Mini 722: Neapolitan Mafia (Over)

[magnus_orion]

/confirm

[magnus_orion]

vote: beyond_birthday
On accound of avatar and username.
three murders is enough to warrant my vote...

[magnus_orion]

oops

vote: beyond Birthday

[magnus_orion]

consider it noted that mcnuke and zachrulez confirmed within a minute of each other.

[magnus_orion]

consider it noted that mcnuke and zachrulez confirmed within a minute of each other.

What would that have to do with anything?

open talk prior to cofirming finishing. I am assuming scum can talk during the night, but I feel this is a safe assumption. Since they couldn't know when everyone would finish confirming, it is likely they would discuss plans prior to confirming. When they were done talking they would go to the thread and confirm. Since they finish talking at the same time, they end up confirming at the same time.

Its a possibility, but its also a possibility that its a total coincidence, which is why it didn't earn even an fos. Hence "consider it noted"

[magnus_orion]

Your reaching a little bit there. For one, there's a good chance that they wouldn't be on at the same time to pm each other. 2nd, one person even if by some chance that they were on at the same time, would end the conversation before the other, and thus confirm first. C, I'm guessing there's more than 2 scum in a game with 12 people.

I know you said it doesn't deserve even an FOS, but your fishing......

Excuse me?
fishing? as in role fishing?
I am fishing, but I'm fishing mafia-alligned fish.
Care to explain how what I'm doing could be fishing for other alligned fish?

And your sounding a tad over-defensive of these two players, considering I haven't even attacked them.

and yes, one of the group would be before the other two, but the other two could end up confirming at around the same time. So B is negated because of C.

[magnus_orion]

Care to explain how what I'm doing could be fishing for other alligned fish?

Am I to understand you don't have a response to this question?

[magnus_orion]

"no way in hell", huh? You have information I don't?
Reaches can be true... I wouldn't support assuming that they are true, but I also don't support saying reaches are always false.

[magnus_orion]

"no way in hell", huh? You have information I don't?
Reaches can be true... I wouldn't support assuming that they are true, but I also don't support saying reaches are always false.

Now your spinning my quotes. "no way in hell" is a lot different from the quote that I did say, which was "You may have been "fishing for scum" but it is such a reach

that there's basically no way in Hell

it could be right.".

All I'm saying is that there is nothing to be gained from two people confirming one minute apart.

While I fail to see how I was spinning your quote, I think that you are taking an agreeable stance on the matter.
Which, once again, is why I said "consider it noted".
Now I'm finished with this issue as well.
I was simply bothered by how much you had reacted.

[magnus_orion]

Unfortunately there are no ideas to flow freely or discuss... because there are no ideas to flow freely or discuss.

[magnus_orion]

hmmmmm....
alright, discuss this:

Fos: Tyhess

, for not random voting

[magnus_orion]

Wow, How did I know that would be the first thng someone said about that.
I don't recall you posting.

[magnus_orion]

why do I finding not random voting suspicious?
Well, random voting is supposed to be used to guage reactions. Guaging reactions is a way of finding scum. Therefore guaging reactions is pro-town. Therefore, by extension, random voting is pro-town. Not participating in a pro-town action is anti-town. Therefore not random voting is anti-town, and Anti-town is scummy. I expect, by page 3, for everyone whose posted to have made a random vote, unless something happened which ended the random vote stage. At which point random votes become scummy.

[magnus_orion]

Sorry for the double post, but...
Tyhess, are you trying to say we should avoid voting or fosing people for things that are in game related?

[magnus_orion]

why do I finding not random voting suspicious?
Well, random voting is supposed to be used to guage reactions. Guaging reactions is a way of finding scum. Therefore guaging reactions is pro-town. Therefore, by extension, random voting is pro-town. Not participating in a pro-town action is anti-town. Therefore not random voting is anti-town, and Anti-town is scummy. I expect, by page 3, for everyone whose posted to have made a random vote, unless something happened which ended the random vote stage. At which point random votes become scummy.

So your telling me:
1) Scum and town act different to a random vote when both of their goals when they type are the same-to act pro-town
and,
2) That a person who knows a vote is random will feel any ill-ease from it?

err... essentially, yes, that's the idea behind the whole random vote thing. I didn't make it up, but the only other way to start a game (as far as I can tell) would be a gambit.

[magnus_orion]

Sorry for the double post, but...
Tyhess, are you trying to say we should avoid voting or fosing people for things that are in game related?

For the things you are bringing up, yes.

...
So basically, I'm vote-worthy for fishing for targets I think are scummy for my votes and fos's(from what I understand given more recent context).
In other words, we should not be looking for reasons to vote people. Or rather only reasons you find acceptable.
Whats the alternative?
*reads rules*
1. Wait for a dead line. No lynch occurs. Scum get nightkill. Move to day 2.
2. Listen to whatever tyhess says and lynch whomever he deems scummy.
3. random lynch
So, at this point, I'll stick to my fishing, thank you.

I know you didn't make it up. I just don't think that it works like that, and I don't think you should be FOSing people who don't believe in your way of playing. I think it's anti-town in the fact that you get people arguing over pointless stuff such as the time 2 people confirmed.

Anyway, what's your way of playing? Assuming a different game, what method would you use to start the game off?

[magnus_orion]

Sorry, double post, this was posted while I was posting....

No one IS discussing anything at the beginning of the day. Also, as bad as the random vote jokes are, they do (at least for me) convey a sense of community and friendliness which can be nice since the rest of the game is full of arguing and murder.

haha, true, true....

As for the fact that no one is discussing anything at the beginning of the day, we could maybe take cracks at the roles in this game, how the game is balanced, or other random things that have to do with this particular game.....but that's just one man's opinion...

We should be trying to figure out what the roles are? To what end? So mafia can false claim?

unvote vote: Tyhess

[magnus_orion]

No one IS discussing anything at the beginning of the day. Also, as bad as the random vote jokes are, they do (at least for me) convey a sense of community and friendliness which can be nice since the rest of the game is full of arguing and murder.

haha, true, true....

As for the fact that no one is discussing anything at the beginning of the day, we could maybe take cracks at the roles in this game

, how the game is balanced, or other random things that have to do with this particular game.....but that's just one man's opinion...

Taking cracks at roles or setup mechanisms will benefit scum more than town at this stage, considering Town has no information to work with this early. The scum are in a better position to learn more from these speculations.

It

might

have been more viable if we had started on a Night, where at least Town would have had a bit of info concerning the number of nightkills that occurred, or whatever the power-roles could have learned by their night actions. In our current state where Town knows nothing, it's a big no-no, IMO.

FOS tyhess

for what I consider to be an anti-town suggestion.

I was naming things that could be talked about, not necessarily what should happen in this game.

