Random.Org? Give me a break.

[Yvette]

[00:19] spies6Yvette: How about you Khaled, which way are you leaning?
[00:19] spies6Jenya: Rey, don't give in to your dark side, the evil spirits are trying to seduce you.
[00:19] spies6rey: you never answered my marriage proposal.
[00:20] spies6khaled: Right now, I'm still trying to make sense of this gigantic mess that you, Robert, Callahan etc caused
[00:20] spies6Jenya: I said I didn't think you were man enough to handle my nose.
[00:20] spies6jason: ouch
[00:20] spies6thor: all he needs is a saddle...
[00:20] spies6Yvette: The "mess" we caused?
[00:20] spies6rey: LOL thor!
[00:20] spies6khaled: Well
[00:20] spies6Yvette: Well, if you had ignored our "mess", what would you be thinking?
[00:20] spies6jaya: lol thor
[00:20] spies6rey: *stocks up on quotes*
[00:21] spies6rey: !
[00:21] spies6Yvette: Thor, I think you'll need more than a saddle to handle Jenya's nose.
[00:21] spies6khaled: random.org between you, Robert, Callahan, Mirela, and Thor =\
[00:21] spies6Yvette: Potentially some spurs to dig into the side.
[00:21] spies6Yvette: Random.org, really?
[00:21] spies6jason: wow random.org is a real website
[00:21] spies6rey: LOL.
[00:21] spies6rey: yeah.
[00:21] spies6rey: random ftw? ♥
[00:21] spies6khaled: That's what I mean by mess.
[00:21] spies6callahan: obviously
[00:21] spies6rey: not in spies though.
[00:21] spies6Yvette: That is pretty pathetic, dear.
[00:22] spies6Jenya: I have a native dance I'm looking to perform when we are actually ready to rid our world of an evil spirit.
[00:22] spies6Yvette: That prior to any accusations you would still random.org between 5 people.
[00:22] spies6jason: Hopefully that's tomorrow..
[00:22] spies6Yvette: and that you cannot make your mind up enough to go on your own decision.
[00:22] spies6Yvette: But those are my 74 cents.
[00:22] spies6rey: anyways jenya, you haven't answered me; have you just lately started to act in character and why?
[00:22] spies6Yvette: And what does that buy you besides one of those gross cups of tea that has all steeped and everything.
[00:22] spies6khaled: It's statistics.
[00:22] spies6Yvette: No, Khaled, it's a cheap excuse.
[00:22] spies6thor: ^ that.
[00:23] spies6Yvette: "Oh, I couldn't decide which of the 5 to lynch, it's not MY fault if they turn up a citizen!"
[00:23] spies6rey: random.org =/= statistics.
[00:23] spies6Yvette: "Random.ORG told me to do it!"
[00:23] spies6khaled: There isn't enough data to conclusively present a case against anybody. Voting for a particular person based on feelings is stupid.
[00:23] spies6khaled: It might as WELL be random.
[00:23] spies6rey: on the contrary.
[00:23] spies6Yvette: Give me a break you little clown.
[00:23] spies6rey: throughout the WHOLE game you have to vote based on feelings and their actions.
[00:23] spies6thor: ...fos khaled.
[00:23] spies6rey: it's not as if there hasn't been any actions for you to analyze.
[00:23] spies6Yvette: Voting for a person based on random.org isn't stupid?
[00:23] spies6jaya: khal, i feel the same way .. there is not much to go on
[00:23] spies6Yvette: You are too rich.
[00:24] spies6khaled: Rey, there has been
[00:24] spies6jason: Yeah I have to agree that being that random is really a very bad idea...
[00:24] spies6khaled: Yvette said, "ignoring the events of today," basically.
[00:24] spies6Yvette: As in to ask, "Have you not spent the time going over suspects in order to think of who you will vote?"
[00:24] spies6rey: and you don't think that if nothing happened today you wouldn't have enough to base a vote upon?
[00:24] spies6Yvette: I'm actually quite pissed at you, Khaled.
[00:24] spies6Yvette: You sit here talking about asexual reproduction
[00:24] spies6khaled: Wow.
[00:24] spies6Yvette: but you can't find the damned time to pick one suspect for a vote.
[00:24] spies6Yvette: Give me a break.
[00:24] spies6khaled: Okay.
[00:24] spies6khaled: One. Chill pill.
[00:25] spies6rey: i already have the whole game planned in my confessional; no work need for me!~
[00:25] spies6rey: 1. kill citizens
[00:25] spies6rey: 2. win game
[00:25] spies6Yvette: 3. Consult random.org for all important decisions.
[00:25] spies6rey: 3. kill them again to make sure they're dead.
[00:25] spies6khaled: Two. Of those five people I posted, all of you guys were in the range of -5<x<0
[00:25] spies6Yvette: Just shut up.
[00:25] spies6callahan: wow
[00:25] spies6callahan: rude
[00:25] spies6Yvette: I am not dealing with your numbers game right now.
[00:25] spies6Jenya: The evil riseth again.
[00:26] spies6callahan: indeed
[00:26] spies6Jenya: And it smells like dirty socks.
[00:26] spies6thor: oh, go start a bible study.
[00:26] spies6rey: woo i know where i get my insulting side from: mommy! <3
[00:26] spies6khaled: Which is effectively an eyebrow raise, and worthy of more observation, but not a hard-pressed case.
[00:26] spies6Yvette: Instead of trying to add up numbers, how about you try to document behavior?
[00:26] spies6Gabriela: you people are insane
[00:26] spies6Yvette: And I thought that you were going to present all of your data to the burg, Khaled?
[00:26] spies6Yvette: Where is it?
[00:26] spies6khaled: Holy shit Yvette, that's how the numbers work.
[00:26] spies6Yvette: That's not how spies works.
[00:26] spies6khaled: Okay.
[00:26] spies6khaled: You play your game.
[00:26] spies6khaled: And I'll play mine.
[00:27] spies6khaled: If you don't like my analysis, fine.
[00:27] spies6Yvette: And hopefully you're gone within the next 5 days so I don't have to put up with random.org dictating all of your decisions.
[00:27] spies6callahan: exactly, you're being overly aggressive here yvette
[00:27] spies6Yvette: Show some gusto, for God's sake.
[00:27] spies6khaled: Holy shit, did you even READ what I said?
[00:27] spies6Yvette: Callahan, I don't care.
[00:27] spies6callahan: doesn't seem like it khal
[00:27] spies6Yvette: I find it utterly pathetic that someone needs a website to tell them how to vote.
[00:27] spies6rey: okay so can you guys explain this for me; what happens after people are exiled? as in do we have to wait for the imprisonment to end before we can talk to others or something?
[00:27] spies6Yvette: In the meantime, though, Callahan, you can go ask someone for another alliance, please.
[00:28] spies6Yvette: You can talk to anyone at any time in the game, until you are eliminated.
[00:28] spies6jason: We can talk the whole time, Rey
[00:28] spies6Jenya: I'm grabbing Khaled for a nice talk while the evil boils over in here. We'll be right back.
[00:28] spies6Yvette: No rush!




