Mini 637: Xyl's Smalltown Plus - Game Over

[armlx]

/confirm.

[armlx]

has, the flaw is unlike normal random viggings the "vig" doesn't have a target pool of 1 less person then the set up when he "vigs" the SB. I only endorse this plan if the SB ends up being scummy.

[armlx]

Never mind, I get it now has, I endorse that plan 100%. I just wasn't thinking and forgot if we SB the person we want to lynch we still can lynch someone else.

[armlx]

Also, post 43 looks like jibberish to me. Not in the sense that it's scummy, only in the sense that I don't know what on earth you are talking about. Hopefully you can reword it, and then I'll take my vote off you.....maybe Twisted Evil

I didn't know what I was talking about either.

Also, I sincerely hope you aren't scum Has, as that last statement will be a death sentence for me if you are.

Anyways, I was just thinking about my last post - it doesn't make sense to lynch the most useful role, as once I assume that role, I'm up for a NK anyways. So nevermind.

This is P scummy. As is the lynch the best role.

However, lynching Iceman is a bad plan. We should SB lynch someone else, force Iceman to take the SB and use him to SB lynch someone else, and then actual lynch. We trade 1 essentiall random death (the first SB) for 4 lynches.

[armlx]

Do people think we should use the daykiller on day 1?

Yes.

[armlx]

Also, until we are ready to actually lynch no one should go to L-1 in order to prevent a scum self hammer.

[armlx]

If you didn't take the SB, we would lynch you on the spot. Same as forcing someone to claim.

[armlx]

If you didn't take the SB, we would lynch you on the spot. Same as forcing someone to claim.

Assuming the entire town decides to follow you, that is. That is an awfully bold claim to make, especially considering that no one knows your alignment.

Obviously support is required. My point still stands.

[armlx]

Also, vote: cerebus3.

This is funny considering you just quoted the post about rule 2.

[armlx]

EBOWDP

I think he's better off just being lynched.

This should be fixed to "SB'ed" if you actually feel he is too scummy to be trusted with a day kill.

[armlx]

Oh wow, Poisoner is a day vig too? Gogo 5 lynches + 1 random death (counting Iceman as a "lynch" despite him presumably SBing).

[armlx]

Oh wow, Poisoner is a day vig too? Gogo 5 lynches + 1 random death (counting Iceman as a "lynch" despite him presumably SBing).

This whole plan hinges on none of the day vig players being scum.

If the SB or you is going to 1 for 1 instead of us getting lynches, I am down with that. If the poisoner is scum, thats a larger issue that can be dealt with assuming we don't fuck up today too badly.

[armlx]

Also, if we go by armlx's six death plan, the random SB should be armlx just in case he is scum trying to manipulate the town in this case. That's just my opinion, though.

The SB is not a random kill, my point is the SB killing themself is effectively random.

Also, other options to consider are forcing the poisoner to self vig as per Pie policy if we suspect them of being scum, and at the least do it tomorrow unless we are sure they are town to avoid being day killed out.

[armlx]

Apart from lynch or lose its a scum tell to try and mislead the town.

What are you talking about.....

[armlx]

When in lynch or lose its (more) OK to misleed the town if you're town.

This is pretty wrong. See ABR's attempts to claim cop in Lylo as townie and just say "these people are scum"

[armlx]

I'd say if its lynch or lose, you should say anything to make sure you're not lynched.

This is scum logic.

[armlx]

I endorse a SB kill of icemanE (consider this as a vote without voting).

[armlx]

I endorse a SB kill of icemanE (consider this as a vote without voting).

Why SB? Can't we poison him?

If we poison him, we can't SB someone else as he will just take the SB and use it on somoene else if he is scum.

[armlx]

This doesn't make sense. If he is scum and gets a SB, he will DEFINATELY SB a townie (and one of the more useful ones I'd bet).

Thats what I'm saying. If icemanE is poisoned he will live to the end of the day, effectively preventing us from using the SB as an extra lynch.

[armlx]

Crazy seems really scummy for not wanting to die. I vote he SB's icemanE and we proceed from there.

[armlx]

Oh, yeah, the latest reason I don't like icemanE is him trying to defend himself with role info.

As for how many kills today, I vote for as many as possible. More pro-town kills is like pushing the game towards nightless.

