What's the standard practice for nightkilling and powers? I'm assuming they have a mafia roleblocker. If he survives the night will he likely be able to kill one and block another at the same time?

In my game I said that they wouldn't be able to do that but I'm not sure of the general rules.

As far as I'm aware of, it's a case of one or the other. You can use one night ability, not both. So he'd have to make the choice between killing or blocking.

Happy Single's Appreciation day to all, I'm off to find some cake...hopefully without a ton of candles <.<

It's usually the case each player can perform only one action but it's not warranted. I allowed in my game to one player perofrm both but it was becasue there was only 2 players mafia and loss of one power role would cripple them too much.

I think we can discuss it however we want, consider pros and cons but if he doesn't turn up we will lynch him anyway and currently it doesn't look he will honor us with his presence again. It's 6 days since he posted last time and I think he has just given up.

See, comments like this. Theres just way too much playing along with other peoples ideas for my tastes (in this case TBs). That coupled with the latest Pazzer hammer (as I mentioned by the way) makes me feel icky about you.

Why am I not pressing this? Well as I said before I fouled up my original attempt and dont feel what I have to say about it in the future will carry a whole lot when you can just reply with "but he was wrong before" and be right. My horrendous error.

I had hopes Joe and Vitek would carry the banner but then they veered off the road into a tree of some kind with some odd "now I think youre town" comments with no real explanation why the change of thought (or at least one I can comfortably comprehend). In fact, thats the singular reason I dont feel 100% confident in either of them.

As I replied to your last foul up Here, so shall I reply again...

I've already explained my reasons for hammering Pazzer - I caught him in a lie plain and simple. I knew he was Mafia.

I haven't said this before, as I believe a) its too much info, and b) Looks mighty convenient , but...

I hadn't even seen Joes post when I voted Pazzer and called him a liar. I was catching up, got up to Pazzers post, and posted immediately. I didnt even realise it was the hammer until I caught up all the reading 15 minutes later.

Just random thoughts while our deadline ticks down, but I'm not sure I totally agree with the idea that we should have held off to get more information from Pazzer, and I totally disagree that hammering him makes Robb suspicious.

Exactly what info did we want from him? More lying to confuse the town further? It's not like he was going to just tell us who his scumbuddies were, or anything that could be helpful.

I agree there are actually quite a few suspicious things about Robb, but there are suspicious things about every single player in this game, myself included. I don't want build a case against anyone else until the night events because whoever the mafia tries to target matters far more to me than whatever weak cases we can build today. We have someone who is borderline confirmed as scum, and I want him down before I try to find his partner.

Why are you all day so keen to claim?

I think we were all aware of this already. I didnt ask for you to explain anything. Yet you felt compelled... My supposition is you knew he was mafia because you were in fact on the same scummy team. Your explanation of Pazzers hammer doesnt make me feel any better. And further, you didnt realize you were the hammer but try to accept the protection of hammering scum? And now try to leave that yoke behind? This seems less like you providing "too much information" and more like providing the correct information at last.


Some of us wont be here tomorrow to discuss :). As for Stuart being "boarderline confirmed" I would say that an interesting statement. I would say remaining town should revisit this post if Stuart flips town. Especially how it would relate to running interference for Robb. If Stuart flips town of course...

That's a bit harsh, yeah? It's not like I'm the only person who thinks that. I'm just saying that I'm reasonably confident enough to push a lynch based on his very scummy posts and flipping out over pressure. Obviously I could be wrong, but I'm not going to swap to someone I don't feel comfortable lynching just because Stuart won't post. If that makes me a suspect, so be it, but it's not great reasoning. (Obviously I'm kind of biased, I suppose)

I don't think any of your reasons make Robb look scummy. You say you didn't ask him to explain anything, and he "felt compelled" to answer which makes him suspicious, correct? Except you kept calling him suspicious for not explaining anything. It's not adding up to a coherent case.

I think there are several things that do make Robb (and others) look scummy, but I'm not planning to share them until the next day. I don't want to give the remaining scum time to think out a careful answer/claim/night kill. And hey, if I die in the night kill, you have an even better reason to suspect Robb.

@penut - I don't think that one of the reasons muttly detailed paint Rob as scummy.

I think this quote holds a lot of truth in it.
Plus, you say that you are confident enough to push for a lynch based on his scummy posts and flipping out under pressure. The later I get, but please elaborate on the other scummy posts - except the D1 contradiction.

False. As he pointed out, he offered an explanation. I simply dont buy it and stated as much. Take as you will. Yet more defense of a guy who doesnt require it. Why? No one has asked you to swap votes and its been addressed that in all likelyhood Stuart will be killed if we lynch him or not.

And not for nothing, I havent made any case against Robb. Again, would be somewhat futile on my part base on my past bumble. Without you leaping in to respond for Robb this might have passed on already. I am pointing things out so they dont get lost D5. Although I suppose you could say me pointing out his odd change on the hammer credit the beginings of one. I can agree to that since he just walked right into that one.

Uh, I don't understand what that quote has to do with me. I didn't really think about it, but that's a good catch and there's a lot to be said for it. I just picked out the one reason I thought didn't make a lot of sense and I found problematic. I'm obviously not going to defend Robbeasy when he seems like a moderately good candidate for the third scum and he can defend himself perfectly fine. I just had an issue with that argument in particular.

And I've said already what I thought was scummy about Stuart. Day 1 contradiction and general defeatist play arguing that he shouldn't be lynched because he is new/because he is vocal (neither one an indication of scum or town). Days 2 and 3 he's mostly silent except to fall in line with pazzer. Day 4 he gets pressured, starts throwing around random statements, admits to lurking to protect himself and rage quits. It's more than enough to convince me.

Alright, fine, forget Robb. I was just trying to point out what I saw as inconsistencies or points that needed clarification, something I would have done if any player was in Robb's place. You've since clarified your point, and I agree that it's a very good catch that should be revisited.

I'm less pleased with your insistence of acting like my opinion on Stuart is so unique it deserves to be highlighted as a scumtell for day 5. There are at least four, maybe five people with the same opinion. Why is it so necessary to highlight me over Joe, Robb, Twilight and Vitek (to a lesser extent)?