The fine player base is still debating whether I was piggy backing as a bold scum play or doing my duty as town to explain my situation and maximize chances of survival in order to continue helping with the game.

You haven't missed much. The choices of lynch are me, Lift, and docbear. The reasons for these candidates have long been explained and it will come to one of the 3 of us. It's either me for my claim, Lift for erratic play and searching for what will stick, or docbear for apparently not being her (I have never played with her before, thus I don't really get this point) and not doing much in the way of defending herself as a supposed town player. The lurking, albeit justified, is worse than CSPVG's.

Take your pick.

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/forum_mafia_49_retirement_isnt_so_peaceful/post371

If you want validation for your claim look elsewhere.

One of the things that comes to mind is flubb's Milk game. That was my first game and the regulars swore that there wouldn't be a godfather is a role madness game. You were in that one, right? It ended up with not one but two godfathers.

@Lift - A Death Miller in itself is a fairly outrageous claim. If I'm willing to accept we have one, then it doesn't seem like a big stretch to think we have two. Do you think it makes a difference that Hijack made the claim? Would it seem more plausible if someone else had made the same claim?

@all - A similar question. Say any two players made Death Miller claims? Is one or even two Death Miller's believable?
If not, votes should be one of the claims. If yes, then there is more to sort.


Welcome, JMich!

I'm glad we have some additional time, I'm being called away earlier than expected. I'll be back this evening and am available all of tomorrow. Still need to specify my case on Lift. I don't think I have anything new to add, except how I see it.

The game-thread OP hardly has anything in it, it's in the sign-up OP [emphasis added]: I asked for clarification on it, and here's RWarehall's response: But it would seem that I'm expected to simply accept that everyone but me had no idea about this, and not question anything because everyone's clueless about this.


The difference between the two is that "role" refers to role title, i.e. what your role is, like Town JOAT or Mafia Roleblocker, and "role name" is the name you've been given as that role in the game, which in your case is not "Tony Linguini".

Anyway, whatever response this gets by anyone now carries no value, at least to me; since I first asked that question, more than enough time passed and much "What what what? No role flips? Where? How? Why? I had no idea" and discussion on it happened for anyone and everyone to brush off any contradicting details and fall in line by now.


Any chance you answer my question about Sage103082?



Or you're a Unicorn, and I'm a Cyclops out to get you. I mean, it could be a possibility in someone's mind, especially if they don't explain how that may even be a realistic one.

You still haven't laid out how the drealmer7/me w/w scenario makes sense and works with everything that has transpired. Have you stopped even for a moment to think this through? And not only that, but you now go on to throw out more scenarios, again without saying why and how any of them could realistically make sense and work given the interactions and events so far.

The more you don't lay it out the more it looks like you haven't thought things through and just throw shade at whomever/whatever doesn't agree or clashes with your own take on things and players - just look at who your suspects are at the moment, then go look at the sort of interactions you had with each one.


And I still want a reply to this:

Hi, I'm overwhelmed at work, pleased to meet you.

Do we have confirmation deadline is now Tomorrow night sometime late EST?

I did. Somewhere back there.

As I said you didn't like my answer, and it's pointless to continue with trying to discuss it as I don't see either of our opinions changing on the matter.

I'm aware of how drealmer7 rubs you the wrong way, and that you'd off him out of the game by any means available to you, but my question has nothing to do with that. I also don't like that he later took another days long break from the game, but that's not relevant to my question time-wise.

Forget for a moment that it's drealmer7, let's say it's Bob. I don't think that it's really all that hard to see what caught my attention with the timeline of events I laid out for you.

You suspect Bob for making a scum-slip and vote him.
Bob goes for a several hours long walk without addressing your vote even though he was on. But he does a few hours later; convincingly or not is up for interpretation. Discussion ensues, yet you don't comment, nor react in any way to his arguments.
That was 5ds ago, according to GOG's timestamps.

A day later (4fs ago timestamps) I ask you who your biggest concern is, and why.
You say it's still Bob, because "I mean how long of a walk did he take", as if he hadn't posted and addressed the matter after he made that walk comment. If he did it convincingly or not would have been relevant to my questioning you at that point only if you had referred to it and said it wasn't in your post #212.
I wonder if you hadn't missed it, especially since you didn't comment or partake in the discussion, even though Bob's your biggest concern. So, I bring it to your attention, ask you why you are going back to his walk bit if you had seen it, and a couple of other questions.
You reply that you had, but don't buy his explanations, and didn't comment to see more reactions from others. This only comes out after my follow-up questions to you.

Had you not linked your continued suspicion of Bob to his absence (walk), i.e. had just said he's still your biggest concern, or had you mentioned his response instead, I'd have taken that "still" as related to his explanations not satisfying you, and continued from there to ask you why you hadn't commented, etc, and we wouldn't be having this discussion now.
But the way it went feels like I somewhat forced these arguments out of you after you made that odd jump back in time to justify your ongoing suspicion when there were more recent events.

As for the "hoping to see more people weigh in on it" - I made that list to point you that I see plenty of the active people weighing in on it, while you focused on other things. Who were you waiting for to chime in? GammaEmerald who hasn't been around since practically the start of D1, or docbear1975 who makes comet like appearances and barely comments on anything, even if directly addressed to her?

It just doesn't feel like a natural flow to me.


As for your post #463, assuming you're town, I just hope that you remember what happened with Dessimu in game #47.

Apologies trent, but a lack of an answer is not an answer. This is not an RPG where choosing to opt out of a conversation is a viable option. We're not playing The Walking Dead Season 1.

Fourteen players, meaning we need eight on one wagon just to achieve a lynch.

It's so crazy coming back to this mechanic after playing on MU.

How is that ever gonna happen?

...

On a side note, if Jmich doesn't knock my socks off in the next ~36 hours, I'm probably still shooting at him if we lynch docbear.

If we don't lynch docbear, I'm shooting at her.

Out of curiosity, how does one knock your socks off? I always wondered, since you seem largely unimpressed with people given your achievements and boldness.

I don't know what achievements has to do with anything, but "act like a Townie" is a good start. Knock my socks off with coherent, reasoned, inquisitive thought process. Look for scum. Read and evaluate. Ask questions. Propose ideas.

Do stuff.

Allow me to point you towards post 337. I'm not going to do stuff as you said until I get a clarification (which I've already asked).

nope, pretty much was my hardest scumleans/reads

Key vote in the development in things, I think. I don't really like it, or the weak reason for it. I can see it as possible docbear is the position she describes (and I've been so D1 plenty of times) where people are just like "tell me what you think!!" and she just didn't have much and wasn't sure what to say, and you are suddenly getting put on the hotspot for it. I mean, how often do you all let veteran players say barely a damn thing on D1 and not pile on them and try to get them lynched because "they're just useless flub" or "they're inscrutable JMich" or "they're abstract subtle krypsyn" or whatever.

Nope, that wagon is the 1 that stinks to me.

@wyrm, which 2 votes on the lift wagon don't you like? if 1 is HijacK so much that you don't want to vote lift for it, why not vote HijacK instead? 'he will resolve himself' you say? hmmm

of course, if you get back before the deadline...

OMGUS much? shall I get you a rag? what is it that is "definitely different", if it is so DEFINITE, then you should be able to explicitly DEFINE IT.

so, you are saying that you, if you were death miller and yogsloth claimed death miller D1, you would not do what HijacK did and say "ohwhaaat? me too!" You'd just sit there silently, and say what to yourself? not "holyshit it must be true because I am too" ? or "Hmmm, he is also a death miller, and he claimed on D1, so he should (if you had your way) immediately die, and there should be no discussion about the likelihood of him telling the truth" even though you might think it very likely to be true since you are too? and then what? we all just go on about the Day like he was scum and was lying about a death miller? and for what reason would there be to do that?

I do believe that is what is happening at some for some even if not done so explicitly. I do prefer to refrain from much role talk atm, if it factors in to someone's scumhunt, fine, if not, fine, but let's get the votes on the table and figure out a lynch. We can talk more about roles and flips at a later point when it's relevant / needed, not much more to do about it today I think, that does town good anyway. If ppl want to give their positions on it all, fine, nothing can do to do stop, especially if it is a reason you're voting, but, ya, onwith the show!