Print

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

[Darvi]

Sure. Take the easy way out by not answering the question I asked you in that post. That'll get me off your ass real fast.

Considering you just re-tied the vote, it's still a valid question.

Wait what, tied? I count two people voting for you and three for PM, unless I'm mistaken.

Modface, can we have a votecount?

Anyway, I told you why. I didn't want you to get into night without having some sort of backup to ensure the most reliable results.
Of course, in hindsight, I have realized that there is no fakeclaim that would incriminate scum any more than ensuring your lynch (which is kinda redundant anyway) so you would be able to fakeclaim without repercussions. Which is why I stopped voting for you.

Vote hopping is an incredibly effective method of showing you're scum.

Even if I have called my new target scummy several times before?

I had my reason not to change my vote until then.

[Orangebottle]

Sure. Take the easy way out by not answering the question I asked you in that post. That'll get me off your ass real fast.

Considering you just re-tied the vote, it's still a valid question.

Wait what, tied? I count two people voting for you and three for PM, unless I'm mistaken.

Three for Leafsnail and three for PM.

Anyway, I told you why. I didn't want you to get into night without having some sort of backup to ensure the most reliable results.

...
That doesn't explain why you didn't want to untie the vote. It explains why you would want to extend. In case of a tie, noone will be lynched.

Of course, in hindsight, I have realized that there is no fakeclaim that would incriminate scum any more than ensuring your lynch (which is kinda redundant anyway) so you would be able to fakeclaim without repercussions. Which is why I stopped voting for you.

That doesn't make any sense.
More on this later, cause I'm short on time.

[webadict]

All I'm hearing, Darvi, is that you're saying whatever you can to make sure you don't die because you're a filthy liar who needs to die.

You're not telling us your abilities for a reason, and I think if you want to prove me wrong, you can die to show me you have no abilities.

Also, for someone who claims there are other people lurking, you're certainly doing your best to bring them out into the spotlight.

[Think0028]

No votecount at the moment due to time, but suffice to say that the day is extended until Thursday. Daily votecount will happen tonight as per usual.

Also, replacement needed. Apply now! Can't go wrong!

[TolyK]

... dammit should've waited for spoilspec. Whatevs. 

[Urist_McArathos]

Willing to replace in if needed.

[Shakerag]

Well, no, not entirely. Lynching survivors is a totally valid reason by itself, but the fact that you were and still currently ARE lying should be enough. Not only that, but explain how a survivor would live with no abilities in a game with 3 one-shot killers and a mafiakill? Hope for a protect?

I think that's actually a good point, mulling it over.  If the goal of a survivor is to make it to the end of the game, having no abilities in an ability-rich game does seem ... pretty damn unfair.  Given what Darvi's role is based off of, and him claiming survivor, I have to think that he absolutely has a revive.  Now, is he lying about it, or does his role actually not state that?  Hmm, I have a thought.

Think0028: If a player had an auto-revive ability, and they were targeted with two kills in the same night, would they get killed, revive, and then killed again, or would they end up revived and the second kill would miss?  If it missed, would it be used up?

Shakerag:  You're worrying me.  Your last post is the first in a while, and the only one to contain real pertinent information.  You talk a lot about what's going on, but only a little about meaning and implication.  Finally, you don't actually take a firm stand on any issue, especially waffling back and forth there at the end.  You're not voting- who should we lynch?  Who, if anyone, should be NKed tonight?

Sorry.  I'm a fairly passive person by nature, and RL stuff isn't helping much right now.  I'll try to make a more concentrated effort to stay involved here. 

I certainly think that we shouldn't be firing off all the one-shot kills tonight.  That just seems like too risky of a plan.  Especially since we don't appear to have any cop roles, having more day time to narrow down target choices just seems to be the sensible thing to do here. 

As far as NK targets go ... Darvi seems to be a prime choice.  Rereading through the thread, I'd have to say that I agree with people's choice of Ottofar as well.  And Powder Miner. Wait, that won't work.

I wanted to vote Darvi and suggest Powder Miner for being NK'd, but I suppose I can settle on reversing the order. 

Want to hear my theory? OB is lying about his one-shot, and it's actually something that will save him tomorrow. Well, that or his buddies have something to save him tomorrow. Taking this kind of risk is stupid, IMO.

I feel like you're saying this because that's what you want to believe is true.  Do you have something to hide that OB's ability is making you nervous about, Dariush?


Also ... I didn't see anyone else mentioning this, but I can't imagine I'm the only one thinking it ... assuming OB's abilities are true, shouldn't we be concerned that the scumteam would likely want to NK him?

[Urist Imiknorris]

Also ... I didn't see anyone else mentioning this, but I can't imagine I'm the only one thinking it ... assuming OB's abilities are true, shouldn't we be concerned that the scumteam would likely want to NK him?

Enter Herr Doktor, solver of mafiakill-related problems.

[Shakerag]

Also ... I didn't see anyone else mentioning this, but I can't imagine I'm the only one thinking it ... assuming OB's abilities are true, shouldn't we be concerned that the scumteam would likely want to NK him?

Enter Herr Doktor, solver of mafiakill-related problems.

Forgive me for being awfully thick, but I don't see why the sarcasm was necessary.  I'm trying to address what I believe is a legitimate concern. 

[Powder Miner]

Kill/lynch targets: Currently, lynch Powder Miner for evasiveness

Where?

/refusing to explain his accusations

Just because you people on board with the plan don't read my myriad explanations doesn't mean I'm not saying them.

/general lack of awareness of everything

I love how you don't substantiate that charge in any way. Incorrect insults are not points, Jack.

/seemingly deliberate inability to understand direct democracy

Oh yeah, I don't agree with you, so I clearly don't understand direct democracy! If we used this in real life elections, we could get a one=party system going! 

Powder Miner: If, say, mechanics allowed four lynches to be decided during the day at the same time (taking effect at the same time, as well), would you consider those four lynches to be dayplay?  I can't believe I'm asking this question.

Yes. In a Lights Out game like that, my view of what dayplay would be would be different, so In would think it dayplay. But this is not Lights Out.
[/quote]

[Powder Miner]

To all of you opposing the N1-kill plan: How about a compromise. We either only use one kill tonight, per night, until N3. Or we do the plan, but on N2.

That first one sounds great.

[Powder Miner]

Powder:

Powder Miner: There is no plan that involves killing three random people.  There is a plan that involves killing three people that we, as a group, decide on during the day based on scumminess during the day, but that's not killing random people.

With our current information it might as well be random. And it looks like Leafsnail's definition of scummy/useless appears to be everyone who disagrees with him.

This is just poor play.  There's plenty of information to go on here- waiting on an inspect is just weakness in your day game.

As I've already said, information is also daygaming.

My gut's telling me you're a serial killer, but any flavor of scum is a good reason to lynch you.

This isn't a reason.

Alternatively, another oh-so-basic mafia idea- less needless town deaths = good, more needless town deaths = bad. Or another one. More information = good, less = bad.

Townies die.  It sucks, but it happens.  This is a chance for more kills that are not picked out completely by the mafia.  Do you see the benefit in that?

Townies do die. But we shouldn't rush to do a plan that can kill enough of them to put us at D2 LyLo. And even thoguh th town is there, the influential ones could be mafia. Like I think Leafsnail's scum, and look how influential on the whole thing he's been.

Alternatively, another oh-so-basic mafia idea- less needless town deaths = good, more needless town deaths = bad. Or another one. More information = good, less = bad.

You're talking like you know that all the people LS suggests to kill are town.

LS said that some of the killers are probably scum. Rolling with that assertion, they'll be able to use their kills to kill town, by getting the town to kill three other town with only D1 information. It's extremely unlikely that we'd hit all three scum with D1 daygaming and info even without scum messing-around-in-things.

