Distrust

[Trev]

Joking isn't a scumread. Trying to cover up a contradiction by handwaving it as humour and brushing off a valid point as reaching is a bit more concerning. Originally I just thought you'd overlooked something, now you're acting outright suspicious.

[unvote] Neon Sword
[vote] Trev

Except I wasn't being contradictory and you didn't make a valid point. I said, "I do not want to lynch today as we could kill important/helpful roles and give mafia an advantage," hence why I'm not pushing a lynch even if I have suspicions. Your "point" is that you think I have strong suspicions on a person yet didn't vote for them, which isn't true. You read into a harmless joke, hence why I said you're reaching. Now you're reaching more by trying to push a lynch on me based on those fallacies.

I suspect that the reason you're doing this is because you know I'm a strong player from the last time we played, where I called out both mafia on D1. You latched onto something that could have been misinterpreted and turned it into an accusation of hypocrisy so you could get me out of the game early and cover yourself. Great strategy, but try to be less obvious when you do it.

[Unvote] Neon Sword
[Vote] gimmepie

 

[gimmepie]

Hate to break it to you but I'm not the sort to be intimidated into rash tactics like you're implying. I'm a perfectly capable player myself and don't need to be. Good show of talking yourself up there but it kinda falls flat.

If you were that concerned with not lynching a potential PR, you'd be voting for nobody already and trying to use up our only no lynch. Alternatively, you want to save the NL - but that would be another contradiction since you apparently don't want to accidentally vote a PR. As it stands you have a silly OMGUS vote remaining vs a vote on a supposed legitimate scum read and you're choosing the silly vote based on some pretty fragile reasoning.

You are legitimately contradicting yourself and you can't cover that up. Maybe you're making a nonsensical play as town but I don't want to waste our one NL early nor do I want to waste the day by not getting the maximum amount of available info. You are the currently the most suspicious player by far, thus I'm voting you. That's all.

 

[Trev]

My vote on EvilChameleon was made so that I didn't use my No Lynch. Since I considered nobody suspicious at the time I voted for EC, all votes were equal. The only reason behind why I opted to do an OMGUS vote on EC was because I wanted to make the "don't be fucking rude" joke, which clearly doesn't fly here. Apparently making jokes is a scumread, because otherwise you're reading into completely harmless actions I've taken so you can make me look suspicious, which is incredibly scummy. My vote for EC was literally just so I didn't use my No Lynch or get penalized for not voting.

Maybe this is unclarity in the rules. "No Lynch is only allowed once" sounded to me like every individual can opt to No Lynch once, but you appear to believe that we all collectively get one No Lynch. Some clarification from Sparkin would be nice so I can stop being accused on the basis of your baseless misinterpretations of my actions.

 

[Superjolt]

COMING OUT OF MY CAGE and i've been doing just fine

[vote] naku

xmas eve here and have a ****load to do so not gonna be online for the rest of the day (unless we get an extension)

Ooh yeah, I hope we get an extension too

Well there hasn't been much activity apart from RVS, which may be due to the fact that there was no night 0 so we have nothing to go on. Gimme pie is one of the towniest reads due to his attempts to generate discussions and get us to move on.

Anyway, I'll go with
[Vote]: Trev
Since I think they are an experienced player yet they are still joking around which I wouldn't expect from such a player.

But other experienced players were doing the same, what makes Trev stand out?

jd literally just criticized me for OMGUS voting, would you like me to do it again so you can do the same?

Yeah but if you have an actual reason to vote someone then that shouldn't really be an issue. Seems a little self-conscious

I'm not gonna push a lynch on someone based on a single suspicion. Yes, Neon's post read a little susp since it was fluffy and his reason behind voting for me was flimsy, but if I pushed a lynch now, it'd look really scummy for me. Besides, I've made it pretty clear that I have no intention of pushing a lynch unless we have concrete evidence of a maf because we may accidentally kill off one of our own PRs and then the mafia could net a double PR death before we even have information to operate on.

Why are you pushing this? Do you find Neon suspicious enough to warrant voting or lynching them?

imo, players should always be voting the person they find most suspicious. Backing up your earlier post with a vote would have looked townier, not scummy. And while PRs are helpful and it sucks to lose them, town doesn't specifically need them in order to find scum.

Still reading up but on the note of the last question in Trev's post here,

I'm not pushing anything. I just think you're being kind of contradictory to say "you'd eat your hat" if he flipped town and then go "but my scum read isn't strong enough to vote them".

GP why did you ignore the question about Neon Sword?

 

[Trev]

Yeah but if you have an actual reason to vote someone then that shouldn't really be an issue. Seems a little self-conscious

The way I've always played mafia, it comes off suspicious to throw votes on people for mild suspicion. Regardless of how anyone views my joke, I didn't have enough suspicion of Neon Sword to warrant switching my vote. I was just making underhanded commentary about how fluffy their post was. Additionally, since this is a closed setup, I'm trying to limit my vote switching on the chance there's a role that eliminates players for switching their votes.

imo, players should always be voting the person they find most suspicious. Backing up your earlier post with a vote would have looked townier, not scummy. And while PRs are helpful and it sucks to lose them, town doesn't specifically need them in order to find scum.

The way I play mafia is different because the old forum I played on used different mechanics, so I'm still adjusting my playstyle. I'm used to always having an unlimited No Lynch/No Vote. I usually don't ever place a vote on someone until I have very strong suspicions that they're mafia, lest I leave my vote and come back after a few hours to a bandwagon I accidentally contributed to. So since I wanted to save my one No Lynch, that's why I voted for EC and didn't change it.

 

[jdthebud]

The way I've always played mafia, it comes off suspicious to throw votes on people for mild suspicion. Regardless of how anyone views my joke, I didn't have enough suspicion of Neon Sword to warrant switching my vote. I was just making underhanded commentary about how fluffy their post was. Additionally, since this is a closed setup, I'm trying to limit my vote switching on the chance there's a role that eliminates players for switching their votes.



The way I play mafia is different because the old forum I played on used different mechanics, so I'm still adjusting my playstyle. I'm used to always having an unlimited No Lynch/No Vote. I usually don't ever place a vote on someone until I have very strong suspicions that they're mafia, lest I leave my vote and come back after a few hours to a bandwagon I accidentally contributed to. So since I wanted to save my one No Lynch, that's why I voted for EC and didn't change it.

I've never heard of a role that punishes vote switching, but that would be extremely bastard in a closed setup, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Like others have said, OMGUS really only applies when you have no other reason to vote for someone. Sounds like you had at least some justification for a possible vote on Neon Sword.

Do you actually find GP more suspicious than Neon Sword? I sure don't.

[Unvote] Charlie Brown
[Vote] Neon Sword

The Trev vs GP interaction gives me a town v town vibe tbh.

 

[Trev]

Like others have said, OMGUS really only applies when you have no other reason to vote for someone. Sounds like you had at least some justification for a possible vote on Neon Sword.

Do you actually find GP more suspicious than Neon Sword? I sure don't.

I had justification, yes, but I didn't deem it enough to warrant me switching my vote and potentially pushing a lynch. Hindsight is 20/20, I suppose. I assumed that it would be suspicious to vote for someone on mild suspicion, but now I know that I should be doing exactly that.

I found GP extremely suspicious for coming after me so aggressively and labelling a dissonance between what I was saying and what he thought I was saying as hypocritical and trying to lynch me on that basis. Prior to our spat, I suspected him as much as I suspected everyone else. I just feel like he wildly misinterpreted my actions and warped them into an attack against me, and it felt very suspicious for him to target me like that. If this was just him not understanding my reasoning, whatever, fine. But if that's true, then I've basically been accused of having an ulterior motive that I don't have, all because he made assumptions, which is pretty careless on his part.

 

[gimmepie]

GP why did you ignore the question about Neon Sword?

This one?

Why are you pushing this? Do you find Neon suspicious enough to warrant voting or lynching them?

I answered the first part directly to Trev in my reply. I have already explained my reasoning for my previous vote on Neon Sword in an earlier interaction with you. I picked a random person to apply pressure and left myself intentionally open to criticism to see who would bite - in that case, you.

