MtG: Parallel Universe Mafia (fl's subgame): Game Over

[Yosarian2]

/confirm

[Yosarian2]

Moving DDD to the other game seems harmless enough.

The one thing is, if someone in our game has that power, I don't want them to claim just to get rid of an irrelevent neutral role. Eventually, either he'll die, or he'll be moved to the other game, or his lover will die, or his lover will be moved here, or something. If he's telling the truth, it dosn't really help us or hurt us, and if he's lying, he'll be caught eventually.

So, basically, if someone has a multi-shot ability to move people into other games and wants to do so for DDD, go for it. If not, if it's a one shot ability, then don't waste it. If you're a vig and feel like shooting him, feel free to do that to. It dosn't really matter to the town either way. There's no sense in wasting a lynch on him, or getting anyone to claim a power role just to help/hurt him.

[Yosarian2]

Anyway, I'm not going to try to read the other games right now. Probably because it's 3:00 in the morning and I'm halfway drunk. If anything important happens, let me know.

[Yosarian2]

My psudo-sig is in no way related to my role. I am not being forced to include who'd I'd shoot if I were a vig. It's my personal choice, 100%.

At this point, I'm not buying it.

Unvote
Vote: Porkens

Until I see proof that you can post without it.

Say, hypothetically, he has a role where he has to put something like that in his posts. Say also, hypothetically, that he's not allowed to talk about it or admit it due to some post restriction. Does that really sound like an anti-town role to you?

The sig thing might very well be game related, but I'm not entierly clear on how that makes him more likely scum.

[Yosarian2]

I agree with most of what Yosarian said in 106, with the exception that he seems to be giving a free pass from lynch consideration, based on the claim, to DDD. I'm not pro-that at all. If DDD is scummy, I'll lynch him independent of his claim, and I expect him to play with that in mind.

I expect that we'll find out if he's telling the truth or lying soon enough. If someone makes an easily confirmable claim, lynching them without testing their claim is just bad tactics.

ALso, I kind of agree with spyrex here; the other games are interesting, but in order to win the key is going to be to find scum in this game and lynch them, and that's what we should spend most of our time discussing/

[Yosarian2]

The sig thing might very well be game related, but I'm not entierly clear on how that makes him more likely scum.

The fact that he would have blatantly lied about it several times.

Explain to me exactally what you are saying here. Are you speculating that there is a scum role that has to announce his kills in every single post he makes, or that otherwise gets some special power from doing something that blatent and then lying about it?

Discribe to me how a role like that might work, please. I am having a hard time imagining it, personally.

[Yosarian2]

Fair enough. Lets shake this up.

Zito, Porkens, Tajo:

I propose we form

THE UNBREAKABLE ALLIANCE

.

It will have the following goals in mind:

1.) To lynch Sociopath.
2.) To vig Mufasa if possible.
3.) To descend on dissenters like a pack of wolves. There will be no quarter. There will be only allies and enemies.

Vote: SpyreX

I was close to voting Sociopath, but now he can wait. This may be the single most anti-town plan I've ever heard proposed on day in a forum mafia game.

[Yosarian2]

Edit: "on day one", that should have read

[Yosarian2]

Also, if by some chance odd chance SpyreX is actually town here, then both Mufasa and Papa Zito look really, really scummy because of their reactions to his "alliance" proposal.

[Yosarian2]

On an unrelated note, this is also a scummy post.

Vote Spy

for saying he won't read the other game and ignoring Porkens' question about a softclaim.

FTR, I'm not caught up. I'm on Page 3 here and haven't seen the other subgames yet, but I intend to.

Plus, I'd just like to note here that we still haven't heard anything from Quagmire.

[Yosarian2]

SpyreX: This is the way I see your plan turning out.

If one of the 3 of you is scum, the scum would kill one member of your group close to endgame, and let the other member continue the UNBREAKABLE ALLIANCE with the scum until endgame when it costs the town the game.

If 2 of you is scum, then it almost certanly will cost the town the game, unless those of us who are town go after this "alliance" basically right from the start.

If none of you is scum, then your plan MIGHT not cause a guarenteed town loss, but then the scum would again just kill one of you off, making the alliance basically useless.

And it's even worse since people in your ALLIANCE might not even have to be killed, they could just be moved to another game by some role, then perhaps moved back later; if the scum have any kind of role that can do that, they could totally abuse your alliance to their advantage.

In other words, if you're serious about this, you're betting the entire game on two other people being pro-town, based on a read only 2 days and 6 pages into a game, and in a situation where if you're right about them both being town it dosn't even help all that much.

It's possible you might do that as town, I've seen people try stuff like that before as town, but it would be a bad play, a very bad gamble on your part. I could easily see you doing it as scum, since it's an easy way for scum to win the game here if people go along with it.

In any case, I am not willing to bet the entire game on all 3 of you being town right now, and I would have to be willing to do that in order to let you get away with this "unbreakable alliance" crap. You can either abandon your horrible plan, or you can be lynched today. Those are really the only two options, from my point of view, unless you can somehow convince me that all 3 of you are very probably town, and I highly doubt you'll be able to do that on day 1.

[Yosarian2]

Really the question you need to be asking yourself, and your whole tone bespeaks the issue with this is - is this a

scum

maneuver?

It certanly could be.

If you think its join and free pass ohh hoss no. In fact, I've painted a huge red X on myself and smaller ones on the people I've called out. If I'm right and it goes well the group does become a huge NK target. If I'm wrong then any scum in the group have the tightest of ropes to walk.

Not really. Assuming there's one kill, one lynch, and our claimed lover gets sent over to the other game tonight, tommorow there will be only 9 people left. Which means there's only 6 people not in your ALLIANCE. It's 5 votes to lynch. If there's 1 scum in your ALLIANCE and two scum outside of your ALLIANCE, then assuming that the people in your alliance don't vote each other, then there's no possible way for the town people not in your alliance to lynch a scum in your alliance, at all, unless the scum help, which they won't. And it only gets worse from there, as your alliance becomes a bigger and bigger part of the town.

Basically, if the town allows this alliance to happen today, and there is one scum in it, town loses. Period. So we won't.

So, disagreement with the plan or not, the real question is do you think I am scum for it?

That's not the only question. The real question is, does allowing you to do this raise or lower the town's chances of winning, compared with just lynching you today. My goal is to have the town win this game; lynching scum is just a means to that end.

There are two, mostly unrelated, reasons I am voting you now.


A. Your plan is anti-town.
Town needs to stop your plan, today, or else it will probably lose the game for the town.
So, the only options are either 1. you drop this plan. 2. You somehow convince me that all 3 of you are town and therefore I don't have to worry (unlikely) or 3. You die today.

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

B. Your plan is scummy.

If you are town, your plan significantly lowers your side's chances of winning the game. If you are scum, your plan significnatly raises your side's chances of wining the game. Therefore, the fact that you suggested this plan increases your odds of being scum.
-------

So, yes. I'm both trying to pressure you to stop acting in an anti-town way, and going after you because you're likely to be scum. Either one would be enough reason to vote you now. Reason B, I could be convinced to change my mind on, depending on how you act and if anyone else looks scummier today; it's only a moderate scumtell, because I could see town making that mistake. But reason A is ironclad; you need to stop acting in an anti-town way, or you need to die today. There's no margin for error or compromise there.

[Yosarian2]

I think he's jealous that he wasn't invited.

Zito, why are you going along with this? Are you really that confident that they are both town, or are you scum taking advantage here?

[Yosarian2]

Honestly, I can't see a scum player making a move like this.

Why not? IF he's scum, it's got a decent chance of just autowinning him the game, right from page 5 of day 1. It'd be a gambit, sure, but they potential payoff if he's scum is huge.

Especially since a group of townies working together is absolutely devastating to scum.

Lol. Yes, that is true, but that's the kind of thing that happens naturally, when multipule townies figure each other out. ANd they still don't form an "unbreakable alliance", that's just stupid.

[Yosarian2]

This thing seems to be scaring you more than it should.

This thing seems to be scaring you a hell of a lot less then it should, if you are town.

[Yosarian2]

Besides THE UNBREAKABLE ALLIANCE, anything else interesting to you?

Many things are, and I've discussed several of them already. But they are going to have to wait until after this issue is resolved, one way or the other.

[Yosarian2]

There is another assumption that is being not applied that really surprises me: Sociopath's flip.

Um...no, I'm not assuming sociopath's alignment at this point, because I do not know it. I want him to answer my questions, and his attack on the claimed lover seems anti-town, but at the moment, your actions are scummier.

If my UNBREAKABLE ALLIANCE does move forward AND I am right that means:

1.) If there are scum within said ALLIANCE they are bussing said partners for ultimately minimal gain (as said ALLIANCE is not going to stop being a point of contention).
2.) I am right about said players.

Minimal gain?

