Open 29 - C9+2 (~GAME OVER~) before 470

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #20 (isolation #0) » Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:39 pm

vote somestrangeflea

I don't like fleas...

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #25 (isolation #1) » Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:53 pm

Lateralus... Why the quantity of random voting and the "random" voting of players who have already been voted for?

Scum-city my dear.

unvote
vote lateralus

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #32 (isolation #2) » Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:21 am

Haha... That's amazing.

But to step away from irony I will

unvote somestrangeflea

for now.

That was fun while it lasted though!

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #35 (isolation #3) » Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:29 am

Haha... oh yeah! I'd changed my vote to Lateralus huh... I'm playing WAAAAAAAAY too many games at once than is good for a person!!!

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #37 (isolation #4) » Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:45 am

oh I won't be lurking. I'm way too addicted to lurk and not say anything... lol

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #41 (isolation #5) » Sat Jun 30, 2007 9:14 am

Generating conversation is the name of the game early on... but it's difficult to do without causing ruckus as well as without looking completely scummy as I am learning in this online world of mafia

But I agree with Rishi. We don't have a deadline that I am aware of so we can take the time, get people talking, defending, pointing fingers... Then make a more educated lynch. Not to say that there haven't been a couple of "scummy" moves by lateralus, HH, and ssf. But for now, they're just random vote moves, and conversation starters.

And I believe we have more than 2 mis-lynches. It is 2 mis-lynches in the regular C9 setup so... With two more townies and possible doctors saving and investigators investigating... We'll have to see though.

One thing, however, I have noticed (and this could just be the one lame game I just replaced out of) if day one takes too long, players get disinterested, upset, distracted, then they replace out making it more difficult to remember who's who... The game just gets boring. Let's not get to page 12 without ending day one?

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #43 (isolation #6) » Sat Jun 30, 2007 10:18 am

The 8-10 "well-argued" pages would be great! If they're well-argued though... haha

But thanks for clearing that up for me! I've only played one other C-9 game before and this one is modified so I wasn't sure about the different ways it could play out.

Either way, we need a lynch on day one... so no voting no lynch and if there's a deadline let's hope we get enough votes to get the bad guy!

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #45 (isolation #7) » Sun Jul 01, 2007 6:11 am

Religion? Politics? lol...

Maybe go back to random voting and see if someone gets scared?

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #48 (isolation #8) » Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:53 pm

Agreed... Especially since they gave the same excuses. One vote, maybe even two votes is random conversation starter, but a third vote on someone is just odd...

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #50 (isolation #9) » Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:45 pm

Not always. A lot of times, crap comes down the pipe and someone gets lynched based on "flimsy excuses," lies, contradictions or other such things.

The first round of VOTES are random but the first LYNCH is rarely random.

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #53 (isolation #10) » Sun Jul 01, 2007 3:38 pm

Lateralus... His third vote came with the words "out of randomness." Like he had to say that? Like he had to try to remind everyone that it was random? Lateralus removed his vote with "I like yogurt." Um... Okay?

HH didn't remove his vote. He bandwagoned on my random vote (which I reasoned with I don't like fleas) with a reason for voting for SSF, something about him jumping the gun? It was a vote with dice, a random vote. I got voted for because they don't think fish should be in mafia. Those are random reasons. Giving an actual reason or saying "it's random" seems... Odd to me.

Not sure which one is scummier... I'll vote when there's more reason to vote rather than beginning-game mistakes...

FOS Lateralus
FOS Honorary Hitchiker

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #59 (isolation #11) » Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:08 am

Wait, what??? Lateralus, SSF unvoted you. They gave up pressuring you into defending your 3rd vote. So then you place another vote?

C'mon Lateralus, write more than 4 sentences and explain thy self.

AmeliaLi: How is that not enough to FOS them? It's just simply that. I am pointing my finger at them for scummy moves. I haven't voted either of them... One sentence you agree with the fact that what they've done is quite odd and the next you've disagreed that they should be pointed at? Maybe just an OMGUS for each?

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #60 (isolation #12) » Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:10 am

** And not to mention that he put another third vote down.... **

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #66 (isolation #13) » Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:16 am

Lateralus, your votes have given us something to discuss. And if you wanted to get through the day without stupid and random votes, then what were your votes? Were they stupid and random or intentional? And yes, your "random" votes being the third vote on someone is suspicious. Why not randomly vote someone without a vote? That is the essence of a random vote, vote someone not being targeted to get them involved.