[armlx]

@Armlx - do you really think Crazy is scum or do you just want the SB to use his ability?

Both, I think Crazy is probably scum because he does not want to use his ability.

And Alabaska, lynching me for proposing the plan amounts to "Too Townie".

WTF? The more kills that occur today, the more townies will die, period. Chances are obviously immensely better based on odds alone that more townies will die than scum - your suggestion is basically to carpetbomb the shit out of this game until we happen to kill scum, and in the process kill a bunch of townies.

That is true. Hell, the more we lynch, the more townies will die, so lets not do that either.

If we kill 3 players today, we are less likely to hit scum in those 3 then we would be in lynches over 3 days as are no scum kills in between to thin the crowd. By that logic, we should just non-stop no lynch until LyLo as it thins the crowd even more. By arguing that it is better to not utilize as many pro-town kills as is possible, you should agree with the statement that doctors shouldn't protect randomly as it hurts the town's info flow. Do you think either of those is true?

You fail to realize that the scum's main weapon to win is night kills while ours is the lynch. How is maximizing ours while minimizing theirs a bad thing?

There is a reason vanilla 10-2 set ups with nights have never been won by town while vanilla 8-4s as nightless are fair.

[armlx]

Poisoner, do you have a secret ability?

Why is this relevant?

Also - the scum's main weapon is misleading the town into making poor decisions.

No. If you take away in game talking (aka random the game) it doesn't change odds that much (10-2 goes from unfavorable to very poor), but taking away night kills does (8-4 goes from absolutely unwinnable to 50/50). Also, what you are saying that if you are scum you want to try to disable the town's way to win, which is p obvious and goes along with my statement.

We're killing the most suspicious people. I'd rather have them dead early than be confusing us later when it's more stressful.

This is a good post.

Alabaska really needs to die. I don't care how.

Why?

icemanE, explain this to me: Why is SBing someone worse then going to night? Worst case scenario is SB is 1 for 1ing someone not scummy for someone scummy, same as lynch + night, only usually when that happens the not scummy person is 100% assured not scum as the mafia aren't going to kill their own members, while the SB is in no way confirmed. Now, the SB is even scummy. Talk about a bonus.

[armlx]

If the SB is not scum, and we choose a target for him to kill, he will presumably follow what we say and kill that target - which means we kill a possible scum and lose a townie.

So the same as a generic lynch, only the town role that is lost to the "NK" isn't a info/protective role.

If the SB IS scum, and we choose a target for him to kill, he will presumably ignore his advice and kill a townie of his choosing - which means we kill a scum but lose a townie.

So the same as a correct lynch.

I don't see whats wrong with that.

[armlx]

ZS, the kills will all be town directed like lynches or the person in question will be lynched. They will be just as pro-town as a lynch.

[armlx]

How and why is this a bad thing?

Referring to defending self with his role, the issue is roles and alignment in this game are in no way shape or form connected.

This post makes me think that either armlx is scum, or iceman is scum. I heavily doubt both can be scum at this point. Leaning towards armlx, though.

What makes you sure of this dichotomy as opposed to both town or both scum?

[armlx]

ZS, you act like we don't have good info right now. There are at least 2 players right now I would be willing to lynch.

[armlx]

And what I (and I presume Iceman) has been trying to say is that you do not know we are killing scum.

That is true of ANY lynch without cop results that are somehow confirmed.

You act like the person we choose for them to kill will necessarily be scum.

And have you ever considered that scum might kill another scum just to dig that much deeper into the pro-town zone?

The person we choose to lynch might not necessarily be scum. Consider how absurd that argument is.

And you would bring up WIFOM in response to the plan. Saying scum can WIFOM their way out of something is never a valid reasoning, what you are basically saying is that a scum who plays to the optimal townie plan is likely to be viewed as town, which is true and there's nothing you can do about it based on valid logic as simply put the number of times that actually happens are so few and far between that if you keep lynching people for that reason you will lose more games then you win due to lynching townies out of fear of them actually being WIFOMing scum, aka "Too Townie". Scum will inevitably do something scummy or be caught via night action based info or the town will lose.

When the point is reached it is too dangerous to leave the poisoner alive if they are scum and their actions have not cleared them, I fully endorse lynching them to avoid that risk, but now is not the time to discuss this.

By "good info" I mean 90% sure or better that they are scum.

