[Basic]: Be Nice Mafia

[Clovdyx]

Completely caught up now.  There's roughly an hour left so I'm pretty sure a last second CFD is (thankfully) off the table.  Right now, I've got Cass and Yates squarely off the table, and I'm comfortable trusting Jmm for now.  His content hasn't blown me away but I'm going with the simpler solution of him telling the truth until I have reason not to.  BFG has picked up the pace and the way she interacted with me makes me feel pretty good about her, plus she seemed to be trying to draw other people's activity up.

 

POE is down to Sili/Tress/Thane for me.  

[Clovdyx]

Tress reads looked pretty good to me, but it was all fairly cookie cutter IMO, and I really don't feel she put much effort into drawing them out.  I associate her with being a much more telling player, and not necessarily so accepting of the consensus.  Paranoia about Yates is reasonably town-telling but she's good enough to fake it at this stage.

[Cass]

Ninja'd.

 

 

 

 

Ok, I'm back and have read to here. Tbh I'm now feeling a little behind and I don't like it. (I thought I was doing pretty ok until yesterday, but I skip one all-nighter and now I have 5 new pages plus the stuff I didn't get to to address. Love my Aussie timezone    ).

 

I intend to go back and get stuck into the specifics but Clov, if you're still here I'm a little confused about your last post and since it relates to vote/not vote and I'm voting I'd really like to have as much time as possible to understand your 'logic' before the EoD.

 

 

[v]No Lynch[/v]

 

 

By my math, we have about 18 hours left and need 5 votes of 8 on one target or it goes random.  I think Cass is definitely town, and I still like Yates to be town.  Between them and myself, RNGesus has about a 40% chance of hitting someone I'm not cool lynching.  Not great odds.

 

Also think NL should give us an extra day phase.  If there's only one kill a night - highly likely given the game size -, then a mislynch today and tomorrow (coupled with a successful kill each night) seals it following N2.  No Lynch makes the earliest loss D3.

 

 

I see the logic with a NL giving us an extra day phase, but as far as I see it, if we all vote a majority and can successfully lynch a wilf, then we'll be significantly in the lead. Wouldn't this be the best possible outcome for Town?

 

I don't understand your "between them and myself.... not great odds" thing - if you're saying Yates, yourself and I are the three people you're 'not cool' lynching, then we make up 3/8 players. By default then, that suggests that you would be 'cool' with a lynch against the remaining 5/8 players.  That seems like pretty good odds to me, and I don't understand why the preferred option wouldn't be to hunt harder and convince us to lynch one of your preferred suspects.  I had you down as being most openly 'suspicious' of Sili and BFG at this point (and at one point even saying you found Sili even worse than before).

 

I find it a bit concerning that you come up with/present decent points against 'suspicious' players, but then offer the suggestion that we all choose not to act. Has something changed in your opinion of those players to this point? My concern is that you may be stalling because you're trying to protect someone you think we'll lynch. In my mind this is particularly pertinent, again, to the potential link between you and Sili. Can you explain??

 

 

 

 

PS - completely irrelevant, but notice the emoticon?? Do you?? I have internet access on a computer!!

Yey for hubby hooking up a hotspot- Yey!! 

 

 

 

 

 

My quote in blue refers to RNG - rules state that failure to reach a majority will result in a random player being killed.  With only one vote on the board and the sporadic activity the game had, I'm not sure we can swing a lynch in 18 hours (especially knowing how weekends on DM go).

 

Bold - Well, yeah, that's kind of how the game works.  Based on when I made that post, I didn't like our chances to do so.  I wouldn't give my strongest read (Sili) much more than a random shot...say, 30%?  I was leaning towards BFG based on her asking about Sili tinfoiling but her answers to my questions were reasonable enough and she seemed to handle the pressure well (didn't panic, didn't dodge it).

 

 

 

With the above said, I'd still rather lynch than let it go random. I want people responsible for their wagons. I think Clov is forgetting someone dies if we no lynch.

 

 

I think Clov is forgetting someone dies if we no lynch.

Actually, I may be wrong on this. I forgot Tina said no lynch is allowed but I'm not sure if that means no lynch counts as a majority "lynch" or if it just means we didn't reach a majority lynch and thus someone gets randomed.

