Im glad czar called out the traube/loc thing. Assuming anyone is or isnt mafia based on their role in a previous game is a terrible idea. Loc, that post made me wuestion if you BOTH ended up Mafia again. Crazier shit has happened.
And yeah, afaik, im the only one openly advocating no detain. It doesn't seem terribly likely but im sticking to my guns unless something major pops out at me
For what it's worth, I don't really suspect your or traube right now, but this is a terrible reason to clear someone. Assuming the same number of mafia, there is an equal chance for him to be scum each game.
There's more to it than that, but I don't see it as any worse than some of the detain reasons right now. We should also have less scum. 27 = 4 < 23 = x.
I'm still firmly in the "we should detain" group. Not detaining is too risky. There is a too good of a chance that a "no detain" will leave us with very little info for day 2 and the hutts with a headstart.
Why? What has swamped down to justify such a defense? Why are you defending her so much?
For mutiple posts now you've done this. Seems scummy, like you know something we don't.
There's more to it than that, but I don't see it as any worse than some of the detain reasons right now. We should also have less scum. 27 = 4 < 23 = x.
Im glad czar called out the traube/loc thing. Assuming anyone is or isnt mafia based on their role in a previous game is a terrible idea. Loc, that post made me wuestion if you BOTH ended up Mafia again. Crazier shit has happened.
I agree. You should not take the last game in consideration when it comes to roles. I guess roles were assigned random. So Lord and I could have ended up being Empire this round.
You should only use the information you receive in this thread to come to your conclusions.
My stance has been quite clear. I'm suspecting Worthy. Matt Attack is in a similar boat and offered no suspicions of his own yet and you did not even acknowledge him.
so either:
a) You're using strong-arm tactics to bully me into voting against you to look like I'm being defensive
or
b) You have it in for me so you're coloring every post through the lens of your own agenda
But just in case I forget to write this down later -
VOTE: TheWorthyEdge
Reason: If CzarTim and Worthy are in cahoots, the former might try to lessen the votes against the latter. A singular vote against Tim won't be effective, so I'm going with my gut instinct and voting for Worthy.
No man. I have suspicions of CzarTim as well, enough to even vote for him tonight. I have reasoning but I'm at work soooooooooo...that's why I haven't posted in a bit if anyone was wondering.
I agree. You should not take the last game in consideration when it comes to roles. I guess roles were assigned random. So Lord and I could have ended up being Empire this round.
You should only use the information you receive in this thread to come to your conclusions.
Thanks for trusting me, Lord. But I can't trust you. Sorry. You were just so good at being Mafia last game. That's why you will always be highly suspicious.
Oh, then the answer is no. I can't confirm swamped. The only reason I started this line of reasoning is because of Zipp's post saying she was posting less than she was and (as you pointed out) traube's vote on her.
I'll drop it now, and wait for traube to get his answer.
Certainly been a lot more activity on this day 1. There are still a handful of below average posters that should weigh in. Silence never helps the town.
I'm also not saying I trust Traube completely, just slightly more than everyone else. Due to him being Mafia last game I feel I can make a better read than I can with other vets. Right now, I'm not seeing any scum alerts.
Like this. 0-10 trust.
0- CzarTim, swamped, everyone else
1- Game 1 vets due to known experience and potential if Rebel aligned
3- Traube
10- Mattyg, Crab, Karkador, Me
Certainly been a lot more activity on this day 1. There are still a handful of below average posters that should weigh in. Silence never helps the town.
This. So much this. That's why I think it's so weird that people are opposed of me. I ask questions too get info while others barely say anything and when they do say something its incredibly suspicious.
This. So much this. That's why I think it's so weird that people are opposed of me. I ask questions too get info while others barely say anything and when they do say something its incredibly suspicious.
In truth I came in hot Day 1 to get some discussion going, so people will naturally suspect me. I'm okay with it, though. The truth is the Hutts have no reason to generate conversation, so this is the best way to help town right now.
I posted yesterday that I didn't like exmachinas posts. He kind of clarified it by leaning on the novice card and explaining that he didn't realise the time frames involved. I still don't think he has really contributed much, but his posts remind me of how I felt at the start of the last game.
After Terrabyte voted for me yesterday, my inexperience and randomly voting for other people started to feel like it has serious consequences. I'm keeping up with the thread, though.
