Mafia: The Conspiracy

The Game Room
661

[QUOTE=Rysto]
All right, I see that I need to clarify my thinking on the Vig sach thing. Note that this entire post will be written under the assumption that sach is lying. If he’s not, this becomes a moot point and obviously we should leave sach alone. Here are the scenarios:
[/QUOTE]

I think I understand your plan, although I think if there is still a Vig in this game we should let them do what they want rather than order them around. The biggest problem with this plan is that it’s most likely moot either way. As Hockey Monkey pointed out, and unless I missed something you failed to address, is that if sach is lying then we probably already lynched our Vig. True, there could have been two (or more I guess), or sach and OAOW could both be cabal, but the two most likely scenarios are that either sach is telling the truth so no Vig plan is needed, or OAOW was telling the truth and there isn’t any Vig left to kill anyone.

662

[QUOTE=nesta]
I think I understand your plan, although I think if there is still a Vig in this game we should let them do what they want rather than order them around. The biggest problem with this plan is that it’s most likely moot either way. As Hockey Monkey pointed out, and unless I missed something you failed to address, is that if sach is lying then we probably already lynched our Vig. True, there could have been two (or more I guess), or sach and OAOW could both be cabal, but the two most likely scenarios are that either sach is telling the truth so no Vig plan is needed, or OAOW was telling the truth and there isn’t any Vig left to kill anyone.
[/QUOTE]

**nesta **pretty much sums up my thoughts on Rysto’s Vig plan. The other thing that is currently bugging me about Rysto is that several times in this game he has posted about not wasting time thinking up scenarios, or complaining about “irrelevant” conversations. Then he spends a good part of today going on about this Vigilante plan, which as **nesta **aptly sums up above is fairly pointless.

On the other hand, he was questioned about it and felt he had to explain himself, so all in all not enough for me to jump on the Rysto bandwagon.

663

Having looked over the Day so far, the person that has pinged me the most is Drain Bead. Her vote for **DiggitCamera **(post 571) seemed too quick and opportunistically jumping on someone who made a mistake. Was it an innocent mistake? Hard to say at this point, but it hardly warranted a vote IMO. Better to question him about it and maybe eke something out of him. I found her other reasons for voting for **Diggit **to be reaching.

Then, after all the discussion about sachertorte and his limited reveals, she votes for him before we get any chance to see how acccurate he has been. We’ve got to give him until at least one reveal from Pleonast before we vote for him. As it stands, his status toDay is pretty much the same as it was yesterDay when he claimed and we all (including Drain Bead) decided to give him a chance to confirm his Role. Now, I have been one of the most vocal proponents of **sachertorte **giving us more information, or at least some explanations. I am very disappointed that he has continued to be silent. But it would be foolish to lynch him at this point - the spotlight is on him, and if he is scum he won’t be able to squirm away. On the other hand, if he is the Coroner and we lynch him now, it would be the height of rashness.

So, with all that said:
**Vote Drain Bead **

664

[QUOTE=Drain Bead]
You know, Idle has a point.

unvote Diggit
vote Sachertorte

There’s no reason not to reveal amrussell’s role if you’re telling the truth, at least not that I can see. I guarantee that any Freemason in the game would step in to refute you if you are wrong, but if you are right, they will simply remain silent, keeping them and you safe. There are only drawbacks to coming out with the info if you are lying.
[/QUOTE]

There’s even less reason to vote for the guy for it. I can’t possibly see the disadvantage of waiting a day or two before we actually have a misstep by sache to lynch him.
Why are you jumping the gun on this?

**vote: Drain Bead **

665

Simulvote!!!

666

[QUOTE=sachertorte]
I have given sufficient information to confirm my role.
At the time Pleonast reveals the Role information of amrussell and Fretful Porpentine (Beginning of Day Four), he will also reveal the Side information of tonight’s nightkills. I will happily share the Side information of these individuals prior to Day Four.
[/QUOTE]

sachertorte, I’ll chime in to say that just repeating that you have given sufficient information and not addressing people’s concerns isn’t really helping. I was originally giving you the benefit of the doubt, because I can think of a few scenarios where you wouldn’t want to give scum information that would help them, but you seem to be dismissing everyone who questions your decision.

