C9++ - Day 6 - The Final Day - 3/13 Alive - Town Win!

[Infected_alien8_]

And Aqua I still don't see why mul'S inactiveness is an argument for them being Mafia just because they've been inactive as Mafia in the past - they are inactive every single game, Mafia or not. It doesn't make sense to me to vote them off purely based on that. Plus like oak said there are others who are inactive - marskid is still yet to reply today despite being online, hips said like one thing, so has hk, etc. So your mul thing (both notty and aqua) confuses me.

 

[Nottykitten]

Your own vote is also based purely on activity which has little merit as well and voting with Aqua certainly doesn't help make your case appealing.

I'm sorry your reasoning for voting foggy is litterally 'he had a vote so I made it 2 since I want someone lynched'. And somehow my reasoning saying that foggy is more beneficial to the town than mul, which you said is indeed the case, holds little merit? I say it holds a bit more merit than your reasoning. Neither votes have any evidence against them, mine just looks at who will be more beneficial to the town so I'd say my vote is just fine.

You don't have 2 legs to stand on with your arguments to begin with, the only things I have done is point out the obvious flaws in both yours and Aqua's votes.

You keep mentioning aqua in this as if his reasoning for voting mul is somehow worse than inf's reasoning for voting foggy. You're voting with Inf with votes that are arguably worse reasons than my own.

Also you're right I got 4 legs >=3

Also notty, didn't you say you were getting weird vibes from me? Why vote mul over me, just because they're inactive (especially since it's been proven they are inactive as town too). Like sure having someone active is more helpful but if you think they're anti-town surely that would take priority? Just asking because your actions confused me a bit that's all, and it feels like you trying to save foggy by voting the other person most likely to be lynched (but of course it does to me!!!)

Yeah I am getting kinda weird vibes from you. And I did think about voting you but this 'hunch' isn't really strong and I'd rather focus on placing my vote somewhere I think it can be helpful to the town. So yeah I placed my vote on Mul since aqua did have a point on day 1 where we probs should of lynched the least active person.

You're right I feel like I am defending foggy right now, which I guess I kind of am since I think a lynch of mul would be better for the town. Also on the others who are inactive(which you named in your next post and now I remember), I could litterally pick any of them and vote them my reasoning still applies that I want an inactive person gone. I picked Mul because the idea was brought up yesterday and I couldnt think of anyone else at the time.

 

[hipmeow]

right now i suspect inffy the most just a vibe i suppose. plus im really confused why we are lynching foggy. id rather lynch someone who hasnt said much (although i cant SAY much) so...

vote mulbery

 

[Oak Milk]

It's late for me, I'll continue this argument tomorrow when I get the chance.

 

[Infected_alien8_]

right now i suspect inffy the most just a vibe i suppose. plus im really confused why we are lynching foggy. id rather lynch someone who hasnt said much (although i cant SAY much) so...

vote mulbery

You and mul have said like the exact same amount of things. Assuming you're town, this proves that quietness=/=mafia, since you're in the same boat. I get that in-activeness isn't helpful and if we were all completely flat out of suspicions or ideas and we were truly going for a random vote, I'd agree with lynching somebody inactive, but I for one trust our group's ability to sniff out mafia through scum-hunting alone, I trust our and my own vibe readings enough that I'm willing to spend a day's lynch on one, and for me, this day doesn't have to be a complete random lynch - we can get someone we smell to be mafia, which in my opinion is more likely to result in a positive lynch rather than just going for someone inactive, because inactivity doesn't mean they're mafia. Sure, it means they could be more helpful in the day (but in mul's defence, they are a bit like you I guess, in that they don't like saying anything until they actually /know/ what they're talking about and have something to contribute), but it's more useful for us if town are alive, whether they contribute much or not. If we go on lynching the most inactive players, we're likely just gonna lose. Not all mafia are inactive, some are probably gonna be big speakers trying to control the game. There might not be a cop in this game, there might be no useful information that we can base lynches on AT ALL, we might be stuck for the whole game in this same state, without any solid evidence at all, solely with our intuition and our gut feelings and I say we follow through with them rather than going off of 'he's inactive, therefore even if he's town he's unhelpful, let's lynch them', since I think this will just lead to our death. Your view seems to be 'vibes and stuff aren't real, we need to lynch based off of objective reasoning, and the only stuff we have is voting people who are least helpful, so let's do that', which I can understand, but I disagree with.

