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

Person Voting To Lynch Identity

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5  
Conegamer            
HylianSwordsman            
IkePoR            
Mr. Khan theprof00          
Nicklesbe            
noname2200            
outlawauron            
padib WhiteEaglePL          
RCTjunkie theprof00          
Smeags            
Sparks            
spurgeonryan            
theprof00 HylianSwordsman          
WhiteEaglePL            
Wright Conegamer          
  With 15 alive, it takes 8 to lynch.  


Around the Network
padib said:
theprof00 said:
padib said:
EBWOP. And though I agree with you, prof, outlaw about being against a no-lynch on day 1 as it gives mafia a head start day 2, I feel like your post supporting it was a bit parroting.

Can you rewrite this? I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying agree with ME (prof) AND Outlaw? And who is parroting? Sentence is very unclear.

Apologies for my crap english sometimes.

I agree with Smeags, you and outlaw regarding the downsides of a no-lynch on day 1. I felt that Smeags' post supporting you and outlaw's argument against no-lynch on day 1 was a parrot post.

Ah, thanks gotcha.

Also, just to correct you, you mentioned WIFOM earlier. The word you were looking for was null-tell. WIFOM is different.



padib said:

Mostly hunches and feelings. I remember my last game as mafia, I wasn't as confident as my first game as mafia. I felt really unsure about how to contribute without getting caught in my lies. I felt like I was tiptoeing.

I remember a few games previously where when you put in flavor, you made a few long flavor-rich posts. In this game, your flavor posts are brief, your investigative posts are brief with light investigating, and then the longer posts are statistical in nature.

I can't put more weight on it as we're in day 1, but it's an early scum vibe so we'll have to keep the dialogue open. ;)

Fair enough, I'll try to explain what I've put in thus far.

I mean, that's the reason for this voiced "suspicion" correct? To get me my time in the spotlight? The push is fair enough.

First couple of posts were to break the ice and to mingle within the world that we find ourselves in (Fire Emblem).

But after that I realized that I was one of many who were doing so , so I wanted to focus instead at using my past experiences to bring information to the table. I brought my experiences with first day lynches that gave a different perspective to Spark's question.

I'm not a confrontational person, and without solid evidence I don't feel like making accusations, so I thought I could provide other ways of contributing to the first day. I understand that my statistical posts are morally neutral, but they are still enlightening and can shed light on users that were perhaps looked over. I then tried to take a look at others flavor hints, because characters are very important in the Fire Emblem series, with very clear cut roles and abilities. Users like Spurge and Prof are convinced that due to WoW's set-up, a character's flavor is borderline useless, and I'm willing to give them that the information is shakey at its foundation, but it's still information to use for the future.

Also, notice that when I mentioned how important a character could be, Nicklesbe jumped on and gave an extremely obvious hint at who he claims he is. I found that interesting.

From there on out, I expanded the post count/contribution post with Prof's (and Outlaw's) nudging. And after that made sure that Khan and Ike were paying attention (Khan ignored me, but that's fine I suppose).

And yes, information from previous games is valid information to use (as you are using it as evidence against me at this time). I felt that it needed sharing that Cone had a similar playstyle to my first time, and then confirmed Prof's speculation on the GoT Mafia game and what happned in that situation.

So yes, I'm providing information that can be used by all, because the more information we have, the more we can accomplish on a day that only gives us hints and hunches.

Anyways, off to work now. See you all in a few hours. :)



 

theprof00 said:

(1)@underlined: Because noobs tend to say things under the assumption that they are always true. For instance, playing under the assumption that mafia can or can't talk, or knowledge of another faction, or whatever. As an example http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=114531
This was my very first game of mafia. Here is my noob post.

"theprof00 on 17 August 2010

(2)So, if hatmoza's request for kratos came out worked, what would happen? Would someone then protect Kratos?

I'm trying to figure out what the point of his gesture was. I think hatmoza is a pretty smart guy, but not too smart, not khuutra smart. I think he's laying 2nd yomi down. But I think he was convincing enough to end up being protected in the end.

(3)Can we protect ourselves? Or only prevent someone else from taking action?

(4)Additionally, I think we should re-evaluate kantor as a possible SK. See, if he doesn't act, then he is randomly decided for, correct? If he doesn't act, and it doesn't seem like he will act since it looks like he's not reading the thread, he is virtually an SK. So, kantor is a liability, correct?

(5)There are two possible solutions to this. Vote for him to be inactive, or lynch him. Inacting him may be a mistake because if he is not on, we may never get more information from him, or at least it may be too late. Lynching him would take out a questionable doubt down the road that might end up sparing the real SK. RIght?"

