Golden Pantheon - Angels and Demons - Endgame

[DRoZ]

@soundman: there are a couple of probabilty problems pointing to him being scum:
a) it is unlikely to have 5 investigative roles in a game (confirmed sensor, confirmed tracker, Rodion's investigation, saf semi-confirmed cop, and then the watcher)
b) due to chap's reveal, there is about a 50% chance he is scum
c)a town watcher is an OP role, and is very rare IMO.
d) it was unlikely that both droz and chap would be blocked on the same night

Second are the actually scummy things droz did:
claiming for no reason
refusing to report who he watched; even though it was obvious that he either watched chap or is anti-town

-My status as a watcher has been corroborated. Arguing my alignment is valid, but arguing against my abilities makes for a much weaker position.
-Where does the "about 50%" number come from...
-I believe it is obvious now that chap was not blocked, he was just trying to keep up the charade.

-I gave my reasoning for claiming, there were a number of votes on me already and very little in the way of other prospective targets. Waiting for a closer number to lynch would only waste time and leave us with precious little left to find a suitable target.
-There are tons of reasons not to report on someone I watched, if someone is visited and nothing negative happens, it could be detrimental to say who was there. There is no reason to let the mafia know who I had already watched unless that information is vital to helping the town.

[DoomYoshi]

@soundman: there are a couple of probabilty problems pointing to him being scum:
a) it is unlikely to have 5 investigative roles in a game (confirmed sensor, confirmed tracker, Rodion's investigation, saf semi-confirmed cop, and then the watcher)
b) due to chap's reveal, there is about a 50% chance he is scum
c)a town watcher is an OP role, and is very rare IMO.
d) it was unlikely that both droz and chap would be blocked on the same night

Second are the actually scummy things droz did:
claiming for no reason
refusing to report who he watched; even though it was obvious that he either watched chap or is anti-town

-My status as a watcher has been corroborated. Arguing my alignment is valid, but arguing against my abilities makes for a much weaker position.
-Where does the "about 50%" number come from...
-I believe it is obvious now that chap was not blocked, he was just trying to keep up the charade.

-I gave my reasoning for claiming, there were a number of votes on me already and very little in the way of other prospective targets. Waiting for a closer number to lynch would only waste time and leave us with precious little left to find a suitable target.
-There are tons of reasons not to report on someone I watched, if someone is visited and nothing negative happens, it could be detrimental to say who was there. There is no reason to let the mafia know who I had already watched unless that information is vital to helping the town.

I was meaning that it would be too much to have 5 town watchers. I am not denying you have a watch ability.


Saf, Jonty, Soundman, Aage, Droz, Strike
3 of 6 on this list are anti-town. Hence, 50%, but I would argue that saf is either town or uber-gambiting.


Yes, I agree that it is entirely possible that he was not blocked. But mafia didn't know he was 1-shot (unless they have a role-cop, which I already believe they do). Which means that they chose to roleblock you instead of him. However, roleblocking a watcher doesn't make sense if you know who he is targetting, right? And mafia knew you would be watching chap. So they could just target anyone else and not have to waste a roleblock on you. FIshy.

Both of these defenses are wrong. You can keep repeating stuff, but that doesn't make it any more correct.

[DoomYoshi]

Anyways, Rodion, this seems like too risky of a gambit. If saf is killed, we have to kill droz anyways after, so why not do it first?
However, there are worse imaginable scenarios.

unvote vote aage

[VioIet]

-There are tons of reasons not to report on someone I watched, if someone is visited and nothing negative happens, it could be detrimental to say who was there. There is no reason to let the mafia know who I had already watched unless that information is vital to helping the town.

I agree with this part of Droz's post.

Since chap is no longer in the game, it doesn't matter at this point who is on the bandwagon or not. Even when he was in the game, it didn't matter. That was all part of the charade.

Very well-played Chap.

At this point, I am pretty sure that aage and jonty are scum. Soundman may be the third.

Vote Aage

[DoomYoshi]

Vio, let's just say we are playing a game in which there is a confirmed innocent child. The mod comes out and says that player x is town and that if player x dies, town loses.

Then let's imagine that the watcher says "I don't want to report who I watched". Does that still make sense? It doesn't. Now my example may be extreme, but it's not too far from what actually happened.

[aage]

Vio, let's just say we are playing a game in which there is a confirmed innocent child. The mod comes out and says that player x is town and that if player x dies, town loses.

