Hang on, how do you know which team kill on which night? Have I missed something?

Yeah, that was a phone reading/posting fail. My eyes must have skipped a line reading on the tiny screen.

Just figured out the answer to my own question. They were both dead before last night's kill. Carry on!

I thought the same as you for a second, but assuming trent was the final member of mafia team A, last night's kill must have been done by team B because team A is dead. Thus tonight's kill would be team A's turn again. Of course if I was modding a game with alternate night mafia I would make it so they could kill any night once the other faction is eliminated, otherwise the remaining team would be very underpowered. My point is that it's all WIFOM, and a single mafia team could try and convince us there's two by holding off on a kill tonight so we shouldn't read into it.

Still on my phone at the moment, so separate posts for now. If there's anyone around to bump me in between it would be much appreciated.

There was a NK on N2., trent and carr were already dead so a 3rd one must've made the kill. If there were a second scumteam who can only NK on even nights then there should be no NK on N3.

A lot more succinct than my explanation. Also lol@ blotunga also explaining.

I can't see much advantage to a mass claim right now either.

I have thought of a possible advantage to lynching one of our "masons" today though.

1. It resolves the "mafia or mason" problem. Either we hit scum or we confirm the other mason.
2a. The other mason is confirmed, the scum has a choice - either kill the confirmed mason or take a shot at a PR. This means we arrive at tomorrow either with a confirmed townie or all of our PRs alive, possibly both.
2b. We get scum and have a pretty good idea who to lynch tomorrow.

Blotunga, (if you're town) I know you're upset about being "outed", but honestly the only value that non-chatting masons have is either being confirmed town or soaking up a kill to save a more useful PR.

I think there's a pretty good case for policy lynching sooner rather than later. It would answer a lot of questions.

@Spf i don't see any value in our lynch. I think scum won't risk letting both me and GR alive until tomorrow. We are 7:1, why loose a sure town just to confirm that what? That your weird theory of something fishy is right? It's not. OMGUS again.

We were masons before the setup was changed, so likely Joe considered that it would be to much advantage for town for us to have chat. After our numbers were reduced he didn't change that.

Or are you trying to get rid of both masons?

Btw what if there are no more town PRs? In a 14:3 setup maybe there weren't. I have no idea tbh because I have a lot less experience, but I'm not letting myself or GR lynched just to prove that we are Masons. That was the whole point of my claim. Otherwise I could've let him hang and come out tomorrow that lookie here, I'm the other one.

Right. My suspicion was that Nmillar, seeing that 4 players were willing to lynch Trent, could have recognized that a lynch was imminent and joined in. I also thought that Pooka's posts up to that point, especially the proposal of two scumteams, looked town. So my thought process was "Well, Pooka looks townier than Nmillar, and LOLChan's bound to out himself if he is scum as long as we prod him for opinions."

But after all that's happened, I'm seeing Pooka's request to restart the game after Agent outed the scumteam as more suspicious.
Actually, in my mind I was editing everything to "Scum!Trent" before looking back at the post. Now I think it's a "Agent and Trent have outed themselves and I don't know who to bus. Let's start over so scum has an even chance."
How are we back to killing Blotunga? The only way this makes sense is if Joe, seeing that Agent outed himself in his first post, substituted Dedo for 2 scum. I can't understand it fitting in with everything we know so far.

Right. If they're busy killing you then they aren't killing actual useful PRs. Confirming one of the masons will force their hand. Or they'll take a chance at hitting a PR and we'll have a confirmed town alive tomorrow. Either is good.

Are you accusing me of OMGUS or are you saying you are filled with OMGUS?

Why bring this up? I don't care that you don't have chat, other than that it reduces your value as a PR.

Not get rid of, but I think you overestimate your value. You are essentially a VT that will be confirmed if your partner dies. In terms of roles, your only value is either in being confirmed or soaking up a NK. In terms of play, yours and GR's sketchy behaviour is slightly detrimental and distracting.

Read that back to yourself. You're suggesting that the ONLY power roles the town has are two non-chatting masons? That's fucking nuts.

Sorry, I just have to come back to this for a moment.

What do you think the mafia watcher was for? To watch the two non-chatting masons pick their noses every night?

Did you actually read my case? I explained why it is beneficial even if they're town. If you disagree with that by all means elaborate, but your post implies that you think my only argument for lynching one of them is because they might be mafia.

We haven't had any town PR flips yet, even if we only had a cop they haven't died yet. And besides, haven't you played a couple of games on GOG now? You should have a bit of a feel for the forum version of the game, which tends to be a bit more power heavy. Anyway, see the above comment about the mafia watcher.

You've got a point about the non-standard roles. Nothing stopping scum from claiming that can't be easily confirmed but faked without difficulty. In which case, we should hold our guns.

I myself am questioning why the two of you are masons but lack a chat. That said, good scum would not lynch the both of you and would instead go for anybody else in the hopes of getting themselves a dead power role, and like SPF said, they would hard confirm the other one of you. I can see SPF's argument in lynching one of you, because if we don't, good scum won't grant us that chance.



My "restart the game" proposal was less "oh no, my scumbuddies are in danger, let's restart!" and more "I don't think we should be talking about the changes and using them for scumhunting or gambits, I believe the reroll should be broader; a full restart." So it was less about making use of a situational gameplay advantage myself and more about taking it out of the picture.

This I agree with. Town probably has an investigative PR.
Because I see it as likely that lynching one of them leads to losing 2 out of our 4 town pool, without checking any of the more suspicious players. As I see it, circumstance backs them up even if their behaviour doesn't, and lynching likely town players decreases our chances of hitting actual scum.

I can't fault that, because I've found myself thinking "none of this makes any sense" many times over this game. It seems that with this game, instead of dealing with a lack of information, we're dealing with apparently contradictory information.