Tell me what looks interesting in the above quote

@italics
(6)Well, yes there is that question. Here's my viewpoint based on this singular instance. (7)Right now, we are relatively sure that mafia can't talk. If there are some noob mafia, the experienced mafia can't tell them what to watch out for. That means noob mafia are perhaps running around blind. So if I talk "coach" too much to the wrong people, or the wrong people are listening, I'll basically be putting up a set of guidelines for noob mafia to follow on day 1. But, it depends on the question. If I think there's no harm in answering a question, I'll answer it. Secondly, I don't keep people on edge with empty accusations. I haven't accused anyone of anything. I've simply asked you and others a few questions. Am I putting you on edge with simple questions?

About the graph I posted, this was in the game of thrones game, where Mafia won without losing a single member. I was on a secondary faction along with Rol. I told the town who every single member of the mafia was, yet they were misled by hatmoza and some bad noob townies. The mafia was:
Noctis
Stefl
Hatmoza
Kantor
Mantle

Now look again how the aggressions carry out. The only person a mafia defended was a townie. This day was a choice to lynch between spurge and mantle. Out of the three people being aggressive toward mantle, two were mafia. Out of the four people attacking spurge, 3 were mafia. The most accusations were by both spurge and stefl. Stefl targeted 2 mafia and spurge. Spurge targeted 2 mafia and 1 secondary scum faction. Notice that there are votes everywhere. This is kind of typical mafia. Had mantle been lynched, and he almost was, it could've broken open the whole game, as it would've reversed all the suspicion spurge was getting and given him the confidence to pursue his other choices. Unfortunately, Rol had already stepped forward as a target. Everyone knew he had to go at some point, and hatmoza took control of the conversation and everyone voted for rol that day.

This is why it's important to look at what people are doing, and why day 1 is so incredibly important to the game.

At (1). That doesn’t really explain it though. It would be a great explanation if I had said “I don’t understand how you can deduce someone knows something from someone who’s obviously never played before making general statements or claiming things as fact.” I fail to see how asking if something is true or not, or how the mechanics of how something works signifies that an assumption has been made by the person asking said questions. I cannot see evidence of any kind of assumption unless a statement is made. I do not understand how asking if something is always true or not equates to saying something is always true or not. There is a distinction there and I find it very strange that someone who focuses so much on semantics fails to see that distinction. Unless they are intentionally ignoring that distinction in order to obfuscate things.

(2) I see no evidence of any kind of assumption in any of your questions asked here or in (3), (4), and (5). However in all the strike through areas we can see evidence of assumption. You make many statements as if they are facts. The first strike through area however is clearly opinion likely based on wrong or incomplete information so it’s not really fair to say there are any assumptions there or damning statements of fact. Just opinion based off limited information. I will say however that it is alarming that you would give them so much undue praise. I mean you give someone a lot of praise that turns out to be mafia, and then you give even more praise to a townie? Was it to downplay the fact that you gave praise to a mafia member? Either way giving someone so much praise just gives me the impression that all three of you have each other’s back. Also just out of curiosity what does SK mean? Also what does vote inactive/inacting him mean precisely and are there similar rules in place in this game?

So that’s what I think of the above quote. Thanks for sharing it and putting it all together. It was very informative. Was I right? From the looks of it I’d say the mafia was the ones to make the most accusations on that day. Granted some of those were at fellow Mafia but it looks like the ones who pointed the finger most were in fact was mafia. In that game on that day it happened to be stefl. It also seemed like for the most part according to that chart that a good majority of those that were quiet/not actively suspecting others were townies. This seems to undermine/contradict your statements and fears of those in this game that are currently quiet.

 

Also sorry for taking so long to respond, I was busy most of yesterday and last night with a close friend. Been reading and rereading everything here so far today. So I’m definitely analyzing everything said from everyone closely. I'm also at the office knee deep in work so this is all taking me awhile to get through. 

At italic@underlined I understand that. However it wouldn’t be “coaching” to clear up confusion and answer questions related to the basic mechanics of the game. Coaching would be if I had asked the best way to tell if someone is mafia or what kind of behavior to look out for. So I don’t see a reason why you wouldn’t answer those questions unless you think that other new players might be just as confused about them. It just seems manipulative to me, and it’s not like we can’t ask WoW for those answers which is unfortunately what I’ve had to do. It just seems to me like it would be easier and better for everyone to answer them instead of withholding that info and making those that don’t know wait for a response from WoW if they even think to ask.  

