LotR Mafia - Game Thread

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Kael

It felt like a good in-character embellishment, if you want a straight-up answer. That's why I said 'safely', like, say, a special close to a Doc role, or something like that. I would honestly be surprised if anyone is like that, but it just felt like a good thing to say, which it apparently wasn't, though I honestly don't get why.

I need a break, I snapped because my toddler is busy screaming at me to pick her up and then kicking me when I do, so I'll be back in a few, and hopefully more level-headed and less bitchy.

Kael, sorry things are stressful. Happy thoughts man.

I catch shit and suspicion every game, it is just the way of the game man. Don't take it personally. Which is pretty ironic for me to say that cuz I take shit personal as a motherfucker.

anyway, happy thoughts, man.

[Gonzo]

Originally Posted by fragment

You know that still leaves plenty we could talk about, like who votes to lynch for who and whether their reasons for it are solid. FWIW I think talking about the leadership vote was good when we had nothing else to talk about, but we've moved well past that and have plenty of other stuff to discuss. Like who do you think is most suspicious so far, Deadlokd?

I am really unsure that this is a good way to look at this game. I don't know how much you have played before, but in mafia the only reason to ignore the elephant in the room is that you are hiding something. I have nothing to hide here and it is my interest to find out what is going on as well as eliminate all threats.


I am also in the crowd bothered by Bros hobbit-speech but understand it brings some color and fun to serious LotR bizness. Otherwise, even if I have some trouble reading his style, he has been participating, projecting ideas, and has not said anything which should garner special attention to me. Still, I'm watching him.

I also agree that liv and Nightson were too aggressive in their canidacies for mayor, but the matter is said and done now. I am not terribly displeased with the haste of it, but I hope we made the right choice in Dem. She seems to be a good figure head at least. I like that her vote for herself came late. Others were not so modest.

Major suspicion on Nightson for his dismissals of conversation. More dictorial than majorial. vote Nightson

Liv is sort of righteous in her ideas even if she is almost always right, and that could be dangerous. I was so positive last game that a townie (slim) was scum and was totally wrong in my assessment. Only did I find out upon his lynching how much time I wasted on assumptions. She is acting hypocritical towards Nightson when she can call him bossy but then say to Kael:

So much for your keeping your mouth shut.

Though I see no cause for alarm as of yet, I will say I find her combative attitude to be counter productive to the town. I am happy to have her as a pouty townie/ powerless scum, than what could have been Mayor Marie Antoinette.

CP I'm glad you have spoke up. You have some ideas that provoke otherwise unmentioned points of view. Even if some of them are newbish and out of ignorance, you seem to be less likely to attack a person without a reasonable explanation.

And it wasn't until I read this:

each statement from another must be analyzed as both the full truth and as a lie

That I saw what appeals to me most in your gameplay. If you can stay true to that idea in this game, you will be very valuable to the town.

Kael I see at his usual place in the town. He has trouble communicating his defense and usually falls victim to circumstance. The only difference is that in this game, I am not leading the war agianst him and see no real reason for making controversy over his every word. He's barely been given the chance to speak his mind.

fragment, bey, slim - I would like to hear from off the top of my head.

[beyelzu]

I'm a little confused. I have been very active, what questions do you have?

Or were you just fosing me?

[fragment]

Originally Posted by Gonzo

I am really unsure that this is a good way to look at this game. I don't know how much you have played before, but in mafia the only reason to ignore the elephant in the room is that you are hiding something. I have nothing to hide here and it is my interest to find out what is going on as well as eliminate all threats.

Do you really believe this, especially (but not only) the bit I've bolded? Because if you do, you must want all town specials to out themselves right away. Are you sure that's what you want?

If not, then we agree that there are some pro-town reasons to keep some information under wraps, for now. We may still disagree as to which those are, but that's a different kettle of fish.

[Kael]

Ok, we played with legos for a while and she's eaten now, so let's see if I can figure this out.

liv, the only way I can see you being right about my inconsistency is if you think I actually expected an answer from anyone when I asked for information on specials. It was meant to be rhetorical embellishment, as was most of that post, and for that matter the one before when I first voted for Nightson. I liked the way BroMan kicked us off and I was trying to build a role and act in it.

Not that I expect you to believe me just because I say so, but I really am trying to find someone working against the town here. I fingered Nightson because of his matter-of-fact 'specials don't want the ring' coupled with his curt dismissal of the mayoral debate and other conversations have me suspecting he is either scum or a non-town special. Best I can see to go on so far. I won't apologize or back down from that, or change my mind until I see something better.