This.

I'm sorry, I am just going to address this to everyone. I do not care who you are or where you come from. If you spend all of your free time in the group chat babbling about penetrating things and how I asexually reproduce, and then you say that only random.org will be able to tell how you vote this week at exile, please play the damned game instead of wasting everyone else's time.

Yes, it is a difficult choice for some to decide on who to exile. But random.org? Really?

I don't care what the probability is, the issue here is that you are setting yourself up for the chance in the future to say "Oh, well I didn't make that choice. Random.org told me who to vote for! How could I have known they would be a citizen" if anything goes wrong.

I am just putting this out there now. Do not feed me this crap. If you do, I will vote for you. In fact, I will consult random.org and ask it how many times I should vote for you. You know, just to be sure.

[Thor]

i concur with this message.

[Khaled]

Dear Yvette,

I've got several grievances to bring up with you about this message.

First, you have consistently misrepresented my gameplay techniques as well as things I've said, starting from our very first conversation that you posted in our Workroom. I've been trying to explain it repeatedly, but your attitude here crossed the line when you point blank refused to listen to an explanation. I'll explain the random.org situation momentarily.

Secondly, I'm pretty sure at this point that you're simply just out to get me. I apologize if things that I've said in chat with you or with others may have offended you--I tend to have an irreverent style of humor, and if that's hard for you to digest, then just ignore it.

Back to the random.org situation. When I gave that list of five players, it meant that any accrued evidence against each of them/you was equivalent to the point where I could choose randomly with the same effectiveness. In other words, the strength of a case against each of you was equivalent*. This is not voting randomly amongst the collective group of players. I have a distinct style of gathering data which involves taking an individual post, cutting it down to the relevant substance, and using a pre-defined list (check mafiawiki for examples) of tells, as well as a weighting system I've devised over my past three years of Mafia and Werewolf experience. This allows me to use cold, solid facts when I make my cases, rather than those spotty items you suggested against Robert and Callahan earlier, where it was exclusively based upon how you "felt" about things they said.

Let me explain additionally why what I'm doing is better. If I voted based upon how I "feel," I'd be broadcasting a vote for you across any media channel I could. Unfortunately, your penchant for creating drama predicated on making cases against others is one of the ballsiest moves out there, and the fact that you have zero-backdown even when presented with some conflicting evidence makes your Citizen-O-Meter go off the chart. I desperately wish that wasn't the case, but it's usually true that angry, finger-pointing, lynch-hungry individuals early on are citizens.

So here's the takeaway:
1. Take time to read what other people are saying, not what YOU think they are saying.
2. Realize that some people think differently that you do. As such, they will have different methods of presentation of their opinions and different criteria than you do. Just because it's different does not mean it is incorrect.
3. Realize that THIS IS A GAME. We have long periods between exiles and imprisonments, and constant focus on "FIND SPIES" gets tiresome after awhile. Light-hearted chat, teasing, and making fun doesn't cause problems**.
4. Chill out. The tension that this kind of tone and stuff is causing isn't fun for most people. To be blunt, the attitude I'm getting from you isn't exactly conducive towards teamwork, which is a problem if we're on the same team.

*Note that this is before I've read through that shitfest in our workroom today. I'm still slogging through it.
**This especially applies if someone states that they're going through the material posted, but is still asked to give an opinion without knowing said material. What kind of bullshit is that?

Sincerely,
Khaled

PS. Thor, that kind of blind subscription to another person's views is equally, if not more dangerous, than the misrepresented use of random voting that Yvette gave. At least say something that indicates you thought about this.

[Callahan]

you concur with all of her messages Thor

[Callahan]

Posted right after khaled.

To be honest, the way Yvette went off on Khaled was really strange. He made some offhand comment about voting via random.org and she flips out as if he was serious. Obvious there was some depth there she wasn't willing to explore, which i've experienced myself recently.

[Thor]

i find your "passive" gameplay irritating and suspicious. your gameplay is actively lurking. additionally, if you did "slog" through the "shitfest" you would probably have some idea of what's going on rather than taking five people whom you somewhat suspect based on your limited understanding of events so far and randomizing your vote.

happy?

[Thor]

May 21, 2009 1:30:13 GMT -5 Callahan said:

you concur with all of her messages Thor

incorrect. i do not concur with her suspicion of robert.

[Khaled]

May 21, 2009 1:36:15 GMT -5 Thor said:

if you did "slog" through the "shitfest"

There's a difference between DID and AM, genius. I'm not done yet.

I don't know how more explicitly to make that clear that I AM STILL NOT CAUGHT UP BUT AM WORKING TO DO SO.

[Thor]

yes, my point was that you were making judgments without reading all the information.

[Yvette]

May 21, 2009 1:32:56 GMT -5 Callahan said:

Posted right after khaled.

To be honest, the way Yvette went off on Khaled was really strange. He made some offhand comment about voting via random.org and she flips out as if he was serious. Obvious there was some depth there she wasn't willing to explore, which i've experienced myself recently.

1. Coming from someone who argues that numbers, etc. are the way to go, to say that 5 people are equal in suspicions and that you will use a random source to determine your vote (Instead of thinking it through, following intuition, anything traceable or reflective of your character), it's not an offhand comment. I specifically asked him "How are you voting", and he specifically, genuinely answered "random.org"

2. Callahan, I listened to you backpedal, lie, and try to beg Iris to carry you into whichever clear direction she could. Have fun being lynched tomorrow. Stop grasping at straws, and whatever "guilty" read anybody can provide on someone else. Goodbye.

