|
Oats, you asked why you were scum. There are reasons in thread and mocsta has been following up as you ask him. What I will add is that you pop up in areas that I think scum would pop up.
D1, I had votes on me from FiveTouch and Toad. Then there's a span of a little more than an hour where: (1) they unvote me; (2) they both vote FiveTouch; and (3) two more players (Dearest and debears) vote FiveTouch.
Now, I don't know Stutters' alignment for certain. But I thought he was scum and that read hasn't change, so the next bit is...less strong than I would like. But in my head, mafia would want to at least put SOME effort into saving prplhz from lynch. Since he seemed to have 0 interest in saving himself, making himself look good, that necessarily means that mafia had to try and elect a candidate that wasn't going to kill him.
After FiveTouch got those votes, the next two sizeable movements I see are more people joining onto FiveTouch (Vivax, JX, mkfuba, and then later, yamato) and people voting me (Djodref, Oats, austinmcc, sandroba). Toad also begins to pick up votes (Vivax, toad, stutters).
Maybe mafia didn't try anything. Maybe stutters is mafia and I wasn't a good candidate to get pushed, I don't KNOW. But of the votes that were on me, 2 flipped green and I'm green, so you're the only one on me who can be mafia. That doesn't MAKE you mafia. But your vote on me:On January 22 2013 01:25 Oatsmaster wrote:
Ok with Austin's reappearance, I am inclined to vote for him as mayor. Why? Because I feel that he has put in more effort into finding scum than 5touch and that he is willing to be transparent and all the things various people have said that the mayor be.
He also stood up to lurky sandro early about JX when he couldve ignored the incident. That is one of the reasons I have a town tell on him. I also agree with his lynch target now that I read his reasoning and Stutter's filter.
Stutter's posted 4 posts and just disappeared, I feel that as a town player, his start wouldve been continued through the thread but it was not to be which makes me think that he is putting up a front of activity at the start to allay all suspicions then lurking his way through the rest of the game.
Vote: Austinmcc doesn't help you. I'm still less interested in the contradiction bit than FT was. But:
(1) You had never mentioned me before you voted me for mayor
(2) You said I was "willing to be transparent," which I think everyone said and is somewhat meaningless
(3) The stutters stuff is...mostly fine. But you do note that you think Stutters made four posts and disappeared to "put up a front of activity" and "allay all suspicions." There's a disconnect there, to me, between someone making a whopping four posts and the conclusion that they were made to put up a front of activity.
Now you're both the only person voting me who might have been scum AND your reasons for voting me are meh at best.
I also still find the mass double lynch voting to be weird. Nobody mentioned it, nobody explained their votes, just pew pew pew double lynch.
Axle was first, then you and grush voted within 3 minutes of his vote. It's a minor thing, but we have no idea why you placed that vote when you did, and it can be interepreted as "Oh, looks like they're gonna double lynch, better toss my vote in there so I don't look weird!"
In light of everything that has been mentioned, and those 2 things where your name appears in two sets of names that I think scum is within...gotta conclude that you're probably scum.
+ Show Spoiler +On January 24 2013 12:20 DearestSnot wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 12:15 austinmcc wrote:
As an addendum, FT has shown good reads/judgment from what we have so far. So keeping him alive and having the extra votes would be nice.
But the extra votes are only good if they're on scum. I haven't seen someone play a game in which they ONLY voted scum, I don't think. So we can expect that, at some points, the extra mayoral votes won't harm scum, and might HELP them if FT is just wrong about a certain read.
If FT is fallible, the mayoral votes have to get discounted somewhat. They're good, but I don't feel like we have to adjust our overall play in order to preserve them 100%. what the fuck? you can't have it both ways! If FT is fallible then you have to doubt his Oats read just like you doubt anything else! You can't just sheep him and then say that his triple vote is somehow bad. His triple vote gets better the longer we go in this game. If we kill Oats and Oats flips town then we basically cut his life expectancy by a full cycle. This is wrong. I'm not attempting to have something both ways. FT is fallible and we can't be certain that town will always have a triple vote placed on scum. That doesn't mean that the Oats read is wrong. Those things are entirely separate, because "FT says so" isn't the reason Oats is scum.
|
On January 25 2013 01:31 Vivax wrote:
Given his experience and skill as scum he probably has a powerful role too. I don't think there's a more powerful role than Jack for mafia. Roleblock and frame aren't as threatening as a shot/save/vet, and Godfather wouldn't matter for anyone in a position of power.
Investigation, pretty sure I buy. FT as mafia, much less so.
|
On January 25 2013 01:39 Vivax wrote:
Austin, you're derp, I already wrote gonzaw used his powers. He's the guy who used the extra shot N1 and today he's been masoning.
Don't believe FT is town just cause of the D1 lynch. People elected him to kill prplhz, so that's what he would do, along with getting massive cred. You have no way of knowing whether gonzaw used the powers or not.
The simple fact is that even IF those are the powers he used, he would still have medic and vet available, both of which can mess with town vig/JOAT shots. Whereas IF FT were mafia, he would have no active ability to interfere with town action.
His power, IF he is mafia, is his vote. A very public, very obvious power.
|
IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE BECAUSE YOU ARE FIGHTING REALLY HARD OVER SOMETHING THAT SEEMS, TO EVERYONE BUT YOU, TO BE IMPOSSIBLE.
You have made a statement that Gonzaw shot N1, and has masoned someone.
The OP states that a detective finds out the "role" of the player. Therefore, people are asking whether you are actually claiming that your detective check told you both role AND that Gonzaw had taken the two actions you are claiming he took or whether you are assuming he took those actions.
That's it. The way you keep phrasing things, you make it sound like you checked Gonzaw, and the check came back:
"Gonzaw is a jack mason. Also, by the way, Gonzaw used his powers to shoot someone N1 and to mason someone."
We're just trying to determine whether you actually received 100% confirmation that Gonzaw used his power as you are claiming he did, or whether you just assume that.
|
On January 25 2013 02:01 Vivax wrote:
I suppose gonzaw shot N1, there are no mafia vigilantes.
I don't have confirmation on that, it's a theory I have cause he is the jack.
Okay, that's why people were fighting you so hard, because you presented both your check and some assumptions you made together.
|
On January 25 2013 02:16 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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 02:31 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.
|
SO MUCH SILLINESS BASED ON THE SETUP AND POWER ROLES.
THIS. THIS IS MY KIND OF GAME
|
On January 25 2013 03:20 gonzaw wrote:
I'm home now
Why the fuck am I getting like 20 votes?
Can someone put a tl:dr; version while I'm reading the thread?
Claimed red check.
|
|
|
On January 25 2013 03:24 gonzaw wrote:
That's so obviously bullshit. Dude in the picture looks like a detective to me. It checks out.
|
On January 25 2013 03:30 gonzaw wrote:
Oh right forgot about that.
The thing is that It doesn't make sense for either:
-A framer to frame me "mafia jack mason" instead of, say just "mafia jack"
-Vivax being scum fake-claiming I'm "mafia jack mason".
There's some scum motivation behind either of those, and someone faked a "jack mason", which doesn't make sense because I'm obviously not mason and didn't mason anybody, so how the fuck would they expect anybody to believe that? That is the part that makes it slightly more convincing.
It's either REMARKABLY creative of a framer to make you a "jack mason"
or
remarkably creative of Vivax to say he checked you and you came back both roles
or
you are mafia.
The low-hanging fruit is for the framer to make someone a roleblocker, which town can't have. More likely that you go for something like, or just mafia whatever, rather than notice that only mafia could be x + mason and frame someone to appear as that, because you've already got mafia-only roles sitting in front of you that SOUND damning on their own, like framer.
|
Okay, looks like a bunch more stuff happened.
On January 25 2013 04:04 Vivax wrote:
Austin, what do you think about the points raised about yamato and FT regarding their stance on gonzaw? I think that you are borderline nonsensical, but the fact that you're making all these connections off everything makes me more certain that you aren't faking this check. If you're making up the Gonzaw check, then you have little reason to make all these other reads when it's all going to fall apart.
As to those players themselves, I think your points are not strong. FT is either town or is mafia doing everything he can to appear town and lead town - i.e., not the stuff that you're jumping on him for. Yamato I believe I have as town, weaker, but...you seem to be saying both that: (1) anyone who said something positive about Gonzaw is mafia trying to make him look good; and (2) anyone who said something negative about Gonzaw is mafia trying to bus him. That is sillypants. Sillypants to the max. ESPECIALLY for yamato to be "bussing" a guy who, at least to me, didn't feel like a legitimate lynch for a while (early early today when everyone was on annul or oats).
Maybe nobody was masoned by Gonzaw, but this post is super super important and is getting lost in the other crap.
On January 25 2013 03:51 annul wrote:
did anyone mason with gonzaw this game? if so speak up please
On January 25 2013 03:51 annul wrote:
did anyone mason with gonzaw this game? if so speak up please
On January 25 2013 03:51 annul wrote:
did anyone mason with gonzaw this game? if so speak up please
On January 25 2013 03:51 annul wrote:
did anyone mason with gonzaw this game? if so speak up please
IF nobody has been masoned with gonzaw, then...it's up to each of us to determine whether we think he's: (1) a mason that hasn't masoned anyone; (2) a townie who got framed N1; or (3) a townie and vivax is lying.
JX had some people thinking he was mafia. Possible he was a vig shot. Possible scum went sandro/bugs/djodref or some other combination, or only shot two players, or whatever. After the NKs, debears and maybe others were asking why those shots and not Gonzaw/I, his examples. So...in terms of people that I could see getting framed, Gonzaw would be one of the better candidates. Can't frame toad or FT, shooting sandro, so imo the best frame targets were like bugs/Gonzaw/Chez maybe? It's...possible. You have to weigh that possibility of a frame against the possibility Gonzaw, as mason, wouldn't mason anyone (if nobody claims)
|
That last paragraph is like...two separate thoughts mushed together. The second thought is important, that Gonzaw wasn't a bad frame target.
The first part is...irrelevant right now I think? I can't remember why I put that there.
|
On January 25 2013 05:54 FiveTouch wrote:
You're right, actually, he's not a bad frame target. I hadn't considered that so much.
On the other hand, gonzaw coming back to the thread, admitting he's been pretty lazy, and leaving again - this doesn't look so good for him. Its the mason bit that bugs me. Whatever he does in thread, if he were a mason, someone should have spoken up or else he just...didn't use his power for 2 days?
Possible mafia decided not to risk using their masons, and maybe try to screw with our heads later on ("we haven't seen any mafia masons, better name the masons and we can figure out which are mafia" or something to that effect), but that doesn't feel likely.
|
I don't love it, but he can't be framed twice IF he was framed. If vivax checks him again tonight, we have to move on a different lynch today, but we could cut the options down to framing OR vivax lying.
|
I have moved my vote back to oatsmaster.
I find it highly unlikely that a mason, even a mafia mason, wouldn't use his power for two straight days. A jack mason could possibly even mason 2 people on a day, if they stack, and then he's passed up three activations.
The only way that makes sense to me is to eventually use as a way to get the names of all the masons, and to be able to start cutting them down. But by the time that plan came to fruition, you'd be days into the game. I don't like the idea of the mafia trading their ability to use the mason power to influence people for a potential benefit later on, getting to identify town masons.
I think the odds that Gonzaw was framed or that Vivax is lying are higher than the odds that mafia decided to go with a strategy of holding all mason powers. One vet, and one smurf who may be a vet, can't be DTed. Sandroba was set to be shot, no need for you to frame him. In my mind, that leaves Bugs, Chez, Gonzaw, and maybe me as good frame options?
I don't think I'd get checked over people in that group. I feel like I was active enough D1 that people could read me, wouldn't check me, and I don't think anyone finds me particularly dangerous, in the sense that I'd be a D1 check option.
Bugs, Chez, gonzaw more likely fit that role. Toad was talking about jailing bugs or sandro, so maybe don't waste a frame there?
Chez and Gonzaw. Neither a bad check N1. Knowing where Chez coming from useful. Knowing where Gonzaw coming from useful, AND we know that he pushed a little harder to be mayor and had slightly more in the way of reads than Chez did (imo).
I think he's a really decent option for a N1 frame. Earlier I didn't think scum would be crafty enough to frame someone as "x + mason," but...given that we can check Gonzaw again tonight and find out for SURE (OP says can't frame same person twice), I'd rather not kill him today.
|
On January 25 2013 06:11 Vivax wrote:
@ austinmcc
I think you having doubts about this stuff makes you look a little better. I don't think scum would doubt that gonzaw is scum at this point.
What you still utterly fail at is being incredibly gullible in case you're town and letting marv and Toad get away with withholding their information regarding other masons and alleged blue powerroles, but you feel the need to quote annul and his legitimate question without actually pursuing the information that is not being disclosed and that makes you look rather worse.
The use of "waffle" =/= marv. Is marv in this game? Nope. So it could be marv. But saying "waffle" once isn't person-defining in my book. Honestly, I looked at some of his posts for "dear" and "sweetie" in an attempt to identify marv, and am currently on not-marv because of the lack of those.
As far as the other masons and alleged blue power roles, yes. I'm more than happy to let people withhold that information. Here's the thing. I usually go crazy over setups. I love to speculate, guess roles, try to use roles to win, etc. It usually ends poorly for me. One of the parts of my mafia game that I need to work on is de-emphasizing roles and relying more on actually basic scumhunting and filtering. I often devolve into trying to get alignments based off roles and setups, and frankly it's just not as effective as the games where I don't do any of that.
So I don't care about the roles for right now. Heck, look at me yesterday, going crazy over the mason roles and not paying attention to the fact there can be more than one mafia mason. LOOK AT THIS THREAD TODAY, with everyone going nuts over DTs and masons and everything.
We're lynching Gonzaw, as a town, because there's a red check on him. Some players think he's scummy based on his play, but look at how many votes he has because of the check. He would not be getting majority lynched today based on scummy play, it is only because he has a red check and is an effortless lynch or mislynch.
I like that less and less as I keep reading today. Annul asked a very legitimate question and it got lost, because we're just going nuts over roles and who is connected by role and everything else. I would rather cut all that crap away. Gonzaw's PLAY felt townie to me. So for now, I am going to think he's town and was framed, and I would like for you, but nobody else, to recheck him tonight. Anyone who wants to lynch Gonzaw needs to be able to articulate why they think he wouldn't have used his mason powers. I'm done dealing with the power role crap for now.
|
annul, you looked more towny in my eyes for continuing to ask anyone masoned by Gonzaw to come forward.
Then I look and your vote is on Gonzaw...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
