You should answer it still, interesting though it may be.

So we should lynch you know when you are not trying to get killed? Your meta suggests so. :-)

I second this, just make this easier on us and fly that mafia flag high, be proud to be mafia, come on, all your mafia brothers and sisters will be so proud of you.

Minstrels will write songs about you.

If his entire strategy is to confuse the town, perhaps he's as much a danger to us as the mafia is.

The point is that it could also turn out to be very helpful for the town, as the mafia will be equally confused perhaps.

But that's no different from mafia and town both NOT being confused :P

I second this.

A players experience should always be taken into account in the game, but no way should it be the main basis for any lynching. There may be a complete newbie playing this game who turns out to be a Mafia game wizard!! 99% of reasoning and deductions should be based purely on what happens In-game - the only place for 'meta' gaming is if you notice a player not acting like they have in past Mafia games or something similar like that.

Onward!

Eh, I thought we are still in RVS... I wasn't serious.

We don't know if he is strong player anyway. We saw him play only one day so far.

Ok. It is interesting as in post 53 Zchinque notes that

"Bringing people out of their comfort zones by making them confused, angry, or whatever, makes them more likely to take down their shields...".

I am applying the same tactic, maybe with not as much finesse, but I certainly sensed some confusion there. I now feel that I can cross one player (either rightly or wrongly) off the list of those who are potentially mafia, and in that sense my plan worked, the same as Zchinque claimed success with his confusion tactics. If it gets me dead quickly then I played badly but someone has to go out first.

As to my experience, its in the signup thread.

I should note that the same applied to my comment about his skills - Was meant as a joke - with a hint of truth.

unvote Jefequeso and vote stuart9001 for making me look in another thread for answers.

Unvote Vitek
Vote Muttly13 for being unwilling to do some research.

Here I go Rob: attempting to break that Random Voting Stage

When I read muttly's vote for stuart I thought to myself "This seems somehow like he's eager for a reason to seemingly meaninglessly vote Stuart (randomly vote, if you'll have it)" And when I return this evening Stuart's response has me doubly suspicious.

They stand out, to me, from the other votes. Is it just because they are the most recent votes? Is it because I am right sick of that random voting stage now?
I'll take a moment now to have a look over the other votes.

All I see is that Stuart decided to finish with randomness. Here's the quote:
Whether he's referring to randomness in the purely statistical sense, (he's not going to use methods to select someone to vote for at random) or in the sense of meaningless (implying meaning to his vote for muttly - strenuous I know, it looks like I'm trying really hard to make this work now doesn't it?) only stuart himself can know.

As a general principle, I am against the lynching of myself.

unvote