Yes. Miscounting 2 people gives me a whole different feel for the testability and plausibility of TB's claim. I was operating under the impression that if we test him, we auto lose, which makes his claim incredibly furtunate for him. It gives him an alibi as to why we can't test him, and an alibi as to why scum wouldn't NK him. In short, that claim, the way I read it initially, looked like the perfect claim for a scum. But now that he *can* be tested, he can actually be asked to prove his ability (whether or not we decide to do so, the fact that he's running the risk of being tested means he's probably telling the truth about his role, ie- he's town, as scum would have just kept hammering away at me until I was mislynched and then use the daykill to off a townie at LYLO or if he was on the gallows anyway.
Okay I'm really tired and it's 1 am and I have work. Here's copy paste of notes from pgs 1-32:
Bilbroxain - JULIA BRACKENBURG, ELECTRONICS EXPERT, CONSPIRATOR RINGLEADER - Never showed up Day 1
Apokalypse Kid - HELEN WILDE, THE SELLER, SYNDICATE ASSOCIATE - Drugged and abandoned Day 2
Guardman - RAQUEL CERRANO, THE LOOKOUT, SYNDICATE WATCHER - Arrested Day 2
WOLG
Post 25: leaves room for open discussion of flavor - slightly scummy
411: good ****
SB:
51: votes AK for the adhom?
74: Wagon is too fast for my liking, but content. "Could" easily draw votes. Language such that
looking back he can say "I knew there was something wrong" while staying on at the same time
82: States aggression seems off. Games you played with him? Was he town/scum/etc?
85: Draws connection between Guardman + AK (both are town), not as scummy since Guardman was NKed.
89: "I need more information before i can make a decision on you. But thusfar, its not going horribly well -_-;."
hypocrisy to the max?
131: misrep
195: throws dirt (lurking).
290: sorta weird feeling when he says "claim constant stream of unlucky protects" when SB thinks there is vig so it should be easy to test?
don't like the FOS argument
rb-play seems town.
Wuffles:
56: Votes AK for him being aggressive
321: comes off of bilbroxain wagon. seems actually more town since bilb. is scum.
sk: attack on wolg is bad imo
toastboy:
157: "too much of a risk if SK's ability is real" too bad the ability still doesn't do anything.
197: hahah scummy reason to vote wuffles
200: TB: fos instead of vote on bilboxiran
209: Semi-barn, don't really like attack on Guardman still.
222: WTF talk about super big backtrack
240: setting up for "o lol dunno why i found him scummy hahaha"; pushes guardman for unfos, which seems like nitpicking on osmething
that's not actually scummy.
251: o lol i'll just unvote and brush it under the bed
258: still don't like his attack on guardman
271: guardman is scummy HOWEVER IT MIGHT JUST BE HIM LOL
363: wat
388: "ak's play has been that bad, but claim awful", more like ohter way around
401: speed hammah
413: ??? posting during night?
420: wifom
432: weaksauce; lol ends the day - nice jackin the lynch thur
458: "letting the town choose" haha.
cpe:
attacks at bilb around 210 is good
dyh:
345: disagree about wuffles reaction, def. disagree about him being a good vig target
ecophagy
387: "if we were going to game the mod, then ak is ****ed" nice "if".
456: how does a newb coach an experienced player?
tl;dr: think TB is lying, think eco is slightly scummy since I don't really remember much of him at all (other than dyh argument + that ak comment), did not like SB day 1, but his rbing evens it out. SK reads neutral, maybe slightly scummy since didn't like his WOLG attack and I DYH (I think) made a good point about his back-track on BB's ability.
Feel that Wuffles + CPE are most town-like, followed by DYH.
Will go through my points in more detail when I'm done reading and can review them. Will reread last few pages since I'm about to pass out.
To clarifym MMoD, you think toastboy is lying about his claim? and would that be his whole claim, or just the lynch vulnerability?
on this:
Quote from mmod »
456: how does a newb coach an experienced player?
If you felt your scumbuddy wasn't reading the thread (or doing something you felt scummy), might you not be inclined to "subtly" point this out to them by threatening a vote? Coaching is just the closest word to such an event I could think of.
and I want to ask you the same questions I asked ced - would you be willing to lynch SK today, and if not who would you be willing to lynch?
If you felt your scumbuddy wasn't reading the thread (or doing something you felt scummy), might you not be inclined to "subtly" point this out to them by threatening a vote? Coaching is just the closest word to such an event I could think of.
Here is where this theory falls apart, Eco. Which is more likely? Your theory, that a less experienced player is going to threaten to vote his more experienced scumbuddy in an effort to make him stop acting scummy, or what I think actually happened: That BB-scum saw me (a townie) doing something scummy and wanted to vote me on it, but didn't want to really be part of the wagon on a player he knew was town?
Put yourself in BB's shoes. He's scum in a game shortly after being Day 1 lynched as a townie roleblocker. One of his mistakes in that game was throwing his vote around and drawing attention to himself. Now he really IS scum and he sees a townie being "bad". Its like a dog that loves to chase rabbits seeing one just on the other side of the electrified fence. He WANTS it, but he knows he'll probably die in the attempt to bring it down. So he sits as close as possible and whines about it.
It doesn't "fall apart" there at all. The equally probable explanation is the BB wanted to express suspicion of you in the event your wagon reached full-scale to make himself look better. It's called distancing.
So was he distancing or coaching? I know that when I'm trying to step away from a scum buddy going down, I vote him. Especially if I'm not the hammer vote. That puts him ON my wagon and yet he still has time to wiggle out of getting lynched.
29: Seems to have a rather good grasp of the flavour of the two sides already. Inside information slip?
37: A bit too jumpy and serious at this stage.
48: Is very forward-looking. Predicting the defense of people jumping on a wagon that never took off?
62: Points seem stretched. I don’t like his “daykill” logic either. That’s quite an exaggeration (and see Tales of the Fantastic Mafia for random stage daykilling fun!).
29: Did you read post 28? The opening posts? Are you trying to throw dirt on me for simplifying public information?
48: I stand completely by what I said in this post. I don't believe in the random stage, and I think that a persons first few posts and reactions can be really telling, because they've had minimal time to really go over their game strategy.
63: See post 101.
68: Conscious of what Eco’s building towards.
127: After a bit of to-and-fro with SK, SK claims. Not sure on this post. It’s a little waffly, and he’s downplaying his own suspicion of SK.
His attitude towards SK at this point becomes more unusual. His next attacks on SK’s claim/ability look like throwing dirt, and he then reverses his earlier opinion of “confirmed ability=/= confirmed town” to “unvote SK to confirm ability” in 187.
Note also that he calls himself the only person who was really attacking him (SK), yet Bilbro was feigning suspicion of him at the time.
