Open 21 - Friends and Enemies (Game Over), before 453

[Sir Tornado]

Ripley, I have been giving some thought on the numbers...

scum/players

Assuming we get first 2 lynches wrong:

Day 1: 3/11

Day 2: 3/9

Day 3: 3/7

That brings us to a LyLo situation and we have to get them

three times in a row

. It is as good as a loss, because then you can have a situation where one of the scum can start a bandwagon on another and claim to be a townie later on... it's just too risky.

The second case Why is it important for Scum to bump off one mason if we strike out one scum today:

Assuming they don't:

scum/masons/vanilla townies

Day 1: 3/3/5

Day 2: 2/3/4

This is at a time when we have a good idea about who is who at least for half the vanilla townies too. So, the masons just have to shift through a couple of townies before hitting their mark. It becomes too easy for the town after that.

Plus, there is this one other thing:

Supposing in the next 2 days, we have 1 townie lynch and 1 scum lynch and even 2 mason NKs...

Day 4: 1/1/3.

With 1 mason NK...

Day 4: 1/2/2

If all the masons are made known at this juncture, the game is as good as over (with the amount of information we would have on the players at that juncture) with a town win.

I will not say that my reasoning here is air tight. But, it is quite close to the truth.

[theopor_COD]

ryan was acting in the way a good team member should- applying pressure to generate posts for the good of the town

He was following the lurker hunt, nothing more. I've said before and I'll say it again, lurker hunting is fine but it's not the only way to catch scum. It's an easy argument for scum to attack people against.

If this game is so totally backwards that the scummiest players are the masons, and the

most pro-town players are scum

... I'll begin to doubt my capacity of being a good mafia player.

The masons are scummy, I've said that, I believe their claim however and I think they are town. I'm not so sure you've been the most pro-town however.

You still haven't explained why you said that you wouldn't believe a counter-claim earlier than reversed and used the absence of a counter claim as evidence in support of the claim by ABR and Papaya.

I pretty much believed the claim as soon as Papaya announced it, I said it was idiotic but believable and from memory Ryan attacked me for saying it. If Papaya/ABR were scum then I'd have expected the real masons to have claimed by now.

Why first off if Papaya was scum would he claim mason, why not town, it would make more sense for scum to claim. A post from someone said scum would only claim mason I need to find who wrote that.

Secondly why the hell would ABR then back up his claim, if Papaya was scum, then it would make more sense just to let Papaya rot . . . i.e give him up.

Do you disagree that if ABR and Papaya are scum then the best case scenario for town is a lynch of fake-mason without the claim or outing of a single real-mason?

I don't see the need for the other mason to claim. I don't want to lynch either of Papaya or ABR as I don't think they are scum. I want to lynch either you or Ryan, simple as . . .

[Albert B. Rampage]

The votes weren't there for a Papaya lynch even before his claim. Then eh claimed and he really wasn't under pressure, the votes were peeling off (wasn;t mine the first to come off?) and there was no reason for ABR to counter claim. I do not buy Ripley's pyschological explanation, since there was the 72 hour deadline thing the ABR was pressing for through several posts.

The 72 proposition was in the same line of thinking that got me to claim. You say you are older but you act like a 2-year-old. You just don't get it, do you ?

If they are both scum, and ABR felt I had linked them too closely, a positive lynch of Papaya would result in a lynch of ABR day 2 anyway. Maybe a quick lynch of an innocent is they only way they could buy their scummate an additional day to do it alone, and by ABR fake-claiming while the tide was turning a quicklynch could've occurred.

Why would there be a lynch of papaya when as you said, nobody was going to vote for a claimed mason ?

What a contradiction.

Adel, you fail at mafia. Granted, stubbornness is a good quality - but only when your right. In your case, we would call that close-mindedness.

[Patrick]

Votecount

A Papaya (2) -- ryan, bird1111
Aimee (2) -- Lowell, Sir Tornado
ryan (1) -- Ripley
Adel (3) -- Albert B. Rampage, A Papaya, theopor_COD
Albert B. Rampage (1) -- Lawrencelot

Not Voting: Aimee, Adel
11 alive, 6 to lynch.

[Sir Tornado]

Albert. I am still waiting to hear why you imposed that 72 hour deadline. I know you backtracked later on, but could you please explain why you imposed it in the first place?

[Albert B. Rampage]

Albert. I am still waiting to hear why you imposed that 72 hour deadline. I know you backtracked later on, but could you please explain why you imposed it in the first place?

Out of pleasure to see Adel languish in fear, of course

To see how different players would react. Who would turn against me, who would contradict themselves (like how we caught ryan), to gain information.

[Sir Tornado]

Give me one reason why we shouldn't lynch YOU or ABR if your choice of lynch turns out to be a townie?

Sir T, you seem convinced that the scum will NK a known mason if possible, so you must surely believe that if ABR and A Papaya are masons it will be apparent to everybody on Day 2 by the fact that one of them will be dead.

I don't quite get the connection between what you have quoted me and what you are asking me.

[Adel]

you say you are older but you act like a 2-year-old.

Adel, you fail at mafia.

ABR: I've asked you before to please stop insulting me. It does not feel like playful banter when it comes from you. Please stop.

[theopor_COD]

Adel out of interest, how are the diagrams looking?

[Sir Tornado]

Albert:

Ok, then can I have your take on different players? I know your position on Adel and Papaya, but what do you feel about the other players?

[Albert B. Rampage]

Give me one reason why we shouldn't lynch YOU or ABR if your choice of lynch turns out to be a townie?

Sir T, you seem convinced that the scum will NK a known mason if possible, so you must surely believe that if ABR and A Papaya are masons it will be apparent to everybody on Day 2 by the fact that one of them will be dead.

I don't quite get the connection between what you have quoted me and what you are asking me.

Sir T, please inquire me if I fail to explain this concept to you:

If we lynch Adel, and she turns innocent, and the mafia don't NK a mason then the last mason will claim, with me and papaya confirming his identity. We will then lynch ryan. If ryan turns innocent too, and the mafia still doesn't NK a mason, we are at 4-3, with 3 players confirmed to be of the same alignment. It is

impossible

to mislynch that way. You lynch one mason, if he is mafia, town wins. If he is mason, town loses. This is of course the worse possible scenario, and I am always against predicting so far in the future when the obvious move would be to NK me and papaya.

[Adel]

Adel out of interest, how are the diagrams looking?

Do you think they are useful? I've posted four now in different games, and no one seems to think they help. I wasn't planning on doing another. Should I?

[theopor_COD]

Adel out of interest, how are the diagrams looking?

Do you think they are useful? I've posted four now in different games, and no one seems to think they help. I wasn't planning on doing another. Should I?

I like them.

[Albert B. Rampage]

ABR: I've asked you before to please stop insulting me. It does not feel like playful banter when it comes from you. Please stop.

Ask me one more time and I will. I feel I was unjustly treated by you in the beginning

Albert:

Ok, then can I have your take on different players? I know your position on Adel and Papaya, but what do you feel about the other players?

I don't want to comment on Aimee and Bird.

Lawrencelot isn't stupid mafia, so I take it he's town. At least one of ryan or Lowell are scum. Ripley, you and theo are clean in my book.

[Adel]

You still haven't explained why you said that you wouldn't believe a counter-claim earlier than reversed and used the absence of a counter claim as evidence in support of the claim by ABR and Papaya.

I pretty much believed the claim as soon as Papaya announced it, I said it was idiotic but believable and from memory Ryan attacked me for saying it. If Papaya/ABR were scum then I'd have expected the real masons to have claimed by now.

Why first off if Papaya was scum would he claim mason, why not town, it would make more sense for scum to claim. A post from someone said scum would only claim mason I need to find who wrote that.

Secondly why the hell would ABR then back up his claim, if Papaya was scum, then it would make more sense just to let Papaya rot . . . i.e give him up.