[Callahan]

so you accept everything Khaled said by completely ignoring it?

interesting.

[Khaled]

May 21, 2009 1:41:54 GMT -5 Thor said:

yes, my point was that you were making judgments without reading all the information.

I was ASKED to do this very thing by Yvette. Next time, I'll just say "you're asking me to make a judgment without all the information."

[Yvette]

First, you have consistently misrepresented my gameplay techniques as well as things I've said, starting from our very first conversation that you posted in our Workroom. I've been trying to explain it repeatedly, but your attitude here crossed the line when you point blank refused to listen to an explanation. I'll explain the random.org situation momentarily.

I provided direct chats, and gave my own personal input to them. That is not a misrepresentation, that is actually my opinion and then a factual backing to that opinion.

Secondly, I'm pretty sure at this point that you're simply just out to get me. I apologize if things that I've said in chat with you or with others may have offended you--I tend to have an irreverent style of humor, and if that's hard for you to digest, then just ignore it.

1. I am not.
2. No. If you're going to waste your time in the chat by not focusing on spy hunting, and then tell me that you aren't sure of who to pick because you need to find out more information or cannot choose between them, then get your priorities straight, and stop focusing on these unnecessary things. I'm not saying it's wrong to have fun, because I enjoy it as well, but if you want me to believe you are actually trying hard, then I cannot because you don't seem as though you are. Which is why, in the end, this "Random.Org" thing was obnoxious to hear, after you had spent the past two nights asking me about sexual irrelevance.

Back to the random.org situation. When I gave that list of five players, it meant that any accrued evidence against each of them/you was equivalent to the point where I could choose randomly with the same effectiveness. In other words, the strength of a case against each of you was equivalent*. This is not voting randomly amongst the collective group of players. I have a distinct style of gathering data which involves taking an individual post, cutting it down to the relevant substance, and using a pre-defined list (check mafiawiki for examples) of tells, as well as a weighting system I've devised over my past three years of Mafia and Werewolf experience.

And then once you gather the evidence you randomly pick among any of them? What is your criterion, then, to pick between those, if it is not random.org? "Whomever seems like they are the most likely to be lynched"? There is no excuse for any of this. Again, it is a setup for the future to say "Oh, I am not at fault. They were all equally suspicious. Random.org led me to vote them." You are writing off not only the power of intuition and instinct, but also how your heart and mind can lead you in the game. Your "data" and "equations" are all well and good, but they are not going to lead you to anything. In addition, I remember in our first discussion after you backpedaled a bit and made little sense, you claimed that you would take data in front of the burg, but not your analysis. Where is that data? I have seen none.

This allows me to use cold, solid facts when I make my cases, rather than those spotty items you suggested against Robert and Callahan earlier, where it was exclusively based upon how you "felt" about things they said.

I don't care how you feel about Robert, but my argument against Callahan is in no way spotty. If you think so, why have you not spent time arguing against me about it. Or for that matter, the Robert case? Do not tell me my arguments are spotty and then walk around whistling with your thumb up your rear, as though you have no obligation to provide your insight.

Let me explain additionally why what I'm doing is better.

It's not, but continue.

If I voted based upon how I "feel," I'd be broadcasting a vote for you across any media channel I could. Unfortunately, your penchant for creating drama predicated on making cases against others is one of the ballsiest moves out there, and the fact that you have zero-backdown even when presented with some conflicting evidence makes your Citizen-O-Meter go off the chart. I desperately wish that wasn't the case, but it's usually true that angry, finger-pointing, lynch-hungry individuals early on are citizens.

Thank you for the insult, you egotistical, womanizing waste of breath. I am in no way lynch-hungry. We need to make a lynch. I am going to lynch the most suspicious. I am not going to let random.org make my vote for me. Ever.

So here's the takeaway:
1. Take time to read what other people are saying, not what YOU think they are saying.