Hopefully that made any sense???

Aqua, voting Mul for being inactive and they were mafia a couple times when they were inactive has the same validity of voting you because you memed this game and you were mafia before when you memed. Let's just ignore the fact you meme 100% of the time whether you're mafia or not, you memed when you were mafia and so we can assume you're mafia now. Seriously though, Mul's playstyle in general, regardless of role, is to be quiet and speak only when they have something solid to say. I can understand voting mul if you disbelieve in vibes and gut suspicions like hip seems to since then there's nothing to go on so why not lynch someone unhelpful, but I don't think you do disbelieve in them since you yourself have outed some, so why not go for someone you have suspicion on, rather than mul, who your suspicion seems to be purely based on your point about them being inactive as mafia, inactive now, let's kill them. Idk, maybe there are other things contributing to your suspicion of mulb, and in which case fair enough, but I get the impression there isn't, and if we get rid of your (in my opinion) faulty argument, mul is on the same level as several others in this game - a level lower then me or foggy, since you've outed suspicions on both of us (though I got the impression your suspicion on me was to test my reaction???

 

[Infected_alien8_]

tl;dr vibes are, in my opinion, valid reasons to lynch, we shouldn't limit ourselves to lynching based on objective evidence, we should trust our instincts and vote people we find suspicious. This, in my opinion, is the best shot we have at winning.

 

[Infected_alien8_]

And so my vote stays on Foggy

 

[Infected_alien8_]

tl;dr vibes are, in my opinion, valid reasons to lynch, we shouldn't limit ourselves to lynching based on objective evidence, we should trust our instincts and vote people we find suspicious. This, in my opinion, is the best shot we have at winning.

(In a game where we're guaranteed to get objective evidence my opinion might differ but in this game we could be left forever with none, which is why I think we should not sit around voting unhelpful people and wasting lynches, waiting until we get better reasons)

 

[Infected_alien8_]

I feel like I'm not making much sense so let me know if I'm not and I'll try to make myself more clear

 

[Infected_alien8_]

(Also I should say, although I'm perfectly happy to vote based off of vibes and such [even though they're not going to be right 100% of the time obviously), if anyone manages to piece together something more concrete like picking out quotes and finding someone actively lurking or whatever, they should obviously do that too and we can work with that too. For example, I'm pretty sure foggy has contributed nothing all game except from pretending to be dumb and not understanding things and making empty posts that make them seem active without actually pushing the game in any kind of direction. Whether this means they are scummy is up for debate, but just thought I'd throw it out there. This is probably, in part, where my vibes are coming from. That and the fact that I know foggy, and the way he's acting doesn't line up with the way I'd expect him to act as a newbie townie in his first forum game, but obviously that's just me personally and I can't expect you all to just trust me when I say that I guess, which is where my idea of 'let's follow the group's gut feelings' falls down - we kinda need to be able to trust each other for that (so caff if you get any gut feelings and we're all out of ideas we could go with that). So I'm gonna try and make my arguments have something more concrete.

 

[Aqua]

based on the fact that Aqua is voting them as well and as I have just said above, the reasoning for his vote is... flawed.

It's flawed, but unless you have concrete evidence then anything is flawed, your reason for voting foggy is flawed. Just because there is a counter argument to my argument doesn't mean it's anyless valid. You're posing the same stupid response as you did the last game I was in, where I used the same logic and was proven right. Honestly, Mul's reaction this time seems less suspicious as it did in the last game I was in, actually seeming a genuine response to lurking rather than his excuse last game (I can't remember exactly what it was but it was stupid).

But as Notty says, if someone isn't active then they're not providing anything for the town, so getting rid of them wouldn't hurt and gives a chance to remove a mafia guy.

 

[Aqua]

Also Infected_alien8_ you clearly do not know what my argument is.

 

[Infected_alien8_]

Also Infected_alien8_ you clearly do not know what my argument is.

Then explain it

 

[Aqua]

Then explain it

It's not "Lurking" that I'm finding suspicious, it's Mul lurking.
From experience whenever they're mafia they post very little in day chat, but make up for this by being extremely active in mafia chat (which kinda shows that there's no reason for them to lurk in day chat)
I used this theory in the last mafia game we were both in and was right, it may have been coincidence, but probably not.


That being said, in that game when he responded to my accusations his response was weird and suspicious, where as in this game it seems more genuine.

