On November 07 2012 07:23 Acrofales wrote:
In case that was too cryptic: if the SK is bulletproof and scum shot him, then they did NOT shoot Mat or Zealos.

That means we have a vig. It is theoretically possible, but we'll have to see whether the KP works out tonight.

Anybody feel like claiming vig?

Yeah, this is honestly what I'm hoping for. The problem I see in my mind is that according to C9++ (if we are to keep following it roughly) one V gets a 1-shot vigi, so it would be at least two V's claiming tonight imo. If the single shot vig shot last night, he would have claimed. An unlimited vig wouldn't have such qualms necessarily.

mkfuba07

United States1151 Posts

November 06 2012 22:31 GMT

#1085

I don't even know what I'm writing anymore.

EBWOP: An unlimited vig wouldn't have such inclinations.

mkfuba07

United States1151 Posts

November 06 2012 22:44 GMT

#1089

Was the trap for me? If so I'm sad =/

mkfuba07

United States1151 Posts

November 06 2012 23:00 GMT

#1091

Well then...

mkfuba07

United States1151 Posts

November 06 2012 23:04 GMT

#1093

Yeah... Or both...

mkfuba07

United States1151 Posts

November 06 2012 23:04 GMT

#1094

In the event of an SK.

mkfuba07

United States1151 Posts

November 06 2012 23:17 GMT

#1096

Anyway, I'm exhausted. Even though I'd like to hear what other people think about all of this, I need to get some rest. I'll comment/push my reads later in the day.

mkfuba07

United States1151 Posts

November 07 2012 13:57 GMT

#1155

I'm up, and I'm going to work my way back through the thread eventually. Want to respond to acro first, so...

On November 07 2012 20:41 Acrofales wrote:
Muso: given the almost certain absense of a vig, does your theory work with a Thrawn/Kush scumteam. If so, where does that leave Drazak?

@Acro: I'm not entirely sure. A lot of the theory involves kush feeling incredibly like an SK to me this game, and him not knowing the exact flavor of the scumteam. The theory also involves the awkward and strange interactions between the two, as if they're working together without working together. It also speaks to me that scum are likely have a roleblocker (according to C9++ as well as the number of roleblocks both nights), and that kush claimed having been roleblocked, as well as the absence of even a single nk. You might ask, "why would kush claim the rb if he knew it was his scum team allies blocking him?" Well he still doesn't know if I actually blocked Prome. They know I'm trying to mess with them, so maybe I said I blocked prome, but actually blocked kush. Who knows? (I blocked Prome. I was not rb'd.) Another person who was incredibly interested in having Prome claim quickly or having me emphasize that I blocked Prome was thrawn. Take from that what you will.

For me the theory is less how they knew who each other was, but as an explanation of their strange behaviour with each other.

@kush: what do you think about thrawn fakeclaiming? You have confirmation that one of your scum names was actually scum. One of the other scum names has been claimed, and used an incredibly easy and questionably delivered claim to make. This doesn't set off any alarms, but actually makes you revise your theory?

mkfuba07

United States1151 Posts

November 07 2012 17:24 GMT

#1164

I do not think you are scum. No worries there pal.

mkfuba07

United States1151 Posts

November 07 2012 17:27 GMT

#1166

Yeah, that was the second possibility that popped into my head. I dismissed it.

mkfuba07

United States1151 Posts

November 07 2012 17:55 GMT

#1172

Fuba's theory of Kush=sk is possible if we assume that thrawn is town and he did get a green check on Kush but mafia framed him that night they would know 1)kush=sk and 2)he took bullet proof, this means that Scum could rb me tonight and, instead of holding their shot shoot off the SK's bullet proof.

So they rb you (which wasn't them, because it was me), shoot off the SK's bullet proof, and what did kush do?

mkfuba07

United States1151 Posts

November 07 2012 21:32 GMT

#1212

Prome, I saw you basically beg to be saved twice, I believe. I decided to go with it XD

mkfuba07

United States1151 Posts

November 08 2012 04:26 GMT

#1306

I'm back. My vote was up in the air in the beginning, because I was pondering over possibly voting kush. I'll stick with draz for now, since now that I've got confirmation bias out of my system, I can't confirm my theory until one of them flips.

##Vote drazak

@Release: I think it's likely that someone with a kp who was roleblocked would be more inclined to report it, because then there's a roleblocker out there who knows you haven't told the truth.

But on that note, the fact that you appear to have not thought of that makes me think you're town.

Edit: saw I was ninja'd. Wanted to comment anyway.

mkfuba07

United States1151 Posts

November 08 2012 07:02 GMT

#1309

I considered it, but I feel that scum wouldn't even consider saying what he did. As scum, I feel it would be my first reaction: "Can I just not claim? No, I have to claim, or someone will know I'm lying." As such, I would never consider it proof of innocence. I feel that he's wrong, and scum would never think to fake being wrong in that way. Does that make sense?