Good Omens Mafia! Game Over.

[esme]

In principle, I agree that they are not roles in the same sense as Pollution, say, but you can hardly say that DP was not on the cast list.

I don't see the difference between a mason lynch today and a mason vig-kill tonight.

FOS:olio

for unvoting Blackberry and then suggesting that mith kill him.

I am keeping my vote on korais, but nominate olio for being killed by mith.

[Mr. Flay]

At this point, I think I'm willing to test olio with a vig kill. His super-bluff may have been too good to be true. Other good candidates would be any of our suspicious absentees, like korais666 or SubtleTactix.

Frankly, I want to hear more about why Fritzler wants to lynch esme (who replaced JDTAY). Something's shifted in my mind about her, it may have just been her out-of-the-gate postiness, then silence, then postiness recently when someone voices suspicions about her. Reminds me of Peachy...

[Fritzler]

OK, Flay, I'll that up later, when I have more time this weekend. That was the sort of behaviour that I found suspicious.
And @ Olio, I would reccomend not killing us with a vig kill (oddly enough, I'm agreeing with esme), especially if you don't think we're scum, plus you could never find out our actual role, only our role names.

[Blackberry]

Vote: Olio

[olio]

Blackberry, what's your reasoning behind the vote?
Mr. Flay, where do you get your willingness?

Esme, I asked if people think if it's a wise thing to do. Where did I suggest it?

Fritzler, I'm not buying your claim 100% at the moment, but there seems to be little (if none) momentum behind wagon on either of you, so that's the reason for my unvote.

[esme]

I started to post again after the 12 days I said I'd be away which was one day before Fritzler voiced his suspicion. In particular, this can hardly have been his reason to find me scummy.

olio, if you bring up a name for the mith-kill, then that's a suggestion, even if it is phrased as a question. For me, it is more suspicious that it comes as a question because you bring up the possibility and then don't take any responsibility for the outcome.

[olio]

I could've said "Do you think it would be a wise idea to vig-kill one mason from the two-mason group?". That said, I'm waiting for your answers to that question.

[Blackberry]

Same reasons as the other day Olio.

And because your icon strikes me as odd. -- (JK)

[olio]

Ah, the crap reasons. Good. Answer these then as you have failed yet to do so, no wonder why:

-- After reading back, through pages 3-6 or something along those lines. It appears Olio never commented on the vote on Gaspode who turned out to be a horseman. I find it odd that he completly ignored the matter and personally appear it to be very scummy. Olio also said "After a bit of thinking I agree with..." and changed your vote to mempuff. I personally think only scum would take a bit of thinking to reconsider their actions.

Man, what a load of crap. Nice timing with the attack too, as you won't be answering for a while.

Which comment are you referring? As I've said before, on day one I didn't believe Gaspode was scum. That was my mistake. I've also said before I voted GH because of his votes and relationship to Aelyn, not Gaspode.

So, once you've put down your vote, you stop thinking about the game and start doing it only once you open the thread again? If that's your way to play, fine, but why do you find it scummy to do a bit of thinking?

Also, if you really read and understood my post, I didn't reconsider my actions. I had agreed with Gaspode and agreed later with mith. How do you think that's reconsidering my actions, pray tell?

[Mr. Flay]

Mr. Flay, where do you get your willingness?

Your claim to be willing to be vig-killed the other day, when we were trying to sort out mith's guilty result. Killing a 'confirmed' (in your own eyes) townie is no way to win a game, so this strikes me as anti-town behavior even if you're telling the truth. Your intermittent silence whenever the heat is not on you. Getting more data about mith's kill methods.

Sorry I didn't respond sooner. Really, Blackberry is just as good a target as any at this point, as his behavior has been even more unhelpful, even if he may have a greater shot at being an actual mason. I still don't like the idea of the town doing the scum's night killing for them, but we're in an odd place...

[Dragon Slayer]

Vote Count

3 Korais (Esme, mith, Mr. Flay)
1 Esme (Fritzler)
1 Olio (Blackberry)

9 to lynch. Deadline set for Saturday 8pm (us east).

I'll try to get some prods going.

[Blackberry]

Ah, the crap reasons. Good. Answer these then as you have failed yet to do so, no wonder why:

-- After reading back, through pages 3-6 or something along those lines. It appears Olio never commented on the vote on Gaspode who turned out to be a horseman. I find it odd that he completly ignored the matter and personally appear it to be very scummy. Olio also said "After a bit of thinking I agree with..." and changed your vote to mempuff. I personally think only scum would take a bit of thinking to reconsider their actions.

Man, what a load of crap. Nice timing with the attack too, as you won't be answering for a while.

Which comment are you referring? As I've said before, on day one I didn't believe Gaspode was scum. That was my mistake. I've also said before I voted GH because of his votes and relationship to Aelyn, not Gaspode.

So, once you've put down your vote, you stop thinking about the game and start doing it only once you open the thread again? If that's your way to play, fine, but why do you find it scummy to do a bit of thinking?

Also, if you really read and understood my post, I didn't reconsider my actions. I had agreed with Gaspode and agreed later with mith. How do you think that's reconsidering my actions, pray tell?

A load of crap?

So you are basically saying my logic is incorrect. In most games I play, when someone says that's crap, or uses the term crap logic, or says someone's logic is incorrect, they are usually SCUM. I am now extremely confident in my vote on you.

[mith]

...you don't play enough games, then.

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

vote korais

[olio]

Blackberry, you haven't answered those questions which implies to me you can't back-up your reasoning and thus your logic is incorrect, in other words: crap.

Killing a 'confirmed' (in your own eyes) townie is no way to win a game, so this strikes me as anti-town behavior even if you're telling the truth.

I see this from a different point of view. I win with the town - if my death helps town to win, so be it.

Do you think vig shouldn't be confirmed?

vote: Korais

[Mr. Flay]

Killing a 'confirmed' (in your own eyes) townie is no way to win a game, so this strikes me as anti-town behavior even if you're telling the truth.

I see this from a different point of view. I win with the town - if my death helps town to win, so be it.

And how does your death, as a pro-town player, help the town, if it reduces our margin by one? Worse, it means all the scum groups are free to target someone else, thus reducing the likelihood of a double-kill on you for claiming townie. I think I understand what you were trying to do, but I found it a crappy way to go about things. Now that we seem to have established a better ratio of town:scum, I'm more willing to chance that you might be bluffing. The other option might be to see what Pooky gets for investigating you.

Do you think vig shouldn't be confirmed?

Explain please, how your death, specifically, would have confirmed the vigilante better than anyone else's. If you and mith were/are both pro-town, then you were taking one for the team in the worst possible way. We ended up going for someone more suspicious, and still turned out to be wrong. That happens. How would substituting you, on a day you were under no (or almost no) suspicion, have helped?

vote: Korais

Why now? What's your reasoning, just the deadline?

[olio]

And how does your death, as a pro-town player, help the town, if it reduces our margin by one? Worse, it means all the scum groups are free to target someone else, thus reducing the likelihood of a double-kill on you for claiming townie.

I'm townie. I think it's better to kill townie than get pro-town role out in the open. I don't quite get the logic behind your double-kill likelihood. I claimed because of vig-verify -thing. How can the double-kill happen in that case I wouldn't have claimed?

Explain please, how your death, specifically, would have confirmed the vigilante better than anyone else's.

I'd rather have vig's method of killing known for the town and I'd rather test the kill on a willing townie. Like I said there won't possibility for power-role player to be chosen as a victim and most likely outing his/her role.

Why now? What's your reasoning, just the deadline?

Why aren't you asking Pooky this question too? Yes, it's the deadline.

[Dragon Slayer]

Deadline is today at 8pm.

[mith]

I suppose I will be killing olio then. That seems to be the consensus of those actually talking.

[DarkLight140]

Gah...

Killing olio seems fine. He asked for it, after all.

With the deadline and the facts that korais666 isn't exactly the cleanest-looking player around and has said nothing at all in more than two months anyway, I guess I'll

vote: korais666

.

[Fuldu]

Yeah, I don't like voting people just for being inactive this late in a game, but korais clearly deserves it.

vote: korais666

[Fritzler]

Hmmm....yea that seems cool I guess. And just for the sake of i don't know what I'll

unvote vote: korais

[Dragon Slayer]

My dog's sick and I'm not going to be around tomorrow. I'll try to post night scene tomorrow evening when I return.

[Dragon Slayer]

Sorry for the wait.


As a few of you grab Korais and throw him onto the lynch post he gives little resistance. Just before the switch is thrown he says, "I wish it were 1845."

Korais, Famine, has been lynched.

It is night 6, choices please

.

[Dragon Slayer]

Deadline is Wed. 8PM.