If there is scum in the "allinace", and the rest of the town lets the alliance thing happen, then the scum win the game. How the hell is that "minimal gain"?

Further, you seem to be operating under the assumption that this is mountainous - if the setup was like that I would most definitely lean towards your viewpoint. However, I'm confident to say Magic The Gathering isn't going to be a mountainous setup. So, I've put myself in a position where if I WAS scum there are a myriad of roles that would out me right quick.

That would "out you"? What do you mean? If you're speculating about/fishing for a cop already, on page 6 of a game, that's another strike against you.

That's not the only question. The real question is, does allowing you to do this raise or lower the town's chances of winning, compared with just lynching you today. My goal is to have the town win this game; lynching scum is just a means to that end.

There are two, mostly unrelated, reasons I am voting you now.

See if you actually think I'm scum that's fine then. Stop belaboring the other points so that if and when you get your way and I'm dead the aforementioned flip doesn't give you the out of "ohh he was anti-town thus I am in no way accountable for said lynch"

Dude, you're missing the point.

Even if I thought you were no better then a random lynch here, I would still vote you. Consider it a pressure vote to pressure you to stop acting in an anti-town way, with a commitment to lynch you if absolutly necessary to stop you from acting in the anti-town way. I would do that for anyone acting in an anti-town way; lurking, fishing for power roles, ect. This is just an extreme example of anti-town behavior on your part.

What I'm doing is unorthodox, sure.

"Unorthodox" is fine. Anti-town is not.

Explain to me how town could possibly win if we don't lynch you today and one member of your alliance is scum.

So, if you want to call scum-gambit thats fine. I just want the record to be clear.

I think there's a reasonable chance it's a scum gambit, yes. I would be voting for you, and willing to lynch you if neccessary, even if I didn't.

I mean, stop and think about what your plan means. If you think one of the people in your alliance is acting scummy tommorow, are you going to attack and vote him? Are you going to break your "unbreakable alliance"? Becuase from what you're saying right now, I doubt it, and if you are town that's really, really bad for the town.

[Yosarian2]

So, lets say rocks fall and everyone but the three of us die - then it's going to be playing ferret out the scum amongst us due to their play. So, the "scum" would be in a precarious position because they'd have had to be super-bussing the whole way and then have to be able to justify it at that point.

That's not what would happen, though. What would happen is there would be 5 people left, you guys would lynch someoen not in your alliance, the scum would kill someone in your allaince, and then there would be 3 people left; 2 in your alliance, 1 not. In that case, unless you break your "unbreakable alliance", the scum in your alliance automatically wins the game. And that is what would happen, if there's one scum in your alliance; the scum would ride your alliance all the way close to end game, then kill one of the town people in your alliance and use the other to win the game for the scum.

I already explained this, SpyreX. Are you not even reading my posts here?

That would "out you"? What do you mean? If you're speculating about/fishing for a cop already, on page 6 of a game, that's another strike against you.

I'm pretty sure that I detailed that out in the quote you referenced when you said it.

The chances of this being mountainous are minimal. Therefore IF I WERE SCUM I have pained a gigantic "PR's come here and bust my ass, please" by the simple act of performing this.

Well, then, on the off chance that all three of you are town, you just set it up so the three of you would draw cop investigations AND scum kills. Which is also very bad for the town, since then the confiremd innocents would get scumkilled.

Really, I can't see any situation where this plan of yours does NOT hurt the town.

I mean, stop and think about what your plan means. If you think one of the people in your alliance is acting scummy tommorow, are you going to attack and vote him? Are you going to break your "unbreakable alliance"? Becuase from what you're saying right now, I doubt it, and if you are town that's really, really bad for the town.

Maybe this will clear it up if the above didn't:

Yes if anyone in said unbreakable alliance started acting scummy I'd put a noose around their necks before they could even go "Ohh no the ALLIANCE GRBRBRBRBLL"

So, what's the point, then, if it's not actually an "unbreakable alliance"?

I really don't get what you're trying to do here.

[Yosarian2]

What's this alliance people are talking about? I must have missed it when I skimmed the thread earlier.

Fair enough. Lets shake this up.

Zito, Porkens, Tajo:

I propose we form

THE UNBREAKABLE ALLIANCE

.

It will have the following goals in mind:

1.) To lynch Sociopath.
2.) To vig Mufasa if possible.
3.) To descend on dissenters like a pack of wolves. There will be no quarter. There will be only allies and enemies.

* This alliance will break if, and only if, we remain and have a sinner amongst us.