This next paragraph is for you and Padib. To be frank I started this game on edge. It’s my first time playing a mafia game. I’m completely alone and I can’t trust anyone. Especially since I don’t really know anyone here that well and don’t know how you all think. I don’t know who the other townies are but they are depending on me to help find out who the mafia is, vote them out, and not screw up and get taken out by mistake. So no I wouldn’t say either of you are putting me on edge, I started on edge but I did feel like you were backing me into a corner, twisting what I said, and trying to make a scapegoat out of me. Prof. you actually helped ease some of my initial edginess, I’ll why a little later in the post. The accusations were absolutely empty. I’m not saying they weren’t valid inquiries. However they were like empty calories doing more harm than good.  It’s not like I made any claims or statements of fact, if I had then they would have some merit. I asked for clarification and understanding. Instead of clearing up that confusion the information was withheld and my questions were twisted and treated like statements of fact. Oh I also used “Them” instead of “he” because at the time I hadn’t had a good look at WoW’s profile yet so I didn’t know he was male or female and didn’t want to offend him.  I see now I should have taken more time with that post and simply checked WoW’s profile instead of rushing it and making a mistake. I should have also just asked WoW my questions about what I was confused about.

 

 

At the time you posted that helpful graph you had the most activity which I believe was mostly accusations. I had the second most activity and we both had roughly the same amount of posts according to the info Smeags provided. Meanwhile everyone else was pretty tight lipped. I don’t know why that is but if I had known my questions would be ignored and treated like statements of fact instead of questions then I probably would have kept my mouth shut. Maybe others thought the same or maybe they were enjoying the show. Again I don’t know. I do agree with Padib though people should be given a chance to relax. Otherwise other townies may make an unnecessary mistake and the mafia might clam up. Not easy to relax if your accused of being guilty for not talking enough or having your words twisted when ya do speak. I am glad since I posted last that people have relaxed some and been more talkative I’ve noticed some substantial slips I’ll go over in a bit. For now I would like to look at some things from Prof.   

 

theprof00 said: 
Ok so the noobs so far who can't be trusted are khan, wright, and rct. Any others?

You intentionally lied and called RCT a noob when you knew he wasn't. It's very supiscious because it's dihonest, and more manipulative behavior. Now you could be a townie, tho I'm starting to believe that less and less, and you simply wanted to get a reaction out of him. However there are other ways of getting people to talk that don't involve lying to everyone. You could be a mafia and you were goading him into a responce because you need him to engage you. You've already accused him of being guilty for not talking which is an empty accusation. Your own graph from your first game underminds your claim that if they are quiet they are suspicious. On that day most of the townies were inactive. Of all the people inactive only one was mafia. Of the people making accusations 4 were mafia and only 3 were townies. If history repeats itself then those making the most accusations are the most suspicious. So if you are mafia you need him to engage you so you can manipulate his words and find reasons to accuse him. If you are a fellow townie your job is to be honest, find the truth, and try to find the liars. You want people to be at ease and let their guard down and let something substantial slip that shows they are lying. If you are a townie then it should be more difficult for you to want to lie. If you are mafia then it is your job to lie and manipulate. You want to keep people as agitated and uneasy as possible that way they make more mistakes you can exploit. You also want to keep as many people accused that arn't mafia as possible that way no one is looking at you. Since it's your job to lie and manipulate it become second nature so it becomes easier to want to lie and manipulate.    

 

 

theprof00 said:
Ikepor, 
Have you been following along? Now that we know mafia can talk during the day, what are your thoughts regarding the players so far?

theprof00 said:
Ike
I had a problem that maybe you can help me with. Earlier nickels made a good point that if mafia are talking to each other in their Quicktopic then maybe pro mafia are giving noob mafia tips on what to respond. Given that assumption, how best should we provide about today? Go after inactive people, or look for people who are repeating what others say? Got any ideas? Im just asking you specifically because it seems like you've been following along and I'd like to see a little more input.

At the italics. As you said semantics are important. I did not make a point. I asked a sting of questions based on ignorance and a misunderstanding of how the game works. There were no statements or arguments. Just questions seeking understanding.  As someone that focuses on semantics I find it hard to believe you continue to fail to see the distinction. Unless it was to intentionally obfuscate things. Both of these quotes come off as a substantial slip. What happened between (7) in your first quote at the top of this page and these two quotes here? You went from "Right now, we are relatively sure that mafia can't talk." Which would be true if you were a townie because all we know is WoW's words here:

Words Of Wisdom said:

Setup Clarification

Mafia are only allowed to chat during nights.  There are non-standard roles that subvert this rule. 

As one would surmise, I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of such roles ( or any others ) in this setup.

All we know so far is that mafia can talk at night. WoW did not and could not confirm that there are roles that subvert that. So how do you know? How do you now magically know that they can talk during the day? It's not possible for us to know that. Yet now you say twice and assume twice that you know Mafia can talk during the day. If you were a townie there is no way you could know that. So here is substantial slip #1

 

theprof00 said:
Cont.
there can't be ten mafia! I mean sure maybe there are 1 or 2 in there but there's so little to go off of that we might as well just focus on the other five. Those ten talking about nothing looks like a headache.

Do you see how this predicament unfolds? 

