Really? This isn't something I have noticed.

Ok, I am notoriously bad at words. Me and words are not friends. I constantly pick the wrong ones. It is a constant struggle between me and the world of vocabulary, usually ending with me eating my foot while trying to backtrack and explain what I actually meant vs what it was interpreted as. Perfect example: now!

What I meant was "I'm hesitant to unvote just because of an attempt to explain themselves, regardless of if I found it a good explanation or not." A vote was removed just because he talked, which is why I mentioned that. It didn't explain what I'd asked, and so my vote stayed.

I'm not trying to twist around what he said, I pointed to the parts of what he said that I was referring to and asking about. I try to give an explanation and it gets twisted around like I'm some kind of super-manipulative person who knows what she's doing! I am not that smart and this is my first time playing this game. Chilllll.

I dunno, of everyone's defences so far, Arix's seems most aggressive/scummy to me. I do agree Arath's vote was pretty hypocritical though.

See now I'm reading this again and going to myself in my head "IDIOT THIS COULD BE MISINTERPRETED TOO WHY ARE YOU SO BAD AT THIS!!"

So for the sake of my sanity I meant:

-Simply attempting to explain is not enough for me to unvote.
-I would unvote if the explanation was satisfactory in my mind, and addressed what I brought up.
-I would not simply unvote because there was an explanation, if the explanation did not satisfy me, or did not address the points I raised.

Am I doing it right yet oh god D: I am trying so hard to not be completely derp at conveying my thoughts.

I have to agree. Early/disproportional aggression is one of those things that doesn't sit well with me.

To get a trap going? Do you have a head wound? You voted on me, after everyone discussed me, to get people talking. What magical trap is going to pop out from that? Was Phoebus suddenly going to show up and "lol gui's I'm mafia"?

And it isn't that vote without reasoning isn't illogical, it's obstructionist. If you just vote and follow a bandwagon like you've done without giving reasons then you limit the ability to move the game forward.

You didn't have any plan and I'm pretty much willing to call you out as a poor scum player right now.

I'm up and awake now, I'll be around for awhile. And it seems I was right about activity level spiking when I am not around

Alright, all roles are out.


It is now DAY 1. YOU MAY START DISCUSSING AND VOTING WHENEVER YOU WANT.


Voting:

Arix (1): Rika,
Ayisdra (0):
Rika (1): Ayisdra
Kiradawea (0):
Phoebus (1): Gleip
Othero (3): Kiradawea, Ssaliss, Arath
Arath (4): Othero, Phoebus, Silferras, Vendetta

Comb Rave level: 0

Let me know if I 'd up.

I actually unvoted earlier, so Othero only has three votes.

I also unvoted and moved my vote to Arath.

Arix is very aggressive whenever someone as much as glances at him, regardless of if he is scum or not, and on these forums, aggressiveness is used as a scum sign, despite how often it is not a scum sign. So while he's not like Shaddus, who no matter what sets of anyone's scumdar, Arix tends to die to a false scum sign.

And Vendetta is voting for Arath, while I moved my vote to Phoebus.

Also, seeing that Phoebus is making a perfect example (no offense) I'll go a bit deeper into Mafia theory and the no editting rule.

Many clues towards discovering Mafia players are found in the choice of words they use the first time around. Subconsciously, people drop hints through wording. Phrasing things in a way to suggest that you know more than what's let on at the thread suggests that you're mafia or an investigator. Twisting things, even unintentionally, suggests that the original point held uncomfortable truths. Phoebus and Arath is an interesting case, because in the vote post, Phoebus proclaims



This is an example of a likely unintentional twist, but a twist nonetheless. Because if you look back.




If you'll notice, the twist can be found here. Arath first accuses Phoebus of not applying logic to the game, and then claims that Phoebus is jumping on a bandwagon. However, the wording of Phoebus' accusation combines two distinct points into one. Or, to make it clearer. Arath claims that Phoebus is bandwagoning, because in an unrelated issue, she is unlogical. Phoebus claims that Arath considers bandwagoning unlogical. The mistake becomes clear when you notice that the two issues combined are the main points in two different posts.

Arath has been hypocritical. His trap defense is questionable. His claims of logic are sketchy. BUT.

He was not bandwagoning. He was bandwagoned. Bandwagoning is dependant upon timing factors. Five votes on someone before he can defend himself is bandwagoning. One vote after several defense posts on someone who already has several votes may be questionable, but it is not bandwagoning.

This post on mafia theory was brought to you by crazy tired incorporated. It's day one and I'm already flipping through old pages like mad, and I can't decide if it's a good thing or a very bad thing.

So you think Arath is scummier because he is sketchy and hypocritical? You think Phoebus is worse off? Or was that just theory babbling?

Ah, okay. I'll take the point on aggression being interpreted thusly.

That.

I've also been flipping through the posts, looking at people's patterns and while I can't come to any conclusion, something that struck me as a very strange thing to say was this:

Well, she is still voting for Phoebus. Then again, I am more suspicious about Phoebus than Arath myself.

Although I'm starting to get to the point where I consider any death better than nothing. Arath, Othero, Phoebus. Any of them dying should say a lot about the other two. So... since I can't go around threathening people with dayvig in this game, I'm going to

Vote: Deadline

Although, curious Caerulo. Are you suggesting a potential scum team of Ileein and Othero?

You're going to vote deadline instead of picking someone? Unless the mod says so deadline isn't an option. Pick someone and work to prove them scum, push the votes onto them. A deadline with a random kill is awful for town.

I'm already pushing for Phoebus.

Which seems to be a dead end at this point. Why Phoebus over someone like Arath who's put up BS logic or me for whatever reason people are voting for me still?

Why are you so desperate to protect Phoebus anyway?

I'm not protecting Phoebus as much as I don't see where she is that bad. Her scumminess is that she has talked a lot? It just doesn't stand out to me, it isn't enough. And yeah, if I think Arath is scum I need to protect Phoebus as he is trying to claim that she was his target. You don't see something scummy about a random vote asking people to talk only to have him come back and say that it was a trap for Phoebus?