Mini 269 - Game Over

[Green Crayons]

confirming.

[Green Crayons]

I wasn't sure if I was able to investigate before this game started or not.

Wow, I really,

really

hope that's a mafia gambit, but I dont think it is.

Graken: halo freak started the game in a Day Cycle, which means that we get to start with discussion instead of night activities. This could be for numerous reasons, from him simply not wanting anyone to have their say before before kicking their bucket Night One, to perhaps he thinks it makes the game more balanced, or maybe something different altogether.

Personally, I think it gives us a chance to one-up the mafia by possibly cutting them down by one before they do one of us in. Of course, without even the slightest information that is usually gleaned from Night One, the town collectively has less to go off of. Therefore, we're only going to catch the mafia when they slip up in discussion, and nothing starts discussion like frivolous bandwagoning.

Vote: Poirot

, because he's the only one with a vote.

[Green Crayons]

Why is everyone voting for Poirot? I understandFalcone, but was your vote, Green Crayons, just a joke or something? I think frivolous bandwagoning can lead to actual mafia bandwagoning, so isn't that a bad idea?

Falcone's vote for Poirot appears to be completely random. My own is because Falcone is the only one being voted - maybe if there were more votes on the table, I would have pinned my vote on someone else. My whole Day One philosophy for mafia games is that the town has almost no information to go off of - and, in this case, where there was no Night One prior to this Day cycle, we have nothing at all to go off of. We can't cross our fingers and hope night investigators might have caught a bad guy. Heck, assuming you're our cop, you don't even have an innocent that you can at least assume is trying to help the town.

Therefore, with nothing to go off of, we will only have discussion and voting patterns to deduce who could be the scum among us. After all, we're only going to catch the bad guys when they slip up and/or do something suspicious or odd. It also helps later in the game when looking at voting patterns. To jump start this whole process, I endorse bandwagons at the beginning.

To make it clear, I'm not going to keep my vote on Poirot until the end of the day, nor am I endorsing any type of role claim or anything of that sort. Bandwagoning needs to start somewhere, however, and I don't care to wait a few pages of mindless random votes and "oh no," "how weird," "whatever shall we do," etc. posts before we get down to buisness.

[Green Crayons]

I am a tabloid reporter. Each night, I must invent a contrived, wacky role for another player. I expect there is some sort of non-sane coplike role who is intended to be mislead by my inventions. I want to tell you beforehand exactly what I am doing, so if anybody comes accross these roles, you will know they are fake.

So, it sounds like your role could actually work against the town, as if there are any cops out there that get role-names, you would make their investigations worthless. I'm not saying that you're pro-mafia (though tabloid reporters

are

evil...), just that your role could possibly be detrimental to the town. However, it doesn't make sense to have a town role be harmful only to the town. Therefore, simple deduction means that there's probably a mafia investigator or somesuch that gets role names.

Or is it that you can "write" a role for someone, and then when that person is investigated by a role cop, he gets to see his new wacky role instead of his real one?

That was my first guess.

Or is it that you can "write" a role for someone, and then when that person is investigated by a role cop, he gets to see his new wacky role instead of his real one?

I agree that it was a bad idea to claim today, as now the mafia are two up on us - assuming neither of you are lying, they already know who one role is with investigations, and another role who simply screws with role-names (from what i gather). However, I just see this claim as a misjudgement in timing, not exactly suspicious.

Oh, and now that I think of it, Graken, is there any chance you are that role cop, i.e. do your investigations get you guilty/innocent or do you get the role of a player?

I'm actually against Graken answering this, as it simply gives the mafia more information as to his role. I'm comfortable in assuming that Graken is actually going to survive the first few nights intact (most probable doctor-target at this point, and mafia are looking for the doctor anyways, not the cop at the moment), so if he finds something interesting, he can then divulge a fuller discription of his role at that point. I see your point in asking, though, and personally, I wouldn't be surprised if there are two investigation roles in the town, one regular cop style and one that gleans role names. I could see the tabloid reporter as being added to provide some type of balance.

[Green Crayons]

First of all, two points to Graken for oversharing on his role information, and now placing him in the useless bin for the town in regards to his role.

Could be, but pro-town players with anti-town roles are possible. Ever heard of a paranoid cop?

