That's interesting. Which one do you think he's lying about then, his power or his alignment?

Oh. This is sarcasm. It means "no don't tell us because if you tell us that hammering will be beneficial for town then somebody else will quickly hammer instead and we will never know who the mafia is".

Also "if you are town" ? Didn't Zchinque say he was neutral ?



I am not entirely excluing voting for him, as there are some little things that nag me (sometimes as if he's using ideas from people's posts and incorporating them to his claim). I have no idea whether I'd participate in his wagon or not, if it was stalling minutes before deadlines.

I'm still a bit too sold on the chance of sniffing some weird clues, though (especially Robbeasy). Even if I'm possibly being manipulated there.

Tricky and actually quite important question. Now I would really like to hear full claim. If there is nothing else to his role then alignment.
I know, not really conclusive answer, I need more intel.

No, I meant if it is benefical for town then he will get probably NK'ed.

Did he? I wasn't paying much attention at some part of game so I have no idea.
If he is then it is even more important question for mafia.

You assume his hammering thing has post-night results, or provide him with night info to be shared the next day ?

And not at all for town ?

What's your point ? Let him hammer no matter what, and let him go, next day, either "oh that, it had nothing to do with me" or "oh this, it was totally me" ? Or prevent him to hammer with no further question ?

A raven outside the window croaked
"24 hours"

It was just like a thrilling novelette. I did think it odd that there was a raven in the swiss alps that spoke, and spoke in English at that, but there were more important things on everybody's mind than the local avii.

Vitek I find your attitude quite odd - both being very elusive about Zhinque and reasoning about amok? You don't want to vote him, but you want him to fulls-claim, because he might be the lynched so therefore he who have eluded a powerrole should full-claim (which he kinda already have).

and also I wonder why you, who have not actually stated any case against me - find me the best target for a lynch? And you also openly admitted you haven't read the first part of the thread??

How about any considerations for say, whatever the heck is going on in the game?? Or do you just go with whatever appear to stretch discussions of anything other than finding the lynch target?

I find that somewhat suspect, at least compared to Telika who have cleared understood intentions of other players and clearly stating own reasoning. For instance I will grant a difference in opinion about the benefits of who is the optimal one we (given our info) can lynch on day one - and assuming clue's have a value and assuming amok is truthful I might also see why you consider it a possible benefit for scum. So perhaps a more convincing case for a scum and I may change my mind.

Currently I have amok and Zchinque as different; thus not town - hence either scum or as said neutral.

Of any scum targets I find DarkoD13 slightly - though he did soften it a bit with his latest post. Meanwhile Vitek has placed himself on the list together with the QuadAlien (due to pure lurking :P). P1na has a dangerous approach to the game, which makes him hard to place - therefor I place him as more likely scum than town.

@flubbucket: Keep in mind I have him pinned as not town, be it neutral or scum he actually is makes him preferred as opposed to the common practice on GOG to lynch a town on the first day (in my opinion at least). Other than that I don't believe there is one approach to being scummy. I have been declared scummy by having two targets for the same reason and going for not lynching a town. I find others scummy by overlooking evidence or writing in a way to indicate a lie without actually saying it and so forth. Claiming early and almost without reason could be a daring scum move to place yourself in a safe position later (I've seen that happen) or it could be what it is claimed to be. In a same manner claiming to be looking for clue could be seen a fishing, pending on the meaning of clue's for scum and so forth. So honestly; how can you disregard a suspect because you have some strict definitions as to what scummy is. The only thing you can be mostly sure of is that a scum will lie about something in their role.. and thats about it. Heck some might play without even considering that they are scum and just play like always ignoring their own allies as well should they be targeted.

How could I know? It's not even priority on my "to discover" list.


Who knows.
My point is that I don't need to fish his role and that fidning potentionaly dangerous role is more important for mafia than town.

Where is his neutral claim, please?



@Red_Baron;
Not wanting to wrench out someone's role is elusiveness?
I want amok to claim because what we talked with SPF about and because there is 24 hours to deadline and he is most likely lynch candidate from what people say and it would be better if he claimed sooner than later. I wanted his claim at first place only because I felt it will be needed.

I gave my reasoning for voting you. See post 271 and some subsequent. In ym books that's more than enough to lynch someone. Reapeatedly.
You called it scummy and dodgy logic yourself but defend yourself by saying it is helpful. Scummy and dodgy actions are not helpful. They are lynch-worthy. I am not going to offer you scum target instead of yours optimal-for-informations lynch because I won't convince you to vote yourself so it's pointless.

Okay, I don't find anything. Not only the "neutral" aspect, but the whole background I was having in mind isn't there. For some reason I had registered him as neutral-friend-of-bernie-who-came-with-him. Probably because he admitted not being on the list at roughly the same time as Amok, and I was interpreting it all as being the same thing, merging the descriptions a bit, treating them as the same one category.

Turns out we know less about Zchinque than I thought ? If Zchinque claims town, despite of not being on the list, then indeed the hammer request may be slightly less unsettling. If he's not neutral, his absence of the list is weird-ish, though.

Was anyone else under the impression that Zchinque was neutral ? Or am I crazy ?

Indeed. I've "reset" my assumptions about Zchinque, and done a re-read. He doesn't claim neutral (though he says that a neutral wouldn't claim, by fear of being vigged). One sentence that I was attributing to him was actually an Amok quote (the one about not being in the list and not knowing anyone because of having arrived with "dear bernie").

Also : "And me hammering is not going to have an obvious effect on the game - it doesn't tamper with the lynch, prevent role info or any such thing."

I'm still troubled by his absence from the list if he's town (and also his inclusion in the game if he didn't voluntarily register ?). But I'd still like him to tell us, directly, whether he's town or neutral.

If he's still playing.

Hm, thanks for this.

This makes Red_baron's "let's lynch him for information because he hinted something else than vanilla" even less likeable and pro-town.

I wasn't necessarily expecting a conclusive answer, but your thoughts are still helpful.

My thinking when I asked this was:

- if you believe his power is true and
- that it's more likely to be a town or scum power than neutral

which of those two alignments is more likely to lie and claim neutral?

Of course, I'm not sure about his power. At first he just claimed he was good at sniffing out clues, it was only after someone else suggested the "telling whether they're true or false thing" that he started claiming that. Or at least that's how it looks but I need to do a proper re-read.

With the horrible lack of timestamps that this forum has, a count down like that is not incredibly helpful. The forum says your post was four hours ago, so does that mean the deadline is 21:12 tomorrow night?

Or is it 21:20 tomorrow night? I don't know because even after letting time pass so I can avoid this post merging, the forum still just says four hours! :P

You missed the point - He indicated he was different from the rest of town, the other to do the same claimed neutral. He is likely not town vanilla and likely not a town power-role (given the fact he asked for hammer rights, and using his say a tower-role should not out themselves on day one). So how is not pro-town to prefer a lynch of someone likely not to be town (Zchinque & amok) as opposed to lynching someone where you have absolutely no idea if they are town or not? The information part goes to everyone, but I prefer the one to give the lynch info to have the odds in our favor not to be town.

Oh and I guess you have also missed QuadAlien voting amok for much the same reason (the difference part, his in regards to neutrals and town-allignement)? Guess thats less scummy in your mind.


Ah one sentence saying basically: You have a reason for voting, I don't like it - you are scum.... So you know the whole damn argument that apparently Telika is the only who to have understood judging from statements? The part about reading my explanation? The Part about not going for a town lynch on day one?? Any of that? Guess not, continue making one sentence arguments with no validation.

In regards to elusive;
I consider not actually answering anything to be elusive; just refer to the post by SPF and his qoute: 477 or post 472 (who knows) or the reply to the full-claim question: ("it will be needed"?? He almost already fullclaimed, he has given role, faction, history and ability and what his ability might do) -
- I consider not making an actual case scummy. I consider not making a case then later referring to said none-existing case instead of an actual one (for your reference made by CSPVG) an odd choice. So yes that places you on my list.

According to you; I am on your list because I refuse to guess randomly on day one, leading to the usual case of a lynched town and instead go for those with a higher proven chance not to be town.

But yes, if you actually had build a case against me instead of just reading others response and not taking the time to understand my reason then you might be able to convince me of your case.

Ah good to see that you did indeed vote for me as you mentioned earlier, though I would like your reason to be better than; I don't trust him because he have voted 3 times.. mind me pointing out that with this vote you have also voted for 3 different people?

So far I've picked up 3 votes, and out of those only Zchinque has bothered to explain more than: He is scummy or I don't trust him. Granted Zchinque also bases his vote on a misunderstood part of my reasoning - but heck at least he wrote more than one line about why he voted me - that he haven't reacted to any further explanations since is a different matter, but lets ignore that for now.

Well, of course, if Zchinque doesn't reappear tomorrow either, not only we'll lack a few possibly important words about his affiliation, but... the whole hammering discussion itself will be a tad moot. :-/