Total posts: 12,563
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
There was a vote on Wylted and Whiteflame. They both claimed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Once again my character is Jay Inslee, Hitler is my role
That is literally a role made to be lynched. It doesnt even exist officially, and it is not even confirmable.
If that is the role Pie gave you, he didnt do you any favor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That2User
His first post is right at the start. His second post is his long read on players.
Right now he claimed. Now I am just thinking what to make of his claim. For that, I will need more opinions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Yes, the second time I was able to post in this game was also the first time I said anything against claiming.
False. Your first post has you not condemning claiming at all. In your second post after two players claimed, you just said you felt like pressure on Austin was too low for a claim. You said nothing against claiming in general until 3rd out.
Didn't know you were going to find me at fault for not being active on here throughout my workday
I didnt find you at fault for not being active. That was not the accusation at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
He posted a whole set of games where he independently analyzed my behavior in response to similar scenarios. Guess you didn't see that.
Are you talking about this:
Arkhamafia: Mafia. Whiteflame was calm about the early claims, but did discourage further claiming. He did wait a bit even after there were two full claims.
Seems like your scum play is consistent with this game, where you waited for 3 outs to say something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Just because RM is town doesn't mean he's made the right choices.
Is not what I have said. I said his choices were more likely to be right than the choices of others who could be scums. This is not right choices vs. wrong choices. This is about which choice is more likely to be correct.
This is also not the first time RM has picked up on something that he thinks is a clear behavioral scum tell only to be proven wrong.
I agree that town players can make bad decisions for town. However, scum players will make far worse decisions for town if trust is placed in them.
SirAnon made a whole post looking into my behavior in previous games and how I've responded to efforts to get more information on claims. They've all been consistent, whether I'm town or scum.
Is not true. He posted one link that showed you to be concerned about outs right at the start. Not exactly consistent with this game where you didnt care until 3 outs. Hence, the evidence.
As far as I can tell, RM has a very strong gut read that he hasn't supported with any evidence of my past play. I don't see a need to continually respond to that with the same information.
Is very strange statement. I believe you need to respond to that2 link too. If you are not responding to accusations supported by evidence, I might think that you have no response.
Of course, RM knows you better than I do, so I am ready to trust his judgment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
there's some sheeping of RM going on as well that elevates him above a slight scum read
Is not true. It was already explained that I am trusting RM on his claim of you because he is most likely town. Plus, some evidence was presented. You didnt exactly address the "wf town different from wf scum" argument.
Created:
Posted in:
If Wylted is town "Hitler", then Pie really hates town governors in general. That is only "if".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I literally forced the decision.
He made a claim about his role being confirmable far before that, and said was okay with confirming it at the start.
I would follow him on another lynch. Just because his logic about whiteflame is shitty doesn't mean he will use shitty logic for someone else.
I wouldnt. If he focused too much on someone and turned out to be wrong, there would need to be a strong reason for me to follow him again.
RM is most likely town, so I will follow his logic this time, as opposed to following yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Why do you town read RM if you do
I said he is likely town due to confirming his role. The decision to out his role does not help scum in any way. This was already explained.
If you do town read him, why would him being wrong about a read make you all of a sudden scum read him
Was not said anywhere. I said he would lose trust. Which he would. No one would follow him on another lynch if he fails after focusing so much on Whiteflame.
Scum will often lynch town but give themselves some sort of out implying they know the flip.
Is a misleading statement. I already stated that I too suspect Whiteflame. I didnt give myself any out after my decision to follow that lynch immediatelly. In fact, if that decision turns out to be wrong, I am quite aware that I too will lose trust.
Something like "I am going to help you lynch him, but he could be town"
Is a false statement. I never said that Whiteflame is likely town, anywhere in this entire thread from its start till now.
Or they try to pin it as scummy to lead a mislynch. While antitown it isn't scummy to have a read wrong, even if you feel strongly you are correct
Was not said. What was said is he will lose trust if he fails.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I am right about whiteflame, I am severely sure of it.
So be it.
VTL Whiteflame
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If you are a senator, then town cannot lynch you since I doubt there are 9 town players.
The decision to confirm your role helps town, not scum.
I am ready to follow whoever you want to check with lynch, but you will lose trust if you happen to be wrong about whiteflame.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Punishing for inactivity is not the standard here. I just pointed out that scum could easily use that tactic and get away with it just as easily. It is not confirmed yet that they are using it. But if people agree it is to be tolerated, I wont add on to it more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I did point out Badger's inactivity. However, since no one is willing to punish inactivity, I dont see the point in mentioning it anymore.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Can you get your vote back on RM. I would like to actually see if it takes 9 votes.
This seems awfully risky. Not unless RM agrees.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
My objection was not about the time you voted and then unvoted.
My objection was about the absence of your vote when it was needed and when others were voting and when votes on RM were demanded.
I will accept the idea that you were offline, so moving on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I never tried to block votes for RM, I don't know where you are getting that shit
1) You didnt vote on RM
2) You said he likely has a vote related role
3) You seemed to be focused on stopping votes on RM, rather than getting him to confirm his role.
If you thought he has a vote related role, why didnt you help him confirm it?
I just want a simple answer to this, and we move on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
We could try getting an explanation from Wylted first, since we already started with that.
Created:
Posted in:
I want for Wylted to provide an explanation for his action of blocking votes.
Created:
Posted in:
I was thinking between Austin and Wylted. We seem to agree that Wylted is suspicious. You believe he is scum. I believe he is scummy due to his blocking of vote for no reason. So be it.
VTL Wylted
Created:
Posted in:
I do find it odd that Wylted tried to stop people from voting RM.
I would like if he explains this action a bit more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That2User
Any reads?
Austin came back from his long inactivity only to point out that I went inactive, after that he goes inactive again. It doesnt make much sense, but I already said I consider him likely scum.
Whiteflame is a bit suspicious. Some people are saying this is his usual game while some say its out of the ordinary.
Wylted seems to be messing around in his posts. I dont know if he was like this in previous games.
Whiteflame and Wylted I cannot read much as I have not played a game with them before.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I can even have 8 if mafia lacks a doublevoter.
How do we know they lack a doublevoter?
Created:
Posted in:
I need to add to this:
SirAnonymous also revealed some information about his governor, without revealing too much.
Created:
Posted in:
My reads on everyone
Likely town
SupaDudz and RationalMadman claim they have confirmable roles. This to me suggests that they should be treated as likely town for now. Plus, RM's activity tells me he is likely town.
Greyparrot claimed early and in details. To me, this seems like a town play, but I dont have a strong opinion on it.
Likely scum
Austin and Badger both claim they wont be much active. This does seem like a potential scum move to waste DP1 for town, and make town players fight each other.
What also is unclear, is Austin giving so much information about his governor at the start while claiming it is "not easy to decode" that information.
Null
I dont have any reads on Wylted, SirAnonymous, That2User and Barney. I do appreciate that Barney revealed some info about his governor, without revealing too much.
Whiteflame did give some reads that I found odd, but not enough to make him likely scum.
Created:
Posted in:
Printing currency is not that useful.
The amount of wealth will not change if you print more money.
I would rather support the ban of luxury items.
That being said, printed money can be given to the poor and only in that sense would it benefit anyone. But the fact that you have to print it again and again to keep giving it means endless inflation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
it seems like he actually thought that he was soft-claiming in a way that would avoid giving away too much information.
What I wonder is why would he think that that was "not easy to decode"?
It just seems as an excuse used by scums.
I wouldnt read him as slight town.
I'm not sure why you're focusing on me
This was about your read on Austin, which to me seemed misplaced.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
my read was that he would have behaved differently
And to support that you say:
he wouldn't have effectively given his actual claim
This sounds like a terribly unclear assumption.
His claim was not effectively given by his own words. He said it was "not easy to decode", only to have it decoded few comments later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I agree with SirAnon's point.
Is a correct statement.
Your point was: "slight town read", which you supported by saying "he is anti-town, but its okay" and "he didnt react as scum that one time".
To me, it seems like you tried to make up any reason possible to have this "slight town read".
Your first reason doesnt even support your read, and your second reason is based on an unlikely assumption of "scum would fail in that reaction".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Being anti-town doesn't make someone scum
Being anti-town doesnt make someone town.
Created:
Posted in:
I will just say what I think so far.
Wylted says he is confirmed town right at the start. I am not really confident in the point of his claim. He is obviously not confirmed town. I am not sure what he tried to achieve there. If the point was to get scum to focus on it, it didnt seem to work since it was too obvious.
Austin says he will be busy and wont be active for 3 days. He does give us info about his governor, however this could very easily be a fake claim to justify inactivity and not get lynched.
Supa says "Hello" and goes inactive for a long time. However, he comes back online and starts with activity. So I dont read his early inactivity as scum.
Badger says he is not gonna be active at all in this dp. This is helping the scum . Doesnt help town at all.
Whiteflame seems to be giving confusing explanations.
He says "Austin's soft claim was not a town indication", then adds "Austin's decision to do soft claim was a town indication".
I am not a fan of these mixed messages, and I am not trusting anyone's "inner feeling" on the matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Scum also benefits from having more info, particularly if it helps them make fake claims.
It was already pointed out that there is most probably my governor in the game. I doubt that any scum would dare to claim Whitmer either way. Too risky for them, due to high probability of town already having that governor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
And how is that, exactly?
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesnt the town benefit from having more info when there is a theme?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That2User
Knowing Pie someone has to be DeSantis/WhitmerDeSantis was mentioned by name in my DM
I am Whitmer, yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
my role PM has a clue that the themesplit possibly is male vs female
I will reveal that I am a female governor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you’re being accused of statutory rape, you have to defend yourself.
Is likely not the case in this case. If there is evidence, you refute it. If there is no evidence, there is nothing to defend against. Anyone can make claims. Person has no obligation to refute every unsupported claim someone throws at him. In case of DeSantis, there is no evidence that crime even happened, let alone that DeSantis committed it.
I am not a fan of DeSantis. But the claims made against him are obviously done to defame him and make him lose support.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If this was true, DeSantis would claim this is what happened. But DeSantis didn’t claim this, so it’s probably didn’t happen like this.
"He would claim that it is what happened" is likely, but not needed. If there is no evidence against him, there is nothing he needs to say or explain.
Created:
Posted in:
There is photographic evidence of Ron DeSantis attending parties while 23 with high schoolers that he taught.
This does not mean he did something wrong. If someone happens to come to a party, he could be there because he was invited and bothered to come.
Created:
Posted in:
I believe in the option of evidence. I dont think anyone should be punished if there is no evidence of a crime.
The evidence being:
1) That crime happened
2) That the person did the crime they accuse him of.
If any of these two are lacking, there is no point to punish anyone.
Created:
I think it is expected. The medications usually have side effects. Some more, some less.
Created:
Posted in:
Cool, that is going to lose you games and is actually bannable reasoning on any competitive mafia website as it is both stupid and corrupt.Your mentality guarantees that scumtells get forgiven for a player if they were scum before and that towntells get ignored for a player if they were Town too often before.That is not skill based mafia, that is roulette style mafia.
I thought it is obvious that I dont have any skills, so naturally I cannot use what I dont have.
Created:
Posted in:
The last two games had Supa as non-town.
So if I am going between "over thousands of games the probability of being scum twice in a row is suddenly a lot more realistic" and "it is much more realistic to consider that probability of not being town 3 times in a row is very unrealistic", I am gonna go with mine.
Created:
Posted in:
If there are 3 scums, then the chance for Supa to be scum is 1 in 14.
Created:
Posted in:
You were much more active last dp1 as Town.
It didnt end well for me that time. I focused too much attention on myself.
Created:
Posted in:
and how did you calculate that?
1 / 4 (first game) multiplied with 1 / 5.5 (this game) if we have 2 scums in both games.
Hence, we get 1 / 22 chance.
You would bet the whole game on that?
Sure, why not.
Is that your only contribution?
So far, yes.
Created: