Balance Not Included Come Back Mafia End Game: Mod Down!!!

[Samlen]

Back so I can finish my thoughts.

If I were to base scuminess from what happened yesterday, i'd look at the people that didn't put any effort in. The "sheeple" that basically said "yeah obviously nothing else could've happened so no need to discuss anything else," which is a vibe I got the strongest from Nag. Ragian's willingness to jump on Nag makes me doubt myself a little but again, could all be mindgames. The other large point that stood out was when Fircoal claimed me pointing out Nag's scumminess so late in the day was scummy. It especially stood out since Skoffin had done the same thing earlier in the day and fircoal more or less ignored it. I'll agree it should've been done sooner so that it could've been investigated more thoroughly, but making a new case is hardly scummy if it has some basis.

[Metsfanmax]

But as I see it it's either the mafia has a jailer or Sam is scum.

I agree with this assessment of the situation -- just wanted to make it clear that I lean more towards the former than the latter.

[Fircoal]

That's assuming the role that targeted dds is a mafia role AND that one of the other roles isn't a jailer/roleblocking role, both rather large assumptions in a game where anything can happen.

One is a big assumption the other is not.

Does what that role do sound pro-town to you? Furthermore if it was pro-town it's easy to get that information from the person who had it if they felt it was important or necessary. So until I get info I'm going to assume it's a scum role.

The fact that they don't have a mafia jailer is a big assumption. And really I don't know which is the case because either is possible. I don't fault others for thinking there is one, just at the moment I'm more on the side of you being scum and there not being one. But as both I and mets have said. We don't know.

Back so I can finish my thoughts.

If I were to base scuminess from what happened yesterday, i'd look at the people that didn't put any effort in. The "sheeple" that basically said "yeah obviously nothing else could've happened so no need to discuss anything else," which is a vibe I got the strongest from Nag. Ragian's willingness to jump on Nag makes me doubt myself a little but again, could all be mindgames. The other large point that stood out was when Fircoal claimed me pointing out Nag's scumminess so late in the day was scummy. It especially stood out since Skoffin had done the same thing earlier in the day and fircoal more or less ignored it. I'll agree it should've been done sooner so that it could've been investigated more thoroughly, but making a new case is hardly scummy if it has some basis.

I reread my old posts just to check to make sure I said what I thought I did, and I did. Also I really need to proofread my posts. ... LOL too lazy.

ANYWAY. No I'm not saying that you can't make cases. However you need to look at CONTEXT in those cases. When it's late in the day town just want any lynch, espeically after a Day 1 no lynch. Information is important for the town. I didn't vote you then because you made a new case, I voted you because it felt like the case that you did make was baseless and context less. The latter part is the more important part here.

The thing is removing context to make actions look more scummy is a nice trick for the scum. As much as it may go against people's natural desires, we're here to find scum not to win arguments. Now sometimes that does mean winning arguments. But the important part is that we should be trying to put facts and logic to the table not hiding information to make it seem better than it is.

To be fair this is probably something I need to work on myself. But that's not what we're talking about now.

Back on the previous day I made a post detailing the differences between you and Skoffin's posts. The biggest difference is that your post felt like you were looking for some case to prop up. Part of it is tone as well, although I'm getting the feeling that I'm not reading Skoffin's posts in the same tone as she's intending them. (In both her previous post towards Nag and her recent post towards me, I thought these were more side thoughts that she was bringing up rather than accusations of us being scum.)


All that said, I'll give you a point in your favor. If you were scum and you were going to attach yourself to Ragian anyway, why wouldn't you fully invest and say that you were roleblocked? It's something to consider.

[legionnare]

As much as this is all going round in circles I can't quite get it out of my head that there being a role that changes actions is too convenient and that DDS is actually a scum roleblocker/jailer.

[DirtyDishSoap]

For the 3rd time, I wouldn't have mentioned it if I was scum. No point in putting an already large target on my back for 3 days in a row for a town lynch.
I've provided what had happened, what my action was, and that's it.

I've literally made every argument conceivable in the past to the point where I role revealed. Ragian was pretty adamant on getting me lynched, and so was Mets. If you're going to vote me, look at Mets next. Didn't fit the bill to vote for me in the past with a double voter scum.

