Mafia 106: Pokemafia

Haha I knew I shouldve changed my avatar.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

How would you have known that you should have changed your avatar?

Pap personifies the phrase "on the ball". I totally wouldn't have picked up on that.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using the MAN app!

I'm not going to quote the entire run-down over AAF's comment, but the fact that he was effectively lynched for that one comment, which I took when I read it as a joke, is scary. From what I saw, Neph commented on Jpaps comment, and then Coler questioned the entire thing. I personally think it was initially just an honest little compliment, but when Coler questioned it Neph defended it.

Dawg and Zaffy, during this entire thing, completely refrain from looking at it. This comes to me as odd, since it was about the only game-related subject at the time. Zaffy is the dead doc, so probably trying to lay low, but Dawg is an unknown.

Actually to advance Zaffy's question, I would like to know who the new players are (i.e. who has never played before and who has only played 2 or 3 times) also.

ForeverNewb :rolleyes: (referencing myself). Colers earlier post where he listed the people he was looking at seemed useful, but honestly didn't add anything new to the game except that he was interested in people who were posting fluff to look helpful. I got a bit of a pot meet kettle feeling when he made that comment.

I would like to take this time to comment that it WAS day 1, with almost nothing to go on. Day 1 is always a crapshoot, so I find it interesting that people kept saying that voting for BS reasons was dumb/unusual/scummy. From my experience, unless something big happens on Day 1, joke votes are all that it amounts to, with Day 2 being the day that people get serious, building from they lay of the votes on day 1. Also, why did no one question Dawgs vote on Zaffy for 'his avatar giving me a headache'? That was as bad as mine, but he was never questioned.

And the nightfall events... I'll start with the vote fall out:

Votes:
Allaboutfish – Fishfriend1 (027)Joke Vote, Coler (64)Because of post 61, Zaffy (72)To 'remove idiocy'(and post 61) JPappy (83) Because of post 61
Zaffy – Dirtydawg10 (037)Joke Vote,
Coler - Rich311k (054)Joke Vote, Nepherael (71)OMGUSy, Allaboutfish (73)BS Vote,
Fishfriend1 - Metric (068)No Answers,

So, from what I see here, Coler, Zaffy, and Jpappy all voted for AAF almost entirely because of the manner in which he chose his vote, which was not that bad considering I voted him because I saw pretty betta at the fish store and was jealous of his betta. Or Dawgs because it 'gave him a headache'. Or Rich's because Coler 'hadn't played in a while'. While I do see why his choice of vote and the way he chose was scummy, I still find it strange that he was heavily questioned while none of the other lousy and joking votes.

As for the nightfall write up, while it was sad we lost AAF and a tad bit suspicious that the three kill votes on him were for the same reason, he did bring it upon himself a little. The fact that no one voted Neph but many people posted that they were suspicious of him also interests me, as people (like Jpappy) mentioned it in multiple posts leading up to nightfall but still voted elsewhere. The votes on Coler are all rather strange... a joke, an OMGUSY, and a BS. Can't really read anything from that. The vote on me by Metric was probably the most justified vote of Day 1, and that one was because I wasn't able to get on and answer questions.

Sorry to see you go Zaffy, but at least it was a funny way to go. Crushed by a Snorlax. At least you didn't get sung to death by Jigglypuff... And the drag lol! But I shouldn't be laughing, you'll be missed.

As of right now, I still think all of you could be scum. However, I think that Dawg, Neph, and the other people to vote AAF are all a bit more likely for scum. I'll probably end up voting one of the people I just listed for one of the reasons I just listed.

And here is the kicker:

"Delibird hands you a Pokeball. You let its inhabitant out and a Victreebel pops out. You try to ask Delibird more, but it's frivolous because the only words it can say are "deli" and "bird". Delibird flies away, but crashes into a window. It then hops around in a circle for a few minutes before flying sideways into the nearest tree. You decide to leave it alone." - Pir with neither deny nor confirm this, as per the pm.

Pir sent this to me at nightfall, and it makes me wonder... Victreebel is a plant-type pokemon, one that looks like a pitcher plant. It was more famously owned by James, of team rocket. That means to me that this hint is telling me who James is. The fact that the delibird was flying and moving so erraticly makes me think it was drunk. That in turn makes me think that James was discussing alcohal in the thread. That means Dawg, Zaffy (dead), Coler, Rich, or Metri (all the people who mentioned alcohol). Most likely Coler or Dawg, as Colers first post was saying he was a bit drunk and Dawg and Zaffy both chatted about beer. Zaffy is dead and the doc, so that leaves Dawg and Coler. Besides this, Dawg posted primarily about alcohol up until after night 1 was over.

Anyone else have their own interpritation?
 
I'm still interested in hearing from Coler regarding his comments on Neph that do need clarification IMO. He's still very much on my radar.

I think I made two observations - the first was that a query Neph asked on the rules was pretty much redundant. Which it was. And if I'm correct the second was in connection with my sense that he was taking something you said and promoting it into something which it wasn't (the avatar thing) or at the least cosying up to you. I stand over both observations/queries as legitimate.
 
It takes virtually no attention to the actual game to make a joke vote. It's an easy way to vote, plain and simple, which definitely bothers me. Should we not try to get scum the first day? I highly doubt that would happen if everyone resorted to joke votes, and then it also hampers D2 when the votes aren't tied to game related material. Just because it's "typical" doesn't mean it's the correct way to go about the game. I understand that there isn't much to dig through on D1, but don't you think that joke voting also enables that sort of problem?

Yeah I totally get you. I also understand what Coler said about AAF's vote discouraging posting but I doubt anyone on D1 would be worried about catching that vote unless there was already a vote or two on them so I'd call that overthinking it a bit.

As for your points about joke votes and all I totally see your point but, on the flip side, in my (very limited) experience it's people starting with joke votes that gets a couple posts going and starts people talking which is what we need at the start: an ice breaker.

Now I'm all about exploring other ways to start it off but it seems (this could be way off base) that without a bit of lighthearted conversation people are reluctant to start really getting into it for fear of slipping a bit against the likes of you and others with such a meticulous, methodical approach.

That said, I get your point and I'd prefer another way to start off too for a better shot at lynching scum day 1 I'm just not experienced enough to know how else to go about it yet.

I still think AAF was an easy target for scum though. Even assuming Coler is innocent (which I don't really assume right now) that put 2 innocents on AAF and left an easily justifiable reason to finish him off while putting a hit on one of the other AAF voters fully solidifying that it was as simple as picking the way he voted because, heck even a townie voted that way.



Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using the MAN app!
 
FF, you're confusing the posts. The "run down" you quoted had absolutely nothing to do with the post you then referred to as the reasons why Zaffy, Coler, and myself voted for AAF (post 61). I'm not sure why Neph and Dawg's response

I admitted that it was more of a prodding of AAF than anything and brushed off his response to your vote. It was completely irrelevant to me voting AAF.

As for my thoughts on Neph, I don't believe I said anything other than me not being comfortable with him giving me compliments in an active mafia game (I'm all for praise afterwards) and that I was watching his interaction with Coler. Why does it bother you that I didn't vote for him?

I pretty much summed up why I considered AAF's reason for voting to be worse than the joke votes. I stand by my thought in that regard.
 
I think I made two observations - the first was that a query Neph asked on the rules was pretty much redundant. Which it was. And if I'm correct the second was in connection with my sense that he was taking something you said and promoting it into something which it wasn't (the avatar thing) or at the least cosying up to you. I stand over both observations/queries as legitimate.

Well what strikes me as odd is that I thought the rule you questioned was easily understood. When you asked it made me doubt my understanding of it so I just double checked my understanding. So I don't see the need for pointing out that my question was redundant because where is that going to lead?

