Felt vs. MC: Mafia Day 2 Thread

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by Giraffe

You are defending Romanic far more strongly than I'd expect a normal Town player to do. He's not a normal Mason, he's the role he claimed. So talking about the value Masons have in other games is inaccurate and obfuscatory at best.

I'm defending a potential Town Mason. I could be wrong about his alignment but I can't justify a vote on a claimed Town until it's clear they are not it. I could be defending moody because of his claimed doc role just as easy; the difference is that Romanic has "Miller" in his PM and that really bugs me.

Could you answer my questions about the value you see in Romanic's actual claimed role to Town? I don't see any, but you obviously do.

His value is no more than any other Mason, and obviously we can't call it that way in this game. Understandably, we don't know his true alignment but the practical thing is to side with the claim until reasons against them surface.

Until then, I'm going to operate on the theory that you two are scum buddies and you're trying to help him get out of the corner he's painted himself into with his role claim.

vote Zeener Diode from Day 7

I can't help you with that. You vote how you will. If my argument against a knee-jerk reactive vote on a claimed Miller (who is also a Mason) won't convince you of my reason NOT to vote, then there's not much more I can offer.

[Romanic]

Originally Posted by Giraffe

In more general terms, the peeker role reveal is very interesting. There may be other players who have had or will have the opportunity to pick a side. Perhaps this is the purpose of Romanic's one way communication with Idle? He gets to feed him info on how to set their alignment? He gets to choose their alignment and tell it to Idle?

I just can't shake the feeling that the least likely explanation for those two is them both being Town. Something's up with that situation there.

I don't understand this.

If the purpose of my ability was to talk privately with Idle about alignment changes, I would've told him about it, since I can PM him. Do you think that I would keep this from him on Day 1? That would be stupid.

Also, we would have played it differently. I mean, if I am someone who can changes sides, and Idle's along the way, would it make more sense to claim simple mason rather than mason/miller aka Mister Suspect-Me? After all, that Mason/Miller claim would be fake.

Anyway, two masons changing sides doesn't make sense. Shifting the balance, two at a time, could be game breaking. You didn't think this through.

[Romanic]

Originally Posted by Idle Thoughts

I got a PM that says:
Title: During the Night

I'm going to assume this means I was tried to be Night killed (unless I get this message every Night)

I'm siding with Idle on this. I think it's likely that someone tried to kill him, as Clover is a very lucky person. The wiki even mentions this:

Most likely named for the four-leaf variety of that plant and his Leprechaun-like personality and stature.
Clover is extremely superstitious, getting very worked up when Spades Slick attempts to destroy THE FELT vault with the Crowbar. His skills include amazing luck, as well as (apparently) the power of flight. His luck apparently makes him very difficult to actually harm (he states that a gun pointed at him would probably just jam), although this hasn't been visibly tested.
[...]

(source: http://mspaintadventures.wikia.com/wiki/The_Felt)

Knowing this, and reading the PM Idle received, makes it very likely that someone tried to harm him.

[Romanic]

Originally Posted by Hypnagogic Bonafide

Slick[/b] (Third Party Undecided/Town Vig/Scum Roleblocker), is DEAD

[...]

**An undecided player is a player who can choose their allegiance in some manner or mechanism. Bullseye, from Story's Civil War game, is the only other instance I remember of that role (and I think peeker played him too. How odd.)

A Town vigilante vs a Scum Roleblocker would be a big shift in the game, so I would be surprised if peeker could make the decision himself.

Jsexton points, as per your wiki:

Scum roleblocker 6.5
Town vigilante 2.5

So peeker, with freedom of choice, could unbalance the game quickly with a +/- 9, for the chosen side, and he could crash the game hard if he was to wait for the result of the first kills, before making his decision. For example, if 3 Town dies on D1/N1, he would be well advised to side with the Scum, leading to an easy win, most probably.

So I'm inclined to believe that peeker's choice was restricted in some way. Maybe his faction would be decided based on who dies early, to balance the game at some point, some sleeper role.

HB mentioned another Undecided role in the OP:

Bullseye, from Story's Civil War game

I can't find a game called "Civil War" here, or on Idle Mafia (and I didn't bother looking on the Dope), but I'd like to see how this role worked, if someone can provide a link.

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Zeener Diode

I'm defending a potential Town Mason. I could be wrong about his alignment but I can't justify a vote on a claimed Town until it's clear they are not it.

Every single player is a claimed Town, that means nothing. The difference is that Romanic has claimed a power which is confusing and holds no obvious value for Town, and is now the one person who can't be investigated.

Originally Posted by Romanic

Anyway, two masons changing sides doesn't make sense. Shifting the balance, two at a time, could be game breaking. You didn't think this through.

Yes, you're right. That's a good point.

[Total Ulla]

Originally Posted by Romanic

(Post #212, Day 1)

I'm still pinged by this from Ulla. It doesn't feel natural to assume that moody mitchy was joking when he said that Idle was suspicious for not claiming.

Mitchy's original statement on this was (Day 1, #75):

No hint that he was joking, yet Ulla picks it as a joke, and I'm not sure that I buy her explanation that it was because she "felt the logic was so off".

