Mini 414-Anime Mafia | GAME OVAH!

AndrewS · Post Post #8 (isolation #0) » Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:04 am

Random Vote: Cubsfan4ever

Because he was an evil spirit in BTMB's mafia game.

AndrewS · Post Post #32 (isolation #1) » Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:03 pm

Jack must be FLCL - he makes about as much sense as it does, anyway.

AndrewS · Post Post #38 (isolation #2) » Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:50 am

New Geneva is just a red herring.

Oh, and there are no more bullets left in that gun.

AndrewS · Post Post #46 (isolation #3) » Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:25 am

I'm growing a bit concerned about Jack. It appears that he has some sort of a random voting condition...In an endgame that could prove to be very dangerous. I don't think that he's our lynch, but we should really try to kill him before the numbers get too small.

AndrewS · Post Post #51 (isolation #4) » Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:26 am

(is reminded of the Monty Python cheese shop sketch)

Also, FOS: Jack for posting only one word up to this point when he could post more

AndrewS · Post Post #57 (isolation #5) » Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:07 pm

Jack: Early in the game, you were posting 1-2 word posts with random votes. Now you post more. We assumed that 1-2 words was your restriction.

Mert: I second - why the vote?

AndrewS · Post Post #60 (isolation #6) » Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:19 pm

Mert: If he did, in fact, have a posting restriction that required a random vote, as we believed up to this point (at least, I believed), then he WOULD be a major problem in the endgame. Say that it's down to 3 - 1 mafia, 2 townspeople and he randomly votes for the townsperson - the other mafia will obviously jump on, losing the game.

Jack: Another question: Why did you continue to unvote and revote for various people if you are not required to vote randomly?

AndrewS · Post Post #62 (isolation #7) » Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:29 pm

Correction: Mert's voting twice.

AndrewS · Post Post #73 (isolation #8) » Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:01 pm

Mert: We all had reason to believe that he had this restriction. (By the way, a random voting restriction could work so that a person was given a list, in order, of people they had to vote for, and couldn't post back-to-back), and that is when I posted it. It made no sense that he would vote randomly at least 4 times before then without justification or any other content in his posts. Now that I've found that he does not have this restriction, I don't belive that he should be lynched just for that reason. I do find the fact that he didn't post more earlier, however, very suspicious.

AndrewS · Post Post #125 (isolation #9) » Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:26 am

Sorry, The Shadow quit the site a while back...

AndrewS · Post Post #128 (isolation #10) » Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:38 am

His repeated voting and extremely short posts with no content look odd.

AndrewS · Post Post #135 (isolation #11) » Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:42 am

We had reason to believe that you had a restriction. Why else would you do that? I never suggested lynching you because you had a restriction - I put a pressure vote on you to ask why you did that. And yes, odd can equal scum in some situations.

AndrewS · Post Post #138 (isolation #12) » Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:50 am

I meant that if you were required to random vote, if we got to LYLO, you could be a liability to the town. If you had such a restriction, would you disagree?

AndrewS · Post Post #140 (isolation #13) » Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:02 pm

Suggesting the lynch not today, but in the future. And I think that we all assumed that.

AndrewS · Post Post #148 (isolation #14) » Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:13 am

Let me say this one last time. I've said this for 3 times already.

At the time, I believed that Jack had a role restriction which required him to vote randomly, possibly following a list. We all believed that he had a restriction. I can quote posts saying that if you need me to. If he had such a post restriction that required him to vote randomly, then in a situation where we are at Lynch or Lose, say 2 mafia and 3 town, his random vote could cost the town the game. All I was saying was that if his post restriction continued to follow those patterns, he was a loose cannon and needed to be axed before we got to that point.

AndrewS · Post Post #150 (isolation #15) » Fri Mar 09, 2007 6:37 am

Oh, and

Unvote: Cubsfan

The vote on him was random and I just realized that I was still voting for him.

AndrewS · Post Post #160 (isolation #16) » Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:24 am

I have to say, there are several people acting rather strangely. Not enough for a vote yet, but I do have my eye on several people. This is turning into a rather odd game...

AndrewS · Post Post #201 (isolation #17) » Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:59 am

I'm still here. I'll do a reread and post later today.

AndrewS · Post Post #205 (isolation #18) » Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:52 pm

He never claimed to know Jack's role specifically. He meant that Jack was drawing attention away from the real game, if I am correct.

AndrewS · Post Post #207 (isolation #19) » Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:00 pm

The game that doesn't involve you voting for nonsensical reasons in the mid-stage of the day.

AndrewS · Post Post #284 (isolation #20) » Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:36 pm

Ok, back, sorry...last few days have been very busy.

Mert - are you denying that if he DID have to vote randomly that he would be dangerous in an endgame?

AndrewS · Post Post #293 (isolation #21) » Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:53 am

Well, it was logical to assume at that early stage that he did have one. I also included a clause that said if he did. Since it appears that he doesn't, however, how can we explain his actions? Also, if I was looking for an easy day 1 lynch, would I say "Before the endgame" and "Not today"? And finally, if you agree - then why do you find me suspicious? Should I use more politically correct statements when accusing someone in the future?

Your nitpickiness is annoying and unproductive.

Unvote, vote: Mert

AndrewS · Post Post #297 (isolation #22) » Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:37 pm

Quite frankly, Jack, the same could be said of you. You've contributed absolutely nothing to this game.

As for you, Mert, others made the same assumption. I added a qualifier. Would you rather I have kept my mouth shut?

AndrewS · Post Post #322 (isolation #23) » Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:33 am

Sorry, I'm here. It's just been an incredibly hectic week. My problem with the Cubsfan wagon is merely that nobody has proven why he's scum, it feels much more like a meta-OMGUS wagon, but I'll go back and reread later. I still think that Jack's erratic behavior is certainly deserving of a lynch, merely because he will not be helpful to us as town. Will do a reread later today, however.