Pokémon Mafia 2 - Game Thread (Day 2)

Phantom of the BWAH-Pera said:
I find myself in agreement with Xiahou Ba once more on the deduction that remaining quiet isn't exactly going to help our case heading into this second day of the investigation, and while casting a vote towards the Roserade did get them to speak up and provide a good counter-argument to the case Xiahou Ba made, it still doesn't draw any suspicion away from the Roserade as things currently stand.
Click to expand...
Can I ask what you specifically find suspicious about my actions so far? I'm not sure I understand what I'm failing to "draw any suspicion away from"
 
Glea said:
Can I ask what you specifically find suspicious about my actions so far? I'm not sure I understand what I'm failing to "draw any suspicion away from"
Click to expand...
Shmilbert.jpg

"I'm not implying that anything about your actions thus far has been suspicious. I'm implying that your counter-argument against Xiahou Ba's reasoning doesn't clear you of being Mafia, for having previous experiences being on the side of the Mafia in games like these could suggest that you may be on the side of the Mafia as we speak right now. And while I will admit such a String Shot in the dark is Farfetch'd, it still feels like a much more fruitful strategy than doing nothing, since that is basically the equivalent of saying to the Mafia: "Here, kill me.""
 
Thinking.png

Uh... well I'll admit that threw me for a loop. I guess the thieves are tyring to use Confusion, because I kind of thought that the... I want to say Johtonian Tyrunt?... might have been with them based on their weird behaviour yesterday. Well, there's a reason why I research eggs instead of solving crimes! I wouldn't really know where to start voting though, as we still don't really have much to go on. Let's try to shake out a bit of information from one of the Revavrooms, they're both uncharacteristically quiet, usually you can hear their species a mile away! Vote: Revin, you've been a bit quiet buddy, any thoughts? I know this probably puts a target on my back but oh well, it's worth a shot.
 
RP_Cecilia_Portrait_Idle.png

I cannot say that I am liking this current endeavour either. Roserade has been insisting on getting someone fainted as far as it goes, from keeping a vote on our first day of business, while fully cognizant of the risks such a situation would have posed to all of us if not one but two innocent parties would have fainted.

I say that, but obviously, the risk of that happening was on the lower side, therefore I find it entirely understandable that one might consider there to be little reason for suspicion here. Nevertheless, I prefer to keep the possibility in mind still.

RP_Cecilia_Portrait_Angry.png

No, the issue at hand here is the projection of doubts that some hidden wrongdoers may lie among those who submitted a vote for No Elimination. I, for one, believe it to be just as possible that our Innocent party did not wanted to gamble on the risk of losing a pure-hearted person, and giving a higher advantage to the evil. Myself, that was certainly not a risk I was willing to take. That is a entirely legitimate choice for us to make and it doesn't make us malicious any more than choosing to eliminate someone on the first day. If anything, those with dark intentions have more to gain by trying to get rid as many pure-hearted individuals as possible when such opportunities are being offered to them.

RP_Cecilia_Portrait.png

What I find difficult to accept is voting for someone on the first day as an act of trying to have some kind of information, then the following day to cast immediate doubts and suspicions towards those who voted for No Elimination as some sort of evidence on display that someone malicious is hidden there. While the possibility is there, the full on projection leaves me with a lingering sense of unease.

Logically, yes, the likelihood that someone evil is hiding among the No Eliminations voters are high, I will not deny it. However, evil can be anywhere at the moment. In those who casted a vote on our first day here, among No Elimination votes, among the most talkative individuals or even among the quiet ones. Therefore, I beg you pardon for not dwelling on that specific matter for the time being. We have no way of knowing exactly where our questionable beings are or what they may have up their sleeves, and to put it frankly, I find it rather unsettling.

I will remove my vote from Fun With Despair. He has yet to speak, and as I understand, may have claimed a specific role. However, let us be reminded that this would not be the first time he would have put on a fake claim in front of us. Therefore, I shall remain vigilant.

Unvote: Fun With Despair.

Vote: Boo1268

You have, I must admit, been rather forthcoming with us dear Solarus. Yet, you have not addressed much of your own views regarding the matter that concerns us all. Therefore, I must ask, do you have any doubts or suspicions that might lead us towards a dubious individual hiding among us?
 
Nathan said:
View attachment 67730
I cannot say that I am liking this current endeavour either. Roserade has been insisting on getting someone fainted as far as it goes, from keeping a vote on our first day of business, while fully cognizant of the risks such a situation would have posed to all of us if not one but two innocent parties would have fainted.

I say that, but obviously, the risk of that happening was on the lower side, therefore I find it entirely understandable that one might consider there to be little reason for suspicion here. Nevertheless, I prefer to keep the possibility in mind still.

