Mystery Mafia 2- Game Over! But who won!?

[Lawrencelot]

Hello guys, sorry I'm late. I'll try to read everything during this week, but I can't promise anything.

[Lawrencelot]

While reading (I'm at page 12 now) I have some questions for everyone:
1) Do you think it is possible that at any point of the game there are no scum alive? Why / why not?
2) What do you think triggers the timing, amount and alignments of new people joining the game?
3) In which situation would no lynch not be a bad option in this game?

[Lawrencelot]

2) Based on just the 2 time that new people have come in it looks like when a scum dies. First I saw Alaska killed and a new group comes in then I see Kison dead and a new group comes in. Looks like it is when scum is lynched or killed that a new group comes in that triggers things.

This would be true if it also happened after DGB died, which isn't the case.

Anyway, these are the people who were alive when Day 2 started:
Lord Hur, Mnowax, Nightson, Ashmite84, Patrick, Dasquian, Vel-Rahn Koon

Since every person in this list except Lord hur and Patrick are dead, and more importantly, town, I think we can all skip the "I think" and just assume that one of Lord_hur and Patrick is scum (we only have to find out who). We lynch one, and if he's town we lynch the other. I'm leaning towards Patrick-scum but I'll try to read everything before I vote. I still want other people to answer my questions though.

[Lawrencelot]

Vote: Patrick

First of all, he feels less protown to me than lord_hur does, although his posting didn't really seem scummy to me.
Second, in post 346 Kison makes a PBPA and about Patrick he says something like (paraphrased): "Patrick has good logic, thinks the way I do, but I only want to know why he wants VRK dead." After that Kison makes a case against VRK and votes him.
Thirdly: right in the next post VRK uses some good logic to explain why lord_hur and nightson would be scum. Since our daycop said he thought they were both protown, I think these two are of the same alignment. VRK said that pop probably didn't know he was insane, therefore he concluded Nightson and LH are scum. But as we know, Nightson wasn't scum, so maybe pop knew he was insane after all, which means Lh is town. The only other explanation would be that pop didn't target both or any of these two players at all, but it looks like a pretty good cop tell to me.

[Lawrencelot]

Second, in post 346 Kison makes a PBPA and about Patrick he says something like (paraphrased): "Patrick has good logic, thinks the way I do, but I only want to know why he wants VRK dead." After that Kison makes a case against VRK and votes him.

I'm not sure what your point is.

It's a tie between Kison and you.

Thirdly: right in the next post VRK uses some good logic to explain why lord_hur and nightson would be scum. Since our daycop said he thought they were both protown, I think these two are of the same alignment. VRK said that pop probably didn't know he was insane, therefore he concluded Nightson and LH are scum. But as we know, Nightson wasn't scum, so maybe pop knew he was insane after all, which means Lh is town. The only other explanation would be that pop didn't target both or any of these two players at all, but it looks like a pretty good cop tell to me.

Wow, this is terrible. Firstly, can you give a single example of a cop that was told they were insane? I've never seen it happen, and it seems pretty pointless to tell a cop they're insane. If you really believed populartajo investigated lord_hur, you'd be voting him, not me, and this looks like you just twisted this issue into a point against me because you already decided you'd be voting me. Secondly, I think it's highly likely from the posts that populartajo investigated Greasy Spot and found him guilty: his actions are perfectly consistent with it. I haven't FoSed anyone in a while, but this is so bad I can hardly believe it's genuine.

FoS: Lawrencelot.

In this game everything is possible. Populartajo is dead so I can't vote him. I already decided I'd vote you or lord_h, because one of you is almost certainly scum. I don't think pop investigated Greasy, Greasy was just acting so scummy that it was fine to lynch him, just as mnowax was acting very scummy. And if you think it's not genuine: the first reason (together with the one of you and lordH is scum) is a very good reason to vote you from my point of view, it only doesn't add to the case on you.

[Lawrencelot]

It's a tie between Kison and you.

Why?

A) because he says that you have good logic and think the same way he does. B) he wonders why you found VRK scummy but then votes for him himself.

I notice that in your other response, you seem to avoid responding to a few crucial points. I'll ask again: do you honestly think populartajo was an insane cop that was told he was insane? Has you ever seen that happen? I just feel like you've taken a point against lord_hur and spun in into a point against me with no reasonable justification. Even if there's a tiny chance he was told he was insane, it seems much less likely than him NOT knowing he was insane.

On top of that, I continue to think it's much more likely he investigated Greasy Spot anyway. His play makes perfect sense for that, and Greasy Spot wasn't that scummy; he was more of a compromise lynch.

Upon thinking about it again, I think an insane cop who is told he's insane indeed makes no sense, such a role would fulfill exactly the same function as a cop that's told he's sane. But the fact that I've never seen it in a game does not matter, I have also never seen a Crazed Maniac or Screwball.

Maybe the other people can tell us who they think pop investigated.

[Lawrencelot]

On Lawrencelot’s 422, I cannot for the life of me understand this sentence “First of all, he feels less protown to me than lord_hur does, although his posting didn't really seem scummy to me.” The word ‘feels’ is an abomination in this game but, moreover, this makes no sense. If not from his posting, how do you conclude Patrick is scummier? I realise you make other reasons, but then why list this one at all; it just seems like a rhetorical flourish. I don’t understand Law’s second reason. And the third reason makes too many assumptions regarding the insane cop.

Ah, either you read it wrong or I didn't formulate it well. With the sentence you quoted, I mean: Patrick and lord_hur both don't look very scummy, but Patrick still looks less protown than lord_hur (you can ignore the word "posting"). And I know it's just a feeling, so it doesn't add to the case on Patrick, but as I already said, combined with the fact that one of Patrick and LordH is scum, it's not a bad reason

for me

to vote Patrick.

Question: if we lynch one of Patrick and lord_hur, and that person comes up town, should we lynch the other or look for scum in the players that joined today? (assuming nothing extraordinary happens) This has to be answered before we lynch one of them, because if the question is "don't lynch the other" then the second question is "why would we lynch one of them today?". Man I have no idea if I'm making any sense right now...

[Lawrencelot]

Because my first argument to vote Patrick is becoming weaker and weaker, I think I'll

Unvote

for now. When's the deadline again?

Mod

: could you edit deadline info into the first post?

[Lawrencelot]

Patrick, if one of you isn't a "werewolf", what would be the other option? No scum at the start of Dx (forgot which day)?

[Lawrencelot]

Ok, someone finish me please...

Anyone really, it doesn't matter.

Vote: lord_hur

[Lawrencelot]

Before I state my opinion or vote, I would like Patrick to answer this question: why is it so obvious that lord_hur didn't make the gory kills, but why does it make total sense for a vengeful vig?

[Lawrencelot]

Vote: Patrick

. His behaviour right now doesn't seem more scummy or more protown to me, but I think there is enough evidence against him to lynch him. And if we want to lynch him ever in this game, I think now is the best time. The same counted for lord_hur yesterday.

Btw, if you don't look at his behaviour at all, there isn't much of a defense for him anyway, except the breadcrumb. I mean, everything that is said in his defense assumes that he is town, which doesn't make him scummy, but doesn't help him either.

I think this is lynch -1 or lynch -2 now. If anyone else plans on voting Patrick, please wait until everyone said what he wanted to say.

[Lawrencelot]

I think this is lynch -1 or lynch -2 now. If anyone else plans on voting Patrick, please wait until everyone said what he wanted to say.

Everyone

said

... what

he

wanted to say.... *brain-pain*

Sorry that's a Dutch form lol. I meant "they". Is something like "everyone does what he wants" incorrect in English as well?

[Lawrencelot]

What's this, no lynch? Hm, using coins to buy items, where did I see that before?

Does anybody have a clue why they have a certain amount of coins? I wonder why me and farside have much more coins than the others. Farside, do you know more than I do?

I propose that we buy as many different items as we can, so that we know what they do in case this event happens again. That means, only one of me and farside buys a shotgun. I can use a fine bottle of rum (although I have no clue what it does), then I could give my coins to someone else (not me or farside).

If anybody knows what exactly is going on, tell us, if not, tell me if you agree with the plan above.

