should let you guys know of the long post incoming ): call it compensation for the thread blowing up a little overnight.
tldr TheBirds hasn't talked much either people, I don't know why we're hating on Chaz and Liable so much
Chaz also went to try and lynch MasPan, so he also did a turn on his behaviour.
More than that, I'm not even sure if Liable kept that passive stance; a lot of her posts were flavour or borderline useless, but that could be because she had nobody that particularly stuck out to her until Chaz 'did'. She didn't actively claim to be deliberately passive. I'd be questioning her motive for voting for Chaz rather than Meta, who she did point out was a weird vote.
While Sega's silence is getting real damn annoying, I think I should remind everyone that [MENTION=7423]TheBirds[/MENTION]; has posted not only very little, but with no deliberate scumhunting. They also have not responded to my vote on page 8 to defend themselves.
Not necessarily; A is infinitely more good as a situation for you, and you should be convincing us why you thought Chaz was suspicious. B is a good situation for town, but without any way to confirm you still have the advantage. C is the least likely, and makes the most assumptions (hence the increasing unlikelihood), and yeah, I do admit, I don't see how you were defending Sega at all.
At least Sega is practicing complete inactivity (or was when I was writing this post). Need I remind everyone that TheBirds may as well have been as damn inactive as Sega, with no indication of passiveness as with Chaz?
Also, what if we have no information on that passive/neutral player? We push to get more information, but we do not risk the lynch. We are much better off leaving them be, and focusing on the people who have talked, but have not talked much. Because they are much more likely to be persuaded with votes and the threat of a lynch.
edit: know that I wrote this before you retracted your vote! >:C this post took me ages to write
Remember that on the first day swinging is natural. Unless Faon made a vote that I forgot to log, his votes were the following:
faonkarino votes for Chaz (page 4)
faonkarino votes for Holypie (page 8)
faonkarino votes for Liable (page 10)
The vote on Chaz was the first vote, so he did not add to the vote count like a second voter would. This, and it was to push for him to talk. The vote on Holypie was more based on scumhunting, and is a natural progression. Regardless, his vote was the first on Holypie, so it did not add anything.
From what I see, his vote on you was the only one that actually added on top of someone's post. Of course, if there was another vote then this sentiment may change.
I believe you've made a key flaw in your reasoning; Faon never claimed to do it for attention. I believe he's very well trying to scumhunt now, as we're 11-ish pages in and with enough posts to start pushing for an actual lynch. You should have capitalised on the fact that faon didn't provide enough of an explanation, but that would have incriminated Holypie as well.
Faon also added that it would be best to pressure you to talk, to either slip up as mafia or to convince and confirm to everyone that you're town. So I don't really see what the big deal was here, and your action increasingly smells like an OMGUS, which may just be an unfortunate move on your behalf.
I was aware of day abilities, but remember that this game is not your traditional game, and a lot of things have changed with xBTAx's game compared to the last one, which just had traditional roles. For example, there is no concrete page for my Gambler role.
Second to raise the stakes. My entire suspicion of this forced me under fire, so I damn well hope you've been reading the thread >:C Following Shidoshi's stakes theory, it would be natural to assume that Meta voted on Chaz to force him to talk more, but my only problem with this was that she didn't justify it from what I've seen. That, and what would a third vote have done that two cannot?
His plausible playstyle doesn't forgive how stupidly he's been posting. I have nothing against the guy, but honest to god, play smarter! I have no reason to believe that he is mafia right because if he were, his teammates would have chewed him out on it already. An abrupt shift to effective scumhunting would have set my radar on fire, to be honest.
Regardless, I believe we have bigger fish to fry. Or maybe bird. See the rest of my post.
EDIT:
We've been trying NOT to get you killed, because we know that it's been consistent the last few games. But the start time was there in advance (we didn't start earlier) and you should have at least let us know that you wouldn't be here instead of letting people target you.
I don't want you out of further games but I do want more proactivity on your behalf. We don't like lynching you every game, believe it or not.
tldr TheBirds hasn't talked much either people, I don't know why we're hating on Chaz and Liable so much
Shidoshi Wrote:It's not that I don't see something weird with Chaz's posts, he's definitely played in a way that he's "lynchable" with his passiveness. However, I'd attribute his suspicious actions to being new to Mafia here on Southperry and that's he's more likely Town than not.
Liable on the other hand took about the same passive stance, but then makes a U-turn and goes for the "lynchable" Chaz. Which just kicks up my suspicion of him.
Chaz also went to try and lynch MasPan, so he also did a turn on his behaviour.
More than that, I'm not even sure if Liable kept that passive stance; a lot of her posts were flavour or borderline useless, but that could be because she had nobody that particularly stuck out to her until Chaz 'did'. She didn't actively claim to be deliberately passive. I'd be questioning her motive for voting for Chaz rather than Meta, who she did point out was a weird vote.
Niernen Wrote:Honestly though, @Sega needs to stop joining the game if he is not going to say anything or do anything . If you are a townie, staying inactive helps no one, and if we do lynch you, we waste a day/lynch. Please speak up. Waiting till the last minute does not help either, as we can't get a read on you. If you can't or are not willing to participate, just sub out? I really don't want to vote you out again because you are inactive, but it's always a possibility...
While Sega's silence is getting real damn annoying, I think I should remind everyone that [MENTION=7423]TheBirds[/MENTION]; has posted not only very little, but with no deliberate scumhunting. They also have not responded to my vote on page 8 to defend themselves.
Liable Wrote:A and B is really the same case for anyone out here. C) I don’t see how Sega comes into this but okay…
Not necessarily; A is infinitely more good as a situation for you, and you should be convincing us why you thought Chaz was suspicious. B is a good situation for town, but without any way to confirm you still have the advantage. C is the least likely, and makes the most assumptions (hence the increasing unlikelihood), and yeah, I do admit, I don't see how you were defending Sega at all.
Liable Wrote:At the time of your post (and even until now), Sega has yet to post anything. Inactiveness and a complete AFK is different in my eyes. While Chaz had posted something that I would think suspicious of, Sega has nothing except for the fact that he has not posted at all. Yes, I am in favour of getting rid of useless people but I’d rather get rid of a passive/neutral player than someone with zero information(that I cannot make judgement on). [If nothing comes out of all this pressuring including against myself, well Sega will be the most likely candidate to go for day 1]
At least Sega is practicing complete inactivity (or was when I was writing this post). Need I remind everyone that TheBirds may as well have been as damn inactive as Sega, with no indication of passiveness as with Chaz?
Also, what if we have no information on that passive/neutral player? We push to get more information, but we do not risk the lynch. We are much better off leaving them be, and focusing on the people who have talked, but have not talked much. Because they are much more likely to be persuaded with votes and the threat of a lynch.
Liable Wrote:Feels like there’s a lot of swing and sway in your posts, but this could be just to get people’s attention. Anyway, my main suspicion arrives from the fact that if it were like the above to try and get people’s attention why have you voted twice on people who already have a vote count? Your justification or the process you have shown to justify a vote on me is questionable.
edit: know that I wrote this before you retracted your vote! >:C this post took me ages to write
Remember that on the first day swinging is natural. Unless Faon made a vote that I forgot to log, his votes were the following:
faonkarino votes for Chaz (page 4)
faonkarino votes for Holypie (page 8)
faonkarino votes for Liable (page 10)
The vote on Chaz was the first vote, so he did not add to the vote count like a second voter would. This, and it was to push for him to talk. The vote on Holypie was more based on scumhunting, and is a natural progression. Regardless, his vote was the first on Holypie, so it did not add anything.
From what I see, his vote on you was the only one that actually added on top of someone's post. Of course, if there was another vote then this sentiment may change.
I believe you've made a key flaw in your reasoning; Faon never claimed to do it for attention. I believe he's very well trying to scumhunt now, as we're 11-ish pages in and with enough posts to start pushing for an actual lynch. You should have capitalised on the fact that faon didn't provide enough of an explanation, but that would have incriminated Holypie as well.
Faon also added that it would be best to pressure you to talk, to either slip up as mafia or to convince and confirm to everyone that you're town. So I don't really see what the big deal was here, and your action increasingly smells like an OMGUS, which may just be an unfortunate move on your behalf.
Liable Wrote:To be honest, I didn’t know there were such thing as day abilities… so wow at Kyrastri and what is speculated to be a double vote for her?
I was aware of day abilities, but remember that this game is not your traditional game, and a lot of things have changed with xBTAx's game compared to the last one, which just had traditional roles. For example, there is no concrete page for my Gambler role.
Liable Wrote:I have explained my case for this. I was and have mentioned I was hesitant. 1st vote to strike a conversation, 2nd to.. ?? but didn't really have any meaning and as such I had to go with my suspicions that he was rather passive which he has shown otherwise later on.
Second to raise the stakes. My entire suspicion of this forced me under fire, so I damn well hope you've been reading the thread >:C Following Shidoshi's stakes theory, it would be natural to assume that Meta voted on Chaz to force him to talk more, but my only problem with this was that she didn't justify it from what I've seen. That, and what would a third vote have done that two cannot?
faonkarino Wrote:I'll keep my vote exactly where it is, for now. For some reason I do not suspect Chaz as much as some of you do. I don't know, his excuse to play in a more "neutral" way looks plausible to me, perhaps.
I'd still rather have him play "normally", but oh well.
I'm rather disappointed in my posts right now, but I think it's just the way day 1 works for me. I'll propably be more useful from day 2 onwards.
Edit: I see with my little eye, a small Sega waiting to die.
His plausible playstyle doesn't forgive how stupidly he's been posting. I have nothing against the guy, but honest to god, play smarter! I have no reason to believe that he is mafia right because if he were, his teammates would have chewed him out on it already. An abrupt shift to effective scumhunting would have set my radar on fire, to be honest.
Regardless, I believe we have bigger fish to fry. Or maybe bird. See the rest of my post.
EDIT:
Sega Wrote:Well go ahead and die me I guess? Sucks being gone the day it starts and the day after. If you just wanna kill me off on the first day because I haven't said anything, and go so far as to want me out of further games is fine, but it's for sure not going to do any good.
We've been trying NOT to get you killed, because we know that it's been consistent the last few games. But the start time was there in advance (we didn't start earlier) and you should have at least let us know that you wouldn't be here instead of letting people target you.
I don't want you out of further games but I do want more proactivity on your behalf. We don't like lynching you every game, believe it or not.