Newbie 818 (Game Over)

[Pomegranate]

/confirmatory (first!)

[Pomegranate]

Oh, and hohum, today I happened to read through "Don't Cut the Red Wire!" where you were the SK.

[Pomegranate]

Random

Vote: Deep Blue

because you have a boring avatar.

[Pomegranate]

Why are you putting a player on L-2 in RVS? Do you find this to be a good idea? Are you hoping 2 more players quicklynch him or something now?

I'm wondering the same thing.

[Pomegranate]

I'm tempted to vote you, especially since Pomegranates kick ass.

Duh.

Oh, and for Deep Blue's sake,

Unvote

.

[Pomegranate]

To All: What is your experience with mafia? Have you played much real life/on other sites? Personally, I'm a vet of both, but much prefer this to real life, just because my 'tells' in real life are painfully obvious.

I've played a lot in real life. But about a month ago my sister Plum (that's her name on the site) was going to be away for a month or two and asked me if I would join the site and replace in for her in one of her games. I agreed because I had been planning to join the site anyway, and because she had told me a lot about online mafia since she joined the site. Right now I'm still in the game I replaced into for her (it's not a newbie game) as well as in this game.

[Pomegranate]

It's me nervously overcompensating because I feel like I'm playing the game wrong.

As such, I'm going to leave my vote and then just sit and observe how everything goes.

Don't worry about playing the game wrong, just think to make sure you're not doing anything stupid.

You can't just sit and observe. Often that is refered to as lurking. Mafia games don't go well when some people don't participate enough. What you have to do is scumhunt, basically analyzing everyone's behavior and posts. At this point there isn't that much to analyze, but that's why most games start in RVS.

I don't know if that's such a good explanation, but I tried. Everyone should feel free to add to it.

[Pomegranate]

I have a strong urge to vote sraymonds, but that would put him at L-2. So I won't. But I will

FoS: sraymonds

.

Oh, and could everyone make an effort to spell my name right? Or you could call me either Pom or Pome if that's easier for you to spell.

[Pomegranate]

Sorry about the spelling, I didn't even realize I was doing that.
Also, why are you reluctant to put him at L-2?

I'm really tired, I'll answer tomorrow.

[Pomegranate]

Jackinthebox: I'm a bit reluctant to put sraymonds at L-2 considering that he fell under suspicion for doing the same thing. Also, while I am suspicious of him, this is his first game ever, and it could have been a mistake on his part.

I will see how sraymonds acts from here on, and if I find myself in the appropriate situation, I will vote him.

[Pomegranate]

@Mod: I didn't vote sraymonds. I gave him an Fos.

Thanks Ddeep Blue for pointing it out to hohum already.

fixed. I did the vote count in a rush yesterday. Sorry about that.

[Pomegranate]

In my opinion, all cases involved right now are MAJORLY weak. Completely useless in any sort of case on anyone. With this type of information, we mine as well draw straws to see who is getting lynched.

I'll try to reanalyze the 4 pages to see if there is anything worthwhile. I just don't see much content... and a deadline in 2 weeks with only 4 pages of content, and 99% of that being RVS? I think hohum is jumping the gun by far on that one, but whatever.

I agree with this. I would love to actually scumhunt, but at this point no one's been acting scummy enough to earn my vote. The cases that I have seen on various players are all somewhat feeble; none of them has made me feel like there is someone worth lynching at this point, or that we will have enough info to lynch a player worth lynching by the deadline.

[Pomegranate]

I agree with this. I would love to actually scumhunt, but at this point no one's been acting scummy enough to earn my vote.

Wait, are you actually saying we should sit around for someone to come along and go, "So I think we should lynch Pablo, and BY THE WAY I'M SCUM!" Activity, kids, that's how we get info. Use some votes; they're your weapon to pressure. Yes, "wagon" is a dirty word around here, but it's necessary.

So: would anyone be down with a lurker-lynch at this point?