[Lawrencelot]

Well, it's sorta hard to know what is best to do, what to buy, etc, when I don't know what this is all about. Lawrencelot mentioned seeing this before? Does anyone know where or have a guess?

I would be fine with farside getting a shotgun, but not fine with lawrencelot getting one.

I like wine, so I am fine with getting that. But I don't want to commit to anything until I have some idea what is going on.

I was talking about a different game, I don't think we can use information of that game (Mushroom Kingdom Mafia, which just finished, and buying items could be done in Pikmin Mafia as well).

If I don't buy a shotgun, I'll buy a Bottle of Rum. I could give 2 coins to Elvis Knits or Litral (preferably Litral) so he can buy Vodka, and then I give 1 coin to 2 persons who got 2 coins for example. Again, if anyone knows what is happening here tell us. Landlord is probably an alt of the mod btw.

[Lawrencelot]

Buy a bottle of rum.

If anyone needs coins, tell me, else I'll keep them and see if they're useful for something.

[Lawrencelot]

Give 2 coins to Litral.
Give 1 coin to MafiaSSK.

The other one I'm keeping to see if will be useful later.

Guys, do not drink any alchol. Seriously . I fyou do I will die.

Can you elaborate on this?

[Lawrencelot]

Mod:

Happy Birthday!

Also, having re-read Patrick, his play seems to make a lot more sense than it did reading along. I no longer intend to vote him. The vengeful vig theory really has a lot of evidence behind it. Besides, think. If he's trying to argue that that kill wasn't him, even if it was, he can't do it again all game or it gives him away. I'm fine with that.

The question is, if he says that kill wasn't him and we don't lynch him, but it's done again, how do we know whether he was lying or not?

[Lawrencelot]

Why are we quoting numbers again?

[Lawrencelot]

Because

my secret ability is to kill whomever says numbers

I have a Yoshi avatar.

Yoshi has a cool voice, but why should I quote numbers?

[Lawrencelot]

Hi guys I'm back. I was not allowed to post yesterday, because apparently I am not a rough rum-drinking pirate (you don't know me IRL BM!) so I got wasted or something. Anyway, a MafiaSSK lynch seems fine with me, I don't really buy the claim.

Vote: MafiaSSK

[Lawrencelot]

I'll check the pm which I got again:

Hm it literally said that I went to my home. I don't think that means that I can't be targeted, in normal mafia flavor the kill targets are in their homes sleeping right?

Did everybody tell what their drinks did yet?

[Lawrencelot]

I don't know what other people were thinking, but I certainly was not considering you drunkards being targets, if you catch my drift.

I understand now. Well, what you are not saying but what you are meaning, is possible, I guess (shrug). Though I'm not sure if Landlord is a real player with a real role.

Let's put this one to the public.

Does anyone who ISN'T trying to misrepresent me understand my point about why a hypoclaim is damaging?

Yes. Mafia go after the person who claimed the same target as mafia. But this can be solved, I think, by letting no more than 3 different targets in total be claimed. So, for example, townie claims A, second townie claims A, third townie claims B, fourth townie claims A (he is not allowed to say C because that would screw things up), doctor claims C, townie claims C, another townie claims C and then the mafia don't know which one of the persons who claimed C is the real doctor.

This is a plan for the simplified situation where there is only 1 kill and where we know that there is 1 person who blocked the kill. In either situation, we have to make sure every target is claimed twice to keep the mafia guessing. The only problem is that there might be a doc AND a RB (or even other kill-blocking roles), and that we don't know enough about the drinks. If someone can come up with a good strategy for our current situation, I'm all for hypo-claiming, but I doubt that will happen.

[Lawrencelot]

@ Lawrence: Yes, that is what vanilla townies should do. However, to announce that they are doing so in advance defeats the entire object.

We can all agree that there shouldn't be more than three different targets in total or something. In that case, a vanilla could introduce a new target while there is only one, but will just repeat a target when there are already two different ones, and scum don't know if the doc claimed his target first or later. But again, only works with 1 doc or 1 RB or something.

The fact that there is possibly a doc AND an RB does not work against the plan- it makes it harder for the scum to know who to shoot at, since they don't know which was the actual stopper. And if a couple days down the line, we find out somehow that there is definitely no doc, then we have an implicated scum, fairy godfather theories about drinking aside.

