Moderator: Community Team
Rodion wrote:Unvote.
Wow, people really seem to have missed what I said.
No. Your post was very clear.
Again, in bullet points.
1 - I don't think Stor was targeted for a NK.If Stor was targeted it was by Rugbirn. It has been pointed out that a mafia watcher would be a waste with a mafia nk. Rugbirn could also be a 3rd party faction as well.
2 - Rugbirn thinks Stor was targeted for a NK. he would know this how?
3 - I was using that thought from Rugbirn to explain to everyone why Rugbirn softclaimed a protective role (because if he didn't protect Stor, it would be absurd to say Caffeine tried to kill him, since Stor is alive).
Iron Butterfly wrote:Rodion wrote:Unvote.
Wow, people really seem to have missed what I said.
No. Your post was very clear.
Again, in bullet points.
1 - I don't think Stor was targeted for a NK.If Stor was targeted it was by Rugbirn. It has been pointed out that a mafia watcher would be a waste with a mafia nk. Rugbirn could also be a 3rd party faction as well.
2 - Rugbirn thinks Stor was targeted for a NK. he would know this how?
3 - I was using that thought from Rugbirn to explain to everyone why Rugbirn softclaimed a protective role (because if he didn't protect Stor, it would be absurd to say Caffeine tried to kill him, since Stor is alive).
Here's the problem I have with three and your initial post. You are assigning logical motives to someone who has played completely oblivious to the dynamics of how roles work and interact with each other. Remember this is someone who suggested a VT would somehow know neb was a Doc. You have been following the game so surely this behavior could not be missed. It has most certainly has not been overlooked by the majority of players. Yet here you are acting like Rugbirn softclaimed something because he offers an opinion that he can not prove and which defies logic
Tell me Rodion what protective role do you believe he may be as you directed him to protect the cop? It certianly does not make sense to ask someone to do something unless they have an idea of what they can do.
TheForgivenOne wrote:Not much more detail I can go into. No, I didn't have a choice to take the meth. If you want to know the action, i'm going to hold onto it, as the result(s) I got aren't of any use at the moment.
jonty125 wrote:Okay here it is why I don't agree with the superkeener case.
First point, the noisy point.
In short, superkeener said that after 3 pages, X-Stor-X became "noise", X-Stor-X says this is a cop out & super is scummy through not having anything new to bring to the table. I can perfectly understand superkeener's position, I myself find that cases not regarding myself can become "noise", especially cases on D1 which have little substance blown out of proportion. And I can also understand superkeener having nothing new to bring to the table, it's D1 for goodness sake, not a lot has happened, most cases are clutching at straws on a good day!!
Yes it is day 1, it is also interesting that you bring it up as a main point to defend him. The issue with supers comment was he didn't have to make it. He went out of his way to post on day 1, saying he read 3 pages and nothing happened. Deal is stuff happened, he chose to not contribute. Hence this was a building block on his play style, avoid giving reads unless its something "big" or if someone voted him. Also, defending someone with "most cases are clutching at straws" that is a poor comment. There is no follow up to this. Yes day 1 can be hard, doesn't mean you can dismiss what is happening around you cause all cases day 1 are clutching. You can still read into the cases that are made, specially as the days go on.
Second Point, Was Nark A Dead Man?
Previously in Breaking Bad Mafia, Nark claimed VT under no pressure, superkeener says Nark is a dead man and shows apathy towards Nark's life, X-Stor-X, says Nark could still live, and you showing apathy, shows you're just scum. Once again, I can understand the position of superkeener. Nark, claiming like that under no pressure was a hideous mistake and quite rightly he was lynched for it, I don't think X-Stor-X realises how much an early claim is frowned upon on these forums, but Nark claimed @ L-6 or something ridiculous like that, he was always going to die.
That is called policy, policy is a great way for mafia to hide. 'well he did x, so we can just policy lynch him" Heck that's sort of why i am having a hard time reading the votes on anark. I can't fault many people voting for anark because of how he acted. The omgus nature of his counter attacks. How ever no single person made it their only point that "well he claimed early policy lynch" Again Super was closer to a lynch than anark at a point, nearly everyone made an opinion about anarks actions being scummy besides you. You stated policy. You never once commented on a read he gave, or added anything else. That is scummy.
Thirdly, was Nark really a badger?
The answer to question is no, unless you're on meth. But anyhow, jokes aside. I find superkeener's lack of belief of Nark's claim more as, wait, you're claiming VT now at L-6, am I missing the joke, as if it isn't Nark's a dead man, rather than Nark, Badger, nope he can't be that role look at these posts, which is what X-Stor-X I believe is implying but if we refer back to point two I feel that it's once again X-Stor-X been new here is the "issue".
This is wrong. Supers comments regarding multiple different people for anark to be was well after l-6. Because a full claim was all ready in effect. It was not at 2 and talking before anark made his full claim. (if super had made this comments before anark made a full claim sure, looks way different) It was well after when he specifically stated "I AM WHO I AM" At this point supers comments look like filler (hell super even quotes anarks claim and responds with "can i believe this?" in the same post where he talks about possible town people anark could be). As if he is trying to force some weird perspective on the situation. If super thought anark was town, then there doesn't seem to be any reason to dive into anarks claim and question if he is a different town person. When Super was asked to remove the claim and give a read on anark, his read was neutral.
Anyhow, they are the main points I disagree on, I also think it seems to be a difference in playstyles is a factor in this argument, X-Stor-X, very much, attacking player, everyone is guilty till proven innocent. Superkeener, that moves causes doubt in my mind but that doesn't immediately make such abody scum.
aage wrote: Maybe you're right, but since we receive no handlebars from the mod I think we should get some ourselves.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
aage wrote: Maybe you're right, but since we receive no handlebars from the mod I think we should get some ourselves.
Rodion wrote:Interesting: 2 mafias AND confirmed 3rd-party.
Is anyone going to claim having received meth last night? If the meth giver is town, I think mafia would be too afraid to try and kill CD, since we don't yet know whether he is a watcher-giver or a random-giver. I see several possibilities as of now:
a) meth-giver is mafia, so mafia was not afraid to off CD
b) meth-giver is town and gave the "watch" to mafia, so mafia was not afraid to off CD (but they can be held accountable for their misuse of the gifted action)
c) meth-giver is not necessarily a watcher-giver. Mafia knew that because either "a" or they got a meth-action (with loss of vote) that was different from a watch and implied that was the same as TFO's
d) mafia managed to kill CD (in spite of my requests to have all protection tilted towards him - sigh) by having a busdriver swap him with someone unlikely and kill the unlikely person to reach CD (a watcher report on CD should hint us to the busdriver, though)
We might have to delve deeper into this today.
Iron Butterfly wrote:Rodion wrote:*Sighs* This keeps getting worse.
Guys, Rugbirn softclaimed a protective role. He did no such thing. Even a dim bulb like me can figure out that with two watchers and no death Rugbirn was not trying to kill. That does not however make him a protective role. He could be any number of mafia/third party roles as well. He will protect CD tonight.Doing what?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users