@Moddess - Halp?

 

 

You are wrong on this.  I'm quite certain she won't confirm this conversation (as mod, I wouldn't either), the reason she specified that in thread is because I sent her a PM early into the phase asking if NLing was allowed.  In most basic games, you want an odd number of players so that the games ends due to a lynch...even number of players tends to end the game with a NK.  

 

From the rules - "The reason she specified that in thread is because I sent her a PM early into the phase asking if NLing was allowed."

 

In regards to the post I didn't quote, you're right that them a cop would be bad, but we'd still be in a better position than we are now.  If we go for a lynch today, it's based solely off the information we have right now.  No result being posted means the same thing, but we get another 72 or so hours of discussion to combine with it, and the NK victim means one less player for everybody to focus on.  

 

 

 

Ok. Logical/fair enough to leave alone for now. Out of curiousity what are your reads on various players now and how confident are you in them?

 

FYI you're wrong about there being no confirmation on the NL/NK thing. She did confirm, majority NL = majority vote = no kill. Does this change your view/opinion at all?

 

 

 

this is fucked. brb.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, yates is lying. I don't think anyone will believe me but... :/

 

Lying about what?  

 

I might be tunneling yates. It's hard to tell, so the least I can do is tell you what I find irksome about his poe list.

 

If my arguments are good maybe it will be persuasive... and if they aren't maybe I'm mistaken.

 

This is the post I claim he lies in,

By POE all of the scum are in you, Tress, BFG, and Thane.

Cass is Town 100% of the time, here. I don't recall seeing Clov scum but this is a pretty solid Clov Town approach to the game. Thane hasn't contributed enough and Tress has a medical excuse to not be contributing. Lack of content players are hard to judge. I'd feel good lynching in that pool and investigating there as well.

 

poe - Yates hasn't substantiated enough town reads to form a healthy poe day 1. The only reason poe is there is to imply he's done more work than he has.

poe includes 4 scum - 4 out of 7 players isn't a poe. it's a crapshoot.

Thane hasn't contributed enough - Thane isn't known for case building, but he has said a little about everyone. I think Yates misses it because he's looking for 'notable' content only which is wolfy.

Tress has a medical excuse - Yates is intensely aware of player status but not player content. To say neither thane or tress have much content to speak of is insanely reductive, and begging for poor reads.

Jmm isn't mentioned - Yates was reading jmm as null, but does not include him in a purported poe over 4 others. This means tress, thane, me, and bfg are all scum leans to him.

It's hard to judge low content players - Uses this to excuse Thane and Tress in a poe,  but does not include the lowest content poster.

Hedges on scum leans due to low content - instead of building a case on them.

Insterts clov as a new town read - but does not include jmm in the same breath.

 

Sili - Here's where I'm at IRT Yates...

 

 

 

 

 

You claim she's a scum lean but you treat her as Town. Do you not recall this discussion?

You didn't, as far as I can tell, imply anything like that.

 

Not to make this into too big of a deal but, what?? You claim you called BFG a scum suspect. I acknowledge that. I read it. It's pretty clear. Then you go on to respond to BFG throughout all of Page 7 in a tone that suggests [to me] you already know she's Town. [Granted; tone reading is a skill I'm trying to hone.] So when you claim I never "commented" on the fact that you called BFG a scum read, you are missing the fact that it is implied that I'm commenting on it when I ask BFG what she thinks about you treating her like you know she's Town. This question only really makes sense if I already know that you called her scummy and thus your tone made the question pertinent given your stated read. Follow?

You eschew,

I'm waiting for my scum list to town tell, then I'll start over by adjusting my expectations and rereading.

 

Yeah. Pretty much. I actually kind of wait for ANYONE to Town tell to a degree I recognize so I can focus my scum hunting elsewhere. I kind of pride myself on not Town tunneling and think I've done a pretty decent job of late. That's how I accomplish that feat. But what's the point of this statement [accusation?]?

From your quoted excerpts, coded blue. I had bfg as scum by poe. It was not a strong stance and I was looking for reasons to change my mind. I imply this by the quote you left out and my inclusion of clov as a scum lean.

What did I leave out? It's possible I misunderstood something or wasn't following your train of thought...
 