Look you asked which is more suspicious, talkative and active or silent. Neither silence nor activity is suspicious. What's suspicious is standing on the sideline. ACTIVELY talking about nothing,or SILENT about their convictions.



This is substantial slip #2. How do you know we can't have 10 mafia, and how do you know we should be looking for 5? My understanding is the rule of the game is informed minority Vs. uninformed majority. There are 15 of us I don't know but I'm not about to discount the possibility that there could be multiple factions. In a PM WoW said it was possible but gave another red herring like with talking day/night and niether confrimed or denied its existance in this game. In your first game that you shared you were in a seperate faction. So the most we can know is that it's a possibilty. If it was broken down into 3 factions it would still follow the rule of the game so long as none of the factions know who each other are. It would make sense considering his "usually" comment as well as this quote.

Words Of Wisdom said:

Your only Day action is voting unless you have some sort of role that allows you another action during the day.

You have no Night action unless you are Mafia / Scum or you have some sort of power role that allows action during the night.

 Notice the Mafia / Scum? I don't know but that could be a clue that there is a faction called Mafia and a faction called Scum. So we don't know it can or can't be 10. Also how do you know we should be looking for 5? Why not 7 or 9? How is it you magically know that there can't be 10 and that we should be looking for 5? Looks like another slip to me.

theprof00 said:
Well wright, we dont actually have to lynch anyone ever. We can just let the mafia kill one town I each night and not try and kill them. Thats a fair strategy.

Why the chnage in heart? Before you were all gung ho and adamant that someone needed to be kicked out first day. I looked at the posts between the two to see if I could conclude a reason and from what I saw some people started looking at you and accusing you. You then posted that lovely graph/history from your first game that contradicts and undermines your claims and reasons for accusing 90% of the people you've accused so far. Then people start talking about their characters and you did something really suspicious by parroting Noname and claiming that the characters don't matter because of fake claims and that WoW said that a character being good or bad in game doesn't mean they will be here. Not an invalid point but if they didn't matter why include the fake claims? That suggests they do matter. Granted WoW did a good character may or may not be good but I think they also said they could not confirm nor deny it. So another red herring. So the only way you could know that was true is if you were a Mafia with a good character. So that makes me suspicious of NoName. Consider this an official FOS on you. As for Prof I think all of that made you a bit worry which caused you to have a subconscious slip. Granted this is not a substantial slip but it is very suspicious.

 

Earlier I said you made me feel less edgy. That's because since day one of day one I have dreaded the first vote. Part of me still doesn't want to vote because I’m terrified of voting for the wrong person. So I have to thank you because I have learned a lot from you and you have made it quite obvious you are Mafia. You have lied, manipulated, obfuscated, made unfounded claims that were discredited by your history which I am thankful that you shared. You've baselessly accused everyone so far and you've slipped more than once stating information as fact that we townies cannot know. Yet you acted as if they were common knowledge in this game. So I'm sorry because you would be a great asset if you were a townie and I have to listen to my gut and it is screaming that you are Mafia.

 

This is my official vote for theprof00

Also Padib for now consider my FOS off of you. Your responce to me seemed very townie and I agree that people need to be relaxed which is the opposite of what prof has been doing.

   



http://www.youtube.com/v/AoOOpLpcF28 http://www.youtube.com/v/CphFZGH5030

All Hail the Jester King. The King is back, and I am still a dirty girl prof ;)

theprof00 said:
padib said:
theprof00 said:

Can you rewrite this? I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying agree with ME (prof) AND Outlaw? And who is parroting? Sentence is very unclear.

Apologies for my crap english sometimes.

I agree with Smeags, you and outlaw regarding the downsides of a no-lynch on day 1. I felt that Smeags' post supporting you and outlaw's argument against no-lynch on day 1 was a parrot post.

Ah, thanks gotcha.

Also, just to correct you, you mentioned WIFOM earlier. The word you were looking for was null-tell. WIFOM is different.

No prob ;)

Cool, null-tell is a good term too. I think WIFOM is used for null-tell also, but more from a reverse psychology point of view. It comes from this analogy I took from mafiascum:

The term WIFOM (short for Wine In Front Of Me) is named for this scene in the 1987 movie The Princess Bride:

Westley: "All right: where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right and who is dead."
Vizzini: "But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you. Are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet, or his enemy's?"

In situations such as the movie scenario mentioned above, one often may try to use what he knows of his opponent to make a better choice. However, in some cases this leads to recursive reasoning: "But that's just what he wants me to think, so I'll do the opposite. But maybe that's what he wants me to think, so I'll not do the opposite. But maybe that's what he wants me to think..."

So for example in this case Spurge is trying to decide what to think of Smeags using what he knows about smeags, but he can't be sure if Smeags would be doing it as town or as scum, where Smeags could be changing his town meta to trick Spurge, but then he could also be doing it because he might want Spurge to think that he's doing it and hence think the opposite might be true.

