4 minutes ago, Visovics said:

N2 Mad was quite obvious he was a cop and that he investigated JJ, this means that he may live another day and so block whatever protective role you know, so me because no claims.

Mad was not cop and as far as I know nothing pointed to that.

7 minutes ago, Visovics said:

N3 I go to protect you, because of your claim to be a watcher, which btw "gave nothing" until this night. Roleblocker is dead anyway, so I know I'll be at your place

PT106 died during the N3.

I didn't claim my role until D4. Actually after N3.

Maybe you are confusing the night you blocked me (N3) with the nigh YOU told you were blocked (N2)

7 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Think about it Ghost. If you were hutt and you were able to send a message to two people why you would send the message to two townies when there are just 4 players left?

A bit of bad maths? 1 hutt, so 3 villagers. You can send 2 messages. Are you going to send one to yourself? Cancel the other one?(can you do that?)

Also, if you are a hutt, would you try to convince the other 2 that the last one is hutt so you get 3 votes? (Actually, while I was writing that last one, Onidsen sitting out and letting the blood spill to just give the 3rd vote now came to my head, can we get some explanation @Onidsen ?)

That text took an unexpected turn there...

10 minutes ago, Visovics said:

So right now I have the impression you are lying about your role, and there even is the possibility you can send 2 messages, but despite me and Ghost having received messages, you still say that Tirion's claim of a message was a lie, which is rather weird since we know that the messenger wasn't dead.

Tirion was hutt. The messenger seems to be hutt. You and Ghost agree about that. The message could be sent to pretend or not. The end is the same. He lied.

Hmm... the interesting bit is that there's no way to confirm the Mason claim, as CNinja didn't flip as a mason on death. Course, that does make the idea that NIP would make it up less likely. If nobody else has flipped mason, then claiming it is... odd, to say the least.

I'm inclined to believe it. Which narrows my choices to Visovics and ovinomanc3r. Both of whom have claimed power roles, but neither of whom have confirmed that they actually have them. Course, to prove Visovics, he'd have to die. And then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

For ovi, he claimed being able to track, but hasn't given us a single result.

Just now, ovinomanc3r said:

The end is the same. He lied.

Lies can be used very broadly when people are expecting a lie

1- tell the truth so people believe it's a lie

2- tell a lie so people think it's an attempt of the above example and ignore it

1 minute ago, Visovics said:

A bit of bad maths? 1 hutt, so 3 villagers. You can send 2 messages. Are you going to send one to yourself? Cancel the other one?(can you do that?)

Also, if you are a hutt, would you try to convince the other 2 that the last one is hutt so you get 3 votes? (Actually, while I was writing that last one, Onidsen sitting out and letting the blood spill to just give the 3rd vote now came to my head, can we get some explanation @Onidsen ?)

That text took an unexpected turn there...

I said PLAYERS

However the most stupid strategy.

Why I didn't send a message to incriminate Onidsem or anyone else to two players. Then I claim having the samemessage and then we would be three against 1 and easily win.

24 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

So again: either you got it and are townie, or you sent it and are hutt. but the fact remains that you and I have had in some way contact with the same message.

15 minutes ago, Visovics said:

?

The bold 'but' instead of 'But' above. . .

1 minute ago, ovinomanc3r said:

I said PLAYERS

However the most stupid strategy.

Why I didn't send a message to incriminate Onidsem or anyone else to two players. Then I claim having the samemessage and then we would be three against 1 and easily win.

Yeah, nevermind, we can end up strapolating this forever.

Just now, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

The bold 'but' instead of 'But' above. . .

Now I cannot unsee it...

@BiggsIRL , what did the Mayor role do?

3 minutes ago, Onidsen said:

For ovi, he claimed being able to track, but hasn't given us a single result.

To watch and I had something. I watched Tirion being not visited by PT106

Of course you could say I lie.

And I watched Ghost being visited by Visovics and he got a message!!!

Again you could say I lie.

20 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

If Visovics didn't send the message who did it? Me? Why I would send the same message to two players (if that is possible that I really think is not)? I couldn't be sure if they were going to trust it or not but I could be sure that he would make some kind of team.

Think about it Ghost. If you were hutt and you were able to send a message to two people why you would send the message to two townies when there are just 4 players left?

If you sent the message, then it could be an attempt at a double-bluff, as discussed above.

If Onidsen sent the message, then it could be an attempt to convince us that you're a Hutt.

This is all speculation of course, I don't know what I'd do. Given though that the common assumption is that the messages are lies, I'd think it the perfect opportunity to tell the truth. The more people, the less believable it is.

Now, correct me if I've missed something, but isn't this the first night that 2 people have gotten the message?

Just now, Onidsen said:

Now, correct me if I've missed something, but isn't this the first night that 2 people have gotten the message?

I think so, unless Caribbean received in N1 and no one received in N2, which is less believable

Now thinking on it, if you send the 2nd message to the kill target, that's actually a pretty good save! If the person is saved by the medic, there are 2 messages on the loose, if the person is watched, you can just claim messenger (correct me if I'm wrong, but messenger can be both alignments right?). So having a message sent to the killed person equals 2 messages sent, but only one is revealed.

As a hutt...

I tried to defend Norell when was the easiest kill. Then, when thing started to move against JJ I went back to Norell. It is a weird way to procedure as a hutt looking for lynching townies.

Then I didn't vote JJ and I pointed to the obvious incrimination.

Then I sacrificed my mate after he built a good story about voices cleaning me instead of sacrifice myself. Cause non trustworthy voices are more powerful that A BLOCKER???!!! Who could just block Visovics and kill someone?

And then I sent two message and I didn't claim I got another one case 2 townies against the world are better that 2 fools and me against the last kill I would need. Cause I could easily send "trust/don't trust Onidsen to Ghost story nd Visovics and claimed I had that message too.

And don't forget, it seems I send messages, at least two and I didn't send two against JJ the first night to support my own claim. instead of that I said I had it and fought alone trying to convince people to swap from one almost dead townie to another.

Brilliant hutt work!

Now let's think:

- Onidsen put the last vote on Tirion.

- Caribbean didn't vote him.

- No one knew anything about Ghost.

- and Visovics were the most trustworthy.

Why he is not died? That would remove the player more likely to be believed. But he is alive. Instead of that Caribbean died. Why? Cause Visovics cannot kill himself and couldn't kill me without incriminating himself. While I actually could kill him as an attempt to proof that someone tried to kill me or to kill Visovics and say I saw someone to do that.

Are you really telling me that the message story was a better way to win than keep alive the blocker or just killing Visovics and claim my watcher role again???? Seriously????

12 minutes ago, Onidsen said:

Now, correct me if I've missed something, but isn't this the first night that 2 people have gotten the message?

YES!!

So basically:

Ovinomanc3r could be said to have lied, given that his results are unprovable, but the latter one does have a feature that makes it believable: Vis visited me, I got a message.

Visovics similarly has conveniently been unable to use his role this entire game, and can always claim after the fact that he visited an unharmed member.

Now some issues (who'd have expected those ?):

Ovi could be lying, in that he sent the messages, and sent them to both people so'd they both say they did, and he could say he saw the one visit the other, thereby showing that the one sent the message to the other. Furthermore, if Visovics visited me, then who killed CNinja? Obvious answer is duh, Visovics (in this example, the hutt), but that would imply that he's in two positions at once. Not impossible, duh, but still, something.

Visovics could similarly be lying, and thus everything ovi said is true. That's the thing. They say conflicting things, such that one MUST be lying, and the other MUST be telling the truth, thereby implying that one is TOWN and one is HUTT.

The support for ovinomanc3r is:
1) He claimed results earlier
2) His explanation for last night makes sense.

The flaws in ovinomac3r's defense:
1) He started the whole message business which has proved to be such a disaster
2) He claims to have been drunk, then claimed his character was drunk, then the Hutt was the barman
3) Hasn't actually delivered anything useful from his ability until tonight, and the data tonight while it makes sense, is also suspect since if he's hutt of course he'd ensure that his explanation makes sense

The support for Visovics is:
1) He was the first to claim his role
2) His is the only defensive role
3) Both he and I got messages implicating Ovinomanc3r

The flaws in Visovics' defense:
1) Both he and I got messages implicating Ovinomanc3r
2) Ovinomanc3r claims to have seen him visit me the same night I got a message, the contents of which he also knows
3) Has never had the opportunity to use his ability, and can always amend who he protected to fit a non-victim

Did I miss anything?

Overall I'm more inclined to vote for Visovics now, given the 'evidence', but. . . ::sigh::

about sums me up. . .

1 minute ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

So basically:

Ovinomanc3r could be said to have lied, given that his results are unprovable, but the latter one does have a feature that makes it believable: Vis visited me, I got a message.

Visovics similarly has conveniently been unable to use his role this entire game, and can always claim after the fact that he visited an unharmed member.

Now some issues (who'd have expected those ?):

Ovi could be lying, in that he sent the messages, and sent them to both people so'd they both say they did, and he could say he saw the one visit the other, thereby showing that the one sent the message to the other. Furthermore, if Visovics visited me, then who killed CNinja? Obvious answer is duh, Visovics (in this example, the hutt), but that would imply that he's in two positions at once. Not impossible, duh, but still, something.

Visovics could similarly be lying, and thus everything ovi said is true. That's the thing. They say conflicting things, such that one MUST be lying, and the other MUST be telling the truth, thereby implying that one is TOWN and one is HUTT.

The support for ovinomanc3r is:
1) He claimed results earlier
2) His explanation for last night makes sense.

The flaws in ovinomac3r's defense:
1) He started the whole message business which has proved to be such a disaster
2) He claims to have been drunk, then claimed his character was drunk, then the Hutt was the barman
3) Hasn't actually delivered anything useful from his ability until tonight, and the data tonight while it makes sense, is also suspect since if he's hutt of course he'd ensure that his explanation makes sense

The support for Visovics is:
1) He was the first to claim his role
2) His is the only defensive role
3) Both he and I got messages implicating Ovinomanc3r

The flaws in Visovics' defense:
1) Both he and I got messages implicating Ovinomanc3r
2) Ovinomanc3r claims to have seen him visit me the same night I got a message, the contents of which he also knows
3) Has never had the opportunity to use his ability, and can always amend who he protected to fit a non-victim

Did I miss anything?

Not really missed anything other than the slight chance where we both have the truth and Oni has an ultra OP manipulative role (kinda unfair) and is just sitting back and laughing at us go against each other, but that's unlikely.

Also, it would be a d*ck move from biggs to put no protective role in game, unless the mayor was also one.

Just now, Visovics said:

Not really missed anything other than the slight chance where we both have the truth and Oni has an ultra OP manipulative role (kinda unfair) and is just sitting back and laughing at us go against each other, but that's unlikely.

Also, it would be a d*ck move from biggs to put no protective role in game, unless the mayor was also one.

Ah thanks! I told myself to include that, then forgot.

It would be odd for there not to be a protector/doc, but I kinda think that that was the Mayor, or at least partly the Mayor. . . another thing I forgot to mention was that Truthiness was a tracker, so he could technically take the place of watcher. . . My brain hurts.

On 09/06/2017 at 3:38 PM, PT106 said:

Let me remind all of you the conclusions that @ovinomanc3r made out of his night encounter. From my point of view, his story doesn't support 99% certainty (he doesn't even know who sent him the message). I think we're presented with a Hobson choice here: to kill JJ now and kill Norell the next day, or to kill Norell now and to kill JJ the next day. Notice that ovinomanc3r described his allegation in a way that allows him a plausible deniability in the case we kill innocent person. Also, assuming that the message was the result of someone else exercising his power, I find it curious that ovinomanc3r was preparing for his current declaration from day 1 with all his blue milk escapades. Therefore I think a simpler explanation is in order: either @ovinomanc3r is lying and trying to set us all up, or he is Force-sensitive and therefore is Rebel-aligned. In both cases I will

#vote ovinomanc3r

Absolutely random fun fact you find when re-reading the thread, the situation came up before and was ignored leading us to lynch 2 innocent in a row. Not implying anything, just throwing it here, as that PT also died not much later

The lack of a protective role could have sense in our environment where we have just two Hutt, one idiot and, if ghost tell the truth (and I think he does), two special alignment (whatever it means).

But I know nothing about balanced mafia games.

9 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

It would be odd for there not to be a protector/doc, but I kinda think that that was the Mayor, or at least partly the Mayor. . . another thing I forgot to mention was that Truthiness was a tracker, so he could technically take the place of watcher. . . My brain hurts.

Re-read, and it seems that mayor looks like the cop, Mad said a few times that JJ read as villager or godfather