Either way though, if raf has a pseudo-dayvig (am I reading that correctly, raf?) then salub should be the play. We can confirm a townie without losing our "lynch", because raf can prod off the other person, correct?
Although, raf, you're still definitely not confirmed - that could quite easily be a ploy to get us to a lynch. So, you will definitely be testing your ability before any voting is done.
I can daykill two people together, that's right. I can't do it without any votes at all, though, as I said at the start. It's a counterbalance. Of course, the reality is that we'll be using it on people we think are scum anyway- someone voting for them shouldn't be a hassle, since that's the standard way to lynch them anyway.
I am also shaky about doing it to Salubrious. I think he has the best claim of the non-docks group and I don't know that his lynch immunity will apply to my daykill.
Killing a townie is probably game over, I want to be executing two actual scum if at all humanly possible, not messing around with cute clearance plans. There's not enough room for error for that.
Can you be a bit more specific with those statements? i.e. paraphrasing?
I already paraphrased one section of it earlier with the money/force comment. In revenge, they've sold you out. Irony.
The remainder was flavor around the kidnapping - it was a done by force. My entourage did not leave by their own accord; I was awakened by the sounds of struggle and saw them dragged off.
Quote from bertrand »
Are you saying that my vote control is linked to yours being stolen?
Yes, I already said that earlier (with the paraphrase included):
Quote from DYH »
Bertrand is the one responsible for stealing my entourage. It explains why he now has the ability to force votes- those are my bought-off courtiers at work. However, they still hold some loyalty to me - I paid them quite a bit - and they've sold bertrand out. Like I paraphrased from bat, money is a fickle mistress, but it's stronger than force.
* Fayul clears Chimp.
* I vote Bertrand. I voted him yesterday and we only had one kill.
* Bretrand is annoyed with me. He claims doctor as long as no one has voted/FoSed him, alludes to additional powers.
* I question his doc claim based on Sutherland's training.
* Bertrand questions my reasoning.
* Bertrand backpedals from doc claim to:
Quote from bertrand »
I should be more specific. I am not a doctor, but my role allows me to protect one player from death if no one has voted or FoS'd me that day.
* I answer his question about Sutherlands.
* RafK agrees. He points out we're likely at LYLO. Asks for mass-claim.
* I agree, suggest Fayul determines order.
* Seconded by RafK and Bertrand.
* Fayul confirms Chimp's name. Working on order.
* Wuffles, who was in the Tavern last night, says his name is very pro-town; most interested in RafK's ability.
* Wuffles mistakenly confirms Fayul, Chimp, and me. I correct him to just Fayul/Chimp.
* Fayul determines order.
* Salubrious claims to be the Prince. Unlynchable becomes confirmed on lynch- protecting him will stop otherwise unstoppable NKs.
* Raf asks about lynch ending the day, Sabu asks bat, no confirmation.
* Wuffles II claims the Retired Soldier. Bulletproof townie if he stays in the alehouse. Only loses BP status if RBed.
* Bertrand claims Loyal Nobleman. Alludes to vote-messing ability, but doesn't want to show it. He will, however, if we really want.
* Bertrand then further declares to know that not everyone in the King's court are his allies. Links vote ability to 'great political power' and declares he is one of the King's most valuable allies.
** I am going to stop for a moment at this point. Two things should already be standing out to you. Bertrand claimed a doctor role when not voted/FoS, and when questioned on it, made a fallback statement of 'well, I'm not really a doctor, I can protect someone if...' That's a doctor. Secondly, his full-claim is incomplete. He doesn't reveal the nature of his "vote-messing" at the start, and then double-posts to drop in the flavor around his "vote stuff". At this point, I think it's apparent to Bertrand that his doc false-claim isn't going to fly, and as much as he doesn't want to reveal the vote-moving (the "I'd rather demonstrate when the time comes") until he can win the game with it for his scum group.
Continuing on:
* RafK points out that it is likely one of the following is lying based on Fade's code: bertrand, salubrious, wuffles, and arimnaes. RafK questions Bertrand on flavor of his powers.
* Arimnaes claims Craven Corsair, neutral survivor. States he can hide twice during the game.
* RafK claims the Chancellor. States that once during the game, if alone in the Library the night before, he can pass judgment on two people with multiple votes on them at once. In my perspective, with bertrand clearly scum, this gives credence to RafK's claim- otherwise, we'd be deadlocked in trying to lynch someone- the scum could leave it tied at 4-4.
* Bertrand discredits arimnaes, which is fair given the current situation. However, he has "no clue" on the flavor of not being able to protect if FoS'd or voted.
* I claim Shady Diplomat and explain that my entourage was kidnapped Night One with an explanation that I can possibly determine who stole them.
* Wuffles accuses bertrand of stealing my votes.
* Bertrand denies; wants clarification that it was a night action which caused it (it was), and his vote-thingy is a day action. Aside: that's not relevant.
* Bertrand stalls some more on displaying his ability. When prodded by Chimp, me, Sabu and Wuffles, he explains what it is.
* RafK questions the flavor again. Asks further questions about the ability. Does the maths and realizes it's safe for Bert to prove the ability.
* Bertrand points back to his flavor of great political power. Stalls some more on using his ability, wants Fayul or Chimp to guide him.
* Chimp suggests Arimnaes.
* RafK questions the number of uses, permanency, bertrand demonstrates again.
* Chimp questions about LyLo to which I explain the status. It's here when it hits me. The cryptic PM refers to force (another word obviously, but I'm not going to quote my PM) and I determine it's likely bertrand that stole my entourage.
The rest of this discussion is pretty recent and really should be read in its entirety. However, I wanted to point out that Bertrand had acted rather suspicious today and particularly so in hindsight to the way he handled both the explanation and demonstration of his voting ability.
He can't seem to explain the reasoning behind the doc working only when unvoted/FoSed because it likely doesn't exist. He didn't want to show off his 'trick' until it was the right time, because he's well aware the manner in which he obtained it was not pro-town. Not to mention the scum can leap on us and sweep the game right out from under us if he uses it at "the right time".
To be fair, I'll address the other side of the coin. From the WIFOM perspective, you'd have to ask yourself why I would come out with this information (or big fat lie, however you prefer) if I was scum. Bertrand was already the top suspect of most people, and this would just be an incredibly risky "win-more" gambit.
