The thing is, we're almost never going to find any definative 100% proof that someone's a certain role on Day 1, so whether you have proof or not isn't a basis for not lynching someone. Of course, nobody should lynch him YET, but it's evidence, not proof we're looking for.
I actually had not seen him post at all...Xdaamno wrote:Just realised who mlakerwasand that I've not seen your avatar in ages - you've not posted in this game for more than a week.
Any reason for your lurking? It's pretty obvious you were, since you picked up on the FOS, apparently.
I was not trying to "steer" anybody. I think I made it obvious that I was stating my opinion about Nekka and was trying to gauge other's at the same time. Thus the statement "I think it would be very helpful for us to think about whether or not Nekka-Luicifer was scum." If you don't agree with my suspicions that's fine, but I feel as if this is purely because you disagree with me.Haschel Cedricson wrote:Lastly, I am going toVote: Fletcher. I am tenetively sure that Nekka_Lucifer was pro-town. In Fletcher's post 150, I think he's trying to steer us into believing that Nekka-Lucifer was scum.
I always consider no lynch a possiblility, but in this case I think it could very much be helpful. Let's just pretend for a second that you agree with my suspicions on Nekka. Wouldn'tHaschel Cedricson wrote:I noticed that Fletcher has stated that he would "be fine with a no-lynch", and as an experienced player, he should know better. I also noted that he never actually voted No Lynch; I think that he's attempting to get others on the No Lynch bus without getting on it himself.
I've never brought this up in defense of my actions. I've only done so whenever I didin't understand why another did or thought something they did.Haschel Cedricson wrote:Finally, he brings up the fact that he has had a long leave of absence from Mafia several times, and I think this may be to provide an excuse for sub-optimal play under the guise of rust.
This is not true. On a normal Day 1, yes, but this day is very much different from a normal day because we lost Nekka. If we no lynch we still get the ifo about Nekka.A Papaya wrote:@No Lynch:
It's a stupid idea. Because if we don't lynch anyone at all today, we're going to be in the same spot as we were, minus players from nightkills. It's lose-lose.
FOS: Everyone who voted No Lynch
Although this is maddening as hell, I don't understand why it warrants a vote. Anyone care to explain?McStab wrote:Sorry for being so inactive, I just generally don't post much day one, there's only minor missteps by the scum and/or townies, suspicions and random votes. Day two is much more interesting, and you can catch scum alot better, because who they kill in the night and who is lynched day one helps determine who's scum. I try to stay out of Day 1 because to me it's just a chance for a townie to be lynched quickly by a minor misstep. Now if something large happens, such as someone does a major scum tell, then I can see voting there, but until there's some evidence involving who got killed/lynched, I'm not really too active. I check the thread, I just don't see much to say.
It's not exactly like I'm going to lynch you, is it? Votes are much better for pressure than FOS, and in general FOSs are more assosciated with scumhunting and votes are ambigious.Questions for Xdaamno: What FOS? Nothing seems to have progressed much, is there any reason why I warrant a vote? Could you explain other than "you thought I was lurking"?
Short version: I intend to do a complete reread before I vote again.Haschel Cedricson wrote:Alright, Question Time.
Fletcher: Let's assume that your theory is correct and N-L was scum. Who is probably his scumpartner, based on how people interacted with him?
TCS: You revised your thoughts on Xdaamno and removed your vote. However, you didn't put it back on YogurtBandit, who you were confident about earlier. Why not? The only reason you unvoted Yogurt in the first place was to put pressure on Xdaamno. Have you revised your thoughts about Yogurt? If so, why?
Well, he thought you were lurking. I understand that you had computer problems, it could happen to anybody.mlaker wrote:I don't really see much to comment on, to me nothing is really going down. I think Voting for me because I have computer problems is a little suspicious. Xdaamno is my top bet for scum.
Uhm... I realised I was voting for someone else, then looked at the possible candidates and chose one I'd like to hear the most from (Thus, a pressure vote). I try to keep my vote productive.mlaker wrote:I don't really see much to comment on, to me nothing is really going down. I think Voting for me because I have computer problems is a little suspicious. Xdaamno is my top bet for scum.
This is a clever guise to conceal your true voting records. Mhm.Xdaamno wrote:Uhm... I realised I was voting for someone else, then looked at the possible candidates and chose one I'd like to hear the most from (Thus, a pressure vote). I try to keep my vote productive.mlaker wrote:I don't really see much to comment on, to me nothing is really going down. I think Voting for me because I have computer problems is a little suspicious. Xdaamno is my top bet for scum.
Pressure voting is almost completed unrelated to scum hunting.
Drats; I've been completely figured out.inHimshallibe wrote:This is a clever guise to conceal your true voting records. Mhm.Xdaamno wrote:Uhm... I realised I was voting for someone else, then looked at the possible candidates and chose one I'd like to hear the most from (Thus, a pressure vote). I try to keep my vote productive.mlaker wrote:I don't really see much to comment on, to me nothing is really going down. I think Voting for me because I have computer problems is a little suspicious. Xdaamno is my top bet for scum.
Pressure voting is almost completed unrelated to scum hunting.
Yup, let's string him up!Xdaamno wrote:Drats; I've been completely figured out.inHimshallibe wrote:This is a clever guise to conceal your true voting records. Mhm.Xdaamno wrote:Uhm... I realised I was voting for someone else, then looked at the possible candidates and chose one I'd like to hear the most from (Thus, a pressure vote). I try to keep my vote productive.mlaker wrote:I don't really see much to comment on, to me nothing is really going down. I think Voting for me because I have computer problems is a little suspicious. Xdaamno is my top bet for scum.
Pressure voting is almost completed unrelated to scum hunting.
What's that, an acronym?inHimshallibe wrote:Yup, let's string him up!Xdaamno wrote:Drats; I've been completely figured out.inHimshallibe wrote:This is a clever guise to conceal your true voting records. Mhm.Xdaamno wrote:Uhm... I realised I was voting for someone else, then looked at the possible candidates and chose one I'd like to hear the most from (Thus, a pressure vote). I try to keep my vote productive.mlaker wrote:I don't really see much to comment on, to me nothing is really going down. I think Voting for me because I have computer problems is a little suspicious. Xdaamno is my top bet for scum.
Pressure voting is almost completed unrelated to scum hunting.
PARTICIPATION, anyone?
