Mini 1771 - Legend of Zelda Mafia: Storm the Castle Endgame

Phoenix Wright · Post Post #3500 (ISO) » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:24 am

In post 3492, pisskop wrote:There was a time for that, and it was not when you were wagoned.

Good point actually. Why'd you only bring this up now, Xfkyu?

Nahdia · Post Post #3501 (ISO) » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:25 am

Because he forgot SirCakez claimed Loved and I just brought it up.........??

Xkfyu · Post Post #3502 (ISO) » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:27 am

In post 3500, Phoenix Wright wrote:
In post 3492, pisskop wrote:There was a time for that, and it was not when you were wagoned.

Good point actually. Why'd you only bring this up now, Xfkyu?

I forgot about it until now.

Dwlee99 · Post Post #3503 (ISO) » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:29 am

NAHDIA. STOP. ANSWERING. FOR. PEOPLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Phoenix Wright · Post Post #3504 (ISO) » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:29 am

In post 3503, Dwlee99 wrote:NAHDIA. STOP. ANSWERING. FOR. PEOPLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

What he said

Xkfyu · Post Post #3505 (ISO) » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:35 am

In post 3503, Dwlee99 wrote:NAHDIA. STOP. ANSWERING. FOR. PEOPLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

It's really not that serious. In general, I agree that people shouldn't answer for others, but in this case, the answer was pretty obvious.

Nahdia · Post Post #3506 (ISO) » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:36 am

Nahdia · Post Post #3507 (ISO) » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:37 am

It was a really dumb question.

Phoenix Wright · Post Post #3508 (ISO) » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:40 am

Pisskop's post that I quoted made me wonder if the whole Sircakez thing was a last ditch desperate attempt to take attention off himself. If it if it was and you didn't answer for him, he might've given answer that sounded nervous or like bs. But you gave him an out.

Xkfyu · Post Post #3509 (ISO) » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:42 am

In post 3508, Phoenix Wright wrote:Pisskop's post that I quoted made me wonder if the whole Sircakez thing was a last ditch desperate attempt to take attention off himself. If it if it was and you didn't answer for him, he might've given answer that sounded nervous or like bs. But you gave him an out.

I already said that I had forgotten, before you even asked me.

Phoenix Wright · Post Post #3510 (ISO) » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:46 am

Xkfyu · Post Post #3511 (ISO) » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:56 am

If we can establish the truth behind Cakez being Loved or not then, knowing my flip would clear PW, I'm fine with being lynched because it would significantly narrow down the possibilities as to who bussed beeboy.

Nahdia · Post Post #3512 (ISO) » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:00 am

Cakez being loved doesn't confirm him as town by any means >_>

Xkfyu · Post Post #3513 (ISO) » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:02 am

In post 3512, Nahdia wrote:Cakez being loved doesn't confirm him as town by any means >_>

I get that, but it will confirm that he is telling the truth about his claim, and that's probably enough for me to move him way down in my lynch pool.

pisskop · Post Post #3514 (ISO) » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:02 am

Im not sure why we are relying so much on vca and setup spec in the game. Especially considering the evolution of the game wrt wagons and general case depth and when considering the weak nature of each individual player's role.

pisskop · Post Post #3515 (ISO) » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:02 am

Did we all forget that play is the best indicator of alignment?

Xkfyu · Post Post #3516 (ISO) » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:04 am

In post 3515, pisskop wrote:Did we all forget that play is the best indicator of alignment?

So, if he is loved, then judge Cakez based off his play. If he isn't loved, then he'll be lynched at 5 votes, and we are guaranteed that he is going to flip scum.

Nahdia · Post Post #3517 (ISO) » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:06 am

This is almost definitely a waste of time.

Xkfyu · Post Post #3518 (ISO) » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:08 am

In post 3517, Nahdia wrote:This is almost definitely a waste of time.

Maybe, but if I'm lynched (assuming a successful NK), then we will be in MyLo, and you guys won't be able to test Cakez's Loved condition.

pisskop · Post Post #3519 (ISO) » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:09 am

We havent tested nadhias claim to be macho either

pisskop · Post Post #3520 (ISO) » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:10 am

We arent testing passive modifiers. If we wagon on cakez Im aiming for a lynch

Xkfyu · Post Post #3521 (ISO) » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:13 am

In post 3517, Nahdia wrote:This is almost definitely a waste of time.

Also, there are only 3 possible scenarios:

1. Cakez is town and is Loved.
2. Cakez is scum and is Loved.
3. Cakez is scum and not Loved.

#2 is the only scenario where scum would actually want Cakez's condition tested, and since I know that there are no scum currently trying to test Cakez, I don't think #2 is very likely.

Xkfyu · Post Post #3522 (ISO) » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:15 am

In post 3520, pisskop wrote:We arent testing passive modifiers. If we wagon on cakez Im aiming for a lynch

We are testing Cakez's passive modifier because there is absolutely no reason not to.

There is the possible reward of lynching scum, at no risk whatsoever.

Nahdia · Post Post #3523 (ISO) » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:16 am

If you guys manage to get a SirCakez wagon to 4 I'll quickly place the 5th vote and remove it, but for now my vote stays. This feels frivolous, I can't imagine anyone fakeclaiming something so easily testable.

Xkfyu · Post Post #3524 (ISO) » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:23 am

In post 3523, Nahdia wrote:If you guys manage to get a SirCakez wagon to 4 I'll quickly place the 5th vote and remove it, but for now my vote stays. This feels frivolous, I can't imagine anyone fakeclaiming something so easily testable.

You're probably right, but this way, we'll be sure.

Do this first, and I won't even fight my lynch afterwards.