Will cop's investigation be affected by the target being roleblocked? I wouldn't think so, but wanted to confirm because game flavor locks the target in a room

Does framing take precedence over being a dumbass? I would assume so

On page two, Probulous clarifies that roleblock takes precedence over vigilante kill here. In such scenario, does vigilante lose his ability to make his one NK?

Would vanilla townies be informed if they were roleblocked?

Can framer throw blanket over himself? Can vigilante kill himself? I was able to think of at least one situation where vigilante should kill himself

"Veterans can survive one night attack". Does this mean veteran can survive all attacks that happens in one night in which he uses his veteran power? Similarly, can medic protect a person from multiple attacks that happens in a given night?

YourHarry

United States1152 Posts

July 16 2012 05:07 GMT

#240

##Vote Obvious.660

Obvious scum

BTW, "wait and see" does not mean that we should actively stop what we are discussing to see what happens. It could mean, carry on with discussions and finger pointing and see where our scum hunting leads us.

YourHarry

United States1152 Posts

July 16 2012 05:10 GMT

#241

Also, forcing an interpretation of "wait and see" the way Jingle did could mean either of two things:

1. He wanted to argue for the sake of discussion.
2. He wanted to start a bandwagon on calgar

YourHarry

United States1152 Posts

July 16 2012 15:11 GMT

#247

On July 16 2012 22:10 JingleHell wrote:

Show nested quote +

You accuse me of trying to start a bandwagon after voting on someone for their first post?

Didn't we have this conversation already? Somewhere else? And so far, people here don't seem insane enough to take it as scummy behavior to not like early bandwagons. This almost gives me the impression you're trying too hard to match your meta, which makes me wonder about you.

FOS YourHarry

I actually had a thought that one of you may point this out. Not only we had a conversation about benefits of random voting, which I still disagree with you, but do you remember talking about the "contradictory first post"? I also replied in a similar - analyzing lazer's post to mean either #1 or #2.

I realized this after I made both posts. So:
1. This is how I typically play OR
2. I am unconsciously trying to match my meta in the previous game, where I was vanilla town. OR
3. I consciously made plans to match the meta.

If #3, you should be suspicious.

YourHarry

United States1152 Posts

July 16 2012 18:05 GMT

#252

You are just paranoid Jingle.

"That air of confidence". ...

YourHarry

United States1152 Posts

July 16 2012 18:14 GMT

#253

Whenever a player acts "pro-town" or act confident that may indicate that the player is townie, people tend to interpret that as scum pretending to be a townie. It's a paranoia based on "what ifs". Not real evidence.

If you were using that as a meta tell, I would hear you out. Although, if you think that meta tell based on the last game we played together points to me being scum, I would argue that you are wrong. But we can argue about it.

YourHarry

United States1152 Posts

July 17 2012 02:31 GMT

#363

Obvious.660 is obviously mafia. Kill with fire.

YourHarry

United States1152 Posts

July 17 2012 02:36 GMT

#364

KILL OBVIOUS.660!!!

YourHarry

United States1152 Posts

July 17 2012 05:56 GMT

#372

Based on meta alone, I find Hapha suspicious. He hasn't yet to post his signature lengthy analysis on players he find suspicious.

Of course, the easy answer is that he hasn't found anyone suspicious.

YourHarry

United States1152 Posts

July 17 2012 05:59 GMT

#373

With 17 hours left, we should start making votes - just to allow us to see the direction of the lynch.

YourHarry

United States1152 Posts

July 17 2012 06:40 GMT

#377

how about... KILL IT WITH ROPE

YourHarry

United States1152 Posts

July 17 2012 06:41 GMT

#378

Despite what I said about needing to start voting, I don't know who to vote. I will reconsider tomorrow morning

##Unvote

YourHarry

United States1152 Posts

July 17 2012 15:44 GMT

#395

Haph. Regards to meta. While I believe that meta is very useful in determining town/scum alignments, I do not think it's useful to simply compare the length of the posts. Scum Harry does know that people like you, jingle, and hopeless would keep his eyes on my posts to compare meta from our previous game. I would be motivated to emulate the types of posts I made in Newbie XX, to mislead you guys that I am, yet again, town. And it would be easy to do - especially, if the length of the posts is the one thing I need to emulate. Look for my motivation of the posts - which I admit is lacking - because I am not sure who is suspicious. But in my defense, I did read every post in this thread.

As for your accusation for wishy-washy comments and voting Obvious.660 without reason... do you really think this goes against my meta? I think I have also done quick voting in XX without much reason. It is true that in this game I practically provided 0 reason, LOL, but hopefully that should not make me more scummy. Also, sometimes I would like the person I am accusing to make a guess at why I am accusing him.

You also accused me of trying to "spread suspicion" rather the give reads. I haven't given much read, except to point out that you Hapha were suspicious for not making one of your signature analysis. In my original post, I too cited the length of the posts in analyzing your meta, so yes that would be a contradiction to what I am writing in this post.

In regards to Obvious.660, I don't know why people find that suspicious. He was simply giving out his reads on all of the players. Non-noncommittal, you say? Just because he didn't vote? As a town, you often do feel unsure about town/scum alignments of players. Just because I express that I am not sure player X is town or scum, should not make me scummy. It's true.

YourHarry

United States1152 Posts

July 17 2012 15:47 GMT

#396

EDBWOP: You also accused me of trying to "spread suspicion" rather the give reads. But giving reads is, in effect, spreading suspicion. I make a town read, and I am trying to share my analysis with other players to discuss and affirm my reads. Another way to call that would be "spread suspicion". It is true that I haven't given much read, except to point out that you Hapha were suspicious for not making one of your signature analysis. In my original post, I too cited the length of the posts in analyzing your meta, so yes that would be a contradiction to what I am writing in this post.

YourHarry

United States1152 Posts

July 17 2012 17:22 GMT

#409

LOL Guys. If I am backtracking, it's because my opinions have changed.

It is true, in average, scums may strategically backtrack.

But towns also backtrack. Sometimes without having to explain the reasons.

But, I find JingleHell suspicious. I will outline my reason so Hapha doesn't continue to attack me for voting without reason.

1. Three people suddenly stacked on top of Obvious.660.. This was after Obvious posted that he won't be able to come back before deadline. And considering that scums get day-talk on QT, I suspect at least one or these players are likely to be opportune scums. JingleHell did not come across as a person who would find the list of Obvious.660's reads suspicious. It is also difficult to understand why some others found it obviously scummy.

2. Jingle quickly dismisses Hapha's attack on me and Hapha's defense of Obvious. He says it's "Hapha being Hapha".

3. At this point, while I sort of found Jingle suspicious but I was not sure what benefit Jingle would have to dismiss Hapha's attack on me. But soon enough, Jingle says that he is still suspicious of me - preparing for the future mislynch on me. Of course, it is possible that he could be a townie who actually thinks I am scum. But in combination of #1 and #2, Jingle would be my best bet for scum.

##Vote Jingle

YourHarry

United States1152 Posts

July 17 2012 17:47 GMT

#413

On July 18 2012 02:29 JingleHell wrote:
EBWOP: You are, however, doing an excellent job of making Hapa's case against you more plausible, ironically.

This almost looks like an effort to keep votes on you to a minimum by making it look like an OMGUS if I shift my vote, which makes me want to do it, somewhat.

I am just doing my thing - trying to scum hunt. You are paranoid or scum

YourHarry

United States1152 Posts

July 17 2012 17:56 GMT

#414

On July 18 2012 02:44 Hapahauli wrote:
@ YourHarry:

Jingle is playing exactly like he was last game as a townie. Look at my case from last game; he's perfectly capable of blatantly bad advice, lack of reasoning, and anti-town mentality. Yet he flipped town.

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=349066&currentpage=21#404

So far, he's as reckless as he was in his town game, and I see no reason to suspect him.

If you think this, then uh-oh, you would be even more suspicious of me.

I forgot to mention that when 3 people suddenly stacked on Obvious.660, I had my vote on him also, which made 4 votes. 3 sudden votes in the course of one hour, when Obvious.660 made it clear that he won't be able to comeback to defend himself, makes the voters scummy. And I - of course being town- can't help but suspect that scums are pushing Obvious.660 mislynch and then blame me (the first person to accuse Obvious.660 with little reason) for the mislynch.

And I am not exactly accusing Jingle for not being logical. I find it suspicious that Jingle is quickly dismissing your defense of Obvious.660 though.

So if I am right and some of the scums are quickly targeting Obvious.660, their motivation could be two fold. Obviously to mislynch Obvious.660. And to distract the town from suspecting one of the scums. Who was being accused at the time? Tube.

FOS Tube and Jingle.

I am OK with either lynch. Maybe we should go with Tube since Jingle has history with some of the players here, which would hopefully make it easier for townies to read if he is mafia indeed.

##Unvote
##Vote tube