Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[Tom Mason]

I am here. I need to read up on things.

[Tom Mason]

I am going based off an instinct from reading the posts I have from this game. Trying to go all the way back, read everything, etc... It is causing a headache.

Netlava and Cass seem to be sticking out in people's minds as prospects. Oddly, they are voting against each other. Netlava seems more likely town to me from when I saw his post inquiring as to why someone thought Cass was a good vote, then down the road he was pushing a vote against her.

If we look at Cass, she has fished around and tried to point the finger at a few people. Instead of adding another vote to Netlava, like she did during the previous day against dynamo, she laid off and voted for blakadder -- random enough for you? The last day phase she seemed to push for dynamo's lynch... and look how successful that proved.

It just does not look right to me. I might be new to this game, but I am far from new to mafia.

Vote: Cass

[Tom Mason]

Netlava and Cass seem to be sticking out in people's minds as prospects. Oddly, they are voting against each other. Netlava seems more likely town to me from when I saw his post inquiring as to why someone thought Cass was a good vote, then down the road he was pushing a vote against her.

As you note later, Cass is voting for BlakAdder, and hasn't voted for Netlava at all today.
Netlava was the first person to vote for Cass today, but you seem to be implying that Netlava was following someone else's reasons for voting for Cass.
If this is the case, how does that make Netlava "more likely town" to you?

Netlava's vote was cast on this day of the game. During day one, he was hesitant to vote against Cass and stepped in to actually defend a vote against her, asking for a reason. He did not follow suit during the current day, he acted himself. Look at his voting pattern. He flopped back and forth between Dynamo and Cass twice.

If we look at Cass, she has fished around and tried to point the finger at a few people. Instead of adding another vote to Netlava, like she did during the previous day against dynamo, she laid off and voted for blakadder -- random enough for you?

Looking back, Cass voted BlakAdder for lining up of lynches, quoting his post. What do you mean when you talk about this being random?

Cass spent Day One pushing a lot of different peoples' names around. She changed her vote four times, many times in favor of simply bandwagoning. Yet on day two, she casts a vote against BlakAdder without supporting votes. And I lost track of how many people she decided to FOS, practically every other post she has made contains an FOS.

Compare the voting patterns. Netlava was sticking to his gut and teetering between two votes. Cass has finger pointed in all directions. Who would you rather trust at this point? That is the way I am looking at it.

- Tom Mason

[Tom Mason]

I really don't like SC's vote on BM there.

Well, he did retract it (if you did not see that).

Frankly, I think this reaching at BM for making a vote, claiming it was given with weak reason and then him saying there was no reason is silly. We could have an endless debate back and forth and both sides would be correct. He did not have a formal reason for the vote, just that he was bored. And yes, that is a reason in itself, but from what he is intending to imply, it is not a reason by way of logically thinking about the vote.

I see no reason to jump on him and point fingers to rally a voting wagon.

[Tom Mason]

It's not about him retracting it, it's the reason he had for voting. Even if it was wrong, voting without giving a reason is not scummy. I find that to be a terrible reason for a vote. Calling it 'jumping on him' when all I did right there was point it out is a little bit harsh.

Oh, I agree with you. The vote in itself was just poorly made by SC. He prodded for something, was given an answer from BM, did not like the answer, so he jumped on him.

It makes no sense.

[Tom Mason]

Just so I don't have to lurk any more, does anyone have any questions for me, or want to know my stance on anything?

Tell us your stance on everything xD

Well, everything relevant to the game. We're not concerned about who you want to be president, for example.

Seriously...

The more he posts "I am here, just reading" the more I feel inclined to agree with Cass's decision to have voted for you. If not for anything else, then for the sheer fact you have very little to no contribution to make to the progress of a decision.

Give us something to work with, please.

[Tom Mason]

I'm still feeling confident about cass. I'd like to get more votes on her. It's telling that she's pretty much lurked to avoid her bandwagon from forming.

Have you noticed her change in approach this day phase as compared from the last as I saw from reading back?

She pointed some fingers around during that phase in all directions. Since she has become a topic of conversation and had the finger pointed at her, she has grown a bit less inclined to say much of anything.

Obviously, I agree with voting for her and putting some pressure on or else I would not have voted for her myself.

- Tom Mason

[Tom Mason]

I'll vote netlava if needed, but it's a huge mistake to let cass lurk her way out of a wagon.

QTF on the Cass comment.

I still disagree with the case against Netlava. My gut tells me that he is clean. Far more people have been playing the blame game (i.e. Cass) until they disappear for days at a time. For all we know, her story checks out or she is hoping to be forgotten. Fact is we will not know, and it makes no difference.

If she walks on this phase and is still inactive, someone else replaces her and we are right back to square one on that role.

I feel like Cass is being overlooked by a lot of people who are so hooked on trying to lynch Netlava.

[Tom Mason]

It seems like Netlava is going for targets of opportunity, rather than any solid case of real merit. Happy with my vote.

I see the logic to that, I do. But to play Devil's Advocate... Cass was doing the same thing with her FOS parade on Day 1 from what I saw.

There is validity for a lynch of each of them, but I hate second-guessing my gut. More times than not, I end up wrong in those cases.

[Tom Mason]

If for any other reason, I feel more confident in the vote against Cass because of her dialogue through both day phases.

It was okay for her to openly bandwagon vote... but she had no problem FOS'ing people for doing the same.

It was okay for her to FOS someone, but if someone else did it she would ask questions and add them to her "scum list".

I just find a lot of contradiction in the approach to her play so far and her reasoning for pointing at other people.

With Netlava, I do not think he would be sitting here with the shovel digging if he was not trying to make a point. And by point, I mean his innocence if he is lynched. I will not say he is making the most helpful case for himself, but I think he is cornered at this point and there is not much he can do.

[Tom Mason]

Strangercoug, I'm ot asking you to remove your sudden L-2 vote, just bringing attention to it.

Noted.

Tha aside, why did you move away from armlx?

I didn't because I don't remember suspecting armlx for this entire game.

It might serve you well to go back to August 30th and look at where you voted for armlx, then retracted your vote on September 12th. You then still did not dismiss the possibility he was a good candidate to look at for voting in the next day phase. This comes after the early part of the day one phase where you were "leaning" towards armlx being townie.

I would think you would be able to remember you own voting history...

[Tom Mason]

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.

[Tom Mason]

Still catching up.

vote sensfan

. Welcome.

I agree with a

FOS

, given all the time put into Cass in the last day.

Not sure how quick dropping votes will help any.

Definitely want to here from Sensfan on everything. There is a lot to catch up with, so hopefully SF has something sooner than later to say.

[Tom Mason]

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

You seem awfully antsy and ready to jump onto people right now...

Something for us to worry about?

[Tom Mason]

Nothing changed... And I do not like it one bit.

BM and SC's' votes for Lowell are entirely different as I see it. BM has never come out to challenge Cass, while SC's already admitted to being speculative of her.

So BM's vote against Lowell does not bother me like SC's vote does/did.

Someone else needs to chime in, though. I want to hear some other thoughts, namely on this.

[Tom Mason]

A couple of things:

1) I'm not really worried my vote was "too fast". That complaint isn't reasonable.
2) The case on Cass/Sensfan is legit. It's bad enough that she basically got off scot-free yesterday when she stopped posting, but it would be worse if we ignored her now just because she's been replaced. If you recall, my argument against leaving the cass wagon yesterday was that people would forget about it today.

I said it during the last day... Once Cass was replaced any case against her was going to be blown out the window and I think it is a bad decision to make.

She jumped on several people, supported finger pointing, and seemed rather anxious to do all of it.

Curious to see how long it takes for SensFan to add anything. But I do not know how much can be added that clears the damage Cass did, at least at this point.

I am not very satisfied with Skruff's posting as EGL just pointed it out... We already knew there were two mafias from the results. So, trying to say that people only knew because they are part of one is a very weak form of logic.

[Tom Mason]

Tom mason - when did you know, in game, that there were two mafias? Please be explicit.

When I read the results from Night Two and saw there was an Icelandic Mafia Doctor and a Portuguese Mafia Tracker.

Both of those (Iceland and Portugal) are NOT Swiss if my knowledge of world geography serves me correct.

To me it would seem pretty evident there are two mafias.

Anyone who refutes that at this point will only get more attention from me because I think it is a stupid move to try and tell anyone there are not two mafias or at least two non-town groups.

[Tom Mason]

You know, someone is asking too many questions and either is confused or really trying to keep themselves from being targeted. I do not see it as working.

I trust all the people on your little "risk" list more than I trust you at this moment.

Vote: Skruffs

[Tom Mason]

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 do agree.

The only thing keeping me on Skruffs at the moment is that fact that he somehow missed the blatantly obvious fact that two mafias/non-Swiss groups exist and decided to start getting very inquisitive with people who could read.

[Tom Mason]

On cell, can't explain much:
Tom mason is at top of list, agreeing with my reasoning but maintaining he's voting me for 'not knowing' there was two mafia (or whatever) after I clearly stated that I was referring to yesterday, before two mafiates were dead. Post 1724 brings up many red flags. More later!

Sorry, you are correct. I had a lapse in the day phases. This is only the second day phase I am in, yet it is day three now, and I overlooked your "day two" phrase within that explanation.

It makes sense now in that context. I took it under the context of you were questioning how I knew on Day Three there were two mafias.

Unvote: Skruffs

[Tom Mason]

All of the sentences in bold are in direct contradiction with the unbolded sentence. Does not compute.

Let me clarify: I don't see what benefit town has to keep a claimed survivor alive.

Keeping a survivor alive over a mafia member is more of a benefit, would you not say so?

But your hostility towards answering a "Yes" or "No" question, whether you lie to us or not, draws more skepticism -- at least on my part.

[Tom Mason]

One, why should I answer a scummy question? (That's exactly why I refused to answer it—because the question was scummy.) Two, why should a survivor lie?

If your defense is that you do not have to defend yourself, then I would say you are not going to benefit from dodging the question.

If you cannot answer a question like that by saying "No, I am town and this is why..." then what reason do you give us all not to believe you are either a third-party or mafia connected?

Your vote for Lowell had people like BM and I looking in your direction. And now your stance against a simple probe by Skruffs is only getting more attention.

Least of all, I do not see how Skruff's question was scummy.

[Tom Mason]

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.
[/b]

My vote for Skruff's before was based around the question he had posed to me regarding how I knew there were two mafias. Like I clarified after he noted he was referencing BEFORE this phase, I was mistaken when looking at his words.

Skruff's has been asking a lot of questions, yes. I am not saying he is not raising my suspicions because of that, because he is. But that question to SC was nothing scummy in itself, not the way I saw it.

Does that make sense to you EGL?

[Tom Mason]

A) How is asking a specific number of questions scummy? Isn't it more that certain questions are scummy questions?

B) Why is asking you when during the course of the game you knew that there were two mafias a scummy question?

I mean, I agree it's a question with a rather obvious answer, but I suppose someone could slip on it.

A

- When you are rifling off question after question repeatedly, it looks strange to me. The nature of those questions also are variables. But the reaction by SC to that question alone was not what I would have expected to see. He could have answered the question with a "No" or just said "How does that relate to anything?" Instead, he has danced around the question and led himself into the middle of a circle of suspicious players.

B

- When (under the context I had misread it be be) the question Skruff's posed I was under the impression he did not believe it was obvious there were two mafias and he was trying to see how I did at this stage. Looking back, after it was finally pointed out that his posts/questions were referencing DAY TWO, I retracted my statements on that issue. It was an oversight, namely on my part, which is why I dropped the issue. If what I had assumed it to be was correct, then it would have been scummy. Now, understanding the full context, it is not scummy.

[Tom Mason]

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?

Because it looks like you are trying to cover your ass too much.

That is the way I see it.

[Tom Mason]

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.

Here is where I stand:

I agree with a lot of what has been said. Since SC voted for Lowell near the start of the phase, I questioned the motive behind it. He retracted the vote and then put it back on -- pointless play really.

Then, SC has tried to spin things against Skruff's regarding his question about being a Survivor. The question was legitimate and I do not think there was much of a reason for SC to start being defensive and claiming Skruff's was scummy for asking it -- I see nothing scummy in that question by itself.

It is nothing short of obvious that I had voted against Skruff. And like I pointed out, that vote was based upon a different dynamic -- which was cleared up because I misread something he had posted.

Right now, I see SC as the best lynch. Nothing being said has convinced me that SC should be left alone and forgotten, like the way Cass slipped away the last day phase. I still have an eye on SensFan (who took over for Cass's role) -- and I find it rather strange there has still been lack of involvement by Sens. I asked for input early on in the phase and we have still gotten nothing.

Vote: StrangerCoug

[Tom Mason]

Not in the least. Reguardless you would think that no matter what I said simply because I do not agree with you. So are you a survivor?

The answer to your question: No.

And regardless if I will disagree with your actual opinion or not does not change the fact that what you posted was not thoughts at all. You posted the obvious "He could be this or that." We all know that someone could be a good lynch or a bad lynch in the end.

So, what I would like to see are your actual thoughts/instincts, not a bunch of neutral talk to keep under the radar.

[Tom Mason]

Now Armlx is playing quiet to avoid detection, and tubber, BM, raider, and Tom Mason are all hopping higher and higher up. Tom Mason seems to have explained himself but raider and tubber are both acting fishily. Tubby is effectively doing with me what SC was doing with me, yesterday.

Armlx is posting a little less than usual, quite strange. However, all of his posts this game have been rather short and few have been very helpful. When someone posts one line responses and attaches a vote on occasion, that strikes me as odd.

And Skruff... I am still watching your play. I am beginning to think my gut instinct, albeit for the wrong reasons, might have been a good decision before. You have yet to cast a vote for someone but you have no problem openly pointing fingers and trying to draw connections between others.

If there is anyone trying to steer the direction of play right now, I think it is you.

Everyone trying to infer me and SC might be scumbuddies have missed an obvious point that would suggest the same: I gave SC a role to claim if he was in trouble by asking him if he was a survivor. Wouldn't that suggest more that I am his partner than "refusing to vote him", like you are trying to suggest?

That is a connection that could be drawn at this point, I think. You may have played the "are you a survivor?" card not knowing it was going to blow things up like this. The fact that you still have not voted, for SC or otherwise, draws more suspicion, at least from where I look.

Yes, you were "attacking" SC early in the phase and prodding for answers. But not voting for a person who has yet to get himself out of a hot seat after you were so openly attacking earlier does not at all make you look town.

I agree we cannot focus all our attention on one person in a game where two anti-town groups are out there -- but I do not think things are exclusively focused on SC. Right now he is getting the most attention.

Now, I remind you: Deflecting attention on someone is completely different from calling attention to someone/thing.

[Tom Mason]

I am in support of an SC lynch, however I am not ready for this day to end yet.

What reasoning do you have to stand by the SC lynch?

I ask because up to this point, you have been very open-ended on your responses. So, I want to know what you believe drives your vote that SC is scummy.

And for

hasdgfas

:

Can you post some thoughts towards SC or who you think is peaking scummy from your POV?

You pushed for SC to roleclaim but never followed up with any thoughts. I know you leaned towards SC before but you have been relatively quiet. Just want to hear some insight.

[Tom Mason]

Now Armlx is playing quiet to avoid detection

V/LA this weekend

So typical of Skruffs.....

I'm interested in TM's buddying when Skruffs mentioned him though.

To clarify, I assume you are talking about when your name was brought up?

My answer is simply that I have been noticing those who are not speaking up much. I make no attempt to show I am watching Skruffs and questioning the things he is doing.

I do not know if I can say you are lying low to avoid detection. I have nothing to base that on except that I keep seeing you post short, little messages every now and then.

[Tom Mason]

Really. Posting once a day at least and going V/LA for a weekend is not speaking up much?

I had not notice that at first when I had posted.

And it was not your posting in terms of numbers as much as posting in terms of quality I was considering.

[Tom Mason]

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.

That is such a bogus cop-out. You forget there are almost twenty other people still alive, many of whom are going to have roles unknown to the scum. If you think that by you claiming to be vanilla four days ago in this phase was going to change anything significant you are being ridiculous.

If anything, the fact that these kinds of "defenses" keep coming out of you only convince me that you are not town.

[Tom Mason]

armlx,

Portuguese Mafia Watcher

, Drowned Night 3.

Told you he was too quiet.

SensFan,

Icelandic Mafia Roleblocker

, Cremated Night 3.

Need I say anymore on this one?

- Tom Mason

[Tom Mason]

Tom Mason, you were one of hte people who wanted me to stop questioning people and start voting more, correct?

My concern with you has been the open finger pointing and the lack of actually taking a stand to vote last phase. You mentioned a few scenarios and spun things in all directions. I just did not like it.

With SensFan and Armlx, I disliked Cass's play when I had entered the game. I know I was not the first to state anything of the sort, but I made my stance known. Armlx was not brought up by me initially, but I commented because it was agitating to see him come in here, post one little line, and disappear. He echoed what others said and he tried to make it seem like just since he was posting to stay active it was justified. Obviously, he tried to remain below the radar.

So, if your vote is in effort to get my explanation, Lowell, there it is.

- Tom Mason

[Tom Mason]

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

So what route are you looking at?

[Tom Mason]

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.

[Tom Mason]

I do not find a reason not to vote for you in that explanation.

If anything, there is another reason to vote for you. And it is the fact that you rather lurk somewhat and be less than helpful.

[Tom Mason]

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.

[Tom Mason]

I did a look into CK, because honestly I forgot he was playing given how inactive he has been recently. Here is what I see:

armlx, why the early flip-flop on nhat? I've read your posts but do not see a suitable answer for what I am asking. You claim he was just being unreasonable and not scummy, and then you vote him, and then unvote him. This seems like distancing to me. Disagreeing with someone and calling them town simultaneously, then voting them for a short period and unvoting them as soon as they become "reasonable." However, just because he has become reasonable doesn't mean his past actions are null and void! Scum can clean up their act, yes? I dislike your handling of the nhat situation, and your lack of attention to Dynamo. Can you restate your reasons for voting him/her now please?

Thank you in advance.

This "suspicion" got dropped rather quickly...

