Mini 684: Quacks and Masons Mafia- Game Over

[roflcopter]

this game has too much setup discussion and not nearly enough discussing how scummy clammy is

[clammy]

Yes, so you say, but you fail to see how important the setup is for us here in this game and that we need to collaborate on our strategy so as not to ruin us entirely.

[roflcopter]

way to entirely sidestep the issue of how scummy you are

i'm right on the money again methinks

[clammy]

right.. i sidestepped a very clearly articulated and fully developed outline of how scummy i am...

[roflcopter]

deflection! 2 points

why does everyone always expect reasons for a vote to be constantly repeated?

[clammy]

I'm not asking for any reasons, frankly i don't care that you're voting me.
But if you're wanting anything but "deflection" you'd better start coming up with an accusation.
Otherwise, if you're okay with being irrelevant, then continue along this line of posting.

[roflcopter]

did you miss the part where you proposed a plan that would out the masons to the scum on day one and then i voted you for trying to enact a plan that is so blatantly pro scum?

thats the accusation that i'd better come up with. still think i'm irrelevant?

[clammy]

Yes.
I didn't miss that at all, you seem to think yourself and that post so important that i should quake at your presence rather than objectively assess your intent.
I choose sense, i still think your post is irrelevant.

[roflcopter]

i'm glad we can speak so candidly about this

i do think i'm a big deal

you still haven't addressed the fact that your plan was proscum, but i guess i'll wait til anyone else weighs in on this. not that i wouldn't enjoy an entire page of back and forth between us.

[muffinhead]

Vote Count

Netlava (2)- Dattebayo, Riceballtail

clammy (1)- roflcopter
Riceballtail (1)- Netlava

Not Voting (8)- Pimhel, Sun Tsu, springlullaby,clammy,pacman281292,Light-Kun,raider8169,sotty7

7 will do it

[Sotty7]

did you miss the part where you proposed a plan that would out the masons to the scum on day one and then i voted you for trying to enact a plan that is so blatantly pro scum?

Yes.
I didn't miss that at all, you seem to think yourself and that post so important that i should quake at your presence rather than objectively assess your intent.
I choose sense, i still think your post is irrelevant.

You think it's irrelevant that you suggested such a bad plan? To me, that's actually pretty damn relevant.

FOS: Clammy

I'd also like to second Dattebayo's call to Netlava, asking if the vote on RTB was serious or not.

[pacman281292]

wait WAIT I HAVE AN IDEA:

I don't know if docs and/or quacks can target themselves, but if they can, they might then target themselves:
Docs will not die.
Quacks will instantly die; we get rid of them.
There is a 2/3 probability of scum targetting doc or quack (no effects) and 1/3 of scum targetting mason (unlucky).
I hope this works. It's just an idea, and might not work, and it might not be possible, but if it is, then we have a great advantage with two less town-killers. Thoughts?

[springlullaby]

wait WAIT I HAVE AN IDEA:

I don't know if docs and/or quacks can target themselves, but if they can, they might then target themselves:
Docs will not die.
Quacks will instantly die; we get rid of them.
There is a 2/3 probability of scum targetting doc or quack (no effects) and 1/3 of scum targetting mason (unlucky).
I hope this works. It's just an idea, and might not work, and it might not be possible, but if it is, then we have a great advantage with two less town-killers. Thoughts?

Mod, can docs target themselves?

Now, quack dying for the purpose of dying is out of the question.

FOS Pacman.

Vote roflcopter

, I don't the way you are pushing your case on clammy.

Fos clammy

, your plan indeed sucks, and unless you can explain clearly what was your bright idea for night action, I'm calling it bluff, and my vote is switching onto you.

[springlullaby]

Clarification, Pacman's plan fail independently of whether or not doc can target themselve.

The question to the mod is to prevent any possible result to what I see as a dangerous question, or even an attempt at fishing. Docs should not be tempted into answering that question if they know the answer.

[pacman281292]

That was just an idea. Quacks can be potentially dangerous for town, because they only kill pro-town players, not scum. In case they find out their sanity (near-impossible) they might work as Xdaamno's Colonel Witchhunter. But it's possible that a quack would never find out their sanity.
But, I think that it's still something very risky, and if the quacks die, we would be left with lots of doctors and a mason group, better than having two weird killing roles that might confuse the doctors.
and, in a last point, questions to mod can just be made via PM.

[raider8169]

If the docs could protect themselves that could break the game. After all the scum kill the masons and whatnot the real docs can vote no lynch and protect themselves and repeat.

[Riceballtail]

FoS:Pacman

for stating a plan I also don't like.

[raider8169]

FoS:Pacman

for stating a plan I also don't like.

The plan sounds bad at first but it did have some chance of success. Ones the quacks are out of the picture we have hopefuly 4 docs that can start protecting anyone they can. That should cut down on night kills. I would prefere that we lynch scum during the day and then they nightkill one. Repeat and by the 3rd day docs can start doing their thing.

My plan most likely wont allow docs to start protecting until late in the game when they may not be as useful. I still think that has a better chance of success.