If you agree to these terms, simply vote Sociopath.

Thank you,

SpyreX Industries
Keepin' it Real.

[Yosarian2]

Well I, for one, am wondering why sociopath hasn't answered my question yet.

[Yosarian2]

Mostly getting Sociopath lynched now and moving from there.

Now, you see, that might be scummy but for an entierly different reason.

I think you're taking me far more serious than I am taking me and that's part of the issue.

Yeah, I took you at your word, that you actually wanted to "form an unbreakable allaince" that would not be broken "until only alliance members were left". If you didn't actually mean that/ are retracting it now, then that's somewhat less of a problem; still, alliances in mafia games aren't that unusual, especally with new players it seems to happen a lot, but in my experence it almost always ends badly for the town.

[Yosarian2]

SpyreX and Sociopath: This is the question I asked Sociopath a few days ago, and I still want an answer to it.

The sig thing might very well be game related, but I'm not entierly clear on how that makes him more likely scum.

The fact that he would have blatantly lied about it several times.

Explain to me exactally what you are saying here. Are you speculating that there is a scum role that has to announce his kills in every single post he makes, or that otherwise gets some special power from doing something that blatent and then lying about it?

Discribe to me how a role like that might work, please. I am having a hard time imagining it, personally.

[Yosarian2]

I'm currently voting for SpyreX, because that whole alliance thing was scummy as hell. I'm currently considering switching over to sociopath, depending on if and how he answers that question.

[Yosarian2]

Quagmire are you new to Mafia? or just always play this way? you seem to be lost.

LOL

Pro-tip: Before you ask a question like that, it's a good idea to look at the date under someone's name that says when they joined. If it says they joined mafiascum in 2003, like quagmire did, you can probably assume they are not new to mafia.

[Yosarian2]

So, Mufasa, now that you're done testing theories, who do you think is scum?

[Yosarian2]

I believe 33) Porkens 35) SocioPath are my two prime suspects.

Porkens for his whole sig... it just doesnt register easy for me.
SocioPath for not answering the questions that are on him.

But...the questions about sociopath are directly related to his attack on Porkens and Porkens "sig" thing!

If you agree with sociopath that Porkens sig thing is bad, then why do you suspect sociopath on that exact same issue?

[Yosarian2]

@Yos- I seem to recall you saying something along the lines of "If someone claims neutral the right move is to lynch them, always" from the last game we played together. Why is your opinion now different?

The difference is that, here, I expect we'll probably be able to get rid of him without wasting a lynch.

[Yosarian2]

I dont see why pyro is still alive.

Why, because he's trying to lynch you, from the other game?

Question: I'm not really clear here, and I'm not sure if anyone is, but...do scum know who the scum in the other games are? Should we be looking for cross-game connections where scum in one game might be trying to defend their buddies in a different game?

[Yosarian2]

Mufasa isn't scum.

Interesting.

[Yosarian2]

Mufasa isn't scum.

Interesting.

Also Yos this isn't one of my little inane declarations. I'm serious about Mufasa not being scum.

Ok. That was me hearing and acknowledging what you were saying, and not probing for any details at this time.

Anyway, quagmire, you should know by now that I would never let anyone get away with acting in a blatently anti-town way like Spyrex was. He's basically backed down from the alliance thing, so now I'm shopping around for a new bandwagon. Any suggestions?

[Yosarian2]

[quote="Porkens"]
Yos: I'm torn on your paranoia here. I understand where you are coming from, but I think you are over reacting . I guess it makes sense if you look at UNBREAKABLE as a literal term (Which I assumed it was not).[/qutoe]

Did you see his origional post?

Not only did he talk about it as an "UNBREAKABLE ALLIANCE", he also specifically spelled out in detail that the alliance would not be broken at all unless only alliance members were left alive.

So, yeah. I was assuming that either he was scum, or that if he was town, that he was telling the truth. Neither one would have been acceptable.

[Yosarian2]

I see what you are saying, but I would give SpyreX the benefit of the doubt on that one.

Now that he's made clear he isn't serious about the whole unbreakable alliance stuff, I'm more willing to consider it.

Quagmire: Are you saying that you absolutely KNOW mufasa aint scum?

I'm wondering why you thought it was a good idea to ask that question.

[Yosarian2]

For me, when someone says, day one, unprovoked "I KNOW he's X," it raises a flag. I didn't ask how he knew, I'm clarifying that it isn't an opinion, but confirmed knowledge.

