anyone could claim defender. Even if you are scanned during the next phase (is you’re still alive), the scout might not want to reveal their role and tell us what role you are.

North, Laurentus, Ruguo, Gerrick, and David all have one vote each. Unless someone votes for one of them, I’ll just leave it up to the random choice between the ones with one vote.

(And what do all the acronyms mean? e.g. NAI,  TWTBW, WIFOM)

So... everyone should just lynch you if they find you suspicious?

And I assume you mean the seeming contradiction between 'why are you so defensive' and 'explain yourself?' I can see why it would look like a contradiction, but it's not. Obviously, you'd have to make a case for yourself, because no one else will, but this should go accompanied by finding a better target, not just voting for someone else and refusing to engage in further analysis.

To get us all off the chopping block I shall vote for david. That should protect us but I still think that Ruguo is suspicious.

Do we have an inactivity lynch, @Doggu?

Do we have an inactivity lynch, @Doggu?

No, he explicitly stated there wouldn't be one, but observed 'there's a consequence for not choosing someone.'
Ominous!

Lau played in the championships for us, so hopefully he's already heading in the right direction.

This is very weird reasoning. Were it a round later, I'd assume it was a seer trying some semi-plausible argument for their vote bloc to form, but there hasn't been a scan yet. Nor could you be the other defender, since you're not supposed to be aware of each other.
I'm honestly kind of suspicious that the two of you are voting the same at this stage but its just kind-of suspicion at this juncture. Time will out.

All of that said, my vote-track rn is (bold is the current vote):
Laurentus: North, then Gerrick
PJ: technically not a vote-no-lynch, but a stated plan to not vote.
Me: Laurentus
Ruguo: North
North: Laurentus, then Ruguo, then David
Gabrielle: David
Currently the person with the plurality is David. I also noted that Gabrielle's @mention didn't work, so @davidd1979 just so he gets the notification.

(And what do all the acronyms mean? e.g. NAI,  TWTBW, WIFOM)

This is all jargon some of us picked up from Laurentus' MU game. 'NAI' is 'Not Alignment Indicative' (doesn't indicate either town or scum); 'TWTBW' is 'Too Wolfy To Be a Wolf', which is just silliness; and WIFOM is 'Wine In Front Of Me', which is essentially saying that it's unclear if someone is making the expected, smart choice, or the unexpected, weird choice.

Just to not have not voted, I'll follow the plurality and vote: David.

Hey y’all, I’m going to be completely honest here: I don’t want my husband lynched this early. Plain and simple. I change my vote to _zM

Do we have an inactivity lynch, @Doggu?

No, he explicitly stated there wouldn't be one, but observed 'there's a consequence for not choosing someone.'
Ominous!

Lau played in the championships for us, so hopefully he's already heading in the right direction.

This is very weird reasoning. Were it a round later, I'd assume it was a seer trying some semi-plausible argument for their vote bloc to form, but there hasn't been a scan yet. Nor could you be the other defender, since you're not supposed to be aware of each other.
I'm honestly kind of suspicious that the two of you are voting the same at this stage but its just kind-of suspicion at this juncture. Time will out.

All of that said, my vote-track rn is (bold is the current vote):
Laurentus: North, then Gerrick
PJ: technically not a vote-no-lynch, but a stated plan to not vote.
Me: Laurentus
Ruguo: North
North: Laurentus, then Ruguo, then David
Gabrielle: David
Currently the person with the plurality is David. I also noted that Gabrielle's @mention didn't work, so @davidd1979 just so he gets the notification.

(And what do all the acronyms mean? e.g. NAI,  TWTBW, WIFOM)

This is all jargon some of us picked up from Laurentus' MU game. 'NAI' is 'Not Alignment Indicative' (doesn't indicate either town or scum); 'TWTBW' is 'Too Wolfy To Be a Wolf', which is just silliness; and WIFOM is 'Wine In Front Of Me', which is essentially saying that it's unclear if someone is making the expected, smart choice, or the unexpected, weird choice.

Yeah, if he weren't so inexperienced, I'd say he was trying to pocket me.

No, other discussion as in 'let's look at what else is going on.'

It's a foregone conclusion that I'm going to get scanned, and at that point, the Seer will either reveal my role as a defender or as a Wolf. So that one's not really worth worrying about.

The whole point of random votes in the beginning is to jump start discussion like this. Even in Ruguo's immediate bandwagoning, that's another opportunity to analyse an action and gain clarity.

Frankly, the fact that you seem so disinterested in discussing things and instead just doing a self-preservation vote make me think that I might have hit a Wolf after all.

Hmm, one thing I noticed in your Mafia Championships game was a large stigma against players who don't contribute anything novel to the conversation, extending to self-preservation votes.

I may be misremembering, but I don't recall such a mindset ever being generally held in our games here, especially as they're more casual and such.

Not sure where I'm leading with this thought, I suppose I'm just trying to make sense of how you two seemed to quickly become suspicious of each other. Perhaps neither behaviors were necessarily scummy, just the consequence of differing playstyles?


I don't know what's going on with the David wagon. North's vote might be chalked up as self-preservation and perhaps also voting for an inactive player (both of which I think are probably NAI in Wintreath) but _zM jumped onto the wagon with no explanation at all. He might also just be a relatively inexperienced player though.

Alright, to all new players: it is essential to the game for the good guys that you explain your votes and reasoning, and as far as possible, not just blindly fall on wagons. Even the experienced players are prone to making mistakes, so we would definitely benefit from your analyses. We need to make democracy our tool to filter out bad reasoning.

So can someone please clarify the difference between voting no lynch and not voting at all? What good does voting no lynch do? I think I misinterpreted something along the way here and that may have been what got me into trouble to start with.

Also, thank you for the link to the mafia universe wiki. That may make things easier going forward.

And going forwards I won't wagon. Sorry. I'll figure things out as I go along. Now is there a way to save David? Because even with Gabrielle changing her vote, he still had two votes, one from North and one from Zm, and if we really don't want to kill anyone off then we should get him out. Besides, he hasn't a chance to defend himself yet.

And now I'm either digging both him and I deeper or jumping on the don't kill anyone wagon, if that's a thing. Ah well, I still want answers.

In order to retract my (foolish) earlier vote, looking back at all of the posts made so far I think that the general willingness of Laurentus to make helpful posts towards us newbies and his role reveal (or is it?) seem pretty suspicious, so I'll switch my vote to Laurentus.

(wow, this is so much easier in person compared to via text)

In order to retract my (foolish) earlier vote, looking back at all of the posts made so far I think that the general willingness of Laurentus to make helpful posts towards us newbies and his role reveal (or is it?) seem pretty suspicious, so I'll switch my vote to Laurentus.

(wow, this is so much easier in person compared to via text)

Huh? Elaborate. Why is helpfulness suspicious? Why is revealing my role suspicious, especially when I'm on the chopping block?

I'm quite tempted to just self-pres, but I need to figure out what the intent behind these ZM posts are.