I don't wait for someone to say that they're scum (sorry, it's my fault, I didn't explain myself clearly). I try to contribute to discussion while waiting for someone to make a comment that makes my scumdar tingle. I try to see who has been acting scummy, and I try to see who others think are scummy. By the time the lynch comes around hopefully I will have someone who has been acting scummy enough to deserve my vote.

Oh, and I'm not against lurker-lynch, but I'd like to wait a few more days first.

[Pomegranate]

Vote: Jackinthebox777

I'll explain my vote later, I don't have time right now.

[Pomegranate]

Are you guys seriously using EMOTICONS as a scum case?

NO.

God, for the last time, no. It's not the emoticons. Pablo is the one who said something about emoticons. The emoticons and the jokes combined were a weak case but on closer look I didn't really like what I was seeing.

It was the way his posts seemed to implicate people but throw in a bunch of jokes so that he could later excuse it as "oh, I was just joking."

I admit it's extremely weak, but as you say, there's not much to go on. Generally I'm a cautious player, but on this site I've found you get dinged if you don't pick out concrete suspects, so I'm doing the best I can with pretty meager offerings.

-Katy, do you find anyone other than adamrights scummy? If so, whom?

-adamrights, I don't understand your reasoning for being suspicious of Pablo. Could you explain what was fishy about him in clearer terms?

I guess if Pablo turns out scum then Katy should be the next investigation.

How exactly did you come to that conclusion?

-Jackinthebox, you say you find sraymond to be suspicious, yet you give him a defense in order to avoid suspicion in the future. Why? Pablo asked you why you did this, and you say that the defense won't help him. Then you suspect Pablo for coming to sraymond's aid, and voting for you because you didn't make sense. Is that just OMGUS? If not, why?

-Kitoari, are you going to continue lurking? If not, post some content, and if so, do you need to be replaced (or lynched)?

-Pablo, how suspicious are you of adamrights for his use of emoticons? What do you think of his claim that he's a newbie and he's just getting used to the site?
Do you have other experience as an IC? I'm wondering because, while this game is not going quickly, you seem overly happy with the idea of lurker-lynch, when we still have two weeks to go before deadline.

-Exalt, you are also lurking a bit. Will you post more now that you finals are over?

-sraymonds, I have some questions about this post:

It's me nervously overcompensating because I feel like I'm playing the game wrong. As such, I'm going to leave my vote and then just sit and observe how everything goes.

Why do you feel like you're playing the game wrong? This is a newbie game, meant to help newbies learn how to play. If you feel that way because you stirred up discussion, don't. We need something to bring us out of RVS, and you helped bring the game along. It was slightly scummy, but I think it will be mainly gotten over if you look around for scum.

From the second sentence of that post I'm wondering if you're going to start lurking too, in addition t everyone who is lurking now.

@Jackinthebox, hopefully you understood why I'm voting for you from my questions, and if you answer them satisfactorily, then I might rescind my vote.

[Pomegranate]

Pomegranate

Do you have other experience as an IC? I'm wondering because, while this game is not going quickly, you seem overly happy with the idea of lurker-lynch, when we still have two weeks to go before deadline.

Yeah, this is my 3rd or 4th game as an IC, so I enjoy the role a bit. Also, look at my context and phrasing of the lurker-lynch: do you really think I'm behind the idea, or am I just posing a question?

Now I understand your view on lurker-lynching; thanks for clarifying.

[Pomegranate]

They are over after today lol. Yes, I will. I won't start classes again til like August 22nd I think. This should give me a LOT more time. I am also in 4 other games, so I won't be tearing up the thread with 90% of the posts here, but I will not be lurking.

Thanks.

[Pomegranate]

-adamrights, I don't understand your reasoning for being suspicious of Pablo. Could you explain what was fishy about him in clearer terms?

Post 72 is where I illustrate my suspicions on Pablo.

Kind of in a rush, have to read page 5. Should post more later.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand much from that post. Could you please rephrase yourself in a clearer so I will understand it? I'm sorry for making you do this, but I want to get my facts about everybody straight.

[Pomegranate]

Adamrights, I think you're overdoing it. Deep Blue said that if he

had

to lynch someone now, it would be you. That doesn't mean that right now he wouldn't rather wait until (closer to) deadline. Your reply to Deep Blue makes you seem more scummy than her original post did.

[Pomegranate]

Adamrights, you are sounding really defensive, pushing on anyone who shows even a slight amount of suspicion on you. If you are not scum, and are town, then the way to save yourself would be to find some scum.

You seem to believe that anyone who shows even a little bit of suspicion on you is suddenly scummy. Do you have any other evidence on Deep Blue besides his latest post? Right now I'm inclined to dismiss your vote as OMGUS unless you have something else to base it on.

Well said, Katy.

[Pomegranate]

Pomagranate...have you ever heard the 3rd vote theory?

No, I don't think so. But it obviously applies to the situation I created by giving Jackinthebox a third vote.

[Pomegranate]

- Pomegranate, I'm not a fan of your quick "yeah," style post behind Deep Blue and Katy. Again, does adamrights deserve DB's and/or your vote?

I'm not sure if adamrights deserves my vote, but I don't think so. He's been very defensive, which could be a sign of newbie scum, but I think it's just a sign of plain newbieness. Right now I'm not planning to switch my vote, but I might depending on what adam does in the future.

[Pomegranate]

Pomagranate...have you ever heard the 3rd vote theory?

No, I don't think so. But it obviously applies to the situation I created by giving Jackinthebox a third vote.

There is a common theory that the third voter on a bandwagon is Scum. Thoughts?

The theory is more like the 3rd and 4th votes are scum, not just the 3rd. The reason for that is that scum neither want to start wagons nor be at the end of them, so they will be in the middle somewhere.

Either way, this theory needs evidence to back it up or its useless. You need a case beside the theory and have the theory just be a side note in the case. Without that you are using null tells as evidence.

Actually, MM, when you first asked me if I knew about the theory, adamrights

had

unvoted. But I did give Jack his third vote. The reasons that I voted for Jack were stated in post 98, and I did say that if he answered my questions well then I would remove my vote. My vote was basically there to pressure him a bit; it was there to get answers out of him. But he didn't answer my questions. At this point he can't answer them anyway because he's been replaced. Since they won't be answered now, I'll

Unvote

. But I will keep an eye out for Youdontknow.

Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to be part of a bandwagon, I was trying to get answers out of Jack.

[Pomegranate]

Vote: Pomegranate

Given what I said in the first part of this post, I guess it is a bit ironic that I am voting for the person who said that they would watch me closely. I am not voting for Pomegranate because she said that, though. The main reason I vote for Pomegranate is the way she acted at the start of the game. Pomegranate did not contribute a lot of substance but was quick to jump on the bandwagon of both sraymonds (37) and Jackinthebox (95). Pomegranate gave little explanation for her suspicion of either player, except for a short and confusing remark to Jackinthebox (98). Pomegranate, if you don’t mind, please clarify why you voted for Jackinthebox. In post 98, it is not obvious to me why he deserved your vote. Are you voting for him because he wrote a response to an attack he created? Are you voting for him because he suspected Pablo after Pablo attacked him? Is it a mix of both? To me, the way that you have largely lurked (many of your posts having nothing to do with finding out who is Townie and who is Mafia) and are quick to jump on players that other people suspect make you scummy, and that is why you are getting my vote at this point in time.

Basically, I asked Jack why he gave a possible defense to sraymonds, whom he thought was scummy, then saying that a defense wouldn't do anything

I'm sorry if you don't think I posted a lot of content yet. I'm still feeling my way around, trying to figure out how I play best. I don't see where I jumped on sraymonds' bandwagon; post 37 was me wondering why sraymonds put DB at L-2, and in post 65 I gave him an FoS, but I never voted for him or joined a bandwagon on him.

