The defense of egos predicated on his voting for anialos doesn't hold water. In Tijuana he frequently was an early voter for fellow mafia, even when they were against the kosh.
The SK is where my tactics usually don't work, since they have no reason to demonstrate connections or direct the vote, except in their own direct defense which is natural and not condemning if you're acting fine.
Seer should focus on finding the SK right now imo.
0
Options
FiggyFighter of the night manChampion of the sunRegistered Userregular
edited March 2012
Re: Shabooty
Well, with six total posts, he fits my "mafia are often hilariously inactive" stereotype. Posts with 20 minutes until vote close on Day 1, "Oh no! I forgot to vote!"Random post the next day for activity. His Day 2 SeGaTai vote is funny, because he jumps on the wagon to distract from the Anialos vote. And guess who his wagon-mates are? Anialos and corvidae. And then? Defends Anialos in his argument against the wagon on him. But by 8:40 PM, it's too late. He votes Anialos.
Alright, don't buy into the idea of Shabooty being a mistaken Corv drunkvote or whatever, but he gets my vote for the general lack of activity, voting late on the SeGa wagon on day 2 (and putting responsibility for it on somebody else), and voting late on the Anialos wagon when it was long since a foregone conclusion on day 3.
If you don't buy the drunkvote theory, then why is the remaining reasoning better than a Daniant vote?
Also, how many syllables are in "Smoove"? If its 2 syllables, I may be in trouble under the "Syllable Theory" posited by Alegis. I may be double mafia.
Well, with six total posts, he fits my "mafia are often hilariously inactive" stereotype. Posts with 20 minutes until vote close on Day 1, "Oh no! I forgot to vote!"Random post the next day for activity. His Day 2 SeGaTai vote is funny, because he jumps on the wagon to distract from the Anialos vote. And guess who his wagon-mates are? Anialos and corvidae. And then? Defends Anialos in his argument against the wagon on him. But by 8:40 PM, it's too late. He votes Anialos.
Welp, ok. Disregard the actual game related question in my last post. Unless you are Shabooty. That dude should think on it.
works for me, the argument stronger than the hunch-argument against egos
Especially since the Egos vote is an argued connection with corv, but ignoring that Egos called out Anialos originally, so the Egos arguments are kinda suspicious.
The defense of egos predicated on his voting for anialos doesn't hold water. In Tijuana he frequently was an early voter for fellow mafia, even when they were against the kosh.
"...against the kosh."?
I meant under, and my phone corrected it to kosh from cosh.
It makes daniant more suspicious but I think we have even better odds in the votes still. The daniant connection is a day 1 throwaway but I wanted to be sure people didn't forget about it if I died.
I love how in every phalla I've played with you, you always try to have a plan in place in case you die :P
works for me, the argument stronger than the hunch-argument against egos
Especially since the Egos vote is an argued connection with corv, but ignoring that Egos called out Anialos originally, so the Egos arguments are kinda suspicious.
Egos also called out corv early.
Its a tactic he employs while mafia to make himself look good.
It was also done by munkus in Ace Attorny Phalla when he was the only one to suspect Mr Def. It is definetly a thing mafia do.
0
Options
vertroueI am FemaleTotes Not a SithRegistered Userregular
Da he 'as to. To vatch him die though, that is enterrtaining to zee.
Blood and Fire
From the Desk of Darth Vertroue Diplomat to the USA.
works for me, the argument stronger than the hunch-argument against egos
Especially since the Egos vote is an argued connection with corv, but ignoring that Egos called out Anialos originally, so the Egos arguments are kinda suspicious.
Egos also called out corv early.
Its a tactic he employs while mafia to make himself look good.
It was also done by munkus in Ace Attorny Phalla when he was the only one to suspect Mr Def. It is definetly a thing mafia do.
So anytime you successfully vote out a mafia, you need to kill the one who did it?
The "buying cred" seems rather silly of an argument as something Egos does and did.
If you cite an example, you'll probably find that it involved (a) inactive mafia victim or (b) resurrection mechanics. Throwing your mafia brothers under the bus to buy cred is a poor poor plan.
