Weird that you are now voting Samlen and suggesting his opinions cannot possibly be from a town member yet I literally accussed Nag of being scum for those reasons first. So either you skimmed, forgot me entirely or think Sam is scum for an action but I'm not scum for it. Which is it? The notion that "welp this guy who cop inno'd gave some intel that may or may not be valid and that is good enough for me" is not a good enough justification for following this bandwagon, and findign that suspicious is a perfectly valid reason to suspect someone. You are essentially justifying chasing the Ragian in a follow-the-cop scenario and putting zero effort into considering other possibilities and at the same time suggesting that finding anyone scummy for jumping onto an easy wagon is scummy itself. Soz, but I do not believe the 'evidence' presented to us is good enough to warrant a vote on Ragian and I am highly suspicious of all those keen to treat it as if it's a solid case for that reason. The evidence is not good enough, therefore I will be turning towards how people behave in regards to that evidence to deduce whether scum might be taking advantage. In this case, Nag seemingly accepted that the evidence does not prove anything in regards to whether Ragian could be scum or not and yet he voted Ragian anyway because "eh good enough". You can disagree on whether you believe Nag is scum; however Samlen was perfectly valid in finding that suspect and calling it out. I find it bizarre that you have essentially stated that it is anti-town to look at a player's arguments to detect their alignment. What gives, yo?
For the record, I have seeerious doubts that both Samlen and Ragian could be a mafia team; by voting for Sam, are you suggesting that scum sam went to such dangerous lengths to protect Ragian? Do you think Sam is scum who backed up a town-sided Ragian or do you believe they are a scumteam?
One thing I'll say right here is that I will absolutely not be voting for Sam, Ragian or Mets (and probably not DDS either)today and if I had to vote someone else to spare them I would if the situation desperately went that way. At this point I have my misgivings on Dakky and Nag still, I'd aim to vote dakky but it's likely moot at this point unless others considered changing.
Everything confuses and enrages me! Raaaargh Join Discord groupfor multiplayer gaming and general nonsense.
Ragian wrote:@Legion, how exactly does your role work? When during the day does the delayed action occur?
I have mentioned it before but here it is again, I target someone and their night action gets delayed until the following Day phase, at no specific time.
Also just a wee thing to consider for those who are still adamantly insisting that Mitch couldn't have been the target for a mafia kill during the night, consider this: perhaps mafia know that you would think along those lines and did it precisely because of that.
DirtyDishSoap wrote:I'm not clearing Ragian by an means. But if Legion is confirmed town as I suspect, then Ragian is our best shot. IF wrong, and Ragians claim is true, we can assume that he did indeed jail Samlen and prevent a night action kill.
...no. We can't assume that. If Ragian flips town jailer, that doesn't mean Samlen is scum. That's just one possible interpretation of the facts. It's not the only possible interpretation of the facts. Just like legionnare's claimed action on Ragian is not the only possible interpretation that explains the facts.
I'm actually going to reply to this anyways. Even though you figured out my thought process anyways.
Perhaps I should have wrote this better, but I said assume that he could possibly be scum given how night 1 turned out with a no kill and a jail claim. Now if you want to argue that "mafia didn't kill n1 so they can kill during the day" great, but I imagine there is a rule in place where you can't take an action during the night so you can use that day ability. We already have him admitting that he didn't use his night ability with no other reveal. Not the greatest lead but its there, and it's all assuming that Ragian is really a jailer, which we can't prove unless we want to run the risk of having him prove it.
We can't use a bussing theory on it, wouldn't make sense given how we've beaten that topic dead 5 or so pages ago. So if you have any other plausible theory, go for it. Maybe for a change, you'll stop playing on the fence.
...Wait, nevermind, you're not listening.
Dukasaur wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:taking medical advice from this creature; a morbidly obese man who is 100% convinced he willed himself into becoming a woman.
Your obsession with mrswdk is really sad.
