Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[Battle Mage]

@BM: Reading what the others have said kind of cleared up what I was confused about. Your case didn't look like it was made up of actual scumtells, and that's what confused me. Also, what do you mean by "something doesn't have to be a scumtell to make a case?"

I mean, because something isn't a known scumtell, like Occam's Razor or something, it doesnt mean it cannot be a valid argument.

There are no official scumtells concerning specific wording of comments, and perhaps BECAUSE OF THIS, they are the most useful things to look out for.

I will grant you that KoC might not have been told about claiming early before, but really, it should be self explanatory. When you profess a policy in Mafia, you have to give it a little bit of thought too.

BM

[Battle Mage]

vote stands. Not because i dont believe the claim, but because it isn't worth continuing the day over.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Wow.

I am still alive... Trying to figure out what can be drawn from those results, aside from the already obvious "we have two mafias to deal with."

Makes sense though. And I echo the expectation of no more than four people in each mafia. Five could be possible, though I think pushing it. They could be uneven, too. Always a possibility.

I agree that Armlx is probably pushing it with 2 mafia teams of more than 4 each, plus an SK. Given we have 2 dead mafia power roles, which is also a gift of a safeclaim, i think 4 is probably pushing it. 2 power-role scumteams of 3 players each is what i think we're looking at. If SC is right about us having 2 Vigs, as opposed to a Vig and an SK, then 4 per team is more reasonable.

I think at this stage, this game deserves a reread.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I'm suspicious of any "pact". It smells too much like an informed minority. SCUMZ DIE NOW PACT IS SCUMZ! We shall not have a self-appointed bunch of leaders manipulating wagons! Let us rebel! Join me in the ANTI-TREATY COALITION!

Lol. Hence we have confirmation that the Anti-Treaty Coalition was also Anti-Town, and thus, the original Treaty was of protown design.

Whoever said this treaty shizzle was bad??

[Battle Mage]

Ok, i'm on Page 18. Just about out of the confirmation stage... 0.o
Reading and drawing conclusions is being made alot more difficult by the vast number of replacements we have had, the fact that the Mod has not listed the names of those who replaced Dead players in the OP, and the names of living players replacements are in font so tiny that it is completely illegible. -.-

No vote as of yet- quite a few people i have my eye on.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I'm suspicious of any "pact". It smells too much like an informed minority. SCUMZ DIE NOW PACT IS SCUMZ! We shall not have a self-appointed bunch of leaders manipulating wagons! Let us rebel! Join me in the ANTI-TREATY COALITION!

Lol. Hence we have confirmation that the Anti-Treaty Coalition was also Anti-Town, and thus, the original Treaty was of protown design.

Whoever said this treaty shizzle was bad??

I remember saying I was anti-treaty until you hammered its point quite deep in my head. Keep in mind, however, that you can just as easily be Portuguese as Swiss.

Lol, this is true, but in honesty-if i'm scum, this town is screwed.

I dont understand what your first sentence is meant to achieve?

BM

[Battle Mage]

@Armlx: I think I mentioned it up there. A Poisoner is scum with a separate NK that takes place the next night.
@CK: I know, this is just me thinking out loud so others can comment on it.

link? I can't really comment on this atm, but i'm sceptical to say the least...

BM

[Battle Mage]

LINK?

[Battle Mage]

I dont understand what your first sentence is meant to achieve?

It's an answer to your question.

ah ok.

BM

[Battle Mage]

@bm,

ok so i finished reading the treaty arguments and i have a few questions,

1) the treaty its self would either work like fly paper atracting scum to it thus making it easy to se them correct?

It can work in two ways. Either it becomes a body in the way i originally intended, which can be used to put players under scrutiny, and gauge interactions, and most of all, differentiate between townies and scumbags by how strictly they will stand by the treaty. The argument put forward against the treaty, was that scum would dominate it-in which case, my retort was that we would then be able to nail them very easily.

2) by making the treaty small say less than 6 it cares no real danger power? but it does break the large group up into small peices,

the best way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. 6 people can be quite an influential force, if they comprise 50% of a majority, they dont need much outside support to comprise a formidable looking wagon.

I'm also inclined to agree with Armlx. As a general principle, EGL, you should have let him defend his own statement first, and jumped in later if necessary. That said, i dont think it's especially scummy.
In any case, i'm inclined to think the Poisoner(s) are protown, or neutral.

@Skruffs- what do you mean?

BM

[Battle Mage]

Its not pro-town to answer that question directed at BA.

In that case, why aren't you FoS'ing the person asking in the first place?

wtf? 0.o

Lowell bandwagon suits me for now.

Vote: Lowell

BM

[Battle Mage]

not so much a bandwagon any more.

FoS: SC

- easily pleased much?

BM

[Battle Mage]

I could ask almost that same question of you, Battle Mage. Why are you so easily pleased with a Lowell bandwagon?

Erm, you COULD. Except my question was 'Why are you so easily pleased with Lowell's response, which really, resolved nothing?'

BM

[Battle Mage]

I could ask almost that same question of you, Battle Mage. Why are you so easily pleased with a Lowell bandwagon?

Erm, you COULD. Except my question was 'Why are you so easily pleased with Lowell's response, which really, resolved nothing?'

BM

Because he was voting SensFan for Cass's actions, and I saw her as scummy.

If you felt Sensfan was a worthy target, why did you jump on Lowell in the first place?

BM

[Battle Mage]

If you felt Sensfan was a worthy target, why did you jump on Lowell in the first place?

I believe I said something along the lines of thinking it scummy to vote while you're playing catchup.

Which he still was after his explanation. What changed to make you remove your vote?

HoS: SC

BM

[Battle Mage]

^thats pretty much where i am.

BM

[Battle Mage]

PArt Four, and finally:
This is also crap:

I'm suspicious of any "pact". It smells too much like an informed minority. SCUMZ DIE NOW PACT IS SCUMZ! We shall not have a self-appointed bunch of leaders manipulating wagons! Let us rebel! Join me in the ANTI-TREATY COALITION!

Lol. Hence we have confirmation that the Anti-Treaty Coalition was also Anti-Town, and thus, the original Treaty was of protown design.

Whoever said this treaty shizzle was bad??

I remember saying I was anti-treaty until you hammered its point quite deep in my head. Keep in mind, however, that you can just as easily be Portuguese as Swiss.

1st of all: Shame on BattleMage for such a poor attempt at trying to 'clear' people by saying that scum didn't like something and that there fore it must be GOOD. Korts involvement in the Anti Treaty Coalition was obviously because he wanted to detract from that coalition because he thought it was bad for *his team*. However, that does NOT Mean that the Treaty was organized by town; it could just as well have been the other mafia aiming for an early 'grip' on the game to get rid of some of the players they thought were most suspicious. CONSIDERING That you formed the initial "Treaty", and reading through the actual treaty (quoted below), I think that it's possible the later is more likely the case.

Lol! I think if it was opposed by AT LEAST 1 scumgroup, it was a pretty good concept. I dont recall saying it was blatantly followed by townies, or even led by a townie, but that it was of protown design. In other words, it was a good, protown idea-as has now been proven in practice. I think you're scrabbling desperately here. Even you don't think that i'm scum atm. Which makes me wonder why i'm 2nd on your

NK

risk

list.

BM

[Battle Mage]

^thats pretty much where i am.

So you're suspicious of yourself for knowing too much about the nightkills than you should?

Huh.

lolwut?

[Battle Mage]

Yes, but i wasnt JUST responding to the bit in bold. Are you getting confused between BM and BA or something? I cant really see what you are even talking about... :S

BM!

[Battle Mage]

Lol! SC, you really are shameless

Now,

Skruffs

, i temporarily rescind my questions to you, and instead want to hear from StrangerCoug

what exactly he thinks the case on me is

.

Please allow him to answer before responding yourself-i want to see what he comes up with.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Are you getting confused between BM and BA or something?

BM!

My bad.

R.O.F.L.



BM

[Battle Mage]

Here's an interesting question I'll toss out there for anyone:

Do you think that both mafias have a doctor and a tracker?

Do you think they both have proper Godfathers?

Could help us in getting to an accurate number of scum players.

I doubt both Mafias have a Doctor and a Tracker. Might be difficult for balance if they didn't, but would make the game ridiculously skewed against them if they both had the same power role structure, and thus, couldnt gain anything from the roles. So i guess they have opposite and equal power roles.

Godfathers are a strong possibility.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Lol! SC, you really are shameless

Now,

Skruffs

, i temporarily rescind my questions to you, and instead want to hear from StrangerCoug

what exactly he thinks the case on me is

.

Please allow him to answer before responding yourself-i want to see what he comes up with.

BM

I don't have much that hasn't been said already. I'm making sure you know that we cannot automatically pin everyone against the treaty as scum just because Korts was against it and flipped scum. In addition, you are unconfirmed. I don't see you as having bussed Korts, but we have two Mafia teams (at least) and it cannot be ruled out that the treaty was the idea of somebody in one scum group and opposed by somebody in another.

I didn't see a point to a treaty. I still don't. But that doesn't mean I'm uninterested in seeing what effect it has on the game.

I'm neutral on you at this time.

Lol, so this is what you consider to be a 'case' on me?
The fact that the treaty was null, and that i am not confirmed innocent, despite your admission that i am almost certainly not from the same scumgroup as Korts.

So, because i am slightly less likely to be scum than the next guy, you consider yourself (and Skruffs perhaps) to have a 'case' on me?

Haha.

Vote: Strangercoug

Backtracking scumbag.

Let's see if Skruffs can do any better.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Bm- why are you insisting I am not suspicious of you? I think I've made it pretty clear that I am suspicious of you. The only reason I'm not going at you full frontal is because I think you would have taken me out last night if you had a chance, which means, if you are mafia, that your scum team holds no respect for you. Saying this, of course, voids suspicion of you if I die tonight. Preferably you'll be killed before me in this game, although so far that has never happened. But I am suspicious of you, and you shouldn't say otherwise.

But, you arent ACTUALLY suspicious of me are you. Come on man-we go way back, and i know you like to keep me on my toes. But you aren't a complete moron. And only a complete moron would think there is a case on me to be lynched atm in this game. There are only a few reasons you are even pursuing an attack on me now:

1. You are scum trying to maintain a meta portfolio of constantly attacking me.
2. You are scum worried that i'm going to gain too tight a hold over the town, and you need to get rid of me asap.
3. You are scum who genuinely fears that i am a member of the other scumgroup, and with mafia power-roles galore as we seem to have, nailing me at night might not be so easy.
4. You are town who really doesnt want to be fooled by BM scum, so as so often happens, you distort your read with the preconception that i am scum.
5. You are town who realises that i am probably not scum, and probably wont be lynched today, but you want to keep me on my toes.

You're still pretty neutral to me. But the real crux will be whether you acknowledge defeat here, or whether you defy logic further.

If you can't admit there is no case on me, I EXPECT TO

SEE

A CASE.

You saying 1 exists doesn't give you any credibility.

Continuing on, if you really think scum being anti-treaty means the treaty is pro-town, why did you drop it at that, rather than routing out other players who were against it?

Who said i dropped it?

BM

[Battle Mage]

Sc: I think you explained already, bt iwas going to as why bm could be port or swiss but not the third option, the second mafia?

You named the two mafias we know of. What do you mean second.

Sc- are you a survivor?

I refuse to answer, and I don't see why you need to know at this point.

HoS: Skruffs

for rolefishing.

Confirm Vote: SC

Regardless of the fact i have no clue why Skruffs asked that question, that you couldnt even deny being a NEUTRAL suggests you are really keeping your options open. Fishing for neutrals is hardly scummy imo.

BM

[Battle Mage]

ok, I'm here, and I'm quite honestly shocked at the (lack of) quality in the conversation of today thus far.

I disagree with most of the votes, and there is too much setup speculation going on and I don't think it's helping anyone (well it may be helping scum). There has been barely any discussion on yesterday's lynch, and the implications it has.

Sorry for not adding anything to the table myself as of yet, but I shall do this shortly. At the moment, I am checking through a couple of people's defenses, I will report my findings when I am done with that.

maybe if you want to improve the quality of discussion, you'll explain your own grievances, rather than leaving us to guess?

BM

[Battle Mage]

Sc: I think you explained already, bt iwas going to as why bm could be port or swiss but not the third option, the second mafia?

You named the two mafias we know of. What do you mean second.

Sc- are you a survivor?

I refuse to answer, and I don't see why you need to know at this point.

HoS: Skruffs

for rolefishing.

Confirm Vote: SC

Regardless of the fact i have no clue why Skruffs asked that question, that you couldnt even deny being a NEUTRAL suggests you are really keeping your options open. Fishing for neutrals is hardly scummy imo.

BM

I'm having a very hard time trying to figure out what benefit a claimed survivor has on the town. If a survivor is driven to claim, the town has nothing to lose in lynching him or her. In LYLO with one town, one Mafia, and one survivor, the chances of a quicklynch are higher than with two townies. At the same time, I'm trying to imagine why a survivor wouldn't be NK bait.

All that this town knows about my role is that I am not a mason with Skruffs, and I only said this to confirm his saying we're not masons together. I could still be a mason, just with someone else. I will claim when it comes time. Now is not the time. Until then, I am not narrowing my role down further than it already has been.

I know what I am, but I simply do not see why I should answer a scummy question.