[Dattebayo]

I see bad plans as faults in logic rather than scum tells.

Anyway, my scumlist at this point is Netlava, Clammy, and Springlullaby.

Vote roflcopter, I don't the way you are pushing your case on clammy.

Fos clammy, your plan indeed sucks, and unless you can explain clearly what was your bright idea for night action, I'm calling it bluff, and my vote is switching onto you.

You drop suspicon on Clammy for his bad plan (the same reason as rofl) but also vote rofl for the "way" that he pushes the case. That is somewhat contradictory and your keeping your foot in all doors.


Clammy's posts 80 and 82 come with the implication that roflcopter never came up with the any reasons for voting Clammy (bolded), but when rofl pointed out his reason again, Clammy said that "he didn't miss it [the original point] at all" and then dismisses the post as irrelevant without reason.

right..

i sidestepped a very clearly articulated and fully developed outline of how scummy i am

...

I'm not asking for any reasons, frankly i don't care that you're voting me.

But if you're wanting anything but "deflection" you'd better start coming up with an accusation

.
Otherwise, if you're okay with being irrelevant, then continue along this line of posting.

I also want to point his use of the word "frankly". It is used quite often by scum. Since scum spend most of the game in a lie, when they tell the truth, they often end up pointing it out.

did you miss the part where you proposed a plan that would out the masons to the scum on day one and then i voted you for trying to enact a plan that is so blatantly pro scum?

thats the accusation that i'd better come up with. still think i'm irrelevant?

Yes.
I didn't miss that at all, you seem to think yourself and that post so important that i should quake at your presence rather than objectively assess your intent.
I choose sense, i still think your post is irrelevant.

FoS: Clammy

FoS: springlullaby

[muffinhead]

Mod, can docs target themselves?

.

NO. Doctors in normal games cannot protect themselves. The same applies here.

[roflcopter]

holy crap springlullaby thank you for making it so obvious you are clammy's scumpartner.

fos: springlullaby

[pacman281292]

nevermind posts 86 and 89, then.

My plan most likely wont allow docs to start protecting until late in the game when

they may not be as useful.

I still think that has a better chance of success.

At the end of the game, a doc protection/quack fail would be catastrophic and might be the definitive move.

[Netlava]

holy crap springlullaby thank you for making it so obvious you are clammy's scumpartner.

Please explain.

Were you serious with that vote?

Yes, for missing the idea that shortening the number of days may be justifiable if it ends positively for town.

Pacman's plan would make sense if it were to work. I'm curious why springlullaby and rice see it as such a major fail.

Also, one point that I forgot to consider earlier is that quacks will know that they are quacks if they end up killing someone, if protections are assigned correctly. I'm still trying to figure out a good way of making use of this, if it's possible to do so. (else we go vanilla and stick to it unless we hit lylo or something)

[clammy]

I see i've got some misnomers to dispell.

did you miss the part where you proposed a plan that would out the masons to the scum on day one and then i voted you for trying to enact a plan that is so blatantly pro scum?

Yes.
I didn't miss that at all, you seem to think yourself and that post so important that i should quake at your presence rather than objectively assess your intent.
I choose sense, i still think your post is irrelevant.

You think it's irrelevant that you suggested such a bad plan? To me, that's actually pretty damn relevant.

FOS: Clammy

You've changed what i've said. Not that roflcoptor's opinion is irrelevant, nor that the impact of my stated plan here is irrelevant, but that roflcoptor's vote is irrelevant when he demands i respond to him in a particular way when i have no intention to take him seriously.

Vote roflcopter

, I don't the way you are pushing your case on clammy.

Fos clammy

, your plan indeed sucks, and unless you can explain clearly what was your bright idea for night action, I'm calling it bluff, and my vote is switching onto you.

A bet each way is not scum hunting, nor powerful play, but if it makes you look good and feel big about yourself it's probably all okay.

I also want to point his use of the word "frankly". It is used quite often by scum. Since scum spend most of the game in a lie, when they tell the truth, they often end up pointing it out.

Lying is poor play from scum, scum should tell the truth as often and as vigorously as possible, telling the truth is how scum get townies mis-lynched for "being caught in a lie".

Or maybe that's too logical.

Or maybe you're not very good at playing scum when you get that role.

Clammy's posts 80 and 82 come with the implication that roflcopter never came up with the any reasons for voting Clammy (bolded), but when rofl pointed out his reason again, Clammy said that "he didn't miss it [the original point] at all" and then dismisses the post as irrelevant without reason.

I can see how you're reading in there that there was no attached acknowledgment of his original post, but as i've already pointed out in this post it's his vote that i find irrelevant and you're also changing what i said.

[Netlava]

Vote roflcopter, I don't the way you are pushing your case on clammy.

Fos clammy, your plan indeed sucks, and unless you can explain clearly what was your bright idea for night action, I'm calling it bluff, and my vote is switching onto you.

I missed this post the first time around but, yeah, this is pretty scummy.

Unvote, vote: springlullaby