|
On June 23 2017 08:36 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 08:35 Chezitwo wrote:
Like, this isn't hard to understand dude. They can't expect to lynch him without him claiming. And that is what they do NOT want. I'm not saying it's inherently right, i'm just mad he misconstrued what I said. surely you understand the chain of logic but yes if we ALREADY assume mafia has a rolecop, there are two factors at play: 1, they want SL to die, but 2) they don't want him to claim. this also assumes they rolecopped him during N2, since if they rolecopped him N1, they'd have shot him N2 100%
Yes, probably.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
Oy Palmar come out and fight like a man
|
On June 23 2017 08:37 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 08:36 ruXxar wrote:On June 23 2017 08:27 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:24 Chezitwo wrote:
Like, BH is painting a world were SL has 2 fucking redchecks and doesn't claim even when he is almost lynched. That is absolutely ridiculous. no the point isn't that he had 2 redchecks. you're literally lying about what I'm sayhing. The point is, SL had a "same" check between you and FeFe. right? I mean, what other crumb is there? it HAS to be that, unless you can find a different crumb? So his "I have redchecks on FeFE and Chez" is his crumbing that he had a SAMECHECK on you guys. But Mafia didn't KNOW that it was a samecheck, mafia thought it was two redchecks I disagree with this point. If SL had two redchecks as role cop he would've absolutely claimed already. So the only reasonable assumption for mafia to make, is either: 1) is that he is a parity cop. 2) he is bluffing. Why would mafia assume "2x redcheck on 2 mafia" -> "parity cop"?
Because "If SL had two redchecks as role cop he would've absolutely claimed already."
|
On June 23 2017 08:37 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 08:36 ruXxar wrote:On June 23 2017 08:27 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:24 Chezitwo wrote:
Like, BH is painting a world were SL has 2 fucking redchecks and doesn't claim even when he is almost lynched. That is absolutely ridiculous. no the point isn't that he had 2 redchecks. you're literally lying about what I'm sayhing. The point is, SL had a "same" check between you and FeFe. right? I mean, what other crumb is there? it HAS to be that, unless you can find a different crumb? So his "I have redchecks on FeFE and Chez" is his crumbing that he had a SAMECHECK on you guys. But Mafia didn't KNOW that it was a samecheck, mafia thought it was two redchecks I disagree with this point. If SL had two redchecks as role cop he would've absolutely claimed already. So the only reasonable assumption for mafia to make, is either: 1) is that he is a parity cop. 2) he is bluffing. Why would mafia assume "2x redcheck on 2 mafia" -> "parity cop"?
The same way we just did. But I really doubt they were so sure without a rolecop.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On June 23 2017 08:38 ruXxar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 08:37 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:36 ruXxar wrote:On June 23 2017 08:27 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:24 Chezitwo wrote:
Like, BH is painting a world were SL has 2 fucking redchecks and doesn't claim even when he is almost lynched. That is absolutely ridiculous. no the point isn't that he had 2 redchecks. you're literally lying about what I'm sayhing. The point is, SL had a "same" check between you and FeFe. right? I mean, what other crumb is there? it HAS to be that, unless you can find a different crumb? So his "I have redchecks on FeFE and Chez" is his crumbing that he had a SAMECHECK on you guys. But Mafia didn't KNOW that it was a samecheck, mafia thought it was two redchecks I disagree with this point. If SL had two redchecks as role cop he would've absolutely claimed already. So the only reasonable assumption for mafia to make, is either: 1) is that he is a parity cop. 2) he is bluffing. Why would mafia assume "2x redcheck on 2 mafia" -> "parity cop"? Because "If SL had two redchecks as role cop he would've absolutely claimed already."
