Pictured: muzzz.
itacv2 (3) - ekiM, ZazieR, Santos
Exalt (2) - Sho Minamimoto, Debonair Danny DiPietro
ZazieR (2) - itacv2, Raivann
Toro (1) - muzzz
Santos (1) - Toro
Oh fuck you tooDebonair Danny DiPietro wrote:Thanks Mr. Mod. I think others should join me in voting for Exalt until he actually contributes.
ekiM wrote:Welcome, ConfidAnon.
You keep promising you're back and ready to participate. Maybe we are giving you the benefit of the doubt too much. I've basically been waiting for you and Kise to get back so the game can continue. There's just under a week until deadline now so it'd be really good if you did get that analysis done.Exalt wrote:@ everyone: Just wondering... but most of you have been leaving me alone lately regarding the lurking. I have been lurking quite a bit yet no one seems to have taken much notice. Can I ask why?
itacv2 is my prime suspect. His suggestion to lynch Raivann was by far the scummiest thing I've seen this game, and his attempt to backtrack and lie about having said that made things worse. I think he should be our lynch for today. I'm a bit bemused by how little attention this is getting.Exalt wrote:I'm going to do analysis post soon. Can everyone please explain their current suspicions of players so far in the game? I want to know where everyone stands before I make a huge post that could influence anything, just in case people decide to backpeddle and state they never had any type of suspicions on certain players.
I've had a bad feeling about Santos. He hasn't made a real vote all game as far as I can see. He followed DDD onto Raivann, said he liked the logic, then did a 180. Later he voted Kise for inactiveness and later unvoted. Why no real votes? What are his real suspicions?
I wasn't happy with Exalt's and Kise's inactivity. Not sure that it's scummy though. I found myself agreeing with a lot of what Confide has been saying in his catch-up analysis.
I have one you never answered.Itacv2 wrote:I believe that i have addressed so far evry question you have dared to ask, is there anyone else who like to make a question, or should we proceed to Zazier in the matter of him making all the questions and nobody questioning him.
You did say you wanted Raivann dead, didn't you? That we should "test the case"? Even as you hedged your bets and said he might well be a townie, but lynching him anyway wouldn't be a disaster. Then you lied about it, and said you never moved against him. Then you ignored me when I pointed out the lie.ekiM wrote:itacv2, why do you ignore post 201? Look:
Itacv2 wrote:I still think That DDD has a chance to be a big shot scum, lol, but he makes a point.I think we might want to test the case.and might then watch the patterns of behavior , the bandwagoners and reactions to the lynch.
Why? If Raivann is lynched and he is town we might be short of one people but a nontalkative one, since he is counterproductive is not a big dealHow do you explain this contradiction?itacv2 wrote:But u saying that I WANTED RAIVANN dead, that i cant permit, becausei never said i wanted him dead, nor i made a move against him. I just explained my point of view in the current situation.
If this is an outrageous scum gambit we need a mason counterclaim ASAP.itacv2 wrote:Ifg you like to proceed, i claim to be mason, and even when this might end up in scums wanting me dead, i would like to point out that when i suggested that there were no powerroles id did it knowing that i had the only power role available.
Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote:If this is an outrageous scum gambit we need a mason counterclaim ASAP.itacv2 wrote:Ifg you like to proceed, i claim to be mason, and even when this might end up in scums wanting me dead, i would like to point out that when i suggested that there were no powerroles id did it knowing that i had the only power role available.
Furthermore, if he's un-counterclaimed is there any reason for his partner not to claim? The big use of the masons in this setup is basically having them as two confirmed pro-town players. If his partner isn't revealed, itacv2 is the obvious NK and we lose the other masons confirm-ability.
Firstly, this is an OPEN SETUP. Go read it.Exalt wrote:Masons don't start out alone..... He has a parter.....
So unless a partner claims... it proves itacv2 is lying and we lynch itacv2....
so it would be very advisable for his town to claim at this point
Yeah probably... except Meta game me and find out if its a true scum tell. I promised the analysis in 3 seperate games. I got the little "vote exalt because he didn't follow through right away" thing as well from them.ekiM wrote:It's getting ridiculous how long you've promised an analysis and not delivered.Unvote; Vote: Exalt.
Your reaction towards me.Santos wrote:What is my change of behavior?
Even if it was broken, it doesn't mean that it had an influence on your behaviour. You acted like that due to your thoughts and your role.Santos wrote:As for 790, Zazie, why are you using a broken game to analyze my behavior here?
Considering masons are basically useless roles that are only good for knowing each other is town... I would say it is in both of your best interests to claim.itacv2 wrote:I just gave mafia an easy target for tonights lynch, so i suggest that my partner shut the hell up, He can claim if he like but that way things look i might end up dead and he will end up regular townie anyways since he would have noone to talk at night.
For me, i wont reveal my partners identity, until he tell me to, or become absolutle necesary.
Against ekiM, you present meta. Against DDD, you 'accept' his vote.Exalt wrote:I'll accept that.Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote:Unvote; Vote: Exalt
Till we get the promised analysis.
I'll accept a single vote or two, but a bandwagon based on me not having my analysis case yet due to time constraints and overall me being lazy is kind of ridiculous.ZazieR wrote:I don't get you
I believe it would be smarter for the two masons to claim rather than hide and let one of their fellow masons possibly get lynched as a fake claim. I do believe in that.ZazieR wrote:Not entirely true.Exalt wrote:If you and your partner claim, and one of you were to be NK'd, the other person is considered a cleared townie 100%. If you both don't claim, then you will end up being lynched, and then your partner would never be able to clear himself.
We are not going to lynch itacv2 unless someone counterclaims, period. To suggest otherwise represents a huge disconnect from reality.Exalt wrote:I believe it would be smarter for the two masons to claim rather than hide and let one of their fellow masons possibly get lynched as a fake claim. I do believe in that.ZazieR wrote:Not entirely true.Exalt wrote:If you and your partner claim, and one of you were to be NK'd, the other person is considered a cleared townie 100%. If you both don't claim, then you will end up being lynched, and then your partner would never be able to clear himself.
You said he should claim as well... so I'm wondering why you disagree?
Don't want to comment until itacv2 has claimed. But he's not the lynch for today.Exalt wrote:I believe it would be smarter for the two masons to claim rather than hide and let one of their fellow masons possibly get lynched as a fake claim. I do believe in that.ZazieR wrote:Not entirely true.Exalt wrote:If you and your partner claim, and one of you were to be NK'd, the other person is considered a cleared townie 100%. If you both don't claim, then you will end up being lynched, and then your partner would never be able to clear himself.
You said he should claim as well... so I'm wondering why you disagree?