[Silanah]

you make a good point kess

[Tennes]

Lurkers

[Kessobahn]

I do?

[Kessobahn]

Sure I do. It is a great idea for a killer to shed light on what he is by making a a gun reference in one of their posts.

[Tennes]

Silanah, on 09 September 2011 - 03:01 PM, said:

you make a good point kess

Was this serious?

[Silanah]

Kessobahn, on 09 September 2011 - 02:54 PM, said:

Tulas Shorn, on 09 September 2011 - 09:22 AM, said:

Telas, on 09 September 2011 - 08:03 AM, said:

I feel like i've been hit on the head during the night. What to do with no one to gun for yet? I fear 'you are not it' is not a very sensible way of choosing a lynch target.

that would be an amusing way to make cases

how's this for making a weak ass case.

vote telas

for signaling that he is a killer with a gun reference.

this.


i think a lot of people would try to signal and this was missed by a few people including me. Now we await night's resolution i guess and then discuss it more on day 2.

[Korbas]

Kessobahn, on 09 September 2011 - 03:07 PM, said:

Sure I do. It is a great idea for a killer to shed light on what he is by making a a gun reference in one of their posts.

Sorrit was just lynched on similar grounds. Even if it's weak, it seems that a vote for someone who has made "suspicious" comments is usually preferable to a random choice. Mafia is just probability and psychology.

[Kessobahn]

Tennes, on 09 September 2011 - 03:09 PM, said:

Silanah, on 09 September 2011 - 03:01 PM, said:

you make a good point kess

Was this serious?

I thought he was being sarcastic too but I guess not.

[Kessobahn]

Korbas, on 09 September 2011 - 03:12 PM, said:

Kessobahn, on 09 September 2011 - 03:07 PM, said:

Sure I do. It is a great idea for a killer to shed light on what he is by making a a gun reference in one of their posts.

Sorrit was just lynched on similar grounds. Even if it's weak, it seems that a vote for someone who has made "suspicious" comments is usually preferable to a random choice. Mafia is just probability and psychology.

Well lucky for you former pinky I was wanting to vote you out for having an ugly ass avatar that screwed me the last time I faced it. But you went ahead and changed it.

[Kessobahn]

How's that for psychology.

[Silanah]

you think it too obvious for a killer to make that statement?

[Tennes]

Korbas, on 09 September 2011 - 03:12 PM, said:

Even if it's weak, it seems that a vote for someone who has made "suspicious" comments is usually preferable to a random choice.

A lot of people are playing safe/lurky.

Being the first on a train is sticking your neck out more than most because you have to either contrive a reason for voting or admit you're voting in your own interests. Both have some risk of drawing heat, but traditionally the latter is worse because it's easier to abandon a case than to deny your playstyle. Which I think is why we see such a flood of votes following the first. People are relieved they don't have to move first and can just hop on in agreement - which is easier if you can say you agree with their case rather than their tactic.

Once a few votes are placed people can then hop on simply by merit of it being the leading train.

[Kessobahn]

I think it is highly unlikely that a killer would do that. It would be incredibly stupid for one. Why draw attention to yourself. Any smart killer would not want to do that.

[Tennes]

Kessobahn, on 09 September 2011 - 03:23 PM, said:

I think it is highly unlikely that a killer would do that. It would be incredibly stupid for one. Why draw attention to yourself. Any smart killer would not want to do that.

Kesso is being wishy washy about his case.

[Kessobahn]

Tennes, on 09 September 2011 - 03:22 PM, said:

Korbas, on 09 September 2011 - 03:12 PM, said:

Even if it's weak, it seems that a vote for someone who has made "suspicious" comments is usually preferable to a random choice.

A lot of people are playing safe/lurky.

Being the first on a train is sticking your neck out more than most because you have to either contrive a reason for voting or admit you're voting in your own interests. Both have some risk of drawing heat, but traditionally the latter is worse because it's easier to abandon a case than to deny your playstyle. Which I think is why we see such a flood of votes following the first. People are relieved they don't have to move first and can just hop on in agreement - which is easier if you can say you agree with their case rather than their tactic.

