Doctor Who Mafia 2- GAME OVER!

[The Fonz]

Right, I've read up to page twelve, and reading back to the first post, am incredibly glad that Aisar has been replaced.

Whilst I finish, could the following sum up in one paragraph or so who is the play for today and why?

Yos
Mos
CDB
Tar

kthanxbai

[The Fonz]

Right, a few things:

In the ChronX-Yos argument, Yos was entirely in the right.
Roach claiming that people ought to have ignored Aisar's actions was the scummiest (as opposed to most assholish) thing that role has done to date.

I'm gonna go in a new direction, however:

vote: Vollkan

[The Fonz]

2) To me, each player starts off with a clean slate. That INCLUDES players that have replacements (or, more specifically, the replacements themselves). Is that wrong, so wrong that it warrants me a vote?

Yes. This is VERY wrong. I've been in endgames where the player i've suspected the last four days has decided to flake. Should i give his replacement a free pass? HELL NO! One of the biggest mistakes people on this site make, imho, is giving replacements TOO MUCH of a free pass, then they turn out to be scum. It is absolutely essential that the behaviour of all holders of a role should be considered, and incredibly scummy to suggest otherwise.

[The Fonz]

2) To me, each player starts off with a clean slate. That INCLUDES players that have replacements (or, more specifically, the replacements themselves). Is that wrong, so wrong that it warrants me a vote?

Yes. This is VERY wrong.

But is it wrong enough to warrant a vote?

Well, not to warrant MY vote, or you'd have it. But i don't think it's unreasonable to believe as such.

[The Fonz]

Your defence is that you love Doctor Who?

[The Fonz]

Again, if we felt Aisar was scum, there is absolutely no reason why you ought to be given a clean slate.*


*However, I don't particularly, so I'd rather not continue this convo.

[The Fonz]

...

OMG that wagon went fast. And caps did blatantly scummy stuff since my last read. Too scummy to be true actually, I think we got a jester here. Could someone provide me with guidelines on how to deal with jesters? What is better, lynch or vig?

Ps. and now he gets replaced, geez. Gorgon, I'm afraid you replaced into a rather hopeless situation.

Um, bringing up the possibility of a jester is a big fat scumtell, enough so that I consider it voteworthy on its own. It absolutely reeks of scum trying to distance themselves from the mislynch should it occur.

(My opinion on the subject is that the Jester should claim D1 in all large games and the town should let them fulfill their win condition that same day. Most people who suggest otherwise in games I have played have turned up scum.)

Unvote, Vote: Garnasha

Er... no. If a jester is stupid enough to claim, the best move for the town is to leave him alive, to see whether there's a vig or not. If he's not vigged, THEN you lynch him on the offchance he's gambitting scum.

[The Fonz]

unvote, vote cicero

[The Fonz]

DGB is a she, y'all.

[The Fonz]

I like winning.

I, however, prefer playing mafia. I will not be encrypting my role. EVER.

[The Fonz]

Shteven- either you've missed someone who's on cicero, or counted me twice.

unvote, vote IamMars

Meh. In the interests of a lynch today, I suggest everyone look over IAM and Flameaxe and decide which is the better lynch.

[The Fonz]

"no massclaim"

Its a dumb thing that Ive noticed has been started being banned on SA as it leaves the mafia at a huge disadvantage.

Breadcrumb if you want

, but mass claims and crypto are terrible things.

Especially on day freaking 1

breadcrumbing is a type of encryption

! but since it is less transparent (other people don't know that you are placing code into your post) it gives an advantage to scum! they can breadcrumb more than one role to claim, and use whichever one suites their posistion later in the game.

you're supporting a scum-favored tactic over a town-favored tactic

.

You are correct

.

unvote

vote Adel

Idiotic plan and if

youre looking for ways to break the game then Im looking for ways to get you out of the game

.

unvote: Flameaxe

vote: Taffmaster

Explain. Gamebreaking destroys the fun and challenge of a game, and i don't see how it's scummy to not want to play with people who try to subvert the rules.

[The Fonz]

OK, crow time.

I've just done a re-read of IAM, and now I get what he's on about.

unvote

My bad for being a functional illiterate.

[The Fonz]

Instead of arguments he just calls it a stupid plan. Instead of trying to convince her he decides to try to lynch her for proposing a strategy which, in my eyes, isn't that bad at all, and the only real argument against is that there is a risk it breaks the game. Wanting to lynch someone for it feels rather anti-town to me, since rather than scumhunting he decides he wants to kill the one that proposes a strategy that makes catching scum just too easy (so instead of scumhunting he wants to lynch the person that came with a good idea for scumhunting). And to top it all, he actually agrees with her post, which basically states that she isn't breaking the game any more than breadcrumbing, while he doesn't have any objections to BC.

