cicero wrote:. The night scene plus Fonz's anger and indignance at anyone daring to question Skruffs innocence threw me off at first. Then I remembered...oh yeah... this is fonz. (Side note Fonz, people suspecting Skruffs as the SK is NOT Ludicrous. Skruffs didnt know what the night scene would look like when he claimed and the mod didnt make Skruffs claim on day one. I see your point, but I dont see yelling at people over it as being appropriate in this instance.)
I don't see 'angry and indignant' in my posts. Well, apart from the one to BM. I was trying, by conveying my extreme certainty in this matter, to convey the fact that I had an innocent investigation without having to come out and say as such. Since the arguments against Skruffs boiled down to 1) BM trying to suggest that him having a kitchen role made him likely the kitchen killer [as a side note, I DO still think this is a horrible argument- I see it as bad modding to give a player a safeclaim of a role that allows that kind of argument- safeclaims are supposed to be SAFE] and 2) BM and Skruffs disagreeing on BBN, and there being an 'innocent' on BM. So, we have one really bad argument, and one argument the counterpoint to which is my own investigation.
Also Fonz has, I think, refused to take into account that his own investigations might not be 100% accurate.(apologies if Ive missed that). If we are mentioning Tarhalindur as being possibility inaccurate because of BM we need to reflect on the converse proposition as well. Fonz, have you considered that as a possibility? I'm still puzzling out the bad behavior notes though
No, I haven't, on the grounds that variant sanity in limited cops is almost unheard of. Conversely, given that I knew we DID have at least one limited cop, that made me very sceptical of the possibility of Tar being a full cop. I also couldn't rule out the possibility that he is lying, hence I needed as much info as possible to evaluate his claim.
We know that a kid was killed in the kitchen once. In normal mafia the kid would always be killed like that. In normal mafia, though, there isnt much scenery to work with. In this foodfight mafia it could end up being like a game of Clue. I'd rather see whether someone dies in the library tonight or something given that Skruffs has a cop innocent. I also think Fonzie should live and should maybe consider investigating Skruffs again.
Several problems with that.
1) It implies an awful lot of cop roles.
2) You're directing the cop.
3) IF that situation is not the case, and i think it's unlikely, then it's a waste of an investigation.
Tarhalindur wrote:Given the situation, I'm going to make the big clarifiying post after all (Fonz's information role claim helps - when I asked Fonz for explanation, I was trying to check for role-based information).
THIS, by any name,
is
rolefishing.
I am, in short, a mason-cop. I will not reveal my name at this time due to that revelation outing at least one of my mason partners (outing my partners *may* be the correct play at some point, but not today). I would like name claims from The Fonz and ABR, however, unless they have a good reason not to share.
I have already both nameclaimed and foodclaimed. Everything in my box has been thrown.
I was given no indication of sanity (given my flavor, I have some doubts about my sanity, but I don't have any evidence to support those doubts), and as far as I know I don't look for a specific scumgroup.
Flavour hints about sanity were exactly the kind of things I had in mind.
If I had been given any indication of sanity or detection capabilities, I would have mentioned them in my original claim ala Mafia 67 (one major reason why I was so annoyed with The Fonz for asking about these specifics, the others being tone and possible fishing).
As would I.
I
would also indicate the lack of them, as per my claim in
Mini488.
AS I said, as power role I consider it a duty to inform town as much as possible on issues like this, and of course, since you appeared to be claiming full cop and I knew i was a specific-scumgroup cop, I had reason to doubt your claim. You also neglect to take into account- there's no way for the rest of us to know you hadn't simply forgotten, or not realised at the time you claimed that your investigations were likely to reveal people who were anti-town in a specific manner, assuming them to be the only scumgroup (see my point about 'colluding with the authorities' in the original argument).
Hence i saw your refusal to elaborate as obviously anti-town.