Then let's imagine that the watcher says "I don't want to report who I watched". Does that still make sense? It doesn't. Now my example may be extreme, but it's not too far from what actually happened.

Have you considered that he cares more for the safety of those who visited this confirmed towny rather than the towny himself? Obviously it won't matter to him, but exposing power roles is not a very solid strategy for town. We won't know which are town/mafia so have nothing to go on, but Mafia will know which ones they should kill.

[jonty125]

jonty are scum.

My crime?

[NoSurvivors]

Perhaps DroZ is doing the same as chap in having his role as a 1 time thing? idk.. seems like a lot of 1 time roles in this game lol.

[pancakemix]

Vio, let's just say we are playing a game in which there is a confirmed innocent child. The mod comes out and says that player x is town and that if player x dies, town loses.

Then let's imagine that the watcher says "I don't want to report who I watched". Does that still make sense? It doesn't. Now my example may be extreme, but it's not too far from what actually happened.

That's quite extreme, actually. Not only is that (in hindsight) untrue, but think about who could have targeted that player. Suppose I'm the watcher and player Y targets player X. Well, player X didn't die during the night, so why should I reveal player Y's action? Player Y could easily be a doc, and should I reveal that mafia wil kill him, then X, game over. And if no one targets X and I reveal that, now I've shown that the doc isn't protecting X. Now the doc is pulled away from anyone else and mafia has free reign over them.

Now that does play to a WIFOM scenario, but would you rather have the mafia guessing or eliminate their need?

FP: I doubt it. Sensor is waaaay more powerful than watcher, and that's likely to be a multiple use role, as it is so typically.

[strike wolf]

I'm in favor of lynching aage but I kind of want to wait a bit. at this point I think Dr. oz should claim. not because I think he should have to begin with but because I don't think this Will be resolved until he does.

[strike wolf]

Claim what happened night 3*

[DoomYoshi]

Vio, let's just say we are playing a game in which there is a confirmed innocent child. The mod comes out and says that player x is town and that if player x dies, town loses.

Then let's imagine that the watcher says "I don't want to report who I watched". Does that still make sense? It doesn't. Now my example may be extreme, but it's not too far from what actually happened.

That's quite extreme, actually. Not only is that (in hindsight) untrue, but think about who could have targeted that player. Suppose I'm the watcher and player Y targets player X. Well, player X didn't die during the night, so why should I reveal player Y's action? Player Y could easily be a doc, and should I reveal that mafia wil kill him, then X, game over. And if no one targets X and I reveal that, now I've shown that the doc isn't protecting X. Now the doc is pulled away from anyone else and mafia has free reign over them.

Now that does play to a WIFOM scenario, but would you rather have the mafia guessing or eliminate their need?

FP: I doubt it. Sensor is waaaay more powerful than watcher, and that's likely to be a multiple use role, as it is so typically.

I am not saying he should necessarily report player Y. I am saying he should report that he watched player x because he obviously did. If he didn't watch player x, he is anti-town.

[aage]

Vio, let's just say we are playing a game in which there is a confirmed innocent child. The mod comes out and says that player x is town and that if player x dies, town loses.

Then let's imagine that the watcher says "I don't want to report who I watched". Does that still make sense? It doesn't. Now my example may be extreme, but it's not too far from what actually happened.

That's quite extreme, actually. Not only is that (in hindsight) untrue, but think about who could have targeted that player. Suppose I'm the watcher and player Y targets player X. Well, player X didn't die during the night, so why should I reveal player Y's action? Player Y could easily be a doc, and should I reveal that mafia wil kill him, then X, game over. And if no one targets X and I reveal that, now I've shown that the doc isn't protecting X. Now the doc is pulled away from anyone else and mafia has free reign over them.

Now that does play to a WIFOM scenario, but would you rather have the mafia guessing or eliminate their need?

FP: I doubt it. Sensor is waaaay more powerful than watcher, and that's likely to be a multiple use role, as it is so typically.

I am not saying he should necessarily report player Y. I am saying he should report that he watched player x because he obviously did. If he didn't watch player x, he is anti-town.

What would be the gain of your clever riddle? That Droz has to guess your player X correctly? That has nothing to do with his alignment. If he isn't a watcher, he will claim that regardless, and we will still know nothing.
I really don't follow your play at the moment. Why are you asking these irrelevant questions?

[blakebowling]

I'm going to assume for a moment that Yoshi actually does have a reason for pressuring droz to claim his target. I'm going to (safely I believe) assume Yoshi expected droz to target chapcrap. I'm also going to assume that Yoshi is town. The only way I can see droz claiming a target as being useful is if Yoshi had an ability, and targeted chap with it. He needs droz to claim his targets before asking if someone targeted chap. I know he's got a 50/50 shot of guessing the right answer, but if he disagrees with Yoshi, that would out him as a scum.

However, if this is the case, it won't work now that I've posted this.

[DoomYoshi]

That's not it. The point is that earlier drop refused to inform the game of who he targetted, when the only choice for who he targeted was chap. He has fallen back on cliches about why he shouldnt reveal his target.

Let me put this another way:

If the mod comes out and says "droz targeted chap last night" but droz refuses to tell us who he targeted, what is the reasoning for that. My point is that if there is an obvious target (player x, chap, however you understand it), what reason is there for keeping who you targetted a secret?

In most cases there is a reason. This isn't most cases.

[aage]

Well Yoshi in that case...

Is there a reason you just post a vote with no long drawn out tirade... Certainly not like you. As for myself, I watched chap again with the same roleblock and no vote as yesterday. Vote nosurvivors for verification.

viewtopic.php?f=213&t=176203&start=1140#p4010074

Now what?

[aage]

Chapcrap has told me he no longer has the time to play, his role isn't worth replacing, and I have no one handy to replace with in any event.

Chapcrap ~ Francis of Assisi Saint ~ One-Shot Sensor has been modkilled

There are 17 alive, 9 to lynch.

Just to make sure, is this an official vote count?
Yoshi, DroZ and I voted before you posted this.

[DoomYoshi]

I'm talking about day 3, when he said "I'm not going to telltale my target because I don't want mafia to know who it was". This is a bullshit bromide and totally not applicable to the situation. Claiming later on won't help his case. After reading through Rodion's suggestion again though, I can trust the plan for a night.

Vote Aage

[Rodion]

Just remember to wait for Saf before we rush anything.

Deadline is on the 17th.

[pancakemix]

That's not it. The point is that earlier drop refused to inform the game of who he targetted, when the only choice for who he targeted was chap. He has fallen back on cliches about why he shouldnt reveal his target.

Let me put this another way:

If the mod comes out and says "droz targeted chap last night" but droz refuses to tell us who he targeted, what is the reasoning for that. My point is that if there is an obvious target (player x, chap, however you understand it), what reason is there for keeping who you targetted a secret?

In most cases there is a reason. This isn't most cases.

If you already know, what does it matter? Maybe he wants them to think he watched chap but was actually able to get a watch in elsewhere. Saying that claiming now won't help is case is now just saying we should just lynch him regardless. This sounds fishy, as des saying we should follow Rodions plan for a night. It just sounds like you're trying to earn points.

[jonty125]

Just remember to wait for Saf before we rush anything.

Deadline is on the 17th.

Hmm, plenty of time, and I'm sure saf will stick his head in. He's normally very active.

[gregwolf121]

i would also suggest waiting to hear from saf,

[DoomYoshi]

That's not it. The point is that earlier drop refused to inform the game of who he targetted, when the only choice for who he targeted was chap. He has fallen back on cliches about why he shouldnt reveal his target.

Let me put this another way:

If the mod comes out and says "droz targeted chap last night" but droz refuses to tell us who he targeted, what is the reasoning for that. My point is that if there is an obvious target (player x, chap, however you understand it), what reason is there for keeping who you targetted a secret?

In most cases there is a reason. This isn't most cases.

If you already know, what does it matter? Maybe he wants them to think he watched chap but was actually able to get a watch in elsewhere. Saying that claiming now won't help is case is now just saying we should just lynch him regardless. This sounds fishy, as des saying we should follow Rodions plan for a night. It just sounds like you're trying to earn points.

I am cop-confirmed town, I don't need to earn points.

Anyways, does anyone have any thoughts on why mafia would waste a roleblock on a watcher? Making a scummy player voteless doesn't seem all that useful, tbh.

[aage]

does anyone have any thoughts on why mafia would waste a roleblock on a watcher

Weren't you the one saying town watcher was OP?

Good for you that you're asking questions but you're asking the wrong ones.

[DoomYoshi]

But if you know the target of the watcher, it is easy to work around.