Also day one is usually just pure joke votes until someone slips up, which is rare
EDIT: This was supposed to be in reply to that mention -_-;
Anyways you asked me if I wanted a lynch before. I like them for information but I don't want to mislynch if possible. You're attacking several players for not posting something useful, yet are you not doing the same?
Last edited by Midorikawa; 27th December 2012 at 03:21 AM.
Do not attack the active players for being active. Being active, especially on Day 1, is pro-town. It doesn't mean anything about who's scum and who's not but: for Pluto's sake, if you want to read that as a scummy activity, do it on Day 2.
You asking that question is a (poor) attempt to turn twinArmageddon's attack back on him. It won't work because in order to use that attack, you have to accept the validity of his premise in the first place. Which is good(!), because his premise is: Let's do something besides randomly vote Day 1.
On that note I'm done with this discussion because it is (virtually) impossible to have a productive discussion about whether we can have a productive discussion. Let's move on and do something I've always wanted to do:
EDIT: Someone told me that I got his apostrophe's wrong. Not fixing them though.
EDIT 2: I got the apostrophe wrong in my edit.
Last edited by Phoenicks; 27th December 2012 at 04:05 AM.
@Mr. Fahrenheit; it can but the majority of time for bmg its joke votes. Really only during the small games have I seen them start off serious
@Phoenicks; I was just pointing out that he's being a hypocrit being he posted posts useless to the town as well. Also being active day on isn't town. Mafia could easily be just as active.
@twinArmageddons; I actually think this is my first mafia game with you, I'm not sure who you've played with. I'm mainly pointing it out before the usual lynch vs no lynch discussion and its best to drop it before it turns into one like Phoenicks mentioned.
@Mr. Fahrenheit; So if attacking active players=scum then twinArmegeddons is also scum by your logic. Though also by yours and Phoenicks logic I'm town for being active. You are contradicting him while saying you agree with him, and also being hypocritical.
EDIT:I never said the serious start always happens in small games. It's just where I've usually seen it. And on another note, while we may be in pairs, there are still 24 people, which while we're all lovers and that equals 12 roles total, each person is different with their own play style.
I always vote No Lynch on Day 1, unless there is a strong reason not to (i.e. suspected slip, someone being incredibly anti-town/suspicious). However, regardless of that fact, mind if you explained what exactly about it worried you? You said I was scummy for it but didn't say why, but anyone and their dog can do that.
Midorikawa has a point with twin's postings. Yes, I understand he's saying "You should do something useful", but that in itself is not useful. If he wanted to do something useful, he'd start being a bit more aggressive. At the moment, yes, he is posting without saying an awful lot, exactly what he criticised Winter for.
Activity shouldn't be a strong indicator of alignment, whatever the day is. It has its uses, but it shouldn't be the be-all-and-end-all.
On the issue of joke/pointless statements, Aestivate I can see. Winter, not so much. Although I am confused as to why she 'doesn't want to give much away', she's not been avoiding anything and not been posting in a jokey way.
As it stands, there is no strong reason for anyone to be voted at the moment, so my vote stays.
~The Artist Formerly Known As PichuBoy~
EDIT: And what comes to TwinArmagennons and Winter Enchantress, I don't think that questioning about posting of postings sake is attacking either.
Last edited by Mr. Fahrenheit; 27th December 2012 at 09:39 AM. Reason: double negative away
@Mr. Fahrenheit; Not directly, but you said Phoenicks had a good reason to vote me, and that reason is because I was calling out twinArmageddons on his hypocrisy. Phoenicks said not to attack active players as being active on day one is town tell. I was talking about you agreeing with him, and brought up his logic.That's why I said it was yours and Phoenicks logic.
my point was not "you should do something useful"Midorikawa has a point with twin's postings. Yes, I understand he's saying "You should do something useful", but that in itself is not useful. If he wanted to do something useful, he'd start being a bit more aggressive. At the moment, yes, he is posting without saying an awful lot, exactly what he criticised Winter for.
it was "winter enchantress, in your response to phoenicks, you gave a fluffy non-answer that avoided the question entirely. you didn't contribute to suggesting any direction to the town"
honestly if you can extract any useful information from winter enchantress's posts other than "avoids questions when queried" then i'm all ears
honestly, if you have a mislynch, you can't really go wrong with voting inactives. nothing will ruin a town's chances like an inactive town. removing that highly increases the town's chances of winning.Activity shouldn't be a strong indicator of alignment, whatever the day is. It has its uses, but it shouldn't be the be-all-and-end-all.
her answer is literally "i have a vote and my vote can help lynch mafia"On the issue of joke/pointless statements, Aestivate I can see. Winter, not so much. Although I am confused as to why she 'doesn't want to give much away', she's not been avoiding anything and not been posting in a jokey way.
that means nothing and is an attempt to avoid the question
if there is a better way for the mafia to win than having a stagnant town playing off meta
let me know
(sidenote: the metagame is entirely bullshit)
in which case i'm not being hypocritical, and then you have no quarrel with me
@twinArmageddons; META? That doesn't exist to me.Also calling someone out on something that's unusual for them can be wrong. In the smash bros mafia the user Sputnik voted No lynch day one, when in my experience with her, she usually random votes someone. I called her out on it and it ended up into a discussion that got her lynched. She was town. Also calling you a hypocrit doesn't mean I agree with you at all. It means that you're doing exactly what you were telling others they shouldn't do. I called Phoenicks and Mr. Fahrenheit hypocrits too. You all keep saying things or agreeing with another, but then you go and do it yourself or contradict yourselves.
I prefer to look at the voting of day one after we get some information especially after my mistake in the smash bros mafia. For example in the All Stars mafia I used day one votes as evidence, as the mafia literally voted each other day one. But pointing out votes on day one, especially if there is any random voting, doesn't do good without more info.
VOTE: No Lynch
Right now only a few of use have posted at all, and no one really seems mafia to me right now.
Also on the note of inactives, I agree they can hurt the town, though it also depends on their level of inactivity, and if it's for the whole game, or only for a little due to something.
I'm dropping the discussion because: I'm attacking you for not contributing by attacking him for not contributing by attacking Winter Enchantress for not contributing.
In this case I'm leaning town on Midorikawa almost because I disagree with her logic. (There are other things to note, like how she likes every other post regardless of whether it's good for her or bad for her.) If I thought that there was a high chance of her being scum then I would lynch her. If I didn't, then I would do what I'm doing -- sit and draw her out some more.
I've always preferred to vote random inactive players: They don't contribute to the discussion at all, and have the blank chance of being scum. (If we assume 6 mafiosi (3 mafia roles) out of 26 players than the blank chance is 23%.) Being inactive may or may not be scumtelling/towntelling. However, being inactive is anti-town (there's a difference between towntelling and being pro-town).
Voting someone for the reason that they're inactive may also inspire them to become active. On Day 1, it's a much healthier policy than randomly voting or voting for active players.
I don't think that anyone was saying that activity was a strong indicator of alignment.Activity shouldn't be a strong indicator of alignment, whatever the day is. It has its uses, but it shouldn't be the be-all-and-end-all.
No strong reason to vote for a lynch is not a strong reason to vote for a no lynch.As it stands, there is no strong reason for anyone to be voted at the moment, so my vote stays.
Hence why I'm voting for someone who is currently inactive but may be prodded to show up.
Okay so after forgetting to subscribe to the thread and them remembering and after reading trough the thread, I don't feel like anyone is worth voting for yet.