|
|
Post by SalTal on Mar 12, 2012 5:05:09 GMT -4
2.) 5 scum Sally? That is ridiculously large for a game this size, especially if we have a recruiter. If we have a recruiter, the game would be over in a day or two if we started with five scum. Your theory also falls apart on people being doused as a sign of innocence if the arsonist works alone. Basically you have a lot of words for a deeply flawed post which I'm never keen on. I'm not above criticism, and I'm not ever going to say that I'm a perfect player. But I'll address it as best I can. I clearly stated that the first half of the posts exists because I wasn't around to actually address them one-by-one as they came out. As for the wordiness of it all ... well, that's just my style. Everyone knows that. When I'm writing short, that's when I'm not being myself haha and you should suspect something. I don't think wordiness is a sufficient reason to accuse someone of being scum, either. But I did point at you being scum, and you in your post wrote the most about my 'flawed' theory than anything else. On the same reasoning, I should be suspicious of you, yes? But I don't accept that that's a legit reason, so here's the reasons why I do suspect you. You're active, but not overly active. You contribute, but you don't give us anything complete. And you say stuff, but it's the sort of stuff that is neither provable or disprovable. You're also a replacement. This is extremely speculative, and really with no serious founding at all and the main point that you'll criticise me on. Now I know that you signed up to be a replacement, and you're only fulfilling the rules that Noble laid out, but you were so quick to be subbed in, and there was no real info about that. No discussion or anything. Just to me - and I doubt anyone is going to believe this, and I don't blame them for ignoring this either - but I'm attaching this to the importance of the role that you've now got, and I'm saying that's a scum role. But look at the more blatant evidence: You reacted in a big way when I've said you're scum. Now yes, 5 is a lot. But we were previously working on the notion that there's 4. 4 was s reasonable number. Now we learned there's a converter. They have converted someone - taking it t 5. That's the logical development on our beliefs. Seriously. We said there was likely 4. Someone got converted. That makes 5. But I'm happy to concede that there were originally 3 and now there is 4 after the conversation. That would mean one of those last 3 that I identified (Rebel, you Atkens, Bailey) are not likely not scum. And because I'm far less sure about these 3 then CJ and Kaji being a threat/scum I didn't make the case for any of them, nor did I throw a vote on them. You voted for Bailey, which was fine and all and went against the push for Callahan. That's pretty town to me (on the surface), and might mean you're the one-less-townie in that scenario. Do I *know* it's not a third party? Of course not! How could I know that!? But look at the colours: Even if it *is* a third party, they are red and the red is bad for us town people. They need to be lynched either way - third party or not. And further reliance on the write-up, it seems that the red are scum. That is, they instigated the 'graveyard hit' and they have converted a town to them. The people who wanted to kill Bacon/Cole Phelps are the same people who converted someone. If they wanted to kill Bacon, and Bacon has turned up town, then they are a threat. I'm saying that CJ and now Kaji are part of the threat - scum or third party (with me thinking scum). |
|
|
|
Post by SalTal on Mar 12, 2012 5:08:40 GMT -4
Could I also point out - because I want to separate this point from my vote/explanation - that one of the characters in the colour write-up was a doctor - Dr. Harlan Fontaine.
One of these visits wherein a person has visited a person without any perceivable effect may well be a mafia doctor protecting a scum player.
It's entirely possible that the scum doctor can protect from investigations, blockings, and killing - not just killing. Actually, it makes more sense that hey protect from investigations and blockings because unless we have a vigilante we townies can't even kill at night.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil Atken on Mar 12, 2012 5:30:28 GMT -4
I'm not attacking Sally, I'm trying to point out to you that the mafia and the arsonist are more likely than not completely separate entities. I said your logic was flawed to assume doused people must be innocent, that is all.
|
|
|
|
Post by SalTal on Mar 12, 2012 5:34:12 GMT -4
Right, I get what you're saying more clearly now. However, as there have been no night kills and because of the fact that the primary role blocker to come forward (Knuckles) has been blocking Jeff and my belief that Jeff is town means that there doesn't seem to be a legitimate reason as to why there haven't been night kills.
