|
|
Post by crudulak on Nov 17, 2009 15:07:58 GMT -5
I have to admit that most people that have been posting seem like town to me, but I'm not sure we should lynch a random lurker. We probably wouldn't learn much, if anything, even if we do hit scum. This may just be a conflict of strategy, but I think suggesting random lynches could be scummy.
I think the case on jagilki is probably the strongest, and the longer he stays away from the thread, the stronger my suspicions get. Also, the possible connections to be made no matter what he flips are intriguing.
I would still like to hear from him, and hopefully he'll answer my question.
Vote: jagilki
|
|
|
|
Post by Maidpool w/ Cleaning Action on Nov 17, 2009 15:24:30 GMT -5
Well, to be fair to Jag on the staying away from the thread thing he did mention multiple times that he was going hunting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maidpool w/ Cleaning Action on Nov 17, 2009 15:31:01 GMT -5
One thing to consider to is how much suspicion is on Jag. If we choose to lynch him then we can form a stronger opinion on those that defended him strongly or went against him strongly after we find out who he really was. This may also be why he doesn't mind being taken out on Day 1. If he is a townie he may see it as kind of clearing his defenders to and shifting the focus to others.
Quite frankly, this lynch is going to be between choosing someone that is inactive or choosing someone who's lynching can possibly answer other questions.
Therefore, I'm going to VOTE: JAGLIKI for now, because quite frankly it's all a shot in the dark this round but his lynching may at least be able to bring up some points about others.
VOTE: JAGLIKI
|
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Walsh is Insane. on Nov 17, 2009 18:36:22 GMT -5
I don't feel right voting for Jag.
He's historically a good player, and can be an asset.
And yeah, his super humbleness came across awkward, but I don't think that's enough for me to vote for him.
Who will I vote for? I've been swayed from the last two pages on picking a lurker. Someone under the radar. Someone that is here, but not here at the very same time.
That someone is pretty random, and the thought is more like, he is what left after the 'who has posted a lot / who hasn't posted' extremes are gone: Sweet and Sour
VOTE: Sweet and Sour
|
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Nov 17, 2009 19:10:12 GMT -5
So you want the rest of us to keep our names out there, doing the dirty work, making the accusations and defenses, tossing out scenarios and looking for alliances, so you can sit back and fly under the radar hoping infrequent, non-contributing short posts will keep you safe until the day before a lynch when you will finally contribute but were not supposed to consider you for that lynch? NO! As I (tried to) say there is a difference between doing the "Dirty work" and making pointless bandwagons. What I'm trying to say is "I might contribute to the game before the day of the l ynch and I might no depending on how strongly I feel on my point." I mean of the odds of us lynching scum at the first day are completly random where as the odds of us lynching a townie on the first day are high which is wHY I don't (imo) get into pointless bickering here or bandwagon someone when the odds of lynching a townie are so high. That would be fine. In fact I too am a strong proponent of early bandwagoning. So much so that I spoke up against it and became a suspect and got a vote. Emoticon too spoke up against a band wagon and recieved quite a few FoS's for his theory. You, however have waited until all that has died down to say your against a bandwagon? If you are against a bandwagon don't just wait till the end of the day to say so. There is one starting on Jag. Post why the bandwagon is bad, or why you think there reasoning is faulty. With the other lurkers they have remained gone. However you have interestingly enough become active enough recently to defend your lurking at every accusation. So you stand against bandwagons but only when pressed for a stance but you can show up whenever you are mentioned randomly as a suspect? I would still like to hear something from Curt Hawkins fan, and maybe some more from a few of the other mentioned lurkers. But I will not be voting for Jag or anyone who has voted for him so far as they all have at least contributed to the game and have given the town something to work with, excepting maybe the drive by vote he got early. |
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Nov 17, 2009 19:12:00 GMT -5
EBWOP
I meant strong proponent AGAINST early bandwagoning.
|
|
pegasuswarrior
El Dandy
Three Time FAN Idol Champion
@PulpPictionary
Posts: 8,748 
|
Post by pegasuswarrior on Nov 17, 2009 21:08:48 GMT -5
There have been about three posts from three different people that mirror my line of thinking about the game thus far. Number one is that I agree with the assumption that Mafia are not going to necessarily post in excess this early. Another thing is that we might ought to compile some votes a day in advance, which is why I stated yesterday that tonight would be my time to vote.
When I said that I think it's not beneficial to peg a lurker and rather go after someone that's likely an active poster, I didn't necessarily want to imply that I meant you look directly at the top tier posters (in terms of numbers of posts). And that brings me to my third point that I agree with. Latino Meat has really had some quality posts--in my opinion--in the last couple of pages and that steered me away from what was going to be a semi-wild shot in the dark in his direction. And surprisingly, he made his vote a few posts up and I was even more shocked that he targetted my suspect for the day. Sweet N Sour has posted and fits within the parameters of my "active yet under the radar" allusion earlier. My line of thinking is that if I really were a Mafia member and trying to lay under the radar without seeming like a lurker, his posts are exactly the types I would make: full of nonchalance and a tad generic.
VOTE: Sweet N Sour
To Sweet N Sour: I'm not saying I'm locked in and 100% convinced or anything. But this vote is your prompt to show me something and make me believe otherwise.
(Of course, since there's not exactly a bandwagon forming with his name on it, my vote may not exactly carry all that much weight.) But yeah, I'd like to get some reassurance from Sweet N Sour that might help me go in the right direction if he is indeed town and not mafia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Emoticon Man, TF Fan on Nov 17, 2009 21:14:31 GMT -5
Hm. So, Mod, what's the vote tally? Knowing how things stand might help me decide who I'm going to cast my vote for.
|
|
Tfmcmg is Johnny Green
Team Rocket
Rampage hasn't retired. He's just waiting for the day a RAW writer steps into the octagon
Posts: 898
|
Post by Tfmcmg is Johnny Green on Nov 17, 2009 21:33:03 GMT -5
NO! As I (tried to) say there is a difference between doing the "Dirty work" and making pointless bandwagons. What I'm trying to say is "I might contribute to the game before the day of the l ynch and I might no depending on how strongly I feel on my point." I mean of the odds of us lynching scum at the first day are completly random where as the odds of us lynching a townie on the first day are high which is wHY I don't (imo) get into pointless bickering here or bandwagon someone when the odds of lynching a townie are so high. That would be fine. In fact I too am a strong proponent of early bandwagoning. So much so that I spoke up against it and became a suspect and got a vote. Emoticon too spoke up against a band wagon and recieved quite a few FoS's for his theory. You, however have waited until all that has died down to say your against a bandwagon? If you are against a bandwagon don't just wait till the end of the day to say so. There is one starting on Jag. Post why the bandwagon is bad, or why you think there reasoning is faulty. With the other lurkers they have remained gone. However you have interestingly enough become active enough recently to defend your lurking at every accusation. So you stand against bandwagons but only when pressed for a stance but you can show up whenever you are mentioned randomly as a suspect? I would still like to hear something from Curt Hawkins fan, and maybe some more from a few of the other mentioned lurkers. But I will not be voting for Jag or anyone who has voted for him so far as they all have at least contributed to the game and have given the town something to work with, excepting maybe the drive by vote he got early. First off , I came back when I read the post that said I need to be proded and then posted. Then a couple of people told me that if I weren't more active I would be lynched and just like everyone else in the game I didn't want to be lynch. Secondarily , correct me if I'm wrong here but from what I've read the whole Jagkill bandwagon is based off how he answered a simple questionnaire. It wasn't a slip and it doesn't appear to be overtly scummy and that's why I haven't called jag out or anything like that. |
|
|
|
Post by Allison Reynolds on Nov 17, 2009 21:42:49 GMT -5
* Messages from GM: I would like to remind everyone the option of No Lynch which I am currently allowing for Day 1 only. I am willing to extend the deadline to Friday, if by popular opinion the tributes want that time for more discussion or time to think over their votes.
===
Official Vote Count:
Jagiliki - 5 (Jazzman, Jonathan Michaels, Al Bundy, Crudulak, Deadpool)
Ritt - 1 (Simply Tea and Crumpets)
Latino Meat - 1 (Ravishing One)
Tfmcmg - 1 (Gunslinger)
Sweet n' Sour - 2 (Latino Meat, Pegasus Warrior)
Tributes not voting:
Scruffy
Jagiliki
D-lirious-2
Sweet n' Sour,
Mr. Emoticon Man, TF Fan
Oblivion Sorceress
Ritt
Curt Hawkins Fan
Tfmcmg
Michael Hayden
With 20 alive it will take 11 votes to lynch.
Deadline will be Wed, November 18th, 11:00 PM HST.
Jonathan Michaels and Curt Hawkins Fan will be prodded.
|
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Nov 18, 2009 0:01:33 GMT -5
That would be fine. In fact I too am a strong proponent of early bandwagoning. So much so that I spoke up against it and became a suspect and got a vote. Emoticon too spoke up against a band wagon and recieved quite a few FoS's for his theory. You, however have waited until all that has died down to say your against a bandwagon? If you are against a bandwagon don't just wait till the end of the day to say so. There is one starting on Jag. Post why the bandwagon is bad, or why you think there reasoning is faulty. With the other lurkers they have remained gone. However you have interestingly enough become active enough recently to defend your lurking at every accusation. So you stand against bandwagons but only when pressed for a stance but you can show up whenever you are mentioned randomly as a suspect? I would still like to hear something from Curt Hawkins fan, and maybe some more from a few of the other mentioned lurkers. But I will not be voting for Jag or anyone who has voted for him so far as they all have at least contributed to the game and have given the town something to work with, excepting maybe the drive by vote he got early. First off , I came back when I read the post that said I need to be proded and then posted. Then a couple of people told me that if I weren't more active I would be lynched and just like everyone else in the game I didn't want to be lynch. Secondarily , correct me if I'm wrong here but from what I've read the whole Jagkill bandwagon is based off how he answered a simple questionnaire. It wasn't a slip and it doesn't appear to be overtly scummy and that's why I haven't called jag out or anything like that. That is my point. You say your against early bandwagons and that the evidence against Jag didn't seem to warrant a bandwagon. But you only say that now after the bandwagon is already well got its wheels under it. Me and Emoticon were asking for more discussion days ago. If perhaps you had taken a stand earlier I might believe that you were against the bandwagon, but silence is passive consent. Also why the votes so far for Sweet as a lurker. Granted I think his post count isn't that high but I do think he has contributed a bit. He himself said going after a lurker might be good and did point out suspicions about Jag which makes him way more contributing then at least four or five other people? Just wondering if there was any particular reason because I still do not know who I am voting for. |
|
|
|
Post by crudulak on Nov 18, 2009 0:47:41 GMT -5
GM: I definitely vote yes to more time.
I like the thinking about "active without being a lurker." Unfortunately, many players seem to be playing this way so I am still against lynching random lurkers.
After rereading Sweet & Sour's posts, I noticed that there's not much directed towards finding scum except a comment that jag is suspicious. There doesn't seem to be much effort involved in finding scum, and I find that scummy.
|
|
Jazzman
King Koopa
Trombone Shorty > Your Favorite Musician
Posts: 11,231
|
Post by Jazzman on Nov 18, 2009 1:17:57 GMT -5
GM: I definitely vote yes to more time. I like the thinking about "active without being a lurker." Unfortunately, many players seem to be playing this way so I am still against lynching random lurkers. After rereading Sweet & Sour's posts, I noticed that there's not much directed towards finding scum except a comment that jag is suspicious. There doesn't seem to be much effort involved in finding scum, and I find that scummy. Bingo Crud my good man. Glad to see someone else picked up on that as well. I just went back through because Jag's comments have been giving me second thoughts plus the ideas everyone else brought up. Sweet has posted enough, but hasn't really said anything, if that makes sense. It is because of this that for the time being, until I get a response from Sweet he gets a big ol' FoS with the possibility of me moving my vote in that direction. |
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Nov 18, 2009 1:25:41 GMT -5
GM: I definitely vote yes to more time. I like the thinking about "active without being a lurker." Unfortunately, many players seem to be playing this way so I am still against lynching random lurkers. After rereading Sweet & Sour's posts, I noticed that there's not much directed towards finding scum except a comment that jag is suspicious. There doesn't seem to be much effort involved in finding scum, and I find that scummy. True but Sweet does discuss strategies, so we know how he is going to play, what his plans are. We haven't even got that much out of Scruffy, Tfmcmg, or Johnathon Micheals even who did vote. He basically said well we got to vote for someone and people have repeated Jag's name enough that I am voting and am out. |
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Walsh is Insane. on Nov 18, 2009 1:36:24 GMT -5
First off , I came back when I read the post that said I need to be proded and then posted. Then a couple of people told me that if I weren't more active I would be lynched and just like everyone else in the game I didn't want to be lynch. Secondarily , correct me if I'm wrong here but from what I've read the whole Jagkill bandwagon is based off how he answered a simple questionnaire. It wasn't a slip and it doesn't appear to be overtly scummy and that's why I haven't called jag out or anything like that. That is my point. You say your against early bandwagons and that the evidence against Jag didn't seem to warrant a bandwagon. But you only say that now after the bandwagon is already well got its wheels under it. Me and Emoticon were asking for more discussion days ago. If perhaps you had taken a stand earlier I might believe that you were against the bandwagon, but silence is passive consent. Also why the votes so far for Sweet as a lurker. Granted I think his post count isn't that high but I do think he has contributed a bit. He himself said going after a lurker might be good and did point out suspicions about Jag which makes him way more contributing then at least four or five other people? Just wondering if there was any particular reason because I still do not know who I am voting for. I can't speak for anyone else, but my vote came not because he was a lurker or a super active poster -- but because he was in that area where in the last game, the Mafia were able to fly under the radar. And yes, I know, a different game and all -- but I feel at this point, since we don't have anything concrete on anyone and I don't feel right fully voting for anyone else, it's the best theory to go with. For me. |
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Nov 18, 2009 1:37:20 GMT -5
I just read the part about possibly getting more time.
Vote Yes to more time
|
|
|
|
Post by Triple H buried SnS on Nov 18, 2009 1:51:52 GMT -5
There have been about three posts from three different people that mirror my line of thinking about the game thus far. Number one is that I agree with the assumption that Mafia are not going to necessarily post in excess this early. Another thing is that we might ought to compile some votes a day in advance, which is why I stated yesterday that tonight would be my time to vote. When I said that I think it's not beneficial to peg a lurker and rather go after someone that's likely an active poster, I didn't necessarily want to imply that I meant you look directly at the top tier posters (in terms of numbers of posts). And that brings me to my third point that I agree with. Latino Meat has really had some quality posts--in my opinion--in the last couple of pages and that steered me away from what was going to be a semi-wild shot in the dark in his direction. And surprisingly, he made his vote a few posts up and I was even more shocked that he targetted my suspect for the day. Sweet N Sour has posted and fits within the parameters of my "active yet under the radar" allusion earlier. My line of thinking is that if I really were a Mafia member and trying to lay under the radar without seeming like a lurker, his posts are exactly the types I would make: full of nonchalance and a tad generic. VOTE: Sweet N Sour To Sweet N Sour: I'm not saying I'm locked in and 100% convinced or anything. But this vote is your prompt to show me something and make me believe otherwise. (Of course, since there's not exactly a bandwagon forming with his name on it, my vote may not exactly carry all that much weight.) But yeah, I'd like to get some reassurance from Sweet N Sour that might help me go in the right direction if he is indeed town and not mafia. Wow... what 8 hours difference will make... I went from having no votes to 2 (almost 3). And why? Cause i'm not 'quite' a lurker' but not 'quite' active. I don't really feel like I NEED to defend myself yet, but I have nothing to hide, so I will. Everything I've said has been (at least in my eyes) for the benefit of the town. I am of the belief that we have about as much chance lynching a mafia that is a lurker than one that is active at this point. But we potentially lose someone that can be helpful if we lynch someone active and they flip town. Noone has really disagreed with me on this, but was and is defintely open for debate. I feel like i'm in the minority with this position, so people may just not be bothering. If the majority feels that isn't the way to go, then I won't either as it would end up just wasting votes. Being day one, i don't really have much in ways of suspects. I have a long shot suspect based on one comment. But its all I got to go on. Depending on how he flips could bring up some new angles and suspects. I would rather see day 1 last the alloted time so we have more time to get more information to base our vote on for day 1, as well as when we enter into day 2. This is the only reason why I haven't voted Jag yet, which will probably happen tomorrow unless I see something to change my mind(or unless it gets extended to friday, which would be all the better) "I'm 100% town" he says knowing it won't matter. If there is anything specific you want me to comment about, please point it out to me and I will. That is to everyone that brought me up... not just Pegasus. |
|
|
|
Post by Triple H buried SnS on Nov 18, 2009 1:54:54 GMT -5
also Yes to more time
|
|
Jazzman
King Koopa
Trombone Shorty > Your Favorite Musician
Posts: 11,231
|
Post by Jazzman on Nov 18, 2009 2:11:32 GMT -5
yes to more time as well
|
|
|
|
Post by ♥ Bunnyslinger ♥ on Nov 18, 2009 5:58:11 GMT -5
More time indeed.
also, UNVOTE
VOTE Sweet N Sour
Like pegasus said, not locked in 100% on this, but hopefully we'll be able to get a spurt of information on the last leg of day one if we apply some pressure somewhere.
|
|
