Market Crash [Game Over]
- Thread starter Ltin
- Start date
- Status
Would be a pretty dumb move on my part to be defending a partner so openly. It's not safe for either of us. As I've stated previously, I distrust your claim and the safety you have been given with it. This has less to do with JK and more to do with a shaky power role statement.
As by your logic, wherein lynching JK would verify/refute your results and your innocence, we could lynch you today to the same effect. Plus, you further claim that Agent #2 can just take over. So, if you are to be believed, another role can be put into your place to perform the same actions as you.
As by your logic, wherein lynching JK would verify/refute your results and your innocence, we could lynch you today to the same effect. Plus, you further claim that Agent #2 can just take over. So, if you are to be believed, another role can be put into your place to perform the same actions as you.
Basically Inffy's story doesn't seem very strong. I'm thinking of a reason for him to lie about it. It could be that his win condition is to get JK lynched, if he's regular mafia it's probably not worth dying for JK. If he really is an investigative role why would he claim now though when there's 50% of his results being bogus, that could lose us 2 innocent lives.
I'm gonna keep my vote on Inffy for now but I definitely want to hear JK's opinion on this before I make my final decision.
Yeah I guess so. At least I hope Agent #2 exists and can take over lol.
Because there's a 1/3 chance that Oak's role landed on the correct alignment as a scrambled result, so it's likely that my results are correct, coupled with my gut feeling WHICH IS USUALLY RIGHT!
Also if my superior is actually a role, don't claim to save me because my PM hints that it's only an inconvenience to you if I die so I think something will work out (likely the agent 2 theory)
Perhaps it's because... I'm really a chilled town role?
But in seriousness, I can both understand, and not understand parts of your reasoning.
Going with your gut, totally understandable in these games, and honestly a necessity in the early parts of the game since we don't have much to go on+no role reveals to really help us out since revealing so early could seriously put powerful town roles in danger.
...but I don't quite get where you got to your reasoning for some of those things. x) Although perhaps thats just because I don't really change up my playstyle, and I tend to (foolishly) assume/hope players know whether i'm assuming or indirectly saying something (people aren't mindreaders Jkang!)--- such as:
I haven't really defended myself because I couldn't defend myself without actually knowing why I'm being accused. It's like in regards to the 6th Amendment of the U.S. constitution; the accused have a right to know why their being charged, which is what I was waiting for before I tried to defend myself.
I usually don't like just saying "yo, I'm town, don't kill me," because to me at least, that's terribly unconvincing, especially when the charges (your reasoning) haven't even been laid bare. It would be a knee-jerk reaction and, at times, could make things worse no matter if I was town, or anti-town, because if it were someone else, unless they had something to back it up (or the accuser made a reasonable argument, which I would say is reasonable now that case thanks to your expanded explanation), then I would've found it suspicious.
But see, now I'm doing what you did there; I'm using how I think a townie would react (aka, how I, or you, the player would potentially react in said circumstance, or how you would hope they would react.
But, since we're all human and this is a game about lying and deduction, reactions can always differ, especially if people have experience, or a certain playstyle, or a plan, or etc, etc etc.
But to your point of me sort of being jokey with most of my posts, you'd be somewhat right in your gut feelings, such as here:
It's a reasonable assumption.Now, if I were a conspiracy theorist I would say that all the recent talk of the deaths last night being a potential janitoring/messing to throw off the town could hold some water, and if I get lynched and do show up as anti-town (which Im not mind you), then the town would gain your trust when in actuality, you were tricking them the whole time being anti-town yourself! (little performance for us all - "Aha, you could be trying to frame me and when I do appear anti town the townsfolk gain your trust!!!", which means "ppsssttttt, this ain't gonna work because now I've said this the town might still not believe you to be innocent so stop trying to get me lynched!" This is the ONLY time he concerns himself with defending himself properly rather than the focus being on appearing calm and townie, and even here it's such a tiny defense/attack on me. He even says at the end that despite typing all that idea out, he doesn't think it holds any water (which is him saying "but I don't want to get even more suspicious to you inf because if it's just a gut feeling I'd make it worse, so I'm not going to attack you properly, just a jokey conspiracy theorist thing)
...But I'm not a conspiracy theorist(or am I?!? That was totally a role in a past Mafia game iirc) (little side comment thing to give off calm vibes) so I don't think that silly idea holds water.
