Buffy Mafia 2: A Slayer's Work Game Thread [Concluded]

[atheotes]

...

I would love to say hello to the person or persons who visited me last night, you deserve to know who I am.

You sound very unsure about what happened - Now you are saying 3 people visited you last night and can corroborate their innocence.

You have claimed that you are "one" of the investigators and to know the identity of a vigilante, protector, and the roleblocker. Now you say you know a "a doctor, a neutral, and my scan result." which is it?

Its strange that an attack would not show up in the write-up....

[atheotes]

...
I would love to say hello to the person or persons who visited me last night, you deserve to know who I am.

Here you sound very unsure about what happened - Now you are saying 3 people visited you last night and can corroborate their innocence.

You have claimed that you are "one" of the investigators and to know the identity of a vigilante, protector, and the roleblocker. Now you say you know a "a doctor, a neutral, and my scan result." which is it?

Its strange that an attack would not show up in the write-up....

ATPG, you are yet to answer my question.

[Askthepizzaguy]

ATPG, you are yet to answer my question.

Over the course of the round my inbox has been lighting up with communications. The information I have now is better than what I started with, but what I said was correct.

A Slayer will use a stake to kill a vampire, although it can obviously kill ordinary humans as well. I was attacked by a stake-wielding attacker, who fled from two separate defender roles, one was wielding a certain kind of weapon, the other was wielding a different kind of weapon. I'm in contact with one of the two. I know which kind of weapon they had, but I am choosing not to reveal it so someone else can prove themselves if they get defended by the same person, they can name the weapon.

Scumbags aren't going to be using a vigilante's weapon, nor protecting me, therefore all three have good solid alibis. No scans or recruitments possible from them.

I am an investigator and I'm not the only one. The person I scanned is also an investigator, it turns out. I don't know who the vigilante is, and I never said I did, and I don't know the roleblocker and never said I did.

It's not strange that an attack that failed wouldn't show up in the writeup. Not every game host includes failed attacks in their writeups. But everyone involved in my attack/defense is aware that two others also showed up, and I was also aware of it. Therefore you'll find out in due time that I'm not just making this up because it will happen to others.

[atheotes]

Over the course of the round my inbox has been lighting up with communications. The information I have now is better than what I started with, but what I said was correct.

A Slayer will use a stake to kill a vampire, although it can obviously kill ordinary humans as well. I was attacked by a stake-wielding attacker, who fled from two separate defender roles, one was wielding a certain kind of weapon, the other was wielding a different kind of weapon. I'm in contact with one of the two. I know which kind of weapon they had, but I am choosing not to reveal it so someone else can prove themselves if they get defended by the same person, they can name the weapon.

Scumbags aren't going to be using a vigilante's weapon, nor protecting me, therefore all three have good solid alibis. No scans or recruitments possible from them.

I am an investigator and I'm not the only one. The person I scanned is also an investigator, it turns out. I don't know who the vigilante is, and I never said I did, and I don't know the roleblocker and never said I did.

It's not strange that an attack that failed wouldn't show up in the writeup. Not every game host includes failed attacks in their writeups. But everyone involved in my attack/defense is aware that two others also showed up, and I was also aware of it. Therefore you'll find out in due time that I'm not just making this up because it will happen to others.

Sorry, i misread your post about roleblocker and vigilante.
You have a wealth of information. You have claimed neutral and corruptible. That makes you a huge threat to the town. Albeit not your own making but due to the number of people revealing to you for reasons i cannot fathom.
And I am not comfortable with your posturing from "stop metagaming me" to "lynch me" to "the town will lose if you lynch me"

[Askthepizzaguy]

Sorry, i misread your post about roleblocker and vigilante.
You have a wealth of information. You have claimed neutral and corruptible. That makes you a huge threat to the town. Albeit not your own making but due to the number of people revealing to you for reasons i cannot fathom.
And I am not comfortable with your posturing from "stop metagaming me" to "lynch me" to "the town will lose if you lynch me"

Please keep in mind the non-neutrals are just as corruptible, stop revealing to me is a good plea for me to be making and good advice for others to be heeding, but it shouldn't stop there. Montmorency for example is just as corruptible if he's a townie, and even more dangerous because he's not trying to stop folks from networking, he wants to make the big one.

The town won't lose if you lynch me, but the town will lose if you don't start playing this a little smarter. And honestly, the distinction you're making between neutrals and townies is the exact wrong distinction to be making. Every townie is untrustworthy and all are corruptible, if the pattern from the previous game holds.

You can't keep fixating on my survival win condition, that is less important than the other factors I'm discussing, ones that are extremely pertinent to the town's win regardless of what you end up deciding to do with me. At least play it smarter, so I can feel like I've been of some help.

[Montmorency]

Don't worry, I'm not giving up on you ATPG.

I think the group that Montmorency is putting together is a bad idea. I cannot put it in better words than that. Of course I have never liked the whole townie network.

Montmorency for example is just as corruptible if he's a townie, and even more dangerous because he's not trying to stop folks from networking, he wants to make the big one.

What would constitute a large group? 5? 10? What?

Statement: The risk of betrayal is a risk that may be taken for certain crucial networking purposes. Pizza and Csargo, you do not seem to have certain VCs. You wouldn't understand.

I shoulder all responsibility if any private action of mine causes grievous damage to the town. But that is not yet a given. Let's look back with hindsight only once it is merited.

[Montmorency]

Sorry, Pizza, I can not believe that all townies or neutrals blinkering themselves - what you imply should be done - will be a much better course of action.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'm not responding to your request to change my vote, Monty. You already showed your true colors with regard to how you view neutrals. The lot of us aren't worth one townie.

Until that changes, who you want lynched is not my main concern. And you've already proven to me that you're not someone I should be trying to work with.

Take it up with Csargo. I'll switch if he thinks it's a good idea, otherwise I'm voting to spare my life and kill one of my accusers.

[atheotes]

Please keep in mind the non-neutrals are just as corruptible, stop revealing to me is a good plea for me to be making and good advice for others to be heeding, but it shouldn't stop there. Montmorency for example is just as corruptible if he's a townie, and even more dangerous because he's not trying to stop folks from networking, he wants to make the big one.

The town won't lose if you lynch me, but the town will lose if you don't start playing this a little smarter. And honestly, the distinction you're making between neutrals and townies is the exact wrong distinction to be making. Every townie is untrustworthy and all are corruptible, if the pattern from the previous game holds.

You can't keep fixating on my survival win condition, that is less important than the other factors I'm discussing, ones that are extremely pertinent to the town's win regardless of what you end up deciding to do with me. At least play it smarter, so I can feel like I've been of some help.

Agreed that non-neutrals are just as corruptible. but no other corruptible has as much information as you do.
I do not know about what Montmercy is doing behind the scenes. But big town networks in a game of conversions is a bad idea as far as i am concerned.

if the pattern from previous game holds, you are lying about being attacked

[Askthepizzaguy]

Agreed that non-neutrals are just as corruptible. but no other corruptible has as much information as you do.
I do not know about what Montmercy is doing behind the scenes. But big town networks in a game of conversions is a bad idea as far as i am concerned.

if the pattern from previous game holds, you are lying about being attacked

If you weren't asking the right questions, I'd be voting for you right now.

Now, JHT not voting doesn't surprise me and I hope he pays for it with a scan or roleblock tonight. atheotes not voting but at least discussing feels okay for now, but needs to commit to a vote soon. DaveShack will be given a pass for now, but not much longer, to be noncommittal. Ishmael could also use a scan or block seeing as he'll be using the "I'm away from my computer" excuse for not voting. Let's make sure that's not the only thing he's not doing.

Scotty's headache excuse doesn't feel genuine. The vote on Monty doesn't feel honest, either. Thinking about it, that's the one I pick as being the oddest of the spotlight avoiding bunch.