I have read everything that everyone, in our group, at least, is saying. I know what they are saying. Additionally, I know what they think they are saying. Callahan has this problem. He assumes that what he wants to say gets through to us. It does not, because he doesn't make sense. Callahan lives in his own alternate reality, where he is a priest or something, and he makes sense and nobody ever suspects him. Sadly, that is not the real world. And if you don't agree, then speak up more than in a thread to defend yourself, damn it.

2. Realize that some people think differently that you do. As such, they will have different methods of presentation of their opinions and different criteria than you do. Just because it's different does not mean it is incorrect.

I do realize this. Random.org, however, is not a method. It is an excuse. It is a cop out. It is pathetic. I do not need to continue explaining how terrible of an idea or inference this is or was.

3. Realize that THIS IS A GAME. We have long periods between exiles and imprisonments, and constant focus on "FIND SPIES" gets tiresome after awhile. Light-hearted chat, teasing, and making fun doesn't cause problems**.

That is not a problem, but what is a problem is when I hear that you have not had time or have not yet made an informed decision, and are relying on an outside source for your decision. That is absolutely ridiculous. I have had light-hearted chats with many people in this game, about things that are not serious. In the last two days all I had heard from you were inferences about how asexuality and the kind of woman I am. Give me a break, stop focusing on how much you hate me or secretly wish you could be half of half the person I am (That is 1/4 in case random.org could not compute it for you). If you don't have time to make an informed decision, then focus more on the game. The end. Stop giving me excuses that you can't decide, if you just fool around.

4. Chill out.

No.

The tension that this kind of tone and stuff is causing isn't fun for most people. To be blunt, the attitude I'm getting from you isn't exactly conducive towards teamwork, which is a problem if we're on the same team.

And talking about my vagina is quite helpful, as well. You create more dissent than I do, but indirectly, so that nobody can ever say "Oh, Khaled is trying to throw us off track from spy hunting." You think it's charming to talk about foul humor. It's not. It's a distraction. The fact of the matter is I have been far more helpful than you in organizing people to search for evidence and post their opinions, and you continue to just fluff your way through each day. If you want teamwork-conducive behavior, show some yourself you arrogant prick. You dislike me as much as I dislike you, because you are a sexist pig and you cannot handle when a woman stands up to you. You are a sad, pathetic, divorced, worthless person who hides behind his numbers. I believe that is fairly accurate. And still quite nicer than what I heard you say about me today.

*Note that this is before I've read through that shitfest in our workroom today. I'm still slogging through it.

Again, less time getting off on foul humor, more time focusing.

**This especially applies if someone states that they're going through the material posted, but is still asked to give an opinion without knowing said material. What kind of bullshit is that?

I asked you what you thought regardless of that situation. Could you be more thick-headed?

Sincerely,
Khaled

Sincerely,

PS. Thor, that kind of blind subscription to another person's views is equally, if not more dangerous, than the misrepresented use of random voting that Yvette gave. At least say something that indicates you thought about this.

Replace "Another person's views" with "random.org".

There are no benefits to random voting in this entire post you gave, by the way. Bravo on that.

[Yvette]

May 21, 2009 1:48:00 GMT -5 Callahan said:

so you accept everything Khaled said by completely ignoring it?

interesting.

Remove thumb from rear. Note post below. Note that your panicking clutching to whatever you can is irrelevant to Khaled's post, which took more time for me to analyze and, unlike your waste of posts, was worth my time to deconstruct.

[Yvette]

May 21, 2009 2:01:31 GMT -5 Khaled said:

May 21, 2009 1:41:54 GMT -5 Thor said:

yes, my point was that you were making judgments without reading all the information.

I was ASKED to do this very thing by Yvette. Next time, I'll just say "you're asking me to make a judgment without all the information."

I address this in my post, but in the chat when you told me you had not read through it (Which I would cite as a clever dodge to not answer the question you had just shot at me not minutes ago), I asked you "Then ignoring the mess, what are your thoughts." You then proceeded to make that gigantic reply in this thread about it, while being misinformed the whole time.

Your answer was that you would use random.org against any of the five of us, after I asked you how you would have voted ignoring today's events. "What kind of bullshit is that"?

[Khaled]

May 21, 2009 1:43:37 GMT -5 Yvette said:

1. Coming from someone who argues that numbers, etc. are the way to go, to say that 5 people are equal in suspicions and that you will use a random source to determine your vote (Instead of thinking it through, following intuition, anything traceable or reflective of your character), it's not an offhand comment. I specifically asked him "How are you voting", and he specifically, genuinely answered "random.org"

You're misrepresenting my position AGAIN. I'll repeat--any such case that I could have created against any of you five would basically have been equal in terms of evidence and strength at the time. If I were a pure, unthinking automaton, I might as well make a vote randomly amongst that group. In reality, I'd make a subjective judgment of the evidence available and pick one I thought would be "the best." As my "feeling" skills are about as well developed as that of a brick though, it might as well be the same as random.org.

[Mei Yun]

My two cents:

1. Random.org is not for Mafia, especially when you are given a long day.
2. Joking is Ok. We all do it for fun since this is a very tight game. For instance, Rey admitted he was a spy in our last chat. And I have the log to prove it O.o
3. You can NEVER say that five people are EQUALLY suspicious and you can spin the wheel and just do it. I do not know the complete curcumstances behind the dynamics of your team but I am 101% sure that the cases presented on the suspects are not the same. Each of us have our own personal biases. For instance, some see lurking acceptable to a certain level, while I don't tolerate it too much.

I think the challenge here is for you to make a firm stance and see who can probably more likely a spy over the others.

[Yvette]

The conversation, in order of us speaking to one another, by the way.

[00:19] spies6Yvette: How about you Khaled, which way are you leaning?
[00:20] spies6khaled: Right now, I'm still trying to make sense of this gigantic mess that you, Robert, Callahan etc caused
[00:20] spies6Yvette: The "mess" we caused?
[00:20] spies6khaled: Well
[00:20] spies6Yvette: Well, if you had ignored our "mess", what would you be thinking?
[00:21] spies6Yvette: Thor, I think you'll need more than a saddle to handle Jenya's nose.
[00:21] spies6khaled: random.org between you, Robert, Callahan, Mirela, and Thor =\
[00:21] spies6Yvette: Potentially some spurs to dig into the side.
[00:21] spies6Yvette: Random.org, really?
[00:21] spies6khaled: That's what I mean by mess.



Knowing this is the order things were stated in, your argument not only grows invalid, it's a backpedal from what you argued in the chat. "It's statistics" is not the same argument as "I said I didn't have enough time to read through the mess!" I asked you what you thought prior to "the mess"... You told me random.org.

Faulty defense.

[Yvette]

May 21, 2009 2:29:42 GMT -5 Khaled said:

May 21, 2009 1:43:37 GMT -5 Yvette said:

1. Coming from someone who argues that numbers, etc. are the way to go, to say that 5 people are equal in suspicions and that you will use a random source to determine your vote (Instead of thinking it through, following intuition, anything traceable or reflective of your character), it's not an offhand comment. I specifically asked him "How are you voting", and he specifically, genuinely answered "random.org"

You're misrepresenting my position AGAIN. I'll repeat--any such case that I could have created against any of you five would basically have been equal in terms of evidence and strength at the time. If I were a pure, unthinking automaton, I might as well make a vote randomly amongst that group. In reality, I'd make a subjective judgment of the evidence available and pick one I thought would be "the best." As my "feeling" skills are about as well developed as that of a brick though, it might as well be the same as random.org.

"Might as well be random.org" and "A random.org between 5 suspects" are not the same thing. I am not mis-representing a damn thing. This is what you said. Own it. Or continue taking it back and seeming more suspicious.

[Callahan]

May 21, 2009 2:14:56 GMT -5 Yvette said:

Do not tell me my arguments are spotty and then walk around whistling with your thumb up your rear, as though you have no obligation to provide your insight.


you egotistical, womanizing waste of breath.


If you want teamwork-conducive behavior, show some yourself you arrogant prick. You dislike me as much as I dislike you, because you are a sexist pig and you cannot handle when a woman stands up to you. You are a sad, pathetic, divorced, worthless person who hides behind his numbers.


Sincerely,

May 21, 2009 2:14:56 GMT -5 Yvette said:

Again, less time getting off on foul humor, more time focusing.

Speak for yourself...you throw more mud than a tornado in kansas.

