[UNKNOWN] Mafia Day 5 - The Disappearance [Abandoned]

[pancakemix]

1 - That + the "Paris" speculation

2 - I demanded a "name" claim, not a "full" claim. What I had was enough and that can be seen by the fact that his speculation suggested a shakespearean character, which he later acknowledged he wasn't.

While that argument is valid, the way it was presented is what makes it scummy. It was completely unprovoked and out of nowhere. Not exactly how cases are usually developed.

4 - Can you explain that, please? I just made another question that would actually lower my odds of catching a contradiction, but I still managed to catch it. Should I have dropped everything just because people didn't see through Bleed's inconsistent speculation as far as I did?

I think what Illy's getting at is that you offered a more invasive question, which was easily reduced. It's kinda like the old sales trick where you ask for more than you really want the buyer to pay. Personally, idk if I buy that line of thinking. It just doesn't seem to line up.

7 - So stop skimming and get your facts straight before you try to disagree with me just for the sake of it.

Now I see where Rodion is going with this, quite clever. I'd put some pressure on Bleed_Green, but it seems that certain people *ahem freezie and ndrs ahem* think that I'm pushing for the easy lynch, so I'll wait and hammer later if need be.

That's a gross misinterpretation. Yes he was willing but does that really mean it was at all likely? Think about how many people there are in this game and how many votes it would take to lynch. Possible, yes. Probable, no.

8/9/10 - I'm too new in mafia to know what you mean by "flagrantry rolefishing", but all I did in searching for roles was:
a) ask for someone's name after he seemed really suspicious
b) merely ask a player who had already given a huge hint towards his name to confirm the most obvious candidate

I did not ask for powers, alignments or anything else you might deem important, I only asked for 2 names: 1 from a player that was really suspicious and 1 from a player that had already given like 80% of his character's name. If you think that is "flagrantry rolefishing all day", you (all) can try to get me lynched and see what happens.

I'll admit that what you were doing isn't exactly textbook rolefishing. That would be like saying "Who's the cop?" or something obvious like that. That said, it's pretty darn close. Bleed being suspicious is up for interpretation (at least as far as when you asked) and asking gimli was unnecessary, especially when you knew you were on watch for that sort of action. Even if you disagree with the logic, if people are gonna lynch you on that logic there's no reason to be reckless without cause.

Finally, comparing someone D1's passive behaviour to his D2's agressive one is not nice. The transition from D1 (no clues, no flavour, no investigation, no nothing) to D2 (some clues, some flavour, some investigation) is huge and enough to account for someone's different posture.

Maybe, maybe not. That can get WIFOMy in a metagame type way and you're too new to be metagamed. Seems like you're trying to play to your inexperience.

[strike wolf]

Iliad:

1 - That + the "Paris" speculation

2 - I demanded a "name" claim, not a "full" claim. What I had was enough and that can be seen by the fact that his speculation suggested a shakespearean character, which he later acknowledged he wasn't.

Well obviously you're not an idiot. Asking for a full role claim without a well-founded reason would have meant instant bandwagon against you and I am sure you knew that. That with your continued under-appreciation of the weight of a name claim.

3 - Guilty as charged. Would have done it again if given another opportunity.

It was a natural reaction to question someone who asks for a name claim out of the blue and expects everyone to be fine with it based on faith. It is not a good reaction to FOS everyone going against it.

4 - Can you explain that, please? I just made another question that would actually lower my odds of catching a contradiction, but I still managed to catch it. Should I have dropped everything just because people didn't see through Bleed's inconsistent speculation as far as I did?

5/6 - You're correct. The one difference here is that I think that is enough and you don't.

It is flavor speculation and Bleed did later give a very weak but somewhat understandable coming from a new player looking too far into theme reason why his character may have been connected to Shakespeare.

7 - So stop skimming and get your facts straight before you try to disagree with me just for the sake of it.

Now I see where Rodion is going with this, quite clever. I'd put some pressure on Bleed_Green, but it seems that certain people *ahem freezie and ndrs ahem* think that I'm pushing for the easy lynch, so I'll wait and hammer later if need be.

