Paw Enforcement [BEARS WIN]

I had a very busy/stressful end of my work day so I wanted to put off posting in here until later only I let it get late enough that Im too unfocused for much.

Yeah Idk what to say lmao uhh
I agree with voting. Im already at the #yolo part of this game

man look at that bigfoot booty

i mean bear

bearfoot booty

oh my god KIYO PLS

BEAR MEMES ASIDE I'm thankful for that post that Ninfia gave us. It was very interesting and it's always good to see the way people think on others during a game like this. I suppose I'll go ahead and start talking about my side of things now. Be warned this is gonna be SUPER long; i'm sorry in advance.

I'll start with aeiou because, besides dran, she brought up a good thing first off that made me think early on in the game. I also think Ninfia mentioned this: shooting someone in the night. It would basically clear them since they don't die. However, if they were to shoot someone to pretend to clear them, they can shoot at themselves or something.  It would make it very risky either way. One less person to doubt, one less vest. There's also the case of wifom, so it's up in the air.

I'm still on the train of thought where, if the person is no longer bullet proof, mafia is going to shoot them. They would be dumb not to. It's an easy target, they don't have to worry about knocking their shell off... And if a person doesn't die in the night if they're no longer bulletproof, it's gonna lead me to believe that they're mafia. But there's a wifom situation there, too where mafia is gonna want to set someone up. In that case, people need to be sure to communicate as often and as thoroughly as possible!

I'm also curious about the no kill on the first night. If it were an accident or if it was on purpose. We know dran was on the team and he doesn't seem the type to do things like that by accident, though I also don't know his schedule. He also doesn't seem the type to step on peoples' toes if everyone doesn't agree with a plan.

So a few things I noticed as I looked back through the thread:

Rasei wrote:I think we can trust Alca with a gun...

dranmaul wrote:I'd be fine with Alca having the gun, but I think I'd trust Lux more.

I feel like it's important to look at words used in posts. Rasei said she'd trust alca with a gun. Dran said he's fine with it, but trusts lux more. As we all know, Alca flipped town. Dran flipped maf. Of course he'd be fine with it, but wouldn't trust her with the gun. Which leads me into him saying he'd trust Lux more. If Lux really is mafia, it only makes sense.

Luxaria wrote:I'll give it a few more hours, but we don't really seem to have the presence at the moment to arm one person with a gun? Who would we even elect for that role? Straight-up, though, I'm going to do one of these two things this phase:

Vote: No Vote or probably swap to Vote: katze, because first off that name isn't even close to being AMERICAN.

I think it's important to quote more than just the mention of voting me. Lux kind of contradicted herself in the same post. And this was mentioned way before she said anything as to who she would give a gun and why she would give them a gun. I feel like that's important information to think about.

I also think it's important, again, to look at language. While yeah, she didn't literally come out and say "I think you're mafia," she did sort of say it by making it sound like a joke. I've noticed people like to hide lies in jokes, so that's why I brought that up earlier. It's nitpicking, I understand, but it still just... Rose some red flags for me. Perhaps I'm looking too hard on it.

Luxaria wrote:I personally want more guns and more guns going off for the sake of making mafia respond to them, adding more dynamics to our voting phases, and also opening up the possibility of alignment flips so we can start digging into that whenever that starts to happen.

This seems very chaotic to me?

alcasync wrote:If Mr. Gerbear is town and inactive, then he might never get a chance to fire his gun before mafia NKs him. If he is mafia, inactivity would be a nonissue because his teammates would be able to take control of his gun, I imagine. Hence, voting for an inactive player has a higher chance to backfire on town than it does on mafia.

Luxaria wrote:So I'm of two minds on this, but I lean towards the nature of this quote in that I'd prefer a gun not go onto an inactive player (notably if town?) because I actually would prefer for a lot of gunshots to go off in the early phases of this game to get it rolling. Plus if he is inactive, then he's not using a gun, so it's double-loss for town if that's his alignment. Flipside: the chance of hitting a town is much higher than hitting a mafia, but this has pros/cons for town.

She did comment in on this! But it still doesn't necessarily feels pro town all the same? I dunno, perhaps i'm wrong on that one, but while it sounds good, it also doesn't sound great. It was commented on only after it was brought up and if I were mafia, I'd want to keep certain details quiet until they were brought up by someone in town. That way, it's easier to get a plan going without shooting my foot, hehe. That's just me, though.

dranmaul wrote:*Lux is feeling town. Or at least she's feeling town-beneficial right now.

Again, that language and word choice is really important. If Lux is mafia, then the words line up perfectly. In the past, from what I knew of dran when I was around him more frequently, he didn't like to lie, so he'd twist his words around to make it sound more truthful without actually saying the truth. But perhaps that's not fair to use as evidence since I haven't really interacted with him in almost four years.

As far as the Lux vs Me thing is concerned, once she explained everything to me, I did say Okay, I understand, I'll move on. Except for the one little thing about "I wanna see how mafia reacts to you being no longer bulletproof with a gun." To which I did respond with "They'll kill me." She went on to be very frustrated with this answer and I feel like from that point on it escalated from there? And I don't understand why. It only makes sense they'd get rid of someone so easy of a target. They did it to Alca. That's some definitive proof right there. She also continued to try and convince me of her reasoning for wanting to vote for me, which I had already said I understood and didn't bring up again. She brought it up again. So that confuses me a lot. Still does. But I digress. I have more to say.

The others that stand out to me are as follows:
aeiou: has been quiet, but something sets me off
gerry: has also been quiet, but has been topic of discussion* see above
tiki: he's being a little off the wall, as perususal with tiki, but it still sets me off a little bit.

I feel like one of those three are the last mafia if Lux is mafia. If Lux isn't mafia, then there's a chance that two of them are in there, but I can't say for certain. I have no read on ezz or blaire, they're in limboland for me. Ezz is busy and keeps falling asleep and I just haven't seen much out of blaire. Even as I backread, not much has been said by her so I can't really form anything from what I've seen. It's just been off comments and nothing substantial. Blaire are u drifting under the radar

IT ATE THE END OF MY POST. I HIT THE WORD LIMIT. OH MY GOD.

Okay so what I said at the end there was "Blaire are u drifting under the radar" and saying that my choices are liable to change given good proof and reason.

also it isn't the word limit, i tried to use an emoji and the forum does not like that.

I honestly don't mind at this point if anyone wants to kill me for Information™ but all you're gonna get is that I'm Town and that won't be helpful at all. But, I won't have time until later in the afternoon (California time) to make a long post with suspicions and reads and, to be honest, I find all that to be extremely superfluous. :V

So, anyway, I just want to throw out there that I have a strange feeling that Lux is mafia. *shrug* Idk what it is, exactly, tho. Hm. I shall examine this later, in earnest.

I'll be back :3c

okay I just finished tutoring, I've been feverish all day and might be getting sick again, and I need to sleep in like 40 mins and I still have a few things to do :(

I'm really sorry for my low activity this game, I thought I'd have less going on, that there'd be less to catch up on every day, and I didn't take in account that my current sleeping schedule is the absolute worst for mafia :(

People were complaining about emoji in their posts so I turned off emoji for the forums. Now sometimes (but not always) if you try to include the standard :) style emoji or anything including the > or < keys, the forum will not be happy.

It is a necessary evil to keep emoji off the board, as the only person who actually liked the emoji was Tiki.

LOL understandable

I think katze brings up some interesting points. and also got trolled by emojis. I suppose it is somehow right that it was tiki (the troll) who was the one in favour of emojis somehow.

regardless, I'm alive and doing some thinking, I will be doing some more thinky things and posting.

Haha just kidding about feeling better apparently
*Tiki collapses to the floor*

katze wrote:Personally I'm fine with a shot taken at ninfia, seeing how she isn't really communicating? But that's my only reasons for that. She's hurting town by being quiet, if she is town. And if she's mafia then she's grazing by and that's not acceptable to me, personally.

Taking a minute to sit down and say that this is something that's stuck with me since I read it last night.

Mostly just because in the last official game, Katze was part of the Mafia with Ninfia, and they both kinda went through with this same, exact strategy.

Maybe it's just the phrasing. Maybe it's because I'm loopy. But it still reads as odd to me.

Those thoughts are a little more concrete than your previous points. Allow me to address them, line by line:

katze wrote:I'm still on the train of thought where, if the person is no longer bullet proof, mafia is going to shoot them. They would be dumb not to.

This is such a continuous point of contention that, while I seriously do not know if you will follow it, I am going to try and explain it one more time because I feel you are letting yourself be completely blinded by preconceived notions.

The core issue of this whole thing is: If someone does not have a killproof during a night phase, will mafia be guaranteed to NK them?

You contend that it is always going to happen because it is obvious, duh, why wouldn't they?
I contend that there is a chance that they do not because there is more value in floating unknowns.

Hold up--what's a floating unknown in this instance?

Let's say we have three players, Mitsu, lulu, and plotstickers. Mitsu is viewed by the thread as one of the most pro-town players. lulu is viewed by the thread as being extremely scummy and likely to be mafia. The thread is meanwhile unsure what plotstickers' alignment is, since she could go either way.

A) Mitsu loses her killproof!
In this scenario, a widely held pro-town and prominent voice in the thread will die if she is NK'd. Killing her will reveal her alignment, which is believed to be town, and it will quiet a prominent voice in the thread. What are our thoughts on this?
katze: "Mafia is going to shoot them. They would be dumb not to."
Luxaria: "If [Mitsu] is town, I actually won't be surprised if mafia does kill her tonight because she is a prominent voice and that's worth the alignment flip to limit chatter and theories."

B) lulu loses her killproof!
In this scenario, a widely held anti-town and prominent voice in the thread will die if she is NK'd. Killing her will reveal her alignment, which is believed to be mafia, and it will quiet a prominent voice in the thread. If she is mafia, she is obviously not going to NK herself. If she is town, mafia would be saying, "No, all of your reads were wrong; she is actually town." If she is town and now dead, town can no longer speculate and focus on a town player they think is mafia. There is a chance the perception of her could change to being pro-town or uncertain. What are our thoughts on this?
katze: "Mafia is going to shoot them. They would be dumb not to."
Luxaria: If we had stripped the killproof off of, for example, [lulu] and [she was] town, do you still think that mafia is 100% guaranteed to instantly NK [her] to thin town numbers when town is sitting there wondering [her] respective position in the thread?

C) plotstickers loses her killproof!
In this scenario, a widely held player of unassumed/unknown alignment and prominent voice in the thread will die if she is NK'd. Killing her will reveal her alignment, which no one has confidently decided on, and it will quiet a prominent voice in thread. If she is mafia, she is obviously not going to NK herself. If she is town, mafia would be saying, "This player you were not sure about is town." If she is town and now dead, town can no longer speculate and focus on a town player's alignment that they are unsure of. There is a chance the perception of her could change to being either pro-town or anti-town. What are our thoughts on this?
katze: "Mafia is going to shoot them. They would be dumb not to."
Luxaria: Killing [plotstickers] thins the ratio, sure, but it also shows [her] alignment and that helps town more than going, "Well, what is [plotstickers]?"

Well, we have three scenarioes outlined of possible ways a lynch into night phase might go. Each one features a player of differing public perception. Note that these variables do and will change depending on presence and perception in the thread, among numerous other variables. This is also completely overlooking the mechanical impetus that might influence mafia. For example: If Mafia kills a town!Tiki tonight because "they would be dumb not to", then that produces several results. Assuming they kill Tiki, that reveals his alignment, but it has a side-effect of not throwing in their voice into the vote / kill speculations, because now in this case they have not stripped a killproof from a new target. This means town is choosing who loses killproofs via lynch, and even gunshots in this case if Tiki is town, and myself if you believe me. If they do not kill Tiki but NK someone new, now town is responding to mafia-stripped killproof-less targets. This entire dynamic changes. On top of this, we have to evaluate up to 3-4 players stripped of killproof. This then means if we lynch one or lynch another player, now mafia has more options for their NK if they want to kill a player, instead of having a binary decision of, "Do we kill the player town lynched? Yes/No."

But, okay, let's say the mechanical impetus is too complicated and not worth considering, since as this conversation shows there are fundamental disagreements on optimal mechanical strategy. So setting that aside, what feels effective? The approach to view each scenario as potentially different, or the straight-arrow "they would be dumb not to do this"? My contention has been that I think there is value in alternative actions that is worth the trade-off of the ratio being unaffected.

This is something you, yourself, acknowledged mere lines later:

katze wrote:I'm still on the train of thought where, if the person is no longer bullet proof, mafia is going to shoot them. They would be dumb not to. It's an easy target, they don't have to worry about knocking their shell off... And if a person doesn't die in the night if they're no longer bulletproof, it's gonna lead me to believe that they're mafia. But there's a wifom situation there, too where mafia is gonna want to set someone up.

Wait a minute--hold up. There's a situation where there's WIFOM and the mafia might not kill someone to set them up? That's kind of weird. That sounds like they might not instantly kill someone after they lose killproof. Huh. That is an interesting strategy that no one could have predicted or thought about.

This is the last I will say on this point. It does not even fully tie into your reads into me, which I will get to in a moment. But it is a topic that is such a wedge in discussion and I feel as though you failing to acknowledge the possibilities is going to throw off your ability to helpfully speculate. If you're mafia, either good job, or you're really overlooking mafia's potential--which is also a commendable job from town's perspective, actually.

katze wrote:I think it's important to quote more than just the mention of voting me. Lux kind of contradicted herself in the same post. And this was mentioned way before she said anything as to who she would give a gun and why she would give them a gun. I feel like that's important information to think about.

What exactly is this contradiction, so we can be clear? Up until that point, the thread had been discussing the strategy of having a mass of No Vote with a single player voting, but we were having trouble deciding our course of action. I tried to encourage landing on a decision by previously imposing a suggested time limit for a Go/No Go. At the time of that post, it was two minutes from that arbitrary limit, on top of Dylan having voted Gerry, and only a couple of other votes coming in. I was not sure where we stood, and thread activity was diminished. So I said that: I don't think we have the proper presence, but since the thread was still discussing the idea, I decided to voice my support of cooperation by doing a No Vote just to get it out of the way around the time that I thought we needed to start landing on decisions. Then, I mentioned you.

