[Official] NBC Mafia Town Win MVP=trinicardinal

[Rodion]

1 - Can someone link me to a site/torrent I can watch this movie? The link has to work in Brazil!

2 - Shield's last post seems suspicious. I wonder if he thought BG's blue was ok when the standard town blue is darker than that. Shield could only think that by:
a) not being town
b) not paying attention (skimming)

3 - Normally, I'd say a VT claim is too weak to avoid a lynch after someone was perceived as scummy enough to get to L-1/L-2. However, the game has just witnessed a sudden spike in activity and I might be getting new leads soon, so I'd rather give D1 some more time before we get to lynching anyone.

Rodion, do you not have thoughts on Strike's joke?

If he had bolded the changed word, it'd have been harmless. Not bolding it is a gaffe to say the least, but I'm not sure he'd risk changing a quote with the purpose of getting a speed-mislynch done and taking all the flak that he'd surely take after that (unless he is a lyncher/jester or some other weird role).

[BGtheBrain]

****

[Leitz]

I've kept an eye on the whole topic every day, following closely on the 'attack' of BG. As far as why I didn't post anything was because I am of the believe it was still a weak case. After playing my games now, I suddenly notice 4/5 new pages, WOW! The ball has seriously started to roll now!

- The choice for blue or light blue doesn't rise any suspicion to me. Some people tend to be more 'precise' than others.
- The fact that strike 'secretely' edited drunkmonkeys post does seem a bit weird to me, especially because he didn't mention it. It immediately took my attention. That together with his constant attack on BG makes him a little bit suspicious to me. Again, nothing really big, just going to keep my eye on it!

I'm stil not going to change my vote as I will reread everything again tonight to get a clearer view on everything (got to go play football/soccer now) and I still believe betikos action with Rodion were suspicious early on in the game.

[trinicardinal]

geeze you people post fast... I had no problem grasping the fact that the second post had been changed and I realised that was just a joke... My problem was with this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Nightmare_Before_Christmas_characters#Halloween_Town_residents

Devil - A red devil, complete with horns and a goatee. He is amused by the idea of a Pox being in the box (Christmas present) as suggested by the Harlequin Demon during the town hall meeting song. He is seen working the large saw on the bat toy during the "Making Christmas" song. He is voiced by Greg Proops.[3]

Took less than a minute. Sounds pretty fake.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing.

Fastposted: he's asking why is it Light blue not why isn't it blue.

I did not catch that minor had been changed to fake. That is something that I feel is more serious and I'm glad that strike has agreed to not do it anymore... otherwise I'd have to check all of his quotes. I don't see the shade of blue as being a big deal at this point. FOS still though

[trinicardinal]

Should have made that clear... FOS for the post edit... no FOS for the light blue

[strike wolf]

Okay a few questions.

1. Who didn't notice what Drunk said before you read my post?

2. Who actually thinks I'm willing to risk any of my cases or getting lynched just to intentionally change a post to make a case "seem" stronger?

3. Who actually thinks it's more likely that I have been intentionally changing posts to make a case seem stronger than it is I was just trying to make a harmless joke that backfired?

4. Who can actually show an example of a post I have edited to make my case seem stronger in this game other than the drunkmonkey edition?

If you can honestly answer yes (Or that you think it's likely to be the case) to two of those questions (And I know that you cant for the 4th question) than you can feel free to vote for me. If you can't than accept my apology that it was an honest mistake.

As far as bolding vs. not bolding, I didn't think it was necessary. It was on the same page right above my comment, I figured people would notice it as an obvious change and that it would be taken for what it was, a joke.

[dazza2008]

unvote I believe BG's claim. I have not seen the film but did a search to see what there was. It seems there has to be characters that are less common as there seems not to be too many. I found the one BG claimed and I can't see why he would not be VT.

[jimfinn]

unvote I believe BG's claim. I have not seen the film but did a search to see what there was. It seems there has to be characters that are less common as there seems not to be too many. I found the one BG claimed and I can't see why he would not be VT.

If a moderator is trying to make a good, balanced game, either the scum will be provided with fakeclaims (characters guaranteed not to appear) or alignment will be independent of character in the original book/game/movie. So I wouldn't personally accept the fact that the character SEEMS POTENTIALLY VT as an exonerating bit of evidence. That said, I also don't have strong enough suspicion of BG to bring him to the edge of a lynch yet, but I just think that his claim neither enhances nor reduces his credibility.

[BGtheBrain]

****

[shieldgenerator7]

3 pages in 24 hours

MoB is still jokevoting FOS MoB

SG7 admits to BandWagonning FOS

Bg claims a minor role and losing a VT wouldn't be WCS also why is his role in light blue :?

I think I'll be using this as a conversation starter

[trinicardinal]

Okay a few questions.

1. Who didn't notice what Drunk said before you read my post?

2. Who actually thinks I'm willing to risk any of my cases or getting lynched just to intentionally change a post to make a case "seem" stronger?

3. Who actually thinks it's more likely that I have been intentionally changing posts to make a case seem stronger than it is I was just trying to make a harmless joke that backfired?

4. Who can actually show an example of a post I have edited to make my case seem stronger in this game other than the drunkmonkey edition?

If you can honestly answer yes (Or that you think it's likely to be the case) to two of those questions (And I know that you cant for the 4th question) than you can feel free to vote for me. If you can't than accept my apology that it was an honest mistake.

As far as bolding vs. not bolding, I didn't think it was necessary. It was on the same page right above my comment, I figured people would notice it as an obvious change and that it would be taken for what it was, a joke.

simply put... I did not notice for the first post. I tend to agree with the idea that you were joking and I very much appreciate you saying that you will not do it again.

[BGtheBrain]

****

[shieldgenerator7]

Also, whats the etiquette ion requesting a vote count?

@mod: can we have a vote count?

[strike wolf]

Also, whats the etiquette ion requesting a vote count?

You have to sacrifice one vanilla townie in order to summon a vote count.

It's okay just to ask for a vote count if you need one.

[chapcrap]

Holy cow guys, how am I supposed to keep up?

@trini: I don't feel like I was contradicting myself. I said that inactivity probably wouldn't be a problem in this game and said that 5 days wasn't a long time to go without posting. I don't think those contradict each other.

@BG: I said in my previous post that I wasn't defending you. I was stating my thoughts on what had happened. I wasn't defending you. And you're questioning of my reasons for defending you (which I didn't even do) are just WIFOM anyway. It's also curious that you jump to the defense of strike when he is the one bringing the case against you. And then again after your initial statement that you thought he was ok, you again tried to bring the attention back on yourself. I don't understand your strategy.

@strike: I don't believe that you changed the quote as a joke. You're a better mafia player than that. I do think that you changed the quote to make the case on BG better. I don't think you've been doing it the whole game or anything, but you definitely tried to sneak that change in there. And then there is this post from strike:

Okay a few questions.

1. Who didn't notice what Drunk said before you read my post?

2. Who actually thinks I'm willing to risk any of my cases or getting lynched just to intentionally change a post to make a case "seem" stronger?

3. Who actually thinks it's more likely that I have been intentionally changing posts to make a case seem stronger than it is I was just trying to make a harmless joke that backfired?

4. Who can actually show an example of a post I have edited to make my case seem stronger in this game other than the drunkmonkey edition?

If you can honestly answer yes (Or that you think it's likely to be the case) to two of those questions (And I know that you cant for the 4th question) than you can feel free to vote for me. If you can't than accept my apology that it was an honest mistake.

As far as bolding vs. not bolding, I didn't think it was necessary. It was on the same page right above my comment, I figured people would notice it as an obvious change and that it would be taken for what it was, a joke.

Classic strike tactic again. He gives you multiple points and says if you can't find at least 2 that I did wrong, then you can't vote me. First of all, the 4th thing is something that no one can do. So now you have to name 2 of 3 (per strike). If you name number 3, then you pretty much have to prove number 4. So now you have to name 2 of 2. If you name number 1, then strike gets to accuse you of skimming and not catching it yourself.

This is a no lose post for strike because he clears himself and you if you were to try to come after him, he gets ammunition to come back at you.

[BGtheBrain]

****

[dazza2008]

unvote I believe BG's claim. I have not seen the film but did a search to see what there was. It seems there has to be characters that are less common as there seems not to be too many. I found the one BG claimed and I can't see why he would not be VT.

If a moderator is trying to make a good, balanced game, either the scum will be provided with fakeclaims (characters guaranteed not to appear) or alignment will be independent of character in the original book/game/movie. So I wouldn't personally accept the fact that the character SEEMS POTENTIALLY VT as an exonerating bit of evidence. That said, I also don't have strong enough suspicion of BG to bring him to the edge of a lynch yet, but I just think that his claim neither enhances nor reduces his credibility.

I agree that it could be a fakeclaim and the mafia may have been given fakeclaims. I know BG's playing style quite well as we play mafia in our clan forum and I think if he was mafia here he would come up with something else. This is why I believe him and unvoted. I could be wrong but I have to go with what I feel is right.

[strike wolf]

Holy cow guys, how am I supposed to keep up?

@trini: I don't feel like I was contradicting myself. I said that inactivity probably wouldn't be a problem in this game and said that 5 days wasn't a long time to go without posting. I don't think those contradict each other.

@BG: I said in my previous post that I wasn't defending you. I was stating my thoughts on what had happened. I wasn't defending you. And you're questioning of my reasons for defending you (which I didn't even do) are just WIFOM anyway. It's also curious that you jump to the defense of strike when he is the one bringing the case against you. And then again after your initial statement that you thought he was ok, you again tried to bring the attention back on yourself. I don't understand your strategy.

Actually if BG honestly believes I am town, it is solid strategy. Especially as a vanilla, it's not a bad strategy to let attention slip back on you than allow someone you believe to be town to be killed. He can potentially save a power role at the cost of only a vanilla. I don't know if BG considered all this but it is solid strategy if it is the case.

@strike: I don't believe that you changed the quote as a joke. You're a better mafia player than that. I do think that you changed the quote to make the case on BG better. I don't think you've been doing it the whole game or anything, but you definitely tried to sneak that change in there. And then there is this post from strike:

this part makes me sad because you obviously don't think i can be sneaky seeing as that post was not even the best to slip something into if that had been my intention.

Okay a few questions.

1. Who didn't notice what Drunk said before you read my post?

2. Who actually thinks I'm willing to risk any of my cases or getting lynched just to intentionally change a post to make a case "seem" stronger?

3. Who actually thinks it's more likely that I have been intentionally changing posts to make a case seem stronger than it is I was just trying to make a harmless joke that backfired?

4. Who can actually show an example of a post I have edited to make my case seem stronger in this game other than the drunkmonkey edition?

If you can honestly answer yes (Or that you think it's likely to be the case) to two of those questions (And I know that you cant for the 4th question) than you can feel free to vote for me. If you can't than accept my apology that it was an honest mistake.

As far as bolding vs. not bolding, I didn't think it was necessary. It was on the same page right above my comment, I figured people would notice it as an obvious change and that it would be taken for what it was, a joke.

Classic strike tactic again. He gives you multiple points and says if you can't find at least 2 that I did wrong, then you can't vote me. First of all, the 4th thing is something that no one can do. So now you have to name 2 of 3 (per strike). If you name number 3, then you pretty much have to prove number 4. So now you have to name 2 of 2. If you name number 1, then strike gets to accuse you of skimming and not catching it yourself.

First, you are thinking it over in the wrong way. You are more or less right as far as it eliminating each other but the point of that is not to entrap it is to demonstrate that going after me for this reason is not a strong base for your argument. Second, I don't condemn for single incidents of skimming. At least two or three are in my opinion necessary to consider a legitimate skimming argument (BG for the record appeared to have at least 2). Third, I think this is the second time you've mentioned classic strike tactic. I don't think we've played sufficient mafia games together for you to know what my tactics are. Finally I am not going to go after everyone on this case. if I really wanted to I could do it without making some convoluted strategy to do so.

beyond that...I seem to have accidentally deleted the end of your post chap.

[safariguy5]

Vote Count

Leitz
MoB Deadly
Rodion
jimfinn
shieldgenerator7
jonty125
dazza2008
trinicardinal
Swifte
drunkmonkey
BGtheBrain (4)- strike, jonty, Rodion, MeDeFe
Epitaph1
betiko (5) - Leitz, drunkmonkey, chapcrap, dazza, BGtheBrain
MeDeFe
chapcrap (2) - betiko, trini
strike wolf

With 16 alive, it takes 9 to lynch.

Deadline in 5 Days.

[drunkmonkey]

I don't regret pointing out the edit at the time, as it struck me as very odd. However, I believe it was an attempt at a joke, and I've moved past it. I haven't played enough to know "strike tactics", but I've played enough to know strike's seasoned enough not to try to "slip one past us".

[shieldgenerator7]

Alright, so we have 5 days to discuss.

Do you believe BG's claim? Why or why not?

My answer:
I think it may be a fakeclaim because it's easy for mafia to fakeclaim a role that can't be countered, or if it is countered, it's really no surprise because if there's 1 VT there might as well be 2 . But I find by BG defending strike because he believes him to be town shows his inner innocence and inclines me to believe he is town. What say you?

FASTPOSTED

-SG7 ( )

[Epitaph1]

Guys, I just wanted to check in to say that I'm around but very busy at the moment. I haven't read the last 2 or 3 pages to see what's happening with the BG & betiko cases but I'll try to get to everything soon.

[chapcrap]

@strike

We've been in 4 games together and I have looked at other games too. I don't just look at the games I am in.

And by 'Classic strike tactic' I mean that when you make large posts, you almost always make sure to put yourself in a no lose situation and put the other person in an awful situation. That just means you're a good player that tilts the game the way that he wants it. Doesn't necessarily mean that you are scum in this game. It just means that you know how to survive and get others lynched. I think that you do try to entrap players. That's not bad either. It's good for you. I'm just trying to decide if you are scum or not. I am wary of you, because you grab control of the game and I don't want to let a scum do that. For now, I guess I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, even though you are still editing posts to make you look better.

small FOS

FASTPOSTED x3 (at work again)

[dazza2008]

Vote Count

Leitz
MoB Deadly
Rodion
jimfinn
shieldgenerator7
jonty125
dazza2008
trinicardinal
Swifte
drunkmonkey
BGtheBrain (4)- strike, jonty, Rodion, MeDeFe
Epitaph1
betiko (5) - Leitz, drunkmonkey, chapcrap, dazza, BGtheBrain
MeDeFe
chapcrap (2) - betiko, trini
strike wolf

With 16 alive, it takes 9 to lynch.

Deadline in 5 Days.

I unvoted voted BG and then unvoted again buddy.

[betiko]

omg, what s going on here lol!

I don t think the light blue and the post editing are real cases.
I have little experience in this, but is it a tell not to vote ever?
swifte s never voting nor getting really involved. I almost see him as another mod sumarizing player s activities..
no one said anything about my chapcrap case nor trini's..
We see lots of people FOSing strike but no one votes for him.
So is BG really a VT? i don t think there was that much pressure on him or anything to claim his role at that point.....

Dazza, I didn t get your vote problem?