You are assuming the doc and RB BOTH stopped the kill, but if they had different targets, only one of them stopped the kill, while they both think they stopped the kill, but the mafia would know who really stopped the kill in this case. So it does work against the plan, except when they had the same target, which I wouldn't assume very easily.

[Lawrencelot]

Sorry for DP, testing some things:
@Landlord: -Are you a player in this game? Have you received a role pm?
-Could you vote someone who has zero votes to show us that you can vote?
-Who's the scum?

[Lawrencelot]

@ Lawrence: Yes, that is what vanilla townies should do. However, to announce that they are doing so in advance defeats the entire object.

We can all agree that there shouldn't be more than three different targets in total or something. In that case, a vanilla could introduce a new target while there is only one, but will just repeat a target when there are already two different ones, and scum don't know if the doc claimed his target first or later. But again, only works with 1 doc or 1 RB or something

Works fine until the actual RB claims last...

Yeah I already thought about that. But the RB knows that as well, so if he's not too inactive he can prevent that himself.

The fact that there is possibly a doc AND an RB does not work against the plan- it makes it harder for the scum to know who to shoot at, since they don't know which was the actual stopper. And if a couple days down the line, we find out somehow that there is definitely no doc, then we have an implicated scum, fairy godfather theories about drinking aside.

You are assuming the doc and RB BOTH stopped the kill, but if they had different targets, only one of them stopped the kill, while they both think they stopped the kill, but the mafia would know who really stopped the kill in this case. So it does work against the plan, except when they had the same target, which I wouldn't assume very easily.

Don't be ridiculous. I'm not assuming they both blocked the kill, i'm assuming the precise opposite. One or other did. The whole hypo thing comes about precisely because we want to have the possibility of info later, without the risk of outing both now.

If the doc and RB had different targets, how can you say that the scum does not know which was the actual stopper? They just look at which target matches theirs. Either I'm missing something, or you're just confusing yourself here.

[Lawrencelot]

I'm so stupid. In my latest posts, I did not realize RB has to target the scum and doc the scumtarget in order to prevent a kill. So never mind what I said Fonz...

[Lawrencelot]

I support it as well.

I targeted Landlord... or no one.

I think MafiaSSK is away btw. But his claim is good enough to lynch him.

[Lawrencelot]

Anyway, as for the kills, I think we understand why Fonz wanted a hypo claim.

So, it's pretty obvious, at least to me, that we need to

Vote Tony Montana

as per the Fonz' block.

This is indeed not a bad assumption.

Vote: Tony Montana

. I request a claim from him. Also,

"You might also want to avoid mentioning the recent series of accidental deaths... "

anyone got an idea what this means?

[Lawrencelot]

Lots of new but familiar faces btw. Welcome!

[Lawrencelot]

Oh I see..
That's ridiculous.. Why would I possibly do that?

Do what?

I took it as a joke.
Don't tell our new residents that they might be killed, harhar.

Yeah that should be it. I think I read it the wrong way or something.

[Lawrencelot]

Oh I see..
That's ridiculous.. Why would I possibly do that?

Do what?

Well, forbiddanlight is apparantly proposing that since The Fonz said he targeted me in the hypoclaim, he must have blocked a killattempt by me the previous night, and therefore I must have killed the fonz, because I knew he blocked my kill.

First of all, I am not scum, and there was nothing to block.
Secondly, elvis also said he targeted me.
Thirdly, what do you take me for, some kind of putz?

I think forbiddanlight was just a little to quick to put together this hypothesis, and Lawrence just a little to eager to jump on.

And don't get me started on that bastard, landlord.

Oh. I did not think about that at all. Fonz being killed does not mean you killed the Fonz, but it means that we know what he did the night before, namely blocking you, and if he blocked you and wanted to make sure there's a hypoclaim, then he probably thought that he prevented you from killing someone, which is likely considering there was only 1 kill. Whether or not you killed The Fonz this night doesn't have anything to do with it. It is possible though that forbiddanlight killed the Fonz to make you look bad, but you look bad to me even if you didn't kill the Fonz.

