Swords and Sorcery Mafia Without the Swords [Concluded]

[Jabbz]

Mid Day Vote Tally Accurate to post 840

Day two ends in


Visor - 3 (Renata, Winston Hughes, GHC)
Sooh - 2 (Atheotes, Snerk)
Atheotes - 1 (Montmorency)
Lewwyn - 1 (Visor)

Not voting (6) (Arakhor, Choxorn, Csargo, Kcaz, Lewwyn, Sooh)

Voting History

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Arakhor - No Vote

Atheotes - Sooh 773

Choxorn - No Vote

Csargo - No Vote

GeneralHankerchief - Visor 833

Kcaz - No Vote

Lewwyn - No Vote

Montmorency - Atheotes 616

Renata - Visor 629

Snerk - Sooh 777

Sooh - No Vote

Visor - Lewwyn 768

Winston Hughes - Visor 634

Please Note

Game Rules.

Please pay close attention as some of these rules are from where I usually host, which means they might not be what you are used to.

Breaking rules will result in penalties ranging from warnings to loss of abilities, being mod killed, or being replaced at the GM’s discretion.

• Voting is mandatory. Voting no lynch or abstain is not an option. Failure to vote is subject to penalties up to and including being mod killed. Failure to vote on two separate occasions will automatically initiate a modkill and a loss.

[Montmorency]

Arakhor, can you reveal now whom you watched last night?

though we cannot be sure at this point, the method of both the night kills seem to indicate that they were vigs.
Renata might have done the smart thing and used some kind of self protection or a redirector onto someone who was protected.

Well, I'll note one thing down: the vig spell is called "Incinerate", and the kills were accomplished with fireballs. We need to see what sort of different kill writeups appear. Perhaps this is just how direct lethal spells appear in the fluff.

What makes you think BSmith was the scum kill? i mean, other than the obvious lack of any other townie death.

No other reason.

no. i said some was looking out for you...like a redirection. it is also possible you did whatever Monty did.

She didn't commute then, commuting makes you immaterial to all roles, including roleblocks or other early effects.

If you're claiming a watch, you should see whoever targeted me. Assuming Al Sips was there to kill me, you should have seen someone else I think. Whoever the redirector was, if it was that I'd think, and then you would NOT see Al Sips. If it was a straight-up protection you should have seen the protector. This doesn't make sense.

I can think of one scenario where it maybe works, but it seems farfetched.

Al Sipsclar could have been affected from his end, or maybe he just wasn't planning on killing you that night.

Maybe he converted you.

Is this not exactly how Visor plays as town? He seems normal to me. I thought his argument was interesting at least...

Also, @Montmorency I Detected Corruption on someone and they were not corrupted, so unless I got redirected or some other nonsense it should be correct. I'm not gonna say who for obvious reasons unless you guys come after me with the pitchforks...

Thank you for your input.


I'm not lynching atheotes today. His claim is weird though, but more resilient than other fake claims in most cases.

Unvote: atheotes

I don't want to jump onto Visor unless there's no clear alternative.

Here is the claim list:

Monty: Commuted
Winston: Failed watch on Monty; can multicast
Arakhor: Watched someone
Snerk: Failed scan on Sooh; confirms existence of alignment spell
Zack: Scanned Winston non-corrupt
Lewwyn: Redirected from Choxorn to Sooh
Renata: No Self-protection or redirection used
Atheotes: Watched Renata
Csargo: Scan ("Detect Corruption") on GH, not corrupt
Sooh: Didn't hide


Could someone have targeted Choxorn to nullify powers used against him, thereafter redirected by Lewwyn onto Sooh - thus cancelling Snerk's scan?

It's also time to start thinking of these claimed results in terms of scum pairings.

[Arakhor]

Arakhor, can you reveal now whom you watched last night?

No one's coming forward to claim that they targeted Zack, which is understandable, as I targeted him and he had no other visitors. Well, I was told that no one visited him, but since I did (based on the long-standing tradition that people tend to target either Zack or ATPG an awful lot), I presume Jabbz meant no one else did.

[Montmorency]

The following will continue to operate on the assumption of two remaining scum.

Permissive interpretation of claims so far:

Zack, Winston, Csargo, GH, are town.

Plus Renata and Monty for game.

Add Arakhor, Lewwyn, Choxorn as before.

Atheotes OK for now.

Snerk null.

That leaves Visor and Sooh.

Rule out Zack-Winston and Csargo-GH for m/m.

Rule out Snerk-Sooh and Atheotes-Renata m/m (weaker than above).

All scum being in Visor-Sooh-atheotes is too easy. I can't see alternative to lynching one of Sooh-Visor today, at least.

[Montmorency]

Sorry to bring this off-topic, but I just recalled something Pizza said in QT a couple of games back.

My town game is in the shitter, it really really is. There's no comparing it. My scum game is the New England Patriots and my town game is the London Sillynannies.

Timely.

[Renata]

We should trade scum games. That'd be fair, right?

[Zack]

The trick is in method acting.

[Winston Hughes]

If the player with the most votes has used a lynchproof spell, is the player in second place lynched?

[atheotes]

Of course it's scummy. That's why I'd never use it as scum.

WIFOM much? Nothing else that you felt like commenting on?

Well, I'll note one thing down: the vig spell is called "Incinerate", and the kills were accomplished with fireballs. We need to see what sort of different kill writeups appear. Perhaps this is just how direct lethal spells appear in the fluff.



No other reason.



She didn't commute then, commuting makes you immaterial to all roles, including roleblocks or other early effects.

ok. noted.
so Commute is ruled out. Rb is still possible. cant conclude anything till Renata tells us what she did or happened to her

[Arakhor]

I think it's super-unlikely that Zack and Montmorency are both mafia, given that it was Zack who started the attempted rush on Monty near the end of D1. Trying to turn a double-scum vote into a triple-scum vote seems foolish in the extreme, though of course it would make sense if Zack was scum and trying to implicate an innocent Monty. Given that the only two other votes on him were known scum, I think it rather unlikely that Monty is scum at all.

Zack then of course voted for Dp, when it might have been more sensible to vote for Al, given that if you're guaranteed to lose one scum, you want to lose the inactive one first. Chances are then that Zack is not scum either, but scum-Zack is not nearly as implausible as scum-Monty is.

(Granted, I've done implausible things before, but that doesn't make implausible things any more plausible simply because they do occasionally happen.)

[GeneralHankerchief]

I think it's super-unlikely that Zack and Montmorency are both mafia, given that it was Zack who started the attempted rush on Monty near the end of D1. Trying to turn a double-scum vote into a triple-scum vote seems foolish in the extreme, though of course it would make sense if Zack was scum and trying to implicate an innocent Monty. Given that the only two other votes on him were known scum, I think it rather unlikely that Monty is scum at all.

Zack then of course voted for Dp, when it might have been more sensible to vote for Al, given that if you're guaranteed to lose one scum, you want to lose the inactive one first. Chances are then that Zack is not scum either, but scum-Zack is not nearly as implausible as scum-Monty is.

(Granted, I've done implausible things before, but that doesn't make implausible things any more plausible simply because they do occasionally happen.)

I 100% agree with this. Don't want to examine either of them individually until we start getting into tinfoil-safe territory (f7 and beyond), refuse to consider them both together.