You have really high standards. Go back and think about every time you have lynched someone, have you really been 90% sure about them?

And will people please stop Battle Maging the damn thread. It makes things so obnoxious to read. Its not that hard to put all your thoughts into one post.

And Alabaska, lynching me for proposing the plan amounts to "Too Townie".

I don't care. I think it is worth the precaution.

So you are willing to lynch based on a logic fallacy?

[armlx]

How is it?

I stil think, misleading the town is a very good scum tell, misleading the town in order to protect yourself is an even better scum tell. I still think that subtly threatening people is a scum tell and since he's guilty of both.

I agree with that, but I don't agree with your "except in LyLo" qualifier. I was stating that even in LyLo deliberately misleading the town is a scum tell.

You also act like anybody who uses their kill when we ask them to is confirmed townie, which is what I was speaking against.

No, I only act as if those who don't are confirmed scum. If "If A, then B" is true, it does not mean "If not A, then not B" is also true.

What I am saying is is that we need to wait for more information than just one day of information before we start using kills left and right.

We get 2 alignments of info at the least before we use the poisoner or lynch. Sounds like a lot to me.

You act like we have already won this game, Armlx.

I only act in the manner that if we go ahead with this plan, we SHOULD win barring insane variance.

[armlx]

This isn't even worth my time to argue any more. The people who get it do, and the people who don't just won't ever get over their inexplicable correlation between more eliminated players early and town losses, despite the fact that the eliminated players are people who are likely to be lynched later anyways.

[armlx]

Ok seriously I think Empking needs to be killed today somehow because if he isn't scum somehow he is gonna seriously fuck with us later.

So not only do you support lynching on false logic, you also support policy lynching players too?

[armlx]

Alabaska, don't plan out lynches like that. It lets the scum plan to get around being killed.

Good posting.

Do you support letting Empking live?

I support lynching him for reasons that go beyond "policy".

[armlx]

EBWODP: That last sentence should actually read

"I would support lynching him for reasons that go beyond policy".

[armlx]

I say we let wolf kill empking just for the irony.

I say we SB someone and work with that info before doing ANYTHING involving lynching or poisoning.

[armlx]

icemanE should SB Empking.

icemanE should SB someone, Empking being the best target ATM.

[armlx]

Meh, Alabaska was actually who I was going to say should be SB'ed. The fact Crazy was scum made his attempt to dig at the poisoner's role look a lot like figuring out if something could go wrong if he got SB'ed.

I can endorse a dead Emp at this point, not sure on who should be the other "lynch".

[armlx]

just appearing too comprehensive sometimes

What does that even mean?

Also, ZS, your logic is extremely terrible here as I have stated all game, and I find it very opportunistic to just blame me when the 2 scummiest people were town, as well as hypocritical. Of those who have died to the extra kills so far (counting EmpKing) you were seriously voting 2 of them until the point they died.

Vote ZS

[armlx]

Ok, yes, I was voting them. And?

So, clearly you thought they were scummy, and now you are saying their death at the time was wrong?

[armlx]

What, am I supposed to say that the death of a townie is good?

Maybe it is. It provides us information.

But it is still nowhere near as good as the death of a scum, which I heartily approve of more than the death of a townie.

I mean, can you REALLY say that you would have preferred iceman to kill Alabaska over someone who is actually scum?

This logic is absurd. Of course I would have rather hit scum then town, but you can't hold it against me that the scummiest player in the game wasn't scum when you agreed on it. And what were your thoughts on Alabaska before he died?

[armlx]

@ZS yes I did poison Emp, problem is that the way it works he will not die until the end of the day, which means not until after a lynch. I am hoping that we find a truely scummy person to vote on because I do not want to lynch someone just for the sake of getting rid of a confusing player.

What are your thoughts on myself and ZS?

[armlx]

What about Has and charter then?

[armlx]

I would like to go back over the posts and see if there were any double takes but I still find it odd that the player that just came in (styro) wrote:

hi, everyone i'm replacing nhat. due to the sheer content of this game so far..can anyone give me a summary of everything that is essential....preferably a summary form a town player, thnx Wink

P.S. i'll be doing a read also, but in case i miss stuff...yea i'm a noob ;D

The bold is mine, and i never really like seeing players start off saying they are noob. I know it's really nothing but to me it seems like that is sometimes used to get others to look over him because he is noob, but as i said, this is just my opinion.

