A and Ambulance are both working toward conclusions of their own but neither of them has yet gotten to the end of their respective journeys. Various scum arguments from "following a set choreographed path" to "saying much and achieving little" and "hiding GRRR" work here. Would love to see the conclusions before the day ends.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Back to this point real fast Ultimately atp and fat4all are still responsible for there own actions The will do what they feel and we will all judge them for it.
Mafia is a team game I don't feel like we should leave teammates to do whatever they feel like I truly believe we should discuss things with our teammates and reach logical conclusions together.
obviously we need to be careful because information is useful to scum but within reason we should all be giving advice we think is best to secure a Town win.
Also giving advice can be useful in scum hunting for the person giving it too. one of the reasons I knew geno was scum in the last game i was in ( replaced late day 4) was the advice he was giving made logical no sense and did not benefit town.
So I will keep giving suggestions that I think maximize our win percentage. people are free to follow it or not. You are free to think the advice is good or bad. you are free to decide does the advice come from a place of good faith or me trying to blend in.
If I think of something I will ask.
most games I ask questions as soon as they hit my brain, from sitting back more this game I have discovered 80% of questions I have are asked by someone at some point. so yeah other players have already asked my most pressing questions.
Nay I am a fairly likely nightkill
1 not as likely to be protected as others
2 posting more passive Mafia might think i am a powerful playerole or something
3 mafia kill for all kinds of reasons who knows were they will strike night 1 with little game played
4 you jerks are jinxing me hard They will probably kill me for the irony of all the "no way they kill Jman night 1"
So, I'll be answering this before the rest of stuff so you can hopefully read it before going to sleep.
What caught my attention about Chugg's vote was that it seemed like an overreaction. This posts;
Triggers this response;
And then Chuggs calling out Faddy's post about giving money to wee for Lightning. To then criticize Faddy for throwing reads around before asking questions;
It looked like a bit much. While I'm not currently mafia-reading Chuggs, I've seen meanies overestimate the amount of suspicion currently on them and, with that, strongly opposing the smallest of points made for their cases. That's what my comment about "standings" was about; Chuggs may think that Faddy's comment was made in bad faith, sure, but that's missing two points;
1. Faddy is not convincing anyone on it.
2. He's not even making a case for Chuggs;
Finally, even when Chuggs says "Why would I be against getting items for myself." - which, fair - he should understand people pointing out he went;
And how that sounds a bit weird considering he called out Faddy for the wee fund thing as I brought up earlier.
So, do you see the flaws I see now, Stan? Or maybe I'm the one overreacting? Which, fair, I've had to explain this too many times for my liking.
Faddy might die we will see how the day goes he is most suspect to me because pooling money for wee does not feel authentic to me I truly believe Faddy thought this would look like a towny move because he is giving money to another player not himself.
Hawthorn is not even a real wagon she is no going home today votes against her are not authentic at all and will switch to someone else.
So you gonna throw your Vote on Chuggs or Nah? What are we doing here Reki.
This is within town!Chuggs range so far, so no at the moment.
Currently catching-up and when that's finished I'd like to look at some people I haven't really looked at closely.
It's gonna take some time since my schedule here is a bit weird and I may miss EoD, though.
I appreciate the thought but youve still got me for a couple hours at least.
probably more given how borked my sleep schedule is atm.
Well firstly youre calling Chuggs on a double standard I dont think he made? he wasnt calling out Faddy on the Wee fund he was using it as an example of Faddy trying to appear more engaged than he really was, not a point i think i agree with but still not what your accusing him of there.
And more generally, no i still dont really see it. Its all pretty much what id expect from anyone on D1 taking what slim scum vibes they find as far as they can. Hell its what im doing with you right now.
Some quick thoughts before I'm able to put together something a little more detailed:
1) Chugg, good on you for using the N64. I think that will end up being a net positive for being able to discuss whoever is lynched with everyone before one of us is killed.
VOTE: Hawthorn
1) Chugg, good on you for using the N64. I think that will end up being a net positive for being able to discuss whoever is lynched with everyone before one of us is killed.
2) I legitimately would like to see Hawthorn go home today, even if I'm okay with Faddy and strongly agree that he has been sus. I don't want to lose the train of thought with her (which imo is more than just her performance in past games), but I'll get into that more later. Just so you know I'm serious,
VOTE: Hawthorn
Tbh this is my first game with blarg and its just his play style I found somewhat annoying, I felt it made everything else harder to focus on.
Though he did make me laugh a little bit and I've sort of softened my stance. It would be a vote just to clear some of the noise and not based on any real reads. Which might not be best for a d1 vote, though I can't imagine any of the candidates will come across super strong on d1 anyway.
Sparks so far to me is like blarg lite. Not quite as annoying but just as useless lol. But I felt bad he got launched d1 last game and he was town so I wasn't planning to put my vote there.
Turm hasn't been on my radar at all? Was he included for having a similar playstyle to sparks and blarg? Turm has just been mostly absent to my recollection.
I'm open to moving the blarg vote. It just frustrates me when people are town and seemingly don't even try to help.
Hawthorn is a real convenient place for scum to put their votes without arguing more than what's already been argued.
Now side eyeing those votes on hawthorn.
She is super hard to read with quite a passive playstyle but voting for her because she was scum 3 games in a row seems stupid.
Now side eyeing those votes on hawthorn.
She is super hard to read with quite a passive playstyle but voting for her because she was scum 3 games in a row seems stupid.
Okay Stan pretty much said why the rest of this doesn't work but I wanted to address this part specifically. Maybe there's a disconnect here, but why on earth would Faddy's argument swaying people or not factor into my scum read of him? One of the reasons I'm scum reading him is because I think he was purposely misrepresenting what I was doing, but weather he's actually persuasive about that doesn't really matter to me
yeah like, maybe its because i barely read half of what was posted in this game but im also drawing a total blank for the Hawthorn votes.
Nah Turms is actually coherent, but he really likes just popping a vote wherever on day 1, doesn't really explain it, and switches it a lot which makes people think he's just scum trying to find a wagon. Town gets scared, kills him on day 1, and surprise he's actually town.
If launch doesn't get back to those thoughts thst are more than just her past performances that's super sus.
I'm not following this last part. It doesn't seem inconsistent to me. Can you clarify?
I think I am going to stick with my Faddy vote, unless something changes today (likely). I know I waffled a lot on him, but he really doubled down on his plan to give all the money to one player & enable them to buy an item (so that we all know where the expensive items are) which to me was an anti-town plan. He said that his plan was about playing along with the unique game mechanics, but actually it wasn't really, because rather than making fun bets, it involved turning the bets into cheques.
I hesitate to say this, because I know it will come off as self-protective, but I find some of the suspicion against me a little concerning, in that it's largely based on out-of-game events. Just because a person rolled mafia in the past and fooled some people does not make them any likelier to be mafia this game, but it does make them a safe person to put your vote on without having to engage with the events of D1. To be clear I'm mostly talking here about Launchpad, Hedin, and Sparks-- Maol explained his vote, at least a little, and Kyan talked about my actual posts today in his post against me. Not to say that I think any of these people are mafia, but I think it's something to keep an eye on.
I will also keep my pop tarts vote for Pancakes. Pancakes should be the pop tart today for a nice breakfast tomorrow.
The rest of this is all fine and agreeable, but why are you pop-tarting Pancakes exactly?
The narrative around her is she was scum 3 games in a row, is opening like she did in those games and is hard to read so would make people sleep easier if she was gone.
Its a weak argument which is why I called it out, but that is what people have been saying.
Seems weird to me launch is mentioned in both these posts, has also been accused of the same stuff hawthorn is getting accused of but both votes land on hawthorn for no real reason.
Then launch joins the train himself with a super different but he won't share it just yet...
And that is what bothers me, there is not much susbtance to it
Also, going to be real, all the "I do think Faddy is a good vote, buuuuuut..." posts are making me real nervous
A
In fact.
Vote: Launchpad
I might move it if his super different reasoning for hawthorn is reasonable
I agree.
In fact.
Vote: Launchpad
I might move it if his super different reasoning for hawthorn is reasonable
the opportunism of just putting a vote down on someone even though there is nothing behind that and also trying to put down those who on the one hand agree that Launch is kinda sus but then vote for Hawthorn will make my voting choice very easy.
Vote: LaunchpadMcQ
Vote: LaunchpadMcQ
Isn't this what all EOD's are like?
Can we have a gentleperson's agreement that it's the weekend and constrain ourselves a bit?
95% I will be moving off of it unless someone points out something I missed with her, it's just my throwaway 1st post vote and now it's getting serious time. In no order I'm probably leaning towards Reki, wee, Faddy (those last two will probably come down to how I feel about the money stuff), and maybe ATP at this point in time.
Thats what i expected when i first read that post, no worries.