Eh...I'm not sure if it's really a good idea to try and clarify that just yet.

[Yosarian2]

That might be true, I guess. I really don't see how I could know either way. My issue is that ther's absolutely no reason to bring that up, even if he does somehow know. Should I just ignore it? I mean, whats the point of saying it if he doesn't expect it to be analyzed?

(shrug) I wasn't really planning on going after mufasa today anyway, at least not at the moment, so I was just noting it for future reference myself. Quagmire most likely knows what he's doing, he generally does. I'm glad to give him all rope he wants and what he does with it at the moment.

Now, if I really thought mufasa is scum, or if I really thought Quagmire is scum, I'd poke at it.

[Yosarian2]

Okay. Yosarian in 129 disagrees with me. Very agressive vote.

Yos, do you think that this post couldnt have been made by Spyrextown?

Could be. It's somewhat more likely to be made by spyrexscum, but that wasn't the main reason I was voting for him. As I made quite clear, I was trying to pressure vote him to stop doing anti-town stuff.

Im not liking Yos very much. He is being too agressive for something that shouldnt have gotten that reaction.

?

Of course it should have gotten that reaction. It should have gotten that reaction from more people at the time as well. Town simply can not just allow something like that to happen.

[Yosarian2]

I can't quite put my finger on it yet, but Yos I really don't like the way you're using a vote to punish SpryeX for something stupid that he suggested.

Not really to punish him. It was a pressure vote. I'll always do that.

Hell, I used to vote Pooky whenever he suggested his huggle alliance.

[Yosarian2]

Ok, fair enough answer for me, sociopath.

Unvote

Vote:Flava Flave

He's semi-lruking, he's even reading and commenting on other games, but his comments on this game are quite lacking. He voted spy for a bad reason. Then he defended his vote for spy and removed it in the same post (where he unovted Spy, but at the same time, said that he "didn't like it that spy wasn't going to read the other games.) Then he tried to have it both ways about my opposition to spy's alliance (he both agreed with me and said the strength of my opposition was "a little weird" in the same sentance). And that's all he's said about this game, despite apparently having enough time to read and comment on the other games.

I don't think he's at all interested in scumhunting in this game, which probably means he's scum.

[Yosarian2]

So you think that Sociopath is "looking for scum" versus "looking for a lynch"?

I'll give you that FF is definitely a nice solid choice for a backup lynch but seriously?

AFter his last post, I think it's possible his questioning of porker is just standard townie paranoia. Sociopath wouldn't be a terrible lynch, but at the moment, I think FF's behavior has been worse.

[Yosarian2]

29) Yosarian2-I think he's scum. Jumped on Spy for the alliance thing hard and then backed off of it saying it was for pressure when he started to take heat.

False.

I said it was for pressure, right from the beginning. I declared that I was willing to leave it when spy said he didn't actually mean the alliance thing, since getting him away from that was the entire point of my vote in the first place.

Interesting that I vote for you and your response is to lie about my actions and vote me.

And by "interesting", I mean you're obvscum and need to die ASAP.

[Yosarian2]

I've been playing around with theories about how this sucker works and the best I can come up with is: a town* player in the OTHER game that is at night targeted A person and the other two were aftereffects of -crazy portal mechanic-

One thing that bothers me is this:

Us, and the pro-town people in the other games, are not on the same team here. At all.

If they think someone in their game is likely scum, then they have every motive to get that person out of their game and send him here, and vice versa. We, the pro-town people in this game, win if the scum are either killed OR removed from our game, which means if we send a scum into another game, it improves our chances of winning. (It's not as good as actually killing a scum, of course, because there is a risk they might get sent back.) Frankly, if a bunch of scum get sent into one of the other games and then the scum win that game, that actually helps the pro-town people here win.

Of course, another thing that makes that even more complicated for any protown person is that there's a chance they might get sent to another game, in which case they would then have THAT game's town win condition, not our town win condition, so on some level we do wish the other towns well just in case we end up there.

[Yosarian2]

And the latter brings me to a new point:

He's semi-lruking, he's even reading and commenting on other games, but his comments on this game are quite lacking. He voted spy for a bad reason. Then he defended his vote for spy and removed it in the same post (where he unovted Spy, but at the same time, said that he "didn't like it that spy wasn't going to read the other games.) Then he tried to have it both ways about my opposition to spy's alliance (he both agreed with me and said the strength of my opposition was "a little weird" in the same sentance). And that's all he's said about this game, despite apparently having enough time to read and comment on the other games.

