Acme Mini Mafia, Inc - Page 116

On November 18 2012 10:23 DarthPunk wrote:
Props to debears, Kier and marv for figuring shit out in the obs thread.

On November 19 2012 10:10 Promethelax wrote:
Because I hate sheep. I know that isn't a good reason. I made stupid plays trying to get people besides you playing the game. It went badly. I will not do so in the future. Believe me, I feel bad already, after I was dead Marv sent me a "we need to talk" message and after the game ended Kush sent me a "WTFWTFWTFWTF this game is 100 no 200 percent your fault" message.

On November 19 2012 12:18 Release wrote:

lolno.

It was kush's fault.
The one time when his vote counted, he chose not to think (as he did when his vote didn't count).

On November 19 2012 09:36 DarthPunk wrote:


What a crock of shit. My claim was no less realistic than Fuba's or thrawns until later.

They should have lynched release AND THEN lynched me. THAT was the correct play.

On November 19 2012 12:29 sandroba wrote:

Your claim wa 100% impossible given the setup. I hadn't read the game and I knew you were scum the moment you claimed.

On November 19 2012 12:29 Promethelax wrote:


Hye Sand, why was it 100% impossible? I get why it was unlikely but what makes it impossible?

On November 19 2012 12:39 Keirathi wrote:

There was a 1-shot JK, and a full JK (DD). For there to be another full JK, you would have to have 2 more D rolls (DDDD).

That would make the full roll CBBDDDD (0 T's). In a 0 T setup, there isn't a SK.

On November 19 2012 12:39 Keirathi wrote:

There was a 1-shot JK, and a full JK (DD). For there to be another full JK, you would have to have 2 more D rolls (DDDD).

That would make the full roll CBBDDDD (0 T's). In a 0 T setup, there isn't a SK.

On November 19 2012 12:52 gonzaw wrote:


Wait, I thought the hosts changed the c9++ setup so that setup discussion couldn't be made?


I mean, in Can't Believe it was "supposedly" c9++ but it had nothing to do with the C's and BB's and TT's (which I figured out after spending like 3 cycles speculating about it >_> ).

On July 13 2012 23:00 gonzaw wrote:
Hmm, now that I think about it the more flips there are we can determine how many scum there are.
Like, each time a cop flips we add a "C" (or "CC", etc), if a VT flips we add "T", etc. In the end we can know (based on all the Ts,Cs, Bs and shit that flipped or are claimed) exactly how many scum/SKs are and how many of them are.

On November 19 2012 12:39 Keirathi wrote:

There was a 1-shot JK, and a full JK (DD). For there to be another full JK, you would have to have 2 more D rolls (DDDD).

That would make the full roll CBBDDDD (0 T's). In a 0 T setup, there isn't a SK.

On November 19 2012 14:58 DarthPunk wrote:


yeah, but even knowing that FUBA or thrawn could have been fake claiming also right?

On November 19 2012 13:02 Keirathi wrote:

I didn't remember you speculating about the rolls in that game, but I just found this gem:



Lolol at the bolded.

On November 19 2012 15:20 Keirathi wrote:

Yes, one of them could have been fake-claiming, but not BOTH of them. Once risk and thrawn were dead, setup speculation would have told the thread that you HAD to be scum following standard C9++ rules.

But like I said, who knows what bugs does with 0 T's.

Oh yea, that reminds me of something else I wanted to comment on: 2 godfathers. No. Never. If you ever start thinking that in a c9++ base mini, you're just wrong. Again, maybe the host could change something to allow it, but no way should that ever be your first thought, and I wouldn't even consider it without seeing empirical proof that its possible.