127: Can you explain how this is waffly and how I'm downplaying my suspicion? Just because someone is the highest target for scum on your list, doesn't mean that you think 100% that they are scum, they just are scummier than anyone else.
Also: I never reversed my opinion of "confirmed ability =/= confirmed town" EVER, but confirming someones ability lets you know if they are telling the truth about at least that. I will never clear anyone based soley on their ability.
I was the only person that was really attacking him.
239: UnFoS, really? What’s so “really” about it?
332: Hammers Bilbro. He describes the Bilbro case as there being “too much against him based on behaviour”, yet, curiously, he hardly commented on the case beforehand.
374: Describes suspicious people as “targets”.
376:
“Because the claimed watcher is targeting someone else and you were probably the least likely to get vigged. (Considering your play, you are and were a more likely lynch target than vig target, imo). It would make perfect sense.”
As a reason for why the scum would have picked AKid for the kill. I’m not seeing the logic.
239: FoSing and UnFoSing is ********. It's also bad play and really ********. It also serves no purpose. It's also super ********.
332: Just because I don't make posts about something doesn't mean I'm not thinking it. Also, why would I waste everyones time and rehash things other people have already said?
374: What's wrong with that?
376: How do you not see the logic? Scummy people get lynched and vigged, townie or possible power roles get NKed by scum. That's how mafia is played.
At this point, I’ll note that WoLG had pushed hard on AKid when SB outed him, but, during day one, he only joined the Bilbro wagon late, after it had been basically decided that Bilbro was scum, and also after Bilbro had essentially given up (see the post where he complains about his name being spelled wrongly). He had a comment about the Bilbro case with his vote, but I don’t remember seeing anything else by him on Bilbro beforehand. Not to mention that he hadn’t really done anything since his push on SK in the first few pages.
I'll agree that most of what I did D1 was attack SK, because that's exactly what I was doing. I didn't really have a lot to say about BB that had not already been said, and with that much evidence against him, there was no reason to NOT vote him. Would you rather have kept him alive?
426: Once again, describes scummy people as “targets”.
442: Suddenly, CPE is one of his top suspects. Why?
I loved that “hasn’t been pro-town this game” on CPE, because that’s quite blatantly false when you consider that he was early on the Bilbro wagon and often pushing it.
Also, setting up SK for a later lynch.
477: Feels like he’s deflecting onto CPE, SK, and Wuffles.
The bit on Toast at the end is against him threatening to shoot. But, in an earlier post of his, he supported Toast shooting someone and getting lynched the day after.
426: And again...what is wrong with that?
442: Just because someone is early on a scum wagon doesn't make them town. It's called bussing and trying to look good. Lurking and not contributing a lot are why I called CPE not being pro-town, and why I always seem to find him suspicious. Also, I think SK is scum, so I want him to be lynched...isn't that how mafia works?
477: Really? Deflecting? Really? I was pointing out an inconsistancy with someones opinion of me. If you want to read it as "Hey look at them and not me" you can, but that's not what I posted. Please point out the post where I supported Toast shooting, because I haven't, ever.
489: Seriously, what? This post is terrible. Once again, it’s against Toast shooting, a plan that he was for only a few posts previously, and had even calculated to work out that it specifically wasn’t a loss if Toast shot then got lynched with the current numbers. Then he says (twice), that Toast shooting will result in a loss. The second time, he says it will result in an “almost immediate loss”. Then, there’s the little qualifying comment in all of it: “If we mislynch again”, quite well hidden. Complete fearmongering and outproportioning of the situation.
We have 9 left. I'm going to err on the side of caution and say we have 2 scum left. 3/12 is normal for mini's nowadays, yes? If we eliminate someone today via bombing, mafia kill tonight, TB lynched tomorrow, and then 1 more kill via mafia, that puts us @ 5 players left alive. If we don't manage to hit a scum with the bombing today or the lynch tomorrow, we are at 2 scum, 3 town, putting us at Lynch or Lose. If TB is telling the truth about his ability, we can't let him hold off firing until another day, because he could lose the game for the town even if he isn't scum.
This is the only post where I could even see you mistaking what I was saying for support. That entire post is listing why he shouldn't shoot today, and in addition to that, why he CAN'T shoot any other day without losing the game.
513: Moves back to SK, after apparently forgetting about Toast and the “ghost suspicion” of CPE.
542: “I even think that it's why there was no night kill. I've seen abilities before that read "If you choose to not kill anyone tonight, you have access to the following abilities."
That’s quite bad reaching and gaming the mod.
513: Where do I ever say that I forget about Toast or CPE? I gave my highest target for scum, not a list of top 3.
542: How is it reaching? It's providing additional information to the town about roles that I've seen before, as well as speculation about what could have happened. Also, do you know what gaming the mod means?
554: Tries to get “new insight”, “on each player” from more players. He asked for that in his last post too. I haven’t seen his yet.
Is there anything wrong with asking people to post what they think? No.
I haven't posted a list of what I think about each and every player, but I've been in the game since the start, and have shared my opinion about each player at least once.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
I dont think WolG is scum. He is following his older town play, and I like his responses. I still think toast is scum, and his responses do nothing for me, however, if general consensus is on SK I am fine with it. SK still looks scummy, but his claim is proven true.
@Xyre: Sorry, I could have sworn I posted last night even... I think I hit preview then closed the browser, whoops.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from hotshizzle »
<hotshizle> WINE IN FRONT OF MEAL
<hotshizle> i think
I'm not seeing the case on WolG really. I haven't looked over it in depth, but the basic premise (ie that of WolG being scummy) doesn't enthuse me.
I will look over it tomorrow and form a more solid opinion.
Now that the replacements are caught up... and.. uh... not doing anything, can we get some... somethings to stir activity?
I was hoping that the lull was just due to the weekend, but there's been less then 10 posts since friday, which is pathetic for the time we're at right now.
Prods or something prz?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[19:59] greymon90210: Hey StormBlind how tall are you? "I'm six money *****, don't forget it"
"The Critics always said that we'd only have a black president when pigs flu"...
Now that the replacements are caught up... and.. uh... not doing anything, can we get some... somethings to stir activity?
I was hoping that the lull was just due to the weekend, but there's been less then 10 posts since friday, which is pathetic for the time we're at right now.
Prods or something prz?
Well, I can prod DYH (blasphemous!) and SK, at least, by the end of tomorrow. But I think the problem is less people not posting at all as it is people not posting enough. That's something I can't really enforce, unfortunately. Get a discussion going.
I'm here. My apologies, as you know I don't post much on weekends, and my little one was sick yesterday.
Anyhow, I'm a little wary of WoLG as I've noted before, but I still think SK is most likely to be scum. His flip-flop on Toastboy is questionable, at best; yes - I understand the logic behind the difference in two people, but as has been noted, that wasn't really the driving force behind his disbelief of the claim. What happened to 'shouting from the rooftops in the Mafia Theory thread if it's real'?
