WW 19 Game Thread - Mobster Mayhem - GAME OVER

[Serdoa]

waterbat, here are your statements regarding the vest and me, in comparison:

@village: there is the possibility that a scum holds the vest and they decided not to night kill. I know likelihood of thus is low, but wouldn't be granting confirmed status because of it. Let serdoa pick out all the scum and lets lynch them as proof of alignment.

@serdoa. I was saying that my observation ( that the lack of a night kill did not mean you were confirmed innocent ) was highly unlikely and threw in a little reference to last game, but it really just boils down to: we should judge your scumminess more on your play. Don't see how that is the least bit anti-town.

If I went anti-town, I'd try to craft that observation into a reason for your guilt. Id try to put doubt in people's minds a out the trustworthiness of our mayor. ( even if you were my scum-buddy, I'd do this).

Your first statement is obviously trying to doubt my trustworthiness by inciting the thought that I still could be scum. Which actually would be fine, if you hadn't added the second part which basically just states "If Serdoa isn't calling out scum soon, we should lynch him." That is not helping you (scum) right now, but it might come in handy later in the game. You've shown exceptional skill last game to set a tone early on which you can point back to much later in the game and I believe this is just another example.

Thanks MJW. I'm always a nice dumping ground for votes. As stated the only defense I had planned was a fake claim against tasunke's.

@zak,@serdoa: I'm not as dumb as I sound. Perhaps this is too close to 15 when I played inept villager to he end, but anyway, I had my reasons for wanting to lie. But I couldn't make it work, so I didn't. You all pointing out that it wouldn't have worked is just validating my decision not to have done it. Thanks.

Yeah true, you had your reasons why you considered to lie. And in the post I quoted above you have even stated it: "the only defense [against a lynch] I had planned was a fake claim against tasunke's". Added by me the part in the [ ] which is obvious when one is reading your other posts. So, first you claimed you wanted to save him. Then you claim you wanted to save you both. Against MJW you claim you wanted to save yourself. I actually don't care at this point what the purpose of your idea was, because quite obviously you shift that around freely anyway. What I do care about though is that this is clearly not the sign of a villager but that of a flailing scum.

waterbat

Still looks right to me.

[Ryan]

@Qgqqqqq I was not convinced by the argument that we should lynch either Azza or Tasunke today. They both said they had items. The current item holders couldnt reveal but they can reveal after tonight since they will be passing thier items anyways. For example the seer and gun. Thats why I believe it wasnt proper to talk about item lynches untill day 3 when we have a vigi and item seer who can reveal without risking thier items.

I am having a bit of trouble understanding your thought process here as well. Azza called Tasunke out on a lie but you don't think either Tasunke or Azza are guilty?

And when you say "The current item holders couldnt reveal" does that mean you knew Tasunke was lying before he was killed? Because i can't see any harm in a village picklock revealing if Azza was lying about his reveal. There is potential for harm for the vig to reveal though.

Let me try explaining this again. If you are a vigi you shoot night one, you pass night two then you have no powers starting night three. I did not want to focus on anyone claiming items untill day three since the first vigilantee can reveal his who he was without risking his powers. Same thing with the seer or any person who has an item that forces you to pass it. We could watch them both for night two but on day two we should focus on people who were hiding, not talking or acted wierd since there are a lot of people who were not talking in the middle of the Rowain vs tasunke and Azza vs Tasunke. If we questioned them and understood more about thier roles and then focusing on the items day three. Wouldnt have that been more effective since the old item holders could have revealed? If I misunderstood something about the whole vigi and seer item tell me. But what I understood was, they killed 1 night then they pass the 2nd night. kill 3rd night pass 4th night.

If i am still being unclear please tell me.

[Ryan]

it would be worth it.
Nah I totally understand, I know I spend way to long on these games.

Ryan -one of them was clearly lying,(and considering as a villager) you shouldn't lie, we had a 50:50 shot at a wolf.
Yes you had a case on wb / selrahc, so what? We knew that one of them was a wolf(or we did if tasunke was sane) while you merely had a rather circumstantial case.
I also don't see a lie...
The point is that wolves normally play normally. if they were going to lurk, they do that. if they were going to span posts they do that.
just because bigger was lurking doesn't mean that's what evil will be doing.

Waterbat said that he did not reveal the whole I am gonna fake claim vigi to help tasunke while responding to me. I just prooved that he did . While saying that he did not reveal he said : wtf why do you keep thinking my posts are about you. Dont you think that was a lie and attempt to dissapprove what I was saying?

[waterbat]

That's good Ryan. I hadn't put that together from your post, but yes day3 sounds like a good reveal time for the gun and board users who have passed on their items.

@serdoa: "I had my reasons" translates to " I have the bomb"
The ideal situation/result for my play would have been thus:

I fake-counter-claim gun.
Tasunke is scum ( lying or not) and gets lynched.
If he was lying, I get night killed to rid the world of the gun. My bomb takes a wolf out. Or the wolves waste a steal on an item that really isn't of use to them. ( vig killing the bomb holder is ok)
If he was telling the truth, but scum, we get rid of the gun and I explain myself.

But I was afraid he was innocent and actually held the gun. So. I still wanted to do this play. I would imply that he had the bomb and was indeed baiting the scum. But if i stood up for tasunke the village would ask me 'wtf waterbat, why are you ruining tasunke's brilliant plan?'. Why would I out myself and another PR?

I even envisioned an impossible scenario where I could say who I was passing the gun to at night and villager tasunke would pass it on for me. But he'd have to know I was holdi g the bomb and was trying to work with him. I couldn't figure out a way that he would understand without tipping my lie.

So - overall, I'm just plain stupid for thinking I will EVER get night killed in any scenario on this forum.

So there - I have the gas can. I'll pass it tonight. I'm going to sign off for a bit.

[waterbat]

@Ryan: yeah I combined those posts. My bad. I didn't say fuck off though, I said I gave a flying fuck, which was true. My bad again.

[Serdoa]

I'm actually finding Ryan scummy , the way he ignored the obvious battle and kept pleading for people to join his waterbat lynch. SEEMS like complete newbie play but I actually think its more calculated in an attempt ti follow the BRick WW15 precedent..

Why would scum particularly care about tasunke or Rowain? Experience shows that when it's villager on villager, other villagers tend to pull the trigger.

Shall I point out I was parked on zakalwe? With your reasoning that scum were playing tasunke vs Rowain, how do I fit in?

Qgqqq, clarify that please for me: Ryan ignoring the obvious battle and pleading for other lynches seems like a newbie play but you believe it is more calculated. But waterbat ignoring the obvious battle and pleading for other lynches (by voting for zak) is not? If it is, why is Ryan more scummy, despite waterbat being the one contradicting himself several times now.

I am having a bit of trouble understanding your thought process here as well. Azza called Tasunke out on a lie but you don't think either Tasunke or Azza are guilty?

And when you say "The current item holders couldnt reveal" does that mean you knew Tasunke was lying before he was killed? Because i can't see any harm in a village picklock revealing if Azza was lying about his reveal. There is potential for harm for the vig to reveal though.

I don't see Ryan stating that he didn't think either was guilty. He just states what I wrote also when Tasunke was still alive: That we maybe should simply let both players alone and wait till D3 as our vig can claim at that point if Tasunke was not it. Even if Tasunke is scum at that point, there are at least 2 more, it doesn't matter if we wait a day before we lynch him. But mislynching him and losing the gun if he says the truth would be dumb. And mislynching Azza despite him maybe saying the truth and simply been jailed and BRick a bastard is not helping matters. So why kill either of them when we can wait and get our answer on the next day for certain? Much better to hunt for other targets at that point, especially when you believe to have a lead.

And that the sentence about the current item holders was about board and real vig should be obvious. Also, you can't know for certain if Azza is not indeed scum. If he had tried to picklock Tasunke (would make sense with all his hinting D1) and didn't find anything, it would make sense to reveal that he tried and get Tasunke lynched. Not saying that is the case, but thats another reason to simply wait for the next day.

Now, might I ask, are you doing that on purpose or did you really not understand him?

[Ryan]

Waterbat claiming Gas can actually makes sense with that play in my mind atleast.. atleast for today. then We have selrahc, Matt, Merovech that I personally have no read on. Well id by lying if i said have no read on selrahc I think hes scummy but people arent sharing that idea. Il think about my vote I guess.. If I can let Waterbat live today since if he is saying the truth we need that gas can. But there is no garantee that the gas can started town with him. It also feels like he may have just made up that story or he truly has it and will pass it to the other scum if he was scum.

[zakalwe]

Post 932 is a bit over the top, so Q.

I think Waterbat is likely scum, but we want that gas can. And the rules prevent him from having it destroyed by passing it to his night kill target.

[Ryan]

Or if azza is scum he can steal it. but we will know ..

[Qgqqqqq]

I'm actually finding Ryan scummy , the way he ignored the obvious battle and kept pleading for people to join his waterbat lynch. SEEMS like complete newbie play but I actually think its more calculated in an attempt ti follow the BRick WW15 precedent..

Why would scum particularly care about tasunke or Rowain? Experience shows that when it's villager on villager, other villagers tend to pull the trigger.

Shall I point out I was parked on zakalwe? With your reasoning that scum were playing tasunke vs Rowain, how do I fit in?

Qgqqq, clarify that please for me: Ryan ignoring the obvious battle and pleading for other lynches seems like a newbie play but you believe it is more calculated. But waterbat ignoring the obvious battle and pleading for other lynches (by voting for zak) is not? If it is, why is Ryan more scummy, despite waterbat being the one contradicting himself several times now.

Sorry I thought I'd made myself clearer; I find Waterbat very suspicious - but the village seemed to be focussing on him alone so I thought I'd raise my suspicion on Ryan.
Now that Waterbats claimed ( ) we need to put off his lynch till either a countercclaim or the preson he says hes passing to confirm it.