A question of my own: If you are the coroner you should have received at least amrussell’s role. You are being very hazy about what information you received about OAOW and Fretful Porpentine, though. Did you receive more information than “cabal” or “wolf” on them?

To repeat a point others have made: I don’t see why if you are the coroner that you would hold back information you know about scum. For example, if the Omega Wolf is lynched/killed then the witches and seer can be sure of their investigations, and if you know that it wasn’t the Omega Wolf that was lynched/killed then they should know this as soon as possible. If you disagree and think holding back the role of scum might help then please explain why.

Finally, although I can think of reasons to hold out on pro-town reveals, I’m not sure they apply as much when they have already role-claimed. amrussel claimed mason, and I think there are very (and I mean very) few times when pro-town should false-claim. This means that if he was town like you say then he’s almost certainly what he claimed to be. If he was a mason I can understand holding back this info just for the small bit of confusion it might cause the scum, and if he wasn’t a mason then I can completely understand, but by refusing to give any info you seem to be leaving yourself an out in case he did false-claim. I like Idle Thought’s idea of just stating whether or not he was a mason. This and whatever info you have about OAOW’s and Fretful’s roles (or lack thereof) would go one more step towards verifying you and I don’t think it would give the scum any useful information.

667

Bad, Zoggie! Not beer for you toNight!

He PM’d me and it seems innocuous enough. So no Mod-Kill. However, editing does raise the specter of cheating, so I strongly encourage players not to do it.

668

[QUOTE=Pleonast]
Bad, Zoggie! Not beer for you toNight!

He PM’d me and it seems innocuous enough. So no Mod-Kill. However, editing does raise the specter of cheating, so I strongly encourage players not to do it.
[/QUOTE]

Er…I’m actually a girl.

So no beer works fine for me. Too much hops and barley for me to take.

669

Unvote ShadowFacts

I’ve been thinking about this one a lot, and although there may be certain circumstances, I think those who were asking for more info from sach could have been doing so with perfectly good intentions. I think the points that have been brought up concerning him revealing weather or not **amr **was a mason or not, in particular, have been valid.

670

[QUOTE=MHaye]
It involves giving orders to a putative town power role. I am against that on principle, because debate and orders (even attempted ones) give the scum bands a chance to manipulate the instructions. Rysto played M2; Rysto should remember why this was wrong. it resulted in the Vig killing off townies.
[/QUOTE]

Right, because having the Vig working on his own ended up being so much better for the Town. Oh, wait, the Vig killed the Detective and possibly a Mason(I can’t remember; but two out of the three deaths on the first night were Masons) on his own.

671

I should clarify further before I get into more trouble. There are obviously a lot of power roles where directing them is bad. In some cases(eg the Witchdoctor or the Warlock) directing them makes them useless. However, I don’t see how that applies in this particular instance. If we follow my idea, we’re just telling the Vig to kill a known scum. Given that’s the entire purpose of the Vig, I’m having trouble understanding why this is such a controversial suggestion.

The “irrelevant” conversations I was complaining about were mostly attempts to come up with a plan for every possible role claim. As I said, there were too many permutations to possibly come up with the perfect plan to deal with any role claim.

My idea deals with a single role-claim that has already been made. Obviously we have to have something in place to deal with it, even if it’s just “Lynch him if he’s lying”.

Anyway, I’m done discussing this. If there is a living Vig, my advice to him or her in the event that sach is lying is to kill him at the first opportunity. If sach were to be exposed as scum before a Vig would have a chance to kill him we can deal with the second half of my idea then.

672

[QUOTE=ShadowFacts]
Then, after all the discussion about sachertorte and his limited reveals, she votes for him before we get any chance to see how acccurate he has been. We’ve got to give him until at least one reveal from Pleonast before we vote for him.
[/quote]

Snipped.

Why do you and Rysto and a few others I’ve seen (although not as much as you and Ry) keep saying things like this?

It is false logic.

You’re basically saying: “We’ll be able to compare these apples with those apples” when really, what we have in the other basket is oranges. Therefore how are you going to know what another apple LOOKS like? You have nothing to compare it to other than the same ol’ apples in the same basket.

You keep saying sach will be confirmed and all with Pleonast revealing what the dead were. How? Can you please answer this? Or you, Ry, whom I noticed didn’t say anything about it at all when I brought it up earlier? Or someone ELSE who thinks this stuff? :confused:

NOTHING confirms sach if sach is only giving the side ToDay. The role is meant to reveal both sides AND roles. sach is only giving out half of the info. And none of you find this suspicious? WHY is he holding back that other half? Does anyone have a good answer? I do. It’s very possible because he doesn’t KNOW the roles of the dead players because he isn’t the Coroner. Does anyone else have a better explanation to why he’d remain mum about the roles?

Oohhhh, giving scum info you say? And what does “amr was a Freemason” or “amr wasn’t a Freemason” give scum, exactly? If he was, then great, tell us and we’ll be able to say "HEY, got that right. That was a lot more specific than just “Oh, he’s Town”. And if he’s not and you want to protect Town’s best interests…fine. “He wasn’t a Freemason” doesn’t reveal any info as far as I can see.

[QUOTE=Diomedes]
There’s even less reason to vote for the guy for it. I can’t possibly see the disadvantage of waiting a day or two before we actually have a misstep by sache to lynch him.
Why are you jumping the gun on this?

**vote: Drain Bead **
[/QUOTE]

What misstep? We’re asking him just to say whether or not a player was a Freemason. If he’s the Coroner, he’d know, wouldn’t he?

673

My thoughts on **sachertorte ** keeping quiet about the roles of the dead. I can think of one reason why he is doing this.

By not revealing amrussell’s role he does not provide any extra knowledge to the scum over what they can roleclaim when they are put on the block.

Revealing if he is a freemason, means that we know for certain there are another 1+ freemasons out there, so the scum will not claim it. If he reveals he is not a freemason, then it puts it back in the realms of possibility for a scum roleclaim.

Yes, I think that getting **amrussell’s ** role is more beneficial to the scum than the town and will be suspicious of those who are determined to get it.

As for Fretful Porpentine’s role though. I see no reason to hold that information back as it cannot help the scum in a role claim. If FP turns out to be the Alpha/Omega wolf, or even not a Wolf at all, then it removes most reasons not to lynch sachertorte.

I would be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt if he can accurately show what **FP’s ** role was, as the chances of him getting it right are very small indeed.

674

ShadowFacts, I think that it’s pretty apparent that my vote is not necessarily to lynch (unless sach really isn’t the Coroner) but to provide pressure. You claim that it’s okay to throw out a vote (later to be withdrawn if necessary) to pressure a lurker into posting, so why is it suddenly not okay to vote (later to be withdrawn if necessary) to pressure someone who might be scum into proving their allegiance one way or another?

Put it this way. Every Freemason, if they’re worth the pixels to read, knows that either amrussell was a Freemason or he wasn’t one. And any Freemason in the game would trade their mostly expendable life to catch a scum. sachertorte’s continued silence in the face of this point makes me want to vote for him, so I can put the pressure on to prove who he is once and for all. If anything, that’s a bit more important than just getting a lurker to post a little bit. Your inconsistency on this bothers me.

675

[QUOTE=Idle Thoughts]
It is false logic.

You’re basically saying: “We’ll be able to compare these apples with those apples” when really, what we have in the other basket is oranges. Therefore how are you going to know what another apple LOOKS like? You have nothing to compare it to other than the same ol’ apples in the same basket.
[/QUOTE]

Uh, Pleonast is going to give us Side information first, then Role. We’ll be comparing apples to apples.

That being said, sach can confirm himself earlier by giving specific Role information. It’s easier to guess the Side than the Role. sach, stonewalling like this is only making you look more suspicious.

676

[QUOTE=Idle Thoughts]

What misstep? We’re asking him just to say whether or not a player was a Freemason. If he’s the Coroner, he’d know, wouldn’t he?
[/QUOTE]

What I’m saying is, is that sachertorte has not yet been confirmed or not. However, if he’s not the real coroner, he will be outed at some point by the fact that he’ll have guessed wrong on the identity of one of his kills.

I don’t know why he’s withholding part of his knowledge, but I can see at least a couple reasons why he might, especially if amrussel wasn’t a freemason, but another townie role, such as the witchdoctor (who logically would have used his power on himself, and so will be springing back to life tomorrow morning, despite his freemason claim yesterday).

677

[QUOTE=Rysto]
Uh, Pleonast is going to give us Side information first, then Role. We’ll be comparing apples to apples.

That being said, sach can confirm himself earlier by giving specific Role information. It’s easier to guess the Side than the Role. sach, stonewalling like this is only making you look more suspicious.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it is making him look suspicious, but I still don’t see the point of lynching the guy yet.

678

[QUOTE=Diomedes]
Yeah, it is making him look suspicious, but I still don’t see the point of lynching the guy yet.
[/QUOTE]

This is exactly what I’ve been saying. I think it’s odd that some of us are in such a rush to see sachertorte hang toDay.

There’s not much else to go on at this point, I feel. There are several people who seem to be in more of a rush than others, and among them I’m going to

vote Idle Thoughts

for the moment.

679

[QUOTE=Idle Thoughts]
Snipped.

Why do you and Rysto and a few others I’ve seen (although not as much as you and Ry) keep saying things like this?

It is false logic.

You’re basically saying: “We’ll be able to compare these apples with those apples” when really, what we have in the other basket is oranges. Therefore how are you going to know what another apple LOOKS like? You have nothing to compare it to other than the same ol’ apples in the same basket.

You keep saying sach will be confirmed and all with Pleonast revealing what the dead were. How? Can you please answer this? Or you, Ry, whom I noticed didn’t say anything about it at all when I brought it up earlier? Or someone ELSE who thinks this stuff? :confused:

NOTHING confirms sach if sach is only giving the side ToDay. The role is meant to reveal both sides AND roles. sach is only giving out half of the info. And none of you find this suspicious? WHY is he holding back that other half? Does anyone have a good answer? I do. It’s very possible because he doesn’t KNOW the roles of the dead players because he isn’t the Coroner. Does anyone else have a better explanation to why he’d remain mum about the roles?

Oohhhh, giving scum info you say? And what does “amr was a Freemason” or “amr wasn’t a Freemason” give scum, exactly? If he was, then great, tell us and we’ll be able to say "HEY, got that right. That was a lot more specific than just “Oh, he’s Town”. And if he’s not and you want to protect Town’s best interests…fine. “He wasn’t a Freemason” doesn’t reveal any info as far as I can see.
[/QUOTE]

If you’d take a breath and stop frothing at the mouth so much, you’d probably realize that we are pretty much in agreement about sach and revealing his info. Go back and read everything I’ve said on the topic. The difference is that I’m willing to let it play out while keeping a suspicious eye on him, while you seem (although you haven’t voted for him) to want to lynch him post haste, which in my opinion is foolish.

680

Seems that all the discussion today has hinged on whether or not **Sachertorte ** should reveal the roles of the dead, and not who we should be lynching today. We will know soon enough whether or not **Sachertorte ** is lying, so for that reason I’m opposed to killing him today. We don’t have very long to decide who or if we should lynch someone today, and because all the discussion has been so focused on one subject, I don’t have a good read on anyone. I want to vote, but I don’t know who to vote for right now.