hmm, actually this is a good point for thinking SL is lying about the 2 red checks. I'm not sure how this maps to "so he's definitely a parity cop" though
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On June 23 2017 08:38 Chezitwo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 08:37 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:36 ruXxar wrote:On June 23 2017 08:27 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:24 Chezitwo wrote:
Like, BH is painting a world were SL has 2 fucking redchecks and doesn't claim even when he is almost lynched. That is absolutely ridiculous. no the point isn't that he had 2 redchecks. you're literally lying about what I'm sayhing. The point is, SL had a "same" check between you and FeFe. right? I mean, what other crumb is there? it HAS to be that, unless you can find a different crumb? So his "I have redchecks on FeFE and Chez" is his crumbing that he had a SAMECHECK on you guys. But Mafia didn't KNOW that it was a samecheck, mafia thought it was two redchecks I disagree with this point. If SL had two redchecks as role cop he would've absolutely claimed already. So the only reasonable assumption for mafia to make, is either: 1) is that he is a parity cop. 2) he is bluffing. Why would mafia assume "2x redcheck on 2 mafia" -> "parity cop"? The same way we just did. But I really doubt they were so sure without a rolecop.
the reason we know he's a parity cop is because he flipped parity cop
|
On June 23 2017 08:38 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 08:38 ruXxar wrote:On June 23 2017 08:37 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:36 ruXxar wrote:On June 23 2017 08:27 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:24 Chezitwo wrote:
Like, BH is painting a world were SL has 2 fucking redchecks and doesn't claim even when he is almost lynched. That is absolutely ridiculous. no the point isn't that he had 2 redchecks. you're literally lying about what I'm sayhing. The point is, SL had a "same" check between you and FeFe. right? I mean, what other crumb is there? it HAS to be that, unless you can find a different crumb? So his "I have redchecks on FeFE and Chez" is his crumbing that he had a SAMECHECK on you guys. But Mafia didn't KNOW that it was a samecheck, mafia thought it was two redchecks I disagree with this point. If SL had two redchecks as role cop he would've absolutely claimed already. So the only reasonable assumption for mafia to make, is either: 1) is that he is a parity cop. 2) he is bluffing. Why would mafia assume "2x redcheck on 2 mafia" -> "parity cop"? Because "If SL had two redchecks as role cop he would've absolutely claimed already." hmm, actually this is a good point for thinking SL is lying about the 2 red checks. I'm not sure how this maps to "so he's definitely a parity cop" though
I didn't say that he's "defintely a parity cop".
I said that the only 2 logical assumptions to make is that he is either bluffing or is a parity cop.
|
On June 23 2017 08:39 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 08:38 Chezitwo wrote:On June 23 2017 08:37 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:36 ruXxar wrote:On June 23 2017 08:27 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:24 Chezitwo wrote:
Like, BH is painting a world were SL has 2 fucking redchecks and doesn't claim even when he is almost lynched. That is absolutely ridiculous. no the point isn't that he had 2 redchecks. you're literally lying about what I'm sayhing. The point is, SL had a "same" check between you and FeFe. right? I mean, what other crumb is there? it HAS to be that, unless you can find a different crumb? So his "I have redchecks on FeFE and Chez" is his crumbing that he had a SAMECHECK on you guys. But Mafia didn't KNOW that it was a samecheck, mafia thought it was two redchecks I disagree with this point. If SL had two redchecks as role cop he would've absolutely claimed already. So the only reasonable assumption for mafia to make, is either: 1) is that he is a parity cop. 2) he is bluffing. Why would mafia assume "2x redcheck on 2 mafia" -> "parity cop"? The same way we just did. But I really doubt they were so sure without a rolecop. the reason we know he's a parity cop is because he flipped parity cop
duh
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On June 23 2017 08:39 ruXxar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 08:38 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:38 ruXxar wrote:On June 23 2017 08:37 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:36 ruXxar wrote:On June 23 2017 08:27 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:24 Chezitwo wrote:
Like, BH is painting a world were SL has 2 fucking redchecks and doesn't claim even when he is almost lynched. That is absolutely ridiculous. no the point isn't that he had 2 redchecks. you're literally lying about what I'm sayhing. The point is, SL had a "same" check between you and FeFe. right? I mean, what other crumb is there? it HAS to be that, unless you can find a different crumb? So his "I have redchecks on FeFE and Chez" is his crumbing that he had a SAMECHECK on you guys. But Mafia didn't KNOW that it was a samecheck, mafia thought it was two redchecks I disagree with this point. If SL had two redchecks as role cop he would've absolutely claimed already. So the only reasonable assumption for mafia to make, is either: 1) is that he is a parity cop. 2) he is bluffing. Why would mafia assume "2x redcheck on 2 mafia" -> "parity cop"? Because "If SL had two redchecks as role cop he would've absolutely claimed already." hmm, actually this is a good point for thinking SL is lying about the 2 red checks. I'm not sure how this maps to "so he's definitely a parity cop" though I didn't say that he's "defintely a parity cop". I said that the only 2 logical assumptions to make is that he is either bluffing or is a parity cop.
ok fine but the logic still holds then. Mafia saw someone claim 2x redcheck on 2 of them, or 1 of them and 1 green, and the assumption that town would make is "oh he's just trolling" but mafia see sthis and his frightened and shoots him right away for being pcop or just profoundly stupid cop
if he claimed 2x redcheck on greens, I feel like this wouldn't have come to mafia attention, right? like remember we need osme way to explain the SL shot based on "Mafia somehow figured out he was blue"
|
Canada11355 Posts
Think of it the way I am.
Assume for a second mafia missed all rolecop checks/has no rolecop.
No blues have flipped or claimed.
If mafia knows the setup (my big assumption here) they absolutely could see sicklucker's 2 redchecks as a samecheck since you know both myself and chez are town (or godfather or framed).
|
Canada11355 Posts
On June 23 2017 08:41 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 08:39 ruXxar wrote:On June 23 2017 08:38 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:38 ruXxar wrote:On June 23 2017 08:37 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:36 ruXxar wrote:On June 23 2017 08:27 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:24 Chezitwo wrote:
Like, BH is painting a world were SL has 2 fucking redchecks and doesn't claim even when he is almost lynched. That is absolutely ridiculous. no the point isn't that he had 2 redchecks. you're literally lying about what I'm sayhing. The point is, SL had a "same" check between you and FeFe. right? I mean, what other crumb is there? it HAS to be that, unless you can find a different crumb? So his "I have redchecks on FeFE and Chez" is his crumbing that he had a SAMECHECK on you guys. But Mafia didn't KNOW that it was a samecheck, mafia thought it was two redchecks I disagree with this point. If SL had two redchecks as role cop he would've absolutely claimed already. So the only reasonable assumption for mafia to make, is either: 1) is that he is a parity cop. 2) he is bluffing. Why would mafia assume "2x redcheck on 2 mafia" -> "parity cop"? Because "If SL had two redchecks as role cop he would've absolutely claimed already." hmm, actually this is a good point for thinking SL is lying about the 2 red checks. I'm not sure how this maps to "so he's definitely a parity cop" though I didn't say that he's "defintely a parity cop". I said that the only 2 logical assumptions to make is that he is either bluffing or is a parity cop. ok fine but the logic still holds then. Mafia saw someone claim 2x redcheck on 2 of them, or 1 of them and 1 green, and the assumption that town would make is "oh he's just trolling" but mafia see sthis and his frightened and shoots him right away for being pcop or just profoundly stupid cop if he claimed 2x redcheck on greens, I feel like this wouldn't have come to mafia attention, right? like remember we need osme way to explain the SL shot based on "Mafia somehow figured out he was blue"
Mafia could know the setup
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On June 23 2017 08:42 Fecalfeast wrote:
Think of it the way I am.
Assume for a second mafia missed all rolecop checks/has no rolecop.
No blues have flipped or claimed.
If mafia knows the setup (my big assumption here) they absolutely could see sicklucker's 2 redchecks as a samecheck since you know both myself and chez are town (or godfather or framed).
??? why would mafia know the setup
|
On June 23 2017 08:41 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 08:39 ruXxar wrote:On June 23 2017 08:38 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:38 ruXxar wrote:On June 23 2017 08:37 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:36 ruXxar wrote:On June 23 2017 08:27 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:24 Chezitwo wrote:
Like, BH is painting a world were SL has 2 fucking redchecks and doesn't claim even when he is almost lynched. That is absolutely ridiculous. no the point isn't that he had 2 redchecks. you're literally lying about what I'm sayhing. The point is, SL had a "same" check between you and FeFe. right? I mean, what other crumb is there? it HAS to be that, unless you can find a different crumb? So his "I have redchecks on FeFE and Chez" is his crumbing that he had a SAMECHECK on you guys. But Mafia didn't KNOW that it was a samecheck, mafia thought it was two redchecks I disagree with this point. If SL had two redchecks as role cop he would've absolutely claimed already. So the only reasonable assumption for mafia to make, is either: 1) is that he is a parity cop. 2) he is bluffing. Why would mafia assume "2x redcheck on 2 mafia" -> "parity cop"? Because "If SL had two redchecks as role cop he would've absolutely claimed already." hmm, actually this is a good point for thinking SL is lying about the 2 red checks. I'm not sure how this maps to "so he's definitely a parity cop" though I didn't say that he's "defintely a parity cop". I said that the only 2 logical assumptions to make is that he is either bluffing or is a parity cop. ok fine but the logic still holds then. Mafia saw someone claim 2x redcheck on 2 of them, or 1 of them and 1 green, and the assumption that town would make is "oh he's just trolling" but mafia see sthis and his frightened and shoots him right away for being pcop or just profoundly stupid cop if he claimed 2x redcheck on greens, I feel like this wouldn't have come to mafia attention, right? like remember we need osme way to explain the SL shot based on "Mafia somehow figured out he was blue"
Rolecop.
Other possibilities are that they just noticed how he "joked" about being cop 2 fucking times or that they found something different in his filter.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On June 23 2017 08:43 Fecalfeast wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 08:41 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:39 ruXxar wrote:On June 23 2017 08:38 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:38 ruXxar wrote:On June 23 2017 08:37 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:36 ruXxar wrote:On June 23 2017 08:27 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:24 Chezitwo wrote:
Like, BH is painting a world were SL has 2 fucking redchecks and doesn't claim even when he is almost lynched. That is absolutely ridiculous. no the point isn't that he had 2 redchecks. you're literally lying about what I'm sayhing. The point is, SL had a "same" check between you and FeFe. right? I mean, what other crumb is there? it HAS to be that, unless you can find a different crumb? So his "I have redchecks on FeFE and Chez" is his crumbing that he had a SAMECHECK on you guys. But Mafia didn't KNOW that it was a samecheck, mafia thought it was two redchecks I disagree with this point. If SL had two redchecks as role cop he would've absolutely claimed already. So the only reasonable assumption for mafia to make, is either: 1) is that he is a parity cop. 2) he is bluffing. Why would mafia assume "2x redcheck on 2 mafia" -> "parity cop"? Because "If SL had two redchecks as role cop he would've absolutely claimed already." hmm, actually this is a good point for thinking SL is lying about the 2 red checks. I'm not sure how this maps to "so he's definitely a parity cop" though I didn't say that he's "defintely a parity cop". I said that the only 2 logical assumptions to make is that he is either bluffing or is a parity cop. ok fine but the logic still holds then. Mafia saw someone claim 2x redcheck on 2 of them, or 1 of them and 1 green, and the assumption that town would make is "oh he's just trolling" but mafia see sthis and his frightened and shoots him right away for being pcop or just profoundly stupid cop if he claimed 2x redcheck on greens, I feel like this wouldn't have come to mafia attention, right? like remember we need osme way to explain the SL shot based on "Mafia somehow figured out he was blue" Mafia could know the setup
I don't think I've ever on TL played in a game, and I've played in a LOT of games, in which mafia knew the setup and town didn't; with the exception of semi-open mini games with like 3 setups and Mafia could infer it based on their own roles, but so oculd town from the list of possible setups
does this happen now on TL Mafia?
|
Canada11355 Posts
Hey idk man. I was thinking of the semi open setups too and there werre people day1 speculating about maf knowing the setup
|
On June 23 2017 08:44 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 08:43 Fecalfeast wrote:On June 23 2017 08:41 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:39 ruXxar wrote:On June 23 2017 08:38 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:38 ruXxar wrote:On June 23 2017 08:37 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:36 ruXxar wrote:On June 23 2017 08:27 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:24 Chezitwo wrote:
Like, BH is painting a world were SL has 2 fucking redchecks and doesn't claim even when he is almost lynched. That is absolutely ridiculous. no the point isn't that he had 2 redchecks. you're literally lying about what I'm sayhing. The point is, SL had a "same" check between you and FeFe. right? I mean, what other crumb is there? it HAS to be that, unless you can find a different crumb? So his "I have redchecks on FeFE and Chez" is his crumbing that he had a SAMECHECK on you guys. But Mafia didn't KNOW that it was a samecheck, mafia thought it was two redchecks I disagree with this point. If SL had two redchecks as role cop he would've absolutely claimed already. So the only reasonable assumption for mafia to make, is either: 1) is that he is a parity cop. 2) he is bluffing. Why would mafia assume "2x redcheck on 2 mafia" -> "parity cop"? Because "If SL had two redchecks as role cop he would've absolutely claimed already." hmm, actually this is a good point for thinking SL is lying about the 2 red checks. I'm not sure how this maps to "so he's definitely a parity cop" though I didn't say that he's "defintely a parity cop". I said that the only 2 logical assumptions to make is that he is either bluffing or is a parity cop. ok fine but the logic still holds then. Mafia saw someone claim 2x redcheck on 2 of them, or 1 of them and 1 green, and the assumption that town would make is "oh he's just trolling" but mafia see sthis and his frightened and shoots him right away for being pcop or just profoundly stupid cop if he claimed 2x redcheck on greens, I feel like this wouldn't have come to mafia attention, right? like remember we need osme way to explain the SL shot based on "Mafia somehow figured out he was blue" Mafia could know the setup I don't think I've ever on TL played in a game, and I've played in a LOT of games, in which mafia knew the setup and town didn't; with the exception of semi-open mini games with like 3 setups and Mafia could infer it based on their own roles, but so oculd town from the list of possible setups does this happen now on TL Mafia?
I doubt it to be honest.
|
On June 23 2017 08:44 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 08:43 Fecalfeast wrote:On June 23 2017 08:41 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:39 ruXxar wrote:On June 23 2017 08:38 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:38 ruXxar wrote:On June 23 2017 08:37 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:36 ruXxar wrote:On June 23 2017 08:27 Blazinghand wrote:On June 23 2017 08:24 Chezitwo wrote:
Like, BH is painting a world were SL has 2 fucking redchecks and doesn't claim even when he is almost lynched. That is absolutely ridiculous. no the point isn't that he had 2 redchecks. you're literally lying about what I'm sayhing. The point is, SL had a "same" check between you and FeFe. right? I mean, what other crumb is there? it HAS to be that, unless you can find a different crumb? So his "I have redchecks on FeFE and Chez" is his crumbing that he had a SAMECHECK on you guys. But Mafia didn't KNOW that it was a samecheck, mafia thought it was two redchecks I disagree with this point. If SL had two redchecks as role cop he would've absolutely claimed already. So the only reasonable assumption for mafia to make, is either: 1) is that he is a parity cop. 2) he is bluffing. Why would mafia assume "2x redcheck on 2 mafia" -> "parity cop"? Because "If SL had two redchecks as role cop he would've absolutely claimed already." hmm, actually this is a good point for thinking SL is lying about the 2 red checks. I'm not sure how this maps to "so he's definitely a parity cop" though I didn't say that he's "defintely a parity cop". I said that the only 2 logical assumptions to make is that he is either bluffing or is a parity cop. ok fine but the logic still holds then. Mafia saw someone claim 2x redcheck on 2 of them, or 1 of them and 1 green, and the assumption that town would make is "oh he's just trolling" but mafia see sthis and his frightened and shoots him right away for being pcop or just profoundly stupid cop if he claimed 2x redcheck on greens, I feel like this wouldn't have come to mafia attention, right? like remember we need osme way to explain the SL shot based on "Mafia somehow figured out he was blue" Mafia could know the setup I don't think I've ever on TL played in a game, and I've played in a LOT of games, in which mafia knew the setup and town didn't; with the exception of semi-open mini games with like 3 setups and Mafia could infer it based on their own roles, but so oculd town from the list of possible setups does this happen now on TL Mafia?
I've never heard of such a thing.
|
Canada11355 Posts
There are semi opens for sure where mafia are told the exact setup
|
Canada11355 Posts
Well then shut up fecalfeast you idiot
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
Yeah I think "Mafia knew the setup" is a weird assumption to make, like it's the kind of assumption that's obviously false
that you might make
if you were trying to pretend not to be mafia
by pretending to think something that mafia obviously wouldn't think
dumbtell
yes
it returns
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