I know that I'm not accounting for that they might be multiple role blockers, and that there might be more circumstances that prevent a night kill, but this is a logical development to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil Atken on Mar 12, 2012 5:38:39 GMT -4
Unless the mafias win condition is to recruit to more than 50% of the town? Which I why I said I felt 5 was too high.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil Atken on Mar 12, 2012 5:39:05 GMT -4
As in instead of killing, the mafia is really a cult. Just to be clear
|
|
|
|
Post by SalTal on Mar 12, 2012 5:47:05 GMT -4
Unless the mafias win condition is to recruit to more than 50% of the town? Which I why I said I felt 5 was too high. As in instead of killing, the mafia is really a cult. Just to be clear That would still make them a threat though, right? That we should kill the recruiter if they need to get 50%? I'm seeing where you're coming from - that a recruiter was role blocked the first night which prevented a recruiting. But there was clearly a death attempt on Bacon. I'm starting the see that the third party theory is becoming more viable. The write-up sort of lends itself to that; there's nothing that indicates an arsonist, but there is stuff to indicate potential night kills. Is there a viability to the notion that they can night kill *or* recruit? Or that they could sacrifice a night-kill to recruit? Yeah, I'm throwing out all sorts of questions that we aren't able to really answer just yet. But the more we talk about this, the more we might be able to make sense of all this botch-potch information that we have. |
|
|
|
Post by Phil Atken on Mar 12, 2012 5:55:59 GMT -4
My understanding of cults in mafia are that they are non-killing. Their win condition is normally to become 50%+1 of the town through recruiting. We should certainly look to lynch anyone we suspect as a recruiter or recruitee as they are damaging to the town's win condition.
The arsonist thing is clearly due to people being doused. To be honest if their doused, my understanding of the arsonist role is these two guys are pretty much death marked at the moment.
I would say a mafia that can kill and recruit together would make this a very difficult game for the town which is why my line of though is right now we have:
3 Mafia - 1 GF, 1 Recruiter, 1 Recruitee
1 Arsonist - Third Party
|
|
|
|
Post by SalTal on Mar 12, 2012 6:10:02 GMT -4
3 Mafia - 1 GF, 1 Recruiter, 1 Recruitee 1 Arsonist - Third Party I'm not doubting you, because you're theory here is reasoned and logical. Working on these numbers, a recruiting mafia would need to be role blocked overnight to prevent a recruitment, and unsuccessfully blocked to allow a recruitment. On this, the first night would have been unsuccessful and the recruiter/s were blocked. We know that Knuckles blocked Jeff both nights, but there was a successful recruitment the second night. Jeff has also hinted that he has investigative abilities but will turn up as scum. To me, this is an insane cop, yes? If we have any other blockers (besides Knuckles), they were successful night one and unsuccessful night two. Those people should be pushing for some lynches here in this situation. Those visits would come up if watchers were on the ball, and information was being passed around correctly. Kaji has indicated that there is someone who can drop key information to players about visits and the like. TMarv has information about visits too. Night One - We know that Farq visits Level-One to no obvious effect. Night Two - We know that CJ visits Kaji to no obvious effect. - Blade has confessed to visiting Kaji too to no obvious effect, but has not indicated at all that it was for scum motives. - I have fessed up to visiting Callahan, and I can promise you it was for town motives however my only information of his allignment will come if I am investigated tonight. I'm too lazy to go over all the posts all over again to find out what everyone has actually said about visits again, but these are on my minds. It's those visits that have no obvious effects that have me worried, and I still can't account for the CJ/Kaji one in the slightest. Farq is doused, so he'll die anyway. If he's a scum trying to recruit, he's going to die soon too. So really, what I've put forward with regards to CJ can apply still to him and Kaji. Not to say your theory was wrong, but that some of the stuff I'm saying still applies to the way you're approaching your theory too. |
|
|
|
Post by President Jeff on Mar 12, 2012 6:20:11 GMT -4
Sally, your so smart  |
|
|
|
Post by Blade on Mar 12, 2012 6:33:00 GMT -4
Why would Kaji be told CJ visited him, but not me?
I call Shenanigans
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil Atken on Mar 12, 2012 6:46:38 GMT -4
Jeff: If you are an insane cop, you will appear guilty to yourself because insane cops results are flipped. You will not appear guilty to someone else investigating you if they are a sane cop.
Sally: Add to the N1 actions that I visited Callahan and discovered him to be a paranoid cop. (No I am not a rolecop in case anyone is wondering)
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil Atken on Mar 12, 2012 6:46:54 GMT -4
Also that is odd Blade
|
|
|
|
Post by Blade on Mar 12, 2012 7:06:53 GMT -4
Sally: Add to the N1 actions that I visited Callahan and discovered him to be a paranoid cop. (No I am not a rolecop in case anyone is wondering) No you didn't. Same scenario as Knuckles. The result you got was on President Jeff not Callahan |
|
|
|
Post by Phil Atken on Mar 12, 2012 7:10:22 GMT -4
Wait, I missed something.
What happened?
|
|
|
|
Post by SalTal on Mar 12, 2012 7:11:36 GMT -4
So Knuckles blocks Jeff, but blocks someone else N1.
Then again N2.
Atken investigates Callahan N1 and gets Jeff?
|
|
|
|
Post by Blade on Mar 12, 2012 7:12:02 GMT -4
Wait, I missed something. What happened? Not gonna say. However, If you used your action N1 on Callahan, the subsequent result would be of President Jeff. Which is also how I know Knuckles Roleblocked Callahan and not Jeff |
|
|
|
Post by Phil Atken on Mar 12, 2012 7:12:55 GMT -4
Blade is saying Jeff and Callahan were bus driven I would assume.
Which would mean Knuckles blocked Callahan night 1.
Where the mafia didn't get a recruitee...
|
|
|
|
Post by Blade on Mar 12, 2012 7:13:29 GMT -4
So Knuckles blocks Jeff, but blocks someone else N1. Correct, he blocks Callahan Correct, he successfully blocks jeff Correct |
|
|
|
Post by Phil Atken on Mar 12, 2012 7:14:38 GMT -4
Alright, there goes my reason for not voting Callahan.
vote: Callahan
|
|
|
|
Post by SalTal on Mar 12, 2012 7:16:25 GMT -4
Wait, I missed something. What happened? Not gonna say. However, If you used your action N1 on Callahan, the subsequent result would be of President Jeff. Which is also how I know Knuckles Roleblocked Callahan and not Jeff Would I be correct in assuming that this would make Jeff the paranoid cop that someone got on Callahan? |
|
|
|
Post by Phil Atken on Mar 12, 2012 7:17:22 GMT -4
Yeah, that would mean Jeff would be paranoid. Which again would lead to a guilty result is he investigates himself because paranoid cops always return guilty
|
|
|
|
Post by SalTal on Mar 12, 2012 7:17:46 GMT -4
EWOP
It seems to be a pretty clear-cut case now.
Unvote: CJ Gates
Vote: Callahan
My apologies, everyone, for not only defending him through these past days but also for night actioning him last night. Not doing that may well have saved us a lot of headaches.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blade on Mar 12, 2012 7:18:36 GMT -4
Would I be correct in assuming that this would make Jeff the paranoid cop that someone got on Callahan? Correct Which would make me change my vote back to Callahan Unvote: Vote Callahanbut leaves me with a HUGE FoS on Kaji |
|
|
|
Post by SalTal on Mar 12, 2012 7:21:43 GMT -4
but leaves me with a HUGE FoS on Kaji |
|
|
|
Post by SalTal on Mar 12, 2012 7:36:28 GMT -4
We're at 5 (Knuckles, Rebel, Atken, Blade, Sally) and need 8 yeah?
Only Level-One has voted from someone else (Jeff).
|
|
|
|
Post by Blade on Mar 12, 2012 7:46:22 GMT -4
Day 3 will end at 5 PM EST on March 13th
Plenty of time though Sally, plenty of time.
Certain people have said they will wait to hear from others before they vote, so they will either wait until deadline and hammer, or will not vote. Either way I believe we will have a successful lynch today
|
|
|
|
Post by SalTal on Mar 12, 2012 7:48:57 GMT -4
Plenty of time though Sally, plenty of time. Haha, call me eager because this might just be the first time I've been part of a successful investigation like this. |
|
|
|
Post by Kurt on Mar 12, 2012 7:50:36 GMT -4
Vote Count:
Callahan - 5 ( Knuckles, Rebel, Atken, Sally, Blade)
Jeff – 1 (L1)
Not Voting: Callahan, Jeff, Farquhar, JamesV, Tmarv, Bailey, CJ, Kaji
Day 3 will end at 5 PM EST on March 13th (33 hours). With 14 alive, you need 8 votes for a lynch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Jennings on Mar 12, 2012 10:32:29 GMT -4
Vote: Callahan
Now that the confusion phase is over I think it's obvious who the scum is in this scenario and who should be looked at tonight given what has gone down this day phase.
|
|