Nightless is an example of where that would work.

I just think talking about the game will give better leads than a random vote.

The second underlined portion is a blatant lie when taken along with the wording of the first underlined portion. That is my opinion.

[magnus_orion]

Um.....You know what a general statement means? The conversation between me and Rogue weren't necessarily about this particular game. I was naming things that could, generally, be possible topics to start a game. Again with twisting my words.

we could maybe take cracks at the roles in

this game

-_-
O Rly?

[magnus_orion]

other random things that have to do with

this particular game

no, I'm pretty sure you're talking about "this particular game"

[magnus_orion]

He said he was talking about things that could be talked about a game, but not necessarily should happen in this particular game

The way I understand what he actually said was that one of the alternatives to what we could do instead of a random vote, in this game, was effectively, mass role claim. Day 1. Because of the fact nothing was being discussed.

[magnus_orion]

...

mod: is the vote count correct?

MODEDIT:

Except for the fact that tyhess and magnus_orion (you) had a 1 next to them (fixed) instead of a 2... I believe so, do you have something that you find wrong? I had to wade through the FOS's

and, tyhess reread... don't see it... it sounds like in your post you switched the focus back to "this game"

If you had used "the game" I might've seen things differently. "the game" would have been a more natural way of putting it, much more likely.

In fact, post 73, you affirmed my interpretation of your post....

[magnus_orion]

Mass role claim... how else would we be able to argue what we think the roles are unless we gave are own roles to theorize how to balance said roles.

[magnus_orion]

mod: no... it was the ones. Thanks.

MODEDIT:

Okay, Thanks.

[magnus_orion]

I didn't post post 73, so how could I have affirmed your interpretation?

right... sorry. post 74, rather. Gtg, get some sleep. I'm done for today (in real life).

[magnus_orion]

vote: beyond_birthday
On accound of avatar and username.
three murders is enough to warrant my vote...

I beg your pardon, dear boy, but my EYES told me when they would die. Is it fate that lead to their deaths causing me to kill them, or is it I who killed them, shaping their fates!? *HAHAHAHA*

Maybe their parents have damned them on account of giving them a name that has a first letter to match their surname.

In any case, this town only needs one crazed revenge killer:

Vote PsychoSniper

Guns are so inappropriate in killing someone...you need a knife...or to experiment with breaking their arm to cause enough internal bleeding to make them die...make them suffer...mutilate them......clean just isn't fun...

That's not a SK claim, I hope.

No, its not, its a reference to the book where his username comes from. Good book by the way, excelent plot twist.

[magnus_orion]

I never said anything about confirming your roles

or anything like that, that would be dumb.

your as in "you townies"?

*fixes hair, looks in mirror*

Go to post 83. Read about the 3rd line. It says something about who's going to confirm the roles except for the people who actual possess them. Your roles=plural, as in everybody but me.

I'll answer everything else later. I might not be home until 10ish to answer, though.

So you're willing to role claim?

And

Trapping words onto paper? WITCHES I SAY, ALL OF YOU ARE WITCHES!

Oh crap, he figured us out!

[magnus_orion]

"I never said anything about confirming YOUR roles"
Someone askes if YOUR means the town
You deny it and say YOUR ment everyone except you.

So the sentence is supposed to mean
"I never said anything about confirming everyone else's roles except mine."

I reiterate: Does this mean you're willing to role claim?

Why is my opinion a defense of Tyhess? Just because I disagreed with what you thought he was doing, suddenly I'm defending him?

So basically what you are telling me is I had to attack Tyhess for his "massclaim" suggestion? Anything else is apparently, by your logic, a defense of him.

Well then, I will make sure that I never ever do anything but attack people, even if I don't think they did anything wrong, I'll just get mad and attack every single person for everything they do, because I can't defend people because "Defending a person isn't good scumhunting."

Good logic there.

You're disagreeing with the only attack on the table. Thus you are defending him, since it eliminates the only attacks on him on the table. It is good logic.


And just to be clear, I was applying pressure orginaly to get conversation going. I didn't expect Tyhess to be so jumpy about people suspecting him. The fact that he is bothers me greatly.
It bothers me enough to earn my vote.

If you check, I haven't actually called him scum once.

[magnus_orion]

lindisfarne doesn't sound worked up to me.
Yes my opinion defends him.

Btw, Everything I say is processed logically. Usually I assume most people see the logic. If not I'm more than willing to point it out.

For example the "blatant lie"

My read of the intial post implied he was talking about this game

The second post denies this and claims he was talking about mafia games in general.

I see this as a blatant lie, given that he used the words "this game" multiple times in that post

"This" is normally used to exert a sense of closeness, like something going on nearby, while "that" is a term used to exert a sense of farness, like something not going on nearby.

Thus, in my mind, "this" refers to the game we are playing now, while "that" would refer to a different game.

[magnus_orion]

Much like Magnus' assertion that Tyress lied, this portion of Lindisfarne's post 101 looks to be fiction to me.

normally when an assertion is made, its backed up with some form of evidence.

You say my pointing out of a lie looks like fiction.
I'd like to see some evidence to back that up, particularly because I wasn't making it up.

[magnus_orion]

I was rereading, and this caught my eye, Issac.

I don't think he intended it to suggest a claim, I think he was just trying (and failing) to point out what he thought was a fault in Magnus's play style.

You'll have to explain this one to me.


You are refering to this post, correct?

haha, true, true....

As for the fact that no one is discussing anything at the beginning of the day, we could maybe take cracks at the roles in this game, how the game is balanced, or other random things that have to do with this particular game.....but that's just one man's opinion...

Now, I'm going to summarize what you said in the quote above.
"Tyhess was attempting to point out a fault in magnus's play style, not suggest a mass claim."

Well, first off, I don't think he was trying to suggest a mass claim, but that would be the logical conclusion of what he suggested. In order to agrue about roles, we'd need information, and that information is our own roles. In other words, it would not be difficult to figure out roles based solely on what people are suggesting the set-up might be. This would mean the effect would be similar to that of a mass-claim.

Secondly, this post does not mention me. If you take it in total context, than the playstyle he was trying to point out the fault of was random voting.
Guess what, you random voted too. As did everyone, bar tyhess.
So, basically in context, he may having been trying to point out a fault in everyone's playstyle. A "fault" that happens to be the play of the overwhelming majority of the people on this site.

Seeing how the post itself does not mention me, I don't see how he could be attempting to find fault with my own playstyle, when making this comment.

Thirdly, I don't see how what he was trying to do was not suggest we argue about the roles. To summarize what he was saying (with context): "I don't like random voting, its a waste of time, instead we could discuss the roles or balance of the game."
(The extreme context being a defense of my fos on him for not random voting, and an attempt to justify the vote on me that he used to add weight to his defense.)