Lol, so you're worried that claiming survivor might get you killed?

THEN DONT CLAIM SURVIVOR. *facepalm*

You're blatantly scum, because only scum would be weighing up the best option to claim. If you were town, you'd have no trouble denying being a neutral.

BM

[Battle Mage]

heh, although Skruffs' question to SC about whether or not he was a survivor was a terrible question, it's gotten some very, very interesting responses from SC. I don't like the dancing around the question he's doing. It's like he's some sort of neutral who wants to claim survivor after the town says there's a reason not to lynch claimed survivors.

You should vote him.

Tom- Vote for StrangerCoug!

This is the time a Pact would really come in handy, eh?

BM

[Battle Mage]

I leave for a couple days and SC has 4 votes on him. I will read more and catch up soon.

Only 4? He deserves to be dead already.

BM

[Battle Mage]

NB: I count 5. Still, not enough.

BM

[Battle Mage]

At any rate, I'm not that huge on the fact SC still hasn't just said, "No, I'm not a Survivor," but I've got my eye on Tom due to him saying Skruffs was "asking too many questions," placing a vote on him, and then changing to the SC wagon saying he "doesn't see how Skruffs question was scummy." Obviously Tom thought it was scummy enough a couple pages ago to warrant a vote so he should see something there.

Heck I thought it was scummy at first (rolefishing - unless you ask Sarc who says blatantly asking isn't rolefishing) but after some explainations people have put forth I agree it's really not (due to him being asked if he's a neutral and not simply asked to roleclaim or asked if he has a town power role).

@ BM - Why did you specifically tell Tom to vote for SC?

At any rate,

Vote: SC

FoS: Tom Mason and BM

Because a noticed he posted and didnt vote. You might also like to note that i said the same thing to Hasdgfas. Maybe you might want to lump him in with that FoS.

That is, if you are seriously trying to imply that i'm scum, openly asking my buddies to hop on a hot wagon?

BM

[Battle Mage]

*Because I (obvobv)

heh, although Skruffs' question to SC about whether or not he was a survivor was a terrible question, it's gotten some very, very interesting responses from SC. I don't like the dancing around the question he's doing. It's like he's some sort of neutral who wants to claim survivor after the town says there's a reason not to lynch claimed survivors.

You should vote him.

This wagon is moving a bit fast for me to jump on right now, but I'm strongly considering it if SC doesn't get any better.

Since when were you afraid of a hot wagon? I'm feeling the buzz atm-let's take this guy to LYNCH.

Or are you worried about being branded an opportunist?

BM

[Battle Mage]

heh, although Skruffs' question to SC about whether or not he was a survivor was a terrible question, it's gotten some very, very interesting responses from SC. I don't like the dancing around the question he's doing. It's like he's some sort of neutral who wants to claim survivor after the town says there's a reason not to lynch claimed survivors.

You should vote him.

This wagon is moving a bit fast for me to jump on right now, but I'm strongly considering it if SC doesn't get any better.

QFT. I'll keep it as an

fos: StrangerCoug

for now, but I've still got my eye on him.

If you think he is scummy, vote for him. That way we run him upto a claim, and can either lynch him, or stop wasting our time discussing him and move on.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Battlemage - if you hadn't dropped it, you would have explained why, instead of avoiding the treaty-dropping situation entirely and changing subjects to the 'there's no case against me!' Rhetoric. Do you think you are reacting correctly to me suspicion of you, if it really is as unfounded as you went to great lengths to proclaim?

Lolwut? >.>'

BM

[Battle Mage]

Lol, so you're worried that claiming survivor might get you killed?

No, I'm accusing Skruffs of rolefishing and using my limited knowledge of the survivor role to explain how I see a claimed survivor as detrimental.

Skruffs simply asked if you were a Survivor. Let me put it simply:

If you were town, you'd have said NO. Then berated him for rolefishing.

We all know what Skruffs is like. He's probably the worst tunnel-visioner on MS atm, and he's smart enough to play to this meta as scum aswell. But your response left little doubt in my mind that you are scum.

Sc- why do you need to keep your options open? If you are pro-town, you have no reason to need having a survivor as a valid claim, unless you are a miller and think that survivor is more survivable than miller is. If you are survivor, there's nobody to claim to be a mason with later, and acting like you do just brings more attention on yourself (like it already has).

In a way, I am keeping my options open. I will not reveal about my role before it comes time for me to do so. I personally think playing Mafia with an open mind works better regardless of alignment.

I know that I have nobody to claim mason with if I am a survivor. In fact, I asked why a survivor would lie, because I don't see a reason to do so that would benefit one.

You don't see why a Survivor would want to lie? 0.o

BM

[Battle Mage]

but basically makin raider out to be the bad guy and moving disscussion away from sc

I kind of agree, but I also don't think tunnel vision is good for the town unless a deadline is looming. It isn't, so I think we can afford to talk about things other than SC.

Actually, i totally agree with Tubby here. Granted we can talk about other things, but if we've pretty much established that the majority think SC is scum, we ought to run him up as quickly as possible. That way, if he IS town, he can claim, and we have time to move on, without ending up with a NL. If he IS scum, we ensure that he doesnt somehow distract the town into letting him survive another day.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I guess it should say I do not like how he said it. It seemed aggressive like a frustrated townie not wanting to have to claim for no reason. As scum it would be the backed into the corner lashing out.

Those are my opinions. I have not sided completely one way or the other as I could see both outcomes. Why are you trying to push this agianst me so much?

This is Skruffs. Like him or lynch him, he's not going to change for you.

[Battle Mage]

but basically makin raider out to be the bad guy and moving disscussion away from sc

I kind of agree, but I also don't think tunnel vision is good for the town unless a deadline is looming. It isn't, so I think we can afford to talk about things other than SC.

Actually, i totally agree with Tubby here. Granted we can talk about other things, but if we've pretty much established that the majority think SC is scum, we ought to run him up as quickly as possible. That way, if he IS town, he can claim, and we have time to move on, without ending up with a NL. If he IS scum, we ensure that he doesnt somehow distract the town into letting him survive another day.

BM

to clarify with a player group this large its easy for us to get distracted,, now if SC clears himself thats one thing but to blantantly distract from that is tre' anti town imo

FoS on skruffs and Tom Mason

Lol, how can SC clear himself?

Also, i think you already did the FoS thing...

BM

[Battle Mage]

well, you'll have to trust me on this then. I expect we've played more than 20 games together on MS.

BM

[Battle Mage]

you FoS'd them twice deliberately?

BM

[Battle Mage]

On the other hand, both you and tubby are trying to use the suspicion that me and mason are trying to distract from the sc wagon AS a distraction to the SC wagon.

Your post in its entirety is interesting, but this is what most caught my attention. If you're going to accuse somebody of doing something, don't do it yourself.

Unvote: Lowell
Vote: Battle Mage

for hypocrisy.

I'm not sure if you mistyped 'Skruffs' here. If not, i find your line of thinking utterly incredulous. I mean seriously-is that really enough for a vote now? Hypocrisy?

In fact, i was not hypocritical atall. I merely backed up what Tubby was saying, but clearly not in such a way that i was distracting from the SC wagon-rather that, just because we've nailed 1 scumbag, doesnt mean we cant keep hunting.

In fact, now i look at your post again, you accuse me of trying to derail the wagon on YOU! WHAT THE HELL? 0.o

If you really wanted to vote for somebody for hypocrisy, Tubby might be an acceptable choice, given that he isnt currently voting for SC, from what i recall.

But even then, it's very weak. The fact you voted me with no logic whatsoever, reeks of OMGUS.

Even your buddy Skruffs will tell you that.

BM

[Battle Mage]

no the reason fos skruff and tom mason twice, was to hopefully get you two to give clearer thoughts on wether or not SC is a good lynch or not.

and yes BM i did it on purpose

FoS: Tubby

Probably the right reaction to alleged hypocrisy, combined with suspected derailing of the SC lynch.

BM

[Battle Mage]

in my post where I said bm is prob not a killing role (or not respected by his peers if he is one) I pretty much guaranteed that someone will nk me tonight, either to make bm look bad or to wifom the situation so much that he gets ignored. Inasmuch I have been analyzing players continuously, to get as much of my opinion, analysis, etc into the open as possible.

And now you invoke the WIFOM of you not being killed, which will probably allow scum to lynch you, if you are indeed town. Gratz.

Bm, I really do not understand how you can, in the same post, accuse me of being the most tunnel visioned player on MS, and then agree with tubby that I am trying to shift attention away from SC. If I remem er correctly, I was the one who directly pegged him in the corner with my survivor question. Also, if you want to run SC up as quickly as possible, when exactly where there be time for him to claim?

Lol nice try. Much as it was you who started us on the SC track, all you've done since is defend him. If he comes up scum, you'll be the first place i look tomorrow. You didnt so much peg him, as give him a way out. He wasn't bright enough to take it.

Funny isn't it, that somebody who cared SO MUCH about not revealing his role too early, ends up claiming VANILLA TOWNIE at L-3.

Confirm Vote: SC

My assumption is that SC is going to be lynched and show up as scum. Therefore I am moving on to find as many other scums as I can, as, due to what I said earlier in this post, I doubt I will be alive tomorrow.

If you think SC is scum, praytell, why are you not voting for him atm?

BM

[Battle Mage]

At this point, I support a StrangerCoug lynch.

Generally support for a lynch is given in the form of a vote.

BM

[Battle Mage]

@StrangerCoug: How does hypocrisy apply to scum?

I thought I made it obvious. If you are accusing somebody of doing something scummy, then doing that same thing yourself is scummy.

Then specify that you are voting them for the scummy thing, not because they are being a hypocrite.

coaching the scumbag?

FoS: Blakadder

You've been bugging me for a little while now.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I believe it is extortion to say that when someone is lynched and comes up town, that someone that you are trying to coax into voting them will be considered a partner because they are not voting them.

IS there a deadline? If there is, I Will vote to lynch before it.

Likewise, i find it hard to concieve that you would feel SC coming up scum to be a point in your favour, given you are aware of the case on him, and are still trying to defend him.

In the meanwhile, I will absolutely not stop in trying to get as many scum exposed as possible.

Protesting too much? I love this scumtell.

Could you please quote me defending SC? If you are going to preemptively try to go after me as his partner, you should preemptively show a connection. I believe Korts was trying to tie SC to me, yesterday, and Korts turned out to be scum. It's one of the biggest reasons I went after SC today.

I dont need to quote anything. You are aware of the case on him, and still you wish to pursue other ventures. I could understand you not voting him with the intent of voting later, but it seems you arent doing that. My ego isnt so large that i cant follow your lead-is yours so large that you cant follow mine?

BM: Do you think mafia will try to cross-kill at this point of the game?

Almost certainly not. Assuming we started with 3 in each group, there are now only 2 left, and the town is in a strong position. If i was scum, i'd be hunting strong townies tonight.

Now, are you going to address a case on me?

BM

[Battle Mage]

Second time you've said I'm defending SC, without any quotes or logical reasoning to back yourself up. You say you've changed your playstyle, but you still seem to be falling back on 'argument through repitition".

. Still haven't explained how I wifomed myself for a quick lynch (I'm curious about reasoning).

Your intentions right now seem to be to distract me from everyone else in the game with frivolous, blatantly incindiary comments, exactly like you have done in previous games where you are scum. I will leave you on the scum list for now, and focus on other people. Considering I'm scanning multiple people, and haven't actually voted you, your demanding I make a case against you doesn't make sense, unless you don't like that I am reviewing everyone else. Since you are demanding I make a case against you, I don't really understand why that standpoint is beneficial to the town, if you think I am town, unless you think I am scum, and are trying to get some distancing in from one of the mafias; which only really makes sense if you are not worried about the other mafia.

Question - what will you do if tugger turns up scum, as he seems to be following you much like SC has been following me?

Please can you slow down when you type, or grammar check afterwards? We all make mistakes, but the way you write is so incoherent that i have real trouble understanding what you mean...

When did i say i'd changed my playstyle? Are you referring to, over a year ago? What relevance does this pose to this game?

I explained why you seem to be defending him in post 1834. The post you were meant to be responding to. This is another reason i think you should slow down when you respond.

The simple fact is, you have claimed to put me on your 'scum list'. Korts did the exact same thing, and when i pushed him on it, he revealed that he actually had no reason to be suspicious of me. I strongly suspect that the same is true with you, and that you cant admit you have no case indicates that you are indeed scum. You are blowing smoke in the exact same way as Korts, and this is my major qualm with you atm.

I'm trying to figure out if you're acting so foolishly because you are a selfish townie who just wants to avoid being nightkilled, or if you are actual scum who is trying to confuse and distract the town.

Is that a threat?
Why would i be nightkilled over my stance on ending the day quickly?

How about this: you keep bleating about me making a case against you; why don't YOU make a case against YOURSELF

What the hell?

If i felt there was a case against me, i probably wouldnt be as willing to openly confront it.

I'm tired of going round in circles playing pathetic games with you. You can either answer the issue at hand, or you can please yourself. I'm done wasting my time with your ravings.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Still working on that read.

I'm looking at Battle Mage's (do you care if I call you BM? Those are my initials, BTW ) recent posts about SC. Does anyone mind summarizing the case on SC, please?