The times it makes sense is when you're going to lose someone anyways, so put yourself in a strong position against them, like starting a wagon whole-cloth.
If only we had an inactive mafia this very game that could have been thrown under the bus.
Oh wait, we did, and Egos did the opposite of buying cred. His stance was "let them die to inactivity instead of wasting a vig" which they would have.
1) Come back in time to make a post, saving himself from an inactivity death
or
2) Been replaced instead of killed. There were 2 reserves, and I'm assuming the chance of being replaced or killed was up to the RNG.
The argument is "if you are going to kill one of your mafia allies, why would you choose someone active over someone inactive?"
Not that he's innocent for not doing it.
I like the cognitive disconnect that Infidel is "practically confirmed" and Egos is "throwing someone under the bus" for the equivalent actions. We both supported a wagon on Anialos before there was one and it came from us.
works for me, the argument stronger than the hunch-argument against egos
Especially since the Egos vote is an argued connection with corv, but ignoring that Egos called out Anialos originally, so the Egos arguments are kinda suspicious.
Egos also called out corv early.
Its a tactic he employs while mafia to make himself look good.
It was also done by munkus in Ace Attorny Phalla when he was the only one to suspect Mr Def. It is definetly a thing mafia do.
To be fair Bedlam. It was a game where the network where had a "good mafia" e.g. the good guys were fucking networked. You had votes on you already and it was day fucking 4 or 3. You need to get over someone trying to get in a good position on a wagon in a game where survival was a viable option for the mafia.
By networked I mean literally there was a "good mafia". 4 or so good specials with powers who were masoned from the start and there were other good guys.. We were literally fucked and we just needed to make sure one person was dead by a certain time point, buying time on day 3 was a smart choice. Getting on a wagon... when there a rolecall basically after outed specials made their move wasn't a dumb choice. It isn't the same as throwing your friends to the wolves :P
The "buying cred" seems rather silly of an argument as something Egos does and did.
If you cite an example, you'll probably find that it involved (a) inactive mafia victim or (b) resurrection mechanics. Throwing your mafia brothers under the bus to buy cred is a poor poor plan.
The times it makes sense is when you're going to lose someone anyways, so put yourself in a strong position against them, like starting a wagon whole-cloth.
If only we had an inactive mafia this very game that could have been thrown under the bus.
Oh wait, we did, and Egos did the opposite of buying cred. His stance was "let them die to inactivity instead of wasting a vig" which they would have.
Are people intentionally arguing in bad faith?
Mini of Brass: Mafia sells out @simonwolf who had the weakest of powers on day 1 or two in order to solidify REG Rysk as network head and seer. Existence of a roleblock confirmed his inability to be helpful later in the game. This nearly led to a mafia victory if not for THE WITCH. In retrospect not a good practice to win the game, but DAMN funny to watch the village squirm when I died mafia.
Also, I do put stock in your argument. But if Egos lives til the later stages of the game I will be coming back to him in case this is true and in the event that there are no other valid targets to look at.
shabooty for posterity, though I expect him to win the vote with extra vigor now that Infidel has endorsed him as the target.
The defense of egos predicated on his voting for anialos doesn't hold water. In Tijuana he frequently was an early voter for fellow mafia, even when they were against the kosh.
"...against the kosh."?
I meant under, and my phone corrected it to kosh from cosh.
If anything "under the cosh" is somehow more cryptic.
works for me, the argument stronger than the hunch-argument against egos
Especially since the Egos vote is an argued connection with corv, but ignoring that Egos called out Anialos originally, so the Egos arguments are kinda suspicious.
Egos also called out corv early.
Its a tactic he employs while mafia to make himself look good.
It was also done by munkus in Ace Attorny Phalla when he was the only one to suspect Mr Def. It is definetly a thing mafia do.
So anytime you successfully vote out a mafia, you need to kill the one who did it?
Really?
We aren't arguing that EVERY time it happens. We're saying that egos has done it at least twice, it sounds like, so its fair to claim egos may be doing it again?
