Total posts: 10,910
-->
@whiteflame
Also, hard to get past the fact that you called me out for providing reads under pressure, and now you... want my reads... under pressure? Yep. Nothing odd here.
We've already been through that, I asked for reads yesterday and got a nothing post, and earlier today a contradictory fence sitting post. At this point I am just okay lynching you. You've already shown me you have no intention of progressing this day phase or figuring out who scum is.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
Also, for someone who sees me as often indecisive in DP1, which I absolutely have been here, I'd like to know what makes you think this is any different. Taking independent action and pushing for lynches isn't something I've done in ANY DP1. I don't have solid reads for most of the people here. The only reads I provided so far are those that came from an expanded discussion that I barely got through reading before I was asked to comment in full on. As for figuring out who scum is, I don't think we'll manage that without seeing a NP play out.
I defended you for being non committal in christmas mafia because magic called you out for the in like the first 2 pages of the day phase. This day phase is 17 pages long and there is plenty of content and activity, and you've been online. If your busy your busy. But you do get on to post only to reply or get defensive which is basically what you did with magic in christmas mafia. I even told her that if she had psuhed you for doing that it would have been a better case than the non committal post on the first few pages. This has been a fairly active day phase and just about everyone has posted significant content other than warren or bullish, so you should have plenty to read into at this point.
This is absurd. You're calling me out for not having posted over the last couple of hours, and then you say I should wait to post until I have more information. And, apparently, that information requires me to provide scum reads that I don't have. Sorry, but I'm not going to provide you with a BS response that claims someone has somehow outed themselves as scum over the last couple of hours. I've finally finished reading through, and all I see is a lot of hell being raised over a statement from Pie that was, apparently, misunderstood. Sorry I wasn't here for that. Would've really livened things up.
Again it's not about you "not being here". I am saying if you are busy, why post at all? You could just wait until your free then post your thoughts in clumps. All I have of you to analyze is what you do post. So far anything that you've posted has either been to defend yourself, or no make some big nothing post that only comes when prompted by me or elminster. If you are scum, it seems like you standing back to analyze which wagon to take part of or not take part in. If your able to respond at a whim, but not post anything significant, I have to assume you are talking in a scum PM somewhere potentially asking for advice, when and where to post, what should I say, etc. If you were town, I'd expect you to take a stance and make a behavioral read like you did in Waifu with drafter and Speed in bullishes game.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
Dude, I hop off for about 2 hours and suddenly I'm sus? Shockingly, yes, I do have chores to do over the weekend, and yes, this isn't up on my phone during every second of that time. I'm still trying to catch up on this SNAFU with Draft because the last three pages of this are brand new to me. How about you give me a bit to catch up before you accuse me of somehow being sus for having things to do that don't include constantly refreshing this page?
If your busy, just wait to post until you can do more than just defend yourself then. Even now you hopped on just to defend yourself without providing a scum read of your own or any fresh takes on behaviors provided in the day phase.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ill vote whiteflame if Drafter is confirmed replaced.
I doubt pie can find a replacement in 24 hours left of the phase, but he can use first dead townie.
Created:
Bullishes general activity is also lacking, the entirety of his posting has been guess works of the mechanics of drafters role. Hes not really scum hunting either.
Created:
Whiteflames overal activity seems lacking. Earlier when he was on he posted an unvote and dis-appeared, and convienently popped on 45 minutes later when I voted him. He only provides reads when prodded or scum read, but doesn't vote on them or act independently. I think he is a good lynch for dp1. He's defensive but seems non plussed at figuring out who scum is.
Created:
-->
@Speedrace
Oh I thought Grey just hopped on. Agreed on ChrisAre you still shooting drafter
If he is legit getting replaced, there is no need to. If he isn't getting replaced, and refused to unvote elminster all game, then yes.
VTL whiteflame
Created:
-->
@Speedrace
Both Grey and Chris hopped on that lynch
Grey's already been on drafter, and chris instantly unvoted after he got his answer. Regardless, pie is being querrelous with how he gives information, so I'd say the blame lies on him lol
Created:
-->
@Elminster
But if it's how his role affects another role , it would still be no ?Or a yesMaybe it's veribage
Drafters answer lines up with my answer, given the apparent clarification that pie doesn't think answering how your role works with others also gives you information about the mechanics of pie's role. The whole thing's wishy washy reasoning wise but it indicates consistency from pie in a way that doesn't acknowledge pie "fvcked up" lol
Created:
-->
@Elminster
So it stands to reason if drafter was asking about could he enable (x)He would not get an answer ?
He's asking how his role interacts with a roleblocker, not how a roleblocker works. Technically you could say that also answers questions about how a roleblocker functions, but his answer to me about roleblocking a 1x role and losing it does the same thing.
Created:
-->
@Elminster
I asked deeperIf I were a cop and asked you if an enabler enabled me would it work though a rb , would you answerHe saidNo because it goes into the mechanic of an enabler
That's consistent with what we've established, that he won't answer questions about others roles but he will answer how your role effects others. What drafter asked was how his role influences a roleblock.
Created:
Pie told me I lose my x shot if I am roleblocked which isn't answering how a roleblocker works but how mine interacts with one
Created:
Unvote
I need pie to clarify something to me real quick
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
Drafter scum slipped, read the last two pages
Created:
-->
@Elminster
You should probably say you aren't going to vig me at this point so when you don't , there isn't a mislynch on you (if you aren't the kill)
I am forfeiting tonight.
Created:
-->
@drafterman
Tell you what, I'll join your wagon on me if you promise to vig Mikal tonight and lynch him tomorrow if he isn't successfully vigged.
Why would I kill mikal tonight if I town read him? I was willing to do so before because I town read you based on your role, and mikal wanted out anyway. But if he is going to play legit there's no reason to kill him. Also I doubt I'll need your own vote to get this lynch off based on the conflicting and easily verifiable information available to us now.
Created:
-->
@Elminster
I'm waiting on a message from pie to see if he says the same. But I'm like 100 locked on you so I know it will be the same answer
Okay :)
Created:
-->
@drafterman
Why wait until the End Game? If I die this phase and flip town, the game is fucked from the get-go. This waiting until the end game is bullshit and Town should be immediately compensated.
I'll give him sh1t for it instantly.
Created:
-->
@Elminster
one of you or me are dead tonight, but at least we got one down lol gz
Created:
-->
@drafterman
You didn't answer the question. If I'm telling the truth, you're lying, correct?
I did answer the question: Your question frames this as a me vs you, which is not the dynamic we are working with here since others can confirm the same information. The dynamic is you are lying, or the mod is lying. If the mod is lying here, I will join you in lecturing him in the end game for giving us conflicting information.
Created:
-->
@drafterman
Then that means if I'm lynched in flip town, you are absolutely, positively 100% scum, right?
It doesn't even need to be a me vs you dynamic. Everyone can confirm this themselves by simply asking the mod the question to figure out you are the only outlier. Unless your scum buddies are nice enough to want to come forward with their scum mates roles too. I am cool with that option as well.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
@MisterChris
@WaterPhoenix
We have a scum slip boiz. Mod confirms that he won't answer questions unless they have to do with your role or your scum mates role. Drafter claims he was told how a roleblocker works, which means pie is bastard modding, or the roleblocker is in a PM with drafter. If you aren't convinced, go ahead and ask the mod if hewould answer how another role works in your private pm.
Vote Drafter! Vote scum!
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Vader
@Bullish
@warren42
@Speedrace
We have a scum slip boiz. Mod confirms that he won't answer questions unless they have to do with your role or your scum mates role. Drafter claims he was told how a roleblocker works, which means pie is bastard modding, or the roleblocker is in a PM with drafter. If you aren't convinced, go ahead and ask the mod if hewould answer how another role works in your private pm.
Vote drafter. Vote scum!
Created:
-->
@Elminster
I don't even have to policy lynch. Bro just scum slippedYou know what to do tonight.
He 100% scum slipped. Don't even need to do anything tonight, if town isn't convinced to lynch him now, then they didn't read what just happened.
Created:
-->
@drafterman
In as much as I have clarified how my role works, it is in exactly the same manner that you have clarified. My calling yours a lie was out of line, I will admit. But as I stated, the end result is the same in that the original parameters of the agreement cannot be met, therefore it is void.
This is an assumption, pie hasn't answered that this is the case. It is complete semantics that is being used to assume that your role won't amplify mine.
No it isn't. It is literally designed around roleblockers, drivers, redirectors, and protective roles.
Those are are mechanics that influence how a role works. Your role influences mechanics, therefore logically it should influence the mechanics with mine as well. Pie making my role completely useless is one thing, but making it weak and balanced by another role (yours) makes much more sense.
In the original agreement you stipulated that the only way to stop your role was through roleblocking. Is that or is that not the case currently? If it is not the case, then the original agrement is voided.
Me targeting mafia and a kill not going through doesn't negatively effect the consequences unless you are going back to your original claim that I would forfeit my role just to make you look bad because elm is my scum buddy. In the chance the kill failed, it would paint elminster as scum and mean he is the lynch, which you say you want. Nothing has changed what the percieved benefit to you is.
I'm less interested in preventing him from quitting than mitigating the end result of him quitting. I consider his exit from the game to be a nigh certainty and as I stated earlier on, him being removed from the game earlier is better than latter, regardless of his affiliation.
He has proven to actively try and scum hunt here. You voted him initially because you said he wouldn't. That you are unwilling to budge here calls your motive into question of wanting him lynched, or actually wanting him to help progress the game. Which he is doing. So it's either personal, a waste of a vote, or you are trying for a mislynch.
You aren't just punishing mikal here, you are punishing the entire team by not even trying to consider his affiliation. Also if anything you are doing mikal a favor with your "punishment" he doesn't like playing here.Then he should be on board with it. I win. He wins. We all win by not having a player that doesn't want to be here. Win-win-win.
The win win was following through with my plan which would have killed him and got you what you wanted and prevent him from throwing the game. The whole purpose of the deal was to prove to you that mikal was willing to play ball if you gave him the chance. You still aren't doing that in the face of him playing seriously.
A person who acts like elminster, you mean a person who is trying to play a normal game and adding pressure to inactives and questioning other players? He is doing more for the town right now than you are.By sheeping you? I'm sure it's in your interest to spin sheeping you as being beneficial to town. But I don't think that bears objective scrutiny.
Both of us have mentioned sheeping each other, in so far as we both think the other is town. In actuality, we are bouncing ideas off each other and getting feedback. A miniture town block, sure but a far cry from the 0-effort sheeping your are implying.
And nothing has changed if your rules functions the way you said it did in post 103.
Nothing changed period, unless you are operating under the idea that I am scum trying to use the lack of a kill on mikal against you which I already said wouldn't be the case, because it would instead make elminster look scummy.
The only drawback that can happen is if you are roleblocked, I am night killed, and Mikal is the scum who isn't carrying the night kill. In which case my role also operates as an investigative one and we would know for a fact that mikal is scum and end up lynchinh him anyway.Since you just contemplated how this plan might fail, does that make you scum now, since it apparently makes me scum?
If the plan was indeed to get you mislynched, which I have said multiple times now only implicates mikal upon failing. The compromise was never made to prove me or you was town or scum, it was made to get use of day phase 1. You are the one who made it about proving one or the other as scum.
There is nothing about my role that suggests it was put in to count yours.
Except for the existence of the role itself.
Even permitting the free roleblock, I agree that my role should by pass it and allow the ability to work, but Pie has ruled that is not the case.Where?In our PM.
Pie would only answer qeustions about how a roleblocker works to other scum members... This seems literal proof you are scum.
Created:
-->
@drafterman
Interesting because he's been answering my questions about how my role interacts with others.
I don’t answer questions about roles other then their own. Scum can ask questions about each other’s roles obviously
Pie just said this to me.
unvote, vtl drafterman.
Created:
-->
@Elminster
Is he actually that stubborn he does this as town or is it trying to get a mislynch.
Drafter is one of the more stubborn people in mafia, because he knows how to cook a good argument. Yes it is possible for him to be town here, but it is also very likely he is scum.
Also speed is defending him. Don't see that as scum either
Agreed, speeds defense seems legit even if I disagree.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Would you answer a question about how another role works?
Created:
-->
@drafterman
I'm actually going to but Lunatic in my town pile. I don't buy him going through all of these shenanigans of claiming 1x vig but then clarifying it with this stuff about how it works if he's targeted by the mafia.
What changed between the time when I initially claimed this and you were spinning me and elmin as a buddying scum team and now? lol you could have come to this same conclusion when I first clarified how the role worked but scum read me. Is it because I am now promising to vig you? If I vig you and am killed you know it paints to as scummy. It makes sense that you would want to town read me at this point in hopes of me changing my mind on vigging you and not nailing a confirmed scum. I'd almost town read you more for doubling down.
So I am left with you doubling down on lynching mikal, but being flexible in reading a person whose role only has negative implications to you if used exactly how I am using it now. Interesting.
Created:
-->
@drafterman
pie's fairly predictable answer was :
I can’t answer questions about roles other than yours.
Created:
-->
@Elminster
If he's town I find it hilarious he's trying to teach me a lesson by doing exactly what I did lmao.
^
Created:
-->
@drafterman
Ask the mod this:"Would the STRENGTHENER role allow other roles to succeed even if that player is killed that night?"
Done
Created:
-->
@drafterman
We did have a way, yes. Then you changed it. Now we no longer have a way.
You are changing how your role works. YOU. Your role is literally designed around mechanics like in mine. You shouldn't be worried that your role wouldn't work unless you are willfully lying about the role, or selling yourself a ridiculous narrative so you can get your way and tunnel mikal.
Whatever reason you have changed you stance on the role, the end result is the same: you can't guarantee a kill on Elminster so you have voided the original agreement.
You are right, I can't kill elminster. Not by myself. The plan always included you motivating my role. If you are changing the mechanics of your own role, your are the one lying.
The same point in lynching anyone: to remove them from the game.
You wanted to remove the game to prevent him from quitting. We have since talked him out of quitting, and he is playing normally. Your objective was accomplished, and you are still trying to lynch him.
Well, he's progressing the game in the sense he has agreed to sheep your vote, so I can see how you would want to keep him in the game. As it is, I believe actions have consequences. I don't think it is "out of whack" to not wish a person who acts like Elminster does to be in the same game.
You aren't just punishing mikal here, you are punishing the entire team by not even trying to consider his affiliation. Also if anything you are doing mikal a favor with your "punishment" he doesn't like playing here. The fact that he is trying to play and you are still trying to lynch him demonstrates your motives are for personal gain, not in the effort of winning, or solving who scum is. More likely you are just scum wanting a mislynch you think is consequence free, but in the off chance you aren't, then you are still a net detriment to your team, even more so now than mikal ever was.
Well, he's progressing the game in the sense he has agreed to sheep your vote, so I can see how you would want to keep him in the game. As it is, I believe actions have consequences. I don't think it is "out of whack" to not wish a person who acts like Elminster does to be in the same game.
A person who acts like elminster, you mean a person who is trying to play a normal game and adding pressure to inactives and questioning other players? He is doing more for the town right now than you are.
I didn't back out of the agreement: you did. If you can vouch for your original agreement, I'm in.
Nothing has changed if your role functions the way you said it did in post 10.
It's certainly interesting that, after I mention that this might be a scheme by scum you magically reveal that you misunderstood your role and it can be stopped by something other than a roleblock.
The only drawback that can happen is if you are roleblocked, I am night killed, and Mikal is the scum who isn't carrying the night kill. In which case my role also operates as an investigative one and we would know for a fact that mikal is scum and end up lynchinh him anyway.