[nagerous]

Back so I can finish my thoughts.

If I were to base scuminess from what happened yesterday, i'd look at the people that didn't put any effort in. The "sheeple" that basically said "yeah obviously nothing else could've happened so no need to discuss anything else," which is a vibe I got the strongest from Nag. Ragian's willingness to jump on Nag makes me doubt myself a little but again, could all be mindgames. The other large point that stood out was when Fircoal claimed me pointing out Nag's scumminess so late in the day was scummy. It especially stood out since Skoffin had done the same thing earlier in the day and fircoal more or less ignored it. I'll agree it should've been done sooner so that it could've been investigated more thoroughly, but making a new case is hardly scummy if it has some basis.

Yeah I was totally scummy for voting and getting the mafia guy lynched.

1) There was a deadline! It was either that or no lynch. Read the fucking day again seriously... I didn't just vote ragian I presented cases for and against him I could see it from both sides. We got to four days before the deadline no one else had fucking voted for anyone or presented any reasonable cases at all. We were heading for a no lynch or a last minute mislynch - see civilisation.

2) There was evidence. Legionnaire had been cleared by the cop so the evidence was trustworthy. When there are no other leads presented and nothing else being discussed this was the BEST case out there. Some people were advocating DDS lynch but there was nothing to support this case at all. His claim was solid and no one had countered it.

Your post has so many flaws in it that it comes across as incredibly desperate and mismanaged I have to go ahead and vote samlen

[Skoffin]

Short on time, post betterer later.

I don't want to lynch Sam as I do not find him scummy, he is as innocent as a buttered scone and I will not allow you to do harm upon him.
I think it more likely that Ragian had some vague notion that Sam may back him up in some manner, such as a scummate blocked up, or he took a risk to claim this role with the idea that either 1. Sam doesn't break his claim or b. at the very least, a jailer would CC him and he'd out a powerrole as he died. The 'let's lynch Sam!' hinges on Ragian risking taking his partner down with him for no justifiable reason. Honestly most people besides myself hate playing scum and the risks associated, scum almost *always* waffle when it comes to making a claim or defending a partner. There's really no point to bussing a partner unless you're willing to go all out, and there's no point bringing a partner into your defence unless you are sure they will go out in it. This case hinges on Ragian being willing to throw up his partner to defend him and hope his partner is willing to go full force defend or destroy on him. IF that is what they did then they literally played the silliest hand at it. I think probability says that Ragian claimed his partner's role (jailer) or scum have a roleblocker and Ragian just went off what his team discussed they'd do. That's what I would have done in that scenario.

And based on the roles someone linked previously from the first game that 'didn't make it' it looks like several roles from that list are in this game, so likely a jailer or roleblocker ended up here.

As much as this is all going round in circles I can't quite get it out of my head that there being a role that changes actions is too convenient and that DDS is actually a scum roleblocker/jailer.

To be fair, your role is also pretty weird so


Anyway, we are in a position where massclaims 'may' help up decipher what roles ended up in the game and who affected what outcomes. We may want to discuss when would be the right time to do so.
At the moment I'm curious about fireside and where he got to as he has not made much of an impact and little is known of him

[DirtyDishSoap]

ok so now i have a hot potato waffle that might explode today. Or it might explode to whomever I pass it on to tonight or it might explode in 5 days. Things are getting all the more interesting! I'd have preferred hearing if legion came out with being roleblocked last night before you claimed it, dds, since if he hadn't then it could've been more cause for suspicion. But now legion can only confirm it and we won't get much more info than that.

I'm sorry for skimming past this and a late reply as to why I had said it now rather than later but...

I have no reason to believe Legion would have lied about being role blocked or not considering he is a confirmed town by cop. We've established this in D2 after giving us a clear lead to Ragian. It was better for me to reveal what had happened over the course of N2. Had I waited to reveal my action after the fact, I'm pretty sure I would have been jumped on. It's a weird role, with another weird night with yet again, no night kill.

I can't predict what the scum roles were before the night because having a role that can interfere with not one, but two actions at night without them being carried out is borderline OP to me. In other words, I wouldn't have targeted Legion if I had known such a role existed.