[Yvette]

I did not know accurate insults and assessments were "foul humor". Also, nothing to say about clutching? Hypocrite

[Kirsten]

I'm interested in seeing how Khaled's methodology works out in practice. I'll admit, I'm skeptical. I think most established lists of scum-tells are full of things that aren't actually reliable scum tells at all.

Question for you Khaled: How do 5 people all end up at the same level based on your methods? Since you rate different scum tells at different values, etc, and I'm sure you count repetition of those scum tells, I have a hard time seeing as many as 5 people end up at the same place. Are you just kind of rounding it together?

[Robert]

Dear Random.org, is this the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard? 1=no, 2=yes.

Result:
2

Thought so. Thank you, random.org.


By voting random.org, you not only refuse to play the game yourself and let a random number decide your vote for you, you also remove yourself from the vote analysis later in the game, and as such we have much less information on you than we should do.

I'm not ready to say if this is evil behaviour or just really really dumb innocent behaviour yet, but I'm glad it was posted.

[Kirsten]

I have seen no evidence that Khaled is unwilling to play the game. I also see no reason why his methodology should exempt him from vote analysis. If he's a spy, he can simply tailor his "analysis" in self-serving ways.

I think people are too dead set in their ways, and refuse to acknowledge that there are other ways of playing mafia beyond the way they do.

[Yvette]

May 21, 2009 4:48:55 GMT -5 Kirsten said:

I have seen no evidence that Khaled is unwilling to play the game.

I cannot speak for Robert, but I know with what I said, I am not accusing Khaled of not wanting to play the game. However, the vote is potentially the most crucial part of your interactions in the game. Behind every vote is a motive, that is explained to the burg. Usually it is a crucial part in finding mafia later on in the game. If someone is making votes based on computer-generated assignments, it negates what goes into a vote, and almost all deductive reasoning that comes from that. A random vote, just as a throwaway vote, or a vote for an inactive, preemptively allows you to deny genuine suspicion, ulterior motive, and a large amount of guilt in general, if you make a mislynch.

I also see no reason why his methodology should exempt him from vote analysis. If he's a spy, he can simply tailor his "analysis" in self-serving ways.

But, if he is voting based on random.org, then he is indeed not going to tailor any analysis in any way. Because there is no analysis.

I think people are too dead set in their ways, and refuse to acknowledge that there are other ways of playing mafia beyond the way they do.

Fair enough, but I disagree on this one, with you. There is a large difference in "People have different playstyles" and "People have different ways of voting". I do not mind those who play different from me, but I certainly take issue with those who try to advocate voting based on a random application. There is just no reason to it. Also, because I have yet to hear a reason why any part of this random voting is at all beneficial, of course I'm going to believe it is a pathetic front.

[Ariel]

Callahan, are you trying and failing to defend Khaled by trying and failing to attack Yvette, or are you simply throwing in one-line statements to try and fuel dissent? You see, I simply cannot figure it out.

[Mirela]

May 21, 2009 4:48:55 GMT -5 Kirsten said:

I think people are too dead set in their ways, and refuse to acknowledge that there are other ways of playing mafia beyond the way they do.

Good luck getting anyone to change/acknowledge that other methods are valid. Spies often is a very closed minded game when it comes to strategy and scumtells.

My argument against Random.org is that this often is a new player tactic. It's not something I would personally play with- but far be it from me to try and stop someone else.

[Jason]

May 21, 2009 1:43:37 GMT -5 Yvette said:

1. Coming from someone who argues that numbers, etc. are the way to go, to say that 5 people are equal in suspicions and that you will use a random source to determine your vote (Instead of thinking it through, following intuition, anything traceable or reflective of your character), it's not an offhand comment. I specifically asked him "How are you voting", and he specifically, genuinely answered "random.org"

That's not entirely true... You asked him how he would vote IF yesterday's events had not transpired...

[Callahan]

May 21, 2009 7:01:49 GMT -5 Ariel said:

Callahan, are you trying and failing to defend Khaled by trying and failing to attack Yvette, or are you simply throwing in one-line statements to try and fuel dissent? You see, I simply cannot figure it out.

I'm pointing out how ridiculous yvette is, you haven't seen me attack.

[Rey]

Priests attack ?