Mini 637: Xyl's Smalltown Plus - Game Over

[ZombieSlayer54]

/mi konfirmas.

Also, due to my watching of the newer Robin Hood series, I frickin' love my role.

I am... THE NIGHT WATCHMAN!

[ZombieSlayer54]

WOW I completely missed the multiple page numbers.

Ok, here is my evaluation so far:

iceman Slipped up with his "Kill someone and give me their power!" post, and has spent the rest of this time trying to sweep that under the carpet.

armlx is far too eager to see lots of people die.

Hasdfgas also seemed far too eager at the start to have the SB kill in Day 1.

Honestly, I want more discussion than just one day of discussion for us to start using our day abilities left and right. Especially the SB, since we will not know whether or not we hit scum with him, and then that will be two dead townies instead of one dead townie and one dead scum. And then, of course, if iceman is scum (Which I am heavily inclined towards right now) he can choose to be SB, and then kill yet another townie. He might be dead, sure, but with all this killing already going on, I doubt it would make little difference. Especially since, in this scenario, the poisoner would probably be using his ability, presumably on townies, as well. Dead townies all over the place. Just not my kind of game.

This is not saying we shoulder never use our daykills. What it is saying is that we should wait until we are 90% sure whoever is going to be daykilled is scum, rather than just using our daykills somewhat randomly on the first day.

Also, Empking seems waaaaay too eager to get the poisoner killed. This leads me to begin to believe two things:

Empking is scum.

Poisoner is pro-town, and the scum want him dead to prevent him from using his ability on them.

So.

FoS on everyone I mentioned

[ZombieSlayer54]

iceman Slipped up with his "Kill someone and give me their power!" post, and has spent the rest of this time trying to sweep that under the carpet.

I'm going through possible strategies - it seems like, with all these power roles at our disposal, there ought to be some better way of dealing with the scum than simply lynching them. Right now the poisoner is looking like the most useful of the lot - it won't cost us a potential townie life to get an extra kill in today. I think we should save the SB for tomorrow and utilize our poisoner today on a target we agree upon. I also don't think we should clone the suicide bomb - if anything, as I said before, we should make sure that the first person we kill has a role we DO want two of. Almost all the roles are useful, but I think it's dangerous to have two suicide bombs, myself.

You act like a target we agree upon for the poisoner is necessarily going to be scum.

You also seem to be acting like any lynch will also necessarily hit scum.

Either I am too tired to realize what you are actually saying, or someone missed out on Mafia 101.

[ZombieSlayer54]

I'd like to point out that town would actually want to be the Suicide Bomber more than scum. If an SB is scum, then they're pretty much screwed to die at some point... If they don't use their kill in lylo, then they'll be lynched without a thought.

Yeah, I can see exactly what you mean with this - but personally, I don't think it's worth a guaranteed loss of a townie for the chance of killing scum. Making the same mistake twice, yikes, it's too risky to have two SB's as far as I'm concerned.

First you stated that you did not want to be SB because it was the most powerful role in the game. (Which I heartily disagreed with anyways.)

Now you are stating that you do not want to be SB because of the risk involved.

Please, Iceman, make up your mind.

[ZombieSlayer54]

If the SB refuses to kill someone, then we have two scum and we win. I could live with that.

If he kills elsewhere, then it is a one-for-one trade, another thing I can live with.

Also, if we wait for the SB, a mis-bomb is even worse than it is now, and could give the scum a victory if bomber and target are town.

I really think lynching icemanE is not a good idea. If we think he is scummy enough to kill him, why not have him kill himself?

Also, if we go by armlx's six death plan, the random SB should be armlx just in case he is scum trying to manipulate the town in this case. That's just my opinion, though.

Why are people acting like someone we agree to kill is necessarily scum?

Seriously?

And what says that just because the SB refuses to kill someone that he is necessarily scum?

Maybe he is just 90%+ convinced of their townie-ness, and, although no one else is, does not want to kill them because of it?

Last I checked, armlx was not the only one advocating bloodbath today. He was just one of the first people to suggest it.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Contradictions aside, how do you know that Crazy is town?

:goodposting:

[ZombieSlayer54]

Vote: wolframnhart

I really don't like the idea of a dayvig who might be scum.

On the other hand, I do quite like the "kill a lot on day 1" plan though six deaths on day 1 would be a bit too much, four seems a bit much.

I think the "kill a good role so I can take it" was more of a moment of idiocy rather than a scum tell but I'm not sure if it was a town moment or scum moment.

So you would vote me, out of the other dayvigs? Kinda random there since there are worse potential killers.

This post leads me to think that he's purpousely mislead the town in order to stay alive and since we're not at lynch or loose it seems to me to be a scum like move.

Wait, WHAT?

That post made no sense.

HoS EmpKing

Seriously, if there were not other people who were just being incredibly scummy instead of incredibly confusing, I would be voting you instead of HoS'ing you.

[ZombieSlayer54]

The 'same mistake twice' implies that you know Crazy is town too.

You're reading too far into what I write. And nhat is misreading what I write.

I wish you would have let Crazy answer the question, Alabaska, and I truly hate when people answer questions for others, as it more or less destroys the entire purpose behind the exercise.

My intent behind asking Crazy if he'd be willing to suicide right now if we all voted and asked him to do so was because of what we've been discussing all day long - that is, it's more worth it for a town SB to sacrifice himself than it is for scum to, since there are fewer scum than town, etc. I wanted to see how he'd respond to the question, because every time he adresses using his power, he seems eager to delay using it:

I think I'd rather use my bomb later, when more information is around, rather than today, unless if we can find two mega-scummy people today.

If we don't want Iceman to have my ability, then I could just wait until tomorrow to suicide bomb someone.

Good enough. I endorse a poisoning today, and I'll save my suicide bomb for tomorrow.

Note: Those those last two quotes are the entirety of the posts they come from - so on two seperate occasions, he's popped in SOLELY to say "I'll save my bomb for later". I really wish Alabaska had not answered my question for Crazy in Crazy's place, as it would have increased my suspicion of Crazy, but since Alabaska stepped in for him,

[Fos: Alabaska[/b]

and

vote: Crazy

Besides the fact that saving the SB ability for later is a good idea, even if the SB is scum, this post seems massively like track covering, especially at the end.

Vote icemanE

[ZombieSlayer54]

Apart from lynch or lose its a scum tell to try and mislead the town.

