INTO THE DEEP (COMPLETE - Mafia Win !!)

[Sirius Kase]

Interesting thought. I've had a similar thought. Back when jfm claimed truthfully that he was a fresh water angelfish, I asked whether it mattered. The discussion was short. But, I've continued to think about it. He would have died of dehydration if the game went on too long. Maybe he would have adapted if he accomplished a goal. Thoughts?

[dakky21]

Yes. Thought... it may be freshwater against saltwater and that is why species are important. But we've been there and no one cared to reason it that way... Both fish are town but it's fresh vs salt and I'm pretty sure it's that way currently.

[Sirius Kase]

Maybe it's not fresh vs salt, maybe it's just another way to apply pressure. Should we conduct a poll?

[dakky21]

No poll needed and it won't reveal anything if it is town vs town. If both towns can't night kill and can only lynch, we can do shit and this is a bastard setup as I said befeore.

[TX AG 90]

- I think that Sirius tries to get stuff done without the means, while TX seems to be reacting to what people say rather than building himself.

Really,

I've been more than reactionary, I just don't ramble as much as Sirius.

1. I was the 1st to point a finger at chapcrap for the same reasons you listed above
2. I was the first to point out the possibility of a passive poisoner
3. I was pushing skoffin to tell us more
4. I pushed Mets and Blacky to tell us more
5. I'm the one who keeps saying that jfm never claimed to have poisoned Blacky, many just claimed to have come to that conclusion. ZaBeast is the only one who agrees with me on this so far.

1. Untrue; your first post regarding chapcrap even quotes others saying the thing you were the first to say.
2. Untrue; your posts (particularly these two) at the beginning of day two clearly indicate you believed the poisoning was a result of targeted scum activity, and Ragian made the suggestion immediately afterwards (I actually mentioned it was Ragian just a few pages ago). Even if you had been the first, this would have still been baseless speculation on your part and hardly a point in your favour.
3. Sure.
4. Oh, well that's certainly an interesting way of saying "I was rolefishing for blacky365's role, and Metsfanmax called me out on it".
5. Sure, but then jfm10 made the claim "My night attack came back successful" too, and if that were true blacky365 is the only possible target. Putting any weight on anything jfm10 said at any point is worthless though anyway, if jfm10 did or did not explicitly claim one thing or another is irrelevant.

If you're going to try defending yourself on a collection of weak points perhaps it would be wise to at least check if they're even true?

Pika, glad to see you're back with us. I just wish you'd spend more time scum hunting than picking apart an innocent post. I'll give you that human memory is a faulty thing, but I was in a hurry to get something out before walking out the door. I regretfully withdraw points #1 and #2.

However, in reference to #4, my intent is to determine who the passive poisoner is. I don't want to stumble across them in the middle of the night.

For #5, You say that blacky365 is his only possible target? Why? ANYONE else could have been his target. Unless Mets is lying, there is a passive poisoner. Blacky could have been poisoned that way and someone else was poisoned by jfm. Sure, on the surface, it makes the most sense that it was blacky, but it doesn't eliminate other possibilities.

[TX AG 90]

I could go with the guy who's using shit logic to pretty much ignore other valid cases in favor of lynching in his own words a doctor.

I have reasons why I don't believe he is a doctor.

dakky, did you ever address this? I couldn't find a response.

[TX AG 90]

I could go with the guy who's using shit logic to pretty much ignore other valid cases in favor of lynching in his own words a doctor.

I have reasons why I don't believe he is a doctor.

dakky, did you ever address this? I couldn't find a response.

Never mind, I thought you were referring to SW, not jfm. Please disregard.

[dakky21]

I said already three people who were most protective of me ... zabeast, mets and skoff... why would they do that unless they know they can't NK me and then be friendly with someone you want dead...

I'll just cast my

vote mets

though that can change anytime. I don't see the point of the game if it's town vs town but I really think the setup is like that...

fpd... TX.. disregarded

[Sirius Kase]

It's either that, Dakky or it's the Gang that can't Shoot straight.