Hi BM! Welcome aboard

I would, but i really dont have the time/cba right now. Basically i'm 99% sure he is scum, so if you trust my judgement, you'll hop on the wagon. It's pretty much unanimous anyway, just SOME PEOPLE want to extend the day... *facepalm*

BM

[Battle Mage]

I thought the case on him was that he got all upset and refused to answer Skruffs' question if he was a survivor and then eventually roleclaimed as Swiss Townie.

yeh this is pretty much the bare bones of it. But it's far more conclusive than it seems.
Why would he be so secretive about his role as a vanilla townie?
Why would he hesitate about claiming a neutral role is he was protown?

He's scum, fo' sure.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Why would he be so secretive about his role as a vanilla townie?

Claiming vanilla too early makes it easier for the scum to hit power roles.

Then why did you claim at L-3?

*facepalm*

BM

[Battle Mage]

Surye-get a grip and drop the hammer damnit. You're better than how you are playing atm.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Citizen Karne

: When someone asks that the hammer be postponed until someone (the lynched) speaks, it is incredibly bad form to hammer that person. It makes you look like you are trying to preemptively silence someone. You are making a judgement call that affects everyone else in the game by saying "I don't think we need to hear from SC again".

I asked him to hammer. Hence i expect you to give me similar attention as you give him. In fact, anyone who wants to attack Citizen Karne for the hammer, can go through me. It's not like he did anything that i wouldnt have done in his position.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Citizen Karne

: When someone asks that the hammer be postponed until someone (the lynched) speaks, it is incredibly bad form to hammer that person. It makes you look like you are trying to preemptively silence someone. You are making a judgement call that affects everyone else in the game by saying "I don't think we need to hear from SC again".

I asked him to hammer. Hence i expect you to give me similar attention as you give him. In fact, anyone who wants to attack Citizen Karne for the hammer, can go through me. It's not like he did anything that i wouldnt have done in his position.

BM

Same question then goes to you, why would you not let the person being lynched give his last thoughts on the game so when the person flips we can either can useless information if scum or a town perspective if town?

"Can useless information"? :S

He'd already given us all he was going to. That was more than apparent. If he's scum, i dont expect him to post any more. If he's town, i dont think he is a role model we should base our play on.

Regardless, he still has a chance to post now. Why are you getting antsy?

BM

[Battle Mage]

BAH!

Case in point.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Wow. Happy to still be kicking around.

Lots more info to go on today methinks. Will look in more detail in a sec.

BM

[Battle Mage]

awaits another bright idea from bm

What do you mean by this?

BM

[Battle Mage]

I want battlemage to talk, first, see where he's standing psychologically. Then I want to see who freaked out over the armlx hate day 1 and day 2.

Lol? >.>

Poisoning and Cremation aren't Icelandic kills.
Dismembering and Drowning aren't Portuguese kills.

Drowning sounds like it could be the Icelanic kill, flavour wise. Cremation could be the Portuguese kill. That means we either have 2 SK's, or one of 'Poisoning' and 'Dismembering' is a Vigilante. What concerns me is that we had 2 poisoning kills on Night 2, which i cant really explain without some kind of whacky mechanics.

Rereading the interactions of all our new dead ppl might be helpful. Because the night was so ridiculously long, i can barely remember anything about this game. But it should be possible to work out who would be likely a Vig-Kill, and who would be killed by each mafia.

BM

[Battle Mage]

BM knows better than to try to figure out who the vig is. Why are you surprised you are still alive? You helped the mafia more than almost anyone else at the end of the last day by trying to shut down any conversation other than votes.

BM was not trying to figure out who the vig was.
I didnt say i was surprised at still being alive.
And ha. I guess i take responsibility for the SC mislynch. But then, we're speculating about some of the dead scumbags being town? Why not some of the dead townies being scum? xD

BM

[Battle Mage]

BM knows better than to try to figure out who the vig is. Why are you surprised you are still alive? You helped the mafia more than almost anyone else at the end of the last day by trying to shut down any conversation other than votes.

EGL, which of the dead people do you think are death millers?

I dig skruffs and am cool with my SC vote.

Not liking raider.

What are you not liking about me?

I don't like the fact that you are avoiding the SC lynch while you don't suspect anyone one yourself. I don't like the fact that the only vote you cast the entire game was on Netlava.

In fact if I'm alive tomorrow, I'm bringing the Inquisition down your ass.

I also "avoided" the SC lynch, yet you dig me. WHy the contradiction?

Because at the time I thought you were pretty town with the line of questioning you pushed on SC. Now I'm revising that vision.

BM, why are you surprised you're alive? What do you think of skruffs in light of SC cardflip?

Lol, i'm sorry, where did i say i was surprised to be alive?
And i'd say SC turning up town shows Skruffs in a worse light. Regardless, he's not the first route i wish to pursue today.

BM

[Battle Mage]

awaits another bright idea from bm

What do you mean by this?

BM

when i replaced in i read the thread i agreed most with his reasoning throughoutg the game,,
So i followed BM's vote like and over eager lapdog,

but now i supposed there isn't any room left on BM's coattails, perhaps i need to think for myself now,,, damn it

Ok, thats fine. Sorry, i thought you were being sarcastic because i screwed up yesterday.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Skruffs-if i recall, you werent voting for SC yesterday. It's rather hard for you to justify claiming that you started a wagon that you didnt participate in...

BM

[Battle Mage]

*points in Blakadder's direction*

I've pmed the Mod and asked him to update the OP, in case anyone else is having the issue i am.

BM

[Battle Mage]

@ BM re: posts 1926 & 1928: How does it paint Skruffs in a worse light if he couldn't start a bandwagon he didn't participate in?

Not sure the question makes sense. Do you mean 'how does it paint Skruffs in a worse light if he didnt participate in a bandwagon on a townie?'

Also Springlullaby:

What vibe do you get from Skruffs? Town or Scum?

BM

[Battle Mage]

1926: You said the SC flip paints Skruffs in a worse light.

1928: You said Skruffs couldn't have started the SC wagon if he didn't vote for SC.

So given your logic in post 1928, how does the SC flip make Skruffs look bad if he wasn't the one who started the wagon and didn't vote on the wagon?

argh, your wording confuses the hell outta me.
My thinking was that, by inspiring a wagon, but then staying completely distant from it, Skruffs could have been distancing from a mislynch. That said, you make a good point, in that Skruffs has since been keen to remind people of his role in that lynch. So i rescind my previous assertion.

BM

[Battle Mage]

You make a good point. But i really just cant get past this post. It's the scummiest post i've ever seen in a mafia game. I'm just not convinced that 1 post alone is enough to lynch over...

intend to vote tomorrow: Citizen Karne

Dropping the hammer like that makes my scumdar go berserk.

What are your thoughts?

BM

[Battle Mage]

Vote: Blakadder

Read the entirety of his posts. Little doubt here.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Who had replaced Hascow? Or is that just what BlakAdder called hasdghfhs?

Yes to your second question.

And on the subject of BlakAdder, his play looks to be mirroring what I saw from armlx. I just went and took a look at all the posts BA has made in this game. Short posts that do not offer much in the way of game discussion. His play just seems removed.

Add to it that "intended vote for tomorrow" and...

Well, I want to here some justification from BA about his actions first, but my vote leans towards him right now.

Semi-lurking like this is normal playstyle for me. I do it as both town and scum.

Not that it really concerns me, but you may want to provide links for Tom.

I said that I intended to vote CK tomorrow because it would be irrelevant at the time, as he had just dropped the hammer.

And you made the rather bold assumption that you wouldnt be NKed. Personally, if i think i see a scumbag in twilight, and want to pursue it tomorrow, I DONT MENTION IT. If CK was scum, odds are you'd be dead now. Hell, another scumgroup could even kill you in order to make him look bad. Basically you really screwed up if you are town. But i really dont see a town mentality in your behaviour.

However, after thinking over the Night phase, I decided against it. Quick hammers quite obviously appear to be Karne's thing, and I thought that it didn't seem like that big of a deal anyway.

Quite the change of stance. Nothing to do with heat against you by any chance? What makes you think quickhammers are his thing?

BM

[Battle Mage]

Can someone explain one thing to me. What makes my "intend to vote tomorrow" scummy?

see above. Better luck next time SCUMO!

[Battle Mage]

I've had some more thoughts on the BA situation and I'd like to go further into it with an alteration here or there.

The intend to vote may be a bit strong, but indicating you think somebody is scummy is not. If you're town there's no guarantee you'll be kept in the game, especially with at least one SK and a vig running about in addition to two mafias who can, based on evidence from writeups, both kill. So getting that feeling out before you're dead isn't inherently scummy.

Thats true. But he didnt say "if i die tonight, please watch out for this guy tomorrow". He made the rather bold assumption that he would not be killed, and if he wasnt going to be killed, why would he need to make that comment in the first place??

@ BM - Please don't start that again or I'll vote for you. You did the same stuff with SC and from what I remember, Netlava as well. We know how both of those turned out. Just settle down and don't get over anxious and don't get tunnel vision.

I dont remember being a Netlava hater. But if you have links, i'm willing to be proven wrong. I'm happy with a Blakadder lynch today. And ftr, i think you're reading too much into meta, which isnt especially relevant here. The facts are self-explanatory.

BM

[Battle Mage]

FoS: BlakAdder, CK, and Tom

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Tom seems to be following BM too much for my taste.

I am not trying to follow BM, but he did bring to the attention BlakAdder, yes.

However, my focus on Adder is less for that vote during the last day phase and more for his play approach. He said it himself, he is quiet on both sides -- town and mafia. So, if armlx turned up mafia for his slow play -- and I mentioned I did not like that at the time as well -- it is possible Adder could turn up as well.

He is giving me no reason to doubt it.

If I wanted to follow BM so much, I would have voted already. But I just want to find out some more on Adder and what he is thinking.

FoS: Tom Mason

You ought to be following me, because the reasoning you have given above is completely nonsensical. Armlx doesnt have a meta for being a lurker. :Roll:

BM

[Battle Mage]

@EGL- Tom follows EVERYONE, not just BM. Hence the scum. Again I'll point out I was right about cass. Turn those FOSs into votes.

@BM- the blakadder "intend to vote" post doesn't do anything for me. With all these killing factions, him saying he intends to vote is more him getting his opinion out there before night rather than him being sure he'll be alive. Unless you're implying he's some kind of unNKable role.

@skruffs- I want to buy into the spring case. Is there more to it than the SC inconsistency?

It just introduced a whole load of WIFOM unnecessarily. You are right that this is not scummy in itself. But its not so much the fact he made this suspicion a day before, but that he made it atall.
He was on the SC wagon, and was indeed the -1 vote. Now, how can he seriously criticise someone dropping the hammer when he had just voted? If he genuinely believed SC was scum, would he have found a quickhammer scummy? Of course not. Combine this with his remaining posts which are far from immaculate, and his subsequent backtrack today (he still needs to answer my questions) and im pretty sure he's scum.

BM

BM

[Battle Mage]

Blakadder is lurking.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I didn't really feel the need to comment on such a bad case, but hear you go.
Your case on me is nothing but misinterpreting my words. By saying that I intended to vote Karne the next day, I was in no way implying that I knew that I would live to the next day. And even so, that would be a stupid move by the scum as well, as we have now confirmed that there are multiple killing groups.

you are repeating the arguments of others. And those arguments were far from conclusive originally. Theres only 1 thing causing me doubt atm, and even that im not really buying...

BM

[Battle Mage]

awaits another bright idea from bm

What do you mean by this?

BM

I'm interested in seeing tubby's answer to this.

I am interesting to see if you have anything to contribute to the game.

I know you only replaced a few weeks back... But you have lurked. You have had almost a month to catch up on the game and shared no thoughts.

Post something relevant to what you think.

TM, I'm still getting my bearings here. First of all, I'm trying to wade through the first 60 pages of postage still (I didn't think it would take me nearly this long; my attention span is short and I cannot read more than a few pages at a time). Also, it feels like we have a bunch of conversations going on at once between different people (which I've never seen in a mafia game before).

But I must say that the way this game started has been the oddest thing I've ever seen. Starting the game off with a pact?

The pact was awesome. Quick dissing the pact!!

If you haven't seen a game before where different conversations can happen simultaneously- welcome to the so called 'Large Game'!

BM

[Battle Mage]

i like cyber's case here,,

but what about those we have not heard from,,, killa seven comes to mind,,, and did he even vote last lynch???

No offence to Cyberbob, but it's very hard for me to take him seriously, when he hasn't done the same to me. Blakadder is scum, and i'm sure enough of this that my vote shall not be changing today.

BM

[Battle Mage]

In answer to EGL's question (sorry it took me so long, meatworld issues):
Three things went through my mind:
1. I took his apparent love of his speedhammers (from looking at his avatar and sig) into account in my thoughts.

rofl. You were swayed by his avatar? What does it say? "I speedhammer regardless of affiliation...honest!" ??

2. I thought that he could have just overlooked Raider's request to allow StrangerCoug to speak.

Did you not think to ask this? It seems a valid question, but why would you not want to find out for sure from him?

3. After taking this time to calm down a bit, I came to thinking that the hammer was not that big of a deal. In hindsight, StrangerCoug was pretty scummy, even if I didn't think so at the time.

Wait. So, at the time, when you had just dropped the L-1 vote on SC, you didnt think he was very scummy? After seeing him come up town, you suddenly decided he DID look scummy?

IS NOBODY ELSE READING THIS BS!?!?

