Mafia 1 - The CROWN - GAME OVER!

[zero]

Have we not learned ANYTHING from @Mary and to a certain extent @Nanaa? In the case of @Mary I kept telling you that we should lynch her first but was constantly ignored to the point where @Emily nearly convinced you to let her live another day so that she can "investigate" her.

Actually, keeping them around longer made @Emilly try to defend her longer, even to the point of claiming a contradiction which allowed us to catch her. So this is a bad example, @zero.

I think we can both agree the town got VERY lucky with Emily's unforced error and she had a big chance of getting her way and saving @Mary from the lynch after manipulating @phox and then trying it on with you.

With regards to @Clemens, something has been bugging me over the last few days. First of all, why did @Emily try to give him a cheap alibi by claiming to have investigated him in N3? I know that she later raised the prospect that @Clemens was perhaps Godfather but that could well have been just a diversion in order to make sure that they don't seem too friendly with each other. She then makes an unforced error by claiming to have investigated @radwulf in N1 which is discovered and raised first by @Clemens. I was wondering though, @Clemens seems like a clever guy, what if he knew full well that emily's error would be spotted by either @Gridfon and @Princess.ruxi anyway since the two were constantly keeping tabs on all NTAs or the very least by @Noni with whom it contradicted directly. As a result, he decided that the best course of action is to "feed her to the wolves" since she was pretty much doomed anyway while also obtaining a very solid alibi in the process. I mean, this would perhaps explain to a certain extent emily's cry of betrayal since she tried to offer @Clemens an alibi and protect @Mary from the lynch only to be thrown under the bus by him.

A good of a theory as any.
I'm not sure what her plan was; at first you'd think she was trying to get me on her side (like she did with @phox), but then she threw a cheap discredit attempt out as well - playing both sides.
@Gridfon investigated me and gained my trust, perhaps she was hoping the same would happen - after all, with my role, I would be desperate to have someone believe me and confirm my existence.
It was probably a lot more important to her to prove herself so she could continue claiming to investigate @Mary the next night, and using me (who she knew was telling the truth, after all) was the safest bet. I was not the priority, @Mary was.
And I do believe someone would have picked up on the contradiction sooner or later, but I was active at the time so there was no reason for me to let it go. Letting it go undetected would have been suspicious one way or another. This logic works both ways and is down to either believing me or doubting me according to my actions.

To be fair, my theory is just that, a theory. It cannot and should not stand on its own feet but might be useful with more compelling evidence. I certainly would not encourage anyone to vote for you because of it and neither am I.

I also cannot forget that @Clemens refused to get rid of @Mary first even though he keeps claiming otherwise today.

I don't know what you mean, could you elaborate?

Sure.
#1287

It is nearly the end of the day, your vote should be on @Mary or alternatively @EC which is the most likely way to lynch a mafia player today. Instead you started diverting attention to @Sander which is EXACTLY what I am accusing you of. How the heck did we get ourselves into this position whereby we let @Mary off the hook, an obvious mafia player, and can't muster enough support to lynch her? You are partly to blame for this!

#1296

So you do agree that there is a contradiction regarding your role and are hinting it might be Daemons fault. Interesting.

Anyway, in the interest to save time and get something done, let us continue our feud later and agree to vote for either EC or Mary. I will let you choose since the outcome will be the same. I already have my vote on Mary but can change it to EC if needed.

Your reply.
#1291

It is nearly the end of the day, your vote should be on @Mary or alternatively @EC which is the most likely way to lynch a mafia player today. Instead you started diverting attention to @Sander which is EXACTLY what I am accusing you of. How the heck did we get ourselves into this position whereby we let @Mary off the hook, an obvious mafia player, and can't muster enough support to lynch her? You are partly to blame for this!

We can lynch more than one person, but for some reason you are vehemently against taking a closer look at the Radwulf voters.
I am not sure which of the two (between @Mary and @EscapedConvict) is the guilty party.
Though I have stated that @Mary's NTA does not make sense to me in the way she described it.

I am doubting that a person with a hyper active immune system is suitable to defend against coronavirus when the reality is that it is one of the main causes of death. There's clearly a contradiction in your role and I think you were sloppy and contradicted yourself by making up your "immunity" since a hyper-active immune system would not protect you from coronavirus (i.e., the viral infection in this game), on the very contrary.

Daemon is going to hate hearing that.

Your attempt to call this logical procedure a diversion is frankly laughable.

I feel like you're talking to yourself at this point.
So to not waste too much time with you, I'll keep my replies short.

#1300

So you do agree that there is a contradiction regarding your role and are hinting it might be Daemons fault. Interesting.

I think you're coming up with your own explanations of real world corona only at places that suit you, while ignoring the real world equivalent in places it doesn't. Like how quickly corona kills in this game - incredibly fast. Besides that, how could anyone even be immune to all viral infections in the real world to begin with?
You also claim I wouldn't be in good health due to the hyper-active immune system, which is exactly what I claimed as well.
So it's not even a contradiction to begin with.