Yes, I had not broken down my reads in the thread of "Would/wouldn't give gun" and "Would/wouldn't lynch". This might be a crazy concept, but mabe I had already decided the majority of my reads, and you felt the best from my preliminary understanding? So rather than just say, "I will only do this" I said "I probably would also do this". I then fleshed out my thoughts and provided a list, at which point I still felt you were the best choice.

I feel ridiculous even addressing your point on it being a joke to hide a lie, because I'm struggling to figure out what lie I could have snuck in the statement, "I am No Voting, but I will probably vote Katze", which I later reinforced, which I later elaborated upon. The funniest thing is if you're saying the joke is hiding a lie or trying to sneak one by you, then you're saying my consistent statements of, "I think katze is trustworthy" is a lie. Bear in mind until that point I had been making the AMERICA jokes in thread, and I saw your name was a German word and thought it'd be a silly comment. What a mistake.

To answer your next question, I stopped the AMERICA jokes as much because it became Seriousface Decision-making Time.

katze wrote:

Luxaria wrote:I personally want more guns and more guns going off for the sake of making mafia respond to them, adding more dynamics to our voting phases, and also opening up the possibility of alignment flips so we can start digging into that whenever that starts to happen.

This seems very chaotic to me?

And?

Are you going to elaborate on this? What feels wrong or bad about it beyond "it doesn't feel great"? I've made it clear numerous times that A) I don't think players are guaranteed to get NK'd the second they lose killproof, which apparently you subconsciously agree with; B) I don't think structuring every phase to follow one or two people is as effective for information gathering; and C) I want more people to be without killproof so I can see who and what mafia chooses. If mafia can choose between killing Mitsu, lulu, plotstickers, and chinomi, or hitting a player with killproof, wouldn't you say it's a lot more illuminating who they choose to target and who they more importantly do not choose to target?

I can explain this concept out to you, too. More importantly: I am merely stating my assessment of the game's mechanics and speculate an approach. I obviously saw other merits if I let a structured plan work D1 and D2, but it's hard not to notice how activity levels being low coupled with a stream of No Votes makes it hard to judge and hold players accountable. From this perspective, does my interpretation of strategy make more sense? I want to see commitment and choices. What are your goals and ideas if you think this approach is unsuitable?


I'm not going to touch Dylan's choice of wording because there's nothing I can do against that except play pro-town, which I have and will continue to do so.

katze wrote: Except for the one little thing about "I wanna see how mafia reacts to you being no longer bulletproof with a gun." To which I did respond with "They'll kill me." She went on to be very frustrated with this answer and I feel like from that point on it escalated from there? And I don't understand why. It only makes sense they'd get rid of someone so easy of a target. They did it to Alca. That's some definitive proof right there. She also continued to try and convince me of her reasoning for wanting to vote for me, which I had already said I understood and didn't bring up again. She brought it up again. So that confuses me a lot. Still does. But I digress. I have more to say.

See my explanation at the top of the post, because as I said: You not seeing why I think way was a hedge in discussion, to the point where it threw off the end of D1. I understand your perspective and why you think mafia is liable to NK players without killproof the second they lose killproof. I get it. I have provably acknowledged it as a possibility. But I think you are being too narrow and I bring it up because I do not feel like you are getting what I am saying.

I also explained the primary frustration is that your entire reason for going after me is that I so much as said I was willing to put a lynch on you, which then led to you not understanding what I was saying and town's coordination crashed at the end of D1, and then you continued to not understand it, and now here we are. It's cool, I understand how you work now and I'll tailor my approach to make it easier for you in the future. But I guess I will leave you with one last thing: If my suggestion of wanting to lynch you for all of the reasons I have continuously outlined was a mafia-driven attempt to try and get you killed, explain why alcasync said this:

alcasync wrote:The way I see it, we don't want to give the gun to someone we think is mafia, but we also don't want to lynch someone we think is town, and you are neutral enough to most people that it makes you an ideal candidate? ;v; That was my logic, anyway.

Please do not vote hastily because we have spent the past four hours as a group carefully deciding how to vote, and if even one person votes the way they're not supposed to, it would mess everything up for thread.

This post is way too long.
I am so hungry and need to discuss gun targets.
I'll do that in a little bit.
Tiki who are you thinking of shooting.

Well. I was aimed at Ninfia.
Looking at Katze now, though.

Tiki The Troll wrote:Well. I was aimed at Ninfia.
Looking at Katze now, though.

Explain why.