Reading it again, I think I may have misread what he agreed to. How about this one?

"no massclaim"

Its a dumb thing that Ive noticed has been started being banned on SA as it leaves the mafia at a huge disadvantage. Breadcrumb if you want, but mass claims and crypto are terrible things.

Especially on day freaking 1

breadcrumbing is a type of encryption! but since it is less transparent (other people don't know that you are placing code into your post)

it gives an advantage to scum!

they can breadcrumb more than one role to claim, and use whichever one suites their posistion later in the game.

you're supporting a scum-favored tactic over a town-favored tactic

.

You are correct.

...

youre looking for ways to break the game

...

Oops, that isn't much better.

Could you please give me an interpretation of his post that doesn't:
a. give very strange reasons for his Adel vote (ie. you'd think those reasons would cause him NOT to vote her)
OR
b. dismiss Adel's tactic as being too effective a way to hunt scum?

Since when is it acceptable to vote someone because he/she proposes using a tactic that puts town at a huge advantage?

When it's unethical, and defeats the entire object of playing the game.

[The Fonz]

One- Adel is an obvgirl.

Secondly- the vote is obviously not for Adel being scummy. It's a 'I don't want to play with people who pull that kinda crap' vote. Voting Taffmaster for that is scummy and opportunistic.

Also, suggesting a pro-town gamebreaking strat in the knowledge that enough people will think you're a cheating douche for suggesting it that it won't actually happen could actually be a scum gambit. It's not hard to see why.

[The Fonz]

Everyone goes 'OH, they tried to break the game for town! Must be town!' IF you know there's little chance of it going through (and giving how this exact subject raised strong passions on both sides in a recent debate in the Mafia Discussion forum, there's a decent chance Adel knew that) it can be an opportunistic way to make yourself look town, and paint anyone who disagrees with you for perfectly understandable ethical reasons as having something to fear from encryption.

[The Fonz]

Yeah. that's the WIFOM point but it's fair. Obvious answer is this:

Hey Adel: Please manually encrypt your own role at this time. The rest of us won't be doing it though.

Let him tie his own hands if he likes it so much.

Yeah. I'm not saying it is actually a scumtactic, but it's not beyond decent scum to pull this. Certainly, if I hadn't tied myself so firmly to the 'it's unacceptable' mast that it would be obvious, I'd definitely pull that as scum at some point, to stop people getting free passes for attempting what i see as a bush league move.

[The Fonz]

Also if encryption in the way Adel is asking for is being allowed in this game then I'd like to be replaced. If not I'm happy to play.

QFT.

These games require a lot of effort, and if one side isn't going to have a fair shot (even if that isn't my side, all you opportunists out there) then it just isn't worth it. It isn't challenging, and it isn't fun.

[The Fonz]

You really don't like people disagreeing with you, do you Adel? IF it isn't banned, it should be.

[The Fonz]

You really don't like people disagreeing with you, do you Adel? IF it isn't banned, it should be.

What I don't like is to put a hell of a lot of time into figuring out a tactic to help insure my side will win, only to be met with apathy and accusations of being immoral and of cheating.

'Immoral' is too strong a word for what is only a game. But I do think what you're doing is unethical, and utterly contrary to the spirit of what mafia is about.

You yourself use the term 'insure' [sic] your side wins. If an action were able to actually ensure one side wins, and there were nothing the other side could do about it, that to me is gamebreaking, and is flat-out wrong.

Your bogus WIFOM case against me was salt on the wound, and now your little quips really feel like you are just trying to rub it in.

So you're actually saying we should all treat you as confirmed town because of your unfair and underhanded little stunt? Can you not see that if we did that, people would be pulling the same crap all the time?

So the question I have for you, Mr. Fonz, is why aren't you spending the few calories of effort you seem willing to place into this game chasing scum or attempting something else constructive?

In case you haven't noticed, I have. However, preventing you DESTROYING the game is also pretty important.

[The Fonz]

Cicero got it nearly right. I think voting someone for any other reason than to catch scum in the game in which the vote is made or in MS games in general should be lynched on policy because if it isn't it creates a nice excuse for scum, who will feign outrage about someone doing something that isn't scummy but deserves disapproval for other reasons, those reasons not including that it makes it easier for scum to win. Remind me to ask about this in the mafia discussion forum postgame.

