Want to throw out a question, quickly.
Tom and LnGrrrR have the earliest standing vote, and both voted each other. So after ~150 posts, no changing, which may be weird because there haven't been a lot of debate about Tom being scum, for example. Does that mean anything? I find peculiar that LnGrrrR hasn't changed his vote.
For example, I'm a much more easy target than Tom, and got under investigation. I also don't find enough evidenxes for a vote on Tom. Did I miss something on Tom? Also, maybe I'm too easy to be targeted that soon, assuming LnGrrrR is scum and I'm town?
Unfortunately, I can't advance a lot in this reasoning. Need more evidences.
@ LnGrrrR: Why do you consider Tom the best voting in the moment?
@ Everyone : Any thoughts on that? Sorry, this is the best I could bring for now. And I'm bored. May not be a good reasoning. But wanted to try.
Before anyone says something:
I'm not trying to create a [player vs player] scenario, which would be a scum indicative, nor trying to create an alarm on other people to clear my name of investigation. It'd be naive to try such things since you guys have more experience and would probably notice. Also, I'm making things clear by revealing my thought process.
Thank you for the response, Sir Chris.
I beg to differ about something and I feel the need to explain.
Which exact things did I avoid talking about? I don't feel like I picked anything. I'm sorry if I did, actually. Thought the only remaining line against me was that "coach" stuff.
One of the things I prioritize as town is to answer everything. To make things clear.
I'm fine about people voting me, honestly. Just got surprised about the reaction of my vote. Thought the vote along with the post were normal considering the nature of the game. When I read your first response to my vote, I read as "wtf are you doing? Are you mad? This is not what you're supposed to do, just keep quiet" and that made me anxious indeed, but after reading things up I know you didn't say things of this sort at all.
As far as feline comparisons, I suggest using "caracal" for me. I mean, they purr but sometimes try to attack things. I love them.
About new reads: nothing for now. Soon, perhaps.
@Rhand
Mr Rhand, I'm open to change my vote in time if convinced, just like I said in the voting post.
Third post in a row, because I just read stuff again, including some walls (which I still haven't understood)
If I was being coached I probably wouldn't just realize you guys were pointing this out at #365 as I did. I'd defend myself way before that.
I don't know all the expressions used on mafia, so it didn't occur to me you guys were theorizing about coaching, since I thought this word meant something harmless. I also read quickly the posts that I find convoluted, so it didn't catch my eye.
Anyway, probably not talking about that anymore. Sir Chriss doesn't seem to be willing to answer my questions or debate over that.
I like your read, Silver. Not biased and very realistic. I do admit my last vote was different from my previous posts, although I believe the reaction was exagerated.
Sir Chris, just a question: why you said your vote on me was for "bad resoning/bad voting" before if your reason was actually thinking I was a bad scum being coached?
Even if you didn't want to "push it" imediately, I don't see why you'd lie on your reasons to vote, there.
Hence,I don't know if your coaching theory is really sincere. You focused on saying my wording was aggressive (the "obvious" stuff). The speech seemed to rather be attacking my "rights" as a new player.
Can you clarify, please?
"Coaching is one when player gives advice to another play as to how to vote or otherwise behave in a mafia game. This may be a town player disagreeing with another player regardless of their alignment, sometimes it is viewed as scum trying to give advice to another scum player since scum usually don't have access to their private chat during the day."
Nope. Not happening. I didn't even notice who was voting Rhand when I did it. The vote was all by myself, and I wanted to do it as a more reasoned vote rather than a random one, as it used to be when I declared Cantrip vote based on nothing.
Talking to other players is also against the rules, isn't it?
It's part of my personality going all in into a game and trying to be good at this. Also, I like to speculate. That's why my vote may have seemed forced.
Also cheers.
Well, sorry for not posting recently. I've been a bit busy, but I'll do my best to participate more frequently.
I actually didn't quite understand what was being discussed between Cantrip and Sir Chris over my posts; too convoluted for me
By now, I don't find sufficient evidences to vote someone, but I acutally found particularly interesting that in #216 Rhand suddently jumps into Shadow's vote. Also, the conclusion over Shadow being town seemed suspicious, given it was not explained nor obvious. I could be wrong, of course.
It's actually apparently late to talk about posts this old, but at least it's some clue. Despite seeing some posts expressing confidence about Rhand's township, I'm willing to bet. But I may be convinced to take it back again, of course, since I'm kinda noob at this
\unvote Cantripmancer (I tought I had already unvoted, but ok) \vote Rhand
What is your conception of the game of Mafia as a new player? As in, how do you think it's meant to be played, how do you intend to play, etc.?
I assume you're asking this because either you need info and/or my previous comments were very bad from a playskill perspective
Anyway, that's an interesting question of yours.
Assuming I'm town, my goal is to catch slips in other players' speeches in order to build evidences of possible scum, while not becoming an easy or urgent target. And, not gonna lie, that's hard.
If I were scum, I'd want to induce other players to think that a towny is actually scum by conveniently interpretating their speech so it looks like a slip, while removing the target of my hypothetical allies.
Either way, I need to consider all that when reading the comments of other players. The process is: if I want to verify that a player is scum, I think "if player X is actually NOT scum, he's probably gonna do that particular thing" and see if that resolves. If he doesn't do it, his chance of being scum is reduced. And so on.
For example, if I were scum, I'd try to not answer too much your question because it gives you info. Since I'm not hiding my thought process, my chance of being scum is reduced, although wisely not erased.