You promised you would go into detail how I treat Bfg as town. The most I think you can say is we cooperate to meet an ends, and that's pretty much all I got from reading thrice. You'll have to help me.

Best laid plans of mice and men. I'm just going to call it "tone" rather then spend the 1000 words it would take to explain why that appears to be the case.
 

The point is linking players to me is a good part of your content, and so I ask, how is insinuating scum partners without case building early day 1 without a single flip conducive to hunting scum?

I was being cheeky with you and Cass. Really, I was trying to coax a reaction out of you two, as you already suspected. Cass fell for it and I think her reaction was on point. So she got the first Equestria Town Carrot. Your response is automagically void because you knew what I was doing and admitted to it.

Your tone with BFG, given your stated opinion of her alignment, struck me ass odd and is a completely separate event. It's just coincidence, really, that it happened to be you. Again. Or, maybe it's not coincidence so much as simple math.

It's pure tinfoil right?

See? You did it again. Now you are treating ME like you know I'm Town. It can't be "tinfoil" unless you know I'm Town.
 

Like, say I flip Scum, what are you going to do - lynch bfg because we worked together for a page? From a villager's point of view (e.g. mine) it seems frivolous and maybe destructive depending on the roster's gullibility, because I could very well be in anti-spew and as a matter of fact, scum treating a player like town usually means that player is town.
 
Like jmm has been doing for me.
 
And you say I've been doing for bfg.

I agree with the bold. If you were to flip scum, I would think that would clear me, BFG, and Cass [to a lesser degree]. At least it would weigh favorably in my evaluation of BFG and Cass's alignments.

 

 

 

I don't really get this impression at all from their interactions.  There is something that stood out to me, but I'm hoping you can give an example or explain what you mean before I show it.

As I told Sili, it's mostly tone. Let me see if I can pull up a quote or two that really emphasizes what I mean...

Okay, here's I think the exchange that felt too familiar to me:

Lol, misunderstood what you said, I agree with the general meta on Thane. I disagree with 'the wolf' though, it reads as a continuation of 'teh mafia' started by Tress and thus a deliberate use of words and not an unconscious use.

ah i see. i'm still leaning town on him but i'm a little more scared now. i'll be watching him carefully.

Sure. MAYBE Sili is just "working together," as he says. But something about that doesn't feel natural if Sili is assuming BFG is scum.

But the other thing that bothers me is the same thing I just busted Sili for:

Sili, given 2 mafia who are you most likely to tinfoil on at the moment?

Here, BFG is assuming Sili is Town. That's why I said earlier that it felt like at least one of them knew the other's alignment. And it's not like BFG really went after Sili. That whole page reads like a limp distancing argument. And that's in my minus column for BFG. This isn't really something I was prepared to talk about but it seems as though the cat's out of the bag so let's make it public and discuss...

 

 

He made it seem like he was comfortable enough leaving his argument about the link between BFG/you as tone.  I pressed for further information, and he obliged.  That's by no means locks him in as town, but him being willing to work with me gives him a little bit of credit.  He's displaying a similar thought process to me ("tinfoil" vs "suspicion")*  

 

And his argument about linking you makes sense.  You named BFG as a scum read...immediately after you agreed with her reads.  You seem to have taken her suspicion of Thane to heart ("I'm more scared of him now").  I don't expect players to immediately write off anything their suspects say, but if you're that in sync with her, why should she be a scum read?  Is everything she's saying a TMI-based read that she's gifting us?

Yates asserts tone is somehow this nebulous undefined quality, then a couple posts later dispenses with the how's and why's of it's inner workings when pressed by someone else. It's queer. Not to mention the two topics are actually over two seperate claims, so he isn't continuing the same argument. Yates starts by declaring I treat Bfg like she's town, and later asserts I simply let go of a scum lean. The latter is a far less notable offense, but it can be substantiated to a degree.

 

I interpret the case as such: why wasn't I building a case on bfg if I had her as scum, and my answer is simple: she was never a scum lean. She asked me for my poe and since I was discerning her alignment at the time I put her in my lower bracket. Assume it was a null-scum read for absence of information and my posts make perfect sense because it's exactly what happened. I even express a tentative quality about those leans in particular.

 

And I mean, since when does cooperation and agreement with certain reads lead to being fatilly connected? wtf. I liked her content, the arguments presented, and I agreed with them. And I especially did after I went back and checked to see what she meant.

 

 

No, no, no. This is not how a pony talks. I do understand the frustration when posting doesn´t work but use a more apropriate wording. Consider this your first warning. 

 

If you are familiar with WoT, you could always use "Mothers milk in a cup!". If you haven´t read WoT then don´t ask. lol I have always loved the HP curses, like "Merlins beard!". I asked my secret co-mod about MLP curses but she was just "It´s a kids show! Doh!", so I guess no. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About NO LYNCH - sorry that I didn´t add it to the rules. It´s done now. If a majority of players vote NO LYNCH then it becomes night without anyone killed. 

 

VC will be up soon.

 

 

 

*Irrelevant emoticons in my previous spoilers deleted due to DM post restrictions*

[Songstress]

*giggles*

 

Cass, I think you may have been ninja'd yet again.

[Clovdyx]

She won't confirm that I PM'ed her to ask, Cass. :P

[Cass]

 

 

Ok, I'm back and have read to here. Tbh I'm now feeling a little behind and I don't like it. (I thought I was doing pretty ok until yesterday, but I skip one all-nighter and now I have 5 new pages plus the stuff I didn't get to to address. Love my Aussie timezone    ).

 

I intend to go back and get stuck into the specifics but Clov, if you're still here I'm a little confused about your last post and since it relates to vote/not vote and I'm voting I'd really like to have as much time as possible to understand your 'logic' before the EoD.

 

 

[v]No Lynch[/v]

 

 

By my math, we have about 18 hours left and need 5 votes of 8 on one target or it goes random.  I think Cass is definitely town, and I still like Yates to be town.  Between them and myself, RNGesus has about a 40% chance of hitting someone I'm not cool lynching.  Not great odds.

 

Also think NL should give us an extra day phase.  If there's only one kill a night - highly likely given the game size -, then a mislynch today and tomorrow (coupled with a successful kill each night) seals it following N2.  No Lynch makes the earliest loss D3.

 

 

I see the logic with a NL giving us an extra day phase, but as far as I see it, if we all vote a majority and can successfully lynch a wilf, then we'll be significantly in the lead. Wouldn't this be the best possible outcome for Town?

 

I don't understand your "between them and myself.... not great odds" thing - if you're saying Yates, yourself and I are the three people you're 'not cool' lynching, then we make up 3/8 players. By default then, that suggests that you would be 'cool' with a lynch against the remaining 5/8 players.  That seems like pretty good odds to me, and I don't understand why the preferred option wouldn't be to hunt harder and convince us to lynch one of your preferred suspects.  I had you down as being most openly 'suspicious' of Sili and BFG at this point (and at one point even saying you found Sili even worse than before).

 

I find it a bit concerning that you come up with/present decent points against 'suspicious' players, but then offer the suggestion that we all choose not to act. Has something changed in your opinion of those players to this point? My concern is that you may be stalling because you're trying to protect someone you think we'll lynch. In my mind this is particularly pertinent, again, to the potential link between you and Sili. Can you explain??

 

 

 

 

PS - completely irrelevant, but notice the emoticon?? Do you?? I have internet access on a computer!!

Yey for hubby hooking up a hotspot- Yey!!                             

 

 

 

My quote in blue refers to RNG - rules state that failure to reach a majority will result in a random player being killed.  With only one vote on the board and the sporadic activity the game had, I'm not sure we can swing a lynch in 18 hours (especially knowing how weekends on DM go).

 

Bold - Well, yeah, that's kind of how the game works.  Based on when I made that post, I didn't like our chances to do so.  I wouldn't give my strongest read (Sili) much more than a random shot...say, 30%?  I was leaning towards BFG based on her asking about Sili tinfoiling but her answers to my questions were reasonable enough and she seemed to handle the pressure well (didn't panic, didn't dodge it).

 

With the above said, I'd still rather lynch than let it go random. I want people responsible for their wagons. I think Clov is forgetting someone dies if we no lynch.

 

 

I think Clov is forgetting someone dies if we no lynch.