In post 98 I posted some questions directed toward Jack. The reason I voted for him was because I wanted to put him under a little pressure to answer them. Once he was replaced and he wouldn't be able to answer my questions, I unvoted because pressuring you to answer for him would be useless.

Jackinthebox, you say you find sraymond to be suspicious, yet you give him a defense in order to avoid suspicion in the future. Why? Pablo asked you why you did this, and you say that the defense won't help him. Then you suspect Pablo for coming to sraymond's aid, and voting for you because you didn't make sense. Is that just OMGUS? If not, why?

Basically, I asked Jack why he gave sraymonds a defense, then said that the defense wouldn't help sraymonds anyway (why wouldn't it?). Also, after Pablo voted for Jack, Jack voted for Pablo. I was wondering if there was a reason for it, or if it was OMGUS.

I understand that your vote is not an OMGUS vote. Thanks for explaining yourself.

[Pomegranate]

Here I go...

-DB, do you think you could post some content? Your only post over four lines long was your defense after adamrights voted for you.

-Exalt, who are you most suspicious of? You don't seem to have professed any suspicions yet.

Eh, a lurker lynch might be a good deterrent in a game without the prod-replace system, but the game offers plenty of other methods to deal with lurkers beyond lynching them, which is always a risky proposition.

-Katy, what other types of methods are you reffering to? What are you talking about as far as "risky propositions", and and what is that reffering to?

-MM, who are you most suspicious of? Also, what do you think of YDK's case against me?

-YDK, I your interrogation of me makes you look townie, but I think it was misdirected. I understand how you came to the conclusion that I lurked, but I think I have contributed as much as say, DB, sraymonds, adamrights, or MM/Kitoari.

[Pomegranate]

VOTE: Adamrights[/b]

because I want to hear what he has to say about everything, no time for lurking with a deadline in a week.

Um, I didn't vote for you, Exalt did.

[Pomegranate]

VOTE: Adamrights[/b]

because I want to hear what he has to say about everything, no time for lurking with a deadline in a week.

Um, I didn't vote for you, Exalt did.

That was an accident -- didn't mean to hit submit, but it is interesting to know that your very clear about not voting for me. Perhaps, as scum, you know I'm not and want to make the town-side perceive you as not for lynching a townie.

Actually, right now I'm not very sure what I think of you. I just wanted to clarify youur mistake.

[Pomegranate]

Same question, I'll give my answer later: How do people feel about a lurker-lynch NOW?

Not good. At least as far as right NOW. I think we could wait until closer to deadline.

[Pomegranate]

Some quick thoughts: I definitely think between Exalt, DB and Pom there is a scum. My gut is leaning toward Pom. You've been showing a tendency to question if I'm suspicious lately (sort of like Pablo), which seems like the right tactic to me if your scum, see someone acting suspicious, but know they're town...that way you could come aboard around vote 4 if another person hops on me, and make it like you were convinced by the crowd plus you took a roll of the dice (which I guess we're all doing to some degree). I'm trying to make scum reads off reactions off me...

As for a lurker-lynch vote...I'm not really for it. Whose been lurking lately? Syramonds? You haven't answered my question yet...

I think that if I am lynched, when I flip town you will say that you were convinced by Miteymouse, Youdontknow, and Exalt, who have all professed to being somewhat suspicious of me so far.

[Pomegranate]

I need to catch up, but I just saw the votecount, and in case I didn't already unvote, I'll do it now.

Unvote

. Ah, there we go. I thought I'd done that already.

[Pomegranate]

Possible scumpair: Pablo & Adamrights. Any thought?

Pablo- Exalt said that he is playing differently than he usually does. At the beginning of the game Pablo said he was seriously voting adamrights due to his use of emoticons. Later, in post 100, he said that he isn't suspicious of adam for his use of emoticons at all, not explaining why. Is it possible that they hadn't figured out how to interact as scum yet? Possible, but it could just be me. As suggested previously (I can't remember by whom), Pablo could be asking about lurker-lynch because he doesn't want it to be used on him. I heard what he had to say about a research paper, and if he starts posting more, I'll take that into account. But for now,

FoS: Pablo

I don't have time right now to post my suspicions of adam. I will probably be able to this afternoon. I will not have access tonight or tomorrow, although I might on Saturday night or Sunday morning. It's possible I won't though, so I could be V/LA up until Sunday night, but I don't think so.

