Mini 1798: Greatest Idea (Game Over)

House · Post Post #450 (ISO) » Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:02 am

In post 427, SirCakez wrote:
In post 425, DoctorPepper wrote:I'm convinced something is wrong. I'll put pressure on your spot because this isn't the play I'm used to from either of you tbh
^

You're on a wagon with your second highest scumspect.

Considering they lost a member d1, odds of them bussing d2 are rather low, especially when the second is incriminated by their own partner.

Think about this at more than a surface level.

House · Post Post #451 (ISO) » Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:09 am

In post 419, Fate wrote:
In post 415, House wrote:{iraonavp}
{Ranger}
{Alchemist21, DoctorPepper, massive}
{Katsuki}
{RadiantMoonlight}
{Fate}
{Radical Rat}

RR needs to swing.
Then Fate d3.

If the game is still ongoing at that point, I'm open to RM.
I guess I'll just back to back bus buddies and NK you and coast though

iranowap is a safe lynch for me to push once you're dead

This actually sells me on Fate being scum #3 more than their cards did.

Notice how he targets my #1 townread in his post ty push after I'm NK'ed.

Why would iraonavp be my #1 townread when I pushed him yesterday and Ranger caught scum yesterday?

Because I'm the cop and iraonavp came back inno. That's why.

I'm outing my claim and results because Fate made it clear that I'm being targeted tonight anyway (surprised i wasn't last night, actually).

When RR swings, Fate needs to be jailed/blocked and I need to be protected.

Radical Rat · Post Post #452 (ISO) » Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:12 am

In post 449, House wrote:
In post 438, Radical Rat wrote:.
I haven't claimed anything except "Not Werewolf Unlynchable" for this roll.
I never said you claimed it this roll. I said Yume fell back on your claim to base her second fakeclaim when her first one flopped because you're buddies.

You know, you really should have bussed the shit out of her when she made an impossible claim, or at the very least, not tried to hunt based off impossible claims when your own buddy made an egregious one that you didn't call out.

You didn't say I did, but RC did.

And I told you, I just missed that claim.

House · Post Post #453 (ISO) » Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:12 am

In post 452, Radical Rat wrote:
In post 449, House wrote:
In post 438, Radical Rat wrote:.
I haven't claimed anything except "Not Werewolf Unlynchable" for this roll.
I never said you claimed it this roll. I said Yume fell back on your claim to base her second fakeclaim when her first one flopped because you're buddies.

You know, you really should have bussed the shit out of her when she made an impossible claim, or at the very least, not tried to hunt based off impossible claims when your own buddy made an egregious one that you didn't call out.
You didn't say I did, but RC did.

And I told you, I just missed that claim.

But you were all over a Mason Lover claim.

Right.

Radical Rat · Post Post #454 (ISO) » Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:14 am

House, would you mind claiming with all three of your cards?

The more known cards we have in play, the fewer scum can use to fakeclaim.

Radical Rat · Post Post #455 (ISO) » Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:15 am

In post 453, House wrote:
In post 452, Radical Rat wrote:
In post 449, House wrote:
In post 438, Radical Rat wrote:.
I haven't claimed anything except "Not Werewolf Unlynchable" for this roll.
I never said you claimed it this roll. I said Yume fell back on your claim to base her second fakeclaim when her first one flopped because you're buddies.

You know, you really should have bussed the shit out of her when she made an impossible claim, or at the very least, not tried to hunt based off impossible claims when your own buddy made an egregious one that you didn't call out.
You didn't say I did, but RC did.

And I told you, I just missed that claim.

But you were all over a Mason Lover claim.

Right.

I would have been all over it if I saw it. But I didn't notice that claim until it was quoted, so sue me.

House · Post Post #456 (ISO) » Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:17 am

In post 454, Radical Rat wrote:House, would you mind claiming with all three of your cards?

The more known cards we have in play, the fewer scum can use to fakeclaim.

If you want any shot at living to d3, you need to bus Fate.

One of you are swinging today, and I don't care which because we can neutralize the other.