No, I'm telling the truth here, bertrand is not. He's been evasive all day.
@whomever suggested lynching Salubrious: we can't afford to go to night. If it's 7 alive 3 to lynch tomorrow, the scum can win with Bert's ability.
I haven't read #1137 yet, but I just wanted to say this.
DYH: I can PROVE that my vote ability is not linked to the kidnapping. Look at posts #472 and #965. I clearly had a reason to be at a location other than the Docks. Also, Salubrious can confirm I was there Nights 2 and 4 (was alone 1 and 3).
Now reading #1137
* Bertrand then further declares to know that not everyone in the King's court are his allies. Links vote ability to 'great political power' and declares he is one of the King's most valuable allies.
Yes. That's the "flavor" part of my role.
** I am going to stop for a moment at this point. Two things should already be standing out to you. Bertrand claimed a doctor role when not voted/FoS, and when questioned on it, made a fallback statement of 'well, I'm not really a doctor, I can protect someone if...' That's a doctor. Secondly, his full-claim is incomplete. He doesn't reveal the nature of his "vote-messing" at the start, and then double-posts to drop in the flavor around his "vote stuff". At this point, I think it's apparent to Bertrand that his doc false-claim isn't going to fly, and as much as he doesn't want to reveal the vote-moving (the "I'd rather demonstrate when the time comes") until he can win the game with it for his scum group.
Fallback statement? It's called a clarification. When I said doc, I was referring to the ability. DUH. I had already said "Loyal Nobleman", not Doctor. It was not until someone CALLED me a doctor (you, i think) that I corrected him and said I was the Loyal Nobleman, not a doctor. Protection is just my ability. At this point, it seems to me you are just trying to make me look like scum rather than use logic. About that last sentence, there is not much I can say to it other than "I never thought of that, I just thought it would be cooler, and if the scum DIDN'T know what it was, I could foil their plans in the future.
Will continue soon.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
_______________________________ [L1 Judge|Add me to your ignore list]
|Molten Sentry count - 1002 (34*)|
DYH: There's still something I don't get. My vote didn't count on you. Why? Nothing you've explained that would answer this makes any sense.
"My friends sold you out" does not explain that.
At first I did not think you were lying, but your behavior is worrying me now. You're now just trying to make me look like scum by using weasel words like "backpedals",
Honestly, I was not at all worried about looking scummy, because I could prove pretty much my entire role. The Court Salon vote control ability I could prove because I have spent every day in the CS and never followed the masses to the Docks. I could also demonstrate it as I did today. It's quite obvious I had this way before your votes were taken, DYH. The doc ability I could prove, because since day 1 I was asking people not to vote/FoS me. I wasn't at all worried. And I had figured, since I wasn't at all worried, that I wouldn't be questioned for keeping the EXACT DETAILS of the vote manipulaing ability. I wanted to keep that secret so that maybe I could foil some scum plan.
Anyways, I would like to ask this question to DYH, and I would like him to simply answer "yes" or "no" to it:
Do you believe I have an ability that stops functioning if I am voted or FoS'd during the day?
Keep in mind that I have maintained that since my first post.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
_______________________________ [L1 Judge|Add me to your ignore list]
|Molten Sentry count - 1002 (34*)|
DYH: I can PROVE that my vote ability is not linked to the kidnapping. Look at posts #472 and #965. I clearly had a reason to be at a location other than the Docks.
You saying you needed to be somewhere else doesn't prove that it's true.
You needing to be somewhere else doesn't prove it has anything to do with your vote ability.
None of that paragraph hangs together, even if you capitalise PROVE.
Fallback statement? It's called a clarification. When I said doc, I was referring to the ability. DUH. I had already said "Loyal Nobleman", not Doctor. It was not until someone CALLED me a doctor (you, i think) that I corrected him and said I was the Loyal Nobleman, not a doctor. Protection is just my ability.
Isn't this semantics? You claim a doctor type role, people call you doc. Fayul is being called the cop, although her rolename is presumably not "The Cop". You claimed the ability to protect- doc. It has not unreasonably been pointed out that Sutherlands was a doc, and he claimed the ability to train other docs.
Hang on, here's a good one which I'm pretty sure you haven't answered.
OK, so you claim to be a doc and there was at least a couple of days where no-one voted for you. Who'd you protect?
At this point, it seems to me you are just trying to make me look like scum rather than use logic.
My gut feeling does keep getting a smell of a set-up, bertrand, but unfortunately DYH is making good points and you keep doing stuff like arguing that you saying you needed to be away from the docks proves stuff. And my gut feeling has been terribly wrong lately. Still, I don't feel I can entirely ignore it.
What I want to see at this point is someone other than DYH or bertrand actually making a comment on this, it feels like most of the game is sitting back while DYH, bertrand and I fight this out. I realise scum probably don't want to commit at this point, but you can't all be scum
EBWODP: (sorry about all these, feel free to merge them)
RafaelK, you are missing my point.
Day one I said that I didn't want to be at the Docks, that I had a reason. This proves, at least, that for a role-related reason I had to be somewhere else, right?
Second point - Yes, it's semantics. But DYH was using terms like "fallback statement" to make me look scummy, when really that specification was obviously nothing more than that, a specification.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
_______________________________ [L1 Judge|Add me to your ignore list]
|Molten Sentry count - 1002 (34*)|
Day one I said that I didn't want to be at the Docks, that I had a reason. This proves, at least, that for a role-related reason I had to be somewhere else, right?
No, it proves you said you had a reason.
It doesn't prove that it's role-related, let alone prove that being in the Court Salon at night grants you the vote power.
And even if it did, it doesn't prove that you're town.
My problem here is you are being horribly illogical, but you're also making the same arguments as I just went through with Hunted Charlie in Hollywood, and he was town. I was scum there, but he basically handed me the lynch on a platter because he couldn't get past the bit where in his head, everyone would think his role was town basically because he said so. And you're doing the same thing here, which is making me think maybe you really are a townie who's so convinced of his own townieness that he can't work out why most of the other players in the game have been suspicious of him.
Or you could just be a scum weasel, it's been known to happen. That's the problem, it's hard to tell between a bad townie and a decent scum sometimes :/
This is why now more than ever, I want other people to give their opinions and commit.
Arr... I be in favor of double-lynching bert and DYH. The more people who die that aren't me, the better. Plus, it be abundantly clear that at least one o' them is lying.