[Pomegranate]

I’m not sure why I didn’t notice it before, but Pom on page 4 is looks very suspect in my opinion. For one, she gives the whole awful:

I agree with this. I would love to actually scumhunt, but at this point no one's been acting scummy enough to earn my vote.

Actually, I'm sure you did notice it before, considering you asked me about it in post 93, right after I posted it. Then we had a discussion about, and you seemed to let it drop. I'm not sure why you're bringing it up again.

[Pomegranate]

That being said, my number one is still Pomegranate. From the beginning her play seemed scummy to me because, as I have mentioned, she provided the game little content but was quick to jump on easy bandwagons. The defense she has provided for herself has not substantial and is usually confusing to me. Even now, when she has two or three people who believe she is scummy, she has not really said anything about the way she has played this game or given an explanation for some of her actions. She has also been hesitant to keep her vote where it is when it is close to lynch, perhaps to avoid suspicion as someone who lynched a Townie. I am also troubled by her attack on Pablo and adam on post 211, talking about emoticons and circumstantial evidence (Exalt’s view of Pablo’s play in a different game). Trying to interact as scum? Sorry, I don’t buy it. As someone who questioned Pablo’s idea of a lurker-lynch, I firmly believe that he has explained why he mentioned it and later said he did not want it. From my perspective, that claim no longer holds any water. For these reasons, Pomegranate still has my vote.

I defended myself in post 146. If you don't understand anything specific about it, please ask my to clarify. Personally I don't see how it's insubstantial, so if there is anything wrong with it, please point it out to me.

I didn't see where Pablo explained his actions, but I'll reread him in in iso to find his explanation.

[Pomegranate]

Kirb, is there any reason you assumed the scum have a role-blocker and that we have a doctor/cop? What was the point? There really wasn't any...it wasn't just speculation; it was informed speculation.

I'm thinking we might have luckily caught the real scum RB with your slip up. (Would a goon know if his partner is a RB...not until evening in a newbie game, right?)

This makes sense with syramonds going inactive after coming off too suspicious early on. Perhaps he did not want to lose this power role for the mafia...

Unless someone else has some further insight I believe my vote on Kirb is the best bet for the town -- it's a slip-up we have to capitalize on.

The speculation was somewhat odd. Kirby seemed pretty sure that we have a mafia roleblocker, while there is only a 50/50 chance that we do. I didn't pick up on it at first, but seeing how adam explained it makes me a bit suspicious. For now

FoS: Kirby

. I want to see how Kirby will continue to act about this.

[Pomegranate]

EBWOP: I misread things. Mitey voted second... I thought polm voted 2nd, but it was an FOS.

I didn't vote, I gave an FoS.

[Pomegranate]

Wait, sorry...I get it now.

[Pomegranate]

I need to do a reread. I know that Pablo wants some content from me (I'm sure the rest of you do too) so I should be able to post some thoughts by tonight or tomorrow morning.

[Pomegranate]

When's our deadline? I was gone all yesterday to go to chicago bears training camp... and Friday I'll be gone all day too... I'm going to a cubs game.


So I have today and tomorrow really to post as much as possible and hopefully we can come up with someone before the deadline. I don't want a NL.

Deadline is Friday.

[Pomegranate]

Exalt:
I need time to make a scumlist and whatnot, but adamrights is scummy. Period. I'm not so sure about Kirby, but I have a gut feeling that he's a townie. The things that are viewed as scummy by other people just seem to be newbie actions to me.

[Pomegranate]

Hohum...can we get a deadline extension once DB's replacement gets here? To allow them a chance to read up...please!

Makes sense. Is reasonable. I

Second that

.

[Pomegranate]

Dunno about the extension... as mentioned by MM, it depends on the replacement.

[Pomegranate]

Pablo, I am working on it. As I said, expect something tonight or tomorrow.

[Pomegranate]

@hohum: Exactly what time tomorrow is the deadline?

[Pomegranate]

Some opinions...

adamrights, you are my top suspect. Here's why:

Really now? Because looking back at my record you've been able to deduce that this usage seems a bit forced? How so?8-)

So looking back at sraymonds's record you've been able to deduce that his "newbieness" is an act?

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

Generally, contradicting oneself is considered scummy. This instance too scummy, but trying to get away with contradicting yourself doesn't make you look townie.

I think there is a scum between Kirb/Pablo and a scum between Pom/DB.

Could you make a scumlist? You suspect four people in this post, which is 4/9. 4/9 = 44.4%. You suspect close to half the people in this game! The reason I'd like a scumlist is to see who are your strongest suspects, and in which order.

Later you vote for Kirby. Then you post this:

After reading over all of Kirbs post I'm not as convinced he's scum.

There you are contradicting yourself! Right after this you unvote. But you were going very strongly against Kirby, I don't see what made you suddenly change your mind.
I think I know who I'm voting for.

Vote: adamrights

.

[Pomegranate]

@Pom and YDK: Are you going to continue voting for each other? Is either one of you going to get enough votes to lynch toDay?

I thought I unvoted a while ago. Sorry for the confusion.

[Pomegranate]

When I read your claim I was considering. Claimed cop. No counterclaim as of yet (it hasn't been long, but I doubt there will be one). At L-1. Has a breadcrumb. I think I'm ready to unvote. But then you'll say that I just don't want to look scummy. Ah, WIFOM. But I do think you're the cop. So I guess I will

Unvote

.

Also, who are you planning on investigating tonight, as of right now? (,I guess it depends on the lynch).

[Pomegranate]

Or maybe Exalt. Looking back, maybe his reaction to my speculation was a little TOO laid back. Do you agree?

Maybe. He's been coasting through the game so far.

[Pomegranate]

i was thinking of investigating exalt, pablo or katy -- although i was leaning more toward exalt because i figured if pablo was town the scum might knock him off.

Exalt's a good choice, but if I am your top scum suspect (I don't know if I am) then wouldn't you investigate me? Isn't it best to find scum?

[Pomegranate]

Also, Pom has jumped on wagons fairly quickly. At first I didn't think she was scum, now I'm not so sure...

I didn't jump on a wagon for Exalt if that's what you're referring to. I said it was a possibility, which is true. You have to explore all the possibilities to see if you are missing anything. I agreed that Exalt could be scum, but he's not my top suspect.

[Pomegranate]

If we don't get the RB, you can assume I'll be blocked anyway tonight...

If you are a cop then there is only a 50% chance that there is a roleblocker:

-1 Mafia Goon, 1 Mafia Roleblocker, 1 Sane Cop, 1 Doctor, 5 Townies.
-2 Mafia Goons, 1 Sane Cop, 6 Townies.

So we shouldn't assume that. But it is likely that the mafia will kill you, considering your role.

[Pomegranate]

Where is Raskol...

[Pomegranate]

I'm not going to be able to get on Mafia from about Friday, 7:00 PM eastern time until after the deadline, so I must place my vote before then. Additionally, if you will want me too claim, I must have time to do it before then.

[Pomegranate]

You're all going to hate me for it, but my claim is townie. I'm a vanilla, and I have no extra information.

If you want to hear some thoughts from me...
I like Raskol. He's contributing way more than DB. Also, I have a gut feeling that Kirby is town. He's made some mistakes, but I think they're due to newbieness.

[Pomegranate]

[Pom] was quick to jump on several bandwagons.

I explained to you all of my actions, yet you ignore my defense. Have you read my posts where I defend myself from each of your points? It seems as though you haven't. If you have explain to me why the defenses weren't valid.

I'm sure at least one of the scum is on my bandwagon, not wanting to cast suspicion on him/herself. If I am lynched, tomorrow pay close attention to those individuals that were strongly against me.

[Pomegranate]

How many people claimed?

Two, adam and me.

[Pomegranate]

Exalt

I don't think you will die because I believe we have a doc

Why? You know 1 thing: there is a cop. There should be no reason for you to think there is a doc unless you know there is a goon/RB, i.e. you are scum. Yay, more role talk to drive Pablo goddamn insane!

I noticed this too, and I thought it was odd. But if we know that there's a cop, there's a 50% chance that there's a doc too.

Scenarios:
-1 Mafia Goon, 1 Mafia Roleblocker, 1 Sane Cop, 1 Doctor, 5 Townies
-2 Mafia Goons, 1 Sane Cop, 6 Townies.

...but it's still weird. Why would he assume that it's the former setup rather than the rather? I don't find it voteworthy, but it's something to think about.

Fos: Exalt

.

[Pomegranate]

I noticed this too, and I thought it was odd

But you didn't say anything? Why not?

[Pomegranate]

My last post was accidentaly submitted before I said anything. Annoying.

I noticed this too, and I thought it was odd

But you didn't say anything? Why not?

I didn't post anything becuase I was in the middle of reading through the thread and I wanted to finish before posting. The only post I made before finishing reading through was post 450 which ended up wrong (MM had also claimed by that point) because I hasn't finished reading.

[Pomegranate]

Thanks for the advice Raskol! I was considering hammering due to all the scumminess and all the weird behavior. But I won't if you want more discussion.I think that makes sense.

[Pomegranate]

This is just weird. Do we have a doc?...I wonder who adam investigated last night.

[Pomegranate]

Katy, I think there are two situations:

- There's a doc who protected the mafia target last night.
-The mafia roleblocked themselves in order to make it appear as though there is a doc, so that if one of them is close to lynch, he/she can claim doc. At this point the mafia know the setup, so they know whether or not there is a doc. This is how the mafia know the setup: Assuming adam is cop, there are two possible setups. Either there is also a doc and a roleblocker, or there is neither. The mafia knows whether or not they have a roleblocker, so they are able to figure out if there is a doc or not.

[Pomegranate]

Yeah i got roleblocked.

Well in that case the mafia must have either not submitted a nightkill target, or the target was doc-protected.

[Pomegranate]

Hi Kirby. As far as lurking, I'm posting more than other people D2. Could you make a short summary of your case against me?

[Pomegranate]

My bad, it seems you have posted a fair amount D2, so I'll probably hold off on my vote, but still...

This is just weird. Do we have a doc?...I wonder who adam investigated last night.

There's too much going on in this post, too many different directions. It seems kind of forced. Does anyone else see that?

This was just a mishmash of my thoughts at that moment. It wnt in different directions because I was confused.

The mafia roleblocked themselves in order to make it appear as though there is a doc, so that if one of them is close to lynch, he/she can claim doc.

If the mafia RB'ed themselves (if that's possible), and since adam claimed cop, there has to be a doc, there's no "appearing" otherwise. Now, maybe the mafia could have refrained from NK-ing last Night for this same reason, but it seems unlikely.

I realized after I posted it that it didn't make sense. The mafia could choose not to submit a nightkill target( even if they didn't have a RB), but as you said, it makes more sense that there is a doctor.

[Pomegranate]

If you realized it didn't make sense, why didn't you just ebwop with an "oops, that doesn't make any sense"?

Because I had made a post afterwards that mentioned the scenarios again, but didn't mention the mistake. I assumed that it showed that I didn't believe that the mafia would roleblock themselves anymore.

[Pomegranate]

Er, when in doubt, it's always best to state things, even when you don't think it needs to be stated.

If that's the case, could you please state your case against me in short? I asked you to in post 489 and you never did.

