Yes, the very same. Obviously, I was wrong about him. All I’m saying is you were too.
This is confusing. Who are you suspicious of, me or storyteller?
From my perspective, what it actually looks like is that you are pushing hard to get a lynch, full stop. You have shown absolutely zero indication that anything said by one of your targets has deterred your lynch drives one millimeter. In fact, you decided on Day One to vote to sach on Day Two, and you did exactly that. Apparently, not a single thing on Day Two made you more suspicious of someone else or less suspicious of sach - you had your target, you zeroed in and never wavered. Not only that, but when someone has tried to defend your targets, you’ve turned your sights on them for ‘perfect knowledge syndrome’ or whatever you want to call it (first sach defending OAOW and then me defending sach).
In my mind, either you’re a scum driving townie lynches, or you’re town with tunnel vision. Either way, you’ve been nothing but a liability for town so far.
Oh, and since this post was technically not valid yesterDay, I am going to repost it here:
Care to comment on this? Just skimming, perhaps?
Also, what’s with “leave us with some usable information”? I wasn’t in danger of being lynched. Were you thinking that I wouldn’t be alive today for some other reason?
Well, given as I still think that WF Tomba is scum based on everything I’ve laid out so far, barring something pressing from another corner, I’ll:
Vote WF Tomba
WTF?
Here’s an idea.
On Day One, One And Only Wanderers was basically lynched for displaying irrational aggression.
Now, when confronted with irrational aggression, Mafia players fall into two camps:
Group A, who say “That’s suspicious behavior!”
Group B, who say “It’s weird, but it’s not a scum tell.”
This sets up an interesting possible scum strategy: attack, aggressively and irrationally, a Town player who has displayed irrational aggression. The Group A players will agree with you and lynch the poor sap. The Group B players will disagree, but they won’t vote for you because they don’t see your irrational aggression as suspicious.
I propose that Blaster Master is using that strategy in this game. He waited until he saw a town player go on the offensive with a lot of heat and not much reason. That turned out to be One And Only Wanderers. Knowing that some players (those in Group A) would vote for OAOW as soon as his irrationally aggressive behavior was pointed out, Blaster Master led a charge against him, and made sure that the attack was both aggressive and illogical, thus deflecting the suspicions of those in Group B.
Vote Blaster Master
Ah! This is what I get for posting after getting in at five in the morning. Sorry, I meant FoS WF Tomba
Well, my own lines of thought have been thoroughly disproven over the last couple of Days, but do you honestly think any scum would be attacking people left and right, like WF Tomba has been?
For my part, I’m still waiting for storyteller’s investigation results before I open up a new line of investigation. But I think I’ll have to take a serious look at the voting patterns of the first two Days as well.
Just checking in, but sorry this weekend turned out to be very busy for me. Gonna probably review an hour or so later today, and do more of a full review tomorrow…postings of substance will be later tomorrow I suspect (and still waiting on story too)
Being scumbuddies with BlaM in my two previous games, yes.
Hello, all.
I was (obviously) not killed and not blocked, which I think is the final nail in the “there is no Scum role-blocker” coffin.
I investigated Koldanar last Night; he is pro-Town.
On an out-of-game note, my show opened this weekend (I just got back from the cast party following our matinee), which means my schedule will now revert to a more or less regular one and my participation will be altogether less sporadic starting tomorrow (Monday) morning.
For now, though, I’m one too many Killians away from being able to re-read with anything resembling comprehension, so early to bed for me.
Is the implication of you not being killed that someone protected you? Obviously you weren’t blocked, but I’m just curious about you not being killed off since you’ve got a very strong role.
Rather, it implies that the scum thought someone was protecting him, since they obviously did target someone who wasn’t storyteller. Which is a reasonable assumption on their part since the Doc can’t self-protect, assuming there is a Doc in the first place.
Actually, with all these Townspeople getting killed, I’m starting to wonder if there are ANY power roles in this game. It would be hilarious if there weren’t.
Maybe that’s the “twist.”
Good point. Scum would never do that. :rolleyes:
That was pretty much my MO in Batman and Asylum.
If he is town, then it’s a bad, anti town move to be attacking people all over the place with no sense of reason. And anyway, a good offense is often the best defense. This is, as Santo Rugger pointed out, only more reason to suspect him, not less.
Yeah, it upgrades your case against me from terrible to merely unconvincing.
Well, why would you randomly want to accuse people of being scum?
I don’t do that.