Pick Your Power Game Thread

[Ron Simmons]

Sorry about this, long ass post. This is a breakdown of Ron's activity in the game. Parts in bold are my own thoughts. No links, but each is post numbered to give their placement.

 

#2 RVS

#21 Joke vote for ChrisB (not valid as calls him Judas)

#31 Reminds everyone that they are hunting for scum, not powers. Says powers are invaluable to town, however also true to scum. Concerns over the draw being public, could be a hitlist for scum.

#34 Asks Swift to clarify about the numbers theory

#49 Talk about the masons, uses this as a reason to dissway from the numbers theory

#53 FOS Swiftstrike because Swift said that 'masons are a town thing so nothing to worry about' because we might lynch a mason rather than scum using the numbers theory - CONTRADICTION (Isn't this is a scumhunt not a powerhunt, by his own words).

#55 Calls swift's numbers theory 'a lottery'

#79 Defense of FOS towards him by Seph, because he was using 'we' and 'they' when talking about town and scum

#89 Lurkers are frustrating, if we have a cop they can remedy it. - Possible Rolefish/softclaim

#92 Calls out the two lowest posters, asks their opinion

#112 Defense against Seph again, Meta discussion regarding the issue between Swift/Bristep, incorrectly recalls a Swift lynch in another game (he was night killed), states that there's a part of Swift that revels in catching out good players - Incorrect Metause was deployed in his defense against me last game. He was scum then.

#147 Calls out Carbomb for opinion, FOS's ChrisB and Lion based on Swift's number theory - CONTRADICTION (Had previously given no support to the number theory)

#152 Calls the number match a strange coincidence, says it's too blatant for a vote. Doesn't think that Lion would deliberately distance himself from someone he picked the same numbers as if both scum

#157 Rubbishes the numbers theory again, but adds that the RVS from Lion makes it valid. Says that it might be distancing - CONTRADICTION (Previous post said that it didn't make sense for Lion to distance from ChrisB). Tells ChrisB that it's Lion's fault that there's suspiscion on the two of them. Also theorises that Swift might be playing a game with Lion and pushing FOS onto ChrisB.

#160 Vote Lion because thinks that Swift or ChrisB are scum with him, mentions a cop again. - Second possible rolefish/softclaim

#167 Unvotes and revotes for Lion because he hadn't unvoted before.

#202 Posts possible scenarios around his Swift/Chris/Lion trifecta, pushes Lion and Swift as the team

#217 Votes TDK even though not convinced he was scum, still pushing a Swift/Lion team. - Voting for someone you think might be town is not pro-town behaviour. Plenty of time to look elsewhere at that point instead of supporting a wagon you don't agree with.

#231 Unvotes TDK and revotes Lion because Lion didn't see what TDK was driving at regarding the vanilla town PM

#234 Goes back to the TDK role issue, says he needs to re-read - 1st mention of 're-reading the thread', gives an impression of scumhunting without doing so

#260 Repost of #202 for spotlightmagnet

#261 Pushes that if Lion flips scum then Swift is likely to be the scumbuddy rather than ChrisB

#263 Asks Lion for his opinion of ChrisB and Swiftstrike

#334 Comments on the lack of clarity in the game, concerned that there will be a no-lynch. Says he needs to re-read the thread again - 2nd mention of 're-reading the thread', gives an impression of scumhunting without doing so

#336 Again states that the numbers theory + Lion's RVS 'cements' his theory. Says that 'if Lion flips scum (and I'm pretty certain he will)' it doesn't mean ChrisB will, 50/50 whether he or Swift is the partner - CONTRADICTION (Wasn't Swift his choice of scumbuddy in Ron's eyes up til now?)

#338 FOS's ChrisB over his (perfectly valid) use of the world 'co-incidentally - Incorrectly jumping on little mistakes to push a scumslip

#342 Pushes the theory that Lion and Swift are scumbuddies, Pushes the Lion vote again, 2nd use of 'If he flips scum (and I'm pretty certain that he will)' - Caveat, can be pointed to if Lion flips town

#370 Says he isn't sure about Unfitfinlay's theory of Andrew the Giant and Swift picking 1,1 and 1,2. Turns the distancing claim against finlay. - Pseudo-aggressive way to back Finlay off of Andrew.

#372 ATG points out the scum no daytalk rule, Ron calls it a good spot. - Possible ATG/Ron team?