That's true, but the anti-town role abilities usually help balance the game mechanic so the town isn't too powerful. The non-normal cop roles are hardly ever given out as the only special ability, and they usually compliment a normal cop role elsewhere in the game. There's a lot of speculation going on here on my behalf, so I'm not going to continue in this line of thought until more solid answers show up - I just want it put on the table that I think a mafia-investigator may be part of the equation, so if he claims cop he might have an easier time of doing so (assuming he might be able to cite rolenames). Then again, I may be completely off base, which wouldn't be the first time.

Now that we know Graken is a cop without the ability of being protected, I'm more than confident that we have a second cop role, so I'm not

too

worried about our status in regards to helpful roles.

That's why I added the teaser about there being something more that I would talk about after getting some answers.

I wasn't sure if that's what you're hinting at, but if I came to that conclusion, I'm sure others did as well, including scum. I don't think I exactly harmed the line of questioning, especially considering Graken's unfortunate further explanation of his role sort of blew the questioning to pieces.


From this, though, I think it should be important to note that apparently role names are important alongside the "guilty/innocent" results.

[Green Crayons]

I think we all need to decide whether we take Graken at face value or whether we think he has made too many stupid mistakes now to be our real cop.

If he's not dead in a few nights time, that's when I'll think twice about his suspicion. As is, if he isn't lying, the mafia can't keep him alive when he could possibly oust one of them. He's the perfect target for scum, and the whole "keeping him alive and maybe the town will lynch him for us" gambit probably would do them more harm than good.

The latest lease on life I give him is tomorrow night, but that's just wishful thinking on my behalf.

[Green Crayons]

You're avatar is extremely creepy, by the way. If that was your goal, you succeeded.

[Green Crayons]

Bah, busy with work - I'll provide my opinions on sunday.

[Green Crayons]

I think we all need to decide whether we take Graken at face value or whether we think he has made too many stupid mistakes now to be our real cop.

I think this was the most suspicious of Dodgy's post, and was surprised that nobody else found it enough so to comment on it. While we do catch scum through stupid mistakes they make, I don't think the mistakes that Graken has made are exactly suspicious, just... well, stupid. I don't see how a role claim and a detailed description of his weakness equates to stupid mistakes that might make Graken scum. If anything, assuming Graken was scum, it would be some sort of gambit (not a stupid mistake) by claiming cop, but the notion of it being some sort of gambit is shot to hell with the weakness claim.

I, too, am curious behind BJ's vote for armlx.

[Green Crayons]

I went over the possible reasons behind Graken being scum (on page 2, I believe), but I have to say that it's fairly impossible for Graken to be scum (and still alive). I say that we take Graken at face value and move on-it isn't a big deal.

Uh, I've been quite convinced from the get-go that Graken isn't pulling some sort of risky gambit. That wasn't the point of my post.

Get with the programme Green Crayons,
Poirot did pick up on it and after input from a couple of others, I addressed it.
Read my posts.

I

am

with the program, sir. And, while I found you to be suspicious while reading through the posts, I was surprised that what I thought was the most suspicious point of the quotation that Falcone brought to light nobody talked about.

Here's your quote again, and I'll explain further:

I think we all need to decide whether we take Graken at face value or whether we think he has made too many stupid mistakes now to be our real cop.

You're giving an ultimatium to the town to decide to believe that Graken is indeed a cop or if he has made "stupid mistakes" which would mean that he is scum. However, my point of contention with your suggestion is that I believe that Graken is a cop

because

he has made all these stupid mistakes, such as revealing himself as well as his weakness. It's quite obvious that he made some errors in judgement, but it looks in this quote as if you're telling the town to decide that Graken's scum if we think he's done things that we consider stupid.

(Note to Graken: Personally, I think "stupid" is too a harsh word, so every time I or someone else uses it, just replace it with "error in judgement." It's a shame that you outed yourself so early in the game, but it's all good, we have to learn at some point.)

I thought it was a suspicious statement to make, and nobody commented specifically about this line. If they did, I missed it, and by all means pull the quotes out so I can read what I missed.

I suggest you target Graken tonight.....

Why should he manipulate the role name and description for someone who is - more than likely - going to die?

[Green Crayons]

Oh, i thought you were correcting me. Or something.

[Green Crayons]

because the only reason for this role is the existence of a role cop. And I'm of the opinion our role cop getting reliable info is a good thing......

