Mini 659: The Neighborhood- Game over on Day 6

[TonyMontana]

##vote: darox

for voting first, for shifting quickly and for randoms sake.

[TonyMontana]

The closest I come to an attack is where I say that we should treat user as if we have a N-0 guilty result on him, a statement that I stand by.

How bout we treat him like he just claimed miller on page 1, and act like we have no affirming evidence to support the claim?

[TonyMontana]

Well, I guess it's kinda redundant, whether we imagine he was investigated or not.
We really just have to decide for ourself if we believe user is a miller. Personally, I think he is, but it's a sticky situation, seeing as there's no way to confirm it other than a lynch. Or, heaven forbid, someone counter-claims.

Truth be told, this is the first game I've heard of the role, had to look up the wiki to find out what a miller was, so I don't know how usual the role is. The more frequent milllers appear in games, the less likely it would be for user to be a scum. (ie, doesnt have much risk of a counterclaim)

Nonetheless, I think claiming initially was a good move, if for nothing else than to kick-start the game.

The flavor seemed plausible as well..

[TonyMontana]

##unvote, vote tony

. His post is all over the map. He's trying to sow the seeds of doubt without having to take responsibility himself.

Yay for vague, unsubstantiated attacks.

[TonyMontana]

All you seem to be doing is talking.

I wasn't aware that you could do much else than talk in internet mafia. ¬¬

Tony - You call lowells attack vague and unsubstantiated. Could you elaborate on why this is? It seemed like he had a decent point to me so I'd like to see where youre coming from.

I really think lowell is the one who needs to elaborate.
He said my post was all over the map. How so?
He said i was sowing seeds of doubt. How so?
And doing so without taking responsibility myself. Responsibility for what?

That's what I meant with vague (as in just general characterizations thrown my way) and unsubstantiated (some direct criticism on what I said would've been nice)

[TonyMontana]

@Tony: Your vote on Darox seemed to be too serious too soon. You’ve ignored him since then. Why?

Wasn't really serious, emphasis on the random part.

[TonyMontana]

Unvote, vote: crywolf. I don't like the way she pushed a Tony wagon in this post without actually commiting to it herself. Feels like she was fishing to see if it would gain any traction, and retracted her 'suspicion' when it became clear it wouldn't.

I agree it seems fishy, especially given that all she had to add to my list of crimes was "talking".
But I also feel lowell was the one putting out the bait. He laid suspicion on me, and stamped it with a vote, without really leaving me with anything to defend or explain. I'd welcome another attempt, Lowell.

##unvote, vote: Lowell

[TonyMontana]

Here is the post. It's dumber than I remember. He suggests, at various times: lynching, counterclaiming, fake-claiming, metagaming, flavor-testing.

This post reeks of tony trying to bait someone else into opposing the claim.

i
Lol, what?
You are grasping at straws and exaggerating to make it feasible.

Throwing out keywords and wrapping it up with packaging like "he suggests" and "at various times" (like my post is riddled with it)
I mentioned the word "lynch" once. (far from suggesting it)
Sure the word counterclaim came up twice, in a fashion that makes sense, if you were reading the post without trying to extrapolate scumminess from it.
The rest, fakeclaiming, metagaming and flavor-testing, is just you trying to make your weak attack look more valid by spreading butter on a skinny slice of bread.

[TonyMontana]

I mentioned the word "lynch" once. (far from suggesting it)

So, if I was to say "we should lynch TonyMontana right now", would that not be suggesting it?

Let me help you fill in the blanks:

(

I was

far from suggesting it.)

[TonyMontana]

Either way, I'm comfortable with my vote right now.

[TonyMontana]

##unvote

this wagon went way to fast for my liking, and lowell hasnt even got around to answering my initial questions. Lets just slow it down a bit, and look more carefully at everyone voting lowell.

Well he doesn't seem to be willing to respond to lots of things, but we're in no rush to lynch, lots of daylight left...

[TonyMontana]

As promised...

Those voting for Lowell

:
Tony: I don’t like the way he agrees with user about wolf’s actions, but somehow translates that to a point against Lowell. His vote is pure OMGUS. Later (in #92) he backs this up with a post that is such a defense-attack combo that it’s hard to tell what he’s getting at. I think this is the scummiest vote on Lowell.

Pure OMGUS? I gave Lowell a chance to defend his accusations, along with several other people, and he in turn goes on a senseless rant in a weak attempt to justify his initial vote.

Now we got people saying "thats just typical Lowell, that crazy bastard". Well maybe it is, I haven't played with him before, and maybe I'm particularly sceptical about letting it go, but I think we're all in agreement that his push on me was without basis, and suspicious, play-style notwithstanding.

[TonyMontana]

Will you address the way you used user's statement about wolf's actions to lead into your complaints about Lowell's attack?

I dont think i was translating his points to my vote on lowell. I was rather cooveying that i was in the camp of thinking that one of them are scum, and I was thinking Lowell was the best bet.

[TonyMontana]

##unvote

Taking Lowell off the edge, to avoid untimely hammer.

Claim

[TonyMontana]

##vote:lowell

[TonyMontana]

But I like arguing with myself!

No I don't!

This guy is funny, he can't be scum.

[TonyMontana]

You skirt. No-one hammers these days cause they're too afraid to. Just like you're afraid of the hammer.

Pfft, well I ain't never scared to hammer. -.- Besides, I've seen the "woops, he was on L-1?" one too many times.

[TonyMontana]

Yep, perfectly hammerphobic here.

Guilty as charged. The last time I played mafia, the hammers were flying left and right.
In any case, I unvoted to make room for a claim from lowell 2 pages and 5 days ago. I guess it ain't happenin..

[TonyMontana]

He was not at L-1 again, he was on the same 5 votes he had been on since Tommy unvoted when he was at L-1 the first and only time.

Assuming you meant when I unvoted, technically it's not the same 5 votes. Since crywolf took him to L-3 shortly thereafter, I re-placed my vote on Lowell.

nitpicking ftw

[TonyMontana]

So why is the vote not coming back on at this point?

?

[TonyMontana]

IGMEOY, Oman...

[TonyMontana]

Are you trying to make yourself a Mafia target, or are you rather trying to misdirect a doc?

[TonyMontana]

Still got my eye on you...

[TonyMontana]

Tony, sorry. IGMEOYing someone for a joke (especially as we go into night) looks like setting up for the next day on something superweak.

No joke, no set-up.

Then that sudden hit on Rashiminos even though I don't remember him going after him all day....well, like I said, it looks like he's setting up.

"Sudden"
And why do I have to have been going after him to question is intentions in twlight?

[TonyMontana]

EBWOP: "Sudden"

?

[TonyMontana]

I didn't IGMEOY you for your last comments.

[TonyMontana]

Could it not just be that they wanted to get the miller out of the way rather sooner than later, and save power-role hunting for when they have a better shot?
No scum wants a miller in a endgame. And the chance that user could've been fakeclaiming to protect himself would be a bonus.

Starting the day by lamenting the loss for the town is a very old scumtell.

FoS:Elias

I just thought of another reason to kill user. So the scum can be like "why on earth would they kill user?"

[TonyMontana]

And user narrowed a cops search for scum, as well as the towns (as long as user was believed) , so yet another reason for them to take him out of the equation.

[TonyMontana]

And user narrowed a cops search for scum, as well as the towns (as long as user was believed) , so yet another reason for them to take him out of the equation.

I guess so, I don't really understand why we're all defending the scum's NK choice.

Hehe, yea.. well I'm sure something can come out of a better understanding of the night events.. -.-

[TonyMontana]

yea... care to share em?

[TonyMontana]

Tony:

I still feel like his initial vote was a little suspect. The unvote @ L-1 + revote @ L-2 was null. However, what I find most suspicious afterwards was the way Tony stopped looking at other people. His posts after that vote were all defense or side-comment until the end-of-day IGMEO Oman. This while serious discussion about the Lowell lynch was taking place.

@Tony: Why did you stop hunting?

How do you know whether I'm "looking at other people"? I'm just not the instigator type..

[TonyMontana]

I don't like slippery arguments. Are you denying the charge or not?

The charge of not being involved in the arguing? Not denying, no.

Dude, just explain why you IGMEOYed me!

I found your style of posting alittle erratic when you entered the scene. And I'm always suspicious of powerplayers like yourself.

Vote Count

(6 to lynch)

TonyMontana:

Darox

Not voting (9):

Elias, Rashiminos, Oman, TonyMontana, crywolf, bionic, Tommy, Ythill, fhqwhgads

There is something wrong with this picture.

