Mafia: NPF edition

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

I know you are an aggressive player but damn that was fast. Also, with so many threats one would think in this game more than any other every townie counts. Although with the greater number of anti-town roles you do have a better chance of hitting an anti-town role.

As for the devil's advocate thing how was I supposed to respond to that post? I mean if we all just agreed with it right off the bat we'd be pretty much stuck with nothing to talk about. Also, even if we assumed there was at least one vet in the mafia it doesn't really help us at all for a few reasons. First, we don't no the number of vets that are mafia so if we just focused on vets for the moment some other only marginally suspicious activities from non-vet mafiates might go unnoticed. Second, a newb mafiate can be more dangerous than a vet mafiate as it seems if they do slip up any vet mafiates will axe them with a vote; see catlover in the last game. That's great for shifting focus off people at least for some of the less aggressive players and can make getting a majority vote harder. Of course that's all assuming the initial assumption was correct.

Of course all points are now moot because we are now actually discussing things in a logical framework that would lead somewhere. For instance, you think I'm mafiate because you precieved me attempting to stall the game; you of course also assuming me to be a strong player(or so I assume). However, one might also assume that given my assumed apptitude I'd no better than to play that card, but all that's just going to go in circles. So we'll leave this as a point against me.

Now I could assume that your hasty vote is to get someone who has proven himself to be adept at hiding himself well to expose himself. After all I did do a rather decent job convincing even the Mafiate I was of great importance to the town in the last game despite my role. So yes I'm probably a person to keep and eye on as I have demonstrated potential to be dangerous. Has have you Mesden which you yourself freely admit.

Although, that vote could also be a mafiate attempt to get a precieved strong player out of the game without wasting a night action. After all if anyone else with a townie night role happens to think I'd be worth having around then I might be a hard target to get at. Frankly I'd rather not be protected from night hits but its not up to me in any case.

You know what one word strikes me through all of this?

Assume.

I could assume everything, Sith. I could assume that you're a townie, I could assume this and that.

Assumption, when there's nothing to assume upon, is COMPLETELY and without a doubt pointless and baseless no matter what.

You took on the role of the antagonist, correct? Seems that way. Guess what I've always been? I'm the most protagonistic player you'll ever see.

It's in nature that we word it out and one of the only ways to get people to look at this with much thought is it to be between strong players and if there are high stakes.

For example, voting.

Some might see this as brash, but I'm RARELY going to FOS, only in the case that my vote is already taken and I want to point something else out. As FOS is nearly completely useless in this case and many more. (There's no real suspicion here so using a term that implies it is pointless.)

Some may recall how I got onto B_Real's case about not FOSing me but straight voting and see me as hypocritical, but B_Real had somewhat baseful suspicion and and FOS would be what was called for.

All that said and done I think my initial statement had the desired effect in that we actually have somewhere to go now. As well as firmer logical footing to proceed from and thereby a better chance of finding an actual threat. I stand by my previous actions and offer this last exchange of proof of its validity and worth.

Yup, somewhere to go. This coming from the antagonist facing off against the protagonist. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Does to me. But I'll agree the point if only for the fact that the game does need to move.

[Silly Kitty]

Mes, the cult, SK, and vig didn't do anything last night(I think) so there should only be 1 cult member.

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by Silly Kitty

Mes, the cult, SK, and vig didn't do anything last night(I think) so there should only be 1 cult member.

If I remember correctly, Garud said something along the lines of:

MAFIA SEND IN THE ONLY KILLING ROLE! PO may investigate soemone and the cult may draft one person.

I'm not quite sure, could we get some verification, Garud?

[Silly Kitty]

I think it was PO investigate and BG protect.

[Mesden]

I would think the cult gets a draft on night one, if only to make the CL not a normal player on day one, as they would be without another in their club.

But let's wait for Garud, and even if you are right, what I've said pretty much stays the same.

[Sithdarth]

Eh I just used assume because well I'm not you and I can't speak for you. Also, it seems to me that if I had just outright stated all that as fact we'd be discussing putting words in people's mouths. Its a bit of a lesser of two evils thing. That and I have an unhealthy tedancy to qualify everything I say. Its almost pathalogical at this point.

As far as the antagonist thing I rather see myself as neutral really. Of course part of being neutral is maintaining the positive and negative balance by supporting whichever side seems to be lacking at the time. In my first post that was of course to point out the flaws and such. Currently its well ... currently I'm not entirely sure what is the neutral path here but I'm half asleep so I'll chuck it up to that.

Ah, got it now. So your vote was the counter to my negative reinforcement idea. Thus it was meant to garner more discussion in both directions. I can see the reasoning but I don't know if I can fully support the idea. Its just not really my style but I can see its benifits. As such I say go for it and as such I shall play my part and try to counter point you when I can. After all there really is no point in trying to derail your whole approach to the game it gains us nothing. So fire away!

[GARUD]

Mafia Kill, PO investigate, BG protect. That was all. No cult last night, nor SK or Vig. Hope it clears things up.

I'm glad you guys are discussing the game like polite human beings. Remember to keep things civil people.

[Mesden]

So fire away!

Bang.

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

Eh I just used assume because well I'm not you and I can't speak for you. Also, it seems to me that if I had just outright stated all that as fact we'd be discussing putting words in people's mouths. Its a bit of a lesser of two evils thing. That and I have an unhealthy tedancy to qualify everything I say. Its almost pathalogical at this point.

Yes, but you were really just stating many possibilities of what I could be doing and that gives me reflective ideas of how you think and how I should respond to you. The word assume just had overuse to me.

As far as the antagonist thing I rather see myself as neutral really. Of course part of being neutral is maintaining the positive and negative balance by supporting whichever side seems to be lacking at the time. In my first post that was of course to point out the flaws and such. Currently its well ... currently I'm not entirely sure what is the neutral path here but I'm half asleep so I'll chuck it up to that.

That's all well and good, aside from it's not. Neutrality is completely town forsaking, you know. Always taking the weaker side? That's not good...Oh no, see, that means at some point you'll take the mafiates side when we've got them cornered. That I can't condone, you know.

You're saying that you're playing all sides and that's a used mafia tactic, bub. In the last game, it was Silly Kitty. She played on everyone's side to avoid much conflict against herself or to always look good in the worst of times.

As far as these forums, guess where this originated from?

Me.

Mafia SP, I was the cult leader. You know what I did? I acted nice to all sides so as no one wanted me dead. Trying to build my numbers the entire time while creating minimum conflict and yet still being an active player. I never got the anti lurk point and the reason I was killed was because the only two times I ever voted was against mafia.

Had it not been for my horrible luck and drafting and worse luck of almost all my members dying, I most likely would have won that game or come dead close.

Ah, got it now. So your vote was the counter to my negative reinforcement idea. Thus it was meant to garner more discussion in both directions. I can see the reasoning but I don't know if I can fully support the idea. Its just not really my style but I can see its benifits. As such I say go for it and as such I shall play my part and try to counter point you when I can. After all there really is no point in trying to derail your whole approach to the game it gains us nothing.

That and get your reasons behind your play style which I thoroughly acted against in my previous text.

And no, it's very little worth to condemn a play style unless it's one that goes to the extreme.

[Sithdarth]

The word assume just had overuse to me.

That's just me. I tend to fixate on a word or two during a chain of ideas and use the crap out of it. I've trained myself atleast attempt to fix it but it still happens.

That's all well and good, aside from it's not. Neutrality is completely town forsaking, you know. Always taking the weaker side? That's not good...Oh no, see, that means at some point you'll take the mafiates side when we've got them cornered. That I can't condone, you know.

Personally I'm of the believe that its better to see hundred guilty men go free than jail an innocent man. I've got a slight problem turning off my ethics for pretty much anything. Hell I can't even play a darkside character in KOTOR because I can't bring myself to act evil enough. Also, so what if I defend a corned mafiate. If you've got enough evidence against him that I'm convinced I'm not going to stand in anyones way.

Besides even if I did if the evidence was piled up that bad what ever I say isn't going to make a difference. If it does than one of two things is happening. One you people are putting far to much stock into the things I say; which is very bad. Two, there never was a very strong case in the first place and so something else probably conspired against the person. Of course that doesn't negate his probabalistic chances of being a mafiate but I don't really like voting totally on probabilty.

Oh and to tell you the truth I'm more for having fun than actually winning so I might not be fully thinking of anyone's but my best intrest while playing. Of course a small part of having fun is winning so mostly my best intrest, if you believe I'm a townie, will match with the towns.

You're saying that you're playing all sides and that's a used mafia tactic, bub. In the last game, it was Silly Kitty. She played on everyone's side to avoid much conflict against herself or to always look good in the worst of times.

Well I just have to ask, so? Its just as important that a townie stay on as many people's good side as possible. Unless they like being lynched. A townie should always assume that everyone not a confirmed townie is out there to kill them. As such staying on people's good side can really help. Implicit in that is that all other townies potentially suspect them as not a townie. So once again its a good idea to stay on the good side of as many people as possible. In general play style can have very little to do with role unless that play style directly conflicts with the goal of that role. I see no evidence of that here.

As far as these forums, guess where this originated from?

Me.

Mafia SP, I was the cult leader. You know what I did? I acted nice to all sides so as no one wanted me dead. Trying to build my numbers the entire time while creating minimum conflict and yet still being an active player. I never got the anti lurk point and the reason I was killed was because the only two times I ever voted was against mafia.

See statement above. Also, I really don't know even 10% of what went on in even the mafia games I joined. After I got killed off I stopped reading except for an odd few posts here and there when someone mentioned something interesting in other places about it. Although, even if I had read all of them I have this incrediable aversion to coping styles of play. Its another one of those odd quirks about me. Kinda like all this personal infromation I'm giving for no apparent reason really.

That and get your reasons behind your play style which I thoroughly acted against in my previous text.

Well those are some reasons up there, but really my play style is all about my personality. Part of that is a complusive need to make sure I and everyone else sees all sides of everything. I'm a really wholistic type of guy. So really what we have here is conflicting play styles and conflicting personalities, more than likely. Well at least its drummed up an honest discourse that hopefully will lead to a dead mafiate.

[Truce]

Now why would anyone assume that "vets" would see Twiddy as a threat? As far as I know from skimming his posts in the Forum Games forum, he hasn't done anything spectacular in any game, at least nothing that would make him considered as a threat-you should know that yourself, since you've played in several games which he signed up for.

That assumption seemed to be a little bit too sure of itself, especially since I can see no justification for Twiddy being a possible threat to the mafia. And you know what, my gut instinct tells me that you're the threat-to the town.

Vote: Neyo

Yazai!