10 minutes ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

Wow.

I wake up to actually have votes against me? Partly because I cast the vote to kill Biggs?

What is going on with y'all?

FTFY.

18 minutes ago, Truthiness said:

https://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Traitor

For reference

You know, having read that, I think it's possible. JJ was a flavor cop. If you click the link Role Cop , it mentions that role cops can sometimes discover a players 'flavor', 'role' or both, so perhaps he was a role cop, as opposed to a tracker/watcher. Dang, that's a mighty serious loss.

In other news, if there is a traitor, then that means actual scum are 1 less. So if standard scum ratio is 2 for 9 players, then we got lucky and killed our scum. We now just have to find our traitor. Alternatively, we could be unlucky, and have 1 scum 1 traitor left (i.e. 2 total).

I don't think there's a role-blocker, since Norell didn't claim to be blocked, nor did anyone else. . .

8 hours ago, Norell said:

First of all: TOLD YA!

But Biggs fooled me one last time. I was totally sure that he is in alliance with @Onidsen so I watched him, but " No one visits Onidsen." Although this doesn't mean HE didn't visit anyone... But at the moment I'm willing to say he's likely not a scum.

On @Truthiness 's claim, if I were in the place of the remaining scum I wouldn't try to kill someone who revealed his (or in this case "her" :D) role on day 1. If there is a doctor, he's likely going to protect him anyway, so a wasted kill. Plus, if I don't even try to kill him, that makes him immediately suspicious and the town may be so helpful that they kill him for you.

Well this "watch" was pretty lame.

Let me remind all of you that Truth and Onidsen were the only ones that didn't cast a vote against Biggs. Now, I'm not saying that is a 100% tell, but I am super suspicious of the love between onidsen and biggs yesterday.

Now, the reason I didn't want to claim is...who was asking for the claims!? Onidsen and Truthiness!

I think that we should vote for:

1. Onidsen

2. Norell/Truthiness.

I will claim here but I'm really a bit miffed at this. I am Captain Hanz Yolo!

If y'all want a full claim. I'm ready to do that. But I wonder what Onidsen and Truthiness think I should do?

I pretty much trust Norell right now. It would be hard for someone scummy to know the exact same wording the good guys have, so I think he is telling the truth.

Onidsen'a "partnership" with Biggs sounds very suspicious, but at the same time, everyone knows that scum ALWAYS votes against the partner if the latter is doomed, and both are skilled players, they wouldn't draw suspicious connections like that, so I think Oni isn't the most likely

Truthiness was the initial target, but also was the trap, Biggs never intended to carry on with him, but to get someone else and vote them out. Truth went on and made a direct confrontation with biggs, so either it was a plan to get one of them in a place of trust, or Truth is innocent.

This is how I see the possible traitor scum.

@Norell was your result okay or did it seem like it was blocked?

15 minutes ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

Well this "watch" was pretty lame.

Let me remind all of you that Truth and Onidsen were the only ones that didn't cast a vote against Biggs. Now, I'm not saying that is a 100% tell, but I am super suspicious of the love between onidsen and biggs yesterday.

Now, the reason I didn't want to claim is...who was asking for the claims!? Onidsen and Truthiness!

I think that we should vote for:

1. Onidsen

2. Norell/Truthiness.

I will claim here but I'm really a bit miffed at this. I am Captain Hanz Yolo!

If y'all want a full claim. I'm ready to do that. But I wonder what Onidsen and Truthiness think I should do?

If you have a power role, then either you can prove one of them is lying by announcing your role or result, or you could have used it to track/watch/whatever somebody/thing, and thus have some useful results to report. Not doing either implies that you have nothing and are vanilla town or a traiter. If the former's the case, what's the issue?

2 minutes ago, Visovics said:

I pretty much trust Norell right now. It would be hard for someone scummy to know the exact same wording the good guys have, so I think he is telling the truth.

Onidsen'a "partnership" with Biggs sounds very suspicious, but at the same time, everyone knows that scum ALWAYS votes against the partner if the latter is doomed, and both are skilled players, they wouldn't draw suspicious connections like that, so I think Oni isn't the most likely

Truthiness was the initial target, but also was the trap, Biggs never intended to carry on with him, but to get someone else and vote them out. Truth went on and made a direct confrontation with biggs, so either it was a plan to get one of them in a place of trust, or Truth is innocent.

This is how I see the possible traitor scum.

Actually, I rather doubt it. We're all on the same crew, so I'd imagine our descriptions are very similar, if not identical, with just the (Mafia role: xx) bit different.

5 hours ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

##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!)

You know Gnips, this is actually very suspicious as well.

If I don't vote for Biggs, he skates that first day...

Maybe YOU wanted to put in a last minute vote but wasn't expecting me to come in so fast and lynch him?

I'm still waiting for @Truthiness and @Onidsen to see what they say.

Also I want @Norell to answer my question about whether or not he thinks he was blocked.

I love that you lump me in with Truthiness on the subject of claims. I claimed because I was at L- 1. Truthiness is the one that's been pushing for claims, not me. My advice would be this: claim if you think Truthiness has a good idea. Don't otherwise. But expect questioning on why you're not ok with it when the rest of the village seems to have been willing to go along.

And yes, I would normally find that suspicious. But Truthiness basically set things up so that he and i would both be killed by the town. Me today, and him the day after when i flip good. I know I'm good, so I trust him because he wouldn't set himself up to die like that if he were the last scum.

But i suppose from the outside it can look like a conspiracy to the rest. You'll probably have to get rid of me just to confirm my story. I'm ok with that, as I think I've demonstrated.

But I'm growing increasingly interested in your protestations you try to get the town focused back on one of the two of us. Not enough to vote yet, but enough to start taking long, hard looks at your previous posts.

1 minute ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

You know Gnips, this is actually very suspicious as well.

If I don't vote for Biggs, he skates that first day...

Maybe YOU wanted to put in a last minute vote but wasn't expecting me to come in so fast and lynch him?

I wanted him dead, and so voted as soon as I was able. It not the last minute voting per se that matters so much, but the fact that you did it. If Truth did it, I'd be suspicious of him, both because he was against the day 1 vote and because he hammered, and if Onidsen voted, I'd suspect him because he hammered. That's why it was a side note. Hammering in general is suspicious to me, especially when you did so so soon after my vote, as if you were waiting for the time to run out and hoping Biggs wouldn't die. It's an add on to other suspicious stuff you've done, not the main focus. You also didn't address the other points in my post, namely why you didn't actually give an opinion, nor what idea you had (or if you did, it wasn't obvious and I missed it).

If I was a scum, why would I bring Biggs to L-1 so close to time? I could have claimed RL issues and avoided suspicion, and Biggs'd be alive now.

I can only understand not claiming if you have an important power role, but if you don't claim, odds are your gonna die to the hanging mob anyway. Furthermore, I'm not sure what the status of Norell's watch action has to do with you. Why does it matter? If he was blocked, then what, you'll say 'So was I, what a coincidence, I believe you?' and if he wasn't, you'd say 'But I was, and surely they can block everybody not just one person, so you're lying!'?

If that's the case, then there are several things wrong with it:
1) He's paraphrased his result, implying that he wasn't blocked but actually got a result
2) If he blocked you, and knew that his block blocks all roles (something we have yet to see in our games, having only a targeted block before) why would he say he wasn't? And wouldn't Truth also claim block? (unless he's lying, yes yes)
3) If he wasn't blocked, but you were, what does that prove? That he's guilty? Why? See the previous point.
4) How can we confirm you were blocked?
5) If he was blocked, and you weren't, then what's that got to do with you?
6) If he wasn't blocked, and neither were you, then why bring it up?
7) There's probably something else, another combo nagging on my mind, but I can't quite grasp it.

15 hours ago, Onidsen said:

Definitely. Cops scan alignment - they tell you straight up if someone's evil. Watchers just scan targets - who you visited last night. Some variants scan actions (what you did, but not who you did it to). So far in this series of games, all of our watchers have scanned targets or people who targeted you. The wiki says that a flavor cop returns an item related to the flavor of the role of the person you scanned.

So - count me as one who has no idea what flavor cop does in real game terms.

@Truthiness That's an interesting claim . Also very interesting that you made the claim without the pressure of a vote on you. Of course, if you're expecting to end the game tonight, that's a reasonable thing to do. Or if you're trying to head off a bandwagon on you before it gets started, because you don't want the game to end tonight.

No, you've solidified my suspicions of you. In fact, I bet the scumkill went on someone other than Norell just so that you could claim that you protected them.