I'll give you a hint.
There are exactly 9 things wrong with this picture.

Dude, if you got something to say, say it. Insinuating that you have some kind of special knowledge is not gonna make everyone follow you blindly, and it's a scummy trait, so you're not doing yourself any favours.

[TonyMontana]

You've never played with me, and/or never heard about me, right?

True. -.-

This is me to a T, I've always been jumpy, erratic, and gut. Only in newbies when I'm ICing do I even give a semblance of control.

Ok. I see people agreeing with that assessment. Well, you certainly doesn't come off as scummy as lowell did, your erraticness is much more pleasant :p

No, Tony, that's not what I said. You found an early target and then you gave up the hunt. You didn't just refrain from arguing. You refrained from everything that wasn't defense or side-comments until almost the end of the day, when Oman got your OMGUS.

*IGMEOY
I understood what you meant, and I wasn't denying it.

I assert that you did this. I believe it's obvious. If you want to deny it, we can discuss the specifics. If not, I want you to answer my question. "Why?"

We can discuss specifics as in what constitutes a "side-comment", but I think at the end of the day you can chalk up your assertions to my general playstyle. I just have a tendency to do active lurking. And I'm unapologetic about it.

There seems to be no heat on anybody right now and that can never be a good thing.

vote TonyMontana and let's get some conversation going.

Smoothly played. ¬¬

I'm still waiting for darox to explain why he pretends to have some kind info on me that we others don't.

[TonyMontana]

Yes, sorry, was copying his quote tag for ease, but forgot to change the name. Typo, not mento

[TonyMontana]

I'm still waiting for you to explain your vote, Darox..

[TonyMontana]

Bionic voted me too,

mod

[TonyMontana]

Tommy, Darox is explaining his vote on lowell, instead of explaining the more relevant, reasonless vote on me.

[TonyMontana]

Can you please explain to me what prompted you to defend the mafia nightkill choice?

Uhh.. the discussion that was going on about the nightkill.

Why are you continuing to defend the mafia nightkill choice? Why do you feel the need to justify the decision?

Again, we were discussing the nightkills, and I was providing viewpoints on possible motives. And what does "defending" NK even mean? Defending to who?

How does your answer link up to what the question is asking? Why did you feel compelled to give a weaselly non-answer to Ythill's questioning?
(Incidentally, Ythill, why did you call him out for his slippery answers the first time but not the second time?)

It linked up, and Ythill understood the context, and I don't believe it went over your head either, so bring some real inquiries please.

Where did I insinuate that I had special knowledge? Why are you seemingly trying to pull a claim from me here?
(In case anyone couldn't figure it out, I was complaining that no one was voting period, not that no one was voting for Tony.)

You vote for me, saying nothing else than "This vote has reasons"
Several people go "whatever" and ask you to bring forth reasons if you got em.
You say nothing, then make the votecount comment, which could not have been interpreted as anything else than a wish for people to follow your lead.
After several requests for an explanation, you now attempt to construct some arguments against me, and is still not adressing the question.

So I ask again: What did you have in mind when you said "This vote has reasons"

[TonyMontana]

So can you please answer these two questions again, and properly this time?

I did, but let me spell it out for you..
1) "This vote has reasons" (Oh, if only this would amount to a reasonable basis for a vote everytime.)
2) I'm trying to get a coherent answer from you, not a claim.

##vote: Darox

[TonyMontana]

Can't slip up. Not as badly as you have done, anyway.

I'm voting for Tony because he is scum. I thought that was obvious.

Obvious that I am scum, or obvious that you voted me because I'm scum?
Because neither are obvious.

[TonyMontana]

So Sarah Palin, are you going to answer my questions or do you need time to fabricate more answers?

In what respect, Charlie?

[TonyMontana]

I have answered them. Maybe if you could present them in an reasonable fashion..

[TonyMontana]

Why did you try to seem like you might actually have other suspects then defend your lack of insight on others by passing it off as a character flaw? Why did you decide to not answer the highlighted question?

Why did you not answer this question at all Tony? Not even a deflection?

I did. Fail.

Can you please explain to me what prompted you to defend the mafia nightkill choice?

Uhh.. the discussion that was going on about the nightkill.

What made you feel the need to justify the mafia's decision? Why do you persist in deflecting the questions?[/quote]
Rephrasing the question I answered perfectly fine. Fail.