[Pomegranate]

Top two suspects: I'm not sure at this point.... Probably Exalt, because the mafia know whether or not there is a doc, and I'm not sure who else...Maybe Kirby, for reasons pointed out by Raskol. Um, has YDK posted since the start of D2? Maybe him, I don't know who my next suspect is... I'm so confused. But Raskol is exuding townie vibes.

[Pomegranate]

Well, I aready claimed.

[Pomegranate]

Personally, I think mass claim would help narrow down our suspects. The odds seem good enough for me; I'm for it. But I've already claimed.

[Pomegranate]

Also, random thought here. I am wondering if this is even possible more so than hypothesizing what actually happened. Let’s say adam is Mafia and successfully (i.e. no counter claim) claimed cop to save his life on D1. Given that there was no cop, the Mafia would know that the game is either one of two setups: one with a doctor and no RB, or one with no doctor and one RB. The Mafia would know if one of them was a RB and if both were not, they could have chosen not to kill and make the doctor believe that he had saved someone when he really hadn’t. On the other hand, if they knew that one of them was a RB, Raskol would be free to claim doc knowing he wouldn’t be counter-claimed. Am I overthinking this? Could they even do this if they wanted to?

I think it's good to get to know the possibilities, but in this scenario wouldn't it be better for the mafia just to kill? Why would they care if the doctor thinks that he/she saved correctly? It would only help them if the doctor targeted on of them, and they were therefore "confirmed". Considering that they don't know the doctors target, this probably isn't worth it for them.

[Pomegranate]

I think it's good to get to know the possibilities, but in this scenario wouldn't it be better for the mafia just to kill? Why would they care if the doctor thinks that he/she saved correctly? It would only help them if the doctor targeted on of them, and they were therefore "confirmed". Considering that they don't know the doctors target, this probably isn't worth it for them.

If the town (doc included) thinks the doctor saved someone, it would be valuable information to know who the doctor is and who he saved, since they would both be Townies. Look at this thread and consider the possibility again. It isn't farfetched to believe that if a doctor saved, he would be open to claiming. Imagine if my possibility actually occurred and that is what we are looking at now. The Mafia would just straight win, wouldn't they?

Yup. It's something to seriously consider, but I don't think we should focus all of our efforts on it.

[Pomegranate]

Given that Kirbyoshi isn't the doc, what does the fact that he was breadcrumbing a claim say about him?

I don't think it says anything good. Maybe he was planning to fakeclaim/counterclaim doc if he was in a position that required claim, and use the breadcrumbs as "proof".

But I guess that's assuming it's a breadcrumb, which does make enouh sense.

[Pomegranate]

Whoa, I just got home, and I see Exalt's response about Raskol's "retarded play", and I'm shocked! Raskol's been playing great! Then Raskol says he protected Pablo, and shows how he decided that it was a good idea.! Exalt never

did

answer the question of how he came to the conclusion that there was a doc, and considering that Raskol has been playing very well, he isn't making any sense. Exalt was against the mass claim, or at least the doctor claim, knowing that it was likely that he'd be indicted.

It was smart play on Raskol's part that he protected Pablo (*applauds*).

[Pomegranate]

Oh, I forgot,

Vote: Exalt

.

[Pomegranate]

If she's scum, I vote for her.

Vote: Katy

.

[Pomegranate]

Oh, and something about Katy: I've been noticing that she's been playing this game very safely.

[Pomegranate]

Thanks hohum, the modding was great! I don't think I played my best, but the game was great! Both Exalt and Katy kept low, in the end it didn't help them, but we won due to our PRs. Exalt blowing up at Raskol didn't help him seem town at all, but at that point he was probably doomed anyway. Great play on D2 Raskol! Thanks for ICing, Pablo Molinero! GG everybody!

[Pomegranate]

Vote MVP: Raskol

[Pomegranate]

Well, according to this poll a mafia roleblocker should be allowed to kill and roleblock. I agree with it, but I feel it's entirely the mod's decision. Hohum decided that the roleblocker should only be able to perform one action, so thatis that.