TT; Book 1: Bible Verse Mafia - Game over!

[LoudmouthLee]

Curious why LML is asking me, rather than someone who is actually voting for him. I could put together a summary of why I thought he was scum; I've changed my mind since Wednesday though. I am pretty sure he's innocent now. I'm going to re-read tomorrow to see what I think about LB.

He's the leading vote getter, you were STRONG on his bandwagon for a while, too. I want to know WHY you thought he was scum, and now, at lynch minus 2, why you've changed your mind.

[VitaminR]

For me it was mostly his ninth vote on FD that struck me as scummy. Other than that, early bandwagoning and no real attempts to contribute.

I thought Coron and Kerplunk not posting for a long period and returning with a bandwagon vote and no content was also suspicious.

[VitaminR]

Hmm... just looked up his verse. I believe his claim.

Unvote: RoadBird

Vote: Kerplunk

For returning with a bandwagon vote without promised argumentation.

[LyingBrian]

Let them give thanks to the LORD for his unfailing love and his wonderful deeds for men,

what exactly is his role, do you think?

[VitaminR]

The role he claimed.

[LyingBrian]

the problem is he didn't claim a role, he claimed an ambiguous Bible verse...

[VitaminR]

He claimed townie.
Although, re-reading it doesn't match armlx's verse at all. And that seems a lot more like what I'd expect from a townie.

Unvote: Kerplunk

What does everyone else think?

[LyingBrian]

that's EXACTLY my point, VitaminR! if he's NOT a vanilla townie, then he must have a role... we can reasonably assume that armlx was pro-town... 3 of the 4 people who have died so far have BLACK text following their names... and everybody knows that pro-town roles make up the biggest percentage of players... i think we can also reasonably assume that armlx's verse is the vanilla townie verse... which brings me back to my question...

what is RoadBird's role based on the verse he claimed? a "thanker"?

[VitaminR]

Yeah, I know and I agree with you. There is just something about his claim that makes me doubt myself. I can't really explain it at this point.

[Fuldu]

that's EXACTLY my point, VitaminR! if he's NOT a vanilla townie, then he must have a role... we can reasonably assume that armlx was pro-town... 3 of the 4 people who have died so far have BLACK text following their names... and everybody knows that pro-town roles make up the biggest percentage of players... i think we can also reasonably assume that armlx's verse is the vanilla townie verse... which brings me back to my question...

what is RoadBird's role based on the verse he claimed? a "thanker"?

What evidence do you have that there's a single vanilla townie verse? If I were running this game, I'd have given different verses to each of the vanilla townies. Roadbird has outright claimed "townie" and the fact that he's claimed a different verse from armlx isn't any reason, so far as I can tell, to disbelieve him. Oh, and look, my vote is already on you.

[VisMaior]

Even if it is so, I think claiming townie should not save one from a lynch, as otherwise this would be too easy of a play for scum.

unvote, vote Roadbird

[VitaminR]

True, there is just something about his claim. It is very similar to my verse. But I'm not sure Cadmium would not foresee that kind of confirmation.

Thoughts?

[RoadBird]

bleh...

I do not have a role period. I don't care if you people believe me now. Just use that info when my verse turns up black.

[mith]

Huge FOS: VisMaior

.

Yesterday: "I think [no-claim] is bad play because it is safe play for scum.
Today: "I think claiming townie should not save one from a lynch, as otherwise this would be too easy of a play for scum."

Most of Today: Voting for Pooky and then LyingBrian, with comments like "I dont really like the speed on the roadbird wagon." and "Pooky is a ot [sic] more scummy then Roadbird, I think... ".
And then: You suddenly switch to Roadbird, not because anything has come out with new suspicions/evidence against him, but after two players have come out saying he is likely innocent.

This screams of trying to rush through a lynch on an innocent that might otherwise get off the hook and hiding behind some ridiculous claim based reasoning. If I thought there was any chance of getting you lynched today, I would be voting for you.

LML: Just use the filter on my posts and search on Roadbird. I argued with him a bit yesterday (more for being incoherent and bandwagoning than anything else) and voted for him late because I thought FD was innocent and he was the next best bandwagon. Today, I said I'd be happy lynching him and was leaning toward him (over LB)... not sure how that's the same as me being "STRONG" on his bandwagon. You've seen me strong on a bandwagon before.

I found him suspicious for the bandwagoning, the not-making-any-sense, and the lack of comment on CA's post.

I could make a semi-WIFOM argument here (Why would I suddenly declare him innocent if I were lying scum?), but that's a bit pointless.

Still, I'm not going to reveal why I think he's innocent just yet; I am still trying to decide whether the benefits (likely saving Roadbird) outweigh the risks. I'll continue thinking about it today. Don't put the final vote on him until I post again, at the very least.

[VisMaior]

You suddenly switch to Roadbird, not because anything has come out with new suspicions/evidence against him

there ws a claim inbetween. Have you not noticed?

[Cadmium]

Vote count:

4 LyingBrian (Fuldu, Commodore Amazing, RoadBird, Fritzler)

8 RoadBird (Dragon Phoenix, Thoth, PookyTheMagicalBear, LyingBrian, EnderX, Coron, Kerplunk, VisMaior)

1 Dragon Phoenix (inHimshallibe)

not voting (3): Iammars, mith, VitaminR

9 to lynch.

Deadline retracted for now.

[RoadBird]

@VisMaior:

Are you telling me it's better for a townie to lie about his role? That a townie should claim something else and confuse the rest of the pro-town players? That's lame.

[VisMaior]

No its best for a townie to suck it up and take one for the team.

[RoadBird]

So if another townie finds himself in the same position tomorrow he should be lynched too? All townies should be lynched for the sake of the team? I think lynching me is an affordable loss, but lynching townies just because they're townies isn't a good thing.

If I hadn't believe your claim you would have my vote by now.

[VisMaior]

Yes: if people are suspicious of a townie and he claims townie, it should not save him. Its too easy to off powerroles otherwise: if we dont lynch townies, mafia will simply claim townie, and suspicion will shift. Suspiciously acting townies should, indeed, take one for the team.

[mith]

Yes: if people are suspicious of a townie and he claims townie, it should not save him.

But you

weren't

suspicious of him. He claimed townie over two weeks ago, and you twice implied you didn't think he was suspicious.

Vote: VisMaior

. I'll switch to LyingBrian if forced to by the deadline, but I will not tolerate poor meta-game logic in the place of voting for people you actually find suspicious. Besides, if we don't lynch hiders/docs, mafia will simply claim hider/doc...

[VisMaior]

Except a hider/doc can be proven.

unvote, vote Mith

for CrapLogic

[mith]

Meh, screw it. Probably not solid play, but I'm too tired to think about it any more.

Psalm 107:31. There's four identical verses in Psalm 107; I think it might be some sort of weakened mason type role. I wouldn't put it past Cadmium to have left one as a safe scum claim, though I'm not sure how this would've been done considering all anyone was sent was a verse and whether they needed to send a choice. Even so, I see no reason to lynch Roadbird today. I expect to die tonight for this, but a clever scum probably would've picked up on what I was hinting at anyway.

[VisMaior]

And Im still waiting for your reasons why you think Roadbird is innocent.

[RoadBird]

Which one is it? "Suspicious townies should be lynched" or "Townies should be lynched because scum may start claiming townie"?