I guess it's a tactic I ended up picking up by, for the most part, being largely anti-town or third-party in the majority of these games.
I tend to like to leave ways out for myself and have small, jokey posts to seed doubt because hey, its 1)a valid tactic to keep myself alive, 2)It could be both a seedy response to divert attention OR a chance to pursue another, potential, line of thinking that should be kept in mind, and 3)the fact that you can't really trust anyone in these games early on, because they could easily be lying or trying to appear town, yet their role is quite the opposite.
For instance, let's look at your role (and before I go further, let me clearly state I don't believe you're anti-town, at least for the moment, and you just have the towns best interest at heart even though its terribly, terribly misguided right now
):Lets start with the idea that you are this "Agent 1." So I'm not quite sure how flavoured this game is, (and I usually try to take the flavouring of games into account because in closed set-ups its something that can both be used to ones advantage and help deduce suspicious activity) but seeing as Oak was listed as "Investor" when he died, I'm guessing role names are somewhat flavoured around our lovely host's corporation/stock exchange.
Agent seems out of place in a stock exchange, but perhaps thats simply because I'm not versed enough in how the stock market works/who works it. It could mean a government agent (good?) or maybe a corporate spy (bad?)-- we just don't know.
At least, not yet anyway.
But that also leads into your statement of the possibility of there being more than 1 agent, as hinted at thanks to your role name of being #1--- say they do exist but in contrast to you, who could be town, say they were actually anti-town?
I say this because of how you described getting your results.
You "recommend" them to a "superior". And that you don't know if its a real role/person or not but that your PM hints that you dying would just be an "inconvenience" to them....
...Honestly that and the fact that your role supposedly has a 50% chance that its wrong and will scramble the alignment---
It makes the vote on me quite weak since there are so many unknowns.
For instance, since I know I'm an innocent townie, I know its incorrect. That means the whole investigation was scrambled. Of course, since you said it can land on any alignment, that means theres always the chance that its actually right: a broken clocks right twice a day and all that.
This is what I believe is the most likely scenario.
Then theres the idea that it's sent to a superior who considers your death an "inconvenience."
If this role does exist, who says some of your roles mechanics are actually hidden from you and that its actually your superior who forges the investigations and that's why your communicator is "broken"? We just don't know at this time, and its quite difficult to trust your investigations at this time.
Ill say it again: there's just too many unknowns and shaky ground.
Your role could be useful in later days when we can more narrowly asses suspicious targets, but in this instance your accusation is wrong and we'd be killing an innocent, aka. me.
Now, to end this post/defense/critiquing I would love to claim my role to help back up my defense, however I'd like to remain unclaimed as of this time---unless asked to of course by some other players.
...mostly because I just haven't done anything with my role yet since it doesn't work/come into effect until tomorrow. x)
Although I can say my role passes on so even if I die someone else will get it so its not all bad if I hit the gutter!
Also: I don't know how you thought my sort of "recap" post was long; most of it was taken up by a list of players x); quite short imo.
This is probably the first longer-than-normal post i've done.
Oh I should add a tl'dr:
I'm a townie, theres a chance your investigation did scramble and just happened to land on Oak's correct alignment, but lynching me will kill an innocent,
There's also too many unknowns to trust your investigations at this time but it could be useful helping figure out anti-townies later on.
I also dont think your evil at this moment, and perhaps we should look elsewhere for a lynch/get very quite people to talk.
Also I can reveal myself tomorrow but I can only do that if you trust me and let me live so I can use my ability tonight. x)
I'm a townie, theres a chance your investigation did scramble and just happened to land on Oak's correct alignment, but lynching me will kill an innocent,
There's also too many unknowns to trust your investigations at this time but it could be useful helping figure out anti-townies later on.
I also dont think your evil at this moment, and perhaps we should look elsewhere for a lynch/get very quite people to talk.