Sorry for bitching at you, and I mean that quite sincerely. I'm just short on patience today for reasons completely unrelated to this game, and after actually trying to scum-hunt backfired on me for the second time today I got fed up.

I'm going to call it a night, may you all find plenty of ale and warm beds at the end of your own day.

[slimshady2357]

Originally Posted by fragment

Vote: Kael. Could be bad town play, but more likely a nazgul trying to avoid being quiet.

So you thought the same as bey & Megatron, but didn't feel moved to vote to lynch like they did?

To be clear, my same thought as bey and Mega was 'CHRIST, DON'T TALK ABOUT THAT!' and not so much the 'vote for the scum' thought. I think if you read my posts after that one, you can see why. I have made the same mistake as Kael in the past. I don't think it means he's scum, though he could be a traitor. But there is every chance it was just poor play (imo, obviously some people disagree with this) , in which case I'd be voting for a townie. I didn't vote for him or anyone because I wanted more info.

Originally Posted by Deadlokd

Regarding those questions, he raised a really good one. Several of you, having read Nightson's posts went "OMG! I can't believe he just said that!" and are then surprised when someone else read the same thing. So you're punishing Kael for pointing out something that was obvious to all of you. AND PRESUMABLY ANY SCUM WHO MAY BE PLAYING THE GAME. I didn't see it and I didn't make any connection but some of you did. Enough to tell that it wasn't as subtle as Nightson may have thought. Although he is saying that there was no hidden messages in it.

I don't know. I read that and moved on. It seemed obvious without actually pointing to Nightson as a special. I also note that I'm voting for him so;

unvote.

I know fragment addressed this already, but come on. On one hand you say 'jeez if it was SOOOO obvious, why do you care if Kael pointed it out' and then turn right around and say 'I didn't notice it at all'

Um, maybe we didn't want Kael to mention it because obvious to some isn't obvious to others. Thanks for making that clear for us

And I don't think Nightson is a locked in special btw. The type of thing that he said, a 'breacrumb' if you want to call it that or possibly even a slip up sometimes, is the type of thing I file away and keep in mind when I read a person's later posts. It isn't 100% of course, but it's a pointer, like so many other parts of the game. There are other people I'm watching because of little 'pointers' they've posted.

Originally Posted by fragment

Do you really believe this, especially (but not only) the bit I've bolded? Because if you do, you must want all town specials to out themselves right away. Are you sure that's what you want?

If not, then we agree that there are some pro-town reasons to keep some information under wraps, for now. We may still disagree as to which those are, but that's a different kettle of fish.

Exactly.

Seriously Gonzo, I would like you to address that. If you can agree that we shouldn't just get all specials to out themselves right now, surely you can see that having certain conversations is also bad.

I can totally get that you might disagree what those types of conversations might be, but to just say flat out that everything should be talked about no matter what and that trying to stop talk about anything is bad for town... I think that is just plain wrong.

I know it's a good game when I wake up each morning to 100 posts

[slimshady2357]

Ok, I'm off for golf for the day and won't be back until tonight (this afternoon for most of you).

I'm not terribly suspicious of anyone right now.
Kael's explanation for his Nightson post was just brutal I thought.
Still get a strange vibe from BroHobbit.
DL also seems suspicious, he's posted a couple of posts now that seem too dense for him.

Christ there is 15 people in this game!

Oh and liv is a big meanie!

[Deadlokd]

In my defense I've been trying to write a 10 page forensic science assignment for a week now and am on the verge of an aneurysm.

[Nightson]

Alright, time to start the long post.

First as a miscellaneous note. I never mean anything I say in game personally. Heck in the past I've insulted people because I thought it would make them sloppier.

So, we'll start with the conclusion shall we. I think BortherMan and Livius are on a scum team based primarily on BrotherMan's actions.

Looking at his posts in isolation, numbers are links

#4 - Everyone who votes for themselves is bad but "livius has given good reason to want to vote for her" What this reason is is left unstated.

#5 - This interaction between him and livius. He says in the same paragraph that liv is a suspect and tha he is inclined to lean in her and beyelzu's direction.

#6 - Agrees with livius.

#9 - Again talks about livius and tries to subtly push for her as mayor.

#14 - Ding ding ding. This is the big one, he attacks the person attacking liv

#17 - OMGUSing, less of a scumtell since BrotherMan is new.

#23 - BrotherMan has a list of three subjects and it condemns him three ways each stronger then the last.

First, a list of three points to making up the list and not an honest list of suspects, this is a weak tell but there.

Second, the two subjects he professes suspicion for he has not voiced suspicion for in the past and the people he has voiced suspicion for do not appear on the list.