Do you disagree that if ABR and Papaya are scum then the best case scenario for town is a lynch of fake-mason without the claim or outing of a single real-mason?

I don't see the need for the other mason to claim. I don't want to lynch either of Papaya or ABR as I don't think they are scum. I want to lynch either you or Ryan, simple as . . .

You still haven't explained why you said that

you wouldn't believe a counter-claim earlier

than reversed and used the absence of a counter claim as evidence in support of the claim by ABR and Papaya.

Do you disagree that if ABR and Papaya

are scum

then the best case scenario for town is a lynch of fake-mason without the claim or outing of a single

real

-mason?

Why would you quote my questions if you weren't going to answer them?

[Albert B. Rampage]

Funny how every theory coming from Adel contains "if ABR is scum". Adel, are you incapable of imagining a scenario where I am town ?

[Adel]

Ask me one more time and I will. I feel I was unjustly treated by you in the beginning Smile

When it was back and forth it was banter. When you made your claim I started being civil, and you continued with the insults without stopping. I asked you to stop. You didn't. The mod asked us to stop. You continued. I'll ask again: please stop.

[Albert B. Rampage]

I'll ask again: please stop.

I feel respected now. Thank you. Please respond to the comment above.

[Adel]

Funny how every theory coming from Adel contains "if ABR is scum". Adel, are you incapable of imagining a scenario where I am town ?

If the masons are masons then Lawrencelot's post is similar to my take on things: probable good intentions but wrong. Reading his post was like a weight being lifted off my shoulders. Being persecuted by the good guys while you are innocent is a horrible feeling. He is right about ABR and Papaya being the worse masons ever. I don't know why he would conclude that I am a mason, I'm not. I don't like that he fails to consider he possibility that ABR and Papaya are masons but I am not scum. I don't think he proved any connection between theopor and ABR. He could be scum, but I doubt it because I think scum in his position would be eager to lynch me. Players who joined ABR's wagon are more likely to be scum: they would know my alignment.

[Albert B. Rampage]

I don't think you get it. IF I am mason with papaya, what do you suggest we do from this point on ?

[theopor_COD]

Adel; I think you'll find I did answer, maybe not in so many words. I don't think it makes sense for Albert and Papaya to both claim masons if they're not masons. Therefore I think they're masons, hence I'll believe them ahead of a counter-claim, which still hasn't arrived, you were the most likely counter-claimant to me, you've claimed your not a mason. The absence of a claim just means its more likely Albert and Papaya are telling the truth.

The second question was also answered because I think ABR and Papaya are both town. I don't see them as scum hence why would be lynching a fake-mason? Who's a fake mason? You mean lynch either of Papaya or Albert right? As I say I'd rather lynch you.

[Sir Tornado]

Give me one reason why we shouldn't lynch YOU or ABR if your choice of lynch turns out to be a townie?

Sir T, you seem convinced that the scum will NK a known mason if possible, so you must surely believe that if ABR and A Papaya are masons it will be apparent to everybody on Day 2 by the fact that one of them will be dead.

I don't quite get the connection between what you have quoted me and what you are asking me.

Sir T, please inquire me if I fail to explain this concept to you:

If we lynch Adel, and she turns innocent, and the mafia don't NK a mason then the last mason will claim, with me and papaya confirming his identity. We will then lynch ryan. If ryan turns innocent too, and the mafia still doesn't NK a mason, we are at 4-3, with 3 players confirmed to be of the same alignment. It is

impossible

to mislynch that way. You lynch one mason, if he is mafia, town wins. If he is mason, town loses. This is of course the worse possible scenario, and I am always against predicting so far in the future when the obvious move would be to NK me and papaya.

You are assuming quite a lot here...

Firstly, we have to assume that you and A Papaya are telling the truth. Fine. Right now, there is no counter claim, so we do.

But, what happens if Bird or Aimee turns out to be the mason and you do not, and he is, for some reason holding a counter claim? You take out Adel, and she turns out to be innocent. Then, you go and take out Ryan. HE turns out to be innocent. So, you go after Bird or Aimee and they turn out to be mason. At this point, the town realises that you are scum and have taken them for a ride.

