Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

House Targaryen

Mafia 63.5

Recommended Posts

Case on Grouchy:

Lazy votes for him early

[quote name='Lazy Smurf' post='1745011' date='Apr 4 2009, 17.52']Ok then. What is the point of this post? If you want to move from RP to serious phase (a laudable aim) then make a serious post or point out something you find suspicious. I don't like this as an attempt to gain some trust points from the group without actually contributing anything, [b]Grouchy[/b][/quote]
His reply (which is commented on later, so it is here for reference)
[quote name='Grouchy' post='1745052' date='Apr 4 2009, 18.58']Not Really. I haven't seen much suspicious yet. Maybe Vanity's 3rd vote? but I don't count the rp votes as meaning much and they are very easy to take away.[/quote]
My vote on Grouchy

[quote name='Hefty' post='1745088' date='Apr 4 2009, 19.36']I could go [b]Grouchy[/b] right now. His answer to the test question 'Do you like good?' was to explain his RP (hating everything). I know it wasn't a serious question, but Grouchy's answer was slightly defensive where it had no need to be.[/quote]
we go back and forth a little about my vote and my post calling out his response to Lazy
[quote name='Hefty' post='1745414' date='Apr 5 2009, 06.11']Well that was kind of my point. You want things to move in a serious direction, but are unwilling to start anything. You could easily have put a vote on Vanity for his third vote on me, but you took the middle of the road response. You don't have to believe it's actually suspicious or want to see Vanity lynched for it, but by putting it out there you get a response.[/quote]
Lazy agrees with me

[quote name='Lazy Smurf' post='1745438' date='Apr 5 2009, 07.36']Well, how are people meant to move from RP to serious if not by looking for serious things in the RP posts? It seems like you've been accused of defensiveness so have gone the smiley-i'm-not-bothered-by-your-comment underdefensive route to compensate. Maybe you are new or something, but that doesn't give you a pass for suspicious behaviour. I see no reason to move my vote. And Hefty is right - your comment on Vanity screams middle-of-the-road. If you are innocent, then explain that more and put a vote down and see people's reactions.[/quote]
Grouchy then tries to do some damage control by currying favor with an accuser. Granted, this is speculative, but fits a general desire for FM to not make enemies.
[quote name='Grouchy' post='1745470' date='Apr 5 2009, 08.34']While I don't agree with the direction Hefty is looking, I don't get a bad vibe from him. I'd have a problem voting off one of the few people actually trying to move the game along.[/quote]
Yet another middle-of-the-road, don't want to take a stance statement

[quote name='Grouchy' post='1745712' date='Apr 5 2009, 14.08']While I am not convinced of the case on Handy and I really don't see a connection to Harmony, I didn't like his OMGUS vote on Brainy and am willing to change my vote.[/quote]

After this his participation is minimal and limited to safe topics, but he is around. Again, could fit the pattern of an FM trying to get out of the spotlight and stay low. Subjective, but could be relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Hefty' post='1746548' date='Apr 6 2009, 08.11']Handy, why did you chose Lazy to watch?

I have a question - want to make sure I'm reading the guard role right.

So in order for a guard to be able to use his power, it has to be someone he voted for. If more than 1 other player votes for that person, he can't use it, right?

I think perhaps we should be careful with our votes if this is the case. How can we give the guard (if he exists) the widest possible range of targets without making it obvious who the guard is?[/quote]

No, it is the opposite. The guard AND at least one other player have to vote for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Handy' post='1746565' date='Apr 6 2009, 14.30']Brainy, I don't suspect you. You just seem to be playing a different game from the rest of us, and that smurfs me.[/quote]
Well, you aren't alone, a few players have troubles with accepting my playstyle... usually it ends closer to the final stage of a game.
[quote]Why should my repeating your stuff make it more useful?[/quote]
You won't confess of being useless yourself, I suppose? :)
[quote]The I suspect you but I won't tell you why thing refers to Grouchy, btw, not to me.[/quote]
Ah, that thing. Now I understand.
My vote on Grouchy was, in fact, just pure pressuring. I didn't suspect him seriously at the moment, I only wanted to get some reactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't thinks so ...

... but only if at [u]most[/u] one other smurf did vote for him.

Most is underlined, so that implies that either the guard does a solo vote, or at most can have one other vote, so 2 total. Then again Piper is a crazy German, so perhaps a clarification is in order? Also, does the intended guard target need to have only these votes on him throughout the day, or just at the end of the day tally?