WIFOM is based on reverse psychology so not only is it hard to explain clearly, but it's hard for me to even fully explain my understanding of it :P I think it's a null-tell that is based on reverse psychology (e.g. "He know I think he will do that so he will do it anyways/not do it").



Around the Network
Nicklesbe said:

- Reasoning -

This is my official vote for theprof00

- Reasoning -   

I understand that you're upset and distressed about his playstyle, but it's only the 3rd "Meat" day and we have 7 "Meat" days until the end of game day 1.

Sometimes when a user makes us paranoid, we zero in on that user and lose focus of the many other users in the game.

I respect your vote, but I'd like to encourage you to expand your horizons and look at the less obvious players in the game. Keep your notes on prof close to your chest, and try prying open the less open clams.



padib said:
Nicklesbe said:

- Reasoning -

This is my official vote for theprof00

- Reasoning -   

I understand that you're upset and distressed about his playstyle, but it's only the 3rd "Meat" day and we have 7 "Meat" days until the end of game day 1.

Sometimes when a user makes us paranoid, we zero in on that user and lose focus of the many other users in the game.

I respect your vote, but I'd like to encourage you to expand your horizons and look at the less obvious players in the game. Keep your notes on prof close to your chest, and try prying open the less open clams.

I've read and reread every post from everyone 20 times now. Frankly I have my suspicions of a few pople and subsided suspicion of a few others. I thank you and appreciate your adive and I will keep it close in future days. However prof has posted the most and has had the most that needed to be examined. If it wasn't for the major slips stating things that he should not know as fact added with all the accumulated suspicion and behavior then I would not be voting for him.



http://www.youtube.com/v/AoOOpLpcF28 http://www.youtube.com/v/CphFZGH5030

All Hail the Jester King. The King is back, and I am still a dirty girl prof ;)

Nicklesbe said:
padib said:
Nicklesbe said:

- Reasoning -

This is my official vote for theprof00

- Reasoning -   

I understand that you're upset and distressed about his playstyle, but it's only the 3rd "Meat" day and we have 7 "Meat" days until the end of game day 1.

Sometimes when a user makes us paranoid, we zero in on that user and lose focus of the many other users in the game.

I respect your vote, but I'd like to encourage you to expand your horizons and look at the less obvious players in the game. Keep your notes on prof close to your chest, and try prying open the less open clams.

I've read and reread every post from everyone 20 times now. Frankly I have my suspicions of a few pople and subsided suspicion of a few others. I thank you and appreciate your adive and I will keep it close in future days. However prof has posted the most and has had the most that needed to be examined. If it wasn't for the major slips stating things that he should not know as fact added with all the accumulated suspicion and behavior then I would not be voting for him.

It's my pleasure to help you, as promised.

Try to keep in mind the question, "what is the added benefit of my action?". For example, in this case, though you may be totally convinced that prof is scum, what will your vote on him do for the good of town, will it allow other players to open up or will it zone town's focus more on prof, while we know that a talking prof could lead to town errors (like you showed by your case on yourself earlier). Do you believe that your vote on prof will help bait mafia into an easy lynch, will you observe them? Given that the day is relatively young, what about the option of voting for another user to put some pressure in order to extract ideas, and moving your vote on prof later in the day?

I'm not saying I'm right or you're right, and I'm glad you took my advice positively more as food for thought than anything else. Remember, even if you are very convinced about an idea, it might be more advantageous to make a personal note about it than reveal it immediately. As an example, I revealed my scum tell on Smeags at a strategic moment, not when I had the scum tell.



I'M CAPITALIZING AND UNDERLINING TO MAKE SURE YOU READ THIS FIRST.
(my responses will be under your paragraphs in underline)  

At (1). That doesn’t really explain it though. It would be a great explanation if I had said “I don’t understand how you can deduce someone knows something from someone who’s obviously never played before making general statements or claiming things as fact.” I fail to see how asking if something is true or not, or how the mechanics of how something works signifies that an assumption has been made by the person asking said questions. I cannot see evidence of any kind of assumption unless a statement is made. I do not understand how asking if something is always true or not equates to saying something is always true or not. There is a distinction there and I find it very strange that someone who focuses so much on semantics fails to see that distinction. Unless they are intentionally ignoring that distinction in order to obfuscate things.

I won't just give you an example, I'll tell you exactly how I can. You made an assumption that talking was an action. This led me to believe that possibly you have different info from myself. In fact, you said that perhaps people couldn't talk because they were using a different action. Now yes, it could be explained by you simply not knowing what an action is...but there's also the possibility that you have an action allowing talking at night. I checked my action card, and nope, there is nothing there about talking during the day. So I was really very confused as to why you would just 'assume' that talking was an action. How did you expect that actions were being goverened? If someone talks while doing an action, Words kills them? There was a possibility that you slipped. I took the chance to ask you further.