I think it makes more sense to question someone, if you feel his stuff is BS, than assume he was joking.

You're missing an important point here. Mitch never voted for Idle.

I called the votes total BS - that would be the votes on Idle. Mitch never placed one.

As far as reading the statement tongue-in-cheek I saw that two other players stated they did as well. Maybe part of it is the use of the word "dodgy" and the fact that I know Moody very well (also outside mafia-games) and also he use of that word when he jokes.

Anyway - that's how I read it and I was confirmed (or so I thought at first) when he did vote for Idle.

Before I forget:
Bank Day 2 vote to the future or if I have to have a Day to Day 3
I don't want to see my vote going to waste. Most likely I'll unvote and vote later toDay. This is just to be on the safe side.

[Total Ulla]

The balance-thing and choosing wincons is confusing to me.

As Romanic shows a vig has no were near the same value as a scum roleblocker. A basic scum is 4.5 and I recall a town cop is 3 and a town doc is 4 (and that's some of the most valuable roles for town).

As for Romola's idea about them changing sides all the time, I am not so sure how that would work out. I often use a role called Scum Investigator where the player is a "hidden" scum going along and investigating other players. As soon as (s)he finds a scum they will be allowed to join the scum board. But to have a scum-peeker joining the scum board one evening and then becoming a Town vig the next would be seriously game-breaking.

Assuming we have more undecided in the game maybe they would start as undecided and then when one chose a side, the other would be offered the other side. Makes my head spin because I've tried to work it out so many times when setting up games and always been unable to make it work AND be balanced AND be a fun role to play.

Regarding Idle being lucky. I agree it's most likely a killing attempt of some kind - but I guess it could also be some sort of tagging going on. Didn't Mlerose just win the Dr. Seuss game that way?

[Total Ulla]

And just a heads up:
I am not going away - but RL might keep me away for my computer over the next couple of days.

[peekercpa]

Originally Posted by Romanic

I can't find a game called "Civil War" here, or on Idle Mafia (and I didn't bother looking on the Dope), but I'd like to see how this role worked, if someone can provide a link.

here ya gooooo. whoooooo.

http://idlemafia.com/index.cgi?board=island

this one, sorry story, also had the most hosed up voting mechanism to end the Day of any i have ever seen.

[BillMc]

Originally Posted by Romanic

I felt used yesterDay when I saw that Red was a Town, because I made the first case on him, and people followed behind, ultimately lynching a pro-Town role.

Scums would definitely know that he wasn't lying, and would jump at the opportunity to lynch a claimed tracker, if Townies are heading this way.

That's a nice smudge.

Originally Posted by Romanic

Breaking the tie, but also using a future vote to make it 5-3. I am wondering why you chose to do this, instead of making it 4-3?

I think the extra vote is superfluous, you could have waited to see what other players would do.

It was not a tie - it may have been 3 votes a piece, but Red's action had put a claimed Doc in the lynch spot. Lynching the doc would be dumb - and without a doc, any claimed investigisator would be dead that night. So had we let Mitchy get lynched, Red would have probably still ended up dead this morning.

If folks disagreed with my action - they still had time to cast their own multivotes to change the lynchee - but no one did. So anyone casting suspicion over the lynch, but did nothing about it, looks damn suspicious to me.

[BillMc]

Originally Posted by Zeener Diode

I'd like to get a consensus of all players on the Miller-is-Mason issue: if Romanic were simply a Miller there would be no hesitation to lynch. Town sees Miller as possible Scum trying to cover their true alignment, and a pro-Town Miller would understand the conundrum and voluntarily vote to lynch themselves.
But a Mason who is a Miller is a different story. Masons have value in the endgame and vote in a bloc, offsetting a potential Scum bloc vote. So far, we know of Romanic and Idle as probable Masons. Should Romanic die it would prove or disprove Idle's alignment. Is the risk of losing a Town, a Mason, worth the validation of another Town?

Now let's look at this game: we have the ability to vote like Masons ourselves, each Day, through banking or place-holding our past and future votes. The risk is only that we stay alive in order to follow through. The downside is that if we're wrong (by banking votes when we ought to vote), we'll pay a heavy price by allowing Scum to roam or lynching Town.

They key point is that Idle has NOT claimed mason - ie, we do not have a confirmed masonary that can vote as a group. We have an unconfirmed claim from Romanic - nothing more than that. An unconfirmed Masonary of ONE has no value. So I find it somewhat surprising that you are pushing so hard on this one man unconfirmed masonary having real value to the town.

[BillMc]

Originally Posted by Total Ulla

And just a heads up:
I am not going away - but RL might keep me away for my computer over the next couple of days.

I'll also have limited access till Tuesday

[Trepa Mayfield]

3 days, 11 hours and 12 minutes until the end of Day 2.

Vote Count:

Zeener Diode (1): Giraffe [Day 7]
Zuma (1): Idle Thoughts [Day 2 Post 20]
Romanic (1): Giraffe [Day 2 Post 25]
Placeholder (2): Idle Thoughts [Day 1], BobArrgh [Day 2 Post 50]

Voting in the Future: Total Ulla [Day 3]

Voting in the Past: None

Voting from the Future: None

Voting from the Past: Idle Thoughts [Day 1]

With these votes Romanic will be lynched.