House · Post Post #457 (ISO) » Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:22 am

In post 455, Radical Rat wrote:I would have been all over it if I saw it. But I didn't notice that claim until it was quoted, so sue me.

Not buying it.

You were paying enough attention to feign suspicion of Mason Lover, Vengeful Seer should have screamed at you for rope.

massive · Post Post #458 (ISO) » Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:33 am

In post 442, House wrote:We don't have to take Cakes at his word about being a Lover. Ranger outed the members d1.

We have to take him at his word about being a Mason Lover (the complete package). He's already said he's the only mason.

I like this line on RR.

VOTE: Radical Rat

Someone mentioned outing all cards so that we can narrow down possible scum fakeclaims. Are the cards all one-use each in a setup role?

Still not crazy about Fate and his miller claim. Still not liking RC (RM?)'s refusal to post first-round cards, but hoping that it won't prevent whatever it is that Ranger intends to do.

Radical Rat · Post Post #459 (ISO) » Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:38 am

I'm not opposed to lynching Fate, but I'm not done with RM yet.

The day has only just begun, we don't need to worry about who's swinging yet.

House · Post Post #460 (ISO) » Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:39 am

In post 439, Radiant Moonlight wrote: The counterwagons between our slot and RR feel really weird. Can I get some input on what's happened thus far, especially from Ranger? Thanks.

~Titus

Cakez is tunneling you based on blind assumptions and if this were any other game I'd be scumreading him for it because his actions today smell like Lyncher.

Luckily for him, he gets a reprieve until RR and Fate swing.

House · Post Post #461 (ISO) » Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:40 am

In post 459, Radical Rat wrote:I'm not opposed to lynching Fate, but I'm not done with RM yet.

The day has only just begun, we don't need to worry about who's swinging yet.

Nothing to worry about. It's you or Fate, period. End of story.

Alchemist21 · Post Post #462 (ISO) » Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:41 am

In post 410, Radical Rat wrote:I agree with you there, but my problem is that this isn't what you chose to justify your vote. Your reasoning then was just that one head thought you were Town, after the other expressed suspicion.

Had you cited their inactivity instead, I wouldn't have a problem.

Yet, it seems somewhat silly to focus on you when we have a read in common, so I'll follow along if you don't mind.

VOTE: Radiant Moonlight

This is another scum point for Radical. He flips from voting Cakez to voting

with

Cakez on a slot he hadn't expressed suspicion to before their exchange. This looks like a somewhat panicked attempt to help build the counterwagon to his slot. The entire reasoning behind the RM wagon boils down to "they aren't posting enough" which several people have already pointed out isn't indicative for either head. Radical had a better point against Cakez, but just abandons it in favor of voting RM with Cakez, probably because he figures RM is the easier lynch.

House · Post Post #463 (ISO) » Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:56 am

In post 458, massive wrote:We have to take him at his word about being a Mason Lover (the complete package). He's already said he's the only mason.

It's an easy claim to buy, because he just threw it out there with no fear.

If he was scum, he'd have been taking a ginormous risk of an actual Mason cc'ing him.

Cakez is not a person of interest. Let scum kill him.

Radiant Moonlight · Post Post #464 (ISO) » Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:57 am

In post 463, House wrote:
In post 458, massive wrote:We have to take him at his word about being a Mason Lover (the complete package). He's already said he's the only mason.
It's an easy claim to buy, because he just threw it out there with no fear.

If he was scum, he'd have been taking a ginormous risk of an actual Mason cc'ing him.

Cakez is not a person of interest. Let scum kill him.

Agreed. Cakez is confirmed town, to both our heads.

I'll grab from the first game. I don't see why anyone would want that but whatever.

Radiant Moonlight · Post Post #465 (ISO) » Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:59 am

Werewolf One-Shot PGO
Lover
Mafia Compulsive Hider

Those were our choices. We picked mafia PGO for game 1.

Radiant Moonlight · Post Post #466 (ISO) » Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:00 am

In post 459, Radical Rat wrote:I'm not opposed to lynching Fate, but I'm not done with RM yet.

The day has only just begun, we don't need to worry about who's swinging yet.

