Sorry I fixated onyou, but you fixated on me first
![:p :p](./images/smilies/tongue2.gif)
Return to “[ENDGAME] Triskaidekaphobia Mafia”
After this game, we can have a long talk about how you read me and personal bias re game style IF you are a civ this game. And I don't want to hear about how I am a crap civ becasue my standards of civ behavior aren't yours. That post about how I was marching to my own drummer, I meant that.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:After all that I still think S~V~S is the most suspicious by a pretty wide margin. If anyone disagrees with that, please say so and say why. Time is limited and anyone might be dead shortly.
But it isn't textbook SVS. It is *I have almost no internet and agreed to play so Rico could get started* SVS. Which is kinda why the people who actually know me have not been voting for me.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:S~V~S, when faced with a lynch, has given us nothing but return-fire aggression at the player who most wants to lynch her. She has rejected his cop claim thoughtlessly and immediately jumped to him having bussed Elohcin. I see no healthy consideration of the sides of the discussion or the variables in play, I only see desperation.
She has put close to nothing in this thread in the way of suspicion until now, but she has always been present enough to defend herself as needed. This stuff is textbook baddie IMO.
I have barely read the thread. I would not know the most obvious lie in this thread if it bit me in the ass. And you are trying to make it bite me in the ass.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think that looks bad because she was actually entertaining the notion that Elohcin might be a civilian based upon the most obvious lie in the thread (the one she was responding to with the three laughter emojis).
I have also seen jailers that get BTS with their subject, sometimes Jailer also means "silence". It can vary. When I have had one when I host, it is BTS & block.MovingPictures07 wrote:Purely in an off-topic fashion:
As far as I've seen, "Jailkeeper" and "jailer" pretty much always = role block + protect (doctor).
Second post of the game. If he has the means to clear up "automatic suspicion" I would think he would haveG-Man wrote:Brace yourself for automatic suspicion from me. I'm prepared for and anticipate reciprocation.S~V~S wrote:I am replacing in here; I was under the impression that I was going to be announced by the host earlier, but life is crazy in Nauru, amirite?
Haven't read the rules etc yet, just checking in. Also I think H. Swank is hot, a person doesn't need to be traditionally beautiful to be hot. She & Chloe Sevigny (another hot but not really pretty per se actress) burnt up the screen in Boys Don't Cry, which is mainly where I recall Hilary Swank.
Linki, also plan on marching to my own drummer this game.
Why did you not choose the person you voted for on Day One, me, to role check? Especially since earlier this day phase you were STILL mentioning me as potentially suspicious. Isn't role checking the people you suspect the point of being a role checker?G-Man wrote:Both my Night 1 and Night 2 peeks were chosen by me. My Day 0 peek was given to me by the host.S~V~S wrote:So on Night one you did not CHOOSE Scotty to peek? I know nothing about peeking, tbh.
3.21
You are willing to get lynched as a civ over an opportunity to laugh at how gullible the rest of us are?Elohcin wrote:B/c I just wanted to see how gullible you all were in a game where infodumping is allowed.S~V~S wrote:I voted for Eloh. Since she appears to be bad for sure, why backburner her?![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
My guess would be because I had votes and was most lynchable because of it.Elohcin wrote:If you don't want SVS lynched, then why name her of all players?DrWilgy wrote:Provide an option for those who didn't want to vote Vompatti. As an American I believe in freedom, and I will share that freedom. Yo.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:What was your intent?DrWilgy wrote:Inquiry to if anyone wants to lynch svs is different than lynching svs. Never did I say I wanted svs and that people should lynch her.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:DrWilgy wrote:Have you ever dangled a baby in front of a shark to see what would happen? That's what I'm doing. Anyone wanna vote SVS?
This is post 22 of day 1... I think I'm clear.
Gotcha. But if he is your biggest suspicion, why you trying to lynch me instead oh him? You did not address that. And really, bai.G-Man wrote:Burrowing on JJJ is the one thing Scotty has to his credit right now but it's not enough to overcome my seeming auto-trust of JJJ. Heck, baddies often raise very reasonable lines of thought. I tried to do it in BSG. It's early in a heist game. If the baddies can set somebody up early, it's like an extra leg up on the civvies, which would require something dramatic and awesome like what happened in Arrested Development to stop them.S~V~S wrote:I just was reading your posts and while discussing 3Js peek you said Scotty had some good thinking.