Now that I'm done with a priori arguments in order to prevent the wasting of time, explain your read of tyhess to me, because from my point of view, the read you are making is impossible to support.

[magnus_orion]

just because one thinks something to be a lie, and posts that it is a lie, doesn't necessarily mean that its a lie. "logic" is something undeniable, not subject to the whims of your discretion. this:

My read of the intial post implied he was talking about this game

The second post denies this and claims he was talking about mafia games in general.

I see this as a blatant lie, given that he used the words "this game" multiple times in that post

"This" is normally used to exert a sense of closeness, like something going on nearby, while "that" is a term used to exert a sense of farness, like something not going on nearby.

Thus, in my mind, "this" refers to the game we are playing now, while "that" would refer to a different game.

is not logic. it is opinion. you might think it logical, but that doesn't make it logic either.

True, but it is close to logic as we are likely to get in this game, right? Until we have any hard facts to deal with, actual logic is more or less impossible. Besides your critque doesn't rule out my arguement. Something may not be based entirely in logic, but if it can't be disproven by logic, then it remains reasonably sound.

[magnus_orion]

Secondly, this post does not mention me. If you take it in total context, than the playstyle he was trying to point out the fault of was random voting.
Guess what, you random voted too. As did everyone, bar tyhess.
So, basically in context, he may having been trying to point out a fault in everyone's playstyle. A "fault" that happens to be the play of the overwhelming majority of the people on this site.

You are twisting words here. Yes, the play style he is referring to is that of many people, but he was making the comment in his post as a part of a series of arguments with YOU. Therefore, it was made primarily as a remark at you. You need to keep track of context.

If you look, you made the comment about why random voting was important. Then, later, Tyhess explained why he thought random voting was less important than his ideas. Thus, he is countering you.

Btw, Everything I say is processed logically. Usually I assume most people see the logic. If not I'm more than willing to point it out.

For example the "blatant lie"

My read of the intial post implied he was talking about this game

The second post denies this and claims he was talking about mafia games in general.

I see this as a blatant lie, given that he used the words "this game" multiple times in that post

"This" is normally used to exert a sense of closeness, like something going on nearby, while "that" is a term used to exert a sense of farness, like something not going on nearby.

Thus, in my mind, "this" refers to the game we are playing now, while "that" would refer to a different game.

Talk is cheap. Don't say you process things logically, point out how your conclusions draw logically from your premises.

It only was a lie to you because you read parts of the sentences out of context. Go back to post 77 and read the sentences. In the first he says "We

could

..." In the second, he says he was saying what

could

happen, not what

should

. No contradiction there.

Yes, the play style he is referring to is that of many people, but he was making the comment in his post as a part of a series of arguments with YOU. Therefore, it was made primarily as a remark at you. You need to keep track of context.

So you admit the basis of his arguement encompasses an attack on many others...
Also, please make a note of this: he denies that random voting is the way to start off a phase.

So, anything he suggests we could do, in place of what we are doing (random voting), takes on the meaning of "what we might do which could be better than what we are doing."

The fact that he disagreed with what we were doing means that anything he suggests as an alternate possibility he considers better, or he wouldn't suggest it as a better alternative, or am I wrong about this?

Based on the above way of thinking, he is saying that talking about what we think the roles are is a

better

alternative to random voting. Not only that, but he

affirms

this interpretation in post 74

It only was a lie to you because you read parts of the sentences out of context. Go back to post 77 and read the sentences. In the first he says "We could..." In the second, he says he was saying what could happen, not what should. No contradiction there.

?????
I did not mention coulds and woulds and shoulds. Not for the lie, anyway.
I mentioned "this game" and "not this game" Which he said, denied he said it, and which is, in fact, a contradiction.

Talk is cheap. Don't say you process things logically, point out how your conclusions draw logically from your premises.

Why order me to do it and make such harsh comments? "talk is cheap" Was that necessary?
okay...
premise 1: He said this game
Premise 2: He said he wasn't talking about this game
Conclusion: Premise 1 contradicts premise 2 therefore premise 2 or premise 1 is false.

The only thing that isn't logical about that is that my premises are opinions.
Reason is something else things are processed through.
Logic must use reason as a base, correct? Because otherwise we could logically conclude, well, nothing...

Also, don't criticize me for sounding self-assured, because you sound like you're trying to convince us that every word you say is fact. Which its not, its opinion.

[magnus_orion]

for the record, I didn't think tyhess was scum, and am still unsure.
But I do believe that his suggestion was enough to warrant my vote for now. If he's about to be lynched I'd unvote him. Just because I'm voting someone doesn't necessarily mean I am confident the person is scum, and I just use word-twisting early on to further discussion.

That is all I wanted on the record. Like I said, I haven't called Tyhess scum once.

[magnus_orion]

exactly the way I like it. well, minus the distancing.

[magnus_orion]

ruh-roh! Interrogation sounds like pain!
Interrogate me, eh? I don't mind, I've got nothing to hide. Though I am curious about your methodology for this... It sounds interesting.

By the way, LF, I don't know what it is, but I get the feeling Rouge is scum, probably because of his semi-lurking feel, which is what I've seen scum do in response to my fabricated dichotomizing of the game the last time I managed to do it. But that was a different site with a forced night-fall. Well, we'll see how it turns out.

FOS: Rouge

(this is not taking into consideration anything he says while I'm typing this post)

Issac reads townie so far, but your read is equally true of him. He focuses on the arguement, not its purpose, in my mind. (I've been reading WoT mafia )

My biggest problem so far was that I was really considering tyhess town, but his suggestion and dodges make me very unsure. In two or three posts he went from "most likely town" to "uh..." from my point of view.

[magnus_orion]

Read again. Should have time tonight to post on everything, if not almost certainly 2morrow.

But Magnus: Why would you call out me for what you thought was a call for role claiming, and then when lind 100% no doubt about it asks for two other people to role claim, you say nothing?

Because I think I know what he has in mind. and I think its pro-town. But I could be completely wrong

[magnus_orion]

Well, its not all of it. I just have guesses based on what you asked for.
Besides once you reveal your plan, if it turns out to be anti-town, we can always lynch you...

[magnus_orion]

I don't get the question...
If its simply even or odd with no underlying meaning:
even.
But if there is underlying meaning that I am supposed to know because of my role or something, then I wouldn't count my answer.

[magnus_orion]

I think Lindis is asking if zach is willing to reveal more of... something...

