Yeah, I understood the reference. That doesn't change my point.

The chumminess (love that word) is undeniably suspicious, though. I won't jump the gun on it, but I will be the first to have you both FoS'd.

FoS: Isa.

I had considered me and Isa accusing each other would be perfect if we were both in the mafia. I thought making a post about it, but sharing such thought don't really turn out too well for me. If we were in the mafia, that is probably what I would have done.

And about my seriousness, I usually don't act too serious in role playing games. In D&D I generally end up smashing everything I can find and just trying to go with the most absurd options. However, I realize that goofing around too much is starting to make people suspect me, so I'm trying to be a bit more serious now.

One of Isa's previous posts has made me realize something:

Dando's Dando. The Interguild's innocent little angel. Object of worship for many years. It doesn't matter if this is a game or not, Dando will be the last person suspected as a mafia member, simply because Dando isn't the mafia type. Similarly how Quirvy would be the first to get suspected as a mafia member, simply because being mafia would suit Quirvy's character. While a person's personality has no effect on their job in this game, people will still automatically draw such conclusions. I have seen it already happen in this thread.

PS: I am Jacob.

Suggesting I'm Mafia because I don't seem like the Mafia type makes no more sense than suggesting Isa is Mafia because he has previous experience with the game. That said, I do encourage people to pick through my posts and look for evidence against me, because I'm confident you'll find that no such evidence exists.

But on the topic of evidence, Jell and Isa seem to have more of it against them than anybody else at this point, and - not to dismiss the relevance or importance of it - I'm sure it's no coincidence that they're also the two most active players here (not including myself). It's impossible to tell whether that evidence means anything with so little information from everyone else.

I didn't want to just lynch the people who aren't saying much because it seems too random whether or not they're Town, but I guess I'll agree that that's the most logical action to take at this point. Then again, we still have five days left in this day, so maybe that will change.

No offence, but is there any chance for future days we could shorten the time period? I mean 10 days is a long time, couldn't we make it 7 or 8? I think any evidence that could've pop up has popped up by now... (just a thought?)

The "evidence" is that we were relaxed towards each other, find the other person's theory plausible, and that we both have made posts directed against you? I don't find that convincing enough.

Of course there will be a lot of "evidence" pointing at us when we're posting a lot. It's directly related.

The main reason for lynching someone like Jorster/Woodstock at this point is because we still don't have a lot of real evidence to base our opinions on. Statistics on Wikipedia shows that it is better to randomly lynch someone than to avoid lynching someone at all, and when we lynch someone, our potential losses would be minimal if we sacrifice someone who isn't posting at all, or just barely.

Also, you're once again indirectly defending Jorster/Woodstock in your last paragraph.

Sorry I'm inactive right now.  I'll be on and catch up tomorrow. (Monday)  I won't be on on Wednesday, because it's my Birthday, a Christmas party, and I'm going over to a friends house.

I don't find the evidence convincing either. Did you read the rest of the paragraph?

But to clarify, the evidence isn't that you guys are "relaxed towards each other", it's that when I pointed out (using your guys' behaviour to back it up) that it's possible you guys were both Mafia, your reaction was to say "I probably made a mistake" and "I actually have nothing good to say in my defence of that," and Jell's reaction was to try to focus attention on me. I'm sure you can understand how that can be seen as suspicious (which would make it evidence). Also, where did I claim that the fact that you've both made posts against me is evidence? That's something you made up.

And yes, I was defending Woodstock and Jorster, but also Soccerboy, Bmwsu, and Guyguy, and Harumbai; they aren't saying much either, and they can't all be Mafia.

How many mafia do you think there are? 4 or under I think. The rules said the mafia is very small. I say it's 3, but 4 seems possible. 5 would just be too much with only 13 players.

Forgot there was 13 players, thought there were 12. Ah well, it would most likely be 4 since 3 would be way too small and 5 would be too much. Any opinions?

In response to not being active. I could argue that really all I have not been commenting on is the whole "Who are we lynching for being unactive?" conversation and the slightly repetitive "Is this moral?" conversation. To me it sounds like no one really has any evidence so for me to come and point out that I think that the phrasing of someones sentence is slightly odd (which probably means they're not mafia ironically) is not particularly necessary at the moment. I will vote when the time comes, but until then I'm happy to listen to your finely structured arguments that at this stage inevitably lead nowhere.



Part of the reason that these people (and me) might not be posting that much is that we cannot add to the overall discussion as it is and it is not so much that we don;t want to post, but everytime we suspect someone (Isa in particular) we get paragraphed out of the way.

That said I'm not sure who is following like I am and taking notice of interactions and who isn't really interested at all...

I just want to clarify one thing, because I realized after my last post that the word "evidence" as I use it is probably different than from how some of you guys use it. In law, there are two main types of evidence:  evidence that proves something (direct evidence), and evidence that suggests something (circumstantial evidence). In everyday conversation, "evidence" is just a catch-all term for both, so it's easy to get the wrong idea or react too strongly to the word. Whenever I say "evidence", I'm referring to circumstantial evidence, because it's unlikely there will be any direct evidence in this game.

Circumstantial evidence can be pretty weak on its own, and a lot of it may not even seem worth mentioning. However, you should point it out anyway because the evidence may add up over time, and then you can find evidence which supports that evidence (corroborating evidence). Also, in a situation where everyone is trying so hard to watch what they say, you're more likely to find a bunch of minor evidence than a single piece of powerful evidence.

Anyway, you're right Harumbai; accusations at this point of the game don't seem like they're going to be accurate or lead anywhere. The problem is that the only way to move from this point in the game to the next one is to make those accusations anyway.

I am not suggesting you are in the mafia based on that, I am merely stating that we should be more careful stereotyping people like this.

How many think there are 4 mafia?

Rule of thumb - have 25% mafia.

13/4 = 3.25

I think it's 3 persons in the Mafia, but to be honest, I think it'd be better if we just got to know how many members are Mafia.

4 seems better though. 7 townspeople, 4 mafia. Or 8 towns and 3 mafia. But I think that's too few

Actually, it's 9/4 or 10/3. I get your point, but I still think it's 3 mafioso in this game.

And I'm on math team >.<

Ah well it's one or the other. So convict 3/4 properly and we win?

I think you're getting a bit too obsessed with this, DBX.

Well if we're gonna get through the game we need to know how to get to the goal instead (example) of getting to day 5 and go, 'ugh, are we done yet?'

There's still a few days left in this yet, but if you think the day is too long, you can lynch, and it'll end right away. Subsequent days might be shorter -- it'll depend on how much I think you guys will have to talk about.

Vote Count

FoS:
5 - Jellsprout (Silver, Guyguyxtreme, Dando, Yaya, Jorster23)
5 - Thomas (Isa, Guyguyxtreme, Dando, Yaya, Woodstock)
5 - Isa (Harumbai, Soccerboy13542, DeathBunni X, Jorster23, Dando)
3 - Jorster23 (Isa, Yaya, guyguyxtreme)
2 - Silver (Thomas, Guyguyxtreme)
2 - DeathBunni X (Harumbai, Dando)
1 - Woodstock (Isa)

With 13 alive, it takes 7 votes to lynch.
Deadline for the day phase: Dec 25, 2010, 11:59PM Interguild Time.

Let's get this ball rolling then.

Vote: Jorster23

I vote for him and not for Woodstock because I feel I have a higher success rate to get people to join me, considering he has 2 FoS'es that aren't mine.

The reason that I am voting for Jorster is that we do not have anything that could possibly count as evidence towards anyone, in my opinion - not towards me, not towards Jell, not towards Dando, not towards Thomas...We lose nothing if we lynch someone who almost refuses to post, and when it happens, doesn't explain his thoughts very well.

Statistics (found on Wikipedia) shows that voting and lynching a random person is better for the townsfolk than not to. Therefore, everyone, please try to avoid a tie (although I have a feeling someone might have the ability to have the final say in those matters...)

Jorster, could you please motivate why I should not vote for you?

Vote: Jorster23

For reasons Isa said.

I'll wait one more day with my vote, to give everybody a chance to defend themselves.

And when did Thomas get this many FoS's?

Vote: Jorster

Though it might change. And for what Isa said.

And while at it

UnFoS: Isa (for now)

But Jory is hiding and it would just be best to ge rid of the silent.

Yeah fine whatever...

Vote: Jorster23