Here is the thing...No one actually said they wanted to hammer. Freezie and Naxus said they were willing to pressure more if the scenario called for it and Saf lended support to the wagon and said he was willing to hammer if it came to that point...basically if bleed was not able to come up with a decent defense and he was the consensus lynch for the day he would lynch. Let's look at what Safari has said about the bleed case since:

Joan of Arc?

You, sir, are growing in rank on my scum list.

We have NO reasons for gim to claim. Just shut it up instead of pressing infos of random people.

Gim, unless you are pressured with the threat of a lynch, or unless you have solid info that will help the town, you should not reveal info about your character. It gives the evil guys a better view on who to kill to harm us more.

Your info, however, revealed something that everyone should take in consideration now: The game's theme is broad enough that questioning and trying to find it out will hurt us more than help at this point of the game. Later, we'll see. For now, it helps more the mafia to make fake claims than help us.

I want to see bleed getting some more pressure simply because of his weird acting that Rodion found out. Right now we're wasting time trying to find something we don't need to figure out yet.

I tried to warn that making bleed give up information without pressure was a slippery slope, and this is simply proving that warning. As of right now Rodion, with Bleed at the very least nameclaiming, I see no real case on him besides flavor speculation. Sure, additional pressure may cause him to reveal the role, I will give you that, but to continue to speculate on individual roles is much more detrimental to town than speculating on the game theme. Of course the question could be begged, if Bleed wasn't from a Shakespeare game, why the speculation about just Shakespeare characters, but I don't think it's a lynchable offense in and of itself.

i am starting to get the feeling that i revealed to much

but this quote below is why i did. i thought it would help the town more if i revealed some information on my charactor.

however it is best not to unless you know it will help the town.

but from what i have read it helped the mafia more.

Not really, man, don't worry. People are overreacting to put me in a bad light and get some suspicion away from Bleed.

You said "french character from the beggining of the 1400s". I don't see how that weakens the town at all. Why?
a) we don't know if you're telling the truth
b) assuming you're telling the truth, we don't know if your character is, to put it simply (since this is your first game), "good" or "evil"
c) if you're "evil" (mafia or 3rd-party) the town didn't get weak at all, as nothing from their own side was revealed
d) if you're "good" (town or some harmless types of 3rd-party), the evil guys know that already, in part (mafia knows you are not mafia, multiplayer 3rd-parties know you're not part of their 3rd-party)

The way I see it, that is all harmless. I'll know tell you how what you did could harm the town.

a) there's some lyncher out there (or some other role) trying to get a french character from the early 1400s killed (or recruited for whatever winning condition they have). You did make it easier on them by saying you're french from early 1400s.

That's it. The Joan of Arc question (know I'm talking to everyone) I made is really irrelevant from a searching perspective. Why? Well, in a game with so many themes and centuries, if I had to kill/recruit/lynch a character named Joan of Arc, for instance, knowing Gimli was a french character from the early 1400s would've been enough. I would not have risked myself by openly asking it (that's WIFOM, I know - you can trust me if you want to).

Other than that slim possibility, the one way you could have hurt the town was if you mentioned your power, which you didn't. So, as I said in the beginning of this post, man, it's cool, don't worry about what you've done as people are just trying to make a tempest in a teapot.

But, yes, do not reveal your powers.

Again, where is the suspicion on bleed. Half your case revolved around him nameclaiming, and now that he did so, I don't see how the case you have on him can continue. Flavor spec is all well and good, but I don't believe that basing an entire case on just flavor spec is valid. It looks a bit like tunnel vision to me.

Safari, you want to talk about Bleed?

How could Dante Alighieri see Templars and shadows and still only speculate about Romeo and Juliet characters? And not understand the Templar's involvement?

Quoting just for you.

