Mini 269 - Game Over

[Falcone]

/confirm

[Falcone]

First post!

Have fun everyone.

I'll

vote: Poirot

. Reasons: 1) He's new to the site. Welcome! 2) He's Belgian.

[Falcone]

Well, there should be a doc in town, so you probably don't have to worry about being killed the first night. And since a Day 1 cop claim is what broke the Newbie games, let's hope that it will also work out here.

[Falcone]

Correction: Christie's Poirot was Belgian. I'm actually American, and a huge Christie fan. But that's a trifling.

I figured so much.

Confirm vote: Poirot
FOS: Matjoeman

For putting suspicion on Graken for his inadvertent cop claim. Seriously, do you really think a new player would do that intentionally if he was mafia? Also, if he is a fake cop, the real one would probably counterclaim, not to mention it's not so easy to keep up with a false cop claim for several days.

[Falcone]

Uh, has Jeep written a new article that says it's actually advantageous for the town that townies claim on the first day, before everyone has checked in?

I don't think I really understand what you're claiming Speedy. As I interpret it, you can give a player another role at night. Isn't that terribly broken? You could give someone unlimited investigations, or make half the town un-nightkillable or something. 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? The latter seems more likely, and also more consistent with the flavour of a "paparazzo".

Also, could you explain please why you're claiming now? I don't really think that was a good idea, because now the scum know one other player who's not the doc. You could always have waited at least until the morning of Day 2, since for the moment, there's no risk that someone is going to be confused by your inventions.

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 just thought of something else... Maybe I'll expand on it once both of them have answered my questions.

Sorry for the stream-of-consciousness style of this post.

[Falcone]

Damn GC, I really wish you hadn't made that post. That's why I added the teaser about there being something more that I would talk about

after

getting some answers. As it is, you're probably right that Graken shouldn't say any more on his role for the moment. God, I want to say the absent players' faces when they see how our first day is going...

[Falcone]

So everyone is convinced that Graken is protown then? I agree for the most part that he'll probably die tonight, and that we can always lynch him if he stays alive for too long, but let's not forget that we have evidence that there might be a mafia investigator. His first post really doesn't clear him from being one, so it's possible that he made a mistake with the pm and still is mafia. And it might be not such a good idea to leave a mafia investigator alive for a night. Therefore, I'm going to ask of Graken that he reveals the flavour of his role, and that he explains why he can't be protected.

Unvote: Poirot
Vote: Dodgy

Ok people, PLEASE no more role claims!
At this rate, the scum will be able to figure out who our Doc is, if anyone else claims.
Its plain madness!!!
As for Graken, you've blown it mate! Revealing that

you can't be protected night 1

is a suicidal thing to say, that is... if you are our cop?
I seriously suspect you are but you are saying some very sytange things and I'm starting to think you may be playing us.
I know many people that play on this site, who are VERY experienced, that scrap their details and create new names so that they will appear newbies when infact they arn't.
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'm undecided and am watching him closely but would like to hear other peoples views on him.

1. Graken said he can't be protected at any night, not only N1.
2. This post seems a little over-emotional, he could be trying to come of as a worried townie.
3. He asks for input from others, then when two people have proposed the (really quite obvious) plan of testing Graken by letting him alive for a night, he calmly states that that's fine with him.

[Falcone]

Response to Dodgy's and Adele's comments:

1) I thought that N1 comment of Dodgy was a slip-up that implied he knew something only the mafia could know. I realize now that the mafia probably didn't even get to talk before the game, so even if Dodgy were mafia, he wouldn't know that piece of info.
2&3) The main thing that got my attention was the sudden change in tone between Dodgy's posts 46 and 49. Adele is right that some emphasis was called for, since the two claims we have had probably won't do the town much good, let alone any further claims. And I researched some of Dodgy's earlier games, and his posting style is consistent with some earlier games he was protown in. So I don't have a reason anymore to think Dodgy is scum.

Unvote: Dodgy

About Graken, the flavour of his role seems plausible. I was thinking he might be some kind of secret service agent, like when Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible gets to hear that when he messes up, the CIA or whatever will deny he ever worked for them or something. Or is that another movie? Anyway, I believe Graken is who he says he is.

Oh, and I just noticed that BabyJesus hasn't posted since the game started. Since he usually is a very active player, maybe he has forgotten about it?

Mod

, could you give him a prod?

[Falcone]

BJ, Graken already claimed earlier that he can't be protected at night. The flavour claim really can't hurt us anymore once that info is in the open, so I asked him to give it to give him another opportunity to slip up in the unlikely case he is scum.

Oh, and Warpdragon, my initial reaction to Graken's (second) claim was the same as yours, but look at it this way: If he hadn't claimed, the scum would assume that he'd be doc protected and choose another victim, so we'd be guaranteed at least one investigation from Graken. In the present situation, the doc is free to protect someone else, sure, but the scum can safely kill Graken, thus denying the town any investigation from him. So it would have been better if he hadn't claimed.