He also might not be, but I actually think it's a much stronger link than people are giving credit for.
The "buying cred" seems rather silly of an argument as something Egos does and did.
If you cite an example, you'll probably find that it involved (a) inactive mafia victim or (b) resurrection mechanics. Throwing your mafia brothers under the bus to buy cred is a poor poor plan.
The times it makes sense is when you're going to lose someone anyways, so put yourself in a strong position against them, like starting a wagon whole-cloth.
If only we had an inactive mafia this very game that could have been thrown under the bus.
Oh wait, we did, and Egos did the opposite of buying cred. His stance was "let them die to inactivity instead of wasting a vig" which they would have.
Are people intentionally arguing in bad faith?
Mini of Brass: Mafia sells out @simonwolf who had the weakest of powers on day 1 or two in order to solidify REG Rysk as network head and seer. Existence of a roleblock confirmed his inability to be helpful later in the game. This nearly led to a mafia victory if not for THE WITCH. In retrospect not a good practice to win the game, but DAMN funny to watch the village squirm when I died mafia.
You could iterate several other instances in past games where something out of the ordinary made it a reasonable move.
No one is citing one or supporting such here, so I wonder what it is?
Sacrificing your own to become the "seer head" is damn risky when the other seer(s) are out there. We only did it in Venture Bros way back because we had unique mafia roles/powers and we had our thrall be the one to "reveal."
But without any reason to suspect mafia have personal powers (the results give us clues to powers for specials, but not any for mafia), what is the justification of trading one for one?
So that Egos could be the network head? He isn't.
Without at least some motivation postulated in your argument, then you expect us to follow the logic to being suspicious of anyone who bandwagons a mafia, which is absurd.
The "buying cred" seems rather silly of an argument as something Egos does and did.
If you cite an example, you'll probably find that it involved (a) inactive mafia victim or (b) resurrection mechanics. Throwing your mafia brothers under the bus to buy cred is a poor poor plan.
The times it makes sense is when you're going to lose someone anyways, so put yourself in a strong position against them, like starting a wagon whole-cloth.
If only we had an inactive mafia this very game that could have been thrown under the bus.
Oh wait, we did, and Egos did the opposite of buying cred. His stance was "let them die to inactivity instead of wasting a vig" which they would have.
Are people intentionally arguing in bad faith?
Mini of Brass: Mafia sells out @simonwolf who had the weakest of powers on day 1 or two in order to solidify REG Rysk as network head and seer. Existence of a roleblock confirmed his inability to be helpful later in the game. This nearly led to a mafia victory if not for THE WITCH. In retrospect not a good practice to win the game, but DAMN funny to watch the village squirm when I died mafia.
doot doooo
Langly on
0
Options
Shiny New Toyswhere am i?its dark in hereRegistered Userregular
As someone who had been looking forward to this phalla and then it hitting at such at bad time work wise I sympathize with daniant
Also bedlam for remembering the all the ladies.
shabooty
This smacks of me jumping on a bandwagon And to be honest it kind of is but I have read through the posts and agree with the arguments put forward.
Posts
Seer should focus on finding the SK right now imo.
Well, with six total posts, he fits my "mafia are often hilariously inactive" stereotype. Posts with 20 minutes until vote close on Day 1, "Oh no! I forgot to vote!" Random post the next day for activity. His Day 2 SeGaTai vote is funny, because he jumps on the wagon to distract from the Anialos vote. And guess who his wagon-mates are? Anialos and corvidae. And then? Defends Anialos in his argument against the wagon on him. But by 8:40 PM, it's too late. He votes Anialos.
That's what I inferred from the narration.
A list of things, should you be of the gifting persuasion
Oops.
I meant Shabooty
We lost a seer on Day 1. It's assumed we have another.
I think we're hoping there's a second one, or a backup of some sort
shabooty
If you don't buy the drunkvote theory, then why is the remaining reasoning better than a Daniant vote?
Also, how many syllables are in "Smoove"? If its 2 syllables, I may be in trouble under the "Syllable Theory" posited by Alegis. I may be double mafia.
