Gods of Ancient Greece. Forum mafia game.

[Goryani]

This is interesting to me. Partly because of my new wild theory (not quite as wild as Zokar's but I will get there eventually) includes a post restriction.

With Moar's post up there and willingness to prove she can't vote but unwillingness to declare her god (which btw doesn't fit all that well), I think it is just as likely that scum have a post restriction they can give out that will render the recipients vote meaningless. Gory questioning Kegs could be a way of mafia gloating they have the ability to hand out the restriction. Either way, to see if I am vote restricted:

Who do you think was given the post restriction today? And you think that post restricted player should also be voteless? Did you just breadcrumb that you have a post restriction (and hence wonder about being voteless) or are you blowing smoke up our...

 

[thefranklin]

Who do you think was given the post restriction today? And you think that post restricted player should also be voteless? Did you just breadcrumb that you have a post restriction (and hence wonder about being voteless) or are you blowing smoke up our...

You skipped the paragraph where I mentioned "wild theory." There was a lot of talk about a posting restriction in the sign up, so why not? And what if this post restriction does nothing but render their vote meaningless, and the mafia are using that to try and hide a tree stump for the first member that gets heat on them? If that were the case and they did have the ability, they probably wouldn't use it the first day.

BTW, you breadcrumbed it first in my quoted post. And did you confirm a post restriction with your first question I bolded?

 

[Jcakes1]

No, I'm not especially suspicious of Gory (outside of the guilty until proven innocent-suspiciousness).

So what was your reason for saying that Sath is more suspicious than Gory (if you are essentially neutral to Gory). Comparing him to Gory implied to me that you thought Gory was somehow suspicious.

Because I don't want to hurt the side I'm on with the way I've played. When that happens I feel really bad, and like I've ruined the game for others. Sometimes to the point of not wanting to join a new game, to avoid ruining other peoples fun.

In the SG game, I got myself outed as scum, and slipped up even more with revealing there still were people left in my group. In the NCIS game I outed myself as doc, to save our backup-doc. Basically if I died, the backup doc would receive my doc powers. In other words 2 docs outed, and quite early at that. In another game again, I made a major slip. IIRC I was scum and someone tried to miss-quote me to present me saying something I didn't, someone else pointed it out, and I basically said "Phew, glad I didn't make that mistake!" or along those lines.

Or are you asking what I'd consider a major screw up in this game?

This is all I had time to answer for now. Moar has received some scum points for basically the same thing I got suspicious of CG about. Also for claiming tree stump, but that one is easy to test out. However thefranklin's theory is interesting (I think it was him), mentioning a targeted post restriction from mafia. IIRC we've had that before in a game, where the targeted person was not allowed to post at all for 1 day phase. So even if it is a bit of a stretch, I could see that as a possibility. I feel like there was something else I wanted to point out as well, but can't seem to recall it atm. Will get to that later.

@Ankeli: Who are your top suspects for today? Who would you consider a good lynch candidate?

@corax: You've been quite this game. Who are your top suspects and why?

@Zokar: IIRC you've not really provided much so far apart from the wild theory post. Please answer the same question I posed to corax.

@SI: What's your thoughts on Moar's claim?

Not sure what to make of this post. You started by stating that "I don't want to hurt the side I'm on" which sounds kind of like you are saying that you are not on the same side as the town. You went on to list examples of when you screwed up as both Mafia and Town. but then you asked this "Or are you asking what I'd consider a major screw up in this game?". That was the way I took the question which was "why would you need to be more careful" and was why I found your reply a little odd. I am really not sure what to make of you, you've been a bit all over the place today.

That said I think the person I am going to vote for now is Laarz. He has made 14 posts today, maybe two of which at a stretch could be considered to have substance. Feels like he is trying very hard to get post count without contributing much at all.

I am heading to bed, but should be back in time to post a vote before days end if need be. I think the day ends at around 8 am my time .

 

[Jcakes1]

Realised I didn't actually vote after all that

?Vote: Laarz

 

[Goryani]

You skipped the paragraph where I mentioned "wild theory." There was a lot of talk about a posting restriction in the sign up, so why not? And what if this post restriction does nothing but render their vote meaningless, and the mafia are using that to try and hide a tree stump for the first member that gets heat on them? If that were the case and they did have the ability, they probably wouldn't use it the first day.

BTW, you breadcrumbed it first in my quoted post. And did you confirm a post restriction with your first question I bolded?

I can't breadcrumb something I know nothing about. The first question, which you bolded, points out the major inconsistency with your wild theory. If you have a post restriction, you will have been told you have a post restriction. Your "Either way, to see if I am vote restricted:" comment indicates you don't have said post restriction, so the comment, and the "theory that necessitates such a comment, is nothing more than a ruse. You're trying to make me look suspicious based on a theory you don't even believe in.

Also, I would LOVE if mafia try to fake a treestump in the manner you describe. There are multiple ways to test a treestump. I place a vote on the "treestump." I wait for a vote count update. I see my vote counts. I have just exposed a lie. Easy mafia lynch.

 

[thefranklin]

I can't breadcrumb something I know nothing about.

But I can?

The first question, which you bolded, points out the major inconsistency with your wild theory. If you have a post restriction, you will have been told you have a post restriction.

Really? The first question I had bolded asked is you asking me if I had the post restriction. It was not pondering whether there was a post restriction or not. A. And what rule states that a restriction as such has to be vocal to the recipient?

Your "Either way, to see if I am vote restricted:" comment indicates you don't have said post restriction, so the comment, and the "theory that necessitates such a comment, is nothing more than a ruse.

Again, wild theory.

You're trying to make me look suspicious based on a theory you don't even believe in.

See above (wild theory, knew you would get confused). Testing it, why would they pick me anyway if that is the one power they have? My votes last game never hit mafia.

Also, I would LOVE if mafia try to fake a treestump in the manner you describe. There are multiple ways to test a treestump. I place a vote on the "treestump." I wait for a vote count update. I see my vote counts. I have just exposed a lie. Easy mafia lynch.

B. Since when can we not vote for a tree stump? Unlynchable does not mean unvotable. Your post came to a screeching halt with that statement. You have two instances where you are making large assumptions that a normal Gory wouldn't (labeled A and B for your understanding).

 

[corax1]

At the moment I really have nothing to base suspicions upon.
There have been some silly/odd posts but I fail to see how people can read so much into it on the first day.

My vote on postrestrictstegs stands

 

[Kestegs]

I can't breadcrumb something I know nothing about. The first question, which you bolded, points out the major inconsistency with your wild theory. If you have a post restriction, you will have been told you have a post restriction. Your "Either way, to see if I am vote restricted:" comment indicates you don't have said post restriction, so the comment, and the "theory that necessitates such a comment, is nothing more than a ruse. You're trying to make me look suspicious based on a theory you don't even believe in.

Also, I would LOVE if mafia try to fake a treestump in the manner you describe. There are multiple ways to test a treestump. I place a vote on the "treestump." I wait for a vote count update. I see my vote counts. I have just exposed a lie. Easy mafia lynch.

I've always thought that a vote on them would actually stick, but they would just fail to be lynched at the end of the day. It's been quite a while since I've played with a stump in the game though. That being said, the first page does reflect a vote currently on Moar.

At the moment I really have nothing to base suspicions upon.
There have been some silly/odd posts but I fail to see how people can read so much into it on the first day.

My vote on postrestrictstegs stands

Wow, that's a pretty epic comment after 200+ posts in the day.

 

[Sathoris]

Why are you discussing a posting restriction? Is there any sign of one?

No, so let's drop it.

 

[FredOfErik]

So what was your reason for saying that Sath is more suspicious than Gory (if you are essentially neutral to Gory). Comparing him to Gory implied to me that you thought Gory was somehow suspicious.

Sath asked if I would have been less suspicious of him, if he had done what Gory had done - I answered that, yes, I was more suspicious of Sath than Gory (IE: I would have been less suspicious of Sath if he had done what Gory did).

I did not intend to express suspiciousness of Gory.

Why are you discussing a posting restriction? Is there any sign of one?

No, so let's drop it.

+1

 

[Goryani]

But I can?

I didn't say you were breadcrumbing. You have a guilty conscious. If there happens to be a mafia role which gives out post restrictions then I think it's yours.

Really? The first question I had bolded asked is you asking me if I had the post restriction. It was not pondering whether there was a post restriction or not.

Yes. I was wondering how much you actually thought about your theory. That is a useful guide to whether or not you really believe in the theory or if the theory is possible. You have given zero indication you have ever considered who might have been given the post restriction required by your theory. Therefore, I conclude that you don't seriously believe in the theory.

A. And what rule states that a restriction as such has to be vocal to the recipient?

That's the nature (and definition) of post restrictions. A post restriction is when someone is notified their posts are restricted in some manner.

Again, wild theory.

If you were given a post restriction, you would know. It's no longer wild theory to you. You wouldn't have to feign ignorance about whether or not your vote would count.

See above (wild theory, knew you would get confused). Testing it, why would they pick me anyway if that is the one power they have? My votes last game never hit mafia.

I don't currently believe there is an ability which hands out post restrictions. Therefore, I have no reason to speculate why you or anyone else would be targeted by such an ability.

B. Since when can we not vote for a tree stump? Unlynchable does not mean unvotable. Your post came to a screeching halt with that statement. You have two instances where you are making large assumptions that a normal Gory wouldn't (labeled A and B for your understanding).

You assume mafia have an ability which doles out post restrictions.
You assume that ability renders one voteless.
You assume Moar is mafia.
You assume I am mafia.
You assume we are scheming together to create an epic production in which we trick the town into thinking Moar is a treestump by using the post restriction on her for D2.
You assume we (well, me) are gloating we have such an ability before it's used and before it's needed (I think my post 124 was before Moar had any votes but I'm not positive).
Somewhere in here, you strongly insinuate mafia either have daytalk and came up with this plan when Moar recevied some heat or that mafia planned this during the first night before the first day.

And you say I'm the one making large assumptions.

I never seriously considered your theory nor even a similar Moar-is-mafia-faking-a-voteless/lynchproof-role. I don't jump to step 5 without first considering step 1.

 

[ThunderCat]

Vote tally has been updated once again. And if you do find an issue with the votes, I would appreciate you let me know in a PM. I'm only human and I might makes mistakes from time to time.

PS: I need to post less. I'm in the top10 posters up until this point.

 

[korialstraz]

Not sure what to make of this post. You started by stating that "I don't want to hurt the side I'm on" which sounds kind of like you are saying that you are not on the same side as the town. You went on to list examples of when you screwed up as both Mafia and Town. but then you asked this "Or are you asking what I'd consider a major screw up in this game?". That was the way I took the question which was "why would you need to be more careful" and was why I found your reply a little odd. I am really not sure what to make of you, you've been a bit all over the place today.

I started that way, because I decided to answer the question in general, and not specifically related to this game. I always am nervous/worried about screwing up. Mafia, town or neutral, doesn't matter. I don't like making a mistake that will end up hurting my team. Besides if I had started "Because I don't want to put the town in a worse position." then I'm basically stating I'm town. And you guys won't know for sure if I'm town, so what's the point? At this point everyone in this game can scream off the top of their lungs I'M TOWN!!!! But we can't verify it, so it doesn't help the town at all. Also by answering the question in a more general (I guess OT/out of game sort of way), I can prevent this question from arising again in future games. It saves the town time that can be spent scumhunting instead.

@Pyro: Was the question aimed at getting a response specifically for this game? Until answered...

Vote: Pyrotechnician

At the moment I really have nothing to base suspicions upon.
There have been some silly/odd posts but I fail to see how people can read so much into it on the first day.

My vote on postrestrictstegs stands

Wow, that's a pretty epic comment after 200+ posts in the day.

Completely agree. You didn't find a single thing in 200+ worth of posts suspicious? Mind you I asked who your top suspects are, not who you'd want to lynch.

But let me phrase it differently. corax who do you find the most suspicious, and why?

As a follow-up question, if the phrasing makes a difference to your answer, I would like to know why.

 

[korialstraz]

Bah I forgot to mention, I will be around for day end to switch my vote if needed.

 

[thefranklin]

That said I think the person I am going to vote for now is Laarz. He has made 14 posts today, maybe two of which at a stretch could be considered to have substance. Feels like he is trying very hard to get post count without contributing much at all.

I am heading to bed, but should be back in time to post a vote before days end if need be. I think the day ends at around 8 am my time .

Speaking of people with drastic posting habit changes and no contributions,

Unvote: Goryani
Vote: MartinLong

Ps: Lol, my phone always autocorrects "unvote" to "invite", so please do not show up at my house. You weren't really invited.

 

[Kestegs]

The chart won't come up on my phone, has Martin posted at all?

 

[pharphis]

If ML has no posts and no reason sent to TC, then I'm okay for a lynch of him. However, I'd much rather lynch just about anyone else in the game because it will allow us to draw connections, whereas lynching ML (at this point) brings us relatively little information (assuming he's town, which is almost always the case D1).

I too can't see if he has any posts right now because I'm on my phone and about to get groceries

 

[Goryani]

Please don't try to put words in my mouth. At worst it's insulting to me, and at best it's only unbecoming of you. They are my words and I phrased them in a specific way to get a specific reaction out of Leo. The two seemingly insignificant questions may appear that way to you, but they had a very specific purpose to which they fulfilled admirably. I can't help if you can't see beyond your own preconceptions, but don't you dare try to tell me what I did and did not mean to say with my words.

Did you come to any conclusions regarding the specific purpose which was fulfilled admirably and which might lead to the lynching of scum? If so, care to share those conclusions?

 

[Kestegs]

If ML has no posts and no reason sent to TC, then I'm okay for a lynch of him. However, I'd much rather lynch just about anyone else in the game because it will allow us to draw connections, whereas lynching ML (at this point) brings us relatively little information (assuming he's town, which is almost always the case D1).

I too can't see if he has any posts right now because I'm on my phone and about to get groceries

If that's the case I don't see a reason to lynch him as he should be mod killed.

 

[Sathoris]

Just because ML didn't show up he's mafia? Lynches on day one are flimy but surely you can do better.

Caluin's got three votes for saying Leo is mafia cause she said Laarz is town. Any talk of masons is fairly ridiculous as I don't think any mason would make such a huge slip on day one. Everyone else only has one vote. I'm sticking with Jcakes, he got pressured and reacted defensively and guilty. Enough for a day one lynch.