Why do you refuse to answer this question? Why did you stop hunting, or alternatively, what makes you feel that you have not stopped hunting? It is not a tough question, and I want you to answer me.

I guess you need to be spoonfed everything. I never stopped hunting as in "looking for scum". If you define "hunting" as asking alot of questions, and provoking other people, then yes I was focusing more on other games, and was keeping this one in my peripherals. I don't think you have any problems understanding neither this answer, nor all the other answers I have given that you claim don't answer the questions. You are purposefully trying to seem like, A)You are being investigative, and B) I am being evasive. You are failing at both

So I ask again: What did you have in mind when you said "This vote has reasons"

See first line of this post.

So I ask again, in a way you can't weasel yourself out of:
What were the reasons that made you think I was scum at that point in time?

[TonyMontana]

"Why did you decide to not answer the highlighted question?"
The highlighted question being "Why did you stop hunting?"

I'm tired of you darox. Why don't you answer my questions for a change.

[TonyMontana]

None of them explain

why

he stopped hunting. None of them answer the question.

They do, if you can read beyond a third grade level. But in any case, I just spelled it out for you in the post above, so get a new excuse to evade the issue at hand.

Can you please stop stonewalling tony? Thanks.

Yes, don't stonewall tony. Tony no like when people stonewall him.

Seriously. Are you ever gonna explain yourself?

[TonyMontana]

Darox seems to be spanking Tony around, and Tony seems to be putting up strangely irrelevant defences.

DAROX: How do you feel about Tony, Town/scum etc

TONY: How do you feel about Darox, Town/Scum etc.

If my defenses seem irrelevant, it could be because Darox hasn't said anything of value or substance since yesterday. I don't feel the need to defend myself against some douche who is blatantly trying to create reasons for the vote he claimed he had reasons for in the first place. Makes alot of questions, gives no answers.
I can't be the only one who thinks Darox is absolutely ridiculous right now?

[TonyMontana]

I wouldn't be voting him if I thought he was town.

[TonyMontana]

S-C-U-M

It's like I'm dealing with 3-year olds...

[TonyMontana]

Yes, It's the questions and critique that's getting to me

I get irked when you accuse me of not answering straight when I say that I don't think Darox is town.
That means I think he's scum, and I don't know what you would think I could gain from saying something else than "DAROX IS SCUM"

[TonyMontana]

I really don't know why I was saving this, but I feel like now that someone else has noticed it that its a good time to bring this out into the open.

It's certainly an interesting observation, but you don't exactly connect the dots for justifying your vote?
I don't have much of a read on tommy, but I did notice he being "on my team" yesterday.

[TonyMontana]

And ya know what, people wouldn't be getting on your nerves if you would just follow that, because guess what, it's the lack of those three things that everyone is questioning you for!

"everyone" being darox and oman. ¬¬

[TonyMontana]

Add-on to Fhq: Either Tony or Tommy would be a good lynch for today because:

A) If Tommy is gone, how long will Tony last without Tommy's defence.

B) If Tony's gone, what kind of opinions can Tommy bring to the table that haven't already been spewed forthwith by Tony.

And then we go back to looking for scum?
I can't vouch for Tommy (And would like to be totally unaffiliated with him, given the circumstances) But I know 100% that 50% of this "team" is innocent, and your willingness to lynch either one of us, tells me you're really not putting the towns interest first here.

[TonyMontana]

9 of what?
I was very prominent in yesterdays discussion, as far as being involved in lowells actions. So just because Tommy would mention my name when he was criticizing lowells plays, doesn't mean he was "defending" me, or standing up for me everytime.
It seems like you're trying to give this more credibility than it deserves, which can be exemplified by your mentioning #150, but noticeably not quoting, because it's an example of Tommy mentioning my name with

no

implications of a defense for me.

[TonyMontana]

I'm happy to give unrequired opinions on people's accusations. And it's not like I'm a bystander, she suggested my lynch based on her tommy-buddy scenario.
and yes, I can appreciate the irony of seemingly sticking up for Tommy now. -.-

[TonyMontana]

DaroxWagon > TonnyWagons

[TonyMontana]

Oman makes an obvious joke. Tony thinks this is suspicious and apparently deserving of an acronym. Now this could just be high spirits, but lets press on.