Then the next post was:

Ok I've actually read all of the 15 pages and I would've voted armlx even if my predecessor didn't, besides from the mass-killing plan, armlx gives off a scummy vibe, ... just appearing too comprehensive sometimes, cautious too.

I'm also not liking hasf... for some reason. I'll read thru his individual posts.

... okay I've read hasf...'s individual posts in this game, he seems very defensive of armlx for some reason, even when armlx isn't really under heat, so it can't be scum buddying up to a townie (since armlx wasn't even under pressure).

armlx today and if he flips scum, i'm gunning for hasf's milky arse tmr

doesn't really take a true stand (by that i mean voting). Instead he makes a kind of hit list, another thing I really never like seeing some players do because if they aren't scum, they will usually get themselves mislynched from making a hit list.

This is what I was looking for with my questions. Just saying no one is scummy at this point is fairly scummy in itself.

[armlx]

just appearing too comprehensive sometimes

What does that even mean?

Styro, please answer that. Also, what specific things that I have done have been too "cautious" or "comprehensive"

[armlx]

blah, it's the 'too-townie' arguing since you appear so much more pro-town than everyone else, it's suspicious.

Too townie is a logical fallacy.

[armlx]

yes, I read up on it in the wiki, that's why I didn't follow it up.

What are your reasons for voting me then?

[armlx]

You came up with the plan, I don't want to get fucked over when I find out end game that we've been following a mafia's plan all along. In addition, the way you've been playing, I wouldn't be surprised if you turn out mafia, you are such a good player.

I believe the reason why this is crap logic was already explained in thread.

[armlx]

But I can't prove he never does something from one post.

Then show many posts.

[armlx]

That still doesn'ty show he never does something.

If you can not prove he committed the offense, how can you accuse him of it?

[armlx]

I can prove it, just not the way you want me to prove it.

Then do so.

I still advocate not planning them out in thread.

^^

There is also no reason not to use your night ability tonight.

[armlx]

but i don't want to die, i have such a shitty ability, wtf.

So upgrade it by trying to block a kill on a more important ability.

[armlx]

but i die, dude

This is scum logic along the lines of how Crazy tried to avoid SBing.

[armlx]

but i die, dude

This is scum logic along the lines of how Crazy tried to avoid SBing.

no, i want to be in this game, you don't have to be a scum to not want to die.

But to want to avoid your own death at the cost of the town as a whole implies you are scum.

[armlx]

Or I could call him out on it now when he states his intent. Which I'm doing.

[armlx]

You also don't consider the fact that (if I remember IRC Smalltown right, which Xyl designed the bot for) the mafia kill counts as a night action. If Styro does something scummy today, I want to call him out for it today so that if he ends up turning out to be scum and gets lynched his partner is forced to claim an ability use tomorrow that has a definite trackable result (assuming his partner isn't myself or wolf, 2 people I have ruled out). His partner is also just as likely to be tracked to him during a wagon today compared to one tomorrow. Even if he is scum, he has 3 people (ZS, yourself, and pwnz) who could potentially call him out if he claims a fake protect tonight and kills, which is likely as if he is scum he is the weakest in game role for them to use and most likely to make the kill regardless of the pairing (again, barring wolf being scum). Also, if he is just town who isn't thinking, him knowing to use his ability is far better then him not using it, which is something I definitely think is still possible at this point.

[armlx]

Styro, if you stop a kill, its most likely going to be on a pro-town player.

[armlx]

But having any other pro-town role live to tomorrow is more valuable then your role living as any role that would be killed most likely can change the end result of the game (numbers or information wise) where as your role simply replaces one death with another, which doesn't prevent the game from ending at the same time or directly hand out information the longer you live.

[armlx]

I find it funny that the vote Crazy made on Charter was for attacking the lots of lynch strategy, when in the end that was what gave Crazy away.

[armlx]

Cownath'ed.

[armlx]

Put that all together and we are left with one Mafia vote on charter at the very beginning of the game, which could honestly mean anything.

Mafia will sometimes vote for other members of the mafia early in the game in order to remove suspicion.

Your case on charter self contradicts within 1 paragraph. Nice.

[armlx]

wait a second. Please explain how that contradicts.

He first states that there is no way to reason out the vote, then ascribes a meaning to it.

[armlx]

wait a second. Please explain how that contradicts.

He first states that there is no way to reason out the vote, then ascribes a meaning to it.

Hmm, I have my own thoughts, but I want wolf to defend himself before I say anything.

What does wolf have to defend against?

[armlx]

You saying it contradicts. I want wolf to respond to it.

That was in response to a comment made by pwnz actually, but ok.

Armlx is seeming overly-aggressive to me.

Are you going to back this with quotes, or just say things?

[armlx]

You saying it contradicts. I want wolf to respond to it.

That was in response to a comment made by pwnz actually, but ok.

pwnz then. Why did I think it was wolf?

Wolf quoted that post right before I did, and I didn't use player tags. I even used the Quote Selected function on the quoted text in wolf's post.

[armlx]

There is a healthy level of aggressiveness. However, Armlx has gone far past that level.

What does this even mean, why is it scummy, and is this the only behavioral evidence you are going off on your case?

[armlx]

By "overly-aggressive", Armlx, I mean the point when you will attack almost every post, finding every single last thing wrong with that post, and then drilling the person who made the post for as long as humanly possible.

I mean, it is fine to interrogate someone over something obviously scummy.

But when you start to nitpick, finding the smallest things to interrogate about, sometimes not even things, just shadows of things, and then drilling like no tomorrow based on them, that is just overly-aggressive, and reeks of scum.

Quotes of these "nitpicks" plz, and WHY is doing that scummy?

I think I already said that I never liked the "mass kill" idea in the first place, so your supporting of that is also behavioral evidence for my case.

Why do you not like maximizing the number of town directed deaths again?

armlx must die today, leaving him alive will fuck town over eventually because of WIFOM.

What WIFOM? The one you are creating by trying to attack me on the basis of "Too Townie"?

[armlx]

Pretty nitpicky here. Taking an unfortunate juxtaposition of words and then going as deep and hard as humanly possible in order to make it seem scummy.

So, his post is not self contradictory? I feel he was stretching for reasons and just made that logic up in order to make his vote look good, which is evidenced by his earlier statement that shows he would not believe that to be true.

And is that all? 1 incidence that occurred after you voted me?

And it is scummy because it is being overly aggressive. Being overly aggressive is scummy.

Again, why? You can't just say something is scummy because it is. You need logic.

I did not like maximizing the number of town directed deaths because, as Crazy's alignment proves, not all of them are necessarily town directed.

So you don't like it because we forced a mafia to 1 for 1 himself, aka we got a correct lynch for free?

[armlx]

Not really. You just took a few words, put them out of context, and made it look like he contradicted himself.

Except he did. How were they "out of context"?

If you actually want me to explain, I will.

Please do.

For example: What would happen if Wolf actually ends up being scum? Then we, the town, are, essentially, giving Wolf our permission to kill a random townie once a day, essentially giving the Mafia an additional kill.

A random "townie" of our choosing is killed. Sounds good. Is that any worse then what happens without the plan?

Not to mention that you employed it on Day 1, a day lacking enough information to make any really concrete assumptions.

This is untrue and you know it. Just because its day 1 doesn't mean there is no info.

And you will notice that I voted you at first in order to go through with the "Kill the suggester" plan.

That plan is based on bullshit and logical fallacies, as has been pointed out several times.

Also of note: EmpKing shutting up despite being alive makes me pretty sure he was scum. See me in House Mafia. We have to watch out for putting someone at L-1 as he is almost assure to hammer if they aren't his buddy.

[armlx]

I want pwnz and Wolf to take an official side in the me vs. ZS thing. Who, if either, do they think is right in the over aggressive and "kill the suggestor" issues and which, if either, do they think is scum? (I know Wolf has answered the latter, but I don't think I've seen an answer to the first part from him)

[armlx]

And what if we don't hit scum? What would your thoughts be then?

Also

Mod, Styro has been banned as an alt of a banned member (Gimbo). Double check the Bans thread in Site Ideas if you want, but a replacement is needed

.

[armlx]

i would still be against voting the suggester without new evidence because we went along with it when we didnt have to.

This is good posting.

[armlx]

By "out of context" I mean you took things which were not actually self-contradictory (If you actually look at it, you can see that it really, really is NOT self-contradictory), and then construed those words for your own purposes.

How is it not self contradictory?