Thirdly, I am just as baffled as armlx is at the sudden uneasiness in association with a DynamoXI lynch. I believe if we do not lynch him today, there will be repercussions later in the game, such the fact that he will be a major lynch candidate for many in the following days based on his day one play, even assuming he does not make any other glaringly scummy posts (which, in my opinion, is not likely). I think it would more than wise to lynch him, gain information, possibly (in my opinion probably) eliminate a mafioso, and move on to day two, where I believe we should concentrate on Netlava. It is too easy for us to WIFOM our way out of a lynch by saying, "Well, he is a noob." Noobs can be scum too, last time I checked. Now, I'm not saying there is no way he can be town; there is always the possibility of a mislynch. However, I feel that possibility is fairly small here, and that we should get votes, a claim, and a hammer if the claim falls through.

No use in stalling this out; let's get down to business here people.

Then he agreed with the man he was once suspicious of... Trying to hurry a lynch.

I quite dislike Skruffs vote on armlx. I know at whom I will look tomorrow.

Then he begins defending the man...

I think I could get on board a Raider lynch or a Cass lynch. They've all played fairly scummily in my book.

I would like to hear why:

@Cass: Blakadder is a better lynch than Netlava or Raider.
@Skruffs: armlx is a better lynch than Netlava, Cass, or Raider.
@Korts: Skruffs is a better lynch than Netlava, Cass, or Raider.

Also, does anyone else find it completely strange how the Netlava wagon has stalled? Something doesn't seem right to me about that situation.

Again, defending him. But pushing for the lynch of Netlava (who flipped town much like the other lynch CK rallied behind).

FoS: EGL because armlx (scum) went after you hard then dropped it day one.

And this one makes me chuckle... What makes the situation with EGL/armlx any different than what I just highlighted, CK?

Plus, I am pretty sure that EGL replaced nhat after day one. So, are you referring to armlx going after nhat? Post some quotes at the least to support what you have.

@EGL: To answer your question, I think he is worth lighting a fire under to figure out some answers right now. He has certainly quieted down more and more as the games has progressed -- if he is scum, that might explain it since each side has taken serious hits.

[Tom Mason]

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.

[Tom Mason]

I never voted for SensFan because there was nothing new on that case to work with. If barely anyone was behind lynching Cass in the past and there was no new posting or telling info to quote and decipher, I felt there was no reason to vote for SensFan. I wanted to hear something substantive and there was nothing that could provide a case against SensFan.

If you want to grill me for SensFan, start grilling a lot of other people who downplayed Cass's play for the two days prior. I came into the game on Day Two, and almost immediately disliked what I was seeing from her.

My issue with armlx was about the way he posted, not his number of posts. He would casually drop one-liners and slide away. I did not like how that looked. I have never played a game with armlx before so I had no way to gauge his style or anything of the sort. I went off an instinct.

You ask for more explanation on my Cass vs. Netlava post... I will summarize from what I think was happening. The two of them did FOS/vote for the same number of people officially, I believe, when searching their posts. The difference was that Cass continually would FOS someone through the game, then hop to another person as soon as she saw nothing coming of the prior target. Netlava bounced around the same few people through his stay in the game. I thought Cass was being more opportunistic. Netlava was already being backed into a corner when I jumped into the game and anything he was saying about Cass or anyone else was being played off as a distraction by the people with tunnel-vision on lynching him.

What I find interesting is your play, CyberBob. You are calling me out for pressuring Cass/SensFan but ultimately backing off, which occurred because SC's situation came around while nothing new built on SensFan. All this game you have been hassling raider, threatening that you might drop a vote because you disliked his play... But I have yet to see a vote on raider from you.

When it came to anything dealing with Cass... You distanced yourself. You said you disliked the votes on her and the possibility she was scum, solidly stood by your vote for Netlava, and until your rundown above have mentioned nothing about Cass/SensFan.

As I sit her now, I think about how convenient it is that you strayed from commenting on Cass/SensFan's situation in the midst of the Netlava lynch. You barely scratched the surface and the most you would say was she was a "singularly useless target" (when justifying a vote on Netlava). But now that she flipped scum, it is OK to use that against me because I backed off a target which you were not even going to support lynching, much less pay attention to at the time.

As a town, we left a huge gaping hole in the wall when we never asked for your direct opinion on Cass.

[Tom Mason]

I never voted for SensFan because there was nothing new on that case to work with. If barely anyone was behind lynching Cass in the past and there was no new posting or telling info to quote and decipher, I felt there was no reason to vote for SensFan. I wanted to hear something substantive and there was nothing that could provide a case against SensFan.

You had a case against SensFan; it was the same one you had against Cass. For the purposes of the game itself they are one and the same. You might or might not have attracted much interest, but did you try?

Besides - you had no problems with trying to get a wagon against Cass going right up until the end despite lack of interest. Don't try and use the "it would have been pointless" argument, because pushing Cass' wagon was equally "pointless" with all the votes on Netlava.

If the case against SensFan/Cass changed no where from where it was the previous day, which drew new substantial interest from other parties... Where was the incentive for me to push the idea again?

I had no new information to work with. Without anything new that would supply a more convincing case, I had no reason to harp on the situation. THAT was why I wanted to wait and hear from SensFan.

You ask for more explanation on my Cass vs. Netlava post... I will summarize from what I think was happening. The two of them did FOS/vote for the same number of people officially, I believe, when searching their posts. The difference was that Cass continually would FOS someone through the game, then hop to another person as soon as she saw nothing coming of the prior target. Netlava bounced around the same few people through his stay in the game. I thought Cass was being more opportunistic. Netlava was already being backed into a corner when I jumped into the game and anything he was saying about Cass or anyone else was being played off as a distraction by the people with tunnel-vision on lynching him.

I find it hilarious that you didn't find Netlava at all opportunistic. Yes he was being backed into a corner, yes he panicked, but that doesn't change the fact that he voted for whoever he thought would get the pressure off him. That is about as opportunistic as it gets.

Now you are putting words in my mouth.

Who said I did not find Netlava at all being opportunistic? All I said was that I thought Cass was being more opportunistic than Netlava.

Why? Because Cass was openly shifting her attention all around when ever there was the opportunity. If something did not stick, she went with another approach that was gaining popularity. That was opportunistic. If Netlava were not under the scrutiny and the pressure of voting, then you could call his play opportunistic like Cass's. His play was more desperation.

And can you blame him? He was being backed into the corner and anything he said or did was being used against him. It is just like you are trying to do with me. You ask me for clarification and I give it... But you do not wish to accept it. You have your mind made up and like when you pushed the vote against Netlava are not willing to fully think the situation through.

What I find interesting is your play, CyberBob. You are calling me out for pressuring Cass/SensFan but ultimately backing off, which occurred because SC's situation came around while nothing new built on SensFan. All this game you have been hassling raider, threatening that you might drop a vote because you disliked his play... But I have yet to see a vote on raider from you.

That's right, I haven't yet. My last FOS would have been a vote except that I wanted to have another read of his posts before committing to it. I didn't get around to it before having a look at you, however. I might do so tomorrow (I have my last exam later today), but I doubt it will change my vote.

Besides, the two situations are different. You spent the whole of Day 1 pushing very heavily your case against Cass before dropping it as soon as she was replaced. Raider has always been in the back of my mind, but there has usually managed to be someone a little scummier around.

It was Day Two that I came into the game, not Day One.

And I already said I did not drop anything against SensFan. I asked for her to post and give some sort of thought on the game. I wanted more information to work with because there was nothing new at the time to influence the case.

And the cases are not different. Right now, you let Raider slip because you turned your attention to me. Talk about how you are going to go back and read him all you want. But you just admitted to the fact that you took up an interest in me, pushed him to the side, and focused on a new idea -- no longer attached to your previous.

That is the same thing you accused me of doing with SensFan when I took up an interest in SC.

When it came to anything dealing with Cass... You distanced yourself. You said you disliked the votes on her and the possibility she was scum, solidly stood by your vote for Netlava, and until your rundown above have mentioned nothing about Cass/SensFan.

That's because the reasons for those votes were somewhat crap. She and Netlava might have done similar things, but he was doing them far more wildly and was actually using votes as opposed to FOSes.

It was not going to matter what he did. Your fixation on him caused his wild behavior to only become more irrational. I do not blame him. There was tunnel-vision on the part of yourself and several others to lynch him.

But now that she flipped scum, it is OK to use that against me because I backed off a target which you were not even going to support lynching, much less pay attention to at the time.

Yes, that's right. If you were truly as strongly convinced of Cass' scumminess as your Day 1 posts seem to indicate you should have had no problems with going after SensFan. Give him a bit of a chance to speak for himself, sure, but you ignored him for the entire day. The difference between you and me in this case is that I was never strongly pushing against the player he replaced.

I did not ignore SensFan. I mentioned in response to Lowell's vote on SF that I agreed with an FOS for the play that Cass had contributed over the last two days. I asked twice for SF to add thoughts. I noted when I voted for SC that I found it strange SF still had not responded. I never let go of my suspicion. But when there was nothing new and no one else supporting any pry for information from SF, a cry for action was not the right move.

And you are right, the difference between you and I is that you never pushed against Cass. You barely acknowledged her existence in the game... Until you want to use it against me. And you can still maintain that Netlava was a better lynch decision.

I find this situation to be rather strange in itself for those reasons.

[Tom Mason]

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???

There are a number of people who have been less than helpful to anything in this game recently:

- killa seven (king of the lurkers in this game right now with 8 posts)
- Caboose (only entered the game just before the Night 3 phase)
- Surye (has been in the game since late September)
- Citizen Karne (active since start of game)
- springlullaby (only entered the game just before Night 3 phase)

So, I am willing to lay off Caboose and springlullaby a little after seeing their start dates in the game. I know there is a lot to familiarize themselves with. They started the last week of October, which was only a week before SC was lynched.

killa seven has been in this game since the first week of October but has only posted EIGHT times.

Surye only has TEN posts. He seems to post at opportune times to say he has not been around and that he needs to catch up. Voted for Netlava without much to say, disappeared for two weeks... Came back and said he would read up on SC before he thought about a vote. Never happened as SC was lynched pretty much the next day. Nothing really to work with at all. He has been a rather silent party.

[Tom Mason]

Bob, you can disagree and voice your opinion... But do not pin words in my mouth and do not assume my intentions, especially when you ask for my reasoning and I give it but you choose to make your own assessment even afterward.

I read day one. I know the meaning of opportunistic, which does not really apply to what Netlava tried to accomplish while being lynched. I did not intend to nor did I ignore SensFan. And I was not going to push a lynch because SensFan was inactive. As noted in the above post, several others fall into that category.

If we lynched on inactivity, we would get no where. It seems the mafias have been active, so what intelligent decision comes out of lynching someone who cannot even post in the thread? If they cannot remember that, I find it hard for them to remember to submit a role to the mod.

I feel like you and I can argue in circles making no progress. And I hate being redundant. So, I am going to focus elsewhere for the time being and let everyone else soak up the words between us and weigh the entirety of the game.

[Tom Mason]

Caboose, again, what do you think of Skruffs?

What do you think of Skruffs?

What do you think of anything for that matter?

You have posted a handful of times in the game and your brief thoughts suggest you are OK with Skruffs but not fine with raider.

Give some details/reasoning, please.

[Tom Mason]

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

If there is anything I do not understand at all... It is that post from BlakAdder.

This is like not accusing Cass/SensFan/armlx/any other flipped scum for being scum... Then turning around after they flip trying to acknowledge their play as being as such. Or not.

Deal with the people who are alive, not the ones who are dead. Look at how the people who are alive acted towards the people that are dead and what was said.

Otherwise, you are no help. At all.

[Tom Mason]

i dont really get the above post atall...

BM

My post?

I was on the phone at work while doing it. So I think I confused myself, too.

[Tom Mason]

Care to redo it, then?

Not really, in all honesty. I am too confused by what I even was thinking at the moment. Not to mention it has been a ridiculous day as far as work is concerned, so that only makes it worse. (Ever feel like you are about to be fired for lying?)

If there are two minutes of time I would ever want back, it would probably be the above exhibit.

[Tom Mason]

I have no qualms about voting for BA right now. But I am not interested in slamming him down in such a quick fashion. He is at L-2.

And I have every intention of put him at L-1... But I want to avoid the nonsense hammer like we had last time on SC.

@BlakAdder: I want to know what you were thinking voting for SC, when admittedly fence sitting. Why would you want to but someone on the edge like that when you apparently could not even convince yourself he was scum?

Arguably the vote that puts someone at L-1 is as critical as any vote.

For you to turn and accuse CK for dropping the hammer like that, when you put SC in that predicament, is completely outrageous. Clearly you did not want to hear from SC, because raider was the one who asked -- not you.

I feel as if you wanted to take advantage of the situation and put SC on the edge like that. Hence, I will not be surprised when you flip scum.

[Tom Mason]

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.

[Tom Mason]

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

[Tom Mason]

@Tom: I already mentioned, I thought Stranger was the best lynch of the day.
@Everyone: I believe I'm at L-2. Would everyone like a claim?

Vote: BlakAdder

L-1.

Feel free to claim now.

[Tom Mason]

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).

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.

What I do not agree with was changing your protection, especially if you thought Hascow was townie and you had success protecting him once. I think it was riskier to make the change.

[Tom Mason]

Unvote

It is clear right now, there is no immediate benefit to lynching BlakAdder. I believe his case as the town doctor. I have no reason not to believe at the moment. No one has stepped forward to refute his claim.

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 actual case.

If Adder is the Portuguese Doctor, I personally do not think he would have claimed doctor at all. It would be a risk to claim and lie, since it seems highly like there is a town doctor alive in the game. Someone mentioned the possibility of two town doctors, but I think if there were we would have seen a challenge to Adder's claim.

I will tell you who I am not liking at the moment... springlullaby. He entered the game in the last week before SC was lynched, barely had much to say -- aside from agreeing with lynching SC. He posted a vote for the lynch, then said the following (in reference to raider:

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.

So far this phase from springlullaby... No words against raider at all. No detailed explanations. Nothing. All he has done was vote against Caboose... and for what reason? From the looks of it because Caboose did not answer a question he asked him about Skruffs.

Vote: springlullaby

@springlullaby: Can you make some sense out of your decisions and lack of follow-through on things you have said? Why were you coming down on raider at the end of the last day but suddenly ignoring him? And what is your reasoning towards looking at Caboose?

[Tom Mason]

Alive still... Just got back from a few-day vacation for Thanksgiving.

I need to get myself settled and I read through this among other things. I will add anything if I think of something.

[Tom Mason]

Im behind, catching up.

You have been playing catch-up since you entered the game almost two months ago. I have still yet to see anything substantive or useful posted from you.

[Tom Mason]

little under 24 hours till i move my vote to killa seven,,

I have little faith in him completelying it in a 48-hour time frame when he could not complete it in a

48-day

frame.

Sadly, his unproductive nature is the only real reason I see for a vote against him.

[Tom Mason]

The answer to all the questions ask to me is, I changed my mind. No you cannot know why.

So, what gives you the right to be hypocritical and ask people questions and expect answers when you will not answer any questions posed to you regarding your play in this game?

[Tom Mason]

Note:

I am leaving for a business trip today. I will be back on Saturday.

[Tom Mason]

I believe springlullaby's claim.

Now can we pay attention to some of the people I'm FoSing at the moment? I think at the least there is one scum in the bunch.

Anyone can "FOS" someone, but you have nothing to say when you do it. So, I am interested in hearing what makes you so certain "there is one scum in the bunch." The way you say it, you are just throwing wild accusations, hoping to play the odds and that one FOS might flip in your favor.

I just got back from my business trip and spent 8 hours in the airport (because JFK is a wonderful place to travel from). Cannot wait to see your fiction piece on this. Especially when your latest FOS (against myself) comes far after a conversation took place surrounding me before and you spoke not a word that I recall on the issue. What has changed?

[Tom Mason]

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.

The only way this makes sense if is if you are a roleblocker. But last I checked the town and one mafia roleblocker are dead.

So, are you saying you are another town roleblocker or did you just out yourself as one of the last remaining mafia members?

[Tom Mason]

I believe springlullaby's claim.

Now can we pay attention to some of the people I'm FoSing at the moment? I think at the least there is one scum in the bunch.

Anyone can "FOS" someone, but you have nothing to say when you do it. So, I am interested in hearing what makes you so certain "there is one scum in the bunch." The way you say it, you are just throwing wild accusations, hoping to play the odds and that one FOS might flip in your favor.

I just got back from my business trip and spent 8 hours in the airport (because JFK is a wonderful place to travel from). Cannot wait to see your fiction piece on this. Especially when your latest FOS (against myself) comes far after a conversation took place surrounding me before and you spoke not a word that I recall on the issue. What has changed?

I like to cast the hammer upon people. Therefore I rarely vote before the end of the day. My FoSes are carefully selected and chosen, as they are more important to me.

Now that you know that, does your opinion of my comment change?

So you are saying a FOS is more important to you than a vote? By that logic, you rather FOS someone you think is scummy... But vote for someone for the sake of dropping the hammer.

I find that rather scummy play.

[Tom Mason]

[quote="Citizen Karne"']
I like to cast the hammer upon people. Therefore I rarely vote before the end of the day. My FoSes are carefully selected and chosen, as they are more important to me.

Now that you know that, does your opinion of my comment change?

So you are saying a FOS is more important to you than a vote? By that logic, you rather FOS someone you think is scummy... But vote for someone for the sake of dropping the hammer.

I find that rather scummy play.

I would simply love to see where I say FoS is more important than a vote.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Then maybe you should explain what you meant to imply by:

I like to cast the hammer upon people. Therefore I rarely vote before the end of the day. My FoSes are carefully selected and chosen, as they are more important to me.

Because I think that implies exactly what I said it does. But you wrote it, so you can better tell us all.

[Tom Mason]

3)

Tom

still looks like the pick of the scum litter. 2029 is scummy as hell. He uses other people's anger as a reason not to vote, despite saying he wants to vote; he doesn't have any opinion of the claim (2043), then decides he does (2089); then sort of disappears as claim talk flares up, hoping, I think, to be ignored.

I think 2029 is a valid point. Look at your long winded list that reviews everything any of us have done. You critique every move I make and essentially will not consider me clean regardless of what it is I do/say. While many seem to have actual roles -- I sit here plain vanilla. So, I have to sift through the words and try to decipher what is going on as much as anyone else. I know nothing for certain.

And I have put that across in 2043, where I briefly touched on my feelings about BA's claim. I let the conversation progress by unvoting and ensuring we did not actually lynch someone who was telling the truth. There is obvious doubt right now in his claim. There should be doubt, just like there should be doubt to all of the claims being made.

There are two I think stand out as being more believable: Caboose and BM.

If Caboose were not the Firefighter, it would be a bold lie to make. The only way for a SK or mafia to find out would be to target him. And for the Arsonist, it is possible deathwish to target Caboose. If he is lying, I would have expected someone to immediately jump forward to challenge his claim.

BM was identified as visiting Skruffs. Skruffs did not die. There was no role-conflict between Caboose and BM it would seem. If you look at the list of roles exposed from dead players, I find it hard to imagine another investigative role in the mafia groups. It looks like one was given an investigative advantage and the other a protection advantage (tracker/watcher vs. RB/doctor).

What I do not like about these last few days has been the massive amounts of prodding into roles that BlakAdder has been doing. Take a look at all his posts between the SL, BM, and Caboose situation. Posts 2159, 2167, 2170, 2174 --- All of them trying to draw roles and role information from the players. It is all very strange, especially going back to look at the situation where BA claimed doctor. Sure, he gave an explanation but was very unsure of his actions (who he protected) and blamed it on not breadcrumbing and tracking his moves. I would think he would have tracked what he did himself for such a situation.

Unvote

[Tom Mason]

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.

I think it fits considering we had no poisoning kills on the first night as well. Odd that only one poison death occurred Night Three. Perhaps it belonged to someone who was inactive/prodded during that period. Hard to tell, though.

[Tom Mason]

I would not mind a Tom Mason wagon at all right now. I would simply love to see how he would respond to the pressure.

You want to wagon me when you could not even explain the oddity I pointed out in your words where you suggest your FOS is more important than your vote?

You still have not clarified it. I took nothing out of context. I read what you wrote, posted it back -- twice now -- and the best you can do is reply looking for a wagon against me?

[Tom Mason]

If Caboose were not the Firefighter, it would be a bold lie to make. The only way for a SK or mafia to find out would be to target him.

And for the Arsonist, it is possible deathwish to target Caboose.

If he is lying, I would have expected someone to immediately jump forward to challenge his claim.

Interesting. There's never been an Arsonist who dies from targeting the firefighter on EWZine (the other site Tom and I play on) and the flash on mikeburnfire says nothing about that.

So where does this come from?

I liken it to the concept that in some games doctors could be killed for targeting a mafia member. It really would depend on the way the role was written, obviously. Not saying it is for certain -- but certainly a possibility.

[Tom Mason]

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.

[Tom Mason]

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. 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.

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)?

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.

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".

Below is the comment you made in direct relation to that vote afterward:

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

BM

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.

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.

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.

[Tom Mason]

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.

[Tom Mason]

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.

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.

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.

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).

[Tom Mason]

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.

I honestly never took the time to sit and assess the plan until last night when I thought about the claims being made and mapped out what eventually became my post today. When it was proposed, I thought it was silly but until I had real relevant explanations as to why, my opinion/analysis would have been irrelevant.

And to clarify... BM is not denouncing that there are poisoners in the game. He is simply not agreeing with the method to their use. He believes that poisoners target and kill immediately while I (and several others) support the published role description of a poisoner. That description states that a poisoner targets one phase and the death settles on another phase.

It makes sense given there was no mafia poisoner kill during the first day/night cycle.

Also, there was no mafia poisoner kill during this last night phase... Which begs the question: Who was roleblocked?

[Tom Mason]

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?

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.

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.

It is not wacky in the slightest. The likelihood of mafia targeting mafia is small, but appears to have happened by that logic.

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.

[Tom Mason]

There are a couple of pages after that but I don't have much to say about them. The poisoner argument strikes me as entirely semantical, and BM's plan is a decent concept but I don't really have much faith in those sorts of strategies. There's almost always something that can and does go wrong, often leading to a mislynch the next day.

It is not semantics. Like BA said: BM claimed there are no mafia poisoner roles.

And the fact that you still think BM's plan for the four roles is a "decent concept" worries me. Unpredictability is the only advantage the town would have in trying to combat the serial killers. By using his plan, you destroy that advantage.

[Tom Mason]

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.

[Tom Mason]

And it is stupid, at least in Surye's case -- who has been posting in other games all this time. Caboose also, since he is in another game with me.

[Tom Mason]

I do not recall reading a case on BM. Can someone point me to it?

Read through the last two pages or so where the discussion is stirred up over the flaws and danger of going with the plan BM proposed.

I do not know how you could have missed it... Unless you were trying to.

[Tom Mason]

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.

This is a whole bunch of WIFOM. Over and over.

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.

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.

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. 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?

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 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.

[Tom Mason]

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

That makes two of us.

I need to go back and read all of this on Friday. I have too busy a schedule today and tomorrow with the holiday. Bear with me.

[Tom Mason]

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.

Clearly you would not be the only investigative pro-town role. Springlullaby has claimed Watcher. It is what started all this confusing claiming, counterclaiming, and endless bickering over poisoning roles and SK “favors.”

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?

A delayed kill is a huge issue, one of the most important ones we are going to deal with in this game. EGL pointed it out most straightforward in his above explanation. If someone is targeted by a tracker/watcher but nothing happens that phase that kills someone whom was targeted, the player in question is clean unless we have a delayed kill to deal with, if that targeted individual dies the next phase. It is the difference between your innocence or guilt in my eyes right now.

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.

The difference in delay and immediate kills, the number of kills, and the lack of kills in Night One are HUGE issues. Your ignorance to this astounds me.

If there are TWO poisoners killing on a delay, then only one kill is unaccounted for. That unaccounted kill could be a double target or it could be a missed submission by the player. If a player was targeted by both poisoners, do you think the results would read “hasdgfas, Swiss Townie, DOUBLE poisoned, Night 3”?

A lack of Night One Poisoners strongly supports the theory that there are delayed kills. However, you simply think it is coincidence and does not “really matter.” Astounding.

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

Let me pick this apart for you:

1. Cremation is a serial killer, the Arsonist. For any of us to refute it would negate the claim made by Caboose – which seems to be very unpopular at the moment. If there is no arsonist, there is no Firefighter. But most of us would easily agree with that.

2. Dismemberment and Drowning are definitely NOT a Portuguese Mafia Kills, as you suggest. You yourself said they could not be a Portuguese kill in mid-November (Post #). Now, suddenly under pressure, they returns to be Portuguese kill possibilities. Why are they not?

19. Sineish, Portuguese Mafia Tracker, Dismembered Night 2.
6. armlx, Portuguese Mafia Watcher, Drowned Night 3.

3. Poisoning could easily be a Portuguese kill… And frankly, it must be. It is not cremation. It is not dismemberment or drowning. I submit to you the “Portuguese Man-o-war”. I know how you like “flavor” and all. Google it. Maybe you have heard of it.

4. This leaves our Icelandic Mafia Kill, which cannot be the obvious Arsonist role of Cremation (SensFan also died from cremation). It is possible not to be poisoning, if we only have ONE poisoner role. I am hesitant to believe it though, considering the Portuguese mafia would have an edge with the delay kill and we saw two poisonings in one night. I agree it does not fit with “flavor” to be poison. But beyond that, I cannot agree with you.

My vote against you stands. SL called you out for targeting Skruffs. You discredit the mafia poisoner role because you have never seen it. You discredit the delay kill, saying it is not important. Skruffs has not died yet. If he dies in the next Night from poisoning, that would be our answer. But if you live to the next night, and are the Poisoner, then we risk another person to poisoning.

Call me the best lynch all you want. I am tired of your game.

[Tom Mason]

2. Dismemberment and Drowning are definitely NOT a Portuguese Mafia Kills, as you suggest. You yourself said they could not be a Portuguese kill in mid-November (Post #). Now, suddenly under pressure, they returns to be Portuguese kill possibilities. Why are they not?

That post by BM is found here: Post 1908

[Tom Mason]

because only somethings were different but it played like a normal game it only had like maybe one or two roles that were different from traditional mafia here on ms thats why

@Tubby: You seem to be dancing around speaking to anything that was mentioned about BM in my post and the fact that one poison kill definitely is generated from the Portuguese.

Your thoughts on BM as it relates to the mafia having a poisoner?

[Tom Mason]

what post?? no i missed it i'll look for it i assume it wasn't to long ago?

Post 2373

It is the bottom of page 95.

[Tom Mason]

One poison kill is definitely from the Portuguese side.

The other mafia kill could be poisoning as well, but the argument against it by BM (and maybe a few others) is that there has only been one time where two poisonings have occurred. However, if we are dealing with a traditional poisoning killing role (as outlined by mikeburnfire's flash video), it mean there have only been two nights where kills would be seen by the players -- Night 2 and Night 3 -- so far.

By the logic, a Night 1 target from the poisoner is revealed after Night 2. The Night 2 target is revealed after Night 3. Our results support that method as there were no kills from poison after Night 1.

The only way for everything I say to be challenged and considered wrong would be for the game not to have an Arsonist. Then it creates a larger issue in trying to figure out what the second poisoning in Night Two was.

I think it is more plausible that one of the mafia poisoner's was roleblocked, a target was protected by a doctor, or simply did not submit its role due to lack of activity.

[Tom Mason]

Kind of. If I die of poisoning tonight I would certainly suspect BA, but at this point we only have the one occurrence - not enough for me to totally buy into the idea of him being a poisoner on its own.

