A lot of what I say publicly is bluster. The way people react to me when I say nothing of value can be very telling. In the same way, I ask questions because players can choose the tone with which they respond much more freely than if you accuse them before you can respond to them. (The way Andrea responded to me, for instance, was "different" and changed what I was thinking about her.) I ask "What are your self-tells?". It's a meaningless question. People are rarely aware of their own tells -- and if they are, can change them. The responder is replying to nothing with something.I want to start by going back to a post that I made which went un-responded-to.
Pichuboy in that post got annoyed but not in an accusatory way. Nulltell. That's okay -- it gives me a sense of his personality and adds to my mental picture of the way he acts. I responded with a blank answer to see if there was anything else to be drawn out.
Depends on their strategy. If the strategy was "do your own" thing then anything is possible. Anything is possible.Secondly, I want to address Pichuboy's post about Feli. Actually I want to compare G-Mama's post with Pichuboy's post. Basically Pichubro's only point was about Feli's activity comment, which Gama already had brought up breifly in his post. That could fit with the mafia strategy of one fella leading the lynches and the other lying low, but why would they repeat the same thing like that. It seems like if they were planning an attack, Pichubro would have left the stuff that Gama said out.
In my experience I like to bus my partners as long as there's no one else throwing suspicion on them. It's in the mafia's best interest to support lynches against a target while getting someone else lynched. G-Mama suspecting a partner no one else suspected is a win-win: if people turn on G-Mama's partner, then G-Mama looks credible; if nobody does, then the mafia can lynch an innocent.There's also the issue of Gama bringing up Pichuboy as a possible second mafia player. With only two mafia players in the game, it seems really dangerous to risk throwing your partner under the bus. Of course he could have been saying that to throw us off which would make this WIFOM, but I don't think that Gama really forsaw his death coming so soon.
I think it's a dead-end discussion since G-Mama FOS'd everyone.
It just struck me as town.Finally, in response to my not caring, what I don't care about is whether or not people think I read the thread. You're just going to have to trust me that I did read it because it would be stupid of me to sign up for a game and then not read the thread. I do, however, care about getting lynched. If I'm on the chopping block then I'll try as hard as I can to not get lynched whether I'm town or mafia. The only time I ever willingly laid down when there were votes against me was the first game I ever played, and that was because I was mafia and a town player had already admitted to me that she cheated by finding the mafia QT. Under normal circumstances I find it highly reprehensable to have such an attitude.
From my point of view, Feralize and Andrea were not online when there were 3 votes on me.This brings up a good point. If Phoenix is not mafia, then how come mafia didn't hammer when there were 3 votes against him? It could be that mafia already voted for him, which would leave KidBeano again, or of course Phoenix himself.
On Day 2 I was on long enough to see discussion not going anywhere. When I came back the phase had already shifted.
On Day 3 I saw nothing. Then I came back to find three votes on me.
The point is not that I didn't have time to vote and participate. I did both. I was not online when the particular bandwagons you're referring to ended the phases. Phrasing it as "you weren't accused" doesn't change the fact that you're repeating the charges, either.
I'm not sure if you mean that I'm rebutting at this moment in time, or the moment in time when that post was first written. I'll address both possibilities. That was written before I began to rebut in earnest. At the time I was one vote from being lynched with two players who had not posted to suspect me.You're rebutting now - you've not been lynched yet.Not only did you all not give me time to rebut, you didn't give me substantive arguments either. I don't have the time to search for FOS's except to say that my suspicion was minorly on Luminosity before she responded to my questions.
That's not my argument. You made the assumption (a reasonable one) that there would be time to discuss Feli's lynching. Why was your only argument toward lynching her in that post, with the expectation that there would be debates, "She was being too touchy about the lynch for my liking"? At what point were you going to debate for or against her?That post was not the be-all and end-all of my suspicions. I could super-analyse every single little thing someone has done in this thread, but there's a fine line between scumhunting and just pure overkill. I don't see how you can call me out on something which you yourself have just admitted to doing:
Yes I can. I'm town. :PSo you can do that, but I can't?I initially FOS'd (without putting it in those terms) Luminosity because she voted for Feli and then stated that random voting was the reason why she made that vote -- when three people (Midorakawa, myself, and Neon Borealis) had all voted on G-Mama for exactly such a random reason.
In my case I placed a FOS and changed my mind. In your case you placed an FOS and didn't vote before the bandwagon. My argument here is about the way you talked about debating without posting what I felt was a substantive debate. I don't understand why you think these are comparable, unless you're intentionally obfuscating the point.
That's not the point. (That's a pattern here.) You could have voted me immediately. Instead you waited when your "evidence" for voting me did not require you to wait. You could have voted for me earlier on Day 3 when you first posted. You waited instead. What is your theory? My guess is something about roles. I could read this as a hint as you being a power role and waiting to see if I would counterclaim. If you're the doctor, you should claim -- that would put the town in autowin and I'd gladly let myself be lynched to win.I never said that was my only reason, I said during Day 2 that the theory was the only thing PREVENTING me from voting you. You've proved it isn't true, and as such, I have no reason not to vote you anymore. You'll also notice in my first post of Day 3 that I said "Best to wait for Feralize to report her result before we make any decisions." That's exactly what I did, it's not my fault that I was beaten to voting.KB already posted in this phase -- in his response to me that I quoted above. He could have voted for me after I posted because the logic he uses to lynch me is "my aforementioned theroy was wrong". If that is his reason (it's not much of one at all), he could've voted for me immediately. Instead he voted after there was already pressure on me. If he had brought forward new reasons for lynching me as Missingno. had then I could ignore this point. But he chooses to cite reasons that are "aforementioned". If the theory had already been mentioned, why did he wait until voting for me?
So the wise mafioso would vote before the hammer.Why would the mafia make an obvious hammer today? They'd just be lynched tomorrow. Whoever hammers today's lynched is going to raise a few eyebrows no matter what.
I'm going to not vote Pichuboy. I wasn't cleared myself, and my leading theory for his theory is that he's the last power role. If not, I'm game.