.

You're suggesting policy-lynching anyone who votes for any reason other than finding the player they're voting scummy. This is like the biggest self-contradiction ever, since policy lynching is

by definition

doing precisely that.

[The Fonz]

Cicero can answer for himself, but that wasn't what I thought he meant.

[The Fonz]

@ Garnasha: That is simply untrue.

[The Fonz]

Your description of what a policy lynch is.

(Oh, and saying that I am acting like scum, of course. But that ought to go without saying).

[The Fonz]

A lynch designed to eliminate behaviour the lyncher sees as undesirable, regardless of the alignment of the lynchee in this specific game.

[The Fonz]

cicero, did you mean fonz posted good reasons for narrowing down lynching to FA and IAM when you said this?

If people want to argue for a no lynch or argue against Fonz's post of narrowing, go ahead. I told you why I think this is a smart move:

No. I wasn't advocating the Fonz position. In addition I'm fairly certain Fonz no longer advocates the Fonz position since he is currently not voting for either one of them.

Correct. My re-read made me think an Iammars lynch today would be a mistake, and I've disliked the Flameaxe wagon all along. When you believe that there is at least one decent wagon amongst the leading group, making people choose between 'em is worthwhile- when you realise you dislike all of them, that changes.

In fact, what the hell.

Vote: Garnasha

Still think Taffmaster's arguments betray genuine conviction (which is something everyone should be looking for- I see the same in Adel incidentally, even if her arguments are imo terrible) and I find Garnasha's pushing of his lynch for it opportunistic.

[The Fonz]

BM: The first post doesn't contain any deadline rules. Since i'm too lazy to re-read the entire thread, would I be right to assume it is the usual BM no-lynch unless majority?

[The Fonz]

BM: The first post doesn't contain any deadline rules. Since i'm too lazy to re-read the entire thread, would I be right to assume it is the usual BM no-lynch unless majority?

Lousy messed up tags.

[The Fonz]

Like I said, I don't have time to search back thru the thread right now.

Peace.

[The Fonz]

Strawman. The case on you is that you are rude and abrasive. This is not helpful to the town, and someone else has linked it to you being scum. You were allegedly nicer as a pro-town role. Your attitude also personally bothers me, what can I say, I'm a softie.

Rudeness and abrasion is, in my experience, something of a town tell. Scum tend not to want to make enemies if they can avoid it. Of course, it could just be playstyle. Shteven, why do you consider rudeness to be to the town's detriment?

You have also been pointed to, in conjunction with vollkan, as claimed teammates of known scum.

Deeply uncomfortable with this being used as an argument.

[The Fonz]

Right. I want a 'hand on heart and hope to be lynched' confirmation from Albert right here, right now. I've seen him try crazy shit too many times.

That said, i think the 'leave it till tomorrow' plan may work. If both die, we haven't really lost anything.

If ABR dies and cicero lives, we lynch cicero.
If cicero dies and ABR lives, it depends on what role cicero is revealed to have had. The worst case scenario here (somehow they're both truthful, and Rampage is either insane or being messed with) still allows us one more ABR investigation.

[The Fonz]

I find it particularly unlikely, upon reflection, that Albert is town faking this one. I mean, the doctor is a pretty important character- it's very likely to be either here, or a scum safeclaim.

[The Fonz]

And there would be no reason for the character to, for some reason, be scum?

Not from a flavour perspective, at least not that I can think of. Having said that, there's no guarantee that BM has stuck with canonical flavour.

No. But every reason to be a safeclaim.

WE basically have a claimed batman-cop with a guilty on a claimed robin-doc.

[The Fonz]

Here's an idea: how about everyone except the parties involved vote as to whether or not we pursue the ABR/Cicero angle for a lynch, or wait for tomorrow?

It seems to me, if we're going to debate their respective merits, we should do that. If we want to put it off and discuss other peoples' lynch merits, do that. And give reasons for preferring either course. But we seem to be drifting without taking a firm choice.


Perhaps use the format

decide: today

or

decide: later

?

[The Fonz]

Of course, if it's a genuine PR, it's not like mcpaltp will be able to go:

Yeah, it's a PR, and the terms are X, Y and Z.

[The Fonz]

unvote, vote ABR

Screw it all. I've just adopted a 'kill Albert at the earliest opportunity in all games, regardless of anything' meta.

[The Fonz]

It's not even that he'll be banned from discussing them, though it doesn't seem that rare: rather,

that he'd have to actually fit it into the post restriction

.

