there was a game once with a psuedo-messenger that basically passed along a scroll that anyone could contribute to. so they used it to set up a code based around typos which the mafia cracked instantly. this would not be that funny were some other player not unrelatedly making typos that the mafia tried to scry but which always translated to gibberish.
2 Likes
eventually as the codes shifted one of the players posted this which the mafia just found insultingly obvious
1 Like
We had a game where there was a public, anonymous channel where anyone could post, and people could also send short messages to each other at night. The mafia also did not have private chat. Naturally, wolves used night messages to send keys for âââunbreakable codesâ"" to talk in public during the day, and naturally, these âââunbreakable codesâ"" were broken, outing two wolves
1 Like
The role that allowed people to privately message each other was a 3P called the âmuffin manâ who could also publicly reveal and confirm themselves and the jester won by simply counterclaiming muffin man and having sufficient reputation to make people go âyeah they donât necessarily have to be jester, theyâd do this as wolfâ
I actually wanted to implement a muffin man on flicker. Youâd be getting a muffin!
Though something something it couldâve interfered with MOTION DETECTOR
We wonât be seeing Deck Mafia on FoL anytime soon.
I feel like I have to mention that in my first mafia game I began deathtunnelling a player 2 hours into the game, proceeded to continue doing so for two day phases until I convinced town to execute them near-unanimously, and they naturally flipped Jester.
Also they made the greatest mafia post of all time
Okay! Sunbeams response.
First of all calling us cringe is incredible cringe, Iâll have you know that we as a team are EXCEPTIONALLY Pog and demand to be referred to as such.
âThey left messages which framed teamsâ actions as reasons to be suspicious without taking responsibility for the actual conclusions drawn from thatâ: Okay, so, that is fine and valid response if the suspicions we were giving were any more than early estimations and significant beyond vague guesses. Which they were. As all the guesses day 1 were. I was shaky on supporting the suspicions especially because while I will openly make suspicions, the suspicions were shaky. It is not unreasonable to be approaching the game, especially day 1 where we have exactly 0 usuable information for making real and present decisions, thus not drawing conclusions and just suggesting suspicion. Because we had only the suspicion and not conclusions at that point.
âPosting a screenshot of the vote totals on the revoke pollâ: This was a joke. We were heckposting. As many teams have been doing. Heckposting has been incredibly common here, and has been said by many teams that it is not an indication of alignment, it is oddly suspicious that we are the only team that the flowers have been calling out for heckposting, which is inkeeping with their very aggressive manner to point fingers at us, the main people who have been criticising them.
âRaising the possibility that the MTs are a jester, âpaddedâ with uncertain languageâ: Day 1. We were uncertain. Everyone was uncertain because we were working with very incomplete information. Weâre still uncertain which is why we havenât come out with a hard conclusion despite this increasingly aggressive attack on us by the Flowers, but again, uncertainty is a valid and reasonable attitude to a situation with very little information.
âFurther âpaddingâ, throwing suspicion on the Flowers as a joke repeatedlyâ: Most of this was in fact not a joke. The Flowers have pushed very aggressively towards us specifically and we are responding in kind as we feel the levels of focus we have felt from them were both not justified and suspicious.
âWhen they did take responsibility for the conclusions, they often backed down fast as to avoid seeming too aggressiveâ: Or maybe we are dealing with incomplete information and as such take a malleable stance that can be convinced otherwise, or back down because we have no concrete information, especially on day 1 as Iâve stated a number of times here, and Iâm actively happy to change votes based on this as we view suspicion and votes in these early stages as relatively light and not a big deal.
âFrom what Iâve seen, Luquos appears to be experienced with forum mafia (correct me if Iâm wrong)â: Mostly in-person Mafia, actually, not Forum.