I targeted you and got the result that Nag visited Samlen... paraphrasing to avoid a quote is similar. I guessed you are a watcher or something like that and you targeted Samlen, but as you say you targeted Legion so that means we were all shifted around with actions... lol... not good.

This is still the strangest piece of evidence to me that has been presented.
I may be taking the info wrong from it, so if anyone else wants to clarify on it, let me know.

Dakky targeted me, and (assumed?) that I targeted Samlen. Doesn't make much sense, I know who I targeted and that wasn't switched. Interfered and changed to a role block, sure, but I was definitely not bussed.

Your role claim...ish, is what I'm going to assume is a detective role? So if I'm getting this straight, we have myself who is a watcher,

i can confirm that at the very least mets was not targeted for a kill last night

claiming to be a town crier, which I think more or less fits into an investigative role, and we have Mitch who is a cop. Am I right thus far?

If I'm understanding this correctly we have two roles that can...
Change a role to role block another.
A bussing role. I can't remember who brought up the bussing theory, but someone brought it up in defense to Ragian, running out of time as I'm typing this so if anyone wants to delve into that, please.

A 3rd (neutral-killing?)
A day killer (armed with a waffle bomb?)

This is what I'm gathering so far.

[nagerous]

Skoffin, samlen is not as innocent as the cute innocent avatar suggests. Calling me a 'sheepie' and a player who doesn't put any effort in...please

If he is not scum then ragian played him like an absolute kipper. it is his ambiguity and reluctance to provide any assistance through information that I find questionable at this moment and also his highly weak sauce accusation against me which I will naturally judge as you can imagine

I would also like to hear a bit more from mets, his yo-yo-Ing with on the Ragian vote is a bit questionable , it is like he was deciding whether to throw his scum mate under the bus or not and eventually decided to when the pendulum was swinging towards the lynch again to show that he was on the lynch .

Thoughts on mets skoff? Unfortunately we are going to disagree it appears in regards to fircoal and Sam for now.

[Djfireside]

I believe that I am on the belief that Mafia has a jailer and that Ragian borrowed from their action. It makes the most sense in how things played out. As said Im wery of Sam based on uncertainty but I understand the holdback I guess. Unfortunately though, if cant find other points may need to push you into action even if its on your own terms.

[Samlen]

That's assuming the role that targeted dds is a mafia role AND that one of the other roles isn't a jailer/roleblocking role, both rather large assumptions in a game where anything can happen.

One is a big assumption the other is not.

Does what that role do sound pro-town to you? Furthermore if it was pro-town it's easy to get that information from the person who had it if they felt it was important or necessary. So until I get info I'm going to assume it's a scum role.

I wasn't saying it was pro-town, I was saying it's possible that it's neither town or scum, but third party survivor role turning actions into roleblocking to stay alive longer. On the other hand, as legion pointed out, DDS action turning into a roleblock WAS convenient and we could be chasing an imaginary role while dds the mafia roleblocker hides and laughs.

For the 3rd time, I wouldn't have mentioned it if I was scum. No point in putting an already large target on my back for 3 days in a row for a town lynch.
I've provided what had happened, what my action was, and that's it.

It could be argued that you revealed it to seem more townlike. But debating this much more could turn into a pointless wifom loop so I'm not going to bother.

Skoffin, samlen is not as innocent as the cute innocent avatar suggests. Calling me a 'sheepie' and a player who doesn't put any effort in...please

If he is not scum then ragian played him like an absolute kipper. it is his ambiguity and reluctance to provide any assistance through information that I find questionable at this moment and also his highly weak sauce accusation against me which I will naturally judge as you can imagine

Wasn't just calling you a sheeple =p A couple of players like mets and dakky also put in little effort (and should be considered suspicious as well) and just assumed legion was right without considering other options. I called you out because I usually see you do a lot more than just follow the leader so you doing so felt the most off.
We aren't going to get anywhere on the ambiguity point. I know revealing my action won't help anyone except make you happy and you won't believe me when I say this.

[Metsfanmax]

Wasn't just calling you a sheeple =p A couple of players like mets and dakky also put in little effort (and should be considered suspicious as well) and just assumed legion was right without considering other options. I called you out because I usually see you do a lot more than just follow the leader so you doing so felt the most off.

