Although it may be construed that I am obsessed with Bored's posts, it is in fact true that I'm obsessed with
all posts. Seeing that Bored is the only (fuzzy) one who makes them, there's your tautology.
On Bored:He adresses an issue, votes, etc, then he cushions it in a paragraph about impartiality and reason.
After voting Salmoneous:
If further evidence arises, I will, of course, be willing to change my vote to a person that seems even more scummy. For now, though, based off current facts, this is what I will do.
This kind of over-paranoid vibe, lynchophobia, the need to explain in writing what should be demonstrated in action, and the likes is a small scumtell. It's as if he is preemptively defensding himself against silly bandwagony arguments that would stand against reason anyway. You know, the kind of Mafia 2 argument that accused somebody of being scummy for voting. So yeah, he is paranoid.
I think it goes hand in hand with that kind of prose on step behind NES' dramatic fluff. Ok I'm guilty of prosy irrelevance but.
Oh, I see. Much the same could be said of Lunar, though. We give our honest opinions on everybody, at least... I did. As for your doom predictions... we still have SOME hope. We'd have more if people would actually discuss things instead of do absolutely nothing, so we could see who among us has a guilty conscience, and killed our mayor.
Italics demonstrate fluff.
Also see various posts giving unnecessary "he might be town, he might be scum" verdicts on just about everybody.
These things are heavy Bored2Death playstyles, so I wouldn't hold them as evidence against him. It's not conclusive and not vote-worthy, but it needs pointing out.
My thoughts on the night talk: do we really know whether or not the pm's we receive at night are from a townie or not? How can you know, for sure, that someone is a townie?
You can't know. But if you're contacted by the investigator and he tells you your role, well, you'd be halfway convinced. Although it's worth pointing out that a Mafia can do exactly that, claim that they're the investigator to a townie with a success rate of 2 over 3.
no offense meant, PP, but that stuff before was just masking whoever the real mafia are
You seem pretty sure in this post and yet you vote Salmoneous. Afterwards you say the same thing (about three times) only with less conviction.
Also, this allegation is pretty much baseless. Your theory is as good as anyone's pertaining PP and you haven't really explained your theory on PP.
You think that his antics during early D1 were because he was diverting attention away from another player?
I think that's unlikely. At that early time, about two votes were thrown, never on the same people, and PP had no reason at all (except madness) to attempt to do such a thing. The town wasn't interrogating someone. PP hasn't responded to any of these statements against him (?), which does lend them some gravity, but not in the direct sense.
1: On Lunar: [...]
Is there anything new on me?
4: Salmoneous: I really don't think he's pro town. If he was, he'd have responded to the numerous times we've asked for him to, (too many to quote), despite the fact that he's been on. If he didn't want to participate, he wouldn't, I hope, have joined the game.
You use past playstyles very much in your arguments about me and PP. Yet you don't do so for Salmoneous. He's always been inactive. It's bad, it hurts the town, yes, but I'm not totally sure you can use it as evidence against him, when you're willing to use inductive reasoning and past experiences for the rest of us.
I
was going to do a little tweaking act for each of the comments you made on the various players, but, you know what, I'll let those guys deal with it themselves. I am looking forward to the responses of all players to B2d's player-comments.
On Data:Where are you and respond to my post #29, even though it is an outdated question by now.
On Salmoneous:Err, 3 votes on Salmoneous? That's too many. Say the mafia haven't voted yet, and then we've got a potential D1 lynch.
I thoroughly agree with the tactic of voting off Salmon (dead weight etc), but we've got three more days, do we really want to throw them down the drain by lynching earlier than usual? I think someone should take his/her vote off him, leaving him on L-3.
On Budja:Weird plan, but hasn't responded to my analysis. Hm.
@Bored, you seem to be all over the place with your ideas and are confusing = chaotic. Your thoughts are hard to follow.
In what way? Example?
Speak up.
Seconded.
On Razzor:Night talking, and any kind of pm activity would be kind of pointless to the town. We can't cooperate if everyone doesn't talk to everyone, and we need to cooperate to find the mafia.
Not so.
As I explained (?), the investigator has the power (and so the responsbility) to create an informed innocent block. So it's useful, just not during the day. I could point out scenarios where divulging the information of, you know the Investigator or his cronies, would be maleficent for the town.
On another note I seriously think we should have a chat about what criteria the Inv should use to inv players.
Basically, go for suspicious, go for talkative. For a win-win situation go for talkative+suspicious. Either you've found a very influential mafia, or you've found a very useful townie.