Ok, look: When you are overly aggressive, it is as if you are seeking any and all reasons for someone to be lynched, even if that reason is completely and utterly insignificant. When you are being overly aggressive, it is as if you are just trying to get someone lynched, without actually having any actual major scum tells. When you are being overly aggressive, it is as if you are just trying to get people to say something which is said in complete innocence as a townie, but which can be misconstrued as a scum tell

So you are going back to your minutia point which you have yet to back with more than one point.

Can you point where I have said anything leading?

All in all, it really just seems like you want someone lynched for no good reason at all, or a reason which you yourself managed to develop.

So, I'm building a case?

[armlx]

Considerably, I think burden of proof lies on you to explain how it is self-contradictory. I mean, all you said was "It is self-contradictory", without explaining how.

I have already proven how it was. The first sentence is him saying the voting "Could mean anything", the second is him ascribing a specific meaning to it.

[armlx]

By "insignificant" I mean the way Armlx goes after posts where the words are not completely clear, because of unfortunate positioning, or some other reason, and then acts like it is the most massive scumtell in the entire game.

Examples plz.

[armlx]

Uhh... The whole "self-contradictory post" thing?

So one thing that occurred AFTER you voted me?

Looks like someone is retroactively stretching for reasons.

You also are blowing my attack on pwnz out of proportion with your "case" on me, especially given my vote is still on you and has remained there the whole time.

And read the post again. The clear implication of his first sentence is he has no clue what it means.

[armlx]

Uhh... The whole "self-contradictory post" thing?

So one thing that occurred AFTER you voted me?

Looks like someone is retroactively stretching for reasons.

You also are blowing my attack on pwnz out of proportion with your "case" on me, especially given my vote is still on you and has remained there the whole time.

And read the post again. The clear implication of his first sentence is he has no clue what it means.

[armlx]

Hmmm, that was odd. The site went down when I tried to post the first time, so I tried again and then both showed up. Mod, feel free to delete this post and one of my duplicates.

[armlx]

I thought I already said my immediate vote was for the "Kill the Suggester", and that your over-aggressiveness just solidified it?

So we are agreed your original vote is based on crap logic?

He may or may not know what it means. What he was suggesting in the second sentence is something that he might THINK it means.

I see the semantic difference between "may or may not" and "does not" in our interpretations of the post is the issue at hand here. Pwnz clarifying would be nice.

[armlx]

You say it is crap logic. I say it is wonderful insurance.

What you are saying is you want to use a lynch on someone on whom you have no evidence that points towards them being scum. Sounds like crap logic.

[armlx]

I am telling you that I am using it as insurance, to make sure that you have not cleverly manipulated the town into killing off about one third of it in a single day.

I "cleverly manipulated the town" so that the game has 3 scum directed kills max compared to 7 town directed ones (assuming wolf is town, counting Crazy's death as town directed but his kill choice as mafia directed). Compare to the strategy of just lynching, which gives a maximum of 5 town directed kills and 5 mafia directed kills.

The strategy of just poisoning + lynching CAN max out at 7/3, but only if 1) Crazy was lynched, not poisoned and 2) wolf lived through every game day.

Sounds really "cleverly manipulative" to me.

[armlx]

Zombie is just trying to push a lynch on no reasoning at this point.

[armlx]

But, then again, you have to realize that you as well are trying to push a lynch on pwnz for a simple misunderstanding, which equates to no reasoning, really.

Where did I try to push a lynch on pwnz?

[armlx]

I am secretly a cop.

The regular roles and the secret roles are both assigned randomly and independently.

I don't know if that's supposed to mean anything.

[armlx]

@armlx, I think it means everyone was randomly assigned their public role. People were then randomly assigned secret roles. People were then randomly assigned alignments. This reminds me of something I wanted to bring up, all these secret roles seem fishy, cop, bulletproof, vig. It seems like there's an awful lot of them, which doesn't help ZS's claim, but as I said, I think that we shouldn't lynch him today.

My point was I don't see what cop has to do with his alignment. TBH, even before that, he was the most powerful investigative role in the game, and none of you cared.

[armlx]

When someone claims cop on D1 in a normal game at L-1, it doesn't have much to do with their actual alignment, so that's why you let them live N1 and then take it from there.