[magnus_orion]

Are they unrelated to each other?
=_=
*Feels very left out.*

[magnus_orion]

Well, I said I thought Rouge was scum.
I want a claim from him

unvote
vote Rouge

[magnus_orion]

I said I thought you were scum prior to what LF did, thus my vote is not opportunistic.
I want the claim. I'm not saying I demand it, or that it would help you in any way. I'm willing to wait until you have no choice, and I'm willing to ignore it if you don't reach that point. But I still think you're scum, especially comparing your activity now with your activity a little while ago.

[magnus_orion]

I said I thought you were scum prior to what LF did, thus my vote is not opportunistic.
I want the claim. I'm not saying I demand it, or that it would help you in any way. I'm willing to wait until you have no choice, and I'm willing to ignore it if you don't reach that point. But I still think you're scum, especially comparing your activity now with your activity a little while ago.

[magnus_orion]

oops I think i posted that twice due to crappy internet...

[magnus_orion]

I just think your scum and based on what we've seen so far, and my own role, I think its difficult for mafia to false claim. So I want a claim from my top suspect.
as for
1. I wanted to see what you're reaction was and after that I wanted to see the resaults of what LF was doing. 2. Not feeling like it is anti-town. And your using wifom for defense.

In truth, I also found suspicious how you dove on Tyhess for being jumpy. I didn't think he was scum, and I still am uncertain about him, so at a point when I thought he was town your vote seemed like an opportunistic move to me. The fact that I am uncertain about him now is moot, since the info that made me uncertain wasn't available at that time so he should have appeared more towny. I should have appeared more scummy to townies.

Lindis:
Scum:
Rouge
(I'm not sure who else.)

Town:
Lindis
Zach
magnus

and after them
Issac

Everyone else is sorta null in my eyes.

[magnus_orion]

Sorry... dove is just a word I use in place of vote.
I'm not saying it was severe, I'm saying it was scummy.

[magnus_orion]

Oh well, say what you like. Until you say something that makes me believe you're town, I going to believe you're scum.

[magnus_orion]

Why I replied? Since you're intrigued:
I don't know, I just didn't want to be unhelpful to a potentially pro-town move.

Once again, if it turned out anti-town we could've always lynched LF.

By the way, BB, how did you cut your wrist and then let blood flow slowly out? Wouldn't cutting those arteries cause blood to be squirting out?

[magnus_orion]

you are all blathering idiots.

The ad hominem doesn't make you look better in my eyes.
That said, you haven't mentioned zach or rouge until now in your 10 posts.

FOS: don_johnson

For declaring two people town and refusing to give reasoning.

Percy, was your question rhetorical? Or do you want me to answer?

[magnus_orion]

He said he believed Zach and I were town. He did not "declare" anything.

Yet again you either choose your words with malicious intent or horrible crassness.

Since you have noticed it is a habit of mine, why are you calling me out for it?
You know as well as I what I was asking.
Why does he believe you and zach are town, seeing as he hasn't mentioned either, meaning we can't go back and see his reasons?

[magnus_orion]

How you ask can be as important as what. Word choice is rather important and is something that is easy for everyone to see.

If I see something as scummy ill point it out magnus... I won't stop because you drown me in examples. That would be silly.

As for your second question, I cant see why you are now asking me this. I clearly can't answer.

So you have convinced yourself that my poor word choice is a result of malicious intent? Isn't that stretching things, just a tad?


@Don: I'm not seeing the, "If you read Rouge's posts you'll see that he's town." Arguement.
I don't think thats good enough, either.
You have expressed that you believe he's town. Your intent appears to be to clear suspicion from him, either becuase you think its worthless or because you're trying to protect him. If you intend on convincing members of this town that rouge is a townie, you're going to have to explain your reasoning. IF you are serious in trying to prove he is pro-town and cease suspicions on him, then you'd be explaining yourself better. Basically, if rouge is pro-town, then you are acting against the interest of the town in being unwilling to explain why.
This is not looking in your favor don. At this point, I will actually be more suspicious of you if rouge is indeed town.

[magnus_orion]

Rouge, I want to ask you, what do you think of what Don has been saying about you? Do you think his arguement is legitimate?
In other words how do you feel about don simply saying, "If you read rouge's posts you'd see that he's town"?

[magnus_orion]

Don, If you don't come up with an accurate and at least mildly coherent case as to why Rouge should be considered pro-town within your next few posts, you get my vote.

HOS: Don

I would also prefer if people hold off on commenting about how towny or not towny rouge looks upon reread until Don answers my question. I don't want someone to answer this question for him.

[magnus_orion]

EBWOP: *change question to prompt

[magnus_orion]

potato potah-to

[magnus_orion]

Mr. Birthday, I've been wondering, what exactly says I've been buddying up with LF? I understand LF made such a comment, but he also mentioned that I could be waiting instead, which in fact I was.

As for answering his even/odd, He was claiming he had an experiment, and my natural tendency toward curiosity told me to do what ever it takes to further that experiment to its conclusion. You've also neglected to consider that LF still hasn't fully executed his plan yet (something I beieve to be the case).

Don, I just want his case. I want to be sure he has a case.

Rogue: I still get a nagging scum feel from him. It may be vanished away by don's post though. We'll see.

Tyhess: B_B, Tyhess is a guy. I'm still unsure about him.


Psycho: null, leaning scum. I want him to post more. Or like BB, more content.

LF: I think is telling the truth, but of course theres the possibility for doubt, but we're not going to lynch him today, so why bother pointing out the suspcion. I think we're safer assuming He an Zach are town, at least for day 1, that's all.

Zach: see LF

McNuke: .... post more please

Isaac: More pro-town, just because I'm familiar with his meta.

Percy: null. almost totally null.


And B_B, permit me to defend myself on one point.
If I was a cautious mafia player, would I have risked guessing at the question? If I'm mafia (which I'm not), that'd be a pretty bold risk on my part. I'd have had a 1/2 chance of being wrong and losing day 1. So I think you should rule out cautious mafia. If anything besides town (or neutral, which I'm also not, I'm definitely town, and not trying to suggest otherwise), I'd be a lucky mafia.

[magnus_orion]

I didn't have a read on zach until his answer, but if psycho is counter claiming, I'm going to have to

unvote vote: zach

. Unless theres another pair willing to come forward, one of the two of them is lying.
Simply someone else saying they have an odd role would be sufficient for my unvote. I don't need a full claim from zach, because I won't believe it until I see the other half.

[magnus_orion]

You are an assumed cop, Zach, because its the only even/odd pair we know of. Since another even cop has appeared, you are being counterclaimed. You cease to be being counterclaimed if someone claims odd.

Basically, 1 claimed odd, another claimed even
A third claimed even. Does that mean 2 is lying? Well unless there is another odd, then probably.
You're being counterclaimed even, not counterclaimed cop.

[magnus_orion]

Oh, and Isaac said he agrees with me... what about him, zach? Why didn't you mention him at all? Is it because he's not voting you?