@DYH- I will be shouting from the rooftops that Gaming the Mod is not a Scumtell. When I flip townie, I'll still be able to do that. I've already explained the disconnect in my reasoning. Bad math =/= bad role. Due to my bad math, I thought TB was claiming that Xyre had created a role that was able to single-handedly lose the game for town on day 3. I don't think that Xyre would make that role. However, 4 days (while being only one day more) *is* plausible. I would hope you can understand that.
What?
No, my point is that you didn't even mention Bilbro or his wagon until after he was basically confirmed scum.
Now you're turning around and saying that you were suspicious of Bilbro at a time beforehand (couldn't even specify when?), but you just didn't say so (and instead just made little statements on more peripheral issues like Wuffles claiming).
Your explanation for why you failed to take a stance on an on-target wagon is that you "didn't want to waste everybody's time". That doesn't make sense at all.
1.) You're right, I didn't say anything at all about the bilbro wagon until after it was way to obvious that he was scum, at that point, I voted him.
2.) It makes sense enough to me. I'd rather get attacked for not posting something that's been said before than be attacked for parroting other people.
Yes, but how does that (or what you actually said, which was about differentiating between people who get vigged and people who get lynched) have anything to do with the point, which was why AK would have been the scum making the kill?
Also; Not to go into wifom, but why the **** would a scum group pick a very suspect member, under loads of suspicion, to do the kill. Makes no **** sense.
Because the claimed watcher is targeting someone else and you were probably the least likely to get vigged. (Considering your play, you are and were a more likely lynch target than vig target, imo). It would make perfect sense.
A claimed townie watcher said in the thread that they are targeting someone else. If they are town, they should not be lying, therefore we are taking what they said as truth.
Because of how scummy AK was playing, he was under a lot of suspicion and more likely to be lynched than vigged.
He was very likely to survive the night (not being killed) and was not going to be watched (hey look, no one to say he specifically killed someone) so he would be a very good choice for the scum to have use the kill.
Once again, you're going on about something different. Yes, being pro-town doesn't make someone town, but your accusation that he was anti-town was false and unfounded (and it certainly doesn't make him scum, especially when your argument against him was lurking and he's CPE). You didn't even mention him before, then suddenly he's your top suspicion.
1.) Anti town play is bad for the town, even if it's a town player. Someone behaving anti town is more likely to be scum than someone acting pro-town. Just because it doesn't make him scum, doesn't mean it makes him town either. Just because someone always lurks doesn't make it ok. And with the amount of lurking and non-posting going on, this game is likely to stagnate, and someone not contributing doesn't help that at all.
2.) Just because I don't mention something specific in thread doesn't mean I'm not thinking it, and doesn't mean it's not true.
Oh, this is interesting.
Read the last part. You're asking everyone for who they want to be bombed, which is an allusion to Toast's kill mechanic.
You claim that it's listing why he shouldn't shoot today, but there's no evidence for that whatsoever, and the last part clearly shows that you want him to shoot today.
This was mostly syntax error on my part, when reading it out loud.The first sentence reads correct as to how I remember feeling at the time, but the rest should read a little more like "If we decide to bomb, I'd be for bombing CPE over SK because ..."
I want to hear from every person on who their top two suspects are, who they would be willing to have bombed today, and why one over the other. I'm voting CPE over SK for the bombing, because he hasn't been very pro-town this game, and firing into lurkers at this late in the game sucks, but has a high chance of hitting scum. SK hasn't either, but he's we've tested his claim and can lynch him later if it comes down to it.
When I said "who they would be willing" I completely mean that if they were willing to bomb anyone, who would it be. I'm not saying "I want us to bomb someone, who do you think it should be." You seem to be reading to far into the wrong part of what I'm saying.
CPE got one mention there, for who you want to get shot, got no mentions before, and got no mentions after. You didn't say that you forgot them, but you sure didn't follow up on pressuring them at all.
Yes, it's deciding on alignments based on what could be in the game, which is exactly what you're doing here. You said that you think that there was no kill N1 because SK chose to skip the scum kill to use his ability, which is unfounded and is basically speculation to push a lynch.
It's not unfounded: I've seen it before, and speculating on someones claimed role for a lynch is what happens in about 90% of lynches, because there is no way to know what roles a mod put in the game and what alignment they are.
Basically, your main points against me are:
1.) I hammered a scum, but only when there was undisputed evidence against him, after not commenting beforehand on him at all.
2.) I call any target a target.
3.) I'm (in your opinion) not contributing.
4.) I don't post every single thought of mine into the thread for you to analyze.
Like him answering why exactly he chose to lie on the spot to defend himself.
Um...quotes please? I haven't lied at all this game nor have had the reason to. I'm sure there is probably a communication misunderstanding that you are mistakenly taking as some sort of lie, but you're sadly mistaken.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
sb
496: bad logic to push for TB, if he is scum then he'd fire anyways if he
actually had the ability (which seems way too powerful in a mini for scum)
dyh
501: yeah but look at where we are right now, we're currently not testing him
because of what he claimed.
sk:
some rage around 530, sorta scummy actually,
564: O_O - does he suddenly not become a great big liability now?
576: yeah but if TB survived one more day (assuming we get a lynch+NK)
then we have the same situation and then he'd be "99% scum"
ced:
596: scum toast would make ain impossibly risky gambit because he
was getting lynched and some sort of normal claim wouldn't have
saved him
Ugh, I'm torn on TB. SB sums it up well in 466. His play around 474 and 476 is just bad/scummy play and bad logic (which is not necessarily scummy). I definitely do not like his attack on SK which is basically what DYH outlined. However I don't believe him to be the best lynch today...
I was slightly scummy read before on SK, but his recent behaviour, well. The main points for me is that his TB vote was basically all gaming the mod and his enormous backtrack (did not like his explanation; I believe everything that's bad about TB's claimed role is still applicable - the testing is only a small +). Gaming the mod itself I don't believe to be a tell, but that was the only thing he had.
Not really feeling the WolG case, but most of it was skimmed; I'll read over night since it doesn't seem like priority.
1. You're approaching the way that you're playing in terms of how easy you'd find it to defend yourself in the event that you're attacked. Townies ideally shouldn't be prioritizing this. Why are you?
2. You're applying a false dilemma to explain your actions. You're presenting your choices as either "just parrot somebody" (as a note, people don't care if you repeat some stuff, but keep it to a minimum), or "don't take stances". Those are not the only two options.
As a maxim, they are not the only two options. In that case, those were my only two options, because I had absolutely nothing to say about him that had not already been posted.
Erm.
Why would the vig not shoot scummy AK?
When you say "not going to be watched", do you mean "not going to be tracked"?
(Watcher: See who targets a person. Tracker: See who the person targets.)