Originally Posted by Romanic

HB mentioned another Undecided role in the OP:

I can't find a game called "Civil War" here, or on Idle Mafia (and I didn't bother looking on the Dope), but I'd like to see how this role worked, if someone can provide a link.

Since I mentioned it, I should probably explain.

Bullseye, from Marvel Civil War, could kill any one player, and take that player's win condition. (And I was right, it was peekercpa who played Bullseye)

[moody mitchy]

I was starting to get a little concerned that no one had voiced an opinion on my view that this might be an all power set up... But then I saw the light and realised that any player who said they thought it might be... could be seen as saying they had a power... therefore whacking a target on their back... and if a player said they didn't think so... then to me that would be a "soft claim" of vanilla... though I do still think it's a possibility.

I'm starting to get behind the idea of a Romanic lynch because at least then if he's being honest we at least then have a confirmed TOWN and iif lying... we could well have 2 SCUM...

I'm hoping for a bit more discussion before then and I'm still trying to decide if Zeener Diodes comment about if you have knowledge that can help TOWN... then get it out as soon as possible.. was just that, a comment.

Zeener Diode you say in the last game you regret not giving that information out... you intimate that you were going to reveal it 1st thing in the Day... any reaon why you couldn't have put it out there late into the Night..

It's just that I feel that that'd be a better way to do it

[BillMc]

On the subject of Peeker

Originally Posted by Hypnagogic Bonafide

Slick[/b] (Third Party Undecided/Town Vig/Scum Roleblocker), is DEAD

**An undecided player is a player who can choose their allegiance in some manner or mechanism.

First, back to the sign up thread ...for the 3rd time

Originally Posted by Hypnagogic Bonafide

No post restrictions, no recruitment*. However, there will be a litany of strange roles, and a weird voting system (both of which I have sort of become known for). Full details in the rules.

*There is no player who can directly change another player's alignment.

So no one could have directly changed Peeker's alignment, that does preclude Peeker having free choice -- or his alignment being changed by indirect action - such as he would flip one way or another depending on some event in the game.

Peeker also doesnt appear to have voted on day 1 - which would be unusual for Peeker -- so this may suggest that his alignment may be set based on how he voted, or who got lynched.

With 15 players and no PFK's, we'd expect 3-4 scum. With Peeker potentially becoming scum, then there couldnt already be 4 scum to start with or it would be hugely imbalanced with 5 scum.

Similarly, there is nothing that says Peeker had not already made his choice; nor that he didnt have access to both vig/blocker powers as undecided. We can't rule out the possibility that Peeker vig'd Ed. Nor the possibility that he may have also been remorseful - so the fact that he killed town he also died.

And nothing to say there arent other folk who may have indeterminate alignment.

Idle's "????" role may be an indication that he has yet to gain a power based on some game event/action.

I cant see a compelling reason to lynch Romanic today, but I'm still suspicious of Zeener for trying to get us to blindly trust ROmanic

Anyways, I may not get a chance to be back before day end so

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by moody mitchy

I'm hoping for a bit more discussion before then and I'm still trying to decide if Zeener Diodes comment about if you have knowledge that can help TOWN... then get it out as soon as possible.. was just that, a comment.

Zeener Diode you say in the last game you regret not giving that information out... you intimate that you were going to reveal it 1st thing in the Day... any reaon why you couldn't have put it out there late into the Night..

It's just that I feel that that'd be a better way to do it

I could not share at Night because the rules forbade discussing strategy at Night. If I was smarter I might be able to breadcrumb my information, but who looks at Night threads for that kind of info? I don't.

Originally Posted by BillMc

I cant see a compelling reason to lynch Romanic today, but I'm still suspicious of Zeener for trying to get us to blindly trust ROmanic

As if I could convince anyone to blindly trust anyone else... What I'm saying is that Masons have a value to Town, and Millers don't. I am conflicted in deciding whether to lynch Miller Romanic or save Mason Romanic. And this is all speculative since we don't have confirmation of his role, except from Idle, which is tenuous at best.

[Romanic]

Originally Posted by BillMc

It was not a tie - it may have been 3 votes a piece, but Red's action had put a claimed Doc in the lynch spot. Lynching the doc would be dumb - and without a doc, any claimed investigisator would be dead that night. So had we let Mitchy get lynched, Red would have probably still ended up dead this morning.

If folks disagreed with my action - they still had time to cast their own multivotes to change the lynchee - but no one did. So anyone casting suspicion over the lynch, but did nothing about it, looks damn suspicious to me.

I disagree with you. Opinions change based on new knowledge we get. It is right to question people who lynched a pro-Town role, just like it is right to draw conclusions from a Scum being lynched. You might be biased here because you're one who voted Red.

Thus, go ahead and disapprove but it won't stop me from saying that a Scum was on that wagon, meaning I think Ulla, mitchy or you, is Scum, maybe even more than one.

[Romanic]

@Bill :

Why are you voting for zuma and Ulla?

[BobArrgh]

@Zeener: A pair of Masons might have value to Town, but Idle's a Mason. I'm not sure I see a whole lot of value in the current Miller/Mason situation.

[Total Ulla]

Right, I don't have much time right now - but I'd rather have a vote down now in case I don't make it back to the game before Day End.

I'd like to hear what made me deserve a vote from Bill and what the logic is behind voting two different players at once.

I still think there were scum in the Idle-voters yesterDay. In fact I'm pretty sure there must have been. The case was IMO weak and easy to jump on.
So based on the timing of his vote yesterDay I'm going to vote Lucifer.

Unvote that delayed vote I have on record

Vote Lucifer

[Total Ulla]

And to have this on record I'm not comfortable with a policy-lynch on Romanic toDay.

I'd much sooner go for a lynch-the-lurker.

[moody mitchy]

Originally Posted by Total Ulla

And to have this on record I'm not comfortable with a policy-lynch on Romanic toDay.

I'd much sooner go for a lynch-the-lurker.

So are you calling Lucifer for lurking... or for having voted Idle Thoughts or both...

Why not Zuma he's not popped in yet toDay... but that would make it 3rd vote wouldn't it and we all know what that means (75/25 JOKE)

[moody mitchy]

And yes Zeener Diode I do get you point that revealing results of a track/investigation.... last minute in a Night thread when stratergy isn't allowed would be looked upon more seriously than a couple of Masons claiming...

[severe delays]

Evening all. Romola has asked me to let you know that she isn't able to play at the moment. She's currently stuck on a train which has been halted in the middle of nowhere by a suicide. By the looks of things she's going to be there for a long time so she asks that you please excuse her from voting/commenting for the time being.

[SisterCoyote]

Originally Posted by Zeener Diode

I could not share at Night because the rules forbade discussing strategy at Night. If I was smarter I might be able to breadcrumb my information, but who looks at Night threads for that kind of info? I don't.

Actually, if you'd re-read the rules, reveals of one's own Night Action results were permissible.


The only confirmation we have from Idle is that a) he received messages from Romanic and b) he knows Romanic's name matches his claim.

I'm still not sure who to vote, at this point.

[BobArrgh]

Originally Posted by BillMc

Similarly, there is nothing that says Peeker had not already made his choice; nor that he didnt have access to both vig/blocker powers as undecided. We can't rule out the possibility that Peeker vig'd Ed. Nor the possibility that he may have also been remorseful - so the fact that he killed town he also died.

I've been trying to work out the mechanics of peeker's role as well as Ed's, and I think that Bill might be on to something with regards to peeker. Sorry if this seems rather obvious to most of you.

First off, how does a "mass roleblocker" work? (I know, I know, it's mod-dependent, but I guess I'm asking for generalizations here). Does the mass roleblocker block all actions at Night (blocking both Town and Scum), or does it just block the actions of a targeted team (such as Scum).

I'm assuming that Ed would have used his power last Night (unless it was a one-time power). So, if Ed had blocked everybody in the game, then there should not have been any deaths last Night. However, there were two deaths and another possible attempt on Idle (with regards to the "You feel lucky today ..." PM).

A) Ed did not use his power last Night, allowing any kills/actions to go through.

B) Ed used his power last Night but it was directed only at the Scum.

C) Using Opal as a placeholder on Day 2.

If (A), then one or both of the deaths were probably by the Scum. (And also the attempt on Idle, if that's what it was.)

If (B), then the Scum were blocked in all their attempts to kill anyone.

Now, on to peeker's alignment. At first, I was inclined to think that peeker had not yet decided his alignment (or, more probably, the necessary pre-requisite conditions in the game had not been met). The reason I thought this was based on his name/role reveal being in purple, blue, and red. I thought that this indicated that he had not become aligned.

The problem is, I kept trying to find ways to support this argument, but the deeper I dug, the closer I came to the conclusion that I think Bill is right, and that peeker was a remorseful Vig at the time he died.

Now, according to the MS Paint Adventures wiki, Spades Slick has the ability to "change his sprite", effectively flipping it from one direction to another. This could imply that peeker's alignment was not permanent, but as somebody pointed out up-thread, it would severely break the game if he could collaborate with his Scum Buddies on one night and then start picking them off.

Thus, if peeker's role was fluid, then he probably had to tell the mod what alignment he was going to have for that Night and the next Day, thus allowing Rule #14 to be true (no player has a 3rd-party wincon). If he had chosen to be Scum for that cycle, then he probably would not get access to the scum boards, but he could have used his roleblocking to block likely Town targets.

We already have an example of a one-way communication in this game from Romanic to Idle. If peeker had chosen to align himself as Scum, then the moderator could have acted as a go-between for the Scum and peeker. The Scum wouldn't have to know his identity, but they could have been told that they now had another Scumtard that they could pass a target to via the moderator.

[Giraffe]

I'm feeling more and more sure that Romanic is scum, or at least someone who has or could have a scum win condition. While no one wants to be lynched, I get a vibe from his posts that he cares about his own survival far more than a Town victory. A Town player with his role should not be averse to the idea of his lynch, if for no other reason than to confirm Idle as Town, but his posts toDay read like someone trying to keep their head down, look studiously Townie, and probe for traction to lynch someone else. He's a scum in survival mode at this point, IMO.

