I meant more that if the group decides to lynch somebody who is active based on being dangerous in past games/acting out of character it can end in disaster. Losing an active, helpful civilian to perceived odd behaviour is far more devastating than losing a civilian who barely contributes any insight.
Mhmm. And lynching someone that’s active without legit evidence makes you seem suspect. Nevertheless, with 48hrs, there’s a lot of downtime and not real pressure to make a decision. I haven’t really seen anything that would be considered off to even begin to make any sort of judgments. As we draw closer to the deadline to put our votes in, I’m hoping that something will happen or someone will say something.
I was just baiting you~
About odd behavior, Godots seems to be the Fluff of this game.
He advocated wallflowers and switched to no lynch in Forge’s game, which in turn made me investigate him. He turn out civ in the end, and so did Fluff.
So yeah, lynching base on past behavior is quite shaky, in my opinion.
Hence, why I avoid it.
Who haven’t we heard a lot from?
@Azure
@BullDancer
@The Co-Jones
@Manx
@Pietastic
I think that’s how you tag people on here? Never used it before.
I figured as much, Mobius. Ha.
I’m going to install TF2 when I get home. :tup:
Well, Synonym, what are you looking for?
At this point, my suspect list is based purely on intuition/guessing who Hale might have picked, but also a slight bias towards those who are posting irrelevant comments in the thread. Reason being, once the game develops, it’s useful to go back and see what was said once you know a dead person’s alignment. If I’m not posting much, it’s generally to avoid decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio. But I’m happy to help theorize.
Well, that’s actually pretty much what I was looking for. I was just curious as to what some of our quieter members are thinking at the moment.
A focus on the quieter members is not necessarily the right focus. Instead, we should focus on people who are not insightful. You can be insightful with a minimal amount of posts, and be distracting with a ton of posts.
Flooding the thread with off-topic comments is a damn good mafia strategy, if you think about it. You make research harder, you can build rapport with other players by talking about common interests, and anyone who tells you to stop risks looking like a dickhead. Well, I’m willing to be that dickhead.
I still like the idea of lynching wallflowers. If you lynch an active member and they turn up civ, whelp you just lost a valuable member. Lynch a civilian inactive and you’ve lost somebody who was just kinda there. Most games I’ve been usually have most Mafia as wallflowers anyways. Then again, there’s only 2 Mafia, so there’s a lower chance of wallflowers. I personally think that the best strategy for Mafia right now would be an active member and a wallflower duo. What do you guys think?
I think the Mafia would be idiots to be wallflowers in a game without vets since it makes civs more likely to play it safe and get rid of said wallflowers.
Yeah, we’d be getting rid of useless inactive civs potentially…but we do not have a lot of free guesses to afford it. If we’re going to lynch wallflowers we better be ABSOLUTELY sure that the chances of lynching a Mafia member within them is high.
I agree, it would only take us 2 mis-lynches before we give the Mafia a chance to turn the game around to their favor.
Basically if the lynches we have spent on the wallflowers comes up fruitless,
Here’ll be the stats for the following days: Day 2 = 7/2, Day 3 = 5/2.
Mis-lynching one more time will put us in a Lynch or Lose situation of 3/2 during Day 4.
We can only afford a maximum of 3 straight mis-lynches before we could potentially lose so we might as well put those lynches to good use and take educated guesses.
Pietastic makes a good case, hyper-posting is as damning as wallflowering.
I looked back and noticed I was a perpetrator of the said offense, so I’ll keep what I feel are unnecessary posts to myself.
I too, suggest lynching a wallflower.
Or at the very least intending to.
If they do not step up and offer compelling reason NOT to, then proceed.
Less chaff, more wheat.
All the wheat in the world won’t mean a thing if we fall behind early.
We’re going to be minus one civ, regardless.
We might as well go for their throats - if they aren’t part of the solution, they’re part of the problem.
If they do not come off the wall to defend themselves… in a game filled with rank amateurs, that’s not even amateur play - that’s either bad play, or Mafia yomi.
Either way, it is something that stands to get us killed down the stretch.
It’s not like we have a Missing Person in here, who is an aggressively extroverted sociopath, smiling and glad-handing on the one, whilst slitting throats with the other.
I still don’t like it. It’s too easy a stance for Mafia to bandwagon on for a while.
Explain?
It cannot be a bandwagon for the Mafia, if the fuckin’ civ wallflowers do it right, and start posting.
This will force the Mafia into the mixup, and allow for us to actually get reads.
Which is paramount.
Bandwagon? There’s an easy way around what you’re thinking… For the wallflowers to stand up and pull their own weight. For now, until we get enough data on who has been advocating for who, I like the idea of lynching wallflowers. It’s a powerful incentive to get people paying attention and contributing.
And if the Civ Wallflowers don’t do it right?
Then the Mafia gets one, maybe two free day phases to skate by, getting free lynches on worthless civvies while getting Night Kills on our best players.