(1) NewAgeWarrior - purple princess
(1) Messiah - Wysp
With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch
DEADLINE: September 7, 2009 12:01 PM PST
I think that it wouldn't be a bad mafia tactic to lurk as long as possible...if there are other lurkers, that makes it even easier to blend in. If I was mafia, I definitely would consider posting as little as possible to divert attention, and since there are several lurkers already, it's harder to pinpoint who is actually unable to post and who isn't posting deliberately.Messiah wrote:@XScorpion: I'll ask my question again since you ignored it. Considering your firm "lurkers are scum" stance do you believe that both of our scum are in the three people who haven't posted yet? Why sergio instead of the other two?
Wysp wrote:I don't recall saying I was confused, although admittedly I was. I also never said anything about scum not doing what I was doing, to the best of my recollection.
Wysp - Post #33 wrote:*is confused*
Wysp - Post #37 wrote:Dangit, now you have me confused.
Wysp - Post #51 wrote:Point 3--Would a Mafian be making this much noise this early in the game?
Wysp - Post #64 wrote:Okay, now I'm confused.
What's with the WIFOM?Wysp wrote:I'll also proffer this argument as to my innocence: if I was Mafia, I'd <snip>
This is my first game ever, this site or otherwise.Wysp wrote:Quick question-- Messiah, you seem to be experienced here. How many games here have you played?
You aren't a new player though, correct?Wysp wrote:It is, obviously, a common fallacy made by new players. I hope you will understand.
1) There's no problem with a bit of aggression. However, playing in a fast style when there's no need to is unnecessary.Wysp wrote:I'm gonna anwer the quick-lynch question once and for all:
Point 1--Like I said, I'm from a place which goes a lot faster at our lynches. I apologize if this makes me seem suspicious. Sadly, the forums which I play on are down for upgrades (and have been so for...two, three weeks, at least?), but once they come up, I can link to the pages for proof.
Point 2--I picked the guy who isn't playing. The one who would be the least advantage to the town. If anything, people who want to lynch players who are actually participating are the supicious ones. Sadly, I don't (like I have bemoaned many times before) have any evidence for finger-pointing at this time.
Point 3--Would a Mafian be making this much noise this early in the game? I've played Mafia before, on both sides, and I know the best way for the Mafian to win is to stay low and influence opinion, not stand out and speak up. What do I look like I'm doing?
How do you propose to kill mafia in this game if we never lynch?Wysp wrote:*facepalm*
Wow, I feel stupid.
Okay, I just reread the rules and noticed that this site permits null votes. Ergo...
Null Vote
Rather than killing a lurker (Townie, Mafia, or whatever) or an active member, IMO it makes more sense to just not lynch.
So, in effect, you are saying that you don't believe him when he says that he didn't expect anybody to believe him. Fair enough.purple princess wrote:Well I guess he had to say that after S23181208 bought it up, I'm not sure what he thought he would gain from saying "I am town" maybe he thought people would leave him alone as he must obvioulsy must be town.julienvonwolfe wrote:Princess - what do you think of his statement that he didn't expect anybody to believe his claim?
But the game has started. If he did have a scum role, he could deliberately confirm late in order to try and lurk a bit and maybe stay under the radar. Is that not plausible?purple princess wrote:I could compleatly understand if he had confirmed his role that not posting anything could been seen as lurking, but as I see it he hasn't confirmed so isn't really part of this game, sure he could have a scum role but how can you tell without him confirming or even posting in this game.julienvonwolfe wrote:Also, why does not confirming not equal lurking if the game has already started?
What do you think of the active players?XScorpion wrote:I think that it wouldn't be a bad mafia tactic to lurk as long as possible...if there are other lurkers, that makes it even easier to blend in. If I was mafia, I definitely would consider posting as little as possible to divert attention, and since there are several lurkers already, it's harder to pinpoint who is actually unable to post and who isn't posting deliberately.Messiah wrote:@XScorpion: I'll ask my question again since you ignored it. Considering your firm "lurkers are scum" stance do you believe that both of our scum are in the three people who haven't posted yet? Why sergio instead of the other two?
Sergio was picked since of the lurkers, he was the most "lurky" (hadn't even confirmed yet) to me. I'll change my vote to Sarcyn as soon as n107 offers some of his thoughts.
1) Yes, I have realized that. Accept my apologies.1) There's no problem with a bit of aggression. However, playing in a fast style when there's no need to is unnecessary.
2) Do you prefer to lynch lurkers, or replace them?
3) As has been pointed out, this is a WIFOM defence.
I never said never lynch. I said don't lynch now and get more evidence.How do you propose to kill mafia in this game if we never lynch?
Messiah: I get a town feeling from Messiah. He's pressured everyone suspicious so far in this game, and hasn't actually made any anti-town actions or comments yet. Considering the amount of evidence that incriminates the other active players, he's probably one of my less likely choices for scum.julienvonwolfe wrote:What do you think of the active players?
I respectfully disagree. From what I've seen, the kind of revelations which are useful as evidence tend come come out of emotional outbursts, which in turn usually result to being very close to being lynched. Clearly, one can not put pressure on a lurker.XScorpion wrote:My vote is staying where it is. If we end up lynching townies unintentionally, I would prefer that we lynch the lurkers than the ones who have actually offered insight, since it's a lot harder to get a read on people who don't post.
You rolefish too much.XScorpion wrote:NAW: Town, or foolish mafia. I'm actually thinking he might be the doctor, as the cop shouldn't claim townie if he wants people (or me at least) to believe him, the townie should not make comments like that since it could lead mafia to think he's not the doctor/cop (we want a townie to get night killed, not a power role) and mafia just threw away the ability to fake-claim a power role later. Either way, claiming so early was a huge mistake, and if NAW is mafia, then I expect him to make more mistakes later on.
I'm certainly not going to say who I think is the most town of us, as that's a good way of telling the scum who to kill tonight. The people I'm focussing on at the moment, though:XScorpion wrote:You: Too passive for me to tell at this point. Speaking of which, I think you should answer the same question as I. What do YOU think of ALL the players at this point?
What do you think about replacing lurkers?XScorpion wrote:My vote is staying where it is. If we end up lynching townies unintentionally, I would prefer that we lynch the lurkers than the ones who have actually offered insight, since it's a lot harder to get a read on people who don't post.
This doesn't sit well with me. Early game speculation of possible power roles is distinctly anti-town.XScorpion wrote:NAW: Town, or foolish mafia. I'm actually thinking he might be the doctor, as the cop shouldn't claim townie if he wants people (or me at least) to believe him, the townie should not make comments like that since it could lead mafia to think he's not the doctor/cop (we want a townie to get night killed, not a power role) and mafia just threw away the ability to fake-claim a power role later. Either way, claiming so early was a huge mistake, and if NAW is mafia, then I expect him to make more mistakes later on.
Very true, I just felt that we should have waited for him to confirm before votes were fired at him, I do uunderstand that he may have a scum role, but we should have given him a bit of a chance to defend himself before eveyone decided to vote for him. Say for instance he was quick lynched by some enthusiastic newbie players before he had even confirmed and he was actually town, we would not have much to go on for day 2 and effectivly given mafia a "free pass"julienvonwolfe wrote:But the game has started. If he did have a scum role, he could deliberately confirm late in order to try and lurk a bit and maybe stay under the radar. Is that not plausible?
Hmmm I am unsure what to make of him at the moment, seems to be a very active player, but his posts don't really say much to be honest, he seems to have drawn quite a lot of attention to himself but I am unsure why, also he seems to be voting all over the place at the moment which I find a little bit odd, he has changed his vote four times and this game is only a few days old.julienvonwolfe wrote:Princess, I am curious - what do you think of Wysp?
Who gave you the authority to decide that? Don't get me wrong, it's not that I want a no-lynch, it's merely that a no lynch > lynching a pro-town member. Lynching just to lynch can be very hazardous.@NewAgeWarrior: We shouldn't even be discussing the no-lynch anymore, we aren't going to no-lynch on day 1.