[chapcrap]

Voting pershy is the scummy side of that vote. I'm on the vote. I would have unvoted if I wasn't on vacation. I never bought Ragian's excuse for leading the lynch. Unvoting and the revoting. Mets came in and hammered quickly. Tobi decided to add on the vote even though he was already lynched

If you were in the wagon, were you not agreeing with his arguments?

I did agree, yes. Because of his absence and quick vote to L-1, I leaned scummy. Ragian's words swayed me to go ahead and vote. I was on vacation with my son for spring break and missed the claim and the quick lynch. I would have unvoted if I was present.

For #5, You say that blacky365 is his only possible target? Why? ANYONE else could have been his target. Unless Mets is lying, there is a passive poisoner. Blacky could have been poisoned that way and someone else was poisoned by jfm. Sure, on the surface, it makes the most sense that it was blacky, but it doesn't eliminate other possibilities. [/color]

If Mets is telling the truth, why only one poisoning on N1? jfm poisoned blacky. It wasn't passive.

[chapcrap]

EBWOP...

Voting pershy is the scummy side of that vote. I'm on the vote. I would have unvoted if I wasn't on vacation. I never bought Ragian's excuse for leading the lynch. Unvoting and the revoting. Mets came in and hammered quickly. Tobi decided to add on the vote even though he was already lynched

If you were in the wagon, were you not agreeing with his arguments?

I did agree, yes. Because of his absence and quick vote to L-1, I leaned scummy. Ragian's words swayed me to go ahead and vote. I was on vacation with my son for spring break and missed the claim and the quick lynch. I would have unvoted if I was present.

For #5, You say that blacky365 is his only possible target? Why? ANYONE else could have been his target. Unless Mets is lying, there is a passive poisoner. Blacky could have been poisoned that way and someone else was poisoned by jfm. Sure, on the surface, it makes the most sense that it was blacky, but it doesn't eliminate other possibilities.

If Mets is telling the truth, why only one poisoning on N1? jfm poisoned blacky. It wasn't passive.[/quote]

[Metsfanmax]

If Mets is telling the truth, why only one poisoning on N1? jfm poisoned blacky. It wasn't passive.

...because no one visited the passive poisoner on N1?

[TX AG 90]

If Mets is telling the truth, why only one poisoning on N1? jfm poisoned blacky. It wasn't passive.

How do you know there was only one poisoning?

[TX AG 90]

If Mets is telling the truth, why only one poisoning on N1? jfm poisoned blacky. It wasn't passive.

How do you know there was only one poisoning?

There was only one that we know of. I'm not taking anything for granted in this crazy game.

[BuJaber]

Town v Town wouldn't be bastard.. it WOULD NOT EVEN BE A MAFIA GAME.

So just stop

[Pikanchion]

2. I was the first to point out the possibility of a passive poisoner
4. I pushed Mets and Blacky to tell us more
5. I'm the one who keeps saying that jfm never claimed to have poisoned Blacky, many just claimed to have come to that conclusion. ZaBeast is the only one who agrees with me on this so far.

2. Untrue; your posts (particularly these two) at the beginning of day two clearly indicate you believed the poisoning was a result of targeted scum activity, and Ragian made the suggestion immediately afterwards (I actually mentioned it was Ragian just a few pages ago). Even if you had been the first, this would have still been baseless speculation on your part and hardly a point in your favour.
4. Oh, well that's certainly an interesting way of saying "I was rolefishing for blacky365's role, and Metsfanmax called me out on it".
5. Sure, but then jfm10 made the claim "My night attack came back successful" too, and if that were true blacky365 is the only possible target. Putting any weight on anything jfm10 said at any point is worthless though anyway, if jfm10 did or did not explicitly claim one thing or another is irrelevant.

If you're going to try defending yourself on a collection of weak points perhaps it would be wise to at least check if they're even true?

However, in reference to #4, my intent is to determine who the passive poisoner is. I don't want to stumble across them in the middle of the night.

For #5, You say that blacky365 is his only possible target? Why? ANYONE else could have been his target. Unless Mets is lying, there is a passive poisoner. Blacky could have been poisoned that way and someone else was poisoned by jfm. Sure, on the surface, it makes the most sense that it was blacky, but it doesn't eliminate other possibilities.

You cannot simply ignore my criticism of point two if you're going to use it to defend point four. You asserted that a passive poisoner existed and then used that as sole justification for demanding somebody else claim, how is this anything but rolefishing?

Regarding the fifth point, if jfm10's night action was successful (as quoted) and jfm10's role was either that of a traditional Vigilante or poisoner equivalent, then we know somebody was either killed or poisoned that night respectively. Nobody died that night, only one person claimed to have been poisoned the following day, and nobody died from poison the following night, therefore the only explanation which could realistically account for both the quoted statement and the facts as we have them is that jfm10 poisoned blacky365. My larger point however, was that you cannot actually trust jfm10's word in general, so it really does not matter if the blacky365 poisoning was actually claimed by jfm10.

[TX AG 90]

You asserted that a passive poisoner existed and then used that as sole justification for demanding somebody else claim, how is this anything but rolefishing?

Maybe I've got too narrow a definition of rolefishing. All I cared about was who they visited, not why. How is this role fishing?

Yea, the most reasonable conclusion is that jfm poisoned blacky, but we don't KNOW FOR SURE if anybody else was poisoned or not. I'm just saying we should keep our minds open to other possibilities in order to not miss putting an important piece of the puzzle together.

[chapcrap]

If Mets is telling the truth, why only one poisoning on N1? jfm poisoned blacky. It wasn't passive.

How do you know there was only one poisoning?

There was only one that we know of. I'm not taking anything for granted in this crazy game.

Because someone else would have wanted healed... Because no one else died. What are you talking about? We know there was only one.

If Mets is telling the truth, why only one poisoning on N1? jfm poisoned blacky. It wasn't passive.

...because no one visited the passive poisoner on N1?

There are so many different ways to kill someone, and we're supposed to believe that poisoner is being used twice and coincidentally only once N1 and N2 when the N1 poisoning was already spoken for? Sure, many marine animals can poison, but many more use other methods of killing. Poisoning is not a super common skill.

[Metsfanmax]

If Mets is telling the truth, why only one poisoning on N1? jfm poisoned blacky. It wasn't passive.

...because no one visited the passive poisoner on N1?

There are so many different ways to kill someone, and we're supposed to believe that poisoner is being used twice and coincidentally only once N1 and N2 when the N1 poisoning was already spoken for? Sure, many marine animals can poison, but many more use other methods of killing. Poisoning is not a super common skill.

No, I wasn't commenting on specifically whether you should believe that there are multiple poisoners in this game. I was answering the narrow question you posed: if we do assume two poisoners, how do we explain that there was only one poisoning on N1 and not two? And I was saying that the answer was obvious.

[TX AG 90]

If Mets is telling the truth, why only one poisoning on N1? jfm poisoned blacky. It wasn't passive.

How do you know there was only one poisoning?

There was only one that we know of. I'm not taking anything for granted in this crazy game.

Because someone else would have wanted healed... Because no one else died. What are you talking about? We know there was only one.

If Mets is telling the truth, why only one poisoning on N1? jfm poisoned blacky. It wasn't passive.

...because no one visited the passive poisoner on N1?

There are so many different ways to kill someone, and we're supposed to believe that poisoner is being used twice and coincidentally only once N1 and N2 when the N1 poisoning was already spoken for? Sure, many marine animals can poison, but many more use other methods of killing. Poisoning is not a super common skill.

Just because no one else died doesn't mean no one else was poisoned. I'm just saying in this case we shouldn't be using words like NEVER, ALWAYS, etc. We should be using probably, most likely, not likely, etc.

[Metsfanmax]

If Mets is telling the truth, why only one poisoning on N1? jfm poisoned blacky. It wasn't passive.

How do you know there was only one poisoning?

There was only one that we know of. I'm not taking anything for granted in this crazy game.

Because someone else would have wanted healed... Because no one else died. What are you talking about? We know there was only one.