[The Fonz]

Players who are always a detriment to the town regardless of alignment should ALWAYS be killed at the earliest possible moment. Basically, I cannot stand to play with the guy any longer, and your vote is scummy and opportunistic.

[The Fonz]

Fine, except it isn't night yet.

[The Fonz]

Three as scum. One as jester.

How come town doesn't always lose when you're around? Sometimes scum are stupid enough to NK you. Sometimes other town players manage to make up for you. Sometimes a blind squirrel finds a nut.

[The Fonz]

8 wins, 6 losses (Actually five, since I replaced into an impossible situation in Bird's Pie E7). How is that 'so few?' You may recall one of the marquee wins, you know, the one where i busted yo' scummy ass day one.

[The Fonz]

Why prod me, BM?

[The Fonz]

My position hasn't changed. Even if ABR IS a cop, I can't put it past him to lie about his results in order to pursue whatever ridiculous agenda he has at the time. That is a severe liability to the town. It's worse than no cop at all, and of course, there's a non-zero chance he's lying in the first place.

[The Fonz]

Meh.

unvote, vote cicero

I'm pretty confident given the number of nightkills that there must be a pro-town vig, so if Albert's lying, he's dead. And 1-1, even for a doctor, is a good trade for the town.

[The Fonz]

If there are roleshifting abilities on the scum side, though, neither cop nor doc are likely to be any use to anyone anyway. Therefore, that outside chance isn't enough to justify allowing potential scum to live.

If any pro-town roleshifters have targetted either ABR or cicero, they should own up right away.

[The Fonz]

Maybe they already have owned up, Fonz. They just didnt do it explicitly.

Screw implicit. I haven't seen anything of the sort, and losing a doctor and a cop is a bad enough result to be worth outing a bus driver to prevent.

[The Fonz]

It does concern me that both are town... BUT, cicero's latest trick of trying to suggest that someone else might already have breadcrumbed roleswitcher is teh scum. If both are the town, the simplest explanation is ABR is insane... but I don't think an Insane Tenth Doctor fits the flavour particularly well.

[The Fonz]

I'm sorry cicero, your last few posts have been hella scummy.

I didnt mean breadcrumbing. I just meant one of the people coming out and unvoting/suggesting we wait until tomorrow. How on earth is that "teh scumz" and will you promise to apologise to my dead body in the morning when it turns out I'm exactly what I say I am?

Here you're suggesting that because some people don't want to lynch you

today

, one of them might have extra role-based information, when there is, in fact, no particular evidence for that. I mean, I suppose anyone, ever, MIGHT have role-based information- but no-one seems particularly adamant that you are unlikely to be scum, which is the usual giveaway for role-based info (daah, giving away all my best scum tricks here).

I am town. ABR is probably town. I know one of those things to be true and I gave you ample evidence to support it. I am pretty damn confident of the other.

If you are going to lynch anyone, lynch the guy with a proven history of lying as town. There is merit to Fonz's point that, given ABR's completely anti-town/willing to lie playstyle, killing him is always a good idea.

Don't lynch either of us! but if you do, lynch HIM!

But you need to consider that a bus driver is pretty likely in a game that let Vollkan STEAL MoS's vote for a day. Battlemage promised tons of power roles and weird mechanics. And here we are.

Again. If a town bus driver has targetted either of you, they should claim. Absent that, we're lynching you.

[The Fonz]

EBWOP:

and will you promise to apologise to my dead body in the morning when it turns out I'm exactly what I say I am?

And before I forget, what we're seeing here is the classic 'lynch me and you'll be sorry' scumtactic.

[The Fonz]

Well, one, I realised we're not actually going to lynch Rampage, and I think I've made my point about how much i detest his playstyle. I'm feeling slightly calmer about him now. He'll either be proven cop with you coming up scum, or else he's incredibly likely to get vigged. If neither happens, I'll cross that bridge when we come to it. You're not guardian, so i guess you can see the logic in voting someone who both looks scummy and has a claimed guilty on him?

[The Fonz]

I either get a rampage i know (well, pretty much- in so far as you can ever be 100% with him) i can trust, so don't have to worry about, or dead Albert. Both are fine by me.

[The Fonz]

Actually, by the way, Cicero, I've not really been votehoppy. I was pretty firm on a cicero/vollkan connection day one (I realise i wasn't overly vocal on that- but those were the two I was on until deadline pressure forced me to pick between specific players).

[The Fonz]

Nope. In fact, I'd be tempted to lynch you on the spot for that last post. Promising not to help the town, then claim power when challenged, is a recipe for hurting the town as much as possible.

