Mafia 52: Back to the Basics - Abandoned!

[VisMaior]

Ill have been V/LA-d from friday for a week. Ill try to drop in but access will be spotty at best.

[StevieT92]

It makes you more likely to get away with being scum, though.

It would also make him more likely to be an asset to the town. I don't think "You don't seem scummy to me but you're a good player so it might be good to lynch you anyways" is a healthy(pro-town) argument.

I never wanted to lynch him, I wanted to put pressure on him.

[Yosarian2]

vote:Rebby

He's only posted twice, and one of those posts was one of those highly suspicious late "primate" bandwagon posts. So not only is he a lurker, but the only thing he's done all game that even looks like content also looks suspicious.

[Fritzler]

vote:Rebby

He's only posted twice, and one of those posts was one of those highly suspicious late "primate" bandwagon posts. So not only is he a lurker, but the only thing he's done all game that even looks like content also looks suspicious.

he is extremely suspect

[B Rob]

I never wanted to lynch him, I wanted to put pressure on him.

If you're not threatening lynch, then it isn't really pressure. Why would you want to pressure someone just because of playskill anyway?

[Glork]

I'm liking my Stevievote more and more.

[bluemonick]

I never wanted to lynch him, I wanted to put pressure on him.

Yeah that really was a Weird thing to say by StevieT92. Put Pressure? What the Heck? Voting and Unvoting someone for the sake of "pressure", and not trying to lynch someone when your supposely pro-town?

FOS: StevieT92

[~deathsquiggle~]

I never wanted to lynch him, I wanted to put pressure on him.

So, what you're saying is, you wanted to establish that it he would be hard to catch as scum, then pressure him?

Brilliant move, seeing as how, if he doesn't react to your pressure, you can fall back on your earlier statements that he's good scum and use them to try to convince people that his lack of tells means nothing.

But when you were called on your argument, you said you didn't really want to lynch him after all. Hmm.

[Axelrod]

The thing is, pressure to do what? Claim?

Pressure voting in this game doesn't even make sense.

[Coron]

sure it does.

[Yosarian2]

Well, right now I'm hoping to use my vote to pressure Rebby to post more, although I wouldn't mind lynching him either at this point.

[spectrumvoid]

This is my first big game (not counting the one where I died straight away within 2 pages). Is it normal for some people to poof/disappear/lurk?

[VisMaior]

Sadly, it is normal. I check who needs prodding.

[Yosarian2]

It happens, but it's the town's job to not let them do that. When you see a lurker, vote them, bring attention to them, and either they'll feel the pressure and start posting, or get lynched, or get replaced.

Especally in a game with no power roles, with nothing but townies and scum, we can not let people lurk; if they don't post we have no way of figuring out their alignment.

[Axelrod]

sure it does.

Perhaps pressure to get people not to lurk, I wasn't thinking along those lines. But that's not what StevieT was talking about. His remark still makes no sense.

Lurkers should be prodded and then replaced.

[Romanus]

Votes are the only way of spurring discussion. I mean we could talk about A-Rod and the yankees, but I doubt we will be able to find scum doing that. We vote, we comment on people's votes, we comment on those comments, we run someone up, see how they respond as well as how others respond to them being run up. It is the only way to play the game. Call it pressure if you like, call it nudging, cajoling; I call it playing Mafia. Now lets stop this inane discussion and get on with killing some scum.

[Machiavellian-Mafia]

I agree with Yos's thinking about pressuring Rebby, especially since he also looks like a relatively new player who needs to post more than just a simple vote to get some experience.

unvote, Vote: Rebby

Rebby, why did you think it was good idea to wagon onto Primate when there were already so many votes on him?

[Romanus]

Because of my opinion stated above which shows how ludicrous this statement by axelrod was:

Pressure voting in this game doesn't even make sense.

I will now

UNVOTE; VOTE: Axelrod

[spectrumvoid]

I'd say pressure voting is very important in this game, since we have no power roles like cop, so we have to decide who to lynch solely on how people react. So if there's a vote on person A , their reactions/defensiveness will be very important for us to judge if they're scum. Axelrod, explain that comment?

[Romanus]

Spectrumvoid -- it is not only their reaction, but the reaction of others as well. I even think the way others react is more important.

[Glork]

Hi, I'd like to remind you all that a vote for StevieT92 is a vote against all evil everywhere.


Do your part. Be a good citizen.

[Fritzler]

Because of my opinion stated above which shows how ludicrous this statement by axelrod was:

Pressure voting in this game doesn't even make sense.

I will now

UNVOTE; VOTE: Axelrod

are you high?

[Primate]

Without the claiming process, there's no incentive to take votes off each other quickly. With pressure votes there tends to be a point where the pressure is released, something that isn't really likely here. There's no reason to take pressure votes off, so you simply get scum justifying their vote solely as a pressure vote, when in truth it is a bandwagon vote with intention to lynch. I say we should be more liberal with our votes, but have little genuine pressure voting. If we endorse pressure voting too highly, we simply hamstring ourselves when scum use it as an excuse later. Becuase we have so little info, every vote needs to be accounted for and allocated for a good reason, and I don't know if 'I want to apply pressure' is a good enough reason.

However, as long as it justified later, I think the most valuable place to put all the spare pressure that we have availaiable is into lurkerhunting. As there are no power roles, there is no reason for them to hide. Gotta get them to commit to stuff. Gonna wait till later till I pick my horse though.

Vote B Rob

I think his playing this game has been a bit too shaky to let go easily. He has commited at least one major change in behaviour, and since then, he has been defending both his earlier and later points of view, despite them being totally irreconcilable in goal and thinking. Also, your vote hopping seems distinctly not cool. You're voting Stevie for doing the effectively exact same thing you did, problem is, you were the sixth reasonless vote, whilst he was only the third (and was apparently not reasonless).

[Romanus]

No, fritz, I am not high.

Do you not like my vote on axelrod?

[B Rob]

Because of my opinion stated above which shows how ludicrous this statement by axelrod was:

Pressure voting in this game doesn't even make sense.

I will now

UNVOTE; VOTE: Axelrod

are you high?

What problem do you have with an Axelrod vote?

Vote B Rob

I think his playing this game has been a bit too shaky to let go easily. He has commited at least one major change in behaviour, and since then, he has been defending both his earlier and later points of view, despite them being totally irreconcilable in goal and thinking. Also, your vote hopping seems distinctly not cool. You're voting Stevie for doing the effectively exact same thing you did, problem is, you were the sixth reasonless vote, whilst he was only the third (and was apparently not reasonless).

I concede that I made silly, silly mistakes. If you want to press it, it's up to you. I do find it strange that you waited so long to attack me.