_____________________________________________
HoTS: Schmutz#1686
Welp, ok. Disregard the actual game related question in my last post. Unless you are Shabooty. That dude should think on it.
Also, SIAP, but Dani is a girl.
-Wally "The Wal-Mart" Walters
_____________________________________________
HoTS: Schmutz#1686
Especially since the Egos vote is an argued connection with corv, but ignoring that Egos called out Anialos originally, so the Egos arguments are kinda suspicious.
I meant under, and my phone corrected it to kosh from cosh.
Shabooty
A psychic could be anything, it just lends itself to seer the easiest.
I love how in every phalla I've played with you, you always try to have a plan in place in case you die :P
Its a tactic he employs while mafia to make himself look good.
It was also done by munkus in Ace Attorny Phalla when he was the only one to suspect Mr Def. It is definetly a thing mafia do.
From the Desk of Darth Vertroue Diplomat to the USA.
So anytime you successfully vote out a mafia, you need to kill the one who did it?
Really?
From the Desk of Darth Vertroue Diplomat to the USA.
If you cite an example, you'll probably find that it involved (a) inactive mafia victim or (b) resurrection mechanics. Throwing your mafia brothers under the bus to buy cred is a poor poor plan.
The times it makes sense is when you're going to lose someone anyways, so put yourself in a strong position against them, like starting a wagon whole-cloth.
If only we had an inactive mafia this very game that could have been thrown under the bus.
Oh wait, we did, and Egos did the opposite of buying cred. His stance was "let them die to inactivity instead of wasting a vig" which they would have.
Are people intentionally arguing in bad faith?
but it is enlightening
He could have
1) Come back in time to make a post, saving himself from an inactivity death
or
2) Been replaced instead of killed. There were 2 reserves, and I'm assuming the chance of being replaced or killed was up to the RNG.
The argument is "if you are going to kill one of your mafia allies, why would you choose someone active over someone inactive?"
Not that he's innocent for not doing it.
I like the cognitive disconnect that Infidel is "practically confirmed" and Egos is "throwing someone under the bus" for the equivalent actions. We both supported a wagon on Anialos before there was one and it came from us.
To be fair Bedlam. It was a game where the network where had a "good mafia" e.g. the good guys were fucking networked. You had votes on you already and it was day fucking 4 or 3. You need to get over someone trying to get in a good position on a wagon in a game where survival was a viable option for the mafia.
(Translation: I may not have made 4 posts, I think this is number 4?)
Wait, did he say today was the 4 post day?
Every day.
Make all the posts.
Mini of Brass: Mafia sells out @simonwolf who had the weakest of powers on day 1 or two in order to solidify REG Rysk as network head and seer. Existence of a roleblock confirmed his inability to be helpful later in the game. This nearly led to a mafia victory if not for THE WITCH. In retrospect not a good practice to win the game, but DAMN funny to watch the village squirm when I died mafia.
shabooty for posterity, though I expect him to win the vote with extra vigor now that Infidel has endorsed him as the target.
Oh, sorry, it just means under pressure.
We aren't arguing that EVERY time it happens. We're saying that egos has done it at least twice, it sounds like, so its fair to claim egos may be doing it again?
He also might not be, but I actually think it's a much stronger link than people are giving credit for.
You could iterate several other instances in past games where something out of the ordinary made it a reasonable move.
No one is citing one or supporting such here, so I wonder what it is?
Sacrificing your own to become the "seer head" is damn risky when the other seer(s) are out there. We only did it in Venture Bros way back because we had unique mafia roles/powers and we had our thrall be the one to "reveal."
But without any reason to suspect mafia have personal powers (the results give us clues to powers for specials, but not any for mafia), what is the justification of trading one for one?
So that Egos could be the network head? He isn't.
Without at least some motivation postulated in your argument, then you expect us to follow the logic to being suspicious of anyone who bandwagons a mafia, which is absurd.
doot doooo
Also bedlam
shabooty
This smacks of me jumping on a bandwagon And to be honest it kind of is but I have read through the posts and agree with the arguments put forward.