(2) I see no evidence of any kind of assumption in any of your questions asked here or in (3), (4), and (5). However in all the strike through areas we can see evidence of assumption. You make many statements as if they are facts. The first strike through area however is clearly opinion likely based on wrong or incomplete information so it’s not really fair to say there are any assumptions there or damning statements of fact. Just opinion based off limited information. I will say however that it is alarming that you would give them so much undue praise. I mean you give someone a lot of praise that turns out to be mafia, and then you give even more praise to a townie? Was it to downplay the fact that you gave praise to a mafia member? Either way giving someone so much praise just gives me the impression that all three of you have each other’s back. Also just out of curiosity what does SK mean? Also what does vote inactive/inacting him mean precisely and are there similar rules in place in this game?

Then you don't have the ability to notice clear factual statements. It's in 3. I asked if we can only block others. My action was roleblocker. I applied roleblocking to everyone. I thought everyone could roleblock. I literally gave away my role in my second post. Also I didn't say anything as fact, I said "i think" and yes, i had no idea how the game worked so I said a lot of weird stuff. Undue praise? Have each other's back? Who are you talking about? SK is serial killer, a third party faction that is basically a one man mafia. And no, during the game they created fake rules about inactivity being goverend by votes. It's really too much to explain right here.

So that’s what I think of the above quote. Thanks for sharing it and putting it all together. It was very informative. Was I right? From the looks of it I’d say the mafia was the ones to make the most accusations on that day. Granted some of those were at fellow Mafia but it looks like the ones who pointed the finger most were in fact was mafia. In that game on that day it happened to be stefl. It also seemed like for the most part according to that chart that a good majority of those that were quiet/not actively suspecting others were townies. This seems to undermine/contradict your statements and fears of those in this game that are currently quiet.

 Hmm I already summed up the graph, but no, spurge actually had the most accusations and he was town. The point of the graph was to show that connections are important. Mafia defended townies, mafia accused mafia, townies accused everyone. Yes, it would seem to undermine if you were right...but you're not. And the most quiet one was Hatmoza. He was the mastermind of that game. Also, don't confuse yourself on what the graph is. It's not a graph of activity, it's a graph of accusations. Spurge had something like 80 posts that day, vs kantor who had like 5.

Also sorry for taking so long to respond, I was busy most of yesterday and last night with a close friend. Been reading and rereading everything here so far today. So I’m definitely analyzing everything said from everyone closely. I'm also at the office knee deep in work so this is all taking me awhile to get through. 

I understand that. No need to apologize.

At italic@underlined I understand that. However it wouldn’t be “coaching” to clear up confusion and answer questions related to the basic mechanics of the game. Coaching would be if I had asked the best way to tell if someone is mafia or what kind of behavior to look out for. So I don’t see a reason why you wouldn’t answer those questions unless you think that other new players might be just as confused about them. It just seems manipulative to me, and it’s not like we can’t ask WoW for those answers which is unfortunately what I’ve had to do. It just seems to me like it would be easier and better for everyone to answer them instead of withholding that info and making those that don’t know wait for a response from WoW if they even think to ask.  

Like I explained above in 1) there was EXACTLY a question related to mechanics that looked important to me. Like I said, if I think a question is justified, I'll answer it.

This next paragraph is for you and Padib. To be frank I started this game on edge. It’s my first time playing a mafia game. I’m completely alone and I can’t trust anyone. Especially since I don’t really know anyone here that well and don’t know how you all think. I don’t know who the other townies are but they are depending on me to help find out who the mafia is, vote them out, and not screw up and get taken out by mistake. So no I wouldn’t say either of you are putting me on edge, I started on edge but I did feel like you were backing me into a corner, twisting what I said, and trying to make a scapegoat out of me. Prof. you actually helped ease some of my initial edginess, I’ll why a little later in the post. The accusations were absolutely empty. I’m not saying they weren’t valid inquiries. However they were like empty calories doing more harm than good.  It’s not like I made any claims or statements of fact, if I had then they would have some merit. I asked for clarification and understanding. Instead of clearing up that confusion the information was withheld and my questions were twisted and treated like statements of fact. Oh I also used “Them” instead of “he” because at the time I hadn’t had a good look at WoW’s profile yet so I didn’t know he was male or female and didn’t want to offend him.  I see now I should have taken more time with that post and simply checked WoW’s profile instead of rushing it and making a mistake. I should have also just asked WoW my questions about what I was confused about.

 It's no problem. The accusations WERE hollow. But, they got you talking, and I now have a read on you. All I've done is FoS you, which is very low on the suspicion scale. I don't believe you're mafia because of how you've reacted to my questions. I'm pretty confident you're town. Just as I'm pretty confident that sparks is town, and one or two others who I don't want to talk about yet. Also we already clarified the ":them" thing. No need to bring it up again.