Thirdly, liv is on the list. Her reason is fairly weak, it contradicts his previous statements on the issue of liv's candidacy, and he does not vote for her.

All of which adds together to make a very scummy post of many.

unvote, vote: BrotherMan




(I know I'm already voting for him, it's just so much more dramatic to end the long accusing post with a vote )

[Megatron]

Damn. That's compelling.

I was getting an odd whiff before, but I've been sick and not putting things together like I usually do. Thanks for picking up the ball and running with it there.

Shit, you're playing like me now.

BM never left my radar, and I may have zoned in a bit too hard on Kael for that flashlight post... but either way, I'm buying it... hell, I'm kicking myself for not seeing the pattern.

vote: BrotherMan

[Demimonde]

Well that is interesting. As BrobbitMaWAIS
on my suspect list I will add some pressure.

[b]vote Bro[b]

I will be off line until the evening but with eight votes to lynch that should be pretty safe.

[Demimonde]

vote bro

* Demimonde curses no edits.

[Demimonde]

And just a quick note to say that my even more terrible spelling than usual is from stupid iPhone and not an adoption of bey's style.

[S.Vashti]

I'm suspicious of BrotherMan, too, because his conception of what makes a hobbit hobbity is rather profoundly wrong, but it might be a ruse. And his support of Liv is odd. Not yet ready to vote, though.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Kael

liv, the only way I can see you being right about my inconsistency is if you think I actually expected an answer from anyone when I asked for information on specials. It was meant to be rhetorical embellishment, as was most of that post, and for that matter the one before when I first voted for Nightson. I liked the way BroMan kicked us off and I was trying to build a role and act in it.

That's plausible enough. It was a horrible choice to make for a rhetorical flourish, though, as I hope you now recognize. I think Demi's humble acceptance post was made shady-sounding by the rp element as well (although I still don't trust her), and if Bro goes down, he'll have his excellent hobbit-speak to thank.

Sorry for bitching at you, and I mean that quite sincerely. I'm just short on patience today for reasons completely unrelated to this game, and after actually trying to scum-hunt backfired on me for the second time today I got fed up.

We ain't got no problems, Jules. I was irritated myself to get hit with the meta accusation when I wasn't doing anything of the sort. I quite like your quiet-with-input style of play even though it does paradoxically put you under the radar as well as make you a target.

I'm going to call it a night, may you all find plenty of ale and warm beds at the end of your own day.

Back atcha.

Originally Posted by Gonzo

Liv is sort of righteous in her ideas even if she is almost always right, and that could be dangerous. I was so positive last game that a townie (slim) was scum and was totally wrong in my assessment. Only did I find out upon his lynching how much time I wasted on assumptions.

I've been wrong too, of course. I never suggested otherwise.

She is acting hypocritical towards Nightson when she can call him bossy but then say to Kael:

How was that bossy? I wasn't telling him to keep his mouth shut; I was pointing out a contradiction in his own post, namely that in one part he said he'd not have called out a special if he genuinely thought that Nightson was one, then in the other part he called out the specials.

He's explained that now to my satisfaction although obviously he's not cleared of suspicion.

Though I see no cause for alarm as of yet, I will say I find her combative attitude to be counter productive to the town. I am happy to have her as a pouty townie/ powerless scum, than what could have been Mayor Marie Antoinette.

Well I guess that's better than that time bey called me a traitor and a cunt because of my so-called combative style.

Originally Posted by Nightson

So, we'll start with the conclusion shall we. I think BortherMan and Livius are on a scum team based primarily on BrotherMan's actions.

Ah yes, the day one scum team, my favorite of the mafia chimeras. (Her goofy focus on potential pairs was the way I busted Lees as cult leader on day 1 of Transformers Mafia.) Some day I hope to actually live to see a genuine scum pair pallin' around on day one.

You may be right about Bro being scum, but his occasional half-assed defense of me was just him trying to pick apart arguments, imo.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by Chris Porter

I'm suspicious of BrotherMan, too, because his conception of what makes a hobbit hobbity is rather profoundly wrong, but it might be a ruse. And his support of Liv is odd. Not yet ready to vote, though.

Chris, did you see where BrotherMan clarified his meaning earlier in this thread?

You asked:

Originally Posted by Chris Porter

BrotherMan, what did you mean by "I find it un-hobbity to speak a truth."? I've been taking it as "It's not hobbit-like to speak true things" and I suspect I may have misunderstood it? Right now, it's making you suspicious to me. Did you mean you find avariciousness in hobbits, and self-aggrandisment in hobbits to be not in character for a hobbit?

And he answered:

Originally Posted by BrotherMan

I think it un-hobbity to want to be mayor, if I may speak frankly, would be how I meant the sentence to be read.