I was under the impression that Speedy doesn't get role information, he merley makes up a role name and description that if someone else investigates, they'll get that false information instead of the real deal. I'm still not following.

His role ability sounds detrimental to the town, so I'm under the opinion that he shouldn't target anyone.

[Green Crayons]

If it's seven to lynch and only six have voted... he would still be alive.

I'm finding Speedy actually to be more suspicious for reasons already mentioned, but I'll go ahead and restate the ones that I find to be telling.

1. At first, I made the assumption that Speedy was making a genuine mistake akin to Graken's in just revealing his role due to inexperience. However, I now see his join date is Sept. 2004. He isn't new, he has played mafia before, and he knows what he's doing. So his claim doesn't make since - he backs it by saying he doesn't want any pro-town roles to be confused, but if one thinks that they have a role that could hurt the town, and they themselves are protown, why use the role? Experienced players who are vigs usually don't use their kill ability unless if they're desperate, almost completely sure, or have a town vote to approve of their actions. The fact of the matter is, they don't just go off randomly using it just for the sake of using their role because it has the potential to be detrimental to the town - if you're protown and you don't think your role will help the town, whatever that role ability may be, just don't use your role. No need to make yourself known to scum. It just all seems very strange and illogical to for an experienced player claim so early without pressure to do so.

2. I don't like how little he has actually explained about his role. He writes a role for someone else, but he doesn't know much else about it - it just sounds obscenely vague. Does this new role description actually apply to that person? Does it stay with that person for just that night or for the rest of the game? He doesn't know anything about it other than he "write

a role for somebody each night" (his words). While this isn't a major point of contention, because perhaps the mod just told him something akin to "you make up roles for people," it just doesn't sit right with me.

3. The only time I could see him using his role in a useful fashion would be to mess up a scum investigator, assuming there's actually one in the game. Otherwise, his role is horrible for the town. A lot of speculation is going on in my head with possible role setups with what little we know, and in a lot of them, a tabloid reporter who screws up investigations doesn't fit until a pro-town role.

Reasons four, five and six coincide with Falcone's three.

Unvote: Poirot

. My vote will soon be going to Speedy.
Before I vote, however, I want a final clarification from Graken before he more-than-likely winds up dead tomorrow morning: Did your role explanation tell you if you'd get gulity/innocent results or role names? I don't know if you answered this already, if you did I didn't catch it.

[Green Crayons]

Vote: SpeedyKQ

. Out of what has been presented today, I think that you're the most sure-fire lynch.

[Green Crayons]

A doc lied and said he was a cop? That is the

weirdest play ever

! I cannot overstate my confusion. There is too much confusion for me to effectively communicate it. Suffice to say: Huh???

I think the synopsis that I'm supposed to get from this post is that you're confused?

I agree, though, on every point.

[Green Crayons]

Okay...the most logical conclusion I can see for Graken's misdirection is that he was hoping that he could stop the Mafia's attack by protecting himself. So why didn't he?

Doctors that can protect themselves are a rare breed. That's quite a big assumption you're making.

[Green Crayons]

Never knew asking "a lot of questions" was a bad thing.

FoS: BabyJesus

.

[Green Crayons]

Otherwise it seems like you're just a mafia member thinking the town is stupid and trying to get us to quicklynch someone based on an unjustified assumption.

Actually, it just seems like bad play. I didn't think scum ever played this obvious anymore?

[Green Crayons]

I'm still here, but busy. Hope to have a post with content by tuesday. Wednesday at latest.

[Green Crayons]

The school library's computers have this new function that log one out of the computer their at after a certain amout of time of being inactive, so when I got off the phone with my friend from a twenty minute conversation last night, I came back to my cpu only to find my nearly finished paper to be completely erased as the computer had logged me off. Hence, I had to rewrite most of the thing which took up a considerable chunk of time, which, in turn, put me behind and I'm a day late in my post.

I didn't expect that Graken wouldn't die, because he obviously had a power role...but if he was the doc, then who did he protect?

Sort of an odd question. Leads into...

Okay...the most logical conclusion I can see for Graken's misdirection is that he was hoping that he could stop the Mafia's attack by protecting himself. So why didn't he?