Legion was right, and at the time he originally posted his information, we didn't have any other options. I don't know how you can see the D2 results and conclude that any of us ended up being wrong for "following the leader."

[Samlen]

Because before legion clarified what his role did at the end of the day there were a ton of variables. Even knowing legion was town so many things could've happened to have caused the same result and we have to at least consider more than just one scenario.

[Metsfanmax]

Because before legion clarified what his role did at the end of the day there were a ton of variables. Even knowing legion was town so many things could've happened to have caused the same result and we have to at least consider more than just one scenario.

Of course. I said multiple times that legion should not be super confident that he was right (at least, before the new information came to light). I also do not think I can be accused of blindly and passively following him. I was one of his most vocal critics.

[DirtyDishSoap]

Happy saint Patrick's day you scummy fucks!

[Samlen]

You're right. I just reread and realized I hadn't remembered correctly.

[Metsfanmax]

1) There was a deadline! It was either that or no lynch. Read the fucking day again seriously... I didn't just vote ragian I presented cases for and against him I could see it from both sides. We got to four days before the deadline no one else had fucking voted for anyone or presented any reasonable cases at all. We were heading for a no lynch or a last minute mislynch - see civilisation.

You're the one that apparently needs to "read the fucking day again." The mod changed it to a three-vote minimum for lynch. That happened on March 4, the day before you got back from your hiatus of posting a few days. And he posted it multiple times on D2, at the same time that you were making noise about how we were headed for a no-lynch (which made no sense because Ragian already had three votes on him, so there was going to be a lynch). There is no way you could have missed him posting about it, which leads me to believe that you were being slightly scummy for continuing to make this kind of noise. That, or just ignorant. Either way, doesn't look good for you trying to play town leader here.

I would also like to hear a bit more from mets, his yo-yo-Ing with on the Ragian vote is a bit questionable , it is like he was deciding whether to throw his scum mate under the bus or not and eventually decided to when the pendulum was swinging towards the lynch again to show that he was on the lynch .

I was the first person to vote Ragian after legionnare posted. It wasn't at all obvious at that point that Ragian would be lynched based on his information. Why would I be so quick to throw a scum buddy under the bus? My vote was part of what helped legionnare's push gain some initial credibility.

[Skoffin]

Skoffin, samlen is not as innocent as the cute innocent avatar suggests. Calling me a 'sheepie' and a player who doesn't put any effort in...please

Sam is innocent as a sunset and I will not accept this tomfoolery.

sorry to say mate, but that previous day I didn't think you put in much effort either. Certainly not as much as I know you can do. It appeared that you just threw in your agreement with legion with 'yep sounds plausible enough' and were not open to other ideas or reviewing any other player. You even acknowledged that you were not playing at your best. I don't necessarily find you scummy, but I do think you were doing a bit of 'follow the leader'. We can't just go ahead with any old lynch under the notion of "we just have to get a lynch done", it's bad play and it does more harm than good. Prior to legion clarifying his actual role we had no justifiable reason to only consider Ragian.

I'm not going to fault Sam or mets etc perspectives because they had valid reasons to question the votes. I still 100% believe that Ragian did *not* target Mitch N1, and for the majority of the day legion presented his role in such a manner that I heavily called into question the likeliness of him actually having picked Ragian as a scummy. We all argued about the lynch *because* of that reason. Had we been informed from that start that Ragian could pick an entirely new target the whole discussion on Ragian would have been vastly different. You can't fault anybody over that, except for Legion for not clarifying his role sooner. If we knew Ragian could re-select a target I would have voted him instantly. If he couldn't re-select and it hinged on Ragian choosing to kill Mitch I would not have considered voting and would be extremely baffled to see him flip scum.
As said, I cannot fault Sam nor Mets for thinking as they did.

I can however fault Chu for seemingly being pro-ragian lynch but simultaneously throw his vote and suspicions elsewhere. Soz but you can say "but he was the only one to see I made valid points" but that would be pretty good play by scum, to 'look' like they are on a lynch but also casting suspicion on other players for a lynching the next day.