Think of it this way (simplified version for didactic purposes):

1 - Your character is "triangle".
2 - You see someone claiming "grape" and saying he was lovers with someone everyone considers to be "apple" (from the famous "Grape and Apple" book by this famous writer called "Farmer").
3 - Then you see N1 scene mentioning "shield" defending "sword", "shield" dying and his brother "spear" mourning his death.
4 - There's also this "dolphin" guy lurking in the shadows and surviving only due to his inhuman powers.
5 - Then you start to speculate on 3rd-parties, being only able to name fruits ("watermellon") and have the hardest time ever understanding why there would be "weapon" characters in what is obviously a "fruit game".
6 - Someone asks: "buddy, what's your name?"
7 - Everyone dislikes the question and forces him to ultimately rephrase it.
8 - That guy rephrases his question to "can you at least tell me if you are a fruit?"
9 - You answer: "I'm a geometric shape."


Does that even make sense?!

No, I'm saying I understand that argument. What I'm saying is that not understanding the theme (especially since the theme was hidden from us) in and of itself is not enough for me to vote him. I'm saying I'll need more evidence to throw my vote on Bleed. Flavor spec+ say bandwagonning or something is enough for me to vote someone, but pure flavor spec isn't to me.

Man I could cut the sarcasm with a knife... Really Rodion, I understand the case, I just don't think it's strong enough to warrant a vote. Props for trying, but I'm not buying it.

Not an admission of guilt, nor anything that conclusively points to guilt. Sure he isn't a Shakespearean character, but considering his name claim it isn't too hard to see why he thought that the game might have a Shakespearen theme.

Because if you're Dante Alighieri (italian writer) you're totally expected to think the game might have a Shakespearean theme? Can you please make some sense out of that before I get even more scummy for OMGUSing you?

But what exactly does that have to do with being mafia? You're saying that if he had claimed a shakespeare character, then he would have been innocent, but on the flip side, if he doesn't he's automatically scummy? That's not necessarily scummy, there's no logical opposite that would automatically make him mafia. It's definitely noteworthy, and noted by me, but not an indictment of guilt in and solely by itself.

So basically you are trying to exaggerate the support your case got and use it as a shield against those accusing you now.

8/9/10 - I'm too new in mafia to know what you mean by "flagrantry rolefishing", but all I did in searching for roles was:
a) ask for someone's name after he seemed really suspicious
b) merely ask a player who had already given a huge hint towards his name to confirm the most obvious candidate

I did not ask for powers, alignments or anything else you might deem important, I only asked for 2 names: 1 from a player that was really suspicious and 1 from a player that had already given like 80% of his character's name. If you think that is "flagrantry rolefishing all day", you (all) can try to get me lynched and see what happens.

As has been said. Any unnecessarily spilt information in a day tends to be bad for the town. Yes he had said information that agrees with Joan of Arc's profile but he did not say Joan of Arc specifically and there could be other characters from the time line. It is at the very least you can not guarantee scum won't over look as long as it's not pressed.

[Rodion]

Strike, not sure you understood the Safari remark. Nagerous wanted a brief explanation on my wagon and I narrated the story. I never said the people that joined Bleed's wagon stood by it until the end and it was obviously not the case from the fact that 2 out of 3 ppl on the wagon (myself not included) are currently voting on me. I'm not exaggerating support at all, I just told what I considered to be the story in 10 simple lines. If you wish to ammend it or even make a totally different summary for Nag, go ahead. Just don't try to spin things: I said the wagon on Bleed got 4 people and it did. It doesn't anymore, but it can't change the fact that it did in the past and that the line mentioning it in my summary to Nagerous was not false.

I'm glad you at least consider Bleed's explanation to be very weak, by the way.

[safariguy5]

Strike, not sure you understood the Safari remark. Nagerous wanted a brief explanation on my wagon and I narrated the story. I never said the people that joined Bleed's wagon stood by it until the end and it was obviously not the case from the fact that 2 out of 3 ppl on the wagon (myself not included) are currently voting on me. I'm not exaggerating support at all, I just told what I considered to be the story in 10 simple lines. If you wish to ammend it or even make a totally different summary for Nag, go ahead. Just don't try to spin things: I said the wagon on Bleed got 4 people and it did. It doesn't anymore, but it can't change the fact that it did in the past and that the line mentioning it in my summary to Nagerous was not false.

I'm glad you at least consider Bleed's explanation to be very weak, by the way.

I'll clarify here since that quote of mine seems to be a point of contention. Yes, at the time, the Bleed paradox was quite interesting, as it seemed to imply that he must be either lying or confused. However, I wasn't 100% in favor of just throwing a straight bandwagon vote because I couldn't find other scummy actions that I could add to the case. That and I've already been accused of bandwagonning twice, and I don't think a third time would be particularly good for me. Consider it a half vote if you will. If other people also believed that flavor spec was enough to lynch, I wasn't going to filibuster until a deadline, but I needed to see more evidence (from Rodion or someone else) that Bleed was scummy and not just confused about the theme (as I was and still am to some degree).

[strike wolf]

Strike, not sure you understood the Safari remark. Nagerous wanted a brief explanation on my wagon and I narrated the story. I never said the people that joined Bleed's wagon stood by it until the end and it was obviously not the case from the fact that 2 out of 3 ppl on the wagon (myself not included) are currently voting on me. I'm not exaggerating support at all, I just told what I considered to be the story in 10 simple lines. If you wish to ammend it or even make a totally different summary for Nag, go ahead. Just don't try to spin things: I said the wagon on Bleed got 4 people and it did. It doesn't anymore, but it can't change the fact that it did in the past and that the line mentioning it in my summary to Nagerous was not false.

I'm glad you at least consider Bleed's explanation to be very weak, by the way.

And I would probably be ok with this answer if it wasn't for the fact you've hid behind your bleed case and any and every comment that gives it merit ever since suspicion grew on you for your Joan of Arc comment. You're report wasn't false but it was very biased (ok I guess that is to be somewhat expected) and it did kind of skip over the part where you basically accuse everyone who was questioning you for the Joan of Arc comment.

[Rodion]

and it did kind of skip over the part where you basically accuse everyone who was questioning you for the Joan of Arc comment.

Can you back that statement with some quotes, please?

[strike wolf]

Not really, man, don't worry. People are overreacting to put me in a bad light and get some suspicion away from Bleed.

[Rodion]

Not really, man, don't worry. People are overreacting to put me in a bad light and get some suspicion away from Bleed.

Alright, you want to consider that an accusation?

Cool, I'll play along.

How many votes do I have now due to the Joan of Arc question? About 7? And who was "accused" by this quote besides Streaker and you (while Freezie did take issue with my question, her vote was still on Bleed, so that was not an accusation on her)?

I'm guessing I "accused' ( ) 2 people, got 7 votes and somehow you dare say I accused "basically everyone" who took issue with the question? Yes, because THAT would be an accurate summary to give to Nagerous.

[strike wolf]

Not really, man, don't worry. People are overreacting to put me in a bad light and get some suspicion away from Bleed.

Alright, you want to consider that an accusation?

Cool, I'll play along.

How many votes do I have now due to the Joan of Arc question? About 7? And who was "accused" by this quote besides Streaker and you (while Freezie did take issue with my question, her vote was still on Bleed, so that was not an accusation on her)

I'm guessing I "accused' ( ) 2 people, got 7 votes and somehow you dare say I accused "basically everyone" who took issue with the question? Yes, because THAT would be an accurate summary to give to Nagerous.

It would have been an accusation on all three, please make no mistake that just because they did not vote for you immediately that means they didn't call you out for your action. Also saf also made it clear he was upset with the role fish in that scenario so you could arguably say four. You also made it clear you would continue to FOS anyone who went against someone who made a case that was as "clear as water". Furthermore that argument is circumstantial based on the number of people who had questioned it. You had so many people who spoke up against you at the time and you made a blanket statement against all of them that had.

[Rodion]

Not really, man, don't worry. People are overreacting to put me in a bad light and get some suspicion away from Bleed.

Alright, you want to consider that an accusation?