[Falcone]

Vote: SpeedyKQ

1. He's casting suspicion on a claimed cop that is in all likelihood innocent. I mean, I just don't see a new player pulling of this kind of stunt. Also, the claim of his drawback makes no sense if he is scum.
2. He's suggesting a cop to investigate Graken tonight, which would essentially be wasting an investigation.
3. He proposes a plan that would conveniently make himself investigation-immune.

[Falcone]

And why do people think I should target Graken with my ability tonight? The big downside to that is it prevents a real cop/second cop from checking him. I'm thinking I should target myself, and to keep me honest I suggest somebody else choose the rolename and ability.

You said yourself that targeting Graken with your ability would prevent another cop from checking him, so I assumed targeting yourself with your ability would prevent a cop from checking you. Doesn't that make sense? It seems to me you're contradicting yourself.

[Falcone]

Allright, so targeting yourself with your ability would allow a rolecop to see if you're telling the truth about your role. Even then, that doesn't say anything about your alignment, because your ability could also be a scum ability. Likewise, targeting Graken would prevent a rolecop from checking if he really is a cop, but it wouldn't prevent a regular cop from checking his alignment. So I still don't see the danger in targeting Graken. In fact, I think he's the safest target you have available.

[Falcone]

Likewise, targeting Graken would prevent a rolecop from checking if he really is a cop,

This would be undesirable, no?

That would be undesirable in theory, yes, but like I said, I think it'd be a very bad idea for a cop to check Graken tonight, because I think it's unlikely he's scum, and because it's very likely he'll die.

[Falcone]

Does anyone see the merit in Graken's actions? What in heaven's name was he trying to accomplish by his play?

Anyway, I'm going to do a reread to see where my vote belongs.

[Falcone]

@ Poirot:

1) Docs normally can't self-protect. It's possible Graken didn't know this, so I suppose that's alright.
2) How could Graken possibly know that there is another power role he should protect?
3) Even if he did, why would the town want to know that? Power roles need to be kept hidden.

Be a little more careful in your assumptions please.

[Falcone]

Why is everyone afraid to vote? All those FOS'ses, jeez...

Vote: Poirot

for repeated crap-logic.

[Falcone]

You need to put the names in your quotes between " ", then they'll come up nicely.

Anyway, isn't it a scum tell to say things like: "I don't know who's suspicious" or "It's hard to read people"?

[Falcone]

Direction you say? What about your direction? I wasn't kidding when I voted you for using crap-logic. Any comments on these quotes? (Sorry for quoting them out of context, but the numbers indicate the post number when you just look at your posts.)

[3] "Just a thought, but it could be a bluff. While the mafia may be outnumbered, if they can force a mislynch, then get a kill on the real cop Night 1, it may be worth the sacrifice of one member if they can get momentum (and the cop). Besides, if they can turn the tide of the vote Day 2, their gambit paid off and they got the Cop."

[7] "Of course, this means that the mafia gets a free shot at the Doc, but right now, a random killing exchanged for one investigation is better than losing the Cop in exchange for deterring a killing on someone who may be more important."

[12] "He says that he's claiming in order to prevent confusion, but doesn't that just benefit the mafia more? Even if he's a townie, he could just be hitting the town to hurt them more."

[Falcone]

@ Poirot: Just putting out ideas, eh? At the very least, some of your ideas don't seem very well thought-through.

I'll clarify what exactly I found strange in the statements I quoted.

1) I took this as to mean that you thought Graken could be mafia posing as cop to try and out the real cop. They would then "force a mislynch", I presume on someone else, kill the real cop at Night, and then try and save Graken, the exposed false cop, the next Day.

The problem with this reasoning is that the real cop would likely be doc-protected (at least 50% chance, and probably more as a counterclaimer is more likely to be believed as the original claimer), plus it would be a suicide mission for the mafia to try and save their now-outed-to-be-scum partner the next day.

I found this suspicious because it seemed like an attempt to put suspicion on a claimed cop (who was, in my opinion, overwhelmingly likely to be innocent).

2) The problem with this one is that mafia essentially have a free shot at the doc every night, in the sense that they can always try to kill someone they think is the doc, because docs can't self-protect. I may be misunderstanding what you were trying to say here, though.

3) This is another case of me just not understanding what you mean, but apart from that, you seem to imply here that you knew Speedy was a townie, but still tried to convince the town to lynch him.

Then there was the episode at the start of this day were you seemed to be fishing for information that would benefit the mafia more than the town. Those are the reasons for my vote for you.

@ Dodgy: Which actions of mine did you find suspicious, specifically?

[Falcone]

Vote Falcone

In a re-read something huge came to me. I forgot Poirot = Xyre on MTGS. Behavior is fairly consistant with non-scumminess there, and that leaves Falcone.

You're representing the situation as if one of Poirot and me must be scum. What makes you think that?

[Falcone]

Hmm, fair enough I guess. What are the reasons for your vote for me then? You said I'm too commanding... What do you mean by that?