Once a few votes are placed people can then hop on simply by merit of it being the leading train.

I disagree. I believe it's in towns' best intrest to just pile votes on players without knowing which side they are voting for. We have no winning conditions until we vote to lynch someone. If we get lynched or night killed before then we have no hope of winning. It's those players that either didn't vote or were hesitant to vote that we need to look at as either FBI or Outfit.

[Silanah]

a bold and brazen killer would do it to easily dismiss the case against him

a new guy would do it by mistake

another guy would do it just to be too obvious therefore getting you to dismiss him as a potential killer (which you have just done by saying it incredibly stupid)

so yeah there are reasons one would do this.

[Kessobahn]

Tennes, on 09 September 2011 - 03:25 PM, said:

Kessobahn, on 09 September 2011 - 03:23 PM, said:

I think it is highly unlikely that a killer would do that. It would be incredibly stupid for one. Why draw attention to yourself. Any smart killer would not want to do that.

Kesso is being wishy washy about his case.

It was a joke case. But if people honestly think that a killer would signal that they are a killer in one of their posts then fine. I'm all for following this through. I need to vote for someone and I'm not sure if my vote on Telas counts towards determining my winning condtion as it was done after the lynch and before the end of night.

[Korbas]

Silanah, on 09 September 2011 - 03:28 PM, said:

a bold and brazen killer would do it to easily dismiss the case against him

a new guy would do it by mistake

another guy would do it just to be too obvious therefore getting you to dismiss him as a potential killer (which you have just done by saying it incredibly stupid)

so yeah there are reasons one would do this.

I agree, I don't think we can dismiss suspicious posts because we assume no one is stupid enough to make a mistake. Not only is that usually a bad assumption in my experience, but we just lynched Sorrit for making a similar, "stupid" mistake.

I'm not saying we should just lynch Telas for saying the word "gun", but let's try to be consistent if we can...

[Tennes]

Kessobahn, on 09 September 2011 - 03:26 PM, said:

Tennes, on 09 September 2011 - 03:22 PM, said:

Korbas, on 09 September 2011 - 03:12 PM, said:

Even if it's weak, it seems that a vote for someone who has made "suspicious" comments is usually preferable to a random choice.

A lot of people are playing safe/lurky.

Being the first on a train is sticking your neck out more than most because you have to either contrive a reason for voting or admit you're voting in your own interests. Both have some risk of drawing heat, but traditionally the latter is worse because it's easier to abandon a case than to deny your playstyle. Which I think is why we see such a flood of votes following the first. People are relieved they don't have to move first and can just hop on in agreement - which is easier if you can say you agree with their case rather than their tactic.

Once a few votes are placed people can then hop on simply by merit of it being the leading train.

I disagree. I believe it's in towns' best intrest to just pile votes on players without knowing which side they are voting for. We have no winning conditions until we vote to lynch someone. If we get lynched or night killed before then we have no hope of winning. It's those players that either didn't vote or were hesitant to vote that we need to look at as either FBI or Outfit.

Which part are you disagreeing with?

I'm not saying voting randomly is against the towns best interests, just that for any individual it's a bit risky because we're usually against that sort of thing.

[Silanah]

Kessobahn, on 09 September 2011 - 03:31 PM, said:

Tennes, on 09 September 2011 - 03:25 PM, said:

Kessobahn, on 09 September 2011 - 03:23 PM, said:

I think it is highly unlikely that a killer would do that. It would be incredibly stupid for one. Why draw attention to yourself. Any smart killer would not want to do that.

Kesso is being wishy washy about his case.

It was a joke case. But if people honestly think that a killer would signal that they are a killer in one of their posts then fine. I'm all for following this through. I need to vote for someone and I'm not sure if my vote on Telas counts towards determining my winning condtion as it was done after the lynch and before the end of night.

so you knew the lynch had gone through yet you voted anyway? so the reason for this? i can only see that as signalling. what would be the point in the "joke vote" otherwise. i could have seen some merit in the case because that is what people do, but then you dismiss it as easily as create it, therefore it makes you and him look a bit suspicious