Cool, I'll play along.

How many votes do I have now due to the Joan of Arc question? About 7? And who was "accused" by this quote besides Streaker and you (while Freezie did take issue with my question, her vote was still on Bleed, so that was not an accusation on her)

I'm guessing I "accused' ( ) 2 people, got 7 votes and somehow you dare say I accused "basically everyone" who took issue with the question? Yes, because THAT would be an accurate summary to give to Nagerous.

It would have been an accusation on all three, please make no mistake that just because they did not vote for you immediately that means they didn't call you out for your action. Also saf also made it clear he was upset with the role fish in that scenario so you could arguably say four. You also made it clear you would continue to FOS anyone who went against someone who made a case that was as "clear as water". Furthermore that argument is circumstantial based on the number of people who had questioned it. You had so many people who spoke up against you at the time and you made a blanket statement against all of them that had.

It was not on Freezie. I mentioned people who were getting suspicion away from Bleed and his/her vote was still there. There was no issue with Freezie at the moment. And Safari's posture didn't bug me as he just mentioned he didn't like it, but didn't throw a tantrum about it.

Besides, the FOS on the case that was "clear as water" was Bleed related, not Gimli related. If you dislike my Gimli question but do not try to cover the Bleed case, there is no FOS coming your way (unless you give me another reason). You said I accused basically everyone that questioned me on the Gimli thing yet you summoned "the clear as water FOS" that was a Bleed thing. Looks like you're trying to confuse people here.

[strike wolf]

I'll concede the point on Freezie, I could have sworn he had switched his vote by that point but that doesn't appear to be the case...I will stand by the fact you made it pretty clear you intended to FOS pretty much everyone who would argue your point.

So, yes, Freezie, I'm getting A LOT of shit and I still feel I need to "enlighten" some of you. Posts will have the size it takes to get people to comprehend what's going on (unless my exhaustion gets me to give up on this game). And I suspect those who obstruct me, there's nothing I can do about it - I have faith that I am right and the logical consequence is that those who disagree are wrong, period. It's a radical opinion and can ultimately be my downfall, but getting votes and fingers won't make me change it.

Fasposted by Gimli: WOOT, it's a wagon!

Fasposted by Wolf - I reserve the right to OMGUS everyone that presents an opinion that I consider to suck (and I'm really radical with that).

would've forced bleed to either be caught in a lie or somehow admit the scummy flavour.

So, Iliad, now you're disputing the fact that I got an admission? Bleed admitted, but he chose to call it an "honest mistake derived from inexperience" rather than saying "ok, I'm scum, you got me".

IFOS™ Iliad. Yes, that's the invisible finger of suspicion, as visible fingers of suspicion are making people suspect me even more!

The point of the clear as water thing was you bringing in the bleed case into your defense against the accusations about your gimli comment they are connected.

[Rodion]

They are different things. You're trying to mix them to make me look bad. You've just said I accused basically everyone who questioned me on the Gimli case and when I showed how weak your evidence was you had to summon the accusations of people who questioned me on the Bleed case to "compensate" your false claim.

[freezie]

Rodion, the reasons you are beeing fos'ed is because of your thirst for everyone's name.

I said time and again that I understand your case against bleed, it comes down to the known LAL. Or Lynch all Liars, for the newbies.

Bleed said he didn't understand the templars in Romeo and Juliet, yet his character is from neither. That's it. No need for huge posts rodion.

But, anyway:

Unvote

Vote: Rodion


Your last few posts have been enough as you try to take down anyone with an oppinion. Everyone here may see something as clear as water while others don't, and that's no reason to say that they are utterly wrong.

I'll say it again: I agree to your case against bleed as per the LAL, but I don't agree with everything else you have said.

Where exactly Rodion that I didn't vote you for the joan of arc comment? That post by me included that comment as well as everything else you did.

[freezie]

Disregard my last post...just realised I was way beside the track..

No you didn't accuse me on that behalf, but you did defend yourself against my comment. What strike has said is right, you have been throwing fos and accusation left and right if they were against your scenarios. Stop denying that then we'll get somewhere finally.

[Rodion]

Disregard my last post...just realised I was way beside the track..

No you didn't accuse me on that behalf, but you did defend yourself against my comment. What strike has said is right, you have been throwing fos and accusation left and right if they were against your scenarios. Stop denying that then we'll get somewhere finally.

Disregarded.

And I'm not denying that. I threw several FOS during this D2. And I said I'll continue throwing them if needed (check my "guilty as charged" quote when answering Illiad - also check my trademarked IFOS ). I hope your path to get "somewhere" is free now that I "stopped denying" something that I never denied.

[strike wolf]

They are different things. You're trying to mix them to make me look bad. You've just said I accused basically everyone who questioned me on the Gimli case and when I showed how weak your evidence was you had to summon the accusations of people who questioned me on the Bleed case to "compensate" your false claim.

You can't bring one thing into an argument about something else and then when someone else tries to use it against you say "They are different things." They were different things as long as you kept the bleed case out of your defense about the gimli comment. Once you brought the bleed case into it they stopped being different things.

A brief guide to scumminess from Rodion:

1. Fish for name claims because fishing for roles is too obvious
2. Understate every accusation made against you
3. Bring up the strong case you made as a defense.
4. Tie in some OMGus FOSes against the people accusing you based on that case
5. Everything is black and white no room for gray unless it suits his needs.
6. OMGus more people as they start accusing you.
7. Act like your smarter than everyone and say that's why you are OMGusing them because they are either stupid or scum.
8. keep making fancy posts as to your defense.
9. Attempt to take the weak link in the argument (out of context if possible) and turn it against your accusers when your other defenses stop working.
10. OMGus some more people.
11. Stubbornly deny validity of others accusations regardless...find ways to twist what they are saying.
12. Rinse and repeat.

[Rodion]

I'm confused. Weren't you the one that said I was suspecting people that questioned Gimli and THEN summoned Bleed?

It would have been an accusation on all three, please make no mistake that just because they did not vote for you immediately that means they didn't call you out for your action. Also saf also made it clear he was upset with the role fish in that scenario so you could arguably say four. You also made it clear you would continue to FOS anyone who went against someone who made a case that was as "clear as water". Furthermore that argument is circumstantial based on the number of people who had questioned it. You had so many people who spoke up against you at the time and you made a blanket statement against all of them that had.

Or was it me?

[strike wolf]

Right...I talk about something that goes back ALL the way to page 35 when in response to people questioning you about the gimli comment you summon up the statement that it was people overreacting to make you look bad and shift attention from bleed and you quote something from page 44...I thought i was supposed to be the one mixing things up here.

[Rodion]

Right...I talk about something that goes back ALL the way to page 35 when in response to people questioning you about the gimli comment you summon up the statement that it was people overreacting to make you look bad and shift attention from bleed and you quote something from page 44...I thought i was supposed to be the one mixing things up here.

Ohhh, I see what you're trying to do. Since I said the Gimli-based attacks were just a trick to get suspicion away from Bleed (in page 35, says you), you're now entitled to make Bleed-related accusations on me and put them onto the Gimli-related tab. Smart move to make that transition, as making me look scummier on Gimli's tab is indeed easier than on Bleed's.

Anyway, this back and forth discussion is not going anywhere. I'm tired of seeing people accuse me first only to later "concede" that they were wrong or ask to have their posts disregarded. Unfortunately, all those spurious accusations are not making my wagon any smaller. It looks like there's only one way of regaining credibility. I obviously wanted to avoid this, but I've lost hope otherwise. Try to lynch me and we'll see what happens. I'll help.

Unvote Bleed (doesn't mean my suspicion has ceased).

Vote Rodion.

After I'm cleared you'll have to follow me.

[safariguy5]

Right...I talk about something that goes back ALL the way to page 35 when in response to people questioning you about the gimli comment you summon up the statement that it was people overreacting to make you look bad and shift attention from bleed and you quote something from page 44...I thought i was supposed to be the one mixing things up here.

