1) how do you mean? mafia bluffing Roles they don't have? And how would you know it's mafia bluffing? by town saying "hey it's actually me that is having that role" and thereby exposing the town role? and still maybe lynching the wrong one of the two since you can't know which is telling the truth? nah all role talk is bad D1. (except this one game where yogs made the first post of the game saying he was cop. but that was a special game)

2) it's in their interest to not be lynched. if that is accomplished by being quiet and not expose themselves then yes. But since yogs is out there and always for lynching the players that are quiet and not exposing themselves, maybe not so much :P

3) no-lynch

4) you're in luck. afaik, newbies pretty much get a free pass D1 so they won't stop playing in the future, because yes it sucks. (zfr literally shot himself right at the start of the prologue. ask him)

1. depends on play-style. Some players try to hide in silence, just contributing enough to appear participating, but not enough to be analyzed. Some players try to hide in activity, throwing lots of analysis out to appear as towny as possible. But in my experience the temptation to lurk is a bit higher when playing as scum. As town you just write what you think and point out inconsistencies you find. As scum you have to construct your posts, since you aren't actually scum-hunting. It's a careful act, throwing suspicion on townies to make town mis-lynch while at the same time also appearing suspicious of your actual scum-partners. You don't want them to be lynched (unless necessary) but you also don't want to be seen as connected to them. So writing posts as scum is a lot more work that writing posts as town. Which is why, wenn we don't have anything better to go on, my fall-back solution is always to lynch a lurker. Lurkers have, in my experience, a slightly higher chance of being scum than non-lurkers and even if they aren't, their loss is less severe for town than losing an active player who actually hunts scum.

2. When we don't get to 7 it will be a no-lynch. We go into the 'Night' with no information, scum kill someone and we start over on the next Day with one town-player less.

3. Yep. But usually there's a dead- and observer-thread where one can discuss the ongoing game with other observers.

Of course. My point was, would they make such a huge mistake?

Say what??

Some players try to contribute nothing at all. Doubtful there are any like that in this game.

The mistake of using "they" (and twice) in such a manner.

Why do you keep twisting my words?

I don't know. But Is it such a huge mistake, that scum!you cannot make it? I don't see you being lynched for it. it's not like it's an instant death kind of mistake. I'll wait and see what else happens today, but I will not vote you for this alone.

I don't. I'm just pointing out that I don't think you are scum for using 'they' but for attacking me over using 'we'. That's a difference.

But the question I asked in post 78 referred to the mistake of using "they". You quoted it and changed its meaning.

And for the second time, I didn't attack you for using 'we'.

Yes, you did.
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_mafia_54_pokemon_death_tournament/post29

excellent point - From now onward I'll only count bolded attacks

hohoho. such good times...

What a variety of fighting styles we're seeing from these skilled participants!

Battle Update!

2 - SirPrimalform is being attacked by Bookwyrm627 & Vitek
2 - Flubbucket is being attacked by d3adb01t & Sage103082
2 - ZFR is being attacked by trentonlf & Lifthrasil
2 - Lifthrasil is being attacked by Mchack & ZFR
2 - Yogsloth is being attacked by supplementscene & SirPrimalform
1 - Vitek is being attacked by Flubbucket

0 - Bookwyrm627
0 - d3adb01t
0 - McHack
0 - supplementscene
0 - trentonlf
0 - Sage103082
aren't being attacked.

And Yogsloth isn't attacking anybody.

It'll take 7 attackers to eliminate a player.

None of you should edit their posts, but Sage has told me how sorry she was and has promised never to do it again. Beware gog's freaky forum design! Do not try to understand it lest you go mad!!!

I, however can edit my posts as much as I want. Especially if I make an FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER.

That wasn't an attack for using 'we' and I explained it in post 49 and 51:
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_mafia_54_pokemon_death_tournament/post49

"Actually, when I first read it, all those "we"s in your post jst appeared a bit amusing, but otherwise NAI. Would a townie do it after what trent wrote? Sure. Would a scum do it? Of course. When I made my post above, it was just a comment of something I found funny. "

"Heh. I never said "using 'we' with respect to town is a sign of scumminess". I said that's NAI. Scumminess is how you crammed so much of it for no reason. You didn't add anything new for scene. Just repeated what multiple people told him. What new conclusion can he form with your "additional" info. "

Actually, lurkers should be copped and vigged, lynch should be used on people who will provide us with informations upon their death.

So you've posted a vote and some tears, nothing else. Are you trying to fade into the background?

We're talking in circles. That doesn't really reveal anything new. I'll try one last time to explain to you how the sequence of posts looked to me. If you're town, you might then understand why you look scummy to me now.

1. you use 'they'
2. trent points that out
3. I make my first post, replying to scene, not talking about your 'they' at all
4. You (successfully) try to draw me into your 'debate' with trent, by pointing out that my post contains 'we'.
... here I wonder why. For me that read like an intended implication of 'Hey, look! Using 'we' can totally look strange too, if you twist it the right way! Was it an attempt at defending yourself because you felt that your 'they' looked bad? Was it an attempt of distraction? Was it an attempt of starting a quarrel with me? ...
5. I reply to you and start to wonder if your 'they', which I initially saw as NAI, wasn't a slip after all. But I still saw the 'slip' theory as unlikely enough to not vote for you.
6. Now you go all out and try hard to find things in my post that you can pretend to find scummy. Like the fact that I posted at all although others had said similar things before.
7. This was the point where I became convinced that you are acting scummy and consequently voted you. For me it looks not as if you are really trying to find scum, but you are trying to find excuses to vote for any townie. And unfortunately I allowed myself to be drawn into a pointless debate by you.

Meanwhile I explained why I answered to Scene in the way I did. Which you conveniently ignored. Instead you choose to keep harping on about the "they" thing. Again, I wonder why? You found a good explanation what you supposedly meant with that 'they' (post 25). I think if that was genuine, town-ZFR would have seen the discussion as finished there. So town-ZFR probably wouldn't have tried to deflect attention to someone else, like you did. Scum-ZFR, however, might have felt the need to distract from a slip he was embarrassed about. The funny thing is: if you hadn't artificially extended that discussion, it would be over by now. Trent's vote would be seen as 'mostly RVS with a thin reason' - since thin reasons are all we have to go on initially and all others, including me, would have seen your 'they' as NAI. But the fact that you keep defending it and keep trying to distract makes it look more and more like a slip. Otherwise you wouldn't have to act like you do.

So, if you're town, take a deep breath and start over. Then you will notice how shaky your arguments are.


True. If we do have cops and vigs, which we don't know. Also lurkers aren't my preferred lynch target. But a good fall-back solution when we can't agree on anyone else. So my personal lynch-preference list would be:
players investigated as scum by a cop I trust > caught liars > players acting scummy > lurkers > players appearing neutral > no one > claimed town-PRs whom I believe