[The Fonz]

unvote

I'm a need to think this one thru.

[The Fonz]

I'm not feeling the McPalpt lynch. I still hope to get an ABR lynch before deadline, tho either is preferable to a no-lynch.

Vote: ABR

[The Fonz]

The evidence for which is...

[The Fonz]

You are basically shooting yourself in the foot by voting someone you know is town.

Ahem. If I were able to

know

you were town, I'd be part of the informed minority, therefore it would be in my interests to get you killed off.

That you act ridiculous and anti-town doesn't mean you're NOT scum.

[The Fonz]

I'm struggling to understand the ABR lynch. Why would he claim a guilty as scum? I want cicero dead, but

Unvote vote: mcpaltp

I want a lynch more.

You can equally ask- why would he fakeclaim as town?

[The Fonz]

Just checking in as realised haven't posted this game day. Merry Christmas all.

[The Fonz]

We had three kills last night. Ecto, ABR and Tar. Tar was killed by the last Dalek who is now essentially a serial killer.

How do you KNOW there is precisely one dalek left?

The other two kills could actually BOTH be townside vigilante actions. ABR was, I'm sure, a town side vigging. If I was scum there is no WAY I would kill townie ABR. He's too useful as an agent of sabotage.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't see too much benefit to that kind of speculation at this stage. If someone steps forward to claim the kills, fine.

This could conceivably mean we are only hunting one more Dalek. In any event the finding and killing of that Dalek should be our next priority. That is superior to having vigilantes step forward at this time. I had thought that maybe Dalek Sek would be a good guy type but apparently not. Killing Tarhalindur was obviously a doc killing scum manouvre.

Now it's merely conceivable?

@ Ibby: Certainly. But you may note, I was actually doing something in pursuing Albert. So far, I have had three main suspects: two are dead (one scum, one... well, Rampage, I'd hesistate to call him

town

) and the other having claimed doc. I don't think Cicero is today's lynch, although I'm not altogether comfortable (insane power role is too easy for scum) so will continue to put his actions under the microscope.

I don't have a particularly good read on anyone else. I didn't like the mcpaltp wagon, so I'm pretty much going to have to re-read a fair chunk of the game (though not all of it- I'll probably start from when Aisar got replaced for obvious reasons).

[The Fonz]

I see. 'One more Dalek may be all we're hunting.'

Personally, I'm seeing SK too.

[The Fonz]

I don't see that, Yos. Even if Albert WERE really a cop, who'd believe him after yesterday?

[The Fonz]

We have one dead cult killer and one cult recruiter. It's possible the cult killer was a part of the scumgroup originally and there's still a cultist out there who has no pwoers and is essentially an sk without any benefits (not even a kill). But if there is, it's not our pre-occupation atm.

This is kinda what annoys me about cults. We may have one anti-town role left, who has no scumbuddies, and no night actions to be caught doing. Depending on how investigative powers of putative cops work, we may not have anything whatsoever to differentiate him/her from a townie.

[The Fonz]

I considers SKs 'scum' fwiw. So when people say 'scum killed tar' I just assume they mean 'some antitown role' not 'the mafia.'

[The Fonz]

Why would it not be? It would be VERY misleading flavour for an extermination to be a non-mafia kill. It'd be like having a game with Lizzie Borden as an SK, and having a traditional mafia kill with an axe.

[The Fonz]

What do you mean, REAL evidence?

[The Fonz]

Actually, come to think of it, 'The Lizzie Borden Fan Club' would be an AWESOME name for a scumgroup in a future game.

[The Fonz]

That makes sense... that actually answers my 2019 actually. At least someone here isn't an asshole.

Seriously... Whats with the insults man?

We told you there was incredibly strong flavour-based reasons for believing the Daleks to be behind the exterminations, and you said we were just 'assuming crap.' I think it's you who was being offensive, personally.

[The Fonz]

You're suspicious of inactives, Ibby? Odd.

[The Fonz]

I find it odd not to differentiate between lurkers and inactives. Not posting at all strikes me as far more likely to be the latter than the former. Lurking is a scumtell, not playing isn't.

[The Fonz]

He replaced in eleven days ago, and has not posted at all. Newish players replace in and go inactive immediately not that infrequently. They decide they don't understand or like their role or whatever, or they never get round to reading thru the thread. I just don't see deliberately paying attention and then not contributing as a possibility.

[The Fonz]

I don't. I have no idea whatsoever what the role is, because we have no evidence whatsoever either way, and I never suggested otherwise.

