By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Fire Emblem Mafia - Game Thread - Concluded

spurgeonryan said:
@Padib

I think Sparks play is just like how a veteran mafia player would play. He brings up links, posts, etc. Does that mean he is town? Does that mean theprof is town just because he is posting a lot and debating wonderfully? It means nothing. Just like it means nothing for people to keep bringing up roles and the actual real game. WoW said it has nothing to do with it. Yet, even after I mentioned this again, some keep doing it. Like it is part of their role to keep mentioning the game.

Smeags has been active. Very nice....has he really said anything other than having fun? But then again, it seems he does that in all his games. Act all jovial and make cute posts. Seems to be his defense mechanism to not let people on to what he is all about. So is his not really making any meaningful posts him trying to just be "active" or him just being him and being mysterious?

Or how about myself? Am I not posting because I have nothing to say? Or that I am trying to stay invisible? Or do I just not know what I am doing like ConeyG said, yet that is all about all he has said since we have started other than talking about game characters. It does not matter, since I have never known what I was doing in the past and that certainly did not stop me from doing and saying whatever.

Or what about Padib. The man who once post 2,000 posts in one day in mafia, yet turned out to be town and destroying the game when he forced Hatmoza to act crazy and destroy it even more. So now that you are not posting 2,000 times does that mean you are scum?

What do you think?

Now for the obvious incoming questions.......

Regarding smeags, if memory serves me right, during the game of thrones game he was very character oriented and thematic, and was town. Can't say he's town in this game, but it is in line with his town playstyle.



Around the Network

I was Stannis (town) and I was killed by Kantor the first night, aye.



Smeags said:
I was Stannis (town) and I was killed by Kantor the first night, aye.


If you were killed, how come you're speaking now.



Smeags said:
I was Stannis (town) and I was killed by Kantor the first night, aye.

Yep, and I remember because it was one of my win conditions to kill you. I was all too happy to find out who you were.



theprof00 said:

Yep, and I remember because it was one of my win conditions to kill you. I was all too happy to find out who you were.

*laughs*

So you and Kantor were kingslayers eh? Yeah, I was a Vanilla townie, so my thinking was to give enough information to be seen as bait. Guess it worked too well. @_@

@Spurge

Taking the "me against the world" stance already?



Around the Network
theprof00 said:

Shall I spare you and repeat myself then?

You asked why I thought negatively about outlaw. I answered by asking outlaw if he's gotten around to looking into sparks. I thought poorly of him because he said he would do something and didn't follow through. I was suspicious of fake-activity. He comes back to say he knows sparks previous alt. That's confirmation of fake-activity. Instead of simply telling you, I gave you the opporunity to look at what I was looking at. I'm guessing you didn't bother...just like you didn't bother to read my posts that also explained this already.

Second question was about confirmation but non-confirmation of day talk.

I'm assuming this was in reference to Ike. I'm not sure what was so hard to figure out. A person who claimed to be following along doesn't correct me on known information....twice even.

So regarding outlaw it's egocentrism and impatience, and regarding day talk it may be because you're unable to keep track of who said what when, or because I missed the part when the mafia's ability or inability to talk during the day became "known information." Either way, got it, glad we're on the same page now. Albeit probably just for now. Please, carry on.



theprof00 said:
padib said:
noname2200 said:

Correct. For now his approach has raised enough interesting reactions that I'm content to let him continue largely unmolested and see what else gets flushed out. But the two points I raised were ones I couldn't follow much at all.

@bold. I largely agree, hence my hesitation to ask him to chill. But the cost is what's bothering me a little.

Cost 1: creates nervosity in town, the downsides I've explained in possibly 3 posts before.

Cost 2: It allows those who aren't under fire to hide under a rock (and thus remain silent).

Cost 3: Similar to 2, it diverts all town's attention to what gets his attention. That explains underlined. So we get lots of blind spots.

However, the action we got from some users thanks to his insistence has been good. My only question is, would this have been occuring more naturally without the intensity?

What do you think of Sparks' play? I like how he brings up links and rereads posts, I think that's very townie. But, the case that the less active players are mafia is an easy one to make for a new mafia. Would you agree?

I will continue my duty to look from afar.

1? Create nervosity? Look I'm out there risking my neck in order to get people to actually talk about things that matter.
2. If there are people "hiding", shouldn't you be doing your town job and getting them to talk?
3. I'm playing the game. I want to know what people are thinking. I want to know who suspect whom. People aren't talking, so I'm getting them to talk.

Look, your argument is basically that I'm making players nervous by my questions and it makes everyone scared to talk, and that while I'm focused on one person at a time, there are people taking the opportunity to hide out and not talk at all. Right? My question is, shouldn't that be triggering alarms in your mind? Shouldn't you be asking, why is this person hiding, and subsequently trying to get them to talk? Your recent suggestion was to "get back to flavor" because it makes mafia feel comfortable, but in what way is flavor going to uncover anything? What slips can mafia possibly make talking about flavor? WoW has already stated that flavor is 100% inconsequential to the game. Your ideas on how to find mafia will simply change the way the mafia will hide. With my style of play, as you pointed out, some might try and hide without posting. In your style, they'll just hide in plain sight by talking about fire emblem. There's really no difference. Your job (if you're town) is to get people those people to talk. If you see people hiding from me, well I've already done half the work for you. So get out there and talk to them. You think that them talking about flavor is going to massage their vocal chords? They'll just continue saying nothing.

What interaction would we have gotten naturally? I'm honestly very confused as to your strategy, but if you insist, we'll do it your way. I'll take a more passive role and let you work. Who knows, maybe I can learn something from it.

@2. That's exactly what I'm trying to do with noname.

@bold. That might make the game more fun and you'll be able to notice more things without making users get scared about it, then bring it up when it matters most. Like bam! You have a complete case with a list of OBJECTIONS! :P



Wright said:
Smeags said:
I was Stannis (town) and I was killed by Kantor the first night, aye.


If you were killed, how come you're speaking now.

Because R'hllor



theprof00 said:

Because R'hllor




Wright said:
theprof00 said:

Because R'hllor


Funny, I was this close to making that my sig.



"You should be banned. Youre clearly flaming the president and even his brother who you know nothing about. Dont be such a partisan hack"