That I cannot vote this round is crusial for me, but in day 1 I already found a couple of people I think who are innocent. Those I will try to convince to bring you down this time.
---------- Post added at 01:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:33 PM ----------
Okay, even if still no one is here, I will now share my report of day 1 with you. Yes, I was bored in the night, since I have no night abilities so I went through every character again.
I was actually planning to vote on Bunny, because I found some more irrationalities in her behaviour, but since she is dead now and wasn't even mafia, I will tell you once again why she sucked so much in her role.
For example #129, where she said googlez was her first suspect, #218, when it was me and Tata first all of a sudden. But I found some even more interesting statements. Let's take again a look at her statement about Toc. After agreeing with my post and ignoring xi0 concern, she was all like toc deserves to die #82, however later voting for wizzard mentioning it won't be a big loss since he would have been hostkilled anyway, and persistent sticking to this vote even though it was a complete waste.
Conclusion: Farfalla is a bad detective.
It's all useless now, and I will share my analytics of the player still in, but that after my breakfast.
Last edited by Evil3ye; October 06, 2012 at 06:43 AM.
NOOO MY LALA NOOOOOOOOO TAT You shall be missed bunny!
I KNEW SHE WAS INNOCENT DEAR LORD I HATE IT WHEN I'm always right.... hahahahaha get it? no? k...
man the medics are stupid |: they should have protected lala....
anyway, morning ppl!
HAhahaha, PPG, this is great. xD
TCHAU BIG AND SAD WORLD~
Last edited by Farfalla; October 06, 2012 at 07:17 AM.
Behaviour: He talked a lot in day 1, was among the top 5 with round 30 posts in the day. Still, I couldn't note much (yes, I actually took notes for everyone), because he have not said much interesting. He had a short intermezzo with xi0, then was kind of passive-agressive, claiming he is suspicious anyways, no matter what he does. When I asked him about the avatar stunt he explained his weird theory, but revealed he won't reveal everything. He had a little discussion with sakura about his suspiciousness again, then he voted for Banana explaning he didn't like his random post. And he several times mentioned that he fears if we lynch xi0 and he is townie I will blame it on him, because of his little clash earlier that day (#150).
Analysis: Due to his big amount of posts he seems not very mafia like. Then again he didn't really reveal much even if he talked a lot. His reason to vote for Banana seemed anticlimatic to me, because I remember him not putting much effort into voting by thinking through things in day 1 either. He might have a night activity, for which he needs to observe the game, thus:
Rating: not very suspicious
Behaviour: Not much to say there, one random post. Should have been hostkilled in my opinion.
Analysis: Noob, probably signed up without knowing what the game actually is and how much time effort it is if playing it properly.
Rating: I hope he's innocent or the townies are screwed.
Subject: Mojo Jojo/kdowns
Behaviour: Two random posts, did a little RPG with his character, didn't vote, didn't suspect anyone, nor got on the radar of someone.
Analysis: Nothing to say here, only that it's how kdowns seems to play.
Rating: Should be banned for next games.
Behaviour: Was playing around with Tata at the beginning of the game, got random vote from Imp and Banana, almost got killed, saved his ass through counter vote on Banana.
Analysis: Noob. Acted rational when voting against Banana.
Rating: not suspicious
Behaviour: Did a little RPGing, suspected lawlett a little, didn't vote.
Analysis: Very passive play, tried to not get on anyone's radar and succeded. Might have an important pro-town role, or mafia.
Rating: A little suspicious
Okay, for the interesting part I will need some more time!
Okay firstly I have to apologise to googlez, I didnt get here in time for the end of the round yesterday. Which is entirely my fault.
Evil you are incredibly aggressive player and if I didnt remember your last game that would have put me off. But having seen that type of play from you before I would have found it more suspicious if you didnt play that way. So for now I'm withholding judgement. I have some suspicions but I will re-read the thread to see if anything more pops up.
Behaviour: Discussed PPG a little, random voted googlez, planned to change because of the random reason, which did not happen. He slightly suspected lawlett.
Analysis: Very anticlimatic vote, I don't remember him voting randomly like at all. Seemed not very interested in the day phase and discussions, could be very well mafia.
Behaviour: Teased by xi0, suspected toc, xi0, lawly (#88), had a clash with lawly saying he is suspicious, voted toc. Believed farfalla and agreed with her theory on wizzard, started to suspect Tata and me for pushing farfalla (#223), thought google and farfalla are innocent.
Analysis: She seems suspicious of everyone, she's not afraid to name her suspects, very confronting, posts a lot, discusses a lot, argues a lot. Everything a mafia person is likely not to do, thus:
Rating: not suspicious
Behaviour: Got teased by google, questioned lawly, suspected xi0 for his vote on niichan. She mentioned she don't like random votes, nor ineffective votes like what farfalla did. She was a bit cautious of my change of vote after the good toc observation, asked host about detectives and was incriminated to be one. She voted for Banana because of his random vote. She agreed with farfalla that my change of vote was bad. She didn't trust tocs and wizzards excuses to not find the threads or whatsoever. She questioned farfalla about her sticking to the vote against wizzard and found it to be a wasted opportunity to kill a mafia.
Analysis: Talked a lot, not really got suspected by anyone yet. Due to her willingness to join all discussions she acts like an innocent townie and I'm totally buying it.
Rating: not suspicious
Behaviour: Lurked a lot around, voted for lawly due to his intuition, agreed with tata about Banana's random vote, said sakura will have her reasons to vote for him (#156).
Analysis: He tried to be as active as possible to not be hostkilled. He stay away from all discussions, especially about his person, while being heavily suspected. Not very interested in finding mafia members. All his behaviour just screams: I'M MAFIA!
Rating: very suspicious
Subject: Ms Keane/xi0
Behaviour: Did some RPGing, teased sakura, teased niichan, defended toc, suspected lawlett a little, voted niichan, disappeared.
Analysis: From all appearance he was trying to be townie-like. He tried to feel everyone, yet not being too agressive, he jokingly asked a couple of people if they were Mafia. BUT, due to this listlessness of digging deeper and getting more information he seems very well suspicious himself. His vote was not well placed, it had no backup like at all. He stayed active until a certain point and kept his activity up, but when the discussions got heavier he backed off. At the beginning of this phase he more or less randomly was saying farfalla's death will incriminate me. I figuring it is a mafia move discussed in the night to get rid of me this day, because they assume they cannot easily kill me at night. I am curious to see who will jump this train and start causing suspections around me next. But for now:
Rating: very suspicious
From my last post in that phase I didnt come back till the phase ended, I miseed it all. My first vote is almost always a joke that I change, And I voted randomly in the last game too where it was a joke, but I always change it at the end, it just didnt happent this time because of rl.
Why do you say I suspected lawliet?
Last edited by Imperium; October 06, 2012 at 08:13 AM.
I appreciate your analysis but at the same time I find many mistakes. For example, I am not lurking around. When I am online, I come here and try to contribute. As for voting for lawlett, at the first day he looked suspicious to me. Its same as you find me suspicious. I guess, telling you that your analysis is wrong about me, wont change a thing. Rather, you'd say I am defending myself.
thats an awesum analysis abilites evil, who would have you voted for if you werent sick?
That line was because the idiot was posting first without his avy. Then took it on and back off. Then posted without it again. Should have clarified that a bit more.
---------- Post added at 02:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:21 PM ----------