Assuming 3 scum, the maths of a double in which we kill DYH and bertrand (one town one scum almost for sure).
End of day 5: 6 alive, 3 town 1 neutral 2 scum OR 4 town 2 scum.
Start of day 6: 5 alive, 3 votes to lynch, 3 town 2 scum OR 2 town 1 neutral 2 scum.
As you can see, if arimnaes really is neutral and we double-lynch DYH and bertrand, we wake up at 2 town, 1 neutral and 2 scum, ie the town LOSES.
Actually, that makes me feel better about arimnaes. If he's scum, double-killing bertrand and DYH is a great idea for the town because we wake up at 3-2 with me and Chimp confirmed (presuming Fayul is nightkilled), and if the scum don't rush-lynch us then we know 100% for sure that arimnaes is mafia, taking us to 3-1 with two confirmed townies alive, which is good odds.
If arimnaes is a neutral, then double-killing DYH and bertrand autowins for the scum and for arimnaes on the spot.
As such, arimnaes pushing that view makes me about 95% sure that he's neutral and not scum. We shouldn't listen to him, though
EBWODP: If arimnaes is neutral and bertrand is scum and can control anyone's vote, then 3 scum + bertrand's controlled vote + arimnaes voting with the mafia to win as a survivor = 5 = lynch.
Either bertrand didn't realise this before Chimp made him pick arimnaes, or bertrand is town and DYH is scum. I think bertrand had plenty of time to realise it with all that stalling, especially since he got to see arimnaes' full claim. Not only that, but the mafia could have basically said openly in the thread "bertrand, take Fayul's vote and stick it on herself and we'll pile on" and there wouldn't have been a lot we could do.
Numbers game, people.
My analysis:
Fayul- town
Chimp- town
Raf- town
bertrand- town (!!)
arimnaes- neutral
DYH- scum
and by process of elimination:
Wuffles- scum
Salubrious- scum (?!)
The last one bothers me a little, but eh. It's not like we could have wasted a lynch to test Salubrious' claim, and he knows that. And anyway, if it's not bertrand or arimnaes, one of Wuffles and Salubrious is our lying social butterfly.
Obviously it would be nice to hear from Wuffles and Salubrious what they think of my analysis, and also from Chimp and Fayul since ain't no lynch going through without their say-so.
Actually, I would like to fully utilize all of our solid (the dock names) info before we lynch by process of elimination. There are some blatantly scummy names just sitting there. For the purpose of process of elimination I need Fayul's and RafaelK's names.
3. A lynch requires a number of votes equal to a majority of surviving players or the majority of votes cast, whichever is higher.
Either A) someone out there has a multi-vote still, or B) we don't have three scum remaining as speculated. There's also C) the fact you have claimed a double-daykill also bears into this fact. You should have realized this if you're telling the truth.
@bertrand: You haven't "proven" anything.
Quote from bertrand »
Anyways, I would like to ask this question to DYH, and I would like him to simply answer "yes" or "no" to it:
Do you believe I have an ability that stops functioning if I am voted or FoS'd during the day?
Keep in mind that I have maintained that since my first post.
The last statement is irrelevant. Just because you've maintained something since the first post doesn't mean squat. It's an excellent way to keep pressure off you if you're scum, right? Plus, you can't prove your "doc" ability, so this is a misleading statement/question set meant to "prove" your towniness.
I found it interesting that Sutherlands made a connection between your being voted and missing an additional kill, but it's clear now that you actually spent N1 accosting my entourage. So, in summary, no, I don't believe you. Furthermore, no, I don't believe you've had the vote forcing all along. You had ample opportunity to prove it before now.
Are you sure that 2 town 1 neutral 1 scum is a town loss? It depends on the wording of arim's victory condition. Does he win if the scum/town win, or does he count as a scum/town for purposes of determinning winning? Quite the dilemma.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, the wisdom to know the difference, and a ****ing chainsaw.
Arr... I doubt I count towards the mafia's win condition. There's certainly nothing to indicate that in me PM. It's possible that I don't count against it (like a townie would), but then, there's no real indication of that, either.
At first I did not think you were lying, but your behavior is worrying me now. You're now just trying to make me look like scum by using weasel words like "backpedals",
Not to state the obvious here, but shouldn't you have known that I was lying if you didn't do it? To the second sentence- I know you're scum, sorry if my analysis seems biased to you? I actually thought it was presented rather accurately. /shrug
Furthermore, you were alone N1? How convenient.
Bertrand's defense is weak, and his behavior is that of the cornered scum he is. Posting PROVE in all caps does not make it true. You'll also notice he doesn't refute much of anything, he simply asks for more clarifications so he can find some semantic point to argue.
I'm a betting man, I think I know what defense is ultimately coming as a result of the FoS/Vote question to me:
A song kim logic set hi (anagrammed for your viewing pleasure)
DYH: Not sure what you're implying by quoting rule 3, unless your defence to my math is that you're town and therefore there's less than 3 scum left (which is the only way that could work). Unfortunately for you, this is too big a game for me to buy that there was only 3 mafia to start.
Are you sure that 2 town 1 neutral 1 scum is a town loss? It depends on the wording of arim's victory condition. Does he win if the scum/town win, or does he count as a scum/town for purposes of determinning winning? Quite the dilemma.
Survivors usually doesn't count to the mafia win condition. My numbers are based on arimnaes being likely to vote with whoever is most likely to end the game with arimnaes still alive.
So today, if bertrand was scum, the scum could have arranged for 4 votes on someone and arimnaes put on the 5th for the win (surviving with the mafia).
In a 2-1-1 situation, arimnaes is actually most likely to help find the scum, since lynching the scum would = win immediately whereas forcing a no-lynch or lynching a townie could see arimnaes get nightkilled on the last night.
Obviously it would be nice to hear from Wuffles and Salubrious what they think of my analysis, and also from Chimp and Fayul since ain't no lynch going through without their say-so.
I'm still not sure on the DYH-bertrand thing. As far as I can tell DYH hasn't done anything really scummy today, while bertrand's arguments are suspect. Like you mentioned, he could be bad town instead of scum, but it's WIFOM and there's no way to be sure.
And I'm town, obv, but I can't prove it without risking ending the day prematurely. However, I have my suspicions about Wuffles. He's been acting a bit shifty today.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By kingcobweb and Goblinboy.
