Gods of Ancient Greece. Forum mafia game.

Well, I don't know... we don't know if Gwaihir was a god or not and if he was, which one he was. That could easily have disproved that sentiment though of course not prove it. Just like regular people some gods are overwhelmingly evil and Tartarus is one of them.

Interestingly Hephaestus could be an god that is not clearly good/bad. Zeus generally commands him to do his bidding and is capable of making great weapons (the bolt that Zeus has was created by Hephaestus for example) but also is responsible for many other things (under some interpretations he was responsible for creating the first female from clay if memory serves). So, what if Moar is truely NK/Lynch proof and as a balance for her inability to vote, she has the ability to create items to give to people. This would fit the role better. There is no proof she is being truthful or lying (by omission) about her role.

I don't know, I'm probably just smoking something...

If i did drugs I would certainly want some of what you are smoking. ;)
 
Working my way through posts again....

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?

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

Putting these two quotes together. Ok, I get the part where you don't want to "hurt" the "side" that you are on, but in actuallity by stating multiple times that you are trying to be cautious doesn't make it sound like the side that you are on is the towns side. By proclaiming that your trying to be catious its like saying that you are conciously making an effort to not be caught. This then leads me into my second question, which was what you would consider to be a major screw up. It was directed toward getting a reponse specifically for this game, however I did expect you to say something along the lines of the above (wouldn't want to put the town in a worse position yada yada), your actual response is however much more interesting because instead of coming out with the standard response you essentially all around avoided the question and referenced previous scenarios almost as if you don't want to seem like your town or mafia in this game. I'm not quite sure what to make of it, but it was in no way expected.

Thank you so much for answering a question directed toward Leo.

@Leo - My question to you is still asked.



That's twice. Why are you covering for Leo and Moar?

Sorry Gory, from when I read it the first time it sounded like you were addressing the question towards either me or kegs since we saw the reference and that you would like one of us to try and fill you in on what the reference was. I didn't know it was directed toward Leo.

As for the second part, I was trying to be humorous, but if you had to point it out, I guess it wasn't. :p

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 think I'm lost on your thinking, you post a "wild theory" in which a whole bunch of people are connected through the use of various restrictions/roles/whatever, but then go on to say that they probably wouldn't use it on the first day? Which is it? Do you believe this is happening or you don't?

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, ok. Your almost as good as the great noodle at lurking, except he never votes on the first day.

Interesting.
ML 3 posts
Anekli 2 posts
corax 2 posts

Trying to make a case for me posting and save your lesser posting scum buddies?

Also, I don't have posting habits, as they have been different every single game.

A lurker pointing out other lurkers, and even though you may think it, everyone has a posting habit.
 
I am now comfortable to vote for you too. Why am I on the backburner until you can prove my claim if you could prove my claim today? Both your other sentences had "..., but..." in them. That means to me that you say something and moderate it right away and are actually not saying a thing.

Which you should have expected from the preceding statement about the perceived quality of posts...

Yes, we can try to lynch you today and yes it would prove you couldn't be lynched, but only for today. However, if we wait and see you vote and see that the vote is not effective, then we can request you continue voting everyday to continually verify your claim. I'd rather see that happen then to potentially waste that effort in lynching you. Doing so would be a wasted town action. I'd rather see somebody else looked at... ergo backburner
 
Trying to tell us nothing?

This is the CG quote that Korial quoted:



And his next paragraph:


This post makes me feel like you are trying to be on both sides of this issue. Not quite agreeing with what CG did but not quite condemning him for it, either.

Well you seem to conveniently ignore my post when I point out it looked like subtle role fishing. Put that in there, and imo it all becomes much clearer.

And yes I lowered the suspicion of him a bit after he explained his reasoning. So I see Solar Ice's vote, go back to re-read and notice the subtle fishing myself, make a post about it, he explains his reasoning, and then the posts you quoted show up.

The next time, please include the whole story.


@Sathoris: Just because we can't lynch him, doesn't mean he's a treestump and confirmed townie, but at least it gives some information, and Moar have seemed suspicious.

Vote: Moar
 
Which you should have expected from the preceding statement about the perceived quality of posts...