Anyway, in the interest to save time and get something done, let us continue our feud later and agree to vote for either EC or Mary. I will let you choose since the outcome will be the same. I already have my vote on Mary but can change it to EC if needed.

So you agree this was a massive distraction then.

Mary's NTA has me doubting her alignment, but neither do I blindly want to believe EC.
Both have, however, confirmed that death will hit them both - a very strange play if they are both on the same side.
Multiple lynches are possible, and lynching EC is "safer" merely because he's the instigator.

My reply
#1302

It is a bit funny to claim I am staging a massive diversion by pointing out contradictions in your role. You would say that wouldnt you? The very fact that there seems to be a delay in death due to the virus seems to indicate that Daemon tried to keep the game as realistic to the theme as possible.

Anyway, although multiple lynches are possible, we are nowhere near actually lynching someone and the day ends tomorrow evening. I will unvote Mary and vote EscapedConvict. I expect @Clemens to do the same without delay.


Another person who I believe has completely made up their role and is probably mafia as well is @Nanaa. Time permitting, I propose we lynch her after we get rid of @Mary via @EC.

My follow on #1306

It is a bit funny to claim I am staging a massive diversion by pointing out contradictions in your role. You would say that wouldnt you? The very fact that there seems to be a delay in death due to the virus seems to indicate that Daemon tried to keep the game as realistic to the theme as possible.

Anyway, although multiple lynches are possible, we are nowhere near actually lynching someone and the day ends tomorrow evening. I will unvote Mary and vote EscapedConvict. I expect @Clemens to do the same without delay.


Another person who I believe has completely made up their role and is probably mafia as well is @Nanaa. Time permitting, I propose we lynch her after we get rid of @Mary via @EC.

why not in the other order? EC is maybe a townie so why not kill him last wih mary?

See above post from @Clemens with reasoning I actually agree with. Also, I might be wrong but I think @EC voted for himself as well. If they both die, it really doesnt matter who we lynch as long as what @EC says is true. Perhaps we can get even more clues if @Mary dies as a result of @EC getting lynched than we would otherwise. Moreover, if @EC
is somehow lying, @Mary should survive.

Your response #1308 where you agree with me that we should lynch @Mary via @EC now ("Alright. Sounds like a plan.")

It is a bit funny to claim I am staging a massive diversion by pointing out contradictions in your role. You would say that wouldnt you?

It's been a lot of crap logic with no substance, so of course I would say that.
A sad state of affairs.
Your overeagerness to ignore the Radwulf last-minute voters and instead focus on everyone else makes you impossible to trust.

Alright, sounds like we have a plan.
We've been too divided.

Lynch Sander or Nanaa (valli has managed to stay under the radar, but is not forgotten).
As stated, I don't believe Sander is telling the full truth about his role (hopefully he didn't just completely misunderstand it as Moxy and Radwulf did).
And Nanaa's role just doesn't fit in, even the updated description has not changed that.

Then after I am willing to deal with the twin situation as we don't have anything else to go on right now.
(Still not willing to wait for inactive players to react, wasting our time.)

@EscapedConvict would you agree to doing that??

But then you went on and voted for @Blissie instead.

[zero]

In #1338 I get annoyed that you still havent voted for either @EC or @Mary and then you reply this to @EC who was also trying to convince you to vote for him in order to lynch @Mary in #1341

But one of HAS to be scum correct? And by lynching one, the other dies too.
Why do I get the eerie feeling you're trying to hide this logical outcome in your posts.
[...]
So, @Clemens are you willing to vote @Mary or myself to "get things moving" (referencing what you said earlier defending your first long post) and lynch a scum?
Your Sander vote is wasted as things stand .

I assume so, since both being on the same side makes little sense to me.
And I've stated many times my intentions to your twin problem.
I want to solve the main targets first and then deal with both of you - probably by voting for you over her (since if what you say is true, she dies as well)
Sander and Nanaa are more a concern to me than you and Mary, because your situation is allegedly "easier" to solve.
I'll, once again, underline the whole multiple lynches possibility.

Having to repeat myself so often because too many are not reading properly is getting a little tedious.

Here you say you want to solve main targets first and then deal with the two of them which proves my point that you weren't promoting that we focus and lynch @Mary first, I was, and you were in fact trying to delay it.

Then in #1346 you denied we actually had an agreement to lynch the twins first.

You keep contradicting yourself @Clemens.

Go on, ignore what I actually said.

You either haven't read posts properly or are ignoring this on purpose.

Go on, ignore what I actually said.

The only reason I am actually taking the time to refute all your false arguments is for the benefit of others so that they may see what you truly are, a liar.

Go on, ignore what I actually said.