Anyway I really want to hear more from dakky and djfireside

[Fircoal]

The 'let's lynch Sam!' hinges on Ragian risking taking his partner down with him for no justifiable reason. Honestly most people besides myself hate playing scum and the risks associated, scum almost *always* waffle when it comes to making a claim or defending a partner. There's really no point to bussing a partner unless you're willing to go all out, and there's no point bringing a partner into your defence unless you are sure they will go out in it. This case hinges on Ragian being willing to throw up his partner to defend him and hope his partner is willing to go full force defend or destroy on him.

Uh.... no. First off I find quite a few people like playing scum, although I'm not one of those people. The thing is though those people who like playing scum aren't going to throw it out there to some random player to have them decide their fate. They're going to throw it to a scummate and hope that they back them up. (Or they'll wimp out and choose an unproveable role.) That said it's important to note we're not dealing with RandomScumster69. We're dealing with Ragian. Sadly I don't know Ragian well enough to know what he would do. But I do believe that there's very little reason for a scum member to say they blocked a random town member when they have no idea of what that person's role is.

That's assuming the role that targeted dds is a mafia role AND that one of the other roles isn't a jailer/roleblocking role, both rather large assumptions in a game where anything can happen.

One is a big assumption the other is not.

Does what that role do sound pro-town to you? Furthermore if it was pro-town it's easy to get that information from the person who had it if they felt it was important or necessary. So until I get info I'm going to assume it's a scum role.

I wasn't saying it was pro-town, I was saying it's possible that it's neither town or scum, but third party survivor role turning actions into roleblocking to stay alive longer. On the other hand, as legion pointed out, DDS action turning into a roleblock WAS convenient and we could be chasing an imaginary role while dds the mafia roleblocker hides and laughs.

Eh I feel like even it being a survivor seems like a stretch. I guess it's possible but to me that sounds like a great role to try out for a mafia member. I do think it's possible DDS could have made it up. If DDS was a mafia roleblocker, that would actually explain it all away as well.

Prior to legion clarifying his actual role we had no justifiable reason to only consider Ragian.

Well you are correct there was no reason to ONLY consider Ragian but there was a good reason to lynch Ragian. Due to information that was given lynching Ragian would give us the most information.

I can however fault Chu for seemingly being pro-ragian lynch but simultaneously throw his vote and suspicions elsewhere. Soz but you can say "but he was the only one to see I made valid points" but that would be pretty good play by scum, to 'look' like they are on a lynch but also casting suspicion on other players for a lynching the next day.

Wouldn't it be much better for scum to just go on the scum lynch and make themselves look good? Like I'm not looking for pro-town points for supporting the Ragian lynch because all things considered I probably still would have prefered a Samlen lynch (well up until legion cleared up his role. But I think at that point, everyone wanted a Ragian lynch.)

Anyway, we are in a position where massclaims 'may' help up decipher what roles ended up in the game and who affected what outcomes. We may want to discuss when would be the right time to do so.

I agree with this, I feel like the time to massclaim might be here.

[nagerous]

sorry to say mate, but that previous day I didn't think you put in much effort either.

The result was what mattered and at the end of the day and we lynched mafia so I must have been correct in my analysis. I mean it wasn't like I just said 'hmm lets just lynch ragian as good enough' which seems to be what a lot of people are paraphrasing my posts to be like in the previous game day. My post where I voted rag was 35 lines of original content ! I am not sure what else I can do, I know I went missing for a number of life days but to be honest, my life is incredibly hectic right now in between organising a wedding for a few months time, buying a house and working a demanding full time job I haven't got as much time as I would like to dedicate to mafia as I would like. I am no longer a student sadly with spare time to sit about watching box sets

1) There was a deadline! It was either that or no lynch. Read the fucking day again seriously... I didn't just vote ragian I presented cases for and against him I could see it from both sides. We got to four days before the deadline no one else had fucking voted for anyone or presented any reasonable cases at all. We were heading for a no lynch or a last minute mislynch - see civilisation.

You're the one that apparently needs to "read the fucking day again." The mod changed it to a three-vote minimum for lynch. That happened on March 4, the day before you got back from your hiatus of posting a few days. And he posted it multiple times on D2, at the same time that you were making noise about how we were headed for a no-lynch (which made no sense because Ragian already had three votes on him, so there was going to be a lynch). There is no way you could have missed him posting about it, which leads me to believe that you were being slightly scummy for continuing to make this kind of noise. That, or just ignorant. Either way, doesn't look good for you trying to play town leader here.