Also I can reveal myself tomorrow but I can only do that if you trust me and let me live so I can use my ability tonight. x)
Okay, I'm still not totally convinced you're innocent but I guess waiting until tomorrow is fair (BUT IF TRAGEDY ENSUES TOMORROW BECAUSE JK HAS SOME OP MAFIA ABILITY OR SOMETHING ISWEAR), and your explanation there was great so thank you for that.
Also, it's interesting that, if you're telling the truth, we have two roles now where it seems if we die it isn't a huge loss. Maybe that's gonna be a pattern. \o/
Unvote
Also, it's interesting that, if you're telling the truth, we have two roles now where it seems if we die it isn't a huge loss. Maybe that's gonna be a pattern. \o/
Unvote
I was mostly skimming the new posts while I was writing up mine but now that I can reread through what I missed I just want to say:
Yeah no this is a terrible idea, mostly because say If I didnt get the time to speak and enough people did vote to put pressure on me to speak, especially if many of those voters arent convinced then it simply invites bandwagoning and potential anti-townies to jump in and drop the hammer, whether that be me or on any other players in the future.
Unless you are convinced/feel it being right in your gut (like you do in your post) then I think its quite reasonable,
but otherwise I think waiting for discussion about the specific topic (like lynching me) to develop a bit first, then deciding on a vote is a better course of action.
It lets all sides talk a bit and either concretes the arguments, or helps new/different/better possibilities develop.
That's just my take on it though.
I for one believe Inffy about his role. I don't think it is a good idea to lynch one of the (maybe two) cops(ish) roles that we have. I think we should keep him around. And personally I still think that JK is fishy now after reading Inffy's reasoning behind it.
I'm definitely one for trusting the gut. Hell, I live life on instinct and luck. However, the reasons that Infy has picked out about JK's post I don't really feel are suspicious at all. Maybe it's because I see a lot of the same things in my own posting style, outside the use of emoticons and such; I try to avoid those.
As for the claim...I think it is completely reasonable to disbelieve it. Here's why: 1) It's like stupid early. 2) Like Mars (I think it was Mars?) said, it has a lot of convenient fallbacks in that it has the 50% scramble chance and the potential role passing etc. 3) While I think bus potential has gone completely out the window with two mafia deaths on night one, the relevant WIFOM loops are still present ("Surely they won't suspect bussing if they think/know our numbers are already low").
As I've said I really want us to lynch. Because a no lynch to me just feels like a big waste. Based on what we know, it's probably a fine option. However, we don't know a lot, and we've seen at least three killing roles, and that means our numbers will be dropping and we should take every kill we have control over. Logic would imply that we should no lynch because it will slow the rate of population decline, but with three kills we can't control, and one we can, giving up that one lowers our chances of anti-town kills to just a little above zero.
That said, I really don't know how I feel about lynching JK. As implied by my first paragraph, I don't find anything suspicious about the posting style of JK alone. And I don't outright trust Infy's claim, obviously. Nor do I really think there is anything in Infy's attacks to incriminate JK aside from the role claim which, as stated, is totally reasonably taken skeptically.
In typing this post I've in a way convinced myself that Infy was just trying desperately to get JK lynched by grasping at any reasoning he could. And it almost looks to me like when he saw it wasn't going to work, he backed off before he dug too deep a hole. Does this mean I want to lynch Infy? No. ..Well, kinda actually. But not really. But I really don't want to lynch JK, nor do I particularly want to lynch Infy, but I want to lynch someone for reasons listed above. Though I'm not sure we really have any other candidates. An inactive is an option, has Webpaige made any posts yet?
As for the claim...I think it is completely reasonable to disbelieve it. Here's why: 1) It's like stupid early. 2) Like Mars (I think it was Mars?) said, it has a lot of convenient fallbacks in that it has the 50% scramble chance and the potential role passing etc. 3) While I think bus potential has gone completely out the window with two mafia deaths on night one, the relevant WIFOM loops are still present ("Surely they won't suspect bussing if they think/know our numbers are already low").