What are you talking about.....

If you find out, tell me.

I seriously see in no way how Empking is trying to "mislead the town".

[ZombieSlayer54]

Empking:

HOW IS HE MISLEADING THE TOWN?!

[ZombieSlayer54]

Vote: wolframnhart

I really don't like the idea of a dayvig who might be scum.

On the other hand, I do quite like the "kill a lot on day 1" plan though six deaths on day 1 would be a bit too much, four seems a bit much.

I think the "kill a good role so I can take it" was more of a moment of idiocy rather than a scum tell but I'm not sure if it was a town moment or scum moment.

So you would vote me, out of the other dayvigs? Kinda random there since there are

worse potential killers.

Why didn't you ask me that too begin with.

The poisoner is unblockable, can't be protected against and the kill the daykiller. I can't see how their are worse potential killers.

Uhh... Question... Do you realize how many pages ago he asked you that...?

And, if I recall correctly, that was one of the first things he asked you...

[ZombieSlayer54]

Oh, yeah, the latest reason I don't like icemanE is him trying to defend himself with role info.

As for how many kills today, I vote for as many as possible. More pro-town kills is like pushing the game towards nightless.

Once again, presuming all kills will be pro-town.

[ZombieSlayer54]

My answer is just the lynch and poisoner. My reason for not wanting to SB today is that I flat out don't trust iceman to do anything with his SB other than kill the most useful townie role (watcher/tracker in my opinion). You guys keep saying that we should SB then let him SB someone else. How do you know he's going to go through with it?!?!?!?

I've already told you SEVERAL times that if given the oppurtunity to assume the SB role, I would decline it.

Oh, yeah, the latest reason I don't like icemanE is him trying to defend himself with role info.

How and why is this a bad thing? You either have some personal problem with me or you're scum again this game. I also don't understand how armlx is allowed to cruise by making two line posts without growing any moss, especially when he advocates high body counts based on pretty loose info. I mean look at this for Christ's sake:

As for how many kills today, I vote for as many as possible. More pro-town kills is like pushing the game towards nightless.

WTF? The more kills that occur today, the more townies will die, period. Chances are obviously immensely better based on odds alone that more townies will die than scum - your suggestion is basically to carpetbomb the shit out of this game until we happen to kill scum, and in the process kill a bunch of townies.

@Armlx - do you really think Crazy is scum or do you just want the SB to use his ability?

This post makes me think that either armlx is scum, or iceman is scum. I heavily doubt both can be scum at this point. Leaning towards armlx, though.

[ZombieSlayer54]

@Armlx - do you really think Crazy is scum or do you just want the SB to use his ability?

Both, I think Crazy is probably scum because he does not want to use his ability.

And Alabaska, lynching me for proposing the plan amounts to "Too Townie".

WTF? The more kills that occur today, the more townies will die, period. Chances are obviously immensely better based on odds alone that more townies will die than scum - your suggestion is basically to carpetbomb the shit out of this game until we happen to kill scum, and in the process kill a bunch of townies.

That is true. Hell, the more we lynch, the more townies will die, so lets not do that either.

If we kill 3 players today, we are less likely to hit scum in those 3 then we would be in lynches over 3 days as are no scum kills in between to thin the crowd. By that logic, we should just non-stop no lynch until LyLo as it thins the crowd even more. By arguing that it is better to not utilize as many pro-town kills as is possible, you should agree with the statement that doctors shouldn't protect randomly as it hurts the town's info flow. Do you think either of those is true?

You fail to realize that the scum's main weapon to win is night kills while ours is the lynch. How is maximizing ours while minimizing theirs a bad thing?

There is a reason vanilla 10-2 set ups with nights have never been won by town while vanilla 8-4s as nightless are fair.

The more we lynch without good information, the more townies we kill. The same applies to daykills.

Once again, presuming all of our daykills are protown.

[ZombieSlayer54]

By that logic, we should just non-stop no lynch until LyLo as it thins the crowd even more. By arguing that it is better to not utilize as many pro-town kills as is possible, you should agree with the statement that doctors shouldn't protect randomly as it hurts the town's info flow.

Wow. No. This is ridiculous, and very typical of what I saw in the Eclipse game - trying to tie my ideas in with other trash you generate to make what I'm saying seem stupid by association.

OBVIOUSLY PRO-TOWN KILLS ARE BENEFICIAL TO THE TOWN. What I'm saying is that CHANCES ARE VERY GOOD THAT MOST OF THE KILLS WE MAKE TODAY ARE NOT GOING TO BE PROTOWN IF WE JUST GUN DOWN AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE ON DAY ONE. Say we follow the high body count plan - and we screw it up, which is just as likely as killing even ONE of the scum - in fact, it's more likely we'll screw it up that not based on odds - that leaves us quite near lylo on day 2. What then? I already know you'll be making one mistake for sure if you go ahead with Alabaska and armlx's plan, so I can't possibly envision this being a good idea. I think utilizing the poisoner as well as the lynch is a BONUS KILL, but using the SB to kill two MORE people is OVERKILL.

:goodposting:

[ZombieSlayer54]

By that logic, we should just non-stop no lynch until LyLo as it thins the crowd even more. By arguing that it is better to not utilize as many pro-town kills as is possible, you should agree with the statement that doctors shouldn't protect randomly as it hurts the town's info flow.

Wow. No. This is ridiculous, and very typical of what I saw in the Eclipse game - trying to tie my ideas in with other trash you generate to make what I'm saying seem stupid by association.

OBVIOUSLY PRO-TOWN KILLS ARE BENEFICIAL TO THE TOWN. What I'm saying is that CHANCES ARE VERY GOOD THAT MOST OF THE KILLS WE MAKE TODAY ARE NOT GOING TO BE PROTOWN IF WE JUST GUN DOWN AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE ON DAY ONE. Say we follow the high body count plan - and we screw it up, which is just as likely as killing even ONE of the scum - in fact, it's more likely we'll screw it up that not based on odds - that leaves us quite near lylo on day 2. What then? I already know you'll be making one mistake for sure if you go ahead with Alabaska and armlx's plan, so I can't possibly envision this being a good idea. I think utilizing the poisoner as well as the lynch is a BONUS KILL, but using the SB to kill two MORE people is OVERKILL.

how is it overkill to kill off the people we find most suspicious before the mafia gets a chance to NK some of us?

Because it is hard to be sure of someone's scuminess on Day 1.

We need more information before using stuff like suicide bombers.

Poisoners I am semi-fine with using right now.

SBs? Hell no.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Also - the scum's main weapon is misleading the town into making poor decisions.

This is equivalent to saying the town's best weapon is scumhunting.

At first glance, these things look fine, but they aren't weapons, so stop trying to make everything armlx says look wonky.

Scumhunting and lynch go hand-in-hand in terms of power for the town.

Lynches are useless - Indeed, dangerous - without scumhunting.

Scumhunting is useless without the lynch.

[ZombieSlayer54]

You fail to realize that the scum's main weapon to win is night kills while ours is the lynch. How is maximizing ours while minimizing theirs a bad thing?

Also - the scum's main weapon is misleading the town into making poor decisions.

And we will be minimizing our chances for success and killing townies needlessly if we just bomb the hell out of the whole thing.

but you don't know that we're killing townies, ice, that's the thing. We're killing the most suspicious people. I'd rather have them dead early than be confusing us later when it's more stressful.

And what I (and I presume Iceman) has been trying to say is that you do not know we are killing scum.

[ZombieSlayer54]

I don't see whats wrong with that.

What I see is wrong with it is that it doubles our chances to be wrong without doubling our chances to be right. The SB isn't going to kill another scum. So the most we can kill with the SB is one scum - why would we want to risk losing two townies for the chance of killing at maximum one scum?

Why wouldn't we want to do that AND STILL HAVE A LYNCH THAT CAN GET US ANOTHER SCUM BEFORE THEY GET A KILL

Jumpin' Jehovah's Witnesses, Batman! This cow just does not understand that all town kills

do not necessarily hit scum

!

This is, of course, ignoring the fact that our two "extra lynches" may not necessarily be town controlled, either.

[ZombieSlayer54]

ZS, the kills will all be town directed like lynches or the person in question will be lynched. They will be just as pro-town as a lynch.

You act like the person we choose for them to kill will necessarily be scum.

And have you ever considered that scum might kill another scum just to dig that much deeper into the pro-town zone?

[ZombieSlayer54]

By that logic, we should just non-stop no lynch until LyLo as it thins the crowd even more. By arguing that it is better to not utilize as many pro-town kills as is possible, you should agree with the statement that doctors shouldn't protect randomly as it hurts the town's info flow.

Wow. No. This is ridiculous, and very typical of what I saw in the Eclipse game - trying to tie my ideas in with other trash you generate to make what I'm saying seem stupid by association.

OBVIOUSLY PRO-TOWN KILLS ARE BENEFICIAL TO THE TOWN. What I'm saying is that CHANCES ARE VERY GOOD THAT MOST OF THE KILLS WE MAKE TODAY ARE NOT GOING TO BE PROTOWN IF WE JUST GUN DOWN AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE ON DAY ONE. Say we follow the high body count plan - and we screw it up, which is just as likely as killing even ONE of the scum - in fact, it's more likely we'll screw it up that not based on odds - that leaves us quite near lylo on day 2. What then? I already know you'll be making one mistake for sure if you go ahead with Alabaska and armlx's plan, so I can't possibly envision this being a good idea. I think utilizing the poisoner as well as the lynch is a BONUS KILL, but using the SB to kill two MORE people is OVERKILL.

how is it overkill to kill off the people we find most suspicious before the mafia gets a chance to NK some of us?

Because it is hard to be sure of someone's scuminess on Day 1.

We need more information before using stuff like suicide bombers.

Poisoners I am semi-fine with using right now.

SBs? Hell no.

Right, but if we get rid of the scummy people Day 1, we'll have better chances later if we happened to screw up today.

I would prefer not screwing up at all.

[ZombieSlayer54]

ZS, you act like we don't have good info right now. There are at least 2 players right now I would be willing to lynch.

By "good info" I mean 90% sure or better that they are scum.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Also:

Unvote icemanE, Vote Empking

[ZombieSlayer54]

And what I (and I presume Iceman) has been trying to say is that you do not know we are killing scum.

That is true of ANY lynch without cop results that are somehow confirmed.

You act like the person we choose for them to kill will necessarily be scum.

And have you ever considered that scum might kill another scum just to dig that much deeper into the pro-town zone?

The person we choose to lynch might not necessarily be scum. Consider how absurd that argument is.

And you would bring up WIFOM in response to the plan. Saying scum can WIFOM their way out of something is never a valid reasoning, what you are basically saying is that a scum who plays to the optimal townie plan is likely to be viewed as town, which is true and there's nothing you can do about it based on valid logic as simply put the number of times that actually happens are so few and far between that if you keep lynching people for that reason you will lose more games then you win due to lynching townies out of fear of them actually being WIFOMing scum, aka "Too Townie". Scum will inevitably do something scummy or be caught via night action based info or the town will lose.

When the point is reached it is too dangerous to leave the poisoner alive if they are scum and their actions have not cleared them, I fully endorse lynching them to avoid that risk, but now is not the time to discuss this.

By "good info" I mean 90% sure or better that they are scum.

You have really high standards. Go back and think about every time you have lynched someone, have you really been 90% sure about them?

Ok, let me clarify.

By "know someone is scum", what I essentially mean is "90% sure or better that they are scum".

What I am saying is is that we need to wait for more information than just one day of information before we start using kills left and right.

You act like we have already won this game, Armlx.

You also act like anybody who uses their kill when we ask them to is confirmed townie, which is what I was speaking against.

No. Not always. But I like to be 90% sure or better that they are scum when I cast a vote.

[ZombieSlayer54]

What I am saying is is that we need to wait for more information than just one day of information before we start using kills left and right.

We get 2 alignments of info at the least before we use the poisoner or lynch. Sounds like a lot to me.

You act like we have already won this game, Armlx.

I only act in the manner that if we go ahead with this plan, we SHOULD win barring insane variance.

You get that information by using kills without having information.

I would really rather us not use any kills (besides lynches) until we have good information.

I like Murphy's Law a lot. As far as I am concerned, we have not won this game until we have won this game.

[ZombieSlayer54]

By that logic, we should just non-stop no lynch until LyLo as it thins the crowd even more. By arguing that it is better to not utilize as many pro-town kills as is possible, you should agree with the statement that doctors shouldn't protect randomly as it hurts the town's info flow.

