The Scourge of Ephesus [Concluded]

[TinCow]

Ok, got some my clarification. Here's what happened:

In this post, Sigurd responded to my request that he give us advice on who to lynch with a response along the lines of "I would lynch someone I previously accused and voted for." Based on this response, I wrote up my analysis of who Sigurd had voted for and attacked to figure out who he was referring to. After I posted this, Sigurd edited out his post and changed it to the current message about being unable to reveal after being dead. I assumed there had been a rule violation and changed my own analysis to remove references to his statement.

However, I have now confirmed with Andres that Sigurd's original statement was perfectly legal:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

At the end of my massive analysis, I asked Sigurd to suggest who we should lynch. I didn't think this was asking something that broke the rules, as I was only asking his opinion on the game which is something that dead players are allowed to do. Sigurd replied in this post with a statement along the lines of "I would lynch someone I accused before and voted for." Based on that statement, I wrote my reply going after CA. However, when I posted my reply, Sigurd had edited out his response and replaced it with the bit about him being dead and unable to reveal. Out of courtesy, I removed my quote of his old statement from my post, along with a few other references.

However, I now find myself struggling to defend the accusation of CA. A large part of it depends on Sigurd's most recent statement, which has been edited out. Did he edit that out because you asked him to? If so, how is suggesting who he would lynch breaking the rules? I'm dead and am perfectly able to point fingers at people, so shouldn't Sigurd be able to as well?

Hi TC,

Sigurd did not break any rules.

Andres.

So, this is what I was basing my analysis of CA on. Sigurd wanted us to lynch someone he had previously voted for and lynched (edit: this should read "accused"). The only people left alive that he voted for are GH and CA. As I noted, most of his statements about GH indicated that he thought GH was innocent, while he made that large analysis post before voting for CA. Thus, my suspicion of CA. Before we decide to lynch CA we need to discuss the following things:

1) Why did Sigurd change his answer?
2) Was Sigurd possibly referring to GH instead of CA?
3) Is Sigurd actually pro-town, or would eliminating his preferred target hurt us?

[Jolt]

I find it funny that all people GH blocked fall asleep in his cave. Is this a simple coincidence? After they are asleep, what does GH do? It's quite odd that noone stays awake to actually see if GH remains in the cave. My bet goes to GH's being scummy.

[Jolt]

I find it funny that all people GH blocked fall asleep in his cave. Is this a simple coincidence? After they are asleep, what does GH do? It's quite odd that noone stays awake to actually see if GH remains in the cave. My bet goes to GH's being scummy.

Did anyone read this? This is the proof that once the guys are asleep, his character comes out of the cave to kill someone.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I admit I did not fully consider that possibility, but I had oodles of reasons for going after GH already.

I noted you were probably innocent because of your willingness to go after him, in spite of his "invaluable" "townie" ability.

[GeneralHankerchief]

My defense is as follows.

[Yoyoma1910]

No guys, I just thought of the answer!

Don't you get it:


Pizza, who was likely innocent, was killed by the VIGILANTE!

He was killed by the sword. GH couldn't protect him because it was a protown hit!


It all makes sense now.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I am innocent, and from what YLC told me in private, it was the vigilante who killed me.

But I didn't really have reasons for trusting him, and he said he did not know who the vigilante was, or that the vigilante somehow was able to contact him but he didn't know who he was.

I can verify that it was alleged I was killed by vigilante, and if I was killed by the blade (if I recall... the games are blending together now...) then it was so I think.

I still do not think GH is innocent, because the mafia would/should have killed him by now, or GH should have blocked the mafia, one night, and then repeated the next night.

He's not bad at this game, he's the freakin' master. How he would miss such an obvious strategy is beyond me.... wait! No, it's not. He could be... yes... scum!

[TinCow]

No guys, I just thought of the answer!

Don't you get it:


Pizza, who was likely innocent, was killed by the VIGILANTE!

He was killed by the sword. GH couldn't protect him because it was a protown hit!


It all makes sense now.

As far as I am aware, nearly every single protection role that has ever been written for mafia games makes 'doctor' abilities work against any attacker, regardless of alignment. There is nothing whatsoever in GH's role PM that indicates he is anything other than a bland old boring combo role blocker and doctor. If we're just going to discard what we know about how roles work, when there is no evidence to the contrary, next time I fake a role PM I'll be the Magic Fairy Pixie Dust Monkey who can bestow all powers in the Known World on others, but has no idea which powers will be given, who they will be given to, and whether they will even work. When you then try to lynch me for being mafioso scum, I will claim innocence by being unable to explain my Strange But Awesome Powers.

[Sigurd]

...

1) Why did Sigurd change his answer?

I guess this needs an answer.
According to Andres I did no wrong. I believed however that I was breaking the sportsmanship rule.

For clarification:

Andres, I posted this in the thread:

*** censured ***

I edited it out, but I'm afraid other players saw it as well. If I ruined your game by breaking your rules, then please, accept my apology

Sigurd

Hey Sigurd,

You didn't violate any rule.

Andres.

P.S.: feel free to quote this in the thread.