If we're mainly supposed to be offering commentary on who seems suspicious and whatnot, Blargh seems okay. There's probably not a jester role and he's walking a tight line if he's Hutt.
Haven't really seen enough to accuse the other actively accused.
Blarg seems okay but I don't know if I feel a real need to keep him either unless he has a really special role which we don't know. I feel he is on our side but he could as well be on the Hutts side. That's the thing, he's such a jack of all trade right now that I don't know if it would hurt us or the Hutts more.
Blarg seems okay but I don't know if I feel a real need to keep him either unless he has a really special role which we don't know. I feel he is on our side but he could as well be on the Hutts side. That's the thing, he's such a jack of all trade right now that I don't know if it would hurt us or the Hutts more.
An attention seeker only hurts you if you give them attention. Voting out someone even though they are seemingly Rebel hurts us more than ignoring them.
An attention seeker only hurts you if you give them attention. Voting out someone even though they are seemingly Rebel hurts us more than ignoring them.
Your defense was that you play a lot of Mafia games and therefore, are inquisitive by nature. Not exactly incriminating nor a definitively satisfying answer.
CzarTim says he is satisfied with that. Added to that he doubled down on me for naming you and it just raises too many flags.
Your defense was that you play a lot of Mafia games and therefore, are inquisitive by nature. Not exactly incriminating nor a definitively satisfying answer.
CzarTim says he is satisfied with that. Added to that he doubled down on me for naming you and it just raises too many flags.
Your defense was that you play a lot of Mafia games and therefore, are inquisitive by nature. Not exactly incriminating nor a definitively satisfying answer.
CzarTim says he is satisfied with that. Added to that he doubled down on me for naming you and it just raises too many flags.
His defense was he has never played forum mafia which is a very different game from irl mafia. And I didn't double down on you because you named Worthy, but because your reasons have made zero sense.
If you think I'm suspicious, I encourage you to read through my posts again. The only thing I regret is defended swamped directly rather than questioning the methods of why she was chosen. I don't blame LoC's vote on me at all for that. He and I have different opinions on how to play this game, but I think he's acting in the town's best interest.
As being the only person Worthy has voted for, that wasn't really a "push for a lynch" so much as it was a "Detaining a totally inactive person is safer than doing so randomly." Also, the second he saw I posted, he recanted the vote.
Honestly, you've tried to coerce a player into revealing her role despite that only making her a Hutt target. Plus, you're trying to paint Worthy as a Hutt because he's allegedly playing like you in a previous game, despite him doing nothing of the sort. I'm usually passive, but it seems to me like you're not just applying pressure, but portraying innocuous players as villainous without evidence. Plus, you were trying to get a player to say what she was "good" for; either she's a Vanilla Rebel and can't argue much beyond numbers, a Hutt Spy and will lie, or a Special Rebel, which, at this point, only tells the Hutts who to kill. There's no reason for a Rebel to say that so soon after the crash.
I'm sorry, but you have me suspicious that you're Empire sc- wait. Are we the scum? Empire... Dog, I guess? Huttie? I mean, I wasn't entirely inaccurate when I said I've only watched the Christmas Special; forgive me if my terminology is off.
Vote: Lord of Castamere, though I'm willing to recant if you can give me a reason for these behaviors.
Plus, you were trying to get a player to say what she was "good" for; either she's a Vanilla Rebel and can't argue much beyond numbers, a Hutt Spy and will lie, or a Special Rebel, which, at this point, only tells the Hutts who to kill. There's no reason for a Rebel to say that so soon after the crash.
I never asked someone to reveal a role only to offer a defense beyond "oh ok", and no Worthy never directory said Blarg should die, but continuing down a clear dead end is extremely suspicious. It breeds chaos.
It's still very curious to see so many jump to her defense so quickly though. Especially with mistruth. Asking a person to give a defense does not equal roleclaim.
I never asked someone to reveal a role only to offer a defense beyond "oh ok", and no Worthy never directory said Blarg should die, but continuing down a clear dead end is extremely suspicious. It breeds chaos.
It's still very curious to see so many jump to her defense so quickly though. Especially with mistruth. Asking a person to give a defense does not equal roleclaim.