Wow. No. This is ridiculous, and very typical of what I saw in the Eclipse game - trying to tie my ideas in with other trash you generate to make what I'm saying seem stupid by association.

OBVIOUSLY PRO-TOWN KILLS ARE BENEFICIAL TO THE TOWN. What I'm saying is that CHANCES ARE VERY GOOD THAT MOST OF THE KILLS WE MAKE TODAY ARE NOT GOING TO BE PROTOWN IF WE JUST GUN DOWN AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE ON DAY ONE. Say we follow the high body count plan - and we screw it up, which is just as likely as killing even ONE of the scum - in fact, it's more likely we'll screw it up that not based on odds - that leaves us quite near lylo on day 2. What then? I already know you'll be making one mistake for sure if you go ahead with Alabaska and armlx's plan, so I can't possibly envision this being a good idea. I think utilizing the poisoner as well as the lynch is a BONUS KILL, but using the SB to kill two MORE people is OVERKILL.

how is it overkill to kill off the people we find most suspicious before the mafia gets a chance to NK some of us?

Because it is hard to be sure of someone's scuminess on Day 1.

We need more information before using stuff like suicide bombers.

Poisoners I am semi-fine with using right now.

SBs? Hell no.

Right, but if we get rid of the scummy people Day 1, we'll have better chances later if we happened to screw up today.

I would prefer not screwing up at all.

And I'd like to be a lesbian pornstar.

Fine.

I would prefer screwing up as little as possible.

That better?

[ZombieSlayer54]

Ok, these more recent posts have changed my views on the game.

However, for now, we need to get Empking out of the way. He is offering way too much confusion to this game. He is either scum, or very, very, very bad townie. Or he has some kind of post restriction we dun know about.

But any way, he is still confusing us. And confusion is bad.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Everything he posts has a scum tell in it. You're entitled to your opinion but its wrong.

Please, PLEASE show me where. You have yet to, you know.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Crazy, can you just SB icemanE alreadY?

If there us anyone here who has a reason why these two should not be together, post now or forever hold your peace.

Because Empking would be a better-

Suicide Bomb: Cerebus3

Oooookaaaaaay...

KABOOM!!!

Crazy has suicide-bombed Cerebus3. Crazy was a Suicide Bomber/Godfather (mafia). Cerebus3 was a Jailkeeper/Vigilante (town).

Carry on.

Lots and lots of information there.

KABOOM!!!!!

icemanE has suicide-bombed Alabaska J. icemanE was a Super Backup/Suicide Bomber/Bulletproof Vest (town). Alabaska J was a Vote Motivator (town).

Carry on.

Well that was completely OMGUS.

But still, nice information gained from it, too.

Still, rather would not have seen that happen.

No matter what, though, Emp needs to die. Like, today.

So, Wolf, if you would do the honors.

Or we can just lynch him. Either way works, really.

I will now commence a reread with the new information.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Unvote Empking, Vote Armlx

I support the idea that we should kill the person who suggested the mass killings.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Unvote Empking, Vote Armlx

I support the idea that we should kill the person who suggested the mass killings.

unvote, vote: ZS

What? All it does is make sure that whoever created the idea to have as many deaths in one day is not doing it just because they are scum and want to see as many townies dead in one day as possible.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Wait, wait, wait.

WHAT?

Ok, yes, I was voting them. And?

The point of the matter is is that we essentially agreed on a plan that we would lynch you because you were the one who proposed the mass killings. I was in opposition to this, but simply because I was in opposition to the mass killings. Now that they have happened despite my protests, it sincerely looks like the best course of action.

Why the hell are you people getting on me for doing something you agreed upon?!

[ZombieSlayer54]

What, am I supposed to say that the death of a townie is good?

Maybe it is. It provides us information.

But it is still nowhere near as good as the death of a scum, which I heartily approve of more than the death of a townie.

I mean, can you REALLY say that you would have preferred iceman to kill Alabaska over someone who is actually scum?

[ZombieSlayer54]

Well, charter is the only one still alive who agreed to it.

Iceman and Alabaska agreed to it too.

I also said earlier that I believed that it would either have to be Iceman or Armlx who was scum, and since Iceman is now confirmed townie, that leaves only one person out of that pair to be scum.

[ZombieSlayer54]

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=350

Their a link.

Wait, what?

[ZombieSlayer54]

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=350

Their a link.

That's a link to this page.

Yes on on this page their are some magic things that let people see all the posts by a certain person.

There is one post from Wolf on this page...

And it barely even has anything to do with the game...

Wolf, PLEASE tell me you did not lie to us when you told us you poisoned this man. He SERIOUSLY needs to die.

[ZombieSlayer54]

The bottom of post 128 is what I was referring to, charter.

[ZombieSlayer54]

I can prove it, just not the way you want me to prove it.

Then do so.

I still advocate not planning them out in thread.

^^

There is also no reason not to use your night ability tonight.

Go to the place where it say all users - click on his name anfd press go.

The onus of proof is on you, Empking. You can't expect us all to see what you see just by looking through his posts. You have to show us what you see.

:goodposting:

[ZombieSlayer54]

pwnz: If you yourself stated that the case was very weak, why are you using it as a stand to vote on?

FoS pwnz

[ZombieSlayer54]

Armlx is seeming overly-aggressive to me.

I now have more reason to keep my vote on him, rather than just as a fail-safe.

[ZombieSlayer54]

48, 79 and 83 are all posts by Armlx supporting mass death before post 98.

And not that it matters how late into the game Armlx supports mass death. What does matter is how much he supports it once he starts supporting it.

As he has supported mass death vigilantly, that leads me to want to kill him as insurance.

And about that 90% thing:

You people are acting like it is a set rule for me, that I have to be 90% sure to cast a vote. I said I WANT to be 90% sure before I cast my vote. If I feel as though I need to cast my vote, even though I am not 90% sure of their scumminess, I will anyways, which I am doing here.

And, considerably, I consider the amount of aggressiveness Armlx is showing to be scummy.

There is a healthy level of aggressiveness. However, Armlx has gone far past that level.

And believe me, if Wolf had not promised me that Emp is going to be dead at the end of the day, I would be going for an Emp lynch right now.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Charter, I highly doubt there is any real difference between suggesting an idea and supporting it.

Cow, I already said there is a difference between healthy aggressiveness and just being plain over-aggressive. Armlx is showcasing the latter.