I would also like to hear a bit more from mets, his yo-yo-Ing with on the Ragian vote is a bit questionable , it is like he was deciding whether to throw his scum mate under the bus or not and eventually decided to when the pendulum was swinging towards the lynch again to show that he was on the lynch .

I was the first person to vote Ragian after legionnare posted. It wasn't at all obvious at that point that Ragian would be lynched based on his information. Why would I be so quick to throw a scum buddy under the bus? My vote was part of what helped legionnare's push gain some initial credibility.

Metsfan, I was very aware of the fact that the mod reduced the vote count. As dakky had unvoted my vote then became the third vote on him, which was essentially the casting vote. At this point you still had your vote on DDS who had claimed watcher and had provided evidence that no one had countered. I felt there was a risk of a mislynch and I really didn't want another no lynch it wouldn't have helped us at all after the day one fail. Day one was a complete fail and we nearly had a mislynch then too when a bunch of you guys tried to sneak a last minute lynch on legionnaire. In any case your attempt there failed as we ended up no lynching which as you know I am also not a fan of.

Now the question for you is if you are so hot on the fact that when I voted ragian he was already getting lynched so my complaints that we don't want a no lynch or mislynch are misplaced I find it extremely telling that you yourself are guilty of placing a vote on ragian after he was already getting lynched.. except that yours was only 24 hours before the deadline. As you are so hot on this topic and keen to point this out to me, I am duly obliged to point this out back to you in turn.

On the day one legionnaire case, if people are saying my thought process and vote against ragian which ended up being right, was the act of a sheeple, lazy etc. didn't have any effort put into it, despite as I have said an actually quite long post then check out these day one reasons for voting legionnaire - who got to 5 votes out of 7 so was relatively close to getting lynched.

unvote vote legion as mitch said lych better then none. last time i suggested no lynch it failed so im gonna help to push fr a vote today

Rereading the thread, I find legion to be the most scummy. It may be blinders from the beginning of the game that cloud my judgement, but his and my initial back and forth topped with chu's thoughts make Legion come off as scummy to me.

unvote vote legion

I would also like to add that dakky and mets seem quiet. Mets, from what I understand from previous games, likes to shoot down bullshit rather than add, so perhaps this is in line with his meta. Dakky, however, is usually very vocal. I have no issue with changing one's style of play, but dakky has also seemed somewhat rigid in his replies. That raises one brow here.

Any thoughts on the game so far, dakky and mets?

Fp'ed by dj

You do realise that our back and forth was a bit of fun for the jokey part of the game yeah? Also this seems like an attempt at putting out a safe vote as I have not been as active as I should have been. A wee FOS toward you Ragian

This seems a bit like OMGUS in nature. Given the dearth of other useful information, I'm going to unvote, vote legionnare.

Rereading the thread, I find legion to be the most scummy. It may be blinders from the beginning of the game that cloud my judgement, but his and my initial back and forth topped with chu's thoughts make Legion come off as scummy to me.

unvote vote legion

I'm not being funny, and I know there is nothing to work with day one, but there wasn't anything to work with day two either OTHER than what legionnaire had provided us with. This is all we had, all other cases that had been produced day two had no merit, the DDS one was dead in the water when I voted ragian.

[Skoffin]

I think it's chu and DJ

*flips confetti*
Back to work

[Fircoal]

I think it's chu and DJ

*flips confetti*
Back to work

And you would be wrong.

[Metsfanmax]

Metsfan, I was very aware of the fact that the mod reduced the vote count.

And yet you conveniently chose not to comment about it when posting about how we were headed for a no lynch. Which we weren't. There was basically never less than three votes as we got to the end of the day, and even if there was at some point or might have been, people would have voted as we approached the deadline. No one wanted a no-lynch.

