Mafia IX: Triumph of the Mafia [Concluded]

[Secura]

I've decided that I am convinced by Pizza's defense of 'khann; I'm not necessarily going to agree with his bandwagon suggestions and vote accordingly, but I do admire the fact that he's stood up and taken charge of things. At this early a stage in the game, there isn't much to go on, and I was suspicious of him for what I am assured is typical behaviour.

unvote: Yaseikhaan

I've been mulling the thread over, taking into consideration those killed and the votes that have been cast, and a few things stand out as suspicious to me. The one unshakable thing is Methos' unvoting of Renata in the previous day phase... why?

DE's argument does make sense, both both for and against him. For now, I'll lean Unvote/Vote: Renata.

Initially he claims to support Diamondeye's arguments, although he doesn't clarify why, and he votes for Renata accordingly.

I realize this is going to look suspicious, but I'm heading out for work soon, so will more then likely miss the update.

Unvote: Renata

Now consider this post; he states that he is aware his actions are going to look suspicious, but he unvotes regardless. He does not place his vote elsewhere, either, despite stating that he feels Diamond could have been mafia too. What is the reasoning behind unvoting as such?

I miss most game updates/write-ups in the Gameroom because the hosts tend to be American and they're posting at least five hours behind Greenwich Meantime. Most of these updates tend to come in the evening, which I inevitably miss because I'm usually asleep at 4am GMT, but you do not see me unvoting, particularly if it is "going to look suspicious".

In short, I don't see a need to unvote if he was sure that Renata was guilty, and if he was not, he had professed Diamond was suspicious, so surely a vote in that direction would have been plausible.

Currently I can only think of three reasons behind this behaviour:

- Methos and Renata are the mafia; in an attempt at distancing himself he joined the arguments against Renata, but knowing that he had to head out to work, he couldn't be certain that his vote wouldn't lead to his scum buddie's death, so he unvoted to be sure. He posted "I know this is gonna look suspicious" in order to dissipate some of the pressure that he might face, then leaves the thread until the next day; his scum buddy survives by a single vote.

- Methos is the mafia, Renata is not; he voted in an attempt to blend in with the crowd, but realised that someone like Renata is a bad enemy to have; she's more than capable of picking apart an argument/vote and he perhaps wanted a townie on-side. She is saved from trouble by that single vote.

- Methos is simply town drawing attention to himself and I'm blowing everything out of proportion.

I'll concede that it's a possibility, but that unvote has been bugging me for the last few days and I'd like answers.

vote: Methos

[Chaotix]

I've decided that I am convinced by Pizza's defense of 'khann; I'm not necessarily going to agree with his bandwagon suggestions and vote accordingly, but I do admire the fact that he's stood up and taken charge of things. At this early a stage in the game, there isn't much to go on, and I was suspicious of him for what I am assured is typical behaviour.

unvote: Yaseikhaan

I've been mulling the thread over, taking into consideration those killed and the votes that have been cast, and a few things stand out as suspicious to me. The one unshakable thing is Methos' unvoting of Renata in the previous day phase... why?



Initially he claims to support Diamondeye's arguments, although he doesn't clarify why, and he votes for Renata accordingly.



Now consider this post; he states that he is aware his actions are going to look suspicious, but he unvotes regardless. He does not place his vote elsewhere, either, despite stating that he feels Diamond could have been mafia too. What is the reasoning behind unvoting as such?

I miss most game updates/write-ups in the Gameroom because the hosts tend to be American and they're posting at least five hours behind Greenwich Meantime. Most of these updates tend to come in the evening, which I inevitably miss because I'm usually asleep at 4am GMT, but you do not see me unvoting, particularly if it is "going to look suspicious".

In short, I don't see a need to unvote if he was sure that Renata was guilty, and if he was not, he had professed Diamond was suspicious, so surely a vote in that direction would have been plausible.

Currently I can only think of three reasons behind this behaviour:

- Methos and Renata are the mafia; in an attempt at distancing himself he joined the arguments against Renata, but knowing that he had to head out to work, he couldn't be certain that his vote wouldn't lead to his scum buddie's death, so he unvoted to be sure. He posted "I know this is gonna look suspicious" in order to dissipate some of the pressure that he might face, then leaves the thread until the next day; his scum buddy survives by a single vote.

- Methos is the mafia, Renata is not; he voted in an attempt to blend in with the crowd, but realised that someone like Renata is a bad enemy to have; she's more than capable of picking apart an argument/vote and he perhaps wanted a townie on-side. She is saved from trouble by that single vote.

- Methos is simply town drawing attention to himself and I'm blowing everything out of proportion.

I'll concede that it's a possibility, but that unvote has been bugging me for the last few days and I'd like answers.

vote: Methos

That is... well, that's convincing. Better case than Renata at the moment, definitely. And even still, it supports the Renata case as well. I'm going for it.

Unvote: Renata
Vote: Methos

Edit to ATPG:

I am opposed to random lynches because they are rather unreliable, and I am far from the only one. Obviously there are only two scummy people in this game, yet khaan has more critics than supporters. Are we all somehow scummy?

Also, no matter what justification you give for voting me... it's still hypocritical because it's based on a justification or a suspicion, and not on randomness.

[Secura]

That is... well, that's convincing. Better case than Renata at the moment, definitely. And even still, it supports the Renata case as well. I'm going for it.

Unvote: Renata
Vote: Methos

I'm unsure if your vote counts because the post has been edited, but feel free to shoot me down for that one if I'm wrong. :3

[Askthepizzaguy]

Also, no matter what justification you give for voting me... it's still hypocritical because it's based on a justification or a suspicion, and not on randomness.

-A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today.

I may vote randomly or I may vote against someone who thinks random is a bad idea. And while not purely consistent, it is still based on the same philosophy.