So no, I didn't necessarily find him more suspicious than anyone else. I wasn't pushing Trev to vote Neon, I was trying to bring attention to the way he contradicted himself by not voting for his scum read while leaving his vote on a jokey OMGUS while all the while claiming he doesn't want to risk accidentally hitting a town PR. He already said he's not prepared to waste our NL, so why the hell would he continue to vote EC when he clearly finds Neon more suspicious?

Does that answer everything clearly enough? I didn't answer the second half of the question because I already had done so very openly.

 

[Trev]

. So no, I didn't necessarily find him more suspicious than anyone else. I wasn't pushing Trev to vote Neon, I was trying to bring attention to the way he contradicted himself by not voting for his scum read while leaving his vote on a jokey OMGUS while all the while claiming he doesn't want to risk accidentally hitting a town PR. He already said he's not prepared to waste our NL, so why the hell would he continue to vote EC when he clearly finds Neon more suspicious?

I think the bolded text is the point of contention. I've been operating under the assumption that we all get an individual NL that gets used up if an individual player doesn't vote. So my vote for EC was to avoid losing my individual NL. I've already explained that I feared being viewed as suspicious for placing a vote on mild suspicion because that's how games on my old forum used to work, so I'll gladly own that I overestimated potential reactions.

We're still in sign-ups. The game will start around Friday

Can you clarify if we all get one collective NL or individual NLs?

 

[Sparkin]

Can you clarify if we all get one collective NL or individual NLs?

Y'all get one collective NL

 

[Nakuzami]

and here people were trying to say that there's no possible information generated on day one

sorry, totally forgot to check in while doing things earlier and now I need to make sure my game gets up and running tonight, plus have an early morning tomorrow. I haven't entirely read through all the posts yet, but I'll pop back in in a little bit and try to do that. I'll have to check when phase end is to be sure I do

 

[Nakuzami]

>checks

oh, day one started uuuuh three days ago, wow that was quick

i'll try to be quick then ooooops

 

[Trev]

Y'all get one collective NL

So then, if we fail to pull off a lynch, does that use our NL up?

 

[Nakuzami]

So then, if we fail to pull off a lynch, does that use our NL up?

well, if we fail to pull off a NL, that would mean someone got lynched, so . . . I wouldn't think so?

 

[Trev]

well, if we fail to pull off a NL, that would mean someone got lynched, so . . . I wouldn't think so?

I just want to be certain since a rule misunderstanding already put me under fire once so far.

 

[Charlie Brown]

[unvote] Nakuzami
[vote] Trev

The logic of being highly suspicious of someone but not voting them only because they voted you, then back-pedalling and trying to divert all attention to the NL rule, doesn't make any sense to me at all

 

[Trev]

[unvote] Nakuzami
[vote] Trev

The logic of being highly suspicious of someone but not voting them only because they voted you, then back-pedalling and trying to divert all attention to the NL rule, doesn't make any sense to me at all

Sis. I've explained extensively why I voted for EC and didn't vote for Neon. And I'm not diverting any attention, I'm clarifying a rule I don't understand. Is that a scumread now?

 

[Nakuzami]

Spoiler:

I'm not gonna push a lynch on someone based on a single suspicion. Yes, Neon's post read a little susp since it was fluffy and his reason behind voting for me was flimsy, but if I pushed a lynch now, it'd look really scummy for me. Besides, I've made it pretty clear that I have no intention of pushing a lynch unless we have concrete evidence of a maf because we may accidentally kill off one of our own PRs and then the mafia could net a double PR death before we even have information to operate on.

Why are you pushing this? Do you find Neon suspicious enough to warrant voting or lynching them?

Except I wasn't being contradictory and you didn't make a valid point. I said, "I do not want to lynch today as we could kill important/helpful roles and give mafia an advantage," hence why I'm not pushing a lynch even if I have suspicions. Your "point" is that you think I have strong suspicions on a person yet didn't vote for them, which isn't true. You read into a harmless joke, hence why I said you're reaching. Now you're reaching more by trying to push a lynch on me based on those fallacies.

I suspect that the reason you're doing this is because you know I'm a strong player from the last time we played, where I called out both mafia on D1. You latched onto something that could have been misinterpreted and turned it into an accusation of hypocrisy so you could get me out of the game early and cover yourself. Great strategy, but try to be less obvious when you do it.

[Unvote] Neon Sword
[Vote] gimmepie

My vote on EvilChameleon was made so that I didn't use my No Lynch. Since I considered nobody suspicious at the time I voted for EC, all votes were equal. The only reason behind why I opted to do an OMGUS vote on EC was because I wanted to make the "don't be fucking rude" joke, which clearly doesn't fly here. Apparently making jokes is a scumread, because otherwise you're reading into completely harmless actions I've taken so you can make me look suspicious, which is incredibly scummy. My vote for EC was literally just so I didn't use my No Lynch or get penalized for not voting.

Maybe this is unclarity in the rules. "No Lynch is only allowed once" sounded to me like every individual can opt to No Lynch once, but you appear to believe that we all collectively get one No Lynch. Some clarification from Sparkin would be nice so I can stop being accused on the basis of your baseless misinterpretations of my actions.

The way I've always played mafia, it comes off suspicious to throw votes on people for mild suspicion. Regardless of how anyone views my joke, I didn't have enough suspicion of Neon Sword to warrant switching my vote. I was just making underhanded commentary about how fluffy their post was. Additionally, since this is a closed setup, I'm trying to limit my vote switching on the chance there's a role that eliminates players for switching their votes.



The way I play mafia is different because the old forum I played on used different mechanics, so I'm still adjusting my playstyle. I'm used to always having an unlimited No Lynch/No Vote. I usually don't ever place a vote on someone until I have very strong suspicions that they're mafia, lest I leave my vote and come back after a few hours to a bandwagon I accidentally contributed to. So since I wanted to save my one No Lynch, that's why I voted for EC and didn't change it.

I had justification, yes, but I didn't deem it enough to warrant me switching my vote and potentially pushing a lynch. Hindsight is 20/20, I suppose. I assumed that it would be suspicious to vote for someone on mild suspicion, but now I know that I should be doing exactly that.

I found GP extremely suspicious for coming after me so aggressively and labelling a dissonance between what I was saying and what he thought I was saying as hypocritical and trying to lynch me on that basis. Prior to our spat, I suspected him as much as I suspected everyone else. I just feel like he wildly misinterpreted my actions and warped them into an attack against me, and it felt very suspicious for him to target me like that. If this was just him not understanding my reasoning, whatever, fine. But if that's true, then I've basically been accused of having an ulterior motive that I don't have, all because he made assumptions, which is pretty careless on his part.

I think the bolded text is the point of contention. I've been operating under the assumption that we all get an individual NL that gets used up if an individual player doesn't vote. So my vote for EC was to avoid losing my individual NL. I've already explained that I feared being viewed as suspicious for placing a vote on mild suspicion because that's how games on my old forum used to work, so I'll gladly own that I overestimated potential reactions.



Can you clarify if we all get one collective NL or individual NLs?

Personally I'm satisfied by Trev's responses so far

Charlie Brown's last post sounds like he didn't read Trev's posts at all and is piggybacking on GP's posts
which would also imply that he either read GP's posts while skipping Trev's posts (why?) or knows what GP's points are without having read his posts (how?). That comes off more suspect to me than Trev's voting patterns.

 

[gimmepie]

Or you know, he just agrees with me.
Or he's buddying.
Or he's bussing.

There's other alternatives there than collusion and I'd rather not have someone else's post being skimpy on details go against me thanks.

 

[Nakuzami]

Or you know, he just agrees with me.
Or he's buddying.
Or he's bussing.

There's other alternatives there than collusion and I'd rather not have someone else's post being skimpy on details go against me thanks.

doubtful it would have been worded as so if it were that first option

but why so defensive when I was pretty much explicitly casting that doubt onto CB? Buddying could be an option, as it answers both my questions---and would imply he's maf. Bussing could be the answer, as it answers both of my questions---and would imply that you're both maf (cute of you to suggest it as an alternative of being a suspect? slip?)