BM

[Battle Mage]

I forgot that I had voted him. I remembered fence-sitting until that point, and I still kind of was.

Lol, you cant keep your story straight can you? You were fence-sitting but decided to put SC precariously close to a lynch. You put him at L-1, and you were surprised and aggreived at the hammer? And you claiming SC looked scummy after knowing his affiliation is utter crap. It's simple logic that when you know something is true, you naturally look back at it leaning towards that perspective. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!

I'm as close to 100% sure you are scum as is possible without any rolebased information.

BM

[Battle Mage]

So a person with an unusual process is automatically put at the top on your scum list, BM?

unusual process? Chronic liar is the phrase i'd have picked.

BM

[Battle Mage]

i dont really get the above post atall...

BM

[Battle Mage]

Because I thought that StrangerCoug was a better lynch than anyone else, even if I was not 100% sure that he was scum.

if you thought he was the best lynch, why did you attack someone for dropping the hammer on him?

BM

[Battle Mage]

No offence to Cyberbob, but it's very hard for me to take him seriously, when he hasn't done the same to me.

Eh? What do you mean?

The Blakadder case. It needs your due care and attention.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I'm glad cyberbob at least is taking up the Tom case. Tom's defense does nothing for me. The BA case is decent, but Tom is better. When it's like pulling teeth to get votes on someone scummy, I know I'm on the right track.

Raider's 2004 seems a little bit out of the blue. Just a little.

That's EXACTLY how i feel about Blakadder. He's such obvscum, that anybody not voting for him is either his buddy, not paying attention, or a complete retard.

I won't settle for any other lynch today. Anybody opposing this lynch will earn my emnity. That's a BAAD mutha.

BM

[Battle Mage]

sorry been reading over,, but agian i find myself agreeing with BM i tried i really tried to fight it ,,, ba is a goodlynch


so

vote blackadder

<3

BM

[Battle Mage]

I dont see anyone scummy other then black adder, plus bm has a good case

vote blackadder

good work man. Btw, ooi, do you think i am scum in this game?

BM

[Battle Mage]

Ugh 2024 is scummy-sounding.

If we string Blakadder up today, i promise we'll deal with him tomorrow.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Ugh 2024 is scummy-sounding.

If we string Blakadder up today, i promise we'll deal with him tomorrow.

BM

You would both be barking up my ass if I had dropped a vote already, too. You know it and I know it.

Have i criticised anyone for voting so far? You're sounding paranoid. Just put me out of my misery already!

BM

[Battle Mage]

I have no clue why, but I was thinking about CyberBob when I replied to your post.

I'm sure he'll be very flattered. My point stands. I guess it comes down to whether or not you trust me.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Ugh 2024 is scummy-sounding.

If we string Blakadder up today, i promise we'll deal with him tomorrow.

BM

You would both be barking up my ass if I had dropped a vote already, too. You know it and I know it.

Have i criticised anyone for voting so far? You're sounding paranoid.

Just put me out of my misery already!

BM

What do you mean by that BM?

I mean exactly what i said.
There is absolutely no reason for Blakadder to still be alive, except so he can make a claim. There is no reason for the day to continue past that.

BM

[Battle Mage]

good man Tom!

Yeh, i'll happily hear a claim.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Hmm, interesting. Do you have any breadcrumbs you can refer us to? And an explanation for your target choices would be nice.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Damnit...

Unvote

I'm gonna hate myself for doing this later. I'm SO sure you're scum, and yet, i really dont want to lynch a doctor today.

Can you please explain why you didnt want to target the same person two nights in a row? What do you think, with hindsight, about the success of your protections? You targetted the two players that were most protown to you?

Don't think this is over, by any means. But depending on the answers to the above questions, i may have an idea for you.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I generally try to keep from picking the same person too much as doc. I want to keep myself fairly unpredictable.
Obviously, I wish I had picked Hascow last night, but other than that, I have no regrets.
Yes, I targeted the players who I thought were most pro-town. I figure it's the best idea when there are no proven power roles.
Also, that N1 and N2 up there should be N2 and N3. I got a bit confused because I replaced in on D2.

did you feel Hascow and Cyberbob were likely NK targets?

Who was targetted on Night 1?

By the 'success' of your protections, i meant 'do you think you prevented a kill?'

BM

[Battle Mage]

Here is our predicament now if you are telling the truth... There is no one to protect you if you really are the doctor. Our roleblocker is dead, unless we have a second one (quite unlikely).

Personally i'd be surprised if we didnt have 2 doctors, given the power role heavy mafia and sheer amount of killing roles.

Do I want to lynch him if he is the doctor? Not at all. I believe his claim, or at least I want to. It is still really early in the claim though, so if someone has information -- speak up.

I will sit with my vote for the moment, since you are back to L-2.

If you believed his claim, you'd have unvoted. I must admit, i'm a bit wary of this wagon now, but i wouldnt go as far as to say i BELIEVE the claim. It's a case of whether it's worth keeping him around to test him tonight.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Hmm, ok. I admit i'm starting to buy this.

how many kills do you protect from?

BM

[Battle Mage]

it should be in your role pm....

BM

[Battle Mage]

Oh, you mean how many protects do I get per night? Okay, I get one. I thought you were asking about my play history as doc.

So you only protect from 1 kill attempt?

Hmm...

BM

[Battle Mage]

Care to share what your "idea" for me is?

not now. If you can only protect from 1 kill, your value is somewhat limited. And i'm believing your claim enough to let you survive today.

BM

[Battle Mage]

My question and anyone can feel free to answer, wouldnt the doc claim be the safe claim if one was to make it up? Also if someone was the doctor wouldnt it be wiser to claim at L-2 to make sure everyone had enough time to unvote?

As I too do not wish to lynch a doctor

Unvote

The answers to both these questions are yes.

BM

[Battle Mage]

personally if i were a doc i would never claim it, i might claim watcher/tracker something anything but doc,,,

to me claiming doc=scum fishing for real doc but thats just me

It depends on the situation. But the real reason i'm inclined to believe Blakadder, is that during the period last night in which we were both online, he said he asked the Mod a question, and got a response within about 5 minutes. Sure enough, the Mod had just come back online after an hour absence.
If Blakadder is scum, then he has greater intelligence than i creditted him for. But given how capable a mafia player i do think he is, i dont think he could have made that up. So i'm happy to accept the mod confirmation of his role for the moment.

BM

[Battle Mage]

@ BA: Do you still think there are/is a/some mafia poisoner(s) as had previously been discussed where the mafia picks a target one night and they die the next?

Do you?

BM

[Battle Mage]

I know my activity this game is not what I want it to be, but I hope to fix that by the end of today.

That said:

I dont see anyone scummy other then black adder, plus bm has a good case

vote blackadder

I haven't finished the reread yet, but this stuck out at me. I might be the pot calling the kettle black, but does anyone else besides me find it a little bit weird that K7 comes out of absolutely nowhere and puts BA at L-2. On top of that, his vote is pretty sloppily explained.

Also, @springlullaby

I must have missed your question, but the vote is interesting.

I really don't know what's up with Skruff's, but he's modding a game that I'm currently in and he seems to have gone AWOL from that one as well (we've been in N1 for a week).

May I please know why you asked me that question?

Lol, this is K7. What the hell were you expecting? Unexplained votes are his forte. What IS unnerving about that post, is that he agrees with me. K7 never agrees with me, even when im confirmed town.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I can buy the Hascow protect on Night 2 aswell. But as for Cyberbob, you've never even mentioned him. I'm really torn on this. But, given how many suspects we have, i feel we can give Blakadder another night.

But, who's next?

BM

[Battle Mage]

hmm,, maybe its just me being paraniod, infact it probably is,,

korts was an Icelandic mafia Doc,
how can we be sure the BA is not the Portuguese mafia doc?

i mean if two of his partners are dead there really isn't a whole lot of use for him now is there? so why wouldn't he claim town doc

ok i am goin to re-read day 2 and 3 and see what i come up with,, i will leave my vote here untill i find some one as scumm and bring an actua case.

i think the trend we have is a protective/blocking mafia and an investigative mafia. I dont see us having a combination of the 2. too much of a coincidence.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I dont see a good reason not to lynch K7 at this point. I promised myself that i'd help put an end to his chronic lurking to victory, and string him up as soon as is viable. I think allowing him to cruise any further without posting anything of substance makes a mockery of the game.

So,

Vote: Killa seven

BM

[Battle Mage]

I don't know. I'm going to do another read/skim tonight and try to pick out who I feel is most pro-town. But I don't know whether I should announce my pick in-thread or not.

Could be best if you dont announce your decision in thread.
Obviously you should protect somebody you think is valuable to the town.
Protect someone protown if you cant find anyone who is breadcrumbing.



BM

[Battle Mage]

Also, BM, I don't like LAL here. K7 does this town or scum. Not the time to realize a personal vendetta, methinks.

It's hardly a personal vendetta. As town, K7 does try and participate. He generally just latches onto a target and lurks for the rest of the day. As scum, it seems he doesnt even bother doing that. I hate the concept of policy lynches, but in this case, i'd really hate to see somebody who isn't even playing end up winning as scum. Think of it as getting rid of deadweight, because if he is town, he isnt doing us much good, and we dont want him around at LyLo!

BM

[Battle Mage]

LAL= lynch a lurker???

LAL = Lynch all liars, I believe

Yes, but he quite clearly meant lurkers. :p

BM

[Battle Mage]

Bah, Lowell stole my vote. I'm going to

unvote, Vote: Tom

anyway for the previous reasons mentioned. Tom was number two on my list and I only held off removing my vote to ask BA about the mafia poisoners because I was mistaken on how many people died of poisoning the last night phase (meaning I thought he may have been lying about protecting Hascow). But then I looked back at that and read where he can only protect against one attempt at night, so I figured if he knew that and there was only one poisoning he wouldn't have much reason for dropping the poisoner theory.

At any rate, yeah, Tom is my contingency plan. Buddying, wagon jumping, and being generally scummy from here to there.

I'd still like to hear from CK on why he ignored Raider wanting to hear more from SC before lynching him.

would you mind clarifying the specifics of the case on Tom for me?

thanks,

BM

[Battle Mage]

I dont see a good reason not to lynch K7 at this point. I promised myself that i'd help put an end to his chronic lurking to victory, and string him up as soon as is viable. I think allowing him to cruise any further without posting anything of substance makes a mockery of the game.

So,

Vote: Killa seven

BM

i havent won that many games, you make it sound like im a master or something. btw you dont have a meta read on me even if you think you do.

I think i have as good a meta as anyone. Speaking for the games we have shared, you have always survived far longer than you should have done. Mafia is as much about survival as about winning, and you are given far too much leeway.

BM

[Battle Mage]

@BM
as fars as killa seven goes ,, i get it lurking bad but why now i mean with every thing else goin on in the game is now the correct time to policy lynch??

Yes, i think it is. It was right to give him a few days to let the problem sort itself out, but with no change, it would be careless to let him survive any further into the game.

BM

[Battle Mage]

The lurking on K7's part doesn't concern me. The fact that he comes out of nowhere and puts BA at L-2 for a pretty weak reason does. The vote backed up with the reason of "what BM said" just doesn't sit well with me. He conviently comes out of lurking to put BA at L-2 and then makes the reason that BM has a good case. Something just doesn't seem right about that.

Vote: killa seven

That said, springlullaby's uncooperativeness is getting really annoying.

The lurking is the reason why BM wants to lynch him. You want to lynch him because of putting BA at L-2. I no longer think of this as a LAL case as Caboose tried to make reason to it. I would like to hear from K7 before I even think about adding my vote to the mix.

why was putting BA at -2 scummy?

BM

[Battle Mage]

The lurking on K7's part doesn't concern me. The fact that he comes out of nowhere and puts BA at L-2 for a pretty weak reason does. The vote backed up with the reason of "what BM said" just doesn't sit well with me. He conviently comes out of lurking to put BA at L-2 and then makes the reason that BM has a good case. Something just doesn't seem right about that.

Vote: killa seven

That said, springlullaby's uncooperativeness is getting really annoying.

The lurking is the reason why BM wants to lynch him. You want to lynch him because of putting BA at L-2. I no longer think of this as a LAL case as Caboose tried to make reason to it. I would like to hear from K7 before I even think about adding my vote to the mix.

why was putting BA at -2 scummy?

BM

No, that's not what I said, either. Lurking by itself isn't particularly scummy and putting someone at -2 isn't scummy by itself either. But the combination of those two, IMO, are.

Lol, are you really saying that 2 non-scumtells make a scumtell? 0 + 0 = 1?

BM

[Battle Mage]

1636- netlava town, 4 night kills, including 2 diff mafia factions

This caught my eye. How do you know this?

1648- tom declares himself still alive [-, he doth protest too much]

Doesnt seem like a big deal to me. I did the same thing today...

1685- Tom thinks Lowell's vote should have been an FOS [-, coaching me????]

Personal reasons rather than scumminess.

1717- tom takes credit for the "cass will be forgotten" idea [- -, again, following]

Again? Where else did he do it?

1770- EGL votes SC for not denying survivor, FOSs tom and BM for buddying [+, good reason]

Where was i FoS'd? Why do you think that is valid?

1777- very odd defense from tom [-]

What was he defending FROM exactly?

That's my critical analysis, brief though it may be. Enjoy.