ConfederateSS wrote:Just because people are idiots... Doesn't make them wrong.
Ragian wrote:@Legion, how exactly does your role work? When during the day does the delayed action occur?
I have mentioned it before but here it is again, I target someone and their night action gets delayed until the following Day phase, at no specific time.
I should also add that it causes who-ever I target to have to retake their action during the day phase. I assumed this means that whatever their action would be delayed until some unspecified point in the Day but after looking at it again it could also mean that they get to re-select their target, which would make more sense. That Mitch died after making his claim would seem to confirm this.
Ragian wrote:@Legion, how exactly does your role work? When during the day does the delayed action occur?
I have mentioned it before but here it is again, I target someone and their night action gets delayed until the following Day phase, at no specific time.
I should also add that it causes who-ever I target to have to retake their action during the day phase. I assumed this means that whatever their action would be delayed until some unspecified point in the Day but after looking at it again it could also mean that they get to re-select their target, which would make more sense. That Mitch died after making his claim would seem to confirm this.
Well, Ragian? Did you get the opportunity to re-select your jailing target for the day?
Ragian wrote:@Legion, how exactly does your role work? When during the day does the delayed action occur?
I have mentioned it before but here it is again, I target someone and their night action gets delayed until the following Day phase, at no specific time.
I should also add that it causes who-ever I target to have to retake their action during the day phase. I assumed this means that whatever their action would be delayed until some unspecified point in the Day but after looking at it again it could also mean that they get to re-select their target, which would make more sense. That Mitch died after making his claim would seem to confirm this.
Well that would have been useful to have known earlier... if true, then almost all of the discussion about this has been wasted
Ragian wrote:@Legion, how exactly does your role work? When during the day does the delayed action occur?
I have mentioned it before but here it is again, I target someone and their night action gets delayed until the following Day phase, at no specific time.
I should also add that it causes who-ever I target to have to retake their action during the day phase. I assumed this means that whatever their action would be delayed until some unspecified point in the Day but after looking at it again it could also mean that they get to re-select their target, which would make more sense. That Mitch died after making his claim would seem to confirm this.
Well that would have been useful to have known earlier... if true, then almost all of the discussion about this has been wasted
Agreed, it changes everything. I'm going to unvote, vote Ragian. It makes legionnare's scenario significantly more likely, and if Ragian is scum he's just going to lie about it anyway.
If Rage wanted to do any other action like investigate, block, watch, track, whatever, he may have requested it again during the day and got results mid-day.
That said, it doesn't mean scum don't have a day kill. Too much coincidence if you ask me.
If Rage wanted to do any other action like investigate, block, watch, track, whatever, he may have requested it again during the day and got results mid-day.
And if he was town don't you think he would have said something about it? What possible reason could he have had for keeping quiet about his option to jail someone again?
If Rage wanted to do any other action like investigate, block, watch, track, whatever, he may have requested it again during the day and got results mid-day.
And if he was town don't you think he would have said something about it? What possible reason could he have had for keeping quiet about his option to jail someone again?
If he indeed tried to jail Samlen last night, and got an option to jail someone else today, I guess we will see the results tomorrow. Still scum day kill is possible.
Ragian wrote:@Legion, how exactly does your role work? When during the day does the delayed action occur?
I have mentioned it before but here it is again, I target someone and their night action gets delayed until the following Day phase, at no specific time.
I should also add that it causes who-ever I target to have to retake their action during the day phase. I assumed this means that whatever their action would be delayed until some unspecified point in the Day but after looking at it again it could also mean that they get to re-select their target, which would make more sense. That Mitch died after making his claim would seem to confirm this.
This changes absolutely everything. Would you be able to ask Strike how the role works? Because depending on which way the role works, the Ragian case looks very different. As it stands I'm prepared to vote Ragian, but since he's at L-1, and because I want this answered I'll save my vote until this question gets answered. I suggest everyone else does so as well.