How do you feel about the current situation and how that vote led to a small train Launch attached itself on ?
m gonna be real with yall, Im very drunk rn
im gonna set my alarm for a few hours before the days end and hope for the best
that's right, even tgo im east coast i don't wake up til like 4 pm thanks to my dangerous and cavalier lifestyle
im gonna set my alarm for a few hours before the days end and hope for the best
that's right, even tgo im east coast i don't wake up til like 4 pm thanks to my dangerous and cavalier lifestyle
Are you referring to the train on Launch or the votes on Hawthorn? I'm assuming Launch since those just popped up. I find his vote very interesting because it feels like he's doing the thing that I am looking to avoid with Hawthorn in not letting previous alignment dictate current feelings (and I could just as easily thrown Launch a 1st post vote for those same reasons). Now he says it's more than that and he'll get to it later which once again he's teasing some information or read but doesn't put it out there.
That is what put me also over the edge,
either you make a case, vote for someone, or you dont.
This teasing is just a way to test the waters. Put the vote out there, tease something big ( Spoiler Altert, Its nothing ) wait until others chimed into this, hope that others will vote her aswell, come back and reveal the big nothing burger.
Case for Hawthorn
Let me start by confirming that I carry some bias against Hawthorn. I hold her in very high regard for how she is able to blend in, and as such, I am very wary that she is someone who will be easily overlooked going forward when she's allowed to further blend into the background as the game goes on. While others might say she will not be forgotten, keep in mind that the more time that passes means more players who are suspicious of her will die if she is indeed scum. That's true of anyone and we should try to think critically moving into the game - whoever we are sure is trustworthy may not be.
Further disclaimer, this is a D1 case - please take into consideration I am building a case based on little content (just like any D1 lynch case) and even if Hawthorn is not lynched today, I am summarizing the thoughts so they can be used later.
The second noteworthy, way more significant, thing about this post is that Hawthorn proposes a bet here with nin. This is strange for several reasons.
In this game where there are two different kinds of votes, that can take a different form like we see here. Hawthorn Pop-Tart votes Pancakes, while at the same time admitting that Chugg seems townie, on two bases - one I agree with, that Pancakes also seems town based on her comments regarding vanillas in the game; and two, because Chugg has not had much opposition. What's curious is that she says Chugg has not had much opposition, but actually does not raise any opposition herself; what she does is just point out that there is little opposition, which reads as light shade throwing, and puts a protection vote elsewhere.
Hawthorn does not actually have any issue with Chugg and has not raised any suspicion about him, so it's weird she would throw shade like this.
Let me start by confirming that I carry some bias against Hawthorn. I hold her in very high regard for how she is able to blend in, and as such, I am very wary that she is someone who will be easily overlooked going forward when she's allowed to further blend into the background as the game goes on. While others might say she will not be forgotten, keep in mind that the more time that passes means more players who are suspicious of her will die if she is indeed scum. That's true of anyone and we should try to think critically moving into the game - whoever we are sure is trustworthy may not be.
Further disclaimer, this is a D1 case - please take into consideration I am building a case based on little content (just like any D1 lynch case) and even if Hawthorn is not lynched today, I am summarizing the thoughts so they can be used later.
Having said that, I would point to her first post of D1. To summarize the post and what I'm seeing, it is eagerness and what I would describe as making surface-level observations about the game. For a reference on why this is noteworthy, you can go check her early posts in Risk which follow a very similar pattern - to summarize that, coming in to ask a set of basic surface-level questions and proposing an alliance a few posts in.
The second noteworthy, way more significant, thing about this post is that Hawthorn proposes a bet here with nin. This is strange for several reasons.
- Who she proposes the bet with - nin. We have all played with nin, and it's safe to say he's a bit of a wildcard. It is hard to read the motivation behind who she chose to place a bet with, but the potential read here is that she was looking at a player who she knew was a wild card to give off the impression that she was acting recklessly, recklessness being a quality scum!Hawthorn is not typically known for. Her claim is that she chose nin randomly (post #94).
- The amount - $500. It sounds like the majority of players have started off with $1500. $500 is not an insignificant amount, it's a third of the starting amount for most players - although, in fairness, we don't know how much Hawthorn actually has. However, it's enough to give off an impression of slight recklessness. It's also not so much money that it would make or break Hawthorn down the road. It's fortunate that nin did not actually follow through and accept the bet, but I think Hawthorn went in with the expectation that he would.
- The bet itself - "exactly six items from the store will be sold by the end of Day 1". It's a strangely specific thing to bet on. By her own admission, Hawthorn created a bet criteria which would make accepting the bet appealing to whoever she was proposing it to, something that would make it very difficult for her to win. This tells us a few things - one, that she was very intent on the recipient accepting the bet; and two, in her mind, she was effectively forfeiting the money.