And if you are willing to lynch Scotty, why aren't you trying to? Just making a vote from paranoia? I don't particularly suspect anyone (except maybe you, and that's a possible no u kneejerk, not sure yet) but you say you have a strong suspect. Where's your fervor?
And the baddies have not talked yet, right? This is general, not at you specifically,lol. Maybe.
1.24
I forgot the game, like I said. And self defense mode is my default for civ, I say something ill considered and everyone who has ever seen me be bad thinks I am bad. I have no idea t this point who is bad. Both sig & G Man basing their vote on someone else who is not sure enough to place an unequivocal vote on me is a pang thing, but not sure how much of it is the knee jerk no u reaction.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:S~V~S, you've been in self-defense mode most of this day phase. I'd like to know where you stand on everyone else at this point.
OK, I just saw this. Thanks. I will look for that, cause yeah, he does tend to be more on point when bad. He is a responsible teammate.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:He has shown more personal investment in his stake in this game than I'm used to seeing (asking why people voted for him, looking for input from people about where to place his vote). He plopped a fourth vote on the no lynch wagon.S~V~S wrote:I will catch up when I get home, why does Jay want to lynch Vomps?
I don't pretend it's a terribly compelling case. I don't think a compelling case is possible with Vompatti though, whether on Day 1 or Day 10. He doesn't allow that when he spends his posts saying whatever he feels like saying. If I perceive any reason at all to suspect him, that means more to me than the average player -- because he has to be dealt with somehow and this represents a unique opportunity where it might be based on something instead of "he's not helping us".
I think you're paranoidG-Man wrote:Better vote now while I have time. I am voting for S~V~S. I think rabbit was on to something.
1.21
it's truerabbit8 wrote:S~V~S wrote:Guys, I am so sorry, I completely forgot about this game. Between rl & my recent "mafia break" mindset, I totally lost track.
Will catch up after work, and you always want to lynch me, Rabbit. I am not bad, and lynching me would do no good, although you would not be losing a valuable role with me, either.
It's possible. It's only day one and you're my biggest ping.
You are reading into me as you always do. I only noticed one thing about another player in my catch up, so I mentioned it. The thing sig mentioned was what he seemed to have thought to be a host error,when it actually was nothing of the sort. Mentoning player behavior that caught your eye isn't the same.rabbit8 wrote:You said something to say something, not unlike sig may have done. Only your something was a quasi accusation with a CYA meh to say "not really". Then you reiterated the point in another say something to say something accusation, clarified with a "but like I said..."S~V~S wrote:This is the only thing to get my attention so far,and as pings go, it's *meh*, so just saying it to say it, basically. It actually could be making me think sig is civ more so than the other way around, but it is hard to say this early. It just stuck out to me.sig wrote:Rule number 4 not 3.sig wrote:@HOST why is there no rule number 3?
Also I'd like to bring attention to this.
5. The Mafia team can only interact in BTSC during the Night phase.
I'm not sure how much this helps us, I know the last game we had with this was the Scrimmag, I was mafia and it did make things more hectic and we had much less planning. However, it also made the links less clear. So I think we should keep in mind the mafia doesn't have day chat.
Any thoughts on this?
Sig has obviously read the rules including the on famous rule 10,
There isn't a rule 9, either. This seemed like saying something for the sake of being seen having something to say, BUT like I said, *meh*. This seems like a thread full of people playing it safe so far. So I am liking risk taking more than not.10. >>>Players are advised not to end any phase throughout their game with 4, 9, 13 written posts or multiples of those numbers.<<<
I was not expecting to be playing, and have a crapton of stuff to do tonight (which is why I stole Ricos thunder and self announced, I only had a limited time to post). Toodles, citizens & Mafioso.
Linki, I hate no lynch. Grrr.
I can't tell if you're accusing Sig or saying hes a civ. It makes your post read ambiguous, which seemed purposeful. Casting shade on Sig while saying you think he's a civ, only to defend with, I was poking to see if someone would accuse sig of trivia? Classic. Say something then hide behind the old, wanted to see what you would do routine.