By "overly-aggressive", Armlx, I mean the point when you will attack almost every post, finding every single last thing wrong with that post, and then drilling the person who made the post for as long as humanly possible.

I mean, it is fine to interrogate someone over something obviously scummy.

But when you start to nitpick, finding the smallest things to interrogate about, sometimes not even things, just shadows of things, and then drilling like no tomorrow based on them, that is just overly-aggressive, and reeks of scum.

I think I already said that I never liked the "mass kill" idea in the first place, so your supporting of that is also behavioral evidence for my case.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Put that all together and we are left with one Mafia vote on charter at the very beginning of the game, which could honestly mean anything.

Mafia will sometimes vote for other members of the mafia early in the game in order to remove suspicion.

Your case on charter self contradicts within 1 paragraph. Nice.

Pretty nitpicky here. Taking an unfortunate juxtaposition of words and then going as deep and hard as humanly possible in order to make it seem scummy.

And it is scummy because it is being overly aggressive. Being overly aggressive is scummy.

I did not like maximizing the number of town directed deaths because, as Crazy's alignment proves, not all of them are necessarily town directed.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Pretty nitpicky here. Taking an unfortunate juxtaposition of words and then going as deep and hard as humanly possible in order to make it seem scummy.

So, his post is not self contradictory? I feel he was stretching for reasons and just made that logic up in order to make his vote look good, which is evidenced by his earlier statement that shows he would not believe that to be true.

And is that all? 1 incidence that occurred after you voted me?

And it is scummy because it is being overly aggressive. Being overly aggressive is scummy.

Again, why? You can't just say something is scummy because it is. You need logic.

I did not like maximizing the number of town directed deaths because, as Crazy's alignment proves, not all of them are necessarily town directed.

So you don't like it because we forced a mafia to 1 for 1 himself, aka we got a correct lynch for free?

Not really. You just took a few words, put them out of context, and made it look like he contradicted himself.

And you will notice that I voted you at first in order to go through with the "Kill the suggester" plan. Not because you were nitpicky. That just solidifies my vote.

Is it really that hard to realize how being overly-aggressive is scummy?

If you actually want me to explain, I will.

And, once again, I stress that there is a healthy level of aggressiveness, and an over level of aggressiveness, and there IS a difference between the two.

What? I never said I did not like the results. What I did say is that I did not like the plan.

For example: What would happen if Wolf actually ends up being scum? Then we, the town, are, essentially, giving Wolf our permission to kill a random townie once a day, essentially giving the Mafia an additional kill.

Not to mention that you employed it on Day 1, a day lacking enough information to make any really concrete assumptions.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Not really. You just took a few words, put them out of context, and made it look like he contradicted himself.

Except he did. How were they "out of context"?

If you actually want me to explain, I will.

Please do.

For example: What would happen if Wolf actually ends up being scum? Then we, the town, are, essentially, giving Wolf our permission to kill a random townie once a day, essentially giving the Mafia an additional kill.

A random "townie" of our choosing is killed. Sounds good. Is that any worse then what happens without the plan?

Not to mention that you employed it on Day 1, a day lacking enough information to make any really concrete assumptions.

This is untrue and you know it. Just because its day 1 doesn't mean there is no info.

And you will notice that I voted you at first in order to go through with the "Kill the suggester" plan.

That plan is based on bullshit and logical fallacies, as has been pointed out several times.

Also of note: EmpKing shutting up despite being alive makes me pretty sure he was scum. See me in House Mafia. We have to watch out for putting someone at L-1 as he is almost assure to hammer if they aren't his buddy.

By "out of context" I mean you took things which were not actually self-contradictory (If you actually look at it, you can see that it really, really is NOT self-contradictory), and then construed those words for your own purposes.

Is it really that hard to see how you can be overly aggressive?

Ok, look: When you are overly aggressive, it is as if you are seeking any and all reasons for someone to be lynched, even if that reason is completely and utterly insignificant. When you are being overly aggressive, it is as if you are just trying to get someone lynched, without actually having any actual major scum tells. When you are being overly aggressive, it is as if you are just trying to get people to say something which is said in complete innocence as a townie, but which can be misconstrued as a scum tell.

All in all, it really just seems like you want someone lynched for no good reason at all, or a reason which you yourself managed to develop.

Any worse than what happens without the plan... Wait, what?

I never said there was no info. I said there was not enough info.

Well, frankly, I like the plan. It is a very, very nice insurance policy.

[ZombieSlayer54]

By "out of context" I mean you took things which were not actually self-contradictory (If you actually look at it, you can see that it really, really is NOT self-contradictory), and then construed those words for your own purposes.

How is it not self contradictory?

Ok, look: When you are overly aggressive, it is as if you are seeking any and all reasons for someone to be lynched, even if that reason is completely and utterly insignificant. When you are being overly aggressive, it is as if you are just trying to get someone lynched, without actually having any actual major scum tells. When you are being overly aggressive, it is as if you are just trying to get people to say something which is said in complete innocence as a townie, but which can be misconstrued as a scum tell

So you are going back to your minutia point which you have yet to back with more than one point.

Can you point where I have said anything leading?

All in all, it really just seems like you want someone lynched for no good reason at all, or a reason which you yourself managed to develop.

So, I'm building a case?

Considerably, I think burden of proof lies on you to explain how it is self-contradictory. I mean, all you said was "It is self-contradictory", without explaining how.

There is a difference between building a case off of good evidence, and building a case off of no evidence at all. You, from what I can tell, are doing the latter.

[ZombieSlayer54]

ZS: Could you explain what you see as insignificant and how you can claim anything is insignificant in a mafia game?

By "insignificant" I mean the way Armlx goes after posts where the words are not completely clear, because of unfortunate positioning, or some other reason, and then acts like it is the most massive scumtell in the entire game.

Something can be insignificant when it has no real bearing on the game, but people make it out to be overly important.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Considerably, I think burden of proof lies on you to explain how it is self-contradictory. I mean, all you said was "It is self-contradictory", without explaining how.

I have already proven how it was. The first sentence is him saying the voting "Could mean anything", the second is him ascribing a specific meaning to it.

He says it could mean anything, and then offers up a possibility of what it could mean.

How is that self-contradictory?

