Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Roden]

Alright, I believe Jack and Max. More so Jack, but I trust Max through Jack right now. I just need to hear from Jim and Magma now.

[Jim Groovester]

Jim:  Why was NJW's claim bad and mine unworthy of mention at all?

I know you always claim Miller. It wasn't remarkable so I didn't comment on it. I commented on NJW2000's miller claim because it felt weird.

Alright, I believe Jack and Max. More so Jack, but I trust Max through Jack right now. I just need to hear from Jim and Magma now.

Hear from me for what?

I fully claimed on Day 1. I have no night action. I got flavor related to my role (I'm frantically searching for my papers that prove my innocence) but nothing related to anything that may have targeted me.



I shouldn't be distracting myself with this game right now. More later, probably in the evening.

[webadict]

Ah, it feels good to have a computer. Okay, I apologize for the PFP for so long, I was too far away.

you to be going after Roden for bothering to check as a 75% Cop.

What makes you think he did? That wasn't my impression.

Your entire theory of Toaster being town from the beginning has been premised on the assumption that a scum toaster must be lying about the claim. Even here, you say "I'm much more confident that [...] Toaster is telling the truth." But what if he is telling the truth about his role and scum? This is not inconceivable. I mean, you literally just saw me do it in another game.

I'll grant you that I don't have much data on Toaster as a player, maybe he is usually a boat-non-rocker, but I'm never going to accept the theory that someone can't be mafia because of audacity. Audacity is easy.

Anyway, I don't want a No Lynch, I want a lynch of someone who will narrow down the suspect list. I think Toaster is the best lynch candidate.

I grant you that it's entirely possible that Toaster is scum. I don't think this is true, but it's possible. My issue is that Roden was my other suspect, and there just isn't a reason to think that Roden is scum UNLESS Roden and Toaster are a team. But, this doesn't make sense, as Roden is the only known Cop at the moment.

Hm, okay, a lot of this is going to be circumstantial. Bare with me.

There's a Cop and TWO Millers. This is a point against Toaster, which is a fair point. One Miller being Town and one being scum is certainly a situation that could very well exist. However, the claiming of Toaster's Millerness being second is why I'm not sure that there isn't two Town Millers. Maybe there's even a third we don't know about? For now, let's assume that Toaster is scummy from this point.

Ah, you know what? I made a mistake. I actually want to hear from Magma Mater. What did Magma do?

[Toaster]

Maximum Spin:

Good morning Maximum Spin.  Care to explain why there was no kill last night?

I have no idea. Thanks for roleblocking me, though.

You're welcome!

Maximum Spin:  You never did a damned thing with your vote on Magma.  Please justify the vote and leaving it there all D1.

He posted a reaction gif, and that's terrible. Then I went to bed. When I got back to the thread, it was night.

Anyway, EuchreJack has convinced me that he's either town or absolutely stupid, and I don't think he's absolutely stupid. That makes Toaster and [in retrospect, redacted until later] my top picks. Why Toaster? Dropping a roleblock on a guy, choosing to no-kill, and blaming that guy? Sure, I'd do it. Ballsy, but far from implausible, especially if the kills are limited in one way or another.

I suppose I can't say too much about missing day end (I did the same thing so...) but that's still a fairly trash reason to vote someone.  Enough reason to choose to block someone though!

So your vote on my is entirely mechanical?  I'll address this in a second when I respond to Toony saying the same thing.

(I also thought NJW was practically obvtown, so why would I want to move my vote? Criticizing me for not joining the bandwagon kind of misses the important point that the bandwagon was wrong.)

Going to need you to quote me where I criticized you for that.  I said no such thing.


ToonyMan:

I'm pretty confident that Toaster and Webadict are mafia. I can give detailed reasoning when I'm at a computer. For now, in short Web has been trying to lead bandwagons and get the heat off Toaster. This nokill is a frame job. Toaster is framing Max while also protecting Web.

So you are proposing that Scum!Toaster and friend decided to- in a nine player game- skip the kill N1 in order to frame a townie D2?  This gets them a easy lynch in exchange for... heat on Scum!Me all the rest of the game and then a probably no lynch later on to give the town an extra day avoiding MYLO?  All this above option B: just kill someone?  Is there a gain for this theoretical scum team that I'm just not seeing?  It seems like an awfully bad trade for no real reason.

And finally, you consider this likely over the possibility that Maximum Spin tried to kill someone and got blocked by me?


EuchreJack:

Hm, so one item of analysis is WHY did Toaster roleblock Max?

We'll start from the beginning:
@Toaster: WHY did you roleblock Max? There were plenty of others you could roleblock, so why Max?

Good question.  Like I said in the spoilered bit of my D2 opener post (the D1 Post That Never Was), Toony and Maximum ended the day as my top two suspects.  I was going to target Toony, but since he claimed inventor and that's easily provable, I didn't target him.

Everyone else I suspected less.

@Toaster: Did you get any results from your role blocking?
Red text of please answer my questions variety

Just that my action succeeded.  I specifically asked Fallacy if I would know if my target tried to action, and he said I would not know either way.