The difference is that if they are an actual cop they are assured town in that scenario. I feel ZS's actions have gone way beyond reasonable at this point and I don't think his cop claim changes his value to the point we are required to not lynch him today.

[armlx]

Besides the fact that Crazy's secret role was "Godfather"?

Godfather entails an extra ability however (immunity to investigations).

[armlx]

ZS, this honestly seems like a large leap of logic that you are trying to get us to believe in order to say your cop claim confirms you.

[armlx]

ZS, this honestly seems like a large leap of logic that you are trying to get us to believe in order to say your cop claim confirms you.

He's right though.

Why is he right?

[armlx]

Fuck this.

My secret role is gun smith. I HIGHLY doubt there are 2 strong investigative roles on top of tracker/watcher and all the other power roles in the town.

[armlx]

It is a role which can investigate a person once a night to see whether or not they have a "gun". I.E. If they have a night kill.

I double checked my PM, and it said cops do as well. Unfortunately, this makes it impossible for me to investigate you and get an accurate result, as regardless of whether you are telling the truth it will show up positive.

Ok, so the town has a lot of power roles. And? For all we know, this game is simply horribly unbalanced.

Except our mod isn't a fucking idiot.

[armlx]

I don't want to unvote just because I have people questioning my motives atm. What I want to do is see what happens over the next couple posts, really think good on if I am totally wrong here, and then go from there.

.....

[armlx]

ALL of our secret roles give extra abilities, unless you forgot.

But how would Mafia Goon give extra abilities?

[armlx]

Not going to post on Emp. Since he should die once this day ends (unless he has some secret anti-venom ability) anything I post would be moot.

His lack of help post "death" speaks more then any case before hand.

[armlx]

Well it was obvious to me... Neutral

And it would only be obvious to a mafia goon, which is Has's point.

[armlx]

Why are you killing me?

Apparently, you missed the memo that wolf poisoned you like 7 pages ago.

[armlx]

Yay, someone I know isn't Gimbo.

[armlx]

I know I can't save myself and I know you're killing me because you don't like scum hunting

I lol'ed.

Now that it should be obvious, you might as well spill your guts and let us all know what you think of the game from an objective standpoint. Seriously, no pressure, I'm sure I'll know what you're allignment really was by the end of the day anyhow.

Emp, please do this.

[armlx]

Self-preservation, etc. etc.

.....

[armlx]

ZS's last post is unreal convenient.

[armlx]

pwnz, I don't get the point of your posts. If they don't have one, please add one to your next posts.

[armlx]

@Has, if you are convinced we should lynch ZS, why aren't you voting him?

I've actually wondered this for a while but felt it wasn't worth bringing up as it would draw attention from the real issues at hand.

[armlx]

Zombie is sure being useful.....

[armlx]

Armlx, are you really saying there appears to be no similarities between Pwnz's new posting and the way Empking has been posting all game long?

I'm saying that is a dumb and irrelevant point to bring up. How do you make a PR of being unhelpful even? This honestly looks like a desperate attempt to deflect attention off yourself.

[armlx]

I think that Empking probably just has some kind of post restriction, rather than actually just being a douche.

That's a dumb assumption. You can't make a subjective PR like that.

[armlx]

Yeah, because when you jump on a bandwagon that is picking up speed, then jump off as soon as you start getting under pressure for it, that is NOT scummy at all.

It was scummy. Your actions are scummier.

[armlx]

What actions, exactly?

All the ones I have stated. The "insurance plan", the counterclaimed claim, the assumption about random roles, trying to divert attention with some BS theory, more I am forgetting at 4 am.

[armlx]

Be more specific.

Are you real Emp? Read the post. Opinions on everyone now plz with reasonings.

Then it was solidified because he was the person who pushed the "mass-death" policy the most.

Oh yeah, that was it. Trying to single me out of the people who pushed the plan to validate your vote, and trying to use the fact I supported a pro-town action against me.

[armlx]

Well, then, in the case that we can get such a weird randomization, who is to say such a weird thing as an infectious post restriction is not possible?

Because this PR you are suggesting is so subjective its beyond a reasonable thought.

[armlx]

Even if you're town, lynching a guy because he's being too townie is still the worst plan I've ever heard.

Apparently you weren't in World Domination Mafia 2 on MTGS, where far worse plans were carried out.

[armlx]

Nope! Before my time, I'm afraid.