#374 Says he needs to re-read the thread regarding spotlightmagnet's play, admits to tunnelling on Lion/Swift/ChrisB at the expense of studying other player's play. - 3rd mention of 're-reading the thread', gives an impression of scumhunting without doing so

#377 Starts querying bristep about his mod request to clarify the daytalk rule.

#378 Continues querying bristep

#381 Asks bristep if he had read the rules, admitting that he hadn't either

#384 springs a 'trap' on bristep based on bristep pasting from the signup thread earlier in the game - Incorrectly jumping on little mistakes to push a scumslip

#385 realises that the rules were in the signup thread, and retracts the FOS.

#387 admits that he was getting excited waiting for bristep's response, said "I'll get you next time" - Just an odd phrase to use

#391 reposts his Lion scum theory with Chris or Swift as the scum buddy. Pushes that he is lynch candidate.

 

There are no slips, but I seem to get a definite scumread from Ron.

 

Vote Ron Simmons

You've taken a lot of my quotes out of context here, or you've only quoted part of them, making them seem very different than they actually are.

 

For example, when I thought Bristep had slipped you painted it with:

 

#387 admits that he was getting excited waiting for bristep's response, said "I'll get you next time" - Just an odd phrase to use

That looks bad. But if you read the exchange in context then look at my actual post:

 

EBWOP Never mind, I'd wrongly assumed the rules were in the sign up thread, but when I just went back to re-read the thread I realized I was wrong. Removed that FOS.

 

I bet you were getting giddy with anticipation there, thinking you'd caught some sort of slip.

 

I was, I actually! Never mind, I'll get you next time

 

That's clearly said in jest.

 

Another example of a quote taken out of context:

 

You say I said:

#89 Lurkers are frustrating, if we have a cop they can remedy it. - Possible Rolefish/softclaim

 

In context I actually said:

Teedy Kay's got a point about people posting sod all, my mind goes straight to Adam619. He avoided all suspicion and in the quicktopic forum with the Wolfpac even boasted about it.

It's frustrating, but I guess it's something a cop can remedy should we have one. It almost feels like a waste of that role, to investigate a non-poster. But hey, who knows. Maybe everyone will post this game round, and we won't run into any such obstacles.

It's blatantly not a softclaim, particularly since I'm so far down the list...the chances I'd be a cop? Minimal at best. In context it's hardly a rolefish either.

 

Continued in next post...

[Ron Simmons]

Let's clear something up. 1 in 16 chance of picking the first number. Then, another 1 in 15 chance for the second number. So a 1 in 240, or 0.4% chance of Lion and ChrisB picking the same numbers independently. This is only a factor if one of them are lynched and flip scum.

 

That's potentially cherry-picking probability. Let me explain (and I can't do the maths confidently, but I do understand some of the concepts behind it, so if I set it up and someone else could actually tell the odds, I'd appreciate it).

 

That's the probability that (specifically) me and Lion would pick the same numbers. The question I feel you should be asking is "WHAT ARE THE ODDS THAT TWO PEOPLE IN THE GAME WOULD PICK THE SAME NUMBERS" (clarity, not shouting). That's a hell of a lot higher.

 

From my point of view, the odds that someone would pick my numbers are pretty remote. However, the chances that two people in the game would be likely to pick the same numbers are pretty good.

 

As an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about, This link explains that the likelihood of two people in a football match having the same birthday is about 50/50.

 

Ok, then if I'm getting the math right 1/256 (1 in 16 then 1 in 16, not 1 in 15 because you could choose the same number twice) with 120 events (16 players so (16*15)/2). So a probability of 46.8% that 2 players chose the same set of 2 numbers between 1 and 16.

[Ron Simmons]

EBWOP - Ignore above post, I missed out this:

 

Let's clear something up. 1 in 16 chance of picking the first number. Then, another 1 in 15 chance for the second number. So a 1 in 240, or 0.4% chance of Lion and ChrisB picking the same numbers independently. This is only a factor if one of them are lynched and flip scum.

 

I'm not a mathematical person, I didn't dispute your figures, but that further cemented my beliefs. But it turned out your figures were WAY off the mark, and when Chris B disputed them you swiftly came up with this:

 

Let's clear something up. 1 in 16 chance of picking the first number. Then, another 1 in 15 chance for the second number. So a 1 in 240, or 0.4% chance of Lion and ChrisB picking the same numbers independently. This is only a factor if one of them are lynched and flip scum.

