Now that the man is dead and almost everything he said was either a joke or an outright lie, or both, and we won't know for sure if he's town, mafia, or "crazy person" role (It's entirely possible he had a role where everything he had to say was a lie or unhelpful
) for another few days, perhaps we can put this to rest. As for whether people should blindly follow what some players say, I say no... come up with suspects and judge for yourselves whether existing bandwagons are worth following. Which, I rather thought people had been
doing. However, I find it slightly odd that some suggest it's bad that there's "blind" bandwagoning/following going on when attempts to get others to follow their accusations such as "my gut" and "we need a bunch of votes of this player because I said so" etc, are examples of the exact same thing. The difference is that those aren't as popular or likely to succeed, probably because the neutral observers don't see a reason why. That reason makes all the difference. I think the main complaint here is that some people's suspects aren't being treated with the same weight.
I honestly do wish we had a better suspect here and there, someone else knowing something better and more profound, leading to a better lynch than simply a townie with a penchant for lying for no reason, or perhaps the "village drunk" kind of role, who knows. But last round was filled with dead-end suspects, in my mind, and I didn't want to make a move against any of them, at least not yet. Given the lack of serious bandwagons on those suspects, there were a lot of people who would agree with me on that. When presented with at least a guy who seems to have a tongue more forked than Poseidon's trident, who admits to wanting to do whatever it takes to destroy random players, and then eventually side with the mafia, many people just happened to agree that in the absence of other better suspects,
hey why not at least eliminate a pest? I note that in other games... way back in the murky history of before two weeks ago, people would suggest that random vigilante kills were a bad idea, especially if we don't know who we're hitting, in a game filled with pro-town roles. This was common sense sort of stuff and most people agreed. Some even went so far as to say a rogue vigilante is just as dangerous as the mafia we're after. And these were some good players saying this. And this rogue vigilante might even have his heart in the right place. What about one who was technically on your side, but had his heart set on killing you on purpose, for the very reason of eliminating as many as possible, so if you do eventually become mafia, you have fewer innocents to kill? It would not exactly be controversial to have this person killed.
As an example, after a few kills that looked bad in the Council of Villains, particularly one against Reenk Roink I think it was, there were calls to see our vigilante die. He was on our side at that point. In most games, the town does not allow bad kills to continue, our "side" or not. Especially if the case may be the person couldn't tell the truth to, quite literally, save his own life. Here, we might have lynched a mafioso instead. True... yes, we might have. Or just as easily killed a townie, or perhaps not even a known townie, but one who had performed a successful protection, perhaps... or one that was actively organizing protections that had worked, or perhaps one that faithfully sent in orders, leaving them vulnerable to being scanned for lies, making our work easier. Perhaps we could have lynched a watchstander or a doctor. Or maybe we could have followed Jolt and lynched our fully-investigated-as-loyal First Mate. All kinds of lovely options. And, with no firm leads on who the mafia were, that's precisely what we probably would have done. Yeah, in the first round or so we take a shot in the dark with our lynches, and hope our roles make the connections necessary to avoid being picked off early. As the game progresses, we try our best to avoid the totally random and work more on getting the mafia through deduction, reason, and evidence. In the absence of that, if you wanted to avoid hitting a good townie, you can always take out a bad one. Quite literally, one that even stated that he wanted to be bad, and was going to continue to be killing off random people until he was turned into a scumbag. Now there's some differences on whether or not it's wise to resort to lynching such a person in the absence of real leads. And we settle those differences the way we settle all our differences; by the vote. The arguments have been made, and no one has really budged on the issue. Since it's been settled by the vote and the game must go on, we should move on.
Edit: Louis said it so much more succinctly
here.
And because Diana is a fellow player, if you vote for her, it will not trigger a reaction out of me such that killing pevergreen would trigger a reaction from Reenk, let's say. We express our love
outside of the game, not in it. Someday I fully expect to find a knife in my back covered in lipstick kisses. I think that if either of us were mafia, we'd make sure the other was too dead to find out.
Re: Pirate Ship Mafia
Originally Posted by Andres
<- judge banging gavel
at the people who think that I at all am going to cooperate with these dumb "pressure votes" or change my chosen playstyle this game.
You can go ahead and work in these groups and try and intimidate others to follow your ideas, but I definitely put a lot more stock in my own gut and my own analysis than that of any of the vocal people in this game so far. And why should I tell you my reasons for voting whoever? Figure it out yourselves, don't be lazy, the smilies are clues enough. After all, a string of smilies is much less embarrassing (and more convincing) than the absolutely awful cases against LG, w&f, Andres, CDF, CR, and Jolt (at least CR had a detective result reason on Sigurd which we can gather info from no matter if it is right or wrong).
- Proud Horseman of the Presence
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks