What is this? I'd made like 5 or 6 posts, have barely done anything, and you putt me down squarely as town? That's bold. Wait, it's not quite as bold if you KNOW I'm town.In post 568, Titus wrote:I don't like Saki's followup but I'd put Tunnel as squarely town.?
Enlighten me, TV, 'cause I really don't know.In post 620, Saki wrote:What options I see none except the claim. I specifically said I didn't want to claim, too. Titus's L-2 vote is why I claimed, not because I wanted to claim.In post 611, TunnelVision wrote:Second: I get that you didn't want to get lynched, but you weren't doing it to avoid lynch... You WANTED to claim. Why? What is the motivation for wanting to claim so bad? You couldve brought your a game, made a case against a scum all, lobbied for more time before lynch (we have lots of days before dayphase deadline.You had options that you didn't exhaust... You WANTED to claim.
You missed trying to put this against me TitusIn post 619, Saki wrote:try harder for towncred, TitusIn post 617, Titus wrote:Ok, it looks like we may need Pasch to break the tie to decide what we are going to do. Tunnel, Dys and I seem to be in agreement we should lynch one of the roleblocker claimers. Cherry, Glass and Varsoon seem to be against that.
I'd say let's split the difference and look at some other suspects but carefully watch Varsoon and Saki's analysis. If either of them act scummy in their readings (separate from the claims) we should lynch them.
@Glass, I think scum looked at the odds of a 95 percent not roleblocker for each individual spot and figured no cc would happen rather than the aggregate which places about a 30 percent likelihood of a cc roleblocker claim. Still, remote enough for a possible gambit from an early claimer.
VOTE: Titus
I'm not going to respond to a comment that's just an insult/mudslinging and wouldn't further the discussion at all.In post 632, Saki wrote:You missed trying to put this against me TitusIn post 619, Saki wrote:try harder for towncred, TitusIn post 617, Titus wrote:Ok, it looks like we may need Pasch to break the tie to decide what we are going to do. Tunnel, Dys and I seem to be in agreement we should lynch one of the roleblocker claimers. Cherry, Glass and Varsoon seem to be against that.
I'd say let's split the difference and look at some other suspects but carefully watch Varsoon and Saki's analysis. If either of them act scummy in their readings (separate from the claims) we should lynch them.
@Glass, I think scum looked at the odds of a 95 percent not roleblocker for each individual spot and figured no cc would happen rather than the aggregate which places about a 30 percent likelihood of a cc roleblocker claim. Still, remote enough for a possible gambit from an early claimer.
VOTE: Titus
In post 342, Titus wrote:I've always said I am willing to lynch you.
VOTE: Saki
Claim, since you've said you want to. You should leave out the self-vote though.
I actually think that's a pretty good point I'm making against you.In post 634, Titus wrote:I'm not going to respond to a comment that's just an insult/mudslinging and wouldn't further the discussion at all.In post 632, Saki wrote:You missed trying to put this against me TitusIn post 619, Saki wrote:try harder for towncred, TitusIn post 617, Titus wrote:Ok, it looks like we may need Pasch to break the tie to decide what we are going to do. Tunnel, Dys and I seem to be in agreement we should lynch one of the roleblocker claimers. Cherry, Glass and Varsoon seem to be against that.
I'd say let's split the difference and look at some other suspects but carefully watch Varsoon and Saki's analysis. If either of them act scummy in their readings (separate from the claims) we should lynch them.
@Glass, I think scum looked at the odds of a 95 percent not roleblocker for each individual spot and figured no cc would happen rather than the aggregate which places about a 30 percent likelihood of a cc roleblocker claim. Still, remote enough for a possible gambit from an early claimer.
VOTE: Titus
I took you lightly before this, did not take you as wanting to lynch me at all. You wereIn post 635, Saki wrote:In post 342, Titus wrote:I've always said I am willing to lynch you.
VOTE: Saki
Claim, since you've said you want to. You should leave out the self-vote though.
In post 346, Titus wrote:Why am I scummy Saki, beyond the fact that I find you scummy?
There's about a fifty percent change of a town roleblocker being in the game (.95^11). It's much more likely a scum roleblocker is present in the game. I believe you are a roleblocker Saki, just the scum roleblocker.
In post 348, Titus wrote:Roleblocker is an excellent fake claim for a scum roleblocker. After all, you just ask who did you roleblock and the scum roleblocker can give the same answer as a town roleblocker would.
I stand corrected on my math though.
