Mafia 92: Night of the living Mafia... the play

[jm1212]

Later...



JM, isn't that what watching certain players is?....... just another way of looking into people more. What difference does it make whether someone (Ice in this case) lets us know who they are watching?

I knew something weird was going on in this post with the quotes...I don't know where you have been, or how quickly you skimmed through the thread, but that second quote in your post happened BEFORE the first. the first quote is post number #101, and the second is post #50. it was a response to Ice's response to my question to him. to me, it seemed odd that he was coming up with a list of possible scum that early, after only 4-5 pages of play. i then explained why, stating that i like to take more time and build up a better case before coming all-out with a scum list. Kash, messing up the order of posts to build a case is very unlike you...

 

[Kashta]

So you don't think the zombie hits should be used?


JB clarified that all innocents when lynched will get a zombie hit...including PR's. Next you imply again about how hit's shouldn't be used and finally agree that once the Townie is dead they can't be expected to maintain alliance with their former team because they are now zombies. So which is it? I think you are trying to stir things up here and confuse issues. It is clear now that the zombies form their own team. I think everyone is set on that. If I was a zombie and had the chance to take out a mafia for the win or an innocent for the win I would be gunning for the mafia. Why are you trying to convince zombies that it would be easier to take out the innocent team for the win than to take out scum?

"So you don't think the zombie hits should be used?" For the town's benefit, no. But they're going to use those hits anyway so it's rather pointless to offer them advice... it's part of the game, they each will have their own agenda, and those most likely to get lynched are also most likely to base their hits on less logical reasons.

I've been quite clear about my opinion, Dawg. No need to twist that around trying to put other words in my mouth. You on the other hand have expressed a position I find difficult to believe that you really believe in. Hence my raising the question.

The zombies are the best thing going for the scum side. They're going to accelerate the killing with a slim chance of killing mafia vs. townies. They're also a dangerous, unpredictable element that poses a greater threat to the town than the mafia, IMO.

 

[Kashta]

I knew something weird was going on in this post with the quotes...I don't know where you have been, or how quickly you skimmed through the thread, but that second quote in your post happened BEFORE the first. the first quote is post number #101, and the second is post #50. it was a response to Ice's response to my question to him. to me, it seemed odd that he was coming up with a list of possible scum that early, after only 4-5 pages of play. i then explained why, stating that i like to take more time and build up a better case before coming all-out with a scum list. Kash, messing up the order of posts to build a case is very unlike you...

Ok sorry. I pulled a ton of posts as I read through last night just before midnight. Tried to group them together into a few posts I answered/questioned. Didn't mean to jumble those up from you, but yeah it was late and I was sleepy.

I don't think the order made a great difference btw in what I wondered about.

 

[TwoHobbies]

JB clarified that all innocents when lynched will get a zombie hit...including PR's. Next you imply again about how hit's shouldn't be used and finally agree that once the Townie is dead they can't be expected to maintain alliance with their former team because they are now zombies. So which is it? I think you are trying to stir things up here and confuse issues. It is clear now that the zombies form their own team. I think everyone is set on that. If I was a zombie and had the chance to take out a mafia for the win or an innocent for the win I would be gunning for the mafia. Why are you trying to convince zombies that it would be easier to take out the innocent team for the win than to take out scum?

Even at end game it would be easier to hit an innocent than to hit the last scum. It's just a numbers thing. How do you not see that?

 

[Fishfriend1]

Your policy is wrong and needs to be trashed. You need to come to conclusions on your own rather than latch on the "best" argument.

Because so many people come up with their own arguments without even noticing other people's arguments... but maybe I worded that badly. Let me say it in more... proper terms. I look at other people's arguments to diced my ideas on them. I base my arguments off of other arguments. I do create my own, but they often incorperat portions of other peoples arguments into them. I still think Ice has a high chance of being evil, make no mistake. But I also think that Mad has a high chance of being evil and don't really want to chose between the two of them. Hence the retracted vote and changed mind. Now, you may think thats " wrong and needs to be trashed", and you may be right, but for now it is how my mind works.

Two real life days of posting how defensive Ice was and how he attacked you and JM is not changing your mind easily.

You also responded to my post but failed to explain how Ices question was attacking you.

I think you have slipped and therefore need to go.

I vote to lynch FF for the above stated reasons.

If I get the chance before nightfall and see something more worthy this vote can change.

As it stands right now it seems to be my best bet.

I change my mind when I see that I'm wrong. better then some who never change their minds at all.

I thought I had explained it perfectly? He said "You have a problem with me watching those 3? Same to you FF, I see you also had a post questioning me about my watching post. Is there a reason you 2 are worried?" which is a clear attack on both Jm and myself. We asked a question, he replied with a question and a BS answer (he had no reasons for watching them closely). So yes, I do see an attack there. Not my fault if you can't see it...

 

[jm1212]

Ok sorry. I pulled a ton of posts as I read through last night just before midnight. Tried to group them together into a few posts I answered/questioned. Didn't mean to jumble those up from you, but yeah it was late and I was sleepy.

I don't think the order made a great difference btw in what I wondered about.

But it did make a big difference. posting those in that order makes me seem like a hypocrite instead of just honestly answering rebuttal questions.

if you pulled a ton of posts last night, then you should have known the order no matter what; that means you read the thread. those posts were very far apart...about 50 posts. knowing the level that you usually play, i would have to say that planting that little issue was deliberate.

 

[TwoHobbies]

"So you don't think the zombie hits should be used?" For the town's benefit, no. But they're going to use those hits anyway so it's rather pointless to offer them advice... it's part of the game, they each will have their own agenda, and those most likely to get lynched are also most likely to base their hits on less logical reasons.

I've been quite clear about my opinion, Dawg. No need to twist that around trying to put other words in my mouth. You on the other hand have expressed a position I find difficult to believe that you really believe in. Hence my raising the question.

The zombies are the best thing going for the scum side. They're going to accelerate the killing with a slim chance of killing mafia vs. townies. They're also a dangerous, unpredictable element that poses a greater threat to the town than the mafia, IMO.

Wasn't the real point that "They don't have to use the hit" That's what I thought the discussion was all about. You seem to be offering a lot of advice for it to be pointless.

 

[jm1212]

Your policy is wrong and needs to be trashed. You need to come to conclusions on your own rather than latch on the "best" argument.

Now, I don't think that FF is right, but what exactly have you done in terms of posting theories or looking into finding the mafia members? nothing...you've fanned the flames around FF and synthesized a case against me to which you have still not sufficiently explained but citing things that have gone on in the game. stating "you got a PM" at this point in the game is not bold, or helpful. it just makes YOU look scummier.

 

[Madcrawdad]

Saying you find someone interesting is basically saying you think they are scum. All I see ice being guilty of is bad wording and not commiting himself to his little diddy about them.

Wrong. Ice specifically gave scenarios as to how these people could be innocent OR guilty. We're not just arguing semantics here...

Of course I am, I was just asking a question. I was justy following your post farther down. 1 + 1 = 2, so if they aren't posting much, and if not posting is bad, then that means you think the all the low posters are evil. At the time of your post, that would have been Kashta, Lab_Rat, C-Note, User_Name, DangerDoll, TwoHobbies, Razzlefish, Doomsday, and Tankhobbiest. They all have 6 or less posts, and Kashta had 6 or less when you posted your comment. That would be half the players, right there. Are all of them evil?

Dude, reread my earlier response, and then reread it again. It's too early in the game to call any of the low posters either way. Reading players posts is how you try to determine their alignment either way.

Explain? Well, I can explain it, but you may not understand... You're post 122 stated an absolute nothing. While I do think Ice is playing a very aggressive game this time around, I also think that you are scummier. He, at the least, stated he was watching those three people. You simply confused the waters by narrowing in on the wording of Ice's statememnt. Yes, he said "Mafia or Innocent" (not exact wording) but we're all smart people. We can make the connection between "watching someone" and thinking they are evil. What was concerning, now I look on it, was that Ice didn't commit to the statement. He left it to hang, more so then actually following it up.

Once again, we are NOT arguing semantics here. Ice meant exactly what he said. The people he was watching were innocent OR mafia. It's not like he said that they were suspicious but might be innocent. There's a difference. In his scenarios he was saying specifically if so-and-so could be scum and then so-and-so (and also so-and-so) are innocent, OR so-and-so could be innocent, etc.

Well, now I've managed to argue against my previous vote a little... urg, you know it's pathetic when you convince yourself of something. And I bet you guys have no idea what I'm talking about do you? Anyway, I retract my vote on Madcrawdad (still love that name ). I'm now undecided between you and Ice, as both of you have good arguments against the other.

Which previous argument of mine leaves you now undecided? Just a little higher up in the same post you said this to me:

While I do think Ice is playing a very aggressive game this time around, I also think that you are scummier.

Your unvote is very strange. Earlier up in this post you claim that between Ice and myself, that I'm the scummier of the two. But then you claim that I have good arguments against Ice, apparently good enough to cause you to retract your vote for me. But you never address those good arguments.

So I'm the scummier of the two, but you're now undecided, because I've made good arguments against Ice (which you fail to mention), causing you to unvote... All in the same post.

Having trouble keeping your story straight?

I retract my vote for Razz and vote to lynch FF.

 

[Fishfriend1]

Wrong. Ice specifically gave scenarios as to how these people could be innocent OR guilty. We're not just arguing semantics here...

Dude, reread my earlier response, and then reread it again. It's too early in the game to call any of the low posters either way. Reading players posts is how you try to determine their alignment either way.

Once again, we are NOT arguing semantics here. Ice meant exactly what he said. The people he was watching were innocent OR mafia. It's not like he said that they were suspicious but might be innocent. There's a difference. In his scenarios he was saying specifically if so-and-so could be scum and then so-and-so (and also so-and-so) are innocent, OR so-and-so could be innocent, etc.

Which previous argument of mine leaves you now undecided? Just a little higher up in the same post you said this to me:

Your unvote is very strange. Earlier up in this post you claim that between Ice and myself, that I'm the scummier of the two. But then you claim that I have good arguments against Ice, apparently good enough to cause you to retract your vote for me. But you never address those good arguments.

So I'm the scummier of the two, but you're now undecided, because I've made good arguments against Ice (which you fail to mention), causing you to unvote... All in the same post.

Having trouble keeping your story straight?

I retract my vote for Razz and vote to lynch FF.

I'll be honest with you, I have no idea what to say now... I'm completely lost in a maze of my own idiotic making, and I think the only way out is to let you lynch me and hope my hit 9if I use it) is on someone important...