nooooo, that is not what I said at all, and you are twisting my words or misunderstanding me completely

and thanks for the bump, I meant to:

unvote RW

vote no-lynch

I have 2 not-likely/nos for RW, if I have 2 yes's aside from myself, I'll switch back to him

Listen, folks, voting and telling our suspect list in this game is VERY PRO-TOWN, as long as we are honest about it.
This allows us to catch any sudden changes or drastic reversals and gives the cult less room to manipulate, maneuver, and slip by undetected.

We've got to talk about things, all things, any things. But we've got to be talking.

cristi, JMich, and agent need to GET IN THE GAME. JMich has been more than cristi or agent, but, I want more, and cristi and agent are becoming voteworthy at this point. I want more from you all, and town needs it. We are more likely to lose if we don't get reads on the table.

If I'm here touting that I find RW suspicious and he is saying he finds me suspicious, and then tomorrow I'm like "nahhh, I think we just were misunderstanding each other, I'm less suspicious of him today than yesterday", that should be a red flag to you all (and obviously not something I'd do because it would be a red flag) that something could be rotten in denmark. NOW, obviously that example seems poor because of the red flagging bit, BUT, once we start to accumulate more and more of these types of dynamics, the more we will be able to flush out altering behavior and keep things more "In check."

Which is also why voting is of uber-importance, more so than most mafia games, imo. If I have 3 people I am okay voting today, and tomorrow 1 of them is off my list, sure, it doesn't GUARANTEE anything, but with everyone doing the same thing, it sheds more light on everything and allows us to see the inconsistencies better. It's SOMETHING to go on, ya know?

*refresh*

geeee, I'm surprised fantasysci5!!! :þ - the initial no-lynch vote almost felt coached (do it and get drealmer on your side or at least he'll put his guard down on you), as did the "reasons" reason for flubbucket, and I felt like there has been a possible connection between you and RW from early on (just how it "tone-read" to me!) This seems potentially to be another timed coached happening. Maybe I'm just super-paranoid, but, it is the read I'm getting. I have nothing better to go on. *shrug*

anyway, let's get down to business

I'd love to hear from everyone their opinion on no-lynch and why they think it is a good or bad idea.

egggh, I've never felt so waffly between 2 options

no lynch or RW?!

well, we have until sunday, so, you all know where I stand, I'd love to know where you all stand...

Well, my mind is still somewhat muddled. Arguments have been presented for the pros and cons have no-lynch. And I have come to the conclusion that a no-lynch is not a good option. So, who to vote for?

I'm still suspicious of bookwrym's claim to be the deprogrammer. Have we determined how we can verify his claim?

I'm still suspicious of flubbucket, but not enough to lynch him yet. Drealmer7 and babarak have also raised my hackles

However, dessimu has really grabbed my attention.

Vote: Dessimu

First, there is only one role which even possibly gives us information, the Tracker. We will know what the Deprogrammer knows because someone will splode. We won't know if the Deprogrammer hits the Cult Leader because there is no feedback. Same with Vig, someone splodes.

So the only role we can possibly get information from tomorrow is the Tracker. Now, if the Tracker chooses to verify Bookwyrm and he is telling the truth, we learn NOTHING relevant to voting!

If he chooses to investigate someone else, we learn something on the 1 in 10 chance he picks the right target AND isn't converted the same night. So less than a 9% chance we enter tomorrow with more information. And we get that in exchange for one townie less and one cultist more. It's a bad trade.

My "reasons" comment was meant as a joke. When people asked what my actual reasons were, a few posts down I answered: (Not sure how to quote myself, so here's a link to the post) https://www.gog.com/forum/general/forum_cult_mafia_41_shodan_awakens/post130

As for the connection with RW, where are you seeing that? The only thing I can think of is that we voted for the same person, which has since changed.

As for the coaching, I think I'm doing a wonderful job of coaching myself. Good job, Fantasy! Thanks Fantasy! *high fives* :P

Someone dying at night will (usually) confirm said player as town. Thus their posts will be read as being 100% truth.
The cult's recruitment is not killing. We don't get anything about their convert, nor can we trust any of our reads. The recruitment is worse than a night kill but it's not a night kill. Saying the cult has a night kill is a flat out lie.

