2 hours ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

Dang Truthiness, I thought I was the dude who was supposed to be high. Sheesh.

So, Biggs really wants to lynch someone, and backed off when his target agreed on principle to vote in order to prove his innocence, Vis defended the target. . .

Who else should we shake up?

I'm high on power and drunk on the tears of Privates (I just took a command)

I backed off because it was a honeypot trap with crappy reasoning to nab a hopeful scum hooping on the bandwagon as vote #2 or #3.

It is possible that Truthiness is scummy vote #2, but the bait isn't supposed to RUIN THE DANG HONEYPOT.

Good morning.

Today I get a plastic tube pulled out of my juggular so I might go quiet for a bit.

This is going to be quiet I think.

The no-lynch thinking is enough to avoid discussion. Who is gaining with that? Townies or mafia?

1 minute ago, ovinomanc3r said:

This is going to be quiet I think.

The no-lynch thinking is enough to avoid discussion. Who is gaining with that? Townies or mafia?

According to Onidsen's numbers the crew would be better off with a day one lynch. The real benefit (other than the more important discussion) is that assuming there are 2 traitors, we'd have a 22% chance of lynching one that first day. After that the chances only increase 4 and 7% on day 2 and 3.

Yeah I second the lynching today. I didn't last time, but I think we should at least risk it.

So: who's the target?

@BiggsIRL , care to explain the version of your post I posted above? Why such suspicious implications? Hmmmmmmmmmm?

14 hours ago, JJs Juggernaut said:

****...I'm not sure what is more suspicious. Biggs's percentage number, or Truthi's over-the-top willingness to die. Maybe they are both in on it....you never know.

This is my first hunch as well. Over eager beavers or traitors.

5 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

Yeah I second the lynching today. I didn't last time, but I think we should at least risk it.

So: who's the target?

@BiggsIRL , care to explain the version of your post I posted above? Why such suspicious implications? Hmmmmmmmmmm?

3 minutes ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

This is my first hunch as well. Over eager beavers or traitors.

What is that? Another Mason lobby?

However I agree. Biggs voted Truthiness and made him voting himself.

## vote Biggs

Explain yourself or die! (We are all scum, polite debate is for weak farmers)

Note to self: never write on FFG forum when you'rehalf asleep.

18 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

Yeah I second the lynching today. I didn't last time, but I think we should at least risk it.

So: who's the target?

@BiggsIRL , care to explain the version of your post I posted above? Why such suspicious implications? Hmmmmmmmmmm?

Even I am not bold enough to breadcrumb a scum claim as scum (though it would be a funny thing to try as an Idiot). I do like breadcrumbing my claims as power role town though, so when I am forced to claim I can quote some old posts and show I have been consistant since Day 1. The tricky part is making it obvious in hind sight, but not so blatent scum cam figure it out.

I'm still against lynching anyone on day 1. Yes we can hit bullseye and kill the traitor but we can also kill an innocent. Well as much as a crew of smugglers like us can be innocent anyway. Or worse, someone with an important role...

@ovinomanc3r I thought I explained it well:

I started Day 1 trying to start a dumb bandwagon on Truthiness to sucker scummy votes out so we have a halfway decent way of figuring out a Day 1 vote. The idea goes like this:

I vote for Truthiness

Someone else votes for Truthiness

I post "trap sprung", vote for them, and ask why they voted for Truthiness based on my terrible reasoning.

The bait isn't supposed to make such a big dramatic deal over it, springing my pretty trap.

And to say it again because it bears repeating: unless Mad made a REALLY unbalanced game, with 9 players it just makes sense that there are exactly 2 threats to town. We can rule out 3, because we lose almost instantly. We can rule out one unless it is some super powered Serial Killer or a Traitor role (Scum alligned vanilla town)

There are a ton of well balanced 9 player games out there and they all have one thing in common: 2 scum.

I mean, I could be wrong here but I would be exceptionally surprised.

Not an awesome explanation. At least from my point of view.

So... Turns put removing a plastic tube from my jugular only requires local anesthesia and not twilight meds as previously thought. That was... Weird.

Phone posting but not looped out of my gourd.

9 alive, 5 to hammer.

1 hour ago, BiggsIRL said:

@ovinomanc3r I thought I explained it well:

I started Day 1 trying to start a dumb bandwagon on Truthiness to sucker scummy votes out so we have a halfway decent way of figuring out a Day 1 vote. The idea goes like this:

I vote for Truthiness

Someone else votes for Truthiness

I post "trap sprung", vote for them, and ask why they voted for Truthiness based on my terrible reasoning.

The bait isn't supposed to make such a big dramatic deal over it, springing my pretty trap.

Since it's not working, I'll confess this was my line of thinking as well. Behind the insane facade, the logic was to try to whittle the list down to 4 suspect votes instead of 5.

#unvote Truthiness

Great, we're back at 0 suspects.

@Onidsen I know you gave some reasons, but why not give us a bit of info about yourself? Day 1 is literally a shot in the dark (man I hate night fights, don't you guys? I remember that time on Umbara. . . ) - Anyways. Day 1 is generally a shot in the dark, so we might as well randomly ask people to volunteer info, since otherwise we'll just be standing around in a metaphorical circle looking at each other going 'So. . . . . . . '.

1 hour ago, Norell said:

I'm still against lynching anyone on day 1. Yes we can hit bullseye and kill the traitor but we can also kill an innocent. Well as much as a crew of smugglers like us can be innocent anyway. Or worse, someone with an important role...

Yeah, but also we have a higher chance of getting the traitors the next day, and a blind shot is better than nothing, the only difference is that if we don't lynch, we will have wasted 48 hours and we will be one less by D2, also chance of being a power role, and the traitors will kill a random target anyway because no one will be a "definite power role target". And the discussion to analyze will be useless because no pressure was applied and everyone could keep masks and lie with calm. If we can get a real threat of lynch, people may panic and crack, and if the person is lying, they will be incoherent, so higher chances of being a traitor, otherwise, why lie?

Also, you guys can call me Mike, Mike Mothra

Call me Laya Whoregana. I liked that Umbara adventure by the way. Something in that dark planets made me tingling....

"Mike", I'm still not sold on day 1 lynching. What if we accidentally kill someone important by accident? Let's say half of the people have roles. If we randomly kill someone there is a 3:2 chance to kill a supportive role. Isn't that a greater loss?

So we still have Truthiness against the day one hammer....even after all the discussion and proof that it is better for the town. That is suspicious. Norell is also against the hammer, which is....suspicious. However, I pushed for a hammer on Norell last game for that same reason and he was town, so I'm willing to overlook this a little more now.

For me, Biggs's explanation really doesn't quite sit right, even though it makes a lot of sense. He's either quite experienced as passing himself off as town while being scum, or he really is town. Something to keep an eye on, but not vote-able for me yet.

Ghost either made an extremely lucky/perceptive logic jump, or is trying to push something over on to Biggs. I think flavor will play a big role in this game, or at least I hope it will.

Just now, Norell said:

Call me Laya Whoregana. I liked that Umbara adventure by the way. Something in that dark planets made me tingling....

"Mike", I'm still not sold on day 1 lynching. What if we accidentally kill someone important by accident? Let's say half of the people have roles. If we randomly kill someone there is a 3:2 chance to kill a supportive role. Isn't that a greater loss?

Well, we are 7 without counting the traitor scum, so considering the upper half is supportive roles, it's a 4:3, so if we end up killing one of our own, there would be the chance of hitting a supportive role, but also,considering the worst case scenario, if we hit a power role by accident, the odds become 3:3, and so the mafia has a lower chance of night killing a power role, thus increasing the chance in the kill of all power roles contributing with their data for the next round/rest of game

5 minutes ago, Norell said:

Laya Whoregana

This sounds rudely familiar...

6 minutes ago, Visovics said:

Well, we are 7 without counting the traitor scum, so considering the upper half is supportive roles, it's a 4:3, so if we end up killing one of our own, there would be the chance of hitting a supportive role, but also,considering the worst case scenario, if we hit a power role by accident, the odds become 3:3, and so the mafia has a lower chance of night killing a power role, thus increasing the chance in kill ing a vanilla, so all power roles contributing with their data for the next round/rest of game

That was some very badly worded english