Actually, I may be wrong on this. I forgot Tina said no lynch is allowed but I'm not sure if that means no lynch counts as a majority "lynch" or if it just means we didn't reach a majority lynch and thus someone gets randomed.

 

@Moddess - Halp?

 

 

You are wrong on this.  I'm quite certain she won't confirm this conversation (as mod, I wouldn't either), the reason she specified that in thread is because I sent her a PM early into the phase asking if NLing was allowed.  In most basic games, you want an odd number of players so that the games ends due to a lynch...even number of players tends to end the game with a NK.  

 

From the rules - "The reason she specified that in thread is because I sent her a PM early into the phase asking if NLing was allowed."

 

In regards to the post I didn't quote, you're right that them a cop would be bad, but we'd still be in a better position than we are now.  If we go for a lynch today, it's based solely off the information we have right now.  No result being posted means the same thing, but we get another 72 or so hours of discussion to combine with it, and the NK victim means one less player for everybody to focus on.  

 

 

 

Actually from the rules:

 

Players:

 

1. Tress

2. Clov

3. Yates

4. Thane

5. jmm

6. Cass

7. BFG

8. Sili

 

Back up:

 

1. Csarmi 

 

 

 

 

1. I hope for lots of activity. You have to post at least one game related post every game day. Short LOAs are okay if you tell me in advance.

2. No editing.

3. Do not discuss this game outside the thread if you haven´t been given permission to do so.

4. Don´t quote my PMs.

5. Days are 72 hours and nights are 24 hours or when all night actions are received.

6. Day one will last longer.

7. This is a hammer game. Day end when a majority is reached. Any votes after the hammer vote will not count. If a majority is not reached by deadline there will be a random mod kill. If a majority of players vote NO LYNCH noone will be lynched.

8. You get one “Oh no, I died “post after death. Do not reveal any information.

9. Use the vote tags. [.v.] Tina [/.v.] and [.unvote.] without the .... You have to unvote before you vote again.

10. Character reveals are allowed. Note that all ponies are "good characters" in the story. 

11. I´m Mod Goddess. My word is law. If you have any questions just ask.

 

12. I once belonged to those who thought that everything should be allowed in mafia. I have changed my mind. The last year people have become more and more hostile. Some people seem to take every opportunity to call the others names, not because it´s a tactic, but just because they can. This bothers me. (Most people don´t act this way of course.)

 

This will be a nice game. You don´t tell people that they suck, that they can gfy or that this is the worse they have ever played. You can very well disagree with people without calling them stupid, derp etc. Think about what you write. If I think that you have written something that is not okay then I will give you a warning in the thread. If you do it a second time you will get some kind of pr that is also announced in thread. If you do it a third time then you will get mod killed. Most people will not have any problems with this so no need to worry. If you really feel the need to curse then we have some excellent WoT curses to use. You don´t curse at others of course.

 

 

 

Is there a reason there's a difference? 

[Songstress]

She won't confirm that I PM'ed her to ask, Cass. :P

 

I think everyone's confused.

 

What is it you think she won't confirm? 

 

Tina already posted in the thread that a majority no lynch vote means we go directly to night with no kill, which was the answer to Yates' question that you seemed to be saying Tina wouldn't confirm.

[Clovdyx]

Yes.  Copy paste fail when re-ordering the post.  Originally I had the part about her not confirming the conversation after me saying I PM'ed her, but I shifted it around because I thought it sounded better that way.  Apparently me trying to copy the updated rule didn't work so well.  

[Cass]

*giggles*

 

Cass, I think you may have been ninja'd yet again.

Gah! What/where??

 

 

 

She won't confirm that I PM'ed her to ask, Cass. :P

 

I know I'm stupendously tired, but seriously. Does it not say very clearly at the bottom of the post I quoted from Tina ITT and in the part I highlighted from the rules 'then it becomes night without anyone killed' and 'noone will be lynched' respectively?

 

Can someone (preferably Tress at this point) explain where I'm seeing/understanding this wrong??

[Clovdyx]

 

She won't confirm that I PM'ed her to ask, Cass. :P

 

I think everyone's confused.

 

What is it you think she won't confirm? 

 

Tina already posted in the thread that a majority no lynch vote means we go directly to night with no kill, which was the answer to Yates' question that you seemed to be saying Tina wouldn't confirm.