This was, primarily the reason why I was deeply suspicious of your 72 hour deadline early on. You see, the players on vacation would not have been back in those 72 hours. So, if either one or both of them were masons, then the third one, who could be active right now, would not have any way to counter claim, because there is no one to verify it. And, in the mean time, in order to get your quick lynch (before the vacationing players turn up) you set up your 72 hour deadline to get one townie out. Then, you NK a mason at night, and the game swings in your favour.

I realise that what I have said in the last para or so would sound highly fantastic to a lot of people, but that was my actual thoughts when I read about that deadline. (But it sounded a bit far-fetched to me because it would mean you being sure of the identity of the three masons, which is would be hard to detect)

Then there is another matter: Even if you are not masons, I don't think any counter-claim against you could actually stand right now. The general tendency has been to believe you, and I doubt whether it would be stemed if we get a single counter-claim from anyone at all... in fact, that counter-claim may be the first to be lynched, followed by a possible mason NK, which would be disasterous. Plus, I don't think revealing masonry on day 1 is a very nice play at all... I wouldn't have done it if I were a mason. And, even if I was a mason in this situation, I would not counter-claim two mason claims, not on day 1 anyway. It's foolish to reveal all your cards on day 1.

The only reason I believe your claim, despite all this foolishness, is not because there is no counter-claim, but because I find it hard to believe that a scum -- let alone

two

scums -- would make a mason claim on day 1. That would be a height of foolishness surpassing all others.

But, if you turn out to be a townie... god help you.

[Sir Tornado]

Oh, and Adel, I love your diagrams too. In fact, I want to play more games with you just because you post those diagrams

[Ripley]

Give me one reason why we shouldn't lynch YOU or ABR if your choice of lynch turns out to be a townie?

Sir T, you seem convinced that the scum will NK a known mason if possible, so you must surely believe that if ABR and A Papaya are masons it will be apparent to everybody on Day 2 by the fact that one of them will be dead.

I don't quite get the connection between what you have quoted me and what you are asking me.

You were saying (or I thought you were) that if ABR and Papaya led the lynch on someone who turned out to be town, they should expect one of themselves (ABR/Papaya) to be lynched the next day. But you had earlier said you were sure the scum would Nk a claimed mason (if they are indeed masons). Therefore according to your own theory (which I don't support) we would know by Day 2 whether ABR and Papaya were masons. Therefore their choice of lynch on Day 1 would be irrelevant towards the issue of their innocence.

Or maybe I've misunderstood you somewhere along the way. Actually I see ABR has answered you as well, maybe his answer is the one you wanted.

Adel is either scum or the most disastrously deluded townie I've seen in a considerable while. I still think, and I believe somebody else has agreed, that she's trying all she can to bait ABR into revealing the third mason, or if that doesn't work to build up pressure on him to do so by campaigning to have either him or Papaya (uncounterclaimed masons) lynched today. Scum, or a townie blinded by the inability to accept that she's been totally wrong? I'm still not sure.

[Albert B. Rampage]

theo you are by far the most just and objective person I have ever played with. You never cease to impress me with your air of detachment in the middle of all this chaos and bickering. You sure set the bar high, even tough I know you were tempted at least a few times to attack me. Please do not respond to this, as I'm only speaking my mind.

Sir T, that was a very sharp observation, and you bring a fresh perspective to view this situation from. Indeed, I agree with most of what you say, however, I invite anyone to counter-claim. This is what will happen if someone counter-claims:

1) We will ask that person one of his partners. We will need confirmation from both players that they are indeed mason to eachother.

2) I will reveal the third member of my masonry, and each member will confirm this.

3) We will ask the third member of the counter-claimant party to reveal themselves. At this point we can lynch me, Adel or whoever you want in the two opposing parties, and then it will be a straight lynching without possibility of error from that point, with an resonant town victory.