jluck
-
Content Count
1333 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by jluck
-
If Clifford would have stuck to his guns the pressure would have been on other less committed ones to change. He could have even waited til the last half hour to change his vote. But he got pressured into changing and this took the heat off everyone else who could hide behind the wagon.
-
Trial by Jury - Confirmation and Discussion
jluck replied to mediumsnowman's topic in LEGO Mafia and Role-Play Games
Just wanna thank our host @mediumsnowman for his remarkable consistency with posting game threads. It truly is appreciated! -
This is entirely insincere. We were literally 1 vote away from lynchig Amanda, it only took one person but instead y’all pressured Clifford into going against his instinct and vote for a townie.
-
Wow. Can’t win for losing I guess. I literally pushed to lynch Amanda and I argued Clifford should move his vote back cuz I thought we’d get Amanda. My point was it would have been just as easy for someone on the Dez wagon to switch to the scummy Amanda said it was for Clifford to jump to Dez. But I guess pushing for a different lynch (of a townie no less, as we now know) makes me scummy. Honestly, I wish I was scum cuz they’re kicking out butt.
-
This question needed answered. When Clifford was voting for Amanda we were 5 and 5. Everyone crying foul could have switched secure a lynch. Instead your forcing Clifford to not vote for who he thinks is scum. Ya, Clifford didn’t handle it well, but it’s not all on him. Literally any one of us could have secured the lynch. Until we got the vote count I didn’t realize Dez was so close. Glad we have a lynch for what it’s worth. Just dont like the way it came about.
-
I don’t agree with this choice. Yes, we still need more votes but losing yours just moves us further away from our goal. You’re actively working to prevent the lynch. whats the vote count and time @mediumsnowman?
-
I can't imagine we have a ton of time left. Are we gonna let this day go quietly with no result??
-
Ok, so something Clifford said got me thinking. We've been focusing so much of our attention on the loud ones or the absent ones, but many scum players try to appear as boring as possible. They contribute, vote, and observe. Amanda has done just that. Above I posted every post Amanda has made. It's been 5 posts in 3 days, the first of which is fluff. She says the right stuff, but never really commits to anything. Just today she said she wanted a lynch yesterday, yet yesterday she didn't nothing to help a lynch, instead voting for Jimmy. It seems she has been gliding under the radar, saying the right things but really committing to nothing. Vote: Amanda (Khscarymovie4)
-
I’ll cast my vote before I go down for the night.
-
Stephanie’s post suggested that she belonged in the block, I don’t think that would be wise. However, we’re on day 3, I can’t imagine any block is of substantial size.
-
First off, being the most active doesn't make you town. Scum almost always have at least one member who is very active being pro-town. Second, I have a major problem with an active juror being in the town block. You're Not Confirmed Town! No unconfirmed person should be in the block, regardless of circumstantial evidence. If any other player was "confirmed" in the same manner that you have been, you would not allow them in the block. My read on you is that of likely town. I feel the Doc's claim is around 80% likely to be true. There are other scenarios that I outlined above which could happen where your not town and still get targeted, but the most likely scenario is you were town targeted by scum on night one. Also, your continued insistence to vote for me makes me read you as non scum. If you were scum, you'd know that the second I die and came up town you'd face increased scrutiny. All that is to say, I think you are likely town. But likely town does not belong in the town block. Actually ya, day three and I kinda forgot Amanda was even playing. She's really been low key about everything...
-
This seems like the most likely explanation, but it’s not enough to clear her IMO. The lack of a kill could be attributed to many other things, or she could be from a rival scum team.
-
OK so this means something totally different. If the Doc got a successful message on night 2 as well, then the Doc is just getting a "success" message any time they're not blocked. This means that Stephanie is no more cleared than anyone else, right? Please clarify if I'm misreading your post.
-
Ok so on the topic of Stephanie, we need opinions. Is the info we have enough to consider her "cleared"? I'm a bit worried she's been invited into the town block based off a few comments like these: Stephanie kept saying "we" and @Kintobor has been a contact for trusted players, which may include Steph.
-
Keep playing your game, don't let me meta comment through you. As Tony, I still hate you
-
This comment was meta, not in character. I wanted to complement how well you've done as a newb, especially in comparison to your other newb counterparts.
-
General Discussion and Announcements
jluck replied to Dragonator's topic in LEGO Mafia and Role-Play Games
Before I played I think there was a paranoia mafia where everyone was town and just attached each other. -
A healthy skepticism is best. I'm trying to figure out if there are any scenarios where Stephanie could still be dangerous. Here's what I have: 1) This is a very bold scum ploy. This seems unlikely as it would expose multiple people. 2) The Doc misunderstood the result. This is unlikely as the Doc could compare the wording of yesterday's result to the night 1 wording to be sure they did stop Steph from being killed. 3) Stephanie is scum and was targeted by the Vig. The Doc inadvertently saved a scum. 4) Stephanie is a member of a rival family, was targeted, but the Doc saved her. Of these options, if steph is scum, it seems 3 and 4 are the only likely ones. Am I missing anything?
-
So with this new info I think we can actually build a little bit. If Stephanie was the night one target, she must have at least ruffled some scummy feathers. Day 1 could have some clues. Additionally, this would indicate the scum did indeed attempt to kill on the first day, not recruit or such. I assume the Doc got a "successful" reply on their night 1 action, indicating the Stephanie was indeed targeted, is there anyway of knowing which family targeted her? Well given that we have a night action result, this may be a dead end after all. I'm still processing the new info, but it would be a bold scum act to claim a night result.
-
So because the new player's posts weren't carefully constructed they must not be scum? Would you have been suspicious of posts that were well done by new players? Because Clifford is new and he's played one heck of a game. See, here's the thing. I know I'm town, but there is no way to prove it short of being investigated (I would welcome this!), role claiming, or being killed (I would not welcome this). So nothing I do will change your mind. However, if you are successful in offing me, you'll find yourself another townie short and 2 days of voting wasted, and all the town will get is your apology. Thank you, this is very valuable info. Who's we?
-
OK, so I just want to be clear on this, your saying you have reason to vouch for Stephanie? If so, this changes the entire conversation so I just want to clarify.
-
I've got a bit to say on the topic of Stephanie, but it may take me a bit to dig up relevant posts to quote. However, I will say this while I'm doing it, I've had "jury duty" many times with Stephanie and I cannot read her. She plays at a vicious speed which in some aspects helps drive a conversation but can also hijack the thread if others aren't active (personally I'm always happy when she's involved, she's a fun member. Kinda reminds me of when @Shadows was at his peak). With all that out of the way, I'm still trying to figure out her position here. There is no doubt in my mind that she has driven at least 50% of the narrative of this jury. What I can't decide is if she is bold because she has nothing to hide or bold in order to hide. I promise I'll add some relevant quotes when I have them all together.
-
General Discussion and Announcements
jluck replied to Dragonator's topic in LEGO Mafia and Role-Play Games
I agree, but I'm always up for new mafia style games. I think with a little bit of hashing out the details, this one could work. I really think an every man for themselves style game could be interesting, but it may be difficult to keep discussions going. If there is no mafia to rat out what would we talk about? -
I think your looking at all this through your eyes, accusing everyone who didn't vote for me of splitting the vote and preventing a lynch. I could take your exact wording and ask the same thing back to the "other" bandwagon. Watch: "On Day 2, a no lynch is a bad idea; and all four of them, in addition to Harry voted for Tony (an easy target) and thus effectively splitting the town vote for a second day of no lynch. So I question to Clifford, Stephanie, and Gary; what made Tony so much more suspicious in your eyes than Anthony that you were willing to spit the town and have a no lynch?" The no lynch was bad on day 2, it really hurt us, but your blaming it solely on one faction completely ignores the fact that you and others weren't willing to change your vote either. It's a two way street. The votes were even at 5 a piece, so it's safe to assume the scum hid in both groups.
-
My only problem with the blocking theory is that since there was no kill on night 1, then I'd assume the blocker targeted the same person again, but this time the kill went through. However, it's all speculation at this point and I don't know if it is beneficial to guess at in the long run.