). Before I consider unvoting, could you please answer:DB wrote:It's not totally a posting requirement, but I like it and anyone with a role similar to mine might realize what im hinting at.
DB has already given his win condition as all bad guys being dead (page 11). And no other claimed teetotaler has contradicted this as far as I'm aware.yanqush (re teetotalers) wrote:would it be their goal to stop us all to visit rumours?...
Well, back on page 3 or so JR did vote for MeMe twice if that means anything. I doubt it does thoughyanqush wrote:And yeah, Jazzred, give out your results....
Anyway, scum pretending to be cops become progressively easier to catch as the days go on so I'm not too concerned about JR at the moment. But if DB's role mentions teetotalers anywhere then he's got an easy roleclaim. How funny would it be if DB has a win condition of all teetotalers being dead and now he just has to walk around killing everyone who defended him. Well, I'd find it funny at leastMeMe wrote:But Dementia Blader claimed Teetotaler before anyone else mentioned it...and it's been described as a townie who can't go to Rumours by others.
Forgive me for being confused, but we're about to lynch someone because they haven't posted, and now MeMe and shadyforce are attacking someone for 'posting for the sake of posting'.shadyforce wrote:It looks like a classic case of posting for the sake of posting just to avoid being accused of lurking but adding absolutely nothing to avoid drawing attention to yourself.
Does this constitute adding 'absolutely nothing'? In one fell swoop, Isaac's mafia hunting skills have been completely dismissed. Maybe Isaac should have said he was a cop and found rite guilty, maybe then he would have been able to write a post worthy of MeMe and shadyforce.Meme wrote that Isaac wrote:I think rite might be suspicious.
I disagree. Posts often say more than the author intended. Scum who post for the sake of posting will eventually trip themselves up.Shadyforce wrote:Posting for the sake of posting is just as bad as not posting at all.
) would give us more information (figuring out what JR is should be a high priority), but as she has hinted at having a useful role I'm willing to wait. DB on the other hand would give us information without the loss of a big role ( Considering the dismal result of yesterdays lynch I suggest a change of tact is in order.Blackhawk (but it applies to others as well) wrote:I will do exactly what i did yesterday
) loose cannon at the start of day three wrote:vote: shadyforce....
There's a very interesting rumor about you.
Why the change of heart, LC? Hey, if I claim to wash the windows at rumours can you back me up too?loose cannon more recently wrote:I am, however, sure that JereIC (now shadyforce) is the doorman at rumors.
Yeah, I figured that... but none of the other rumours staff picked up on that, which I find strange because it was the first thing I noticed in shady's post.shadyforce wrote:I accidentally typed barman because there is also a barman.
coolbot wrote:I've never heard of any sort of mason group that could recruit every night.
And besides, there's a whole bunch of roles I've never heard of in this game: teetotalers, alcoholics, doormen, etc...The roles page wrote:The Cult recruits players into something like a Mason group.In one variation, the Cult is on the Town's side, while in another the Cult is a separate evil group trying to take over the Town.
Perhaps, but a similar logic applies to lynching shadyforce. His role is unlikely to be of much use now that he has revealed, plus if we lynch shady then we'll either get two confirmed innocents (if shady isn't mafia), or two confirmed scum (if he is).Antrax wrote:Also, if what Mad Zur is saying (is true), lynching him is no big loss.
At this stage SF had two votes and LC had none. Antrax's defensiveness borders on the irrational, even if he is the supposed third staff member.antrax wrote:Yes. The current bandwagons are LC/SF or MZ or Electra.
Or, as the head of the opposing family, Don Fazoli must always go to rumours. Macros (the only dead fazoli) died night one so we have no idea what his future attendence pattern would have been.shadyforce wrote:Note that Werebear (Don Malachi) has never been to rumours. I'm willing to bet that Don Fazoli also never went to rumours.
) was killing Rumours-goers as a sort of millitant teetotalling. I figured if I stayed home I would be immune to his kills if he chose to target me. Well, the number of night kills has been really inconsistent each night. Maybe the two mafias and the sk are missing their kills because they require their targets to be/not be at rumours. I think it makes sense, but I seem to be the only onecoolbot wrote:So far, there really haven't been any negatives with going to Rumours, have there?
And of course I would probably count Zur's lynching as a negative (or have people already forgotten). The scenario I was thinking of is that, along with submitting a target, the maf must state whether they are going to rumours or to the target's house. The kill is only successful if the maf and the target end up in the same place.god wrote:It seems that only being able to kill people that are at rumours would be in this game but it would create serious balancing problems.
Sorry, I should have been more specific - I was referring to mafia nightkills which have pretty much alternated between 1 and 2 a night. SK's have a hard enough time winning as it is without imposing further restrictions on them.isaac wrote:that the number of kills hasn't been inconsistent at all.
mlaker wrote:I never recieved I was blocked by a cocktail waitress I just recieved I was blocked. Also I wasn't sure of the innocence of Rumours staff or if that is even a role. I was inclined to believe Electra because there was proof of an AA.
Well then somebody is lying. *gasp* lies in a game of mafia... what is the world coming to!!Loose Cannon wrote:Fishbulb confirmed me.