If Cyberbob died tonight, I would buy that BA is not the doctor he claimed to be --- but I would not believe he was the poisoner/role that would kill Cyberbob. I would think that he simply lied about protecting CB and really is another anti-town role.

We could argue the likelihood of either possibility. Regardless, the bottom line would remain the same -- he is bad to keep alive in that situation.

[Tom Mason]

well then post your case so i can respond,

all i wanted you to do was acknowledge that i posted it and tell me why you would rather vote for bm over me?

it doesn't make sense to me so now you can play the game

Right now, my vote stays on BM over you because you seem to be pushing so hard for us to vote you over him, I feel like you are protecting him because he might be the mafia poisoner.

However, if that is true and you are also scum... Then we are dealing with a mafia of four people, no longer a mafia of three as originally thought.

If BM were the only one to claim a power town role, I would be a bit more willing to sit and work with his claim. But when there are four claims in the type of situation this has been, given all the brainstorming aloud, the pact, the proposal for roles, etc... I really feel as if there is at least one false claim out there.

The other claims make more sense and hold more validity. BM provided nothing substantive that gives me a reason to believe he really is an investigative role.

[Tom Mason]

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*)

BM is the one who has pushed this "flavor" ordeal. I am merely presented the piece of the puzzle that shows Portuguese does have the flavor for poisoning.

It still remains that Portuguese could only be a poisoning kill or cremation kill -- but no one has denounced there is an Arsonist in this game yet, so why does it suddenly have to be done when BM has his back against the wall?

I am off to enjoy my New Year's holiday now... Cannot wait to see what comes of all this nonsense.

[Tom Mason]

Can we

please

just lynch Tom Mason? We can go after BM if Skruffs dies of poisoning tonight

or

save an innocent man's life if he lives. Why are we focusing on BM today when we can have so much more information tomorrow?

Why do you have such a hard-on for me?

Practically this whole day phase, you have pushed the idea of lynching me and barely made any attempt to give insight on anyone else or any other possibilities. The most you will say on anything else brought up in this phase is that you agree or disagree.

Also, what did happen to that awfully good Tom Mason wagon? Would have loved to keep track of his reactions.

Trust me, it will be less interesting than your reaction when I flip as a worthless vanilla townie and you spent virtually all your time over the last month-plus trying to lynch me for no reason.

[Tom Mason]

Practically this whole day phase, you have pushed the idea of lynching me and barely made any attempt to give insight on anyone else or any other possibilities. The most you will say on anything else brought up in this phase is that you agree or disagree.

Obviously you have been reading only one or two words of my posts. Read them all and then tell me if you still believe this statement.

A good number of your posts in the month of December alone have been very brief comments as I already said. And I believe at least half of them pertained or included nothing more than a direction or plea for my lynching.

I am not going to sit and quote you all day to remind you what has been said.

Trust me, it will be less interesting than your reaction when I flip as a worthless vanilla townie and you spent virtually all your time over the last month-plus trying to lynch me for no reason.

For me, claiming like this is a scumtell. A bit unwarranted, don't you think? Imagine if

real

pressure was put on Tom here. He'd crack like an egg. Also, if you haven't noticed, at least three other people agree with me, so I suggest you stop pretending this is some sort of one-man crusade against you. I'll give you some points - you haven't resorted to OMGUS yet. Congratulations on that, my friend.

Crack like an egg under real pressure? You might be right with the emphasis on "real" because when was they last time someone actually stepped forth with "real" reason to lynch me?

And I will not reach for any form of OMGUS. I have no reason to. As much as I think you are babbling and pushing a pointless agenda in lynching me, I will put you on the list with everyone else who doubted the day's questioning of BM and the like if he flips scum at the conclusion.

And BA does have a point with the protection placement... If we are dealing with a delayed kill through poisoning, there could be two approaches to the protection. It could be protection is enforced on the targeting night or protection is enforced on the following night when poison would set in for the kill. Any guess is as good as any right now until there is a result. Assuming BA is telling the truth and is a doctor role, then the latter theory could hold true.

[Tom Mason]

@Tom Mason- Your ire for CK is misdirected. I have a hard-on for you. No rewrite needed.

I know you do. But you at least have something to say about your vote and attention to me. He just jumped right on board and said he supports it. No actual thoughts of his own.

Same thing he did with Netlava. Same thing he did with SC. Same thing he tried to do with just about any vote that happened thus far. He cannot think for himself in the game, I think we have established that.

That is the only reason I ever acknowledged him. But giving him further attention is worthless, unless it is to question the fact that he rallies behind the popular consensus every time and tries to remain inconspicuous.

[Tom Mason]

I've decided I'm not up to lynch uncounterclaimed cop.

I'd like to know where Skruffs is though.

Welcome back.

I can understand not wanting to lynch someone who claimed cop... If they had results to share. So, if BM does not share his results (as he just recently said he would, I believe) -- do you hold your same sentiment?

And while we are on the topic of uncountered claims, do you like your vote on Caboose still?

Skruffs has been gone for a long while, too. Not posted since November. Would be nice to have a replacement or his return. Sure would be nice to see his take on BM and BA each having targeted him.

[Tom Mason]

According to BA, he targeted Hascow N2 and Caboose N3.

According to SL, BM and Caboose targeted Skruffs N3.

So I think you mean BM and Caboose?

Sorry. You are right. I meant Caboose.

[Tom Mason]

Are you serious? BM's my biggest suspect. I'm not protecting him.

It makes no sense to protect BM, especially when he cannot be confirmed as a cop.

The only claim that is pretty much 100% certain is SL. It only makes sense for the doctor to protect that claim since we already got important information from her.

[Tom Mason]

I would highly suggest you use your vote more productively, springlullaby. Perhaps move it to Tom Mason?

Can you really not go more than two posts without mentioning my name?

[Tom Mason]

Because I say it is not.

If it is not important then what is the point in holding out?

Probably SL is worried that her result might lead to a lynch and wants to be certain about it herself rather than release it and have a lynch she isn't sure about herself. At least, if I was going to hold onto a result in her situation, that would be why.

Wouldnt that be part of releasing the results if that was the case? Either way at least I can understand why now.

There is no reason at this point to be questioning SL's motives. If there is any person who is as they claim right now, it is almost certainly her.

Granted it took a while to get the results from Night Three from her, which really could be important, I assume that Night Two rendered no action or something that turned out to be nothing.

Or it could be as EGL said. But I am thinking the prior at the moment.

And mod, could we get a BM prod?

He has not posted since Dec. 31.

[Tom Mason]

Caboose left the game (post 2570) -- at least he asked for a replacement. So, I would assume skitzer will try to find a replacement for him.

[Tom Mason]

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.

Care to place a vote on BM then?

I will assuming BM does not post the information in his next post.

I am tired of watching BM drag things in circles with this whole posting information charade.

If he had anything to post, he would and should have posted it weeks ago.

[Tom Mason]

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?

There was actually evidence pointing at me being scum? That is news to me. Because I think if there were evidence, I would have been lynched.

Just because you have a theory and a feeling that I am scum does not give evidence.

And I am not saying this to be smug. I am saying it because I do not recall the instance where you actually had evidence I was scum. Did SL say I targeted anyone? Did I come out and claim a power role without voicing any results to support it? Have I had people standing directly behind me to prop me up and cry "No! I will not lynch Tom!"

The second you find anything that points to me being scum, I will vote for myself. I would say have BM investigate me... But hard for a fakeclaimed cop to do that. Especially when he does not even want to release his results. How hard is it to just make something up? I might have even respectfully have believed him if he had, rather than cause this whole day to run in circles over nothing.

[Tom Mason]

hmm ok then i will wait for the results of your lynch then bm,

and no i am not going to vote for bm, sorry just "not gonna doit"(*use best george bush the first voice here*)

Do not be surprised when we come after you with torches tomorrow.

He lied about being the cop... You could care less. He is proposing flawed logic (pointed out by EGL) about being the poisoner.

Why did he have to draw all of this out over the last few weeks? He had no defense.

I will be very interested to see how you formulate an opinion without BM in the game.

[Tom Mason]

so yah come after me with your silly little torches and your hangmans noose, but i bet i find the remaining scum before you lynch me

It is easy to find scum when you are one.

And from reading this, you give me the impression that you are a killing role. So, do you think that was a smart thing to open your mouth and start saying?

oh but like i have been saying for awhile now,

there are no more scum pairs left.

It is more likely that there is one scum member left from each scum cell.

because that would make it three to a side anything more than that would make the game unbalanced and unfair, sheesh simple math people figure it out

There is a huge contradiction there. If there are no more scum pairs, do not then say "it is more likely that..." And I am not going to buy your attempt at balance and fairness. BM tried to play the same method with the argument about poisoners -- and it took long enough, but people are finally realizing where he really stood in this game.

And how would it be a shame if Tubby turned out to be scum? I would be surprised if he were townie. He constantly followed. Now he refuses to vote, except for a useless cause, and he is doing nothing but defending someone who lied about their claim and is about to flip scum.

I see it as he is either scum... or a really stupid townie.

[Tom Mason]

Where is CK to bring the hammer down?

He has been waiting the whole day phase to do it.

[Tom Mason]

so you want bm lynched?

because he lied?

because he is a poisoner?

because you think he is scum?