View attachment 67732
No, the issue at hand here is the projection of doubts that some hidden wrongdoers may lie among those who submitted a vote for No Elimination. I, for one, believe it to be just as possible that our Innocent party did not wanted to gamble on the risk of losing a pure-hearted person, and giving a higher advantage to the evil. Myself, that was certainly not a risk I was willing to take. That is a entirely legitimate choice for us to make and it doesn't make us malicious any more than choosing to eliminate someone on the first day. If anything, those with dark intentions have more to gain by trying to get rid as many pure-hearted individuals as possible when such opportunities are being offered to them.

View attachment 67733
What I find difficult to accept is voting for someone on the first day as an act of trying to have some kind of information, then the following day to cast immediate doubts and suspicions towards those who voted for No Elimination as some sort of evidence on display that someone malicious is hidden there. While the possibility is there, the full on projection leaves me with a lingering sense of unease.

Logically, yes, the likelihood that someone evil is hiding among the No Eliminations voters are high, I will not deny it. However, evil can be anywhere at the moment. In those who casted a vote on our first day here, among No Elimination votes, among the most talkative individuals or even among the quiet ones. Therefore, I beg you pardon for not dwelling on that specific matter for the time being. We have no way of knowing exactly where our questionable beings are or what they may have up their sleeves, and to put it frankly, I find it rather unsettling.

I will remove my vote from Fun With Despair. He has yet to speak, and as I understand, may have claimed a specific role. However, let us be reminded that this would not be the first time he would have put on a fake claim in front of us. Therefore, I shall remain vigilant.

Unvote: Fun With Despair.

Vote: Boo1268

You have, I must admit, been rather forthcoming with us dear Solarus. Yet, you have not addressed much of your own views regarding the matter that concerns us all. Therefore, I must ask, do you have any doubts or suspicions that might lead us towards a dubious individual hiding among us?
Click to expand...
HD_Solar_Sage.webp

Solarus:
Indeed I do miss! While I have been hesitant to express my opinions on the matter, that is only due to the fact that I wished to hear others opinions before expressing my own, however if you wish for me to speak, I shall, I believe that due to the large amount of players who voted no elimination, its less likely the case where someone who voted for said choice is guilty of being the criminals, but rather that there was no need to shed blood without proper info and assumptions to go on, infact the only person to make such claims did so just as a joke, with no true serious intent behind this claim.
However I do believe that there COULD be someone guilty of the crime and that is Mr Mc Queen, now while I could be wrong on this account, Mr Mc Queen and Mr Sonic seem to have some sort of history with each other, indicating a rivalry, alongside this consider something miss Fanta had claimed before her death.
fantanoice said:
Unvote: Montgomery McQueen, Vote: Sonic McQueen

I meant to vote for the blue one
Click to expand...
Now while I may just be assuming here, could it very much be the case where in a state of brilliance, Mr Mc Queen, wanting to not only get rid of his dople ganger, but also to frame Mr Sonic KILLED Fanta so as to pin the blame on them? Alongside this Miss Fanta first voted for Mc Queen! so perhaps not wanting a thread to be loose he ended her before people begain to suspect him? Now while I AM aware that this vote was simply a joke vote, votes in this game in my opinion are nothing to be taken lightly, as one singular vote against you could spiral into the wrong person getting convicted due to a singular passing vote. As such, I belive that in order to draw suspicion away from themselves they pinned the blame on Sonic. However once again this is all speculation on my part and I could be wrong about all of this but this is a theory im somewhat confident about.
 
Untitled_Artwork.png

Hello, everyone, it's me, Sonic McQueen. Not to be confused with Lightning McQueen, who should be suing Wikipedia for spreading misinformation about what his legal first name is.

I haven't read anything yet because I am a well-rounded individual who has other commitments in life, but for now I want to hear more from the miller man.

Vote: Fun With Despair
 
mill_2827791b.jpg


My apologies, lads - you've caught me in the middle of something. This here is me lovely wife, by the way. She will not be speaking today because she is not in this game.

My claim of Miller rings true. though I can't say I've got much in the way of leads. I don't have one of 'em fancy role powers you're all about. I'm not one to go laying blame for the "crime" of not executing a man in cold blood, but I'm inclined to agree with Roserade that those votin' for no lynch stand to gain more in the way of social goodwill than your average bloke. Unless these Mafia fellas coordinated their silence, I can't see a world where one of 'em didn't speak up in favor of a deathless afternoon.

Of course, that leaves us a comfortable pool of five, doesn't it? Now, I've dealt with my fair share of rascals in my day, always messin' with my grain, so don't go thinking I'm particularly dull in the head. I'll expand that list out to six for now. The sixth, of course, being Roserade themselves. The way I see it, placin' a normal vote on a normal bloke carries about the same weight as votin' for nothing, right? Places you as an active player, but avoids that same pitfall they were talkin' about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.