Moreover, I thought we agreed to be pragmatic and quickly lynch @Mary via @EC today so that we can then go for @Nanaa afterwards but although you claim to agree with this plan, you go on and divert it again by asking us to go for @Sander and @Nanaa first.

You and EC (though he is obvious, so it's really just you) are the only ones that agreed to this order, everyone else that pitched in agreed to the opposite order.

There is this well known proverb in Romanian: "Cine aleargă după doi iepuri, nu prinde nici unul." which translated means "He who runs after two hares ends up catching none". I believe it is very appropriate in this case.

You have literally done this yourself.
Why do you keep accusing others of the exact things you are doing yourself?

You are a waste of time, zero.

EDIT: Fixed quotes.

[zero]

I hope @Clemens you don't find the above also taken out of context and you agree that you did not in fact push the town to lynch @Mary first.

[Rene]

I'm ready. But I don't feel threatened by having these threes votes on me as I stated. I'm willing to give town more time if they wish to discuss other possibilities.

Other than that, all is set. @Gridfon @Skuggi @Sander. I disclosed that you're my most trusted townies. Share your valuable insight with everyone else, pretty please.

[Noni]

I don't understand why everyone is in a rush to lynch rene when we already decided we would do it before the end of the day.

We have nothing to lose if we keep talking until the deadline when we agreed to test rene's dta.

I'm working until 9 and had some conference calls until now but I can keep checking the forum. So unless anyone knows it well be a while I think we should focus on other topics until the rene agreed deadline happens.

[Noni]

I'm ready. But I don't feel threatened by having these threes votes on me as I stated. I'm willing to give town more time if they wish to discuss other possibilities.

Other than that, all is set. @Gridfon @Skuggi @Sander. I disclosed that you're my most trusted townies. Share your valuable insight with everyone else, pretty please.

Do we say the deadline is a couple of hours before 9pm?

[valli]

Returning after being 5 hours in the mountains ... I see that Heffie is gone ... mhm reading @Daemon hint it sounds like she would've won with mafia ... so hopefully not that much lost.

@Rene looking forward for your return.

[Rene]

Mary was never a top priority, just like I am right now. Because she was getting lynched after the others were discussed. Just like it's today.
Clemens' argument in that sense makes sense.

I don't know, this honestly feels like a debate between a group of players that can prioritize their targets properly and the other group that can't do the same thus gets manipulated by mafia into picking the least important targets over the most important ones.

@Noni Just agree on a GMT time with the others, please. Earlier is definitely the better for me. If there will be no discussions/votes to be had. But I'm fine with dragging myself as long as possible only for today.

@valli I'm here, I already posted that I'm here.

[Clemens]

I also cannot forget that @Clemens refused to get rid of @Mary first even though he keeps claiming otherwise today.

I don't know what you mean, could you elaborate?

Sure.

(Not quoting everything else above, just to keep things a little easier to digest.)

I never agreed that we should kill Mary/EC first; I stated multiple times that I personally would like to deal with them last as that has the lowest risk involved - which many others suggested as well.
While unsure what to really think about the twin-paradox, at the time I believed that one of them must be lying, but uncertain about which one. They both confirmed the twin-death part, so even if one is lying that should mean that at least killing one does kill the other. Hence, I deemed it safer to kill them off at the end.
While I wasn't comfortable about believing EC (the accusor), I did believe that Mary's NTA did not make any sense the way she claimed it worked and thus was inclined to believe she was the guilty twin.

Regardless, the most important factor here is the altered lynching rule - since multiple lynches are available, we did not have to deal with them right away. If it's just 1 lynch per day, I would have agreed to go after Mary/EC first. But since we had as many lynches as we wanted available, it just made sense to investigate other potential avenues first and use that as an additional time frame to observe how both of them react - perhaps giving us additional clues.
That's all; I just didn't want to rush the twin-problem until I wrapped my head around it some more.
This delay actually gave Mafia the hope that they might be able to save Mary in the end, and they attempted to argue keeping her alive another night - primarily Emilly with her claims.
We caught her; which brought us to have no doubt about Mary being scum (giving Mafia no chance to save her anymore) and also allowed us to lynch more suspected conspirators without completely ruining our numerical balance.
Albeit lucky, it still happened.

[Noni]

vote Clemens
I don't want rene to use his ability. We may need it down the line depending on what numbers we have. And he may only have one chance but he is stubborn and wants to prove us wrong. The main reason I found him suspicious was his stalling and I never knew this role existed so I could not figure it out why he would be stalling.
If two people agree with me and vote clemens nobody else will die today and we can pick this up tomorrow. If heffie was counting as town we have literally killed one of our own (a bad one but it seems she "decoupled" from the Mafia along with Emily's death)

[Clemens]

(Oh, forgot to add in this reply to the last post to @zero.)

I think we can both agree the town got VERY lucky with Emily's unforced error and she had a big chance of getting her way and saving @Mary from the lynch after manipulating @phox and then trying it on with you.

Yes, I agree it was lucky.
She didn't have to declare a role; she just wanted to save @Mary.

Do we say the deadline is a couple of hours before 9pm?

We already discussed a deadline, but I don't mind changing it.

Would you be open to having a instant lynch of Rene at 18:00 GMT/UTC on Sunday (two hours before deadline)?

[Noni]

(Oh, forgot to add in this reply to the last post to @zero.)

I think we can both agree the town got VERY lucky with Emily's unforced error and she had a big chance of getting her way and saving @Mary from the lynch after manipulating @phox and then trying it on with you.

Yes, I agree it was lucky.
She didn't have to declare a role; she just wanted to save @Mary.

Do we say the deadline is a couple of hours before 9pm?

We already discussed a deadline, but I don't mind changing it.

Would you be open to having a instant lynch of Rene at 18:00 GMT/UTC on Sunday (two hours before deadline)?

Sorry. That's fine. 18 00.

[zero]

I don't know what you mean, could you elaborate?

Sure.

(Not quoting everything else above, just to keep things a little easier to digest.)

I never agreed that we should kill Mary/EC first; I stated multiple times that I personally would like to deal with them last as that has the lowest risk involved - which many others suggested as well.
While unsure what to really think about the twin-paradox, at the time I believed that one of them must be lying, but uncertain about which one. They both confirmed the twin-death part, so even if one is lying that should mean that at least killing one does kill the other. Hence, I deemed it safer to kill them off at the end.
While I wasn't comfortable about believing EC (the accusor), I did believe that Mary's NTA did not make any sense the way she claimed it worked and thus was inclined to believe she was the guilty twin.

Regardless, the most important factor here is the altered lynching rule - since multiple lynches are available, we did not have to deal with them right away. If it's just 1 lynch per day, I would have agreed to go after Mary/EC first. But since we had as many lynches as we wanted available, it just made sense to investigate other potential avenues first and use that as an additional time frame to observe how both of them react - perhaps giving us additional clues.
That's all; I just didn't want to rush the twin-problem until I wrapped my head around it some more.
This delay actually gave Mafia the hope that they might be able to save Mary in the end, and they attempted to argue keeping her alive another night - primarily Emilly with her claims.
We caught her; which brought us to have no doubt about Mary being scum (giving Mafia no chance to save her anymore) and also allowed us to lynch more suspected conspirators without completely ruining our numerical balance.
Albeit lucky, it still happened.

All I wanted to show is that you did not prioritize lynching @Mary first, I did, except for of course @EC (F) who made it his life goal.

[Clemens]

I don't want rene to use his ability. We may need it down the line depending on what numbers we have. And he may only have one chance but he is stubborn and wants to prove us wrong.

Wouldn't him being able to prove that he is a townie be beneficial?
Unless you have some clear-cut Mafia suspects lined up; because I don't.

vote Clemens
[...]
The main reason I found [Clemens] suspicious was his stalling and I never knew this role existed so I could not figure it out why he would be stalling.

Which stalling are we talking about?
And I've learned about many roles in this massive game (remember, 28 players) that I've never seen before or even thought about.

If two people agree with me and vote clemens nobody else will die today and we can pick this up tomorrow.

That makes no sense.
If you want no one to die, shouldn't you be voting for a no lynch? Or convincing people on @Rene to unvote him?
Yet your vote on me is very much the opposite, since that means there is the potential of another death (besides, to save myself, wouldn't I then definitely vote for @Rene?).

(a bad one but it seems she "decoupled" from the Mafia along with Emily's death)

The death clues imply the opposite, @Noni - she was not decoupled.

[zero]

I don't understand why everyone is in a rush to lynch rene when we already decided we would do it before the end of the day.

We have nothing to lose if we keep talking until the deadline when we agreed to test rene's dta.

I'm working until 9 and had some conference calls until now but I can keep checking the forum. So unless anyone knows it well be a while I think we should focus on other topics until the rene agreed deadline happens.

Because he is lying and such DTA is impossible to exist? Have you encountered anything like that in all the years we played mafia on this forum and in particular, in games moderated by @Daemon? Have you?

He's obviously stalling and we will have a few hours time to debate further once he is gone BECAUSE HIS DTA DOES NOT EXIST.

[Rene]

vote Clemens
I don't want rene to use his ability. We may need it down the line depending on what numbers we have. And he may only have one chance but he is stubborn and wants to prove us wrong. The main reason I found him suspicious was his stalling and I never knew this role existed so I could not figure it out why he would be stalling.
If two people agree with me and vote clemens nobody else will die today and we can pick this up tomorrow. If heffie was counting as town we have literally killed one of our own (a bad one but it seems she "decoupled" from the Mafia along with Emily's death)

I really appreciate the thought @Noni, but it's very likely that I get infected soon anyways. Because I still have abilities those are quite potent for the day time that I never revealed and that I never will to all details. And it's also fine if Mafia kills me, because the town suspects me to my guts. But it's even better if Mafia doesn't kill me because of those abilities. See. I'm putting us into the most beneficial scenario possible with this move. Keep in mind that after the demonstration nothing is stopping me from claiming my ability has a second charge, third charge, infinite charge. Zero can whine at @Daemon, all he likes for a design like that for all I care. Is it a gamble to play? Well, we all might as well play it and face the consequences, right?

Whereas if I don't use the ability, the town will still doubt me and I'll keep threatening them with it. It'll be an endless loop and the perfect argument for people who worked against the town so far to present against me. I'm not the one being stubborn, the people those are still going this hard after me are. If I don't do what's within my best ability to prove them wrong, then I'd be a griefer that intentionally threw the game for the town.

[Clemens]

All I wanted to show is that you did not prioritize lynching @Mary first, I did, except for of course @EC (F) who made it his life goal.

Alright, but do note that I was always willing to lynch the twins at the end of the day.
In fact, I wanted to lynch Mary/EC before going for Nanaa (something that annoyed a lot of players, mind you) to confirm that our numerical balance would be fine.

[Rene]

Because he is lying and such DTA is impossible to exist? Have you encountered anything like that in all the years we played mafia on this forum and in particular, in games moderated by @Daemon? Have you?

He's obviously stalling and we will have a few hours time to debate further once he is gone BECAUSE HIS DTA DOES NOT EXIST.

Sherlock. If you don't force me right now, you already have those few hours you're so WILLING to spend on others anyways. You're just willing to risk it, for NOTHING.

Your logic is impossible to follow.

[zero]

All I wanted to show is that you did not prioritize lynching @Mary first, I did, except for of course @EC (F) who made it his life goal.

Alright, but do note that I was always willing to lynch the twins at the end of the day.
In fact, I wanted to lynch Mary/EC before going for Nanaa (something that annoyed a lot of players, mind you) to confirm that our numerical balance would be fine.

Agreed. That is true.

[Noni]

I don't want rene to use his ability. We may need it down the line depending on what numbers we have. And he may only have one chance but he is stubborn and wants to prove us wrong.

Wouldn't him being able to prove that he is a townie be beneficial?
Unless you have some clear-cut Mafia suspects lined up; because I don't.

vote Clemens
[...]
The main reason I found [Clemens] suspicious was his stalling and I never knew this role existed so I could not figure it out why he would be stalling.

Which stalling are we talking about?
And I've learned about many roles in this massive game (remember, 28 players) that I've never seen before or even thought about.

If two people agree with me and vote clemens nobody else will die today and we can pick this up tomorrow.

That makes no sense.
If you want no one to die, shouldn't you be voting for a no lynch? Or convincing people on @Rene to unvote him?
Yet your vote on me is very much the opposite, since that means there is the potential of another death (besides, to save myself, wouldn't I then definitely vote for @Rene?).

(a bad one but it seems she "decoupled" from the Mafia along with Emily's death)

The death clues imply the opposite, @Noni - she was not decoupled.

I'm talking about rene there

[zero]

Because he is lying and such DTA is impossible to exist? Have you encountered anything like that in all the years we played mafia on this forum and in particular, in games moderated by @Daemon? Have you?

He's obviously stalling and we will have a few hours time to debate further once he is gone BECAUSE HIS DTA DOES NOT EXIST.

Sherlock. If you don't force me right now, you already have those few hours you're so WILLING to spend on others anyways. You're just willing to risk it, for NOTHING.

Your logic is impossible to follow.

Because proving that you were lying will make our debates thereafter much more fruitful.

[Noni]

I don't understand why everyone is in a rush to lynch rene when we already decided we would do it before the end of the day.

We have nothing to lose if we keep talking until the deadline when we agreed to test rene's dta.

I'm working until 9 and had some conference calls until now but I can keep checking the forum. So unless anyone knows it well be a while I think we should focus on other topics until the rene agreed deadline happens.

Because he is lying and such DTA is impossible to exist? Have you encountered anything like that in all the years we played mafia on this forum and in particular, in games moderated by @Daemon? Have you?

He's obviously stalling and we will have a few hours time to debate further once he is gone BECAUSE HIS DTA DOES NOT EXIST.

If he is lying we can deal with it at the end of the day, should we all think it's necessary

[Clemens]

You were talking about Rene with stalling, but voted for me?
I still don't follow; please elaborate.

[Noni]

I don't want rene to use his ability. We may need it down the line depending on what numbers we have. And he may only have one chance but he is stubborn and wants to prove us wrong.

Wouldn't him being able to prove that he is a townie be beneficial?
Unless you have some clear-cut Mafia suspects lined up; because I don't.

vote Clemens
[...]
The main reason I found [Clemens] suspicious was his stalling and I never knew this role existed so I could not figure it out why he would be stalling.