Press on indeed, since you are stating my intent falsely on purpose.

In response to Rashiminos saying that since Lowell has been hammered he will wait until the next day to post all his suspicions.
...
What the hell, Tony?

Where did this idea that not posting all your innermost thoughts and fancies before night falls makes you a prime mafia target come from?

Where? I think you just now made the idea up.
I was questioning why Rash felt the need to announce in twilight that he would "hold off on that post until day 2 starts so that I might work with or drop the connections info that I have." The promise of this post was EBWOP'ed with a call for a hammer.

Tony states he wasn't acronyming Oman for his Lyncher joke after all, and that there are mysterious alter motives for this. Oman is quick to ask what reasons he has for this vicious acronyming, but Tony refuses to even dignify him with a proper response. I think Tony was hoping for backup from anyone on this and when it failed to arrive he faltered then clammed up.

I didn't get to answer him, because the thread was locked for night just after.
And Oman called me on it today, and I explained myself. Maybe if you read the thread, you would stop picking up arguments i have already talked over with other people.

Seriously though, what compelled you to

justify

the scum night choice. You are throwing out a collection of reasons why the scum night choice was a good decision, and you mention that if he was a cop in disguise it would have been a bonus.

Your point being? That I wanna do public relations for the mob?
Understanding nightkills helps figuring out who makes them.

More of the above, justifying the scum's kill.

And you still fail to explain what is scummy about "justifying" scumkills.

Shortly after this I vote for Tony.

And not-so-shortly after this you manage to scrap together reasons for that vote.

He then proceeds to extend his policy of stonewalling Oman to include my questions as well.

I didn't stonewall Oman, and I didn't stonewall you. Just because you ignore every answer I give (including those I have given to other people) doesn't mean I'm not answering you.

Weak, darox. Weak.

[TonyMontana]

*prod recieved*

rough end of week..
I find ythills analysis of wolf very interesting, but I'm still feeling good about my vote on darox.

[TonyMontana]

What am I supposed to say? Basically everything you said was rhetorical.

That doesn't cut it.

The votes are all over the place, it's time we put some pressure somewhere.

##unvote, vote: Crywolf

[TonyMontana]

There's no such thing as a rhetorical question here. Even if ythill was making accusations in form of questions, he clearly expects you to reply.

[TonyMontana]

I'm liking this guy^

Truth be told, I would much rather prefer a darox lynch today.
But with the deadline approaching, and as I'll possibly be V/LA most of the weekend, I don't wanna risk a no-lynch.

If I see a shift sometime today or tmorrow, I will move my vote.

[TonyMontana]

unvote
Vote: darox

Self-explanatory.

[TonyMontana]

So c'mon everybody, answer my question. Is your role from the Neighborhood or not?

No mention of it. Now drop it.

#460 is decent by Darox

#476 by Darox is a badass post.

#478 by Tony is shit.

Darox is a total total badass in his conversation with Tony. its like. DAROXOWNAGE.

Your whole "analysis" is shit. Why don't you just marry Darox, cause you have to be in love to be so blind to bullshit.

unvote Vote: TonyMontana.

You've been everywhere with your votes and your posts, and clearly my vote on Tommy wasn't going anywhere, at least now it's on somebody I beleive to be scummy.

I've been everywhere? I've been on Darox and you.

[TonyMontana]

Well, I wouldn't blame a vigilante for killing either.

[TonyMontana]

Translation?

[TonyMontana]

- I am not sure if a retired cop is the same as a cop. If so, then we lynch Tony. I tried to follow Darox assuming he had investigated Tony at the beginning of the day, but he outright denied any form of soft claim, so I dropped that thought.

Retired cop is a deputy with knowledge of his role according to the wiki. He was just vanilla.

It's never LyLo with mutiple killers.

[TonyMontana]

Ah, so he could only use the ability once? I was severely confused by the wiki entry, makes so much more sense now..

[TonyMontana]

Ice Cream Man, tracker. I didn't understand the flavor until right now. Apparantly, I'm a little obsessive about what the kids do with my ice cream, so I follow them to make sure they don't leave it in the freezer.

Next up:

Oman

[TonyMontana]

I can tell you, I tracked pickmegenoius last night. No target, of course, but I did get a front row view of his death.

I'll save my N1 for after the popcorn.

[TonyMontana]

Pick next one, oman.

