Supernatural Mafia

[Passarelli]

Cyber, I was gone for most of the day. I managed to log on twice earlier to read up and make a short post. I voted fairly early considering this. I was wondering if anyone else saw that Nem was playing pretty scummy already on day 1. Most of his posts were vapid and pointless adding nothing to the conversation other then insulting people. I know that he is like this already without playing this game and that is why it makes it awfully hard to tell if he is Scum or not. I just wanted to make sure people understood that no lynch on day 1 is pretty bad strategy.

I was waiting to see if Stan would show up today before voting but someone voted for him so I figured I would finger Nem

You say I left the hard part for others, but I had already joke voted for Nem, and as soon as someone else voted for him I reinforced it. I didn't get online until then anyway--I likely would have voted for Nem as soon as a vote for Stan came up.

That said, I completely agree with you on people voting for Stan when he is most likely a VT. I do not see how everyone can see it as a valid strategy. I understand that someone being inactive can grind at you, but the object is to win. If you believe he is a VT, there is no reason to lynch him and removing him would be a boon to the mafia. We still get no good data from the vote, which--again--is the best tool the townies have to figure out who is scum and we lose a townie, which only helps the scum thin our ranks and make us waste the best tool available to us.

Finally Cyber, why don't you do the hard thing and cast your vote? You say I did nothing yet you haven't pointed any fingers yet.

[CYBER]

I actually DID fos nemesis earlier.


and i'm currently waiting on his goddamn input for a full day now, but surprisingly he walks away from the thread for the first time ever. Hell he was the lead active player in the previous game prodding ppl left and right to post, even at 5 am... and surprisingly he's been afk all day, and possibly STILL dodging my questions to him, you know, until some random guy comes in, votes stan, someone hammers it, and night 1 starts.
then surprisingly nemesis will show up tomorrow, all fine, and then "lead us to victory" STILL without answering any questions directed at him...

oh wait, that happened last game too. well i'll be damned. Let's rinse and repeat shall we.


and the reason why i haven't voted anyone yet, is because of how i always play the game. I don't like throwing votes out there that people can then bus around until I get all the facts that i need, and i have yet to get enough facts to either policy lynch stan, or worry about someone else in this game that i have been eye-ing, wondering how THEY are playing it out...

[Passarelli]

You did that after accusing me of doing nothing (same post, but still afterwards).

Cyber, I fail to see how you fingering Nem after I voted for him makes what you said to me any less hypocritical. I was the 3rd person to cast a vote. I cast that vote as soon as I caught up reading the thread as I had just gotten home from getting a job.

[CYBER]

You did that after accusing me of doing nothing (same post, but still afterwards).

Cyber, I fail to see how you fingering Nem after I voted for him makes what you said to me any less hypocritical. I was the 3rd person to cast a vote. I cast that vote as soon as I caught up reading the thread as I had just gotten home from getting a job.

I dont get what you're getting at.

In this game, "accusing" and "asking" or "interrogating" someone are wayy different.
I merely asked you to throw a name to vote on , someone you think could be a proper lynch target because we were lacking that.

Also , there IS a possibility that you voted in the following pages AFTER the quote I took from you. Because I was compiling a full comment from quotes while reading page by page... so it's possibly you thought i was referring to this after you voted, but i was targetting that post at the time you didn't. If that's the case, my bad for not paying attention, but i did not accuse you anywhere other than asked you for "help" or advice on who YOU thought was a proper target.


as for MY finger of suspicion on nemesis? It literally has NOTHING to do with your vote on him. Had I wanted to vote him, i would have. But like i said, my finger on him is purely to document the fact that I have been pressing on nemesis to answer a couple questions, and yet he's still dodging ,,, until this very moment. It would have been the same comment, and same FOS whether you voted him first, after, or not at all. My fos on him was purely based on how HE has been acting. not how many votes, like yours, he has on.

[Nemesis]

What do you want to know? I've already explained why you should vote which way. Do you need a special Mexican invitation or just some Hooked in Phonics?

[Passarelli]

I dont get what you're getting at.
Also , there IS a possibility that you voted in the following pages AFTER the quote I took from you. Because I was compiling a full comment from quotes while reading page by page... so it's possibly you thought i was referring to this after you voted, but i was targetting that post at the time you didn't. If that's the case, my bad for not paying attention, but i did not accuse you anywhere other than asked you for "help" or advice on who YOU thought was a proper target.

This must be the case because you didn't quote me on anything and simply listed 2 pages and said--let me paraphrase here-- "what you are saying is fine and dandy but you left the hard choices for others". I had already voted when you posted this--as soon as I got home and saw that there was a vote for Stan. The first vote or for Stan to stop being AFK is what I was waiting for--The fact that there was already a vote for Nemesis was just icing on the cake. I had already seen that Nemesis was acting scummy and would have very likely voted for him anyway as there are no other viable options that I see at this point--you are quite wrong about my motives for voting for him.

@passerelli
in pages 8 and 9:
I understand that you are definitely trying to tell people that "no lynching" on day 1 is bad, and there needs to be a lynch today. That's fine and all, you are right (imo) about the key points you posted, but you're leaving the hard part out for other ppl instead of yourself:
WHO. WHO do you want to lynch on day 1? see thats the hard question. people tend to the no lynch BECAUSE they can't point a finger at someone. and honestly, from experience, the only way we were able to isolate scummy behaviours is by waiting for bandwagons on a very random or stupid person and see how it plays out...And currently? that's either Stan for being irish 2.0, or nemesis... for, AGAIN, always pressing ppl buttons for claiming, yet dodges everything thrown at him.

How you posted was pretty confusing, as the discussion had clearly moved on from that point. You asked a question that was already pretty clearly answered. You also asked it in what I took as an aggressive, accusatory manner (caps and repetition), then going on saying it is a hard choice when I had already voted. I guess I just really had no idea how to respond to your post because I had already answered the question, and thus took it as you basically leaving me a Hobson's Choice to react to your comment, which I read as you seeing me avoiding hard questions.

This seemed pretty hypocritical, as I had already voted and you were just getting around to fingering someone.

Sorry everyone for the misunderstanding.

- - - Updated - - -

Nemesis, why did you decide to vote for Stan instead of someone that you see as scummy?

[Nemesis]

Passarelli, while it's the right thing to do I feel as if I have no support so it only hurts me to press it forward.

[DJ_MikeyRevile]

this is utterly ridiculous. Unless you lack the ability to read... its been said several times. It is a policy lynch on someone who is inactive. TBH, the scummiest part about this day so far is you and cyber talking circles for the last 24 hours in giant post that strain the brain.

- - - Updated - - -

you see, you probably think you are smart or something... but what im seeing.. is a mindless dog chasing after his tail.

[Passarelli]

While that might be true it would help derail the prominent wagon on someone who is most likely a VT and nothing good comes of lynching a townie unless you are scum--especially if that VT is being lynched due to inactivity. We won't even get accurate data from votes because of the reasoning behind people wanting to lynch him.

If I am wrong in my reasoning, please help me understand where. I rather enjoy this game and would love to improve.

- - - Updated - - -

It has also been said that "policy lynching" is never beneficial.

All I see that a "policy lynching" does is waste a day, kill a VT and give mafia a free swing. We likely won't have any useful data for day 2 unless someone gets lucky with their investigation.

I also don't see how 5 posts in less then 6 hours is a day.

[Nemesis]

Pass, maybe look at as not who you are lynching, but who you are not lynching. By lynching a VT there's no chance of hitting anyone useful. There is also no chance of hitting the mafia or third party either, so it comes down to how you want to play.