It is not awkward to voice suspicions without voting. It is awkward for a villager to be voicing them without actually voicing them, hoping that someone else would pick up on it. He was very clearly implicating me without naming me, and when that failed he goes and votes for me. Do people really see villagers doing that often? That seems like a lot of work and wasted posting when a villager would just put it out there if it is what is on their mind.
Um, yes? I see that all the time. From villagers, from specials, and yes from mafioso. Mafia aren't the only people who have to "do a lot of work" to win a game.
But you know a mafia tactic I do often see? I often see mafia trying to promote a village culture where innovation, action, and "work" is frowned upon.
I find mafia by looking at who is being manipulative and/or hiding something. Retaba has demonstrated that he had a goal and wasn't being forthcoming and being round-about at first. It's at least an actually reasoned vote. :P
So only mafia manipulate the village? Really? Because in all the games I've won as a villager, the network and/or some crafty villagers did an awful lot of manipulation to win the game.
In fact, being overt in this kind of game gets you killed, no matter what your role is. The idea that "oh, manipulative means mafia" is kind of ridiculous. They are certainly manipulative, but they aren't the only ones.
And I think if pointing out that you were wrong about Darian being a wizard without voting for you is "manipulation" well, I honestly don't even know what to say to that. That's the mildest manipulation I've ever encountered.
So, yep, my vote stays where it is today. I have a very strong suspicion about you now.
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
facetiousa wit so dryit shits sandRegistered Userregular
this isn't an innocuous throwing down of suspicion, he's calling for your death.
Normally this would be a big flag, but I think in the circumstances it softens this a bit - it's Infidel, for one, who can get vigged at any time just due to reputation. And Retaba already has a bunch of votes.
facetious on
"I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde
I know, and I am just having fun with the idea! Happy to you see you're feeling better Facetious
0
Options
facetiousa wit so dryit shits sandRegistered Userregular
Also yay, I'm feeling just better enough to go to work after missing four days in a row. (well, being sent home two days and then missing the next two.)
So.. yay.
"I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde
I'm pretty convinced two of: Infidel, Drez, and Retaba are mafia.
Not sure which two, but I feel like either Retaba is mafia and Drez is trying to draw attention away, OR, Retaba is villager and Infidel is trying to scapegoat (possibly assuming he'll be dead soon anyway?) and Drez is laying foundations for when Infidel turns up red "no guys, I argued with him, obviously I'm villager!"
.. there's technically a third option whereby Drez is the innocent one but it's less likely, and I feel like he's probably mafia. Maybe.
Still, this is the easiest way to test it. []Retaba[]
Ah yes. The old "people who talk are suspicious" argument.
I don't think anyone has voted for me or discussed me in any way this entire game, at least not in this thread. It would be pretty stupid for me to inject myself this heavily into the discourse if I were mafia.
And voting Retaba out doesn't necessarily test or prove anything about either me or Infidel. If he's red, I may be mafia, or I may just be a misguided villager. If he's green, I might be a villager, or I might just be a mafia trying to defend someone I know to be a soon-to-be dead villager to try and mitigate some future suspicion.
Then again, I'm not even defending Retaba here. What I'm doing is pointing out some issues I have with Infidel's logic.
Dudes, I'm just going to say, as far as we know, the seer is not dead yet. We're on day 4. Unless the seer has been roleblocked and/or has poop for brains, infidel has been seered just to get that question out of the way. Jason's reveal day one means that the seer has contacted him and told him his results. This is a chain of events that is certainly the case.
If a vote hasn't been called on him, he's probably not mafia. But so far, why would the mafia go to any lengths to kill him? He's a great vote target because people are always scared of him. It's good to keep suspicious villagers around so that the village will kill them for you. And you can take that to the underground sewer lair
Dudes, I'm just going to say, as far as we know, the seer is not dead yet. We're on day 4. Unless the seer has been roleblocked and/or has poop for brains, infidel has been seered just to get that question out of the way. Jason's reveal day one means that the seer has contacted him and told him his results. This is a chain of events that is certainly the case.