Originally Posted by Romanic

I felt used yesterDay when I saw that Red was a Town, because I made the first case on him, and people followed behind, ultimately lynching a pro-Town role.

Scums would definitely know that he wasn't lying, and would jump at the opportunity to lynch a claimed tracker, if Townies are heading this way.

@Bill:

Breaking the tie, but also using a future vote to make it 5-3. I am wondering why you chose to do this, instead of making it 4-3?

I think the extra vote is superfluous, you could have waited to see what other players would do.

So I think we lynch him toDay. If he flips Town, we know Idle is Town. Valuable, since his luck power might make him hard for scum to kill (and might waste some of their night kills trying), and he may have other powers to be revealed. If he flips scum, Idle is more of a mystery, but I'm definitely voting for Zeener the Day after that on account of his defense. Town gains either way, IMO.

[Zeener Diode]

(From the Dr Seuss thread.)

Originally Posted by SisterCoyote

[*]Strategy at Night will be limited to reveals of roles, powers, or discussion of Night actions.

I missed that part. But that still wouldn't help me if I didn't know I'm dead until Dawn

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by BobArrgh

@Zeener: A pair of Masons might have value to Town, but Idle's a Mason. I'm not sure I see a whole lot of value in the current Miller/Mason situation.

I'm hoping there is another Mason as yet unrevealed, if Masons are to take part in the game. A Romanic lynch, and death of Idle will leave us without the benefit of Masons.

Maybe I'm putting too much emphasis on Masons, but I feel that if they are in this game they have a reason, otherwise HP could use the players for a different purpose (say, a Bodyguard or Inventor... which isn't to say that he hasn't).

[Romanic]

You're funny Giraffe, I destroyed your arguments that I could be a faction changer, affecting Idle's alignment too, yet you come back at me with other (poor) arguments instead of backing off. It just seems like you want me lynched, and it could be because I am an easy target.

How does a Mason/Miller claim, which is so destructive, fits in your thinking that I must be Scum?
If I am indeed Scum, why would I not claim simple Mason?

As for your argument:

A Town player with his role should not be averse to the idea of his lynch, if for no other reason than to confirm Idle as Town,

Wrong. Did you think about this?

As a Townie, you are saying that I should agree to my lynch, to confirm Idle's alignment. Let's see.

D2 : Lynch Romanic (mislynch, -1 Town)
N2 : 1-3 kills (if we assume the same as N1). I'd expect 1-2 Townies to die.
D3 : *if Idle is still alive, you know he's telling the truth*

How do you figure that, as a Townie, I should agree that my death, resulting in a 2-3 Town dying, with probably no Scum caught (unless we have a vig), would be worth confirming Idle Thought's alignment if he is still alive.

Clearly there's something wrong with your thinking.

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Romanic

You're funny Giraffe, I destroyed your arguments that I could be a faction changer, affecting Idle's alignment too, yet you come back at me with other (poor) arguments instead of backing off. It just seems like you want me lynched, and it could be because I am an easy target.

Yes, you made good points against a hypothesis I floated which I agreed with. So, I guess you can't be scum, right?

Originally Posted by Romanic

How does a Mason/Miller claim, which is so destructive, fits in your thinking that I must be Scum?
If I am indeed Scum, why would I not claim simple Mason?

Because Idle would contradict such a claim, obviously.

My thinking is that you are something quite like the power you say you are, since we know you can contact Idle, and I agree with the argument that if you were both scum, you'd have probably never made up something so unwieldy. It's your alignment I'm having a very hard time believing.

As a Townie, you are saying that I should agree to my lynch, to confirm Idle's alignment. Let's see.

D2 : Lynch Romanic (mislynch, -1 Town)
N2 : 1-3 kills (if we assume the same as N1). I'd expect 1-2 Townies to die.
D3 : *if Idle is still alive, you know he's telling the truth*

How do you figure that, as a Townie, I should agree that my death, resulting in a 2-3 Town dying, with probably no Scum caught (unless we have a vig), would be worth confirming Idle Thought's alignment if he is still alive.

Clearly there's something wrong with your thinking.

Wow, you're really laying on the Doomsday scenario here. You must be the single most important Townie ever!

I never said you should agree to your lynch, merely that it would be an obvious scenario for a Town player with your role to be willing to consider, rather than scrambling for anyone but you to go to the gallows. Which you're continuing to do, incidentally. No Town player wants to be lynched, but scum are far more fearful of lynching due to their smaller numbers. So when a Town player reveals a role that has no clear benefit to Town, adds uncertainty to the status of at least one other player and can't be investigated, it's seems odd to me that they'd be so defensive and hostile to the idea of their lynching...

I'm also not buying your theory that we'll lose up to three Townies toNight. Doesn't that seem like a pretty unbalanced game to you? And even if you're right, why would that change my vote? All I can do is vote for the person I think is most likely to be scum, which right now is you.

If it helps, I'm feeling more confident about it after your last post.

[Trepa Mayfield]

3 days, 11 hours and 12 minutes until the end of Day 2.

