It then might not just me getting the grasp on the language, but to me Zchinque's answer was not an obvious no - to me an obvious no would be something in the lines of "no, I do not think we should share the clues" not a "I will share the clues if everyone else does". The former is an obvious no, the latter is a yes with prerequisites. and that was what I took it for.

What is Hitman? Some form of vigilante?

I found SK (Serial Killer) on the scum wiki, but nothing on Hitman.

I tend to believe amok's claim, or at least it would have been prepared long ago, with early little touches of "my role is special" and "i have a reason for no likes". I also tend to believe the dog thing, because it sounds more joeish than amoky. I may also be a tad easily seduced by the promise of "clue sniffing" ability. Still, I could imagine amok lying on details such as affiliation (as we have no bernie ski tracks, i'd have expected him to be out with his so super faithful dog), but the whole role being an invention seems a bit unlikely to me.

So, I'm curious about his voters. What's their interpretation. The whole dog thing is an invention ? Or is it a serial killer vigilante dog ? Or an anti-town conspiring neutral dog ? Or, as nmillar said, a fourth mafia scumdog - making it 4 mafia with 3 ski tracks (would dog tracks be spotted) ?

How do you "see" the dog claim, when you vote amok, and what do you actually vaguely expect him to turn out to be ? Do you, in fact, expect the whole dog act to be fake ?

I also tend to believe Amoks claim.

Here's a theory for Amoks 'clue sniffing' ability...perhaps Mafia HAVE to lie about clues?

SO we all tell our clues - Amok is then able to 'sniff' someone overnight to see if they were telling the truth or not?

I'm pretty much in agreement with Vitek as well (i know - first time for everything!) - its more fun to have everyones clue than not.

Personally I really don't see the danger - my clue doesn't really have any meaning by itself, I don't see how ANYONES revealed clue so far gives the Mafia any 'extra' information....

My clue - Caroline Bianchi has a taste for aniseed balls.

I doubt it, but I suspect they would anyway. I have also other theories about this ability (provided we believe amok on this), but they all come down to the same thing : the assumption of a town ability, held by a neutral player, with town victory conditions. This is troubling, in terms of balance and in terms of neutrality : what would neutral mean. is amok simply a town player whose death or presence wouldn't count towards survival count victories ? Is it a way to compensate rates of "death scores" independantly from ability balances ? Is it a way to have sided yet non-flipping players ?

If town, would there be a mafia equivalent (zchinque ? if he's even a genuine player ?). But again, a mafioso asking for hammering privilege would feel very weirdly ballsy to me, given how some bad consequence would be attributed to him.

There's a lot of fog around these roles, and I understand the interest of lynching them without fear of losing one deathscore point. But I still have the fear of losing a useful ability (which could also be a total fabrication), that I am curious about.

I quite disagree now with my previous scumread, but I do think there may be material for actual scumhunting, even though it's a dangerous day 1 lottery. Whatever is being lynched today, I don't think I would put my vote on a player that I wouldn't suspect of being mafia...

Also :

:-|

I presume it has no specific "post-Gainsbourg" meaning, in English ?

"Aniseed balls are a type of hard round sweet sold in the UK, Ireland, Malta, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. They are shiny and dark reddish brown, and hard like Gobstoppers, but generally only 1 cm across.

They were a staple traditional sweet in the 50s and 60s in Australia and New Zealand but have become rare in recent years"

"Dog owners should use a bit of caution, though — dogs often respond to aniseed the way cats do to catnip, that is, by becoming very animated and often hyperactive."

Okay

Well, I better explain my reasoning here with amok, who is my most likely target.

I'm starting to be more suspicious of amok for one reason, and to me it's a simple one. I find the flurry of claiming and information to be suspect. The reasoning behind my suspicion is simple. Information like that so freely given is a way of controlling the conversation, pushing for reactions that can be potentially used to draw out power roles.

Amok offered almost everything he had without putting it out there in straight and honest language. There was just enough information for us to start making assumptions, without him saying it one way or another. I made an assumption based on what he said about his role being some sort of clue-cop, when he could have meant something different. That fact makes me rather distrustful at this point in time.

I'm still against the clues, mainly because they're going to color our collective information without us being certain what they're really pointing at. There's no way to know what clues are red herrings and what ones are planted to give us actual information, and to what extent the information we get from the clues goes. So yes, I'm pretty suspicious of such a 'gift' such as the clues, as it's something that no mod would put into a game without some severe counterbalance.

But if everyone else really wants to do this, I'll throw my clue out there and we can try to figure out what this all means. As Z said, tyranny of the majority.

He did say "no, I do not think we should share the clues" in many ways. He did say he would share if forced (by a vote or something) but I see no way to interpret that as a yes to the question of "should we share the info".

Everyone else: Am I the only one who thinks it's a hard mistake to make and that Zchinque's opinion on the matter (that we shouldn't share it) had been abundantly clear for ages at that point? (Hooray for run on sentences!)

Telika: I think he probably is a dog, I don't think he wouldn't have claimed so readily if it was a complete fabrication. However I do get the impression that he's withholding something. Of course I already suspected him of having some kind of agenda after the Zchinque thing I talk about above and the way in which he claimed was even worse. After all that, it's just gut feeling that says he's lying about something. The possibility that he's some kind of clue dependent variant on a (scum) role cop crossed my mind.

Ok, I said I would share it, so here is my clue: Peter Browning is an ex-military.

If you are scum, please do not abuse this information to win the game. On pain of being a horrible person by my book, and knowing in your conscience you took advantage of a well-intended (yet somewhat horny) man.

What would be that point of that, I can see no other reason to be a clue cop is to see wheter a person is lying about the clue or not. Why would that be beneficial to scum?

(I am working from the assumption that clues are clues to the killer(s) identity, and aprart from JMich's clue so far this seems correcrt)

So again :

http://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_mafia_19_a_slalom_mafia/post145

P1na, could you simply specify this : do you have general categories of people, as like/dislikes, or do you have specific individuals that you simply prefer to not mention by name ?

Also P1na's clue and my currently unrevealed clue. That's clues naming 3 different people, unless Joe has decided to make the game incredibly easy I'm going to guess that they don't necessarily point to our killers. I'm guessing that they are some obscure reference to the role of that character and that your night action makes some use of the clues.