I’m sorry I haven’t responded more quickly to things that have been brought up. I thought I would have more time to follow this since I am off work this week. It has turned out I have actually had less.
I have explained my vote for Almost Human. While I am trying not to let people’s accusations against me color my voting, I am guessing anyone notices things more that are happening to them. My suspicion of ok11 and Natlaw is primarily based on them voting for Sitnam the second Day. He was the second leading votegetter and became the most logical place for other Cabalists to park their votes. ok11’s notice of my so-called “PIS” also caused some suspicion. I realize she said she was going to be on a close lookout for PIS’s, so that may be all it was. But I could also see a scum saying “how does he know we can day-talk?” when they saw my comment and then spinning it as “PIS”.
I have not gone back to look at the beginning of the thread but I believe it was stated that there were assassins in the original Simpletown game. I think I was just assuming there would be in this one also. In straggler’s post I was responding to he used the term wolves (which at the time I assumed was an innocent mistake, but since he was Cabalist he may have done it purposefully to make it look as if he didn’t know what type of scum there was), since I had been reading the werewolf thread, it didn’t take much for my mind to think in terms of wolves.
Also, about the need to change votes. Yes, I was primarily thinking of making sure there were no ties. This might not just be breaking a tie, but moving my vote to someone to give them enough of a vote lead to prevent a tie (I would only do this, though, if I thought there was a good likelyhood they were in fact scum). If I was one vote ahead of someone, I would park my vote on the runner-up to create a tie.
Even though I suspect Natlaw, I am going to take his advice from post 201.
I am a Mason. There is more than one other besides me. I don’t know if at this point one of them needs to confirm me or not. My post near the beginning asking about Masons was really just me soliciting advice. I primarily wanted to make sure I could trust all my fellow Masons.
Also, about the need to change votes. Yes, I was primarily thinking of making sure there were no ties. This might not just be breaking a tie, but moving my vote to someone to give them enough of a vote lead to prevent a tie (I would only do this, though, if I thought there was a good likelyhood they were in fact scum)
Now that I go back and look at the voting records, I realize Natlaw voted for Sitnam the first Day and not the second as I was thinking (yes, I had looked at the vote records, I am not sure why I was confused). While this still is cause for suspicion, I am more suspicious of the people voting the second day, since they really needed to save a Cabalist if they could. I will be going back and looking at Mr. Svinlesha more closely.
You’re saying there are at least 4 Masons in this game?
Also, not to burst anyone’s bubble, but you were ‘working with’ Adrian and now you’re suspicious of anyone voting for Sitnam. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to think you didn’t pass the secrecy part of your freemason education.
That aside, you claiming Mason by yourself under pressure of a lynching means little. There are many possibilities:
You are Scum and taking a chance that there are no more Masons.
You are 3rd party and taking a chance that there are no more Masons.
You are Scum or 3rd party and realize there might be another Mason, and you’re hoping to get that person lynched before you.
You’re telling the truth.
You are a Mason/traitor and had your mason buddies NK’d.
Other things I’m not considering. #5 is outlandish, but it seems feasible if we have a Masonhood of 4 or more.
Mental guy, did you PM indicate very clearly that all Masons were Town? I notice very clearly that our 2 dead masons were aligned with Town from their card flip, but that doesn’t mean all Masons are Town aligned.
Also, standing advice is for Masons to claim when there are 2 of them left. You’ll have a big target on your back if you’re telling the truth and are not lynched toDay, because your Mason buddy (if but 1 left) will be unconfirmable.
If there’s more than 1 more besides you…that means at least 5 Masons, which leads me to believe at least one would have to be a traitor. Maybe each Scum faction even ha s a Mason.
I’m extremely sleep deprived so not sure what I think of your claim.
As it stands I’m leaving my vote on you. Of course if your alleged fellow mason confirms you I’ll rethink. More than 3 masons seems kind of a lot in a game this size but this definitely isn’t a simple game.
My PM said I was a Mason. That I win with the town. And then said the Masons are:
a list of players
It did not mention the possibility of a traitor. Since I am completely new to this game, I did not know if Mason traitors were a possibility. That is the reason I asked early in the game. Based on what I had seen people say to expect, I thought the number of Masons was unusually high, but I am telling the truth.
I did not sleep well last night. I hope it was just the normal insomnia that I sometimes have and not this game that was keeping me awake. But regardless, I was thinking about the game while lying there.
