Mafia The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time Mafia [ENDGAME: 05/09]

[ExLight]

Everyone is here, nice
Unvote: CyberWolf

 

[Jinjo]

LazySpy's defense looked genuine. He said he did not insist on anyone to quit the joke phase and he was just being curious. He even admitted he panicked and I don't think scum would be panicking early at rvs. Why should scum panic early when they could just sheep their scum buddy to save themselves from getting lynched.

LG's vote looks more suspicious for voting LazySpy after his genuine defense.

Vote: Lone_Garurumon

 

[Jinjo]

What was this supposed to be implying?

To answer your question, I have only played 3 games with DekuNut and he was inactive in those games. Seeing DekuNut active was new for me to see.

D1 is the perfect moment to lynch inactives. It's not about lynching because it got quiet, it's about preventing that.

Cyper Wolf didn't say anything at the time and inactives are more likely to get subbed out on day 2 or modkilled and we know that inactives don't kill at night and most likely it would be a player who has already posted would do the killing.

 

[ExLight]

i just came out of a game where half of the alive players were inactives and we had to work our asses off to make a comeback i have reasons to want inactives lynched ok

 

[Space]

Spoiler

Spoiler

All right, I'm kind of seeing where you're coming from now. My pointed suspicion has subsided for the moment.
Unvote
Time to move on to pressuring the next guy for information.
Vote: LazySpy


For one, joke votes aren't innately suspicious or unsuspicious this early on, in my eyes. It's like calling a question hearsay in court; there is no innate truth in a question. No statement of fact. Just as there is not in an early Day 1 joke vote. So that's why that would remain less suspicious. While I voted for Ex, that was more for a lack of other options; notice how the moment I had something to actually latch onto, the vote on him ceased to be relevant.
The thing that makes your question more suspicious is how you seem to dance around the point of it. Earlier, you mentioned that it wasn't serious, and yet now you say that there was a pointed reason to it. More than anything, that's what doesn't sit right with me now. However, everything outside that discrepancy seems to add up well enough, so I won't dwell on it much longer. There are plenty more scum in the game, and I think that this conversation has served its purpose of getting us both talking a fair amount.
And I've also run out of counterpoints.

It wasn't meant to be serious, but it could have been to gain information. At any rate it doesn't sit right with me that you're referring to me as part of the scum (well, it's not as if I trust you either), but I do agree that this conversation is likely running in circles and doesn't help to scumhunt.

It was just the start of the game... I am genuielly confused what kind of relevance could people expect from a fourth post in the game. Also, I won't repeat myself: I did not insist on anyone to quit the joke phase. I was just being curious.

This seems innocent to me.

The people who are immediately trying to get serious in the game, while having the correct intention have no means to start serious discussions from scratch unless something happens, which is mostly through RVS. While the ones going for joke votes seem normal to me.

I'm kind of confused - you're saying both seem normal to you?

Honestly, I'd rather lynch the inactives before they cripple us in the future.

I can agree with this. Everyone has spoken now though, so there's no need to, but I see the helpfulness in your logic.

You're acting like you couldn't vote someone randomly, but why not? There's no reason not to, whether it be a joke vote or not.

Seems more like it's against LazySpy's nature if anything - he appears like he didn't want to joke vote, so he kind of couldn't in that way.

Cyper Wolf didn't say anything at the time and inactives are more likely to get subbed out on day 2 or modkilled and we know that inactives don't kill at night and most likely it would be a player who has already posted would do the killing.

Scum is scum though.

I do agree with you though that Lone_Garurumon seems to be going after an easy lynch. There's nothing LazySpy can say that could be treated as true evidence (for lack of a better word)

Unvote: DekuNut

Vote: Lone_Garurumon

 

[Calvinッ]

Now straight from the kitchen, your favourite chef and mine, Calvin!

Hello folks, today I will be serving one of my specials, the "Can't sleep votal count!", it is quite a delicacy in these parts, here it is!

Votal count recipe
Pika_pika42: I (Luminary)
LazySpy: III ( MegaPod, DekuNut, Lone_Garurumon)
Contrainer: I (LazySpy)
Lone_Garurumon: II (Jinjo, Space)

(also I made a countdown for the phase end, considering I said I should be late to it I gave it a bit more of a defined time.)