If Mets is telling the truth, why only one poisoning on N1? jfm poisoned blacky. It wasn't passive.

...because no one visited the passive poisoner on N1?

There are so many different ways to kill someone, and we're supposed to believe that poisoner is being used twice and coincidentally only once N1 and N2 when the N1 poisoning was already spoken for? Sure, many marine animals can poison, but many more use other methods of killing. Poisoning is not a super common skill.

Just because no one else died doesn't mean no one else was poisoned. I'm just saying in this case we shouldn't be using words like NEVER, ALWAYS, etc. We should be using probably, most likely, not likely, etc.

Technically you're right, but realistically two N1 poisonings with no N2 deaths is so hard to explain that we may as well treat it as impossible.

[Pikanchion]

Maybe I've got too narrow a definition of rolefishing. All I cared about was who they visited, not why. How is this role fishing?

First, you only changed it to that after people challenged you on your initial questions.
This:

I still wonder if Blacky did something to trigger a poisoning. It would help if he shared his night action with us if it isn't too compromising.

Blacky care to share what you were doing last night that may have gotten you in this pickle?

Became:

I'm not fishing, I just want to know if there is a passive poisoner out there. Blacky doesn't have to go into complete specifics, but if he did a night action to someone who is a sting ray (non violent unless stepped on) or something like that and got poisoned I think it's worth noting. So yes, Blacky's action could have triggered someones passive ability.

Again, I wasn't role fishing. I was just trying to gather whether a passive poisoner was possible. Blacky said enough without revealing anything. It was well played and I haven't asked for anything since.

Second, that is still rolefishing. Pushing others to reveal things about their role if you do not suspect them is generally rolefishing, even if it is just the target of their actions. Think about the usefulness of this information if blacky365 had revealed it: for town, we might get a lead on a role that exists only by hypothesis currently, and which could be of any alignment; for scum, one can now infer the type of role blacky365 holds by the target of the action and blacky365's stated suspicions or lack thereof.

Yea, the most reasonable conclusion is that jfm poisoned blacky, but we don't KNOW FOR SURE if anybody else was poisoned or not. I'm just saying we should keep our minds open to other possibilities in order to not miss putting an important piece of the puzzle together.

If somebody else was poisoned on the first night, how are they still alive and what would they stand to gain by hiding the fact initially? You are still missing my point here though, jfm10's claims are directly contradictory throughout, so you pointing out that jfm10 did not explicitly state that blacky365 was the target of their action is neither relevant nor a point in your favour.

For the record, since we're on this topic I actually suspect that jfm10 may not have even had the ability to poison people. The mod called the role a Vigilante, which usually means something very specific in this game, and that's what I will treat it as having been.

[TX AG 90]

I still wonder if Blacky did something to trigger a poisoning. It would help if he shared his night action with us if it isn't too compromising.

Blacky care to share what you were doing last night that may have gotten you in this pickle?

Became:

I'm not fishing, I just want to know if there is a passive poisoner out there. Blacky doesn't have to go into complete specifics, but if he did a night action to someone who is a sting ray (non violent unless stepped on) or something like that and got poisoned I think it's worth noting. So yes, Blacky's action could have triggered someones passive ability.

Again, I wasn't role fishing. I was just trying to gather whether a passive poisoner was possible. Blacky said enough without revealing anything. It was well played and I haven't asked for anything since.

Second, that is still rolefishing. Pushing others to reveal things about their role if you do not suspect them is generally rolefishing, even if it is just the target of their actions. Think about the usefulness of this information if blacky365 had revealed it: for town, we might get a lead on a role that exists only by hypothesis currently, and which could be of any alignment; for scum, one can now infer the type of role blacky365 holds by the target of the action and blacky365's stated suspicions or lack thereof.

OK, I hate arguing semantics and since I don't clearly know the accepted definition of mafia terms, I won't.

I understood that rolefishing was a scummy trait, but I guess not. All I'm trying to point out is that I was trying to get an understanding of WHO blacky targeted that night, but only if sharing that info didn't compromise him (if he is town).

I still don't think jfm poisoned blacky and am willing to bet a virtual beer on that when this is all said in done. What I would like to find out is if blacky is lying about being poisoned (I don't currently think he is, but I haven't eliminated the possibility) or was he passively poisoned. If he was passively poisoned along with Mets (who I am 99% sure is telling the truth about being poisoned), then it would help to know who it is. I'm not sure why everyone wants to keep this a secret.

If we go on the premise that there is a passive poisoner and jfm was a poisoner, wouldn't it stand to reason that there are multiple poison healers? Do they both have to be town or could scum have a healer?

I'm just trying to pick at the only threads I can. I have a feeling once the 1st domino falls, the entire scum structure will come tumbling down.

[TX AG 90]

EBMOP to make it easier to read

I still wonder if Blacky did something to trigger a poisoning. It would help if he shared his night action with us if it isn't too compromising.

Blacky care to share what you were doing last night that may have gotten you in this pickle?

Became:

I'm not fishing, I just want to know if there is a passive poisoner out there. Blacky doesn't have to go into complete specifics, but if he did a night action to someone who is a sting ray (non violent unless stepped on) or something like that and got poisoned I think it's worth noting. So yes, Blacky's action could have triggered someones passive ability.

Again, I wasn't role fishing. I was just trying to gather whether a passive poisoner was possible. Blacky said enough without revealing anything. It was well played and I haven't asked for anything since.

Second, that is still rolefishing. Pushing others to reveal things about their role if you do not suspect them is generally rolefishing, even if it is just the target of their actions. Think about the usefulness of this information if blacky365 had revealed it: for town, we might get a lead on a role that exists only by hypothesis currently, and which could be of any alignment; for scum, one can now infer the type of role blacky365 holds by the target of the action and blacky365's stated suspicions or lack thereof.

OK, I hate arguing semantics and since I don't clearly know the accepted definition of mafia terms, I won't.

I understood that rolefishing was a scummy trait, but I guess not. All I'm trying to point out is that I was trying to get an understanding of WHO blacky targeted that night, but only if sharing that info didn't compromise him (if he is town).

I still don't think jfm poisoned blacky and am willing to bet a virtual beer on that when this is all said in done. What I would like to find out is if blacky is lying about being poisoned (I don't currently think he is, but I haven't eliminated the possibility) or was he passively poisoned. If he was passively poisoned along with Mets (who I am 99% sure is telling the truth about being poisoned), then it would help to know who it is. I'm not sure why everyone wants to keep this a secret.

If we go on the premise that there is a passive poisoner and jfm was a poisoner, wouldn't it stand to reason that there are multiple poison healers? Do they both have to be town or could scum have a healer?

I'm just trying to pick at the only threads I can. I have a feeling once the 1st domino falls, the entire scum structure will come tumbling down.

[TX AG 90]

If Mets is telling the truth, why only one poisoning on N1? jfm poisoned blacky. It wasn't passive.

How do you know there was only one poisoning?

There was only one that we know of. I'm not taking anything for granted in this crazy game.

Because someone else would have wanted healed... Because no one else died. What are you talking about? We know there was only one.

If Mets is telling the truth, why only one poisoning on N1? jfm poisoned blacky. It wasn't passive.

...because no one visited the passive poisoner on N1?

There are so many different ways to kill someone, and we're supposed to believe that poisoner is being used twice and coincidentally only once N1 and N2 when the N1 poisoning was already spoken for? Sure, many marine animals can poison, but many more use other methods of killing. Poisoning is not a super common skill.

Just because no one else died doesn't mean no one else was poisoned. I'm just saying in this case we shouldn't be using words like NEVER, ALWAYS, etc. We should be using probably, most likely, not likely, etc.

Technically you're right, but realistically two N1 poisonings with no N2 deaths is so hard to explain that we may as well treat it as impossible.

What's also hard to explain is why scum didn't kill SW last night. It's my understanding that if they did, he wouldn't have been able to heal blacky and we would have lost 2 townies N2 (if they are in fact townies).

Mets, Blacky was begging for someone to heal him. You have been more composed for someone who may die tonight; is it just your personality?