5 hours ago, Truthiness said:Nippy, did we hear your full back story yet?
Kinda.
I'm Loyal Crewman Dutch Papers, and am fond of 'herbal supplements'. So I spiced that up a bit and said I'm a tea and weed addict who occasionally dabbles in spice. I'm a vanilla town (finally!)
After reading all the stuff you put I not sure about being able to contribute too much.
- JJ death incriminates Trthiness.
- Onidsen's link with Biggs points to him.
- Biggs list placing Onidsen at the top would be quite obvious. At then end it seems a way to incriminate Onidsen.
- Biggs pointed to 2 scum. And Onidsen did it too. Suspicious.
My head says me look at those two but my heart says me the last traitor (1 or 2) are between the others.
However, again my brain want to go beyond the curtain.
I trust Onidsen when he ponted to two traitors. I think he could be wrong but he wouldn't lie about that. But he and Biggs are mafia veterans it seems. Would they able to build a classic incriminating case to make us think that it would be so obvious? That is not meta-game rather than tactic and that would not inhibit him.
Putting himself in the edge is not Truthiness pretending to look townie?
Why Norell watched Onidsen if he says he suspected about him? He could watch JJ (likely victim to incriminate Truthiness) or himself (this way he could know a possible doc and trust him).
Right now between those three I think Truthiness is townie. I suspect about Norell more than I do about Onidsen. His target as watcher has no sense for me until he explained himself better. Onidsen seems townie cause the hard case incriminating him, however as the most veteran I am worried about the level of sibilinity he could bring here being scum with Biggs.
Between the others I cannot say too much. Maybe, and only if Truhiness/Onidsen innocence is proved, I would think there is another scum.
Is there a list of likely mafia setups with 9 players? A flavour cop and a watcher don't look too powerful against three mafia... maybe a third faction role?
1 minute ago, ovinomanc3r said:Is there a list of likely mafia setups with 9 players? A flavour cop and a watcher don't look too powerful against three mafia... maybe a third faction role?
I forgot the doc but I keep my questions.
5 hours ago, CaribbeanNinja said:So here is how this is going to work: Ignores the Truthiness quote and gives an unsolicited plan of action - Onidsen merely asked for an opinion, which you do not provide. You state a plan of action as obvious (except for the mystery suspect) as the saying 'I'm Alive' is true.
Norell will wake up and give us his result. Well I mean duh, so nothing to comment on here
Then we will proceed. Very vague. Of course we'll proceed. With what do you mean? Voting? Discussion? 'Proceed' is so vague anything we do will be considered 'proceeding'.
I've already made my mind up but I want to be 100% sure. Well that's great, but you've made your mind up about what? Whom to vote for? Somebody's innocence? What? Whom?
After Norell speak, we can decide if we need any other info. We need other info now . It's like you're saying 'I've made up my mind on the vote, and we'll vote said person after Norell speaks', but you didn't even bother telling us the target. Are we to blindly follow your lead?
So, Norell came back with the result of nobody visiting Onidsen, which does nothing to prove his innocence, but then also agrees that he's likely a good guy.
What's your idea?
Furthermore, you didn't claim. You actually rather adroitly completely ignored the posts you were quoting, preferring instead to state how you desired things to go in the form of a statement, as if you could tell us what to do. So whereas Truthiness asked you for a claim, and Onidsen an opinion, you gave a rather vague plan of action. See above my bold.
In fact, I consider it so unhelpful, that I shall
##vote CNinja
to back up my investigation, adding that you did the classic scum move of hammering the already doomed scum (before he could claim even!)
2 hours ago, Visovics said:Just woke up, I think Onidsen is in fact loyal and so is Truthiness. For some reason I have a guts feeling that either Ghost or Ovi is the scummy scum of the scum, but it's just a feeling.
I can assure you that I am a good guy. So I take it you would consider ovinomanc3r to be our next target?
7 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:I can assure you that I am a good guy. So I take it you would consider ovinomanc3r to be our next target?
No, unless evidence comes up against him, but as I said, it's a gut feeling. I'm still waiting for everyone to claim what they did at night to make up my mind
2 minutes ago, Visovics said:No, unless evidence comes up against him, but as I said, it's a gut feeling. I'm still waiting for everyone to claim what they did at night to make up my mind
Well so far we have a watcher, who watched for a net result of 0, a protector, who protected the watcher who wasn't targeted, for a net result of 0, and a cop, who died. Out of 7, we thus have 1 vanilla (me) 2 power roles (Truth & Norell), at least one scum (?) for a confirmed 4. That leaves 3 more people. It's likely that we'll have at least one more vanilla, which leaves two unknown roles. Odds are we'll have tracker (in the previous 2 games we have had one), so either 1 tracker and a vanilla, a tracker and a scum, or a vanilla and a scum.
I am inclined to believe that if there are 3 scum, there will be more power roles, so the options are:
2 scum:
3 vanilla,
1 doc
1 watcher
1 scum
tracker
or
4 vanilla,
1 doc
1 watcher
1 scum
3 scum:
2 vanilla,
1 doc
1 watcher
2 scum
tracker
which means we should only reasonably expect one other person to claim and report, and that'd be the tracker. If there is no tracker, then I'd be inclined to believe that there are only 2 scum (in spite of the fact that Biggs endorsed that number).
I watched Onidsen because I was hoping that even if he visits someone I can get some info. It didn't turn out that way. I'm not really sure what to think about the others but fortunately I have some time to distill all the new infos.
3 minutes ago, Norell said:I watched Onidsen because I was hoping that even if he visits someone I can get some info. It didn't turn out that way. I'm not really sure what to think about the others but fortunately I have some time to distill all the new infos.
So you thought you were a tracker?
21 minutes ago, Visovics said:No, unless evidence comes up against him, but as I said, it's a gut feeling. I'm still waiting for everyone to claim what they did at night to make up my mind
2 minutes ago, Norell said:I watched Onidsen because I was hoping that even if he visits someone I can get some info . It didn't turn out that way. I'm not really sure what to think about the others but fortunately I have some time to distill all the new infos.
I never had it when I watched Tirion and Visovics last game, I would had worked on that. Not sure why you hoped that...
Does anyone else hope the same from a watcher role? Just to distinct between a honest mistake from a bad excuse.
1 minute ago, ovinomanc3r said:I never had it when I watched Tirion and Visovics last game, I would had worked on that. Not sure why you hoped that...
Does anyone else hope the same from a watcher role? Just to distinct between a honest mistake from a bad excuse.
It's my 2nd game ever and I know what a watcher does, so either he really doesn't pay attention or it truly is a bad excuse
Just now, Visovics said:It's my 2nd game ever and I know what a watcher does, so either he really doesn't pay attention or it truly is a bad excuse
You know it well
Where I played we only had a cop, a blocker, a doc and some mafia so I'm still catching up on all the other roles and yes, I confused the tracker with the watcher.
5 minutes ago, Norell said:Where I played we only had a cop, a blocker, a doc and some mafia so I'm still catching up on all the other roles and yes, I confused the tracker with the watcher.
Mmm, yes, but did you confuse them in a false claim brought to light, a misread, or a switch of their roles?
22 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:Mmm, yes, but did you confuse them in a false claim brought to light, a misread, or a switch of their roles?
if we are going to trust that it was a honest mistake, not knowing if he is watcher or tracker cannot hurt the town but it really does to scum and could be useful the traitor/s didn't know if they are tracked or watched.
They know if Norell said the truth or not, if they know he is townie, at least let them confused about his true role.
To trust Norell and push him for a completely clarification about what the hell his role is looks a bit scum for me.
To claim properly would help the case of his confusion? Cause I think it doesn't.
Just keep in mind that I was the one who directed attention at Biggs in the first place. Nobody really suspected him until I started to make a tantrum. Why would do something like that if I am a fellow scum myself?
Here's what I'm thinking. Norell, please watch me tonight. I, once again, misunderstood your role, but this works out better. If someone comes to kill me, you'll know who. I'll protect you again to make sure we keep your power role.
In the mean time, CNinja is starting to get up there on my list. I can't really put my finger on it, but he's been fairly quiet, but subtly nudging things along here and there. I think CNinja is a safe-ish vote. I have a sneaking suspicion that Onisden might become the night kill if Ninja isn't our Scum in order to cast further doubt on myself. If Onisden and myself both survive the night, I think we're back to the showdown between the two of us.
##vote CNinja
41 minutes ago, Norell said:Just keep in mind that I was the one who directed attention at Biggs in the first place. Nobody really suspected him until I started to make a tantrum. Why would do something like that if I am a fellow scum myself?
Here you have several quotes where you can see you were far for being the first.
Actually you changed when things started to being bad for you. Even before Biggs voted you.
On 2017-6-14 at 10:44 PM, Truthiness said:##role confirmed
I stated my position last time around. Anyone trying to railroad some right off the bat is Scum.
On 2017-6-14 at 11:56 PM, CaribbeanNinja said:know something we don't know?
On 2017-6-15 at 0:28 AM, 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.
On 2017-6-15 at 6:59 AM, Norell said:## vote confirmed.
Again, Europena timezone....
According to my backstory I'm a girl so from now on I'm gonna try to act like one
Anyway, let's not forget that there are roles that have victory conditiond like being killed by the mob. Truthines may have such role, although this would be a rather direct approach on his part....
On 2017-6-15 at 11:46 AM, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:Because some edits of mine didn't make it, I'm redoing the quote.
Testing:
if this is struck-through, then the '['+'S'+']' is the short-cut for that ability. . . useful to know.
