Jump to content

Archived

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

House Targaryen

Mafia 72.5 - Down In The Projects

Recommended Posts

So ... you think there has been enough discussion so far to make a serious, informed vote?

Nope. But the best way to get that discussion is to place a serious vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*shrugs* You think so?

Sometimes baddies feel the need to start the game with something witty and elaborated.

As for Greggs, I doubt that showing faulty logic twice without any pressure makes her any more likely a killer than anyone else. Rather less likely IMO. I'd put my money on "careless innocent".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. But the best way to get that discussion is to place a serious vote.

Right. So why did you soft-sell it? Part of that game is not only to make a serious vote, but to stand behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I don't like the pile on Greggs for trying to prevent the SK being lynched--I'm not even sure she was serious on that point.

How do you know she wasn't serious? What part of that post comes across as joke-ish to you?

If you don't like the pile on Gregg maybe looking at what players seem to be band-wagoning would be useful.

I get why her needlessly defending me from a joke vote bothers some folks, but I don't see her drawing any attention away from the SK. It looks to me like you're jumping on the bandwagon and using the weakest point against Greggs to justify it.

This I kind of agree with, the problem is that her advice is so bad, though it's true that jumping on bad advice is easy and it's not something that FM tend to do that much anyway.

We have 12 hours, the last half of which I will be alseep. I don't find 6 hours of real discussion too much, do you? I hate the idea that we have a "not serious phase". Really, why delay the game that way? Hiding something?

How can you start the game from scratch? The purpose of the joke phase is for people to say stupid things until suddenly everyone jumps on one of said stupid things because it's stupid. If stupid things were a no-no no one would say anything. Said like that it doesn't seem to make any sense, but it does. It also makes the game slightly more social, for those who care about such things, and allows for the sensible existence of settings and alts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes baddies feel the need to start the game with something witty and elaborated.

And sometimes they don't. I'm not going to fault you for having a gut feeling from a post - it does happen. To me, however, the argument isn't persuasive right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have 12 hours, the last half of which I will be alseep. I don't find 6 hours of real discussion too much, do you? I hate the idea that we have a "not serious phase". Really, why delay the game that way? Hiding something?

Whatever you think about the idea, it's impossible for the first post of the game to be a thoughtful case against a suspicious player, a certain amount of comment needs to build up before anyone can even take a stab at a serious vote. By it's very nature that comment is likely to be trivial and constitute an easy low pressure block of play. It usually isn't difficult to pinpoint the end of this period to within a post or two. Do I really need to explain this?

My problem wasn't your vote (although I consider your actual case a little flimsy and both Rawls and Freamon made more convincing arguments about the same post), my problem is your closing sentence which seems to suggest that you consider it possible that a better case won't come along between now and the end of the day. You seem prematurely focused on getting a lynch not pushing Greggs to see if there's actually something to your case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know she wasn't serious? What part of that post comes across as joke-ish to you?

I don't think she was joking. I think she was talking about flavour and not game strategy since it's the intro text that suggests that the SK is going after the FM. Obviously the SK can't be relied on to actually go after the FM, so if she was serious it would be god awful logic.

If you don't like the pile on Gregg maybe looking at what players seem to be band-wagoning would be useful.

I did. That was the point of the post you're quoting. Of the people jumping on Greggs, Avon looks the worst. He parrots what I consider to be the weakest argument against Greggs and adds nothing new but his vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. So why did you soft-sell it? Part of that game is not only to make a serious vote, but to stand behind it.

Did you read my whole post? I had no intention of taking this vote to lynch unless he somehow freaked out in his responses. I clearly stated that I didn't think a SK would say "don't look for me" I was just sick of all the donut talk, and now the donut talk has ended.

By adding the word serious, the game got going in a much more productive direction. I am not ashamed of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is keeping the SK alive a choice that we can even make? So that we don't ignore it, someone please explain what this early game SK behavior is to me.

I have no idea what early game serial killer behavior is like, and I'm not even very good at playing this game (as opposed to The Game, in which I am quite clearly a kingpin :P) but what I meant was, I could theoretically envision a scenario in which the innocents and SK (presumably one who was about to be lynched, and revealed) colluded at the end in order to kill off the mafia, or something, but I don't think it is in the interests of the innocents to try to deliberately avoid killing the SK hoping that this situation will come up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And hey, a man must vote for someone, re-reading the thread right now to see if anything else sticks out to me now that that nasty-ass Red Bull I just drank is overcoming my drowsiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you read my whole post? I had no intention of taking this vote to lynch unless he somehow freaked out in his responses. I clearly stated that I didn't think a SK would say "don't look for me" I was just sick of all the donut talk, and now the donut talk has ended.

By adding the word serious, the game got going in a much more productive direction. I am not ashamed of that.

Who has a problem with you adding the word serious. It's these words that bothered me:

Should a better option present itself before lynch time, I'd certainly consider a change. We have a CF, so lynches are important.

