Because at any later time it would have been worse. In other players' minds it would be like piggy backing on an old claim (yog's) as last resort.

You're right. I wouldn't have. But I didn't anticipate there's another MIller out there that will claim before me.

I disagree. All it takes is one investigation on me and my helpfulness is reduced to 0. If someone investigates me, says I'm Mafia, and I claim Miller after Yogy, I get 0 credence. All my actions will be taken as anti-town and everyone will misread them and go in the wrong direction. I do not think you are right.

Solely*
And again, I disagree. The game is won by more than just actions of our roles. It's won by involvement and how that involvement is perceived. If everyone sees me as mafia, my involvement that could point to mafia may be seen skewed and not point people to the actual mafia, but away from them.

Your response is clear, thanks.

Your comments regarding timing is what I get most from this. To answer your question, I don't know what I'd do had I gotten the role your claiming. However, your explanation is acceptable.

Now that's funny.

Pulling a bit of a drealmer7 here.

Did you read my reply to bler144 on this? How does a drealmer7/me w/w pair makes to you after everything that transpired?


My memory isn't helping me, can you point me to where I made this point?


I'm pretty sure that my comment about docbear1975 in relation to you was not a suggestion for you to look her way.


On to more current things.

[emphasis added]

Same question to you as the one to bler144. Why would a SK, or (worse?) a non-SK third-party, claim a town role that investigates and flips mafia? If SK is not what you exclusively refer to by "neutral", why would a non-SK third-party do that? What would be the benefit for a neutral survivor, for example, to make such a false claim? Do you know something about this that we don't?

Also, if there's no regular scum, do you really think that in a role-madness game of 14 players we'd have just two SK? Asking as you put the "or more" in parenthesis.


This argument again? Really?

Could you lay out your case on drealmer7?


I'm not sure I follow, and unlike HijacK, I think it's worth a couple of questions.

How and at what point would he try to wiggle out going 'Oh, but I totally didn't mean THAT!'? At the verge of a lynch? How is that any different from any other case of a claim at L-1? If he gets lynched and is scum, he'll flip scum. Just like he claims. How would that tell you if he tried to wiggle out or not? And since we don't get role flips upon death, how would you be able to tell if the rest of his claim was true or not? When investigated? If he's scum, his result will be he's scum, assuming a normal sane Cop.

Elaborate, as I don't quite get what point exactly you're trying to make here.

Something else is more alarming, though. If we don't get role flips how do the Millers claim they will flip "Hitman" or "Muscle"?

And another drealmer7, because something about this bothered me, and if I'm reading correctly, trentonlf still has drealmer7 in this top three suspects, so would like it addressed.

Emm... let's see:

- drealmer7 (post #94): gamma are you ever going to be scum in a game with me again?
- you (post #:103): drealmer7 slipped and revealed that he's scum and GammaEmerald isn't scum with him
- drealmer7 (post #146): Only got till post #98; more catchup inc. after breakfast and a walk.
- me (post #163): That must have been a very big breakfast that required a very very long walk
- drelmer7 (post #174): It's a misunderstanding, it should be read as "game with me", not "scum with me"
- dedoporno (post #177): How do you feel about Lift?
- you (post #178): Not good, but he's not my biggest concern.
- me (post #206): Who is your biggest concern, and why?
- you (post #212): My biggest concern is still drealmer at the moment (I mean how long of a walk did he take)
- me (post #223): Why do you bring that walk bit up again now, when he replied to you in his post #173? Did you miss it? If not, why didn't you reply/comment, and instead refer to the walk bit again now?
- you (post #225): Yes I saw his response, but I was hoping to see more people weigh in on it

There's quite a bit of paraphrasing in some, but it should give an accurate picture of the events as they developed.

You voted drealmer7 for his scum-slip in your post #103.
In his post #163 he's not caught up enough to address it, but said he'd be back after breakfast and a walk. He addressed the matter in his post #174.
You don't reply or comment on it, and shortly after tell dedoporno Lifthrasil's not your biggest concern. I ask you who is and why.
You reply it's still drealmer7 and link it to his prolonged absence (walk bit). Which is no longer quite true at the time, but you make no mention of his post #174.
When I point all this out and ask you if you missed that post of his, you reply that you didn't, but was hoping for more people to weigh in on it.

After post #174, and up to your post #225 (included), Sage103082 replies to drealmer7 (post #182), Hijack comments on it (post #185), Lifthrasil jumps on (post #186), I comment on it (post #196), Sage103082 comments again (post #207), yogsloth comments on it (post #211). Not counting flubbucket's comment (post #140) as it was before drealmer7's response.
You make 9 posts, all of which, with the exception of the ones I mentioned above, are unrelated.

Can you see where and why this looks problematic?

But putting that aside for a moment - if you wanted input from more people, why didn't you prompt anyone for it if/when you saw that it wasn't coming on its own?


I know that bler144 asked this already, but since you didn't answer him, what exactly makes GammaEmerald one of your three main suspects?



Are you dismissing the case she could be a third-party? In that case, would she have any reason not to point out what makes docbear1975 scummy?



I'm not really worried. At the rate you're catching up (you're again like 200 posts behind), and given the time the deadline is set, I've resigned to never see your relevant to the current gamestate views.



I asked yogsloth this very question back when he first claimed (you even quoted part of that post of mine to comment on something else), and he said I'm asking him dumb questions, and claimed he didn't know what kind of flips we're getting.

A response given or withheld is still a response, and I am often more interested in seeing withheld responses and what those people try to focus on instead.

As for bler I missed his question on gamma. I would have no issue voting Gamma because of his lack of involvement. He is not invested in this game and as I said before if he's town then he's a liability and if he's scum he's trying to win by hiding. Either way he needs to go (lynched or replaced).

I claimed I am Muscle. However, the main event that I am trying to emphasize, and which I pointed out when Yogy asked me, is that I flip and am detected as Mafia. And that's about it. I do not know if someone can investigate my role. The possibility is there with a Role Cop, but that's not a venue I want to open for discussion right now.

Is there a reason you are defending drealmer actions?

You will need to create an account on mafiascum to search a user. Here is a link to Gamma's last post at this time. Click on his name and the resulting page will have an option to "Search user's posts". He hasn't posted anything since Saturday.

If memory serves, when Gamma claimed computer issues in the Bond game, I don't think he was posting on mafiascum at the time either. That is the only thing that makes me think this absence could be AI. With nothing in game to support this, I'm not interesting in voting him today. I'd vote him if no one else looked vote worthy or to prevent no-lynch.

I'm good waiting for a replacement or having him NK. If we do get a replacement, I'll be squinting at that slot initially.


I still need check posts #200 to roughly #300. I know there are some posts in there I missed. Otherwise, I think I'm mostly current. Noted some recent posts for response. I'm fairly certain where my vote will go, but want to make sure I'm not overlooking something. I'll place a vote before signing off for day.

And one last before getting to the HijacK matter.

Duh, I kept seeing that as underlined, but not bolded, hence why I thought it not acceptable, same as with Sage103082's unvote I mentioned in my previous reply to you.

But I'm curious now - you wouldn't per chance be trying to drive some different point here, would you? I mean, I don't put it past you, so if you are, please lay out what "hint" did you read behind this?


bler144 pretty much covered this, but you seem to think I played some sort of tricks? bler144 already asked you about this, and I too would like you to elaborate.


But bler144's statement about scum-me not wanting to draw an investigation was in direct relation to having drawn Lifthrasil's attention by linking myself to drealmer7. What exactly was the point of bringing up an example, and that of the Godfather in particular, outside of that context, given that we're in a role-madness setup?


I found it interesting, as it often is the course of action by scum getting in the spotlight. I never said that it, in and of itself, made her scummy, or that it was any sort of conclusive evidence that she is.



Not sure I follow - is this a reply solely to why you didn't prompt people for their input, or is this supposed to also tell me why you linked your reason for still being concerned about his "slip" to his prolonged absence (the walk bit comment) instead of his explanation of it that you found unsatisfactory, which (it being unsatisfactory, that is) you didn't make known until I specifically asked you about it?

Because if it's the latter too, it doesn't compute, so I'd like you to elaborate further. If it's only the former, I'd still like an answer to the latter.



Where did I defend drealmer7's actions? And which ones would that be?

My questioning trentonlf is not about drealmer7's actions, it's about his own. Does questioning trentonlf bother you?

Do you think that revealing the information at this point will help town more than potentially hurt it knowing that scum has
the same information? If the answer is yes, then it's viable. Otherwise, I wouldn't.

If it would tell scum whether or or not to target you tonight, versus some 'unknown' player....then probably not.

I'm against it as a game breaking ploy. From that perspective, I'm as against it as trent, it's counter to the spirit of the game. I do think there are some roles that are better off claiming early, but those are typically the exception and not the norm.

I don't plan to vote for you today. I tend to believe you and want to see how this plays out.

exhibit A [i][/i]

I answered this to some degree in the last post, but here's a bit more. There are four options between yogs and Hijack's claims:
1. both are telling the truth
2. yogs is lying and HijacK is telling the truth
3. yogs is telling the truth and Hijack is lying
4. both are lying

My position right now is #1. As neither one is pinging me, I want to see how this night plays out. It may or may not help us sort them.

I cannot disregards the other options. If #2 is true, then Hijack felt compelled to claim when he saw a similar claim. My problem with this option - how likely would scum-yogs claim a role so similar to town-Hijack. Unless scum learned of HijacK's role somehow, this option seems least likely to me.

If #3 is true, then Hijack decided to make a pretty bold scum-claim after yogs makes his own bold claim. I can't put it past HijacK completely, but I have a hard time seeing HijacK make that claim that early in the game. Huge risk.

If #4 is true, I assume they planned this during the twilight phase. This seems more plausible than either #2 or #3. So for me, it really come down to either they are both lying or telling the truth. I think they are telling the truth.