I fully expect to be dead by toMorrow, whether it is by lynching or Nightkill. It seems there is a possibility that the scum can Nightkill each other. I know we don’t know for certain what happened on Night One, but I think that has to be considered a possibility. This leads to some problems with Masons confirming each other. I will go through the two different scenarios below.
First case - Another Mason decides to confirm me. This then lets the scum know who two non-scum players are and they can safely nightkill them without taking out more scum.
Second case - The other Mason’s decide not to confirm me. Other player’s may then not believe me and I am then lynched instead of a possible scum player. This does keep the identity of the other Masons secret though, so the scum would not have an essentially “free” Nightkill.
Of course, the above is complicated by the fact that the scum may actually need to target the other scum factions.
I honestly don’t know which is the best way to go. I will let my fellow Masons decide what they think is best.
One last question. If I am about to be lynched, should I reveal how many Masons are remaining?
Regarding whether you should reveal how many masons there are should be up to you and your fellow masons and our opinions shouldn’t really hold any weight. This is assuming you’re telling the truth.
I’m dubious because I’d have expected you to have discussed this earlier when you were all alive so you weren’t in the position of not knowing what to do now.
I can only speak for myself but without confirmation I see no reason to believe you and won’t be moving my vote.
Four or more masons seems incredibly overpowered and this seems like a valiant last minute effort to stay alive.
I take a little time to kiss ass on a VP and there is a freakin mason claim. I really need to spend more time on my reread.
Just a couple of thoughts there are two possibilities about Mental’s earlier snuggle with Adrian, the first being that he is indeed a Mason and the second being that he got lucky and snuggled a Mason.
Since I wasn’t suspicious of Mental to begin with I have no urge to switch my vote over based on a mason claim. If he’s telling the truth he’ll be Night Killed toNight any way but if he’s telling the truth I think giving us the numbers of masons would lay the groundwork for the other masons claiming if they have to. if he’s not a mason we’ll find out soon enough and then can ignore his guess.
I really wish that someone besides Mental thought there was something with my case against Natlaw. We seem pretty spread out and there doesn’t seem to be a clear place for people jumping off the Mental wagon to land. Just to try and get a couple more people looking my direction, so we can string up another cabalist, I’ll summarize my case against Nat.
When the vote was tied between two Cabalists he voted for a third person to create a three way tie but left himself wiggle room to jump onto the bandwagon of straggler if he could swing the entire vote away. I think that if you’re suspicious of a person who is in a tie for the lead you do not defend them and then bring a third person into the tie to lower the chances of the person you’re suspicious of getting lynched.
The only defense that Nat has raised is that scum wouldn’t do something that obvious while the vote before him Pleo, known scum, created a tie. I think that Nat saw the defense created by someone else tying it up as a way he could potentially rescue his scum buddies.
Your assumption that Scum could Day talk makes more sense if Masons can Day talk. If they can, qhouldn’t you be discusing this with them?
This just isn’t making sense. It seems either
Masons cannot Day talk
You’re the last Mason trying to figure out a way to convince us.
You’re Scum hoping you can trick us, but you can’t convince any of your Scum buddies to come out and confirm you. (which would be suicide for both of you if we do have an additional mason)
Is there any information from your mason thread that you can use to help convince us you’re actually privy to the information?
What were some of the issues being discussed by the now deceased Masons? What were their thoughts on what was going on?
Don’t give us information that will out another Mason unless they want to be outed, but give us information that our 2 dead masons and you yourself were discussing.
This is interesting. Yes, Natlaw, it’s interesting. I’m not sure if I’m finding credence in it because of a bit of OMGU or if it’s actually a valid case.
I’m at work and can’t spend the time to research right now.
I know personally I’ve felt like natlaw is trying to build a case against me out of what doesn’t seem to be case building material. (And I know, I’ve seen your points) And I know just how wrong he is, despite the fact that there’s nothing I can do to confirm my townishness. I just can’t figure out of he’s misguided Townie or Scum trying to railroad me.
Ichini, I’m not sure whether your posts are intended to convince me that Sitnam could be scum, or that he’s actually scum. If it’s the former, then (as I’ve said several times before) I agree with you, so I don’t understand why you’re explaining it to me. If it’s the latter, then you haven’t provided any evidence to support your conclusion. I’m also confused by your post 775, where you say, “There’s a reason I didn’t vote for you ToDay.” I don’t want to make any wrong assumptions, so please clarify whom you’re addressing, and to what reason you’re referring.
Peekercpa, please reread your post 768 with the following in mind. The sentence you quoted was addressed to special ed, not you. You’ve already unvoted Hero, so your vote isn’t on him, and therefore can’t stand there.
I don’t think it’s going to be that simple. There are several reasons why MentalGuy might not get NKed even if he’s telling the truth. For one thing, if we have a doctor, the doctor might protect him. Also, the scum might be afraid to target MG, because he might be protected. Alternatively, they might want to keep him alive, hoping that town will lynch him the next Day.
MentalGuy, if you’re telling the truth, then at least 3 masons voted for kitten on Day 2 (perhaps more, especially if special ed’s guess is correct). If you’re really basing your suspicions primarily on vote records/patterns, then why aren’t you suspicious of the other people who voted for kitten on Day 2? Or do you have reason to believe that only townies voted for kitten?
I think there’s something to your case against Natlaw. I also think there’s something to the case against Sitnam, and something to the case against MentalGuy. Heck if I wasn’t me, I’d probably think there was something to the case against me.
To tell the truth, I’m inclined to vote for MentalGuy, because in his dustup with Almost Human, I slightly favored AH. My convictions about both of them were pretty weak, and then I got all emo over Hero.
I guess I’m just not very good at discerning subtle clues for picking up on scum, because I always stop to think, “Well, it’s plausible that an innocent townie could do/say something like that” (e.g. assuming that scum can talk during the day, especially when it hasn’t been explicitly ruled out in the game instructions).
But I seriously doubt that an innocent townie would claim mason if he wasn’t. Unless someone else corroborates (and even then it’s still kinda suspicious, with two of their number dead), I’m going to:
Vote MentalGuy
What are the chances that another mason claimed while I was typing this?
I was saying that Sitnam could be scum (wolf, specifically). I saw that you covered that, but I thought you were saying that I was saying that you’d completely ruled out Sitnam, and I wasn’t saying that.
And I was referring to Hero when I said there was a reason I hadn’t voted for him ToDay (I voted for him YesterDay). Reason being, I was reconsidering my hasty vote for him. I wasn’t just emo over him going after me, I felt somewhat put off by and suspicious of his aggressive accusatory style. Yes, I do realize that a mafia game is all about accusations, but something about his posting just rubbed me the wrong way. Considering my shitty luck with picking out people who I thought were scum, I felt I’d better step back and reevaluate my decision.
The ‘only’ is a bit charged, in my opinion, I’ve also explained again why I voted Sitnam. You gave no comment on that or mentioned Almost Human voting similar, so I assume your vote is based on creating the tie alone.
Like special ed I know you’re wrong about me and I understand my vote looks like trying to save Cabal, but I did make that vote, so I don’t see what other defense I can make then explain why I made it and why a scum would be unlikely too.
I don’t think that I must have chosen straggler because I found him more suspicious then kitten just because they were in the lead, when I thought Sitnam more suspect.
And because sachertorte didn’t want to explain what it happens at a tie, nor did I want to let the tie stand if he had, I indicated where I would move my vote. So if straggler was a town power role, he knew he should claim because he could get my vote.
I do note you get my points, as in your last summary post you comments are much clearer to me, because you now tell why you think things and not just summarize, but point out things I didn’t notice before (for example that MentalGuy went from assuming assassins to wolves).
I can see that you’re clearer because you found more scummy things, but I think you should be clear when you don’t find them as well.
Your sarcasm in the one before certainly didn’t make me doubt my suspicion.
About the at least four masons claimed by MentalGuy, I find that really hard to believe. Earlier I estimated that the scum factions could have four members and that gives us:
4 Cabal
4 Wolves
4 Masons aligned with town
8 other town who don’t now the rest
Assuming both Cabal and Wolves have a kill and they all can talk (which I think MentalGuy should tell, I don’t see how it would harm), the balance question becomes: does a Night kill offset having 8 players as cannon fodder? That’s assuming no other town power roles, but we also have evidence for a possible doctor.
Scum will also manipulate the lynch, but also need to kill the other scum factions.
Pleonast kills suggest that can Night kill then, though that could also be a vigilante or serial killer.
I don’t think it does balance out, as it gives the masons the part information advantage of normal scum have.
Though of course the scum factions have could have powers or even greater numbers to make up.
The only point in favor is that it makes the odds of the double mason kill last Night more likely.