Jump to content

Archived

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

House Targaryen

Mafia Game 65.5: Twonnocent

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure how you came up with those teams. (Now I'm I'm trying to figure out your thought process.) However, if we're narrowing the suspect pool down to those players, then I'm going to vote Spicer. He keeps on making himself look worse and worse. I can understand someone not liking the idea of encryption. What I don't understand is why an innocent player would get this worked up over codes. Other people have been frustrated and confused by the set-up. Spicer seems furious. This reminds me a bit of Mexal's behaviour in Minigame 64.5 when half the players in the game became VPIs.

You know what I think? I think the FM realize they're the losers in the situation. The whole game has become a case of metagaming and process of elimination. They have a small number of targets on whom to make cases, but it's only a matter of time before everyone puts two and two together and narrows things down to them.

And they're fucking pissed off.

That's why Spicer's reaction worries me.

Nothing I can do against an accusation like this. I'm not pissed. I just don't like the way games are going nowadays and I especially dislike the use of encryption. It's not the first time I've argued this (as it has come in the past but wasn't used because of the arguments) and given that it's allowed, it won't be the last.

And for the record, I've already encrypted my response. If I was so worried about how it would affect me, I would have argued before I did. However, I geniunely feel this way and again, it's not something I'm going to apologize about or change.

Again, why do I feel like people read what they want to read? You vote me because I'm arguing against encryption yet you have no idea that I already encrypted a response before I started arguing.

I'm getting called middle of the road when in fact I made the first vote of the day and already said I would vote the current top target before most of the votes piled on. Yet people don't even mention that and when they do ask me to tell them my thoughts and I point out that I did, that's the end of the discussion. They move on. Yet then they come back at me for being middle of the road or for not contributing.

I'm really lost at the moment at how this is possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And really? What am I lying about? That I don't like encryption? That I think it can break games if we start using it on a regular basis? Ok. If that makes me evil, so be it.

I won't make any squirrely comments about my experience or lack of experience, but I know people used encryption software in the Discworld game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot think of one time that encryption was used.
And I can recall at least 3-4 games where it was used. Perhaps more.
And really? What am I lying about?
About encryption being never used before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I won't make any squirrely comments about my experience or lack of experience, but I know people used encryption software in the Discworld game.

That game was what, 25 games ago?

Anyway, it doesn't matter. Obviously it's not a big deal to most people so I'll stop talking about it. I've already sent in my thoughts to the spoilers so that should be enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need a few minutes to read through again, but I wanted to say I don't find Spicer's reactions odd at all. I don't even like codes so encryption is even worse in my eyes. I would have refused to do it too. Spicer is not the only one who spoke against the codes - Wagstaff did too but I don't see people running him out of town on a rail. I don't like the knee jerk reactions against Spicer.

I'll be back in a few to further re-read and contribute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And I can recall at least 3-4 games where it was used. Perhaps more.

About encryption being never used before.

Really? I categorically claimed that encryption was never used? Ok. I'm a super liar then :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure how you came up with those teams.

My process went like this: waterman claimed thorne who claimed Dalt. Dalt had questioned me so he couldn't have my name. my person and I shouldn't be recipical the way things are looking, so we are on the other team.

My team has Vickey, and me, and I have used posts to make judgements on who else is likely on my team, and that left Spicer and Melcolm to the Dalt team.

edit to add the quoate I was responding too...damn work slowing me down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't get it? And again, if you're calling me middle of the road, please explain where.

Here are a few places where you've been middle of the road.

Your response to Shawney's case on Wagstaff/Waterman -

It's noteworthy. I'm curious what Wagstaff has to say.

You say that you think the case is 'noteworthy', but don't commit to an opinion.

Your thoughts on Melcolm -

Melcolm was who I wanted to do my reread on, mainly because the Thorne kill doesn't make logical sense unless he was on to something.

My biggest problem with Melcolm is what Thorne pointed out...that all of the people he was willing to vote were people who had connections to each other. I think that seems a bit daft in a game where he knows another person from his own team.

At the same time, I had absolutely no desire to symp the person I know. If I was the only person with the information I had, I had no desire to draw attention to it. I want my team to win. Obviously that point is moot now that we know that FM are a part of the two teams, but at that time, it didn't make any sense. However, Melcolm's answer interests me as you pointed out. He said it didn't occur to him instead of saying he didn't want to do it because it might out himself, jeopordize his team, ect. It just doesn't seem like the most fitting answer for the question.

Anyway, both my case on Waterman and your case on Melcolm are still pretty weak. I feel like they're day 1 cases yet worse. I'd still vote for both though.

You start off by making a few points against Melcolm. 1) He had a reason to kill Thorne, and 2) he was saying that connections between people are suspicious, which makes no sense for an innocent in this game.

But then you make a point in his favor - though to be honest, I'm not exactly sure what you're saying there. I'm just judging from the tone and the words 'at the same time' that you think its something in his favor.

And then you conclude that the case on Melcolm is weak. But you'd still vote for him. As far as I can tell, you keep going back and forth during your post. Which is wishy washy.

Also, you admit that your own case on Waterman is weak, backtracking on that a bit.

I know about codes. I am experienced. It should be pretty obvious. I cannot think of one time that encryption was used. Actually, I can and it was when Kat used it way back when with her colored pictures. But she used it through codes. The codes were the keywords and the encrypted word was based on links. Or something like that. Either way, it was all done through posts.

Encryption has been used at least 3-4 times in past games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is day 2.

9 players remain: Dalt, Doggett, Jordayne, Melcolm, Shawney, Spicer, Vikary, Wagstaff, Waterman.

5 votes are needed for a conviction or to go to night.

3 votes for Melcolm (Wagstaff, Doggett, Dalt)

2 votes for Spicer (Vikary, Jordayne)

1 vote for Waterman (Spicer)

3 players have not voted: Melcolm, Shawney, Waterman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't even like codes so encryption is even worse in my eyes.
In fact, encryption is much better than codes, exactly for the reason that codes might be solved by some very smart player.

Any info in this game should be evenly available to everybody or to nobody, that's the spirit of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your response to Shawney's case on Wagstaff/Waterman -

You say that you think the case is 'noteworthy', but don't commit to an opinion.

Yup. There is a reason for that. It has nothing to do with being middle of the road. I chose my words very carefully there.

Your thoughts on Melcolm -

You start off by making a few points against Melcolm. 1) He had a reason to kill Thorne, and 2) he was saying that connections between people are suspicious, which makes no sense for an innocent in this game.

But then you make a point in his favor - though to be honest, I'm not exactly sure what you're saying there. I'm just judging from the tone and the words 'at the same time' that you think its something in his favor.

And then you conclude that the case on Melcolm is weak. But you'd still vote for him. As far as I can tell, you keep going back and forth during your post. Which is wishy washy.

Also, you admit that your own case on Waterman is weak, backtracking on that a bit.

Oh please. It's called being sensible. It's called thinking it out. It's called putting all my thoughts down on the table and reaching a conclusion. It was pretty much a day one case. I said what I liked about it. And then I said I'd vote for him.

My "at the same time" was directed toward Wagstaff's point that he didn't like Melcolm because he wouldn't symp the team member. I said I wouldn't either. However, what I didn't like about Melcolm was his excuse. It wasn't a good one. It was more "I didn't think to do that" instead of "I want my team to win or I don't want to give away too much information to the FM." I'm having a real hard time figuring out how that's wrong? Would the better idea have been to just say "what he said" and move on even if I agreed with his conclusions but not his reasons?

Encryption has been used at least 3-4 times in past games.

Good thing I didn't play in those games then eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm going through all of the evidence, and I'm pretty sure something doesn't add up. Hmm.

If you're talking about Doggett's list of teams, then yes, I think he may have got something wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, encryption is much better than codes, exactly for the reason that codes might be solved by some very smart player.

Any info in this game should be evenly available to everybody or to nobody, that's the spirit of the game.

Umm, can you contradict much? Encryption is better than codes because it can't be solved by a very smart player. Yet, in the spirit of the game, information should be available to everybody or nobody. So the fact that encryption can't be solved and the fact that it's not available to everybody or nobody...that makes it within the spirit of the game?

I'm so lost.

Yes. If you wanted to say something different, please be more precise.

Quote that one for me please just for my own knowledge. I don't remember saying "Encryption was never used in a mafia game before." Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're talking about Doggett's list of teams, then yes, I think he may have got something wrong.

:lol: But I worked so hard on those :P

So how would you list them?

Provided no one lied (and the risk was pretty big at the time) Waterman-Thorne-Dalt. Spicer now says there is a reason he was careful with his words on the Waterman case. I put him on that team for that wishy-washy reason. Melcom is the one I am not possitive of, but he was left over when I finished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×