[magnus_orion]

AH! Forgot something

Don said this a while back:

If I was a cautious mafia player, would I have risked guessing at the question? If I'm mafia (which I'm not), that'd be a pretty bold risk on my part. I'd have had a 1/2 chance of being wrong and losing day 1. So I think you should rule out cautious mafia. If anything besides town (or neutral, which I'm also not, I'm definitely town, and not trying to suggest otherwise), I'd be a lucky mafia.

interesting wifom defense. do you realize that LF's question is ridiculous. even/odd? you think he can determine your alignment from that question and that question alone? here, let me get you a shovel. its going to take forever if you keep digging that hole with your hands...

I was hoping someone would say something in response to that along these lines.

FOS: Don

May I?
Attacking this as scummy is well, scummy, considering in it I argue toward a position considering me as mafia not as town. You looked at the first three words, shouted wifom! and tried to turn it against me. Like a scum would.
I was arguing against the word "cautious."
I conclude that if anything I'd be lucky mafia cause I was right on a fifty-fifty shot.

I was hoping somebody would try to use the wifom attack on me. I said, "if I'm mafia, then I'm lucky I got that right, not cautious. If I was cautious I wouldn't take a fifty-fifty shot"
Now please, explain how this is wifom. Is it because I am trying to guess at what cautious people would do?

[magnus_orion]

Nik if you aren't trying to buddy up with people I'll eat my hat.
Every time you've posted, you essentially post the same thing as someone else, but assert it as your own opinion. Rarely do you come forward with an opinion that is purely yours.
I find this scummy. very scummy.

[magnus_orion]

you have not produced one single argument on your own against anyone, now you are trying to argue semantics with me. most questions that start with "if i was (adjective) mafia" are wifom. i can't think of one that isn't. now you jump on nik for buddying because he's not buddying to you. you are also attacking everyone who is against claiming and outing power roles. glad to see that shovel's workin out for ya...

*cough*
He was, I was the one he agreed with in his post prior to last.
And whats with the explosion? The ad hominem is getting on my nerves now. "If I insult him enough maybe all this bs I'm saying will look true"
cmon, really?
At least be pleasant.

By the way just because you can't think of any questions like that that aren't wifom, doesn't mean they can't exist. You've just proven to me that you didn't bother reading what I said.

I'd actually like to call BS on must of that quote... I've made arguements against players on my own.

it is wifom because you are asking a question that can be answered either way and trying to use it as a defense. again, how is answering the question "even/odd?" at all risky? you are a stooge. you are trying to argue this as if you were in some sort of danger by answering LF's question. how was answering his question risky? don't you think it would be extremely poor moderating for someone to have a role in which all they had to do was ask you "even/odd?" in order to determine your alignment?

for the record:
Wifom: trying to guess at what scum would do in a given situation.
That's my understanding of it.


You're making no sense. Elaborate and explain. Don't assert and assume it makes perfect sense to everyone else because it does to you. I usually get confused by posts like this because the logic is hard to follow when interupted by insults every so often.
Don't

you

think asking questions to change the subject is scummy?
I'm still waiting for why you think rouge is towny btw.


Nik: And yes I was voting zach...
And the reason I said that was because that was the first post that was original.

Mod: I unvoted and voted zach a couple posts back. the vote count is in error.

[magnus_orion]

ebwop must = most

[magnus_orion]

Nik if you aren't trying to buddy up with people I'll eat my hat.
Every time you've posted, you essentially post the same thing as someone else, but assert it as your own opinion. Rarely do you come forward with an opinion that is purely yours.
I find this scummy. very scummy.

You constantly attack and jump on anyone who disagrees with you and try to redirect suspicion away from yourself. Just because I agree with someone else doesn't mean I'm trying to "buddy up." I'm trying to prevent the lynching of the player with the most votes on him right now because I believe him to be town. Also, if you're so sure he's scum, why would I want to buddy up with him in the first place? That would make no sense

unless

he was town, thus your argument is contradictory. Actually, it's very scummy; it seems like you want to off a townie. And your suggestion is ridiculous if you're trying to say my whole post was plagiarized: I am the only one thus far to suggest the other odd not to reveal himself now.

For the reasons I outlined,

unvote

Vote: magnus

Ack. I want to properly respond to this. Ignore anything I addressed to you in my last post.

Unless

you

thought he was town. Contradiction gone.

You have posted, I believe 8 times (from memory)
4 times discounting random votes and correction posts and your confirm.
2 of those posts were the same thought process as another player.
The 2 most recent were not. I had in fact forgotten you were there. You're post reminded me that you were in this game and I checked your post history. Thats why I commented.

You post so little and 50% of the time simply in agreement with another random player. I find this scummy.

[magnus_orion]

You constantly attack and jump on anyone who disagrees with you and try to redirect suspicion away from yourself. Just because I agree with someone else doesn't mean I'm trying to "buddy up." I'm trying to prevent the lynching of the player with the most votes on him right now because I believe him to be town. Also, if you're so sure he's scum, why would I want to buddy up with him in the first place? That would make no sense

unless

he was town, thus your argument is contradictory. Actually, it's very scummy; it seems like you want to off a townie. And your suggestion is ridiculous if you're trying to say my whole post was plagiarized: I am the only one thus far to suggest the other odd not to reveal himself now.

For the reasons I outlined,

unvote

Vote: magnus

Ack. I want to properly respond to this. Ignore anything I addressed to you in my last post.

Magnus_Orion]

Unless

you

thought he was town. Contradiction gone.

Doesn't seem to make much sense for scum to buddy up to another scum, they like distance right?

Yet you argue that Nikelaos is buddying up to me and that it's a scumtell.

That IS contradictory.

If he's scum, and buddying up to me, doesn't that make me town? If I am scum, please explain how this makes sense.

Nikelaos is buddying up to me and you find that scummy. If that leads you to believe that he is scum, then the odds are probably good that he's buddying up to a townie.

And you are voting to lynch me, on a contradictory argument based on the fact that scum is buddying up to scum?

I am liking my vote on you more and more.

Oh okay I see the contradiction now.
Well, I wasn't taking that into consideration, honestly, afterall the possibility always exists that I'm wrong. I don't have a scumgroup theory yet, mostly cause everything got muddled in the flood of accusations on me, which tend to have thrown off my reads in games in the past. I'll have to wait until that calms down before I form an idea of a scumgroup and how their actions play off of each other.

[magnus_orion]

I don't have any questions for nik because I have to little to question from

But give me a minute, I've got another game going on here and one starting on another site, plus RL, so its a little crazy.

"why would i do that if i was scum?"

