|
On January 25 2013 02:24 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 02:22 austinmcc wrote:On January 25 2013 02:16 Toadesstern wrote:On January 25 2013 02:15 Vivax wrote:
This doesn't stop now.
We should immediately discuss tomorrows' double lynches.
The people who have been masoned by gonzaw have to speak up as well.
I propose FT and yamato obviously.
Yamato is 100 % scum just cause of what I have already shown about him.
I'd say we lynch the (possible) red check the other DT has once I mason him tomorrow. Toad, stop being Vivax. (1) I am Toad, and I know of a DT who got a red check. (2) I am Toad, and I know of someone who is a DT, and I do not know what their N1 check came out. okay 5th time: I know a DT. I do not know a DT with a red check and I never said that. I also never said I am masoned with a DT although people keep saying that for whatever reason, but said DT might have a red check tomorrow, that's why I'm going to mason him tomorrow.
No no, I'm not assuming you're masoned with a DT. Your comment can only be true if you're masoned with someone who themselves was in contact with a DT, otherwise you're lying about something. I just wanted to check on that.
"(possible) red check" was just a confusing statement. EVERY DT has a possible red check every night, so it's weird to phrase it like that, rather than just say "check" or whatever. Just pointing out that it might be red isn't actually any information and struck me as funny. Made it seem like you actually knew of someone who had CLAIMED a red check, but you didn't know whether you trusted that person yet, so the "possible" angle was whether they actually did or did not get a red check. If that were your meaning, you'd be lying.
|
On January 25 2013 02:28 annul wrote:
toad says:
"I'd say we lynch the (possible) red check the other DT has once I mason him tomorrow."
we know he mason sandroba cycle 1. sandroba was miller. no info he could have received from sandroba is relevant to him knowing about another DT.
now, day 2, the only way toad can know of a DT is by masoning another mason (or a jack who used mason day 1). toad is not masoned with this DT today because as he says, "once i mason him tomorrow" means he cannot be with him today under the rules.
assume toad is masoning another mason today. the only way that he can know about this DT is if the person toad is talking to today masoned the DT on day 1, that DT claimed to the person toad is talking to today, and then the person toad is talking to today told toad about that DT's identity.
next, toad also says:
"see the thing is I know a bunch of powerroles, including a DT."
the only possible way for this to work is if by "a bunch" he actually means "one other" -- the second mason he is talking to today. he doesn't -- CAN'T -- know "a bunch" of power roles. there is no logical way for this to occur under the rules.
so we come down to a few choices:
A. toad is red.
B. whoever toad is talking to today is red and feeding toad lies.
C. whoever toad is talking to today is really, really bad at this game AND whoever talked on day 1 to the person toad is talking to today is also really, really bad at this game for claiming DT to a mason when mafia masons exist in the game.
D. whoever toad is talking to today is really, really bad at this game AND whoever talked on day 1 to the person toad is talking to today lied about being DT for some reason.
which is more likely?
how about you read the thread?
The guy claimed in the thread like Vivax did.
|
Annul, I really really love you.
|
Marshall Islands1474 Posts
On January 25 2013 02:29 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 02:27 FiveTouch wrote:On January 25 2013 02:24 Vivax wrote:
Austin, go watch some kitten pictures, you're as threatening for scum as a vet vegan fart. Why are you striving to make this game less enjoyable to play for every single other player in the game, whether town or mafia? Single-handedly you are ruining town atmosphere and it's horrible to watch. Please stop it. Given your behaviour this game you don't have the right to say that. But it's rather excusable cause you are mafia.
I don't think you will find a single player in the game, apart from you, who will say they haven't enjoyed playing with me so far.
On the other hand, I don't think a single player in the game would say they are enjoying playing with you so far. If they can, they can feel free to speak up.
|
On January 25 2013 02:29 austinmcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 02:24 Toadesstern wrote:On January 25 2013 02:22 austinmcc wrote:On January 25 2013 02:16 Toadesstern wrote:On January 25 2013 02:15 Vivax wrote:
This doesn't stop now.
We should immediately discuss tomorrows' double lynches.
The people who have been masoned by gonzaw have to speak up as well.
I propose FT and yamato obviously.
Yamato is 100 % scum just cause of what I have already shown about him.
I'd say we lynch the (possible) red check the other DT has once I mason him tomorrow. Toad, stop being Vivax. (1) I am Toad, and I know of a DT who got a red check. (2) I am Toad, and I know of someone who is a DT, and I do not know what their N1 check came out. okay 5th time: I know a DT. I do not know a DT with a red check and I never said that. I also never said I am masoned with a DT although people keep saying that for whatever reason, but said DT might have a red check tomorrow, that's why I'm going to mason him tomorrow. No no, I'm not assuming you're masoned with a DT. Your comment can only be true if you're masoned with someone who themselves was in contact with a DT, otherwise you're lying about something. I just wanted to check on that. "(possible) red check" was just a confusing statement. EVERY DT has a possible red check every night, so it's weird to phrase it like that, rather than just say "check" or whatever. Just pointing out that it might be red isn't actually any information and struck me as funny. Made it seem like you actually knew of someone who had CLAIMED a red check, but you didn't know whether you trusted that person yet, so the "possible" angle was whether they actually did or did not get a red check. If that were your meaning, you'd be lying.
well you only lynch the guy if the check comes back red... don't you?
|
Tell us who this guy is then, Toad.
Apparently he isn't hidden to mafia, so why should he remain hidden to town?
|
i read the thread. i didnt see anyone claim to be your mason partner for this cycle nor a second DT. perhaps quote for me what i missed?
|
well the people I know didn't claim on purpose and since you don't know them I consider it likely mafia don't know them. I can prove it any second and out blue roles but do you really want that to happen?
|
Yeah, enlighten us Toad.
FT has to be marv by the way, the annoying, provocative questions when he is scum make it kinda obvious.
|
okay toad, lets try this:
how many power roles do you know that the rest of the game does not know?
|
you keep saying "the people i know." why plural? the only hidden info you have (if you are town) is the one person you are talking with today, and any hearsay evidence he tells you.
|
On January 25 2013 02:31 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 02:29 austinmcc wrote:On January 25 2013 02:24 Toadesstern wrote:On January 25 2013 02:22 austinmcc wrote:On January 25 2013 02:16 Toadesstern wrote:On January 25 2013 02:15 Vivax wrote:
This doesn't stop now.
We should immediately discuss tomorrows' double lynches.
The people who have been masoned by gonzaw have to speak up as well.
I propose FT and yamato obviously.
Yamato is 100 % scum just cause of what I have already shown about him.
I'd say we lynch the (possible) red check the other DT has once I mason him tomorrow. Toad, stop being Vivax. (1) I am Toad, and I know of a DT who got a red check. (2) I am Toad, and I know of someone who is a DT, and I do not know what their N1 check came out. okay 5th time: I know a DT. I do not know a DT with a red check and I never said that. I also never said I am masoned with a DT although people keep saying that for whatever reason, but said DT might have a red check tomorrow, that's why I'm going to mason him tomorrow. No no, I'm not assuming you're masoned with a DT. Your comment can only be true if you're masoned with someone who themselves was in contact with a DT, otherwise you're lying about something. I just wanted to check on that. "(possible) red check" was just a confusing statement. EVERY DT has a possible red check every night, so it's weird to phrase it like that, rather than just say "check" or whatever. Just pointing out that it might be red isn't actually any information and struck me as funny. Made it seem like you actually knew of someone who had CLAIMED a red check, but you didn't know whether you trusted that person yet, so the "possible" angle was whether they actually did or did not get a red check. If that were your meaning, you'd be lying. well you only lynch the guy if the check comes back red... don't you? Just using "red check" makes it seem like you actually KNOW of a red check, or a claimed red check. Vivax was talking about tomorrow's lynches, and you saying "we lynch the (possible) red check" reads differently then "one of them may be taken care of, I know of a guy who's a DT and maybe he has a red check." It's just semantics, but your statement was confusing, and it appears I wasn't the only one who found it to be so.
|
On January 25 2013 02:36 annul wrote:
you keep saying "the people i know." why plural? the only hidden info you have (if you are town) is the one person you are talking with today, and any hearsay evidence he tells you.
because it's more than 1, and no it's not hearsay evidence...
|
first, it is hearsay evidence. you have no proof. you have the word of someone you are talking with today, which could very well be tainted either by that person himself OR by bad information he got from a red somewhere down the communication chain.
second, i think i figured out what is going on. picture coming soon.
|
On January 25 2013 02:46 annul wrote:
first, it is hearsay evidence. you have no proof. you have the word of someone you are talking with today, which could very well be tainted either by that person himself OR by bad information he got from a red somewhere down the communication chain.
second, i think i figured out what is going on. picture coming soon.
first is wrong.
Here's the explanation for the 6th time: He claimed in the fucking thread.
What don't you understand about it? I'm not getting any information from anyone because the guy CLAIMED IN THE THREAD.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TcDuJgp.jpg)
this is the max toad can "know." toad can "know" of five other roles (MAYBE six if on day 1 "mason B" masoned a "mason C" who day 1 masoned a power role... and so on and so on). however, what does toad KNOW? nothing. if "mason B" is actually mafia, all information from that part of the chain is bullshit, and mason A knows no better, and is innocently but incorrectly feeding toad bad intel.
|
On January 25 2013 02:50 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 02:46 annul wrote:
first, it is hearsay evidence. you have no proof. you have the word of someone you are talking with today, which could very well be tainted either by that person himself OR by bad information he got from a red somewhere down the communication chain.
second, i think i figured out what is going on. picture coming soon. first is wrong. Here's the explanation for the 6th time: He claimed in the fucking thread. What don't you understand about it? I'm not getting any information from anyone because the guy CLAIMED IN THE THREAD.
THEN PROVIDE ME WITH A QUOTE OF THIS
|
On January 25 2013 02:52 annul wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 02:50 Toadesstern wrote:On January 25 2013 02:46 annul wrote:
first, it is hearsay evidence. you have no proof. you have the word of someone you are talking with today, which could very well be tainted either by that person himself OR by bad information he got from a red somewhere down the communication chain.
second, i think i figured out what is going on. picture coming soon. first is wrong. Here's the explanation for the 6th time: He claimed in the fucking thread. What don't you understand about it? I'm not getting any information from anyone because the guy CLAIMED IN THE THREAD. THEN PROVIDE ME WITH A QUOTE OF THIS
do you even realise what you're asking about?
|
if someone breadcrumbs this is not a "claim in the thread"
so, did you pick up on a breadcrumb or a claim?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 24 2013 15:13 Toadesstern wrote:btw my take on oats right now: Show nested quote +[06:58:03] Erik: for all I care if he's scum and that means both palmar and I survive becase they don't want to "out" oats that's fine with me So I really don't see a reason to risk lynching oats today. Yes he's really scummy but more importantly he's a problem that will solve itself sooner or later. Either mafia shoots him because they want to get Palmar / me OR they shoot Palmar / me in which case oats isn't "probably mafia" but confirmed mafia OR they don't shoot Palmar / me which is perfectly fine with me to be honest. So I'd say we lynch someone else. For me that either means lynching into one of Annul / Gonzaw / Chez or lynching BKE. I myself would like BKE the most right now but I'm not done catching up. Mostly because I haven't figured out the Annul / Gonzaw / Chez triangle and while a 1/3 chance to hit mafia is still decent I think we'll get a better read on that one soon enough as well. On January 24 2013 15:39 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 15:31 debears wrote:
I am not comfortable with lynching Gonzaw currently over annul and BKE
Upon closer inspection of his town games listed, and a couple of his scum games, I found that his posting style of convincing someone of their scumminess is a trait of his town games.
I only looked a little in the scum ones and I didn't see it
I didn't see anything in terms of him defending himself against a scumread's accusations in either
That would leave me wanting to lynch Gonzaw based on
1) His running for mayor (scum having to have someone run)
2) Him trying to convince 5touch to lynch oats over prplhz
I'm still waiting on an answer over whether the mayor/sheriff can be killed in the same night as a bodyguard.
If so, then I agree with not lynching Oats.
If the mayor/sheriff can't be killed on the same night, we should take that into consideration of lynching oats yeah I'd say gonzaw would be the worst lynch out of those but he's a possibility. It's entirely based ond process of elimination.
I'd like to call Toad bad for saying this but sadly he's just scum.
"Oh, just cause of elimination of course"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