[Lawrencelot]

I think landlord is a player though, whether he's controlled by BM or not. He can vote (at least today) and he appears in the player list. If he's BM and also a player, he's probably here to screw around, as it would be unfair to any faction to have the mod on their side. Maybe he's some sort of survivor?

Btw, I was only absent during the day. I went home during the day to sleep it off. Does not mean I have a night action per se, this is what my pm said.

[Lawrencelot]

Are you saying you could perform night actions or not?

I am saying that I was told that I could not post or do anything during the day, while it said nothing about the night. If I was indeed unable to perform night actions, the mod did not tell me.

Lawrencelot defended lord_hur on the crucial Day 3B (after the bombing),

I don't recall any defense of lord_hur. But I remember that I found him more likely to be town than Patrick, and then something changed my mind. If you want me to read back, just ask (and mention the page number).

I also think the divided-hypoclaim idea in post 741 is pure confusatory insanity

Say what?

If it is BM controlled, then it can't have a win condition and we should completely ignore it.

I disagree. He can have a win condition, but it probably has nothing to do with eliminating the town or the scum, as he knows who's town and scum. I do agree that we should ignore him for now, he didn't answer my questions anyway.

[Lawrencelot]

Hi Korts.

Alright, if it's not Tony I don't know who was responsible for the no kill, but it's not me. Obviously, that doesn't mean anything to town, so shall I claim or what? Claiming my role could help town, but it could also help mafia.

[Lawrencelot]

The wine had no effect on me. You can tell by how I was posting and active while lawrence was passed out from his bottle of alcohol.

In order to keep my theory alive I would point out With Lawrences case we all witnessed the effect, in your case we only have your word. Just becuase we couldn't see anything happen, doesn't mean it didn't.

Also theres a possibility the wine made you inactive at night and the rum made lawrence inactive during the day. Then again... maybe the Vodka made someone inactive during the day, and the rum made them inactive during the night AND day. It may account for the price difference.

You're saying that maybe wine had no effect on me during the day, but then later, prevented me from night actions? Delayed drunken stupor? It's never worked that way for me in real life...

Also, it has to do with quantity. One glass wasn't enough to make me pass out like one pint of beer didn't make those people pass out and lose day or night actions/activity. Lawrence drank a whole bottle, which could kill you or at least prevent you from doing anything (completing night kills).

I wouldn't argue about how it would work IRL, this game is nothing like real life. For example, if one can kill someone with an empty glass, why can't he with a full glass? I'm not sure if you are indeed responsible for the kill, but what Korlash said is something I'm going to keep in mind.

Anyway, we don't have a lot of time so I'll claim now. I'm a Copycat, though not in the sense that I copy someone else's role or abilities. When something happens to me, I have to choose someone else, and the same will happen to them (this made me send lots of clarification pms to the mod, so I expect questions from you as well). Yes, this counts for being nightkilled as well, and even for being lynched. Note that my ability is obligatory, but not when nothing happens to me.

Only 1 thing happened to me in this game, and that's the alcohol thing. When I drank the rum, I couldn't post during the day, so I had to choose someone else who also couldn't post during the day. Not seeing any benefit of having less information, and because I was curious whether he was in fact a player and what would happen, I chose Landlord. Luckily BM himself kept posting .

About the delayed alcohol effect, could it be that Litral died of the alcohol as well? If so, then Elvis not being able to do night actions while he posted before, is not that unbelievable.

[Lawrencelot]

Define "something." Do you mean anything? If you are Doc protected, Rbed, investigated, etc... do they ALL count as something? Or only things you are TOLD about?

Yes, they all count as something. When I'm protected, I must choose someone else who will be protected, for example. I only don't know what happens when I'm investigated, I have to choose someone else, but I don't know if the cop/watcher/tracker will get two results, or 1, or whatever.

And you do know we could lynch you, and if you are telling the truth, could have Elvis lynched with you. (Hypothetically.. insert town's overall second pick) That would get rid of our two biggest suspects at once.

True. But then you won't have me around anymore to do other useful things with (two doc protects for example). And you'd have to trust me. But if you trust me, why would you lynch me... I think this is not a really good reason to get me lynched.

Btw, I have to choose my target

after

I'm told what happens to me.