Then pap confirms exactly what I kept saying and you still had something to say about it. It was pretty evident what pap meant with his question. I don't see any other reason to ask that question especially worded that way. It feels like a targeting mechanism to me. Gives you an easy in on a justifiable vote especially this early on when there still isn't much to pick at.

And the only people looking for an easily justifiable vote and not at who the actual enemy might be are scum

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using the MAN app!
 
FF, you're confusing the posts. The "run down" you quoted had absolutely nothing to do with the post you then referred to as the reasons why Zaffy, Coler, and myself voted for AAF (post 61). I'm not sure why Neph and Dawg's response

I admitted that it was more of a prodding of AAF than anything and brushed off his response to your vote. It was completely irrelevant to me voting AAF.

As for my thoughts on Neph, I don't believe I said anything other than me not being comfortable with him giving me compliments in an active mafia game (I'm all for praise afterwards) and that I was watching his interaction with Coler. Why does it bother you that I didn't vote for him?

I pretty much summed up why I considered AAF's reason for voting to be worse than the joke votes. I stand by my thought in that regard.

You stated 3 times I think that Neph's 'compliment' made you uneasy, which is why I brought it up. Once is fine, twice, ok, bit 3 times makes me think you were trying to get others to look at him. It makes me 'uneasy'.
 
Just a quicky - I would definitely agree that the chance that everyone who voted for AAF is a townie is tiny. Same goes for the people who voted for me.

On D1 it is however also worth looking at people who parked their vote in inconsequential places because that's something scum do (for ease of reference in this instance Dawg voted Zaffy and Metricliman Fishfriend)

Definitely a good point. Looking at voting history after a couple nightfalls can yield surprising revelations

Let me clarify my last post for anyone not familiar with playing with me. If I say something like "only scum do that" it isn't always meant to be an outright accusation. When I post I try to fully post what I'm thinking. You never know when a crazy theory can pan out or help the town down the road. I'm not measured and methodical with my posts (I just can't do that always, I'm too scatterbrained) so if I formulate an idea while posting I will vocalise it whether I totally subscribe to it or not

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using the MAN app!
 
Yeah I totally get you. I also understand what Coler said about AAF's vote discouraging posting but I doubt anyone on D1 would be worried about catching that vote unless there was already a vote or two on them so I'd call that overthinking it a bit.

As for your points about joke votes and all I totally see your point but, on the flip side, in my (very limited) experience it's people starting with joke votes that gets a couple posts going and starts people talking which is what we need at the start: an ice breaker.

Now I'm all about exploring other ways to start it off but it seems (this could be way off base) that without a bit of lighthearted conversation people are reluctant to start really getting into it for fear of slipping a bit against the likes of you and others with such a meticulous, methodical approach.

That said, I get your point and I'd prefer another way to start off too for a better shot at lynching scum day 1 I'm just not experienced enough to know how else to go about it yet.

I still think AAF was an easy target for scum though. Even assuming Coler is innocent (which I don't really assume right now) that put 2 innocents on AAF and left an easily justifiable reason to finish him off while putting a hit on one of the other AAF voters fully solidifying that it was as simple as picking the way he voted because, heck even a townie voted that way.



Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using the MAN app!

Icebreaker...ok, I can see that, however how often do these joke votes get retracted? Even in this format where retractions are limited not a single vote moved yesterday from its original spot.

Neph, do you think I'm scum? I noticed that in your "theory" post you mentioned Coler and Zaffy voting AAF and then threw out the idea that it was a plan by the scum. Obviously Zaffy is innocent, so that leaves Coler.

Again, here you say that AAF was targeted by the scum and was "finish[ed] off." If it was so deliberate of a plan, would Coler be the mastermind by bringing the vote to a tie, especially when there was still a 50% chance of him being the one killed? On the flip side, you might as well say Coler's vote was to save himself which can be a perfectly acceptable move if he is innocent (it opens a whole new can of worms though, but it's beside the point).