Official Elitist of [thread=40859][RBS][/thread]
Quote from kingcobweb »
I don't understand the purpose of gimmick accounts.
You haven't posted a single useful idea this game, my scummy friend.
Read over his previous posts, people. He's lurked the entire game, in effect, posting just enough to remain under the radar, and, I must repeat, has not posted a single piece of useful information.
Not to mention, his "confirmable townie" claim is totally untestable @ the point of LyLo.
Reread his posts.
And I don't think he's going to be able to come up with a good reason why he just cast a half-cocked suspicion on me.
Salubrious, put your money where your mouth is, for the first time in this game, or get voted by me, please.
@RafK: My quoting of rule three was to point out the general confusion we've had with the "to lynch" number this entire game and I think assuming the mafia would try a 'pile-on' with that in question and a potential SK is a reach. Even with three scum, which I will grant is more likely, a town lynch does not guarantee them the game if an SK nails a scum tonight.
Of the scenarios I mentioned earlier, C) is the most likely. We wouldn't have had a today with the scum controlling 4 of the 8 votes, which they do with bertrand's help. It gives credence to Salubrious' claim (if a no-lynch on him ends the day) and/or your claim, and to the premise there is still a non-mafia killing role out there.
Too many variables to assume that Occam's Razor goes into effect here. The scum have no reason to jeopardize exposing the entire group if they can't be guaranteed a victory.
"Get yer cabbages 'ere. Nice cabbages. Good for yer !"
As the roaring cabbage trade gets underway for the morning, the cabbage seller summarises the voting of the royal court. Which he heard from some drunk who is now passed out under his barrow.
--
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
Not to state the obvious here, but shouldn't you have known that I was lying if you didn't do it? To the second sentence- I know you're scum, sorry if my analysis seems biased to you? I actually thought it was presented rather accurately. /shrug
At first I thought you were a townie jumping to conclusions who actually thought he had cornered scum.
Well, if I wasn't actually alone, I'd have been taking a mighty risk to say that I was, right?
Bertrand's defense is weak, and his behavior is that of the cornered scum he is. Posting PROVE in all caps does not make it true. You'll also notice he doesn't refute much of anything, he simply asks for more clarifications so he can find some semantic point to argue.
Posting in all caps helps in making statements clear. It shows what word to focus on. It's my version of boling.
I'm a betting man, I think I know what defense is ultimately coming as a result of the FoS/Vote question to me:
A song kim logic set hi (anagrammed for your viewing pleasure)
The last statement is irrelevant. Just because you've maintained something since the first post doesn't mean squat. It's an excellent way to keep pressure off you if you're scum, right? Plus, you can't prove your "doc" ability, so this is a misleading statement/question set meant to "prove" your towniness.
I found it interesting that Sutherlands made a connection between your being voted and missing an additional kill, but it's clear now that you actually spent N1 accosting my entourage. So, in summary, no, I don't believe you. Furthermore, no, I don't believe you've had the vote forcing all along. You had ample opportunity to prove it before now.
If I did not have such an ability, why did Axelrod vote for me on day 3 when he was cornered?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
_______________________________ [L1 Judge|Add me to your ignore list]
|Molten Sentry count - 1002 (34*)|
If Wuffles were scum, he'd just push for my lynch which will probably happen anyways.
Thus, I find it unlikely that Wuffles is scum.
I have totally no clue on DYH. I'm still not sure if he's lying. He is coming to false conclusions, but nothing I've heard from him sounds like it must be a lie.
Reading Salubrious' posts, I can definately see Wuffles' point here.
vote Salubrious arimnaes votes Salubrious
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
_______________________________ [L1 Judge|Add me to your ignore list]
|Molten Sentry count - 1002 (34*)|
I'm not liking Salubrious either by reread. He has minimal content and what content there is points fingers townies. Also, he stayed away from the docks for no apparent role-related reason and his claim doesn't seem to go with the flavor of the game. I'll hold off on voting for now, but serious FoS Salubrious.
@bertrand: I really don't think I'm jumping to false conclusions, but I suppose there is a potentially small margin of misinterpreting error (I'm talking less than 1% if I had to gauge it, IMHO) with some bastard moddery thrown in. I seriously doubt it, though.
I'm a bit frustrated because it's so obviously clear to me that bertrand is scum and I'm getting a bunch of wavering opinions and weird maths from the group. I guess this is what happens when the survivors likely consist of about 50% scum and/or neutrals.
Quote from bertrand »
Well, if I wasn't actually alone, I'd have been taking a mighty risk to say that I was, right?
Not unless anyone actually with you was still alive. "Sneaking Around" isn't considered the same locale from what I recall in the rules, so you could have just as easily been doing that.
Look, I'm sticking to my guns, here, but I won't be blind to the goings-on involving other players. I'll review the case on Salubrious and put forth an opinion tonight or tomorrow.
Posting in all caps helps in making statements clear. It shows what word to focus on. It's my version of boling.
But it still doesn't make it true. You haven't PROVED or proved or proved anything other than that you can control arimnaes' vote.
I believe you for mathematical reasons only, your logic is terrible.
If I did not have such an ability, why did Axelrod vote for me on day 3 when he was cornered?
WIFOM. Axelrod would have done that either way. If you're scum, it would have given the game away for Axelrod not to bother voting you before he died.
I was going to tell you to take a vote off Salubrious before someone got hurt, but of course the great irony with Salubrious is that if he's town he won't get rush lynched (unlynchable) AND if he's mafia he won't get rush lynched (duh), so OK, you know what you're doing there.
I do think it's very odd that you of all people aren't voting DYH though.
For the next update, DYH unvoted bertrand in post 1128 and I haven't noticed him voting again since.
No-one is voting bertrand at the moment that I have noticed.
I think the only current votes are bertrand and arimnaes on Salubrious (although bertrand didn't make arimnaes unvote first, I don't know if that counts or not).
@bertrand: I really don't think I'm jumping to false conclusions, but I suppose there is a potentially small margin of misinterpreting error (I'm talking less than 1% if I had to gauge it, IMHO) with some bastard moddery thrown in. I seriously doubt it, though.
OK. So at least you admit there's a slight possibiliy. But what makes you so 99+% sure? I do admit your conclusions are not totally rediculous. What seems so farfetched to me is that you seem so 100% convenced that I'm scum, when it is very obvious that your whole case against me is based upon your own speculation.
Not unless anyone actually with you was still alive. "Sneaking Around" isn't considered the same locale from what I recall in the rules, so you could have just as easily been doing that.
Never thought of that...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
_______________________________ [L1 Judge|Add me to your ignore list]
|Molten Sentry count - 1002 (34*)|
I do think it's very odd that you of all people aren't voting DYH though.
I am not voting him because I think he is being stupid and irrational, not that he is scum. He may very well be, but I honestly think our chances are better with Salubrious...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
_______________________________ [L1 Judge|Add me to your ignore list]
|Molten Sentry count - 1002 (34*)|
I find it telling how a lot of people are suddenly very eager to jump on me. It just smacks of opportunism. I have to go to bed now, but tomorrow I will lay out my case.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By kingcobweb and Goblinboy.
Official Elitist of [thread=40859][RBS][/thread]
Quote from kingcobweb »
I don't understand the purpose of gimmick accounts.
OK. So at least you admit there's a slight possibiliy. But what makes you so 99+% sure? I do admit your conclusions are not totally rediculous. What seems so farfetched to me is that you seem so 100% convenced that I'm scum, when it is very obvious that your whole case against me is based upon your own speculation.
I'm done reiterating this. I've laid out the information as clearly as I can without fear of modquoting. Flavor information != speculation.
(as an aside, putting things in bold doesn't make it true, either)
Quote from bertrand »
Never thought of that...
Uh huh.
Quote from Salubrious »
I find it telling how a lot of people are suddenly very eager to jump on me. It just smacks of opportunism. I have to go to bed now, but tomorrow I will lay out my case.
I still feel like I'm defending an illogical townie vs a slick mafia who's running some sort of set-up and has the advantage of targeting a townie who defends himself badly.
OK, the problem with the fact that everyone's afraid to vote in this situation is that there's no count to put pressure on anyone.
I'm starting a "pseudovote" count. Please pseudovote (no bolding) whoever you would currently be voting for if you were able, and I'll do a count and we can see where opinion is. I want all 8 of us to participate in this.
Psuedovote bertrand. Personally i'm up for hitting the double kill of CYH/betrand, but only if arim confirms the semantics of his win condition...failing that, bert's probably the best play, followed by sabu, then arimnaes. i really don't think DYH or raf is th eplay at all, and I doubt there's too mcu hbastard modding re: chimp.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, the wisdom to know the difference, and a ****ing chainsaw.
My problem with the double kill is that I don't trust arimnaes to tell the truth about that. If the double kill will help him fulfil his actual win condition, he'll say anything to make it happen.
The most usual thing for a neutral survivor role is that they win as long as they're alive when either the mafia or the town win. The mafia usually need to reach 50% of the population to win (the only time I remember that not being the case is WDM2). I am willing to bet quite a lot that the above are in fact the case here.
I will still go ahead with the double if the town really really wants me to, but I'm arguing strongly against it for now. It seems to me like a likely loss for the town to use it on DYH/bertrand, and I really want to get two mafia with it to turn the game.
Pseudovote count:
DYH (1): Raf
Salubrious (2): Chimp, bertrand (I have the luxury of letting arimnaes give his own opinion!)
bertrand (1): Fayul
bertrand: Actually, that's a decent argument in your favour. Could you link us where you did that?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
_______________________________
[L1 Judge|Add me to your ignore list]
|Molten Sentry count - 1002 (34*)|
Although, raf, you're still definitely not confirmed - that could quite easily be a ploy to get us to a lynch. So, you will definitely be testing your ability before any voting is done.
I am also shaky about doing it to Salubrious. I think he has the best claim of the non-docks group and I don't know that his lynch immunity will apply to my daykill.
Killing a townie is probably game over, I want to be executing two actual scum if at all humanly possible, not messing around with cute clearance plans. There's not enough room for error for that.
I already paraphrased one section of it earlier with the money/force comment. In revenge, they've sold you out. Irony.
The remainder was flavor around the kidnapping - it was a done by force. My entourage did not leave by their own accord; I was awakened by the sounds of struggle and saw them dragged off.
Yes, I already said that earlier (with the paraphrase included):
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
The question now, is, does this make bertrand or DYH scum?
O.o.
* Fayul clears Chimp.
* I vote Bertrand. I voted him yesterday and we only had one kill.
* Bretrand is annoyed with me. He claims doctor as long as no one has voted/FoSed him, alludes to additional powers.
* I question his doc claim based on Sutherland's training.
* Bertrand questions my reasoning.
* Bertrand backpedals from doc claim to:
* I answer his question about Sutherlands.
* RafK agrees. He points out we're likely at LYLO. Asks for mass-claim.
* I agree, suggest Fayul determines order.
* Seconded by RafK and Bertrand.
* Fayul confirms Chimp's name. Working on order.
* Wuffles, who was in the Tavern last night, says his name is very pro-town; most interested in RafK's ability.
* Wuffles mistakenly confirms Fayul, Chimp, and me. I correct him to just Fayul/Chimp.
* Fayul determines order.
* Salubrious claims to be the Prince. Unlynchable becomes confirmed on lynch- protecting him will stop otherwise unstoppable NKs.
* Raf asks about lynch ending the day, Sabu asks bat, no confirmation.
* Wuffles II claims the Retired Soldier. Bulletproof townie if he stays in the alehouse. Only loses BP status if RBed.
* Bertrand claims Loyal Nobleman. Alludes to vote-messing ability, but doesn't want to show it. He will, however, if we really want.
* Bertrand then further declares to know that not everyone in the King's court are his allies. Links vote ability to 'great political power' and declares he is one of the King's most valuable allies.
** I am going to stop for a moment at this point. Two things should already be standing out to you. Bertrand claimed a doctor role when not voted/FoS, and when questioned on it, made a fallback statement of 'well, I'm not really a doctor, I can protect someone if...' That's a doctor. Secondly, his full-claim is incomplete. He doesn't reveal the nature of his "vote-messing" at the start, and then double-posts to drop in the flavor around his "vote stuff". At this point, I think it's apparent to Bertrand that his doc false-claim isn't going to fly, and as much as he doesn't want to reveal the vote-moving (the "I'd rather demonstrate when the time comes") until he can win the game with it for his scum group.
Continuing on:
* RafK points out that it is likely one of the following is lying based on Fade's code: bertrand, salubrious, wuffles, and arimnaes. RafK questions Bertrand on flavor of his powers.
* Arimnaes claims Craven Corsair, neutral survivor. States he can hide twice during the game.
* RafK claims the Chancellor. States that once during the game, if alone in the Library the night before, he can pass judgment on two people with multiple votes on them at once. In my perspective, with bertrand clearly scum, this gives credence to RafK's claim- otherwise, we'd be deadlocked in trying to lynch someone- the scum could leave it tied at 4-4.
* Bertrand discredits arimnaes, which is fair given the current situation. However, he has "no clue" on the flavor of not being able to protect if FoS'd or voted.
* I claim Shady Diplomat and explain that my entourage was kidnapped Night One with an explanation that I can possibly determine who stole them.
* Wuffles accuses bertrand of stealing my votes.
* Bertrand denies; wants clarification that it was a night action which caused it (it was), and his vote-thingy is a day action. Aside: that's not relevant.
* Bertrand stalls some more on displaying his ability. When prodded by Chimp, me, Sabu and Wuffles, he explains what it is.
* RafK questions the flavor again. Asks further questions about the ability. Does the maths and realizes it's safe for Bert to prove the ability.
* Bertrand points back to his flavor of great political power. Stalls some more on using his ability, wants Fayul or Chimp to guide him.
* Chimp suggests Arimnaes.
* RafK questions the number of uses, permanency, bertrand demonstrates again.
* Chimp questions about LyLo to which I explain the status. It's here when it hits me. The cryptic PM refers to force (another word obviously, but I'm not going to quote my PM) and I determine it's likely bertrand that stole my entourage.
The rest of this discussion is pretty recent and really should be read in its entirety. However, I wanted to point out that Bertrand had acted rather suspicious today and particularly so in hindsight to the way he handled both the explanation and demonstration of his voting ability.
He can't seem to explain the reasoning behind the doc working only when unvoted/FoSed because it likely doesn't exist. He didn't want to show off his 'trick' until it was the right time, because he's well aware the manner in which he obtained it was not pro-town. Not to mention the scum can leap on us and sweep the game right out from under us if he uses it at "the right time".
To be fair, I'll address the other side of the coin. From the WIFOM perspective, you'd have to ask yourself why I would come out with this information (or big fat lie, however you prefer) if I was scum. Bertrand was already the top suspect of most people, and this would just be an incredibly risky "win-more" gambit.
No, I'm telling the truth here, bertrand is not. He's been evasive all day.
@whomever suggested lynching Salubrious: we can't afford to go to night. If it's 7 alive 3 to lynch tomorrow, the scum can win with Bert's ability.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
DYH: I can PROVE that my vote ability is not linked to the kidnapping. Look at posts #472 and #965. I clearly had a reason to be at a location other than the Docks. Also, Salubrious can confirm I was there Nights 2 and 4 (was alone 1 and 3).
Now reading #1137
Yes. That's the "flavor" part of my role.
Fallback statement? It's called a clarification. When I said doc, I was referring to the ability. DUH. I had already said "Loyal Nobleman", not Doctor. It was not until someone CALLED me a doctor (you, i think) that I corrected him and said I was the Loyal Nobleman, not a doctor. Protection is just my ability. At this point, it seems to me you are just trying to make me look like scum rather than use logic. About that last sentence, there is not much I can say to it other than "I never thought of that, I just thought it would be cooler, and if the scum DIDN'T know what it was, I could foil their plans in the future.
Will continue soon.
_______________________________
[L1 Judge|Add me to your ignore list]
|Molten Sentry count - 1002 (34*)|
DYH: There's still something I don't get. My vote didn't count on you. Why? Nothing you've explained that would answer this makes any sense.
"My friends sold you out" does not explain that.
At first I did not think you were lying, but your behavior is worrying me now. You're now just trying to make me look like scum by using weasel words like "backpedals",
Honestly, I was not at all worried about looking scummy, because I could prove pretty much my entire role. The Court Salon vote control ability I could prove because I have spent every day in the CS and never followed the masses to the Docks. I could also demonstrate it as I did today. It's quite obvious I had this way before your votes were taken, DYH. The doc ability I could prove, because since day 1 I was asking people not to vote/FoS me. I wasn't at all worried. And I had figured, since I wasn't at all worried, that I wouldn't be questioned for keeping the EXACT DETAILS of the vote manipulaing ability. I wanted to keep that secret so that maybe I could foil some scum plan.
Anyways, I would like to ask this question to DYH, and I would like him to simply answer "yes" or "no" to it:
Do you believe I have an ability that stops functioning if I am voted or FoS'd during the day?
Keep in mind that I have maintained that since my first post.
_______________________________
[L1 Judge|Add me to your ignore list]
|Molten Sentry count - 1002 (34*)|
You saying you needed to be somewhere else doesn't prove that it's true.
You needing to be somewhere else doesn't prove it has anything to do with your vote ability.
None of that paragraph hangs together, even if you capitalise PROVE.
Isn't this semantics? You claim a doctor type role, people call you doc. Fayul is being called the cop, although her rolename is presumably not "The Cop". You claimed the ability to protect- doc. It has not unreasonably been pointed out that Sutherlands was a doc, and he claimed the ability to train other docs.
Hang on, here's a good one which I'm pretty sure you haven't answered.
OK, so you claim to be a doc and there was at least a couple of days where no-one voted for you. Who'd you protect?
My gut feeling does keep getting a smell of a set-up, bertrand, but unfortunately DYH is making good points and you keep doing stuff like arguing that you saying you needed to be away from the docks proves stuff. And my gut feeling has been terribly wrong lately. Still, I don't feel I can entirely ignore it.
What I want to see at this point is someone other than DYH or bertrand actually making a comment on this, it feels like most of the game is sitting back while DYH, bertrand and I fight this out. I realise scum probably don't want to commit at this point, but you can't all be scum
N1 - No one
N2 - DYH
N3 - No one
N4 - No one
_______________________________
[L1 Judge|Add me to your ignore list]
|Molten Sentry count - 1002 (34*)|
RafaelK, you are missing my point.
Day one I said that I didn't want to be at the Docks, that I had a reason. This proves, at least, that for a role-related reason I had to be somewhere else, right?
Second point - Yes, it's semantics. But DYH was using terms like "fallback statement" to make me look scummy, when really that specification was obviously nothing more than that, a specification.
_______________________________
[L1 Judge|Add me to your ignore list]
|Molten Sentry count - 1002 (34*)|
No, it proves you said you had a reason.
It doesn't prove that it's role-related, let alone prove that being in the Court Salon at night grants you the vote power.
And even if it did, it doesn't prove that you're town.
My problem here is you are being horribly illogical, but you're also making the same arguments as I just went through with Hunted Charlie in Hollywood, and he was town. I was scum there, but he basically handed me the lynch on a platter because he couldn't get past the bit where in his head, everyone would think his role was town basically because he said so. And you're doing the same thing here, which is making me think maybe you really are a townie who's so convinced of his own townieness that he can't work out why most of the other players in the game have been suspicious of him.
Or you could just be a scum weasel, it's been known to happen. That's the problem, it's hard to tell between a bad townie and a decent scum sometimes :/
This is why now more than ever, I want other people to give their opinions and commit.
End of day 5: 6 alive, 3 town 1 neutral 2 scum OR 4 town 2 scum.
Start of day 6: 5 alive, 3 votes to lynch, 3 town 2 scum OR 2 town 1 neutral 2 scum.
As you can see, if arimnaes really is neutral and we double-lynch DYH and bertrand, we wake up at 2 town, 1 neutral and 2 scum, ie the town LOSES.
Actually, that makes me feel better about arimnaes. If he's scum, double-killing bertrand and DYH is a great idea for the town because we wake up at 3-2 with me and Chimp confirmed (presuming Fayul is nightkilled), and if the scum don't rush-lynch us then we know 100% for sure that arimnaes is mafia, taking us to 3-1 with two confirmed townies alive, which is good odds.
If arimnaes is a neutral, then double-killing DYH and bertrand autowins for the scum and for arimnaes on the spot.
As such, arimnaes pushing that view makes me about 95% sure that he's neutral and not scum. We shouldn't listen to him, though
Either bertrand didn't realise this before Chimp made him pick arimnaes, or bertrand is town and DYH is scum. I think bertrand had plenty of time to realise it with all that stalling, especially since he got to see arimnaes' full claim. Not only that, but the mafia could have basically said openly in the thread "bertrand, take Fayul's vote and stick it on herself and we'll pile on" and there wouldn't have been a lot we could do.
Numbers game, people.
My analysis:
Fayul- town
Chimp- town
Raf- town
bertrand- town (!!)
arimnaes- neutral
DYH- scum
and by process of elimination:
Wuffles- scum
Salubrious- scum (?!)
The last one bothers me a little, but eh. It's not like we could have wasted a lynch to test Salubrious' claim, and he knows that. And anyway, if it's not bertrand or arimnaes, one of Wuffles and Salubrious is our lying social butterfly.
Obviously it would be nice to hear from Wuffles and Salubrious what they think of my analysis, and also from Chimp and Fayul since ain't no lynch going through without their say-so.
3CB and 4CB5CB!3CB and 4CB5CB!Either A) someone out there has a multi-vote still, or B) we don't have three scum remaining as speculated. There's also C) the fact you have claimed a double-daykill also bears into this fact. You should have realized this if you're telling the truth.
@bertrand: You haven't "proven" anything.
The last statement is irrelevant. Just because you've maintained something since the first post doesn't mean squat. It's an excellent way to keep pressure off you if you're scum, right? Plus, you can't prove your "doc" ability, so this is a misleading statement/question set meant to "prove" your towniness.
I found it interesting that Sutherlands made a connection between your being voted and missing an additional kill, but it's clear now that you actually spent N1 accosting my entourage. So, in summary, no, I don't believe you. Furthermore, no, I don't believe you've had the vote forcing all along. You had ample opportunity to prove it before now.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Not that yeh have to believe me...
Not to state the obvious here, but shouldn't you have known that I was lying if you didn't do it? To the second sentence- I know you're scum, sorry if my analysis seems biased to you? I actually thought it was presented rather accurately. /shrug
Furthermore, you were alone N1? How convenient.
Bertrand's defense is weak, and his behavior is that of the cornered scum he is. Posting PROVE in all caps does not make it true. You'll also notice he doesn't refute much of anything, he simply asks for more clarifications so he can find some semantic point to argue.
I'm a betting man, I think I know what defense is ultimately coming as a result of the FoS/Vote question to me:
A song kim logic set hi (anagrammed for your viewing pleasure)
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
I have no idea where raf's "Wuffles - scum" idea came from.
The only things we can be sure of, I believe:
Fayul - Town
Chimp - Town if Fayul is (highly unlikely to be false-claiming scum)
Arimnaes - Neutral (or a VERY, VERY good false claim)
DYH
Bertrand
Wuffles
Salubrious
RafK.
Right now, I think that if we lynch bert that the rest of the scum will be quite obvious.
I DEFINITELY don't buy his doc claim.
Survivors usually doesn't count to the mafia win condition. My numbers are based on arimnaes being likely to vote with whoever is most likely to end the game with arimnaes still alive.
So today, if bertrand was scum, the scum could have arranged for 4 votes on someone and arimnaes put on the 5th for the win (surviving with the mafia).
In a 2-1-1 situation, arimnaes is actually most likely to help find the scum, since lynching the scum would = win immediately whereas forcing a no-lynch or lynching a townie could see arimnaes get nightkilled on the last night.
I'm still not sure on the DYH-bertrand thing. As far as I can tell DYH hasn't done anything really scummy today, while bertrand's arguments are suspect. Like you mentioned, he could be bad town instead of scum, but it's WIFOM and there's no way to be sure.
And I'm town, obv, but I can't prove it without risking ending the day prematurely. However, I have my suspicions about Wuffles. He's been acting a bit shifty today.
By kingcobweb and Goblinboy.
Official Elitist of [thread=40859][RBS][/thread]
UBER-FoS Salubrious.
You haven't posted a single useful idea this game, my scummy friend.
Read over his previous posts, people. He's lurked the entire game, in effect, posting just enough to remain under the radar, and, I must repeat, has not posted a single piece of useful information.
Not to mention, his "confirmable townie" claim is totally untestable @ the point of LyLo.
Reread his posts.
And I don't think he's going to be able to come up with a good reason why he just cast a half-cocked suspicion on me.
Salubrious, put your money where your mouth is, for the first time in this game, or get voted by me, please.
Of the scenarios I mentioned earlier, C) is the most likely. We wouldn't have had a today with the scum controlling 4 of the 8 votes, which they do with bertrand's help. It gives credence to Salubrious' claim (if a no-lynch on him ends the day) and/or your claim, and to the premise there is still a non-mafia killing role out there.
Too many variables to assume that Occam's Razor goes into effect here. The scum have no reason to jeopardize exposing the entire group if they can't be guaranteed a victory.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
As the roaring cabbage trade gets underway for the morning, the cabbage seller summarises the voting of the royal court. Which he heard from some drunk who is now passed out under his barrow.
Disrupt_Your_Hymn: arimnaes
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
At first I thought you were a townie jumping to conclusions who actually thought he had cornered scum.
Well, if I wasn't actually alone, I'd have been taking a mighty risk to say that I was, right?
Posting in all caps helps in making statements clear. It shows what word to focus on. It's my version of boling.
What? Anyways...
If I did not have such an ability, why did Axelrod vote for me on day 3 when he was cornered?
_______________________________
[L1 Judge|Add me to your ignore list]
|Molten Sentry count - 1002 (34*)|
If Wuffles were scum, he'd just push for my lynch which will probably happen anyways.
Thus, I find it unlikely that Wuffles is scum.
I have totally no clue on DYH. I'm still not sure if he's lying. He is coming to false conclusions, but nothing I've heard from him sounds like it must be a lie.
Reading Salubrious' posts, I can definately see Wuffles' point here.
vote Salubrious
arimnaes votes Salubrious
_______________________________
[L1 Judge|Add me to your ignore list]
|Molten Sentry count - 1002 (34*)|
3CB and 4CB5CB!I'm a bit frustrated because it's so obviously clear to me that bertrand is scum and I'm getting a bunch of wavering opinions and weird maths from the group. I guess this is what happens when the survivors likely consist of about 50% scum and/or neutrals.
Not unless anyone actually with you was still alive. "Sneaking Around" isn't considered the same locale from what I recall in the rules, so you could have just as easily been doing that.
Look, I'm sticking to my guns, here, but I won't be blind to the goings-on involving other players. I'll review the case on Salubrious and put forth an opinion tonight or tomorrow.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
But it still doesn't make it true. You haven't PROVED or proved or proved anything other than that you can control arimnaes' vote.
I believe you for mathematical reasons only, your logic is terrible.
WIFOM. Axelrod would have done that either way. If you're scum, it would have given the game away for Axelrod not to bother voting you before he died.
I was going to tell you to take a vote off Salubrious before someone got hurt, but of course the great irony with Salubrious is that if he's town he won't get rush lynched (unlynchable) AND if he's mafia he won't get rush lynched (duh), so OK, you know what you're doing there.
I do think it's very odd that you of all people aren't voting DYH though.
For the next update, DYH unvoted bertrand in post 1128 and I haven't noticed him voting again since.
No-one is voting bertrand at the moment that I have noticed.
I think the only current votes are bertrand and arimnaes on Salubrious (although bertrand didn't make arimnaes unvote first, I don't know if that counts or not).
OK. So at least you admit there's a slight possibiliy. But what makes you so 99+% sure? I do admit your conclusions are not totally rediculous. What seems so farfetched to me is that you seem so 100% convenced that I'm scum, when it is very obvious that your whole case against me is based upon your own speculation.
Never thought of that...
_______________________________
[L1 Judge|Add me to your ignore list]
|Molten Sentry count - 1002 (34*)|
I am not voting him because I think he is being stupid and irrational, not that he is scum. He may very well be, but I honestly think our chances are better with Salubrious...
_______________________________
[L1 Judge|Add me to your ignore list]
|Molten Sentry count - 1002 (34*)|
By kingcobweb and Goblinboy.
Official Elitist of [thread=40859][RBS][/thread]
A whole lot of "nothing" from your end, baseless accusations against me...
"I'll do it tomorrow" seems to be in every one of your posts this game.
I don't like the way Bertrand was so hasty about voting for you, though.
On the off-chance that neither he nor you are scum, he just basically lost the game for the town if that is the case.
However, I think it is safe to say that one or both of you are scum, since there are two votes on you out of five for teh lynch.
Thoughts, people?
I'm done reiterating this. I've laid out the information as clearly as I can without fear of modquoting. Flavor information != speculation.
(as an aside, putting things in bold doesn't make it true, either)
Uh huh.
We'll be waiting.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
That's a moot point...
You are speculating about the meaning of your flavor.
QUOTE=Disrupt_Your_Hymn;1714731](as an aside, putting things in bold doesn't make it true, either)
[/QUOTE]
No, but it makes them bold
_______________________________
[L1 Judge|Add me to your ignore list]
|Molten Sentry count - 1002 (34*)|
OK, the problem with the fact that everyone's afraid to vote in this situation is that there's no count to put pressure on anyone.
I'm starting a "pseudovote" count. Please pseudovote (no bolding) whoever you would currently be voting for if you were able, and I'll do a count and we can see where opinion is. I want all 8 of us to participate in this.
I pseudovote DYH, obviously.
arimnaes does the same.
_______________________________
[L1 Judge|Add me to your ignore list]
|Molten Sentry count - 1002 (34*)|
BTW (I keep thinking of these randomly), another argument in favor of me being doc is when I suspected Sutherlands for claiming it. Remember?
_______________________________
[L1 Judge|Add me to your ignore list]
|Molten Sentry count - 1002 (34*)|
_______________________________
[L1 Judge|Add me to your ignore list]
|Molten Sentry count - 1002 (34*)|
3CB and 4CB5CB!The most usual thing for a neutral survivor role is that they win as long as they're alive when either the mafia or the town win. The mafia usually need to reach 50% of the population to win (the only time I remember that not being the case is WDM2). I am willing to bet quite a lot that the above are in fact the case here.
I will still go ahead with the double if the town really really wants me to, but I'm arguing strongly against it for now. It seems to me like a likely loss for the town to use it on DYH/bertrand, and I really want to get two mafia with it to turn the game.
Pseudovote count:
DYH (1): Raf
Salubrious (2): Chimp, bertrand (I have the luxury of letting arimnaes give his own opinion!)
bertrand (1): Fayul
bertrand: Actually, that's a decent argument in your favour. Could you link us where you did that?