Vote: Mandy Eddie35: hi everyone Serbia: YOU IDIOT! What is THAT supposed to be? Are you even TRYING to play this game?! Kill the idiot NOW please!
Skoffin wrote: So um.. er... I'll be honest, I don't know what the f*ck to do from here. Goddamnit chu.
Weird that you are now voting Samlen and suggesting his opinions cannot possibly be from a town member yet I literally accussed Nag of being scum for those reasons first. So either you skimmed, forgot me entirely or think Sam is scum for an action but I'm not scum for it. Which is it?
I assume this is the post you're talking about? It's the only post you made between that post and Nag's vote.
I put it side by side with Samlen's post. There are clear differences in them. While you both call into question what Nag did yours is more questioning why he did that instead of something else while Sam's is jumping on him for going with the case that Nag brought out. He voted for Nag while you didn't. In fact you don't even call him scum as much as you question his thoughts.
Here's the thing, while I think that Nag's actions aren't scummy, I don't have a problem with others calling his actions into question and debating about why they're being done. It's like with DDS and the no lynch on Day 1. It's a really bad idea but I don't think he's scum because of it. Being scum isn't about who disagrees with the town, it's about who's working in interest to go against town benefit.
In this case what you did was call into question what Nag was thinking as if to try to encourage discussion on why Ragian instead of others, while what Sam did was prop up a weak case and try to make it desireable.
The notion that "welp this guy who cop inno'd gave some intel that may or may not be valid and that is good enough for me" is not a good enough justification for following this bandwagon, and findign that suspicious is a perfectly valid reason to suspect someone. You are essentially justifying chasing the Ragian in a follow-the-cop scenario and putting zero effort into considering other possibilities and at the same time suggesting that finding anyone scummy for jumping onto an easy wagon is scummy itself. Soz, but I do not believe the 'evidence' presented to us is good enough to warrant a vote on Ragian and I am highly suspicious of all those keen to treat it as if it's a solid case for that reason. The evidence is not good enough, therefore I will be turning towards how people behave in regards to that evidence to deduce whether scum might be taking advantage. In this case, Nag seemingly accepted that the evidence does not prove anything in regards to whether Ragian could be scum or not and yet he voted Ragian anyway because "eh good enough". You can disagree on whether you believe Nag is scum; however Samlen was perfectly valid in finding that suspect and calling it out. I find it bizarre that you have essentially stated that it is anti-town to look at a player's arguments to detect their alignment. What gives, yo?
It's all about context. If someone pulled a "Well this idea is sketchy but hey it's a lynch early in the day," then yes that'd be super scummy, but it was a couple of days to a deadline. At some point you have to look at the options that are realistically there. Sure, Ragian may not (although with new information that is a complete may) be a strong lynch, but it's very possible that he is the strongest lynch.
I'm certainly not trying to get other people from putting forward other cases. I mean I'm doing so right now with my vote of Samlen. Never stop putting forth cases of course, but we have to read the situation and understand certain plays will only make sense at certain times. That's the issue that I find with the logic you and Samlen had. It's as if you're trying to decontextualize it. The fact that we're so close to the deadline is vastly important.
For the record, I have seeerious doubts that both Samlen and Ragian could be a mafia team; by voting for Sam, are you suggesting that scum sam went to such dangerous lengths to protect Ragian? Do you think Sam is scum who backed up a town-sided Ragian or do you believe they are a scumteam?
I think either could be possible. If Sam is scum and Ragian is town, I don't think Ragian dying and revealing as a jailer looks good for Sam. Furthermore if he's scum then he has to think of a fakeclaim and get all of that out which is more of a hassle than not. The fact he was so vague makes me suspcious of the why.
Samlen wrote:It's against the ideals of town to not want to lynch a town member? I say it's passive and scummy to lynch someone simply for the sake of lynching, which is what nag and a lot of people on ragians wagon seem to be doing. As for defending ragian I already did that to the extent that I could. He claimed jailer and to have jailed me, a risky claim since it's easily proven/disproven. It makes no sense for scum to claim that when it's so easily disproven. Since I don't believe ragian is scum, am I supposed to stand by and watch him get lynched instead of trying to find someone that is scum? Tell me how THAT would help town.
