I have problems trusting people who are trying to teach people how to play a game while they play it. The motives are never pure. I think he is sending out a warning to his fellow mafia.

Vote Shiri

Just like to say hi to everyone. Random votes ahoy!

Vote: okieSakana, because the name is.. fishy.

*eyeshift*

Also because I think Shiri deserves to live at least a little while, the poor thing.

...like last time when I did the same thing as an independent? Or every other time I help explain mafia to people either in threads or in PMs?

Our first actual good reason to vote someone!

Unvote: Revan
Vote: Daganev.

The fact he like half-shredded the game last time and the raging on Visaeris are probably things we don't repeated in this game either.

Wait, it wasn't last game, it was the game before, where I was a roleblocker. I may have done it last game too but I doubt it because the setting was complicated as hell. I did in the ponies game though, and turned out to be pro town. So Daganev's reason is still terrible.

Oh, and Shamarah noted the segment Daganev quoted in his thread last time but Rika failed to (presumably she just copied the normal list from mafiascum without editing it for Lusternia's boards at all.)

While Shiri's apparently innate helpfulness can be construed as a veiled hint, I've seen him do it in all the games he's been in, so it's nothing new. If he shows other signs of scumminess, we can take that into account, sure - but so far, he's been in the usual newbie-guide-at-the-start mode, so I don't think much can be read into that unless more evidence shows up.

But yes, big game!

To clarify - veiled hint 'to his fellow mafia,' as said by Daganev.

Your constant switching of votes, hoping that something sticks, isn't helping you either.

But someone up above was right, you've died too quickly in too many games.

unvote shirit

Yes you help people every game. Its your constant cover in every game also. "look, I'm helpfull, I'm not the bad guy." And you are helpfull even when you are the bad guy.

The constant (i.e 2) switches of votes on day 1 when we have very little information in hopes that one of them pokes out something useful and then I stick to it is not "not helping" me. You'll notice that I did it in the pony game too, got called out on it, and then it turned out to be totally legitimate. You should be worried if I do this on like day 4, not day 1. I voted Lorick for no good reason, because that's how random votes work, then I voted Revan as an almost-no-reason OMGUS, then I voted you because your reasoning is suspicious and it sounds like you do not want people playing the game well!

You're right, I do help people every game, including games where I'm scum. Which means I do it regardless of whether I'm scum or not. Which means it's a bad reason for voting me. I don't expect it to protect me too long if at all, so by no means is it a cover - I just don't want people thinking lurking is a valid strategy because it makes it boring as hell, or letting someone effectively break the game like Xenthos did with the profile-viewing, and I'm saving time by preempting questions about FoS and stuff. None of this is in the least bit scummy.

Unvote
Vote: Daganev

I can already see where this is heading, and I really really REALLY do not want it to go there. Solution? you can only kill a weed at its root.

Revan, you blindly voted for me last game aslo. What the hatred?

Shiri, a bit defensive are we?

Its day one... relax a little!

Unvote: Revan
Vote: Daganev
Revan was just being casually vulgar, which was a bit annoying, but Daganev's loose cannon paranoia and waffling logic train that I saw in the past game seems to be manifesting already and I really really want to nip that in the bud as it seems to go off on the people that don't need to die rather than the people that do for the town to win. While I don't mind being privy to logic for decisions made, Daganev's style just seems to be far more destructive than constructive. So...there you have it.

gah, that meant to say, why the hatred.

If you are going to vote for me just because you don't like the way I play. then there is really no reason for me to play at all.

Seriously, is this how the game is going to be played?

Are we going to vote to lynch me, and then vote to lynch arix, just because you don't like us? Has mafia become a game of popularity rather than a game of intrigue?

Please let me know now, so I can know if I should resign or not.

Am I supposed to be voting for Thul because he fell for Xenthos's tricks twice last game?

Is that what mafia is about?

I didn't think so! I notice Karnagan managed to get me -actually- being defensive when I wasn't prepared for it in the pony game so I'm being careful to avoid it, as it may have affected my posts too much that day. Luckily he died right after.

Anyway, another thing for the town before I go to bed: keep track of how many votes are on people, either yourself or assisted by mod votecounts. When they're at like 1-2 votes before a lynch, stop and let them explain their role. If it sounds plausible (you'll have to learn what does and doesn't by experience I guess) you can unvote them unless you have other reasons for wanting them dead. DON'T just assume everything they tell you is the truth, try and point out flaws in their words. Then if you're still suspicious try and get someone to finish them off, I guess.

Btw, the roleclaim isn't something we -want- necessarily - it's something we allow people to give to convince us they're innocent. We don't go hunting for multiple roleclaims if we can avoid it because that benefits the scum too much if we're honest, as they already know who the scum is and who aren't so if someone claims doctor/cop/vig/etc. it's far more likely the scum will know whether they're lying than that the town will know whether they're lying. If that makes sense.

I was looking at intriguing posts made by Daganev. In the remainder of this post, I plan to summarize the contents of them in an effort to look at our situation realistically and from a viewpoint that takes in the whole picture. It is requisite, even in this summary sketch, to go back a few years to see how today, we might have let Daganev conspire with evil. Tomorrow, we won't. Instead, we will reinforce what is best in people.

Of course, I'm generalizing a little here. But that's only because of all of Daganev's exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: "I have problems trusting people ." His statement speak volumes. And for those mealymouthed carpetbaggers who want to hide behind the argument that Daganev's disciples are not villainous madmen but rather lewd, obtrusive slimeballs, my question is simply this: What's the difference? Even if Daganev's facts were reliable, they were gathered selectively and then manipulated towards favored conclusions.

You may be shocked to hear this, but the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to spread the word about Daganev's dim-witted tractates to our friends, our neighbors, our relatives, our co-workers -- even to strangers? I don't have a high opinion of imperious rabble-rousers. I'll probably devote a separate post to that topic alone, but for now, I'll simply summarize by stating that I wouldn't want to toy with our opinions. I would, on the other hand, love to navigate a safe path between the Scylla of Daganev's dour arguments and the Charybdis of masochism. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this post. I see how important Daganev's unrestrained sentiments are to his grunts and I laugh. I laugh because if you look back over some of my older posts, you'll see that I predicted that he would deprive individuals of the right to exemplify the principles of honor, duty, loyalty, and courage. And, as I predicted, he did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about Daganev could have made the same prediction. I hope I haven't bored you by writing an entire post about Daganev. Still, this post was the best way to explain to you that the ripples of reaction to Daganev's politics have spread, giving rise to universal calls to bring fresh gameplay and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy.

Wh...is the first part of that legitimate post and the second one of those auto-generated rants? What the hell?

It's all legit

That's an edited auto-rant and as such I believe that claim of legitimacy may be a lie.