 

 

Tina will not say "Yeah, I'm okay with No Lynching because Clov PM'ed me to ask."  

[Clovdyx]

^ Do you understand what I'm saying there, and why I'm saying it?

 

(this might sound more rude than I intend, which is not rude at all)

[Cass]

Yes.  Copy paste fail when re-ordering the post.  Originally I had the part about her not confirming the conversation after me saying I PM'ed her, but I shifted it around because I thought it sounded better that way.  Apparently me trying to copy the updated rule didn't work so well.  

 

As far as I understand it, you 'copying the updated rule' would have resulted in confirmation that nobody will be killed if there's a majority NL.

How, in all the Shadows beneath Light ( ) does that support the rest of your argument?

 

Which, as I understand it, is that somebody will probably be killed?

[Cass]

(or the fact that Tina-mod DID confirm it even though you're making a big point about the fact that you don't think she would. Which has less bearing on how I consider where you're coming from, but still...)

[Songstress]

 

 

She won't confirm that I PM'ed her to ask, Cass. :P

 

I think everyone's confused.

 

What is it you think she won't confirm? 

 

Tina already posted in the thread that a majority no lynch vote means we go directly to night with no kill, which was the answer to Yates' question that you seemed to be saying Tina wouldn't confirm.

 

 

Tina will not say "Yeah, I'm okay with No Lynching because Clov PM'ed me to ask."  

 

 

OK, I see where the confusion is.

 

None of us expected Tina to confirm that your PM was the cause of her updating the rules to include No Lynch.

 

The question from Yates that he wanted confirmation on was whether achieving a majority on No Lynch would actually cause us to go to night with no kill, as opposed to a random kill.

[Songstress]

 

*giggles*

 

Cass, I think you may have been ninja'd yet again.

Gah! What/where??

 

Right before you asked Clov to give his reads on various players and how confident he is on them, he posted these:

 

Completely caught up now.  There's roughly an hour left so I'm pretty sure a last second CFD is (thankfully) off the table.  Right now, I've got Cass and Yates squarely off the table, and I'm comfortable trusting Jmm for now.  His content hasn't blown me away but I'm going with the simpler solution of him telling the truth until I have reason not to.  BFG has picked up the pace and the way she interacted with me makes me feel pretty good about her, plus she seemed to be trying to draw other people's activity up.

 

POE is down to Sili/Tress/Thane for me.

 

 

Tress reads looked pretty good to me, but it was all fairly cookie cutter IMO, and I really don't feel she put much effort into drawing them out.  I associate her with being a much more telling player, and not necessarily so accepting of the consensus.  Paranoia about Yates is reasonably town-telling but she's good enough to fake it at this stage.

[Clovdyx]

That's literally the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

 

[v]No Lynch[/v]

 

 

By my math, we have about 18 hours left and need 5 votes of 8 on one target or it goes random.  I think Cass is definitely town, and I still like Yates to be town.  Between them and myself, RNGesus has about a 40% chance of hitting someone I'm not cool lynching.  Not great odds.

 

Also think NL should give us an extra day phase.  If there's only one kill a night - highly likely given the game size -, then a mislynch today and tomorrow (coupled with a successful kill each night) seals it following N2.  No Lynch makes the earliest loss D3.

 

Me: "We should no lynch, since we're running out of time and will go random if we don't get a majority."

 

With the above said, I'd still rather lynch than let it go random. I want people responsible for their wagons. I think Clov is forgetting someone dies if we no lynch.

 

Yates: "Eh, I'd rather lynch than go random.  Clov forgot somebody dies if we no lynch."

 

 

I think Clov is forgetting someone dies if we no lynch.

Actually, I may be wrong on this. I forgot Tina said no lynch is allowed but I'm not sure if that means no lynch counts as a majority "lynch" or if it just means we didn't reach a majority lynch and thus someone gets randomed.

@Moddess - Halp?

 

 

Yates: "I may be wrong."

 

 

 

You are wrong on this.  I'm quite certain she won't confirm this conversation (as mod, I wouldn't either), the reason she specified that in thread is because I sent her a PM early into the phase asking if NLing was allowed.  In most basic games, you want an odd number of players so that the games ends due to a lynch...even number of players tends to end the game with a NK.  

 

From the rules - "The reason she specified that in thread is because I sent her a PM early into the phase asking if NLing was allowed."

 

In regards to the post I didn't quote, you're right that them a cop would be bad, but we'd still be in a better position than we are now.  If we go for a lynch today, it's based solely off the information we have right now.  No result being posted means the same thing, but we get another 72 or so hours of discussion to combine with it, and the NK victim means one less player for everybody to focus on.  

 

 

Clov: "Yeah, you ARE wrong.  Check the rules.  It says <mispaste>"

[Songstress]

That's literally the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

 

[v]No Lynch[/v]

 

 

By my math, we have about 18 hours left and need 5 votes of 8 on one target or it goes random.  I think Cass is definitely town, and I still like Yates to be town.  Between them and myself, RNGesus has about a 40% chance of hitting someone I'm not cool lynching.  Not great odds.

 

Also think NL should give us an extra day phase.  If there's only one kill a night - highly likely given the game size -, then a mislynch today and tomorrow (coupled with a successful kill each night) seals it following N2.  No Lynch makes the earliest loss D3.

 

Me: "We should no lynch, since we're running out of time and will go random if we don't get a majority."

 

With the above said, I'd still rather lynch than let it go random. I want people responsible for their wagons. I think Clov is forgetting someone dies if we no lynch.

 

Yates: "Eh, I'd rather lynch than go random.  Clov forgot somebody dies if we no lynch."

 

 

I think Clov is forgetting someone dies if we no lynch.

Actually, I may be wrong on this. I forgot Tina said no lynch is allowed but I'm not sure if that means no lynch counts as a majority "lynch" or if it just means we didn't reach a majority lynch and thus someone gets randomed.

 

@Moddess - Halp?

 

 

Yates: "I may be wrong."

 

You are wrong on this.  I'm quite certain she won't confirm this conversation (as mod, I wouldn't either), the reason she specified that in thread is because I sent her a PM early into the phase asking if NLing was allowed.  In most basic games, you want an odd number of players so that the games ends due to a lynch...even number of players tends to end the game with a NK.  

 

From the rules - "The reason she specified that in thread is because I sent her a PM early into the phase asking if NLing was allowed."

 

In regards to the post I didn't quote, you're right that them a cop would be bad, but we'd still be in a better position than we are now.  If we go for a lynch today, it's based solely off the information we have right now.  No result being posted means the same thing, but we get another 72 or so hours of discussion to combine with it, and the NK victim means one less player for everybody to focus on.

 

Clov: "Yeah, you ARE wrong.  Check the rules.  It says <mispaste>"

 

And the confusion is that at least a couple of us thought you were saying Tina wouldn't confirm that there would be no kill from a NL vote... probably because of the misplaced copy/paste.

 

Cass, I think that clears it up.

[Songstress]

EBWOP: One of the reasons this was extra confusing was because Yates' question had already been answered - by myself unofficially and by Tina officially - before you posted that... and the fact that Yates' question itself wasn't whether No Lynch would be allowed but whether a No Lynch majority vote actually meant no death (which was itself a really confusing question, because what would be the point otherwise?).

[Cass]

 

 

*giggles*

 

Cass, I think you may have been ninja'd yet again.

Gah! What/where??

 

Right before you asked Clov to give his reads on various players and how confident he is on them, he posted these:

 

Completely caught up now.  There's roughly an hour left so I'm pretty sure a last second CFD is (thankfully) off the table.  Right now, I've got Cass and Yates squarely off the table, and I'm comfortable trusting Jmm for now.  His content hasn't blown me away but I'm going with the simpler solution of him telling the truth until I have reason not to.  BFG has picked up the pace and the way she interacted with me makes me feel pretty good about her, plus she seemed to be trying to draw other people's activity up.

 

POE is down to Sili/Tress/Thane for me.

 

 

Tress reads looked pretty good to me, but it was all fairly cookie cutter IMO, and I really don't feel she put much effort into drawing them out.  I associate her with being a much more telling player, and not necessarily so accepting of the consensus.  Paranoia about Yates is reasonably town-telling but she's good enough to fake it at this stage.

 

 

 

 Thanks :)

 

 

 

That's literally the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

 

[v]No Lynch[/v]

 

 

By my math, we have about 18 hours left and need 5 votes of 8 on one target or it goes random.  I think Cass is definitely town, and I still like Yates to be town.  Between them and myself, RNGesus has about a 40% chance of hitting someone I'm not cool lynching.  Not great odds.

 

Also think NL should give us an extra day phase.  If there's only one kill a night - highly likely given the game size -, then a mislynch today and tomorrow (coupled with a successful kill each night) seals it following N2.  No Lynch makes the earliest loss D3.

 

Me: "We should no lynch, since we're running out of time and will go random if we don't get a majority."

 

With the above said, I'd still rather lynch than let it go random. I want people responsible for their wagons. I think Clov is forgetting someone dies if we no lynch.

 

Yates: "Eh, I'd rather lynch than go random.  Clov forgot somebody dies if we no lynch."

 

 

I think Clov is forgetting someone dies if we no lynch.

Actually, I may be wrong on this. I forgot Tina said no lynch is allowed but I'm not sure if that means no lynch counts as a majority "lynch" or if it just means we didn't reach a majority lynch and thus someone gets randomed.

 

@Moddess - Halp?

 

 

Yates: "I may be wrong."

 

You are wrong on this.  I'm quite certain she won't confirm this conversation (as mod, I wouldn't either), the reason she specified that in thread is because I sent her a PM early into the phase asking if NLing was allowed.  In most basic games, you want an odd number of players so that the games ends due to a lynch...even number of players tends to end the game with a NK.  

 

From the rules - "The reason she specified that in thread is because I sent her a PM early into the phase asking if NLing was allowed."

 

In regards to the post I didn't quote, you're right that them a cop would be bad, but we'd still be in a better position than we are now.  If we go for a lynch today, it's based solely off the information we have right now.  No result being posted means the same thing, but we get another 72 or so hours of discussion to combine with it, and the NK victim means one less player for everybody to focus on.

 

Clov: "Yeah, you ARE wrong.  Check the rules.  It says <mispaste>"

 

And the confusion is that at least a couple of us thought you were saying Tina wouldn't confirm that there would be no kill from a NL vote... probably because of the misplaced copy/paste.

 

Cass, I think that clears it up.

 

 

Yep. *laughs*

 

Clov, thanks for dumbing it down...

 

*Dies of tinfoil poisoning* 

[Cass]

EBWOP: One of the reasons this was extra confusing was because Yates' question had already been answered - by myself unofficially and by Tina officially - before you posted that... and the fact that Yates' question itself wasn't whether No Lynch would be allowed but whether a No Lynch majority vote actually meant no death (which was itself a really confusing question, because what would be the point otherwise?).

 

What's EBWOP?

[Clovdyx]

 

EBWOP: One of the reasons this was extra confusing was because Yates' question had already been answered - by myself unofficially and by Tina officially - before you posted that... and the fact that Yates' question itself wasn't whether No Lynch would be allowed but whether a No Lynch majority vote actually meant no death (which was itself a really confusing question, because what would be the point otherwise?).

 

What's EBWOP?

 

 

Edit By Way Of Post.  Used to correct, or add on, to a previous post somebody made since we're not allowed to actually edit.

 

 

And I would rather you continually harp on me to clarify something you don't understand than let it go.  It gives me more confidence you want to understand where I'm coming from. :)

[Songstress]

 

EBWOP: One of the reasons this was extra confusing was because Yates' question had already been answered - by myself unofficially and by Tina officially - before you posted that... and the fact that Yates' question itself wasn't whether No Lynch would be allowed but whether a No Lynch majority vote actually meant no death (which was itself a really confusing question, because what would be the point otherwise?).

 

What's EBWOP?

 

 

Edit by way of post.

[BFG]

Internet's been in and out since I got back.

 

[v]No Lynch[/v]

[BFG]

This isn't ending any other way with 10 minutes left.

 

I'm out for dinner now, but internet willing I'll try and post more later :/

[Clovdyx]

This isn't ending any other way with 10 minutes left.

 

I'm out for dinner now, but internet willing I'll try and post more later :/

 

What are we having?