[ZombieSlayer54]

By "insignificant" I mean the way Armlx goes after posts where the words are not completely clear, because of unfortunate positioning, or some other reason, and then acts like it is the most massive scumtell in the entire game.

Examples plz.

Uhh... The whole "self-contradictory post" thing?

[ZombieSlayer54]

Uhh... The whole "self-contradictory post" thing?

So one thing that occurred AFTER you voted me?

Looks like someone is retroactively stretching for reasons.

You also are blowing my attack on pwnz out of proportion with your "case" on me, especially given my vote is still on you and has remained there the whole time.

And read the post again. The clear implication of his first sentence is he has no clue what it means.

I thought I already said my immediate vote was for the "Kill the Suggester", and that your over-aggressiveness just solidified it?

He may or may not know what it means. What he was suggesting in the second sentence is something that he might THINK it means.

[ZombieSlayer54]

I thought I already said my immediate vote was for the "Kill the Suggester", and that your over-aggressiveness just solidified it?

So we are agreed your original vote is based on crap logic?

He may or may not know what it means. What he was suggesting in the second sentence is something that he might THINK it means.

I see the semantic difference between "may or may not" and "does not" in our interpretations of the post is the issue at hand here. Pwnz clarifying would be nice.

You say it is crap logic. I say it is wonderful insurance.

Clarification would be nice.

[ZombieSlayer54]

ZS: Could you explain what you see as insignificant and how you can claim anything is insignificant in a mafia game?

By "insignificant" I mean the way Armlx goes after posts where the words are not completely clear, because of unfortunate positioning, or some other reason, and then acts like it is the most massive scumtell in the entire game.

Something can be insignificant when it has no real bearing on the game, but people make it out to be overly important.

how can you say something has no real bearing on the game? Isn't this a game of words? Why shouldn't we be held accountable for everything we say?

I'm also seeing a Chainsaw defense, Tar style coming from ZS, who is defending pwnz by attacking armlx with craplogic

Because sometimes words mean absolutely nothing at all. It seems to me that what Pwnz said was completely and utterly innocent, just a bit ambiguous, and armlx is trying his hardest to make Pwnz look like scum from it.

And if I knew what a Chainsaw defense is, or was Tar style is, I might be able to respond to that.

You say it is crap logic. I say it is wonderful insurance.

What you are saying is you want to use a lynch on someone on whom you have no evidence that points towards them being scum. Sounds like crap logic.

I am telling you that I am using it as insurance, to make sure that you have not cleverly manipulated the town into killing off about one third of it in a single day.

What is so wrong with insurance?

[ZombieSlayer54]

Well, I think I criticized armlx for his suggesting of the whole "Kill as many people as possible" plan before I started defending pwnz.

I think that nullifies at least one half of the tell check, or whatever you want to call it.

[ZombieSlayer54]

I don't think it was armlx that proposed it, but I have read back and yes ZS does continually criticize armlx for the plan, at the very least being apart of it.

I would like part of my answer to armlx earlier post to be answered by ZS though. If we had gotten more scum kills out of the dayvig power usage so far, would you still be trying to lynch the person who brought up the plan, or would you be happy with it and trying to find a different person you thought was scum? Also, aside from the "overly-aggressiveness" and the "plan" do you think that armlx is scum for any other reason, or for just those two reasons?

I would still be trying to lynch the person armlx, even if we got more scum kills.

Just those two reasons.

And armlx: I still like the insurance, no matter what.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Zombie is just trying to push a lynch on no reasoning at this point.

Besides insurance.

But, then again, you have to realize that you as well are trying to push a lynch on pwnz for a simple misunderstanding, which equates to no reasoning, really.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Where IS pwnz anyways? He REALLY needs to get in here and answer some questions.

[ZombieSlayer54]

I don't think it was armlx that proposed it, but I have read back and yes ZS does continually criticize armlx for the plan, at the very least being apart of it.

I would like part of my answer to armlx earlier post to be answered by ZS though. If we had gotten more scum kills out of the dayvig power usage so far, would you still be trying to lynch the person who brought up the plan, or would you be happy with it and trying to find a different person you thought was scum? Also, aside from the "overly-aggressiveness" and the "plan" do you think that armlx is scum for any other reason, or for just those two reasons?

I would still be trying to lynch the person armlx, even if we got more scum kills.

Just those two reasons.

And armlx: I still like the insurance, no matter what.

ZS: Why do you keep ignoring the fact that I came up with the plan, and keep going after armlx for it when it wasn't his plan?

Primarily because, in my point of view, you were the one to first suggest the plan, while armlx was the one who really formulated it and pushed it through.

[ZombieSlayer54]

We have to realize is that this "plan" that keeps getting referred to hasn't even really yielded any results. The only kills we have had so far have been a Mafia suicide bomb on a vigilante and an overly-aggressive icemanE-bomb on a townie. The only thing that has happened as a direct result of said plan has been to poison Empking, and we're still waiting on the autopsy. There is no need to be attacking hasdgfas or armlx for a plan that they came up with especially since the killings that have happened so far have been completely beyond their power.

So, ZS, why are you attacking someone who has done nothing but suggest a plan?

I already said that I want armlx lynched as an insurance policy. I am not directly attacking him over it.

What I AM attacking him over is his nitpicking and over-aggressiveness in regards to your post.

[ZombieSlayer54]

In other news:

L-1. Good time to claim, right?

I am secretly a cop.

[ZombieSlayer54]

In other news:

L-1. Good time to claim, right?

I am secretly a cop.

results?

There was no night phase, in case you forgot.

[ZombieSlayer54]

You act like I am on here 24/7.

No, I can only do one action per night.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Also: I think "Mafia Goon" is probably a secret role in itself, rather than "Mafia" being an alignment randomly assigned after the public and secret roles are assigned.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Also: I think "Mafia Goon" is probably a secret role in itself, rather than "Mafia" being an alignment randomly assigned after the public and secret roles are assigned.

hmm, what would make you think that unless you have some knowledge?

What indeed?

Besides the fact that Crazy's secret role was "Godfather"?

Also: Xyl, charter is voting Wolf now, not me.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Besides the fact that Crazy's secret role was "Godfather"?

Godfather entails an extra ability however (immunity to investigations).

Obviously.

But I still think that this says that your Secret Role also determines your alignment.

I.E. If your secret role is a Mafia role, then you are Mafia.

So there are only two role tiers, not three.

