Last Will Mafia II (Over)

[LlamaFluff]

Vote Count

RichardGHP (7) - Xite91, animorpherv1, Locke Lamora, Ythan, CSL, kmd4390
Chronopie (4) - rhinox, Amished, RichardGHP, holycon
Charlie (4) - Magua, Super Smash Bros. Fan, Twomz
raider8169 (1) - Charlie
CSL (1) - pittbunny
EGL (1) - nachomamma8
kmd4390 (1) - Jahudo

Not Voting (4) - EGL, raider8169, chronopie, millar13

animorpherv1 has been prodded

[Ythan]

unvote

I can dig it.

[Charlie]

Reactions, reactions, reactions. That is good.

Magua, please attack me with more conviction.

Charlie: Overall, Charlie's responses to the cases against him have been....lacking. Charlie's cases against others have been likewise lacking (see post #834), and when asked to explain or elaborate on why he feels a way, the question is dodged. I remain very pro-Charlie-lynch.

MafSepia isn't the same

[Twomz]

Xite, this ^^^^ is why I switched my vote. It's funny you said you got your eye on me cause we basically said the same thing in our posts, I just unvoted and put my votes back on charlie >.>

[Charlie]

Ooh, sharp point. I'll never think the same again.

[Pittbunny]

Xite, this ^^^^ is why I switched my vote. It's funny you said you got your eye on me cause we basically said the same thing in our posts, I just unvoted and put my votes back on charlie >.>

I unno, I've done worse than that before.

@Ragequit: 'True' ragequits don't function on a logical basis. Ragequits meant to preserve the playerslot are logical, but stupid. That is to say, the RichQuit isn't a 100% Scum indicator, but it's not particularly favorable to his case. As a townie you acknowledge that you are, for the most part, expendable, especially if your skills of perception or debate aren't as strong as other townies. To quit, from the logical perspective, as a townie does nothing but stifle or distort information on your playerslot, which will usually go against your win condition. It's correct to note that this mentality does not apply so well to scum or third-party, hence why the quit, logical or not, leans naturally more towards scum side than town side.

@Roleclaim: Don't believe the claim, frankly. However, there's always the obvious method of testing your claim: Let you live precisely one night. I doubt that scum would want a Vig+ to survive the night (I say Vig+ as that is essentially what you claim; a vig that, under very precise circumstances, protects his target instead of killing them). In addition, you are going to target who you perceive to be the scummiest player possible. You will then have to justify it, fully, on D3, or face obvious consequences. Sound good?

[Twomz]

@ PB: You've continued to ignore people asking for content and answers to questions while quoting one of the people attacking you and instead of responding to the point (which has been made by several people) he say's that he needs to be attacked with more 'conviction' and comments on the MafSepia board style >.>

[Pittbunny]

Sounds about right, actually. Although, I don't quite follow about the content/answers bit.

I don't suppose I could trouble you to point out said questions?

[animorpherv1]

Hey, I just got a chance to get on today. Busy morning.


Richard should be lynched.

[Super Smash Bros. Fan]

Anyone have any reason to doubt the claim or wants to continue with the Richard lynch? Or can we move on down the line?

Given that I agree that RichardGHP's claim is like a Vigilante role, I say we should give his role one chance to prove himself on his top suspect. If he doesn't end up killing one of his suspects/the death total remains at one and at a pro-town townie, we'll assume he's a lying scum. However, despite expressing suspicion on RichardGHP numerous times, we should proceed with a Charlie's lynch, who has been scummier then anyone in here, even RichardGHP himself.

Smash bras, how does ragequitting avoid suspicion? Being replaced makes it impossible to win regardless of alignment. You say it is illogical for town to ragequit. The same can be said for scum.

Good question there. I don't remember saying that rage quitting could be used to avoid suspicion, but I'll go ahead and answer it.

The reason why I think rage quitting can be used for avoiding suspicion on the slot is because scums can use this tactic to absolve responsibility for their slot and expect the new player to pick up the slack for them. Even thought the player won't win, the slot still has a chance of winning.

Ooh, sharp point. I'll never think the same again.

I can't believe that you weren't even bothered to defend yourself. That sharp point was directed at you and your refusal to defend yourself nails another hole in your coffin.

[Nachomamma8]

Why should a claimed CPR Doctor be lynched, again?

And obviously he can't just say "oops, a townie died" now that we're telling him to target who he finds scummiest...

[Pittbunny]

Why should a claimed CPR Doctor be lynched, again?

And obviously he can't just say "oops, a townie died" now that we're telling him to target who he finds scummiest...

He shouldn't be. Today, anyway. See: Vig+ rationale, above.

[Ythan]

How well does that work when you say "Hey scum, we'll lynch him if you don't kill him tonight."

[Rhinox]

I don't buy richards claim. I don't buy that even he could be stupid enough to not realize that his role can be used like a vig, and there were a number of players he himself could have had the power to kill last night. So I don't buy that he just decided not to use his role.

Consider this an intent to vote/lynch richard, but before I just run in and vote I want to catch up on a few other things since my last post and make sure of the VC first.

[Xite91]

Xite, this ^^^^ is why I switched my vote. It's funny you said you got your eye on me cause we basically said the same thing in our posts, I just unvoted and put my votes back on charlie >.>

The claim is believable but also fakeable (oops, I killed ___ last night, guess no one tried to kill them)... although I agree w/ nacho that it's basically another vig for the town.

Unvote, vote: Charlie

for now.

Anyone have any reason to doubt the claim or wants to continue with the Richard lynch?

Or can we move on down the line?

Bolded is why I said IGMEOY that and my ISO on you. It was... too neutral. I don't know how to explain it.

Next, If richard is scum, he can direct the kill at a scummy townie, say oh well he was scummy because *case scumbuddies give him because he's so unsure his cases will take off* or *case he makes, it's not that hard* Or he could say that he tried to protect someone and that person didn't die because someone might have tried to kill them.
Even with the second one, his scumbuddies could kill someone because, hey there were two kills last night, and we have no idea how many nk based abilities there are (especially with an inventor/doctor roles/roleblockers, there could be any of them) And I'm sure getting people to claim who they killed/protected would be the worst way to try and figure out if Richard is scum. Just saying.
Honestly, there's no way we can be sure he's telling the truth. Also, I REALLY don't believe the claim at all.

Consider this an intent to vote/lynch richard, but before I just run in and vote I want to catch up on a few other things since my last post and make sure of the VC first.

Another time you've backed up a lynch without actually placing a vote. You're playing too safe, young one

[Locke Lamora]

Kind of agree with Ythan on the way people are talking about the Richard situation. To further the point, people are basically saying "hey scum, if you have a blocker, then you've got a ready-made lynch for tomorrow". Like Rhinox, I'm also finding it hard to believe that he really put that little thought into the role and decided to do nothing with it. He obviously doesn't really care all that much about the game either, or have any real belief in his ability to use the role, so I'm very dubious about the merits of letting him live.

To everyone saying we should give Richard the opportunity: are you definitely going to simply lynch him if no kill appears from him tomorrow?

[Twomz]

@ PB: Look at my case and other's cases on charlie, then look for his responses to them... they aren't there. He's been ignoring every point against him and refusing to comment.

@ Xite: Understandable, I try not to sit on the fence but when you try to narrow down the field and assume "guilty before innocent" it can seem pretty neutrally.

[Pittbunny]

@ PB: Look at my case and other's cases on charlie, then look for his responses to them... they aren't there. He's been ignoring every point against him and refusing to comment.

Ah. From your phrasing, I thought that you were claiming that I was question-dodging, which confuzzled me.
And yes. I really don't mind, though, it's a case that can be referred to in the future without a sufficient counterargument.

[Super Smash Bros. Fan]

To everyone saying we should give Richard the opportunity: are you definitely going to simply lynch him if no kill appears from him tomorrow?

Considering that only one kill happened last Night and that I highly doubt it's a one scum-faction game, I'm going to assume that the second scum kill was blocked. So I'm assuming that the game would need a 3rd kill to easily prove RichardGHP's claim. That doesn't mean if there's only two kills, RichardGHP is without a doubt lying and must be lynched. If one of those deaths were on his suspects, that would be evidence that RichardGHP's claim could be true. However, if none of the Night Kills Night 2 sound like they came from a CPR Doctor, then RichardGHP is probably lying and should be lynched.

However, that doesn't mean that we should immediately lynch if it becomes apprent that RichardGHP is likely lying. We should use the time to find another scum so we can catch two scums in one Day, one (RichardGHP) to kill Day 3 and the other (Insert other likely scum here) to kill Day 4. This can be used for town to get ahead.

[Pittbunny]

To everyone saying we should give Richard the opportunity: are you definitely going to simply lynch him if no kill appears from him tomorrow?

Of course not. Circumstantial evidence is circumstantial for a reason; if information is brought forth that is perceived to be valid that supercedes the Rich case, then odds are that would take priority. For all practical purposes, however, we're telling scum "Hey, you have a Vig+ to be wary of; waste time on him or potentially suffer the consequences." If they completely ignore Rich, there is always the chance of him actually pegging scum with CPR, and they will be all the worse for it. If they roleblock Rich, then that's a roleblock that hasn't been used on a currently unclaimed role. And if they kill Rich, it's a lynch we didn't have to waste. Lastly, if Rich is scum, they have to simply cut their losses, and we'll probably have lost a little in terms of information, but not enough to warrant not attempting the setup anyway. The worst possible case, naturally, would be a scum bus driver, but naturally any multi-phase plan is going to get potentially wrecked by some sort of power role, and it's annoyingly hard to prepare for every possible role, obscure or not.

[Ythan]

What evidence do you think could come from letting him live that would actually be sufficient to let him live further?

[Pittbunny]

A scum death that isn't counterclaimed would be the most ideal information. At least, until someone investigates him as an SK or something else of the sort. I'm not particularly looking for any specific information, but the situation does seem like it could produce a few good nuggets without having to waste town PR time.
I'm also interested in seeing how the scum party will actually react to the Rich case.

[Xite91]

@ Xite: Understandable, I try not to sit on the fence but when you try to narrow down the field and assume "guilty before innocent" it can seem pretty neutrally.

Which was the point of IGMEOY instead of anything else. I'm waiting to see if you become scummy.

To everyone saying we should give Richard the opportunity: are you definitely going to simply lynch him if no kill appears from him tomorrow?

Considering that only one kill happened last Night and that I highly doubt it's a one scum-faction game, I'm going to assume that the second scum kill was blocked. So I'm assuming that the game would need a 3rd kill to easily prove RichardGHP's claim. That doesn't mean if there's only two kills, RichardGHP is without a doubt lying and must be lynched. If one of those deaths were on his suspects, that would be evidence that RichardGHP's claim could be true. However, if none of the Night Kills Night 2 sound like they came from a CPR Doctor, then RichardGHP is probably lying and should be lynched.

And how exactly do you plan to prove any of that? Just wondering

Not to mention the way he's been playing I can almost guarantee that he's going to be nothing but a problem to the town as a kind of vig (considering how he's been playing) And if he's lying then he's probscum and should be lynched anyway.

[Ythan]

I think that if you plan to leave him alive one night to analyze the result but you don't have any specific outcomes in mind you're setting yourself up to waste time.

[Kmd4390]

Richard, are you allowed to self-protect?