all things considered 3 is probably the worst option of those. But this is such sad panic it's probably not considerably scummy for anyone to vote over
Because I felt like it?NoHItter wrote:
@LadySuburu
Why did you softclaim this early?
Actually, my role is unimportant, and only dangerous if I use it. Actually, only that PART of my role is dangerous if I use it.Wojjan wrote:
so "I have an important dangerous role" is not dangerous to town?
I always have a magic bag, aren't you used to that by now?Wojjan wrote:
he's magic bagging, GET HIM
I believe you when you say you weren't aware of it because it appears you haven't played in awhileEkaru wrote:
*sigh* Fine, I'll confess, since I pretty much have to at this point. Yes, what Wojjan said is true and is exactly what happened.Sync wrote:
I wasn't shooting it down because it was meta or anything It was just a shit ton of meta that I have nothing to do with so I was like "~_~"
When I played a couple of games way back when (this was in like 2009), there were a few games where people picked horrible day 1 lynches. Therefore, playing it safe and going with "no-lynch" on D1 was not considered to be that out of the ordinary and most certainly not a sign of a scum.
However, when you informed me that this was now considered to be scum behavior I panicked. I hadn't played in years and did not know this. So, I had no idea what to say. Let's go over my options:
1. "It is?" That would just make me look like both a dumbass and a scum.
2. "I'm just being cautious." This would still make me look like a scum. Maybe not as much of a dumbass, but still a scum.
3. "I was just seeing how people would react." I went this route in an attempt to look sneaky (which failed miserably).
4. I could simply not reply. But uh, that would make me look like a scum too. Crap.
In other words, I couldn't think of anything better to say so I went with #3, which didn't end very well. But, my attempt to look cool failed miserably. However, I didn't want to admit this because I didn't want to look like a dumbass; it's too late, though.
You can choose not to believe me, of course, but before you do that, just ask yourself one simple question: Is it even possible to try to act this stupid?
Good day, sir. ;P
I got lost on this part. Can you tell us which post or posts gave you this conclusion?animask wrote:
Today we can conclude, very few people here have a horrible role
how did you come to that conclusion?bmin11 wrote:
Well we now see that Sync is Wojjan's follower, huh?
It's not a good reason, but the reason is that nobody seemed lethargic after they confirmed and posted.bmin11 wrote:
Reading reading readingI got lost on this part. Can you tell us which post or posts gave you this conclusion?animask wrote:
Today we can conclude, very few people here have a horrible role
Basically this.pieguy1372 wrote:
IMO, animask posting a lot right at the start does seem suspicious, but IIRC NoHItter wasn't really calling Ekaru out on no-lynching, just "reaction fishing" which he wasn't really doing. I don't think Wojjan is mafia though.
So I totally ignored animask's text right? Well:Wojjan wrote:
Totally ignores animask wall of text in favor of him, probably double teaming with a mafia to get noobtown on the noose.
If you're trying to point out that I somehow "commented less" on animask's post though, then let me say that I found animask's post less suspicious than Ekaru's behavior. As you already said, animask always comes out as "wishy-washy scum on day one", so I treated it with less suspicion compared to Ekaru.NoHItter wrote:
@animask
Adding a disclaimer like that is basically saying:
"I'm suspicious of someone because of X. If X doesn't make sense to you, then deal with it."
Rantai wrote:
Reverse meta says you are mafia for defending it!
In seriousness the content wasn't enough to move me from "eh what were you thinking?" however the chain of events after it made me perk an eyebrow (ESPECIALLY that 'fix' post)
I fixed it of my own accord because I realized just how damn stupid my post sounded. Anybody who realized just how stupid their post sounded would have done pretty much the same thing. ;PRantai wrote:
In seriousness the content wasn't enough to move me from "eh what were you thinking?" however the chain of events after it made me perk an eyebrow (ESPECIALLY that 'fix' post)
Like I said, everything so far has just been the usual day one stuff. It's quite clear that Ekaru is a newbie (not saying they can't be mafia of course), and none of the following discussion is especially scummy and it mostly rational, if a little sensationalist. It makes no sense to lynch people who have been genuinely contributing, as the lynch on day one is always just luck based unless a scum seriously gives themselves away.animask wrote:
RVS is obviously over and the discussion already started
If Newbie was town, another mafioso could have easily put another vote on him and I'm pretty sure no one would bat an eye. Maybe I didn't read thoroughly enough, but I don't think there was enough suspicion on animask that saving him would warrant much suspicion.Wojjan wrote:
well
they were trying weren't they?
Mashley wrote:
Like I said, everything so far has just been the usual day one stuff. It's quite clear that Ekaru is a newbie (not saying they can't be mafia of course), and none of the following discussion is especially scummy and it mostly rational, if a little sensationalist. It makes no sense to lynch people who have been genuinely contributing, as the lynch on day one is always just luck based unless a scum seriously gives themselves away.animask wrote:
RVS is obviously over and the discussion already started
Mashley wrote:
So vote Newbie before an actual poster gets lynched
...You're conveniently ignoring the fact that when you voted for Newbie animask had 3 votes on him, not 2; in other words, animask had an extremely high chance of getting lynched at that point in time unless you managed to get votes off of animask. The 3 people who were voting on animask at that time clearly weren't going to go for Ekaru or NoHItter, so you had to bring up somebody else instead. Who else to go for than a lurker?Mashley wrote:
he had two votes on him for crying out loud.
Your point is? That still leaves a huge number who hadn't voted or discussed who we should lynch at at all. In a 15 person game 3 votes is nothing. There was little to no genuine suspicion about animask as far as I know, and those were just the typical votes that animask gets when he posts his usual gibberish so it was actually quite a shock when he actually flipped town. At that point, as always Day 1 there were no strong arguments for lynching anyone, so the best policy had to be lynching a lurker. I mean look at the final vote count, there were three other people with the same number of votes as animask, he only actually got lynched because of when the votes were cast.Ekaru wrote:
...You're conveniently ignoring the fact that when you voted for Newbie animask had 3 votes on him, not 2
huh, turns out you did call itfoulcoon wrote:
yeah Sync, I'm obviously mafia and fucking with you, which is why I left my vote on a mafia member instead of easily saving them by unvoting.
don't worry mashley, if you flip town we'll lynch DxS.
also Wojjan don't take credit for something I called a mile away okay. you didnt even vote for him!
p.s. Thanks whoever voted with me (ekaru i think).
For the record, I got no notification that I was motivated. You guys can take that as you will.DeathxShinigami wrote:
Nope.
Roleclaim: Motivator
I motivated Ekaru N1. Carry on now.
more like mafia motivator who last minute vote changed in an effort to not lynch their mafia buddyDeathxShinigami wrote:
Nope.
Roleclaim: Motivator
I motivated Ekaru N1. Carry on now.
However, the only thing that doesn't go well with my suspicions is that DxS could have made much better claims than one that's easily refuted. Possibly roleblocked?Ekaru wrote:
For the record, I got no notification that I was motivated. You guys can take that as you will.DeathxShinigami wrote:
Nope.
Roleclaim: Motivator
I motivated Ekaru N1. Carry on now.
This line stands out to me pretty heavily. It seems like at the last minute of day 1, there was a fair amount of vote shuffling in a misguided attempt to avoid lynching animask via tied votes. DxS brought animask's votes to 3, then animask pushed NoHItter up to 2, then DxS unvotes and votes for Newbie instead, possibly hoping that animask going from 3 -> 2 would put him behind NoHItter in the lynch line.Rantai wrote:
Huh... pretty sure that's a NoHItter lynch if I'm looking at this right.
well to be fair, even though DxS looks scummy, if it weren't for his vote + unvote animask wouldnt have been lynched...Ivalset wrote:
This line stands out to me pretty heavily. It seems like at the last minute of day 1, there was a fair amount of vote shuffling in a misguided attempt to avoid lynching animask via tied votes. DxS brought animask's votes to 3, then animask pushed NoHItter up to 2, then DxS unvotes and votes for Newbie instead, possibly hoping that animask going from 3 -> 2 would put him behind NoHItter in the lynch line.Rantai wrote:
Huh... pretty sure that's a NoHItter lynch if I'm looking at this right.
For this reasoning I find all of Mashley, DxS and Rantai to be suspicious in different degrees.
Mashley for clearly attempting to save animask by persuading people to vote for a lurker instead.
DxS for his actions - pushing animask above 2 then back down to 2.
and Rantai for misreading the tied vote rules and bringing attention to the vote changes.
I'm quite comfortable with a Mashley lynch right now, so Vote: Mashley