Vote Count:

Zuma (2): Idle Thoughts [Day 2 Post 20], BillMC [Day 2 Post 65]
Romanic (2): Giraffe [Day 2 Post 25], Giraffe [Day 7]
Lucifer (1): Total Ulla [Day 2 Post 70]
Placeholder (2): Idle Thoughts [Day 1], BobArrgh [Day 2 Post 50]

Voting in the Future:

Voting in the Past: None

Voting from the Future: None

Voting from the Past: Idle Thoughts [Day 1]

With these votes Zuma will be lynched.

Originally Posted by severe delays

Evening all. Romola has asked me to let you know that she isn't able to play at the moment. She's currently stuck on a train which has been halted in the middle of nowhere by a suicide. By the looks of things she's going to be there for a long time so she asks that you please excuse her from voting/commenting for the time being.

Wishing her freedom from bordem...

[BobArrgh]

[QUOTE=Giraffe;551432]

Originally Posted by Romanic

Wow, you're really laying on the Doomsday scenario here. You must be the single most important Townie ever!

Now I'm really confused ... I thought that honor went to Lucifer!

I apologize for the RL issues. Last night, I had to do something for work that couldn't be done until 1:00 AM. Then today, after work, I had the 3-hour drive back to my in-laws' house. I will be here all weekend, and then take my wife back home on Monday. I brought my laptop, so I should be able to check in a couple of times this weekend.

I'm going to go back and read the giraffe / Romanic chronicles. Something feels off about the exchanges ... I think I'm having flashbacks of Ed from Dr. Seuss.

[BobArrgh]

NETA: Whoopsie! Quote fail on Aisle 83.

[Romanic]

Originally Posted by Giraffe

Yes, you made good points against a hypothesis I floated which I agreed with. So, I guess you can't be scum, right?

No... it does mean that. Don't put words in my mouth please.

However generally when two people argument about something, if someone is proven wrong, he doesn't come back quickly with more wild accusations, given that he was proven wrong the first time. Yet you keep hammering at me, who is conveniently a very easy target toDay.

Originally Posted by Giraffe

Because Idle would contradict such a claim, obviously.

I don't understand how I would know that Idle would contradict a non-Miller mason claim from me, if he didn't know about my role. You did write "obviously" up there.

Suppose that I am Scum, and I have knowledge that Idle doesn't know about my alignment, from his role PM. Why claim Miller?
Suppose that I am Scum, and I don't know anything about Idle, except that I can communicate with him. Why would I claim Miller?

Oh I just love your quote, I'm gonna show it again.

Originally Posted by Giraffe

Because Idle would contradict such a claim, obviously.

What is "obvious" here?

Originally Posted by Giraffe

Wow, you're really laying on the Doomsday scenario here. You must be the single most important Townie ever!

*rofl*

You can't be serious.

Originally Posted by Giraffe

I never said you should agree to your lynch, merely that it would be an obvious scenario for a Town player with your role to be willing to consider, rather than scrambling for anyone but you to go to the gallows.

Well, you wrote that I should not be averse to my lynch.

a·verse (-vûrs)
adj.
Having a feeling of opposition, distaste, or aversion; strongly disinclined: investors who are averse to taking risks.

"Not averse" would be synonym of "agreeing to", I would say. So yes, you did say that I should agree with my lynch.

Originally Posted by Giraffe

Which you're continuing to do, incidentally. No Town player wants to be lynched, but scum are far more fearful of lynching due to their smaller numbers. So when a Town player reveals a role that has no clear benefit to Town, adds uncertainty to the status of at least one other player and can't be investigated, it's seems odd to me that they'd be so defensive and hostile to the idea of their lynching..

Define "so defensive". Where am I so defensive?

Define "hostile". Where do you get a hostility feeling from me?

You are using big words, let's see if you can back them up.

Originally Posted by Giraffe

I'm also not buying your theory that we'll lose up to three Townies toNight. Doesn't that seem like a pretty unbalanced game to you? And even if you're right, why would that change my vote? All I can do is vote for the person I think is most likely to be scum, which right now is you.

Considering we know of 2 attacks last night, and likely another on Idle Thoughts, I don't think it's far fetched to think there could be again three attacks on Night 2. However I note that you failed to read that I said "I'd expect 1-2 Townies to die", and that you changed it for "up to three Townies".

Originally Posted by Giraffe

If it helps, I'm feeling more confident about it after your last post.

Hmmmmmm.....

*****

This whole post screams exaggeration to me:
1) Saying that I am putting a Doomsday scenario, which is wrong. I am merely using the information we've seen from Night 1. We've seen 2 maybe 3 attacks on N1. How is that a Doomsday scenario that it would happen again?

2) "You must be the single most important Townie ever!" is well... I don't know how to describe it without being insulting. It's plain bullshit. I was explaining my view on why a hypothetical Townie shouldn't let himself lynched, as opposed to your view that he should not be averse to it. I wasn't even talking about me, but you're twisting it to make it look so.

3) I am apparently "So defensive", and "hostile", which I don't think I am. And I am very curious to see how you will explain these perceptions of me. Sure I don't want to be lynched, nobody does, but you seem eager to magnify this, to make me look scummier than I actually am.

You know, my miller claim is bad enough, you don't need to push this hard to get me lynched. I think a truthful Townie, one who truly thinks that I should be lynched for my claim, would not work much to find reasons to lynch me. Again, my claim is bad enough. What are you trying to do Giraffe?