A whole bunch of fluff posting that amounts to nothing, yet looks like he's adding something. Hence, suspicious.

Regardless...this could help determine if there was another power role that he decided was more important than his was.

Determining roles = mafia tactic.

FoS

.

We should start with the Speedy wagon, but I'm to busy to do it today.

Been busy since the 21st, or have you just found this line of suspicion to have become obsolete?

Does anyone have a real gut feeling about someone being scum?

Since when are "gut feelings" good to go off on Day Two? Besides, i think BJ already tossed a few out by this point.

This game is really slowing down.

Complaining about inactivity while adding no substance. Awesome.

FoS

.

meanwhile, we can start voting for matjoeman the BG

"The BG?"

wasn't saying one of you was. I was simply not sure who to vote for.

But earlier, you said "I'm torn between Poirot and Falcone." It looks like you putting the two in a ring of suspicion, and one of them absolutely had to be scum.

You said I'm too commanding... What do you mean by that?

I'd also like to know what he meant by commanding, and why specifically it was reason enough for a vote.

LOL, your small comments about why certain people arn't dead yet BJ, do make me laugh , and now your'e asking someone else for their reasoning on why they are voting someone???

No, their irksome and add nothing to the conversation. It's a wonderfully dull tactic of making himself look like he's active while adding nothing to the conversation. And since it seems to be his general play style, one can't directly derive guilt or innocence from it. Another

FoS

. I'll vote shortly when I get reactions.

[Green Crayons]

By the way, were you FOSing me or BabyJesus is the last part of your post?

BJ

The amusing thing is, you have pointed out all the times people have waffled, or something that makes no sense and and pointed the finger at people for not putting any real content into their posts, but you have just done EXACTLY THE SAME!

Instead of making general statements about my posts, why don't you pull up the exact quotes where I have "waffled," put something that has made "no sense," or posted without adding any "real content." Furthermore, the quotes that I chose from my reread weren't a "Tee Hee, look at this one small indication of this guy making a mistake!" If you look at them, they amount to something, and for your benefit, I'll explain, in brief, why I chose to pull the quotes that I did.

Quotes 1-3 = Poirot partaking in scum tactics. Quote 4 = I want to know if armlx has followed through with his own suggestion and how he'll deduce who to vote for. He hasn't made mention of it since. Quote 5 = Just adding in a strange line for you to have posted. Quote 6 = This quote defines Matjoeman's participation in the game. Excuse me for pointing out lurkerdom/apathy. Quote 7 = Wanting clarification of what the BG means. Quote 8 = Pointing out an inconsistancy in armlx's vote reasoning, and wanting explanations. Quote 9 = Adding "pressure" to getting armlx to voice his reasons without adding a vote. Quote 10 = Showing my personal annoyance to BJ's play style, in that since he plays in the same style each time (and an annoying style at that, in my opinion), it's impossible to derive guilt or innocence. Kudos to him, though, for following in IS' footsteps and pretty much playing the perfect mafia persona, if that's what makes the game fun for him.

Many words Green Crayons but little substance for who you think is scum and not even the balls to vote someone.

Actually, I said at the end of my post "I'll vote shortly when I get reactions." As in, since it's Day Two and all, I think that I'll wait to see what others have to think before throwing my vote down on the table. Since, more often than not, people's reactions to my suspicions are usually more telling than my original suspicions.

And why do Poirot, Matjoeman, and BJ (I think) receive a FOS, but not armlx and Dodgy? You have criticism for all five, but only three of them get a FOS. Are armlx and Dodgy your scum mates?

The point behind a FoS is to highlight those who you believe to be the most suspicious out of the players. Dodgy's quote was just a strange inconsistency that I found to be interesting, thus no major suspicion was on him. I'm waiting for armlx to explain himself before I decide any further on his character.

What's more, all you do in your post is repeating accusations that have already been made earlier by others:

You're right, it is, and that's what happens when I reread through a thread and pick up quotations as I go through. However, all the things that I repeat

have not been addressed

, because those things that I do see answered, I delete from my response post. Repeating points that haven't been resolved simply brings them back to the forefront of conversation, and I don't see how that's detrimental.

Now, I'm certainly not saying that these are not valid points, but your post is made to look like a useful contribution, which it isn't.