On 2017-6-15 at 1:16 PM, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:Also, note the past tense in his original post (I quote it and highlight important bits 4 posts above this one, counting this one as 1). He's referring to Truthiness (so he claims) who is still alive, yet uses a tense that implies that his target was already struck, and should have been beware, ALTHOUGH no one else had then died . Nobody else died, so any target of his would have been at ease. Truth is still alive, so why use past tense?
On 2017-6-15 at 2:50 PM, 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?
On 2017-6-15 at 2:52 PM, CaribbeanNinja said:This is my first hunch as well. Over eager beavers or traitors.
On 2017-6-15 at 2:58 PM, ovinomanc3r said:
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)
On 2017-6-15 at 3:08 PM, Norell said:Note to self: never write on FFG forum when you'rehalf asleep.
On 2017-6-15 at 3:16 PM, 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...
On 2017-6-15 at 3:28 PM, ovinomanc3r said:Not an awesome explanation. At least from my point of view.
On 2017-6-15 at 5:30 PM, 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?
On 2017-6-15 at 5:32 PM, JJs Juggernaut said: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.
On 2017-6-15 at 8:29 PM, Onidsen said:Hmm... not sure what to think here. It is possible to be honestly opposed to D1 hangings. I think it's wrongheaded, and working against the village's best interests. But it's possible. On the other hand, it's a definite scum opinion. The scum generally want us not to daykill.
It's also interesting to watch how the discussion has developed. So much of the thread has been focused assertions whether or not to hang someone today. The worst kind of d1 kill is when we don't do anything till the last minute and then half - heartedly go after someone just because we think we ought to. That nets us almost no information, leaving us with only the numerical benefits I posted earlier.
With that said, @Truthiness , I find it odd that you didn't respond to my numbers earlier. Still, you give off a village read to me, despite your position.
@Norell on the other hand, had not given anywhere near enough justification. I'd like to hear more from them, when their time zone gets around to being right. And, to put pressure on that response:
##vote Norell
On 2017-6-15 at 8:31 PM, CaribbeanNinja said:Regarding how Biggs and Truthiness are on my watch list:
Yep. Even more obvious right now.
I am still currently of the opinion that Biggs and Truthiness are the ones who need the biggest scrutiny. Too strange on the first night.
On 2017-6-15 at 8:38 PM, CaribbeanNinja said:
As stated above, @Truthiness is definitely acting very strange. I can imagine him being a traitor (or a fool although that seems weird with only 9 people?)
Biggs seems over-aggressive, but that may be a result of putting the last two together and watching us have all of the fun.
It may just be nothing, but the first few posts between Truthiness and Biggs work too well in trying to get us to trust Truthiness. They could be a traitor collaboration.
On 2017-6-15 at 8:51 PM, ovinomanc3r said:If I didn't think that you are fair with us and wouldn't use your experience to lie us about balanced games I would think we have 3 traitors, you, biggs and truthines
On 2017-6-15 at 9:11 PM, JJs Juggernaut said:It does seem similar so far, including his rather quiet approach. Curious how you ask me specifically, while I'm on your "Oddly Odd" list. You also asked if I had a good reason, which I already provided in my post in which I voted...
On 2017-6-15 at 9:59 PM, Norell said:
To answer the questions directed at me, I'm not yet too suspicious about anyone yet. I considered Biggs, JJ and Oni but there is no evidence enough against either of them, I didn't wanna vote anyone, but seeing Oni giving me a vote...
## vote Onidsen
*** for tat.
My reasoning is slightly out of the box: Biggs was host in the last game, JJ and Oni had no power roles whatsoever. So they were left out of the power game. My guess is that our dear GM gave power roles to at least some of them to "compensate" them for not having any extra skills last time. For the same reason I think there is a higher than average chance that Visovics is not a bad guy this time. It's GM psychology, GMs try to keep up the morale of the group therefore they give some role to every player eventually. Although if I were GM I would definitely mix this rule of thumb up by either a) not giving power roles to some that didn't have last time either, or b) giving roles to players that had similar roles last time.
On 2017-6-15 at 11:08 PM, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:Unless there's a doc. It's worth the risk though. What if we target a scum?
On an unrelated note, I still am unsure about whom to vote for, but Biggs and Truthiness seems to be suspicious, at least according to my rather paranoid mind, because they seem to collaborate too well (having the same idea, acting the same way, etc.) and Onidsen and Biggs (see how I mention you twice? That's cause I'm going by group targets!) seem to also be suspicious because they perfectly match in 22% scum (they gave good reasons for the assumption, but still), their other numbers arguments, and their subtle attempt to redirect suspicion on those suspicious of their assumed knowledge of the number of enemy.
Norell is suspicious by himself for his unexplained - rather, unjustified/supported - opposition to the day 1 lynch, his rather arbitrary vote (in contradiction to his stance) on ovinomanc3r purely because he voted Norell, and his assumption that somehow roles are not randomly assigned, as was the case in the past two games.
Other than that, I don't quite have much insight. . .
On 2017-6-16 at 5:41 AM, Norell said:This is interesting. That could also mean thst somebody REALLY has an idea what's going on, right? Then we may should lynch someone who is suspected by more than one player.
And no I have nothing more Onidsen than the fact that he voted me. But that time I had noone else either. And just to clarify I'm not mad, just trying to play the game in my own way
On 2017-6-16 at 8:40 AM, Visovics said:We haven't got much more time considering the time zone and so the login time difference. We need at all costs avoid a no-lynch. Onidsen showed that the statistics work in our favour, so we need a solid decision. Right now we are scattered accross votes and decisions.
I suspect Norell is a traitor. His position to the no-lynch remained the same despite the statistics and he only voted because he was voted on, which he says is what he normally does, but I have no recollection of him doing this last game, specially when he almost hanged D1. So I think he is lying, which is unnecessary unless you don't want reveal who you are, and so
##vote Norell
On 2017-6-16 at 9:08 AM, Visovics said:Yeah, but also Truth is willing to vote for himself to prove a point, while Norell is simply voting back on someone and seems to be lying about why he voted back
On 2017-6-16 at 9:46 AM, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:We're really running out of time, so I'll join the group and
##vote Norell
as the most likely option for the lynch, as it's kinda pointless voting someone whose not gonna die, that's just a wasted vote.
Nothin' personal Norell.
That puts you at L-2 I believe.
On 2017-6-16 at 11:20 AM, Norell said:My reason behind my actions was to provoke a reaction. I do not like lyncng on day 1 because I always try to play safe and rather not kill a supportive role. This, combined with the rather pointless vote on Onidsen was to see who would react.
My guess was that the traitor will certainly suppor day 1 lynching and therefor be eager to jump on anyone suspicious enough. Well I did try to make myself rather suspicious to see who jumps at me first. That happened to be Biggs so he is my main suspect now.
He was very fast to jump on the day 1 lync train, relatively silent then when nobody joined him and jumped first at my bait.
## vote Biggas
I was killed in the last game because I made myself too suspicious early. Wouldn't it be kind of idiotic to do it again if I would be the traitor?
And finally in character: 'You don't want to kill someone with THESE, do you?' she said slowly caressing through her barely covered body and stellar bazonkas.
However I think there are some kind of true behind your post, despite the fact you really defend yourself poorly. You could go against Truhiness after all and you didn't. I agree with Truhiness to give you another night try.
I forgot quotes inside quotes are not quoted. At least you have the links on the corner to go directly to the original source.
Truth's plan is likely our best bet, I don't see any problems in it, so let's hope for the best
14 minutes ago, Visovics said:Truth's plan is likely our best bet, I don't see any problems in it, so let's hope for the best
Actually, there's a REALLY big problem. It assumes that they're both innocent. If Truth is scum, the the watcher won't see what he does, just what somebody does to him, so he can kill somebody other than Norell and nobody would be the wiser. Similarly, if Norell's scum, he can kill somebody other than Truth and get away, 'cause nobody's watching a watcher.
The ONLY way the plan will work is if Norell dies, proving Truth's guilt (and why would the scum do that to himself?), or maybe if Truth dies, partially proving Norell, because if the person whom he claimed visited Truth turns out good, then he's scum. However, assuming we accidentally lynch a townie today, then at night we'll be 5:1, in the morning 4:1, and if Norell points a townie, 3:1. Then Norell kills another, and we're down to 2:1, then we lynch Norell, and we just barely win. . . it could work.
It also assumes we're at 1 scum left, which may not be the case.
With a traitor in the mix, a third scum is a possibility.
https://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Traitor
For reference
Wow.
I wake up to actually have votes against me? Even though I cast the vote to kill Biggs?
What is going on with y'all?
I
DON'T THINK WE SHOULD ALL CLAIM YET IT IS DAY 2!
1 hour ago, Truthiness said:Here's what I'm thinking. Norell, please watch me tonight. I, once again, misunderstood your role, but this works out better. If someone comes to kill me, you'll know who. I'll protect you again to make sure we keep your power role.
In the mean time, CNinja is starting to get up there on my list. I can't really put my finger on it, but he's been fairly quiet, but subtly nudging things along here and there. I think CNinja is a safe-ish vote. I have a sneaking suspicion that Onisden might become the night kill if Ninja isn't our Scum in order to cast further doubt on myself. If Onisden and myself both survive the night, I think we're back to the showdown between the two of us.
##vote CNinja
How have I been quiet? I totally was able to sniff out Biggs?
Do you all not see how it is a little crazy to listen to the two folks that did not vote for Biggs to be lynched?