Mafia: NPF edition

[Roy_D_Mylote]

Well, it's not like I said, "Lookee, I'm in the mafia, oh shit, I mean I'm not." I used the word "convincing" wrong. I think I'm being suspected because I seemed to agree with Mesden.

EDIT: B_real:

Originally Posted by GARUD

The GO will come up with a brief narration on what happened overnight. Sometimes there will be a clue or a red herring from the story.

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by Roy_D_Mylote

Well, it's not like I said, "Lookee, I'm in the mafia, oh shit, I mean I'm not." I used the word "convincing" wrong. I think I'm being suspected because I seemed to agree with Mesden.

That tends to happen a lot, sadly. I'm a "Dangerous" player, or so I've been told. But you don't need to be cautious to make your speech sound gold. Other claim that they be town, but they try to keep us down, so why'cha kick it with the player with the voice most sound?

(Yes, I'm insane)

[Truce]

Actually, I suspect you because of other reasons, which you haven't really addressed. In fact, that has made me so suspicious of you that I think I'll

Vote: Roy

As the most suspicious person to me right now, I have no reason not to, you know?

[Roy_D_Mylote]

Okay, Ecurt, you said the reason to suspect me was because I was "quick to defend Neyo". Well, I wasn't really defending him. I can however, see how you would think that. I was offering an alternative explanation.

[GARUD]

I haven't decided. Depends on my mood. Look out for red herrings but don't expect them every time.

[Truce]

It's not just that you were quick to defend Neyo. It was the degree that you were willing to defend him. It was possible that he could have a town role-but it is also very unreasonable. Also, as a townie you never want to reveal a town role for fear of them getting caught by the mafia or cult (since there's no SK in this game).

[Roy_D_Mylote]

But, like I said, I wasn't neccesarily trying to defend Neyo. I was presenting an alternative view point.

[Sithdarth]

See I've already stated how I can be convinced of someone's guilt if the evidence is good enough, and that doesn't have to be PO evidence. I also stated I won't entirely give up on anyone. I'll always be playing every angle and thinking of every possible out and I'll state the least stated case. I won't state only the least stated case though for a few reasons. The first being I won't always agree with it. The second reason is stating just one case on my part won't preserve the balance any more than holding my peace and not saying anything.

So hypothetically lets say we have a potential mafaite cornered. I'm not going to solely defend him/her just because no one else is. I'll be pointing out the flaws in both cases at the same time. I fail to see any harm coming from this. If the case is strong for the mafiate and the defense will be weak and I will be changing nothing, and chances are we have a mafiate. If the reverse is true then chances are we have a townie. If both cases are strong or both cases are weak then I simply feel there isn't reason to lynch and we should be looking for more evidence of at someone else. Hopefully as now my poking holes will engender enough conversation to bring the extra evidence to light or turn our attention to another person.

Now if you people start taking my world as gospel I'm going to stop saying so much because once again that doesn't serve the balance. Putting that much stock into anyone regardless of ability isn't smart. Its been stated at least once that even the best among us make mistakes. Further, Mesden noted that the more ability a person has the more careful you have to be about catching there mistakes.

I still fail to see how this approach is some great danger to the town. So I want to take a slightly safer round and maintain objectivity and hopefully minimize the townie lynches. Does this mean I think that we will never hit a townie by accident? No, I'm quite aware that even with all the careful objective reasoning in the world we could still mess up.

At this point Mesden's argument seems to be centered around one of a two possible perceptions of how I'm going to play. One being that I'm going to ride in like a white Knight whenever someone gets in trouble and save them. That I will not do as it isn't a very objective stance. I will point out logical flaws on both sides of the argument though because that is objective.

The other would be that I'm never going to vote for anyone. I've already stated that I will in fact vote when I'm convinced and that I can be convinced; Ie I don't need PO confirmation of guilt. Now lets hypathetically assume I don't vote for the first few nights. Is that really going to make all that much of a difference? Probably not if you have enough people convinced to get a simple majority and a lynch my one vote isn't going to do much either way. Now if things were tied up in that situation I'd weigh both cases and make a decision one way or the other and break the tie.

Ok so Mesden wants to approach this with the mind set that you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. I on the other hand would rather make sure I've considered everything before making a decision. I'd think Mesden is probably going to do something very similar but isn't being as vocal about as me. That it very well might take less evidence to convince her of something than me. So at its base this is about Mesden's personality and how it shapes her opinions, ie she's out for blood and isn't quite as concerned about collateral damage as I am. Against my personality and how it shapes my opinions, ie I like to take a slow and measured approach to things.

Which suddenly reminded me of a point. We pretty much have all the time we need to decide about someone until they get close to a majority of votes and a deadline is set. I'm a patient sort and I don't care how long it takes to get enough votes to set a deadline. Mesden seems to like action and getting things done as fast as possible. That's great but its just not how a normally do things.

[Truce]

See Roy, even by bringing up an alternative, you indeed defended Neyo, since you were trying to say he's innocent in that alternative. There wasn't much basis for the alternative either, and it's possible you brought it up because you were trying to get Neyo killed by the mafia. There are also the points that B_Real brought up as well, but I didn't notice them at first myself.

It's like the Complicated Sentence Game. You can say the same thing in many different ways. Bringing up alternatives and defending someone just happened to be the same thing this time.

[Roy_D_Mylote]

There wasn't much basis for your voting for Neyo in the first place, either.