xkcd

by **roband** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 7:13 am UTC

I didn't want to have to, but I will.

So it's 48 hours from THIS POST.

Make a decent post in the next 48 hours or Nick the Greek will deliver some lead, personally.

by **Angua** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 11:41 am UTC

mpolo wrote:
Angua says that BF has given away his faction. Are you saying that he's probably on Harry's team and is gloating over last night? Or that he's on Eddy's team and is complaining? Or something else?

That was infina - not me. However, it would be good to know what they meant by that.

I'm not sure how I feel about infina's hidden message - it seems like an odd thing to do, even if you are pretty bored. However, I still would like to hear more from other people. Greenlover has had two votes on them, but we haven't heard from them yet (granted, it is the weekend though) so I think I'm going to wait for a bit to give more people some time to respond.

by **greenlover** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:52 pm UTC

Ack, sorry folks. Had a busy last couple of days.

Well, I'm not sure what I should say in response to BF and webby, if anything. Their justification of "Well, there is no reason not too" is flimsy to say the least, considering how early it is in the day and the fact that we have a lot more to go off of now. But that's probably just OMGUS.

_infina_'s "discussion generating" secret message was winy to say the least. I don't see how it was really beneficial at all to him and his faction (assuming he is in one), but I don't see how any discussion that was generated wasn't filled with wine. So...I'm just going to let it slide unless I figure out a way it could have been used to benefit anti-town.

As for a lynch, I obviously don't want to lynch myself, even though it looks like I'm a prime candidate right now. I still don't like BF's wishy washyness, but can (has, actually) been labeled OMGUS. _infina_'s secret message is obviously winy, but not really enough to lynch him unless we can figure out a way its scummy, imo. So, I'm going to place a vote on a lurker right now as a means to get more content. I plan on unvoting as soon as they make a content post.

Vote: RoadieRich

by **mpolo** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 2:12 pm UTC

Angua wrote:
mpolo wrote:
Angua says that BF has given away his faction. Are you saying that he's probably on Harry's team and is gloating over last night? Or that he's on Eddy's team and is complaining? Or something else?

That was infina - not me. However, it would be good to know what they meant by that.

I'm not sure how I feel about infina's hidden message - it seems like an odd thing to do, even if you are pretty bored. However, I still would like to hear more from other people. Greenlover has had two votes on them, but we haven't heard from them yet (granted, it is the weekend though) so I think I'm going to wait for a bit to give more people some time to respond.

Sorry. I knew that it was _Infina_ who said that. Pretty big typo there.

It's kind of frustrating having made regular posts and then to get pressured to add more comments about the nothing that has been posted since my last.

greenlover's post actually has me feeling a little better about him. There are at least three kills (if not more) loose in this game, so that a comment that indirectly indicates that your team might have a kill is pretty weak as evidence against someone. Unless someone has proof of more detail about who has a kill and who doesn't.

It would be nice to get the lurkers back to the table before the modkills start falling, because modkills almost always affect the balance in a negative way.

by **Lorenz** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:12 pm UTC

Angua wrote:I don't know what to think about the primary/secondary body guard thing - I would think that it would be taking a kill for rory twice, but I don't know enough about non-vanilla powers in mafia to know what else could be on the table. Lorenz - what did you mean by a 'roadblock'?

My point was just that we don't know for a fact (that many people seem to take for granted) that the bodyguards would take a kill for someone else. They could have a different power and I suggested being roadblockers as an example. (They would stop someone else from carrying in their action)

by **BoomFrog** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 3:54 am UTC

Lorenz wrote:They could have a different power and I suggested being roadblockers as an example. (They would stop someone else from carrying in their action)

You mean ROLEblockers? :p

mpolo wrote:greenlover's post actually has me feeling a little better about him. There are at least three kills (if not more) loose in this game, so that a comment that indirectly indicates that your team might have a kill is pretty weak as evidence against someone. Unless someone has proof of more detail about who has a kill and who doesn't

Are you saying that bieng in a group with night chat and a kill is not scummy?

by **BoomFrog** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 3:57 am UTC

EBWOP: There is actually a role called bodyguard where you are a doctor but you die if the target is NKed. There is another version where you are a super protector, you protect the target and kill the attacker. However, neither of those make sense with the label "Primary" Bodyguard. Unless... perhaps the secondary bodyguard is powerless until the primary bodyguard dies. That's a possibility. Also considering they bodyguard was the airgun wielding druggie I doubt they are the super protector type. Sacrifical protection seems much much more fitting.

by **Lorenz** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:47 am UTC

yup... I meant roleblockers

mpolo is quickly jumping into my suspicion list, as he seems to be trying to help Greenlover, without really going all out there with the defense (with his last 2 posts). It doesn't need to be a scum link, but trying to undermine a kill can also be very dangerous if town. Especially because it looks like he is changing his opinion on something he used to agree that is what we are looking for. (groups with kills)

FoS: mpolo
It was originally a vote, but after writing the next bit about greenlover I decided that he was pinging me more.

Greenlover seems like the easier target right now, and I hate going for the easy target, but mpolo siding with him makes him jump out even more. But the biggest concern for me right now is this:

Greenlover wrote:So, I'm going to place a vote on a lurker right now as a means to get more content. I plan on unvoting as soon as they make a content post.

Vote: RoadieRich

This is an extremely easy way to hide, and not look for scum. Normally, I wouldn't mind it so much but... How much pressure will a vote put on a lurker right now, in comparisson to a mod-kill?, you're just adding a grain of salt to a 100 ton anvil in top of the lurkers.

by **Lorenz** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:48 am UTC

Oh right...
Vote: Greenlover

by **DaBigCheez** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:52 am UTC

DaBigCheez wrote:I'll be doing a more full read-through and in-depth analysis over the weekend to get all players

Suppose I should follow through on this before time makes a liar out of me!

Will only bother with living players.

Spoiler:

Summarized in rough order, townie to scummy (lurkers not included):

Spoiler:

And the lurker list, according to me (in no particular order):

Spoiler:

The vote distribution (which I checked after doing the analyses above) seems to largely agree with what I'd already decided about their towniness (those voting for GoP were mostly those I wound up finding townie, plus webby (who I consider townie)'s vote on Adam H).

Before I cast my vote, I seriously want BoomFrog or mpolo or someone to explain to me what it is in greenlover's initial post that's the reason for the speculation about greenlover having a factional kill - I'm still not seeing it, if I'm missing something obvious I'd like to know it, and at least a few others' reasoning seems to be based more on that than on the defensiveness that has me ready to vote greenlover. So, I want to clear that up before the lynch, because it's been bugging me that I might be missing something blatant

DOUBLE-NINJA'D: Oh, right - the mod's post about 48 hours means a lot of the lurkers will go splat. So, lurker lynches look even weirder, but I'm still holding off on voting to make sure I get the explanation before enough lurkers die that we get a surprise hammer or something

by **Lorenz** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 5:10 am UTC

That's interesting DBC. Seems like many of us are being lead by others, without actually going to the origin of the suspicions.
I don't find any claims from Greenlover either. My main problem with his first post was

could we get some more or less set parameters here about who we, as the collective town, should be trying to lynch?

Because town has a pretty good idea as to who is scum, and answering that question is just giving scum information as to how to act townie.

But yes, I agree with you that there is at least no obvious claim as to him being in a faction with a NK.

by **slbub** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 5:21 am UTC

i may be wrong but wasn't Lenny the black man that got nick a drink every time that he visited Rory?

by **BoomFrog** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 7:18 am UTC

slbub wrote:i may be wrong but wasn't Lenny the black man that got nick a drink every time that he visited Rory?

I don't remember the movie character. I was just going by the D1 start info that Lenny and Winston are probably in Rory's gang and I think they are two druggies who's only weapon is an airgun.

Lenny: Some girl took one of 'em out, he was in a right two an' eight.
Winston: We shot one of them in the throat.

DaBigCheez wrote:Before I cast my vote, I seriously want BoomFrog or mpolo or someone to explain to me what it is in greenlover's initial post that's the reason for the speculation about greenlover having a factional kill - I'm still not seeing it,

I think your right. I was conflating my memories of GL D1 and AdamH and GoP. The reason I was going after GL D1 was because of the "who are the bad guys?" line. I don't know if he has a NK or not, but it does seem like he accedenetially claimed to not be town. That said, I haven't done much D2 because I don't think anything I can see has changed from D1. We basically had a bunch of people D1 that revealed themselves as really scummy, so it's been an unusual D2.

by **roband** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:22 am UTC

Current Votes
Greenlover 3 (BoomFrog, webby, Lorenz)
PhoenixEnigma 1 (slbub)
RoadieRich 1 (greenlover)

Deadline in 3 days, 1 hour and just under 40 minutes

by **mpolo** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 10:56 am UTC

"Having a Night Kill" seems to describe an awful lot of groups here. I am not really averse to a Greenlover lynch. But I wish I knew what we were really trying to achieve. Based on my role PM (which I currently understand as "eliminate the factions with kills", but more vaguely worded), I probably should be harder on a probable kill power, but I have this worry that we're going too fast and latching onto the first target.

