Dragonfire Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 Yes, you are. I don't KNOW that one was made. But I'm assuming since Jarl asked for the traitor to PM him that there IS a traitor and that the scum have a recruit ability. Since he posted it, there was a good block of time (a few hours at least) in which the traitor could have made contact. So it's possible that A, there is no traitor and it was a gambit to discredit anyone the investigator as cleared (as pudding pointed out), or B, that the traitor wasn't online or otherwise able to contact Jarl before the end of the day, or C, that the traitor didn't trust Jarl (heck, not a bad plan actually if you're town and think there's a traitor and am about to get lynched... claim scum and ask the traitor to contact you, then share their identity with someone before you die... have to remember that for future lives...) The thing that's worrying me is that there has been talk of traitors since the beginning of Day One (that PM debacle) and it has continued all through the game (Mist's comments yesterday regarding Lauga) and then Jarl made his scum-claim post asking the traitor to claim to him.... is it just too coincidental that traitors have been discussed multiple times in this game? This makes me think that there is a traitor. If I'm wrong, there's no traitor and it was all a gambit, then Munud's post at the beginning of the day is a great follow-up from Jarl's claim yesterday. Makes me think that they were scum buddies planning it together. Danr, Dar, Lodmund, Jafri, all coasting down the center, flying under the radar. It's easy for them to defend themselves to since they haven't said much. Seems like a rather random comment to make. Why single out certain players when others have also been keeping quiet. Tarr and Ragnvald, for example. And the fact that I haven't said much is mainly due to my timezone - every morning, I wake up and three or four new pages have been written. It's hard when everyone else lives in the States If we're talking about quiet people, then let's add Canute, Petr, Petrus and Kaupmad to the list. That makes ten people. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by singling out four from ten.
Hinckley Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 If we're talking about quiet people, then let's add Canute, Petr, Petrus and Kaupmad to the list. That makes ten people. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by singling out four from ten. Great, let's add them too. See? Contributing is fun. In the last two games I've played, that center area is where the Scum have settled and it's very effective. See? I told you it was easy to defend when you haven't said much to start with. I sound kind of random and crazy when you put it that way.
mostlytechnic Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 You are suggesting there is a traitor and they can recruit? Sounds over-powered to me. Maybe I mis-named roles... but I meant one person who can convert from loyal to scum, but they have to get in contact. The scum then recruit that person at night. Some games the person knows they can be converted (ie traitor) and sometimes they don't. But that's what I meant. Not meaning that I expect multiple conversions.
Duvors Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 The thing that's worrying me is that there has been talk of traitors since the beginning of Day One (that PM debacle) and it has continued all through the game (Mist's comments yesterday regarding Lauga) and then Jarl made his scum-claim post asking the traitor to claim to him.... is it just too coincidental that traitors have been discussed multiple times in this game? This makes me think that there is a traitor. If I'm wrong, there's no traitor and it was all a gambit, then Munud's post at the beginning of the day is a great follow-up from Jarl's claim yesterday. Makes me think that they were scum buddies planning it together. No, I think all of this stuff about a traitor is garbage, we have yet to see any evidence of a traitor, and I think the only reason that anybody believes in the presence of a traitor role in this game is that stupid PM debacle from day one.
Dragonfire Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 Great, let's add them too. See? Contributing is fun. In the last two games I've played, that center area is where the Scum have settled and it's very effective. See? I told you it was easy to defend when you haven't said much to start with. I sound kind of random and crazy when you put it that way. ...I still don't understand what point you're trying to make. In fact, I feel rather insulted by being grouped with others and labelled "quiet, under the radar, middle of the road". I've tried to be active when I can, and the timezone is a big difficulty for me. I was rather inactive in my last game, but I've tried to increase my participation now. No, I think all of this stuff about a traitor is garbage, we have yet to see any evidence of a traitor, and I think the only reason that anybody believes in the presence of a traitor role in this game is that stupid PM debacle from day one. So you think that Jarl was pulling a fast one yesterday and trying to discredit the investigator (who would only have investigated two people so far)?
Mencot Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 Who is calling you a traitor? To me it seem Lauga is trying to put me up as a traitor in this game. But maybe I am wrong if not anyone else gets that from her posts.
Duvors Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 So you think that Jarl was pulling a fast one yesterday and trying to discredit the investigator (who would only have investigated two people so far)? Possibly, or the scum could be just as confused as we are.
KotZ Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 ...I still don't understand what point you're trying to make. In fact, I feel rather insulted by being grouped with others and labelled "quiet, under the radar, middle of the road". I've tried to be active when I can, and the timezone is a big difficulty for me. I was rather inactive in my last game, but I've tried to increase my participation now. So you think that Jarl was pulling a fast one yesterday and trying to discredit the investigator (who would only have investigated two people so far)? Adding on to this, I do admit I've been quiet. Quite a lot of us have been quiet. I must say though sometimes it is hard to contribute when there is an amount of people dominating the conversation. On the topic of Jarl, I myself have no idea. Part of me wants to say there is one but it could be just a ruse from the scum to get us to distrust each other even more. Is it possible the traitor, if they even knew they had the possibility to be one, was killed off, say Brand?
Mencot Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 ...I still don't understand what point you're trying to make. In fact, I feel rather insulted by being grouped with others and labelled "quiet, under the radar, middle of the road". I've tried to be active when I can, and the timezone is a big difficulty for me. I was rather inactive in my last game, but I've tried to increase my participation now. This is not any defending Dar here because there is much I don't agree on with him. but I don't agree and see Puddle heads point about including Dar as middle, quiet, under the radar guy. He has said pretty much of contens in two days but some nonsence also.
Hinckley Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 This is not any defending Dar here because there is much I don't agree on with him. but I don't agree and see Puddle heads point about including Dar as middle, quiet, under the radar guy. He has said pretty much of contens in two days but some nonsence also. What?
Mencot Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 What? Yea, I don't agree with you. Don't see the point why you included him and some of the others to your list. Ofcourse at this point we are pretty much clueless of where to start to search for the scum. But I don't think that comment helped much! Or do you think it did?
Hinckley Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 Yea, I don't agree with you. Don't see the point why you included him and some of the others to your list. Ofcourse at this point we are pretty much clueless of where to start to search for the scum. But I don't think that comment helped much! Or do you think it did? I have no idea what you said. Dar had content but nonsense too? That's non-committal at its best. But it's noted that you tried to look like you weren't defending him and then actually kind of flipped what you were saying to say he was posting nonsense. Hell, I can't fully decipher your meaning anyway. I'm sorry.
Tamamono Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 Mist was blocked last night. :thumbup: More importantly, we now have to assume that there IS a traitor and that he/she has been converted. The fact that Jarl confessed yesterday in order to ask for a traitor come out most likely means that the scum have a recruiting role and know there's a traitor among us. So, investigator, anyone you've cleared as loyal is NOT necessarily clear anymore! There's a chance Jarl's posting was a misdirect to distract us, but I doubt it. He went after the traitor too hard. I don't get it? He was being lynched, so he claimed in hopes of there being a traitor. He said "if," not that there is. Why are we assuming that there is one??
Tariq j Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 Seems like a rather random comment to make. Why single out certain players when others have also been keeping quiet. Tarr and Ragnvald, for example. And the fact that I haven't said much is mainly due to my timezone - every morning, I wake up and three or four new pages have been written. It's hard when everyone else lives in the States If we're talking about quiet people, then let's add Canute, Petr, Petrus and Kaupmad to the list. That makes ten people. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by singling out four from ten. Hey! I live in the UK as well! Trust me its hard for me just as much as you, plus RL gets in the way of things. Yes, info from blocking last night should reveal much, since I doubt the scum would have gone after someone so quiet he only posted a couple times in 2 game days. I'd assume that either Jarl was the scum killer or the blocker successfully blocked the killer. Or a protector protected the target. I'm not asking for results to be shared directly, but if the blocker and protector could share with SOMEONE, it'd sure give us a good start on today's lynch! My guess is Dag was most likely a SK kill. Small chance it was vig, but I'd put my mead mug on the SK for that one. And I'm highly relieved - was worried there when my name showed up in the day intro and I was legless! More importantly, we now have to assume that there IS a traitor and that he/she has been converted. The fact that Jarl confessed yesterday in order to ask for a traitor come out most likely means that the scum have a recruiting role and know there's a traitor among us. So, investigator, anyone you've cleared as loyal is NOT necessarily clear anymore! There's a chance Jarl's posting was a misdirect to distract us, but I doubt it. He went after the traitor too hard. ninja'd: I see we have a blocking result. Looks like mist is getting lynched today... Hold on a second, how are you so sure there is a traitor? Ping
Mencot Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 Mist was blocked last night. :thumbup: High five :thumbup: :thumbup: I don't get it? He was being lynched, so he claimed in hopes of there being a traitor. He said "if," not that there is. Why are we assuming that there is one?? Yea, this is nothing more than a scum move. And who did bring it up again? Brand is dead, he was town but who were the others? or other two people who started the whole "traitor" nonsence. wink wink
Hinckley Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 High five :thumbup: :thumbup: Yea, this is nothing more than a scum move. And who did bring it up again? Brand is dead, he was town but who were the others? or other two people who started the whole "traitor" nonsence. wink wink Technically, I started it. And?
Lady K Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 Mund, I am confused about what you are trying to say here: One thing that makes me now think cranebeinn is more likely to be loyal - Jarl voted for him both days. Day 2 it made sense since crane nearly got lynched (meaning Jarl would have voted for any townie instead of himself, but wouldn't have voted for a fellow scum who was close to being lynched). But day 1... just trying to avoid the bandwagon on brand I guess? Throw suspicion around? Cranebeinn is more likely to be loyal because Jarl voted for him both days? And the rest....doesn't make any sense like your trying to give half-thought out reasons for Jarl's voting patterns. Yes, you are. I don't KNOW that one was made. But I'm assuming since Jarl asked for the traitor to PM him that there IS a traitor and that the scum have a recruit ability. Since he posted it, there was a good block of time (a few hours at least) in which the traitor could have made contact. So it's possible that A, there is no traitor and it was a gambit to discredit anyone the investigator as cleared (as pudding pointed out), or B, that the traitor wasn't online or otherwise able to contact Jarl before the end of the day, or C, that the traitor didn't trust Jarl (heck, not a bad plan actually if you're town and think there's a traitor and am about to get lynched... claim scum and ask the traitor to contact you, then share their identity with someone before you die... have to remember that for future lives...) I voted Crane both days too, just to be fair. This. And no, that doesn't mean I'm done with the day as pudding claimed. Just means we can have the lynch pretty settled and fight about other things and poke and accuse and everything like normal. I do understand pudding's concern though, there's been times where a lynch was settled early in the day and the rest of the day just dried up. I think we've got enough people still alive to keep this party going though. More mead should help too! And here you bring up that you voted for Cranebeinn both days (to be fair you say) in response to my pointing out that only Jarl and Ragnvald were the only two that voted for Crane both days and Ragnvald sealed the lynch as the hammer vote on Jarl. Yet the above post you didn't state anything about also voting for Crane both days....which is strange because you didn't vote for Cranbeinn at all on Day 2. You voted first for Dagstyrr the Fool and then for Jarl. So why would you say you voted for someone you didn't? I checked twice to be sure. Could it be that you and Ragnvald are both scum buddies with Jarl? To me it seems like you are trying to draw attention away from Ragnvald. Maybe it should be you that we look into more closely today?
mostlytechnic Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 I don't get it? He was being lynched, so he claimed in hopes of there being a traitor. He said "if," not that there is. Why are we assuming that there is one?? Ok, so I just read the mafia wiki description of traitor, and it's not quite was I was thinking from previous games here. A traitor is someone who might know at least part of the scum team (from the start) but investigates as town. They don't count as scum at first in determining if the town has won, but the scum can "pull them back" and turn them into full, regular scum (at which point they'd investigate as scum as well). I was thinking of a recruit situation like we had in another life here. The scum team knew there was a recruitable person and they could use a recruit ability each night and try to find them. The recruit may or may not be told they're recruitable. But they're just town UNTIL the scum manage to find them and recruit them, at which point they're part of the scum team. See, in that second scenario, the scum KNOW there's someone out there they need to find. They likely don't know if the person knows of their recruitability, but it makes Jarl's confession and posts make sense. If there was someone who knew they were recruitable to the scum team (and it's probably part of their win condition that they have to be recruited), then him outing himself made sense. It was a chance for this person to get in touch with the scum and get recruited. On the other hand, yes, it's very possible that it was just a scam and the scum making a last ditch effort to distract us. If so, so be it. The only real thing we know is that investigator results aren't 100% certain - which they never are anyway, since you could have insane investigators, the godfather, etc. Nothing is 100%. But we should be slightly more on guard of anyone cleared the first 2 nights because it's possible they converted to scum.
Mencot Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 Technically, I started it. And? Technically yeah... hmm nothing much, just saying. It has confused alot, so thank you
mostlytechnic Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 And here you bring up that you voted for Cranebeinn both days (to be fair you say) You're right, I mis-remembered. I was GOING to vote crane until pudding said not to, so I held off (in fact, you can see where I said exactly that at the time). So you're accurate that I did not vote crane both days. Sorry. As for the voting of crane by jarl. I went back and looked. Pudding voted Crane first. Then Jarl was the second vote on Crane, in the very next post of the thread in fact. The only way that makes sense would be for Crane to be town. If Crane was scum, no way would Jarl risk following Pudding like that. It'd be way too likely to turn into an actual lynch of crane (like it nearly did).
Mencot Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 Ok, so I just read the mafia wiki description of traitor, and it's not quite was I was thinking from previous games here. A traitor is someone who might know at least part of the scum team (from the start) but investigates as town. They don't count as scum at first in determining if the town has won, but the scum can "pull them back" and turn them into full, regular scum (at which point they'd investigate as scum as well). I was thinking of a recruit situation like we had in another life here. The scum team knew there was a recruitable person and they could use a recruit ability each night and try to find them. The recruit may or may not be told they're recruitable. But they're just town UNTIL the scum manage to find them and recruit them, at which point they're part of the scum team. See, in that second scenario, the scum KNOW there's someone out there they need to find. They likely don't know if the person knows of their recruitability, but it makes Jarl's confession and posts make sense. If there was someone who knew they were recruitable to the scum team (and it's probably part of their win condition that they have to be recruited), then him outing himself made sense. It was a chance for this person to get in touch with the scum and get recruited. On the other hand, yes, it's very possible that it was just a scam and the scum making a last ditch effort to distract us. If so, so be it. The only real thing we know is that investigator results aren't 100% certain - which they never are anyway, since you could have insane investigators, the godfather, etc. Nothing is 100%. But we should be slightly more on guard of anyone cleared the first 2 nights because it's possible they converted to scum. Hmm, very confusing.
Tariq j Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 Hmm, very confusing. Seems to me like an attempt to throw the town off course.
Piratedave84 Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 Hmm, very confusing. Compared to the argument you are trying to make, his is candy!!! Since you have come under scrutiny, you have become weirder and more confusing than ever. Are you feeling the pressure?
Mencot Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 Since you have come under scrutiny, you have become weirder and more confusing than ever. Are you feeling the pressure? No, why would I? Do you quiet one? What I think about the traitor role is, if there is one: I think the traitor knows that he is scum but he doesn´t know who the others are and the other scum doesn´t know who the traitor is.
Hinckley Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 What I think about the traitor role is, if there is one: I think the traitor knows that he is scum but he doesn´t know who the others are and the other scum doesn´t know who the traitor is. How exactly did you come to that conclusion??
Recommended Posts