Yes, we can try to lynch you today and yes it would prove you couldn't be lynched, but only for today. However, if we wait and see you vote and see that the vote is not effective, then we can request you continue voting everyday to continually verify your claim. I'd rather see that happen then to potentially waste that effort in lynching you. Doing so would be a wasted town action. I'd rather see somebody else looked at... ergo backburner

I agree with you, but with under 2 hours left it doesnt look like there will be a lynch sadly.
 
Well you seem to conveniently ignore my post when I point out it looked like subtle role fishing. Put that in there, and imo it all becomes much clearer.

And yes I lowered the suspicion of him a bit after he explained his reasoning. So I see Solar Ice's vote, go back to re-read and notice the subtle fishing myself, make a post about it, he explains his reasoning, and then the posts you quoted show up.

The next time, please include the whole story.


@Sathoris: Just because we can't lynch him, doesn't mean he's a treestump and confirmed townie, but at least it gives some information, and Moar have seemed suspicious.

Vote: Moar

Her. Not a big thing though.
 
Well you seem to conveniently ignore my post when I point out it looked like subtle role fishing. Put that in there, and imo it all becomes much clearer.

And yes I lowered the suspicion of him a bit after he explained his reasoning. So I see Solar Ice's vote, go back to re-read and notice the subtle fishing myself, make a post about it, he explains his reasoning, and then the posts you quoted show up.

The next time, please include the whole story.


@Sathoris: Just because we can't lynch him, doesn't mean he's a treestump and confirmed townie, but at least it gives some information, and Moar have seemed suspicious.

Vote: Moar

What if Moar is only invulnerable for today? What if we vote for her, she flips immune, then what? It could have been a temporary thing just for the day, provided by her team. A lynch on her today (imo) doesn't prove anything useful for the long term evaluation of her role. On the other hand, her proving that she can't vote every single day seems to be a better route... though I admit that does not peg her to a particular team/alignment. My suggestion, don't lynch her today. Verify her votes are null and if she's playing or reading as scum then lynch her on that and that alone. This will make it difficult for scum to protect her assuming they can or actually are.... yes i know, more wild theory/speculation/etc. But, as it stands, I don't see a vote for Moar to be particularly useful.
 
@Sathoris: Just because we can't lynch him, doesn't mean he's a treestump and confirmed townie, but at least it gives some information, and Moar have seemed suspicious.

Vote: Moar

Unlynchable mafia is BM and I don't expect that in this game.

Which you should have expected from the preceding statement about the perceived quality of posts...

Yes, we can try to lynch you today and yes it would prove you couldn't be lynched, but only for today. However, if we wait and see you vote and see that the vote is not effective, then we can request you continue voting everyday to continually verify your claim. I'd rather see that happen then to potentially waste that effort in lynching you. Doing so would be a wasted town action. I'd rather see somebody else looked at... ergo backburner

A mafia who cannot vote is much more likely to be in the game than a mafia who cannot be lynched.
 
What if Moar is only invulnerable for today? What if we vote for her, she flips immune, then what? It could have been a temporary thing just for the day, provided by her team. A lynch on her today (imo) doesn't prove anything useful for the long term evaluation of her role. On the other hand, her proving that she can't vote every single day seems to be a better route... though I admit that does not peg her to a particular team/alignment. My suggestion, don't lynch her today. Verify her votes are null and if she's playing or reading as scum then lynch her on that and that alone. This will make it difficult for scum to protect her assuming they can or actually are.... yes i know, more wild theory/speculation/etc. But, as it stands, I don't see a vote for Moar to be particularly useful.

If she can't be lynched you can still test her vote capabilities tomorrow. What are you afraid of? We're headed toward a no lynch anyway..
 
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?

In my experience, scum try to dodge hard questions and avoid putting them out there. The two OT questions were given as an option for Leo to dodge the main question. Sort of like concealing her thoughts amidst a large pile of OT chaff. Leo is the queen of this practice, though others are capable of it too.

Since Leo answered directly and used terminology I associate with town, then I came away with the impression that she simply has a gut read on Laarz.

Apologies for speaking about you like you're not here, Leo. No offense is meant.

Slight tangent: phone posting is literally the worst thing ever.
 
Unvote: Caluin Graye
Vote: Moar

unvote: kestegs
vote: Moar



I do tend toward lurking as generally most of the questions I have are already/better covered by someone else so I don't see much point in repeating them.
 
Back
Top