Ragnarök Now 3: Day Three

[Piratedave84]

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.

Let's have a look at your posts shall we, since you know ... more posts = confirmed town, right?

Hahaha awesome opening to this day.

Ability wasted because I don't have any talents.

If you trust this scumbag with his fake claims, you can already throw in the towel.

I don´t have any nightactions, so the block has been totally useless on me. If Puddingface will claim that I did something he is as scum as his ancestor before him.

If you mean that PM where I said I maybe haven´t played in any games or don´t remember any traitors in any of the games i have played before.

Then yes I don´t remember any, doesn´t mean that it hadn´t been used. You said there was traitors in a submarine game where a Malcome was the investigator and he trusted the wrong people, the Godfather and the got whacked at night one.

After that it was pretty much scum run through and if I remember correctly you were scum in that game so you had an better look on what happened.

But that was that game and this is this game, totally different. You can´t base your accusations on that game, to claim I am a traitor in this game.

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.

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.

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?

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 yeah... hmm nothing much, just saying. It has confused alot, so thank you

Hmm, very confusing.

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.

Straight out of the gate your reaction is OMGUS and you try and bash Pudding for relaying NA results that incriminate you. Then you make very good use of emotes and finally you give us a theory on the workings of the traitor role that seems as though you have goog knowledge of it's implications.

Yup, defiitely town; you're cleared, next suspect.

[Mencot]

How exactly did you come to that conclusion??

My own conclusions, based on reading on on the mafiawikis and other older games. But I don´t know, those were just thoughts about the whole thing.

Let's have a look at your posts shall we, since you know ... more posts = confirmed town, right?

Yup, defiitely town; you're cleared, next suspect.

Who has said that.... Not me.

But your posts in this game, nothing to brag about. So I think you don´t have anything to talk about to anyone, Petr!

[Hinckley]

My own conclusions, based on reading on on the mafiawikis and other older games. But I don´t know, those were just thoughts about the whole thing.

What games did you check? What specifically did you learn from them?

[Mencot]

What games did you check? What specifically did you learn from them?

I haven´t had time to read any old games in a long time (how would I whan I don´t almost have time to read through the game i am currently playing )

It was based on what i had read sometime ago. Not this year.

[CMP]

I haven´t had time to read any old games in a long time (how would I whan I don´t almost have time to read through the game i am currently playing )

It was based on what i had read sometime ago. Not this year.

Which ones had traitors in them?

[Hinckley]

I haven´t had time to read any old games in a long time (how would I whan I don´t almost have time to read through the game i am currently playing )

It was based on what i had read sometime ago. Not this year.

It seems that your awareness of traitor has evolved from thinking it's a third party and never having any knowledge of one, even in a game you played, to having the knowledge of reading past games and Mafiawiki:

so you are going to continue your quest against me, are you? Oh well, if you wanna.

But what is this talk about "scum or traitors"?

I thought there was just loyal and scum and neutral in this game... So where have you gotten that from? From the Brand discussion yesterday or what?

what are you talking about?

If I wanna know why Lauga means there is traitors isn't a bad thing. Because if there are in this game, they are scum and I try to help finding them.

My own conclusions, based on reading on on the mafiawikis and other older games. But I don´t know, those were just thoughts about the whole thing.

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

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.

If you trust this scumbag with his fake claims, you can already throw in the towel.

I don´t have any nightactions, so the block has been totally useless on me. If Puddingface will claim that I did something he is as scum as his ancestor before him.

If you mean that PM where I said I maybe haven´t played in any games or don´t remember any traitors in any of the games i have played before.

Then yes I don´t remember any, doesn´t mean that it hadn´t been used. You said there was traitors in a submarine game where a Malcome was the investigator and he trusted the wrong people, the Godfather and the got whacked at night one.

After that it was pretty much scum run through and if I remember correctly you were scum in that game so you had an better look on what happened.

But that was that game and this is this game, totally different. You can´t base your accusations on that game, to claim I am a traitor in this game.

[JackJonespaw]

Who has said that.... Not me.

But your posts in this game, nothing to brag about. So I think you don´t have anything to talk about to anyone, Petr!

Right, but Petr isn't exactly under suspicion, as you are, and his posts have a bit more substantial word-meats than yours do. It'd also be a tad nice if you'd address the other things he commented upon.

[Mencot]

It seems that your awareness of traitor has evolved from thinking it's a third party and never having any knowledge of one, even in a game you played, to having the knowledge of reading past games and Mafiawiki:

I have never thought the traitor to be a third party . If there is a third party, I have thought it to be a scum.

But there you see it how newbie I am to the whole case, with any thing like it.

[CMP]

If there is a third party, I have thought it to be a scum.

Hmm. I can't argue with that logic...

[Mencot]

Right, but Petr isn't exactly under suspicion, as you are, and his posts have a bit more substantial word-meats than yours do. It'd also be a tad nice if you'd address the other things he commented upon.

Hmm, he has 4 short comments in day 1, 4 in day 2 and 5 in day 3, not really much. But

yes he isn´t exactly under suspicion

I have never thought the traitor to be a third party . If there is a third party, I have thought it to be a scum.

But there you see it how newbie I am to the whole case, with any thing like it.

Hmm. I can't argue with that logic...

Sorry, I meant to write traitor not third party but sentence is usually also true.

[Hinckley]

Since the end of Day One, I've received claims from a protector and investigator, so if you are one of those roles and need to counter-claim, find someone you trust to get the message to us.

[Pandora]

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.

Considering he was scum, I don't think we can trust anything he did or said, or make assumptions based on that.

A, there is no traitor and it was a gambit to discredit anyone the investigator as cleared (as pudding pointed out)

The standard traitor role has no affect on investigator results, so I'm surprised this is your first point.

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.

If you were blocked, that implies you might well be the scum killer, and in the presence of your scumminess and your claim to be vanilla, the best way to test that is to lynch you rather than consider other means to test you. If you are the scum killer then you cannot be a traitor, as traitors do not have access to the scum kill unless they have been recruited by the scum, according to mafiawiki. Arguing you are not the traitor is therefore not the issue here. The issue is whether you are the scum killer, and as I've just said, under these circumstances the best way to test that is by lynching.

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?

Another person who hasn't looked up the traitor role. Brand could not have been a traitor as he was loyal. If he had been a traitor he would have shown up as scum on his death.

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 investigate as scum whether recruited or not. Here's the link again, although I believe you are familiar with the site.

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.

That's sounds pretty much like a bog-standard conversion not a traitor role, which is considerably more common than a traitor. There is a pool of potentially convertible townies (often, but not always, vanilla) from which the scum can recruit through a night action. This is common knowledge and an often employed mechanic in situations such as these in places such as this.

[Chromeknight]

I'm glad people have begun looking past the confusion of words to the voting of confirmed scum.

Anyway, Mist.

You were blocked. The action was successful.

You were blocked because you'd been pinged as scummy days one and two.

On the night you were blocked we saw less kills than expected.

Is it a watertight case that you're scum? Not at all! Speak up, figure alternatives. If you reckon Pudding is scum, follow the logic. How would it clear you if he was? Lay out a reasonable case for how things went.

You've now claimed vanilla, so there's no pressing reason to keep you to test a roleclaim. To move the lynch you'll need a more plausible scenario than the one where you're scum and were blocked.

There's plenty o information out there, hopefully we'll see more of it come to light today.

[Hinckley]

The standard traitor role has no affect on investigator results, so I'm surprised this is your first point.

That makes it twice that Munud has tried to undermine the investigator's results.

[TrumpetKing]

Nice start to the day. Always good to see a dead scum.

Interesting how Mist was blocked, yet insists that she doesn't have any night actions. That doesn't account for a missing kill, along with a possible third killing action that has been missing as well.

The assumptions about the traitor are a puzzle in themselves. It is very possible that it was a scum ploy from Jarl, and if so, it was a good one considering talks of a traitor have been around since the first day, but it doesn't seem like one that many of us have fallen for, and the topic of there only possible being a traitor seems to only exist to distract us now, which makes me uneasy about Munud, who seems to want to talk about it deeply.

[Hinckley]

Fluff alert!

Interesting how Mist was blocked, yet insists that she doesn't have any night actions. That doesn't account for a missing kill, along with a possible third killing action that has been missing as well.

Why are you taking Mist at face value?

The assumptions about the traitor are a puzzle in themselves. It is very possible that it was a scum ploy from Jarl, and if so, it was a good one considering talks of a traitor have been around since the first day, but it doesn't seem like one that many of us have fallen for, and the topic of there only possible being a traitor seems to only exist to distract us now, which makes me uneasy about Munud, who seems to want to talk about it deeply.

Munud is the only one who is talking about a traitor? Isn't the word in every post Mist has made? Is it OK that I'm asking you a lot of questions?

[Adam]

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?

Have you forgotten what happened to Jarl after he tried to make a similar point about Tarben? He was lynched. He also turned out to be scum. Combined with what others have said about your attempts to undermine investigation results, I'd say this is worthy of a ping.

I can agree with this; it seems unlikely that Cranberry would be scum based on his day 2 vote.

Definitely noteworthy - though both days had votes for Crannberry, only Jarl voted for him both days.

Hmm...

Hahaha awesome opening to this day.

Ability wasted because I don't have any talents.

Three pages of posts and this is still the best defense you've been able to come up with.

I imagine a lot of discussion today is going to focus on Mist, but I think it's important that we pursue other leads and demand more of the people who have been attempting to fly under the radar. One of those people is Jafri, who delivered one of yesterday's scummiest posts:

Vote: Cranebeinn the Redder (Chromeknight).

Pings and the such, scum reads, like with the blocker 'claiming', and him trying to find out who he is - suspicious. Haven't had time to really delve deep into today, I still don't have time. I'm sorry, but once this weekend is over I should be back for some action.

He said this not long after Pudding Head retracted his own vote for Cranebeinn and told us that it might be worthwhile to keep him around for the moment. Regardless of what you thought about Cranebeinn or Pudding Head at that time, or what you think of them right now (which is also something I'd like to discuss further, see above), it's absolutely suspicious to have voted for Cranebeinn at that moment. It's even more suspicious when you find that Jafri's reasoning was little more than, "I have a scum read." Top it off with the classic, "This is the end of my contributions for the day, but don't worry, James Bond will be back in Thunderball," and you have one scummy post.

[JackJonespaw]

He said this not long after Pudding Head retracted his own vote for Cranebeinn and told us that it might be worthwhile to keep him around for the moment. Regardless of what you thought about Cranebeinn or Pudding Head at that time, or what you think of them right now (which is also something I'd like to discuss further, see above), it's absolutely suspicious to have voted for Cranebeinn at that moment. It's even more suspicious when you find that Jafri's reasoning was little more than, "I have a scum read." Top it off with the classic, "This is the end of my contributions for the day, but don't worry, James Bond will be back in Thunderball," and you have one scummy post.

I really didn't have time to get into the Mafia day. I bandwagoned simply because I didn't want to abstain, and I wanted to help the town out.

[Hinckley]

I really didn't have time to get into the Mafia day. I bandwagoned simply because I didn't want to abstain, and I wanted to help the town out.

Oh really? Let's look at the vote tally, which was posted right before you voted:

Vote Count

Cranebeinn the Redder (Chromeknight): 5 votes (jluck, Tariq j, Dragonfire, KingoftheZempk, Mencot)

Toki (Trumpetking): 1 vote (Hinckley)

Munud the Strange(mostlytechnic): 1 vote (Tamamono)

Jarl Name-Loser (jluck): 1 vote (Pandora)

Pudding-Head (Hinckley): 1 vote (Trumpetking)

Mist (Mencot): 1 vote (Lady K)

Dagstyrr the Fool (Darkdragon): 1 vote (mostlytechnic)

No Vote: 9 (CallMePie, Chromeknight, Dannylonglegs, Darkdragon, Piratedave, Adam, Jackjonespaw, RangeroftheForest, Lord Duvors)

11 votes are required to lynch. 24 hours remain in the day.

Bandwagon? There wasn't a general consensus at that point and 7 different people had votes.

[JackJonespaw]

Oh really? Let's look at the vote tally, which was posted right before you voted:

Bandwagon? There wasn't a general consensus at that point and 7 different people had votes.

Not so much bandwagon as where the most votes were at the time.

[Hinckley]

Not so much bandwagon as where the most votes were at the time.

I don't necessarily consider that as helping the Town.

[mostlytechnic]

Have you forgotten what happened to Jarl after he tried to make a similar point about Tarben? He was lynched. He also turned out to be scum. Combined with what others have said about your attempts to undermine investigation results, I'd say this is worthy of a ping.

I'm not undermining investigation results, I'm reminding people to be careful because there's legitimate reason to think that someone's alliance MAY have changed. And there's a difference between Jarl's defending Tarben and what I said about Crane. My position was that I - just me, not saying you have to think like this, but I - think he's town because of this analysis I did of facts. I looked at vote patterns and came to a logical conclusion. I then shared that so that others can look at it and see if it makes sense or if they see holes in my logic so that they could tell me that.

[mostlytechnic]

Considering he was scum, I don't think we can trust anything he did or said, or make assumptions based on that.

The standard traitor role has no affect on investigator results, so I'm surprised this is your first point.

Um, yes, you always analyze what people say when you know their alliance, either direction. Not that you trust that he's 100% honest, but you do think about what he's said.

And as for the traitor thing, to beat a dead horse, since this keeps coming up (and not sure why we've got a dead horse on the ship, but we do), my comments about the traitor were not based on the classical mafiascum traitor role, but a recruit role of some sort. So then yes, there are roles that can be recruited but investigate town until they're recruited. Not to mention, but not all roles here on EB follow the mafiascum rules! Heck, not all roles used here have even been ever USED over at mafiascum. Hosts can and do make up new stuff to keep us on our toes and keep it fun.

[JackJonespaw]

I don't necessarily consider that as helping the Town.

It was all I had the time to do, I did what I could, and I tried to help. I'm not going to make an excuse for anything, I'm just laying out the facts.

[Hinckley]

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.

And as for the traitor thing, to beat a dead horse, since this keeps coming up (and not sure why we've got a dead horse on the ship, but we do), my comments about the traitor were not based on the classical mafiascum traitor role, but a recruit role of some sort. So then yes, there are roles that can be recruited but investigate town until they're recruited.

These two statements directly contradict each other.