[Falcone]

I agree with Dodgy. That was a very scummy post by GC. Three FOS'es in one post, but no vote. 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?

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

- You repeat some points I made against Poirot.
- You repeat criticism of BJ made by Dodgy.
- Your point against armlx is also something I asked clarification for earlier.
- BJ is essentially voting Matjoeman for not contributing. Again, you say nothing new here.

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

My suspicion of Poirot has not disappeared, although armlx's statement that his behaviour is consistent with earlier townie play counts in his favour.

Unvote: Poirot
Vote: GC

[Falcone]

I spent a lot of time analyzing BJ's posts to look for hints at his role, and then I finally found what he meant. It's really quite obvious, in fact it surprises me everyone has missed it so far. I more or less agree that it doesn't make much difference if his role becomes public knowledge, but I don't think he's cleared. Do you agree, BJ?

[Falcone]

"Abusing the FOS" - Good one, Poirot.

[Falcone]

@ BJ: Ok, that's quite true. I'll put you in my "probably innocent"-list.

@ Adele: It's really quite obvious. If you have a theory about BJ's role, but are not sure you're right, the theory is wrong. I mean that the moment you see it, you'll be 100 % certain what his role is.

[Falcone]

Unofficial Vote Count:

GC -3- (Dodgy, Falcone, BJ)
BJ -1- (Adele)
Falcone -1- (armlx)

Not voting: GC, Matjoeman, Poirot, Shamrock, warpdragon

[Falcone]

Is that VC correct? I don't see Adele voting GC anywhere...

[Falcone]

"Abusing the FOS" - Good one, Poirot.

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

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.

I agree with you that armlx' behaviour is a little strange. Unfortunately, he tends to act like that in every game.

[Falcone]

Poirot, why would you look foolish if you commented on recent events?

BJ, you want to focus on lynching Matjoeman? Fine. Give some good reasons, and maybe start with voting him yourself.

GC, what exactly should armlx explain? The supposed false dilemma he proposed earlier (that one of Poirot or me is scum) he already explained... Were you not satisfied with that explanation? I don't have much else on him at the moment.

Oh, and

Mod

, could you prod warpdragon please?

[Falcone]

That bandwagon got big fast... I agree armlx has been behaving suspiciously, but he seems to be doing that in a lot of games. I suppose we need to hear a claim from him.

About the argument between Adele and Dodgy:

[Falcone]

I think this discussion has lapsed into absurdity, essentially. The speed-wagon on armlx doesn't help, and I do not wish to vote at this time. Think what you will, Falcone.

...

Ok, dude, whatever.

Unvote

I need a reread.

[Falcone]

EBWOP: Adele, are you sure it's a good idea to out the other mason(s)? Mason is a fairly common role, even in Mini games. And I think that when no dead masons appear in a couple of days, armlx' position would become untenable if he were lying.

[Falcone]

Adele, are you sure it's a good idea to out the other mason(s)? Mason is a fairly common role, even in Mini games. And I think that when no dead masons appear in a couple of days, armlx' position would become untenable if he were lying.

That he might be

lying

isn't my concern, exactly...

Then why do you want the other mason(s) to come out?

[Falcone]

<---- Mason. Don't Lynch.

Who're you masoned with?

That he might be lying isn't my concern, exactly...

I don't want them to come out, exactly, either. I want to know if he has one mason only or if there are more.

I don't quite understand your statements about armlx. Surely "How many partners do you have" is a more logical question than "Who're you masoned with?" if you just want to know the number of masons?

[Falcone]

BJ, any reason, or am I just the next person you happen to focus on?

[Falcone]

armlx, why are you voting for me, and what do you have to say re: Adele?

[Falcone]

That's great, 4 votes on me (from only 3 different people, but whatever), and no one gives anything remotely resembling a decent reason. Shall I just claim, or are you guys going to explain yourselves, so I can actually defend myself?

[Falcone]

I'll claim if someone who's not voting for me already asks me to. I'd regret doing since I don't think it will be in the town's best interest outing myself, especially when no one has given a good reason for suspicion of me.

[Falcone]

Alright, claim time.

I'm a

Martyr

. At night, I can sacrifice myself for the good of the town, by killing one player of my choice. I will die while carrying out the attack. Needless to say, I haven't used my ability yet.

[Falcone]

I'll claim if someone who's not voting for me already asks me to. I'd regret doing since I don't think it will be in the town's best interest outing myself, especially when no one has given a good reason for suspicion of me.

Who are you using your ability on tonight?

I'll target the person the town wants me to target. I'm most suspicious of Poirot at the moment - for reasons, see my previous posts.

Sorry Falcone but I think that was a poor bluff you just made there.
I just don't buy it at all.
I think you're Mafia.

Vote: Falcone

You realize my role is self-confirming, right? If I target someone of the town's choice, it's a bit like we have a double lynch. If me and my target don't turn up dead tomorrow, you can lynch me tomorrow.