I think it is an entirely reasonable interpretation of my role to suggest that the ability cannot be stopped and I will agree that having the mafia night kill also include a free roleblock is out of line and pretty much makes both you and my roles rather weakened.
Your role literally counters how weak my role is.
Even permitting the free roleblock, I agree that my role should by pass it and allow the ability to work, but Pie has ruled that is not the case.
Where?
Created:
-->
@Speedrace
See my other post on him lying. Even if he's lying it doesn't matter because Maf can just not RB youNow if you're saying you want to kill him because he's being anti-town then that's a different story
I am open to killing him for being anti-town yes, but also acknowleding he is just as likely scum behaviorally.
I don't like to lynch people just because they're anti-town if I think they're town
Why is he more likely to be town acting like this than scum?
Created:
-->
@Speedrace
Weak roles die if they target scum so essentially you're a 1x suicide bomber that only works if you hit scum, right?
Only is the sense that you assume I am the night kill, if I am not night killed then I can freely vig any of the scum. If I am night killed, and I killed scum its basically a free investigation for me only that I have no way of proving to the town until I die, unless I state my intentiosn before hand. Which is why I am publicly stating now that I plan to kill drafter, so if the kill doesn't go through, and I die, you know he's scum. Or I bait out a roleblock, which is still good. If drafter is town and I kill them we get rid of an anti-town townie, and scum should have no incentive to block me. win win win.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
I haven't given him an excuse for his current behavior. I'm saying he has reason to be frustrated with not knowing the full state of affairs when it came to your weak Vig role. That doesn't mean, and by now I've repeatedly said this, that it justifies putting his vote back on Elm. I wasn't happy with that choice to begin with, and I made myself very clear in that regard.
So instead of explaining me what you stance isn't, let's try figuring out what your stance actually is. What's the scum/town dynamic here, and who are you willing to lynch at the moment?
Created:
-->
@drafterman
I am 100% on board with the original plan as provided by you, where you are a 1x vig who has guaranteed success unless he is roleblocked.It is you who changed the parameters of the plan. You voided it, not me. And since my not voting Mikal was contingent on that plan, this is on you.If you can vouch for the original plan as stated here:Then I am back on board.Can you vouch for your original plan?If not, why would you expect me to still be on board?
Nothing about the original plan should be altered. If anything further mechanics explained about my role should make you feel more confident that it will work. If my role has the weakness it has, then your role is the literal counter to that weakness.
Created:
-->
@Speedrace
Also, does your PM explicitly say that you are a WEAK Vig?
No, that is implied by how my role functions after questioning pie about the mechanics.
Created:
-->
@Speedrace
My point is why would he set it up for failure as scum if Mikal is town. If drafter is scum then he wants Mikal to get shot, so why say the plan won't work?
My current feeling is that he is lying, or he is tunnel vision townie on mikal and willing to say or do whatever to get him lynched, both are harmful to the town's objective to win.
That's something I see drafter doing as town
Then he is literally being a hypocrite in his reasons for lynching mikal. We don't give other people a pass for hypocritical behavior, why him?
Created:
I am publicly stating my intention to vig drafter tonight. If I die and the kill doesn't go through, you have confirmation drafter is scum. Also if mafia have a roleblocker I am forcing their hand to me tonight leaving investigators free. Win/win.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
My post 277 was entirely about initial motives, not current ones. In fact, I'm actively saying that there's a problem with his current motives. So, apparently, we agree.
We agree insofar as drafter is being anti-town. Where we dis-agree is you are giving him a pass for being anti-town, and are generating an excuse for him.
Created:
-->
@Speedrace
1. Drafter being paranoid
"Paranoid" is a lot nicer of a way of saying stubborn as a mule. It also gives him an excuse to tunnel mikal for reasons that aren't even applicable anymore lol.
2. Drafter being anti-Mikal lol
Then he's literally a waste of space this game. Being anti mikal to the point where he is promising to just perma vote him as he is promising, means he is not trying to actively solve the game or deduce who scum is.
I can see it as him being like it's gonna fail so he can blame you when it does fail but who knowsDo you think it means he's scum with Mikal?
Mikal is 100% town, I just know it based on his behavior. It was extremely obvious to me when it was fake in the stand mafia vs when it is real. And the way he was pressuring people for activity, questioning whiteflame and grey parrot, but not tunneling either shows he was being open minded. I know he is town like I knew you were town in supas waifu game.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
While I generally don't like threats of forfeiting, I absolutely dislike efforts to tunnel someone in the first DP, especially when the someone that they are tunneling is actively threatening to leave the game.
He's been playing actively, pushing reads, assisting in getting claims and drafter still is "policy lynching" him for throwing still. It's not just anti-town because it's tunnel vision, he's literally being a hypocrite. No one should be okay with drafter doing this, or even understanding of his motives anymore. At the start, yes, but not now, after mikals been contributing.
Created:
-->
@Elminster
I am also willing to lynch whiteflame I think. His post 277 was an extemely wishy washy attempt to over complicate the strengthener/vig dynamic the way drafter is doing, justifying drafter's irrational behavior, while in post 278 playing the other side of the fence saying draft is behaving anti town. He seems extremely willing flip flop here in a way that presents himself as neutral, but willing to go either way. Drafter IS anti town but we can worry about him later. He doesn't actually have any real support for lynching you so his vote is literally wasted. Whiteflame isn't just being non-committal, this is some real fence sitting, which is the next step. I do actually scum read him here.
unvote, vtl whiteflame.
Created:
-->
@Bullish
If drafter flips scum you are next. :)
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
@warren42
@Speedrace
What do you think about drafter setting up the strengthened vig plan for failure and then literally backing out of it a few posts later? What do you think about his continued tunneling of mikal even though his main worry was mikal throwing, even though mikal has contributed all throughout the day phase?
Created:
-->
@Vader
I buy that Lunatic's role is a 1x variant, but the role itself is essentially a Weak Vig. The fact that it's 1x the variant makes it so an underpowered role.
It's almost like it makes sense there would be another role to fill in the gap of that weakness; IE strengthener lol. So why is drafter so convinced his role won't work?
Created:
-->
@drafterman
It's also amusing that It's lunatic who changed how his role works yet I'm the one that gets sussed for it. Anything I think it's increasingly clear that Lunatic and Elminster are scum buddies. I just don't buy their interactions as town. It reads like scum planning things in plain view.
If you think me and elminster are scum buddies there is no hope for you lol. You had a clear way to make sure mikal was going to die. If you were really town, and genuinely thought mikal was scum, you would go through with that method to make sure he will die.
If you think I lied about my role, rather than actually mis-understood pie, why would I tell you and everyone else publicly that instead of just stick with the orignal narrative? What benefit does that yield me as scum?
Also what's the point of lynching elminster anymore? The original point was because you thought he was going to throw and just rage quit. He is now helping progress the game and has been playing, and you are still trying to wagon him. If you are town the only explanation is that you are just so stubborn and unwilling to admit that your tunneling is extremely out of whack here.
At the moment, it seems pretty scummy that you were so eager to back out of proving your role which in a way that literally results in the thing you want; Mikal dying. You are trying to make the argument that a role that says "If I target you and you have an action, that action can't be stopped." If you weren't lying about that, nothing should prevent the vig frmo going through. However you were setting in the seeds that this wasn't going to work before I even acknowledged mis-understanding pie (which again doesn't effect the wording of your own role in post 10).
"But I predict either I'll be dead or Lunatic will concoct some story about why it didn't happen, most likely involving me being scum."
It's almost like your setting up for the plan to fail because you aren't actually the role you said you are and know it will fail.
Created:
-->
@Bullish
you have a fundamental mis-understanding of how both of our roles work lol
Created:
-->
@Bullish
I copied and pasted it already exactly as pie said
So in summary if Mafia A targets you but you target Mafia B only you will die. If Mafia A targets you and you target Mafia A, you both will die. If you aren’t targeted by mafia your shot will go through
Created: