I already mentioned it in one of my responses to Hijack. One of the things that seemed off with his claimed role is the usefulness of it in the what our current understanding of matters is. Hijack insisted to not risk the role but I was always more concerned about the unit (as in strength in numbers). In an environment with multiple killers how useful is a role that will work exactly once before and which may save another anti-town killer in the process and is it's potential good enough to leave the question in the equation?


I'm sorry then, I didn't realize you were discussing irrelevant topics. I just noticed a falsehood and I decided to point it out.


In my language there is a saying which would roughly translate in English as "stretching lokum (Turkish delight)". It's used when someone uses a lot of words to say nothing of value on purpose. Have you tried Turkish delight?

@trent - Why did you wait until now to share this? Like, this post screams town-trent, but why wait? What was the purpose of sharing it now?

Yes, I thought Divorce Attorney was adalia's role. I didn't try to figure out where it fit with traditional mafia. I thought RWarehall was having fun with the flavor while demonstrating more info may be revealed. It does bring to mind Lover's. Not sure how that would mechanically work in a game.

Because I didn't want to be killed tonight, but it seemed more and more people want to buy into Hijack's claim, and that is bad for town.

Are you referring to the post where Sage votes for HijacK? I didn't read Sage's statement as special knowledge beyond the certainty of her read.

@Sage - Do you want to say anything to this?

I understand the first part. I didn't notice "more and more people want to buy into Hijack's claim". I heard sympathy from dedo if Hijack's claim was true. I guess, I didn't see the urgency to reveal that now.

So, there can't be more than one mafia teams, and since yogsloth flipped scum you can't but be town. Is this how your argument goes?


I'm not sure if you really don't get it, or if you're just pretending not to.

The rest of the town, should you be one too, can't be certain that you are "a high chance mslynch", as we can't know that it's only an "off chance of maybe getting the right information".

I don't think it's that hard of a concept to grasp.


Did he really not give a reason for flipping Mafia? Didn't he say I don't see him claiming that falling in disfavour with his family was the flavour reason.

And if you go over his claim-post, he didn't do anything the way you did in yours, including the way he presented his power(s). Is the difference in format really indicative, let alone proof, of him lying but you telling the truth? I don't think so.


I'm not implying anything. let alone what you're saying here. And there you go again, I never said that there's a single way of how town behaves, or that it has to be my way or the highway. I pointed it out that your initial reaction was "Look what happened to docbear1075, I'm not going to go the same route, as others expect me to put up a fight to see me as a townie", i.e. you used the docbear1075 incident to adopt the exact opposite defence tactic, and even called it the "perfect justification"; I don't see this as coming from a town place. You later somewhat made the argument I'd expect you to make as your first and prevailing one, yet felt the need to remind us again "Hey, don't forget what happened with docbear1975; doesn't what I'm doing make me town, as that's what you all expected?". Hence why it's mixed signals.


And when asked why you think he's town, your (non)answer was "Professional Mafia Player Opinion". So, I'm not forgetting it, but it doesn't carry weight with the way you didn't give reasons. And town-reading a player, even if they are, or appear to be, against you at some point, is far from a town-tell; scum/anti-town do it all the time to fit in.


That's fine and all, except that you are arguing with me here, and I never endorsed any of that, let alone used it in my arguments.


Perhaps from where you're standing, but certainly not from where I am.


We're dangerously entering drealmer7 territory here. Repeating yourself in the exact same way you've addressed something when the other party doesn't see your point, is not going to make a difference. But that's not the point.

Since you say that you understand how it works a a power, I'm asking you to explain it to me. But that "there must be a reason" tells me that you don't really understand it, hence can't explain it. Which in turn begs the question why you didn't ask for clarification. Or perhaps you did, and can't share it as it may well not be in line with you actually being town as you claim.


Nice shade. Speculating on public information is expected, but questions like: and comments like

came across as fishing more than anything else.


You know, HijacK, it would do wonders if you stuck with countering other people's arguments instead of attacking their play-style or the players themselves with sarcastic remarks. When you go down that route, you're just deflating and dodging, and trying to get an emotional reaction out of the other party. Certainly not something that is going to give you any town-points in my book.


We have three killings, unaccounted for,. but does it necessarily translate into having three killers unaccounted for?

drealmer7 was confirmed by he mod to have killed Bookwyrm627, and given that he had no Triad tattoos (I assume that the flavour is tied in to him using a sword), he acted on his own. The mod also confirmed that he wasn't killed by Bookwyrm627, yet was found in the same room as him. Does this mean that drealmer7's killer escaped the scene and is still walking among us? Is there any conclusive evidence, or at least strong hint, that his killer didn't end up dead in one of the other rooms?

Bookwyrm627 was also confirmed by the mod to not have killed drealmer7, but does this conclusively mean that he didn't kill someone else before getting killed himself?

Same goes for bler144 and yogsloth.

This is actually anyone can chime in if they want.

I actually read this in the same way. It seems that RW is very deliberate in the flavor, so I'm inclined to believe that the crime-scenes are supposed to provide some information. Drealmer is the key element here. Unless he has been framed in some way and he is really Wyrm's killer I think that we are supposed to look at who is where and with whom - hence 3 killers. Until RW made that clarification I was a lot more ready to see bler's kill as yog's doing.

My argument is: If you have this belief, can you perhaps provide more than just "I think there are multiple mafia teams out there!"? Can we, perhaps, get a few numbers of how do you think such teams are formed and they could exist? So far, this sounds far fetched. I'm not a fan of wilder speculation on top of already wild speculation

And I don't think it's a lot to ask for people to perhaps look at the play of those partaking in the game, as opposed to just a claim. I vow to either always claim Day 1 from now on, or never claim again unless I'm L-2. No, @drealmer, I don't like L-1 claims. It appears to me that many people are too stuck in old ways to wrap their minds about anything else but claims, so I either take it out of the way in the beginning, or it will be a mystery for all. "Screw what's beneficial for town", seems to be the overall attitude people get regarding claims.

We are of differing opinions then.

Right, because doing the exact same thing and expecting a different result is totally and 100% from a town place. Let's just agree to disagree. I don't think you're seeing straight here.

I wish I could say I'm sorry, but I can't. When I see such nonsense arguments fly around, I can't help but remind people of their own arguments. Maybe, just maybe, if you constantly remind them of something they will learn from it. Maybe. That's, of course, just being hopeful on my part.

I didn't say that it is a tell, and I didn't use it as a justification for anything. I simply brought that up because you seemed to imply I take issue with whomever suspects me, which would be an erroneous conclusion. Not only this, but if others are allowed to call "gut feelings" and give no other reason for a major decision, especially that one of a vote, then I'm simply going to give the justification that it is my opinion that he is town. Since I don't see you vehemently question others about gut feelings, why am I question for my opinion, and I'm not talking about you, necessarily? Double standard? Mall intent? Obtuseness?

I am well aware of your stance on this issue, which I appreciate, but that was an answer to my frustration with the current way things are going given what transpired.

I was just being cheeky.

Am I supposed to be scared or offended at this?

Hmmmm. Fair enough. I suppose the same logic as going the same thing and expecting a different result can be applied here as well.

"There must be a reason" was a dramatization of the fact that there is indeed a reason for which the flip is different. If you assume the narrator is knowledgeable about this fact while re-reading the paragraph, it really sounds different. It's made to emphasize that something is attributed as an explanation. Explanation that was given later in order to capitalize on the reader interest.

It's game mechanics related more so than role related, if you ask me. I had already made a claim that I didn't receive word. If this is so indicative of fishing, why would I make a claim before I inquire about others? Do you see what I'm getting at?

I don't get this one. How is making an observation on your role considered fishing?

It would also do wonders if others didn't resort to dirty tactics to push a case and kill the game mood. It was all nice and dandy until some dicks had to be asses about things that pertain to things higher than the game. Alas, it is what it is. The double standards and hypocrisy of people, I guess, will never cease to amaze me.

I don't need town points for emotion. I'm glad you don't bank on that.

Multiple kills per role is not something I had entertained. Perhaps it has merit, but the numbers barely change even in this case.

I suppose this too has merit, but I'd expect them all to be piled together in the same room. I see the game mechanics more two dimensional in this regard. That is, however, just my assumption.

It doesn't, but I am not of that belief if I am to make a judgement based on the info thus far.

I doubt you'll get much from others. I see some individuals involved, while others are free riding a wave for nothing of their merit.

Flub unvoted and all anyone else has been doing is speculating and not actually voting, and I mean voting on anyone. The game was going nowhere.

Why?


The "may save another anti-town" is always a chance (town) protective roles take, especially early in the game. More so in the setup we seem to have here, but I'm not sure if it's a compelling argument. But overall a point to consider with the way Hijack handled it.



How will you know if trentonlf was lying?



Can you point me to where this button pushing during D1 started?


Does this mean scum, or does it also cover third-party anti-town?

Let's see what HijacK flips first, then what the night brings us. We may be able to garner more info on the whole quotation marks thing.
Quite possible that I won't know for sure if trent's is lying or not, but we'll see.

This may be the funniest thing I read all day.


Yog coming up pre-emptively with the idea to claim Death Miller on D1 without realizing/knowing there is a real Death Miller doesn't sound like a joke to you?

I have no information other then my feelings and what I find off.

I expect town-Hijack has more reaction to trent's 'bomb' other than to try and brush it off. No questions, just this?

We have some 4 hours more. I'll be playing overwatch for at least 1-2 more hours. Things seem to have slowed down. I guess not much else to happen. I'll hammer before going to bed.