So he claims, then you are suspicious of him, BUT :

15 hours ago, Onidsen said:

Ninja'ed by Truthiness. That claim changes things dramatically. Either you are what you say you are, or you are a scum with an ability to target a player without killing them for some effect. I'm inclined to lean towards innocent now.

You're wrong about me, though. This is going to get you killed next cycle. Which is another thing to lean me towards villager on you. You're hitting this waaay too hard for a scum whose only other partner just died. If you were evil, you wouldn't want attention drawn to yourself. Or this could all be a counter-ploy to get yourself totally trusted by the town, but I can't see that working well at all.

But, since you're not going to be dissuaded without my death, here we go. In general, I'm more useful to the town alive than dead, but in this specific instance, this might get us away from a losing proposition. The scum are laughing to see us now.

##unvote Truthiness

##vote Onidsen

Then re-acknowledge his claim and trust him? You flip-flop on your position very rapidly and very quickly. You also pull the same trick he pulled.

So: Truthiness, the guy who wants us all to claim (what better way to role fish?) Onidsen, the guy who flip-flops, or CNinja, Captain Obvious and Vague?

An alternative is that both Truth and Onidsen are scum, in which case the above confrontation is perfect, as it lends them both credence.

1 minute ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

So he claims, then you are suspicious of him, BUT :

Then re-acknowledge his claim and trust him? You flip-flop on your position very rapidly and very quickly. You also pull the same trick he pulled.

So: Truthiness, the guy who wants us all to claim (what better way to role fish?) Onidsen, the guy who flip-flops, or CNinja, Captain Obvious and Vague?

Just to clarify - he claims, and I'm suspicious, and then he sets up a situation where when I flip good, he dies right after me.

That's not a scum play, at least not at this point in the game. But feel free to take me out today, as I'm not a power role and taking out Biggs gives us since breathing room.

I have to say that I didn't receive a PM like JJ received the last game so I was not blocked. It means if there is a blocker he doesn't block everyone.

Just now, ovinomanc3r said:

I have to say that I didn't receive a PM like JJ received the last game so I was not blocked. It means if there is a blocker he doesn't block everyone.

Yep, same here.

Still waiting on @Norell . It does matter to me whether he thinks he was blocked. For Reasons.

It could be the missing piece of the puzzle. We have 30 hours left. We are okay.

Here is my take so far:

Again, Onidsen and Truthiness deserve the most scrutiny. They didn't vote for the traitor, and Onidsen was VERY chummy with Biggs.

I'm pretty certain @ovinomanc3r and @Visovics are loyal crew, but I'm getting more and more suspicious of GNips. (He keeps pressing me when all I did yesterday was press Biggs and then hammer him at the last possible minute. I need your trust at least until Norell answers.)

If you don't buy my story, that is totally fine, but I do think with 30 hours left we should hear from Norell about my question.

1 hour ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

7) There's probably something else, another combo nagging on my mind, but I can't quite grasp it.

Yes.

All I ask is a little patience .

35 minutes ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

Still waiting on @Norell . It does matter to me whether he thinks he was blocked. For Reasons.

It could be the missing piece of the puzzle. We have 30 hours left. We are okay.

Here is my take so far:

Again, Onidsen and Truthiness deserve the most scrutiny. They didn't vote for the traitor, and Onidsen was VERY chummy with Biggs.

I'm pretty certain @ovinomanc3r and @Visovics are loyal crew, but I'm getting more and more suspicious of GNips. (He keeps pressing me when all I did yesterday was press Biggs and then hammer him at the last possible minute. I need your trust at least until Norell answers.)

If you don't buy my story, that is totally fine, but I do think with 30 hours left we should hear from Norell about my question.

I would remind you that I keep pressing all those I am suspicious of. I try to be even handed, in terms of arguments for and against my target/suspect. Nothing specifically unique to you. Never fear, I am a vanilla townie, finally. In the last two games I had a power role, this time I can be completely free. No worries, I can question everyone, I don't have to worry about seeming suspicious by my votes, whom I favor, etc. I am the ultimate neutral in terms of that. I target whom I will, and agree with whomever I will, and if sometimes that vote swaps, or my focus is on a different person, it is because I have reordered my threat list, or because, while I may at first tentatively trust somebody, something seems wrong about a specific post. I had no specific reason to distrust you until that post I quoted, which was so vague and obvious I felt I had to peruse it.

Basically, having nobody with whom I am colluding, I don't have to worry about my support for somebody draw a connection between us. Not knowing what anyone else is allows me to take all claims with a grain of salt - the same sized grain for all.

. . . that may make me more suspicious, but it's honest, honest!

1 minute ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

I would remind you that I keep pressing all those I am suspicious of. I try to be even handed, in terms of arguments for and against my target/suspect. Nothing specifically unique to you. Never fear, I am a vanilla townie, finally. In the last two games I had a power role, this time I can be completely free. No worries, I can question everyone, I don't have to worry about seeming suspicious by my votes, whom I favor, etc. I am the ultimate neutral in terms of that. I target whom I will, and agree with whomever I will, and if sometimes that vote swaps, or my focus is on a different person, it is because I have reordered my threat list, or because, while I may at first tentatively trust somebody, something seems wrong about a specific post. I had no specific reason to distrust you until that post I quoted, which was so vague and obvious I felt I had to peruse it.

Basically, having nobody with whom I am colluding, I don't have to worry about my support for somebody draw a connection between us. Not knowing what anyone else is allows me to take all claims with a grain of salt - the same sized grain for all.

. . . that may make me more suspicious, but it's honest, honest!

This is one of the reasons why I feel that the most important role in the game is a vanilla villager. Everything else is gravy. This game is won by normal villagers using their votes.

I wasn't blocked. The message clearly said that nobody visited Onidsen. Not that I was unable to see whether anyone visited him.

Truth's idea about me watching him and he protecting me isn't seem like a good one, because he announced it. If we agree that we do this, the scum will know that all he (they?) has to do is not to attack Truth during the night because he's getting busted. We would give away a whole night not learning anything new.

I'm rather curious about CNinja and Nippy because they are strangely at each other's throat right now, but I just can't ignore how cordial Biggs and Onidsen were last day... I'm almost sure in Visovics and reasonably about Ovi that they are loyal crew.

14 minutes ago, Norell said:

I wasn't blocked. The message clearly said that nobody visited Onidsen. Not that I was unable to see whether anyone visited him.

Truth's idea about me watching him and he protecting me isn't seem like a good one, because he announced it. If we agree that we do this, the scum will know that all he (they?) has to do is not to attack Truth during the night because he's getting busted. We would give away a whole night not learning anything new.

I'm rather curious about CNinja and Nippy because they are strangely at each other's throat right now, but I just can't ignore how cordial Biggs and Onidsen were last day... I'm almost sure in Visovics and reasonably about Ovi that they are loyal crew.

Ok so here is the situation. This is why I wanted to wait for Norell.

I am a tracker. Last night I tracked @Truthiness . My result said he visited Norell last night. I wanted to confirm whether or not he was a blocker or a doctor. Now, we are relying on his and Truth's stories, but they do seem to check out.

That leads me to believe that the first lynch now really should be Onidsen. (Mainly because of the ridiculous amount of support he and Biggs had for each other) If he isn't the traitor, then I will probably die, but perhaps Norell can watch me. Or Truth can protect. (Or we can come up with another plan)

Either way, my story is now out in the open. We can determine what we think the next step should be.

21 minutes ago, Norell said:

I wasn't blocked. The message clearly said that nobody visited Onidsen. Not that I was unable to see whether anyone visited him.

Truth's idea about me watching him and he protecting me isn't seem like a good one, because he announced it. If we agree that we do this, the scum will know that all he (they?) has to do is not to attack Truth during the night because he's getting busted. We would give away a whole night not learning anything new.

I'm rather curious about CNinja and Nippy because they are strangely at each other's throat right now, but I just can't ignore how cordial Biggs and Onidsen were last day... I'm almost sure in Visovics and reasonably about Ovi that they are loyal crew.

Truth's plan is indeed useless, altough I hope he knows who to protect tonight... because there is another person at night kill risk... I'm not saying names so that I don't give ideas and ruin the plan like he did. Hopefully Norell also knows who to watch, and we get something by tomorrow if the lynch fails/there is more than one.

Well nevermind my whole text was about Cninja being still unclaimed, but I got ninja'd by a ninja

So do we go to Onidsen then? Are we in accord?

Ninja, I need a little more than name and role. Give us the full background please. That would put us at four power roles, which seems excessive. Your story can easily be thrown together based on what I've already said.