[Official] NBC Mafia Town Win MVP=trinicardinal

[jimfinn]

So, my inactivity has largely been to irl reasons. This can also be confirmed on CC by noticing that my tournaments are much further behind than usual, as are my update lists of who has registered for the ones in signups. I didn't realize what a glut of real world things would hit me this time of year when signing up for this game, and I'm sorry for that.

As for this game, I'd like to continue, and I reread nearly the entire game yesterday and today, taking notes as I did. There are two players I currently suspect: Rodion and betiko.

First, Rodion,

While it is certainly hypocritical for me to be commenting on a person's activity or lack thereof, as I look back through my notes on the game, I can't help but see how much general mafia (though not specific to this game) Rodion has done. This includes the guide for how to play town, guiding the night actions, etc. This seems like a classic way a player could gain trust and not have to worry about lying. When you detatch from the individual game, every player can say the same things and not be lying. Also, the entire D1 matter about the editing of the quotes being bolded or not. While you should certainly not edit quotes without making it obvious, Rodion was overzealous in attacking chapcrap over the matter. In fact, overzealous is a wonderful description of Rodions entire play. He also attacked betiko far too hard early on for skimming, and used out of game info to implicate chap in a ridiculous way.

Now over to Betiko. While I don't like Rodion's early pressure on him, I certainly have a few things to say about his play since then. His early comment about how trying to advance the game gets you suspected seems vaguely like an attempt to gain some sympathy from the town. His question trying to find out who we do trust rather than who we distrust also sounds like a scum trying to find out if he is on the town's trusted list. Same goes for his attempt to get us all to send a 0-3 scale of trust/distrust to the mod. (In addition, that's also a case of trying too hard to appear helpful). And as soon as Swifte claims doc (A claim I, by the way, absolutely trust) he leads the charge on BG, almost as though scared to let any other case come up. He was the first to point out my inactivity and started the bandwagon on me, but in fairness, my absence probably deserved that. So that was good play from him to vote me, but not enough to make up for the rest of his play.

Vote: Betiko

[betiko]

finally an answer lol!
I expected you to vote for me, as I ve been quite agressive against you on day 2 and I did start the whole thing against you. but then, you are saying in the same time that you understand your level of inactivity seems scummy.. you kind of imply that this whole voting for you is normal due to your submarining.
my comment about trying to advance the game that makes me get backfired: well yes, I didn't think it was really fair to get almost eliminated at the start of day 1 for asking who do we trust a little when nothing was happening except jokevotes and rodion asking if we could vote for the player under us in his list, particularly when there are players like you that don't participate, or don't help bringing up cases. call it trying to get sympathy from other players for complaining about it.
I'm not going to get back to this day 1 case on me, i've already given my position enough.
so now you are also acusing me of trying to appear too helpful? lol, quite funny from you, we would probably be very advanced in the game if everyone was as helpful as you, right? nothing was going on and I tried to bring up new ideas to take a decision. if you didn't notice, we are all blocked here since about a week waiting for you to post something, as you were at l-2 and still not showing up to claim.
regarding the charge on BG, I didn't lead the charge on him, you are totally skimming. i have been defending him and telling that I most likely believed his claim, it was the most likely. i did end up following the bandwagon as time was running out and more experienced players explained that it was the best solution to understand what was going on at that time.

Basically your defense for your submarining is a OMGUS on me for bringing up your case. then you find some weak stuff from day 1 we've already been through a thousand times. in defense of my accusations of submarining/inactivity is to accuse me of being too active and trying to be too helpful. As I already explained, this is my first game and i find that it all goes much slower than I thought, and when nothing is going on, i think it's easy to just sit there and do nothing, wait for someone to make a move to then FOS it.

[jimfinn]

regarding the charge on BG, I didn't lead the charge on him, you are totally skimming. i have been defending him and telling that I most likely believed his claim, it was the most likely. i did end up following the bandwagon as time was running out and more experienced players explained that it was the best solution to understand what was going on at that time.

I did say I was reading 44 pages in two days, so yes, I may have missed something. However, what I was saying regarding your leading the charge on him was specifically after the Swifte claim, you led the charge on actually lynching BG. There was still (probably) time for another case/wagon at that point, but instead you immediately flip-flopped onto the person you had been defending all along.

[MoB Deadly]

I did say I was reading 44 pages in two days, so yes, I may have missed something.

So let me get this straight. At first you won't comment on cases because nothing excites you, now you needed to reread the whole thread to catch up? I thought you were at least following along, but didn't have the time to post.

I would be very surprised if he is not scum.

[Rodion]

Also, the entire D1 matter about the editing of the quotes being bolded or not. While you should certainly not edit quotes without making it obvious, Rodion was overzealous in attacking chapcrap over the matter.

Feeling this was completely false, I went back to page 21 to remember how it all happened. Here are some quotes.

I said "Sounds pretty minor", not "Sounds pretty fake". Serious FOS on strike for editing my post to say something completely different and then agreeing with it.

Monkey calls Strike out on the ninja-editing.

I said "Sounds pretty minor", but I meant "Sounds pretty fake". Serious TOI on strike for editing my post to say something completely different because I'm agreeing with it.

Thank you.[/quote]

Strike edits again.

Strike explain why you changed drunk's post to change its meaning

Jonty asks Strike for a reasoning.

I'd say explain why you changed it twice.... makes me not trust your quotes now

Trini grows wary of Strike after he changed quotes twice.

if you don't trust my quotes you can go back and check the posts yourself. I don't change posts when I'm making bandwagons.

Strike (correctly or not) downplays the impact of his jokes.

I didn't see the punchline and think its a bit suspicious at this stage of the game FOS strike

Jonty dislikes the joke and FOSes Strike.

I for one noticed the quote change right off the bat. I believe strike when he says he didn't change his quotes previously, tho I haven't doublechecked.

Shield states he was never fooled by the ninja-editing.

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

BG asks for my opinion.

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).

I said Strike should have bolded it, but I didn't think he had malicious intent when he did what he did, precisely because he'd eventually get caught and be forced to live with the consequences. While that is WIFOMy, I did not condemn Strike for his joke.

So, first of all, Jim makes a mistake saying the victim of the "bold" attack was Chap. We're talking about Strike.
Secondly, saying I was overzealous in my attack is outright false. I didn't even attack Strike after the editing thing. Strike was attacked by Monkey and Jonty.

He also attacked betiko far too hard early on for skimming,

I looked through my posts and all I could find that could be remotely misconstrued as an attack on Betiko for skimming is this one:

Now that you bring this up, it can be evidence of Betiko skimming. If he thought I was town and wanted to vote on people that suspected me, he should have voted Jimfinn (serious vote), not Shield (joke vote).

So, Jim, what gives? You take days to contribute to the game and, when you do, your accusations are totally off.

[Rodion]

I made a small editing mistake when I quoted Strike misquoting Monkey. I'm referring to the TOI quote. It should be easy to realize.

well yes, I didn't think it was really fair to get almost eliminated at the start of day 1 for asking who do we trust a little when nothing was happening except jokevotes and rodion asking if we could vote for the player under us in his list, particularly when there are players like you that don't participate, or don't help bringing up cases. call it trying to get sympathy from other players for complaining about it.

This is an interesting choice of words. You invoked "fairness". May I ask why?

[betiko]

regarding the charge on BG, I didn't lead the charge on him, you are totally skimming. i have been defending him and telling that I most likely believed his claim, it was the most likely. i did end up following the bandwagon as time was running out and more experienced players explained that it was the best solution to understand what was going on at that time.

I did say I was reading 44 pages in two days, so yes, I may have missed something. However, what I was saying regarding your leading the charge on him was specifically after the Swifte claim, you led the charge on actually lynching BG. There was still (probably) time for another case/wagon at that point, but instead you immediately flip-flopped onto the person you had been defending all along.

so now you had to read the entire thread in 2 days, you haven't paid attention to anything and you just show up on day 2? i wonder what is the point of re-reading if you misinterpretate what you read. basically you are cherry picking what interests you about this bg case that was lynched on day 1, he got lynched so obviously you could find things from anyone that restarted the conversation about his vote as he was the most suspected after swifte at that point. do you really think there was time for another case on a day 1 with a deadline that close? the discution was more about not lynching anyone or lynch bg; and bg was even encouraging to get lynched. just quote me what fishy thing i said then. and yes, i did get influenced by others into voting for him as aparently it was the best strategy instead of not lynching anyone. he was for me most likely town but of couse i was not sure about it; as everybody else here! what are you trying to prove there? that i'm responsible for lynching bg? i think we could make up a lot of cases with nothing on most of us for the bg lynching.

[betiko]

I made a small editing mistake when I quoted Strike misquoting Monkey. I'm referring to the TOI quote. It should be easy to realize.

well yes, I didn't think it was really fair to get almost eliminated at the start of day 1 for asking who do we trust a little when nothing was happening except jokevotes and rodion asking if we could vote for the player under us in his list, particularly when there are players like you that don't participate, or don't help bringing up cases. call it trying to get sympathy from other players for complaining about it.

This is an interesting choice of words. You invoked "fairness". May I ask why?

well, as explained, i think that trying to start something there brought me nothing but problems; we had been jokevoting for days, you brought just a little somthing with your list thing and i tried to start something from there, while others just sit and watch ready to fos/ vote for the first guy who makes a move. i'm not saying people are unfair; i'm saying the game can be unfair and I see that not getting implicated in anything can be the best strategy. jim comes back and invents stuff false he doesn't even quotes and can make up the story he wants.
he says he had to go through the 44 pages to post something, but we all know he has been here reading. while we answer immediately to accusation, he takes a week building a defense that just consists into an omgus, vague stuff that are half invented half coming out of nowhere.
I saw yesterday a scientifical report about cigarettes being good for sportsmen. it was basically a joke done by a scientist, making a serious case about it to prove that even with a scientifical logic, you can make a case about something to prove your pre-conceived idea cherry picking the bits of information that are best for what you want to prove and miraculously forgeting information that prove your case doesn't stand. and i think this applies very well in what jimfinn is trying to do.

[Rodion]

I do agree that it would have been unfair if you had been lynched D1 for that question. It would have been unfair regardless of your alignment because the question was not scummy in my eyes.

Don't feel threatened, but I'm just interested in why you would rather use "unfair" instead of "wrong" (or, actually, "fair" instead of "correct/right"). It almost feels like you were more interested in showing that the logic process used to conclude you were scum is wrong than in actually denying the conclusion that you are scum, which is another way of saying, "Alright guys, you are correct, I AM scum, but you shouldn't be able to catch me with a bullshit reason such as the question I asked early in D1, that is not fair!"

[Victor Sullivan]

Vote Count

jimfinn (6)- betiko, Leitz, trini, MoB, Epitaph, dazza
Rodion (5)- jonty, strike, chap, shield, MeDeFe
betiko (1)- jimfinn

With 14 alive, it takes 8 to lynch.

-Sully

[betiko]

I do agree that it would have been unfair if you had been lynched D1 for that question. It would have been unfair regardless of your alignment because the question was not scummy in my eyes.

Don't feel threatened, but I'm just interested in why you would rather use "unfair" instead of "wrong" (or, actually, "fair" instead of "correct/right"). It almost feels like you were more interested in showing that the logic process used to conclude you were scum is wrong than in actually denying the conclusion that you are scum, which is another way of saying, "Alright guys, you are correct, I AM scum, but you shouldn't be able to catch me with a bullshit reason such as the question I asked early in D1, that is not fair!"

you ask some pretty twisted questions. and no, I think the word "fair" suits better than "correct/right". contribution-> inverted retribution. this is about fairness.
Actually it's like in CC when everyone is camping and you do the first move and get wacked by other players, then the greatest camper of all watches everyone hit each other to clear the board after not doing anything during the whole game. it's the smartest move, but it's not the most fair in terms of bravoury. so yes, it was a cook move from me on day 1 I guess.

[jimfinn]

In response to my reading 44 pages in two days, I had been reading some but wanted to reread everything so I could get some notes on gameplay so far and adequately respond to the cases in play.

When making my final post, I looked back at the notes I had made, and I saw Rodion: is betiko skimming? written a couple times, and it just struck me funny - as far as the quotes thing goes, here are the notes I made on that section of the game

Strike: edits quotes, called out on it
Shield: shade of blue crap is WIFOM
Rodion: upset about changes in quotes not being bolded

When reading the game notes, i read that Rodion had been the one to complain, but after he reposted the quotes, I see that what I actually meant by that note was that strike was called out by the others and then rodion said things about it.

Either way, I still feel the case on betiko is stronger, and his recent replies don't help his cause much.

[strike wolf]

In response to my reading 44 pages in two days, I had been reading some but wanted to reread everything so I could get some notes on gameplay so far and adequately respond to the cases in play.

When making my final post, I looked back at the notes I had made, and I saw Rodion: is betiko skimming? written a couple times, and it just struck me funny - as far as the quotes thing goes, here are the notes I made on that section of the game

Strike: edits quotes, called out on it
Shield: shade of blue crap is WIFOM
Rodion: upset about changes in quotes not being bolded

When reading the game notes, i read that Rodion had been the one to complain, but after he reposted the quotes, I see that what I actually meant by that note was that strike was called out by the others and then rodion said things about it.

Either way, I still feel the case on betiko is stronger, and his recent replies don't help his cause much.

True or not you really haven't either with a lot of misremembering and an OMGus accusation.

[jimfinn]

You, sir, misunderstand OMGUS. OMGUS is calling into question someone's suspicion of you, since you are town and they must be scum to suspect you. Building a case on someone who happens to suspect you that is not based on their suspicion of you is not OMGUS.

[strike wolf]

You, sir, misunderstand OMGUS. OMGUS is calling into question someone's suspicion of you, since you are town and they must be scum to suspect you. Building a case on someone who happens to suspect you that is not based on their suspicion of you is not OMGUS.

That would be blatant OMGus. Most of the time OMGus cases come from situations where the person does not directly express supicion for the reasoning you mentioned as being OMGus and is more of a "disguised" OMGus. Since it happens so often it's become practically redundant to call it "disguised" OMGus.

[jimfinn]

http://mafia.perendination.com/wiki/ind ... itle=OMGUS

disagrees. That was found by google. I know there's a better explanation on mafiascum but I can't find it right now.

[chapcrap]

http://mafia.perendination.com/wiki/index.php?title=OMGUS

disagrees. That was found by google. I know there's a better explanation on mafiascum but I can't find it right now.

Ok, for arguments sake, let's say you're right about the OMGUS. Who cares?

You decided to make a case a vote for someone that no one else was voting for and did so with multiple mistakes. How do you expect to survive after the history you have in this game and then the posts of the last few hours?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that your cases don't have validity, but instead of overviewing cases and giving a good explanation about your prolonged absence, you decided to try to make your own with added mistakes and vote someone that no one else is voting for. You can't expect people to actually start voting for people can you? 11 of 14 people have voted for either you or Rodion (that doesn't count you and Rodion yet). They will not be abandoning these cases to go after betiko. Rodion will most assuredly vote you and then you will be one away from a lynch and it will happen. I'm telling you this because you look like you need help. If you want to save yourself, you need to make a role claim and probably abandon the betiko case and look harder at the case you made on Rodion.

[jonty125]

So Jimfinn comes back and gets his cases mixed and and then posts an extremly weak one. On top of that he has debate on the meaning of OMGUS. Well that's the final nail in the coffin for me [b]unvote[b]. Your at L-2 jimfinn, and I would vote you but scum could speedhammer so I'll vote when someone unvotes or if a hammer is needed.

[jimfinn]

Clarity post: RVS/RQS = Random Voting Stage/Random Questioning Stage. On other sites I see it all the time; perhaps it's less common here (only my third game on this site).

I am Mayor, Town Cop. In one of my earliest posts, (quoted above) I breadcrumbed by making the first letters of each clause (which I bolded in the quote) spell cop. After the discussion over whether Mayor might be an insane cop, I investigated Swifte the first night to make sure I was not (I got a innocent, so I'm almost certainly sane). My D1 inactivity was partially to avoid the NK, D2 was all real life based.

[trinicardinal]

Clarity post: RVS/RQS = Random Voting Stage/Random Questioning Stage. On other sites I see it all the time; perhaps it's less common here (only my third game on this site).

I am Mayor, Town Cop. In one of my earliest posts, (quoted above) I breadcrumbed by making the first letters of each clause (which I bolded in the quote) spell cop. After the discussion over whether Mayor might be an insane cop, I investigated Swifte the first night to make sure I was not (I got a innocent, so I'm almost certainly sane). My D1 inactivity was partially to avoid the NK, D2 was all real life based.

ok then... for now Unvote. but be warned I will revisit your case if there is a counter claim or someone else can provide contrary evidence. Also we are going to be depending on you for information so don't let us down.

Also folks I'm going to a Stakeholder Information Workshop for the TTEITI this morning so I will not be able to check anything until after lunch my time - most likely about 7 - 8 hours from now.

[MoB Deadly]

Clarity post: RVS/RQS = Random Voting Stage/Random Questioning Stage. On other sites I see it all the time; perhaps it's less common here (only my third game on this site).

I am Mayor, Town Cop. In one of my earliest posts, (quoted above) I breadcrumbed by making the first letters of each clause (which I bolded in the quote) spell cop. After the discussion over whether Mayor might be an insane cop, I investigated Swifte the first night to make sure I was not (I got a innocent, so I'm almost certainly sane). My D1 inactivity was partially to avoid the NK, D2 was all real life based.

unvote

[betiko]

Clarity post: RVS/RQS = Random Voting Stage/Random Questioning Stage. On other sites I see it all the time; perhaps it's less common here (only my third game on this site).

I am Mayor, Town Cop. In one of my earliest posts, (quoted above) I breadcrumbed by making the first letters of each clause (which I bolded in the quote) spell cop. After the discussion over whether Mayor might be an insane cop, I investigated Swifte the first night to make sure I was not (I got a innocent, so I'm almost certainly sane). My D1 inactivity was partially to avoid the NK, D2 was all real life based.

wow, if that is true we almost did a tragic mistake! i'll wait for an eventual counter claim to unvote, but your claim seems credible.
I have just one little concern; the mayor has a double face and i wonder if this can be re-used in the role + the doc is doctor frinkelstein, which is not really a good character in the movie... the mayor in spite of having a double face is quite a good guy in the movie, he just seems a bit crazy and frightened by everything.

fastposted
If swifte turned out cleared after his report, there is a small chance that it's because jimfinn is insane and swifte not a trustable doctor. but i think there are very little odds for this.
you guys have been telling that safari's games are really nicely ballanced; are the roles he creates usually complicated, or are they as simple as it can get?

I read the last cc newsletter and something striked me when it came to safari's article:

Advanced Roles and Strategy by safariguy5
We're discussing a rather venomous role this time.

The Poisoner and the Poison Doctor

What is It?
The poisoner is a role where the person may choose to poison one person each night. Instead of dying that same night, the person dies the following night. The poison doctor functions like a regular doctor, but will only save a person if that person has been poisoned. If the person is targeted for a nightkill, the poison doctor cannot save the victim. Curing the target of poison is possible on either night the target is poisoned.

Example
Jack is a Poisoner, Anna is the Poison Doctor, and Chris is a Vanilla Townie. On Night 1, Jack poisons Chris. On Night 2, Anna cures Chris, thus saving him. If Anna had not targeted Chris on Night 1 or 2, Chris would have died.

How to Play this Role
Poisoners are usually Mafia or more rarely, Third Party. Poison Doctors are usually Town. The Poisoner can act as a secondary mafia nightkill or a third party serial killer. The role is often used to balance a lot of town protective or manipulative roles. In order for town to be able to detect a possible poisoner, they much watch for extra nightkills on alternate nights. A loss of the Poison Doctor can also be a very strong tipoff that there is a poisoner.



so maybe swifte is a poison doctor and there is a poisoner among the mafia guys? there is probably nothing to do with this game and the article from safari. we might witness more than 1 night kill though...

[strike wolf]

Well. If we have a busdriver you need to switch swifte and swifte needs to protect the cop. Cop don't let people govern who you visit. You seem experienced enough to know not to let anyone know specifically who you are investigating and it's always good to at least listen to others when considering who you should visit but still the less predictable your action the less likely mafia is to interfere with it. I'll wait for a counterclaim but I don't find it too likely that we'll hear one.

Now, I am probably going to take a lot of flack for this but assuming he isn't counterclaimed, I think it's time to cut our losses for the day. Like I said I know that's probably going to earn me a lot of "What the f*cks?" and similar responses but our cop and our doctor is out in the open and as much as I'd like to press the Rodion wagon I am not quite convinced enough to say that his case outweighs the disadvantage of exposing a third power role.

Clarity post: RVS/RQS = Random Voting Stage/Random Questioning Stage. On other sites I see it all the time; perhaps it's less common here (only my third game on this site).

I am Mayor, Town Cop. In one of my earliest posts, (quoted above) I breadcrumbed by making the first letters of each clause (which I bolded in the quote) spell cop. After the discussion over whether Mayor might be an insane cop, I investigated Swifte the first night to make sure I was not (I got a innocent, so I'm almost certainly sane). My D1 inactivity was partially to avoid the NK, D2 was all real life based.

wow, if that is true we almost did a tragic mistake! i'll wait for an eventual counter claim to unvote, but your claim seems credible.
I have just one little concern; the mayor has a double face and i wonder if this can be re-used in the role + the doc is doctor frinkelstein, which is not really a good character in the movie... the mayor in spite of having a double face is quite a good guy in the movie, he just seems a bit crazy and frightened by everything.

fastposted
If swifte turned out cleared after his report, there is a small chance that it's because jimfinn is insane and swifte not a trustable doctor. but i think there are very little odds for this.
you guys have been telling that safari's games are really nicely ballanced; are the roles he creates usually complicated, or are they as simple as it can get?

I read the last cc newsletter and something striked me when it came to safari's article:

Advanced Roles and Strategy by safariguy5
We're discussing a rather venomous role this time.

The Poisoner and the Poison Doctor

What is It?
The poisoner is a role where the person may choose to poison one person each night. Instead of dying that same night, the person dies the following night. The poison doctor functions like a regular doctor, but will only save a person if that person has been poisoned. If the person is targeted for a nightkill, the poison doctor cannot save the victim. Curing the target of poison is possible on either night the target is poisoned.

Example
Jack is a Poisoner, Anna is the Poison Doctor, and Chris is a Vanilla Townie. On Night 1, Jack poisons Chris. On Night 2, Anna cures Chris, thus saving him. If Anna had not targeted Chris on Night 1 or 2, Chris would have died.

How to Play this Role
Poisoners are usually Mafia or more rarely, Third Party. Poison Doctors are usually Town. The Poisoner can act as a secondary mafia nightkill or a third party serial killer. The role is often used to balance a lot of town protective or manipulative roles. In order for town to be able to detect a possible poisoner, they much watch for extra nightkills on alternate nights. A loss of the Poison Doctor can also be a very strong tipoff that there is a poisoner.



so maybe swifte is a poison doctor and there is a poisoner among the mafia guys? there is probably nothing to do with this game and the article from safari. we might witness more than 1 night kill though...

I really don't want to get into all of this so I'll make it brief. You're reading too much into things. The poisoner is difficult to balance (more so in small to medium size games (this would be a medium sized game) where extra kills really have larger effects on the entire game) and Swifte should be told if he was a poison doctor. It's possible there is a poisoner but there is currently no evidence of one.

[jonty125]

Well. If we have a busdriver you need to switch swifte and swifte needs to protect the cop. Cop don't let people govern who you visit. You seem experienced enough to know not to let anyone know specifically who you are investigating and it's always good to at least listen to others when considering who you should visit but still the less predictable your action the less likely mafia is to interfere with it. I'll wait for a counterclaim but I don't find it too likely that we'll hear one.