If a vote hasn't been called on him, he's probably not mafia. But so far, why would the mafia go to any lengths to kill him? He's a great vote target because people are always scared of him. It's good to keep suspicious villagers around so that the village will kill them for you. And you can take that to the underground sewer lair
I must have missed something.
Why are you assuming Infidel was seered? Because he's a veteran? Or did I miss some other claim in the thread?
Because unless you have actual proof that Infidel was seered, that isn't an assumption anyone should make. And even if he was seered, assuming he was seered as good just because he's still alive is another bad assumption.
because if I were a seer, he'd be my day 1? He'd be pretty much anyone's day one?
Fuck when I was mafia last game he was our day one seer. If, by day 4, he has not been seered, there is some serious shell head thinking going on. Because not just given his meta-known nature, but also his general suspicion level in this game alone, he's a guy who you want to know about.
Secondly, if he was seered, we have a village network in place that knows. There's no reason to keep him around when we're just striking out blindly and getting lots of villagers dead. He'd be vigged or would have the network call for his head.
I mean, maybe he's mafia and our seer(s) just haven't decided to check him out yet, but that seems like stark raving madness. Who else would you be seering? just random choices? Based solely on who looks like prime targets to know either way in this phalla, he'd be at the top of my list, for sure.
because if I were a seer, he'd be my day 1? He'd be pretty much anyone's day one?
Fuck when I was mafia last game he was our day one seer. If, by day 4, he has not been seered, there is some serious shell head thinking going on. Because not just given his meta-known nature, but also his general suspicion level in this game alone, he's a guy who you want to know about.
Secondly, if he was seered, we have a village network in place that knows. There's no reason to keep him around when we're just striking out blindly and getting lots of villagers dead. He'd be vigged or would have the network call for his head.
I mean, maybe he's mafia and our seer(s) just haven't decided to check him out yet, but that seems like stark raving madness. Who else would you be seering? just random choices? Based solely on who looks like prime targets to know either way in this phalla, he'd be at the top of my list, for sure.
Well, I have never been a seer, but the purpose of a seer isn't to target veterans, it's to try and find mafia and/or grow a network, which is helped by veterans - sure - but it isn't necessary to win at phalla by favoring vets.
I wouldn't necessarily seer Infidel on Day One and I've been playing phallas for four years now. It depends on who is playing (Infidel is not the only veteran), the nature (mechanics, size, etc.) of the game, what people have said in the thread in Day One (though to be honest I almost always totally ignore Day One as being useless crap), and myriad other factors. And as the game progressed past Day One, I would pick seer targets based on what is going on in the game, not because "oh, hey, it's Infidel, I'd better seer him!"
The more you say, the more I find YOUR logic suspect, Langly. You want people to assume Infidel is above suspicion because he has survived to Day Four. That is either mafia logic, or just plain terrible logic. In either case, my response to you is a big, flat no.
Yes, Infidel, but you and Langly are seriously trying to argue that as proof that you are above suspicion. That's a cute argument on Day Two, but not on Day Four. On Day Four, it's a mafia argument. And now I am suspicious of both of you.
I am not saying he's above suspicion, this entire thing started because facetious was listing three people he thought had a high likelyhood of being mafia. I was saying that you could make a calculated guess that Infidel was not, based on the above, and work from there.
Most of the people voting for him have been like "uh well it's infidel better vote for him cause he's still alive cowabunga!"
And that's silly, when using that same logic, the logic that simply because he is Infidel he is dangerous, everyone else is also worried and so have acted accordingly.
Yes, Infidel, but you and Langly are seriously trying to argue that as proof that you are above suspicion. That's a cute argument on Day Two, but not on Day Four. On Day Four, it's a mafia argument. And now I am suspicious of both of you.
A cute argument is this one, what exactly is the predicate for two versus four?
My "argument" you're referring to the obvious-to-everyone-else facetious statement, right?
Yes, Infidel, but you and Langly are seriously trying to argue that as proof that you are above suspicion. That's a cute argument on Day Two, but not on Day Four. On Day Four, it's a mafia argument. And now I am suspicious of both of you.
A cute argument is this one, what exactly is the predicate for two versus four?
My "argument" you're referring to the obvious-to-everyone-else facetious statement, right?
Infidel for Dummies: The Guide to Infidel
1. He always plays aggressively, since he's always in grave danger.
2. He always picks on weak targets early, since he's good at ID'ing mafia as village, and it gives him plausible deniability as mafia.
3. He is part of the group of phalla players who is capable of making nearly every argument seem wrong. Do not try to convince HIM, focus on trying to convince the people reading. If you take him on directly he'll deflect your argument and you will look like a fool. You're playing for the judges, here, not for your opponent.
That being said, I am still trying to catch up so I'm not sure how much I believe infidel or not. But hopefully I'll have more on that.
So back to beating a dead horse, but still got nothing from Rend's consorting with demons post-and if the mafia hasn't killed him for getting in touch with them or whoever else isn't village I don't think he's one of us
I'm getting the impression that you are trying to go after a secondary faction as opposed to the mafia, when we've had a terrible track record of hitting mafia so far. The axe kill looks like it is likely not village aligned what with taking out a special, but since Jason Todd hasn't killed anyone lately we are going to need some non-mafia kills still around to have a chance this game.
Thus I find you suspicious, Segatai, for possible misdirection.
I am not saying he's above suspicion, this entire thing started because facetious was listing three people he thought had a high likelyhood of being mafia. I was saying that you could make a calculated guess that Infidel was not, based on the above, and work from there.
Most of the people voting for him have been like "uh well it's infidel better vote for him cause he's still alive cowabunga!"
And that's silly, when using that same logic, the logic that simply because he is Infidel he is dangerous, everyone else is also worried and so have acted accordingly.
Well, I'm voting for him, and I'm urging other people to vote for him, because his arguments are flawed and mafialike for reasons I have already provided. And this is explicitly what you said:
Dudes, I'm just going to say, as far as we know, the seer is not dead yet. We're on day 4. Unless the seer has been roleblocked and/or has poop for brains, infidel has been seered just to get that question out of the way. Jason's reveal day one means that the seer has contacted him and told him his results. This is a chain of events that is certainly the case.
That is not "a calculated guess." That is a series of assumptions, most of which are entirely meta. Any calculation you make from a series of assumptions is itself an assumption and not a calculation worth entertaining.
And while I really dislike the "he's Infidel so vote for him" mentality as much as the "he's Infidel so he must be good if he's survived this long" mentality, I'd rather the village err on the side of being suspicious than of exoneration. But I do think that "he's Infidel and he's alive this long so he must be evil!" is, generally speaking, the wrong reason to vote for him.
Yes, Infidel, but you and Langly are seriously trying to argue that as proof that you are above suspicion. That's a cute argument on Day Two, but not on Day Four. On Day Four, it's a mafia argument. And now I am suspicious of both of you.
A cute argument is this one, what exactly is the predicate for two versus four?
My "argument" you're referring to the obvious-to-everyone-else facetious statement, right?
The fact that you are bringing up what has happened to you in the past. That doesn't matter here. Sure, there is a metagame and it is undeniable that people have reputations and that, yes, those reputations DO factor into how other people act around those veterans, but you aren't just discussing your past willy-nilly. In fact, you're doing the same thing you accused Retaba of doing...just putting information out there without explicitly making the argument. Come on.
And the difference between Day Two and Day Four is that on Day One and Day Two I expect people to make silly arguments but I expect those to end by Day Four.
Yeah, you really do have to take the metagame into account
There's always metagame. But you should never, ever be less suspicious of someone because of their status. Always err on the side of cynicism and more suspicion. Don't let meta analysis lull you into believing that someone is less suspicious because of any argument or observation on who they are or how people have treated them in the past. That is definitely a bad idea.
And when the game is over, we'll see who was right. I'm sure I'll die before you, but I can't hold the village's hands for them, and I think your actions speak for you without my needing to harp on you.
Also, notice how deft Infidel is: "There is a reason you are known for big arguments that go nowhere Drez." He's trying to remind the people that know me and my playstyle that, yes, I tend to get into big, occasionally distracting arguments in these games (of course leaving out the fact that I am often correct in my assessments) and subtly hinting to the people who are new or who haven't played with me before that I should be disregarded because this is "a thing" for me. And because of Infidel's status, people are likely to pay it heed, subconsciously or not.
Bravo, Infidel. By the way, what was it you were saying about manipulation earlier?
I explicitly said that I am always manipulative and it worries people, but then I can at least do it while mafia. In this very thread.
So yes, what was it that I was saying earlier? Oh right, this.
"often correct" is just thrown out there just as easily, should we go examine that ala Dunadan list style and put it to the test? Because I'm fine with dragging out old threads and looking at my track record, how about you? :rotate:
Posts
Um, yes? I see that all the time. From villagers, from specials, and yes from mafioso. Mafia aren't the only people who have to "do a lot of work" to win a game.
But you know a mafia tactic I do often see? I often see mafia trying to promote a village culture where innovation, action, and "work" is frowned upon.
Also this:
So only mafia manipulate the village? Really? Because in all the games I've won as a villager, the network and/or some crafty villagers did an awful lot of manipulation to win the game.
In fact, being overt in this kind of game gets you killed, no matter what your role is. The idea that "oh, manipulative means mafia" is kind of ridiculous. They are certainly manipulative, but they aren't the only ones.
And I think if pointing out that you were wrong about Darian being a wizard without voting for you is "manipulation" well, I honestly don't even know what to say to that. That's the mildest manipulation I've ever encountered.
So, yep, my vote stays where it is today. I have a very strong suspicion about you now.
Normally this would be a big flag, but I think in the circumstances it softens this a bit - it's Infidel, for one, who can get vigged at any time just due to reputation. And Retaba already has a bunch of votes.
Steam: Chagrin LoL: Bonhomie
So.. yay.
Steam: Chagrin LoL: Bonhomie
Ah yes. The old "people who talk are suspicious" argument.
I don't think anyone has voted for me or discussed me in any way this entire game, at least not in this thread. It would be pretty stupid for me to inject myself this heavily into the discourse if I were mafia.
And voting Retaba out doesn't necessarily test or prove anything about either me or Infidel. If he's red, I may be mafia, or I may just be a misguided villager. If he's green, I might be a villager, or I might just be a mafia trying to defend someone I know to be a soon-to-be dead villager to try and mitigate some future suspicion.
Then again, I'm not even defending Retaba here. What I'm doing is pointing out some issues I have with Infidel's logic.
If a vote hasn't been called on him, he's probably not mafia. But so far, why would the mafia go to any lengths to kill him? He's a great vote target because people are always scared of him. It's good to keep suspicious villagers around so that the village will kill them for you. And you can take that to the underground sewer lair
I work hard to make sure that I can make compelling arguments regardless of my alignment!
Making everybody else in the game uncomfortable is just gravy.
I must have missed something.
Why are you assuming Infidel was seered? Because he's a veteran? Or did I miss some other claim in the thread?
Because unless you have actual proof that Infidel was seered, that isn't an assumption anyone should make. And even if he was seered, assuming he was seered as good just because he's still alive is another bad assumption.
I feel kinda bad about that.
Fuck when I was mafia last game he was our day one seer. If, by day 4, he has not been seered, there is some serious shell head thinking going on. Because not just given his meta-known nature, but also his general suspicion level in this game alone, he's a guy who you want to know about.
Secondly, if he was seered, we have a village network in place that knows. There's no reason to keep him around when we're just striking out blindly and getting lots of villagers dead. He'd be vigged or would have the network call for his head.
I mean, maybe he's mafia and our seer(s) just haven't decided to check him out yet, but that seems like stark raving madness. Who else would you be seering? just random choices? Based solely on who looks like prime targets to know either way in this phalla, he'd be at the top of my list, for sure.
yes, that move was radical
Well, I have never been a seer, but the purpose of a seer isn't to target veterans, it's to try and find mafia and/or grow a network, which is helped by veterans - sure - but it isn't necessary to win at phalla by favoring vets.
I wouldn't necessarily seer Infidel on Day One and I've been playing phallas for four years now. It depends on who is playing (Infidel is not the only veteran), the nature (mechanics, size, etc.) of the game, what people have said in the thread in Day One (though to be honest I almost always totally ignore Day One as being useless crap), and myriad other factors. And as the game progressed past Day One, I would pick seer targets based on what is going on in the game, not because "oh, hey, it's Infidel, I'd better seer him!"
The more you say, the more I find YOUR logic suspect, Langly. You want people to assume Infidel is above suspicion because he has survived to Day Four. That is either mafia logic, or just plain terrible logic. In either case, my response to you is a big, flat no.
I think my record was four day 1 seers on me.
Believe me, I play this game differently than most just because of shit like this, I have to.
We're not talking "veteran" we're talking "Infidel" here. People act differently with regards to me.
I have been vigged by a network that seered me just because I am constantly suspicious that they started to doubt their seer.
You should have seen him with the bling
Most of the people voting for him have been like "uh well it's infidel better vote for him cause he's still alive cowabunga!"
And that's silly, when using that same logic, the logic that simply because he is Infidel he is dangerous, everyone else is also worried and so have acted accordingly.
A cute argument is this one, what exactly is the predicate for two versus four?
My "argument" you're referring to the obvious-to-everyone-else facetious statement, right?
Infidel for Dummies: The Guide to Infidel
1. He always plays aggressively, since he's always in grave danger.
2. He always picks on weak targets early, since he's good at ID'ing mafia as village, and it gives him plausible deniability as mafia.
3. He is part of the group of phalla players who is capable of making nearly every argument seem wrong. Do not try to convince HIM, focus on trying to convince the people reading. If you take him on directly he'll deflect your argument and you will look like a fool. You're playing for the judges, here, not for your opponent.
That being said, I am still trying to catch up so I'm not sure how much I believe infidel or not. But hopefully I'll have more on that.
I'm getting the impression that you are trying to go after a secondary faction as opposed to the mafia, when we've had a terrible track record of hitting mafia so far. The axe kill looks like it is likely not village aligned what with taking out a special, but since Jason Todd hasn't killed anyone lately we are going to need some non-mafia kills still around to have a chance this game.
Thus I find you suspicious, Segatai, for possible misdirection.
Well, I'm voting for him, and I'm urging other people to vote for him, because his arguments are flawed and mafialike for reasons I have already provided. And this is explicitly what you said:
That is not "a calculated guess." That is a series of assumptions, most of which are entirely meta. Any calculation you make from a series of assumptions is itself an assumption and not a calculation worth entertaining.
And while I really dislike the "he's Infidel so vote for him" mentality as much as the "he's Infidel so he must be good if he's survived this long" mentality, I'd rather the village err on the side of being suspicious than of exoneration. But I do think that "he's Infidel and he's alive this long so he must be evil!" is, generally speaking, the wrong reason to vote for him.
* * *
The fact that you are bringing up what has happened to you in the past. That doesn't matter here. Sure, there is a metagame and it is undeniable that people have reputations and that, yes, those reputations DO factor into how other people act around those veterans, but you aren't just discussing your past willy-nilly. In fact, you're doing the same thing you accused Retaba of doing...just putting information out there without explicitly making the argument. Come on.
And the difference between Day Two and Day Four is that on Day One and Day Two I expect people to make silly arguments but I expect those to end by Day Four.
* * *
There's always metagame. But you should never, ever be less suspicious of someone because of their status. Always err on the side of cynicism and more suspicion. Don't let meta analysis lull you into believing that someone is less suspicious because of any argument or observation on who they are or how people have treated them in the past. That is definitely a bad idea.
Its ok WildWood, he'll watch over you while you sleep
to keep you safe forever and ever and ever...
Then become a Loot Whore neutral and score some legendaries and /gquit to victory!
That may have been the best game I ever ran. The nerdrage mechanic was so good
There is a reason you are known for big arguments that go nowhere Drez.
I am not really going to pick apart your posts because the audience can do that on their own pretty handily.
Rend, we need another game that is True Names style but something else in mechanic.
Bravo, Infidel. By the way, what was it you were saying about manipulation earlier?
So yes, what was it that I was saying earlier? Oh right, this.
"often correct" is just thrown out there just as easily, should we go examine that ala Dunadan list style and put it to the test? Because I'm fine with dragging out old threads and looking at my track record, how about you? :rotate:
I am the deftest.