[MAFIA] The Thirteen Doctors

By the way if people are wondering why I haven't voted after all that, I want to see how everyone reacts to today's events (we still haven't really heard from half the town) before committing.
 
He posted something in a post I now can't find which might have subtlety suggested he had a specialist role. If so that might give an interesting read on things.

Though after the police officer using Letsby Ave in a previous game I now look for subtle clues in everything lol
 
kaiowas said:
Should I be concerned that pretty much everyone is agreeing that I'm town? I can't help but feel that I may not last the night!
Click to expand...

Haha. :D

Well, like I said earlier you've displayed a knack for getting things right, I think it was game 2 where you pretty much called the result way before the end. I'm quite happy with establishing you as town at this moment in time, plus it doesn't really matter to the Scum whether the rest of the town think you're town so I wouldn't worry. :p
 
Brabbinho said:
There are 2 people very much leading the town, and so far all there are providing as reasoning is that they are pro-town and those they accuse are acting in an anti-town way. It would be a very easy mafia ploy to lead the town in this way.
Click to expand...

In the last game, the mafia avoided associating with each other almost completely, and that worked great for them. It would be pretty weird if 2 members of the mafia came straight out swinging in tandem at the start of the next game, wouldn't it?

I don't claim to be leading the town. I haven't told anyone how to place their votes. I've tried to point out lurkers and I've been shot down in all manner of ways, consistently by 2 specific people, and yesterday we ended up ignoring the players who were behaving suspiciously and jumped on a bandwagon for Fortyseven with very little evidence instead.
 
4 pages of drivel read through and now I have to do it again to make more notes before really coming up with a sound theory.

As I said I realise my lack of posting seems suspicious but the last 2 days I've been working 10 - 7 and not getting on the computer until past 8pm assuming I get that far at all! The lack of serious internet access at work (no I won't post using my phone!) hinders me massively as well however and I do apologise for that!

More soon!
 
Shamikebab said:
Pudney - Suspicious of Brabbinho, votes 47.
Click to expand...

I will say this, when summarising posts it's helpful if you don't misrepresent what happens, my "suspicions" of Brabbinho were:

Ok, after going over the last 3 pages, Brabbinho has said nothing really productive other than to check out the possible roles. Given my stated distrust of abstention on day 1 this is where my vote is likely to go right now.
Click to expand...

And Brabbinho helpfully pointed he had voted so I moved on. Not incredibly suspicious.

I will say this Shami, when we were both mafia we used 47 as a very handy tool to distract the townies because 47 kept the focus on him throughout. This continual arguing over minor points (fact/evidence/guess etc) seems a bit ridiculous, if this continues then it will go the same way as 47. Quite frankly I think the three of the main participants are probably town, with at least one of the mafia stirring occasionally. So it would be useful to move on from this.

Despite that, and knowing how useful it is for mafia having townies arguing amongst themselves, it IS worth knocking it on the head and killing off one side of it if the 3 of you won't do so yourselves. Because you can bet the mafia won't if all 3 of you are town.
 
Leprechaun312 said:
I'm pretty sure my answer was I'm not defending pookie and that I just wanted
an explanation for your vote on pookie
Click to expand...

Sorry for the late reply, for some reason I missed your post first run through :confused:

You've challenged me on my opinion on Pookie numerous times. You haven't challenged other people in the same way.

To me it looks like you know that you and Pookie are on the same team, and the only way that happens is if you are both scum.

My initial suspicions on Pookie were from how he talked about lynching. Firstly, we need to lynch:

Pookie Bear said:
Each day we don't lynch means we lose a townie when the mafia night-kill. If we start voting on day one, then there's a chance it will be a mafia member - and if it isn't, then at least it starts off a voting pattern, of sorts, and gets people talking and thinking. The alternative is that we just sit around doing nothing and the mafia slowly kill us off, one every night.
Click to expand...

Then people are lynch-happy - the most active people are the suspicious ones:

Pookie Bear said:
I think that a couple of people here are a little lynch-happy. I am all for getting someone up a tree on day one, but I feel some are a little keen.

Basically, those who are flinging the most poop about (and already voting!) are high on my list of suspects right now. I'd like to think that by tonight there might be a little less fence-sitting though.
Click to expand...

Don't lynch the quiet ones (fair point) - confirms the most active are the suspicious:

Pookie Bear said:
No, that's perfectly clear, but we've already had voting and unvoting - when half of the group aren't even actively here. The trend so far has been to lynch those who are the quietest on day one and, it has to be said, there has not been a single successful mafia lynching so far in any game I've witnessed.

On that basis, those who are making the most noise are pushing themselves up my list. Yes, the quiet people are making it tough for anyone else to really trust them, but I think more people need to start getting involved.
Click to expand...

Then, being active is good - voting for a lynch is bloodthirsty:

Pookie Bear said:
I'm not disputing that discussion is good, in fact I'm suggesting that more participation would be of benefit to us all. As for bloodthirsty, I would suggest that voting to kill someone is bloodthirsty. I also believe that picking on someone who isn't active is the wrong way to go. That's what we've always done and we've never, ever lynched a mafia member on day one around here. Why do the same thing we've done before if it never works?

Calling out lurkers is fine - in fact, it's a good idea. I want to hear more from those who are saying very little.
Click to expand...

That's the niggle. The rest (in my eyes) is based on the responses to me - I get called out for saying I'm sorry if I was wrong, but he plays the righteous indignation card.

You challenge me multiple times on my gut instinct, but only for Pookie - yet you've never said that you think Pookie is town. Pookie joins in the mocking of your NK comment, but then defends you. You play the martyr card.

I'm sure this still won't be enough for you, but so far that's what I have.
 
Shamikebab said:
Not really, why would the mafia try and use the exact same tactic again?
Click to expand...

If chriscubed speaks his mind in a forest, and no shamikebab is around to hear him: is he still wrong?

Because it's a proven valid tactic. If mafia associate themselves with each other in game, then when one is caught, they are all caught. If they can keep from associating with each other, then after you catch the first mafioso, you're back to "random".
 
Pudney said:
I will say this, when summarising posts it's helpful if you don't misrepresent what happens, my "suspicions" of Brabbinho were:



And Brabbinho helpfully pointed he had voted so I moved on. Not incredibly suspicious.

I will say this Shami, when we were both mafia we used 47 as a very handy tool to distract the townies because 47 kept the focus on him throughout. This continual arguing over minor points (fact/evidence/guess etc) seems a bit ridiculous, if this continues then it will go the same way as 47. Quite frankly I think the three of the main participants are probably town, with at least one of the mafia stirring occasionally. So it would be useful to move on from this.

Despite that, and knowing how useful it is for mafia having townies arguing amongst themselves, it IS worth knocking it on the head and killing off one side of it if the 3 of you won't do so yourselves. Because you can bet the mafia won't if all 3 of you are town.
Click to expand...

You had suspicions, it was just a brief listing of interesting points raised as I read through the thread, anyone can happily go through and check them out. I didn't misrepresent anything.

Useful to move on you say? Well 3 of them (possibly 4) want me dead and as town I don't want us to lose another day so why the **** would I pipe down and move on :/ I'm clearly going to state my case.

chriscubed said:
If chriscubed speaks his mind in a forest, and no shamikebab is around to hear him: is he still wrong?

Because it's a proven valid tactic. If mafia associate themselves with each other in game, then when one is caught, they are all caught. If they can keep from associating with each other, then after you catch the first mafioso, you're back to "random".
Click to expand...

Wait, now you don't want me to talk and discuss things? One minute I'm lurking, then I'm disruptive and not adding content...now I've called you out you want me to be quiet again perhaps?
 
Shamikebab said:
You had suspicions, it was just a brief listing of interesting points raised as I read through the thread, anyone can happily go through and check them out. I didn't misrepresent anything.

Useful to move on you say? Well 3 of them (possibly 4) want me dead and as town I don't want us to lose another day so why the **** would I pipe down and move on :/ I'm clearly going to state my case.
Click to expand...

They're voting for you because you keep arguing :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom