This will be backtracking a bit after browsing through from where I left off, so bear with me. I'll go through everything again to pull out other questions I might have, share my impressions... and so on. So if I've missed something I should comment about or that I'm not answering yet.. just say so if I don't get to it soon enough myself.
Just a sample of your post that caught my attention.
We lost one player because three people voted to lynch them. There were two players with three votes and a coin toss decided it. It was a coin toss that caused Dawgs death, if you wanted to save dawg, you could have switched. Any of us could have. I didn't think either were mafia and really didn't have a stronger canidate either. Day one can be like that.
Yes, you're right. Of the 12 votes that we cast, half of them (6 votes) were split between two people... and a coin toss (the fates) made the decision for us. That turned out to be a disaster because not only did we lose an innocent that we need to keep, we also missed out on one of the few opportunities we get to take out a mafia member. The remaining half of our votes were scattered equally between other players. I know the first day is still quite random... but jeez. Even with fairly random votes being cast, I hoped we'd have better luck than that.
As for me switching my vote? No, I didn't even consider it. First of all, I didn't know Dawg was innocent until after Bala swooped in. If you remember, I did suspect he was mafia... because he played along so much, following everyone else's opinions without offering any of his own. You voted to lynch Rich and he agreed... then DD, noodles, and Blueiz came after me and he joined in with them. I posted those impressions a full day in advance before we had to finalize our votes to see how he would respond to that. But he didn't address any of it. As we know now, it turned out he was innocent all along and I had misread him. But I didn't know that yet when our votes were finalized.
Plus at that time, I already had 2 votes against me... just one more vote away from being in the same boat Blueiz and DirtyDawg were in on that coin toss. For me to drop one suspect and switch my vote to another person I also suspected was mafia without something real substantial to go on would likely have turned a majority of townspeople against me and taken me right out of the game. While I'm all for eliminating the bad guys, I'm not rash or arbitrary... and I'm certainly not self-destructive.
Another factor to keep in mind was I already had a vote placed against Zigman... largely for the exact same reason. I felt Zig was hiding out and trying to slip by unnoticed... which to me smells of mafia. Zig had actually made several posts to the thread and not one of them amounted to anything of any substance. This made me as equally suspicious of Zig as I was of Dawg at the time. That wasn't a lot to go on, of course.. but it's better than making random choices.
I am not sure who these "very convincing players" are. The players voting for Dawg were rich, noods and blue. I don't really consider any of them as very convincing players. This post bothers me as you seem to want to create some sort of fear about being misled.
That statement didn't have anything to with Dawg specifically. I didn't question Rich's vote or Noodles' vote against Dawg.. then Blueiz changed hers to save herself just before darkfall. What I meant by how convincing players are was in reference to all the debate and finger-pointing that takes place from everybody. The people who've played mafia games are very good at twisting things around and coming up with theories and accusation that seem legit but aren't at all. Plus, those here who ARE mafia members have to lie about it. Without knowing a lot of personalities behind our screen names or how certain people present themselves in comparison to previous games they played... I miss out on a lot of undercurrents and subtleties the more experienced game players can spot a mile away.
So no, I'm not trying to create fear for anyone... but I do encourage caution and to take EVERYTHING that's said with a grain of salt. Not just look at the claims and accusations on the surface. Over time, this gets easier because we'll all get to see instances where someone says one thing but then does the opposite.
So who misled who? You need to correct more than just this one line!
Another generality, I guess. Everyone who took part in the discussion up to then misled all of us in one way or another. Not to a very great extent juding from how evenly distributed our voting pattern turned out to be.... but enough that a majority of people voting didn't agree to lynch a specific mafia member.
![[AC] wing nut](/forums/data/avatars/s/83/83025.jpg?1431345517){kind=avatar}