How about we try this question:

Tubby: Why do you think BM should NOT be lynched?

This whole phase, your reasoning to not voting for him was because you believed his claim and did not want to kill a possible cop. You thought BA was lying and BM was telling the truth.

Now, weeks later... BM confesses to lying and admits to being a poisoner (albeit, he says it is a town role). So, your logic for not voting against him has been thrown out the window.

On top of that you are so sure there are only mafia groups of three people, no more. You are climbing up the tree trying to cut the noose from around BM's neck relentlessly.

Lowell said it better than anyone of us could have...

I still don't see a pro-town reason BM would conceal his role and LIE about a different powerrole. All it does is potentially draw out a counterclaim, which a pro-town BM would know enough to avoid.

And CB has a good question...

Mod: Does a deadline majority count as a lynch or not?

Only if there is a proper majority; in this case, eight votes would be needed, like always.

[Tom Mason]

Raider, would you replace into a game that was over 100 pages?

The game would not be 100 pages if some people would learn how to express a complete thought... and in English.

[Tom Mason]

so you want bm lynched?

because he lied?

because he is a poisoner?

because you think he is scum?

How about we try this question:

Tubby: Why do you think BM should NOT be lynched?

This whole phase, your reasoning to not voting for him was because you believed his claim and did not want to kill a possible cop. You thought BA was lying and BM was telling the truth.

Now, weeks later... BM confesses to lying and admits to being a poisoner (albeit, he says it is a town role). So, your logic for not voting against him has been thrown out the window.

Tom.

In the context of my play in this game, and all my comments regarding the poisoner role, both pre and post cop claim, do you really think it is surprising that i claimed protown poisoner? I mean of all the roles i could be, do you see at least why these is cause to believe that one, because it is supported by every comment i have made in the game?

I would see just as much cause to your arguments pre- and post-claim if you were the mafia poisoner. So, I think the above suggestion does not help you.

[Tom Mason]

Perhaps. But regardless of my actual affiliation, you can see how i was evidently building upto some sort of Poisoner claim at some point. If i was Mafia Poisoner, would i claim Cop, only to reclaim Poisoner again later? It seems even less likely than what i actually did. What would be the point in me tying myself to the poisoner role, if i knew it was scum, and didnt intend to claim it?

BM

This is just so full of crap.

Hammer please.

If Citizen Karne has any sense, he wont drop the hammer. Not without reading the game, and with a nearly unanimous verdict.

BM

CK has said before that he would drop the hammer. And if he were not to, then I would be skeptical.

Every post you make right now I think is an insult to the rest of us, BM. It is as if you think we are all unable to think and form our own decisions -- that we have to abide by your opinion.

Your tone in this game has annoyed me for pages upon pages as the case against you carried farther. So, not only will I be happy when you flip scum, but I will be happy that I do not have to read your nonsense and attempts at subtly saying "I am smarter than all of you."

[Tom Mason]

i really don't like your tone there tom

You do not like anything in this game unless it comes from BM's fingertips, so why would I be surprised?

[Tom Mason]

This seems a little odd concidering how close we are to the deadline.

I cant remember the deadline rules. Is what we have right now concidered a no-lynch?

We are not going to get a lynch at this point. It has to be the majority. And since people are willing to accept all of BM's WIFOM as acceptable defense, he is going to survive, make another kill, and everyone will look like fools tomorrow.

Anyone else would have been lynched twice-over for the defense BM has posed over these last few days.

This whole day phase is not turning out to be a waste after all the banter and headaches over arguments that could not be proven without a lynch. And at the end of the day, we will see no lynch. And I doubt I will be night killed/targeted tonight, because it will lead to proof to the argument posed against BM. Though, even when I flip town, I could not be surprised if BM still survives and wins the game for the Portuguese.

I really feel like there is nothing else that can be added to this game right now without a result. And people are insistent upon preventing any result. So, kudos to BM for holding things to a stalemate and buying himself time.

[Tom Mason]

What is better, a town-lynch, or a No-Lynch? What about if you consider that the town-lynch is a Vig? In effect, we still have a lynch. Just it gets decided without scum input. Personally id put faith in my own scumhunting, over the majority of you guys (or, not majority, as it were. xD).

Admittedly, my kill is delayed, but it cant be stopped by docs from what im aware, so it WILL happen.

Tom, if i didnt kill you tonight, youd just try and string me up tomorrow, right? When some of the deadweight lurkers have been NKed ofc. So where's my incentive to let you live?

I think ive proved that if you want to extend your life, you CAN.

Also, who's the tracker/watcher again? Are we making sure that they check on my target?

BM

You are a riot... Because you have no problem targeting and poison killing townies... But it is wrong to lynch you

because you say you are a townie.

If you are killing me, then you only acknowledge the fact that my suspicions of you are a threat to you -- not the town. And if you were on the side of the town, you would be more inclined to target someone whom you have accused time and time again and pointed fingers at during this charade.

And your endless trail of lies continues to be made as you NOW say your kill could be delayed. Before it could not... Now it could. And now it cannot be stopped by a doctor? I find that VERY unlikely. Next thing I know, you are going to say you could not be role blocked either.

Earlier in the game you discussed flavor and balance of roles for each side... How balanced is a killing role that cannot be stopped or possibly roleblocked?

This is all nonsense.

To those of you sitting here playing the part of lap-dog to BM, you should be ashamed.

[Tom Mason]

Of course my kill is delayed. It always has been. Thats why Skruffs hasnt been rolerevealed yet, and Korts only turned up dead on Day 3.
The problem with roleblocking and protection, is that with poisoning, the kill doesnt take place tonight, it takes place the night after. Figuring for that, i dont think the mod will allow any kind of prevention.

But, if your scumgroup have an RB, they're welcome to try.

You might note that Icelandic roles dead are Doctor and Roleblocker. The Portugese roles dead are Tracker and Watcher. The Swiss Roleblocker is also dead.

Just because the kill is delayed does not mean it cannot be stopped. That is an ignorant argument. And if you want to stand by it, then I will argue you with the same counterpoint you made all game to try and save yourself.... Should it not be balanced? That would mean there is a mafia poisoner.

You can claim town all you want, but I think the only thing everyone can agree with is that you are a poisoner. It is just a matter of town or scum.

I think the Roleblocker comment kinda clinched it, but there's still time for you to try and save ur ass.

BM

Save your sarcasm. You will kill me because it gives your little developing ego a tingle that despite the fact I pushed against you for the phase and outted your role... People still bowed and kissed your feet. Congratulatons, your Portuguese mafia will win because you are going to pick off the active players while the inactives continue to linger without replacement.

Skruffs will die and flip town. I will die and flip town. BA, EGL, Cyberbob, and so on down the line... Except tubby and possibly CK. The fact that despite being the man to say "I will hammer", he did not. I scratch my head, questioning if he is scum.

[Tom Mason]

Congratulatons, your Portuguese mafia will win because you are going to pick off the active players while the inactives continue to linger without replacement.

Why would the Portuguese mafia be any more likely to win than the Icelandic? They are both equally strong atm i would assume. Slip?

FoS: Tom Mason

It is posts like the one you made above and statements like one I quoted that show how much you are lying. Because you cannot even remember the facts and post to what can or cannot be true.

I said Portuguese because it was already shown that Icelandic could not have a poison kill. As one of their own was poison killed. You even said it yourself amongst all your lies this phase.

Someone string him up already. I am done entertaining his crap.

[Tom Mason]

Vote: Battlemage

Until I catch up or find a reason not to.
No I do nto know what is going on since I have been absent.

Holy crap! He is alive... But not for long. PM targeted you for poison the other night. So, unfortunately you will be dead come tomorrow.

At least your votes goes towards stopping scum.

[Tom Mason]

You know what I find odd...

I am FOURTH on BM's list of scum suspects, but openly his first choice for a night kill...

Was that your way of trying to just bargain out of being lynched (maybe with no intent to actually night kill me)? Because if your intent would be to really kill me afterward, then your scum list makes no sense. I should be at the top of it.

[Tom Mason]

You know what I find odd...

I am FOURTH on BM's list of scum suspects, but openly his first choice for a night kill...

Was that your way of trying to just bargain out of being lynched (maybe with no intent to actually night kill me)? Because if your intent would be to really kill me afterward, then your scum list makes no sense. I should be at the top of it.

Of course it was. Have you not been reading? rofl

Stop spamming up the thread please, and at least read whats been posted first. Then maybe you wouldnt have to make such comments. I was willing to kill you in order to buy myself some more time. In practice, id probably still have killed Lowell, but might have killed Tom, as repayment to Cyberbob for letting me live. Tubby's comment kinda clinched the decision for me.

BM

Some of us have jobs and other obligations and cannot post at your speed. When you make ten posts in row it becomes confusing.

[Tom Mason]

Once I saw BM flip as town poisoner, I threw up my arms to grab my head before it popped off.

It would be hard to argue that poisoning was not Caboose right now. Because I think we have established it is a delayed kill -- meaning Caboose was the only other person to target Skruffs that night. The write-up suggests he was double-poisoned ("heavy dose of poison"). Before I dive any further into a possibility that is in my mind, I want to hear what Caboose has to say -- unless someone believes it better for me to explain my only chance of doubting Caboose being responsible for this.