âso it feels odd to me that they would be so immediately suspicious of someone pushing the Random Voting Stageâ: Ah, see, the thing here is that itâs important to have someone actively criticing and pushing the teams establishing themselves as community leaders and especially active, lest those teams build enough trust to be viewed in that light by the other teams automatically. Youâll notice almost every action Iâve taken specifically has been against the teams pushing the most action with the least information - And then, today, the team that was actively telling us to ignore information.
"Later, they did go bolder and voted to revoke the Wings ": We were more sure at that point, yes. As Iâve said, all of this was on very slim reasoning and we responded based on the information we had at the time, which was not very much.
"But very soon after that, when the Lift bandwagoned on the Wings, they switched to voting the Lift as soon as the Steaks did as well ": We felt that the Liftâs actions were more suspicious than the Wings. It was not that we felt the wings werenât suspicious, but that the Lift bandwagoning was more so than the Wingsâ actions. A vote is not a âCondemnâ it is a âThis team is most supicious right nowâ and we are treating it as such.
âbut they chose not to maintain that vote once the voting channel was createdâ : Okay tbh I thought the previous vote carried though and then it was late enough that we were like âeh, new voteâll happen soonâ.
âTheir reaction to being pushed has been defensive and strange - at first, they just dismissed the claims and said some stuff about Wild Low solidarity, but laterâ: Wild Low solidarity is a significant heckpost, much like Tigerbeams Forever or the FFs-Beams rivalryflirting. We pushed for you specifically because youâre deeply suspicious and continue to be.
âThey seem to be trying to discredit our reasons for pushing them - which is natural - but in a way that to me feels subtle and just weird.â: This is entirely vibes which like, valid, but I canât reasonably respond to vibes. You just going âItâs weird and suspiciousâ carries about as much weight as me going âThe Breath Mints are clearly levilâ. None at all.
"Another line of reasoning which feels really odd to me is that they have been saying our use of specific mafia terminology is intentionally mudding the waters ": Yes. It is. Intentional use of meta terminology is significantly muddying the waters and leading to explanations and discussion that could be cleared up by you guys just using a full sentence to describe what you mean by said terminology. Youâre also using it wrong a lot of the time (IIoA being an EXCELLENT example, which hasnât been applied correctly once so far and is only tenuously applicable in the early stages of the game anyway), and continuing to do that even when on Day1 we as the Beams raised the point that maybe you could be explicit in your meaning and many people agreed, which is why I especially have continued to push for it because I fully believe that using the meta terminology is trying to make yourselves look smart and at the same time distracting from the actual merits of any point youâre making by drowning it in acronyms.
correct, seeing as the host is indefinitely banned (not for any of the previous stories in thread)
This is the greatest sentence ever uttered by a jester
Someone turned this post into a song also but I donât know where it went I only ever saw it as an audio file updated in spec chat which is long gone by now. Lost to time
our space doesnât really have jesters anymore because we would always just let the jesters win because theyâd be annoying otherwise and there was no harm in voting them out day 1
3 Likes
a host wrote an exploding jester once and they never heard the end of it
Yeah I think weâve all tired of jesters but our queue is so long that it takes a year and a half for peopleâs preferences to catch up with the actual setups
there was also that one game with like 5 different jesters and also started out 20/10/10
since i was mafia i choose to look back on this game fondly. were i town i would not
People keep trying to add sufficient consequences to voting out the jester but it never works. We had a jester threaten to just be really annoying unless we killed them and despite the fact that there was a publicly written personal penalty for voting them out everyone was just like yeah whatever
My first mafia game one team had a role and they didnât know what it did so half of the first day phase at least was spent making memes saying âThe Moist Talkers Donât Know What Their Role Doesâ
the setup that used to be the Standard FoL Setup used to have a Jester role that could roll where if they were executed then the next day no one could be executed (or next two days if it was early enough)
this was back when phase lengths were 5 day days/2 day nights
this game had a mafia ability that killed a player and all of their visitors that we got by recruiting the lost wolf. naturally i used this to blow myself up once i was outed, taking every town vig in the game with me
1 Like
Yeah I did see what happened on breadbox.