I make typos sometimes, (the "no's" meant know BTW) I will be more careful.massive wrote:I'm trying to decide if I think Matt_S is being a responsible townie, or is simply acting like one so we all trust him.
Spindax: Can you explain some of your reasoning behind how Khelvaster's "plan" might have been a trap?
destructor: Two times in the first page, you've mentioned the possibility that Mafia have been given safe-claims. Do you consider this a commonplace occurence in Mafia games?
unvote, vote eljcko
Your last post was completely noncommital, almost as if you were unwilling to pick a side, waiting to see which way the town would twist. Plus, your spelling is rEdiculous.
I assumed that anyone who does have a big name is either a power role or scum, seeing as I don't. Again, a name claim probably isn't a scum's best strategy, so I'm less suspicious of Khelvaster. You, however, put a second vote on me for arguing against a name claim. Not scummy in itself, but this seems to tell me you're not a vanilla townie. And considering I stated that the reason for my reluctance to vote for Khelvaster(him being a possible power role), it seems odd that you'd immediately vote me. I don't see a power role voting someone who claims to fear for the power roles' safety. However, for a scum, it's a nice reason to put a second vote on someone.destructor wrote:Actually, I think if we're going to do it, the earlier the better. But we've already heard that at least two players have non-fellowship role names and I'd be surprised if scum haven't been given safe claims anyway, which makes me cynical to how effective it would be.
Matt_S, you sound a little paranoid. I don't think you should have voted for me, but if you still feel it's worthwhile can you tell us why?
Yes, at least I think it should be or, like Coolbot said, it makes a game very broken. Also, I have recent experience in an ongoing game where a mass name-claim hasn't outed scum.massive wrote:destructor: Two times in the first page, you've mentioned the possibility that Mafia have been given safe-claims. Do you consider this a commonplace occurence in Mafia games?
Because what I know is something I learned from my role PM. I'm going on the assumption that all vanilla townies got the same pm(or at least with the same information), which I don't think is a bad thing to assume. I'm kind of trying to keep exactly what this "info" is a secret from everyone else, and nobody really seems to know exactly what I know. Of course nobody who's posted lets on that they know what I know, so I only FoS'd the people who seemed to argue the most for my point without actually putting forward what vanillas know. Just an FYI, if anyone thinks they know exactly why I'm opposed to a name claim, then please come forward. If you got the same pm as me, it should be obvious why having everyone say their name wouldn't work at all.destructor wrote:Yes, at least I think it should be or, like Coolbot said, it makes a game very broken. Also, I have recent experience in an ongoing game where a mass name-claim hasn't outed scum.massive wrote:destructor: Two times in the first page, you've mentioned the possibility that Mafia have been given safe-claims. Do you consider this a commonplace occurence in Mafia games?
Matt, why do you think people are suspicious for not knowing what you know?
I'll wait for another townie to come and tell you why that won't work. But trust me, it won't.Khelvaster wrote:If there are exactly 3 people who aren't part of the fellowship, then I believe the 3 who aren't will need to claim their names. Not their roles, mind you, but their names.
If there are less than 3 people, someone has to be lying. A mass nameclaim will occur.
If there are more than 3 people, then nothing bad comes from this. I seriously doubt the mafia can tell whether you are a power role and, if so, whether it's important to kill you or not just based upon the fact that you are or aren't in the fellowship.
Oh wait. I misunderstood it.. Damn.massive wrote:I'm trying to decide if I think Matt_S is being a responsible townie, or is simply acting like one so we all trust him.
Spindax: Can you explain some of your reasoning behind how Khelvaster's "plan" might have been a trap?
Yeah, I think I did also. I thought on page one, he wanted to know the fellowship names and users. But he wants to know the 3 outsiders. oopsSpindax wrote:Oh wait. I misunderstood it.. Damn.massive wrote:I'm trying to decide if I think Matt_S is being a responsible townie, or is simply acting like one so we all trust him.
Spindax: Can you explain some of your reasoning behind how Khelvaster's "plan" might have been a trap?
It got unthemed and the mod admitted to being evil by not giving me a name. So we're back at square one.GSGold wrote:What is going on in this thread.
I am assuming a start over, but shaka!! is not going to restart the vote count. I am just pretending the first 30 or so posts never happened. It was all just arguements about a role claim anyway.GSGold wrote:Alright, well, we still have the events before the untheme to think about, if any of it can be salvaged. Most of it was arguments about roleclaiming, which the logic behind no longer works.
Do we go back to random voting, or...?
You're crazycrazy_vlad wrote:I'll start to think you have something against me