Again, poor play.  Here you're saying that the scum will dictate to the town who to kill, which is wrong.  The town has more voices in this- if you're town and just sit back and let things happen, you have no one to blame but yourself.  It's exactly the same thing as if you sit back and scum direct the lynch.  There is no difference.

Yes, more voices but not necessary as influential voices. How many times do I have to say this?

Can you name four people you find scummy and are worthy of being removed?  I bet you can't.

No, because I'm not trying to kill everyone at once.
[/quote]

[Powder Miner]

I wanted to vote Darvi and suggest Powder Miner for being NK'd, but I suppose I can settle on reversing the order.

♫Hoppin' on the bandwagon♫

[Leafsnail]

PM has a reason other than "I don't want to waste the kills". He said it, but you ignored it.

I've answered it over and over and I see you haven't listened- the clear difference is that these kills are over in one idiotic charge. With lynches, there's discussion in between kills, results of gameplay between days. I'm fine with deciding via discussion and daygame who is scummy and lynching them. Making a snap decision now and killing three random people has little of such discussion, if any.

Strawmen arguments aren't really worth responding to.  I'll give you a hint: I'm not advocating killing 3 random people, and "discussion between kills" shouldn't matter so much unless we're chainlynching.

Speaking of which, why did you suddenly decide to stop ignoring PM?

I said I'd stop ignoring him and you when some people who can play got into this thread.  That happened so I'm not longer ignoring him.

Unless one of our oneshotters is masquerading their mafiakill as a oneshot kill. In which case, they probably can't kill their partner, meaning we find two scum instead of just one.

Yep.  Although scum doing that seems pretty silly since it couldn't really have any positive effect.

Ottofar is always like that. He'd be a good NK. If we're  going after these four, we must lynch one of PM or ECrown. Cause PM is kill immune and ECrown would just delay it to night 2. Then we need to find another target.

A delayed action kill on ECrown wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.  But yeah, that makes sense.

I don't have a kill.
I don't have a kill.
I don't have a kill.
I don't have a kill.
How many times do I have to say it?

Must have got you confused with some else.  This is good though, since I no longer care in the slightest what you think about the extra lynches plan.  If you want to argue more about the merits of extra town kills we can do it after the game has finished.

Alright, Leafsnail, your plan is idiotic and basically amounts to chain-lynching with zero information between kills based on D1 knowledge, which is pretty fucking stupid.

There's no chainlynching at all.  Chainlynching is lynching one person then lynching the person who lynched them if they're town.  This is eradicating useless and scummy people.  Such as yourself.  So it makes perfect sense that you'd want to get rid of me before we can do that.

Everyone who supports the quadrilynch plan:
What the unholy fuck makes you think that all three of our one-shot killers are pro-town or that their one-shot is indeed one-shot?

THE FACT THAT THEY MIGHT BE SCUM IS EXACTLY WHY WE WANT TO ASSIGN THEM TARGETS WHO ARE SCUMMY

YES???  UNDERSTAND?  Look, if they are scum, they could just kill a townie any time and say "Oh, I thought he was scum".  If we force them to kill a scummy person now then we could out them (if they refuse to kill a partner), kill their partner or at least have a scummy person dead rather than a townie person.

In summary, we should lynch Powder Miner (lynch since he's claimed unkillable) and kill Ottofar, MBP, and Darvi.  Killing a survivor is hardly a waste of an action.  Tomorrow, if OB is lying, he's lynched.  Otherwise, we see his results and go from there.

I can pretty much get behind these (Powder Miner for being far more focused on ensuring that we don't try to kill scum than finding scum, Ottofar for being scum and a lurker and Darvi for having a 0% chance of being town).  Except I'd kill Dariush (probably over MBP) since he's a useless asshole as town and I hate making allowances for scummy play constantly just because it's "in someone's meta".

Unvote.  Powder Miner.

[Think0028]

Regarding a theoretical revival ability: revivals happen in the transition between phases. Thus, someone lynched would be alive for the night phase, and someone killed during the night would not revive until the beginning of the next day phase, and the second kill would miss.