House Dondarrion Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Went back to see why else I should vote for Sunny and saw this. I laughed a little because this is exactly how Sunglass is playing this game. Other than that - not a whole heck of a lot. Even if he's not an FM, there's not much lost by cutting this deadweight. Uh, there is much lost. We lose an innocent (assuming he's an innocent). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Connington Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Like we weren't expecting to lose an innocent on day 1 But the point is, I think he has as good a chance of being an FM as anyone I've looked at so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Upcliff Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 I'd say Oakheart's deader deadweight than Sunglass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Connington Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 If I thought Oakheart had a chance in hell of responding, I'd be looking at him too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Corbray Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Sunglasses last post bumped him up on my suspicions list. He voted early for Sarsfield during the first flurry of non-jokey voting, and now he's finding (weak) reasons to justify keeping the vote there. He may truly have suspicions, but it looks more like a fear of flip-flopping to me. That's ridiculous. Why should I be afraid of changing my vote on day one? Everyone and their cat has done it a dozen times without attracting suspicion. Fear of flip-lopping? Please... And I happen to like my reasons for voting, thank you very much. Went back to see why else I should vote for Sunny and saw this. I laughed a little because this is exactly how Sunglass is playing this game. Other than that - not a whole heck of a lot. Even if he's not an FM, there's not much lost by cutting this deadweight. Just because you post a lot doesn't mean you're "valuable" (whatever that means in this game). You could easily be a FM or a deputy symp. Your last point, which you repeat in your most recent post is scary. Don't worry about lynching the innocents town! It isn't too much of a deal when they post little or when it's day one. We can lynch some innocents the first few days and then worry about the FM (if they haven't won the game already). A great strategy Prester. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dondarrion Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 If I thought Oakheart had a chance in hell of responding, I'd be looking at him too. You gotta think positive sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Upcliff Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 If I thought Oakheart had a chance in hell of responding, I'd be looking at him too. Then wouldn't he be the better person to lynch on the charge of being entirely useless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Frey Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 N O R C R O S S I LOVE YOU Wynch, don't expect too much. No connection between your personality and my choice for voting at all :-P First of all, as I haven't received an answer from the Game Mod yet: is there any thread or some kind of a glossary with all these abbreviations you use here? I could only understand the FM abbreviation stands for a Tarbeck or Reyne, but there are more like CF and something I don't really get :-( Secondly, I just tried to make some logics, and don't please be annoyed or mad if they are wrong. As during the day 1 the only players to know some other roles are "evils" and "sympathisers", I think we should check if someone's really protecting someone from being lynched. Of course one could always do it if saw some absolutely unfair accusations, but I assume people are generally lazy enough not to try to protect someone unless they're interested in saving that person. Does that make sense? If it does, I'll try to find anyone who could possibly be guided by that logic. And how do you make a quote mentioning the author and the time of posting? Something special must be done with that Add Quote thing in the right bottom, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Connington Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 I, in fact, don't want to lynch an innocent. Sunglass looks just as scummy to me as Upcliff or Jast at this point - which is to say not a whole heck of a lot. He's skating by at this point (as are many others) and it's a play style I don't like, so that last comment was more my personal preference on the type of player I would rather go head to head with. If I've got, say 3 equal choices, why not go for the one that coincides with my personal preferences? Post count alone does not make one a valuable player, true. However, I haven't seen any real thought or effort from you yet, so I'm not convinced you're not expendable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Gaga Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Hi. I'm back. And I'm still keeping my vote on Sarsfield. Look at this post. He says he's suspicious of 5 different players. Two of them are voting for him, and the reasons he gives are atrociously bad. He suspects me because I'm middle-of-the-roadish (???) and Norcross because he's not convinced by his n00b routine... I'm by far not the first person to mention multiple names of suspects in their posts - they may not be the greatest reasons to suspect someone in the history of mafia but I think it gives others an indication of what type of player I'd rather we lynch today. Finally he removes his vote, for total maneuverability. I removed my vote because Upcliff was no longer a prime suspect of mine. And then here he comes and votes for a completely different person. He doesn't even give us a tangible reason (something he said, a case other player made...), but puts it down to some abstract "general behavior" nonsense. I just figured other people were capable of hitting the 'view member's posts' option themselves to see what I'm talking about. I really don't buy the cases that look at interactions between players because there's been so much playful banter in this game as to make it confusing and misguiding. As I said, I'm also not sure there's a symp. If we haven't got finders or a CF then the mods must have loaded our guns with something (hopeful thinking: innocent witch-hunter?). There isn't. The rules clearly state they're aligned with the mafia. Sort of random comments on posts since I'm late to the game and I need to go to bed. Sorry, had a busy day. Who's a ho? (HO!) I said that you's a ho..... That was it, right? Er, yeah... yeah it is. What's wrong with having multiple suspects? Apparently it's a sign of FM behavior... just like having only one suspect Seriously, I don't understand how having too many suspects is indicative of guilt in some people's minds. I'm bloody suspicious of all you bastards... Hey, Pot. I'm Kettle. I think I've stuck my head out quite a bit this game... at least enough to get 5-6 votes cast against me today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Connington Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Norcross - CF - Coroner Finder (faction is revealed upon death - not used this game) RI - Roleless innocent - player without a special role and is working for team goodness and light FM - Faceless Man (killer) We're all trying to make connections on who is defending whom and who wants who lynched. Before we can get a good grasp of things like that, we need to have people converse and throw around opinions and baseless accusations to see how people react. We also have (as a group) fairly predictable patterns of behavior for different roles - sort of. We're looking for people who fit those patterns and use it as 'proof'. For example - beware of anyone who seems to make a lot of sense and everyone thinks is probably innocent, because that is the most fearsome of foes - the helpful FM! You'll never see him coming - except you will, cause I just told you to watch for him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Connington Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 The rules clearly state they [witch-hunters] are aligned with the mafia. er .... no. I made the same mistake and Ambrose pointed out to me that the Witch-Hunter is not aligned to any specific faction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Upcliff Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 As during the day 1 the only players to know some other roles are "evils" and "sympathisers", I think we should check if someone's really protecting someone from being lynched. Of course one could always do it if saw some absolutely unfair accusations, but I assume people are generally lazy enough not to try to protect someone unless they're interested in saving that person. Does that make sense? That's the general idea. Pity no one's gotten anywhere close to being lynched. Two links for you: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?s=&am...st&p=596850 http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showt...0&hl=primer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Clegane Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 (edited by request of the mods) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Upcliff Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Apparently it's a sign of FM behavior... just like having only one suspect Seriously, I don't understand how having too many suspects is indicative of guilt in some people's minds. I'm bloody suspicious of all you bastards... It's called "keeping your options open." Now you have an excuse to vote multiple people. I don't really buy that as a sign of guilt so early in Day 1, especially one as uneventful as this, but it's a valid enough claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Mooton Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 I see that my stubborness is something suspicious for some of you. Oh, well, I am stubborn from my birht so don't expect me to change my vote every hour or two. I am not protecting anyone and I bet nobody will be lynched after the first day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Stokeworth Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Oh, unkle Prester, I am really terrible sorry, that my vote was against you, but... let's wait for a coroner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Clegane Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 I see that my stubborness is something suspicious for some of you. Oh, well, I am stubborn from my birht so don't expect me to change my vote every hour or two. I am not protecting anyone and I bet nobody will be lynched after the first day. explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Clegane Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Oh, unkle Prester, I am really terrible sorry, that my vote was against you, but... let's wait for a coroner We don't have a coroner, and also explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Upcliff Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote explain the reason for your vote The above applies to Oakheart too. ETA: Jesus, beat to the chase again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.