BM

[Battle Mage]

The lurking on K7's part doesn't concern me. The fact that he comes out of nowhere and puts BA at L-2 for a pretty weak reason does. The vote backed up with the reason of "what BM said" just doesn't sit well with me. He conviently comes out of lurking to put BA at L-2 and then makes the reason that BM has a good case. Something just doesn't seem right about that.

Vote: killa seven

That said, springlullaby's uncooperativeness is getting really annoying.

The lurking is the reason why BM wants to lynch him. You want to lynch him because of putting BA at L-2. I no longer think of this as a LAL case as Caboose tried to make reason to it. I would like to hear from K7 before I even think about adding my vote to the mix.

why was putting BA at -2 scummy?

BM

I dont think putting BA at L-2 is any bit scummy. That was just cabooses reason for voting K7.

why are you considering 'adding your vote to the mix' then?

BM

[Battle Mage]

The lurking on K7's part doesn't concern me. The fact that he comes out of nowhere and puts BA at L-2 for a pretty weak reason does. The vote backed up with the reason of "what BM said" just doesn't sit well with me. He conviently comes out of lurking to put BA at L-2 and then makes the reason that BM has a good case. Something just doesn't seem right about that.

Vote: killa seven

That said, springlullaby's uncooperativeness is getting really annoying.

The lurking is the reason why BM wants to lynch him. You want to lynch him because of putting BA at L-2. I no longer think of this as a LAL case as Caboose tried to make reason to it. I would like to hear from K7 before I even think about adding my vote to the mix.

why was putting BA at -2 scummy?

BM

No, that's not what I said, either. Lurking by itself isn't particularly scummy and putting someone at -2 isn't scummy by itself either. But the combination of those two, IMO, are.

Lol, are you really saying that 2 non-scumtells make a scumtell? 0 + 0 = 1?

BM

Let's use another analogy.

By itself, carbon is not a dangerous substance. What we call pencil lead is not lead at all, but graphite, which is all sheets of carbon. In fact, the basis of organic chemistry is the element carbon.

Also by itself, oxygen is not a dangerous substance either. We actually need it to live.

But, the compound CO (carbon monoxide) is a lethal poison.

Nice analogy. It falls flat however, given that Carbon Monoxide is produced from Carbon and Oxygen as a result of a

reaction

which combines the two together.

No such reaction occurs when you combine 'lurking' and 'putting someone at -2', unless there's something i've missed here. You claim neither act is scummy, and yet, together, they constitute a significant scumtell. Please explain this furthere for me.

BM

[Battle Mage]

why are you considering 'adding your vote to the mix' then?

BM

Right now I am not adding my vote to the mix. I would like a real reason for lynch someone. I guess I just have not been around long enough to lynch all lurkers yet.

do you think that reason will come directly from K7?

BM

[Battle Mage]

Spring, might i advise you to claim now?

[Battle Mage]

Im going on vacation.. please dont replace.

you have nothing to say about the people voting you?

would he care so much about staying in the game if he was town? Questionnable.

BM

[Battle Mage]

If Spring is mafia i'm leaning towards Icelandic. But i still think a claim is advisable.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Im going on vacation.. please dont replace.

you have nothing to say about the people voting you?

would he care so much about staying in the game if he was town? Questionnable.

BM

rescind this comment. meta wins.

SL, you have 1 post to claim, or i'll add my vote to the mix.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Leave me alone.

Vote spring

Why are you playing if you are not going to answer questions and are asking everyone to leave you alone?

I am playing, and I'm asking people to leave me alone because it's in town's interest.

Go pester someone else.


------------------------------------------------


Dear BM, why should I claim, am I anywhere near lynch yet?

It's fairly obvious why you should claim. You know it, and you can be damn sure that i know it. As a little incentive, if you DON'T claim now, i'll happily string you up whether you intend to claim later or not.

I am getting tired of time-wasters, and people who latch on to common practices. There's no rule saying you have to wait till -1 to claim. Imo, its a retarded idea in some cases. This is definitely 1 of those cases.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Dear BM, why should I claim, am I anywhere near lynch yet?

if my math is right youare at L-3 spring

awaits vote count

Unvote, Vote: SL

make that -2. Don't say i didnt give you a chance!

BM

[Battle Mage]

Lol, I hadn't realized the wagon on me sprung so fast. I think you guy who are voting me are pretty crap, when someone tell you to leave them alone, you do. I also wonder that you guys are prefering me over K7, you will have to explain that choice also.

The reason i voted for you was because you were breadcrumbing an investigative role to the point where you'd obviously be NKed, and i wanted us to get the information out in the open.

For the record, 2150 and 2153 by BM are very scummy.

Oh My God! At least i dont SUCK!

I've actually debated with claiming or not during the whole day, and clearly I can't be bothered with the day game so maybe this will pump up a little energy into the game.

Ya, i'd noticed. That's why you looked so damn obvious and i had to know for sure whether you were BSing or being honest.

I'm a swiss watcher, I half-heartedly breadcrumbed in my fist post this game: omega in slanton's name for Omega, the swiss watch label.

who the hell knows this?? lol

Result:

Night 1. Slanton didn't sent any action in.

Night 2. I'm not revealing at the moment.

Night 3. I targetted Skruffs, two people visited him - I think it is very likely that one is scum. I'm revealing one name for now.

-----------------

So, BM, your turn to claim and explain why you visited Skruffs last night.

I think revealing me first was rather silly, given you've already breadcrumed the other name fairly obviously.
That said, i can at least confirm your role. I did target Skruffs last night. And it should be fairly obvious from the fact HE'S NOT DEAD that i'm not scum! lol

I think you should reveal your Night 2 choice before the day is over. But if you want to do so in your own way, that's fine.

BM

[Battle Mage]

and given that i'm pretty sure he's not Portuguese (and hence, investigative role mafia)

Unvote

BM

[Battle Mage]

and given that i'm pretty sure he's not Portuguese (and hence, investigative role mafia)

Unvote

BM

Why?

I read his posts in isolation. His early interaction with Korts seemed to indicate bussing. Korts was Icelandic. I find it hard to imagine him attacking Korts, whilst being in the opposing mafia.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Well, I'm outed, kind of.

I won't fully reveal my role right now. However, I will say that I'm a protective role (no, I'm not a doc) that did indeed target Skruffs last night.

That makes me a little bit more suspicious of BM. While Skruffs didn't die, I could have interfered with BM's attempt at a Skruffs kill.

could have? hmm. I must admit i'm really curious as to your role now. :p

I didnt attempt to kill Skruffs last night.

BM

[Battle Mage]

could have? hmm. I must admit i'm really curious as to your role now. :p

I didnt attempt to kill Skruffs last night.

BM

Then what did you do to him?

You know my role. You tell me. Or, rather, Dont.

Now the way i see it is this:

We have 2 claimed investigative roles, and 2 claimed protection roles. Depending on what Caboose can actually do, im sure we can use these claims to mutually protect each other and have a powerful circle of power roles. Issues include the specifics of Caboose's role mechanic, and whether everyone is telling the truth, combined with the problem of who to lynch today.

I'm still not sure whether Caboose should claim so we can decide how we can work this, or whether he should not claim, and leave the scum in doubt about just how powerful he could be.

BM

[Battle Mage]

@BM: No, I don't know your role. Have you claimed?

...

you're an idiot.

I'd like to hear from Caboose now. Of the claims so far:

Springlullaby - 99% protown
Caboose - 91% protown
Blakadder - 90% protown

My doubts over Caboose come from the haste to NOT claim Doctor. Potentially concerned about being drawn up against Blakadder?
Blakadder is scummy as hell and barely paying attention. The claim bought him some time, but Doc is a fairly easy claim to make.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I don't know. I'm going to do another read/skim tonight and try to pick out who I feel is most pro-town. But I don't know whether I should announce my pick in-thread or not.

C

ould be best if you dont announce your decision in thread.

O

bviously you should protect somebody you think is valuable to the town.

P

rotect someone protown if you cant find anyone who is breadcrumbing.



BM

Italics not present in original post. But i felt it was pretty obvious.

So the second investigative role would be..uh...me.

BM

[Battle Mage]

today. Not all that long ago, given that i still remembered it, and was able to find it easily. I was hoping Blakadder-Doc could confirm himself by protecting me, and my life would be guaranteed.

BM

[Battle Mage]

@Tubby-i think we already reached your conclusion. But 1 is a very valid comment which i missed.

BM

[Battle Mage]

today. Not all that long ago, given that i still remembered it, and was able to find it easily. I was hoping Blakadder-Doc could confirm himself by protecting me, and my life would be guaranteed.

BM

I assume your sanity is confirmed?

I dont have my PM anymore, so i'd have to check if it says implicitly that i am sane. But i doubt the presence of variable sanity cops in a game like this anyway.

That said:

Caboose- can you confirm that your role would not have affected my investigation result last night?

BM

[Battle Mage]

today. Not all that long ago, given that i still remembered it, and was able to find it easily. I was hoping Blakadder-Doc could confirm himself by protecting me, and my life would be guaranteed.

BM

I assume your sanity is confirmed?

I dont have my PM anymore, so i'd have to check if it says implicitly that i am sane. But i doubt the presence of variable sanity cops in a game like this anyway.

That said:

Caboose- can you confirm that your role would not have affected my investigation result last night?

BM

My role couldn't have affected your result last night.
Have you investigated anyone who died already? That would tell you your sanity pretty quickly.

Well, it confirms i'm not insane or paranoid. But naivety is still a theoretical possibility.

BM

[Battle Mage]

im not sure. i really want to clarify what we're doing tonight before we move onto that. >.>

BM

[Battle Mage]

Should I protect one of the investigative roles and Caboose protect the other?

A Watcher isnt just an investigative role. It can also act as a protective role in it's own right.

Watcher
Doctor
Cop
Mystery Protective Role

It would be much easier if we knew what Caboose was, but ok.

Doctor Protects Watcher
Watcher Targets Cop
Mystery Protective Role Protects Doctor
Cop Investigates Mystery Protective Role

If Cop dies, Watcher can confirm 1 scumbag.
If Watcher dies, Doctor is confirmed scum.
If Doctor dies, Mystery Protective Role is confirmed scum.

It's the best i can think of so far. If we have any power role counter-claims out there that might clarify this a little, that'd be great now too. Also, Caboose, are you sure you dont want to clarify your claim, even though it is you who is most at risk atm?

BM

[Battle Mage]

thats nice. However, might i request absolutely no discussion of the pro's and con's of the plan, for the obvious reason that it gives scum an opportunity to communicate and exploit it.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Left.

[Battle Mage]

BM,

Are you saying that there is only one of each of those types of roles?

How should i know? lol!
I'm merely concerned that not everyone who has claimed a power role is telling the truth.

BM

[Battle Mage]

From page 77

1904- Lowell votes Tom, FOSs Blakadder
1910- EGL suggests two SKs and a vig
1925- skruffs votes springlullaby
1938- BM votes blakadder for "entirety of posts [-]
1942- Tom leans towards voting blakadder [-, more following]
1948- EGL FOSs BA for not seeming to care if SC was scum, points out Tom's following nature [+]
1959- Blakadder defends himself [+, good points]
1963- EGL votes blakadder
1978- cyber makes case on Tom, votes Tom [+]
1982- Tom's defense is a good offense, attacks cyber [?]
1980s- Tom/cyber argument rages
1998- BM repeats insistence than BA is scum
2004- raider votes BA for complaining about hammer after putting SC at L-1 [+, clear reasoning]
2018- spring votes caboose for not answering a question [-, ?]
2019- Lowell unvotes, votes BA
2021- BA leads w/ 4 votes (BM, EGL, raider, Lowell)
2022- tubby votes BA
2023- killaseven votes BA, lynch -2 [+, gutsy]
2024- Tom has "no qualms" about voting BA, doesn't vote [-, I hate these posts]
2029- Tom says his critics would be more angry if he HAD voted [---, this isn't a reason!]
2036- Tom votes BA, lynch -1, asks for a claim [+]
2038- BA claims doc, protected hascow N1 and cyber N2
2041- BM unvotes
2043- Tom equivocates
2056- tubby doesn't believe the claim
2057- raider unvotes
2061- caboose criticizes killa's vote [-, too easy, opportunistic]
2073- tubby explains why doc claim doesnt sit well [+, good point, brave stance]
2075- Lowell unvotes, votes Tom
2077- BM votes killaseven
2086- EGL unvotes, votes Tom
2089- Tom unvotes, votes springlullaby
2098- caboose repeats 2061, votes killaseven [-, really don't like this, did he finally decide it was "safe" to place a vote?]
2114- CK takes caboose to task for k7 vote [+, very good]
2128- caboose AGAIN reiterates more or less same case against k7
2129- bizairre post from spring [?]
2130- CK FOSs Tom
2137- tubby votes spring for 2129
2138- BA votes spring for 2129
2140- BM asks for spring to claim
2148- raider votes spring
2153- BM votes spring
2154- spring claims watcher, watched ? night 2, watched skruffs night 3, 2 visitors [+, believeable]
2155- BM claims being one of the people who visited skruffs
2162- Caboose claims protective role and that he visited skruffs
2174- BA pushes caboose to fully claim
2176- EGL votes spring
2194- BM outlines a plan of mass protection
2200- caboose claims firefighter, can protect from cremation

Some thoughts on claims:

1) Are we still forbidden from talking about BM's plan? Does really no one see why it makes no sense?