I don't think he's at all interested in scumhunting in this game, which probably means he's scum.

So you think that Sociopath is "looking for scum" versus "looking for a lynch"?

I'll give you that FF is definitely a nice solid choice for a backup lynch but seriously?

This is a weird little bit. I'm pretty positive that Yos was referring to Flav, hence the vote, and yet you quote that and mention me. Are you purposely trying to misconstrue words to draw more attention to me? Whats worse is Yos ignores that completely. Spy and Yos might actually be scum together, and Yos' attacks are that of a distancing nature.

Vote: SpyreX
FOS: Yosarian2

Um...was that a delibrate misinterpretation, Sociopath, or did you actualyl not get what spyrex was saying there?

I said Flava Flav did not appear to be scumhunting. He, in response, asked me if I thought you were scumhunting (because he obviously thinks you look worse then flav on that front). He was asking me why I was voting for flav instead of you, when, in his mind, you look worse then flav.

I didn't think his post was that unclear; I don't agree with it, but I find it odd you apparently didn't understand what he was saying.

[Yosarian2]

Eh...those last 3 paragraphs were not supposed be in the above post; they were the rest of the quote I ment to deleate. Ignore that.

What three paragraphs?

[Yosarian2]

I'm quite ready to vote sociopath after that last post of his. It's pretty damn clear he has no idea what the town win condition is.

[Yosarian2]

Actually...

Unvote

Vote: sociopath

His buddy flava flave can go tommorow.

[Yosarian2]

Also...

I can't quite put my finger on it yet, but Yos I really don't like the way you're using a vote to punish SpryeX for something stupid that he suggested.

Interesting that I vote for you and your response is to lie about my actions and vote me.

And by "interesting", I mean you're obvscum and need to die ASAP.

Replace "SpryeX" with "Flava Flave" and you've got the exact same shady punishment deal going on here... except this time Yosarian didn't vote for him. Something's really really fishy here. I think you're scum.

Huh? Care to clarify, quagmire? Are you saying spyrex lied in order to find a weak excuse to OMGUS someone? When?

[Yosarian2]

(slaps forehead)

Sociopath...if that is, in fact, the role you got, the role quite clearly states that you are town, and that you win if all other factions in the game are destroyed or removed from the game. If you are moved to another game, then you would still be town, and would still win if all other factions are destroyed, only you would then win if THAT town wins and if all other factions are destroyed in THAT game. The type of vanilla townie you are dosn't actually have anything to do with your win condition.

I was assuming sociopath didn't have the town role PM since I thought that was quite clear, and therefore his post on the last page made no sense at all if he knew what the town win condition. But now I think he probably just can't read.

Unvote

Vote: Flava Flave

Revised Decision as of conference with Tar: Modkill, no blacklist. Will post scene shortly.

Clarification:
Underlined portions are violations of:

<1a> Attempting to use loopholes in the rules to gain an advantage in the game is considered jackassery, and will be treated as such. This applies to things like encrypted codes, invisible text, editing and deleting posts,

trying to use the structure of the role PM to gain an advantage

, etc. Please, use your common sense!

[Yosarian2]

Yos, some quick question. Are you always that agressive?

Not always. My playstyle tends to change from game to game, or from day to day, depending on the situation, the position, what I'm trying to do, what I think is most likely to get the best results, and the mood I'm in.

[Yosarian2]

Despite the logic you present, Yos; A vanilla claim isn't worth an unvote.

No, a vanilla claim is usually worth a lynch.

But what matters here is that we lynch the person most likely to be scum. I had thought that was flava flave. Only after this bizzare comment did I switch over to sociopath:

But say what you're implying is correct, about the win con, and that would imply that all town in other games should be treated as scum if they were to show up. They're certainly not of your faction. They are of their own subgames faction. So townies from other games need to die too?

Now...I donno. I still think that is freaking bizzare, but after that last post, I think he could have not read his role right. I donno.

Sociopath, if you really didn't understand your role PM or what your own win condition is, then why didn't you just ask the mod?

[Yosarian2]

Plus, if you have that role PM, then what was all that babble about "what SpyreX would imply was the role PM" about?

[Yosarian2]

Well, so long as I am in this game, then only the townies from this game do matter, since because of the win condition, I win if the town wins in the game I am in, and if town or scum wins in another game it dosn't affect me. Now, if I get moved to another game, or if someone from another game gets moved here, then obviously it will be.

By the way, has anyone gone and read Budja's post in detail yet in his "native" game? If so, what did you think about him there?