No you didn't. "I wanted to vote Cobolt, but I voted for someone random instead". I mean, I guess you could consider that logically inconsistent with "I wanted to vote for Cobolt" or "I voted randomly", but only if you had the logical analysis of a slightly below-average giraffe.

---------- Post automerged at 09:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 AM ----------

Going way back:

The end of day one.

-- and hey, just reread the rules, apparently I misread them the first time lol. Roles are not revealed on death. Well, there goes the plan of lynching people who start bandwagons on confirmed village players.

Unfortunately I don't think this revelation is going to lead to me saying anything you like XD It just means that we have even less information -- have to rely on the priest. Sad times, especially as Citrus claimed to be the priest (which everyone seems to be ignoring) which means a lot of future confusion over priest identity.

I'm moderately certain Citrus is a witch. Well, I'm either certain that he's a witch or certain that he's not a witch. It's one of the two. I'm fairly certain of that.

---------- Post automerged at 09:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 AM ----------
Citrus:

It was early days and everything was up for grabs. Opinions change rapidly, so a bandwagon could have formed and if not, then I could always change my vote. It cost nothing to do a random vote. (You'll note that I moved my vote away when no movement on that front occurred)

Well, kinda. Note that it was a vote based on a dislike of a certain playstyle more than any belief in town/witch allegiance.

 

1. Can you read, or are you spelling my name wrong on purpose?

2. That's not what you said.

You said you WENT for Citrus. As in, you didn't want to vote me, so you voted Citrus, who I Lumped. Not for the reason that I lumped him, though maybe it could've been that.

Easy backpedaling by smashing your original RNG reasoning into your second "I voted for Citrus because I didn't want to vote for Cobalt" reasoning. You're trying to say that you RNG'd because you didn't want to vote me, but initially you said that everything previously posted was worth nothing so you made a RNG vote. Had nothing to do with whether or not you wanted to vote me, that only came up later, and now you're covering your ass.

So which is it? Did you assign everyone a number and use RNG to make a vote? Or did you go for Citrus because you didn't want to vote me? I will not accept that the two coincide. Bullshit.

3. Lol, a giraffe? That's a weak ass drag, hunty. Maybe if you weren't faker than Miley's weave at the VMAs last night you'd have some credibility around here. Try a little harder.

 

Woooooow, that's what you're basing your argument on? "Went for" does not imply any particular mechanism of choice. It's method neutral. All it says is that I voted for Citrus, which I did.

Not inconsistent, because as I said, my desire to vote for you was based entirely on personal dislike. That's entirely consistent with the idea that first day analysis is worthless. I'm not analysing you or identifying you as a witch. I'm saying I don't like you and want you dead.

Incidentally, this is why I didn't vote for your lynch. For some reason, I doubted this would convince the others.

I assigned every animal a number and rolled a die.

 

Your desire to vote for me was based on personal dislike? And yet, you didn't analyze me or identify me as a witch? So, pray tell, what exactly would the basis of your vote be?

You want me dead regardless of alignment because you don't like me? Yeah, because that's totally fucking town.

You're a witch, Taure.

 

They're all joke reasons:

Say I don't metagame then give an out-of-game reason to give me lump.

Say I don't use mafia lingo then use the word "hardclaim".

Say I don't engage in psychological analysis of motivations then do it on myself.

Directly reference the above.

 

I know a really good place for you to stow those fucking dice.

---------- Post automerged at 05:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 AM ----------

Aw, clever. Would you like a cookie?

 

Just because I don't ID you as a witch doesn't mean I don't think you could be. I think you have pretty much equal chance of being a witch as anyone else. Which means voting on personal dislike is as good a reason as any.

It's also very satisfying.

That said, note again that I didn't vote for you.

I kinda want you to lynch me just so I can laugh at the end of the game about how wrong you were. Might make you reevaluate the idea that there are set town and witch behaviours.

---------- Post automerged at 10:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 AM ----------

I didn't consider it clever, which is why I didn't explain it until now. I didn't think it needed explaining. I felt it was transparently obvious.

 

I'm literally.

WHAT.

How the fuck can you say that voting on personal dislike and not actual gameplay is towny? There's no such thing as set behaviors but some behaviors from certain people with a certain tone can be indicative in one direction or the other and yours have witch written all over them.

How exactly is anything that you've been posting beneficial to town? How are you helping the team you're supposedly on? What are you even doing other than denouncing first day analysis and completely disregarding tone reads, potentially connected players and Lump / vote patterns?

You are literally so full of shit your eyes are fucking brown.

---------- Post automerged at 05:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:35 AM ----------

You know what, I hope you're town. Because then I can dedicate my day one vote in every game I play on this forum to your useless ass.

 

That's not what I said. I said there's no such thing as "towny".

Disagree entirely. When a certain group of players plays together moderately frequently, then certain patterns in playstyle can emerge that allow "reads". The group of players agree that certain roles should be played in certain ways and that agreement creates information in an otherwise information-poor environment, because you can evaluate behaviours relative to a set of "societal" norms: is this person playing this role or that role by their behaviour, they they bluffing the role, double bluffing, etc.

But the whole construct depends on people agreeing to the norms.

I fundamentally dislike that way of playing mafia. I think it's boring and pretentious.

Or at least, that's what I feel this game. Because if you look at previous games I've played, you won't find me saying any of this stuff. I play each game differently.

It's beneficial to me, and since I'm town, indirectly beneficial to town.

If you want me to stop undermining the idea of reliable reads and analysis then you should probably stop asking me about it, because you're only going to get more of the same.

It would be nice if we could stop talking about the "correct" way to play mafia and start actually playing mafia.

Like so:

I previously gave my lump vote to Riley because he was inactive and absolutely everyone who was posting was striking me as suspicious in one way or the other. Of course this ran the risk of the "witches lie low, let towns tear themselves apart" problem, but I considered the risk worth it.

Now, however, Riley still isn't emerging, so I'm going to switch my lump vote.

Snowvon seems to be a well balanced individual who's engaged but not overzealous.

Rescind lump vote

Lump: Snowvon

 

It is of my utmost belief that you are absolutely, undeniably fucking useless.

Done with this for the night.

 

Aw, you deviated from the script. You were supposed to respond by pointing out that my suddenly giving reasons for my votes (re switching lump to Snowvon) is inconsistent with my statement that analysis is worthless.

At which point I would have replied that of course the reasoning is worthless, but you do it because it's fun and it's how mafia games progress.

(At least it's fun until it approaches wall of text levels)

---------- Post automerged at 02:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 AM ----------

Posting seems to have slowed a bit, so I'll try to put us back on track (and away from meta discussion) by giving thoughts on each player so far:

Citrus

Mildly suspicious. Claimed priest, which is complex as hell. I see three situations where you'd do this:

A) You're the priest and you're convinced people will believe you and protect you. Dangerous, especially when there's a small number of angels.

B) You're not the priest but you are village, and you're convinced that it won't force the real priest to expose themselves to out your fake claim. The motivation would be to sacrifice yourself to a witch kill in place of the real priest, or to mess up soup kills. Real danger of creating confusing doubt when the real priest has investigation results to share and likely to get yourself lynched.

C) You're a witch and you just want to sow confusion and doubt for when the real priest has confirmed IDs to share.

On balance, there doesn't seem to be enough good reason to make such a claim. So: suspicious.

Also was the target of a lump vote bandwagon in suspicious circumstances, in that Citrus didn't vote to lump himself, and yet didn't tell people not to lump him. The latter implies he did want lump, he was just affecting a position of selflessness in order to get it, believing players more likely to gift lump to a "reluctant leader" than someone who actively campaigned for it. His later self-lumping adds to this.

One questions the wisdom of giving the extra lynch vote to someone who has publicly claimed to be priest and therefore is likely high up on the list of night kill targets (provided he isn't a witch).

Also one of the only two players to have voted to lynch someone who is definitely 100% confirmed village (from my perspective, because obviously I know my own role).

Witch likelihood: 65%

Cobalt

No idea what to make of Cobalt.

On the one hand, Cobalt would seem to be pretty pro-village. He's extremely zealous in hunting down witches. But of course, how can that tell you anything? Any witch would know that the best way to appear pro-village is to be zealous in hunting down witches. Especially without role reveals to show the village that the lynch target was actually harmless -- it's a low risk strategy. To say that pro-village zeal equates with being a villager is to assume that the witches are so incompetent as to behave like witches in public. I doubt this very much.

All we can really say about Cobalt is that he definitely wants to appear pro-village. We have no idea if the targets of his questions have been deserving of them or merely unlucky to have used the wrong word. I think information that emerges on later days will give a better idea of what direction Cobalt leans, so I wouldn't lynch him yet.

Like Citrus, has voted to lynch a villager, but in this case I think that's fairly clearly a "Taure's a dick" vote rather than a "Taure's a witch" vote. Which is pretty funny, given the conversation it stemmed from.

Jumped on the anti-Sesc bandwagon pretty hard. If fontisian turns out to be a witch, we should be looking at Cobalt closely.

Witch likelihood: 50%

Fontisian

Mildly suspicious. The way she targeted Sesc so strongly feels off. If it was any day other than day one I would say fontisian was either a witch or had softclaimed priest and was implying she had investigated Sesc and found him to be a witch. But since the latter is impossible... i's very strange.

However, it's entirely possible that adopting artificial certainty and targetting one person is just fontisian's playstyle. There's a certain rationale to it, after all. Day one you just want to lynch someone, really. Anyone. On later days you go back and reread what people said in the lynch discussions in the light of hard information that has emerged since. Focusing on one person strongly with artificial certainty and hoping everyone will bandwagon is one way to get a first day lynch. It almost worked too - for a while everyone was piling on Sesc very rapidly.

There seems to be a strong Cobalt-fontisian link: see also #152.

Witch likelihood: 50%

Irene/Typhon

Irene's early posts would have been suspicious if it had been anyone other than Irene. I feel like her jumping on Newcomb as a witch was premature and overzealous. If it had been anyone else, I would feel like she was trying to use sheer volume of argument to push the village to an early hardlynch on Newcomb, before we could even consider other options.

I don't feel like Newcomb's post was anywhere near the level of suspiciousness Irene interpreted it as, which makes this more of a stretch and therefore more suspicious (if Newcomb's post had been really suspicious, then Irene could simply have been interpreted as seeking to secure a definite day 1 lynch on someone who was slightly off).

However, I think Irene has a tendency, on occasion, to escalate a dispute beyond its initial import. With that in mind, I think a lot of that exchange can be explained not as a planned maneouver to lynch Newcomb but simply as Irene feeling like she had to defend a position she had staked out.

Will be interesting to see how Typhon inherits her role.

Witch likelihood: 55%

Jan

Liked Jan's early posts in the thread, especially his reasoning at #141. Cool and collected, detached, sceptical.

However, I went off him a bit at #168. The metagame reasoning set me on edge, then he proposed a day one no lynch, which I am fundamentally opposed to, for reasons already expressed (like restarting the game with one fewer town player).

Prior to #168, Jan was my top villager, but the no lynch proposal knocks him back down. I don't agree with his reasoning at #219 that you can agree to a no-lynch and then continue the day as if you were going to lynch. The knowledge that it wasn't going to result in a lynch vote would inevitably changed the way people behave. Further, it could potentially be abused by the witches, if they could start a last minute bandwagon to lynch someone after all, after many town players had decided not to vote.

Witch likelihood: 50%

Kalas

No strong impression. Decent reasoning on Irene's posts in #164, but it largely repeated the point I made at #108 regarding Irene overreacting to Newcomb.

Didn't agree with Kalas' ideas about Sesc in #182.

In competition with Riley for the witches' "low impact" poster.

Witch likelihood: 60%

Nae'blis

Something seems off here. He jumped pretty eagerly on board with my "everything's speculative" line at #123, but didn't follow through consistently by either doing an arbitrary/random vote, or by jumping on the biggest bandwagon to secure a day one lynch.

Lumped Newcomb. That could be significant later.

If fontisian turns out to be a villager, Naeblis should be next for the gallows and we should be looking at Newcomb in a new light.

Has something of a bandwagon on him, which is tempting to join to secure a day one lynch.

Witch likelihood: 70%

Newcomb

General impression is that of a earnest villager with a moderate amount of self-interest. The first post campaigning for lump was, I felt, clearly motivated by the self-interested desire to empower himself. Having two votes is more fun. You become a person of influence, and people are more reluctant to lynch you. You're more likely to get protection. All things which any player would want. That's why I feel like Irene went way overboard in jumping on his lump post.

It's not that I think the lump post makes Newcomb a villager. It's simply that I don't think it makes him a witch.

"Earnest villager" impression doesn't tell much, for the same reason as Cobalt.

Don't agree with the overly complex plan in his lump post, but I think this was more Newcomb searching for reasons to be given the lump than any evil plot to waste the priest's check as explained in #147.

Witch likelihood: 45%

Riley

Has been largely AFK. Could be real life reasons, could be laziness, could be a strategy. I find it likely that at least one witch would be laying relatively low. Could be Riley.

Witch likelihood: 60%

Sesc

Wasn't convinced by the anti-Sesc bandwagon. It seemed to be largely motivated by Sesc being too busy to make a long post. I don't think we should be adopting the rule that people get lynched if they don't produce walls of text.

Had good reasoning on Newcomb at #131. Lots of people were suspicious of Sesc due to the way he reacted to Newcomb v Irene, but given that I feel that Newcomb v Irene was largely hot air, I don't think it says much about Sesc.

Reacted well to being the target of a growing lynch bandwagon: didn't lash out, didn't try to redirect pressure in an arbitrary direction, didn't roleclaim. When called upon, fleshed out reasons for his agreement with Irene, even though I don't agree with Irene herself.

Witch likelihood: 40%

Snowvon

Seems to be playing it safe. Has largely been reactionary, poking holes at other people rather than initiating new discussions or making grand claims. Further, despite posting often he's quite conservative with using his vote to back up his opinions.

If neither Kalas or Riley is a witch, I think Snowvon's safe play could be a more prominent version of keeping someone in reserve. Even his asking for lump at 3200 and #214 was done in a pretty low key way.

Said I was town in #192 and #255, which is nice. But his support of me, if a witch, would also make a bit of sense: witches have to pick someone town to back as town, else it'll be too obvious that they're undermining town players. Why not pick the town player who's a disruptive influence? But then, he correctly says that my disruption level will drop after day 1, because it's only on day 1 where I hold we have zero info.

Riley and Kalas are higher up in suspicion right now.

His suspicion list at #271 seemed largely based on activity levels. I think it's unlikely that so many witches would be low-activity players. It's almost certain that one of them, at least, is hiding in plain sight as zealous pro-village poster.

Witch likelihood: 50%

The Waco Kid

Seems a reasonable fellow. Called me out at #166 and #202 but did so in a way I admire (contrary to other players' hysterics).

Relatively low posting level, but the posts he does make are fairly smart. Could say similar things about him as Snowvon regarding safe play.

Witch likelihood: 50%

Disclaimer: all of this is probably bullshit.

 

---------- Post automerged at 10:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 AM ----------

Aw hell, I can't embed an image here?

 

Had a nice sleep I see.

Good to see you agreeing with me about day one information.

 

Are you going to continue to goad me or will you shut the fuck up at some point, jw

 

You're the one who just tried to restart a finished argument 4 hours after its conclusion.

 

At one point you guys used to be fun - now your discussion is rather pointless.

And as interesting to watch as a monkey fighting a reindeer.

(Those two animals were sponsored by random animal generator and i kinda want to see them fight now ...)


But just for fun - cobalt! You think all the reads he spouted out are definetly bullshit.

Care to explain? I didn't like everything, but some reads seem to be lucky rng to me.

 

I literally could not read another word written by Taure right now if you paid me to. I'll do it when I get home from work way later.

 

In light of the fact that Jan did answer, I don't really like your last sentence in this post concerning him.

Fact of the matter is, Fontisian, you're purposefully playing fairly hands off this game. I literally cannot see any scenario where you do that on accident as town. Specifically, there's a key thing I've been waiting for from you that you have yet to do that I think is a decently strong town-tell for you.

So. Are you going to help us solve the game soon, or do you need further prompting, or neither because you're a witch?

---------- Post automerged at 12:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 PM ----------

This is...extremely anti-climatic. You dropped in to tell us you haven't read through the thread properly, you're going to continue to have weird hours (meaning there's a high chance you're not dropping in again til tomorrow morning from a lot of our time zones, as far as I can see), and the only thing you addressed was the fact that two players voted you. And even then it's a pretty useless defense, it's akin to hand-waving, you didn't even really address peoples' arguments (see: Snowvon comparing you to a scum from another game).

Yes that's right. You posted extremely similarly to a scum in our past game, and your play since that continues to eerily mirror that players' style throughout D1.

Unvote

Vote: Nae'blis

 

1. Look at how Jan reacted to me in Hannibal mafia. Then look at his reaction here. See the difference?

2. I haven't been playing hands off.

3. You probably haven't seen the towntell from me because it doesn't exist.