[Lawrencelot]

unvote

.

I think I understand the role based on your description. I do also see how it can be dangerous for town as well as helpful. I wonder how BM would handle double actions on you - say you were protected and killed. It seems like you would only duplicate the successful action (protection).

No in that case I duplicate both, and I have to choose targets for both.

The idea is we don't let him get sole control of his power if he is lynched. We do two votes to see who we find second most scummy, and town lawrence should have no reason not to listen to us. Scum lawrence goes down and may take a townie with him, if he's scum with this role, but

that would happen anyway when he got lynched

. If he's just regular scum, we have a good lynch. Essentially, we do have the possibility of losing two townies, but we'd likely end up doing the same thing using 2 days rather than one. I'm...trying to phrase this properly, but basically I think this works to our advantage if we have 2 lynches today because they'll be deaths under town control, whereas if we had the normal one lynch with a townie lawrence we'd just end up lynching our second suspect the next day. Both townies means we just wasted 2 days instead of one :S.

I think it's still win win.

Not sure if I understand this logic. Can you explain the bolded part?

[Lawrencelot]

The list from the no-kill night and how it oculd have happened:

1)Lawrence is scum: too drunk to make the kill
2)I protected a kill on TM
3)Farside protected a kill on litral

4)Fonz block TM-scum

Updated:

1)Lawrence is scum: too drunk to make the kill
2)I protected a kill on TM

3)Farside protected a kill on litral

4)Fonz block TM-scum

So either I protected a kill on TM, or lawrence is scum and was too drunk to kill.

I thought I would let you know that actually do not have protective powers. I could not have protected TM from a kill. So the only option is lawrencelot is lying scumbag.

You didn't update the newest theory, that you were too drunk to make the kill. I'd vote you but see below.

Now that farside is dead, is it not possible she normally killed but couldn't because of the drinks? What did she drink anyway? And what the heck is a bookie?

[Lawrencelot]

Also, I'm at L-2 now. Don't hammer, there's enough to discuss still. Like, who I should target. Somehow, I don't feel like killing Elvis, she makes too much sense even though she's wrong about me.

[Lawrencelot]

Looking back at farside's drinking thing, it was indeed a shotgun, and this was her explanation:

I have a shot gun but no ammunition. It's the equivalent of a big stick with nothing.

If she was scum telling the truth (that's not that rare) it could mean she couldn't kill anymore because she tried a shotgun but found out too late that there was no ammunation or something. This is a flavor explanation for: yes the item she bought prevented her from killing someone. Seeing as my power can be pretty powerful, I think it's not that unlikely that scum can normally kill and use a power at the same time. I also find this more likely than elvis's delayed wine effect.

Meh,

Unvote; Vote Killa seven

. If you don't know who to lynch, always lynch killa seven . Come on people, my power can help the town a lot, but not when I'm dead! And letting me choose who to take down with me won't help the town much, as I have no clue who's scum, besides the dead scum. I'd even rather no lynch.

[Lawrencelot]

What do you think about my latest explanation for the no kill? If I'm missing something, and farside wasn't the cause of the no kill, then I will just assume Elvis was responsible for it.

What she does doesn't need to be town-misleading. If I was in her shoes and wasn't the cause of the no kill, I would do exactly the same she's doing.

[Lawrencelot]

Guess what, I was roleblocked tonight lol. I chose to copyblock elvis_knits. I don't know if that says anything about her alignment though. Before anyone hammers, please be

very sure

that the WHOLE town, or at least a majority, has the same second lynch in mind.

In case this is my last post, I'll share some of my thoughts, but only on the newer players as the others are more a matter of nightkill and set-up analysis, and I suck at that.
Surye: not really liking his logic, but that might be because I'm the victim of it. He could post a bit more. 60% scum
Korlash: active, not small posts, and i really feel he's helping the town. 70% scum
killa seven: needs to be prodded or replaced
Korts: seems a bit scummy to me, I especially don't like his 7th post, it seemed a lie to me when he said bionic's kill fits my profile. Less scummy than Surye though: 50% scum

About who's the killer: I'm pretty sure it's not as simple as we thought. I can think of an endless amount of possibilities, one that's just popped up is: maybe there is a role that had a power that prevented the kill, before that player officially joined the game. Who knows what BM came up with. Then we have Landlord, who also could be a doc or something (not that likely though). Or it was forbiddan, or scum indeed did not send in a kill. It's a shame that I'm the victim of this, with this cool role, but I understand that I am the most likely solution to the problem and I accept my fate. Now give me some copycat food.