[ZombieSlayer54]

ZS, this honestly seems like a large leap of logic that you are trying to get us to believe in order to say your cop claim confirms you.

He's right though.

Why is he right?

The mod edit to 531, for one thing.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Besides the fact that Crazy's secret role was "Godfather"?

Godfather entails an extra ability however (immunity to investigations).

Obviously.

But I still think that this says that your Secret Role also determines your alignment.

I.E. If your secret role is a Mafia role, then you are Mafia.

So there are only two role tiers, not three.

Plus, I don't understand why you would think that. Please explain(with another argument besides "Crazy showed up as Godfather")

Even if Xyl had not clarified that, I think that the Crazy argument is enough of an argument.

I really do not see how it is not.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Hey Empking, why are you voting for wolframnhart?

Have you read this game? This is a dumb question to ask...

not really. He still hasn't explained why. He's just said "look through his posts and you'll see"

What I meant was he's given his reason "He's scum" but he's never justified it or tried to. He's been asked numerous times, so pwnz's request seemed pointless

@armlx, whats a gun smith?

It is a role which can investigate a person once a night to see whether or not they have a "gun". I.E. If they have a night kill.

And Armlx:

Ok, so the town has a lot of power roles. And? For all we know, this game is simply horribly unbalanced.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Has, how does the answer make you want to lynch me MORE?

[ZombieSlayer54]

Has, how does the answer make you want to lynch me MORE?

I think you were the only one who thought that "Mafia Goon" was a secret role, and because the mod basically confirmed that, I believe you only thought that because you had prior knowledge.

I do not see why nobody else thought that, since Crazy's secret role was revealed to be a mafia role...

Oh, and Wolf is looking more and more like scum, especially with his last post.

[ZombieSlayer54]

I do think that the Crazy argument is a good enough argument.

Except it's not, because Godfather gives extra abilities.

How does that, in any way, shape, or form, negate my argument?

ALL of our secret roles give extra abilities, unless you forgot.

[ZombieSlayer54]

ALL of our secret roles give extra abilities, unless you forgot.

But how would Mafia Goon give extra abilities?

Ok, so Mafia Goon is not exactly giving extra abilities, per se. But it is giving a secret role, correct? One you would rather not have other people know of, correct?

[ZombieSlayer54]

But that's alignment, no an abillity.

But it is a SECRET role, correct?

Why is it so hard to think of "Mafia Goon" as a SECRET role?

[ZombieSlayer54]

But that's alignment, no an abillity.

But it is a SECRET role, correct?

Why is it so hard to think of "Mafia Goon" as a SECRET role?

because the goon doesn't have special abilities, it has a different alignment.

But who says a secret role has to have special abilities?

[ZombieSlayer54]

That's what all of us are assuming, that a secret role entails some sort of abillity. That's why your assumption doesn't make sense.

Or it could just be... You know... A secret role...?

Why assume that, anyways?

I mean, the mod has already explained that there are two tiers to role selection: Public role and secret role. No tertiary "Alignment Role". Alignments, therefore, are probably assigned through the secret roles.

[ZombieSlayer54]

That's what all of us are assuming, that a secret role entails some sort of abillity. That's why your assumption doesn't make sense.

Or it could just be... You know... A secret role...?

Why assume that, anyways?

I mean, the mod has already explained that there are two tiers to role selection: Public role and secret role. No tertiary "Alignment Role". Alignments, therefore, are probably assigned through the secret roles.

right, but that wasn't obvious from the very beginning.

Well it was obvious to me...

[ZombieSlayer54]

Geddings: What is so wrong with believing a cop-claim just because there is a Gunsmith in the game, too?

Is it so hard to believe that there might be two investigative roles in the game?

Also, since I believe you are probably going to vote me...

Unvote, Vote Wolframnhart

Self-preservation, etc. etc.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Geddings: What is so wrong with believing a cop-claim just because there is a Gunsmith in the game, too?

Is it so hard to believe that there might be two investigative roles in the game?

Uh... yes. Cop + Gunsmith + Tracker + Night Watchman + MUP + Inventor + other secret roles is too much for me in a 12 player game. Even if it's not too much (some of those roles could get put on the same player, for example) I don't want to use role info to cloud my judgment in this game. You were my top suspect all the way back to nearly your first post, and I have no qualms about lynching you for your play rather than letting you live for your claim.

Besides, it's easy to see a scum recognize that they're going down and pull a "secret cop" claim out to try and halt their fall. It's even easier to see in a this game, where you're unlikely to get counterclaimed.

Also, since I believe you are probably going to vote me...

Unvote, Vote Wolframnhart

Self-preservation, etc. etc.

This doesn't help you.

And we do not know if any of those public roles have been given to scum or not. You act like all of the investigative roles are for the town.

Actually, it does help me.

[ZombieSlayer54]

And we do not know if any of those public roles have been given to scum or not. You act like all of the investigative roles are for the town.

Actually, it does help me.

Roles were distributed randomly, as were secret roles. Even the possibility of the town having a gunsmith, cop, tracker, and night watchman is too unbalancing for me to believe.

And I meant it isn't helping the negative view I (and apparently others) have of you.

Then maybe the set up is just unbalanced. Has this set up ever been tried before?

Oh, and I only get to use one action per night.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Also, just reread my role PM.

Apparently, my results are "not guaranteed to be reliable."

So, for all we know, I am an insane/paranoid/naive cop. That might make it a tad more balanced.

Also: Why is everyone believing Armlx's claim so readily?

[ZombieSlayer54]

I think whatever virus Empking had has been passed onto pwnz.

Anyone ready to think it might actually be some kind of post restriction, or something? And Empking's secret role has something to do with it?

[ZombieSlayer54]

Armlx, are you really saying there appears to be no similarities between Pwnz's new posting and the way Empking has been posting all game long?

I think there might be something to it, really.

[ZombieSlayer54]

I am still utterly confused as to why everbody is believing armlx's claim so readily, even if he is being "more townie" than me.

Ok, well, if I am lynched (Which seems likely), and I flip cop (Which I will), will you lynch armlx, then?

Since, you know, there can NOT be that many investigative roles in a game, right?

And pwnz, would you please kindly read the latest Wolframnhart posts? If he was not looking scummy before, he certainly is now.

