Sure, I get that a mafia kill could've been blocked while a vig kill wasn't, making the numbers add up.
What about the quote though? If you're a vig, why would you imply your kill was a scum kill? It really looks to me like he was all for playing along with the "I have no idea who killed Sarcastro but I'm glad they did" line until he was forced to make the only claim he possibly could've made.
Dasquian wrote:What about the quote though? If you're a vig, why would you imply your kill was a scum kill? It really looks to me like he was all for playing along with the "I have no idea who killed Sarcastro but I'm glad they did" line until he was forced to make the only claim he possibly could've made.
Honest question: Should a vig be claiming on page 1?
And what do you think he would gain from taking credit for the N0 kill, when he could have simply let it slide?
What so you're claiming I went to Cyber's house with the knowledge that NabNab would be there in order to tamper with "evidence". The whole point of going in a group of 2 was to add a safeguard to make sure that didn't happen.
Crub wrote:What so you're claiming I went to Cyber's house with the knowledge that NabNab would be there in order to tamper with "evidence". The whole point of going in a group of 2 was to add a safeguard to make sure that didn't happen.
Dasquian wrote:What about the quote though? If you're a vig, why would you imply your kill was a scum kill? It really looks to me like he was all for playing along with the "I have no idea who killed Sarcastro but I'm glad they did" line until he was forced to make the only claim he possibly could've made.
Honest question: Should a vig be claiming on page 1?
And what do you think he would gain from taking credit for the N0 kill, when he could have simply let it slide?
Sure, I don't think he should be claiming straight away, or giving away any hints. But what he did say seemed to be an
anti-claim
, if he really was the vig. Actually pinning that death to the mafia if he knew he did it himself is a really contradictory thing to say.
OTOH it makes sense for him to NK Sacrastro as scum because he doesn't like him, gloat about it, then back-peddle and claim vig when guns are found in his house.
Dasquian wrote:Sure, I don't think he should be claiming straight away, or giving away any hints. But what he did say seemed to be an anti-claim, if he really was the vig. Actually pinning that death to the mafia if he knew he did it himself is a really contradictory thing to say.
I wouldn't take that as an anticlaim at all. If anything, it served to foreshadow a claim.
Dasquian wrote:OTOH it makes sense for him to NK Sacrastro as scum because he doesn't like him, gloat about it, then back-peddle and claim vig when guns are found in his house.
No, actually I think it's plausible that both of us killed sarc night 0, or I didn't and BM did, otherwise I'd be voting him. What I want is clarification on BM's movements last night, nothing more.
It would seem to me that response PM's would be able to clear this up. If Primate and BM both targeted Sarc, one of them must have gotten something along the lines of "You go to where you expect Sarc to be but he's already dead". At this point I would be tempted to trust Primate. BM had guns; Sarc was murdered with a knife.
Cebloki: Don't tell us not to play Mafia. As far as I'm concerned, the investigation and lynch of Cyberbob was a bonus, something which happened outside of core mafia play (discussing and lynching scummy players). Towns have gotten by without night actions before on just their wits.
As for CyberBob's door. It was locked and that's that. Does somebody want to go check if its locked? Does somebody want to take the key off his corpse and look inside? I don't really care because I have nothing to hide and think that far too big a deal has been made of this.