It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)GOG Mafia #19 - A slalom Mafia(2133 posts)(2133 posts)
(2133 posts)
Pages:
1
22
23
24
25
26
50
75
100
125
143
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 13, 2014
avatar
amok: P1na: Has a habit of making a lot of posts which do not exactly do anything. I am internally calling him Exaybachay at the moment...
Thanks! It's not easy, but I'll do my best to keep it up.
Posted January 13, 2014
...I MAY have distracted myself at the weekend with finally getting my desktop working...

Also, the first week back at work was tougher than I thought.

The clue, as promised (did I get around to the clue? I can't remember) - The corpse had lipstick in his pocket.

Now, then, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to do something bloody stupid for a change.

Amok. I'm going to have to be blunt here, and in doing so I'm going to go back to some logic I was using in Game #17 (with the added bonus that I can now reach conclusions!) Looking at my own role, I note that it is traditionally third-party. However, it is specifically referred to as "TOWN such-and-such" and thus has the added "must win with Town" bit. I thus find your lack of mentioning of actually being Town odd to say the least.

(Does logic work in JoeSapphire games? The idea seems risky, to be honest.)

Also, I'm fairly certain I noticed a "panic-theory" tell from you before, but can't remember when exactly in Game #17 I saw it. I'd say I'd have a look, but I'd probably disappear entirely from the game to search at that stage.

Unvote, Vote amok
Posted January 13, 2014
avatar
DarkoD13: -snip- Red_Baron's quick alternating between targets hasn't gone unnoticed, but at least he generated some interesting discussion. -snip-
Thanks for noticing the part about discussions :) Lets answer some questions and clarify a few things.

avatar
CSPVG: -snip- 1) Red_Baron: For vote hopping and providing reasoning I see as scummy for those votes.-snip-
While I can't say anything against you finding my reasons scummy, personally I would find it more likely that you considered them illogical - but point is you disagree with them. However while you might disagree with my reasons you can't say I am "vote hopping" by basically having two targets that fits my reasons and being willing to vote for both. If I was to jump to you and then SPF and back again with no reason, I could agree with "vote hopping". More on this in the end of this post.

avatar
amok: -snip- Red_Baron: Seems to shift to much around, not trusting him at all for the moment.-snip-
So I have stuck with two targets for the same reason ever since changing my RvS vote? Well I guess given that you are one of the targets you can call it shifting around.. I myself call it consistent playing, even if a lot don't agree with my reasoning for it. That other reasonings for a vote is just as weak seems to make little impact and that mine is actually build in relation to a mod post and people's own claims apparently also adds little credibility, for reasons unknown.

avatar
Telika: -snip-
I'd like to have the following clarified :

a) Red_Baron and Nmillar, you both have Prudence Eggars explicitely mentioned as "like" in your little "like/dislike" attributions ?

b) Red_Baron and Quadralien, the flavor of your clue both imply "one woman or more", or is there a way to infer whether there was 2, 1, or 0 men involved ?
a): As I see no way a scum (with perhaps no dislikes) can gain anything from answering this, then yea - she is specifically mentioned as such.

b): While I would like to answer this I don't really want to do that yet, as I agree with your sentiment about QA, thus wanting him to actually explain what his is before I elaborate any further about this. Pre-Post-Edit: Given that he has revealed his I can reveal mine: It specifically says female, and murderer. Likely indicating one person of female gender as the culprit.

Finally I also agree with your notion about the likeliness of scum my suggested lynches (I think I already mentioned this earlier), but I don't believe them to be town either, thus I would rather spent day one not lynching a town as opposed to attempting (and as usual on day one; failing) to find a scum.

avatar
SirPrimalform: -snip-
Red_Baron for some hasty target switching and dodgy logic about who we should lynch. Seems to be trying to get a lynch through without caring who it is.
-snip-
Not true, I do care.. as long as it is either amok or Zchinque - as both of them fits the bill of claiming not be on the list and both of them either claimed not to have clue's or not to reveal them (the latter of course being a lot less suspect).
Posted January 13, 2014
I been trying to post this.. and it keeps not working - therefor I have now posted it as an online text. It is meant as a response to CSPVG and primarily of his interest... http://pastebin.com/2jzNHy87