My argument against that is it's very possible that Ragian could be a mafia with a secondary role like roleblocker. Mafia roleblocker isn't an uncommon role. And in that case he could be certain that he'd have that as a safe claim. It's also possible that the two of you are working together.
But that aside, my issue isn't that you don't want to lynch Ragian. It's perfectly fine for you to think he's town, or to think that someone else is scummier. My issue is not being able to look past disagreeing with an argument and seeing why it'd make sense for a town member to do that. And then at that jumping on that player for doing so. As I've sorta said above. I've seen many cases before (in other games mainly) that I've disagreed with and felt were foolish but that doesnt mean the people behind those cases are scum. Town members can and will disagree. I don't care if you agree or disagree with Nag. What I do care about is you trying to make a case off of that as if you can't see why a town member who do that.
Vote: Mandy Eddie35: hi everyone Serbia: YOU IDIOT! What is THAT supposed to be? Are you even TRYING to play this game?! Kill the idiot NOW please!
Skoffin wrote: So um.. er... I'll be honest, I don't know what the f*ck to do from here. Goddamnit chu.
Fircoal wrote:But that aside, my issue isn't that you don't want to lynch Ragian. It's perfectly fine for you to think he's town, or to think that someone else is scummier. My issue is not being able to look past disagreeing with an argument and seeing why it'd make sense for a town member to do that. And then at that jumping on that player for doing so. As I've sorta said above. I've seen many cases before (in other games mainly) that I've disagreed with and felt were foolish but that doesnt mean the people behind those cases are scum. Town members can and will disagree. I don't care if you agree or disagree with Nag. What I do care about is you trying to make a case off of that as if you can't see why a town member who do that.
It's not that I can't see town-sided player doing that, it's just that I didn't believe ragian was scum and that nag's reasoning was pretty weak for someone whom seems to be quite experienced. The only way it made sense to me was that nag was being lazy scum. I still think Nag's actions are still scummy, but if legionairres new info is true, then ragian is def more scummy right now.
*added note* Since I hadn't thought ragian was scum at that time, it made the most sense to look at the people voting him and I found nag's posts to be the scummiest out of the people voting ragian
on mobile. No time so only responding to legion atm
Which is it? If you claimed that your target could retake their action this whole fisvussion would not have happened. There is a vast difference in delaying an action and retsking an action in the next phase. You went along with the delay theiry and even made the case that maybe svum (ragian) picked mitch last night purposely to confuse us. Now your story is that ragian can retake his action and hasn't mentioned it. You absolutely need to clarify which one it is, and see if you can find out with the mod.
Everything confuses and enrages me! Raaaargh Join Discord groupfor multiplayer gaming and general nonsense.
I find the new revelation from Legion unnerving and I think we have spun ourselves into something crazy today cause of it. I had a whole post written on my feelings on Ragian but its mute. I believe them and their plight and I have been turned off by the jailor aspect but moved past that. Im tempted to end this but want to finish one thing so I can at least note it for the day.
Ragian wrote:@Legion, how exactly does your role work? When during the day does the delayed action occur?
I have mentioned it before but here it is again, I target someone and their night action gets delayed until the following Day phase, at no specific time.
I should also add that it causes who-ever I target to have to retake their action during the day phase. I assumed this means that whatever their action would be delayed until some unspecified point in the Day but after looking at it again it could also mean that they get to re-select their target, which would make more sense. That Mitch died after making his claim would seem to confirm this.
While I agree with the re-selecting (which does away with the whole he wouldn't target Mitch during the night thing), I don't follow all you're saying. If I got to reselect my target 1) I would be jailing someone during the day phase - that doesn't make sense and 2) if I could arbitrarily decide when during the day I would want to do this, I would, if I were scum, wait till the end of the day offing someone. Why paint a massive target on my back knowing that someone had indeed fiddled with my action? It doesn't make sense.
Now, I wasn't asked to reapply my jailing ability and if I wanted to assign it to anyone else. (I presume because it doesn't make sense to jail someone during the day phase, if Legion is telling the truth.)
If I'm at L-1, I need time after work (around 2:30 pm Denmark time) to give my last thoughts. You seem hellbent to get rid of your town jailor, so at least make use of my reads D3. Have to teach now (no, I'm not procrastinating, DDS.)
Alright. As promised, here are my thoughts so we can move on. I don't hold a grudge against Legion for pressing this case. I would have done the same were I in his shoes. All the events add up (even if the most important points were added later on - tactics I actually applaud because they make it able to catch scum in a lie should scum attempt to claim in an attempt to suit the first bit of information), they're just wrong.
Should someone have skimmed, the following happened: I jailed Samlen. You probably know the rest. If you don't, you are probably not paying as close attention as you should
Town: - Legion: Doh... - Samlen: He has stuck his neck far out defending me. I don't think scum would've gone to those lengths doing that. He even made a counter case.
Towny vibe: - Mets: Despite voting me (for which he obviously sucks), he's been cautious and inquisitive to an extent I feel seems townish. Did rush in the beginning, though, which seemed a bit off. - Skoffin: Like Samlen has defended me and questioned others' reasons. She has not voted for anyone else, though (which would be an obvious thing to do if she really believes I'm not scum).
No idea: - Tim: I never know... - DJ: I just don't know...
Scummy vibe: - Fircoal: The vote on Samlen doesn't make sense to me. He also seemed to have information or at least he pretended to have information that he hasn't shared. It doesn't ring town to me. (Perhaps it is a gut reaction to the one vote on Nag?) - Dakky: Quick vote on me, then nothing, then retracted it, then put it back. His "new style" of playing covers the fact that he has realised that being the D1 lynch isn't a good way to play as scum. As town, you don't lose being lynched D1. As scum, you do. More often than not. Skoffin has pointed out loads of weird things in dakky's play. - DDS: I've stated mine. - Nag: Late vote despite advocating for my lynch throughout. Willing to risk it my role saying that there's suspicion and evidence (but there's only suspicion because of the evidence presented). Disregards what has been said about people's reactions to the wagon on me despite several things being pointed out as a result of Legion's case on me. Moreover, I can't shed the thought that as people started voting for DDS, he needed some more votes on me lest DDS should fall for the new rule. If Nag is scum, I'm positive that DDS is scum with him.
Vote Nag
Now, do as you find fitting. Town (and I) can still win this without me. I just implore you to look at those four tomorrow.
Why would I have voted DDS in the situation below? He claimed watcher, said no one visited fircoal - no one counterclaimed. That is good enough for me, it would have been a tough claim to fake and if he was lying we will catch him out later.
Voting for you is a gamble, but no other cases emerged with even a shred of evidence that were worth following up. The circumstances around your case have to be seen by anyone who is town as suspicious enough to warrant voting. I viewed the circumstances, weighed them up in my head then placed a vote, I also outlined clearly the pros and cons of the case before making a judgement call as the deadline approached, unlike others who just instantly jumped on you or have submarined/not shown up to vote. I haven't disregarded anything and have responded to all points raised in response to me. On the balance of probabilities I surmise that it is safer to lynch you than disregard the evidence that legionnaire has brought to the table that point suspicions firmly in your corner.
On the off chance you do turn out as town I have to call you out and say your way of viewing the events is completely flawed. Scum are the only people that know whether you are lying or not, and if you are not lying the smart play would be to sit back and allow the townies fall over each other in this case and then target someone like me for the day three lynch who actually stuck their neck out. In games when I am mafia I do not play this badly and would definitely play a more conciliatory approach and these are the people I would say are worth analysing on day three.
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