This is your misunderstanding. I didn't say that. I didn't want to imply it. I just disagreed with the adjective is all.

yes, you are voting zach until someone else confirms him, ignoring all evidence presented in his defense. you are willing to clear him if someone says the word "odd". sounds kind of pointless. do you have a real case against zach?

And is this the only accusation I have made this game? (Hint: answer is no.) You claimed, quite clearly, that I was only following along with other people's arguements. I say thats BS.

My case against zach is the same as everyone elses, true. If someone claims to have an odd role, then we won't have to lynch zach. Simple and straightforward.
By the way, for the record, my role works every night.

That said:
I'm going to

unvote

because I did notice something a while back in reread that was mentioned by someone that makes me suspect they are the odd role. I want to see if they are or not, but zach or psycho is most likely lying if I'm wrong.

i told you why i think rogue may be town. if you don't see it then we will not agree. pointing it out to you is pointing it out to mafia. get it?

... Yeah, I gotcha, I think...

The questions comment was just because you were pounding me with questions I felt overwhelmed.
I couldn't latch on to a subject.

[magnus_orion]

no, that can't be the case, you'd both be confirmed given that scenario.

[magnus_orion]

I worded that awfully didn't I. The odd person has nothing to lose by claiming. At least not immediately, but if we can break the game day 1, it won't matter.

[magnus_orion]

unless there's a town roleblocker.
Just saying, that the town roles aren't known either. Alternatively If we lynch a mafia roleblocker, I doubt they have two, then the cops are NOT useless. Optimistic, maybe, but if we keep going down this path, then we may get the info we need. If zach is confirmed the game has been narrowed down to 7 players from each town's point of view.

[magnus_orion]

Mod: I unvoted, post 282. 'kay if I start reding them?

and I agree with the four LF pointed out, plus I think 2 other people are town, but I'm waiting for an odd claim from one of them (I believe I know who it is.)

That leaves 6 suspects. I guess 3 scum with 1/4 rule of thumb.

And there is one other bit of info that could knock two more from that list, but I'll come to that once the odd claims.

[magnus_orion]

I'm not sure if answering will hurt the town... I want to wait until someone claims odd.

Also, by now Zach is almost guarunteed town. The number of votes put on him put him in a risk situation...

Simple logic really:

Zach is scum. 'Nother scum claims odd. Both are cleared for now.

Zach is town. Scum will have the idea that zach will have an odd partner. If a scum claims odd, they will be counter-claimed. Only the odd player can claim.

No one has claimed odd and most players have posted, therefore, scum must be unwilling to claim odd. The only reason why would be zach is town.

However, the odd person claiming now will verify them as town. I need this info to make sure I'm right. Otherwise people may doubt my reasoning, when it comes time to reveal it.

[magnus_orion]

Zach is scum. The other scums had already claimed not-odd before they realized they might need to claim odd, and so they are stuck right now.

However, by the 1/4 rule of thumb I think its safe to assume at least 3 scum, especially in a game where all town are power roles. Could I have a list of people who have claimed not odd? I know me and you, but there may be others that I don't know off hand.

[magnus_orion]

double post

I just don't see this. If another person claims odd, and we lynch Zach, and he comes up Scum, we now have a 2nd scum to lynch. It may have been worth it for mafiaZach to say even, but it's not worth is for mafiaY to claim odd.

What is the probability we (the town) will be lynching zach in the near future in the scenario that someone claims odd?

[magnus_orion]

ebwop: Isaac beat me to it...

[magnus_orion]

But its more likely that we lynch zach then.
And if zach is mafia then they lose a mafia.

[magnus_orion]

Is that your scum group, Issac?

Anyway: Assuming Don has some form of info confirming Rogue...
and B_B, I'm just going to say this: I think you have the other odd role.

Isacc I still think is town
Tyhess I'm guessing is town...

LF seems town
Psycho seems to be the even cop making him town

I'm town, but I can't expect anyone to know that except me.

Assuming I'm right about BB: Zach and he are town...

Game Setup Theory
Don & Rogue: can be cleared together
LF & Psycho: both look town
Zach and BB: I'm guessing are the even/odd pair #2
Magnus: is town
Isacc: looks town
Tyhess: looks town
Thats 9 players,
leaving:
nik
nuke
percy
All lurkers.

However I also think we can

learn

the most from rogue's lynch.
Rogue is town: I go with the above theory
Rogue is scum --> Don is scum and someone else is also scum.

But my above theory is why I believe the don should explain and the odd should claim, preferably in that order.

[magnus_orion]

DON: if you can clear Rogue, like magnus believes, do so now.

If anyone has the other odd role, claim after/iff Don clears Rogue.

If Don can clear Rogue, and then we can clear Zach/odd role X, I believe I should be able to clear another person, and the game should be over.

Reading this, Tyhess is most likely town.

[magnus_orion]

3.)Magus. He has have been all over the board. He seems to have a default strategy of supporting the majority on almost every issue. Very weak and does not mean much, but just a thought.

Really!? I don't know I'd have to go back and check...
I'm pretty sure this isn't true, but I haven't been paying attention to that.

[magnus_orion]

something i read had me leaning town with him

Yes, this, what is the something, please.

[magnus_orion]

With Don not being able to clear Rogue:

Whoever ends up getting lynched today, if you do not claim during the actual day for some reason, post your role in case it is not revealed at death.

huh?
I'm pretty sure roles are revealed at death...

[magnus_orion]

I don't know what you mean by very little to go on, though I think I suffer from attention suspicion... (Meaning each post a person makes can contain small scumtells here and there, but if that person posts a lot, those scumtells build up quickly and that person becomes suspicious to most of the town.)

If you want to ask me to go into detail about anything in particular, go right ahead.

[magnus_orion]

That wasn't a denial.

but this IS a strawman...

[magnus_orion]

While I was reading....

You seem more concerned about breaking down the logic then the actual concern.

Stealing MY lines, are you now?

He focuses on the arguement, not its purpose, in my mind.

[magnus_orion]

I know, I was just upset he stole what I said.

[magnus_orion]

...thats not me

[magnus_orion]

In fact, zach, why not give the town as to who your top three lynches are and why?

I don't care if it looks like buddying or not, but QFT.
I want to hear more than zach's (pretty shakey) reasoning on isacc.
I want to hear his reasoning on others.

[magnus_orion]

My problem is based on the fact that he believes information can be gained from people's deaths.

....
Are you saying that you believe that that isn't true?

[magnus_orion]

mcnuke, about your vote counts... you neglect context a whole lot.

[magnus_orion]

my feeling is that when I can't find someone I'm genuinely suspicious of, its the people who aren't talking that look bad.
IMO, null is close to scum if everyone else looks town.
I am pro-lurkerlynch at this point.

B_B, I don't exactly know what you're trying to say here:

You could ask to extend my request by having an analysis on(, I dunno,) everyone? But you don't need to discredit my quote...

Are you saying that me quoting it was discrediting it?

[magnus_orion]

yesyes. exactly
I agree and think that I want to hear zach reasoning on people other than isacc... like his top three are others (even if isacc's in the bunch)

[magnus_orion]

...
well I stopped reading as I started reading page 18. Isacc's defense is broken, but so is zach's attack. Both contain varying stupidity so far. I'll keep reading, but I just want to say that.
Also,

#2) while we're at it. Magnus_Orion. his voting pattern has been pointed out already, but that is not my main concern. Mag has been a puppet to LF's experiment from the beginning. that doesn't clear him, in fact, buddying up to the claimed cop is downright scummy. though mag has occasionally floated town behavior and alerted us to logical conclusions, his reasoning has been off more than once. his inability to understand my pov regarding rogues towniness is disturbing. to continually harp on the fact that i find someone town and am not interested in revealing why is pretty scummy. when the time comes for me to reveal my thoughts, you will easily see why it is scummy, if you don't already know. in the game of mafia the onus is on the prosecutor to prove someone scummy. mag doesn't seem to understand this fact. townies don't necessarily need to prove their towniness. a townies death can be beneficial to town in many ways and the info they leave behind or take to their graves can make all the difference. i'm not going to sell out someone i find town so mag can cross him off his list. you do your own work. unfortunately, to me it seems like you are just piggybacking your votes and trying to nestle yourself comfortably between the two claimed cops.

This is not a case against me. -_-
This is a defense for not saying why you think rogue is town.

And yes, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove people scum.
Here's my prosecuting position:
Everyone else looks town, so by process of elimination, these people are scum.
Simple, no?

[magnus_orion]

Ebwop: zach = don I guess... (get avatars it helps soooo much)

[magnus_orion]

Ebowp: ebowp:
as in The first post should say don as opposed to zach.

[magnus_orion]

Ok I read everything
important bit:
A thumbsucking baby could figure out that Don thinks Rouge is the doctor!
So out with it, Don, because the scum don't need the evidence to kill, they just need to know in which direction they should be facing when firing the gun.

Town on the other hand, would like proof of one's townieness before a player randomly decides to build a brick wall in front of another player and say "Nobody lynch him, he's town." Brick walls of lynchproofness are expensive, and not enough townie's are fond of paying those kind of taxes to protect someone without valid reasoning as to why they should be protected.

Isacc: your defense in many places is "I already explained, moron!"
Well, clearly not well enough, or you wouldn't be accused.
Communicating badly and insisting you've explained it are not legitimate defenses.
If someone still does not understand, well, you need to explain it better, and go into more detail.

I get really, really sick of reading ad honimen, but that seems to have died down to a subtle roar, but its still there.

[magnus_orion]

simulpost: I guess not nvm

[magnus_orion]

Simul posted again

[magnus_orion]

I disagree that this is breadcrumming...
it sounds like flavor.
Like my last post, I'm not breadcrumming polititcian (I'm not one)

[magnus_orion]

First off, I see the same connections, the only thing stopping me from agreeing with issac is that if we assume that the people issac accuses are town than the lurkers are scum.

second Issac, its the fact that you even bother saying things like READ MY POSTS and I ALREADY EXPLAINED THAT and I HAVE ALREADY SMASHED YOUR LOGIC RAWR!!!!
that leads me to believe that you haven't and don't want the issue to come up again.
Just re explaining on the spot is okay too you know.

I don't need examples of it. I'm pretty sure I as you say, READ YOUR POSTS. Everyone else has too. I don't have time to go back and forth citeing examples.

Besides, strawmaning my point and saying that I said that you didn't go and explain afterwords does not look in your favor.
That said, I think you're just a little over-confident that what you say is definitely right. I don't think you're scum.

[magnus_orion]

mass claiming day 1 equals bad.

BB, I am for a rogue lynch today and agree with isacc, and am not focused on lurkers. However. I feel if rogue comes up town, those lurkers are scum

(I am now in 4 games, so my posting will drop dramatically. )

[magnus_orion]

Magnus, though it is nice of you to give more opinion than just agree with everyone else, why do you prefer rogue over Zach, given the theory presented by Isaac?

Because I feel that of the three, rogue is a better chance of being scum. Don could just be silly and misguided, convinced over a single post that rogue is town.

well, that's what I would have said, but Percy's case on me is the biggest load of bs I have ever seen, and don has been pushing his case for too long

Percy, I have said several times that I jumped on tyhess to promote discussion... anyway, LF wasn't asking for a massclaim. Any intellegent person could tell that he was gambiting. And if he clearly wasn't we could lynch him. But now the likely situation turned out to be true. Just because I go with what is likely doesn't mean that I'm picking and choosing. And I showed trust to LF prior to his claim for the above reason.

...

*Breathes in*

PARTIAL CLAIM =/= MASS CLAIM PEOPLE!!!!

...

...

Returns to a calm and steady pace:

Now, please, allow me to explain:

Partial claim is usually a gambit
mass claim is, well, a mass claim

My point is that while mass claim day 1 is stupid, a call for a partial claim (a likely gambit), is okay, so long as it turns out to be a gambit in the end. Which it did.

...

I want a single post where I outright attacked Issac for his top three list.


Zach, do you trust a single person here?
Your case seems to be founded on the fact that Issac attacked you for your desperate looking fos.

I'll put it simply. That FOS that started this was not justified. Thus him reacting by voting you is.

Ergo, Your case does not hold water, which means you're trying to push a broken case as hard as you can. Which of course would appear to most scummy. Stop filling the pages with your twisted bull. You clearly are trying to find what it was that made your case on isacc make so much sense, but can't find it because its not there. You've made a mistaken assumption down the line.

Don, I will paraphrase your case on Issac

Issac: I have a scumgroup theory, but I don't know whether or not to share it due to lack of evidence

-later-

Don: Post the three people that you want lynched.
Isacc: Well Rogue, magnus, and zach (i think it was zach, but I'm not sure) for information reasons
Magnus: Is that your scum group theory?
Isacc: no

-later-

Don: THAT WASN"T YOUR SCUMGROUP THEORY????!!?!?! OMGWTFHORSEYBIRDS!!!!! That must mean you don't want the scum lynched!!!!!!! (comment: not quite...)
Isacc: WHAT THE HELL!? YOU MORON, DIE SCUM!!!!! (comment: could have handled this better...)
Don: GUYS ISACC IS SCUM! WHO ELSE WOULD TRY TO GET SOMEONE BESIDES WHO THEY FOUND SCUM LYNCHED?!?!! (comment here: ummm... scum don't generally say "I want this towny lynched" Besides he says it would be for information)
Isacc: Well if you want me to post it so bad, FINE! Here: {scum theoy goes here}
Don: NOPE CAN"T POSSIBLY BE TRUE!!!! SCUM LIE SO YOU"RE LYING WHICH MEANS YOU"RE SCUM!!!! YOU MADE THAT UP ON THE SPOT!!!!
Isacc: HUH!? WHAT!? OKAY YOU"RE DEFINITELY SCUM!!! EVERYONE LYNCH DON, BUT ONLY IF YOU WANT TO!!
Don: I gotz me a trump card lolz. BESIDES YOU SAY "ONLY IF YOU WANT TO!" THAT MEANS THAT YOU"RE TRYING MAKE IT SO YOU CAN DISTANCE YOURSELF FROM THE WAGON!!! DECISIVE EVIDENCE! DIE SCUM DIE!!!