Because it was night 1. Trust me, I've learned a lot about vigging N1 in the past, and because of me, there's a name for people who vig on n1 and vig like crazy. I was assuming that any smart vig would not do so.
IIRC, there is a claimed watcher, not a claimed tracker.
IMO, when a townie tries to get somebody lynched, their suspicion is more susceptible to additional information. Somebody having a "target" to get lynched is less affected by additional information, therefore takes into account only what furthers their suspicion, therefore is scum.
When someone sets their sights on someone they think is scummy, and they decide to pressure them, they become a target. I think in almost any context, additional information can change someone or something from a target to a non-target.
True, but this is a mini. There's no room for error for policy lynches on people who are lurking like always.
Idly floating a suggestion out of nowhere that we go for a lurker who hasn't really done anything scummy, especilly when it's implied that an extremely swingy ability is used to carry it out, is very concerning.
I guess, but that's kind of a difference of opinion. I'm a big advocate of scum not being allowed to get easy wins via lurking. Pressuring or killing lurkers is generally a good call in any game, even if just to save too many replacements or modkills.
You cut out the rest of your post when you made this defense. Why?
Also, here, you tried to explain that you never supported bombing. Why did you then word the rest of your post as if exploring who could be shot in the hypothetical scenario that Toast bombs somebody?
Also, I saw no argument for why he can't shoot today in that post. Lynch or Lose does not equal Lose. The "we can't let him hold off firing until tomorrow" reads like "he has to fire now".
1.) I thought that was the part of the post you were referencing.
2.) I might as well explore options because the town might decide to do something regardless of how I felt about it.
3.) Lynch or Lose, imo, = lose. The "we can't let him hold off firing until tomorrow" meant that if he fired tomorrow, it would be game over, we lose.
I imagine that there have been scum roles that can use extra abilities by skipping the scum kill, but I imagine that the abilities accessed this way are quite a bit more powerful than "make two randoms into masons".
Overall, correlation does not imply causation, and this is an example of an extreme use of it. You're taking two events that happened on the same night (SK using his ability and there being no deaths), and trying to link them in the most obscure way possible, then trying to use that to push the lynch.
It was more of an extra little bit of speculation that provided a feasible answer to something that happened. By no means was that going to "push a lynch" when many others and myself have already given many reasons that SK has been scummy and worth lynching.
Hammering a scum doesn't make you town, so I don't know how the "but only" got there.
1.) I know this, and am not arguing otherwise.
2.) I'm pretty sure that what I posted was a paraphrased version of what you had said against me, so that's how it got there.
It seems that you're looking from one extreme to another.
My point is that you're hardly posting any opinions/stances.
Why the bit about "for you to analyze"? Seems a strange thing to say.
1.) I think that I have been.
2.) Because you seem to be the one that wants to know exactly what I'm thinking at all times.
WoLG hasn't really truly changed his story since I began my case, just added additional elements/explanations whenever I find an inconsistency. It felt more to me like he's desperately backtracking to cover up.
So why say that I "lied on the spot"? Am I not supposed to try and clear things up when you seem confused and ask for an explanation?
I don't feel that I've been doing anything desperately, or have been backtracking at all. Also, I don't feel like I've tried to cover anything up.
I would expect anyone suspicious of Toast to push the "test Toast on somebody else" plan. If SK is a mislynch, Toast's ability will probably too risky to test. At the moment, it might not be.
Because we would absolutely HAVE to lynch him tomorrow, regardless of who he kills, it would be too easy for the scum to get an easy lynch off him with the perma -2 to lynch status.
For the record, could somebody who is suspicious of SK actually put forward all the elements of the case against him? As far as I can see, the main two points are his opinion change on Toast, and the "distancing" or "coaching" by Bilbro.
I provided a list during D1 when he was acting scummy, then came out of nowhere with a "hey look my claim/ability saves me, I'm obvtown" without offering any type of defense.
On the subject of the Bilbro thing, how does them being buddies explain their other interactions, like when Bilbro appeared to set up a move on SK right at the start, or when he attacked SK's role flavor?
Attempted distancing or feigned suspicion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Ced, if you recall your own attacks on ChrisXIV in the early stages of Balloon debate you should know that an early attack isn't particularly indicative of alignment.
For somebody who is suspicious of both of them, testing Toast on SK then lynching Toast is a much better option than just lynching them one after the other, because, if Toast is scum with the first plan, you get a scum lynch today.
The fact that MMoD doesn't support this plan, despite the fact that his suspicions say that he should, is interesting.
...
By my count, seven out of nine people are pro lynching SK, with me and SK (obviously) against. I find it hard to believe that nobody is concerned how mutually everyone supports this lynch. Reminds me most of day 1 of newb 22.
If Toast is scum with the first plan, and we assume he does have some sort of daykill, we'd get a scum lynch tomorrow, and a town daykill today.
I'm also suspicious of both Toast and SK, but I'm willing to admit I might be wrong about them. Enough so that if he's telling the truth, I believe we could lose the game by testing his ability.
Assuming Toast and SK are town and we have 2 scum left:
9 people alive, SK gets DKed by toast and flips town, day ends. At night, someone is killed. Tomorrow we have 7 alive, with 4 votes required to lynch. Toast is @ 2 votes to lynch, people find him suspicious so he gets lynched easily. At night, someone else is killed. We have 5 alive, with 2 scum. All it takes is 1 townie misvote and it's game over.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
@Ced: I have never used the word "coaching". I don't think Bilbro was trying to coach SK to do anything; I think he was making idle threats at a teammate to distance. Yes, the alternative is plausible, but that's why it was the stepping stone to the case and not the entirety of it. There's plenty else SK has done on his own, aside from BB's interactions with him, that warrant my vote.
beating with a stick does not necessarily mean killing in the game, besides sticks are fun. Also, if there is a nolynch it seems like today was wasted... completely.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from hotshizzle »
<hotshizle> WINE IN FRONT OF MEAL
<hotshizle> i think
After covering the plan for the theft, your group splits to avoid too much attention. Ced and SK wander off toward St. Mark's, discussing the day's occurrences. SK is particularly aggravated. "I have no idea why I came here. I don't need this job, and these guys are completely intolerant. I could be making double the money in Munich right now."
"Then why'd you come?"
He shakes his head. "Our benefactor asked me to, called up a favor. I wish I could say no to him, but I owe him my job."
Ced nods thoughtfully, and looks around at the crowded piazza. He coughs, and SK looks in his direction, noticing what he'd seen - the rest of the group coming up behind. "Hello, gentlemen."
DYH doesn't return the greeting. "We're here for SK. He's betrayed us."