That doesn't say you had no intention of taking the vote to lynch. That says that unless something better comes along you've decided to lynch Greggs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you start the game from scratch? The purpose of the joke phase is for people to say stupid things until suddenly everyone jumps on one of said stupid things because it's stupid. If stupid things were a no-no no one would say anything. Said like that it doesn't seem to make any sense, but it does. It also makes the game slightly more social, for those who care about such things, and allows for the sensible existence of settings and alts.

Whatever you think about the idea, it's impossible for the first post of the game to be a thoughtful case against a suspicious player, a certain amount of comment needs to build up before anyone can even take a stab at a serious vote. By it's very nature that comment is likely to be trivial and constitute an easy low pressure block of play. It usually isn't difficult to pinpoint the end of this period to within a post or two. Do I really need to explain this?

My problem wasn't your vote (although I consider your actual case a little flimsy and both Rawls and Freamon made more convincing arguments about the same post), my problem is your closing sentence which seems to suggest that you consider it possible that a better case won't come along between now and the end of the day. You seem prematurely focused on getting a lynch not pushing Greggs to see if there's actually something to your case.

Hope it's ok I just answer once?

It was time for the RP to end. Period. I am very well aware of the other functions of the RP, but very little of that was happening. There is a point in every game where someone says "enough" and turns the game serious. This might be one of the very few times it was me, and I will admit never having even seen a preview for the show, let alone the actual show I had NOTHING to say during the RP. It sucked to be me. :P During days I am at work and only pop in during breaks so I need to make the most of my time. Reading about donuts did nothing but make me hungry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you read my whole post? I had no intention of taking this vote to lynch unless he somehow freaked out in his responses.

The fact that you made clear this was a placeholder vote is entirely the problem I have with it. You're not going to get a freak out unless the player actually feels threatened. Your vote did not bring any pressure to bear at all. This is my point. If you make a vote, stand behind it even if you have to fake it a bit. Being 100% honest and transparent in this game is overrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the camp which thinks that people are looking too hard into what Greggs said. I don't think it is serious, and even if it were, it is clearly more misguided than suspicious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who has a problem with you adding the word serious. It's these words that bothered me:

That doesn't say you had no intention of taking the vote to lynch. That says that unless something better comes along you've decided to lynch Greggs.

I am saying exactly the OPPOSITE of that you seem to think I am saying.

You are really great at that out of context thing aren't you.

Look at the bold part:

Detective Gregg. This is a serious vote. I didn't like the way he suggested we not go after the Serial Killer. Sure the SK may kill the other bad guys, but he is just as likely to kill innocents, and since he doesn't have a partner, he's harder to track by associations.

I don't think the SK would be so bold as to suggest not looking for himself, but the attitude is not helpful.

Should a better option present itself before lynch time, I'd certainly consider a change. We have a CF, so lynches are important.

My vote was because I felt the comments unhelpful. I hope that clears things up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be perfectly clear? I don't actually suspect Greggs any more than I suspect anyone else, and her 'lynch someone random and see what happens' strategy seems fair enough to me. The only reason I'm voting for her right now is that I wanted to start some shit with her about strategy and voting for someone is a good way to call someone out. It's a "random" vote, meaning I don't actually care who dies today yet. (ETA: I reserve the right to start caring later on. ;))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Stringer - what would you say the most suspicious thing in the game is so far? Doesn't have to be original - that too is a bit overrated.

I currently find D'Angelo to be the most suspicious, that post with the vote made me roll my eyes a bit when reading it, although others have gone into more detail. I think it stretches a bit, even by day one standards and then is so unconcrete and flimsy.

And I'm getting more than a whiff of overdefensiveness from their actions since they've started getting pressure from other people.

Not original, but when we have so little to go on at the moment, it is hardly surprising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope it's ok I just answer once?

It was time for the RP to end. Period. I am very well aware of the other functions of the RP, but very little of that was happening. There is a point in every game where someone says "enough" and turns the game serious. This might be one of the very few times it was me, and I will admit never having even seen a preview for the show, let alone the actual show I had NOTHING to say during the RP. It sucked to be me. :P During days I am at work and only pop in during breaks so I need to make the most of my time. Reading about donuts did nothing but make me hungry.

So we all agree then that the game does have a non-serious phase and then transitions into serious discussion? Because what got this tangent started was you claiming to hate the suggestion that a non-serious phase existed at all.

So, to repeat. You found a comment Greggs made at the start of the game suspicious and voted her. You finished your vote with the kind of phrase you usually see people use in the last hours of the day when they're thinking about compromise, not at the start of the day attached to the very first serious vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<wishy-washy statement that can be taken as a defense of another player>

And while I'm adding in random thoughts, I might as well note that I currently don't find D'Angelo any more suspicious than others, because his thought process as describe in his posts so far is very similar to mine. :dunno:

</wishy-washy>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×