I only want it to be discussed if it is so flawed that we absolutely cannot use it. If we start pointing out holes in it, we cant then use it. If you think you have a good enough reason to do so, you may speak.

In particular, I'm wary of BMs post 2155. spring had just claimed that two people visited skruffs the previous night.

BM

, despite not being outed (that I could see)

I'd already claimed Cop. Quite a while ago. Just after BA had claimed Doc.

was quick to post and say he's absolved by the fact that skruffs didn't die.

Rule 1 of being a watcher. If you see someone go to your target, but the target doesnt die, they are almost certainly not scum. This game could be the exception, with scum having power roles, but its a bit of a reach, with 4 already dead. Anyway, you can have categorical proof that i didnt attempt to kill Skruffs last night- as the only kill which could have prevented it was an arsonist, and he was busy cremating Sensfan.

Caboose didn't block a kill, but there are clearly some non-killing scum roles out there.

Non-killing scum roles? You mean like scum power roles? I agree its a possibility, but 'CLEARLY'? You sound a bit too sure of yourself for my tastes.

And i agree with everyone who is starting to doubt BA atm...

BM

[Battle Mage]

BM, why did you choose Skruffs to investigate?

You results history please.

The answer to your first question should be fairly obvious if you know anything of mine and Skruffs' history. Likewise, my response to your second point should also be fairly obvious if you give it some thought. You'd think, if i was going to claim results, i'd have done so already.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Rule 1 of being a watcher. If you see someone go to your target, but the target doesnt die, they are almost certainly not scum. This game could be the exception, with scum having power roles, but its a bit of a reach, with 4 already dead. Anyway, you can have categorical proof that i didnt attempt to kill Skruffs last night- as the only kill which could have prevented it was an arsonist, and he was busy cremating Sensfan.

Another exception is the possibility of the mafia poisoner role where the poisonee doesn't die until the next night.

I've never heard of a Mafia Poisoner. I believe we had this discussion and Armlx and myself concluded that a Poisoner is by no means an anti-town role. That is, unless you have a superior meta to ours?

BM

[Battle Mage]

Rule 1 of being a watcher. If you see someone go to your target, but the target doesnt die, they are almost certainly not scum. This game could be the exception, with scum having power roles, but its a bit of a reach, with 4 already dead. Anyway, you can have categorical proof that i didnt attempt to kill Skruffs last night- as the only kill which could have prevented it was an arsonist, and he was busy cremating Sensfan.

Another exception is the possibility of the mafia poisoner role where the poisonee doesn't die until the next night.

Well, if we refer to the MS.net flash... That would certainly be the case.

wot?

BM

[Battle Mage]

Rule 1 of being a watcher. If you see someone go to your target, but the target doesnt die, they are almost certainly not scum. This game could be the exception, with scum having power roles, but its a bit of a reach, with 4 already dead. Anyway, you can have categorical proof that i didnt attempt to kill Skruffs last night- as the only kill which could have prevented it was an arsonist, and he was busy cremating Sensfan.

Another exception is the possibility of the mafia poisoner role where the poisonee doesn't die until the next night.

Well, if we refer to the MS.net flash... That would certainly be the case.

wot?

BM

We've been over this already. Just google mikeburnfire and you'll find his "Common Mafia Roles" flash. Mafia Poisoner is in there.

Lol no offence to MBF, but that doesnt really prove anything. Unless he's modding (which he isn't). Has anyone actually seen 'Mafia Poisoner' used on MS? For my part, i think there's a very good reason why such a role is unlikely to be used, especially in a game like this.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Rule 1 of being a watcher. If you see someone go to your target, but the target doesnt die, they are almost certainly not scum. This game could be the exception, with scum having power roles, but its a bit of a reach, with 4 already dead. Anyway, you can have categorical proof that i didnt attempt to kill Skruffs last night- as the only kill which could have prevented it was an arsonist, and he was busy cremating Sensfan.

Another exception is the possibility of the mafia poisoner role where the poisonee doesn't die until the next night.

I've never heard of a Mafia Poisoner. I believe we had this discussion and Armlx and myself concluded that a Poisoner is by no means an anti-town role. That is, unless you have a superior meta to ours?

BM

http://mikeburnfire.sitesled.com/mscumB.swf

I don't know why you didn't follow the link the first time I had posted it, but here it is again.

Also, you and Arm concluding something doesn't mean everybody has.

P.S. - Arm was scum.

I probably did. My memory isnt great. And it doesn't prove anything, so it wouldnt affect my opinion anyway.

I'd say Armlx and myself were probably the most experienced in terms of quantity of games on MS, with the exceptions of perhaps Lowell and Skruffs?

P.S. - I'm aware of this. But scum tend not to lie about provable things...

BM

[Battle Mage]

BM, why did you choose Skruffs to investigate?

You results history please.

The answer to your first question should be fairly obvious if you know anything of mine and Skruffs' history. Likewise, my response to your second point should also be fairly obvious if you give it some thought. You'd think, if i was going to claim results, i'd have done so already.

BM

The more I hink about it the less I like you BM. You see, I expressively
asked you to state your mind on Skruffs today, which would have been a golden opportunity to breadcrumd an innocent or guilty on Skruffs if you were really cop, but you were nowhere near explicit.

Do you have an explanation for that?

You should stop fishing, and start thinking. I'm not voting for Skruffs. So do you really think i have a guilty on him? Your lack of thought is starting to grate on me now. I'm not claiming anything else today.

Are we clear?

BM

[Battle Mage]

vote: Tom Mason

He's getting more suspicious with each post.
@BM: If you've already claimed Cop, why wouldn't you tell us your night results?

You'll just have to trust me.

BM

[Battle Mage]

vote: Tom Mason

He's getting more suspicious with each post.
@BM: If you've already claimed Cop, why wouldn't you tell us your night results?

You'll just have to trust me.

BM

It is becoming hard for me to trust you when you are not in agreement over the poisoner role.

If Skruffs turns up dead in the next cycle... I think we have our answer.

This isn't an issue of 1 of us is right, the other is scum. I will accept that i am right until you can prove otherwise. I dislike the way you seem to suggest me disagreeing with you over something you havent even tried to defend is scummy...

@Blakadder- im surprised Lowell hasnt said anything yet. If he intends to, then i see no reason why you cant. But we need to get this sorted before night.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Okay, there were two things:
First, I'm surprised no one has said this yet, but Caboose being an arsonist and not a doc shoots a hole in your idea.
Second, there is no way in your plan to find out if the cop (being you) is innocent. That would be a pretty convenient situation if you were scum.

Lol. In case you hadn't noticed, i'm the only claimed investigative role. How do you suppose i confirm myself, apart from with my results?
As far as your first point goes, i dont really understand. Firstly, Caboose is not an Arsonist, Caboose is a Doc who can only protect against arsonist kills. Obviously because i drafted this plan BEFORE CABOOSE CLAIMED THIS, it could be a stumbling block. But a partial Doc is better than nothing.
Which raises the point- for balance purposes, would we be likely to have another Doc that can only protect from 1 type of kill? Or is the Arsonist immune to the standard doctor's protection?

BM

[Battle Mage]

Correction: By "Caboose being an arsonist" I mean firefighter.

Interesting that Lowell didnt pick up on this.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Okay, there were two things:
First, I'm surprised no one has said this yet, but Caboose being an arsonist and not a doc shoots a hole in your idea.
Second, there is no way in your plan to find out if the cop (being you) is innocent. That would be a pretty convenient situation if you were scum.

Very interesting. Very interesting indeed.

how so?

BM

[Battle Mage]

I just pointed out what needed to be said. I realized that there was no way in the plan to confirm BM's innocence.
@BM: Yes, I suppose your results are the only way to confirm your innocence right now, but considering that you haven't even shared that...

Given that i was under no suspicion before i claimed, i see no reason to do so. Or do you think claiming Cop under no pressure is a scumtell worth lynching over?

@EGL-yeh, i kinda agree with you. With hindsight, Cab not claiming fully was probably better, so sorry.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Wife and I are back from the hospital, baby is doing good just not getting much sleep.

@BM is there a reason you are not telling us your results?

Congrats! And the answer to your question is yes, obviously. Do i ever do things without some kind of reason?

BM

[Battle Mage]

Sorry about my absence. Had no internet access during the week due to OS dying. Will catch up soon.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Sorry, I have been a little MIA lately finishing up the last week of exams and presentations.

I feel as if not disclosing who you have targeted and investigated to this point is not helpful to the game, BM.

I'm afraid that's your lookout. You can either trust my judgement, or string me up. It's not like this is anything new to the game. The reason i havent been lynched yet, is because the majority have trusted that i am town. If i am town, you can take for granted the following:

A. I am experienced enough to have a fairly good idea about what im doing, and i am in the best position to make such a decision.
B. If I AM making the wrong decision, i'm a stubborn git, and won't be talked round anyway.

There are a number of reasons you are choosing not to disclose, some of which really would support scummy play -- depending on who you have investigated.

Umm, no. If i was scum, the only reason for me not disclosing results would be BECAUSE I DIDNT HAVE ANY. lol

Why would you claim your role if you were in no way being pressured given you had no information to share (willingly as it seems)?

who said i had no information to share? I'm just not sharing it now.

Everyone else who has made a claim has had to address questions from yourself and the rest of us regarding why they made decisions. It may be a bold statement to make on my part, but I am developing the impression you are not as town as you may be trying to claim.

lol
Let me get this right, again:

Everyone is happy, BM is under no pressure.
BM makes a Cop Breadcrumb
A few people claim power roles, and BM is confirmed non-vanilla.
BM is forced to make a full claim of Cop.
Suddenly, BM is scum for claiming Cop.

I'm happy to answer questions. But i'm in the best position to determine what needs to be revealed today and what doesn't, about my results.

When I look back at your vote history and such in this game, it strikes me as interesting. On Day two, you stated multiple times that Netlava was a "bad lynch" but as the vote count grew... You turned and voted for him, without no real explanation. I am not understanding it. And it is everyone else (myself included) at fault for never addressing this before. It all seems very strange to me when you ask for Netlava to claim ("so we have the opportunity to stop a quick lynch") but your vote came with the words "let's end this day now".

Yep, looking back at my posts alone, i dont know why i joined the wagon, except because the day was dragging and i wanted to move on, and get another investigation. It was basically a compromise, as far as i recall.

And on the subject of the poisoner, I see no reason not to believe the idea that the victim dies during a later phase. It is supported by the fact that no one died of poisoning until Night Two. And I would even consider the small excerpt when hasdgfas was poisoned in Night Three as possible hinting. It was not an immediate death, but his words suggested something from earlier influencing his situation.

That sounds reasonable. A delayed kill would fit the flavour. But i still don't see why Poisoning would be Anti-town. Nobody thus far has given any example of a Poisoner used as scum, whereas i have an example of a Poisoner as Protown (it was me). lol

Quite honestly, I digress from an earlier post/statement of mine when I said the least believable roleclaim was BA. At the moment, I believe you are the least likely to be who you say you are. None of us have been given any evidence to the contrary and you have not attempted to dissuade anyone, only offering up smilies and wordplay.

You will learn that, if you read any of my games, i tend not to defend myself as town. I feel it should be fairly self-explanatory that i'm town, and anyone voting for me will not be dissuaded by logic.

I have a hunch and I have learned through both mafia and in real life, my instincts are usually right.

Vote: Battle Mage

Disclaimer: If parts of this are a little odd, it has to do with the fact I am at work and have been bothered by a number of students in the last hour while trying to write this.

Rofl. 2 things:

Firstly, when this game is over, you have to promise that you wil never again use the phrase "my instincts are usually right". Try my shoes for size and you'll understand just how ridiculously arrogant and foolish it sounds.

Secondly, have you considered asking some of the students whether they have opinions on this? I think its possible a fresh perspective might do your scumdar some good. lol

BM

[Battle Mage]

Congrats on the child, raider.

I feel we have nothing to lose by following BM's plan even with the weak doctor.

Really? Because I think you just told the serial killers who was safe to be targeted for a night kill.

So you are willing to orchestrate something in the open based on one man's word -- which could be a complete lie -- and sacrifice the rest of the players who are unprotected to the three-plus roles that we have seen have the ability to kill?

I think it is a bad idea.

Lol, worried about the game being broken, now the mafia power roles have been decimated?
That said, i agree we need a new plan. And i believe i've already stated this, before my absence.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I think that BM's plan should be forgotten about at this point. I'm protecting whoever I think is best.

Same here.
And BM, you probably shouldn't say who you're going to investigate as your investigation will probably be screwed with by a framer, if there is one.

This is a very valid point. It wouldnt surprise me for 1 mafia group to have an investigative role distorter.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I think that BM's plan should be forgotten about at this point. I'm protecting whoever I think is best.

The plan is a terrible idea. By using it, all it does is give an advantage to the three roles that can cremate, dismember, and drown, as well as the mafia poisoners.

I wouldnt go that far. It gives us control over our own destiny, in that we can guarantee the survival of certain roles, and more importantly, allows us to confirm others. It wasnt ALL bad!

Anyone who thinks it is a good idea clearly is not considering it publicly addresses who is safe to target and who should be left alone during the night phase.