[TonyMontana]

M4yhem, did you get any information about elias' nightchoice on N1?

[TonyMontana]

No, it's certainly not strange. Well, I might as well say right away that I tracked elias on N1, as I don't see me benefiting from waiting for M4yhem confirming that Elias targeted no one on N1.

[TonyMontana]

Ah.. missed that [face_palm]

[TonyMontana]

I find both these comments a little odd. I think it is pretty obvious there was no vigilante kill on n1 (he had already mentioned it anyway).

I also would not expect a vigilante to kill every night - and typically not on n1.

I asked, because I had tracked elias on N1, and I missed the post where M4yhem said this.
And from fgweghkqf's post, I don't think he did...

[TonyMontana]

May I ask you why you FOS'd elias early in the day (d2) if you tracked him to no one?

For the reason preceding my FoS. A track on N1, with possibly 3 mafia members is hardly enough to clear someone. Actually, my track was the reason I only FoS'ed.

I would also like your reasons for selecting the people you tracked. I ask because they sound like convenient tracks where the results were stated after you knew the actions of the players.

Well, I can't argue with the fact that my tracks seem convenient (although I honestly didn't read mayhems post)

You say you tracked PEG, who obviously visited no one - so an easy track claim (also gives you reason to be visiting PEG if anybody saw you there).

Only person who could have seen me there was a watcher, and if I was the only one visiting him, we wouldn't bother with this conversation, would we?

You also say you tracked elias, but did not post that when you posted your original claim. You waited until after M4yhem posted and said they visited no one. You say you missed it, but that doesn't make it true.

Doesn't make it a lie, neither.

I also find it odd you didn't track Oman n1 when you IGMEOY'd him to end the day.

Because that would be predictable. I tend to target people who are flying somewhat under the radar. Might not have made that much sense on N1, but on N2 I figured that if darox was mafia, they prolly wouldn't let him do the killing. That's why I went for my second suspect, PEG.

If the mod can go miller with no cop, I don't see why he wouldn't go watcher with no tracker (or vice versa).

Why is watcher/tracker a "thing"?

[TonyMontana]

Well if you say it's common... I mean, the connection between having a miller and a cop is obvious, I just didn't understand why tracker/watcher would be a symbiotic relationship....

[TonyMontana]

I really dislike it when strategy is spelled out in game. The only time this is excused is when there is no mathematical possibility scum can win.

What about when there is no mathematical possibility town can win if a specific role dies (if we mislynch)?

Are you suggesting that, or just hypothesizing?

[TonyMontana]

If you think this makes good sense, say so...

If not, explain why...

Well it all comes down to today and tonight, cause if we mislynch and 2 more townies dies tonight, we may have lost.
I would say that no lynch is better served if we were to follow that gameplan.

[TonyMontana]

My only thing that I really want answered is for Tony.

What did you exactly mean when you said I had a front row of Peg's death.

I said *I* had front row of peg's death.

[TonyMontana]

Imeant that i tracked him ad I got a very flacored de scirption og his attack before the relevcant- answer that je target no one

[TonyMontana]

Imeant that i tracked him ad I got a very flacored de scirption og his attack before the relevcant- answer that je target no one

I meant that I tracked him and I got a very flavoured description of his attack before the relevant answer that he description that he targeted no one.

I hope you appricate the fact that it took me like 10 minutes to clean up that writing.. :p going to bed now -.-

[TonyMontana]

Right now there seems to be just idle chatter going on.

Mainly because he's been asked several times to give some of the supposed "Flavor" and hasn't.

Vote: TonyMontana

Maybe this well help get some of the delayed flavor out.

Asked several times within an hour of your vote, which btw came right after a post where I said I was going to bed. Fail.

As for what I saw while tracking peg, I was hanging outside his/tommy's place (evident by the tommy plumbing car parked outside) No lights were on until midnight, when it was turned on, and I heard a ruckus followed by dead silence. Then I saw someone jumping out of a window. I approach the house, look inside and see peg dead on the floor, heavily beaten up.

[TonyMontana]

I find Tony's idea that we should rather no-lynch intriguing. If we do believe one of the scum is claiming vanilla, it would up our probability of hitting scum if we lynch a vanilla and the vig takes out another?

After some consideration, nolynch is no good any way I look at it. So if we lynch town, the fate of the town rests upon the vig..

[TonyMontana]

...or better yet crywolf? If you are a tracker, you were probably the best shot at getting any sort of definitive answer about her (though we would have to trust you and your results). You track her and if she didn't visit Rash, you would know she was lying.

I think I know the answer to this but I'll let Tony speak for himself.

Realizing I never answered this specifically. I figured tracking a claimed doc was a waste of track, seeing as if she wasn't a doc the mafia would just off her. Keeping a doc alive is a gambit I have never seen mafia play (or have played as mafia myself).


If we're gonna go for the vanillas, I'll just throw in a

vote: bionic

Simply cause it's the flavor I believe the least.

[TonyMontana]

Also, i third the request for an extention.

[TonyMontana]

@Tony

Could I get a summary of your reasons for voting bionic (or the #'s of posts I should look at)?

Well I summarized my reasons when I voted, and it was just for being the least credible vanilla flavour.

Been doing a little reading, and I'm gonna

unvote

for now.
I'm thoroughly unsure right now.

[TonyMontana]

Somehow I don't think m4yhem not mentioning he was one-shot was a mistake. Having a Vig was kind of the cornerstone for our night strategy..

Well I guess our best bet is to go for LyLo then.

vote:no lynch

[TonyMontana]

Somehow I don't think m4yhem not mentioning he was one-shot was a mistake. Having a Vig was kind of the cornerstone for our night strategy..

His last post was while we were still claiming (Oct. 11) and no plan had been outlined yet.

Sorry, I didn't mean that him omitting his full role was related to the plan.
I was proposing that he might have seen the advantage in drawing the mafia to himself, now that he was a mere townie.

[TonyMontana]

V/LA, Going hiking in the mountains until monday

[TonyMontana]

Depending on whether certain roles are fake, there is certainly potential for us to be worse off. Imagine a situation where both DR and Tony are scum, or where both Tony and wolf are. I don't know if these are likely but they're certainly possible.

So far we have a Neighbor, and three claimed powerroles, Watcher, Tracker, Doc. Assuming there's not pro-town roles still hiding as Vanilla, do you think Neighbour/Doc/oneshot vig, or Neighbour/Watcher/Oneshot vig, are fair startpoints for the town? Seems weak.

I would assume that at least one of Wolf and Oman are telling the truth.

[TonyMontana]

What happens if you lynch me, and find out I'm telling the truth? What would that do to your claim with your logic?

unvote/Vote: TonyMontana

Err.. I'm not voting you, so why not ease off on the snap-back. Giving you the benefit of the doubt is the reason I am, at the moment, supporting a nolynch.

And if you were mislynched, my logic would then of course lead me to be more suspicious of Oman, I don't see where my claim falls into the picture.

[TonyMontana]

If Oman's claim is false, well DR's claim is false, what would happen to you? Tracker is something I've never seen without the Watcher.

Then maybe you should play some more games. Tracker is a completely indepedant role. You know what I have never seen? Miller without a cop.

[TonyMontana]

@ wolf & Tony: What's with the ancedotes, you two? I've only seen a tracker without a watcher. So what? It means nothing.

Wolf was the one proposing that you can't have a tracker without a watcher. I simply said this was nonsense.

[TonyMontana]

At deadline I would be willing to vote either Tony, Oman, or Wolf. Omans behavior was pretty scummy, but its also characteristic of him. But his confidence of Darox town just seems so....off.

So the new plan is to lynch a power-role?
I could go for wolf, but I'm sticking to the nolynch strategy for now...

[TonyMontana]

I see it's between No lynch and crywolf, and since I think No lynch is always bad I will go and

Really? Always bad?

[TonyMontana]

You know it is a bad lynch when the guy who hasn't read yet jumps on to put the player at L-1 in an end game situation.
[...]
DR has jumped up my scummy list with the vote they placed.

Yeah, with the only reason given that nolynch is always bad.
If wolf is a doc, then we lose. I'd say nolynch > that risk.

[TonyMontana]

Shhhhh

[TonyMontana]

Going to bed. Happy with my vote as well.

[TonyMontana]

I guess that's all she wrote, can't say I'm that surprised
I saw it coming, thus I was prepared for my demise
Since my role is over, I bid you all farewell
For all the scums remaining, I'll see you all in hell

My rhymes were more spot on than i thought, weren't they, gorckat?

Ta-Ta