You threw out something looking for a response. Only if you would have just waited for someone to go after Sig for trivia before you defended with it would have looked more civvie. Throwing out the Sig is always lynched for this behavior only when you're called out on it looks bad, IMO.
No, I am town. You?DrWilgy wrote:@JJJ, theres no reason, it just happened to catch my eye. On another note, YOU'RE BAD, I KNOW YOU'RE BAD, GET LYNCHED RIGHT NOW.
@svs, yo you bad again?
@Quin, I appreciate your memes, I'll vote with you.
I generally run the light background for work friendliness, it looks like the same colors as our intranet screen; it is very clear on that background. When the host uses yellow, though, I have to switch to the dark scheme, alot of the brights are hard to see on the light.Elohcin wrote:Just a weird combination for my eyes with the dark grey background, but don't change it just for me.
Shaking the tree, bunny boy. Shake shake.S~V~S wrote:Sorry for lack of clarity, Mr Word Reader Into guy (to be fair, that is what we do in Mafia, but stillScotty wrote:I've already answered this. I can't help if you, GMan and JJJ find it suspicious. But good to know you think that post is also the first suspicious post of the game.S~V~S wrote:In our original home cultures, Day 1 votes have, for the most part, generally been srs bsns. Someone is gonna die based on our votes, how not srs? People always tended to take flak for trivial voting reasons, randomizing, etc.Elohcin wrote:This is very interesting to me. I love to hear about how things go on other sites, even though I don't plan on ever playing anywhere other than here. I can only imagine how I would be grilled for voting someone Day 1 just because I didn't like their name or had a certain dream about them. Of course there is the occasional random vote on Day 1 here, but it always seem sot be a controversial issue. And it's usually professed as "random", not excused with a silly explanation.Scotty wrote:
This isn't anything new, but it's very intriguing to me. In so many other sites and venues the day 1 is literally random. Like, literally in the sense that in a group, most the time people will vote for someone based on a dream they had, or not liking the name of a person, or what have you. But this site especially has a weird way of dogpiling on someone that has a certain air if suspicion for doing something out of the ordinary. It's always amazing to me that votes on the first day are so justified here. I can't recall the last time I went back to day 1 conversations to get a confirmation of a tonal read on someone. Only to look at votes and who voted for whom, and when.
@G-Man, yeah, I always tend to get a residual baddie BTS effect the next few games, lol. Oddly, it tends to effect me the opposite way, I tend to want to trust my bad partner from a recent intense game like BSG was.In my opinion, too, tbh.Scotty wrote:In your opinion.JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I didn't invite a self-lynch. This is the first suspicious post of the game.Scotty wrote:Ah yes, you know I agree with this criticism. Day 1 lynches produce more info than no-lynches, but why even invite a self-lynch. In what world would that benefit town if you are town?
I understood clearly what Jay was saying. I am not sure how you would interpret it otherwise?
My current propensity is to vote Polo today, unless he shows up.
Post 20)
"In my opinion, too" referred to Jay saying, "I didn't invite a self-lynch.", not the "first suspicious post of the game" bit. I don't necessarily find it suspicious. I think that recently we rely too much on tiny nuances of semantics, and we jump too much on people who talk and pick apart their posts for lack of anything better to do. But I also think it is important to comment on what we notice as we go along, it leaves a trail to be followed. So part of "following my own drummer" means commenting on what I notice; it does not mean I find it suspect. I just like to shake the tree and see what falls out, I guess.
Well, you CAN change the options, you have to add the days to the ORIGINAL poll, so if the original poll was for 2 days, you change the options and make it 4 days, and that wll advance it properly. Thats how to make a poll end at the same time every time without necessarily changing it at the exact time, see? Although he had an open end poll for Zero, didn't he? So this is for future referenceEpignosis wrote:You have to delete your polls each time. You can't just change the options.Ricochet wrote:Having issues with the poll timer. Despite having added "2" in the Days box, it ends up telling me that poll will run until Tue Jul 19, 2016 (3:45 am - my time zone, but it basically means one hour and a half from now on). Help?
So until I can fix it, the poll will stay timer-less. If it'll run like this during the whole Phase, I will post often reminders of the deadline.
linki: Hard as in too dark or... too red?