Yay! At least I’m reasonable. That’s an upgrade from Yesterday.
Assuming a Town Stanislaus is being targeted, the long con is probably not against you but against him. Someone might have PIS re: Stanislaus. And given Pleonast’s death, I’d say we’re dealing with baddies who have very good luck indeed (to have killed the vig on the first try) or Scum/SK have more info re: roles than I thought was kosher, or at least usual.
I know, but I think that it is likely that someone who is a detective made a lucky early find and posted it.
**
Vote Stan**
Since posting on the barn is a one shot- it seems wrong to me
If it were me I wouldn’t have ‘used my one post’ with just one result
What if an investigator gets killed holding results that know one knows?
Well, I would if I found a wolf.
I too would have used the barn, if I found a wolf this early. It’s an easy way to get the message out, without having to out yourself. I struggled with that a lot in AIW, where I found Scum N1, and outted it D2, and then died the next night.
The only problem I have with this theory is the “but not the Alpha” part. This indicates that the message-writer has a way to determine a) if a player is *a *Wolf, and b) if a player is the Alpha Wolf. That seems like more information than one player would generally get in a single investigation.
It is possible that we have a Detective with an ‘escalating’ power…maybe someone got lucky with a ‘Wolf’ result on **Stanislaus **on Night 1, and was able to follow up with a second investigation on Night 2 which returned an ‘Alpha/not Alpha’ result.
If the Town investigator decided to burn their one Barn post why wouldn’t they include both Night’s investigation results? At least they could confirm one additional Town player.
It makes me think that is was a wolf message to get us to pile on Stan for a miss lynch - they want all those they can get
The ‘not the alpha’ message is odd- but it’s not- it could tie up an investigator if they decided to check on the message= one more cycle with a wolf not being investigated- in case we decided to NOT lynch Stan this day
or am I under a rock here?
:smack: nevermind, this was a brain fart.
Regarding the “not the Alpha”, I was a bit perplexed too. Isn’t the point of an Alpha to show up as Town to an investigator? Naturally one would assume that if the investigator got a Scum result, that would imply the player wasn’t Alpha, right?
A Town Investigator being able to see through some sort of Godfather/Alpha role would not be what I’d expect in a straightforward game. But it is something I could see as a Third Party power. And a Third Party would be more than happy to post anonymously to send the mob after someone other than him/her for the lynch.
I do already suspect Stanislaus, but short of the note-writer claiming and being confirmed in some way we’re not going to know for sure if the note is truthful before deciding whether or not to lynch Stanislaus. If someone has actually served us up a wolf on a silver platter, it would suck if consensus ended up being to not partake of the tasty treats offered. I’m willing to roll the dice on that at this point, because sure things are rare in this game.
Interesting that there is a ““result”” of a wolf on a lurking player, one that probably won’t have the time to defend themselves.
But, this game has already lynched Stan…, there is no point in talking against it, you guys fall for the way too easy traps.
Open speculation mind you, I know nothing. Otherwise I would offer it up now, but as I don’t there you go.
Just speaking in generalities …, lets jump to conclusions first, guilty until proven innocent, and thinking is for idiots.
Interesting that there is a ““result”” of a wolf on a lurking player, one that probably won’t have the time to defend themselves.
But, this game has already lynched Stan…, there is no point in talking against it, you guys fall for the way too easy traps.
Open speculation mind you, I know nothing. Otherwise I would offer it up now, but as I don’t there you go.
Just speaking in generalities …, lets jump to conclusions first, guilty until proven innocent, and thinking is for idiots.
Stanislaus isn’t exactly lurking - he’s contributed more than quite a few players have. I am surprised at how quickly he’s being voted for, considering that Cookies was the only one who was suspicious of him on Day One or on Day Two. There are other living players who have garnered more suspicion that shouldn’t be dismissed simply because there’s an anonymous barn message.
On the other hand, we’ve been pretty lucky so far, in that we’ve only lost a single power role. To that effect, I think it may be worth gambling and taking the message at face value. I’m not going to vote yet, because we have lots and lots of time until the end of the day and I want to watch the conversation. Somebody may still slip up.
I don’t see how we can prove / know who wrote the barn reveal on Stan.
To that end, what is the town motivation in writing that message?
If town can’t gain beyond the message in and of itself (and how can it, if we can’t prove a damn thing about it?) why waste the real estate?
A player of a team, such as scum, with an off board, could offer this first in a gambit, that offers a second “piece” tomorrow morning.
I don’t see any town motivation or rationale at wasting an entire barn writing per one result.
Really Meeko? You don’t see any town motivation in posting a message that wil,l in all likelihood, result in the lynching of Stanislaus? Especially when the most likely person to have posted said message is a Town investigator who wishes to remain unknown?
I mean, I can understand a little bit of skepticism about who posted the message and why. In fact I’m not going to vote for ole Stan until we get more information either, but you have to consider the case where the message is True! Not everything in Mafia is misdirection, you know.
We have this mechanism in Mafia games. It is called ‘The Lynch’. It is how the majority of information needed to play the game is introduced to the Town.
Again, see ‘The Lynch’.
For someone who seems to want people to be innocent until proven guilty, you seem awfully eager to toss out possible investigation results that have alleged found Scum as guilty until proven innocent.
You do realize how rare hitting a scum with an investigation is, don’t you?
Skepticism is healthy, but you’re way off the charts here, it sounds like to me. I hope you aren’t in proximity to many babies in bathwater.
Aaaand ninja’d by Diver this time. 
I rest my case.
Yet it does happen. So if it happens, in your world view, people are supposed to just sit on the results because no one will believe them? Or claim, even if there happens to be a method by which to share those results without claiming?