Heh, asking for clarification, repeating questions that haven't been answered and possibly ignored, and putting my opinion on the table so people can see who I'm looking at, personally, to find suspicious = not a useful contribution. Awesome.

You can't even decide on who to vote for.

See, from above: Actually, I said at the end of my post "I'll vote shortly when I get reactions." As in, since it's Day Two and all, I think that I'll wait to see what others have to think before throwing my vote down on the table. Since, more often than not, people's reactions to my suspicions are usually more telling than my original suspicions.

[Green Crayons]

What is the point of a "FOS" for someone thing which you claim is not an indicator of guilt....

Because that's the whole point. You play every game that I've seen you in the exact same way. What's this play style consist of? "Vote Player A. Everyone else should, too. Why isn't everyone voting Player A? Nevermind, let's vote Player B. Let's lynch Player B already. Hello, anyone out there? Why haven't we moved to night yet?" etc, etc. You've established a playing style that you adhere to regardless of alignment - and that style just so happens to be unable to be construyed as an indicator to your guilt or innocence. In essence, by continuing to follow your play style, there isn't anything that we can conceivably come up with to call you suspect, even though that play style is suspicious in and of itself, because you adhere to this specifical style in every game. Thus, I was only voicing my irritation at the style

and

the general sense that I find you suspicious on basic principle - though, obviously, it isn't worthy of my vote, just my ire.

try focusing on the end of day one. Seriously, its not like its hidden or anything.

Why were you hinting to a role in the first place?

[Green Crayons]

While GC's last post does seem to be rather commanding and doesn't seem to bring anything new to the table, I don't think it's necessarily scummy, although I'm a bit uneasy about his throwing around of FOSes and refusal to vote.

I love how you didn't read my reason why I didn't vote - I said it twice in my reponse-post. Furthermore, I never "refused" to vote (great loaded word choice, though), I simply postponed voting at that moment, and said, quote, "I'll vote shortly when I get reactions."

[Green Crayons]

That's because I'm waiting on armlx, whom I was most likely going to pin my vote on - it just hinges on his response, and he has yet to. If he comes up with something adaquete enough, I'll place my vote elsewhere, and it will most definately be based on the responses that I have received.

[Green Crayons]

ell duh. Doesn't EVERYONE try to play the same whether they are scum or town? I thought that was the whole point? There's not a single player that wishes they could avoid having a scum tell. Why would that draw your ire

1. No, they don't. Not everyone is concerned about how they play from game to game. 2. The whole point of mafia isn't to have a tell or play similiar, it's to win (or, if you're sentimental, to have fun, but we'll leave that for another conversation). To win, you don't need to ensure that your play style is exactly the same in every game. I know mine isn't, and while general play may be similiar, if one was to look from one game to the next, they'd be able to tell minute differences, even holding constant my role. 3. It draws my ire because, fine, okay, I can accept that you find it really important to play the same way in every game. Your choice. It's how you play that is completely irksome. Once again, it's your prerogative, and I'm not going to vote you simply for that - my FoS, was, besides having reasonable logic behind it that wasn't exactly vote-worthy, it was also simply a venting of frustration for your play style.

don't think you're being scummy, but you are abusing the FOS. You FOSed one-third of everyone else in the game, and that's hard to ignore.

A FoS is a finger of suspicion that a player uses to show others whom that player finds more suspicious than others. Sometimes these suspicions has a lot of reason behind it, sometimes it doesn't. Regardless, my FoS' show other players a record of whom I am keeping an eye on for one reason or another. I don't understand how one can "abuse the FoS" if they only FoS those whom they find to be suspicious moreso than others. Furthermore, your comment about "one-third of everyone else in the game" is simply another way of saying that I FoSed three people. I never knew finding three people suspicious to be "hard to ignore" when, as a general rule in a twelve person game, three people are mafia. Finding the same number of people suspicious enough to mention as the number of probable scum is strange for you? It sort've seems logical to me - not saying that those three

are

scum, but I don't see why finding three people more suspicious than others is strange, when more than likely three people is the number of those whom we need to string up.

"Abusing the FOS" - Good one, Poirot.

See above. And to quote BJ, with slight modification: Your defense of Poirot's offense is noted.

Anyways, both people I went after were on the Speedy wagon, even without me remembering that. Coincidence? I think not.

This was the response in regards to the questions posed in my long post? Wonderfully vague and totally makes absolutely no stand whatsoever.

Vote: armlx

.

You really need to stop skimming. The mod posted the final vote tally, I don't think GC was on it.

See:

Vote Count

7, SpeedyKQ (Falcone Dodgy Poirot Graken Adele BabyJesus)
1, Dodgy (SpeedyKQ)

So speedyKQ is lynched, he was the Tabloid Reporter

It is now night 1, can everyone with choices please send them as soon as they can.

Speedy had seven votes, and I was the last to vote him. The mod just forgot to add my name into that final vote tally. But, for the record, I was the lynching vote.

[Green Crayons]

No, twelve were alive. 12 / 2 = 6 + 1 = 7 as majority. Since I was number seven, I was the last vote to count towards his lynch.

[Green Crayons]

..........



Oh.

[Green Crayons]

That comment was a joke. I just found it a funny phrase Poirot used. I certainly wouldn't want to defend Poirot, him being one of my top suspects.

So was mine.

[Green Crayons]

Well. ... Half joke, half serious. But more on the joke-ish side.

[Green Crayons]

If I said anything about this, I'd look foolish.

Why?

so can we focus on voting matjoeman pls??

I prefer to focus on voting armlx. I support a shift towards this person who has more explaining to do. Unless, of course, there is something you found in mat's posts that I've missed?

[Green Crayons]

Unvote: armlx

.

You're right, the original question came at it from the wrong angle.

I think armlx understands what I mean, though.

(my emphasis)

Why are you making assumptions about another player's thoughts and feelings when they haven't even posted after your post in question (#328), much less in response to said post?

[Green Crayons]

Unvote

, by the way.

[Green Crayons]

I'm here, but actually, I'm not here. I'll be away for the weekend. Please don't do anything

too

drastic in the meanwhile.

[Green Crayons]

Sorry, I was missing from all of my games at the time of the last day's second half. I'm rereading, gathering up opinions, etc, etc.

[Green Crayons]

I'm the cop, but I didn't know it until the night Graken was killed.. For all I know, I could be paranoid or insane, but I investigated Dodgy and he was "guilty".

Are you saying that you weren't given an option to make a night choice for Night One?

[Green Crayons]

Oh. Right. I'm here.

Vote: Dodgy

.

[Green Crayons]

The person I'm most suspicious of ATM is Green Crayons. He didn't join either bandwagon until we were already in twilight, where the votes don't matter. If he's mafia, I assume the purpose of that is to be able to point to the vote and say "look, I was voting for him too!" when the fact that he was doesn't actually affect anything.

Uh, I'd like to think I have a bit more experience than plastering my votes on in a desperate attempt to say "Oh, look, I voted for him, hurrah, I'm town!" I keep forgetting BJ has a double vote and thus I thought another vote was needed to actually put the lynch through.

With six alive, that's four to lynch. BJ, did you count your vote as one or two? I'd like to know if I should claim now or later.

[Green Crayons]

Well, please unvote me.

I was told on Night One that I'm a Notary Republic and that everyone's official documentation papers were shredded by some evil people and it's my job to rediscover and commit to paper the role names of individuals.

Unlike Poirot, I've been given the ability to use my role every night, including on Night One. I've investigated Poirot, matjoeman and Shamrock in that order, starting on Night One.

Vote: Shamrock

. I was given his name as mafia.

For confirmation, i was given Poirot's name as cop, matjoeman's role name as doctor.

[Green Crayons]

Wasn't Graken the Doc?

I dont know, maybe he was backup doc and then became Doc upon Graken's death. Beats me. I just know that on night two he was a doctor.

And by Night 1, do you mean the night before or after Day 1?

Night One post Day One - which I thought I made clear with my distinction of, "Unlike Poirot, I've been given the ability to use my role every night, including on Night One."

That sounds like complete bs

Why?

And there's no reason you would possibly have a gun. Therefore, you're lying scum.

You're right, there

is

no reason for me to have a gun. And I don't. You're the lying liar, scumbag, etc, etc.

So, uh, lynch GC?

Someone put on the hammah.

How about instead of trying to push for a lynch we wait for Mat to come and clear me so we can then lynch the proper scum - you.

[Green Crayons]

Why? Because it is a supercop role when we already have a cop and nothing pointing to the scum being especially strong. We also now have a possible second doctor.

We already have had a role that would totally mess up my own - Speedy. We just got "lucky" in the sense that he was lynched so he wouldn't mess up my results.

Assuming that you are town, even in this seemingly endgame situation, it strikes me as odd that you would reveal the doctor.

I agree. Let's go under the assumption that I am town, and in fact am a cop role that I have claimed. Here's what we have: Either 1. Either a very unbalanced game - even with Speedy's "balancing" role against my own, which stands to balance only based on chance, we have a three-mafia setup v. two cops, a doc and backup doc, masons, and BJ's odd role. This may be the case - however, we have halo freak to blame for this setup, not myself, if this is the case. Or, we have situation 2. This isn't a 3 person mafia, or there's another group (cult, sk, etc.) involved that hasn't been actively seen.

Mafia rolecop isn't an unheardof role. And if GC isn't a godfather, it'd make sense for him to have some other special ability to balance the mafia out.

Just lynch him already.

More pushing for a lynch without letting everyone being accounted for - most notably mat who could possibly be the swing opinion in this day, and yet you want to disregard anything useful he may possibly say.

Halo - can mat get a nudge?

Blantant mafia tactic (which I didn't think were in use anymore) of trying to push through a lynch prior to everyone's opinions and facts are laid out on the table so the town can collectively make a vote based on all available facts. Which leads me to ask: Just why are you so desperate for this day to end so quickly?

[Green Crayons]

If he's right about GC, then we have a good idea that GC's lying. Therefore, I'll definitely say that either Shamrock or GreenCrayons is scum.

Obviously. We're both saying that the other is scum.

So even if he is the Doc, it probably doesn't matter if he claims.

Your logic for his role being irrevelant, if mat is indeed the Doc, is because I'm taking a wild guess? Because that's the reasoning I'm reading from your post. If i were scum, and taking a wild guess, wouldn't it be logical to just say town?

If GC's scum, then he's doing the right thing by choosing matjoeman as his target, because mjm has posted the least among all of us.

Uh, Halo could easily prod him or get a replacement.

I'm

willing to wait a few days instead of hastily throwing this day to the dogs - I don't see why you are.

[Green Crayons]

As long as matjoeman doesn't post, GC has credibility.

Oh, and by the way, that's a lie. It should read:

As long as matjoeman doesn't post, GC has

no

credibility.

Him not posting is doing me harm, not good.

[Green Crayons]

Because, in case if you haven't noticed, I haven't exactly been attentive this game. I didn't remember what my results were while I was doing quick rereads and scanning through the thread; it was a case of inattentiveness on my behalf.

[Green Crayons]

so you are a cop and "forgot" your one and only view....

So I overextended myself and was currently involved in four games alongside my extremely large work load.

GC-here's my big question. How did you know I was a cop before I knew?

Because that's what the mod told me.

[Green Crayons]

Here's the possibilities I'm seeing, in order of likelihood:

I like how all of your possibilities make one major assumption: That you're innocent. There's the flaw to your entire list, that you're some how cleared to the town. You're not. In fact, I'm saying you're a scumbag.

Warp made a comment a while ago about it being strange about me putting forth mat's role at this point in the game. I did it because i knew that my play style this game has been iffy at best, and I would need to provide the town with some confirmation as to what my role ability is. The fact that mat has spoken up and confirmed my ability

should

speak in my defense.

Instead, there has been the accusation that I'm a mafia cop that has been laid out on the table. Do you realize how pointless a mafia cop is in general, much less in a game this small? Offsetting an apparently powerful town with a nearly pointless mafia role does not a balanced game make. Speedy's role would help balance the game if there was a name investigator on the town's side, not the mafia's.

Instead, your claimed role, if true, leaves us with a setup of: 2 docs, 2 cops, 2 masons, 1 town power-vote role, 1 role designed to mess up the mafia's single benefit, 3 mafia - one of which is an investigator, and one other (warp). I don't see balance in the setup you apparently are advocating.


I'm also surprised that nobody else has made any comment about Shamrock's incessant push for a lynch. And not just with these final posts, but from the very beginning of the day - even before everyone had shown up, namely the player who would help out my case, mat. Which leads me to believe that this game

isn't

as imbalanced as it appears on the surface, as Shamrock wants us to believe. Instead, Shamrock's a scum who has been trying to push a quick lynch for one reason or another - which is why I'm not all gun-ho about lynching me to proove Shamrock's scumminess. He probably has something up his sleeve to help balance out the game. Which is why I want him dead before myself.

I can't possibly imagine being in game as a cop, where you are viewing everything in light of your investigations, and FORGETTING who you know to be innocent... Maybe if you had said you thought he might be GF, sure. But simply forgetting who you viewed while you ere reading the game thread. please.

Uh, hate to break it to you, but mafia doesn't occupy my mind until usually i get a small window of free time between school and work. I don't mull things over in the meanwhile, I don't contemplate the games I'm in - in fact, i forget they exist for the most part. When I come back to the game, especially when I'm in more than one, I don't remember which roles I have, what night actions I've done, and sometimes mix up player names in games. But that's fine, because I come to the game and reread it each time as if I'm a simple townie, which is a great strategy regardless of role, alignment, etc. - which is what I did during this game, and which is why I was suspicious of Poirot regardless of my night investigation. He was acting suspicious, therefore, I voiced an opinion of my suspicions.

[Green Crayons]

You're taking a quote out've the context of the timeframe of which it was made. That was said near the beginning of the game. As in, prior to knowing more than half of the roles of the game. It had crossed my mind, at the time, that it was within the realm of possibility that there was a mafia investigator as well as myself whom the tabloid reporter could have "screwed" up investigations.

However, now, being more enlightened as to the setup, a mafia investigator does not balance the game we're apparently in, and I'm obviously not backing up what i said before, because - i know this apparently may come to as a shock - guesses made early on in a game may be mistakes and later can, and should, be corrected and modified, as I have done.

[Green Crayons]

I'm saying I'm innocent because I KNOW I'm innocent. Why bother including scenarios that I know are false?

And I'm saying I'm innocent because I know my own innocence as well. The whole point of providing scenarios that take every possibility into account is that it provides the town, who is not convinced one-hundred percent of either of our's innocence, is that it allows them to take a balanced view on the situation. You're providing a biased opinion that chooses to ignore a very important point - that you're scum. By ignoring it, you've totally circumvented even addressing this point outside of repeating "I'm innocent," which has no credible evidence in support it.

I'm not usually this agressive, but I'm pushing for your lynch because I know you're lying scum and I see no point in keeping you alive.

Ah, well, here we go, i'll take a line from you: But I know I'm innocent. And it's true. Therefore, the logical thing to do is to allow the town the opportunity to make an informed decision when two people are simply pointing fingers at one another. You want to totally circumvent this rationale and have the town blindly follow you.

Or, you KNEW there was a mafia rolename investigator because YOU WERE ONE....

Then again, I'm not an idiot. And if me mentioning a possibility of a role equates to me having that role, I enjoy how you ignore the fact that the first part of my quotation mentions a role-cop - you, of course, have to, because the logic that you're professing (I mentioned there might be a role, so i

must

be that role!) doesn't have a way of dealing with the mention of two roles by the same person, and how can a person have two role alignments at once?

Basically, it comes down to this: I'm claiming rolename cop. Shamrock is claiming gun-cop. I have a bit of backup in terms of my claim - mat's affirmation of his role name. Shamrock only has heresay about his own innocence. My role at least adds some sort of sembalance of balance to the game. Shamrock's only piles more weight onto the town's side, making it an absurd imbalance. I have been wanting the whole town here to think and discuss prior to voting. Shamrock has been wanting a quick lynch.

[Green Crayons]

Oh, yeah. I'm mafia. Here's a laugh: All this time, as in from the beginning of the game, I was acting under the assumption that Poirot was mafia with me. How's that for a laugh? Honest.

Vote: Poirot

.

[Green Crayons]

Here's a laugh: All this time, as in from the beginning of the game, I was acting under the assumption that Poirot was mafia with me. How's that for a laugh? Honest.

This was true, for the record.

Needless to say, I wasn't lying when I said I hadn't been paying the upmost attention to this game.

[Green Crayons]

Falcone "found" a gun, could have become mafia or viligante night one. He became scum.

Dodgy said that scum would have severe repercussions if he died, but nothing really happened, so I think that was just rubbish. Curious, though, as to why he said it.