Isn't scum avoiding our power roles at night a 'best case scenario'? rofl

So, the watcher would learn nothing. The mystery protect role would be useless. The doctor's protection would go to waste. And the cop role -- possessed by a person who refuses to share information -- would be unhelpful.

The idea is that we would ensure the continued existence of all powerful roles. Hopefully, if all claims were true, the scum might be forced to give up 1 of their own in order to take 1 of the power roles out, which is a great swap. Such a plan also means that the scum have to get power roles LYNCHED.

For BM to suggest we do not discuss the huge negatives of this completely flawed plan is highly scummy. He was the only one who could really benefit from it the whole time, because who is going to target BM if they know there was someone watching? The doctor can only stop one kill. The mystery protect can only stop the Arsonist -- and only if he targets the Arsonist (presumably, I still think it should happen in reverse, too).

This is the exact reason discussion was bad. If we intended to use the plan, you pointing out publically the exact way to break it, so the mafia groups can co-ordinate, would wreck it. But as we arent using it, it's irrelevant now. Hopefully you've learnt your lesson.

BM

[Battle Mage]

If the plan was so obviously flawed, why didn't you bring it up when it was relevant?
Regardless,

unvote, vote:BM

because of his plan, and because he seems to be the only remaining person openly denouncing the idea of Mafia poisoners.

Why is denouncing the mafia poisoner idea so bad? Nobody has given any reason to back up the claim. It really irritates me when people are brainwashed because something is simply taken as a given, when it doesnt really make sense! 0.o
And by use of the word 'openly' do you mean to suggest that other people disagree but are just keeping quiet? Why is this less scummy?

BM

[Battle Mage]

The vast majority of BM's defense looks like WIFOM to me. He has just been saying repeatedly "Why would scum claim cop at that point?" It might just be paranoia, but I get the feeling that he's trying to clear himself solely based on WIFOM.

Lol, when you break it down, everything is WIFOM. Towntells are WIFOM, because if you were scum, of course you would try and do them. This is why any defence in mafia can be crumbled with those 5 capital letters. But it's simple logic really. Not, "why would scum claim cop at that point?" -
Why would

I

claim cop at that point?
It's WIFOM, but why would i draw more attention to myself than necessary?
A quick meta would tell you that it's a towntell for me. But then, a towntell is WIFOM too.

So, as is the case with any defence, mine is flawed. But then, given no real 'attack' has been made, with the exception of Tom's point about the Netlava wagon, which could be valid, is that really surprising?

BM

[Battle Mage]

No, he has specifically said that there is no such thing as a mafia poisoner and therefore the mafia do not have them.

Sorry, you are right. I was misreading his words -- which were pretty clear -- and arguing the logistics of the role instead of the role itself.

Since I just went back to look at his posts and what he had to say about poisoners.. I do find it very interesting that when the poisoner subject was first mentioned, he did not denounce them at all. In fact, he said the following:

In any case, i'm inclined to think the Poisoner(s) are protown, or neutral.

When EGL asked BA whether or not he believed poisoners were in the game, BM interjected to ask EGL if he thought there were poisoners. Is that not a rhetorical question considering one of the major people who were advocating the existence of a poisoner role was EGL?

Lol, regarding my quote, that is not me denouncing the existence of a poisoner. That is me denouncing the argument that we are dealing with mafia poisoners. And the point about EGL, was probably me trying to get his thoughts down in concrete.

It is not until this current phase, during just the last week of real time that BM has publicly said he did not know of the existence of a poisoner role in mafia since he had never seen one.

I have seen one. In fact, i was one, in Return of the Mafia. I was protown, and had an optional Poisoning kill.

Very interesting to backtrack to a comment he made during Day Three:

Poisoning and Cremation aren't Icelandic kills.
Dismembering and Drowning aren't Portuguese kills.

Drowning sounds like it could be the Icelanic kill, flavour wise. Cremation could be the Portuguese kill. That means we either have 2 SK's, or one of 'Poisoning' and 'Dismembering' is a Vigilante. What concerns me is that we had 2 poisoning kills on Night 2, which i cant really explain without some kind of whacky mechanics.

I think it is pretty evident that poisoning would be the mafia kills in this game. There are two of them because there are two mafias. One mafia happened to be targeted by the other mafia for a poisoning, by chance. I would expect the kill types are consistent for the mafias -- to me it does not make sense to have a Vigilante/SK who can poison and have one mafia that can as well. The killing roles seems carefully crafted to be unique.

I think it's pretty evident that that is not the case. If the two mafia groups can poison, why have we only had 1 night where both mafias have killed, despite the fact that the Mafia have the vast majority of the firepower in the game? And why the hell would 2 mafia groups have kills of the same flavour, when the Mod has clearly put so much effort into differentiating them (giving them each different, but equal powers)??
I cant explain the double poisoning kill, except possibly an Enhancer type role, which gave the Poisoner an extra 'shot', or a Bookie mechanic, which has been used recently on MS to give multiple kills.

From that quote and the way BM has played this whole poisoning issue, I do not find it a far fetched possibility that he is actually the Icelandic Mafia's Poisoner -- given he tried to discredit it was an Icelandic kill.

As far as i, and apparently you, can see, i have been consistent throughout the game on the matter of a Poisoner.

You have yet to give me one example on MS of a poisoner being mafia btw.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I think the Arsonist makes a good case on BM.

Unvote
Vote:BM

I don't like BM's plan and persistence that the plan be followed even though obv. flaws are being pointed out.

Good post! Allows me to address te entire case concisely.

I can see your point here. But with the power roles we have, any plan will be weak in some way. People only started coming up with flaws gradually it seems, and had we gone to night straight away, without those comments, we might have fared ok. Better at least, than we would have without any protown co-ordination.

I don't like that he claims under no pressure but offers no scum to lynch or townies to confirm (other than Skruffs and only because SL saw him visit skruffs).

I only claimed fully when i was under pressure for being seen investigating Skruffs. Up till then, i had merely breadcrumbed, which apparently, nobody had noticed- not even the guy that was meant to.

I don't like that BM argues against the mafia poisoner role and uses Skruffs being alive as an excuse when there is no proof that the mafia poisoners aren't as they have been thought to be by others

There is no proof that they are either. Flawed argument.

and points out he + arm "concluded" that there are no such things or that they aren't anti-town roles or that they can't be in this game because they've never seen them on MS.Net. Sorry but that logic is horseshit and relies on outguess the mod via what's been done/common on MS.net as its focal point. Craplogic.

BS. If a role has only ever been used on MS as protown, and never as scum, what is the likelyhood of it being scum vs town? If there is a Doctor in a game, is it statistically more likely to be a protown doctor, or a mafia doctor?
Of course it isnt conclusive. But, from the way everyone has been arguing it, i'm pretty damn certain that the Poisoner in this game is protown, or possibly neutral.

Also, Arm was scum. I don't think I'd trust him on that point, you know? Mafia poisoners could be very good for mafias to have in games with pro-town tracker/watcher roles if they don't know what's going on and I think we can see why.

So could Neutral poisoners. And Protown Poisoners could stir up trouble too. Armlx's affiliation was irrelevant. You think that he would lie about something easily provable as scum?

BM

[Battle Mage]

Plus I find trying to plan out all the town's power roles during the day thread, who they will target and the lot, to be scummy, since the mafia can see all of it and plan against it.

I've responded to this already, for reference. It seemed better to be in charge of our own destiny, rather than give the scum the dice.

BM

[Battle Mage]

If I knew what you were saying, then you would not have needed to clarify.

On paper, BM's plan is still flawed and far from airtight.

I will not argue it further with you, because there is no point. I just think the use of the words "decent concept" to describe that plan are inaccurate when you look at the plan and the manner which BM devised it. Even if all of four of them are the roles they attest to being and they went through with the plan, the others are still at risk and BM is safe thanks to the watcher role.

The Watcher would not be at risk either, because if the mafia could not co-ordinate, which was fairly likely, until you blew your load. The firefighter means that the Doctor would be at risk, but before that claim, 1 protective role could also be guaranteed by the other.

I'll post some more later. In the meantime, can everyone say whether or not they think the Poisoner is Mafia, Town or Neutral. If you choose 'Mafia' you must explain why:

1. You think the role is being used here, given that it has never been used as anti-town on MS before? What makes you think this game is any different?

Then, if you think both mafias have a poisoner, please explain why:

2. There was only night with 2 kills? Seems a bit far-fetched to me...
3. The Mod went to such lengths to make the mafias different, and then gave them the same kill flavour?

Otherwise, if you think only 1 mafia has a poisoner, please explain why:

4. A member of the Icelandic Mafia was killed by Poisoning, meaning the Poisoner cannot be Icelandic.
5. Why would 1 mafia group have a delayed kill, and not the other? Seems unbalanced, no?

Please get answer all applicable questions clearly in your next post. Then we can get this matter resolved, and move on.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Question 2 does not make a lot of sense. Could you rephrase it?

Sorry. Should say "There was only ONE Night with 2 kills?"

BM

[Battle Mage]

Thank you.
I think that the poisoners are Mafia. I assume that both mafias have one, but I am not sure.
1: That doesn't hold any water. Mods can include whatever roles they want.

This is Skitzer. Not the kinda guy who would go completely crazy in his first large game, which is, you'll note, a NORMAL game. Secondly, you failed to explain why you think it is more likely that Skitzer has included a role that has never appeared on MS than 1 that has, with the same mechanic?

2: That seems to be the only way that it would make sense for there to be mafia poisoners. If the poisoners were pro-town they probably would not have killed every night.

Vigilantes kill every night, barring possibly Night 0.

3: I honestly am not sure about this one. Just a theory, but do you think that there could be three mafias? (i.e., Mafia 1 has a Tracker and a Watcher, Mafia 2 has a Doctor and Roleblocker, and Mafia 3 has two poisoners?)

It is theoretically possible that we have a 3rd mafia group, but seems unlikely based on the kills we've had so far:

Cremation - Arsonist
Drowning - Icelandic
Dismembering - Portuguese
Poisoning - Vig/SK

Is what i think we concluded. But, as i dont believe Poisoners can be Mafia, i obviously do not think we have a mafia group consisting of 2 poisoners. lol
And i think you are beginning to see the flaws in your original judgement.

BM

Do you not see any reason to question the people that think that there are no poisoners?[/quote]

[Battle Mage]

ah sorry, missed the last question. No, i dont think anybody now thinks there is not a Poisoner.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Cremation - Arsonist
Drowning - Icelandic
Dismembering - Portuguese
Poisoning - Vig/SK

Is what i think we concluded. But, as i dont believe Poisoners can be Mafia, i obviously do not think we have a mafia group consisting of 2 poisoners. lol
And i think you are beginning to see the flaws in your original judgement.

BM

This is what YOU have concluded. Not "we" as a collective group of players.

It's the most logical conclusion, statistically and flavour wise.

Because only one night was a double poison kill does not say that only one or neither mafia is a poisoner. Nor does the fact that you have never seen a poisoner as mafia before.

Have you?

A ton of players have been replaced, some roles more than once, which could explain the reasoning there have not always been two mafia/poisoning kills. There is the possibility that they both targeted the same player. Small chance, but it is still a chance. Just like there is a chance that there are not mafia poisoners.

The chance of there not being mafia poisoners just happens to be alot larger. But i guess that doesnt bother you?
And besides, cross-kills might invoke shared flavour. Just a thought...

But it makes most sense for both poisoners to be the same type of role -- i.e. Mafia. I would scratch my head and never understand it if one is mafia and one is a vig/SK role.

I doubt there are 2 poisoners. But perhaps the mechanic of delayed kills accounts for so many missing kills?

Those types of roles are distinguishable from the mafia. You can argue that skitzer tried to make the mafia's distinctly different -- but he did that in their investigative roles. Each of them needs a kill, more than likely, so what does it matter if they are the same type of kill?

Find me 1 mafia game, in the New York Forum, where there are 2 distinct mafia flavoured groups, with the exact same kill method.

Cremation is obviously an arsonist. And I would suggest that dismemberment is a pretty obvious serial killer tactic -- it is a sadistic ritual. Mafia kills are typically quick and/or quiet. That leaves drowning -- which could be a mafia tactic but makes sense to be as the vigilante's tactic.

I'd have thought so. But Drowning is clearly Icelandic, and if we DO have 2 poisoners, the only kill method left for Portuguese is Dismemberment. How does Drowning scream Vig? rofl

I stand by my vote. All you have argued against your naysayers, BM, are things that cannot be proven until a lynch actually occurs of someone in any of these roles. And you know that. I do not like the way you try to steer the ship with your posts, with the pact, with the plan for the power roles, etc.

That's lovely. But you have yet to answer my questions. Hop to it.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I think it is possible the the poisoner is town as it would be harder to pick your kills and you would need to plan things out more. However, in the end I would have to think they are scum simply because they can kill people even after they are killed.

Why does this matter though? We are looking for scum not the poisoner.

Exactly. At worst, the Poisoner is an SK.

And ok Cyberbob, i'll stand to a Tom Mason lynch.

Unvote, Vote: Tom Mason

Methinks thou doth protest too much!

BM

[Battle Mage]

I like BM's plan.

~ this was dec 7th

If the plan was so obviously flawed, why didn't you bring it up when it was relevant?
Regardless,

unvote, vote:BM

because of his plan, and because he seems to be the only remaining person openly denouncing the idea of Mafia poisoners.

