|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On May 29 2011 09:51 Radfield wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 09:42 Foolishness wrote:
If Eiii is not going to die tonight, he should check Meapak to confirm his claim. I assume this means your down for voting GM? Also, role claims are fairly unimportant right now. We all started as town, so we all have townies roles. No need to lie about them.
I'm still thinking about it. The way I see it is that meapak is the only one who could be lying about his claim. kitaman should die tonight.
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On May 29 2011 09:57 Foolishness wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 09:51 Radfield wrote:On May 29 2011 09:42 Foolishness wrote:
If Eiii is not going to die tonight, he should check Meapak to confirm his claim. I assume this means your down for voting GM? Also, role claims are fairly unimportant right now. We all started as town, so we all have townies roles. No need to lie about them. I'm still thinking about it. The way I see it is that meapak is the only one who could be lying about his claim. kitaman should die tonight.
So you think Kita and Callers argument was staged?
GM is the mole, it's all there to see.
|
United States22154 Posts
On May 29 2011 09:37 Radfield wrote:
All of a sudden because I attacked you I am now more scummy than Eiii or Kitaman, the players you were pushing as likely scum just a moment ago. That might just be the definition of an OMGUS.
Sure its an OMGUS I agree, but its correct, since its a reaction to me casting doubt on your 100% towniness. Mafia love to work with "hey guys, I'm guaranteed town!" notice how I told everyone to doubt me anyway, the only guaranteed town is that proved by a DT or one who kills mafia, everyone else is simply more or less likely to be town.
Oh and there was no contradiction with me voting Caller, I had one list with a top suspect and a list that had been narrowed down to one player who had to be scum, I was lynching someone I knew to be mafia and saving my other suspect for later while calling it out in case I died.
Kita, I went for you because of the players on the list I thought you the scummiest, I didn't provide an analysis because I felt it wasn't needed, as long as we lynched from the list we were golden. It was my belief that Rad was about 70% town. His "perfect plan" however threw that perception I had out the window. Sorry but both you and Eiii were lurkerish in my mind.
Either way let the rest of the town choose how they win or lose. Will they follow my plan and have a guaranteed win? Or will they give the scumteam enough wiggle room to save themselves?
I cannot predict which path they will take, but I will be upset at the town if they manage to botch this game after all the advantages I handed out and with an insane number of information roles.
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
So your assertion is that instead of lurking my way to victory, I decided to go on a random rampage against a random townie(not even the consensus scummy townies).
Plan a) Lynch Kita, then kill foolishness, then lynch eiii, then kill bum. Now all i have to do is outtalk meapak into lynching you, which I can almost assuredly do(I just build a massive case today, why not wait till two days from now).
Plan b) Stick my neck out and spotlight myself in an attempt to kill GM, (which would then solidify the list) instead of going after two extremely easy lynch targets in Kita and Eiii.
Is this your reasoning for thinking I'm scum, because it's awful.
If you flip green(5-10% chance) then I'll happily defend my actions from the wrath of the town tomorrow. But I am about as certain on you flipping red as I get.
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
Is there any list check that could potentially narrow down are suspects more?
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
Oh and there was no contradiction with me voting Caller, I had one list with a top suspect and a list that had been narrowed down to one player who had to be scum, I was lynching someone I knew to be mafia and saving my other suspect for later while calling it out in case I died.
So why did you directly contradict yourself:
"If the DT would rather do something else then we probably have no choice but to lynch Caller tomorrow, which I would rather not do, as lynches for information are terrible play. "
This is not " saving your other suspect". You went from opening the day by voting to him, to all of a sudden not really wanting to vote him off, despite the fact that it's YOUR listcheck. Not only that, but you add as an excuse that "lynching for info is a terrible play". Exactly at what point did lynching caller go from being about him being scum, to being about information?
|
United States22154 Posts
On May 29 2011 10:13 Radfield wrote:
So your assertion is that instead of lurking my way to victory, I decided to go on a random rampage against a random townie(not even the consensus scummy townies).
Plan a) Lynch Kita, then kill foolishness, then lynch eiii, then kill bum. Now all i have to do is outtalk meapak into lynching you, which I can almost assuredly do(I just build a massive case today, why not wait till two days from now).
Plan b) Stick my neck out and spotlight myself in an attempt to kill GM, (which would then solidify the list) instead of going after two extremely easy lynch targets in Kita and Eiii.
Is this your reasoning for thinking I'm scum, because it's awful.
If you flip green(5-10% chance) then I'll happily defend my actions from the wrath of the town tomorrow. But I am about as certain on you flipping red as I get.
Beutiful misrepresentation of what happened. Here let me explain what *actually* went down.
"GM claims a 4 person list, 3 lynches to win. Alright, the plan is to kill outside the list and at lylo lynch the last person on the list"
"shit someone in the list claimed medic, I have to kill them, which means I need a new plan! I know, I'll kill kita or GM and make a plan that makes the town waste a lynch on the other one, rather than using him to kill the last person on the list at lylo/making him the lylo target."
So you propose a plan that makes you survive endgame, by lynching me. When I call you out on it you make a really weak case calling me scum. Its not a gamble, you absolutely *need* to get the town to lynch outside the list to survive. Then you go with "well at least his list is confirmed, sorry town, but we cannot lynch me if we want to win" to squirm out of death.
Its a brilliant plan, and probably the correct reaction to kita claiming medic, but I'm not letting you get away with it.
If you are town then I don't know what is going through your head.
@Town: You are at a juncture! Either lynch into the list and be guaranteed to win or lynch me then radfeild, and if rad is being an idiotic townie, find yourself at lylo, with two suspects. Its your call.
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
lol, you were always part of the list. At no time were you confirmed, bum and foolishness were. Lynching you is not "lynching outside the list" in any way, shape or form.
|
United States22154 Posts
On May 29 2011 10:21 Radfield wrote:Show nested quote +Oh and there was no contradiction with me voting Caller, I had one list with a top suspect and a list that had been narrowed down to one player who had to be scum, I was lynching someone I knew to be mafia and saving my other suspect for later while calling it out in case I died. So why did you directly contradict yourself: Show nested quote +"If the DT would rather do something else then we probably have no choice but to lynch Caller tomorrow, which I would rather not do, as lynches for information are terrible play. " This is not " saving your other suspect". You went from opening the day by voting to him, to all of a sudden not really wanting to vote him off, despite the fact that it's YOUR listcheck. Not only that, but you add as an excuse that "lynching for info is a terrible play". Exactly at what point did lynching caller go from being about him being scum, to being about information?
I *would* rather not lynch for information, but it was necessary we had to prove it one way or another, it is bad play but it was necessary, which is why I wanted a dt check, which we got, which proved him to be red.
I don't see the contradiction, something can be bad play by policy and still be necessary
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
Can town opt to no lynch?
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
Honestly if we can no lynch I think we have an auto win. It involves lynching Eiii now.
|
United States22154 Posts
On May 29 2011 10:28 Radfield wrote:
lol, you were always part of the list. At no time were you confirmed, bum and foolishness were. Lynching you is not "lynching outside the list" in any way, shape or form.
Yes it is.
Fact: there is a list with four players, one is scum 100%
its Rad, kita, Eiii and mepak.
we have three lynches.
One of the people on that list can prove himself to be not scum/force the mafia to shoot him, so we have three people and three lynches. One is guaranteed to be scum. Lynching me leaves us with three people and two lynches.
Three is oftentimes greater than two. So lynching me *is* lynching outside the list.
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
+ Show Spoiler +On May 29 2011 10:30 GMarshal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 10:28 Radfield wrote:
lol, you were always part of the list. At no time were you confirmed, bum and foolishness were. Lynching you is not "lynching outside the list" in any way, shape or form. Yes it is. Fact: there is a list with four players, one is scum 100% its Rad, kita, Eiii and mepak. we have three lynches. One of the people on that list can prove himself to be not scum/force the mafia to shoot him, so we have three people and three lynches. One is guaranteed to be scum. Lynching me leaves us with three people and two lynches. Three is oftentimes greater than two. So lynching me *is* lynching outside the list.
Look, I can see you're going to press this, so let's break it down.
You come out with a list of 4 names, one of which is scum. However, there is another option, and that is that you are scum, and are lying to us.
So that gives us 5 potentially scummy players:
Meapak
Radfield
Eiii
Kitaman
GMarshal
THIS IS THE LIST OF THE POTENTIAL MOLE
Any lynches inside this list are valid, as any could be the mole. That is all.
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On May 29 2011 10:28 GMarshal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 10:21 Radfield wrote:Oh and there was no contradiction with me voting Caller, I had one list with a top suspect and a list that had been narrowed down to one player who had to be scum, I was lynching someone I knew to be mafia and saving my other suspect for later while calling it out in case I died. So why did you directly contradict yourself: "If the DT would rather do something else then we probably have no choice but to lynch Caller tomorrow, which I would rather not do, as lynches for information are terrible play. " This is not " saving your other suspect". You went from opening the day by voting to him, to all of a sudden not really wanting to vote him off, despite the fact that it's YOUR listcheck. Not only that, but you add as an excuse that "lynching for info is a terrible play". Exactly at what point did lynching caller go from being about him being scum, to being about information? I *would* rather not lynch for information, but it was necessary we had to prove it one way or another, it is bad play but it was necessary, which is why I wanted a dt check, which we got, which proved him to be red. I don't see the contradiction, something can be bad play by policy and still be necessary
I'm going to push that caller post of yours, because it is a dead scum give away.
Please answer these two questions:
1) When did lynching Caller become about information, as opposed to us actually thinking he was mafia.
2) Why did you change your opinion from wanting to lynch Caller at the days outset, to not wanting to lynch Caller later in the day.
Oh and I'm glad that you point out your encouragement of the DT visiting Caller, the NRA member.
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
On May 29 2011 09:57 Foolishness wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 09:51 Radfield wrote:On May 29 2011 09:42 Foolishness wrote:
If Eiii is not going to die tonight, he should check Meapak to confirm his claim. I assume this means your down for voting GM? Also, role claims are fairly unimportant right now. We all started as town, so we all have townies roles. No need to lie about them. I'm still thinking about it. The way I see it is that meapak is the only one who could be lying about his claim. kitaman should die tonight.
Are we sure Foolishness isn't the traitor? -_-
Why should I die? I have the ability to extend the game with a save.
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On May 29 2011 10:39 kitaman27 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 09:57 Foolishness wrote:On May 29 2011 09:51 Radfield wrote:On May 29 2011 09:42 Foolishness wrote:
If Eiii is not going to die tonight, he should check Meapak to confirm his claim. I assume this means your down for voting GM? Also, role claims are fairly unimportant right now. We all started as town, so we all have townies roles. No need to lie about them. I'm still thinking about it. The way I see it is that meapak is the only one who could be lying about his claim. kitaman should die tonight. Are we sure Foolishness isn't the traitor? -_- Why should I die? I have the ability to extend the game with a save.
GM checked me the other night. I guess if you're thinking GM is the mole then 
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On May 29 2011 10:39 kitaman27 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2011 09:57 Foolishness wrote:On May 29 2011 09:51 Radfield wrote:On May 29 2011 09:42 Foolishness wrote:
If Eiii is not going to die tonight, he should check Meapak to confirm his claim. I assume this means your down for voting GM? Also, role claims are fairly unimportant right now. We all started as town, so we all have townies roles. No need to lie about them. I'm still thinking about it. The way I see it is that meapak is the only one who could be lying about his claim. kitaman should die tonight. Are we sure Foolishness isn't the traitor? -_- Why should I die? I have the ability to extend the game with a save.
Honestly, I've thought about it. His play this game has been kinda non-existent and it makes no sense to go after you right now. Keep in mind that GMarshal "checked" his role last night as well.
If GM flips red though, and we're still playing, then foolishness is for sure the traitor. For now it's a moot point.
Not to sideline the current conversation, but I bet 100$ that foolishness does not have a role that can be confirmed through a night action. Anyways, we get Eiii to check him tonight, and that settles the dispute.
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
Meapak, Bum and Eiii, you guys seriously need to get in here before the day ends.
|
United States22154 Posts
There is no contradiction, I had a town read on caller, but the information against him was pretty damning, which is why I preferred a DT check him, so that if the information was wrong he could be spared, and my list checks could be proven invalid, sure, I'd rather not lynch players whos posts make me think they are town, but I'll always go with a dt check over my instincts, as they are often wrong, so yes, I was ok with lynching him when he was the only check we had to go on even if there was a possibility of a frame influencing the check, however an opportunity arose that would avoid the lynch if I was wrong, I wanted to seize that, so I did.
it became a lynch for information when people said they were doing it to check the veracity of my lists, which is why I made the point that lynching for information is bad.
Any other points you would like to bring against me?
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
Okay we can kill GM now. Eiii claimed rolecop correct?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