[Lawrencelot]

EBWOP: Korlash should be 70% town, not scum

[Lawrencelot]

Were you actually told "You have been RBed"?

I was told that I had to choose someone else who would be roleblocked, just like me.

Lawrence: is there some part of your role that you haven't yet told us?

Yes, what happens when a cop targets me. But I do not know what happens to the cop in that case.

The problem I see with killing K7 or Landlord is, we still wouldn't get rid of the stabber if it was indeed someone who joined D3. I would prefer killing forbiddanlight.

Elvis, are you implying you know that you're not RBed? Don't answer if you don't need to.

[Lawrencelot]

Yes, what happens when a cop targets me. But I do not know what happens to the cop in that case.

Please elaborate on this. For now, it looks like you're pre-emptively trying to justify any guilty result on you.

I already did earlier. If a cop targets me, I copy the investigation to someone else, but I don't know yet what happens to the cop. I'm guessing one of these 3 things would happen: either the cop gets 2 results, or he gets a guilty if one of me and the copied target is guilty and else innocent, or he gets an innocent if one of me and the copied target is innocent and else guilty. If there is a cop, this could be tested by letting me copy the investigation to the cop himself, then the cop can rule out 2 of these possibilities and have an accurate result on me. But that would require a claim.

I find it very interesting that Lawrence was apparently targetted for RB, yet that doesn't actually block him, but allows him to copy the block and block someone else.

Well, I guess it's a bit like two blockers blocking each other: do they both get blocked or not. Maybe I was blocked in copying anything else, but I didn't get a message of being targeted, besides the roleblock, or me being roleblocked would also block that message... I'll stop speculating now before I confuse myself .

[Lawrencelot]

I ignored it because you didn't ask me anything, and I wouldn't know the answer if you did. In post 1001 you did, so I quoted Elvis because it was easier to quote. And if I quoted post 1001, the issue would not be quoted...

You being RBed should block the "you have been RBed" message. Your ability is one that targets, so it can be blocked. Meaning all aspects of that ability should be blocked.

My ability targets, indeed, but the other part is the message thing, which apparently wasn't blocked. Maybe copying the roleblock wasn't blocked, because then the message wouldn't make sense? I don't know. Maybe you provided the answer yourself with the priority thing and I have more priority, I don't know. Asking doesn't hurt anyone:

Mod

: do you have a priority list for resolving night actions?

[Lawrencelot]

I outlined two seperate theories as to why you are probably lying. Question or not you should have felt the urge to respond to them. To not respond at all leaves me to conclude one of my theories is probably correct.

I did not see you implied that I was lying. Better be more clear next time, or I should read more carefully.

And there-in lies my problem. Why even bother telling you? No matter who you pick or what you do, it will be blocked anyway. Copying a block does nothing as you yourself will be blocked. Unless you're not telling us something about your role.

I see where you're coming from, but it's just plain logic:
IF I get a message that I'm blocked, me not being able to get someone else blocked wouldn't make sense.
IF I am blocked and therefore can't copy the block, me getting a message wouldn't make sense (unless any vanilla would get a message if he was blocked, but this message was not like that).
SO: either I got a message and also copied the block, or both did not happen.

Do YOU copy the action, or is the action copied for the person targeting you? Such as if a cop investigates you and you target player B, does the cop investigate both or do you investigate player B and the cop investigates you?

For this, there is a clear answer. It's the latter. I don't copy any actions for myself, it's just as if the one that performs an action on me, performs two actions: one on me, and another one on the target of my choice. I don't exactly know what happens when a cop investigates me, but I do know that I don't investigates anyone, I just copy targets.

[Lawrencelot]

Good game. And thanks Iceman for helping me survive so long. For the record, me and farside were mafia with Landlord, but we also thought he was BM.

Mod: did Landlord join the mafia because I targeted him with alcohol?