If she was so intent on having someone accept the bet, my next question would be why? Hawthorn claims she was " eager to take part in the betting system and see how it works" (post #155), but she could have simply observed others performing bets to see how it works instead of placing $500 out of [a supposed] $1500 down on a bet to test it. Seeing how it works is a strange motivation, since she already had a good enough grasp on the logic behind the betting to make the criteria appealing to the recipient. I think the reality here is that Hawthorn had an ulterior motive for proposing a bet - either to add to the narrative that she is acting recklessly and therefore town, or some other unseen goal. - While Hawthorn did move on to defend her decision (posts #94, #155, #170), she did not follow up with nin to ask him to accept the bet. It is a strange pivot, especially because the bet itself was designed to have nin accept it - terms that favor the recipient. However, she just drops it without pursuing it further. The conclusion here is that there was a change of plans once other players started questioning her actions.
I pointed this out earlier, but one of Hawthorn's tells is going off-wagon and chasing a dark horse candidate for a thing (maybe something she picked up from Maol). I would point to her avoiding bussing me numerous times between Transistor and Risk for evidence of that.
In this game where there are two different kinds of votes, that can take a different form like we see here. Hawthorn Pop-Tart votes Pancakes, while at the same time admitting that Chugg seems townie, on two bases - one I agree with, that Pancakes also seems town based on her comments regarding vanillas in the game; and two, because Chugg has not had much opposition. What's curious is that she says Chugg has not had much opposition, but actually does not raise any opposition herself; what she does is just point out that there is little opposition, which reads as light shade throwing, and puts a protection vote elsewhere.
Hawthorn does not actually have any issue with Chugg and has not raised any suspicion about him, so it's weird she would throw shade like this.
This is more of setting up a domino, but if Faddy is scum, then I think it lends more credence to Hawthorn being scum, as well. This is one of the first mentions that scum may be trying to consolidate money around a single player, but based on discussions that happened subsequently, it might be a partial truth. If Faddy was indeed trying to gather up money or items into a single player to steal them, I think Hawthorn was giving herself a future "hah, I was right" moment.
I'll be dividing this or it'll take forever.
What do you think of the recent Launch push? While I mostly agree with the criticism against his vote, that triple pushback was a bit surprising to be honest.
Your read on Hawthorn looks like a bit of a jump, as folks are pointing out about votes on her too. Hmmm.
Thanks for the comments, Zipped. Interested in how your Aeleus read develops, I'll be probably looking there too.
I mean, you can directly engage me or anyone else instead of just throwing shade around.
Ok, how come no one commented on this?
You're too mean, wee.
This is true, but the first mention of stealing is from VA iirc.
That's what I thought prompted Blarg's comment at the time at least.
Question, how closely are you following details and taking notes?
By the way, I've been liking the way you post now, with longer justifications and all. Are you enjoying it yourself?
Also; no way they kill Jman night 1.
I can see this. Didn't like Faddy's plan either, but I need to think more on that vote. Usually like his town play and I've seen him mislunched D1 once or twice so that's why I'm being careful with suspicion there.
As wee said somewhere, Faddy has a bit of a wacky play sometimes, and that's NAI. I saw Before the Sun's meanie!Faddy too, so it's not a blank check either.
Would you both mind talking a bit more about this, please? Why would it be a good idea to be locked in a bet until D3? And that one side is favored by not pushing wolves?
Why did nobody comment on this, doesn't this look a bit weird to anyone else?
Didn't you get NKed in LB3?
Which was more than a year ago, yes.
Can't think of a scenario in which using a random redirect isn't more risky than it's worth it unless we have too much information about alignments. What do you think?
Yes please.
It hurt us hard in Nier.
Agree with this. meanie!rac is not as carefree in his postings imo.
Formal request for you to change your avatar to
What do you think of this?
You're criticizing votes on Hawthorn for lack of a meaningful argument behind them after all.
What do you think of the recent Launch push? While I mostly agree with the criticism against his vote, that triple pushback was a bit surprising to be honest.
Your read on Hawthorn looks like a bit of a jump, as folks are pointing out about votes on her too. Hmmm.
Thanks for the comments, Zipped. Interested in how your Aeleus read develops, I'll be probably looking there too.
I mean, you can directly engage me or anyone else instead of just throwing shade around.
Ok, how come no one commented on this?
You're too mean, wee.
This is true, but the first mention of stealing is from VA iirc.
That's what I thought prompted Blarg's comment at the time at least.
Question, how closely are you following details and taking notes?
By the way, I've been liking the way you post now, with longer justifications and all. Are you enjoying it yourself?
Also; no way they kill Jman night 1.
I can see this. Didn't like Faddy's plan either, but I need to think more on that vote. Usually like his town play and I've seen him mislunched D1 once or twice so that's why I'm being careful with suspicion there.
As wee said somewhere, Faddy has a bit of a wacky play sometimes, and that's NAI. I saw Before the Sun's meanie!Faddy too, so it's not a blank check either.
Would you both mind talking a bit more about this, please? Why would it be a good idea to be locked in a bet until D3? And that one side is favored by not pushing wolves?
Why did nobody comment on this, doesn't this look a bit weird to anyone else?
Didn't you get NKed in LB3?
Which was more than a year ago, yes.
Can't think of a scenario in which using a random redirect isn't more risky than it's worth it unless we have too much information about alignments. What do you think?
Yes please.
It hurt us hard in Nier.
Agree with this. meanie!rac is not as carefree in his postings imo.
Formal request for you to change your avatar to
What do you think of this?
You're criticizing votes on Hawthorn for lack of a meaningful argument behind them after all.
I'll be dividing this or it'll take forever.
What do you think of the recent Launch push? While I mostly agree with the criticism against his vote, that triple pushback was a bit surprising to be honest.
Your read on Hawthorn looks like a bit of a jump, as folks are pointing out about votes on her too. Hmmm.
Thanks for the comments, Zipped. Interested in how your Aeleus read develops, I'll be probably looking there too.
I mean, you can directly engage me or anyone else instead of just throwing shade around.
Ok, how come no one commented on this?
You're too mean, wee.
This is true, but the first mention of stealing is from VA iirc.
That's what I thought prompted Blarg's comment at the time at least.
Question, how closely are you following details and taking notes?
By the way, I've been liking the way you post now, with longer justifications and all. Are you enjoying it yourself?
Also; no way they kill Jman night 1.
I can see this. Didn't like Faddy's plan either, but I need to think more on that vote. Usually like his town play and I've seen him mislunched D1 once or twice so that's why I'm being careful with suspicion there.
As wee said somewhere, Faddy has a bit of a wacky play sometimes, and that's NAI. I saw Before the Sun's meanie!Faddy too, so it's not a blank check either.
Would you both mind talking a bit more about this, please? Why would it be a good idea to be locked in a bet until D3? And that one side is favored by not pushing wolves?
Why did nobody comment on this, doesn't this look a bit weird to anyone else?
Didn't you get NKed in LB3?
Which was more than a year ago, yes.
Can't think of a scenario in which using a random redirect isn't more risky than it's worth it unless we have too much information about alignments. What do you think?
Yes please.
It hurt us hard in Nier.
Agree with this. meanie!rac is not as carefree in his postings imo.
Formal request for you to change your avatar to
What do you think of this?
You're criticizing votes on Hawthorn for lack of a meaningful argument behind them after all.
It means nothing to me, someone earlier said that was par for the course for turm d1, plus I've moved on from blarg for now, and I don't think a blarg train was ever gonna happen d1
I'm not going to quote Launch's entire post but the only thing about Hawthorn that I saw in that post that raised an eyebrow to me (and he didn't really come to this conclusion) was:
Launch danced around the bet question but didn't actually come to any conclusion about it. The obvious implication to me is that Hawthorn was using that bet to see how many things were actually bought. Scum would definitely be interested in that information but I can see some town purposes as well.
Launch danced around the bet question but didn't actually come to any conclusion about it. The obvious implication to me is that Hawthorn was using that bet to see how many things were actually bought. Scum would definitely be interested in that information but I can see some town purposes as well.
Just a gut feel at this point in time. I haven't iso'd you or anyone else on my list yet to see where that gut is coming from, planning on doing that during lunch.
Well, I didn't get to that conclusion because I didn't think of it, but that's a very good point, as well.
I tend to prioritize the social aspects of mafia, so that's where the focus of my analysis was. That's partly just my nature and what I find most fun, but I've also been a godfather twice and used a ninja kill when watched, so I know firsthand mechanics can lie sometimes, too. If others can build off of what I've written, though, I'd say it's done its job.
However, looking at the rules for a second:
I guess scum could also just PM Fanto every item on the item shop list and see what comes back as out of stock. They might have realized that later and that's why there was no follow-up from Hawthorn on the bet?
Also true.
The thing is then every bet would have to be looked at within the same light and to me if you want to look that way then the wee and Faddy "partnership" raises a bit more eyebrows.