The final part of that post Ill repost here just because I like it:
With what we currently know for a fact - there is two candidates most likely not to be town (given known info) and it is those I want to lynch. And given the fact that there is two of them, I have two targets. If we agree on lynching amok, then that's what happens, if we agree on Zchinque I will follow that as well.
Posted January 13, 2014
avatar
Red_Baron: I been trying to post this.. and it keeps not working - therefor I have now posted it as an online text. It is meant as a response to CSPVG and primarily of his interest... http://pastebin.com/2jzNHy87
One of your quote_334 is missing the ending bracket, thus why it failed to post. Allow me to do a repost for your convenience.

avatar
Red_Baron: 11 minutes have passed, this should do: As this repeatedly failed to post, find myself debating if I should post it. However I do feel a need to reply to CSPVG and perhaps explain a bit more as I am unsure if he have yet understood me correctly.
avatar
CSPVG: I didn't accuse you of going after JMich. I simply stated that you had gone from voting for JMich to voting for amok and then Zchinque in quite a short space of time.
avatar
Red_Baron: Really? Allow me to quote from 316: has hopped from JMich to the aforementioned two gentlemen( first amok and then Zchinque) in quick succession. I feel like he's trying to get a lynch-wagon rolling, and for pretty slim reasons as well
Given that you talk about be attempting to get a lynch wagon rolling, and mentioning JMich as part of that, it more than implies that you believe I was going after him to be a lynch as well.

avatar
CSPVG: I also do not think that your idea to vote for amok and Zchinque based on the fact that they were 'different' somehow made amok claim, which is what you seem to be saying. His claim came totally unbidden, and- if anything- seems to me to have come from DarkoD13's listing of amok as different due to his lack of clues.
avatar
Red_Baron: And my reason for voting for him due his lack of clues, specifically stated we should lynch him for that reason and the fact that he claimed after I voted for him shows no connection at all? Granted I might not be the sole contributor to his decision to claim, but I sure as heck was part the reason for his claim. Voting is a tool to be used to pressure, and that's how I used it.

avatar
CSPVG: Furthermore, I would say your logic was dodgy. Voting for someone based only on the fact that they're different, seems somehow dodgy to me. Another thing that you seemed to suggest, is that lynching either of your preferred options would give us more information than, say, lynching you or me. I find this to be untrue, as information doesn't so much( to my mind) come from the lynched person, but rather from those doing the lynching.
avatar
Red_Baron: I feel that you still haven't understood my reasoning and calling it dodgy is just plain wrong given the actual meaning of dodgy logic (Dodgy logic is when someone uses reasoning in such a fashion that it lacks validity or is erroneous, nor for that matter is it evasive given I have flatout stated my reasons). I based my reasons on facts provided by the persons themselves and the mod, thus you might disagree with my conclusion to lynch them - but you can't call it dodgy. As for the information, the reason I say we are likely to learn more is simple and have been stated before; let's say we lynch you. You might be a scum, you might be a town - we don't know. You might be a town vanilla, again we don't know. We do however know that two people have claimed to be different from the rest, thus they are likely not to be a town vanilla, thereby their lynch scene will naturally be more likely to generate more information (thus not saying others might not do the same, but in this case we already know it will).
However you do have a point about the band-wagon itself, if there was actually a tendency for anything to be gained from a day one bandwagon, something I however have yet to see given the often complete randomness of it and the usual result of a dead town. And following that, it still implies to be judged from no matter who is lynched give the unknown results of it.
So I am going by likely statistics here, not guessing.

And with what we currently know for a fact - there is two candidates most likely not to be town and it is those I want to lynch. And given the fact that there is two of them, I have two targets. If we agree on lynching amok, then that's what happens, if we agree on Zchinque I will follow that as well.
Posted January 13, 2014
avatar
JMich: Any particular reason dear, or just the fact that I dislike a mean person, even if she's not a blithering idiot?
How dare you continue your tirade against Prudence Eggars? Have you no shame? Why I oughta write a strongly worded letter.

Yes, that's my reason for having you on my suspects list. Nobody has proved whether the clues and likes/dislikes are genuinely useful, so I'm willing to go along with them for the time-being.

avatar
Telika: a) Red_Baron and Nmillar, you both have Prudence Eggars explicitely mentioned as "like" in your little "like/dislike" attributions ?
Yes, explicitly stated.

avatar
SirPrimalform: Why would you assume that someone who dislikes someone you like is mafia?
Because it's a slightly better reason than a normal day 1 vote? As above, nobody has categorically proved that clues and likes/dislikes are meaningless, so happy to go along with it for now.

avatar
SirPrimalform: I would be ok with revealing my clue if we all agree that it's the right thing to do, but I'm slightly apprehensive because I feel amok could be up to something. Because I get the impression he's not telling the truth about something, I'm not sure that aiding him is necessarily a good thing for us.
You were completely off the radar until this post - it just seems like you're trying to act willing to go with the majority (assuming that majority is eventually reached), but making an excuse as to why you can't.