[The Fonz]

Cicero has a point. A tracker not getting a result in is more damning than a doc who doesn't know whether his protection works, or kills, or whatever.

[The Fonz]

OK. I'm not finding a great deal here.

I'm going to

vote: Lowell

Not helpful, plus I really don't like people intimating that they have something important to claim, then not doing so. Also, that two of the three people on his wagon yesterday died overnight and came up town, and the other has lost his vote.

[The Fonz]

I want clarification. Did the person taff targeted target someone who was

subsequently

revealed as scum, or someone who died that same night and came up scum?

[The Fonz]

I think the chance of that player being an SK is high enough that you'd be better off revealing it now, than risking getting nightkilled and never being able to reveal it.

[The Fonz]

Lots of things point to a vig. That's doesn't mean that Vollkan specifically was a vig kill. IIRC, I was pretty much the only person to find him scummy the day before he died.

[The Fonz]

You're right. It doesnt prove anything. My argument is balance of probabilities. I think it's more likely vig. One argument I didnt point out that more experienced players than me should have been first to point out is that scum like to keep the other scum factions alive to whittle down the town faster. (Also to give them someone to successfully scum hunt during some day down the road. )

Ah, but you're ignoring balance of payoffs. If Taff stays quiet, and gets NKed without ever getting to reveal the killer, that's a worse situation than outing a vig, since town appears to be in a strong position.

As far as roles go, town vig is barely positive, and besides, that's one more nightkill that's not headed toward a potential cop. As far as antitown roles go, a serial killer is one that needs to be gotten rid of, especially when there's likely only one player left (s)he could crosskill. Since serial killers usually have some kind of immunity to either NK or crosskill, and doesn't have ties to anyone else, the SK is actually, in all probability, the biggest threat to town, and I don't want to pass up this opportunity to nail it. It's worth the risk.

[The Fonz]

We out them... whoever it is will claim vig either way. Then they die overnight, either at the hands of the SK/scum if genuine, and the 'real' vig if not.

[The Fonz]

Right. I've had it. With likely two scum in 15, one vig for one scum is a fine tradeoff. If we have a second group of scum, rather than an SK, then it's important to make that known now rather than later.

I'm the vig. My role name is Anne-Droid.

I didn't kill night one. (or rather, longname didn't).
I killed Yamahako night two.
I killed Rampage last night, and boy did I enjoy it.
The killing pattern (three kills a night that I didn't perform, plus the one that can be attributed to Cicero) strongly suggest a second anti-town element.

Now out the goddamned SK.

[The Fonz]

Wait, how are we going to out the SK?

You mean, whoever killed Volkan? Since it wasn't you?

Yes. It has to be anti-town, and non-Dalek. A second vig doesn't really make sense- a vig shouldn't kill N0, every kill is accounted for by me, the daleks, Adel, and Cicero, apart from one per night. Which I'm pretty convinced belong to the SK.

[The Fonz]

Also, who would prefer keeping one power role hidden to potentially wiping out a nightkill? If we lynch the SK, Daleks can't take out both me and Taff, let alone any cops that may or may not be hiding around.

I was going to get the SK outed one way or another, i tried to do it without outing myself to begin with, but that Cicero's a stubborn bugger.

[The Fonz]

Wow did not see that coming.

I got no reason to disbelieve Fonz with how far ahead we are so taff can go ahead and /out who he tracked.

@Fonz

did you by any chance read the idea I put in post 2084?
Do you think it could be useful in anyway?

I read it, wrote up a post in response dismissing the idea, then thought 'screw it' and claimed instead. A quick precis would be: I don't think we should be directing two town power roles.

[The Fonz]

THere's no way I'm passing on the chance to remove a killing group here. Like I said, I was always going to insist on this happening today, i just hoped i could pull it off without outing myself.

If whoever killed vollkan was an SK, and not a member of a second mafia group, that leaves us with twelve town chasing one scum, and that, my friend, is a good ratio.

[The Fonz]

Sure sure, I have been meaning to ask you something anyways Cic. I am Rose Tyler, woo... Each night I have to, yes Have to, switch two people. The way it was explained to me I target player A and B. Anyone who targets player A gets rerouted to player B and visa versa.

If it's 'and vice versa' then a tracking result on you should throw up both names. Generally, the way these roles work is if the redirection only works one way, it shows the name of the person being directed away from, and if it works both, tracking should show both names, since you're targetting both equally.

Also, if you really are pro-town, I don't see why you didn't switch the claimed doc with someone suspicious.