I'm not posting a lot, which also indicates, using this thought process, that I'm town. Also, I'm so new at this that my moves must be obvious, so you should not be worried, I believe.
Tom and LnGrrrR have the earliest standing vote, and both voted each other. So after ~150 posts, no changing, which may be weird because there haven't been a lot of debate about Tom being scum, for example. Does that mean anything? I find peculiar that LnGrrrR hasn't changed his vote.
For example, I'm a much more easy target than Tom, and got under investigation. I also don't find enough evidenxes for a vote on Tom. Did I miss something on Tom? Also, maybe I'm too easy to be targeted that soon, assuming LnGrrrR is scum and I'm town?
Unfortunately, I can't advance a lot in this reasoning. Need more evidences.
@ LnGrrrR: Why do you consider Tom the best voting in the moment?
@ Everyone : Any thoughts on that? Sorry, this is the best I could bring for now. And I'm bored. May not be a good reasoning. But wanted to try.
Before anyone says something:
I'm not trying to create a [player vs player] scenario, which would be a scum indicative, nor trying to create an alarm on other people to clear my name of investigation. It'd be naive to try such things since you guys have more experience and would probably notice. Also, I'm making things clear by revealing my thought process.
Figured it was too early by then, and it wouldn't change the vote at the time.
I beg to differ about something and I feel the need to explain.
Which exact things did I avoid talking about? I don't feel like I picked anything. I'm sorry if I did, actually. Thought the only remaining line against me was that "coach" stuff.
One of the things I prioritize as town is to answer everything. To make things clear.
I'm fine about people voting me, honestly. Just got surprised about the reaction of my vote. Thought the vote along with the post were normal considering the nature of the game. When I read your first response to my vote, I read as "wtf are you doing? Are you mad? This is not what you're supposed to do, just keep quiet" and that made me anxious indeed, but after reading things up I know you didn't say things of this sort at all.
As far as feline comparisons, I suggest using "caracal" for me. I mean, they purr but sometimes try to attack things. I love them.
About new reads: nothing for now. Soon, perhaps.
@Rhand
Mr Rhand, I'm open to change my vote in time if convinced, just like I said in the voting post.
If I was being coached I probably wouldn't just realize you guys were pointing this out at #365 as I did. I'd defend myself way before that.
I don't know all the expressions used on mafia, so it didn't occur to me you guys were theorizing about coaching, since I thought this word meant something harmless. I also read quickly the posts that I find convoluted, so it didn't catch my eye.
Anyway, probably not talking about that anymore. Sir Chriss doesn't seem to be willing to answer my questions or debate over that.
Even if you didn't want to "push it" imediately, I don't see why you'd lie on your reasons to vote, there.
Hence,I don't know if your coaching theory is really sincere. You focused on saying my wording was aggressive (the "obvious" stuff). The speech seemed to rather be attacking my "rights" as a new player.
Can you clarify, please?
Nope. Not happening. I didn't even notice who was voting Rhand when I did it. The vote was all by myself, and I wanted to do it as a more reasoned vote rather than a random one, as it used to be when I declared Cantrip vote based on nothing.
Talking to other players is also against the rules, isn't it?
It's part of my personality going all in into a game and trying to be good at this. Also, I like to speculate. That's why my vote may have seemed forced.
Also cheers.
Does that mean what I think it does?
lol
Googleing it, just a sec
You...
a) are just pissed off because you think I behaved in a way I should not and it was unpolite or
b) suspect I'm scum for doing so?
I don't understand exactly which one of those is what's happening. Can you confirm?
Also, just wanted to clarify that being judgemental was what I thought the game was all about. Cheers
I even said I could be wrong in my reasoning.
But ok then.
I actually didn't quite understand what was being discussed between Cantrip and Sir Chris over my posts; too convoluted for me
By now, I don't find sufficient evidences to vote someone, but I acutally found particularly interesting that in #216 Rhand suddently jumps into Shadow's vote. Also, the conclusion over Shadow being town seemed suspicious, given it was not explained nor obvious. I could be wrong, of course.
It's actually apparently late to talk about posts this old, but at least it's some clue. Despite seeing some posts expressing confidence about Rhand's township, I'm willing to bet. But I may be convinced to take it back again, of course, since I'm kinda noob at this
\unvote Cantripmancer (I tought I had already unvoted, but ok)
\vote Rhand
Forgot to quote
Also, \unvote for now.
@Silver
I assume you're asking this because either you need info and/or my previous comments were very bad from a playskill perspective
Anyway, that's an interesting question of yours.
Assuming I'm town, my goal is to catch slips in other players' speeches in order to build evidences of possible scum, while not becoming an easy or urgent target. And, not gonna lie, that's hard.
If I were scum, I'd want to induce other players to think that a towny is actually scum by conveniently interpretating their speech so it looks like a slip, while removing the target of my hypothetical allies.
Either way, I need to consider all that when reading the comments of other players. The process is: if I want to verify that a player is scum, I think "if player X is actually NOT scum, he's probably gonna do that particular thing" and see if that resolves. If he doesn't do it, his chance of being scum is reduced. And so on.
For example, if I were scum, I'd try to not answer too much your question because it gives you info. Since I'm not hiding my thought process, my chance of being scum is reduced, although wisely not erased.
I'm not posting a lot, which also indicates, using this thought process, that I'm town. Also, I'm so new at this that my moves must be obvious, so you should not be worried, I believe.