To summarize

1. Someone was lynched b/c when they quoted their PM to claim there was a grammar mistake. Turns out the PM was typed by a small child.

2. Someone with potentially unlimited votes was somehow presumed scum by a third of the town. The other player with potential unlimited votes then outed themself to hammer him from like L-5 and was killed that night.

[armlx]

Thoughts on how we should reveal night targets? I vote random ordering given the set up of hidden alignments meaning the info results are under just as much scrutiny as the others.

NO ONE should reveal info till we decide on this.

[armlx]

Why is random better than popcorn?

I'm fine with popcorn so long as we agree that we should base our choices mostly on the person's behavior. I just don't like a method where the order of claims is at all based on what the person's ability is, as in this scenario it becomes too easy to manipulate a lynch.

[armlx]

Ged did not have a gun.

Hascows next.

[armlx]

A) We have practically infinite time to wait on him. I'm willing to wait for him to post until a replacement occurs and they post. If he posts without claiming though, his time runs out.
B) Wolf, a no use is probably optimal today.

[armlx]

Mod, if someone tracks someone who is blocked, do they see the intented targets?

No comment.

[armlx]

armlx, why pick ged?

I actually figured of the people I wanted to investigate, he was the least likely to die as the mafia would actually never have incentive to directly target him for a kill. I knew he would cover for someone, but I assumed he would lose the WIFOM on the basis that is usually what happens in my experience, as well as any possible bus driving or role blocking shenanigans that might occur.

And mod, I asked a question about open role descriptions. Is that not public info?

[armlx]

Wolf's analysis that leads him to voting Pwnz seems odd. The 1 mafia thing, assuming Pwnz would know the mod could not answer.

[armlx]

I'm leaning Wolf right now, but I don't want to vote yet given the scenario we are in.

[armlx]

I don't think pre-emptively deciding those actions is the right play at all.

[armlx]

What do you propose?

Stick to the popcorn/random tomorrow.

[armlx]

I don't like how you take credit for ZS when you more or less hopped onto the case has + I had pushed all game.

[armlx]

Hunting implies you made an original case.

[armlx]

Wolf, Ged was a stronger protective role then Charter by far.

[armlx]

I do not consider bus driver a protective role because it can wreak as much havoc as it can help.

This.

Also, 3-4 days till deadline.

[armlx]

I believe I said I thought wolf was scum as well, but the thing I'm having issues with is who his partner would be.

[armlx]

Also, currently my suspects are charter on gut, and pwnz for not contributing much of anything useful.

This pairing actually makes a fair amount of sense, given that charter set up to have pwnz claim last. I'm assuming pwnz made the kill last night then and couldn't have gotten a real result.

[armlx]

My b, I thought Has had started for some reason.

[armlx]

Odd, seeing as how you told him to claim next...

Yeah, I realize.

[armlx]

Vote Wolf

I think its wolf + charter, but charter is pretty much there on PoE where as wolf has said and done some actively scummy things.

[armlx]

Note how because we only went to night once really, we were unable to kill who we wanted and lost because of it.

[armlx]

I was thinking that the bloodbath day 1 would make the town lose... last time I put suicide bomber and super backup in the same setup. Very Happy

It actually helped them a ton. Imagine us being able to MUP repeatedly, kill exactly who we wanted, etc etc.

[armlx]

I liked how you argued in favor of a plan which had serious potential to mess with your team.

What was my other option? Argue against it, despite the fact that there is meta evidence across the site I would agree with that plan?

[armlx]

Actually, I never brought it up. I definitely thought about it, but if no one else was going to say anything about it I had no reason to. Has mentioning it forced my hand.

[armlx]

No, charter, that was obvious. The issue was Has chose to RB you that night, preventing your bus driving from resolving, which meant that Ged's intended targetting of Has actually happened.

Also, charter, it hurt us a lot when you forced me to claim before pwnz, unless you felt that having me claim after the tracker would make it look really suspect.

[armlx]

Xyl is one of the best mafia mods ever, especially in the department of operating the game.

[armlx]

Yeah, posting day talk is all good.

And 3 info roles was 1 too many I think Xyl, especially with the vig sub role too. Meh, its turned out fine though as it isolated the power.

[armlx]

I forgot. Did ZS try to use his cop action?

He was dead before night actually happened, so no.

And has, that's why strict voting rules blow.