 

[Lone_Garurumon]

Ok tbh, I didn’t find anything suspicious in LazySpy's posts. They are a comparatively new player (afaik) and might have been confused as to what way to proceed on D1 and might have panicked due to the votes on them, which I feel is okay for a new player. They could be newb scum too, but I don't really find them suspicious for wanting to do something on D1 but having no idea what or how to do it.

I was unaware that LazySpy was a new-ish player. That certainly does make his unsureness more understandable. They're also taking the whole thing rather well all things considered, so I'd say I'm satisfied.
Unvote: LazySpy

Before I even start reading, is the case against Lazy is due to him trying to get some activity too early thus making it look artificial?

Less that he wanted activity too early, and more that he wanted activity but wasn't going to make it himself, which isn't a great look.

Well, I can see why people are voting Lazy, but I don't think it's anything too substantial. While Town might be trying to pressure him, scum might be trying to push his lynch due to him not knowing (nor being really able tbh) to defend himself.

Honestly, I'd rather lynch the inactives before they cripple us in the future.

Vote: Cyber Wolf
FoS: Officer Snake

If you're there we'd love to hear you say something

Dude, at the time of your post, it hadn't even been 24 hours yet. That's hardly enough time for someone to really be considered inactive.

It's not really just about who has been inactive in this game, but who is more likely to become.

I think I've never seen you posting more than 10 posts in a game, and you getting subbed out on the last ones makes me think you might be neglecting some games you're in.

That being said I'm glad you're here and I hope you stick around until the end instead of vanishing.


Do we really tho, all the discussions seem prettt weak to me so far

D1 is the perfect moment to lynch inactives. It's not about lynching because it got quiet, it's about preventing that.

I'm not sure I really agree with this ideology. You can't really go after a player for something they haven't done yet. Plus, how are they gonna build a trend of not being inactive if you lynch them before they get the chance? If they're really inactive anyway, Clavin's rules'll sort 'em out, especially this early on.

2. I will politely ask for at least 3 posts per day phase at the very least, to keep activity up. Recently TWR games have suffered from low activity. Unless they’re valid reasons as to why you cannot do this, your first time not having 3 posts a day will result in a warning, the second will be subbing you out, or if subs are not available, modkilling you unfortunately (So please keep activity up to avoid this!)

Everyone is here, nice

COLOURS WEAVE INTO A SPIRE OF FLAME!

I do agree with you though that Lone_Garurumon seems to be going after an easy lynch. There's nothing LazySpy can say that could be treated as true evidence (for lack of a better word)

Unvote: DekuNut

Vote: Lone_Garurumon

Interesting, Pod and Deku are making the same comments, and are even voting Lazy at this point. Why mention only me without addressing either of them?

 

[Space]

Interesting, Pod and Deku are making the same comments, and are even voting Lazy at this point. Why mention only me without addressing either of them?

You were the third vote and as for DekuNut he voted LazySpy as a pressure vote for information. Now that you mention it though, I was alright with MegaPod's vote considering he was the first to do so and he hadn't seen LazySpy explain himself, but I just noticed he has posted after LazySpy's posts and hasn't said anything about it.

@MegaPod What are your thoughts on LazySpy now?

 

[Lone_Garurumon]

Also @Jinjo my above point is directed at you as well because apparently I forgot to grab your post even though I thought I had.

You were the third vote and as for DekuNut he voted LazySpy as a pressure vote for information.

Valid points, fair enough.

 

[MegaPod]

Well, even taking into account his newness, his initial CWAC and reaction to my vote are behavioral clues that we have available to work with, and from my POV I think it’s a good idea to stick to the best lead I have so far, what with the absence of more substantial options on Day 1. We have to start somewhere, and I’m not fully convinced he’s not Mafia.

 

[Jinjo]

Also @Jinjo my above point is directed at you as well because apparently I forgot to grab your post even though I thought I had.

LazySpy's defense looked genuine and then you came and voted him after his genuine defense and you were the 3rd voter.

Unvote: Lone_Garurumon

I noticed you unvoted and it looks like you had a misunderstanding.