And, armlx, my point was not dumb and irrelevant because, from my point of view, I think that Empking probably just has some kind of post restriction, rather than actually just being a douche. Since I am not privy to the entirety of whatever his secret role is, I am exploring all possibilities, including the possibility that he might be able to "spread" his post restriction.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Yeah, because when you jump on a bandwagon that is picking up speed, then jump off as soon as you start getting under pressure for it, that is NOT scummy at all.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Yeah, because when you jump on a bandwagon that is picking up speed, then jump off as soon as you start getting under pressure for it, that is NOT scummy at all.

It was scummy. Your actions are scummier.

What actions, exactly?

[ZombieSlayer54]

Now that it should be obvious, you might as well spill your guts and let us all know what you think of the game from an objective standpoint. Seriously, no pressure, I'm sure I'll know what you're allignment really was by the end of the day anyhow.

Emp, please do this.

Seriously, do it.

Either pwnz is failing completely and utterly at avoiding questions, or Emp's posting restriction had been passed on or spread to pwnz.

I mean, I really see no reason as to why two people in the same game would be acting so much the same.

[ZombieSlayer54]

I find it perfectly weird. But I believe it has something to do with Empking, since Empking's posting from the beginning and pwnz's posting for a while now seem very, very alike.

[ZombieSlayer54]

ZS, if you keep going at this, I'm going to switch back over to you and lynch you. This is the second or third ridiculous idea you've gone on and on about. They aren't helping us out in the least and are a major distraction to scumhunting.

You act like I am saying "DO NOT LYNCH THEM!"

I am not. What I am saying is that, given the insanity already known about this game, it would not be too surprising to see some kind of post restriction, or something.

Lynching them would probably be a good idea, actually. Might prevent the spreading of the "post restriction virus", or whatever.

[ZombieSlayer54]

@Pwnz, Back on page 22 this happened:

unvote

vote ZombieSlayer54

Ok you vote him, but any reason why?

But you never answered my Why question. Then on our current page 25, you posted:

Great explanation, but would you mind commenting on the situation at hand?

Lets kill ZS.

You voted for him without explaining why, then you seem eager to kill him off. Please explain why.

These questions, pwnz.

[ZombieSlayer54]

@wolf:
The reason that I want to kill ZS is because he is a part of this unknown group called the "mafia". In case you were unaware, the object of the game is to kill the mafia before the mafia kills you.

He wants to know WHY you think I am the Mafia.

[ZombieSlayer54]

ZS, first it's the policy lynching of armlx. Then it's the voting him for suggesting it when he wasn't the one that suggested it. Then it was the goon is a secret role. Now it's this ridiculous posting restriction crap. There was another one in there as well, but it's eluding me.

Who is the 'them' you keep referencing in your last post?

Anyone have anything to say before I hammer ZS?

Yes, my vote on armlx was first put there for insurance.

Then it was solidified because he was the person who pushed the "mass-death" policy the most.

And I STILL do not see how it was so hard to realize that alignments are assigned based on your secret role? I mean, it makes perfect sense to me. I mean, would a townie get the "Godfather" role?

The "them" is pwnz and Empking.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Now that it should be obvious, you might as well spill your guts and let us all know what you think of the game from an objective standpoint. Seriously, no pressure, I'm sure I'll know what you're allignment really was by the end of the day anyhow.

Emp, please do this.

Seriously, do it.

Be more specific.

I can't beleive that post restriction thing. You're getting it from how we post but do you actually know what you think the post restriction is.

No I don't have as post restriction.

I never said I knew what the post restriction was. I said I thought there MIGHT be some kind of post restriction, considering how completely and utterly illogical your posts all game long and pwnz's most latest posts have been.

[ZombieSlayer54]

And I STILL do not see how it was so hard to realize that alignments are assigned based on your secret role? I mean, it makes perfect sense to me. I mean, would a townie get the "Godfather" role?

Yes. In IRC(which our mod wrote the bot for), I have gotten Godfather as a townie before.

This is not IRC.

And how does Godfather as a Townie work, anyways?

[ZombieSlayer54]

It plays as a normal townie. It's a weird randomization thing that only shows up in really weird setups like chaos, where you get setups like

Magnet Super Backup Jack of All Trades (Miller)*
One-Shot Anarchist Forensics Expert (One-Shot Emo Anarchist Forensics Expert)*
Skulking Role Cop Twin (Miller 0%)*
Lovestruck Super-Saint Pinata (Death Miller)*
Mystery Role (Miller Gunsmith)*
Sleeper Reviver Dedicated Keeper of Secrets (Death Miller)*

Or maybe that one was a multi-role, I can't remember.

Well, then, in the case that we can get such a weird randomization, who is to say such a weird thing as an infectious post restriction is not possible?

[ZombieSlayer54]

It plays as a normal townie. It's a weird randomization thing that only shows up in really weird setups like chaos, where you get setups like

Magnet Super Backup Jack of All Trades (Miller)*
One-Shot Anarchist Forensics Expert (One-Shot Emo Anarchist Forensics Expert)*
Skulking Role Cop Twin (Miller 0%)*
Lovestruck Super-Saint Pinata (Death Miller)*
Mystery Role (Miller Gunsmith)*
Sleeper Reviver Dedicated Keeper of Secrets (Death Miller)*

Or maybe that one was a multi-role, I can't remember.

Well, then, in the case that we can get such a weird randomization, who is to say such a weird thing as an infectious post restriction is not possible?

The only reasons I can see that it isn't possible is
a)Weird idea that doesn't seem to do anything for the game
b)Lets say for the sake of argument it is what is happening. Then what? If we dragged out Day 1 until the deadline would more people become "infected"? And if so would that mean we would have lets say 3 people by day 2 making no sense? Then sometime by Day 2 4 people make no sense? And it continued if day 2 was dragged until another deadline and then

no one

makes sense? It just wouldn't do anything for the dynamics of the game imho.

Who says it is not a one-time-a-day, thing?

Frankly, I am not saying I know anything about this post restriction thing, if it even exists. I am just theorizing based on what I have observed between pwnz and Empking.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Well, then, in the case that we can get such a weird randomization, who is to say such a weird thing as an infectious post restriction is not possible?

Because this PR you are suggesting is so subjective its beyond a reasonable thought.

Yes, and Empking and Pwnz have been displaying reasonable thought...

[ZombieSlayer54]

Ok, well, since I am lynched, I may as well tell you what my lynch will tell you.

I am a cop.

Simple as that, really.