[Romanic]

Originally Posted by Idle Thoughts

Vote Zuma

He was last active (on the boards) yesterday but hasn't posted in a game thread since the 17th (after voting for me for--and again, I think it's pretty crappy/weak reasoning--not claiming on Day One).

@Idle:

Your vote from yesterDay (vote player X on Day 2) has to be used toDay. I'm not sure what happens if you don't post a vote to cover this vote from the past, but as per the rules, HB will avoid a paradox and you might just lose it or (worse) vote for a random player.

Thus you are forced to vote once toDay, using this format:

Vote [someone] from Day 1

Your D2 vote however, can be banked or used - You are currently using it to vote zuma.

[moody mitchy]

BobArrgh I'm a but cinfused by a statement you make in This post.

You say and I'll snip this bit from it...

A) Ed did not use his power last Night, allowing any kills/actions to go through.

B) Ed used his power last Night but it was directed only at the Scum.

C) Using Opal as a placeholder on Day 2.

If (A), then one or both of the deaths were probably by the Scum. (And also the attempt on Idle, if that's what it was.)

If (B), then the Scum were blocked in all their attempts to kill anyone.

Bolding Mine...

If that was the case then that would point to there being 2 non SCUM Night killing actions. And possibly a 3rd if we're to believe Idle Thoughts statement that he's lucky to be here.....

I say a 3rd because if all SCUM were blocked I can't see the mod informing a player that a SCUM action was unsuccessful on them during the Night..

Given that SCUM normally have at least one Night killing action... that would mean 4 Night kills possible and to my mind would make for a pretty short game...

Perhaps Idle Thoughts powers it to be able to self protect and self watch.. which would explain why he got a message... he saw someone visit him and try to kill him... But wasn't told who.

[Zeener Diode]

In accordance with I've posted earlier toDay, I've decided to reveal my role.

Originally Posted by Hypnagogic Bonafide

You are Fin (Town Weak Doc)

Your power is to follow future trails, seeing where people will go and what they will do. Of course, the more various possibilities that are available, the fainter the time trails become, petering out after about a day. Should you follow one, you’ll know that the person you’re following will live to the next Day, at least. After that, though...

--Power—
Each Night, you may follow someone’s future trail. This will ensure that even if they were mortally wounded, they’ll live to the end of the next Day. Of course, if they are mortally wounded they’ll probably expire as soon as the next Day is over.

Last Night I protected Idle. Unless his as-yet-unknown power allows him to survive toNight unscathed, he'll die at Dusk. If that happens, there will be only one claimed Mason left (assuming Romanic also survives the Night). Unless, as I posited upthread, there are more Masons as yet unrevealed, there will be no solid reason to keep Romanic-the-Miller alive.

Let's consider what we know: Romanic claimed Miller/Mason. Why claim Miller? For Scum, it's an easy dodge to avoid looking Scummy if investigated. For Town, it's a death knell. A pro-Town player would claim it in advance (like on Day 1) so a Cop wouldn't waste an investigation. Possible scenario: Town lynches Romanic, Idle is confirmed, but dead. Two Townies die at Dusk. Town is now four players short, with Scum still in full force.

It's possible peeker tried to NK Idle last Night. And he may have died as a result (I base this on Bill's theory of peek turning Remorseful Vig). With a Scum team of 3 (plus possible turn by peeker), they may have just the one kill per Night, which they used on Ed.

[Romanic]

Ahhhh, why the claim Zeener?

As per my post #53 toDay, it's likely that Idle will survive the night, because Clover is lucky and very difficult to harm. I would be surprised if the PM he received (feeling lucky to be alive) would be the result of your save, rather than his luck, which is mentioned in both his PM and the wiki. I'm not expecting Idle to die, so I think your claim was unnecessary.

Two docs, if Mitchy and you are telling the truth, meaning there's probably two scum kills at night.

[BobArrgh]

@Moody: Good point. I had not considered that possibility.

@Zeener: So a Remorseful Vig would die even if the attempt failed? That would suck. I hope Idle's power allows him to survive the Day.

So we have two Docs. Nice.

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by Romanic

Ahhhh, why the claim Zeener?

After all my bluster about dying with information, I thought I'd better share in case I'm dead toMorrow.

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by BobArrgh

@Zeener: So a Remorseful Vig would die even if the attempt failed? That would suck. I hope Idle's power allows him to survive the Day.

It's possible the attempt may have killed him.

It's also possible it was something else.

So we have two Docs. Nice.

Give Scum something to think about.

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Romanic

I don't understand how I would know that Idle would contradict a non-Miller mason claim from me, if he didn't know about my role. You did write "obviously" up there.

Suppose that I am Scum, and I have knowledge that Idle doesn't know about my alignment, from his role PM. Why claim Miller?
Suppose that I am Scum, and I don't know anything about Idle, except that I can communicate with him. Why would I claim Miller?

Maybe I misread what you wrote, but you asked why you wouldn't claim "simple Mason"? To me, that meant claiming that you and Idle were a pair of Town masons like peeker and zuma were in the last game. Which read like you were trying to buy some Townie cred by pointing out that you claimed a less defensible role than you could have. The counter to that (which seems obvious to me) is that a Town Idle can't back up such a claim.

If you were really asking why you didn't claim the exact same role you did, but without the "investigation will return scum" component, meh. That's not much of a defense: I'd think a scum could easily go that route, just so they could make the "scum wouldn't do that" argument. But yes, in that case, Idle wouldn't contradict your claim so if that is what you meant by "simple mason" then I retract my statement.

Originally Posted by Romanic

Define "so defensive". Where am I so defensive?

Define "hostile". Where do you get a hostility feeling from me?

You are using big words, let's see if you can back them up.

I should post a link to this post, but I'm feeling lazy so I'll just say: your posts.

I was thinking you were Town's best lynch candidate simply on the basis of your role claim. However, if I'd gotten a crazy Townie vibe off you and a scummy vibe off someone else, I'd have probably held off another Day or so to see what transpired. Right now, I have nothing but an insanely scummy vibe off you, and a strong FOS on zeener.

Originally Posted by Romanic

You know, my miller claim is bad enough, you don't need to push this hard to get me lynched. I think a truthful Townie, one who truly thinks that I should be lynched for my claim, would not work much to find reasons to lynch me. Again, my claim is bad enough. What are you trying to do Giraffe?

Yes, I know your miller claim is bad enough. That's pretty much the main basis of my voting against you. However, your reaction to my posts looks unbelievably scummy to me, so I'm posting my opinions about said reaction.

In my first game, I was scum and claimed Town Cop with a confusing power. Eventually Town started thinking I might need to be lynched to see if my lynch targets could be confirmed, but I had many, many reasons why we shouldn't do that just yet. In my second game, I was Town Cop. Special Ed (scum) claimed a confusing role that seemed to call into question my results. At that point, it made perfect sense to me that people would consider lynching me -- why wouldn't they?

I'm seeing a LOT more of the former in you than the latter. You're scum.

[Idle Thoughts]

Unvote Zuma on Day Two
Vote Zuma from Day One

Thank you for reminding me, Romanic.

[Trepa Mayfield]

23 hours and 35 minutes until the end of Day 2.

Vote Count:

Zuma (2): Idle Thoughts [Day 1], BillMC [Day 2 Post 65]
Romanic (2): Giraffe [Day 2 Post 25], Giraffe [Day 7]
Lucifer (1): Total Ulla [Day 2 Post 70]

Voting in the Future:

Voting in the Past: None

Voting from the Future: None

Voting from the Past: Idle Thoughts [Day 1]

With these votes Zuma will be lynched.

[moody mitchy]

Zeener Diode I'm having problems with you toDay...

First you post earlier on stating that you feel that anyone who has important information, should share it with us.
When I say that this could be seen as fishing, you brush that off by saying that it's something you regret not doing in an earlier game when you had important information for TOWN.

Now you give us this unprompted claim (I couldn't see that you were under any particular kind of pressure).

Why ? To me if you're telling the truth, all you've done is painted a bloody big target on your back for SCUM. Hell you've already told them you can't fully protect, you can only delay a kill.

Why protect Idle Thoughts ? He was a player that was under enough suspicion from TOWN as it were. I feel SCUM would have not targeted him anyway in order to let the confusion run a little bit longer.

Why didn't you self portect. I don't see in your "role PM" where it says you can't.

I feel that you are quite possibly SCUM and that SCUM as a whole have a poisoning role. They targeted Idle Thoughts last Night but didn't realise that he would be sent a message telling him he was lucky to survive.

So as a team you have now come up with this plan to create a cover role for one of you and try to gain some TOWN cred.

Now I know it's not good and proper to vote a "claimed" TOWN power role but your unprovoked claim and your "share all the info" post have pinged me enough to do so.

VOTE ZEENER DIODE

I'm still not completely buying the claim from Romanic and Idle Thoughts but I feel it's more likely to be true.

[Total Ulla]

Originally Posted by moody mitchy

So are you calling Lucifer for lurking... or for having voted Idle Thoughts or both...

I still believe that there were scum voting for Idle yesterDay and that's why I'm voting for Lucifer.
The remark regarding lurkers was that I'd rather see a lynch-the-lurker than a testing-Romanic-lynch.

Part of my reasons for this is that I really don't see Romanic doing anything scummy. Does this preclude him being not-Town?
No. But I'd rather lynch someone I've seen as scummy than a policy-lynch. Most of that is based on the fact that we so often see the policy-lynches show up as mis-lynching.

The votes on Idle for "not claiming" was IMO policy-voting. I view the votes for Romanic the same way.
However the difference to me being that there at least is some sort of logic behind the idea of a Romanic-lynch. I just don't agree with it.

[Total Ulla]

Originally Posted by BobArrgh

So we have two Docs. Nice.

Do you believe both claims?

[Total Ulla]

Originally Posted by moody mitchy

Why not Zuma he's not popped in yet toDay... but that would make it 3rd vote wouldn't it and we all know what that means (75/25 JOKE)

I forgot to answer this. Mainly because of his actions at the end of Day 1.
I'll have to re-read to give you posts and quotes (and time is still limited based on RL).

[Total Ulla]

NETA: His actions meaning Lucifer's actions.