 

[Pika_pika42]

I'm unsure as to how 'new' LazySpy can be considered, but panicking due to one vote is always something to kind of raise an eyebrow in my book. LazySpy still isn't that suspect to me (to warrant a vote), but the usage of "panicking" is odd. There's nothing suspicious for wanting to do something on D1 and not knowing how to proceed with it, but coming in and just saying you want something to be done does make it look like fluff.

UNVOTE: MegaPod.
VOTE: Pika_pika42.

Fair points, I guess. The word panic sure looks odd, but I can easily see a new player being panicked when several people are voting him on a case, where he has nothing to defend himself with.
Also, the fluff part, quite a few people do that on D1, don't think it's that suspicious.

You have not mentioned your reason for voting me. Could you explain why you find me suspicious or why you wanted to place a vote on me?

I'm kind of confused - you're saying both seem normal to you?

Yeah, I felt both are normal processes for D1, hence I said I didn't have any suspicions at that point.

I was unaware that LazySpy was a new-ish player. That certainly does make his unsureness more understandable. They're also taking the whole thing rather well all things considered, so I'd say I'm satisfied.
Unvote: LazySpy

I think he's a fairly new player, but only he can say how new he actually is. I haven't really seen him in many games, but I also have not played much recently, so can't exactly say.

Well, even taking into account his newness, his initial CWAC and reaction to my vote are behavioral clues that we have available to work with, and from my POV I think it’s a good idea to stick to the best lead I have so far, what with the absence of more substantial options on Day 1. We have to start somewhere, and I’m not fully convinced he’s not Mafia.

While I kinda understand why you might see LazySpy as suspicious, but there's no solid ground for you to stick with it. I can understand why you want to keep your vote on them for now, but don't stop on it, at least try to either pressure them more to gain further evidence they are scum or try looking at different prospects for suspicions. Choosing a target and just sitting on them can't help in scum hunting if you do nothing with it.

Honestly, I'd rather lynch the inactives before they cripple us in the future.

[/QUOTE]

It's not really just about who has been inactive in this game, but who is more likely to become.

I think I've never seen you posting more than 10 posts in a game, and you getting subbed out on the last ones makes me think you might be neglecting some games you're in.

That being said I'm glad you're here and I hope you stick around until the end instead of vanishing.

D1 is the perfect moment to lynch inactives. It's not about lynching because it got quiet, it's about preventing that.

All these posts feel wrong. Going after inactives on D1 can't be a good strategy at any cost, since we have literally no information about them. They could even be a PR or something.
D1 for me is not about preventing inactiveness, rather to lynch someone you find suspicious and try to relate them with their scum buddies by the help of their posts.
Also, the usage of meta in your posts doesn't look correct because we can never say who is going to be inactive in the later days, anyone could go inactive either because of their role or mostly due to irl reasons. And even if anyone goes inactive, the host can always bring in a sub.
You are normally very analytical and think things through before choosing what to do.
Your obsession over inactives in this game makes me feel suspicious about you.

Vote: ExLight

 

[ExLight]

Is the votecount correct, Calvin? I think someone had voted me.

All these posts feel wrong. Going after inactives on D1 can't be a good strategy at any cost, since we have literally no information about them. They could even be a PR or something.

Even if they're Power Roles it's better to lynch them so we become aware of which role isn't being used. Having an inactive cop or doctor and not knowing that is infinitely worse than knowing they won't help us.

And even if anyone goes inactive, the host can always bring in a sub.

We all know that's not always the case. Subs keepgetting harder and harder to find.

I'm not sure if you guys are really understading how serious of an issue inactive players are becoming. We just had a virtual town loss by D2 in Star Trek Mafia, since it was 7-3 but four players were inactive. If none of them were scum Town would've lost by parity as early as in the first 72h.

This is a scenario I really wouldn't like to face again, and people who are trying to get me killed with the opposite logic might be trying to kill active players to cause this kind of stalemate.

I'm gonna somewhat OMGUS here and vote Pika_pika because he feels the scummiest to me, trying to use a fallacy to paint me as scum.

Vote: Pika_pika42

 

[ExLight]

I'd appreciate if some people started OCs with me, I got some stuff I want to share.

 

[Lone_Garurumon]

Is the votecount correct, Calvin? I think someone had voted me.


Even if they're Power Roles it's better to lynch them so we become aware of which role isn't being used. Having an inactive cop or doctor and not knowing that is infinitely worse than knowing they won't help us.


We all know that's not always the case. Subs keepgetting harder and harder to find.

I'm not sure if you guys are really understading how serious of an issue inactive players are becoming. We just had a virtual town loss by D2 in Star Trek Mafia, since it was 7-3 but four players were inactive. If none of them were scum Town would've lost by parity as early as in the first 72h.

This is a scenario I really wouldn't like to face again, and people who are trying to get me killed with the opposite logic might be trying to kill active players to cause this kind of stalemate.

I'm gonna somewhat OMGUS here and vote Pika_pika because he feels the scummiest to me, trying to use a fallacy to paint me as scum.

Vote: Pika_pika42

That is... No. Just... No.
Yes having inactive players is a bad thing, but you can't just go killing off people that you think might turn inactive later.
I'm not sure if I'd say this is scummy behaviour, but I do know that I am very opposed to what you're trying to do with this vote.

 

[Calvinッ]

@ExLight Aye Officer Snake voted you too, i'll post an updated one inbetween me actually getting out of bed and getting to work.

 

[ExLight]

Yes having inactive players is a bad thing, but you can't just go killing off people that you think might turn inactive later.
I'm not sure if I'd say this is scummy behaviour, but I do know that I am very opposed to what you're trying to do with this vote.

Look, Cyber and Officer were both subbed out in the last two games they were in.
That's more than enough reason to me to be afraid of them getting inactive.

As I said, I just came from a game where Town could've lost D2 due to player inactivity. I think you're all underestimating how damaging inactive players are to Town.
Calvin will take 2 entire cycles to remove an inactive player, while two inactive Town players are the equivalent to one less phase to us.
This is us being one phase short for 2 phases, which is enough for scum to win if they cause a mislynch. It's even easier for us to lose if a Serial Killer is around.

10-3-1 -> 9-3-1 -> 7-3-1
Boom, two inactive people put town in MyLo already. Even if we opt for a no lynch to stall until we get subs we could be 5-3-1, which would again be MyLo.

Virtual MyLo D2 and Real MyLo D3 isn't something I'd like. And I'm not sure if anyone sane would.

 

[ExLight]

I don't even know why you guys are picking on me because of this smh.
I just used the same logic on my last two games and was Town on both of them.

And I'm not even voting Officer/Cyber at this point, why t'fuck y'all jumping in their defense.
If they're around, which seems the case, they can defend by themselves, thank you.

 

[Calvinッ]

Hopefully the correct Votal count
Pika_pika42: II (Luminary, ExLight)
LazySpy: II ( MegaPod, DekuNut)
Contrainer: I (LazySpy)
Lone_Garurumon: I (Space)
ExLight: II (Officer Snake, Pika_pika42)

Didn't want to tag everyone again

 

[DekuNut]

Is the votecount correct, Calvin? I think someone had voted me.


Even if they're Power Roles it's better to lynch them so we become aware of which role isn't being used. Having an inactive cop or doctor and not knowing that is infinitely worse than knowing they won't help us.


We all know that's not always the case. Subs keepgetting harder and harder to find.

I'm not sure if you guys are really understading how serious of an issue inactive players are becoming. We just had a virtual town loss by D2 in Star Trek Mafia, since it was 7-3 but four players were inactive. If none of them were scum Town would've lost by parity as early as in the first 72h.

This is a scenario I really wouldn't like to face again, and people who are trying to get me killed with the opposite logic might be trying to kill active players to cause this kind of stalemate.

I'm gonna somewhat OMGUS here and vote Pika_pika because he feels the scummiest to me, trying to use a fallacy to paint me as scum.

Vote: Pika_pika42

The OMGUS is too much. I see no fallacy in his argument, and tbh you're kinda leaning on the edge of maniacal.
Plus, you can't assume that someone will be inactive. As Jinjo said earlier, I am usually inactive. I have been replaced out of multiple games lately. But here I stand as one of the most active players this game. Patterns aren't always followed.
Also... why aren't you starting OCs yourself if theres stuff you wanna share so much?
Unvote
Vote: ExLight