My point is, I can't see how you could ever give this theory merit unless you considered myself as scum who then put the nail in AAF's coffin. However, in the two posts thus far where you mentioned AAF being specifically targeted by the scum, you never mentioned my name. Why are you reluctant to explicitly involve me in this supposed plan?

Part of me is worried about why you are throwing Coler's name alone out there. At least Dawg has considered voting me as well, as off base as he may be. Given Coler's thoughts on you (which I still find unclear) and your back and forth, part of me is wondering if there is something between you and Coler that is going unseen.
 
I'll take these one at a time...
Hi All - crappy nightfall.

I suppose the first thing I will do is address my vote for AAF.



Point taken but I would like to point out that a joke vote counts the same as a 'serious vote' and I indicated clearly that I wasn't going to be around for the close of business - which I wasn't. I have no problem with making a D1 vote based on what I see as stupid play because stupid play hurts the town and in the absence of anything more concrete its something I would weigh up in making my voting decision.

Further, 'I'm going to vote for the next person to post'. Seriously ? On a slow day anyway, you're going to say something that if anything would dissuade posting ? Posting is the lifeblood of the town. When we post and interact we find things out. Especially given the passage of time when you go back on D2, D3, D4 etc. and re-read. Especially when we nail a scumbag and can go back and re-read their posts, because once revealed you can read everything they say with the correct agenda. Unless of course they got away with saying nothing at all or only made BS posts. Silence is almost always a scum tell. So I'm against anything that discourages posting, and I called it like I saw it.

I still regret very much, of course, that AAF turned up innocent but in terms of my own play I'm happy for anyone to read back and make a decision on whether I am trying to play for the town or not.

I'd also point out that I gave him/her the chance to come back and say whether it was a serious post before I voted. If anyone wanted to post in and tell me that this practice of declaring your vote on D1 by reference to 'the person who posts after me' was normal/acceptable I suppose I would also have listened somewhat.



This post from Zaffy came after I'd left the thread though.

Finally for now I just want to go back to the first reaction to my post saying that this way of voting was stupid :-



That was posted at 7:17pm game time.



That was posted at 7:27pm game time, with dawg having 10 minutes to consider his response.

Can anyone who's played with dawg say whether he's played in one of these recent games where people select their D1 votes like this. Dawg you may wish to answer the question yourself. If you have then I am a little curious as to whether you considered pointing out that it had become something of a practice and not necessarily regarded as stupid, or indeed scummy. If you havn't then I just note that you and I shared exactly the same reaction to AAF's post.

OK I'm at work just now but I hope I will be able to come back to the thread in 3 or 4 hours. If not it will be tomorrow morning (my time) for me before I do so - for reference its 7:25pm here and I'm about to leave the office and go home for dinner.
I wasn't pointing out anything by saying yours was the first serious vote of the night. What did you take that to mean Coler?

I agreed with you that AAF's reason for voting was absurd. I'm never a fan of that for reasons I already stated. I didn't vote that way because it seemed like an easy vote. Not that mine wasn't. I just saw that many people (almost half) on one person as being a bad thing on D1. I figure scum have to be involved in the vote at that point.

I have played in recent games and have seen this before. I thought it was just as stupid this time as it was before. No it is not common practice. This may be the second or third time I have seen it in all the games I have played.
 
You stated 3 times I think that Neph's 'compliment' made you uneasy, which is why I brought it up. Once is fine, twice, ok, bit 3 times makes me think you were trying to get others to look at him. It makes me 'uneasy'.
Let's be fair here...I mentioned it only twice before I voted for AAF. The third time was right at nightfall, certainly not a time when I was going to change my vote to a single one.

Can you comment on why you said that AAF was lynched over his "joke" when he most certainly wasn't?
 
AquariaCentral.com