Do you still think his conception of what makes a hobbit hobbity is rather profoundly wrong after that answer? If so, why?

[Gonzo]

Well I guess that's better than that time bey called me a traitor and a cunt because of my so-called combative style.

I will stick with comparing you to ruthless historical figures, liv.

[Ensign Steve]

At this time I find Kael suspicious due to his extreme overreaction to getting voted for. I didn't think the original accusation(s) held much water in the first place, but his defense looked like serious flail-town. I think liv said something similar. I can't say I understand what it's like to have a screaming toddler to deal with, but I'll try to reread those posts with that in mind.

I don't see what BrotherMan has done to arouse suspicion, but I haven't yet taken the time to follow the links in Nightson's post. I'll get on that.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Gonzo

I will stick with comparing you to ruthless historical figures, liv.

Marie Antoinette was hardly ruthless so if that's what you meant to convey, you picked the wrong historical figure.

[Gonzo]

Go eat cake -.-

[livius drusus]

She never said that, and even if she had, it still wouldn't have been ruthless so much as pig-ignorant.

[Gonzo]

Liv is a traitor and a skunk!

[Gonzo]

I'm having trouble finding anyone who really pops out to me besides Nightson this morning. Wish there was something good to go off of.

I'm not so sure about NS's case against BroHobbit, but I will say it is fair to point out the inconsistencies in his posts. I wouldn't mind putting pressure on him if he continues on. I am waiting for his response.

[S.Vashti]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

(snip)
Chris, did you see where BrotherMan clarified his meaning earlier in this thread?(snip)
Do you still think his conception of what makes a hobbit hobbity is rather profoundly wrong after that answer? If so, why?

Oh, yes, for the reason stated: hobbits can be avaricious and greedy, and certainly not too humble to put themselves forward. This has been shown time and again throughout the literature.

[Ensign Steve]

I did a "view only Kael's posts" thingie, and wow. Putting aside the screaming-toddler-bitchiness (totally understandable) and the breadcrumb-flashlight business that is just too muddy for me to deal with right now, there are still about a million red flags popping up.

Originally Posted by Kael

So, I'm guessing that if a Nazgul manages to get the ring (like by getting themselves elected leader of the Fellowship, let's say), then the game comes to an abrupt end? Or is there some sort of Instant Death round where we get one last chance to get it back?

Where does that come from? He appears to have some information that we do not.

Also, what happens if Gandalf gets it? I think it's safe to assume he's here, given the OP.

Fishing?

Originally Posted by Kael

I'm thinking we might try something like random lots, which at least gives us an even chance and denies those wicked Naz things the opportunity to hoodwink the lot of us.

Originally Posted by Kael

Well then:

Didn't I say that? I'm not terribly fond of the random idea myself, I'm just putting something out there besides "give it to this hobbit or that hobbit."

It was his idea!

Originally Posted by Kael

Gandalf getting the ring and becoming the new Lord of Middle Earth might not end up very good for us poor hobbits, but I hear Lord of Middle Earth is a pretty cushy job. Basically, I see no reason why, if the Nazgul gain extra power when they wield the ring, power roles and even hobbits wouldn't. I hear it makes you invisible, after all. Adam has already stated that acquiring the ring does NOT win the game for the Nazgul, which implies the win conditions are probably the more typical 'kill most of the town' and the ring is a fun bit of extra power-play.

Still speaking as though you have extra information, imo.

All this rambling is moot, of course, if Nightson speaks from having more information than this humble hobbit.

Hee!

Originally Posted by Kael

have none of you considered that not all specials will be on our side? There are many who are after this ring, as we've all heard. Men, Wizards, and no doubt others of whom we know even less. We're fairly certain our good friend Gandalf is here among us, but there are many here wearing the guise of hobbits, honestly or otherwise. Are you so certain that the only ones working against us are the Nazgul? That they brought no allies, or that no traitors stand in our midst?

Still fishing for Gandalf? Is it your job to find him or something?

If any of you have any such information that you can safely share, please let's have it in the open.

Yikes, dude.

Originally Posted by Kael

It felt like a good in-character embellishment, if you want a straight-up answer. That's why I said 'safely', like, say, a special close to a Doc role, or something like that. I would honestly be surprised if anyone is like that, but it just felt like a good thing to say, which it apparently wasn't, though I honestly don't get why.

If I'm not mistaken, the "It" above refers to the line where you ask Nightson to (safely) out himself. How is that in-character embellishment? It's straight-up fishing. It's not even in Hobbit-speak or anything. Am I wrong about what "It" refers to?

vote: Kael