I'm going to hold off at least until we have a result from the mod-carnage, but if at that point, greenlover hasn't done anything to redeem himself in the eyes of the rest of us, I would be willing to follow that vote at least in principle.

by **Angua** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:00 am UTC

Right, well I think my lurker vote was just before the mod did the post about the 48 hours thing, and as I was waiting for more people (such as greenlover) to actually post, I didn't bother getting rid of it. However:
unvote
Dabigcheese is strking me as fairly townie (I thought a lot of their analysis was pretty good, though I'm not so sure if I agree with the webby part, as I think both their's and bfs votes on greenlover straight away were equally suspicious). I agree with Lorenz that greenlover voting for a lurker after roband gave us the 48 hour thing is pretty suspect. We still have about 20 hours for other people to post, so I'm hoping that it won't end up with a lot of modkills, because that will make things really difficult. In a game with so many factions, a big part of this game is trying to link for links between players, which you can't find if people are not posting at all (incidentally, this is why I've been focusing on them, as it really bugs me that we can't get anything useful from them at all). At the moment, I don't think I'd be too unhappy with a greenlover lynch. However, I'm going to hold off from voting until we know how many people are being modkilled, as I don't know if that will lower the number of people needed to lynch, and I don't want to leave someone at L1 accidentally (this is using dabigcheese's list of lurkers giving us with I think roughly 9 people not lurking in this game).

Speaking of which :
Will the modkills lead to a lower number of people needed to lynch?

edit- I've been ninja'd by mpolo, I find their info from the role pm to be pretty interesting. I'm going to have to think about it though, as I've spent longer than I thought I would on this post already.

by **Gojoe** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:10 pm UTC

Oh yeah. I am in a game...
I will read and catch up. I see 3 people died.

by **Gojoe** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:27 pm UTC

TBH I feel like I should have been lynched already due to my lurkin'.

Thankfully I am still around. The latest thing that I can get is Angua's last post. (S)He is not the only one but saying person X is striking me as fairly townie is generally a bad move. The last thing you want to do is make a "confirmed" townie. That makes the person a target. I mean it leads to some interesting dynamics when multiple baddies are involved. But still, it just sounds fishy making a guy who has no votes into a target. Could easily be something like a baddie sending a message to his fellow scum. Especially since I recognize Angua's name. WHich means Angua has been around for a wee while...

by **Angua** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:43 pm UTC

I've been in 8 mafia games (including this one, and not including my one skype one). 4 were at around the same time quite a while ago, then the next four have been recently (lock, mulan, roald dayl, Atkm).

I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I don't think that 8 games counts as lots of experience. I think gojoe's recent post was extremely scummy, but as that's probably a bit of OMGUS as well (on both our counts - them because I'm the only one who's been voting for them, and me because they've just made a post basically directed at me), I'm just going to leave it as FoS Gojoe for now.

Also, I don't really see how me saying that one person seemed towny is making them into a 'confirmed' town. Heck, DBC put Lorenz at the top of their list for who they thought could be town - does that make them also guilty of turning Lorenz into a 'confirmed' town.

by **_infina_** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 5:08 pm UTC

Okay, let me see what I can try and talk about. DBC is starting to get into a "lead the town" position. According to him, Mav has been acting funny, and I tend to agree.

On greenlover, I see nothing particularly scummy. All I am seeing is votes being placed oh him with out any particular reasoning. Two were directly following d1 logic, which is not exactly the best course of action. Lorenz was the only one who gave a semi-decent reasoning for a vote. This makes me want to hold off my decision on greenlover for another day.

FoS: Boomfrog, webby

by **Mavketl** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:03 pm UTC

I've been collecting some things from D1 about connections between players and stuff and I wanted to make it a proper post with brilliant conclusions but I don't have time so here are a bunch of my thoughts and observations.

Voting for Adam H (Rory's gang), good thing: yay for webby.
(upon a reread... wait, were Rory's gang good or bad guys? good or bad thing, depending on that. god I hate flavour games that I don't know the flavour of. I'm assuming Rory's gang were bad guys.)
Another yay for webby for this - doesn't really need an explanation, does it?

I don't think greenlover is part of Dog's gang.

Voting for GoP (Dog's gang), doubleplus good: a plus Lorenz, DBC, _infina_, mpolo.
Not so good: this post by Angua, seems kind of a defense ("they are clearly doing something wrong, but I don't think they're scum" is a good way of defending a buddy without actively... buddying them). Less bad, but worth noting, are all the other people who 'chose' to vote for greenlover - it was pretty clearly between GoP and greenlover towards the end, so choosing to vote for greenlover was very consciously not voting for GoP: BoomFrog, Entropy, Angua.

Overall that's a few minor things against Angua, but I'm hesitant to follow that up with any serious accusations. Partly because they really are minor/circumstantial things, and partly because I don't want to punish activity.

I really will try to be more active and also I will not let roband talk me into signing up for his games when I know I shouldn't in the future.

by **slbub** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:22 am UTC

i looked a Chandani's posts and all they really have been is nothing too useful other than a lot of clueless fishing around and the overstating of flavor blindness. i think that they are a better player than to just try and get answers out of other people that way. the over lurkeyness is getting on my nerves from everyone that is lurking, Chandani has been really bad, over a week!

the whole GoP thing really is setting off far too many bells for me to ignore, the being on the fence is too much,

unvote
vote: Chandani

by **Chandani** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:40 am UTC

Well... I guess you guys deserve an explanation for my vote thing at the beginning.
I haven't played in a game here where ties go to a coinflip, and therefore wasn't sure how accepting the rest of the people in the group would be with it. I'm trying not to mix rules from the other forum I play on, which is very tie-happy, so I was being overcautious. Sorry about that. Otherwise, I would have voted for GoP. Ninja'd: I wasn't on the fence on GoP's guilt, I was on the fence for making a tie. I

About the kills and being scum... argh. We don't know how the kills are divided or who they came from. The kills could be vig kills. They could be night kills. But we can't tell. And if there are all these pretty factions, then it's possible that maybe kills are shared collectively in a group (though again, I'm not sure). So kill at night maybe does not equal scumminess. I guess it's possible indys have kills, which would explain the extra kills.
webby then says

webby wrote:Ok, so three nightkills - I would say that the most likely explanation for that is two factional nightkills plus an independent or vig

which is kind of interesting, since it would either imply two scum factions (if you think that scum must have nightkills) or that two nightkill factions exist, alignment unknown. I can't remember what side webby fell on the whole 'is there a traditional scum faction or not' argument, so I'm not sure if this matches what was said in the past or not. Having two scum factions isn't impossible, but if each faction had 4 people, there would be 8 scum, which is way too many for a 19 player game (though I guess it could be balanced by other means. Eh). So therefore webby probably doesn't believe in two scum factions. Lorenz may have interpreted this statement differently then I did, and this was a lot more subtle than mpolo's "having a night kill may not mean scum" statement, but I wonder why he didn't pick up on this.

I also have to agree with the people who are seriously voting for greenlover because it worked for GoP. Really? Really? That's really bad logic. Really bad. Just because it happens once doesn't mean it works again. I can see Lorenz's vote for voting when modkills are threatened (I predict a large drop in playeres), but webby's vote and BF's vote are weak.

infina's thing was weird, I have no comment other than the fact that it was a really badly hidden message, so if stealth was the objective, he failed.

@slbub: I'm in school. I'm busy. I don't have time to do my own research. I'm doing my best right now, I'll post as much as I can. Happy?

by **PhoenixEnigma** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:12 am UTC

Right, I'm actually playing a game here, aren't I?

So, two things jump out at me. With three people dead overnight, not all of those can be in the hands of scum - there's no way that could be balanced. I'd guess one is either town or town-friendly indie, again probably based on balance, and the fact that there aren't a lot of characters that would lend themselves to doctor-y roles to balance some of the kills (or even roleblocks, for that matter). Probably not all that important now, but it might come in handy later if/when people start claiming things.

Second is _infina_'s 'hidden' message. I'm not entirely sure what to think of it, other than that most people are more willing to ignore it than I am. Given how obvious it is, I don't really suspect it was ever meant to be hidden - what I know of _infina_, they'd've opted for something both more complicated and more difficult to intercept if that was the case. Nor is it like _infina_ has never played before, so there's no way they could have overlooked how it would look. I've got it on the border between "spilling wine by the jig" and "I'm a jester" - and I can't think of any jestery roles (and I imagine they'd be the first to be cut, anyways)

One thing not striking me is Greenlover, despite the vote count. The only thing about the whole situation that caught my eye, in fact, was Lorenz. Jumping on a bandwagon with a weak vote looks...shady, at best. IGMEOY, Lorenz.

by **Entropy** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:21 am UTC

Vote: greenlover

I was waiting for clarification on something, and now I have it. Greenlover needs to go.

by **BoomFrog** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:36 am UTC

Entropy wrote:Vote: greenlover

I was waiting for clarification on something, and now I have it. Greenlover needs to go.

Care to share with the class? That is a very vague reason to vote.

by **RoadieRich** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:04 am UTC

Sorry for continued absence, I've had lots of uni work and stress add up all at once. Will try to post more substantially later. (This is kind of related to my last post in game.)

by **Gojoe** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 12:13 pm UTC

Entropy wrote:Vote: greenlover

I was waiting for clarification on something, and now I have it. Greenlover needs to go.

Really? Really?
This is like saying:
Guys guys guys! I got super secret information. Greenlover... IS A BADDIE! No I am not going to tell you anything more, didn't I tell you it was a secret! Man if I told you what it was... well it wouldn't be a very good secret if I told you. Just trust me for no apparent reason.

by **Entropy** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:36 pm UTC

That's true, that is exactly what it is like saying. I don't think that is a bad thing at this point in time. I'm willing to elaborate on my reasons for lynching greenlover, but only after we have lynched him. If he ends up town, then lynch me next.

by **Lorenz** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:42 pm UTC

No, it's more like you are saying
"I have a power with which I can find out the alignment of players, but I won't tell you about it. I'll just hint it so that it's hard for you to trust me and scum kills me"
So, if you are town, you are giving much more helpful information to scum than to town.

Unvote
Because the deadline will crash soon, and I don't want an insta-lynch.

@Chandani on Webby: There were 3 kills, and is giving an explanation of how they could have happened. It's not even close to saying "Factions with NKs are not dangerous", which is the feeling I get from some people, and what I think is scummy. The reason I find mpolo scummy is his change of attitude from D1 to D2.

But.... I had many more suspicions D1 which I didn't even remember, I'll skim through and give you a list of players I consider scummy.

by **slbub** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:48 pm UTC

i don't really know what to think about the entropy thing right now, he has been a bit lurkey and now this, i see several options to this

there is the possibility that he is just a vanilla member of the a crew getting a lynch going for a member of town, then day three ensures a lynch of a scum, but then only a vanilla one.

another is that entropy has found a member of scum and cannot tell us because that would lead to his death (which it still might) and GL making excuses to get out of it, which i don't see why explaining this to all of us would be a bad idea.

it may also be an attempt to scare GL into thinking/knowing/thinks that he knows, that entropy has something on him.

I'll have to think more on this and see where the mod-killing leaves us

@chandani, i feel a little better but i also have finals this week and finding time to post has been hard for me. i will however,

unvote
FOS chandani

i still don't like the way you played day one and i still think your fairly scummy, but not as much

by **webby** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:11 am UTC

Ok, so 1.5 days until deadline. Sorry for not posting much - I seem to have neglected this game. I still see no reason to take my vote off greenlover - I'd be very surprised if he turned out town.

In response to whoever asked, no I don't think two scum factions is that unlikely, even if it implies 8 scum in a 19 player game. When there are multiple scum factions, they compete against each other, so there will normally be more scum than if they were all working together (remember Mafia + Werewolf was balanced with 4 scum in a 9 player game and town managed to win even without the two mafia factions killing each other.)

That's it for now, I just wanted to make sure I posted in all my games this morning.

by **BoomFrog** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 3:05 am UTC

I'm working under the theory that there are actually three scum faction and 1-2 town factions. I think the scum are groups of 3 and the town are 3-4. The idea that everyone had 4 came from GoP who I think simply knew the 4 friends are the main group and so the idea that there were four groups of four was appealing. 9 scum but they will as likely kill eachother as to kill town. Considering how many people basically admitted to bieng scum D1 I wouldn't be surprised if we started with less then 50% town. My main point bieng:

Dear scum, town is not your main problem this game, make sure to kill the other scum before they kill you.

Anyway, my early vote on GL has had some interesting results. I think the group that are hesitant to vote GL is a mix of GL's faction mates, lurkers, and cautious town. I think the group of people eager to vote for GL is likely composed mostly of bold opposing scum members and bold town. So let's see who is was unwilling to vote for GL...

Spoiler:

In order scummiest to slightly less scummy are PhoenixEnigma, infina, Chandani, Angua. They are the ones that are the most suspicious D3 if GL flips scum (which I'm pretty confident about obviously). PE is the one I am most suspicious of as the other three are generally passive players. Well Infina is like a landmine, but you know what I mean. I'm just putting this out there in case I die tonight.

GoJoe, Entropy, and RR are obviously lacking in content and are likely scum but I've only got one vote.

by **mpolo** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:33 am UTC

So. We seem to have avoided the modly carnage. I think we have 3 votes on greenlover, but he really hasn't provided anything since the last time I posted. And I said I'd be willing to vote for him in principle…

Mav has a pretty good argument that greenlover is not in Dog's gang (unnecessary FoSes from GoP), but that leaves Rory's and Harry's, so doesn't really reduce the probability of his scummitude all that much.

Entropy's "revelation" is certainly interesting. No idea if this is a real power, a bold town move (though it's not Gojoe doing this) or a bold scum move. I wonder if he isn't a lyncher of some sort who thinks he's found his target.

BoomFrog's analysis of where we stand on Greenlover will obviously be more useful once we know whether Greenlover is town or scum.

With eight to lynch, I'm going to go ahead and vote. I think this puts him at four. I will be checking in relatively regularly, so can change if needed.

Vote: greenlover

by **RoadieRich** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:03 am UTC

BoomFrog wrote:2. RoadieRich - superlurk
<...>
GoJoe, Entropy, and RR are obviously lacking in content and are likely scum but I've only got one vote.

Well, sorry if I count my degree, with a lab report due on friday for which I've only just figured out what the hell it is I'm supposed to be doing, more important than a game of Mafia. Now I've got to go to a seminar I've missed the last three of.

by **greenlover** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:09 pm UTC

Well, I'm posting in my other games, so I might as well post here.

Entropy's claim is quite scummy because it's almost certainly fake. However, I can't explain why without claiming. So, here goes nothing. My role name is Charles, and I am a part of Winston’s gang and a survivor. However, the important part is that my power is the passive ability to be immune to all normal night actions. Thus, Entropy's "revelation" that he cannot share with us is almost certainly faked. Lying is a pretty well accepted scum tell, no? A large one, to. Thus,

Unvote

Vote: Entropy

I'll try to get some content in on the other things going on, but right now I have got to go.

by **DaBigCheez** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:22 pm UTC

greenlover wrote:My role name is Charles, and I am a part of Winston’s gang and a survivor.

Wait - Winston's gang, not Rory's gang? Winston shows up in Rory's office at the start flavor, it seems odd he would have a separate gang - if true, does this mean we have 5 gangs (Dog, Eddie, Rory, Harry, Winston)? Or even possibly more, if one of the people in the other offices leads their own gang as well? If so, it seems highly likely that nearly everyone is in a gang - room for perhaps 2 or 3 independents.

Of course, if the claim's full of shit, it doesn't mean squat.

by **Mavketl** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:06 pm UTC

I'm going to need something more from Entropy than "trust me, feel free to kill me after". Not only does it spread major lyncher-wine, it also seems like poor play for a townie. Either you're lying and merely suspect greenlover and want to risk it (in which case I think you would've gone with a mysterious claim without the "kill me after", but who knows), or you have a real result that they are scum and you've advertised it to greenlover and his scumbuddies without giving any info to town.

@greenlover's claim: does it make sense, flavour-wise, to have a lyncher for Charles?

Then again, if you were a lyncher you could just bandwagon without all the GUYS I'M A LYNCHER crap attached. Colour me confused, yet highly suspicious.

by **DaBigCheez** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:09 pm UTC

Alternate thought - if greenlover flips town, I'd advocate *not* lynching Entropy immediately. I'm suspicious of a possible D3 Jester.

by **Gojoe** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:31 pm UTC

Entropy wrote:That's true, that is exactly what it is like saying. I don't think that is a bad thing at this point in time. I'm willing to elaborate on my reasons for lynching greenlover, but only after we have lynched him. If he ends up town, then lynch me next.

I still do not buy this at all.

greenlover wrote:Thus, Entropy's "revelation" that he cannot share with us is almost certainly faked. Lying is a pretty well accepted scum tell, no? A large one, to.

I just want to say about this. I am sure play style here has evolved a lot since I used to play. But I completely disagree with this statement. Lies work for both sides. Pulling the wool over the mafia's eyes works just as well as it does in reverse.

The reason I am:
vote:entropy

Is not because I believe greenlover. At this stage greenlover seems pretty desperate and I have a few nagging feelings about him.

The reason I am voting for Entropy is because his post just seems incredibly... odd, out of place and scummy.

Who is online