As far as EGL's question about Portuguese killing via poisoning... It is a possibility. It could be Icelandic as well. While I have a theory on which is poisoning -- I will wait for BA's response to EGL's question. At this point, we know one poisoner was not mafia. It does not exclude either mafia from having a poison kill specifically -- but it does not matter at this point, I think.

And that post from Tubby that was quoted by EGL... Very suspicious words. For him to come out and say he knows BM was 100% not Icelandic means only one thing. There is a possible explanation for this... But I want to sit on it and hear a few other people say any words first.

Oh... And Caboose is not active in this game anymore. He pulled out back during Day Four...

Any status on a replacement for him in this game, skitzer?

I know it must be hard considering we are 116 pages deep.

He PMed me that he was going to replace back in.

Maybe we could get raider or dare I say, BM, to replace for him?

[Tom Mason]

I have no clue what to think of it. It seems so far-fetched that it cannot be true. But then part of me says "Why in the hell would be make that up?"

Could be misdirection all together.

I lean towards NOT believing this, because we have already discovered there is a SK role (dismemberment) that would be neutral. It does not make sense to me to have a neutral role that would help the town in the way tubby has described it.

[Tom Mason]

I think that the fact you are willing to admit to not being a member of the town is enough reason to vote you out. If you are just a survivor or pointless role, we will find that out. And we will also know who is a confirmed member of the town -- if you were not lying.

But as someone who openly admits not to being Swiss, you should not be allowed to continue. Claiming Croatian does not make you a neutral survivor to keep in this game. Your claim makes it even more possible that you are lying and have a anti-town power role.

Vote: tubby216

That makes three votes, I think.

[Tom Mason]

It would be nice if Caboose himself would pop around to answer that question I had for him.

He quit, remember?

There is just no one to replace him.

[Tom Mason]

Also I'd love to hammer tubby or Tom if I get the chance, especially seeing as I've been denied the opportunity to hammer so far in this game.

I do recall you have very ample opportunity to hammer BM last day phase.

[Tom Mason]

Beyond just not being pro-town, a survivor hurts the town as long as they are left alive.

There are at least two mafia players left. Four killing roles (two within the mafias presumably). I would not doubt there is a possibly survivor role in the game... But I do doubt that the survivor role was given an actual ability. Survivors typically are no different from Vanilla Townies, only they have no affiliation. So, I see the whole Croatian tarot card claim as a lie. A survivor does not need any abilities, it does not matter to them who gets lynched -- as long as it is not them.

If tubby simply said he was a survivor, I could believe him after considering his play through the game. He took it a step further and tried to cover up for his "knowing" BM was not scum. I have never seen this "gypsy" role and in a normal game, I would really question its inclusion.

I think he spoke out of turn in trying to push BM's innocence and now he is reaching to cover his mistake.

[Tom Mason]

@ Tom Mason - What do you think of Caboose?

He looks guilty. But apparently, skitzer says he is active again. So as I said before... I wanted to hear something before I went ahead and posted a theory I considered.

I did not think we would have a town poisoner, and I was wrong. So, I have tried to take a moment and reconsider a few possibilities. Hoping he posts in the next few days, or else I will just go ahead and say what I was thinking before he says anything at all. The last thing I want to do is post and then give him an easy out.

[Tom Mason]

Ewww...
You guys are actually using NK flavor meta? That's really weak.

BTW, protected myself last night. I was hopping that I drew the arsonist kill, which I seem to have done.

He did post this yesterday.

Er, sorry. Missed it amongst all the new posts the other day. I saw the post right below him -- even quoted it -- but never saw his.

I think one of two things happened with Caboose - he is the arsonist and missed his kill because he was not active, or he is telling the truth. I am more likely to believe the former. I still think tubby is a more pressing lynch, but upon further rumination I think Caboose's lynch would provide us with more information than Tom Mason's.

Well, by that logic unless you are sure he is the arsonist, we would want to lynch tubby because we KNOW he is not town. Ten players remain... How much room do you think we have for mislynching now and killing a townie? Surely the mafia is not going to target tubby now. And I think we have a definite chance tubby is a SK/mafia and not a survivor.

@Caboose:

How do you explain Skruffs "severe poisoning" when it was clear you and BM both targeted him before his death while claiming to be Firefighter?

[Tom Mason]

Cab and BM were both confirmed to have targeted Skruffs on N3, the night the Portuguese Watcher died. Could the Portuguese Watcher have gotten results back in time to give them to SL before dying?

I'm going to go on and

vote: Tubby

now. I'd still like to see some more about Caboose and SL, though.

Do not quote me on this... But would the watcher even get any results if he was night killed? Most games I have ever played anywhere, results came at the end of Night Phase/Start of the Day.

I would still not totally dismiss the possibility SL is lying. It would be a harder thing to prove. But the fact that she survived the last night phase strikes me as strange after her claim. Unless the killing roles made the assumption she would have protection. But I would have expected at least one to make the attempt.

Caboose says he protected himself, so for now the arsonist is ruled out for having attacked SL. So, it leads me to believe no one targeted her.

[Tom Mason]

wouldn't it suck for ck if i was actually a vengeful swiss townie?
and i did all of this knowing bm would most likely be lynched and since i buddied up so close to him that I would be the likely lynch the following day? And I took into account how upset he was that he missed the bm hammer so i knew he would be chomping at the bit to lynch me? man that would so suck for ck.

But the fact you sit here talking like that really suggests you are not.

We shall see, though.

[Tom Mason]

I think it is obvious we should get Caboose today. Go ahead and claim your targets if you want, but my vote isn't likely to change.

I would not be so quick on that accusation.

Four killing roles were identified with Night 5... Cremation was not one of them.

So, is it possible that he really might be the Firefighter he claimed to be?

Vote: Tom Mason

I really don't see him drawing so many doc protections in a row.

I find it interesting that with a game where 7 people are alive (with 5 roles apparently having killing ability) you have not killed me yet. Knowing what my role is, you have an 83% chance of doing so. Why the hesitation?

Maybe Adder did protect me for a few turns, but I find it unlikely. With him being dead, we cannot ask that now.

That said, I do not think you have helped the game at all. You have spent most of it trying to gather failed bandwagons against me, which are worthless and will bring this game into a complete showdown between those will killing ability. And I think the statistical probability that you are a threat speaks for itself. It is even possible that some of you with NKs are immune to NK attacks on you -- which will explain why all of you are still alive.

Vote: CyberBob

[Tom Mason]

^^^ Either you're confessing to a killing role or you're just being OMGUSy. Which is it?

How am I confessing to a killing role? Check the math. If there are FIVE killing roles, SEVEN people, and I removed myself knowing I am not a killing role -- that makes SIX other people in this game.

5 / 6 = 83.3%

Call it "OMGUS" if you want. If I get lynched it is just going to be a war between killing roles until the end. The odds are highly stacked against me at this point as likely the only actual townie left -- save for a Vig/another Poisoner and possibly one other.

[Tom Mason]

EBWOP 3035: checking CABOOSE, not EGL.

If the caboose claim is fake, I think it most likely that he's responsible for the cremation kills, not the poisoning. It's an easier save if someone blocks his attempted kill.

The issue is that now BlakAdder is dead. He was the doctor. It is possible if Caboose had fake claimed that BA blocked him.

We have no way of knowing this.

There was no cremation kill last night phase, which leaves the potential that Caboose actually blocked that kill -- or he is really lying.

With 7 people alive and one wrong lynch costing the town the game, I am not going to throw all my hopes on Caboose lying.

Also, farside22:

Can we get clarification of that death by shooting, I would appreciate it. Did the kill flavor/style get changed or are we dealing with an entirely different killing role now?

If it is a mistake, then there are actually only FOUR killing roles left. If it is not a mistake, then it is FIVE killing roles.

Rather important clarification, I think.

[Tom Mason]

I am surprised that given CK spends so much time talking about hammering no one has made any effort to question him on starting the votes for Caboose during this phase.

And how am I supposed to help myself? You are all trying to stick me in a bad spot -- if I vote for Caboose regardless of how he flips, I am dead tomorrow.

I cannot vote for him given the real chance he could flip town. All of you have nothing to lose if you are SKs. I would be a fool to vote for Caboose.

[Tom Mason]

That was a BIG mistake. I'm really sorry to Lowell and killa seven. To clarify, both were not night-killable. But I don't see a way to make this fair, except giving you an honorable win?

If you have any suggestions, please tell. I'm giving myself a well-deserved LOSE

Either let them still vote and make the game interesting, or let them pick one kill between the two of them.

Having all of these killing roles as unkillable at night would have made this game go on forever.

[Tom Mason]

Okay. killa seven and Lowell, you have the opportunity to make 1 kill from the remaining four. Both of you must send me the name, and it must be the same, otherwise the kill will not count.

I don't understand this plan at all. What is the point again?

You guys decide on someone to kill, then both send a PM to skitzer with the same player name to confirm. Then that person dies.

The point is to "justify" the fact that everyone seems to have been given roles where they are unkillable.

[Tom Mason]

I could not win anyway at this point, I guess unless you all lynched each other. So good work.

[Tom Mason]

You know, I just realized this and I am pissed...

I proposed the idea to give killa seven and Lowell a kill... AND I GET F'ING KILLED!?

Thanks a lot...

[Tom Mason]

Raider's alive again?

lol, did you notice the topic that says game over?

Ernie is a little slow.