[The Fonz]

I hate to hide behind WIFOM but why would I fake a claim where I lie about an additional target knowing full well I would only be investigated targeting one person?

Erm, because you had a massive brainfart?

Also Taff claimed watcher right? I thought it was tracker... That would explain it I think.

No he claimed tracker. I'm not sure, but I think it was this post:

Alright guys, 24 hours til deadline,

I am not a cop I am a tracker

.

Well that is indeed strange as my role is tracker. How often does the town have two?

[The Fonz]

Vote: Korlash

Cicero, i suggest you flip a coin on whether to target me tonight or not.

[The Fonz]

... Well wtf then... Your a weak tracker... Follow me to all my targets houses jerk... ><

I want to know what Taff's pm tells him. Does it say something along the lines of 'you will receive the name of a player your target targetted' or does it say something along the lines of 'you will find out whoever your target targetted? If it's the latter, either the mod has directly lied to a player, which is bad, or Korlash is still lying.

Axlerod is mason. Mos= town. Most likely vanilla. To guess the remaning dalek... hmmm... Someone I didn't investigate... Thats a huge list... Mcpalpt most likely...

Speculating about who is a mason is further badness.

Oh also becuase I kinda already admited to it I did originally lied about my ability only becuase I highly doubted you would believe my real role. I am Rose Tyler. I actually target three players a night. Vig, investigate, and RB. Each night one fails (Says the failed one won't be tracked thus why I only admited to two yesterday)

If your pm says the failed one won't be tracked, that would imply the successful ones would.

I'm still inclined to lynch the liar right now.

[The Fonz]

Yeah my speculation on the mason was suppose to be to narrow down the possible scum suspects before I die.

Still bad. A mason can claim if facing lynch. The only thing your speculation does is risk outing them, which hurts the town. It's not something pro-town players do.

Also,

if

Korlash

is

telling the truth, it's very likely that MoS is a killing role- since there's two kills unaccounted for on night one and he's been roleblocked since.

[The Fonz]

When I say night one, I mean night 0.

Which actually brings up the issue of what Tar meant by 'I've protected MoS since night one.'

[The Fonz]

Original idea there, Shanba.

[The Fonz]

When I say night one, I mean night 0.

Which actually brings up the issue of what Tar meant by 'I've protected MoS since night one.'

Are we certain Tar went ahead and jailed MoS up again on night2? Can we be certain of that?

He claimed to have been jailing MoS 'since night one.' Dammit, I'm so pissed at myself for not clarifying that at the time. If he MEANT night one, it's incredibly likely MoS has a killing role. If he meant night 0, then MoS can't have had anything to do with any kills so far.

Those are damned different positions to leave as alternatives due to semantic ambiguity.

[The Fonz]

Yes, I missed the 'MoS had no vote day one.' Thank the Lord for that one.

[The Fonz]

He has claimed not to have switched them, after all, but to have vigged Vollkan and investigated Mars. The main reason he's still alive is Erg0 is able to corroborate part of his story.

[The Fonz]

unvote, vote Korlash

That's -1.

[The Fonz]

unvote

Whilst I think this through.

I still firmly believe there is a serial killer in the group (Korlash, MoS).

[The Fonz]

Buuuut vollkan was the Godfather. I would have expected that you'd get an innocent result from him, especially since he clearly wasn't unkillable.

This may well be the concluding point for me. Though i will at least check back to see if there was any Gar/Vollkan interplay d1. Basically, i'm balancing the apparent inconsistency vs the 'couldn't make it up' factor.

[The Fonz]

Garnasha did not mention Vollkan day one.

vote: Korlash

[The Fonz]

Darn. Beaten to it again. I wanted to show Korlash was a liar twice. The correct answer to the alignment question was inocent. Volkan was a Dalek Emporer or Godfather. And an innocent would be consistant with the fact that Garnasha never votes or Fos's Volkan.

True, but then Korlash would have the issue of why he 'vigged' a player on whom he had an innocent.

[The Fonz]

BM- any reason we've not gone to night? If so can we have a current VC?

[The Fonz]

I did nothing last night. I figure with the likely numerical advantage of the town at this point, vigging is overwhelmingly more likely to harm than help. We can play quite a conservative gameplan, I feel.

[The Fonz]

Vote: Xtoxm

Ridiculous craplogic.

[The Fonz]

Vote: Xtoxm

Ridiculous craplogic.

Oh whatever. You don't have to insult me too.

unvote vote Xtoxm

Dude, if you're going to come up with some ridiculous cock-and-bull story about how Cicero is scum because he, very reasonably, thinks the fact that you claimed something different to your predecessor, which is an enormous scumtell which would normally mean lynch-on-sight, you can't expect it not to be called out for the utter travesty of reason that it is.

