Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LaLight]

also i won't be here for the deadline in the end

[LaLight]

also also Joseph was the ony one questioning my claim. which is making him townier in my eyes

[faust]

also also Joseph was the ony one questioning my claim. which is making him townier in my eyes

I kind of wish you had waited to point that out until we got more reactions.

[mail-mi]

Hello

unvote

I was not voting for lalight just for lurker reasons. He seemed to be playing similar to [on going game] (trying my best to be clear without breaking the rules).

[mail-mi]

How many votes do I have on me?

Also hopefully I'll be here for deadline.

Don't really want to lynch MiX; I'm in the same boat as Joseph. I could lynch raerae but I would need to reread her to be sure. Who else is up for lynch?

[arishipshape]

Holy crud, a mason claim? Wow, you go to bed without checking the forums ONCE and now there's a PR claim. Anyways, regarding the rules of masons, is there guaranteed to be a mason? Or is it possible that the scum are taking a gamble on there being no real masons and claiming masons? Not that I suspect that, I just want to make sure. I've never played a mafia game where the roles weren't guaranteed to be 2 or 3 different sets of roles.

I am 99% sure I'll be here for the deadline. My vote stands, although I am wondering whether I should switch to prevent a no-lynch. I thought lynching was almost always superior to not lynching? Anyone care to explain why no-lynching might be better than lynching?

[EFHW]

I'm perplexed by the instant acceptance LaLight's claim has gotten. When faust and DatSwan were masons, they were suspected for Days. True, it was mostly scum trying to spin the mason fakeclaim story, but I don't think I've ever seen faust assign the IC label so easily.

faust also reasoned that the LaLight wagon came up as a distraction from raerae and MiX. That is true in the sense that I had decided not to vote either of them and was looking for another choice. I don't know what led silver to suggest him. I see his train of thought, but I know I'm town and I started the LaLight thing. He does say scum would be more likely to be on LaLight, not that scum started the wagon, and since neither of those wagons were taking off anymore, I feel mail-mi does have a scummy position on that wagon.

I'm good with voting mail-mi. Vote Count Please!

PPE: ari.

[EFHW]

I am 99% sure I'll be here for the deadline. My vote stands, although I am wondering whether I should switch to prevent a no-lynch. I thought lynching was almost always superior to not lynching? Anyone care to explain why no-lynching might be better than lynching?

In general, it is always good to consolidate votes as deadline approaches. Since you will be here at deadline, you will know if a switch just to prevent no-lynch is needed. DatSwan gave a comprehensive explanation of why no lynch is bad. Why are thinking it is maybe better?

[faust]

I'm perplexed by the instant acceptance LaLight's claim has gotten. When faust and DatSwan were masons, they were suspected for Days. True, it was mostly scum trying to spin the mason fakeclaim story, but I don't think I've ever seen faust assign the IC label so easily.

When you think about it, it's really quite obvious that LaLight is telling the truth.

[arishipshape]

I'm perplexed by the instant acceptance LaLight's claim has gotten. When faust and DatSwan were masons, they were suspected for Days. True, it was mostly scum trying to spin the mason fakeclaim story, but I don't think I've ever seen faust assign the IC label so easily.

When you think about it, it's really quite obvious that LaLight is telling the truth.

*thinks for a few seconds*
Why?

[shraeye]

I would not oppose MiX lynch as well, it's just i want to give them a pass

Passes are for Disneyland.

[faust]

I'm perplexed by the instant acceptance LaLight's claim has gotten. When faust and DatSwan were masons, they were suspected for Days. True, it was mostly scum trying to spin the mason fakeclaim story, but I don't think I've ever seen faust assign the IC label so easily.

When you think about it, it's really quite obvious that LaLight is telling the truth.

*thinks for a few seconds*
Why?

Think a bit longer. I am not going to say more.

[faust]

Random question to UoS:

Can there be multiple scum teams, each consisting of more than one person, in the game?

[shraeye]

I am 99% sure I'll be here for the deadline. My vote stands, although I am wondering whether I should switch to prevent a no-lynch. I thought lynching was almost always superior to not lynching? Anyone care to explain why no-lynching might be better than lynching?

In general, it is always good to consolidate votes as deadline approaches. Since you will be here at deadline, you will know if a switch just to prevent no-lynch is needed. DatSwan gave a comprehensive explanation of why no lynch is bad. Why are thinking it is maybe better?

I never will understand this written-in-stone rule that one must lynch.  If the only alternatives look nothing but town to you, I don't see the incentive to lay your hammer on the altar of the all-powerful Lynch.  But if you think there's scum there, hammer like there's no tomorrow.

[arishipshape]

I'm perplexed by the instant acceptance LaLight's claim has gotten. When faust and DatSwan were masons, they were suspected for Days. True, it was mostly scum trying to spin the mason fakeclaim story, but I don't think I've ever seen faust assign the IC label so easily.

When you think about it, it's really quite obvious that LaLight is telling the truth.

*thinks for a few seconds*
Why?

Think a bit longer. I am not going to say more.

Hmm, let me think about the basics of mafia. Town has numbers. Scum has info. Scum doesn't want town to have info... Gee, I wonder who the scum here is? Basically, even if it's obvious, I don't want anyone to get away with not giving info to the town, period. Even if you think it's obvious, you may have different justification then any of us. Thus, I want you to share it.

I am 99% sure I'll be here for the deadline. My vote stands, although I am wondering whether I should switch to prevent a no-lynch. I thought lynching was almost always superior to not lynching? Anyone care to explain why no-lynching might be better than lynching?

In general, it is always good to consolidate votes as deadline approaches. Since you will be here at deadline, you will know if a switch just to prevent no-lynch is needed. DatSwan gave a comprehensive explanation of why no lynch is bad. Why are thinking it is maybe better?

I never will understand this written-in-stone rule that one must lynch.  If the only alternatives look nothing but town to you, I don't see the incentive to lay your hammer on the altar of the all-powerful Lynch.  But if you think there's scum there, hammer like there's no tomorrow.

That's fair. If the person with the largest wagon looks scummy, I will switch to them if necessary to lynch a scummy person.

[faust]

I don't want anyone to get away with not giving info to the town, period.

Okay then.

What is your role?

[shraeye]

Well i have changed my mind about preferred lynch based on the last page and a half:

Vote:RaeRae

Interesting choice to change your mind

Right  That certainly felt like the wagon du jour, but it felt like most of the people were hopping there for unstated reasons, or sheeping others' unstated reasons.  That made the whole wagon feel pretty scummy to me.  I'm not a fan of convenience-votes.

[Debatepro]

... But... looking at the LaLight wagon, those folks on there aren't exactly a very townie bunch. I think the chance of scum being there is pretty decent. Which in turn is a point in favor of one of MiX/raerae being scum. Vote: raerae

Hmm...raerae was never on LaLight's wagon.

I think the universe might collapse because I agree with MiX about this [singular] point and I'm not changing my vote [yet]. I just checked she never voted for LaLight or seems like even waved the FoS. Please explain with references as those seem to be lacking, in general???

Also, why not share info with town... did you just figure out there was more than one scum team because making that claim was a clear signal to potential other teams? When all we have are assertions... we have nothing.

[faust]

... But... looking at the LaLight wagon, those folks on there aren't exactly a very townie bunch. I think the chance of scum being there is pretty decent. Which in turn is a point in favor of one of MiX/raerae being scum. Vote: raerae

Hmm...raerae was never on LaLight's wagon.

I think the universe might collapse because I agree with MiX about this [singular] point and I'm not changing my vote [yet]. I just checked she never voted for LaLight or seems like even waved the FoS. Please explain with references as those seem to be lacking, in general???

That is not what I am saying though. I say that

- there is scum on LaLight iff one of raerae/MiX is scum
- the people on LaLight are kind of scummy
- thus, likely, there is scum on LaLight, which implies by the first point that one of raerae/MiX is scum.

[Debatepro]

@Faust - questions for you in #743

should have made more clear.

[arishipshape]

I don't want anyone to get away with not giving info to the town, period.

Okay then.

What is your role?

1. I said "not get away with not giving info to the town". I suspect your scum, so no info for you.
2. Even if you were town, I still wouldn't disclose this, because it would be information even the scum doesn't have. Keeping roles secret is better for town, because if I claim vanilla townie, the scum wont kill me and will have a better chance to kill PRs, and if I claim PR, the scum will kill me. However, the reason as to the mason's legitimacy won't assist the scum, as they either are masquerading as the masons themselves, or know that the persons claiming mason are legit and therefore have no need of extra confirmation. Basically, either way, sharing your reasoning wont hurt the town. Sharing my role would.

[faust]

I don't want anyone to get away with not giving info to the town, period.

Okay then.

What is your role?

1. I said "not get away with not giving info to the town". I suspect your scum, so no info for you.
2. Even if you were town, I still wouldn't disclose this, because it would be information even the scum doesn't have. Keeping roles secret is better for town, because if I claim vanilla townie, the scum wont kill me and will have a better chance to kill PRs, and if I claim PR, the scum will kill me. However, the reason as to the mason's legitimacy won't assist the scum, as they either are masquerading as the masons themselves, or know that the persons claiming mason are legit and therefore have no need of extra confirmation. Basically, either way, sharing your reasoning wont hurt the town. Sharing my role would.

You assume that me sharing my reasoning won't hurt the town. That is a baseless assumption. I think that it will hurt town. Since I am the only one here who knows my reasoning, I suggest you leave it up to me to judge whether sharing it hurts the town.

[shraeye]

Basically, either way, sharing your reasoning wont hurt the town.

That's an assumption.  Could be true.  Could be false.  That's the funny thing about assumptions.

[shraeye]

...and faust beat me to it.  But maybe this is 1 point for "maybe he's right" over "THAT MEANS HE'S SCUMMYYY!!!!"

[arishipshape]

I don't want anyone to get away with not giving info to the town, period.

Okay then.

What is your role?

1. I said "not get away with not giving info to the town". I suspect your scum, so no info for you.
2. Even if you were town, I still wouldn't disclose this, because it would be information even the scum doesn't have. Keeping roles secret is better for town, because if I claim vanilla townie, the scum wont kill me and will have a better chance to kill PRs, and if I claim PR, the scum will kill me. However, the reason as to the mason's legitimacy won't assist the scum, as they either are masquerading as the masons themselves, or know that the persons claiming mason are legit and therefore have no need of extra confirmation. Basically, either way, sharing your reasoning wont hurt the town. Sharing my role would.

You assume that me sharing my reasoning won't hurt the town. That is a baseless assumption. I think that it will hurt town. Since I am the only one here who knows my reasoning, I suggest you leave it up to me to judge whether sharing it hurts the town.

Reasoning isn't the same as information regarding roles. The scum already know if you are town or scum, so knowing your reasoning is worthless to them. Unless your reasoning is guaranteed to help the scum by painting a guaranteed town in a bad light (which you can only know if you are mason or scum), your reasoning won't hurt the town. Give me a hypothetical situation where your reasoning would hurt the town, and I'll eat my words.

Basically, either way, sharing your reasoning wont hurt the town.

That's an assumption.  Could be true.  Could be false.  That's the funny thing about assumptions.

Not an assumption, a deduction. And if it's wrong, demonstrate as such. Give me a situation where a town sharing reasoning would hurt the town. Hypothetical, of course. I don't want you proving me wrong by giving your reasoning now. If i'm wrong, it's better for you to stay silent. Thus, a hypothetical situation is in order.