Which stalling are we talking about?
And I've learned about many roles in this massive game (remember, 28 players) that I've never seen before or even thought about.

If two people agree with me and vote clemens nobody else will die today and we can pick this up tomorrow.

That makes no sense.
If you want no one to die, shouldn't you be voting for a no lynch? Or convincing people on @Rene to unvote him?
Yet your vote on me is very much the opposite, since that means there is the potential of another death (besides, to save myself, wouldn't I then definitely vote for @Rene?).

(a bad one but it seems she "decoupled" from the Mafia along with Emily's death)

The death clues imply the opposite, @Noni - she was not decoupled.

You need 7 votes for no lynch. While if there is a tie nobody dies. I'm just thinking of our best chances.

The fact that the last message wasn't read implies to me she was decoupled from Mafia.

[Rene]

Because proving that you were lying will make our debates thereafter much more fruitful.

Oh so I'm the obstacle preventing you from focusing others? And you'll magically do that once I'm out of the way? I can definitely see how that's worth the risk you're taking with that move.

Bravo.

[Noni]

You were talking about Rene with stalling, but voted for me?
I still don't follow; please elaborate.

The main reason I was initially suspicious of rene (besides not voting for Emily) was his stalling to declare his role.
I didn't imagine there would be a genuine reason for that or a role which could help the town worth hiding.

I didn't vote for you to kill you. I merely did it cause I think it's the best chance for nobody else to die today. If heffie counted as town, we need to be extra careful!

[Bombaclaat]

vote Clemens
I don't want rene to use his ability. We may need it down the line depending on what numbers we have. And he may only have one chance but he is stubborn and wants to prove us wrong. The main reason I found him suspicious was his stalling and I never knew this role existed so I could not figure it out why he would be stalling.
If two people agree with me and vote clemens nobody else will die today and we can pick this up tomorrow. If heffie was counting as town we have literally killed one of our own (a bad one but it seems she "decoupled" from the Mafia along with Emily's death)

unvote Rene
vote Clemens

Willing to reconsider. Like I've stated multiple times this town has a tendency to go on wild goose chases and lynch townies.

Important information could perhaps be gained from Heffie regardless of plausible mafia alignment.

Most of the lynching have been based on conjecture for the most part and it has resulted in townies getting lynched left and right.

[Clemens]

The fact that the last message wasn't read implies to me she was decoupled from Mafia.

Perhaps, but everything else implies otherwise.
The email would have been more threatening, and she'd have died during the night (according to her own claims).
There also wouldn't have been two redacted names in the email - Emilly is just one person (according to her own claims).
And she shouldn't have had "Coerced" in the role name anymore - as that would be a misleading clue.

I didn't vote for you to kill you. I merely did it cause I think it's the best chance for nobody else to die today.

Getting a tied vote sounds a lot more difficult to achieve then getting someone to unvote him.

If heffie counted as town, we need to be extra careful!

I agree, hence getting @Rene to prove his claims makes the most sense.
If he's telling the truth, he's confirmed and we get no additional deaths.
If he's lying (and thus dies), then he's unlikely innocent.

Or do you think he's lying and innocent?

[valli]

As I might not be around later and as I think it is now a sound move to check on Rene I will add my vote

vote Rene

[Rene]

@Noni is simply saying if my ability is of one time use, it should be preserved to save others. But even I, do not believe that to be a possible outcome. Not since we went halfway through Day four. And certain intentions were made crystal clear.

[Clemens]

@Noni is simply saying if my ability is of one time use, it should be preserved to save others. But even I, do not believe that to be a possible outcome. Not since we went halfway through Day four. And certain intentions were made crystal clear.

@Noni is that the only reason?
Because that makes no sense either.
He's in this position because of his voting patterns so far; we were going to lynch him precisely because we suspect him.
Then he throws out a wild claim about this DTA and suddenly you're completely on board with his claims?

[zero]

Because proving that you were lying will make our debates thereafter much more fruitful.

Oh so I'm the obstacle preventing you from focusing others? And you'll magically do that once I'm out of the way? I can definitely see how that's worth the risk you're taking with that move.

Bravo.

I think your DTA is a lie and I find anyone who actually tries to make out that what you claim as plausible very suspicious since none of them can confirm a game they played where this kind of DTA ever existed. Of course, precedence is not a law in itself but it is certainly a good bullshit indicator. Your whole game consisted in either lynching townies and defending mafia or resorting to ad hominem attacks on pretty much everyone so if you turn out to be a townie, you were a really bad one.

Anyway, my vote will remain on you and I have no intention of removing it until you are lynched, which will happen, because you are lying and your DTA does not exist.

I'll have to pop by later because I have been online since 08:00 AM and I am in trouble IRL.