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #79 (isolation #14) » Wed Jul 04, 2007 7:03 am

CLAP CLAP CLAP for Ripley. Great analysis.

I see many flaws in the play of Lateralus and your analysis touched on them all.

But I'm not ready to vote him yet.

My reason being Mr. Honorary Hitchhiker. He was FOSed, voted, and questioned, yet he flew under the radar while Lateralus fried at the hands of the town... And then he pipes up with his FOS for Lateralus? Not answering questions and then only saying that there's just "something" about the posts of Lateralus? That seems somewhat opportunistic if you ask me.

If HH doesn't give some sort of valid explanation... I say we pressure him with some votes if not lynch him here in this first day.

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #81 (isolation #15) » Wed Jul 04, 2007 7:27 am

Hahaha... I can't even spell it wrong when I am supposed to!

Ok, HONARY Hitchhiker: Explain thyself!

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #84 (isolation #16) » Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:01 am

So you are honestly voting for a no lynch Honary Hitchhiker? Why a no lynch? You realize that is bad for the town, right? You FOS Lateralus to conform with the town but vote a no lynch? Had you not voted no lynch your last post may have cleared you for, at least in my head, for the most part... But seeing on the Votecount that you have indeed voted to not lynch... You could just not vote for now...

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #87 (isolation #17) » Wed Jul 04, 2007 3:45 pm

If the last 3 of us, myself, Rishi, and Crub are suspicious, we decide to vote for him... And Crub keeps their vote on HH, that puts Honary Hitchiker at -1...

I really have a gut feeling about HH. And his posts just don't match... Nor are they very pro-town. Even if he didn't necessarily "Vote: No Lynch." He's still #1 on my suspicious list.

So I am going to

Vote Honary Hitchiker

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #90 (isolation #18) » Wed Jul 04, 2007 6:07 pm

What I meant by "the last 3 of us" was the last 3 of us to have posted against HH.

I think that we all want to hear HH speak sine more. I'm with Crub on this one.

He's at -2 right now with my vote on him.

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #95 (isolation #19) » Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:46 am

Ok, with HH at -1.... That leaves the hammer in the hands of people who also see him as scum.

And HH isn't defending himself all that well...

I don't know what we could debate for 2-3 more pages.

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #98 (isolation #20) » Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:53 am

I'm quite noob so... How does a quick lynch help the mafia?

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #99 (isolation #21) » Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:57 am

And just an fyi, I still find Lateralus odd. He just went after HH but only an FOS...

And HH went after Lateralus in his post...

They could be unaffiliated but I am wondering if they're trying to separate so if one gets lynched the other one won't follow suit because of affiliation....

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #107 (isolation #22) » Fri Jul 06, 2007 6:59 am

HH posted a couple days ago but said nothing really...

We're on page 5 and I agree with SSF. The fact that he's not saying anything, even when he does post... It gives us information.

The best HH could do is claim and really honestly get us to believe it.

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #110 (isolation #23) » Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:09 am

Then SSF, vote and let someone else throw the hammer if HH doesn't pop his head in here and give us a reason... A good reason at that.

I don't want to sound pushy but, this is a great opportunity for the town. While it may seem like a "quick lynch" I think it's a good move. Because if and when HH comes up scum, we have people's voting records to look at. Specifically why Ripley did in fact remove his vote to put HH back at -2. And why Lateralus has indeed called HH scummy but not voted for him.

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #112 (isolation #24) » Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:05 pm

Haha. I gave you permission? Right on =P

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #115 (isolation #25) » Fri Jul 06, 2007 4:19 pm

FOSing Lateralus isn't contributing to the discussion. That is only repeating what many of us had already discussed. And we stated MORE about what Lateralus had been writing. You simply FOSed him for being scummy. What about his play is scummy to you?

And it took you a few posts until you actually took your vote off of SSF.

I am definitely keeping my vote on HH for now...

DeliciousGoldfish · Post Post #121 (isolation #26) » Sat Jul 07, 2007 6:24 am

And that's the hammer.... Alrighty... Cross your fingers everyone! Though I don't think we'll need any help from above for this one...

Investigate wisely and save wisely and whatever other roles may be out there!!!

Good luck making it through the night everyone!