As I've said I really want us to lynch. Because a no lynch to me just feels like a big waste. Based on what we know, it's probably a fine option. However, we don't know a lot, and we've seen at least three killing roles, and that means our numbers will be dropping and we should take every kill we have control over. Logic would imply that we should no lynch because it will slow the rate of population decline, but with three kills we can't control, and one we can, giving up that one lowers our chances of anti-town kills to just a little above zero.
That said, I really don't know how I feel about lynching JK. As implied by my first paragraph, I don't find anything suspicious about the posting style of JK alone. And I don't outright trust Infy's claim, obviously. Nor do I really think there is anything in Infy's attacks to incriminate JK aside from the role claim which, as stated, is totally reasonably taken skeptically.
This feels really off to me. Like. Reaally off. I can't think of any situation in which a town member would recommend killing themselves off. That's a waste of town resources. It takes up a kill that could go to someone else. And why take up a town's kill, when the mafia can just do it if you want to die so badly? I'm sure they'd gladly take the life of a claimed investigative PR. And even after you die, if your role is passed on, that's seemingly not a big direct loss, but why would we waste your life and pass on your role when you can just keep it? I'm thinking of it like each role has X lives, and once those lives are out, the role ceases to exist. Alternatively, if the "superior" in question selects a new player to take on the Agent role (hence the numbers), and their old role was replaced, we're wasting not only a life but losing another power role as well.
This. Exactly this. When I was reading Infy's post about JK not defending himself I was just going "Why should he defend himself if there are no actual accusations against him? What's he to defend against?
In typing this post I've in a way convinced myself that Infy was just trying desperately to get JK lynched by grasping at any reasoning he could. And it almost looks to me like when he saw it wasn't going to work, he backed off before he dug too deep a hole. Does this mean I want to lynch Infy? No. ..Well, kinda actually. But not really. But I really don't want to lynch JK, nor do I particularly want to lynch Infy, but I want to lynch someone for reasons listed above. Though I'm not sure we really have any other candidates. An inactive is an option, has Webpaige made any posts yet?
I said I recommend killing me assuming I'm left alive by Mafia and nobody trusts me - I'd rather be killed, my role potentially passed on and so someone can claim it and be believed and it actually be of use rather than be kept alive outing my results with nobody listening. Obviously if given a choice at all I would rather live and be believed.
Also I know you aren't the only one who isn't convinced of jk's mafia-ness but I've also had a bit of suspicion on you for acting differently this game, almost as if you've been assigned Mafia when you aren't used to or comfortable with it and are worried about seeming innocent and stumbling, just like you said you would behave if you were Mafia last game, and have taken on this jokey role-playing persona who used the emoticon xD when asked about their role to accommodate your discomfort, which just seemed completely out of character for you to me. So the fact you're defending jk doesn't convince me that my gut was wrong at all. But I should probably stop accusing people who are on the verge of lynching me if I don't want to die lol.
If there are any other investigative roles or if I die today and agent #2 takes over, just remember my suspicions - Jk and Tim.
Also I know you aren't the only one who isn't convinced of jk's mafia-ness but I've also had a bit of suspicion on you for acting differently this game, almost as if you've been assigned Mafia when you aren't used to or comfortable with it and are worried about seeming innocent and stumbling, just like you said you would behave if you were Mafia last game, and have taken on this jokey role-playing persona who used the emoticon xD when asked about their role to accommodate your discomfort, which just seemed completely out of character for you to me. So the fact you're defending jk doesn't convince me that my gut was wrong at all. But I should probably stop accusing people who are on the verge of lynching me if I don't want to die lol.
If there are any other investigative roles or if I die today and agent #2 takes over, just remember my suspicions - Jk and Tim.
Something I thought about for a bit, but I think if there is a second agent they should claim right now(although om second thought its better the supervisor claims instead) and share their findings. If inf is telling the truth about his role, its pretty likely there is another agent.
What I think could be the setup is that Agent 1 and Agent 2 both "recommend" two names to their supervisor. The supervisor then chooses which of the agents to use the names from. Both agents then get the results of the two chosen investigations. They think their investigations can be 50/50 wrong or right, while in reality the results are just the results of the names of the two chosen by the supervisor.