At the time you posted that helpful graph you had the most activity which I believe was mostly accusations. I had the second most activity and we both had roughly the same amount of posts according to the info Smeags provided. Meanwhile everyone else was pretty tight lipped. I don’t know why that is but if I had known my questions would be ignored and treated like statements of fact instead of questions then I probably would have kept my mouth shut. Maybe others thought the same or maybe they were enjoying the show. Again I don’t know. I do agree with Padib though people should be given a chance to relax. Otherwise other townies may make an unnecessary mistake and the mafia might clam up. Not easy to relax if your accused of being guilty for not talking enough or having your words twisted when ya do speak. I am glad since I posted last that people have relaxed some and been more talkative I’ve noticed some substantial slips I’ll go over in a bit. For now I would like to look at some things from Prof.   

 Thing is, I haven't accused you that much. People demanded to hear my reasoning so I gave it. I try not to let people know who I suspect unless I need to, and unfortunately, everyone is demanding to know why I'm asking questions. Not my fault. Also, your post count was high because I was talking to you. Funny how that works, huh? Anyone can do it, but nobody does.

theprof00 said: 
Ok so the noobs so far who can't be trusted are khan, wright, and rct. Any others?

You intentionally lied and called RCT a noob when you knew he wasn't. It's very supiscious because it's dihonest, and more manipulative behavior. Now you could be a townie, tho I'm starting to believe that less and less, and you simply wanted to get a reaction out of him. However there are other ways of getting people to talk that don't involve lying to everyone. You could be a mafia and you were goading him into a responce because you need him to engage you. You've already accused him of being guilty for not talking which is an empty accusation. Your own graph from your first game underminds your claim that if they are quiet they are suspicious. On that day most of the townies were inactive. Of all the people inactive only one was mafia. Of the people making accusations 4 were mafia and only 3 were townies. If history repeats itself then those making the most accusations are the most suspicious. So if you are mafia you need him to engage you so you can manipulate his words and find reasons to accuse him. If you are a fellow townie your job is to be honest, find the truth, and try to find the liars. You want people to be at ease and let their guard down and let something substantial slip that shows they are lying. If you are a townie then it should be more difficult for you to want to lie. If you are mafia then it is your job to lie and manipulate. You want to keep people as agitated and uneasy as possible that way they make more mistakes you can exploit. You also want to keep as many people accused that arn't mafia as possible that way no one is looking at you. Since it's your job to lie and manipulate it become second nature so it becomes easier to want to lie and manipulate.    

I didn't want a reaction from RCT, I wanted a reaction from somenoe who was following the game. I don't think RCT actually believes I'm scum. I think he understands it's day 1, and it's sort of enough. I actually trust him as town. That kind of knee jerk reaction doesn't befit mafia.

My own graph undermines me? You aren't even correct about the graph. Just again, it's not an activity graph, it's a accusation graph. Activity is a number, not a direction. And yes, again, you're misinterpreting the point of the graph. And look, making people feel comfortable doesn't help them slip. That's completely backwards thinking.

Lastly, I haven't lied once for my own gain. I've made statements that possibly had false info....but what's more important, that I lied, or that I proved that someone was lying?  Now, as far as Ike, I don't think he's mafia. I read his lie as a simple human lie, not a lie of passion. I haven't once tried to push for him as a lynch candidate, even though I knew he lied to me.

 

theprof00 said:
Ikepor, 
Have you been following along? Now that we know mafia can talk during the day, what are your thoughts regarding the players so far?

theprof00 said:
Ike
I had a problem that maybe you can help me with. Earlier nickels made a good point that if mafia are talking to each other in their Quicktopic then maybe pro mafia are giving noob mafia tips on what to respond. Given that assumption, how best should we provide about today? Go after inactive people, or look for people who are repeating what others say? Got any ideas? Im just asking you specifically because it seems like you've been following along and I'd like to see a little more input.

At the italics. As you said semantics are important. I did not make a point. I asked a sting of questions based on ignorance and a misunderstanding of how the game works. There were no statements or arguments. Just questions seeking understanding.  As someone that focuses on semantics I find it hard to believe you continue to fail to see the distinction. Unless it was to intentionally obfuscate things. Both of these quotes come off as a substantial slip. What happened between (7) in your first quote at the top of this page and these two quotes here? You went from "Right now, we are relatively sure that mafia can't talk." Which would be true if you were a townie because all we know is WoW's words here:

Words Of Wisdom said:

Setup Clarification

Mafia are only allowed to chat during nights.  There are non-standard roles that subvert this rule. 

As one would surmise, I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of such roles ( or any others ) in this setup.

All we know so far is that mafia can talk at night. WoW did not and could not confirm that there are roles that subvert that. So how do you know? How do you now magically know that they can talk during the day? It's not possible for us to know that. Yet now you say twice and assume twice that you know Mafia can talk during the day. If you were a townie there is no way you could know that. So here is substantial slip #1

You literally just asked this already above. I'll asnwer it again. I do not know if mafia can day talk or not. I wanted to see if Ike was following the game so I made a contrarian statement. He said he was. He wasn't.

theprof00 said:
Cont.
there can't be ten mafia! I mean sure maybe there are 1 or 2 in there but there's so little to go off of that we might as well just focus on the other five. Those ten talking about nothing looks like a headache.

Do you see how this predicament unfolds? 

Look you asked which is more suspicious, talkative and active or silent. Neither silence nor activity is suspicious. What's suspicious is standing on the sideline. ACTIVELY talking about nothing,or SILENT about their convictions.

This is substantial slip #2. How do you know we can't have 10 mafia, and how do you know we should be looking for 5? My understanding is the rule of the game is informed minority Vs. uninformed majority. There are 15 of us I don't know but I'm not about to discount the possibility that there could be multiple factions. In a PM WoW said it was possible but gave another red herring like with talking day/night and niether confrimed or denied its existance in this game. In your first game that you shared you were in a seperate faction. So the most we can know is that it's a possibilty. If it was broken down into 3 factions it would still follow the rule of the game so long as none of the factions know who each other are. It would make sense considering his "usually" comment as well as this quote.

I wasn't saying that in my own voice, I was narrating how a player's thought unfold when there is nothing but flavor talk. Get it?

Words Of Wisdom said:

Your only Day action is voting unless you have some sort of role that allows you another action during the day.

You have no Night action unless you are Mafia / Scum or you have some sort of power role that allows action during the night.

 Notice the Mafia / Scum? I don't know but that could be a clue that there is a faction called Mafia and a faction called Scum. So we don't know it can or can't be 10. Also how do you know we should be looking for 5? Why not 7 or 9? How is it you magically know that there can't be 10 and that we should be looking for 5? Looks like another slip to me.

Scum is a general word for any anti-town aligned faction. mafia is mafia, sk is serial killer, cult is cult, scum is all of them. You don't know how many factions there are. Neither do I. What I do know is that in every single game that has ever been played here, town has ALWAYS been more than 60% of the players, and in the vast majority of games, the breakdown is always 3 to 1. That's three townies for every mafia. Look it up on mafiascumwiki

theprof00 said:
Well wright, we dont actually have to lynch anyone ever. We can just let the mafia kill one town I each night and not try and kill them. Thats a fair strategy.

Why the chnage in heart? Before you were all gung ho and adamant that someone needed to be kicked out first day. I looked at the posts between the two to see if I could conclude a reason and from what I saw some people started looking at you and accusing you. You then posted that lovely graph/history from your first game that contradicts and undermines your claims and reasons for accusing 90% of the people you've accused so far. Then people start talking about their characters and you did something really suspicious by parroting Noname and claiming that the characters don't matter because of fake claims and that WoW said that a character being good or bad in game doesn't mean they will be here. Not an invalid point but if they didn't matter why include the fake claims? That suggests they do matter. Granted WoW did a good character may or may not be good but I think they also said they could not confirm nor deny it. So another red herring. So the only way you could know that was true is if you were a Mafia with a good character. So that makes me suspicious of NoName. Consider this an official FOS on you. As for Prof I think all of that made you a bit worry which caused you to have a subconscious slip. Granted this is not a substantial slip but it is very suspicious.

It's called sarcasm? Parroting noname? Ummm no. You think it's suspicious that I want to get people playing the game and stop assing around talking about nothing? You think I'm just parroting noname? Do remember that I'm the one ACTIVELY getting people talking. I don't just say I want activity, I'm creating it.

 

Earlier I said you made me feel less edgy. That's because since day one of day one I have dreaded the first vote. Part of me still doesn't want to vote because I’m terrified of voting for the wrong person. So I have to thank you because I have learned a lot from you and you have made it quite obvious you are Mafia. You have lied, manipulated, obfuscated, made unfounded claims that were discredited by your history which I am thankful that you shared. You've baselessly accused everyone so far and you've slipped more than once stating information as fact that we townies cannot know. Yet you acted as if they were common knowledge in this game. So I'm sorry because you would be a great asset if you were a townie and I have to listen to my gut and it is screaming that you are Mafia.

 

This is my official vote for theprof00

Also Padib for now consider my FOS off of you. Your responce to me seemed very townie and I agree that people need to be relaxed which is the opposite of what prof has been doing.

   

Rookie of the year ladies and gentlemen.



Fuck, under the words of wisdom quote box, the second paragraph is supposed to be underlined. Also the vote is supposed to be unbolded.