And a few more... then when Varson claimed you used it to cast even MORE doubt on Saki's claim, you would be doubting Saki regardless of Varsoon's claim, sorry but i have a hard time believing you're town now.In post 353, Titus wrote:I'd imagine a scum who isn't a roleblocker fake claiming vanilla townie or doctor. Those two are the easiest to hide as. Doctor, the scum can pretend to be incompetent. Without a tracker, townie can't really be disproven either.
You can't also claim my statistics argument as bad and then claim scum are unlikely to get a roleblocker. Three PRs is possible. In fact, that would be about a 50/50 shot.
Actually, Saki I didn't have you scummy for the whole game. I suspected you due to your opening but that's different than having you as scummy. You kinda volunteered to claim, hardly "jumping in for the kill". I also don't see your behavior as newbie town PR paranoia.
Scum. Sit tight, I'm going to get to you shortly. Mafia loves to jump into an active interrogation and say, "Yeah, what he said. It's obvious, I saw it too." I can ride Saki on my own, don't need your help. Go back to that non-committal stuff you've been throwing around all game.In post 623, Glass wrote:It's pretty clear that you wanted to claim by the fact that you:Saki wrote: What options I see none except the claim. I specifically said I didn't want to claim, too. Titus's L-2 vote is why I claimed, not because I wanted to claim.
1. Thought that you had to be L-1 to claim.
2. Was going to vote yourself to put yourself at L-1 so you could claim.
Yes you're trying extremely hard for towncred. Deny it outright or accept it outright. Don't turn the question to something else.In post 638, Titus wrote:You think it's me seeking town cred. It was me suggesting a course of action trying hard not to get caught up in the same course of action/tunneling. Not seeing much to discuss there.
You were not acting as scummy when I voted Flench for what I perceived and still perceive as a slip. You started acting somewhat scummy and wanted to claim, so I created the scenario to make that happen by voting you.
I don't give a crap about your meta. Meta is useless. You said it yourself. A player that is cognizant of their own meta can manipulate it any which way. You're selectively using meta to suit your needs. That's as scummy as it can get. I can point to a game where I played exactly like this as scum. I can show you another one where I played exactly like this as town.In post 630, Varsoon wrote:@Tunnel: My reason for counterclaiming was because I am the Roleblocker, and so if Saki is lying/scum, we caught a scum PR on D1. That's pretty good, regardless of the cost.
Also, if you think I have a consistent meta outside of what I control, try again.
Furthermore, on-site, chatty/nonsense Varsoon is town Varsoon. I can actually link you to Xenoblade Mafia, since it just ended. I died early in the game, flipped VT, and that was one where I was even chattier and proposed a gambit that would get at least two players modkilled.
Pretty sure you can put me in the always denying seeking towncred outright camp.In post 645, Saki wrote:Yes you're trying extremely hard for towncred. Deny it outright or accept it outright. Don't turn the question to something else.In post 638, Titus wrote:You think it's me seeking town cred. It was me suggesting a course of action trying hard not to get caught up in the same course of action/tunneling. Not seeing much to discuss there.
You were not acting as scummy when I voted Flench for what I perceived and still perceive as a slip. You started acting somewhat scummy and wanted to claim, so I created the scenario to make that happen by voting you.
So you going in circles about setup speculation with Sakura and oriole is not getting "caught up in the same course of action"?
Trying not to tunnel -- I guess that's why you traded questions with Varsoon at 321? Not buddying Varsoon?
I never wanted to claim. Please link me a post where I explicitly said I wanted to claim.
@TV You're scum.
In post 622, Titus wrote:Bullcrap on you not wanting to claim Saki. That's all.In post 331, Saki wrote:I kinda want to atm.In post 329, Varsoon wrote: @Saki: Claims shouldn't be taken lightly, and there's never reason to vote yourself unless you just want to suicide and yell at town for being incompetent. Okay, well, I did that once, but, yeah, don't.
The fact that you didn't wait until Varsoon's claim and continued to suspect saki shows me that you're tunneling on him. Anything he does you will see it as bad.In post 644, Titus wrote:I might have suspected Saki if Varsoon never claimed but I wouldn't be voting him. It's hard to say what I would have done in a different scenario. Lynching an uncced PR is insanely stupid and far too risky so I definitely wouldn't have pushed for Saki's lynch.
Here, I think we should just lynch the scummiest between Saki and Varsoon due to the abysmal odds of having two full roleblockers. I think Saki is the scummiest. If I'm convinced that Varsoon is the scummiest, I have no problem voting him.