VOTE: Radical Rat

When is the proper time for caring who swings?

Alchemist21 · Post Post #467 (ISO) » Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:01 am

In post 463, House wrote:Cakez is not a person of interest. Let scum kill him

Well apparantly scum couldn't even do that much. Lol

massive · Post Post #468 (ISO) » Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:02 am

In post 442, House wrote:
In post 428, massive wrote:If we assume Cakey is telling the truth about his role, then he's not a werewolf, since Werewolf Lover is (for some reason) one of the "impossible" combinations according to the Wiki page.

RC, are you going to give Ranger your round-one cards, or are you going to ignore that request?
We don't have to take Cakes at his word about being a Lover. Ranger outed the members d1.

I agree that Cakez is town. Just trying to make sure we have no stone unturned.

Radiant Moonlight · Post Post #469 (ISO) » Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:03 am

In post 467, Alchemist21 wrote:
In post 463, House wrote:Cakez is not a person of interest. Let scum kill him
Well apparantly scum couldn't even do that much. Lol

Who are the lovers? You're assuming they tried to kill him.

House · Post Post #470 (ISO) » Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:03 am

In post 464, Radiant Moonlight wrote:
In post 463, House wrote:
In post 458, massive wrote:We have to take him at his word about being a Mason Lover (the complete package). He's already said he's the only mason.
It's an easy claim to buy, because he just threw it out there with no fear.

If he was scum, he'd have been taking a ginormous risk of an actual Mason cc'ing him.

Cakez is not a person of interest. Let scum kill him.
Agreed. Cakez is confirmed town, to both our heads.

I'll grab from the first game. I don't see why anyone would want that but whatever.

Reread d1, it's enlightening.

House · Post Post #471 (ISO) » Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:04 am

In post 469, Radiant Moonlight wrote:
In post 467, Alchemist21 wrote:
In post 463, House wrote:Cakez is not a person of interest. Let scum kill him
Well apparantly scum couldn't even do that much. Lol
Who are the lovers? You're assuming they tried to kill him.

Ranger, Katsuki, and Cakez.

I think they targeted Ranger over Cakez because Ranger caught scum d1.

Radiant Moonlight · Post Post #472 (ISO) » Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:04 am

In post 468, massive wrote:
In post 442, House wrote:
In post 428, massive wrote:If we assume Cakey is telling the truth about his role, then he's not a werewolf, since Werewolf Lover is (for some reason) one of the "impossible" combinations according to the Wiki page.

RC, are you going to give Ranger your round-one cards, or are you going to ignore that request?
We don't have to take Cakes at his word about being a Lover. Ranger outed the members d1.
I agree that Cakez is town. Just trying to make sure we have no stone unturned.

Titus wanted me to tell you that if you keep pushing to turn over this stone, she'll beat you over the head with it. She's not subtle.

Radiant Moonlight · Post Post #473 (ISO) » Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:05 am

In post 471, House wrote:
In post 469, Radiant Moonlight wrote:
In post 467, Alchemist21 wrote:
In post 463, House wrote:Cakez is not a person of interest. Let scum kill him
Well apparantly scum couldn't even do that much. Lol
Who are the lovers? You're assuming they tried to kill him.
Ranger, Katsuki, and Cakez.

I think they targeted Ranger over Cakez because Ranger caught scum d1.

I don't think they targeted the lovers at all. No solid evidence there. Just Titus theory I am running with.

House · Post Post #474 (ISO) » Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:07 am

In post 473, Radiant Moonlight wrote:
In post 471, House wrote:
In post 469, Radiant Moonlight wrote:
In post 467, Alchemist21 wrote:
In post 463, House wrote:Cakez is not a person of interest. Let scum kill him
Well apparantly scum couldn't even do that much. Lol
Who are the lovers? You're assuming they tried to kill him.
Ranger, Katsuki, and Cakez.

I think they targeted Ranger over Cakez because Ranger caught scum d1.
I don't think they targeted the lovers at all. No solid evidence there. Just Titus theory I am running with.

If they didn't target Ranger, the only likely target left was me for jumping all over Yume and pushing RR in twilight.