Two-Headed Mafia: The Game

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Originally Posted by Cati

For now, my main suspicion is on Tenwllms. grthwllms has been saying a whole lot (has the second most posts) without actually saying anything -- not lurking, being active, but not helping. I would think if you have that many posts, you would have made an argument by now, heck, you would have posted more than a sentence in one of the posts, you know? Lurking looks suspicious, but being active does not. And if you don't say much in your posts, then there is less likely of a chance that you will screw up and say something wrong. Also, another reason to not say much to help is that, well, scum generally doesn't want to help town. You can manipulate town, yes, but if the town picked a townie to lynch all on their own, why say much of anything, beyond the obvious? Extra plus to this is that when the townie gets lynched, it immediately doesn't fall back on you because you can say "don't look at me, not my fault, my vote was random."

if I may, I'd like to offer up my defense for my part of this.

While I don't truely keep count, before my break from mafia following the return to NPF I believe that I have been lynched for nothing other than inactivity around three times during my history of mafia.

Sometimes I was scum, sometimes not. But for these first few new games I'm at least trying to present myself as a not lurking person. You'll note, Cati, that during the Small-town mafia Lunaknight also found my activity suspicious, and indeed I made a few mistakes with my roles information, but I wasn't scum.

[Tendronai]

Originally Posted by Cati

The other reason why I'm suspicious of Tenwllms (and the main reason I've been paying extra attention) is because of Tendronai, who hasn't posted much at all (in fact, only once, like secretskull). The reason I'm singling him out here is because I discovered on HORP that he has a sneakity sneak semi-lurk tactic that works quite well -- post enough to not be considered a super-lurker, but otherwise be unintrusive. However, I don't know if he uses the same tactic as a townie as well, perhaps somebody else has noticed and could say.

This 'tactic' is related less to what role I am and more to how busy I've been comparatively.

I do like to think, however, that I wouldn't be dumb enough to adopt a tactic which constantly revealed what alignment I was to anyone who was paying even casual attention to the last few games I was in.

[Demetrius]

I'm suspicious of the Cati/Beeevil combo for finding my partner's lack of posting suspicious. A little research will reveal that the guy never posts, I think the only reason he did was because I had made the post about not hearing from him (because I hadn't).

Soooo...

FoS: Be_Cati

NYEH!

[P-Sleazy]

Atleast we're trying to find scum. All you guys are like "look they're trying! Lets lynch them!" or "They want to have sex with themselves...lets kill them so they can't reproduce."

[secretskull]

People, I'm sorry that I don't post more in this game. I'm being swamped with finals, but I'm keeping up.

[bananarama]

Don't worry, other head! I will post should the necessity arise... but since I have pretty much locked in our day 1 vote unless massive evidence appears, damning someone else. But I mean this IS a day 1 vote so the odds of such evidence appearing is highly improbable if not impossible...

[Cati]

grthwllms: Not lurking = good, but to me, posting without saying anything is a bit more suspicious -- as I said, stops someone from being lynched for lurking, but still not saying much. As for Smalltown, I'll check that as soon as I can get HORP to load again. *smacks it*

Tendronai: Very well, but I will say your semi-inactivity has fooled me many times into ignoring you when I shouldn't, and I've noticed others have done the same.

Demetrius: Actually, it was more the avoiding Day One part of not posting than the not posting. He's actually been posting now, as I said.

Originally Posted by Cephrir

Arguing what people will be helpful is a better reason to lynch than what roles will be helpful, kind of. It's basically just a tell when someone is significantly more or less active than usual, but I suppose it's still better to lynch a useless player over a more helpful player if they're about equal in scumminess.

I see... Well, if you have any suggestions to supporting that, then by all means, but I don't feel comfortable touching that argument and I don't think I know people enough to do that anyway. :P But that does make the "lynch the people who might lurk" argument make a little more sense to me.

But why Apeever? The most suspicious thing I'm catching is the spite vote, and I'm finding that one understandable. Am I missing something?

[Cephrir]

For a L-1 vote early, then another one later, both times for ~no reason?

[spontaneous combustion]

Originally Posted by Cephrir

Voting lurkers is a lame strategy. I pretty much only suggest that as scum, unless I have zero idea who the scum might be (presumably because they all seem really protown or are confirmed). And by the way, SC is always a lurker-to-the-max.

Okay other half, I'm sorry I work during the week. Also, day 1 on this forum is retarted. Half of the players go by outdated scum tells and the other half bandwagon random votes based on outdated scum tells. Honestly, if I had anything interesting to say on the matter I would. It just seems like certain people get voted because they might actually have some strategy, but try to joke around at the same time. It's like we all agree that 3+1=4 but can't decide whether it's relevant.

[Demetrius]

Can we get some sort of a deadline... This is starting to stagnate.