Ohhh, I see what you're trying to do. Since I said the Gimli-based attacks were just a trick to get suspicion away from Bleed (in page 35, says you), you're now entitled to make Bleed-related accusations on me and put them onto the Gimli-related tab. Smart move to make that transition, as making me look scummier on Gimli's tab is indeed easier than on Bleed's.

Anyway, this back and forth discussion is not going anywhere. I'm tired of seeing people accuse me first only to later "concede" that they were wrong or ask to have their posts disregarded. Unfortunately, all those spurious accusations are not making my wagon any smaller. It looks like there's only one way of regaining credibility. I obviously wanted to avoid this, but I've lost hope otherwise. Try to lynch me and we'll see what happens. I'll help.

Unvote Bleed (doesn't mean my suspicion has ceased).

Vote Rodion.

After I'm cleared you'll have to follow me.

Softclaim of unlynchable I see...

[Iliad]

Right...I talk about something that goes back ALL the way to page 35 when in response to people questioning you about the gimli comment you summon up the statement that it was people overreacting to make you look bad and shift attention from bleed and you quote something from page 44...I thought i was supposed to be the one mixing things up here.

Ohhh, I see what you're trying to do. Since I said the Gimli-based attacks were just a trick to get suspicion away from Bleed (in page 35, says you), you're now entitled to make Bleed-related accusations on me and put them onto the Gimli-related tab. Smart move to make that transition, as making me look scummier on Gimli's tab is indeed easier than on Bleed's.

Anyway, this back and forth discussion is not going anywhere. I'm tired of seeing people accuse me first only to later "concede" that they were wrong or ask to have their posts disregarded. Unfortunately, all those spurious accusations are not making my wagon any smaller. It looks like there's only one way of regaining credibility. I obviously wanted to avoid this, but I've lost hope otherwise. Try to lynch me and we'll see what happens. I'll help.

Unvote Bleed (doesn't mean my suspicion has ceased).

Vote Rodion.

After I'm cleared you'll have to follow me.

Now it's getting interesting. Rodion is is either soft claiming unlynchable or trying to bluff it.

I gotta say if he is unlynchable that would explain a lot, especially if he is also cult. If he is an unlynchable cultie, then this day has been great for him. He has exposed quite a few roles today, aiming at the inexperience because the veterans are much less likely to crack and reveal their name claim on demand. Meanwhile he has shut down all other discussion but him, and if he is lynched then town only loses its day.

Having said that however, it's all quite possible that this is a bluff by Rodion to WIFOM us and abandon the wagon. If Rodion isn't unlynchable I'm really not sure what expects to happen as town is almost certainly going to call the bluff. I propose calling the bluff and if Rodion is telling the truth, or hinting at it, then a vig offs him.

[DoomYoshi]

I read it as: After we lynch Rodion, we will know we have to lynch Bleed. I don't think he claimed unlynchable...

[targetman377]

WOW!!!!! and the plot thickens!!!! Crazy good move Rodion now i am at a loss of what to believe!

[Commander9]

Vote Count

safariguy5 (3) - Target, Yoshi, ndrs
freezie
pancakemix (1) - Edoc
Streaker
ndrs
Edocsil
vioiet
targetman377
TheSaxlad
naxus
Iliad
DoomYoshi
gimli
Rodion (8) - Streaker, freezie, gimli, Strike Wolf, PCM, Iliad, naxus, Rodion L-4
blakebowling
jeraado
sheepofdumb
ShaggyDan
nagerous
Strike Wolf
Fircoal
Bleed_Green
Namliam

With 23 alive, it takes 12 to lynch. Deadline on May 5th. Going to prod Fircoal and vioiet.

[targetman377]

You know rodion why don't you just full claim? well?? you seem to want to get a lot of claims out there why not your self just make one clean full claim?

I can see if he is unlynchable why would he let that much be known. I don't get his play style. But i also don't like it so!!

UNVOTE!
VOTE RODION