As dakky had unvoted my vote then became the third vote on him, which was essentially the casting vote. At this point you still had your vote on DDS who had claimed watcher and had provided evidence that no one had countered. I felt there was a risk of a mislynch and I really didn't want another no lynch it wouldn't have helped us at all after the day one fail. Day one was a complete fail and we nearly had a mislynch then too when a bunch of you guys tried to sneak a last minute lynch on legionnaire. In any case your attempt there failed as we ended up no lynching which as you know I am also not a fan of.

On D1, you chose to end the day voting for DDS despite no one else joining you. For someone who is not a fan of no-lynch on D1, you sure did play a big role in helping make one happen. (Yes, we know now that lynching legion would have been a mistake, but we didn't know it at the time. Yes I agree that the D1 case on legion was thin, but most D1 cases are thin.)

Now the question for you is if you are so hot on the fact that when I voted ragian he was already getting lynched

I'm not "hot on" that fact. I'm merely pointing out that if you're going to raise your voice at other people and accuse them of ignorance, you had better be ready for a taste of your own medicine.

so my complaints that we don't want a no lynch or mislynch are misplaced I find it extremely telling that you yourself are guilty of placing a vote on ragian after he was already getting lynched..

I'm guilty... of helping to lynch scum?

On the day one legionnaire case, if people are saying my thought process and vote against ragian which ended up being right, was the act of a sheeple, lazy etc. didn't have any effort put into it, despite as I have said an actually quite long post then check out these day one reasons for voting legionnaire - who got to 5 votes out of 7 so was relatively close to getting lynched.

I'm not one of the people who said this so I'm not going to directly respond. However, I will comment that it's strange that you're comparing a D2 vote (after we had significantly more information available) to a D1 vote. D1 votes are necessarily less reasoned, almost always. If we're mining D1 quotes, let's look at the gem of rationality and careful reasoning you produced:

However, this is the scummiest thing in the thread to date. DDS is a 'new player' I know but suggesting no lynch is a massive scum tell that new players often fall through and pretty often they turn out scum. unvote vote DDS

[DirtyDishSoap]

@Nag - I'll just ignore the fact that you forgot/ignored/whatever the case may be that you didn't see the vote rule change for D2 and misquoted that we were heading for a no lynch. Wouldn't have been possible.
I'll also tickle the Samlen theory here shortly.

@Mets - You were playing on the fence as much as I was, and accused me of the same thing, and of course, voting me along with Ragian who turned out to be a double voter scum. That attempted band wagon is enough to me to think you're pretty damn scummish.

Samlen Theory -
(I realize what I'm about to say here is going against what I had said about Samlen being cleared if Ragian was scum.)

So let's backtrack to D2 when legion gave us a lead on Ragian. Ragian claimed jailor and said he targeted Samlen. Samlen conveniently did not take a night action because his ambiguous role is so important, that we cannot know for his safety, (If that somehow doesn't paint a red target on your forehead, I don't know what will), so we could not confirm Ragians claim as a jailor, and it hinged on the fact that, being a power role, would be a detrimental for town to not lynch him. As everyone said, a jailor claim is easy to confirm, and the only one who can confirm it, is the one guy who doesn't take any night action. See where I'm going with this yet?

Everyone wants to say "But Ragian is experienced and he would never do that!", but maybe that's exactly what team all-star scum would like everyone here to believe? Just look at the jailor claim for god sakes, it's the riskiest role claim you can make, and it would never work unless A. There is indeed a jail scum or B. He collaborated with a fellow scumster in hopes to live just long enough to kill/lynch a townie because heaven forbid, we lose our town jailor.

So there's that theory.

@Dakky - I'm still more interested in why you think I targeted Samlen (as my intended, not shifted) and not Legion. I'll reiterate this for anyone that misunderstands.
I targeted Legion. I was not bussed. Legion confirmed a role block, and I'm confirming that I had intended to watch Legion for the night. Therefor, I was not shifted. So I'm entirely confused on what you were posting.

I targeted you and got the result that Nag visited Samlen... paraphrasing to avoid a quote is similar. I guessed you are a watcher or something like that and you targeted Samlen, but as you say you targeted Legion so that means we were all shifted around with actions... lol... not good.

Am I really the only one seeing this as a slip? Or are people skimming past this as just a simple goof?

[strike wolf]

Blah blah blah. Probable kidney infection. Blah blah blah. Peobably not going to be posting much .