However, I still feel the fact that they are lurking for no reason, is enough evidence to go on.

Hip lurking doesn't mean much because Hip's retarded and doesn't know what he's doing....

 

[Infected_alien8_]

It's not "Lurking" that I'm finding suspicious, it's Mul lurking.
From experience whenever they're mafia they post very little in day chat, but make up for this by being extremely active in mafia chat (which kinda shows that there's no reason for them to lurk in day chat)
I used this theory in the last mafia game we were both in and was right, it may have been coincidence, but probably not.


That being said, in that game when he responded to my accusations his response was weird and suspicious, where as in this game it seems more genuine.

However, I still feel the fact that they are lurking for no reason, is enough evidence to go on.

Hip lurking doesn't mean much because Hip's retarded and doesn't know what he's doing....

but aqua

as i have said

several times

mul lurks EVERY GAME

They have been mafia and they have lurked
They have been town and they have lurked
They are a lurker
It is just their game style

It's like you are a memer
You memed when you were mafia
You memed when you were town
"let's vote aqua, he memed when he was mafia"

I swear your argument doesn't make sense ahhh

 

[Aqua]

My argument in regards to the lurking might not work from your experience, but from mine it does, but again that being said. His reaction this time is more genuine so I'm less suspicious.

 

[Infected_alien8_]

My argument in regards to the lurking might not work from your experience, but from mine it does, but again that being said. His reaction this time is more genuine so I'm less suspicious.

But I've played more games than you. You've played twice and both times Mul was mafia. I've hosted a game where mul was town and he lurked just the same. Surely this proves that your theory is wrong. Of course it works from your experience because mul's been scum every game you've been in I'm pretty sure??? And they lurked, yes because they lurk every game

 

[Aqua]

I've played a lot more than 2 games of mafia :c

 

[Mooglie]

You and mul have said like the exact same amount of things. Assuming you're town, this proves that quietness=/=mafia, since you're in the same boat. I get that in-activeness isn't helpful and if we were all completely flat out of suspicions or ideas and we were truly going for a random vote, I'd agree with lynching somebody inactive, but I for one trust our group's ability to sniff out mafia through scum-hunting alone, I trust our and my own vibe readings enough that I'm willing to spend a day's lynch on one, and for me, this day doesn't have to be a complete random lynch - we can get someone we smell to be mafia, which in my opinion is more likely to result in a positive lynch rather than just going for someone inactive, because inactivity doesn't mean they're mafia. Sure, it means they could be more helpful in the day (but in mul's defence, they are a bit like you I guess, in that they don't like saying anything until they actually /know/ what they're talking about and have something to contribute), but it's more useful for us if town are alive, whether they contribute much or not. If we go on lynching the most inactive players, we're likely just gonna lose. Not all mafia are inactive, some are probably gonna be big speakers trying to control the game. There might not be a cop in this game, there might be no useful information that we can base lynches on AT ALL, we might be stuck for the whole game in this same state, without any solid evidence at all, solely with our intuition and our gut feelings and I say we follow through with them rather than going off of 'he's inactive, therefore even if he's town he's unhelpful, let's lynch them', since I think this will just lead to our death. Your view seems to be 'vibes and stuff aren't real, we need to lynch based off of objective reasoning, and the only stuff we have is voting people who are least helpful, so let's do that', which I can understand, but I disagree with.

oK its back to oog posting only nonsense theories that he saw once when reading and didnt see again when rereading BUT THEY MUST MEAN SOMETHING

but IDK when i read that first time round it felt like you were tryna be way too inclusive about town and stuff with WE and OUR and whatevs and i do that whenever im mafia then again i dont see it when rereading but JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE

 

[Infected_alien8_]

At the end of the day, I trust mine and other's intuition about people, and if we all work together using all of our intuition combined I think we stand a better chance of lynching mafia. Obviously we have better chances if we find something more concrete, but right now we don't have anything concrete, so we're faced with - 1) vote people we have gut feelings on, 2) vote someone inactive because they're unhelpful anyway (basically policy lynch).

I get that there are problems with both. For 1), you have to trust the person who is outing their suspicions, or agree with them. I understand that this system isn't perfect and won't work all the time, but if we all pool together our instincts, maybe we can find a path that is better than policy lynching the entire game. Obviously it'd be better if we had something more concrete, but we don't right now, and personally I'd rather try to figure out who's suspicious to who and try to figure out why and figure out who trusts who and allign it all together to give us an ideal lynch. E.g. A B C and D trust each other and all have suspicion on E, F and G trust D and B, don't trust A. Probably the best idea is to lynch E.

Or we could just policy lynch on someone lurking but personally I say we do the first thing. Maybe I'm crazy or not making sense but right now that's my stance on things, and right now I have suspicion on Foggy, I town-read hip and aqua, I have slight suspicion on Notty. I want to vote foggy, aqua mentioned slight suspicion towards foggy too, nobody has town-read foggy particuarly, so right now in this second, I'm voting foggy.

I've played a lot more than 2 games of mafia :c

Escape Restart mafia. Pretty sure you've only played Russian Mafia and Let's Not Explode.

oK its back to oog posting only nonsense theories that he saw once when reading and didnt see again when rereading BUT THEY MUST MEAN SOMETHING

but IDK when i read that first time round it felt like you were tryna be way too inclusive about town and stuff with WE and OUR and whatevs and i do that whenever im mafia then again i dont see it when rereading but JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE

I had suspicion on Jk a few games ago for the same thing so I get what you mean but all I can say is it wasn't a conscious effort, it just came out like that when writing it I guess

 

[Aqua]

At the end of the day, I trust mine and other's intuition about people, and if we all work together using all of our intuition combined I think we stand a better chance of lynching mafia. Obviously we have better chances if we find something more concrete, but right now we don't have anything concrete, so we're faced with - 1) vote people we have gut feelings on, 2) vote someone inactive because they're unhelpful anyway (basically policy lynch).

I get that there are problems with both. For 1), you have to trust the person who is outing their suspicions, or agree with them. I understand that this system isn't perfect and won't work all the time, but if we all pool together our instincts, maybe we can find a path that is better than policy lynching the entire game. Obviously it'd be better if we had something more concrete, but we don't right now, and personally I'd rather try to figure out who's suspicious to who and try to figure out why and figure out who trusts who and allign it all together to give us an ideal lynch. E.g. A B C and D trust each other and all have suspicion on E, F and G trust D and B, don't trust A. Probably the best idea is to lynch E.

Or we could just policy lynch on someone lurking but personally I say we do the first thing. Maybe I'm crazy or not making sense but right now that's my stance on things, and right now I have suspicion on Foggy, I town-read hip and aqua, I have slight suspicion on Notty. I want to vote foggy, aqua mentioned slight suspicion towards foggy too, nobody has town-read foggy particuarly, so right now in this second, I'm voting foggy.


Escape Restart mafia. Pretty sure you've only played Russian Mafia and Let's Not Explode.


I had suspicion on Jk a few games ago for the same thing so I get what you mean but all I can say is it wasn't a conscious effort, it just came out like that when writing it I guess

Is it just me or is inf's wording very strange, it really doesn't seem natural to you...
It's as if you're choosing what you say and how you say it very particularly to move into an authoritarian position so that people trust you and vote foggy.
But hey what do I know I'm just a living shitpost....

 

[Infected_alien8_]

Is it just me or is inf's wording very strange, it really doesn't seem natural to you...
It's as if you're choosing what you say and how you say it very particularly to move into an authoritarian position so that people trust you and vote foggy.
But hey what do I know I'm just a living shitpost....

If I was going that much into detail in how I come across it would take a lot longer to write my responses, I'm literally just writing as I think, trying to make my point clear

And why are you still voting Mul if I've proven your argument wrong

 

[Mooglie]

Is it just me or is inf's wording very strange, it really doesn't seem natural to you...
It's as if you're choosing what you say and how you say it very particularly to move into an authoritarian position so that people trust you and vote foggy.
But hey what do I know I'm just a living shitpost....

wow same
it felt so cheesy and weird, like

if we all work together using all of our intuition combined

???? is this even inf
sounds like the most cut & paste thing you put in an inspirational speech

 

[Infected_alien8_]

wow same
it felt so cheesy and weird, like

???? is this even inf
sounds like the most cut & paste thing you put in an inspirational speech

Well I didn't mean it like *stands on podium* IF WE ALL WORK TOGETHER, AS ONE, AND PUT OUR HEARTS TOGETHER, WE CAN DO THIS!

I meant it more as in "if we all make public our thoughts we can align it all together and make a decision"

YOU GUYS ARE JUST READING IT WRONG

 

[Fog]

Why does everybody hate me ;-;