Robbeasy is on my list for purely historical reasons (long-running feud in previous mafia games), and amok is just acting plain weird.
Posted January 13, 2014
Yet another thing to clarify :

http://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_mafia_19_a_slalom_mafia/post145

P1na, do you have (deliberately undisclosed) specific individuals as "liked/disliked", or only general categories ?

http://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_mafia_19_a_slalom_mafia/post157

Flub, do you have a (deliberately undisclosed) specific individual as "liked" or just a general category ?
Posted January 13, 2014
avatar
nmillar: You were completely off the radar until this post - it just seems like you're trying to act willing to go with the majority (assuming that majority is eventually reached), but making an excuse as to why you can't.
It's the same thing I said a few days ago. Originally I was in favour, but I changed my mind based on amok's "misinterpretation" of Zchinque's vote about revealing clues and so on. At the time that made me suspicious of his motives, everything that's happened since just makes me more apprehensive. I am willing to go with the majority, I was just explaining why my vote is against for now. I think amok was/is manipulating us.
Posted January 13, 2014
avatar
SirPrimalform: -snip- I think amok was/is manipulating us.
How and for what purpose? To get himself lynched? That appears to be what he is accomplishing right now.
Posted January 13, 2014
avatar
Telika: Yet another thing to clarify :


......................<snip>.........................


Flub, do you have a (deliberately undisclosed) specific individual as "liked" or just a general category ?
Allow myself to quote myself]

Again if you please

Undisclosed???

Apology accepted. My I sure am forthcoming with information, I must be scum!!
Posted January 14, 2014
avatar
SirPrimalform: -snip- I think amok was/is manipulating us.
avatar
Red_Baron: How and for what purpose? To get himself lynched? That appears to be what he is accomplishing right now.
No, to reveal the clues.
Posted January 14, 2014
avatar
Red_Baron: How and for what purpose? To get himself lynched? That appears to be what he is accomplishing right now.
avatar
SirPrimalform: No, to reveal the clues.
So is that good or bad?? Will YOU take a stand or wait for others??
Posted January 14, 2014
avatar
nmillar: You were completely off the radar until this post - it just seems like you're trying to act willing to go with the majority (assuming that majority is eventually reached), but making an excuse as to why you can't.
avatar
SirPrimalform: It's the same thing I said a few days ago. Originally I was in favour, but I changed my mind based on amok's "misinterpretation" of Zchinque's vote about revealing clues and so on. At the time that made me suspicious of his motives, everything that's happened since just makes me more apprehensive. I am willing to go with the majority, I was just explaining why my vote is against for now. I think amok was/is manipulating us.
You say misrepresentation.... I asked back then how it was a misrepresentation, but you did not answer.

Zchinque said he would follow the dictatorship of the majority. I took that has a "yes, if forced to" - is this not correct?
Posted January 14, 2014
And I quite distinctly heard a voice say
"Please forgive the errors in the most recent votecount, they've been corrected."

Or did it say

"Tree saw gives me terrors in a mostly sentient amount. Ravings got hectic."?

It was hard to tell. But it was quite chilling!
Posted January 14, 2014
avatar
SirPrimalform: It's the same thing I said a few days ago. Originally I was in favour, but I changed my mind based on amok's "misinterpretation" of Zchinque's vote about revealing clues and so on. At the time that made me suspicious of his motives, everything that's happened since just makes me more apprehensive. I am willing to go with the majority, I was just explaining why my vote is against for now. I think amok was/is manipulating us.
avatar
amok: You say misrepresentation.... I asked back then how it was a misrepresentation, but you did not answer.

Zchinque said he would follow the dictatorship of the majority. I took that has a "yes, if forced to" - is this not correct?
Simple. The question was not "will you share your info?" but "should we share our info?", that was the subject of the vote. Zchinque's opinion was obviously no, but I think you were trying to put it in as positive a way as possible to further your goals. I thought so at the time and I think so even more after your unprompted claim.
Pages:
1
22
23
24
25
26
50
75
100
125
143
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)GOG Mafia #19 - A slalom Mafia(2133 posts)(2133 posts)
(2133 posts)