Like Handy said, it's nearly unplayable. Then again, all of these roles are severely weakened so it fits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grouchy, I think you got it the wrong way round. The guard plus one other player, i.e. 2 maximm, can vote on somebody for it to work.

Brainy, I'm not useless, I'm just cursed by the mods. Seriously, Pipes, what where you smoking when you wrote the roles? They're imposible to play! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Hefty' post='1746587' date='Apr 6 2009, 08.52']I don't thinks so ...

... but only if at [u]most[/u] one other smurf did vote for him.

Most is underlined, so that implies that either the guard does a solo vote, or at most can have one other vote, so 2 total. Then again Piper is a crazy German, so perhaps a clarification is in order? Also, does the intended guard target need to have only these votes on him throughout the day, or just at the end of the day tally?

Like Handy said, it's nearly unplayable. Then again, all of these roles are severely weakened so it fits.[/quote]

That's right. It is not a single vote, but 2 votes had to be on him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Handy, of course you are not useless. But I am not also. :)

Grouchy, you found [i]perfectly right[/i] time to discuss game mechanics, didn't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Brainy' post='1746597' date='Apr 6 2009, 09.01']Handy, of course you are not useless. But I am not also. :)

Grouchy, you found [i]perfectly right[/i] time to discuss game mechanics, didn't you?[/quote]

I talk about what I know, when I am here. I am here and it is the current discussion.

The case on me is a day one rehash, all of which has been answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't have chosen Lazy to watch, but I do kind of understand the gut reaction Handy could have had to Lazy not taking his vote off of him. I'll have to check and see if he really did have doubts about Lazy during the day - I think I remember that Lazy was generally well received.

Brainy would have seemed a decent choice for Handy to watch, but I don't think Vanity or myself would have been good. We were candidates for the lynch and therefore highly suspicious at the time. an FM team would have had the other partner perform the kill so that Vanity or I would remain safely in our beds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grouchy, could you give us some tiers? You don't have to give reasons for all of the players, but it would be nice to have your views on a few of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't see anything that indicated Handy had reservations about Lazy until the reveal. Then again, the only people he really stated he had suspicions are were me and Brainy that I can see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Hefty' post='1746613' date='Apr 6 2009, 16.14']Brainy would have seemed a decent choice for Handy to watch, but I don't think Vanity or myself would have been good. We were candidates for the lynch and therefore highly suspicious at the time. an FM team would have had the other partner perform the kill so that Vanity or I would remain safely in our beds.[/quote]


Good point. I forgot about that. In the end, Lazy isn't completely cleared. But Brainy or Grouchy would still be a better option than Lazy IMO.

All the roles are severely underpowered.

Our finder role is virtually useless, though we could strike lucky, so it's really just down to our ability to play the game well and suss out suspects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yesterday I was resistant to the Vanity vote based on a gut feeling on a single comment. I have reevaluated that and going to toss that out. Vanity moves into the top tier for me along with Grouchy.

Greedy makes the case here:
(um, I don't know how to get quotes within quotes to show - is there a trick to it? Anyway, you can follow the link to get the whole post)

[quote name='Greedy' post='1745796' date='Apr 5 2009, 15.23']This post looks bad. A third joke vote on the same player brings them halfway to a lynch. And for anyone who says "Well, it doesn't matter, joke votes don't lead to a lynch", clearly it has this time.

I realise that i'm saying nothing original here, it's been brought up before, without anyone voting.



Vanity then makes no sense here.

The case on Hefty was [i]"not all that serious"[/i]? Does that imply that it was partly serious to anyone else? Surely the "all that" would be left out of the explanation if it was a total joke vote? But it clearly was a joke vote, you can't seriously vote for someone because their name is similar to someone else's name . So Vanity does not seem sure about Vanity's own joke vote.... or is trying to justify it after the fact.

Which brings us to [i]"he seems to be pouncing on every little thing"[/i], justifying the vote after the fact. Hefty was indeed pushing a case on Grouchy, which was clearly an attempt to get the came moving by yes, pouncing on a small thing. Because unless we pounce on small things on day 1 we'll never get the game moving. I don't find this supicious at all, in fact I applaud it.

Then there's [i]"I realize there isn't much to go on, but we need to look somewhere."[/i] This seems to me to contradict Vanity's own statement above. If there isn't much to go on, but we need to look somewhere, why is Hefty suspicious for pouncing on small things? Surely if there isn't much to go on, pouncing on small things is what we need to do?

I wonder if there's time to get a lynch going on [b]Vanity[/b]?[/quote]

And for reference, Vanity's defense"

[quote name='Vanity' post='1745811' date='Apr 5 2009, 15.34']Perhaps it is just a matter of language?



and when you add that to the other "issues" Heftymentioned it did seem like he was pouncing on little things. We can disagree. Neither of us were doing anything after all.


It is an admission that the case on Hefty is not very good. No shame there.[/quote]

And a counter argument from Greedy:

[quote name='Greedy' post='1745814' date='Apr 5 2009, 15.39']But my problem is that, yes, Hefty was "pouncing on little things". Yes, his case on Grouchy was rubbish. You proceed to say that your own case isn't very good, and that's OK because it's what we need to do on day 1. I agree with you, but that's what you're attacking Hefty for! You can't have it both ways.[/quote]

Smurfette agrees:

[quote name='Smurfette' post='1745829' date='Apr 5 2009, 15.46']That said, People are making good points on Vanity that aren't really being answered. On one hand, I have a similar vote for a similar case to Vanities. On the other hand, Vanity has contradicted themselves it seems, and generally seems a bit squirmy right now.

Therefore I'd be happy to compromise vote on Vanity if Hefty isn't going to swing. :)[/quote]

Vanity doesn't contribute much other than a few defense posts. He is under the radar apart from his exchanges with Greedy. He resists the Harmony case and doesn't see it as suspicious, because it's essentially the same case being made against him. He does get on the mob, but not before making sure we all know he thinks Harmony will flip innocent.

[quote name='Vanity' post='1745989' date='Apr 5 2009, 17.52']I think it is the wrong choice, but better than not lynching. [b] Harmony[/b]

At least we will have a little info with the CF result.[/quote]

That last bit is subjective and would fit in a general FM strategy. The main argument for him is the case Greedy made. His defense was meh - not great, but not horrible. I'd put Grouchy above Vanity at this point.

Vanity, same request as I put to Grouchy. Could you post some tiers and reasoning? You were pretty focused on me all day yesterday so not a lot of thoughts given on others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another thing we can't discount is that Vanity profited most from the night kill. Greedy was the first to go after him and was pretty solid on it. The only other fairly solid supporter of a Vanity lynch was Smurfette (after me) and then some lukewarm 'I could go that way's from a few others.

Yes, it's all WIFOM and we shouldn't base the case on it, but it's something to keep in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Grouchy' post='1746603' date='Apr 6 2009, 15.08']The case on me is a day one rehash, all of which has been answered.[/quote]Wrong.
The case contains at least two points which you didn't answer... and couldn't answer, since it's about your quotes from the end of day, when you weren't questioned by anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Hefty' post='1746623' date='Apr 6 2009, 15.28']I didn't see anything that indicated Handy had reservations about Lazy until the reveal. Then again, the only people he really stated he had suspicions are were me and Brainy that I can see.[/quote]

You do realise that I can't tell you who I'm going to investigate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Brainy' post='1746705' date='Apr 6 2009, 10.18']Wrong.
The case contains at least two points which you didn't answer... and couldn't answer, since it's about your quotes from the end of day, when you weren't questioned by anybody.[/quote]

Sorry. Yes...there are two "middle of the road" type statements. Things that by themselves are NOT enough to suspect someone, but something that should be kept in mind for futire references.


eta: I am leaving work in about 30 minutes and will do my tiers when I get home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Grouchy' post='1746808' date='Apr 6 2009, 17.28']Sorry. Yes...there are two "middle of the road" type statements. Things that by themselves are NOT enough to suspect someone, but something that should be kept in mind for futire references.[/quote]Are you serious?! I can remember dozens of situations where we had lynched a player for [i]one[/i] middle-road statement... and, I suppose, the percent of cases where we were right is much higher than usual FMs/innocent ratio.
Lynching for middle-roading turns up to be one of the most effective tools we have for winning a game - since intermediate scum can't excape being middle-road even if he knows it's suspicious - and now you try to convince us it is NOT enough to suspect?! Bah!
It will be good is you will give us some tiers, but I don't think it would be enough to save your... neck. Try to make a case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Brainy' post='1746562' date='Apr 6 2009, 08.27']Ok. I don't read the slow game. Now I see you really had a reason.

But I don't think explaining the kill was useful action.

Do you still suspect Hefty?[/quote]

Thanks.

Matter of opinion, as people may have overlooked the clue and therefore chased shadows.

I'm not sure. I have plenty of in front of PC time over the next 6 or 7 hours, so I'd rather take a little time to re-read everything before deciding how I feel about cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×