Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pandarsenic]

Nuke: I'm gauging reactions. The reaction of the person you accuse shouldn't be all you get out of a particular vote.

Of course, my inability to actually tell who's playing isn't looking good for me, since I assumed all the regulars were in.

If you were looking at people's reactions, why didn't you even wait for Mr.Person to respond before changing your vote?

At the time I was more interested in webadict's, to be honest.

Webadict, what do you mean not acting like myself? I ignored two full days of the last Paranormal, I'm not letting that happen again.

Chaoticjosh being calm is good, usually, but he probably knows better than to spaz over a semirandom or two on the first day. Later, we'll see how he acts when we have him on the ropes.

Back to webadict: I like to have a body of data while I run my analysis - I'm not as good at the day 1 thing yet, I need to see more of what's going on. It's 1:32 PM and I pulled an all-nighter again, though, so I'll see about looking over all we have once I've slept and re-awakened.

[JoshuaFH]

Ha, wow, I'm suspicious because I'm calm. I guess this just goes to show how much of an angry bastard I am most of the time.

But anyhow, Bloodbeard, if you were the Disciple of Truth, who would you use your one-time power on, and why?

[forsaken1111]

@forsaken1111
And not much of a post at that, content-wise.  How about this though:
Who do you think has been the most suspicious thus far?  (Please don't answer Kashyyk for not posting, that's too easy)

(Oh, and don't edit your posts for any reason, the powers-that-be tend to frown on that;  I know that from experience.    If you need to change something, double post.)

Noted. Yeah it was a bit content-light, I was on the way home and posted from my phone. I edited that post right after it went up to fix a problem with the quote tag. Sorry again.

Who has been suspicious... well it's hard to tell at this stage. I've seen a lot of random voting (which I hardly ever do) and a lot of throwing around of wild accusations, but nothing concrete. Sorry?

Oooooh, a new challenger has appeared!

forsaken, if you were the Bodyguard, who would you protect?

If I was bodyguard at this point I'd protect Pandarsenic... mostly because I agree with him about the Mr T rocketpack avatar. As I said, there isn't much to go on yet aside from suspicion and theory so I rely on instinct. -shrug-

[JoshuaFH]

So wait, you agree with Pandarsenic on ignoring someone's viewpoints because their avatar is silly? I took it as a joke, but you should know that that's completely fallacious. That is, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, at all.

[forsaken1111]

So wait, you agree with Pandarsenic on ignoring someone's viewpoints because their avatar is silly? I took it as a joke, but you should know that that's completely fallacious. That is, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, at all.

The question was who would I protect. In the absence of any hard evidence, I'd choose to protect someone who's viewpoint I agree with. If you don't like that, that's your prerogative but my opinion doesn't need to hold up to scrutiny...

[JoshuaFH]

So wait, you agree with Pandarsenic on ignoring someone's viewpoints because their avatar is silly? I took it as a joke, but you should know that that's completely fallacious. That is, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, at all.

The question was who would I protect. In the absence of any hard evidence, I'd choose to protect someone who's viewpoint I agree with. If you don't like that, that's your prerogative but my opinion doesn't need to hold up to scrutiny...

Actually, yes, yes it does need to hold up to scrutiny. If you're willing to agree, and even defend, a fallacious viewpoint, you'd best check it has SOME merit. With no merit, altering you actions to accommodate it might be seen as a bit arbitrary and forced, and really, if you're really going to follow fallacious logic, how will we know if you'll follow sound logic? How can we be sure that your thinking is in the best interests of the town, whether you're scum or not?

[forsaken1111]

So wait, you agree with Pandarsenic on ignoring someone's viewpoints because their avatar is silly? I took it as a joke, but you should know that that's completely fallacious. That is, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, at all.

The question was who would I protect. In the absence of any hard evidence, I'd choose to protect someone who's viewpoint I agree with. If you don't like that, that's your prerogative but my opinion doesn't need to hold up to scrutiny...

Actually, yes, yes it does need to hold up to scrutiny. If you're willing to agree, and even defend, a fallacious viewpoint, you'd best check it has SOME merit. With no merit, altering you actions to accommodate it might be seen as a bit arbitrary and forced, and really, if you're really going to follow fallacious logic, how will we know if you'll follow sound logic? How can we be sure that your thinking is in the best interests of the town, whether you're scum or not?

Well, regardless of your opinion I stand by my decision. You obviously place a lot of faith in logic and reasoning, which I can understand and respect, but you cannot build a logical argument on conjecture and theory. We have no evidence yet to suggest who may need the protection I hypothetically could have provided in this question, therefore I chose to align with someone who shares my sense of humor and has demonstrated a bit of wit. Once again, if you have a problem with that you can get over it, as it doesn't sway my opinion in the slightest.

But, since you seem to have all the answers, who would you protect?

[JoshuaFH]

Well, unfortunately for you Forsaken, Mafia isn't a friend-building game. Protecting people you like personally simply because you like them WILL lead to your downfall. Placing feelings in front of logic is certifiably Anti-town, because you're playing to make friends, protecting those that appeal to you, you're not playing to win. And I do have the appropriate response to this behavior, believe it or not, vote Forsaken.