Now, I am probably going to take a lot of flack for this but assuming he isn't counterclaimed, I think it's time to cut our losses for the day. Like I said I know that's probably going to earn me a lot of "What the f*cks?" and similar responses but our cop and our doctor is out in the open and as much as I'd like to press the Rodion wagon I am not quite convinced enough to say that his case outweighs the disadvantage of exposing a third power role.

Clarity post: RVS/RQS = Random Voting Stage/Random Questioning Stage. On other sites I see it all the time; perhaps it's less common here (only my third game on this site).

I am Mayor, Town Cop. In one of my earliest posts, (quoted above) I breadcrumbed by making the first letters of each clause (which I bolded in the quote) spell cop. After the discussion over whether Mayor might be an insane cop, I investigated Swifte the first night to make sure I was not (I got a innocent, so I'm almost certainly sane). My D1 inactivity was partially to avoid the NK, D2 was all real life based.

wow, if that is true we almost did a tragic mistake! i'll wait for an eventual counter claim to unvote, but your claim seems credible.
I have just one little concern; the mayor has a double face and i wonder if this can be re-used in the role + the doc is doctor frinkelstein, which is not really a good character in the movie... the mayor in spite of having a double face is quite a good guy in the movie, he just seems a bit crazy and frightened by everything.

fastposted
If swifte turned out cleared after his report, there is a small chance that it's because jimfinn is insane and swifte not a trustable doctor. but i think there are very little odds for this.
you guys have been telling that safari's games are really nicely ballanced; are the roles he creates usually complicated, or are they as simple as it can get?

I read the last cc newsletter and something striked me when it came to safari's article:

Advanced Roles and Strategy by safariguy5
We're discussing a rather venomous role this time.

The Poisoner and the Poison Doctor

What is It?
The poisoner is a role where the person may choose to poison one person each night. Instead of dying that same night, the person dies the following night. The poison doctor functions like a regular doctor, but will only save a person if that person has been poisoned. If the person is targeted for a nightkill, the poison doctor cannot save the victim. Curing the target of poison is possible on either night the target is poisoned.

Example
Jack is a Poisoner, Anna is the Poison Doctor, and Chris is a Vanilla Townie. On Night 1, Jack poisons Chris. On Night 2, Anna cures Chris, thus saving him. If Anna had not targeted Chris on Night 1 or 2, Chris would have died.

How to Play this Role
Poisoners are usually Mafia or more rarely, Third Party. Poison Doctors are usually Town. The Poisoner can act as a secondary mafia nightkill or a third party serial killer. The role is often used to balance a lot of town protective or manipulative roles. In order for town to be able to detect a possible poisoner, they much watch for extra nightkills on alternate nights. A loss of the Poison Doctor can also be a very strong tipoff that there is a poisoner.



so maybe swifte is a poison doctor and there is a poisoner among the mafia guys? there is probably nothing to do with this game and the article from safari. we might witness more than 1 night kill though...

I really don't want to get into all of this so I'll make it brief. You're reading too much into things. The poisoner is difficult to balance (more so in small to medium size games (this would be a medium sized game) where extra kills really have larger effects on the entire game) and Swifte should be told if he was a poison doctor. It's possible there is a poisoner but there is currently no evidence of one.

Well we wouldn't know if there was a poisoner until N2

[betiko]

"This game is going to be frightfully fantastic!"



"But the way it's going we won't get enough people to sign up!"

-Mayor of Halloweentown

just reposting sully's initial post with the mayor for those who haven't seen the movie. quite an odd character.
if there is an insane cop there is always a cop as well or not necesairly? in other words, if someone counterclaims jimfinn with a cop role, it might be that we just have a sane and an insane cop? both claims could be correct..
i don't think we are going anywhere, even if i see a credible counterclaim i would not think it means that jimfinn is necesairly lying. therefore; unvote
regarding the rodion case i ve never really been convinced. If anyone still has rodion in mind, i'd like to hear what they think, but looks like people are giving up for today on that case.
other than this, not really convinced by the medefe case either. I don't know if it's good to call it a night yet, because you are assuming there is a busdriver strike, but if there isn't... nevertheless, there is not much more to dig in today. we will surely have lots of useful info on day 3 though.
if we decide not to lynch, how does it work, we all have to vote?