Jim:

Jim:  Why was NJW's claim bad and mine unworthy of mention at all?

I know you always claim Miller. It wasn't remarkable so I didn't comment on it. I commented on NJW2000's miller claim because it felt weird.

Hrmph.  Fine.  I do want your more later.


Roden:

I targeted Toaster last night but was also Roleblocked. I thought he might've been lying and was actually just Ascetic, but you're also claiming that you were Roleblocked. My Unreliable passive can't cause my action to fail either, I was specifically told something else caused it to fail. This is why I asked if you targeted Toaster.

Toaster can still be Ascetic I guess, since I don't know how we both could've been blocked here otherwise. But I'm just not sure why he would lie about his role if he's town. Then again, I'm not sure why anyone would waste their Roleblock on me just to stop me from confirming that Toaster is Null to investigations.

I find this quite interesting.  Are you 100% sure you were blocked as opposed to your action just failing?  That wasn't me that blocked you.  Either someone blocked you or reflected my action?


Does anyone want to claim affecting Roden?

[EuchreJack]

UNVOTE, thanks for answering Toaster.

[Maximum Spin]

It occurs to me, Toaster, that since you appear not to have read the previous rounds, you don't know that we've already had two setups where scum didn't actually have an immediate kill at all. It is extremely possible that the no-kill was not a choice.

[Magma Mater]

Commentary on the roleblock situation:
If we treat Max and Toaster as a dichotomy, I'd lean toward Toaster being scum. His reaction of immediately accusing and voting for Max makes me think that, in his mind, he'd already set up the day's lynch. The thought of other factors potentially causing the lack of kill (including arsonist, or even a simple doctor) should have given him pause, I think, until he had more information. I would also like to hear an explanation as to why Max was blocked. He seems like the kind of person you block as a scum RB because it'll always be plausible that you "thought he was scum", whereas a town RB who's thinking about which of two scum would perform the kill probably would not choose Max.
That's not even mentioning how scummy "Investigation-Immune Roleblocker" is as a role (although for some reason I'm inclined to think that scummy roles were given to town in this setup).

Magma Mater:  I'm also going to need to see more justification of your vote on NJW.  Why was his vote on me bad?

I believe Toaster's null-claim... there does seem to be a weird theme this game, and falseclaiming a confirmable investigation-blocker against an unreliable cop would be insanity. On the other hand, I don't think it clears them... I've BEEN ascetic scum, for example. NAI.

I know I always complain about there being too much in each day, but I do feel like I don't have enough information from people this time. On the basis of a number of very weak factors, such as our not having seen much input from them, Toaster.

It's this passage that made me uneasy. In the first paragraph, he talks about how Toaster's claim makes sense in this setup specifically because there are lots of investigatives and whatnot. Then in the second paragraph, he votes for Toaster for weak factors, basically something that would apply to people other than Toaster. I'd have thought that the first paragraph would be enough to leave Toaster out of the PoE for at least a day, in NJW's mind.

I'm pretty confident that Toaster and Webadict are mafia. I can give detailed reasoning when I'm at a computer. For now, in short Web has been trying to lead bandwagons and get the heat off Toaster. This nokill is a frame job. Toaster is framing Max while also protecting Web.

I also wrote notes during N1 but they're at home and I won't be there for awhile today. I will post them when I can.

Looking forward to hearing detailed explanations for these bold claims.

As for my action, I gave a radio to Maximum Spin.

Why Max? Seems like an odd choice.


@web: You got a result of 3 on EuchreJack, does that include yourself?


Not entirely caught up, but out of time for now. Will post more later.

[Roden]

Alright, I believe Jack and Max. More so Jack, but I trust Max through Jack right now. I just need to hear from Jim and Magma now.

Hear from me for what?

I fully claimed on Day 1. I have no night action. I got flavor related to my role (I'm frantically searching for my papers that prove my innocence) but nothing related to anything that may have targeted me.

Alright, I wasn't sure if you had any other abilities that might have affected anyone last night. You get resolved on Day 3 so that's fine for now.

Roden:

I targeted Toaster last night but was also Roleblocked. I thought he might've been lying and was actually just Ascetic, but you're also claiming that you were Roleblocked. My Unreliable passive can't cause my action to fail either, I was specifically told something else caused it to fail. This is why I asked if you targeted Toaster.

Toaster can still be Ascetic I guess, since I don't know how we both could've been blocked here otherwise. But I'm just not sure why he would lie about his role if he's town. Then again, I'm not sure why anyone would waste their Roleblock on me just to stop me from confirming that Toaster is Null to investigations.

I find this quite interesting.  Are you 100% sure you were blocked as opposed to your action just failing?  That wasn't me that blocked you.  Either someone blocked you or reflected my action?


Does anyone want to claim affecting Roden?

My action did fail, but nearly everyone's actions have been accounted for.

Toony gave Jack an item, which Jack confirmed.
Jack Neighborized Max, which Max confirmed.
Web gave an accurate count on the number of actions affecting Jack, so his action is essentially accounted for.
Jim claims Day 3 IC with no abilities, he gets resolved tomorrow.
You blocked Max, which confirms both of your actions.

All that leaves is Magma Mater. If their action can be confirmed, then no one else could have made my action fail except you, by way of you lying and actually being Ascetic.

A bit unrelated, but if you are lying and are mafia, then the lack of NK may be because of either a delayed kill or an alternative passive killing method.

[webadict]

@web: You got a result of 3 on EuchreJack, does that include yourself?

It does not. There is a third person that targeted EuchreJack that has not confessed.

Toony gave Jack an item, which Jack confirmed.
Jack Neighborized Max, which Max confirmed.
Web gave an accurate count on the number of actions affecting Jack, so his action is essentially accounted for.
Jim claims Day 3 IC with no abilities, he gets resolved tomorrow.
You blocked Max, which confirms both of your actions.

All that leaves is Magma Mater. If their action can be confirmed, then no one else could have made my action fail except you, by way of you lying and actually being Ascetic.

A bit unrelated, but if you are lying and are mafia, then the lack of NK may be because of either a delayed kill or an alternative passive killing method.

Well, technically, no, my action requires one more person to confirm me fully. Unless Maximum Spin actually did target EuchreJack, but that doesn't seem like it should if he was roleblocked.

[webadict]

It occurs to me, Toaster, that since you appear not to have read the previous rounds, you don't know that we've already had two setups where scum didn't actually have an immediate kill at all. It is extremely possible that the no-kill was not a choice.

I think we should wait for Magma Mater to confirm their action. I will unvote for now.

I don't think Toaster is scum here. I think it's very likely to be Maximum Spin, ToonyMan, or maybe Magma Mater.

[Magma Mater]

Only thing I'm willing to claim at the moment is that my action would not have blocked Roden.
To me the obvious explanation is that Toaster is just not explaining their ability properly, and that null = ascetic. But I'm also prone to making game-losing assumptions so LOL

[Maximum Spin]

I don't think Toaster is scum here. I think it's very likely to be Maximum Spin, ToonyMan, or maybe Magma Mater.

You should be considering Roden, who was also apparently roleblocked.

Separately, let's be realistic, if I had been scum and tried to do the kill etc., I wouldn't have admitted to being roleblocked in my response, I would have claimed to have done an action, which my partner would seem to confirm, and, when/if Toaster claimed the roleblock, suggested that the action must have failed somehow. (Of course, I most likely wouldn't have been the one to do the kill, anyway; too much daytime visibility.) Unless you're suggesting that I'm solo scum in a setup with at least two roleblockers and no strongman ability to make up for it. I think it's more likely that there just aren't d1 kills for whatever reason again.

[Maximum Spin]

Only thing I'm willing to claim at the moment is that my action would not have blocked Roden.
To me the obvious explanation is that Toaster is just not explaining their ability properly, and that null = ascetic. But I'm also prone to making game-losing assumptions so LOL

Worse, I think Toaster knew that and made the misleading claim to try to bait people into wasting investigations checking it.

[Maximum Spin]

I just remembered I had set this question aside in a tab to answer since it was night by the time I saw it. I had also set aside a webadict post but it wasn't actually a question so I decided not to bother with it now.

If Roden becomes confirmed town (for example, by dying), how do you plan on treating his results?

The same way I said I would. When I commit, I commit.

I got to 3 votes, with 5 to hammer. Max's vote looked the worst both because it was the third on me for a silly reason, and because he hasn't changed it yet.

Why does a vote look worse if I don't change it? I prefer to leave my votes in place as much as possible because I mean them. (And, to me, it is an entirely serious reason.)

Sorry to triple-post but I genuinely forgot about this until now.

[webadict]

I don't think Toaster is scum here. I think it's very likely to be Maximum Spin, ToonyMan, or maybe Magma Mater.

You should be considering Roden, who was also apparently roleblocked.

Separately, let's be realistic, if I had been scum and tried to do the kill etc., I wouldn't have admitted to being roleblocked in my response, I would have claimed to have done an action, which my partner would seem to confirm, and, when/if Toaster claimed the roleblock, suggested that the action must have failed somehow. (Of course, I most likely wouldn't have been the one to do the kill, anyway; too much daytime visibility.) Unless you're suggesting that I'm solo scum in a setup with at least two roleblockers and no strongman ability to make up for it. I think it's more likely that there just aren't d1 kills for whatever reason again.

You immediately voted Toaster right after he claimed to have roleblocked you. If anything, it's possible that you initially overreacted. He had a very good reason to suspect you especially because, as you put it, he would have no reason to believe there isn't another kill method. So, assuming this, that's reasonable suspicion to think that you're scum. He's still Town in this instance.

You, on the other hand, voted him in retaliation for his vote on you. That does seem to indicate that you were OMGUSing based entirely on that. To me, you are the one that seems suspicious in this, not Toaster.

If I'm to say anything here, it's that Toaster's role is literally too suspicious to be scum, and while that's the stupidest thing I've ever said, I'm all in on that stupid fucking idea.

Or at least, Toaster's definitely not lying. Maybe he's scum. It just seems too stupid for him to be scum.