Of course, if I were to protect someone, I'd protect Webadict. Why? For one, Pandar said he'd attack him if given the chance, an opinion I feel others share. Pandar, WA, and I are usually the first to die if we're town, but if we're on the same team, then our chances of success go up significantly. Also, Webadict is arguably the most popular inspection victim, so if he's in fact anti-town, he'll be revealed shortly. So, in short, if he's town, I'm protecting a valuable ally, but if he's scum, then chances are he won't last long enough to deceive me completely. It's the closest thing to a win-win I can get.

[forsaken1111]

Well, unfortunately for you Forsaken, Mafia isn't a friend-building game. Protecting people you like personally simply because you like them WILL lead to your downfall. Placing feelings in front of logic is certifiably Anti-town, because you're playing to make friends, protecting those that appeal to you, you're not playing to win. And I do have the appropriate response to this behavior, believe it or not, vote Forsaken.

Of course, if I were to protect someone, I'd protect Webadict. Why? For one, Pandar said he'd attack him if given the chance, an opinion I feel others share. Pandar, WA, and I are usually the first to die if we're town, but if we're on the same team, then our chances of success go up significantly. Also, Webadict is arguably the most popular inspection victim, so if he's in fact anti-town, he'll be revealed shortly. So, in short, if he's town, I'm protecting a valuable ally, but if he's scum, then chances are he won't last long enough to deceive me completely. It's the closest thing to a win-win I can get.

Suit yourself. You make some pretty big assumptions from a simple question, I'm simply here to play the game for fun. If you feel threatened because someone doesn't play along with your ridiculous internet machismo, you're free to vote as you see fit.

[BloodBeard]

Ha, wow, I'm suspicious because I'm calm. I guess this just goes to show how much of an angry bastard I am most of the time.

But anyhow, Bloodbeard, if you were the Disciple of Truth, who would you use your one-time power on, and why?

I'd try to either confirm a powerful ally or expose a dangerous enemy. You, webadict or Pandarsenic would be ideal in that retrospect as i'd get one or the other.

This is getting silly with all the inactives.

[Mephansteras]

The Whiteboard
forsaken1111: chaoticjosh, NUKE9.13
Frelock: Xegeth
Kashyyk: Cheeetar, Rysith
Pandarsenic: ToonyMan, webadict
ToonyMan: Mr.Person


Remember, day 1 ends ~5pm Pacific Friday.

Although, it might get extended a bit. I may have to go to work at 3am tomorrow, and that'll throw my whole schedule out of whack. But I won't end the day before 5.

[JoshuaFH]

Ha wow, I never expected to win this quickly.

I suppose it's time to reveal my ultimate power though, I'm the watcher and I just got my first update on who's talking, with surprisingly good results. These people are most likely the dopps:

BloodBeard
Frelock
Mr.Person
Pandarsenic
ToonyMan

However, there's only 4 dopps and 5 talkers. I could probably write this off as Toony trying to pull that 'trick' he pulled the other game, but it might not be as convenient as that.

vote Pandarsenic

First game with a watcher, and I'm it, and it totally annihilates the dopps. Who'da thought? Might have to revise that...

[ToonyMan]

Victory is ours!  Haha!

I'll keep my vote on Panda.

[JanusTwoface]

The extra talked could be explained by a kook (I think they talk to themselves?) or something similar.

If you're telling the truth, then it looks like a quick game, easy win.

If you're lying, it will take at least 2 lynches (or someone else's role) to find out for sure.  Even more if you are turning in your potential scum buddies.

It does seem reasonably reasonable though, so vote Pandarsenic.  Now Pandar, would you like to say anything in your defense?

[Rysith]

Well, it seem kind of moot with ChaoticJosh's post, but I wasn't saying much since (as I said in Toon Mafia), I've now got three windows a day to play mafia and Toon Mafia ate this morning's.

Scummy people, I was going to say Pandarsenic, for the vote hopping and voting for non-existent players. That you'd vote for someone who isn't in the game really indicates that you aren't finding reasons to vote for them, which is scummy. Especially when vote-hopping.

I was also going to say chaoticjosh and webadict need some scrutiny, since although they aren't doing anything scummy they have a record of concealing themselves well. They may well be town, but I wouldn't actually think of them as town until there's a bit more evidence.

On that note, Watchers can be human or dopp. If we've got an agent, they should check chaoticjosh tonight, since that will cut one lynch off the "lynches needed to figure out if chaoticjosh is lying" number. I haven't yet decided if claiming this early pushes things towards human, dopp, or third party, but I *think* that it pushes for non-dopp, and possibly toward human. It's also worth noting that if anyone has sent messages and hasn't appeared on the list, they should call josh on it right now. It's a really easy way to counter his claim, which likely means we get a non-town d1 lynch.

So, with all of that out of the way, and the game seemingly reduced to "do you trust chaoticjosh or not?", I'm going to lean toward trusting him given what's happened so far and unvote, then vote Pandarsenic.