While I'm left here scratching my head and saying: not quite... well neither side is actually arguing well... but... err... shouldn't we be...

But magnus's words of wisdom were drowned out in the chaos of posting and yelling and finger pointing, fading into obscurity...

Yeah, Don, your case looks like a load of manure, but Isacc has nothing to do with why.

Yes I am largely oversimplifying but thats because the logic is so twisted that when its broken down to its actual form it looks, well, as stupid and simple as what I paraphrased.

[magnus_orion]

ack...
I wasn't paying attention to posting while I typed that.

[magnus_orion]

Umm... zach and don don't have avatars, so when I'm reading they sometimes overlap...
(saying just in case I got people confused)

You're pushing isacc's lynch on a self-fulfilling prophecy? And you understand that?

[magnus_orion]

YOU made the fos major based your interpretations of his reactions
and a major fos is normally an HOS for differential's sake.

[magnus_orion]

Zach claimed vig on even nights.
...
hmph.

Don... I explained earlier. Get an avatar. Read the thread.

Also, don has declared me king.
I hereby order rogue's lynch. (shot)

[magnus_orion]

I'm a bad player?!? I was the one saying that you could confirm someone earlier. I got the wrong name, but still.
I was the only one who posted a theory of multi-linked roles. Something which has been heavily evidenced.
Rogue, however, denied such an idea.
Rogue is scummy.

[magnus_orion]

=_= Isacc... I no longer agree with you.
1A. We ask zach to self vig.
1B. We ask zach to vig a particular target.
2. We lynch rogue.
3. We lynch Nik

[magnus_orion]

Also, Tyhess, who can you confirm?
Please say so now.

[magnus_orion]

Counter claims zach, for what?
Tyhess, please... you may have that last bit of information we need....

[magnus_orion]

Self vigging proves he's a vig and is pro-town. Scum wouldn't self vig.
We lynch rogue because I'm King Magnus LOL.
No, but I still have reservations about rogue.

[magnus_orion]

hold. it. right. there.
There is an assumption... a major assumption... being made here.

Question for Zachrulez: does your role pm specify that you and don are lovers, or is that simply a similar role?

[magnus_orion]

People will listen to magnus and stop voting, please and thank you.

I do not want a lynch till we have pressed for any and all information.

LISTEN UP.
Don and Zachrulez, please quote your ENTIRE log of outside thread communications. I will then decide if you are lying or not. Besides, the info could be useful.

[magnus_orion]

EBWOP: When I say that, of course I mean that I will decide personally, for myself, everyone can decide for themselves.

[magnus_orion]

And I strongly assume that the possibility exists that it doesn't.

[magnus_orion]

I nearly just suffered a heart attack. Sorry, I play on another site where that sort of thing is common play.


Isacc, please unvote...
or please justify why we should quicklynch given what just happened...

[magnus_orion]

Who the? what the? Where the? why the?
...
HUH?

Wait, what the?

...
*is left speachless at the random player's appearance.*

[magnus_orion]

BAH! I have died! It says so on page one!
And yet I live? What trickery is this?
Not but that, but dear Tyhess is done!
Do I dare jump at hope and give in to its kiss?
Alas, no, I believe page two-six to be a lie
Tis not he,
but me,
whom, with tyhess's name, must die.


Or, to cut to the chase: There was an error in the flavour announcement.

[magnus_orion]

Yay town.
I nailed 2/3 scumbags and the sk (and a doctoor, but meh), and knew BB was scum right after I died and BB started talking about the night results, and confirmed it when BB said the game was imbalanced toward the scum.

[magnus_orion]

Well, I think that you should have lynched and killed in the same day:
You examine BB and then shoot mcnuke, seeing as how if he was a physchiatrist, it would be in the SK's best interest to claim. Then you string up BB when he's revealed to be the scum that he really is.

Yes, I was LF's and by extension, RBT's (as well as EMM's) twin.
Every town role was linked to another role. That became increasingly obvious as day 1 went on. That's why BB was obviously lying.
Also, a simple wiki search of all those italian names along with the word mafia revealled that they were all in mafia dramas, but the itallian immigrant flavor looked like it was included to discourage a mass claim.

Nice attempt at pulling the same trick as in the book, though, BB

[magnus_orion]

double post

Also, what I find really ironic, is that Mknuke actually played really well the final day, and that the reason he was hammered made essentially no sense. I find it funny that although RBT missed the 1000 reasons why Mknuke was obviously the SK, he voted him for something that really proved nothing. Lulz to that.

...
no.
That was a prefectly good reason.
RBT was practically confirmed town, and scum being given fakeclaims, judging by how they had gone throughout the game, is a ridiculous notion.

Because of LF's gambit, there was no reason RBT could have been looked at as scum. There was no reason for McNuke to target RBT as a psychiatrist, other than to try and prove someone scum by process of elimination. In fact, he posted a whole case-load of reasons that he clearly had thought of during the night phase, of why TOD had a better chance of being the SK. So he should have targeted TOD as a psychiatrist.
As a serial killer fakeclaiming psychiatrist, however, his only possible option was to claim he targetted RBT, so that he wouldn't have the confirmed town stuck as the SK.
Of course his best bet would probably been to have left psycho sniper alive as he was more likely to be sk than any other player besides McNuke, but McNuke killed him, most likely because Psycho suspected him.

So, while it was an odd nightkill choice, because of it McNuke cornered himself; there was no reason for RBT to be the target of a psychiatrist over TOD, as mcnuke demonstrated so well himself.

[magnus_orion]

which is why I said I got the feeling it would be hard for mafia to false claim and asked for Rouge claim when I did. I had it figured out day 1, with my role and the link with LF revealed, I figured there would only be more roles like that. My favorite part about this whole thing is that phate said that he thought an accidentally breakable setup was likely, because he would have been screwed if the remaining town tried to break it.