Cheerio.

[Noni]

You were talking about Rene with stalling, but voted for me?
I still don't follow; please elaborate.

The main reason I was initially suspicious of rene (besides not voting for Emily) was his stalling to declare his role.
I didn't imagine there would be a genuine reason for that or a role which could help the town worth hiding.

I didn't vote for you to kill you. I merely did it cause I think it's the best chance for nobody else to die today. If heffie counted as town, we need to be extra careful!

[Clemens]

since none of them can confirm a game they played where this kind of DTA ever existed.

Google says it could exist, but anyone could google accordingly and base a fake role on it.
I know DTAs exist in general, and I've seen some very rarely in a previous Daemon game before.
Regardless, I don't know if he's telling the truth and hence I deem it safest to test him on it.

Using his DTA isn't a waste, as it proves himself - that's half the point of having it in the first place.
And if he's lying (together with all the reasons that forced him to make a claim) makes him a good suspect.

[Noni]

@Clemens if the votes added on you are more than a tie I will remove my vote.

I will take a freak from work in a min and will be able to re-read properly.

I'm not eager to lynch one more person today.

How you understand. Will break around 5.if I'm completely off mark I apologise. Give me 50 min.

[Rene]

@Noni is that the only reason?
Because that makes no sense either.
He's in this position because of his voting patterns so far; we were going to lynch him precisely because we suspect him.
Then he throws out a wild claim about this DTA and suddenly you're completely on board with his claims?

Again, she's saying she's afraid of the town's dwindling numbers and sees much potential in my ability. It's why she wants to keep it, ever since figuring out my ability could be used on others, on her own. Truth be told, I think MrWaffles asked the same question as well. Anyways.

Yeah, I'm as good as any townie to save with my ability. And I think this will hopefully prevent further accusations coming in my way in the event I don't get instantly infected. And in the event that I get infected, at least you get rid of a controversial townie.

He's in this position because of his voting patterns so far; we were going to lynch him precisely because we suspect him.

"My voting pattern" Just my Emilly defense, by the way. And nobody even cared about what I had to say about it to explain myself. Doesn't matter. I'll give it further thought on my final message of the day.

But yeah, I'd suspect myself too. I'd do that, I would just never put me up to lynch first OR still lose daytime talking around me. I'd just ignore me and lynch me at the deadline.

Good distraction @zero @Bombaclaat @phox You did it. Even if I didn't bring the night, you brought it by yourselves by wasting the daytime discussions. Good work.

[Sander]

Other than that, all is set. @Gridfon @Skuggi @Sander. I disclosed that you're my most trusted townies. Share your valuable insight with everyone else, pretty please.

Is the hate for zero bigger than the hate for me? And you thought I was a madman.

TBH save yourself end the day and kill Clemens or zero. Both will do.

I'm dead anyawy

[Rene]

An announcement in advance, the moment I log in and realize I'm at 6 votes, I'm going to use my ability immediately. Because no discussions are going on other than my own. (@Bombaclaat managed to slither away with NO defense at all.) And it'd be griefing for town to not save myself and further risk it for just a few more hours of nonsense. I already took that risk once, when I logged out to sleep last night. And we got Heffie with it. A possible accomplice. I was hoping we'd get more, but maybe that's all she wrote for Day 4.

@Sander Thanks for your input mate. Did you know my all-time favorite award to grab was "the teacher's pet"?

[Clemens]

There are 12 players remaining. 7 votes required for instant lynch and no lynch, 4 votes required for deadline lynch.

I'll refrain from voting if you have enough for a deadline lynch, and add a vote if you're below.
You currently have 4 votes.

[Noni]

@Clemens if the votes added on you are more than a tie I will remove my vote.

I will take a freak from work in a min and will be able to re-read properly.

I'm not eager to lynch one more person today.

How you understand. Will break around 5.if I'm completely off mark I apologise. Give me 50 min.

This should read : I will take a break from work.
Hope you understand.

[Clemens]

Hope you understand.

Yes.

[Skuggi]

I am not convinced by the case against @Rene. His role claim looks reasonable, I don't think we've seen a role yet that could be the leader of the station. If I recall correctly, in one of the game I played on Newerth (by @Daemon), there was similar sounding role where the leader of the townies could have them reconsider their choice using a DTA. It's been a while so I'm not sure if it was used or how it worked.

On the other hand, similar to what I mentioned earlier today regarding @phox, I didn't understand why Rene defended @Emilly for so long. The evidence seemed quite strong as she had been caught lying, and @valli revealed his very similar but more legitimate looking role.

Overall I am torn, but I'm not prepared to vote for Rene yet.

[Clemens]

There is no need to rush piling on votes onto him anyway, if we have something else to talk about.
Any suggestions?

[Bombaclaat]

I am not convinced by the case against @Rene. His role claim looks reasonable, I don't think we've seen a role yet that could be the leader of the station. If I recall correctly, in one of the game I played on Newerth (by @Daemon), there was similar sounding role where the leader of the townies could have them reconsider their choice using a DTA. It's been a while so I'm not sure if it was used or how it worked.

On the other hand, similar to what I mentioned earlier today regarding @phox, I didn't understand why Rene defended @Emilly for so long. The evidence seemed quite strong as she had been caught lying, and @valli revealed his very similar but more legitimate looking role.

Overall I am torn, but I'm not prepared to vote for Rene yet.

Reluctantly I'm inclined to agree despite his stalling which was infuriating.

[Bombaclaat]

There is no need to rush piling on votes onto him anyway, if we have something else to talk about.
Any suggestions?

Where were you last night between 02:00 and 04:00 AM?

[Rene]

On the other hand, similar to what I mentioned earlier today regarding @phox, I didn't understand why Rene defended @Emilly for so long. The evidence seemed quite strong as she had been caught lying, and @valli revealed his very similar but more legitimate looking role.

@Skuggi I'm typing this only for you Skugs. At least half the people aren't bothering with reading my post anyways, but I know you are different.

As I repeated today, Valli's revelation was never contradicting with Emilly's, at least for me. It just feels like me and everyone else have been playing entirely different Mafia setups. Given this is my first game with @Daemon, that's entirely possible. Anyways. Multiples of the same roles exist in my experience. Same role, names same abilities? They also exist, in my experience. So if you confirm another to all details, that just solidifies the counter part's role for me. (With the exceptions of a copycat mafia player, or two mafia players claiming the same role. Both of which I also brought forward.)

My biggest mistake with @Emilly was neither of those. When I casted my vote and logged out, the debate was revolving around @Noni versus @Emilly. A he said, she said situation, at least from my perspective. (Or she said, she said in this instance?) I picked a side that made the most sense to me and went with it. However the strongest argument against Emilly was yet to come, while I was fast asleep at my cozy bed. I only happened to read about it on the next day. I blame @Gridfon for bringing the most concrete evidence only when the deadline draws very near. That happened for two days in a row now. Jokes aside, it's still my bad for not being there to catch it.

Did I misplay? Sure. Was it a mistake? A honest one, but a definite mistake. What can I say, I enjoy being the devil's advocate. Because it gives everyone more ideas to toy with, to consider. There was no reason for me to argue that much in Emilly's defense, especially if I was in the same faction with Emilly. I'd just lie low, like her real accomplices did. And I never argued that Emilly was exempt from all claims. I just said, I believed it more than Noni's claim. That's the full extent. It was a soft defense purely made on Emilly's vote on Radwulf. But as it was the longest going defense anyone made about Emilly, it struck out. And the fact that people continuously tagged me afterwards while I was long gone, didn't help with my innocence either.

I defended Moxy on the very same manners, and it turned out to be relatively benovelent. Security faction was considered pro-town by the most, including myself, up until Heffie's death. But no one gave me credit for defending Moxy like that. Did anyone? No. It's a hit & miss thing to do, as I have no NTAs to rely on. Just claims of others. I advocated for the Securities the most as well. But I never claimed that they were DEFINTELY not malign. I defended it by saying they were by far the smallest faction, as the first 3 deaths were all security, and if they were neutral they had to side with town in order to survive if they weren't already eradicated. I'm such a valiant knight of all the baddies, I know. But now this "Greater good" hint will also possibly get connected to Security Guards. And it'll further incriminate me. Oh well. I'll have to deal with that too, I suppose. Fortunate that it's all resolving in a single day&night for me, overall.

[Sander]

I think your DTA is a lie and I find anyone who actually tries to make out that what you claim as plausible very suspicious since none of them can confirm a game they played where this kind of DTA ever existed.

Actually I have played a game under Daemon with a similar role. I could end the day early to save a fellow Townie from being lynched. I could do it twice in the entire game. I couldn't Lynch someone instead though.

[Skuggi]

You make a compelling argument @Rene, and I believe you. Thank you for writing this up. As things stand, I will not vote for you.

[Noni]

I think your DTA is a lie and I find anyone who actually tries to make out that what you claim as plausible very suspicious since none of them can confirm a game they played where this kind of DTA ever existed.

Actually I have played a game under Daemon with a similar role. I could end the day early to save a fellow Townie from being lynched. I could do it twice in the entire game. I couldn't Lynch someone instead though.

I'm happy for rene to prove himself. My vote on clemens was an idea in case rene's ability is more important to keep than test. If that makes sense.

[Rene]

Thank you @Skuggi.

@zero Another hour is passing by and I'm still alive, what happened to your intentions of getting fruitful discussions started? You may as well do that now before the day ends. Or will you continue hiding behind the argument that you're too shy to point fingers at others as long as I'm alive? Which wasn't very convincing to begin with.