According to you, this is a duck because it quacks like one. Good luck trying to eat it though.

I smell fishing gear in that post, RW, and role/ability use-talk. It stinks, not because in general it is bad, but because itcompels me to respond to things about things, and as I start to do it I realize that it would not be good for town, and so, yes, all of what you said there stinks to me. That is not the sort of talk we should be having.

You should be trying to convince others of who to lynch and why and quit worrying so much about the no-lynch. If your (or anyone's) arguments are compelling enough for who TO vote for, you don't need to worry about the no-lynch, eh? It is like you

Voting for me because I am a proponent of no lynch and you fear no lynch/are so steadfast that it is SUCH a bad ideas is not logical to me.

I understand how it has potentially beneficial aspects. But again, I'm going with likelihoods.

There are likely only 1 or 2 cult out of 12 players. Tomorrow there are likely to be 2 or 3 cult out of either 11 or 12 players.

We have multiple tools against the CL, lynch is not the only way, and on D1 with 1 or 2 out of 12, lynch is most likely to hit town than cult, and more likely to hit a PR than cult. Don't suddenly turn these points into a fallacy counterargument of "what you going to do tomorrow? no lynch tomorrow?", and deal with this argument, here now, about today and we can deal with tomorrow when tomorrow comes (like all this talk about what the roles will do is utterly pointless, and anti-town, just let the things unfold how they unfold, and then deal with them the best way.)

Yes, I do say it makes more sense to at least be somewhat more confident that the odds are at least 50/50 to hit a PR and a cult member before just, with practically absolutely nothing to go on, killing someone.

Exactly!

Calling it a flat out lie is a flat out lie. I explained it. If you are going to ignore my explanation too, then you are as bad as Drealmer.

The point is the cult is still removing a town player every night until the cult leader dies. You can play word games all you want, but we lose a town player. They are essentially killed and with no-flip and on top of that town isn't informed they were killed yet.

I am getting the twitching eye with every post I read now.

Short perspective from my side of things: RWarehall is highly likely a Cult Leader. Now wait till I get to computer to tell you all, why.

You speak of using accurate terms. Lets also use accurate analogies.

Instead of asking "Should a 1x vig take a shot on D1?", ask "Should an unlimited vig take a shot on D1?"

My answer to the 1x vig is "Probably not, because you only get 1 shot."
My answer to the unlimited vig is "BANG BANG BANG". Dead bad guys do no harm.

RW keeps going on about the conversion being equivalent to a NK because both the conversion AND the NK lower the number of town players. In either case, town is down a player. In the case of the conversion, there are the additional effects of no flip (sometimes happens for the NK), no reveal of who was targeted, and an increase in the number of bad guys.

Is it an actual NK? No. For purposes of town's numbers, does it function like one? Yes.
RW: I suggest we drop calling it a NK. Calling it a NK is allowing people to (correctly) argue a terminology point that isn't particularly important, and that will look and feel like being a productive townie; lets make people work for their "participation points".

In the best case (there is only one bad guy (the CL)), we have a nearly 10% chance to lynch the bad guy. If we push someone to near lynch and we get a PR claim, then we lynch someone else and we're doing better than 10% in finding a bad guy (night actions account for this improvement). If we push someone to near lynch, get a PR claim, then get a counter claim, we're probably around 50% to hit scum AND we follow up with deprogramming the survivor and nailing THEM if the first lynch didn't kill scum.

On the other hand, if we No Lynch, we get...what? The tracker shouldn't be revealing himself on D2. We have no flip or lynch wagon to consider. My role doesn't give much feedback. The vig isn't even investigating.
Fill in the blank for me, please.

Yes. They are removing a town player, but they are not removing a player.

So the number of votes required for majority changes? The length of the game's day changes? The players can no longer post in this thread?
No, no, and no. Thus it's not a night kill. Calling it one is a lie.
Feel free to call them inhumed though.

A player that is poisoned and will die in 2 days is not counted as a night kill. Nor is a person that is primed by the arsonist, at least not until the arsonist detonates his charges. They are not night kills, and neither is the recruitment.

