View Topic

Interstingly, I'm with Laurentus on this. It's being dangled in front of us like bait. It's too easy. Something's not right. Also, look at the ratio of town to wolf. It was already heavily skewed in favor of scum, but now with two town dead? An "unproductive" lynch is extremely risky, and wastes a valuable day phase. You of all should know this Doc, where are your analyses? You should be doing the math right now.

Interstingly, I'm with Laurentus on this. It's being dangled in front of us like bait. It's too easy. Something's not right. Also, look at the ratio of town to wolf. It was already heavily skewed in favor of scum, but now with two town dead? An "unproductive" lynch is extremely risky, and wastes a valuable day phase. You of all should know this Doc, where are your analyses? You should be doing the math right now.

I did.
I'm kinda hoping this is a Hail Mary play because mathematically we're kinda boned, cause with 13 remaining players, 4 of whom are scum and 1 of whom is non-aligned, we've got, like, 1 mislynch left, because I have to assume they're going to kill every night, because I have no handle on roles/powers that we still have in play, or, ever had at all. This is an incredibly low-information game because town doesn't even know what roles are in play.
So, yeah, I'm calling the Hail Mary play.

I'm also roleclaiming right now to avoid accusations that I'm being pessimistic because I'm scum looking to destroy people's hope: I'm town, I'm a g__ (the two letters left blank for ambiguity so scum don't know what the Correct Word is; I'm hoping to use it as a shibboleth if the worst comes to pass) and I'm something like a ONUWW Robber, except I only roleswap when I'm targeted by a night action.
I'll leave it ambiguous if I roleswap when targeted by scum. DO YOU FEEL LUCKY, SCUM?

I do not in any way see how escaping this room will do anything for the scum:town ratio.

I do not in any way see how escaping this room will do anything for the scum:town ratio.

Was this a response to me? I'm saying if we vote Ruguo and it's unproductive, we've wasted a useful day phase to lynch scum. Voting Ruguo = not changing the current, pro-wolf ratio. But if we lynch a wolf, then we change the ratio and take away the wolves' advantage.

No, it was in reply to Doc.

Although don't be so quick to think you're out of the woods with me. 

Ah, I've missed a lot.

While the game cube/core shenanigans have certainly been chaotic, so far the game itself seems to have retained its internal consistency. The rules as stated, as well as host clarifications, are all followed, and existing patterns in the game are continued.

We can make two observations from the two games about what happens when someone dies. First, their role name is revealed. Second, roles generally seem to generally follow the standard ones on Mafia wikis of the same name, within some variations.

Hydra's role was Loudmouth:

The Loudmouth will always passively cause the names of everyone visiting them at night to be publicly revealed at the start of the next day.

The host will usually post next day that "The Loudmouth was visited last night by ...", even if the Loudmouth was killed during the night. This action will also apply to Roleblockers, since the Loudmouth's action is passive and as such cannot be roleblocked by most interpretations of the Roleblocker role. However, the action will most often not work on any Ninjas visiting the Loudmouth, given their immunity to being tracked. A role such as Bystander would ordinarily be revealed as having visited the Loudmouth, though. A variation of this role includes a Loudmouth that will only publicly reveal the name of their attacker, if they are ever killed.

https://www.mafiauniverse.com/wiki/Loudmouth

Posting who visited the Loudmouth is inherently something revealed by the game host publicly; it is not an action chosen by the Loudmouth, nor is it affected by death (or in some variants, it only happens on death). To me, the internal consistency of the game, combined with this role information, makes claims that Ruguo has been spreading false information here to be rather doubtful.

Thank you, Tau.

NOW can we lynch Red? 

@Arenado
@Barnes
@Batma n
@Doc
@Excalibur
@Gerrick
@Imaginative Kane
@Laurentus
@Pengu
@Red Mones
@taulover
@Vroendal
@Wintermoo

Make your choice. Your options are 1. Lynch me, 2. Lynch Red or 3. Lynch Ruguo.

I'll be waiting. 

@Wintermoot, sorry.

Let me go that extra step further. Lynch Red. It is literally the only logical choice. Don't buy into this bullshit that the host is lying. Tau laid it out very clearly.

If this is a mistake, then fine, I apologise and you can lynch me in the next day phase.

I stand by what I said earlier. I want to hear from Kane as well. You have given no satisfactory reason for me to believe that you're not just trying to manipulate, you were certainly good at it last game. To me, the apparent standardness of the roles is another factor to mean that we should be treading very carefully. The safer we seem, the less we are in my opinion. This whole game has had unpredictable and never before seen roles and mechanics. Your playstyle has been townie to me, but as I for myself have seen, this is absolutely no guarantee of your alignment.. I would rather have someone rb Red Mones tonight then mislynch today. Also, the favor points Ruguo has given you are quite suspicious, I for one have not seen a lot of what could be called "teamwork" from you, and I haven't seen chaos so much as hostility so I am left to assume that some of those points are from false information. I don't know what others may think, but as they say, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me... I don't know what you are, but you're doing a lot more pointing fingers than proving yourself to me...

UPDATE TIME! UPDATE TIME!

Laurentus: 7
Gerrick: 0
Red Mones: 3
Batma n: 2
Vroendal: 3
Doc: 4
Imaginative Kane: 0
Excalibur: 1
Pengu: 5
Barnes: 1
Sapphiron: 3
Arenado: 1
Taulover: 1

Total: 31/42

Votes:

Push the Button: 6(Sapphiron, Arenado, Kane, Doc, Pengu, Vroendal)/8

Red Mones: 1 (Laurentus)
Kane: 1 (Vroendal)
Laurentus: 1 (Sapphiron)
Ruguo: 3 (Kane, Doc, Gerrick)

...That was a boring update.
Argh! I don't understand these subjects! According to GLadoS and Wheatley's notes, they're supposed to like pushing buttons! And throwing each other into toxic waste.
Now, Cave on the other hand... pfft, no, I can't call him that seriously. He was insane, but did predict stupidity in testing.

Finally, the Cube was distracted by his subjects so the brave core could continue their journey

How hard is this? You push the button, you cause chaos, you get rewarded. Is this because you're not humans? No, that can't be it. The testing bots showed the same responses as humans.

The Core approached the observation room. From above, he could see that at least some of his fellow cores were...kssht...bzzt

And hey, we're missing someone. Stop hiding in that corner!

Kssht...The core retreated back into broadcasting range. Our hero will rethink his plan to keep in contact with the subjects.

I stand by what I said earlier. I want to hear from Kane as well. You have given no satisfactory reason for me to believe that you're not just trying to manipulate, you were certainly good at it last game. To me, the apparent standardness of the roles is another factor to mean that we should be treading very carefully. The safer we seem, the less we are in my opinion. This whole game has had unpredictable and never before seen roles and mechanics. Your playstyle has been townie to me, but as I for myself have seen, this is absolutely no guarantee of your alignment.. I would rather have someone rb Red Mones tonight then mislynch today. Also, the favor points Ruguo has given you are quite suspicious, I for one have not seen a lot of what could be called "teamwork" from you, and I haven't seen chaos so much as hostility so I am left to assume that some of those points are from false information. I don't know what others may think, but as they say, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me... I don't know what you are, but you're doing a lot more pointing fingers than proving yourself to me...

I seem townie to you and yet you list a bunch of things that make me suspicious. Very interesting. Put your money where your mouth is and lynch me.

You were the second person to jump on the wagon, completely without any resistance or forethought, and you jumped off of it the very first time you had a chance.

And now you're perpetuating this absurd stance that the host is lying when there is no evidence of that.

It is also highly amusing that you're accusing me of pointing fingers when I have been dying on this "Red Mones is scum" Hill like a madman for the entire phase. And good grief, my points are certainly high for someone who points fingers, especially when one of the things explicitly disliked by the game core is pointless blaming of others.

I seem townie to you and yet you list a bunch of things that make me suspicious. Very interesting. Put your money where your mouth is and lynch me.

You were the second person to jump on the wagon, completely without any resistance or forethought, and you jumped off of it the very first time you had a chance.

And now you're perpetuating this absurd stance that the host is lying when there is no evidence of that.

You know what you did. As I said, your general playstyle seems to agree with what a townie would do, but there is ample evidence against you as well. Answer the question and stop evading/deflecting! What makes you trustworthy at all?!?! My goal is to get as much information from people out as possible. Something which you seem to be opposed to getting from Kane. Your deflections are making you more and more suspicious, but at least we have you on the list. I know nothing about some others.

When I jumped on the bandwagon, it was with the goal of getting information. I got what I needed to be satisfied that there was enough reasonable doubt, and then I saw clear manipulation.

The host lying? How could you NOT see that that is a very very real possibility? The whole flavour mechanic is brimming with evidence to show that the host has their own goals.

Now, why should we trust you?