Printable View
It's a threat nothing more. You just said you always play to your win condition why wouldn't they use that against you. You reveal whoever contacted you and you die. It's pretty simple to me, even if it's stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Visorslash
Why would they threaten me in the first case?Quote:
Originally Posted by Csargo
They threaten me, I reveal them, its a 1-1 trade with someone who isn't town and doesn't conflict with their wc
makes zero sense
@GH
They killed Arjos!
My posting style has gotten more aggressive thanks to being around 2+2/MR a bit more.
It's mostly the frustration shining through at this point.
Okay, I can't do the "talking to myself" schtick anymore. W/e
So here's the thing, Visor. You admitted the mafia have no interest in killing your role. That is correct. Therefore the likely result of your roleclaim is you make to a theoretical end game by virtue of announcing your role. Which means, if you *are* a ballsy mafioso, if your claim stuck, you'd basically not have to defend yourself past day 1. I don't think it's *likely* that you're a mafia making this claim, hence why I'll keep my vote on Bsmith. But, I have seen less likely things happen. Do I think this is the best lynch? No, not on probability. But I don't begrudge it because at the end of the day, it spares us from a potential last day phase where we toss a coin on whether you fake claimed, so I don't think this is even the worst result either.
Also, don't complain about the round being all about you when *you* made the round all about you by claiming a role on day 1.
DAY ONE
Visorslash was lynched. He was a Survivor!
Csargo: landlubber
Visorslash: Montmorency; landlubber; Csargo; Winston Hughes
Winston Hughes: Ishmael;
BSmith: seireikhaan; GeneralHankerchief
Montmorency: Kagemusha
seireikhaan: BSmith
landlubber: Visorslash
Abstain: none
Not voting: none
Player list
1. GeneralHankerchief
2.Visorslash, Survivor, Lynched Day One
3. BSmith
4. Ishmael
5. seireikhaan
6. johnhughthom
7. Kagemusha
8. Csargo
9. Winston Hughes
10. Montmorency
11. landlubber
It is now NIGHT ONE.
Time remaining:
I guess some things never change. :laugh4:
NIGHT ONE
Kagemusha was killed. He was a townie!
Player list
1. GeneralHankerchief
2.Visorslash, Survivor, Lynched on Day One
3. BSmith
4. Ishmael
5. seireikhaan
6. johnhughthom
7.Kagemusha, Townie, Killed by Mafia on Night One
8. Csargo
9. Winston Hughes
10. Montmorency
11. landlubber
It is now DAY TWO.
Time remaining:
Vote: GH
Oh boy.
https://i182.photobucket.com/albums/...psloyvtexa.png
I'm inclined to put my vote back on Bsmith. Still not a fan of his posturing, nor of the OMGUS vote upon receiving pressure.
Vote: Bsmith
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
No reason.
Unvote; Vote: khaan
I'm confused by Monty so far, I'm not quite sure what he's thinking. It seems like he's somewhat overeager to vote for people who have already been accused by someone else. Could be an attempt to lay low and avoid saying something potentially incriminating.
I'm also puzzled by Winston's switching from Visor to GH and then back to Visor. With or without Winston's vote, Visor would have been lynched, and it meant abandoning his vote on GH, which had some merit. Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
Hmm.... let's test this. FOR SCIENCE!Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Quote:
Vote: khaan
Why?
For one, khaan is definitely scum. This will become clearer over the course of the day.
Well landlubber, I was the first to seriously vote Visor, and khaan is in the top 5 for least-pressured players so far - as are you and I.
It looks like Montmorency is doing his usual shtick, so I can't really deduce much from him yet. landlubber has also continued in much the same vein as yesterday, and given that I thought he was leaning town then I see no reason to change my mind yet. I somewhat agree with Montmorency that 'khaan is worth keeping an eye on, since he (and GH, actually) is coming off as confident and relaxed in his posting, and that makes me nervous.
And of course, I then find myself agreeing with GH and 'khaan in finding BSmith to be suspicious for the combination of hedging his bets, seemingly trying to actively give off a vibe of 'townie analysis,' and the highly defensive OMGUS vote in response to pressure.
To give an example, this post in particular came off rather strongly as positioning himself against the Visorslash wagon whilst still giving himself room to lynch Visorslash later on should he survive D1. Also:Quote:
Originally Posted by BSmith
Again, this comes off as somebody very deliberately trying to keep their options open.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSmith
So, for want of anything better:
vote: BSmith
1. I was keeping my options open because I didn't like any of the ones in front of me.
2. OMGUS is not the scumtell it used to be. I would certainly avoid it if I were actual scum simply because of the knee-jerk reaction it tends to provoke.
3. I really do like my vote: khaan and think I will do it again.
4. I am posting from my phone.
:p
I'll have to be somewhere on Caturday IRL so I've moved the deadline forward by a couple hours.
Time remaining:
Interesting move from mafia. Can i keep posting while dead, as i did not see anything about it in the rules?
No you need to keep me comfy.
Let us huddle for warmth.
Vote:GH
Because reasons.
I didn't see any chance of GH getting lynched and, by that point in the day, figured it was best just to make sure the Visor lynch was locked down. Even though it was clear by then that he really was telling the truth, lynching Visor was a far better outcome than lynching a townie, which was the most likely alternative.Quote:
Originally Posted by landlubber
For the time being, I'm going to go with vote: GH once again. As I said yesterday, his private dealings with Visor are deeply suspicious to me, and I still fail to see how his original accusation could possibly have trapped a scumbag, making the characterisation he gave of it seem quite implausible.
That said, I'm interested to hear Csargo's reasons for the same vote, which must presumably be different to mine (or else he would have said so, right?).
I don't think there is much point looking to deeply at yesterday's voting, it was clear early on, pretty much from his roleclaim tbh, that Visor was going to be lynched. Scum had plenty of time to decide whether popping an easy vote on him to hide with the crowd, or putting a vote somewhere meaningless was the least conspicuous route.
"Private dealings"
Here's the extent of my communication with Visorslash from the first day phase:
Honestly I thought we had put the issue of Visor's identity to bed when it was revealed yesterday, but apparently not.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
What was the point? I don't understand at all.
I wanted a D1 that was something besides 11 random votes for a change. Visor got the ball rolling, I wanted to keep it going.
I mean why did you contact him? I can understand why you put the vote on him initially. I don't understand the PM.
But, GH, why tell him you weren't planning keeping your vote on him?
I'm struggling to think of a townie reason for doing so. By contrast, it's obvious why scum might want to cozy up to him.
Also, this 'fishing for responses' thing... People were always going to react to Visor's claim. It was the only thing anyone had to talk about. It's notable that the rest of us who pushed on Visor all provoked a response (indeed, I think every one of us caught a vote as a direct consequence), but your accusation got nothing at all until you retracted it. Looking back, it's not hard to see why. Far from demanding a reaction, your accusation was so hedged it would be hard to pick any solid point to address from it. At the time, it looked townie enough. But that's the idea, isn't it? Only when you tell me it's supposed to be provocative does it stop making sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Csargo
:bow:
It made sense at the time?