Since I might have put this badly here is an example!
Agent 1 recommends Oak and JK.
Agent 2 recommends Oog and Tim.
Supervisor chooses investigations from Agent 2(but doesnt get results himself) Both agents get told the results of Oog and Tim, but Agent 1 and Agent 2 think that these could be wrong.
What I think could be the setup is that Agent 1 and Agent 2 both "recommend" two names to their supervisor. The supervisor then chooses which of the agents to use the names from. Both agents then get the results of the two chosen investigations. They think their investigations can be 50/50 wrong or right, while in reality the results are just the results of the names of the two chosen by the supervisor.
Since I might have put this badly here is an example!
Agent 1 recommends Oak and JK.
Agent 2 recommends Oog and Tim.
Supervisor chooses investigations from Agent 2(but doesnt get results himself) Both agents get told the results of Oog and Tim, but Agent 1 and Agent 2 think that these could be wrong.
I don't think anybody else should claim. Yes it could help prove inffy's story but it also gives more targets for the SK and for Mafia. If they both are outed today then we practically have a guaranteed lose of one of our investigative power roles.
That depends on if the supervisor is even good or not (if it exists); their alignment reflects whether or not we should even respect their anonymity.
I'm personally inclined to believe their not quite town-sided, and potentially 3rd party based on Infected's flavour text that hes stated in the thread.
Supposedly, Infected dying would just an "inconvenience." Sounds either very morally gray, which is usually not present in Mafia outside of third-party roles, or makes me think hes not quite on the towns side. It also sounds like if the "supervisor" does exist, which we can't confirm at this time, then potentially Infected is either apart of or vital to their role ability, which could also hint at a 2nd agent. It could also hint at a potential 2nd faction of agents?
Theres just too much speculative stuff we could go with Inffy's role and stuff around it that I feel like we won't get anywhere with it, at least today.
Hopefully none of those options.
No lynching seems okay, but I think we wont make much progress and risk a similarly large death streak tomorrow night, although it could be even larger with a mis-lynch going through... it's a hard call actually.
Lynching me would be a mistake. x)
And I don't think Inf is "bad" enough to lynch but thats just me; it seems other disagree.
I don't speak for tim but, I think I get what he's saying.
What if both of us were actually the remaining Mafia and decided to kill me off in hopes you got to appear innocent for most of the rest of the game because they now trust in your role ability+alignment to town; so you'd be throwing me under the bus and distancing yourself from your scum partners.
...If you were scum of course.
And I guess the passing/50% chance gives a fallback so you can stay alive. The 50% means you can take your hands off of a bad situation (lynching an inno) because its your role power's fault and was only a possibility since it could be right/wrong.
I'm not quite sure about the ability passing; but maybe the ability passing is putting focus on a potentially non-existent role(Agent #2), so you either stay alive because people don't believe that and so keeping you around would be the only way to keep the potentially town sided power, or it means people will believe it and potentially incorrectly think theres another role out there and second guess things if a similar role shows up, like I guess-- maybe a normal cop? Idk.
1) What's different? Is it the shorter sentence structure? (that's not a joke or sarcasm)
1.1 Pfft, I'm always worried about seeming innocent. Literally always. I always look through and make sure there's nothing that could be interpreted as anti-town. especially when I'm town. Because I don't want the town going lynch-mob mode and mislynching a townie.
2) I can't roleplay on Day Zero of all days? I may have taken the joke claims a bit overboard, but in my eyes that was the whole point of them. Maybe it was different from your perspective.
2.1) There was no discomfort. I was genuinely amused by the fact that people were questioning if my role made me roleplay. Or rather that I was so amused by my own roleplaying that I was still amused when people questioned it. Something like that. I don't mask or 'accommodate' discomfort, I like to make it perfectly clear when I'm uncomfortable, so that my responses are more genuine.
3) I defend anyone and everyone when I feel a weak or unreliable argument is being used against them. Seriously, look back on any other time I've defended someone.
- Status