I wasn't trying to express an opinion or pressure him. As I said, I was throwing something out there to see if it stuck.

And yes I do know something about the game's setup. It's broken and unfair, but we've been over that already :)

Yes I did say both.. and there is absolutely nothing contradictory about them at all. Given the choice, the mafia are more likely to choose the experienced players with power roles than the inexperienced ones without them..

Nor is it useless to town. Sure, it doesn't identify the mafia but it does stop us from mislynching using bad logic.

I mentioned one of my post restrictions 380 posts before TwilightBard suggested that.. and his suggestion came just before Orry got lynched for his post restrictions (oh I do wonder why I've drawn attention to them.. maybe that was a good demonstration of how they make the game unfair). Was he mafia? No.. he wasn't. So your conclusion is the complete opposite of any reasonable one that can be drawn from how this game has developed. Not really the first time you've done that, is it?

When someone says "If you had told me that before, I would have not done X" and then undoes X, it is them helping towards whatever you were trying to do. Yes I was annoyed because you could have stopped me from thinking you were just ignoring me but I wasn't expecting any reaction towards me.. I was expecting you to continue pressuring pazzer!

Not offering reads on D1-3 == because I'm new and didn't want to get a townie lynched.
Not offering reads on D4 == don't want to get a townie lynched at My&Lo

Besides, I'm doing just fine here. You've done nothing less than admit you are pressuring me to see what my responses give - fishing if you will. But you are the one coming to conclusions that are completely contradictory to reason... and I'm pointing them out.

I'd like to think others are watching this.. but they might be put off by the wall-of-text-yness :P

I'm going to miss the "unhelpful play comments" to reduce the WOT unless you want me to respond to anything in particular?

PRE-POST EDIT: Now I can see why you were looking at pazzer with the mass-claim request etc. and hammer-voting Orry :/

Sorry for not posting today, I watched a lot of South Park, then we had unexpected visit and now I am watching football so I had not much time.

Oh crap, pazzer, I hate when someone changes avatar during mafia game. :-P
I like your new avatar, though.

Dam it's that time to post again. Had hoped to complete a re read of the thread and find something to back up or disprove some of these claims. But still in the middle of that.

Haven't changed my avatar for a while. Though I'm sure Wonkers will be back soon. Was tempted by a picture of a chicken with mafia underneath but though that might give people the wrong idea.

Interesting NotFrenchYet missed princess and gossip off Orryyrro's roles. Also why aren't Vitek and Xyem down as ?town. As I doubt there going to claim mafia.

@ NotFrenchYet curious why your going after Xyem as it seems you still think I have a case to answer. Do you think i'm town or mafia?

Interesting how the same thing can create completely different impressions.

It comes across as good to you and very peculiar to me.

As you said, NFY knows their alignment and role.. so leaving the question mark on must have been a concious choice. Most people wouldn't think twice about it. Then notice how readily NFY will bring up bluffs and double bluffs and it starts to look like scheming and the mentions of bluffs to be projecting..

Why did you leave question marks on yourself NFY?

Well done! I hadn't spotted that at all. At least his role is confirmed even if not his alignment, although if he'd been shown to be lying then we probably would have found ourselves some scum.

Presumably because her alignment isn't proven (unlike Rod's role, which is now proven and hence has no question mark).

@Rod: I think French is going to track you down and slap you.

Oooops!!
Oh well, at least I proved it's NOT a buddying up tactic!!!!
Sorry Mademoiselle.
;-}

(Poke me if I miss anything.) Small WOT warning.

@Pazzer:
- ? : ? is more to indicate that they haven't formally stated their claim in this format. Yes, obviously they'll claim town, but if all goes well then tomorrow we may have a MAFIA : BLAHBLAH on the lower list. I'm trying to be systematic. Therefore, everyone will be listed as ? TOWN until they're dead (or someone claims Mafia ;) )

- "Princess" and "Gossip" were left off since I thought they were conditions added to the role rather than the role itself. Beloved Princess is the usual condition for stating that the target's lynch will mean two nights in a row (wiki entry here), and Gossip presumably refers to Orry's restriction to falseclaim. I could of course be mistaken, and will add them back on if you feel it's more accurate, but I didn't think Orry was supposed to be three (or four) people at once.

- My thoughts on you are Unsure, leaning mafia. The last discussion on your subject kind of faltered and died since everyone's too nervy to actually vote. I think both you and xyem are behaving oddly, but I've had that case brewing for a while, and felt this would be a good opportunity to try it out. I do still think you have a case to answer, but single-mindedly persuing my suspicions didn't work out quite so well for town on D2, so I'm trying to be more accommodating.

@Rod: ((*Slap with each syllable* Fe-ma-le. Do I have to undress?! ;P ))

+@xyem:

It was indeed a concious choice. I did take the ?s off myself originally, then thought better of it, but it seems either way it was going to attract attention..!

I'm trying to keep the lists as objective as possible, and the ?s stay since despite all the evidence in my favour, it's technically still possible for someone to counter-claim me, as two people haven't formally claimed yet. The attention I got for it additionally proves that people are still suspicious of me (coughxyemcough!). However, Primal pointed out that Violator hinted on D1 who his partner was, which I guess goes some way to confirming me. I can take them off in the next update if people want me to. :P

PRE-POST EDIT : Primal said it much more eloquently, but I'm leaving my own wordy version in.

Will you have your webcam on?

;->

Of course I'm suspicious of you.

You're doing the very things you say you don't want to do.
Drawing conclusions that don't match the evidence
Dropping your focus on pazzer to bring up a case against me after explicitly saying you were ignoring me to do that..
...with a case you've been cooking up for a while, but didn't tell anyone.

You think that I'm acting oddly? Obviously you've never been in an argument with me before :P

-_-; Hopefully you'll remember now at least..! Let's get back to looking sideways at each other, shall we?

@xyem :
- Have you considered the facts of my play, rather than in my post content? As Primal and Rod have pointed out, I'm the closest thing to a confirmed townie at the moment. Violator name-dropped my role name on D1. I hinted I was the mason on four occasions on D2 and D4. And I've volunteered to trawl the thread and pick out the objective facts, to the point of marking myself as unconfirmed because it's unproven. I literally have nothing more to lose since I can't win - but it's the mafia who have prevented me from winning, so I really really would like to see town win this one.

- The "acting oddly" I'm talking about refers to your play over the whole thread, not (just) this conversation.

Re the pazzer / xyem switch:
- You voted me at #575.
- The last time the pazzer issue was directly discussed was #568 with Rabbit's read, then everyone became sidetracked by Rabbit's claim and your post restriction.
- You unvoted me at #581.
- I posted my case against you at #668, full 100 posts after the last serious post in the pazzer discussion. That's 100 posts of drifting and claims and speculation. I was hardly distracting everyone from pazzer. And I kept it private, yes, but not secret:
As for conclusions that don't match the evidence, this 'evidence' is the content of posts, which is obviously a subjective issue. It's perfectly possible I'm wrong - I was 100% convinced that Orry (Mayherestinpeace) was scum, and I was 100% wrong. Which is why I'm doing this, to see what sticks (if anything.)

Only now?! Have you followed this day at all?!

No, I'm sorry, I don't buy this. It was discussed right back on D1 how lynches, even of innocent townies, help town because it creates data, like the order of votes, who is willing to hammer, and how the wagon rolled. On D1 Muttly presented one extreme of new player participation ("LYNCHLYNCHYLYNCH!"), Rabbit the other ("nolynch... no wait... or rather... I don't know! D:" ). On D4 I can see not voting as indicating reluctance to lynch a townie, but not offering reads and opinions? On any day? Scumdar alert. It feels to me like you're backpedalling and trying to justify your lack of input.

--

Thinking about it, I may drop my suspicions about Rabbit's wand, since she did hint that she'd changed her mind about Rod earlier today before he claimed. Then again, they could both be mafia and she could be falseclaiming completely, so maybe I shouldn't be too hasty there. It's a situation which could also have been orchestrated during the Long Night, so I don't think it's that good as a source of info...

Muttly, I'm going to collect some data on, mostly his voting and suspicion patterns, but I'll wait until he's around to respond before I post it.

Vitek too, I need to reread and gather quotes.

Primal again I need to reread, but the fact that he backed me up re the ?s and the Diviner is encouraging.

With a slightly lopsided knowing smile on my face.

Hang on, you're not trying to distract me, are you?
;-}

I know what you meant.

I didn't mean that you didn't tell anyone that you were cooking it up, I meant you didn't tell anyone what the case was (i.e. the content). I think it would have been better if you had addressed each point in a separate line of enquiry because the wall-of-text way seems to have dissuaded any "external" comments on any of it which isn't helping.

If I look at it from a suspecting point of view, it could be a tactic to make it look like you have a good case because people will not look at the details. I don't think this was the intention though and I'd like to think the others wouldn't fall for it even if it was :P

I'm not talking about the subjective content of the posts, I'm talking about what actually happened.

I indirectly mention a post restriction at #66, TwilightBard mentions the mafia might be hiding behind post restrictions at ~#450, Orry gets lynched because of his post restrictions and flips town. Yet you use me mentioning my post restrictions, which came well before any of that as a ground to suspect me - even though the only post-restriction-based kill was a townie. That is non-subjective and completely contrary to reason.


Yes, I just hadn't realised that's why your focus was on pazzer until then.

So what? Just because it was discussed doesn't mean I agreed with it. I prefer to get data without pushing my teammates under a bus.

Yeah, sure, I'm "back-pedalling".. despite that my play style is a continuation of my play style from after I pushed for a kill on day 1 and it turned out to be a fellow townie in Game #7.

You're not complaining about my lack of input, you are complaining about a lack of input the form and content of which isn't to your liking. Well guess what? Tough cookies. When I played how you are suggesting, I helped mafia win. I'm not repeating the same mistake here.

Wait.. so you'll bring up something that doesn't even make sense in the case against me.. but someone buddybuddying up to you is encouraging? Double standards, what?

Where's this post in which Violator hinted who his partner was. As didn't NotFrenchYet say he had no idea who his partner was until she turned up.

There seems to be no doubt that NotFrenchYet is mason. Doesn't mean she's town though.

*post*
I'm still reading up on this lot; nothing constructive to add I'm afraid, but appreciate the lists, Frenchie :)