[The Fonz]

EBWOP: Because he thinks that you claiming something different is damning.

[The Fonz]

The point of the massclaim is not that the scum have safeclaims. They obviously must do. The point is that these claims must be made, and adhered to.

[The Fonz]

And you guys think it's likely safe claims were given out?

I think it's pretty likely, yeah. I can't imagine it's very likely Korlash would risk claiming a major character like Rose Tyler, and then not being counterclaimed, unless it was a safe claim given to him by the mod.

Bear in mind, also, that no-one counterclaimed Rampage's claim of the Doctor.

[The Fonz]

You might as well have just claimed right then and there, Lowell, when you dropped that comment.

I agree. Normally, when someone says 'I have something to claim' i demand a claim there and then. However even stronger metas (lynch the obv-SK, and then the liar) have somewhat deflected me from that path.

[The Fonz]

What?

[The Fonz]

Erm, no. And Xtoxm is flat out lying about it being agreed that i would kill tonight. I don't even remember it being mentioned. If it had been, i'd have told whoever suggested it to mind their own damn business.

[The Fonz]

The only thing I can find remotely close to what Xtoxm is suggesting is one comment from Kison, where he suggests testing Lowell's claim by vigging (which is bizarre, really- it's not like Lowell claimed bulletproof. Reminds me of the old witch test). Since Lowell died anyway, that's rather moot, though I am now regretting not attempting to kill Xtoxm.

[The Fonz]

That looks reasonably good for cicero, in as much as Iesheba was not "Exterminated."

We appear to be running out of people the last scum could be (assuming it is indeed just one more scum we are dealing with)

We could do worse than to get claims from Kison, Pokerface and Yos2 today, I think.

We still have the matter of the one unaccounted-for kill at the beginning of the game.

[The Fonz]

My predecessor didn't kill that night. There were two 'killings,' and one deletion. Cicero claims not to have targetted any of the victims either, so there's either some kind of diverting role, or we have a killing group unaccounted for.

[The Fonz]

Well, the fact that we have a dead SK explains one of them.

I feel sure that longname never killed, but as I have since deleted the pm from BM I got when i replaced in, i'll just check.

[The Fonz]

I'd like fonz to submit a kill, to prove he's innocent. Numbers a getting down a little, so cicero, i'd probably advise against killing tonight.

Again, blow it out your ass. I'll do as i believe is in the town's interests. I can't see how killing would 'clear' me, anyway. There've been nights when i've killed, and nights when i haven't. Do you agree that there is very likely a town vig from the pattern of kills? 'Cause if there were one, and it wasn't me, I'd be dead by now.

[The Fonz]

And yes, I am now utterly sure that longname did not kill night 0.

[The Fonz]

Night 0: No-one
Night one: Yamahako
Night two: Albert B. Rampage
Night three: no-one
Night four: no-one

[The Fonz]

I don't see why it makes sense for a vig to kill first night, and then never thereafter.

[The Fonz]

Anyway, I wouldnt be surprised if there was another vigilante. Remember how much evil we had to deal with. I expect there's another vig among the unclaimed holding his powder. In the alternative, maybe the other doctor ("Caps") was just as CPRilicious as I was.

I think that would have been revealed on death...

Night 1 (not 0)

Who accounts for the 5th kill?

Daleks, Cult, Fonz, cicero, and...?

Erm, maybe, y'know, the serial killer we lynched a couple days back?

[The Fonz]

Ninja'd.

[The Fonz]

It happens.

[The Fonz]

the un-accounted for kill is night 0?

Could it not have been - SK, Cult killer, cult recruiter attepted to recruit mafia, killing himself?

Probably the most likely explanation i've seen yet.

[The Fonz]

That doesn't make sense, cicero. There was a deletion on night 0. Adel's rolename was 'cult killer.' She musta been cult from the start.

[The Fonz]

Hi guys,

good to see a town win, but (as I said to BM earlier) sad to see such a good theme go down without a single scum being caught by traditional scumhunting.

Jam got himself modkilled, and that revealed Flameaxe and Vollkan
Two crosskills
Korlash and Yos were basically outed due to roles
Plus Adel being killed by a quack trying to protect her

I probably mislead you by claiming vanilla.

Oh hell yes. Don't do that. Contradicting a claim made by the player you replaced is possibly the worst thing a replacement could do.

[The Fonz]

Gotta check such things, imo.