~this was dec 15th

so it took you that long from being completely on board with the plan to hating it and voting bm?

vote: Tom Mason

He's getting more suspicious with each post.
@BM: If you've already claimed Cop, why wouldn't you tell us your night results?

why does it matter if he reveals his findings are you getting nervous??

that and to top it all off,, ( wich i know this is the pot callin the kettle black) but your posts are about as worthless as a lurker you post no content no original opinion nothin, your like that kid at a fight thats standing behind the fighters yellin, hey are you gonna let him get away with that, eggin them on.

that and i don't like the fact that every other post you bring up the poisoner thing ,, enough already we know they exsist but dop you have a thought on alignment??

If you're going to attack me, at least respect me by not using crap logic.
You ignored that during that eight-day period where I changed stances on BM's plan, people had pointed out the flaws in the plan that were not visible on the 7th (which I will remind you is the day that BM released the plan).

Weren't visible? You mean to say, they were visible, you just didnt point them out. And it's only when they were brought to public light that you acknowledged them. Which is why Tubby is, legitimately, attacking you.

Of course it is important that the cop reveal his results. Witholding important information from the town is in no way helpful.

Erm, what did you claim again?

And you resort to insulting me as well. Great. I know have almost no doubt in my mind that BM and Tubby are scumbuddies.

good. Now i feel alot less responsible for allowing you to be strung up today.

Still good to lynch either Tom Mason or BA.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Blackadder's Christmas Carol came on today and will be on again tomorrow on BBC America.

in game communication?

BM

[Battle Mage]

@ BM: Can you get a guilty on neutrals?

I dont think my PM specifically mentioned them.

BM

[Battle Mage]

so ba isn't strung up at this point why??

I do not think killing ba is the best choice right now. If he is a doctor he will not live through the night anyways and if he is alive tomorrow then we can relook at it.

I am not understanding the case on Tom yet but I have not been able to dig through and find everything yet.

This is not awesome logic. We have a Watcher, who will, if he has any sense, Watch the Doctor if he feels he is under threat. Also, has nobody else noticed that BA, the claimed Doctor, and the one guy who can ensure my survival to tomorrow, is the one panicking about me not claiming results today? 0.o

BM

[Battle Mage]

long and the short of it i believe ba is a false claim and he is some kind of scum,,

anyone else would have shut up protected bm and waited to see if there qwas a result not make a big deall about his investigations and him not revealing the results,,

qft.

BM

[Battle Mage]

@ BM: Can you get a guilty on neutrals?

I dont think my PM specifically mentioned them.

BM

So is it safe to assume you can't? Because if you can't, it doesn't make much sense to have two neutrals with delayed kills that can fuck with the tracker/watcher roles and not detected by the cop and then kills by the mafias that can be seen by watchers/trackers and then a cop who can get guilty results on them.

Actually that makes alot of sense. The neutrals would be ALONE, whereas the mafia are GROUPS with power roles themselves. The tracker and watcher roles you refer to, where scum btw, so i wouldnt consider them protown power roles.
But i dont think results on neutrals matters either way. They are neutral. lol

Also, how would a cop fit in with the other investigative roles we've had?

we've had 1 protown investigative role from what i remember. And 2 scum investigative roles. So i wouldnt be surprised if im not the only investigative protown role out there.

Now, you can sit there and come up with different ways to rationalize no delayed kill, but if we wise up and become pragmatic about it, we can see there is more evidence leading to delayed kills than not.

I dont think it matters whether we are dealing with a delayed kill or not. Why do you think it does?

We can also see that there is evidence of two roles that kill by poisoning considering we've seen two deaths by poisoning in the same night.

That's poor logic. I've seen and listed in this thread plenty of things that could result in that double kill. Especially if we are dealing with a neutral. It seems highly unlikely that we have more than 1 poisoning role.

We know there are five killing roles. We know two of them use poisoning as a kill method, and honestly, when you see no poisoning deaths N1 and then see at least one every night since, that's evidence of the delayed kill tactic. Not in my opinion, but flat out.

4. lol
You have a point about the lack of poisoning deaths on day 1. It's not concrete, but it makes sense. But...i still dont see how this really matters.

Why do you think dismemberment and drowning are both of the mafias opposed to SKs, other than you haven't been in a mafia game where two mafias had the same kill method or you haven't been in a game with mafia poisoners/delayed kill method? Please be specific to this game.

I have been specific thanks. You just arent reading fully. So i'll say it again.

We have 2 distinct mafia groups in this game. It isnt especially flavour heavy, but its clear that the Mod has gone to certain lengths to differentiate between the Swiss Town, and the Portugese and Icelandic Mafias. We can be fairly sure that the Cremation kills are by the Arsonist, and assuming the poisoning is not Mafia, which is fairly logical, that only leaves Drowning and Dismemberment and the Mafia kills. Drowning is flavour logical for Icelandic Mafia- a country surrounded by water. I dont see the connection between Portugal and Dismemberment, but im sure there is 1 somewhere.

By contrast, you seem to claim that we have 3 SK's - Drowning, Dismemberment and Cremation (Arsonist), as well as 2 mafia groups with power roles. 1 of the SK's has a counter in the town, and for the sake of balance in what is a NORMAL game, that would require the town to have a foil against Dismemberment and a foil against Drowning. So unless players come forward with rolenames like "Swiss Lifeguard" and "Swiss Surgeon", i am right, and you are wrong.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Edit: we havent had 1 protown investigative role dead yet. we have a dead RB, a claimed Doc, Watcher and Cop.

BM

[Battle Mage]

SOUNDS LIKE TIME FOR A FESTIVE-STYLE TREATY/PACT!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Battle Mage]

Wow. So the Portuguese kill couldn't have been dismemberment, the "only kill left for the Portuguese" according to BM. Good catch. I can't believe I didn't notice that.

Sorry about the absence. Yep, this is right, im not sure why i didnt see this sooner. Given that Portuguese would then have to be either Poisoning or Cremation kills, who claimed Arsonist?

BM

[Battle Mage]

Just for fun I'm guessing Arsonist to be German (Holocaust) and Dismemberer to be Spanish (Inquisition) based on flavor.

so you think the arsonist is scum? Who claimed arsonist?

BM

[Battle Mage]

Nobody claimed Arsonist. I believe Cab claimed Firefighter.

Ah yeh, thats right. Damn, im being dumb today...
Isnt firefighter a safeclaim for a member of the Cremation Mafia? Just a thought.
How balanced would an Arsonist/Firefighter be in a game of this size, with power role mafias?

BM

[Battle Mage]

Why do you think cremation is Portuguese?

because i dont think the poisoning kill is. Seems like process of elim to me.

[Battle Mage]

Just for fun I'm guessing Arsonist to be German (Holocaust) and Dismemberer to be Spanish (Inquisition) based on flavor.

so you think the arsonist is scum? Who claimed arsonist?

BM

I don't think the arsonist is scum.

wait. what? :S

BM

[Battle Mage]

Hallelujah, someone has seen the light.
Good catch on that one, EGL. I honestly can't believe that I didn't see that myself.
Got any defense to this, BM?

defence? erm, i didnt read the OP correctly? -.-

BM

[Battle Mage]

Also I would like to note that, at this time, the only thing we can absolutely certain of in terms of killing models for the game is that Portuguese uses poisoning as a kill method.

lol

[Battle Mage]

Why do you think cremation is Portuguese?

because i dont think the poisoning kill is. Seems like process of elim to me.

It's official. You're braindead.

so you say the portuguese mafia has a delayed kill? Or the kill is merely poisoning flavoured?

BM

[Battle Mage]

I believe it's both a delayed kill and poisoning flavored.

do you think it is balanced for 1 mafia group to have a delayed kill, and not the other?

BM

[Battle Mage]

no i have been questioning it from the beginning but i also think BA is the poisoner and needs to be lynched

I think my view on this should be clear. I dont think hunting for a Poisoner is productive.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Also I would like to note that, at this time, the only thing we can absolutely certain of in terms of killing models for the game is that Portuguese uses poisoning as a kill method.

lol

but bm theres this really super poisonous fish and it comes from portugal so it has to be them!!!!

plus none of their peeps died from poisoning so it has to be them,,,

now if we only knew who there were??? (*ponders this awhile*)

lol luv ya buddy

BM

[Battle Mage]

im getting the mod to resend my night choices to me. If i have them, i cba to look right now.

BM

[Battle Mage]

ok the mod got back to me. Im still doubtful of a Portuguese poisoner, but ill accept that it is a possibility.

BM

[Battle Mage]

So if you don't believe in the Porto Poisoner, then who do you believe to be scum and why?

those 2 issues arent even linked. One is based on who we need to lynch, and the other is based on role mechanics.

BM

[Battle Mage]

also

Unvote

why hasnt skruffs been replaced yet?

BM

[Battle Mage]

im here, and will hopefully be able to post something tonight. Don't do anything major till i get the chance!

thanks,
BM

[Battle Mage]

just reading this page, what am i meant to be posting?

BM

[Battle Mage]

I just finished reading the TM case. It has merrit but I like the case on BM better. The thing that makes me like the idea of a BM lynch more is because of the information he is holding out without a real reason as to why.

what information? investigation results? lol

BM

[Battle Mage]

Yeah but the case on him is mostly that he is under suspicion of being poisoner, which I could verify in case he is not lying and is indeed cop.

There is also the fact that he is uncounterclaimed.

lol 1 valid post, accompanied by a whole lot of krap-logick.

Cant even be bothered with this. The only thing holding me back is, i guarantee, despite the obvious reasoning behind it, i will almost certainly get shit for this, when you guys string me up anyway.

I'm the poisoner. tada!

sorry i havent been able to follow through with this game lately.

BM

[Battle Mage]

@ Tubby and Cyberbob - given BM has just admitted to fakeclaiming Cop, why haven't you switched your votes over to him?

I want to be sure he isn't being sarcastic. If he can confirm this, I will vote for him. If he doesn't... I will anyway (I'll give him, say, 2 hours) but I would prefer to be sure first.

So buddying>misrepresentation+fakeclaiming? Got it.

Hilarious misrepresentation is hilarious (and ironic). I have said much the same things about the case on BM as people like raider have said about the case on Tom. The only difference between the two is that the case on Tom actually has evidence going for it whereas the case on BM consisted (I say consisted because he's now looking to near certainly be today's lynch) entirely of conjecture and supposition, which is all well and good but I prefer cases a little more grounded. If Tom had come out and claimed Poisoner would you be posting "/\ tomorrows lynch lol" at any of them?

Also, please note that I'm 99% certain BM is scum after his last post. The point I'm trying to make is not that he isn't scum, it's that you guys got lucky. Nothing more.

I was talking about BM when I said misrepresentation, which is something he's been trying to do about the poisoner role for a while now.

Your post came after BM's admission to fakeclaiming. You still hadn't voted for him. You still said the case on Tom was better.

How the f**k is it misrepresentation? I'm the Poisoner, and i'm protown. There could also be another poisoner, ftr, as not all poisoning kills were mine. No idea what affiliation that guy would be. Fact is, almost every single player here, with a few notable exceptions, concluded the Poisoner role was scum, without even bothering to look at the logic, which clearly indicated it was more likely to be a protown role. My big mistake is actually trying to argue about it, and in drawing myself into the open by trying to combat stupidity, it made my role pretty obvious. I chose cop to fakeclaim, because its a role i didnt necessarily expect to feature in the game, and i figured it would allow me to survive the day, and ideally, get me killed at night, or even have an NK blocked. With so many claims, it didnt really work out, but even so, if i survive today, theres a possibility ill be NKed anyway. No mafioso likes a rogue vigilante.

BM

[Battle Mage]

I expect to see BM flip scum tomorrow morning.

You seem pretty excited. Bussing, perchance?

Cyberbob is probably town... -.-

BM

[Battle Mage]

Yeah but the case on him is mostly that he is under suspicion of being poisoner, which I could verify in case he is not lying and is indeed cop.

There is also the fact that he is uncounterclaimed.

lol 1 valid post, accompanied by a whole lot of krap-logick.

Cant even be bothered with this. The only thing holding me back is, i guarantee, despite the obvious reasoning behind it, i will almost certainly get shit for this, when you guys string me up anyway.

I'm the poisoner. tada!

sorry i havent been able to follow through with this game lately.

BM

say it isn't so

i think i just died a lil on the inside

aww, im sorry bud.
But, it doesnt really matter. I'm still town, and you still need to run up the evil SOB's who lynched me. And i figure i had a good run anyway.

BM

[Battle Mage]

lol, if i recall, i targetted:

Night 1: Korts
Night 2: Knight of Cydonia (already dead)
Night 3: Skruffs?

so 1 scumbag down, and no townies killed, maketh a fairly decent performance. Plus, ya know, the whole pact thing, which was obvobv protown.

BM

[Battle Mage]

Ah, so you say you're a protown Poisoner... don't know how believable that is. I know this isn't the best way to verify it, but I've never heard of one of those before - the only Poisoners I've ever seen have been antitown.

I would laugh pretty hard if you flipped town, though, if only because I love the sweet taste of vindication.

Lol, why the feck didnt you speak up earlier? we discussed this for ages, and nobody had any evidence of antitown poisoners existing. The only Poisoner ive seen on site was protown, and it was me again. lol
See JordanA24's ROTM, in which i was Drug Dealer, who killed by Poisoning.

BM