Mafia Lite 2
- Thread starter Prizyms
- Start date
- Status
Even though Dessern already explained himself, I do have something to say about this.
In my eyes, Dessern's statement was fairly rational, and I'm not certain how it could really lead to a random sense of suspicion.
Now, obviously Mafia is a game where we all have different roles, and with such, we have to search for these roles over time. We do not know these roles immediately.
Because of this, essentially, the only "Neutral" party we can all generally base ourselves on, is a member of the town, or civilian. We cannot guess otherwise, as again, we do not know each others roles until 1) We Die, or 2) A power-role discovers discovers said-persons role in-game.
So as such; we can all generally be comprised in the general sense as "we," or the voting party who have the ability to lynch, and discuss in these daytime scenario's.
To add onto that, honestly, If Dessern was suspected on this basis this game, why was I not suspected of it in Alpha's Mafia Season 2? I used "we" in the same context pretty much in every post I made, as well as that of every consecutive game afterwards. I've also noticed that many other players have done the same in the past.
If we base our suspicions on this reasoning, you can generally rule out basically everyone, and with such, it is not a very strong way to suspect someone.
Now obviously, I'm not saying we should suspect Sploorky or 77 just because they were the two or mentioned it (see, I said we in that statement!), as I am certain it was an easy misconception to approach in these scenario's when you basically cannot trust anyone. However, the basis still stands, and I actually do hope that a pressure on Dessern because of this does not actually insue, because the evidence clearly points elsewhere, and actually will make me more suspicious of thou, if said circumstance does occur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyways!... Interesting night... Not much discussion.
Get to it people!
Honestly, as always, I do not know who to suspect at the moment, as we indeed to not have much evidence to choose from.
It seems to me that these early rounds always seem to be stacked in the Mafia's favor, as we, the people who are voting as well as the town, do not actually have a clearer idea on who to suspect, and can easily lead to mis-lynches based on bad information and argument, which is generally bad.
As seen in past games, we've normally considered circumstances like this with the solution of a n0-lynch, in hopes that a Cop, Vigilante, Town Drunk, Skeleton(forum name), or whatever other roles may influence the night. I, myself, would normally support this as in my eyes, its normally a safer bet then risking two lives; one in the day to lynchings, and one at night to a Mafia.
However: I do not believe we can actually risk a No-lynch and try to wait it out like with ideas in past games, as we have a lesser amount of players, and only a few power-roles, who which do not actually have that great of an impact in the game UNLESS something unexpected(as it is random) occurs during the night cycle (I'm talking about the Watcher and Tracker roles)
I've normally always hated the suggestion that "because someone is more skillful, or doesn't really talk that much in game, they must obviously be apart of the Mafia!" It always makes us jump to, normally false conclusions that can lead to false lynches. Despite ideas of "success" in this department in the past, such as with examples with Jolteon and Kraby last round as well as any others from previous matches, I don't actually feel they are reasonable examples themselves.
People have real excuses, or people just don't know what to say.
In itself, I could just say "I actually have no idea who to lynch, or if we should lynch at all" instead of writing this lengthy post that I most likely will not finish while on this bus... And not really post afterwards UNLESS some stroke of inspiration or major idea hits me in the face with a crowbar, and only then talk in this thread.
Could I be suspected of that? Yes.
The only person who fits this description I feel that can be justified would be with Defiant. He's basically died in every Mafia Game since Season 2 of Alpha's due to his contribution to the game, and his recognized skill and persuasion. The idea that Defiant did not die in the first 2 nights of Mafia Season 4 was a big surprise, and was basically the only time I feel when someone who is skilled, can be considered suspicious.
I think we need to take our ideas in a different direction.
I'm not certain which direction, as we basically have no evidence to base ourselves on besides prejudicial "Skilled vs. More newer players" discussion, which really leads into dead ends and circles and really don't present much contributions to the general ideas at all.
I want to see what more people think.
One of the reason you weren't suspected for it was because you were referring to "we" as a town instead of "we" as a mafia group which was what Dess did. I never noticed you say "we" in regards to talking about the mafia. That's what makes him suspicious and not you.
Now that I read it, Dess is right. By him saying: "We would no longer have a strong person to argue with us." I think he meant someone to argue for or against another with good reasoning as to why we should or shouldn't lynch them, sometimes even in strange ways.
*COUGHSEASON4LYNCHINGDAY1COUGH*
*COUGHSEASON4LYNCHINGDAY1COUGH*
I say we vote Dessern.
Even if the 'we' passed, there is still the 'us' screaming right at....us.
Not really.
He said we, the mafia, not we, the town. There's no way around that.
The "us" in this statement is referring to the same thing as the "we" in this statement, since we as a town would not have someone strong to argue with us which would greatly benefit the mafia since we would be a little more quick at lynching a good role.
That might also be the case. However, I think it's more of Dess not wording it well instead of claiming to be mafia. I'm also giving him the benefit of the doubt, because last time there was a "slip-up" we lynched a villager.
If you mean the doctor fiasco, keep in mind he was lynched on day 2 after people started thinking he was urging others to lynch quickly, not just on the grounds of a slip up. I'm not going to vote for Dessern yet, but I'm certainly suspicious of him.
Dessern has been playing mafia foru a couple of games now. I think he would know that if he was mafia he would not do such a obvious slip up. Also it wasn't even a slip up he was referring us the town.
I am here to clear up the misconceptions once again, as it seems my last post was ignored.
This is exactly what I said previously, as well of that last game.
It cannot be a slip-up, it makes to little sense. And again: this has been used by many people over the past Mafia games and no suspicion has become upon them
You are only considering it based on your viewpoint on how YOU PERCEIVED it to be, not WHAT IT ACTUALLY means, which is very much the opposite idea.
We are too focused on a small, menial idea that honestly does not prove anything of significant worth in terms of Dessern's, or really anyone's affiliation in terms of role this, or any Mafia game.
It's just to small of a source of evidence or suspicion to really get around.
Now, remember exactly what happened in last Mafia game, as despite myself dying that first night, I kept up with the thread throughout its entirety.
I really do not believe your reasoning is right there Sploork, as Dessern really wasn't "urging" anyone to lynch quickly. All he did was state he was curious and suspicious of Kraby, though I admit, on unusual grounds.
However, this really did not cause much in terms of his conviction. It was mainly on the grounds of 3 different catalysts: Duffie, Defiant, and Darthlego. (Oh look, 3 D's!)
I will not cover Duffie or Darthlego's roles, as it was really mainly used as influencing agents to persuade the town into a specific mindset, that was, to lynch against Dessern.
However, Defiant played a more major role in terms of the discussion when this event was occurring.
The MAIN reason now, which Defiant asked early in the discussion of Day 2, was on what specific player Dessern had protected that night, which it turns out, was Defiant.
Defiant argued that Dessern was most likely not the Doctor as 1) He did not save himself, and 2)He protected Defiant instead of someone like me, who had tried to protect him during the previous day, and it turned out I was the cop.
This was really the main focus that brought suspicion on Dessern, not the previous.
I must say both were fairly terrible assumptions as...
1) The idea of protecting yourself during the night RIGHT AFTER it is discovered that you are potentially the doctor is a terrible idea. You are obviously going to be a huge target for Mafia, Skeleton, and etc, and with such, it would be very much a better idea to try and PROTECT someone as a potential sacrifice as oneself, as you know you will die fairly soon with all eyes on you. As well as...
2) Following on the idea set by idea Number 1, Protecting Defiant was a fairly rational choice. Look at it this way; Defiant, as we all know, is extremely experienced in terms as Mafia Games go, and with luck in past rounds, Defiant has died fairly quickly, normally in the first day or so. Protecting Defiant would most likely be the best choice, as he could have helped the town pick out specific Mafia members, which is the main winning standpoint for that group. This of course, would have been the case if Defiant was not ACTUALLY APART OF THE MAFIA HIMSELF.
Honestly, I don't think anything in terms of last match is very relevant, or correct in this circumstance, as this is an entirely different game with a different rule set, though in some places evidence from previous games can help out in these strange cases. I know you did not make this out to be one of your reasons to lynch Dess, but I felt it needed to be cleared up with a different viewpoint, and a different mindset.
Now, I already stated my ideas on the "we" idea in my previous post, and briefly above.
It's nonsense.
The only way I could have seen this to work out would have been if Balloon was actually one of the Mafia and died during the night, where Dessern would have stated the same statement. Only then I could have seen an extremely amount of suspicion but on Dessern, which I would admit, I would also be apart of.
However: this could not happen as there are no Town-sided nor 3rd-party sided roles that can kill in the night.
The only logical choice is that Balloon would, in turn, help discuss the game and possibly help the town located possible Mafia members.
I DO NOT see how this can lead to further suspicion on him.
Honestly, as I stated above, I can see more suspicion being cast on you Sploork. The evidence is slim, and honestly, this is again, and extremely similar to the cases of last match with that of again, Dessern, and Prizyms as well. If we look at your reasoning for the lynch of Dessern on day 2 (which I covered previously above), we can use this to the same argument against you.
Day 1: You pushed to lynch Prizyms on little evidence, and the majority of the town did in fact agree that there was not much evidence to really lynch Priz, and seemed more like a distraction to kill of Dessern. In fact, only after random posts by Priz was he finally lynched off.
Day 2: The same argument goes for Dessern, as again, it was mainly the pushing and influence of Defiant, Duffie, and Darthlego who lynched off Dessern in the end.
You also did this on multiple occasions with other members of the town.
Despite success with a few, the chance is rare, and honestly, I don't really think should be taken into account, as it was a chance by luck not in anyone's favor.
So honestly, I would be more suspicious of you right now.
But let us be mindful of ourselves.
I honestly am not suspicious of you at all quite honestly.
I find that this has all been a simple misconception and mistake.
Again, ANYONE could be the Mafia in these situations.
It could be me, it could be you, it could be anyone. We will, once again, not know until that said person is either killed off, or dead.
I honestly don't really know who you will suspect.
Some things in this post may even make you suspicious of me.
But honestly, I don't really care about that.
I am just trying to make sure terrible mis-lynches do not happen. From what I have seen, the majority of the lynches in these past games have been based on extremely little evidence that honestly, for the most part, never quite add up correctly. I just don't want that to happen again, and I feel, this is one of those scenario's.
Can we please look for some better evidence then just "we" which again, is used by practically EVERYONE in once situation or another. I even said I use it (which I do), as well as that of other people in past games. It's again, not a great reason to lynch. It is just too shallow of a reason, and honestly, I will not vote for someone on that basis.
This is exactly what I said previously, as well of that last game.
It cannot be a slip-up, it makes to little sense. And again: this has been used by many people over the past Mafia games and no suspicion has become upon them
You are only considering it based on your viewpoint on how YOU PERCEIVED it to be, not WHAT IT ACTUALLY means, which is very much the opposite idea.
We are too focused on a small, menial idea that honestly does not prove anything of significant worth in terms of Dessern's, or really anyone's affiliation in terms of role this, or any Mafia game.
It's just to small of a source of evidence or suspicion to really get around.
Now, remember exactly what happened in last Mafia game, as despite myself dying that first night, I kept up with the thread throughout its entirety.
I really do not believe your reasoning is right there Sploork, as Dessern really wasn't "urging" anyone to lynch quickly. All he did was state he was curious and suspicious of Kraby, though I admit, on unusual grounds.
However, this really did not cause much in terms of his conviction. It was mainly on the grounds of 3 different catalysts: Duffie, Defiant, and Darthlego. (Oh look, 3 D's!)
I will not cover Duffie or Darthlego's roles, as it was really mainly used as influencing agents to persuade the town into a specific mindset, that was, to lynch against Dessern.
However, Defiant played a more major role in terms of the discussion when this event was occurring.
The MAIN reason now, which Defiant asked early in the discussion of Day 2, was on what specific player Dessern had protected that night, which it turns out, was Defiant.
Defiant argued that Dessern was most likely not the Doctor as 1) He did not save himself, and 2)He protected Defiant instead of someone like me, who had tried to protect him during the previous day, and it turned out I was the cop.
This was really the main focus that brought suspicion on Dessern, not the previous.
I must say both were fairly terrible assumptions as...
1) The idea of protecting yourself during the night RIGHT AFTER it is discovered that you are potentially the doctor is a terrible idea. You are obviously going to be a huge target for Mafia, Skeleton, and etc, and with such, it would be very much a better idea to try and PROTECT someone as a potential sacrifice as oneself, as you know you will die fairly soon with all eyes on you. As well as...
2) Following on the idea set by idea Number 1, Protecting Defiant was a fairly rational choice. Look at it this way; Defiant, as we all know, is extremely experienced in terms as Mafia Games go, and with luck in past rounds, Defiant has died fairly quickly, normally in the first day or so. Protecting Defiant would most likely be the best choice, as he could have helped the town pick out specific Mafia members, which is the main winning standpoint for that group. This of course, would have been the case if Defiant was not ACTUALLY APART OF THE MAFIA HIMSELF.
Honestly, I don't think anything in terms of last match is very relevant, or correct in this circumstance, as this is an entirely different game with a different rule set, though in some places evidence from previous games can help out in these strange cases. I know you did not make this out to be one of your reasons to lynch Dess, but I felt it needed to be cleared up with a different viewpoint, and a different mindset.
Now, I already stated my ideas on the "we" idea in my previous post, and briefly above.
It's nonsense.
The only way I could have seen this to work out would have been if Balloon was actually one of the Mafia and died during the night, where Dessern would have stated the same statement. Only then I could have seen an extremely amount of suspicion but on Dessern, which I would admit, I would also be apart of.
However: this could not happen as there are no Town-sided nor 3rd-party sided roles that can kill in the night.
The only logical choice is that Balloon would, in turn, help discuss the game and possibly help the town located possible Mafia members.
I DO NOT see how this can lead to further suspicion on him.
Honestly, as I stated above, I can see more suspicion being cast on you Sploork. The evidence is slim, and honestly, this is again, and extremely similar to the cases of last match with that of again, Dessern, and Prizyms as well. If we look at your reasoning for the lynch of Dessern on day 2 (which I covered previously above), we can use this to the same argument against you.
Day 1: You pushed to lynch Prizyms on little evidence, and the majority of the town did in fact agree that there was not much evidence to really lynch Priz, and seemed more like a distraction to kill of Dessern. In fact, only after random posts by Priz was he finally lynched off.
Day 2: The same argument goes for Dessern, as again, it was mainly the pushing and influence of Defiant, Duffie, and Darthlego who lynched off Dessern in the end.
You also did this on multiple occasions with other members of the town.
Despite success with a few, the chance is rare, and honestly, I don't really think should be taken into account, as it was a chance by luck not in anyone's favor.
So honestly, I would be more suspicious of you right now.
But let us be mindful of ourselves.
I honestly am not suspicious of you at all quite honestly.
I find that this has all been a simple misconception and mistake.
Again, ANYONE could be the Mafia in these situations.
It could be me, it could be you, it could be anyone. We will, once again, not know until that said person is either killed off, or dead.
I honestly don't really know who you will suspect.
Some things in this post may even make you suspicious of me.
But honestly, I don't really care about that.
I am just trying to make sure terrible mis-lynches do not happen. From what I have seen, the majority of the lynches in these past games have been based on extremely little evidence that honestly, for the most part, never quite add up correctly. I just don't want that to happen again, and I feel, this is one of those scenario's.
Can we please look for some better evidence then just "we" which again, is used by practically EVERYONE in once situation or another. I even said I use it (which I do), as well as that of other people in past games. It's again, not a great reason to lynch. It is just too shallow of a reason, and honestly, I will not vote for someone on that basis.
- Status