But, you are the one playing word games, twisting "convert" into "kill." Yes, you explained it, and then twisted logic to make one thing me another and it seems like you're trying to instill fear and misrepresent what actually will happen.

Anyway, enough of all this, I suppose? We're just going in circles and not convincing each other of anything. Let everyone else talk and hold their opinions about all this as they will or share them if they want. Voting is what should be happening at this point though.

I've got to tend the food, and will be gone the rest of the day and perhaps too tired later to participate and I might have plans this weekend (caving, potentially!) If I get back with a meal, if you haven't voted, you don't get any until you do. Yep!

This is fun! We will see how things go! Of course it's possible that everyone involved in all of this are all town, and the CL is sitting back going "ahh, yes, I may be alone, but, they will easily kill themselves and I will be better off." *cough cough**looks at lurkers*

It could probably be more beneficial to town to keep all who have taken a position on anything to be kept alive and to lynch someone who hasn't really contributed much of anything, and look for inconsistancies in those left alive. Likelihood is that those being talkative aren't the CL (why draw any attention to yourself?), so maybe it is more likely that if we go for a lurker we hit them, but then, also possible to more likely hit a PR lurker.

yep, no lynch! or lurker lynch, (or RW I suppose if it came to it) but giving lurkers until tonight to contribute more better good things, but we're already behind schedule, and all this hub-bub is just delaying it all further.

Yes, it is a common "joke" used to do exactly what you did, vague and dismissive of having to post real reasons (even if you did/do at another point), and the fact that you used it caught my attention because of it being common, and you being new. Sure, it's possible you used it by coincidence, I don't disregard that possibility, but still, wanted to note it, and with it accumulating with some other things, leads me to finding you slightly suspicious, nothing major major.

HEY! I am not something and I am sure as hell not rotten! But I am in Denmark.

I have no problem attracting your attention, but if you vote, then specify, why. Reasonless vote is anti-town in my understanding. Also, you should remember that voting is actually your personal weapon. How? Enough votes make a person dead. That is why we usually have a small period of RVS voting for jokes and giggles (right at the start of the game) and then we go serious. So again - if you think I am evil, specify, why. For I am not the CL, nor a cultist.

...

@ RWarehall

In general - you are my single prime suspect. I find it interesting how you are against voting No-Lynch and suspicious of people who think No-Lynch is a valid way to go now, but instead of voting drealmer7, who proposed No-Lynch and kept it going, you suddenly vote me. Where I basically express my opinion and am not forcing you to think same as me.

Yeah... Because we always believe every claim of people who are about to die and scum never lies. That was sarcasm. Meaning: are you honestly going to believe my or someone else's claim if it came at the near-death-line? What you say is basically "this is how I can fish out power roles and lynch townies in the process without attracting too much attention".
This quoted statement alone is both (possibly) true and sooo very suiting Cult's intentions.


You are not wrong saying that if we don't lynch, we don't kill CL, we don't win the game. But in this particular situation now we have one Cult Leader for a fact. If there is any goon - only Lifthrasil, CL and that possible goon him/herself know. And maybe dedoporno. So I base my opinion on a bigger fact. And here is what you did not talk or think about: to lynch someone, majority of players have to place votes. If we start voting on the wrong person, all the CL needs is either to keep quite or to help and steer, and gather more votes on that particular player. So today and every other day we have not only a result (lynched player) bad for Town but also a voting process being constantly influenced by CL in one way or another.

That said, you, my friend, are now picking on the town target. In other words - either you just strongly believe your theory that we must lynch, or you are CL - you found me to be a good target and you are trying to get people vote me. Your given reason: I hate No-Lynch. But you won't vote drealmer7 for whatever reason. And I am repeating myself already.

What's more, as drealmer7 already said, as townie who believes in his truth, you should give more reasons why voting and lynching me specifically or another one of your targets is the right course of action. Instead, you try to convince everyone that a lynch in general must happen.

And words have their meaning. We should not forget that and you should not call "recruiting" a "kill".

Another reason for me saying "No-Lynch is a good way to go" was that I had no clear suspect. Now I have you.

Unvote: No-Lynch
Vote: RWarehall

I no way really. I wanted to make a point that for CL being one among many townies, now it is/should be easy to achieve a desired misslynch and stay hardly noticed.