SK panics, but Wuffles and Ecophagy walk up behind him and grab him. DYH pulls out a silenced handgun and points it at SK's gut, but Ced jumps in the way. "Don't do this! He's a good man!" DYH tries to push him aside, but they begin to fight over the gun, while SK looks on in horror. As the rest of the group tries to conceal the fight from the crowds, the gun goes off, a slight popping sound. Ced and DYH look down, both of them unharmed, then turn back to SK, who is doubled over, blood already oozing from his wound.
DYH frowns, crosses himself, then motions for the rest of the group to follow. After a moment, Ced sighs and follows them, leaving the communications expert to die in the piazza.
It is now night. Day begins again at 9am MST Tuesday
SK was ROLAND SARGENTO, COMMUNICATIONS EXPERT, SYNDICATE LINKER. I'll edit the full alive/dead table in later.
As you move away from the piazza, screams begin emanating from the crowds that have discovered SK. Looking back, you notice a group of tourists frantically pointing your group out to a pair of officers. Opting to hold your ground and feign innocence, you wait for them to arrive. Immediately, they grab DYH, who panics. "I didn't do anything," he said. "I didn't shoot him?"
One of the officers raises an eyebrow. "We aren't arresting you for murder. What do you know about that?"
DYH's mouth opens dumbly, and as the rest of you watch, he is dragged away shouting angrily.
Bilbroxain - JULIA BRACKENBURG, ELECTRONICS EXPERT, CONSPIRATOR RINGLEADER - Never showed up Day 1
Apokalypse Kid - HELEN WILDE, THE SELLER, SYNDICATE ASSOCIATE - Drugged and abandoned Day 2
Guardman - RAQUEL CERRANO, THE LOOKOUT, SYNDICATE WATCHER - Arrested Day 2
Shadow Knight - ROLAND SARGENTO, COMMUNICATIONS EXPERT, SYNDICATE LINKER - Shot in the gut Day 3
DYH - GIUSEPPE VENETO, SECURITY EXPERT, SYNDICATE TRACKER - Arrested Day 3
I am now willing to believe the mafia "kill" is occuring at the end of the day, as this is our third night in a row with no kill and that was our second day with an "arrest". With both being the same flavor thats probably our kill. As far as Ced goes, I think he is suspicious, but I still do not like TB at all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from hotshizzle »
<hotshizle> WINE IN FRONT OF MEAL
<hotshizle> i think
I think I worked out the mechanic:
The first person to vote for the person who gets lynched is arrested at the end of the day. Maybe mafia don't get kills at all?
Will re-read D2 when I have time.
Or...the mafia are killing who they want to like normal. Take a look at who has been arrested. Our watcher and tracker.
I'm going back over my PM's with DYH now to see if I can gleam anything from it, but we haven't really exchanged anything recently. He was very suspicious of TB (for reasons outlined in the thread) and BHB's lurkeyness; he didn't agree with me on CPE being scummy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
We need people to step in right now, cause im getting kinda sick of the lack of activity here.
I posted less than 24 hours ago...is there something specific you'd like to see from me?
I'm in the process of reviewing the thread, because even though I find some people suspicious, I don't have much in the way of a behavioral case on anyone.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
I can confirm that you blocked me, although I don't see how it's relevant.
What theatrics?
I don't really see anything in a case on Ced atm. Your vote seems realitively random in a time when we're against the wire. He came into the thread as a replacement and started posting his thoughts on everyone, opposed the lynch of a townie yesterday, and built a case on someone that no one else has really looked at. He's coming off really town in my book, even though he can't say the same about me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
I don't really find why my wanting SK lynched after wanting TB lynched first is bad. SK did a huge turn-around, and acted scummy, much more so then TB, so I was more confident of SK being mafia then. Going to review TB and Eco and maybe Ced/Wuffles.
The point was that Toast's ability was testable yesterday, and is now probably is too risky to test.
His ability should never be tested. If he's town we basically get to lol sooner.
I mean, you were of the opinion earlier that we should test Toast, because he's playing a risky gambit to avoid the lynch by not testing a testable ability (610).
? Where in 610 did I say that? I said I was torn on TB.
Yet, when later given the option of testing Toast, you instead hammered SK (when I was trying to start some discussion...).
Okay... TB using his ability is bad if he's town. So why would I want to test TB when I'm said I was torn on him and preferred SK? Also, to me your discussion seemed like talking about WoLG, which could've been done today, so if your mad you didn't get to discuss WoLG, too bad. No one else really seemed to want to discuss that.
I'd expect that anyone who was legimately suspicious of both SK and Toast to have pushed the "test Toast" plan, because they would have believed that there was at least one scum in Toast/SK, and testing Toast would have always found a mafioso if there was one on that very day (unless Toast has that ability as scum, which is highly unlikely).
How do you get "at least one scum in toast/sk" from that? It could be the case that one is scum. It could be the case that none are scum. Again, I was torn on TB by that time and suspicious of SK.
Whatsmore, when I questioned you on why you were planning to vote SK, despite being suspicious of Toast, you instead ignored me and hammered him. Why?
Part of answer is above, secondly, I also said I found SK more likely to be scum. Were you looking for more? I explained why I would've rather lynched SK.
Your entire problem with me revolves around the point that you think that I think that TB is scum, which was not the case. During my post with part of my read, yes I did think he was scummy, by the second part after I've read the rest of the thread I was instead not sure. I opted to go after SK who was scummier.
I think I worked out the mechanic:
The first person to vote for the person who gets lynched is arrested at the end of the day. Maybe mafia don't get kills at all?
No-one else think the arrest mechanic is what it seems to be?
Vote: WoLG
I really think that is what the mechanic is. Denying it and then trying to push suspicion back on to me? I'm an easy target, but DYH quite clearly did not think I was scum.
....what?
1.) Your logic is flawed.
The vote order for AKkid's lynch goes as scuh: Echo 373, Me 374, DYH in 379...so there is no possible way that you are correct.
Your original hypothesis is ridiculous at best, and would imply there is no mafia, which we already know isn't true. (Kills on townies based on a game mechanic every day instead of conscious player action? I doubt it)
2.) Though I am suspicious of you, where was I trying to put suspicion "back on you"? I'm pretty sure it never left. In that post I was relaying what he had told me in PM, I'm pretty sure all of it was public knowledge, and the information is dated. I have stated all of this, and in no way was I trying to give that information as current and accurate.
3.) Are you KIDDING me? Are you a sophist, or just scum? "I think this is what it is, therefore it is true and you are scum for denying what is the truth"
I'm glad at least one other person noticed how absurd this was.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Coming...
Vote Count
(5 to lynch)
Toastboy - 2 (Shadow Knight, creampuffeater)
Shadow Knight - 3 (DYH, Toastboy, StormBlind)
I'll set a deadline for two weeks from today. It's fairly long, but I want to make sure the new players get settled and not rushed.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Bilbroxain - JULIA BRACKENBURG, ELECTRONICS EXPERT, CONSPIRATOR RINGLEADER - Never showed up Day 1
Apokalypse Kid - HELEN WILDE, THE SELLER, SYNDICATE ASSOCIATE - Drugged and abandoned Day 2
Guardman - RAQUEL CERRANO, THE LOOKOUT, SYNDICATE WATCHER - Arrested Day 2
WOLG
Post 25: leaves room for open discussion of flavor - slightly scummy
411: good ****
SB:
51: votes AK for the adhom?
74: Wagon is too fast for my liking, but content. "Could" easily draw votes. Language such that
looking back he can say "I knew there was something wrong" while staying on at the same time
82: States aggression seems off. Games you played with him? Was he town/scum/etc?
85: Draws connection between Guardman + AK (both are town), not as scummy since Guardman was NKed.
89: "I need more information before i can make a decision on you. But thusfar, its not going horribly well -_-;."
hypocrisy to the max?
131: misrep
195: throws dirt (lurking).
290: sorta weird feeling when he says "claim constant stream of unlucky protects" when SB thinks there is vig so it should be easy to test?
don't like the FOS argument
rb-play seems town.
Wuffles:
56: Votes AK for him being aggressive
321: comes off of bilbroxain wagon. seems actually more town since bilb. is scum.
sk: attack on wolg is bad imo
toastboy:
157: "too much of a risk if SK's ability is real" too bad the ability still doesn't do anything.
197: hahah scummy reason to vote wuffles
200: TB: fos instead of vote on bilboxiran
209: Semi-barn, don't really like attack on Guardman still.
222: WTF talk about super big backtrack
240: setting up for "o lol dunno why i found him scummy hahaha"; pushes guardman for unfos, which seems like nitpicking on osmething
that's not actually scummy.
251: o lol i'll just unvote and brush it under the bed
258: still don't like his attack on guardman
271: guardman is scummy HOWEVER IT MIGHT JUST BE HIM LOL
363: wat
388: "ak's play has been that bad, but claim awful", more like ohter way around
401: speed hammah
413: ??? posting during night?
420: wifom
432: weaksauce; lol ends the day - nice jackin the lynch thur
458: "letting the town choose" haha.
cpe:
attacks at bilb around 210 is good
dyh:
345: disagree about wuffles reaction, def. disagree about him being a good vig target
ecophagy
387: "if we were going to game the mod, then ak is ****ed" nice "if".
456: how does a newb coach an experienced player?
tl;dr: think TB is lying, think eco is slightly scummy since I don't really remember much of him at all (other than dyh argument + that ak comment), did not like SB day 1, but his rbing evens it out. SK reads neutral, maybe slightly scummy since didn't like his WOLG attack and I DYH (I think) made a good point about his back-track on BB's ability.
Feel that Wuffles + CPE are most town-like, followed by DYH.
Will go through my points in more detail when I'm done reading and can review them. Will reread last few pages since I'm about to pass out.
To clarifym MMoD, you think toastboy is lying about his claim? and would that be his whole claim, or just the lynch vulnerability?
on this:
If you felt your scumbuddy wasn't reading the thread (or doing something you felt scummy), might you not be inclined to "subtly" point this out to them by threatening a vote? Coaching is just the closest word to such an event I could think of.
and I want to ask you the same questions I asked ced - would you be willing to lynch SK today, and if not who would you be willing to lynch?
Here is where this theory falls apart, Eco. Which is more likely? Your theory, that a less experienced player is going to threaten to vote his more experienced scumbuddy in an effort to make him stop acting scummy, or what I think actually happened: That BB-scum saw me (a townie) doing something scummy and wanted to vote me on it, but didn't want to really be part of the wagon on a player he knew was town?
Put yourself in BB's shoes. He's scum in a game shortly after being Day 1 lynched as a townie roleblocker. One of his mistakes in that game was throwing his vote around and drawing attention to himself. Now he really IS scum and he sees a townie being "bad". Its like a dog that loves to chase rabbits seeing one just on the other side of the electrified fence. He WANTS it, but he knows he'll probably die in the attempt to bring it down. So he sits as close as possible and whines about it.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
29: Did you read post 28? The opening posts? Are you trying to throw dirt on me for simplifying public information?
48: I stand completely by what I said in this post. I don't believe in the random stage, and I think that a persons first few posts and reactions can be really telling, because they've had minimal time to really go over their game strategy.
63: See post 101.
127: Can you explain how this is waffly and how I'm downplaying my suspicion? Just because someone is the highest target for scum on your list, doesn't mean that you think 100% that they are scum, they just are scummier than anyone else.
Also: I never reversed my opinion of "confirmed ability =/= confirmed town" EVER, but confirming someones ability lets you know if they are telling the truth about at least that. I will never clear anyone based soley on their ability.
I was the only person that was really attacking him.
239: FoSing and UnFoSing is ********. It's also bad play and really ********. It also serves no purpose. It's also super ********.
332: Just because I don't make posts about something doesn't mean I'm not thinking it. Also, why would I waste everyones time and rehash things other people have already said?
374: What's wrong with that?
376: How do you not see the logic? Scummy people get lynched and vigged, townie or possible power roles get NKed by scum. That's how mafia is played.
I'll agree that most of what I did D1 was attack SK, because that's exactly what I was doing. I didn't really have a lot to say about BB that had not already been said, and with that much evidence against him, there was no reason to NOT vote him. Would you rather have kept him alive?
426: And again...what is wrong with that?
442: Just because someone is early on a scum wagon doesn't make them town. It's called bussing and trying to look good. Lurking and not contributing a lot are why I called CPE not being pro-town, and why I always seem to find him suspicious. Also, I think SK is scum, so I want him to be lynched...isn't that how mafia works?
477: Really? Deflecting? Really? I was pointing out an inconsistancy with someones opinion of me. If you want to read it as "Hey look at them and not me" you can, but that's not what I posted.
Please point out the post where I supported Toast shooting, because I haven't, ever.
Again, I never said I supported him firing:
This is the only post where I could even see you mistaking what I was saying for support. That entire post is listing why he shouldn't shoot today, and in addition to that, why he CAN'T shoot any other day without losing the game.
513: Where do I ever say that I forget about Toast or CPE? I gave my highest target for scum, not a list of top 3.
542: How is it reaching? It's providing additional information to the town about roles that I've seen before, as well as speculation about what could have happened. Also, do you know what gaming the mod means?
Is there anything wrong with asking people to post what they think? No.
I haven't posted a list of what I think about each and every player, but I've been in the game since the start, and have shared my opinion about each player at least once.
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
@Xyre: Sorry, I could have sworn I posted last night even... I think I hit preview then closed the browser, whoops.
I will look over it tomorrow and form a more solid opinion.
it was the lolspeak :shifty:
I was hoping that the lull was just due to the weekend, but there's been less then 10 posts since friday, which is pathetic for the time we're at right now.
Prods or something prz?
Well, I can prod DYH (blasphemous!) and SK, at least, by the end of tomorrow. But I think the problem is less people not posting at all as it is people not posting enough. That's something I can't really enforce, unfortunately. Get a discussion going.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Anyhow, I'm a little wary of WoLG as I've noted before, but I still think SK is most likely to be scum. His flip-flop on Toastboy is questionable, at best; yes - I understand the logic behind the difference in two people, but as has been noted, that wasn't really the driving force behind his disbelief of the claim. What happened to 'shouting from the rooftops in the Mafia Theory thread if it's real'?
Vote stands
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
1.) You're right, I didn't say anything at all about the bilbro wagon until after it was way to obvious that he was scum, at that point, I voted him.
2.) It makes sense enough to me. I'd rather get attacked for not posting something that's been said before than be attacked for parroting other people.
Ok, lets review this in context:
A claimed townie watcher said in the thread that they are targeting someone else. If they are town, they should not be lying, therefore we are taking what they said as truth.
Because of how scummy AK was playing, he was under a lot of suspicion and more likely to be lynched than vigged.
He was very likely to survive the night (not being killed) and was not going to be watched (hey look, no one to say he specifically killed someone) so he would be a very good choice for the scum to have use the kill.
I disagree. Both look for "targets" to lynch.
1.) Anti town play is bad for the town, even if it's a town player. Someone behaving anti town is more likely to be scum than someone acting pro-town. Just because it doesn't make him scum, doesn't mean it makes him town either. Just because someone always lurks doesn't make it ok. And with the amount of lurking and non-posting going on, this game is likely to stagnate, and someone not contributing doesn't help that at all.
2.) Just because I don't mention something specific in thread doesn't mean I'm not thinking it, and doesn't mean it's not true.
This was mostly syntax error on my part, when reading it out loud.The first sentence reads correct as to how I remember feeling at the time, but the rest should read a little more like "If we decide to bomb, I'd be for bombing CPE over SK because ..."
When I said "who they would be willing" I completely mean that if they were willing to bomb anyone, who would it be. I'm not saying "I want us to bomb someone, who do you think it should be." You seem to be reading to far into the wrong part of what I'm saying.
What's wrong with that?
It's not unfounded: I've seen it before, and speculating on someones claimed role for a lynch is what happens in about 90% of lynches, because there is no way to know what roles a mod put in the game and what alignment they are.
You seem to be attacking me for it.
Basically, your main points against me are:
1.) I hammered a scum, but only when there was undisputed evidence against him, after not commenting beforehand on him at all.
2.) I call any target a target.
3.) I'm (in your opinion) not contributing.
4.) I don't post every single thought of mine into the thread for you to analyze.
Um...quotes please? I haven't lied at all this game nor have had the reason to. I'm sure there is probably a communication misunderstanding that you are mistakenly taking as some sort of lie, but you're sadly mistaken.
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
In other news... we need something to happen. This is pathetic.
sb
496: bad logic to push for TB, if he is scum then he'd fire anyways if he
actually had the ability (which seems way too powerful in a mini for scum)
dyh
501: yeah but look at where we are right now, we're currently not testing him
because of what he claimed.
sk:
some rage around 530, sorta scummy actually,
564: O_O - does he suddenly not become a great big liability now?
576: yeah but if TB survived one more day (assuming we get a lynch+NK)
then we have the same situation and then he'd be "99% scum"
ced:
596: scum toast would make ain impossibly risky gambit because he
was getting lynched and some sort of normal claim wouldn't have
saved him
Ugh, I'm torn on TB. SB sums it up well in 466. His play around 474 and 476 is just bad/scummy play and bad logic (which is not necessarily scummy). I definitely do not like his attack on SK which is basically what DYH outlined. However I don't believe him to be the best lynch today...
I was slightly scummy read before on SK, but his recent behaviour, well. The main points for me is that his TB vote was basically all gaming the mod and his enormous backtrack (did not like his explanation; I believe everything that's bad about TB's claimed role is still applicable - the testing is only a small +). Gaming the mod itself I don't believe to be a tell, but that was the only thing he had.
Not really feeling the WolG case, but most of it was skimmed; I'll read over night since it doesn't seem like priority.
Consider my vote on SK.
That's how I play, regardless of alignment.
As a maxim, they are not the only two options. In that case, those were my only two options, because I had absolutely nothing to say about him that had not already been posted.
Because it was night 1. Trust me, I've learned a lot about vigging N1 in the past, and because of me, there's a name for people who vig on n1 and vig like crazy. I was assuming that any smart vig would not do so.
IIRC, there is a claimed watcher, not a claimed tracker.
When someone sets their sights on someone they think is scummy, and they decide to pressure them, they become a target. I think in almost any context, additional information can change someone or something from a target to a non-target.
I guess, but that's kind of a difference of opinion. I'm a big advocate of scum not being allowed to get easy wins via lurking. Pressuring or killing lurkers is generally a good call in any game, even if just to save too many replacements or modkills.
Yes, I'm suspicious of CPE, and it's because of his lack of content. I'm always suspicious of CPE, and it's because of his lack of content/posting.
1.) I thought that was the part of the post you were referencing.
2.) I might as well explore options because the town might decide to do something regardless of how I felt about it.
3.) Lynch or Lose, imo, = lose. The "we can't let him hold off firing until tomorrow" meant that if he fired tomorrow, it would be game over, we lose.
It was more of an extra little bit of speculation that provided a feasible answer to something that happened. By no means was that going to "push a lynch" when many others and myself have already given many reasons that SK has been scummy and worth lynching.
1.) I know this, and am not arguing otherwise.
2.) I'm pretty sure that what I posted was a paraphrased version of what you had said against me, so that's how it got there.
1.) I think that I have been.
2.) Because you seem to be the one that wants to know exactly what I'm thinking at all times.
So why say that I "lied on the spot"? Am I not supposed to try and clear things up when you seem confused and ask for an explanation?
I don't feel that I've been doing anything desperately, or have been backtracking at all. Also, I don't feel like I've tried to cover anything up.
Because we would absolutely HAVE to lynch him tomorrow, regardless of who he kills, it would be too easy for the scum to get an easy lynch off him with the perma -2 to lynch status.
I provided a list during D1 when he was acting scummy, then came out of nowhere with a "hey look my claim/ability saves me, I'm obvtown" without offering any type of defense.
Attempted distancing or feigned suspicion.
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
The hammer vote. Which should come from MMoD when he has finished faffing around.
If Toast is scum with the first plan, and we assume he does have some sort of daykill, we'd get a scum lynch tomorrow, and a town daykill today.
I'm also suspicious of both Toast and SK, but I'm willing to admit I might be wrong about them. Enough so that if he's telling the truth, I believe we could lose the game by testing his ability.
Assuming Toast and SK are town and we have 2 scum left:
9 people alive, SK gets DKed by toast and flips town, day ends. At night, someone is killed. Tomorrow we have 7 alive, with 4 votes required to lynch. Toast is @ 2 votes to lynch, people find him suspicious so he gets lynched easily. At night, someone else is killed. We have 5 alive, with 2 scum. All it takes is 1 townie misvote and it's game over.
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Well since it seems like there's no more to be said: vote SK
(5 to lynch)
Toastboy - 2 (Shadow Knight, creampuffeater)
Shadow Knight - 5 (DYH, Toastboy, StormBlind, Ecophagy, mystery meat of doom)
WellofLostGones - 1 (ced395)
It's now twilight. Scene coming up when I get the time for it.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
If the game goes to night without a lynch I shall beat ced with a stick.
@Eco- why? he saved a townie from lynch. That's a pretty freaking good use of his ability I think.
"Then why'd you come?"
He shakes his head. "Our benefactor asked me to, called up a favor. I wish I could say no to him, but I owe him my job."
Ced nods thoughtfully, and looks around at the crowded piazza. He coughs, and SK looks in his direction, noticing what he'd seen - the rest of the group coming up behind. "Hello, gentlemen."
DYH doesn't return the greeting. "We're here for SK. He's betrayed us."
SK panics, but Wuffles and Ecophagy walk up behind him and grab him. DYH pulls out a silenced handgun and points it at SK's gut, but Ced jumps in the way. "Don't do this! He's a good man!" DYH tries to push him aside, but they begin to fight over the gun, while SK looks on in horror. As the rest of the group tries to conceal the fight from the crowds, the gun goes off, a slight popping sound. Ced and DYH look down, both of them unharmed, then turn back to SK, who is doubled over, blood already oozing from his wound.
DYH frowns, crosses himself, then motions for the rest of the group to follow. After a moment, Ced sighs and follows them, leaving the communications expert to die in the piazza.
It is now night. Day begins again at 9am MST Tuesday
SK was ROLAND SARGENTO, COMMUNICATIONS EXPERT, SYNDICATE LINKER. I'll edit the full alive/dead table in later.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
As you move away from the piazza, screams begin emanating from the crowds that have discovered SK. Looking back, you notice a group of tourists frantically pointing your group out to a pair of officers. Opting to hold your ground and feign innocence, you wait for them to arrive. Immediately, they grab DYH, who panics. "I didn't do anything," he said. "I didn't shoot him?"
One of the officers raises an eyebrow. "We aren't arresting you for murder. What do you know about that?"
DYH's mouth opens dumbly, and as the rest of you watch, he is dragged away shouting angrily.
Sampling the Fine Flavors of Life
Ecophagy
CPE
Wuff
Toastboy
BeingHumanBeing
WOLG
StormBlind
Floating in the Murky Waters Below
Bilbroxain - JULIA BRACKENBURG, ELECTRONICS EXPERT, CONSPIRATOR RINGLEADER - Never showed up Day 1
Apokalypse Kid - HELEN WILDE, THE SELLER, SYNDICATE ASSOCIATE - Drugged and abandoned Day 2
Guardman - RAQUEL CERRANO, THE LOOKOUT, SYNDICATE WATCHER - Arrested Day 2
Shadow Knight - ROLAND SARGENTO, COMMUNICATIONS EXPERT, SYNDICATE LINKER - Shot in the gut Day 3
DYH - GIUSEPPE VENETO, SECURITY EXPERT, SYNDICATE TRACKER - Arrested Day 3
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Though Sedrick looks nervous. Running out of people, might not have enough for the heist. Better hurry up before everyone disappears.
Deadline: Tuesday 7 July, end of the day, give or take.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
After his... theatrics yesterday, im feeling quite not right about him right now.
Vote Ced395
Or...the mafia are killing who they want to like normal. Take a look at who has been arrested. Our watcher and tracker.
I'm going back over my PM's with DYH now to see if I can gleam anything from it, but we haven't really exchanged anything recently. He was very suspicious of TB (for reasons outlined in the thread) and BHB's lurkeyness; he didn't agree with me on CPE being scummy.
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
We need people to step in right now, cause im getting kinda sick of the lack of activity here.
I posted less than 24 hours ago...is there something specific you'd like to see from me?
I'm in the process of reviewing the thread, because even though I find some people suspicious, I don't have much in the way of a behavioral case on anyone.
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
EBWODP: If you're sick of the lack of activity, why not answer the question asked of you?
I don't really see anything in a case on Ced atm. Your vote seems realitively random in a time when we're against the wire. He came into the thread as a replacement and started posting his thoughts on everyone, opposed the lynch of a townie yesterday, and built a case on someone that no one else has really looked at. He's coming off really town in my book, even though he can't say the same about me.
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
I don't really find why my wanting SK lynched after wanting TB lynched first is bad. SK did a huge turn-around, and acted scummy, much more so then TB, so I was more confident of SK being mafia then. Going to review TB and Eco and maybe Ced/Wuffles.
? Where in 610 did I say that? I said I was torn on TB.
Okay... TB using his ability is bad if he's town. So why would I want to test TB when I'm said I was torn on him and preferred SK? Also, to me your discussion seemed like talking about WoLG, which could've been done today, so if your mad you didn't get to discuss WoLG, too bad. No one else really seemed to want to discuss that.
How do you get "at least one scum in toast/sk" from that? It could be the case that one is scum. It could be the case that none are scum. Again, I was torn on TB by that time and suspicious of SK.
Part of answer is above, secondly, I also said I found SK more likely to be scum. Were you looking for more? I explained why I would've rather lynched SK.
Your entire problem with me revolves around the point that you think that I think that TB is scum, which was not the case. During my post with part of my read, yes I did think he was scummy, by the second part after I've read the rest of the thread I was instead not sure. I opted to go after SK who was scummier.
....what?
1.) Your logic is flawed.
The vote order for AKkid's lynch goes as scuh: Echo 373, Me 374, DYH in 379...so there is no possible way that you are correct.
Your original hypothesis is ridiculous at best, and would imply there is no mafia, which we already know isn't true. (Kills on townies based on a game mechanic every day instead of conscious player action? I doubt it)
2.) Though I am suspicious of you, where was I trying to put suspicion "back on you"? I'm pretty sure it never left. In that post I was relaying what he had told me in PM, I'm pretty sure all of it was public knowledge, and the information is dated. I have stated all of this, and in no way was I trying to give that information as current and accurate.
3.) Are you KIDDING me? Are you a sophist, or just scum? "I think this is what it is, therefore it is true and you are scum for denying what is the truth"
I'm glad at least one other person noticed how absurd this was.
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP