Mafia TBT Mafia XI: Person of Interest END

[Yui Z]

I don't understand the suspicions on ccemuka. They only asked a question and I'm sure it'd be more suspicious if a non-newbie asked it. To me, it feels like people are being too quick to agree, and it makes me suspicious of some of the people who agreed right away when it was brought up.

I just don't see it.

 

[Feloreena]

I don't understand the suspicions on ccemuka. They only asked a question and I'm sure it'd be more suspicious if a non-newbie asked it. To me, it feels like people are being too quick to agree, and it makes me suspicious of some of the people who agreed right away when it was brought up.

I just don't see it.

I think it was probably a mistake, and hope they will contribute more when they're next around and such. Have to start somewhere on Day 1, but I have to say they are not the most suspicious in my eyes.

- - - Post Merge - - -

^ out of the other names I brought up.

 

[Ashtot]

>.> I didn't mean to bring up so much controversy in my post. Anyways I'd be up for a no lynch and see if anything comes up tomorrow. And even if we did a inactiveness lynch who would be lynched? There is more than one inactive person.

ccemuka asked a simple question that does not show or prove her alignment, yet several people are suspicious of her and possibly want her lynched. The people that jumped on her that early are people I will be watching very closely.

u need 2 stop



Continuing on oath's comment - I don't know if it was a mistake, or if you purposely took out that quote, @Dolby. Seems scummy, as if you were just trying to add more to your case of lynching oath, taking advantage of those who didn't read their little joke. I didn't even notice the removed quote at first.

This new person just being downright rude and ignorant to what past players with experience have to say. I provided information and tried to help but got shot down by people because apparently I was rude and scummy.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, lynching anyone without some kind of suspicion is just cruel.

It's fine to have your opinion, and I'm not saying that you should just bandwagon onto whatever experienced players have to say, but they are experienced and have played the game quite a bit. We're trying to give advice and it would be great if you could be a bit more open minded. (if this seems rude, I'm not trying to be rude, sorry)

It happens a lot. RL'ing is fairly common on day one. Also, Ashtot, you may've had the intention to help others, I think, but you bragged in your own informative post. It kind of set a scummy tone to the rest of the post.

Here I think Alice is attacking me simply because I lynched her day one last game. I never bragged about anything, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. If you're talking about what I put next to my name, it's not bragging, it's supposed to be funny, because it's complete luck = not skill based = I'm not bragging.

I just wish you'd have a more optimistic view on things is all, I don't want to bash heads. Even Jenn pointed that out.



This really upsets me. There's been a ton of people that have provided great input on the game so far. :[

- - - Post Merge - - -

Alice speaks da troof.

This is just the way the game normally works, if you want you could read one of the past games threads and learn about what normally goes on or how everything works out. (again not trying to be rude, sorry)

Dolby presented a decent and well-thought out case, and you go "dude, the game's just started..."
Aren't we supposed to be sharing our suspicions? Just because the game has just started doesn't mean we should wait around before sharing our thoughts. Right? :U

It was decent and well thought out. Nothing he said holds any water. He's basically saying "well oath said some things and they were jokes and stuff during day 1 so lets lynch him".

Past players will understand that oath can be a huge benefit to town and although his posting style may not always be ideal, he was just having a little fun.

As a third suspicion, Jeremy recently asked in staff chat if any of us were evil--while I went on about how silly of an idea that was to accuse me of such a thing, Justin was quiet before changing the subject.

:| SUSPICIOUS.

This is pretty much ridiculous, and I assumed you were joking, but if you weren't, just because Justin didn't reply in staff chat doesn't mean he's scum. (again not trying to be rude)

ccemuka was the first due to their post asking if Mafia could PM eachother.

Ashtot was second due to their defense of ccemuka despite several people finding it suspicious.

Justin is third due to my post above.

None of these people should even be suspected, in my opinion it's just in the way of town. Nobody in that list did anything to deserve being lynched.

View attachment 48644

This whole thread is just one big cluster **** of confusion. I honestly don't even know what to say.

Basically what past players are all thinking.

I just want to say that Jen is being too kind and that she is influencing players into a no lynch. This, I find is ridiculous. Every other game we lynch someone who is not super suspicious. No-lynching is a waste. Jen is also constantly moaning over the mean ness of the game. Do we want the new players to be like this? Are the rest of the scum team trying to get her to do no lynch so she sounds important? Well, I know we have a while, but let's think more, not just bandwagon, ok guys?

I completely agree with this.

Or maybe Jen is just kind, and is trying to be understanding? This is just how Jen is, and I think it's even more rotten to lynch her just because you don't agree with her personality.

It's not about personality, it's about playability. If you're playing call of duty with someone, you aren't going to not kill someone because you like their personality. This is a game, and it's not about being "fair". (not trying to be rude sorry)

If most people vote no lynch but a few people vote for a person, would the person still be lynched, or does the no lynch count as the 'most votes' for a person?

Depending on the answer to this question it suggests no lynch might be quite risky. Lynches and bandwagoning can also provide information on suspicious players as well, so it is probably worth the risk. I am currently wary of ccemuka because if their question on the mafia PMs - newbie mistake or mafia slip up? I'm not sure yet. Ashtot and oath2order are raising red flags to me as they have played similarly as scum before. Also a bit worried about what Jennifer brought up about Justin in the staff chat as he is yet to make a post, but I would like to see what he has to say.

There's also still a number of people who are yet to post (or yet to post something other than a 'hello I'm here' kind of post), but I'll give these people more time before I start bringing their names forward.

You're basically just bandwagoning on to what Jen is saying without even thinking for yourself. Please try and play the game the way that you think it should be played, not the way Jen thinks it should be played. (not trying to be rude sorry)

I'll probably have a list of suspect sometime soon, but I'll have to get more of my thoughts together.

(again I apologize if I ever sounded rude or mean this game, I'm not trying to hurt anyones feelings, just trying to play the game )

- - - Post Merge - - -

Ash, I'm going to have to agree with Jen here. I think we should go for a No Lynch- that way the risk of hitting a Town player is lowered. The pros of a No Lynch outweigh the cons. Unless of course someone comes up with a case while I'm asleep...

##VOTE: No Lynch

- - - Post Merge - - -

Oh wait actually gonna vote for Dolby whoops

- - - Post Merge - - -

Actually nvm I will decide when I'm fully awake

I'd also like you to explain this Purpl, you're not really making any sense.

 

[Cory]

Or maybe an oath lynch?

*me being purpl* DURR LET'S LYNCH THE STRONGEST PERSON IN THE GAME FOR ****S AND GIGGLES

no that is literally the worst idea that someone has ever said in a mafia game.

- - - Post Merge - - -

Sorry for interrupting, but if anybody asks me anything, I'll be asleep. :3

Is this really ****ing necessary?

If not LittleBeary then someone else who is a distraction. Might as well get it done as soon as possible.

The quote above shows that she still is a distraction, I mean, was the really necessary to post?

 

[Sataric]

Here is an update on activity - The following players written below have not yet posted at all. We need to hear something from these people as soon as possible, so I am now officially calling them out. These people will also get a VM / PM from me so that they definitely know that the game is currently underway, and could not simply have forgotten. That seems the most fair, and leaves them with fewer excuses to hide behind.

The List:
Pofer.
River.
Justin.
smb3master.
Kippla.

- - - Post Merge - - -

All VM's sent! (PMed to Justin since I am not on his friendlist and he doesn't allow VM's from random scrubs like myself!)

 

[Feloreena]

You're basically just bandwagoning on to what Jen is saying without even thinking for yourself. Please try and play the game the way that you think it should be played, not the way Jen thinks it should be played. (not trying to be rude sorry)

I am trying to forward who I think is suspicious, not sure why that is an issue. At least I have forwarded some names, all you've been doing is throwing your ego around and blindly defending anyone who has been brought up for discussion without posting your own thoughts. I also think you're being way too harsh on new players who are actually trying and making some good points, just because you have played more games doesn't necessarily make you a better player (not trying to be rude sorry ).

 

[oath2order]

We must not go down the No Lynch path on day 1 for a multitude of reasons. The fact that it hinders progress has been mentioned several times, but also of note is that a SINGLE player casting a vote on someone would lead to that person dying if everyone else votes No Lynch. Too risky. We cannot take that gamble.

But I disagree with selecting a target at random - Instead, vote for the one you find most suspicious. Right now I find that Ashtot has a playstyle similar to last game in which he was Mafia. Likewise, Oath2Order played similarly when he was scum/ third party in the SuperNatural round. Keep an eye on those two.

But the safest choice might be to go for someone completely inactive. Once the 24 hour mark since game started is drawing near, we could VM the few who still has not posted anything. If they still fail to contribute to the game, I feel that they have been given a fair chance and that we should consider them as dead weight. Even if they are new. Because you are not trying to learn if you aren't participating anyways.

If I recall correctly, in Supernatural mafia, I led the Dolby day one lynch and I was fairly active.

 

[f11]

Jen, I don't think what happened in chat is enough evidence lynch him, but it is still evidence.
Some people are calling for a random inactiveness lynch. From what Jen said, we could lynch Justin since he hasn't said anything. Since it is the start of the game this is the only evidence we really have.

 

[Cariad]

I also want to say that Jen is new, yes, listen to her, but don't religiously bandwagon on everything she has said. (Not against anyone, just saying that people should be a bit more open minded)

 

[Beary]

MY GOD THE TEXT WALLS.

Anyways, I don't see why I'm still a lynch candidate?? I have said multiple times that I'm trying to change and be better at this game. And Cory, you should talk. You don't have the best reputation either..

 

[Cory]

MY GOD THE TEXT WALLS.

Anyways, I don't see why I'm still a lynch candidate?? I have said multiple times that I'm trying to change and be better at this game. And Cory, you should talk. You don't have the best reputation either..

Well, if you say you are trying to do better. Do something! Also, the last few games I have been doing much better.

 

[Beary]

I am unsure what to do, as everyone just seems to just be arguing. I don't have much of an opinion about things, but I think that ccmeuka ( Is that the name ..? ) just was curious. If they make any more noticeable slip-ups, we can truly consider them for lynch.

 

[Jennifer]

Or maybe Jen is just kind, and is trying to be understanding? This is just how Jen is, and I think it's even more rotten to lynch her just because you don't agree with her personality.

I was just about to reply to say this Thank you, Alice. Didn't know being nice could be such a bad thing.

Yui Z - But with a small chance and no proof, we could just be adding to their kill count which kind of makes it null and void. I just don't find it worth the risk.

Ashtot - I AM being openminded, I still think that plan is terrible and mean. I don't care if it's a thing you guys tend to do, I think it's a cruel thing to do and I'm not going to agree to randomly getting rid of someone on the small chance of actually doing something helpful.

Also, always serious--I don't joke. He DID reply in Staff almost immediately, but with no answer to Jeremy's response and just in my reply which he used to change the subject.

Maybe the game SHOULD be about being fair. This just shows why people get so hurt in the first place. You guys play ruthlessly and mean :/

ccemuka - I never said to lynch--I just said it was suspicious.

As for the curious versus suspicion thing--it just seems really fishy to ask to me if you have nothing to do with them. *shrugs*

 

[Trent the Paladin]

If most people vote no lynch but a few people vote for a person, would the person still be lynched, or does the no lynch count as the 'most votes' for a person?

If the majority of votes is a no lynch, the no lynch will occur.

 

[Yui Z]

Yui Z - But with a small chance and no proof, we could just be adding to their kill count which kind of makes it null and void. I just don't find it worth the risk.

Part of mafia is about taking risks. c: Either way will probably result in someone innocent being killed, but there's more town than there is scum. If we don't lynch anyone, then we don't get any help or leads for day 2, so (in the long run) it could help town a lot more if we lynch someone.
I don't think we should lynch randomly, however a no lynch won't really be very helpful to town. Lynching an inactive makes it less of a loss to town if they turn out to be innocent, since it means getting rid of someone who probably won't be helping town anyway. Unless we find some good evidence on someone, then I feel this would be the better option.

It's not adding to their kill count too much, and it's worked better this way in the past.

- - - Post Merge - - -

Oops, posted this a bit late.

- - - Post Merge - - -

Oh wait. I didn't read Tom's post properly, so it's not to late ehe. I better eat something ~ hunger must be affecting me.

 

[Jennifer]

Part of mafia is about taking risks. c: Either way will probably result in someone innocent being killed, but there's more town than there is scum. If we don't lynch anyone, then we don't get any help or leads for day 2, so (in the long run) it could help town a lot more if we lynch someone.

Well, I still think it's too risky. As you said, there's more town which means higher chance of hitting someone helpful. There's a chance it won't help at all and it'd be a waste and you just ruined the game for someone by lynching them out with no information. That's awful.

 

[Trent the Paladin]

A countdown has been added to the main post, let me know if something's wrong with it. 36~ hours remain.

 

[Jennifer]

Looks good~ As long as you mean 36 in terms of rounding up and not rounding down.

 

[Superpenguin]

Lynches are stupid, tbh. I don't understand why we continue to lynch people and have never actually done a no lynch in scenarios like this. This is just us reducing our own town numbers for the mafia. I'd like to vote No Lynch today.

 

[Yui Z]

Well, I still think it's too risky. As you said, there's more town which means higher chance of hitting someone helpful. There's a chance it won't help at all and it'd be a waste and you just ruined the game for someone by lynching them out with no information. That's awful.

If we were talking about someone who is taking part and trying, I'd be against lynching them without reason because I'd agree with you that it'd be unfair. However, for someone who isn't going to be active or doesn't actually plan on trying/taking part, I don't really see how that would ruin the game for them.

Anyway, I'm not gonna try and convince you anymore since you've made it pretty clear already, and I don't think there's much chance in you changing your mind.