 

That's potentially cherry-picking probability. Let me explain (and I can't do the maths confidently, but I do understand some of the concepts behind it, so if I set it up and someone else could actually tell the odds, I'd appreciate it).

 

That's the probability that (specifically) me and Lion would pick the same numbers. The question I feel you should be asking is "WHAT ARE THE ODDS THAT TWO PEOPLE IN THE GAME WOULD PICK THE SAME NUMBERS" (clarity, not shouting). That's a hell of a lot higher.

 

From my point of view, the odds that someone would pick my numbers are pretty remote. However, the chances that two people in the game would be likely to pick the same numbers are pretty good.

 

As an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about, This link explains that the likelihood of two people in a football match having the same birthday is about 50/50.

 

Ok, then if I'm getting the math right 1/256 (1 in 16 then 1 in 16, not 1 in 15 because you could choose the same number twice) with 120 events (16 players so (16*15)/2). So a probability of 46.8% that 2 players chose the same set of 2 numbers between 1 and 16.

 

You're obviously a smart guy, so I really wonder where on earth you came up with your first set of figures? They were so vastly off the mark I really wonder if they were a genuine error, or an intentional attempt to start a wagon?

 

I'm beginning to suspect you after reading all of this and your out of context "case" on me - are you resorting to the tried and trusted "lets push a lynch on Ron" technique? I've only been scum once, and if you look at that game and this game you'll see I've been a bit more convicted and stuck on my beliefs. In other games when I've been town I've pushed what I believe to be the right opinion HARD when I've had an idea. I've always been accused of being scum during these games, but actually I wasn't. Last game no one suspected me first game, I was balanced and fair - but only because I knew who actually was scum!

 

You've actually made me doubt my opinion on Lion, now that I look back at your false maths and the timing of it. I wonder, as I said, if this was an attempt at pushing a wagon, and a hope that no one would question your incorrect maths.

 

unvote

 

FOS Bristep

[Ron Simmons]

Bollocks, I also missed out this post. Damn this forum's inability to accept lots of quotes this should be above my EBWOP:

And again, you say:

#147 Calls out Carbomb for opinion, FOS's ChrisB and Lion based on Swift's number theory - CONTRADICTION (Had previously given no support to the number theory)

 

What I actually said:

Carbomb - Haven't heard your input on what's happening in a while. What do you make of the current situation in game?

 

Chris I wasn't referring to you and bristep.

 

Do you not think it's odd that both you and lion choose exactly the same numbers and the he randomly chooses a vote to go for and it's you again what are the chances of that?

Having rubbished your number analyzing idea this is going to sound odd coming from me, but I think that's quite a good spot.

FOS Chris B

 

FOS Lion Of The Midlands

As you can see I addressed the fact I'd knocked the numbers plan before, but this time round I actually thought what swiftstrike said made a lot of sense. I thought about it an elaborated later with my full theory, which I'm not going to bother reposting, but anyone can have a look to hopefully see that I do have a train of thought. Anyway, you then followed up on my post with this:

 

Continues in next post

[Retro Red]

If you'd followed the thread Ron.

 

I was correct in saying that there was a 1 in 240/256 chance of 2 people picking the same 2 numbers from 1 to 16.

 

Chris posted a link explaining that probability is greatly increased when you are looking at 2 people out of 16 picking the same 2 numbers from 1 to 16.

 

And to add, I didn't *use* my incorrect maths to start a wagon on anyone. At the time I was still pushing that TDK was scum. I was trying to establish a factual base around the numbers argument because people were going back and forth with different opinions on the probability.

 

As far as changing the context of the lurker/cop remark, it hasn't changed, you responded spotlightmagnet's comment about lurkers saying that it was frustrating, and that maybe a cop could remedy it. I also note that you only denied softclaiming cop, and not rolefishing for it.

 

Your "I'll get you next time" comment, I didn't say it wasn't in jest I said it was an odd phrase to use.

 

Just because you said "I know I said the numbers theory was rubbish but I'm going to use it anyway (paraphrased)" doesn't make it any less of a contradiction in my mind.

 

Again also, you've only taken a couple of the more fluffy points to dispute, while ignoring the contradictions, voting for someone while also saying you don't think they're scum, jumping on 'slip ups' that aren't actually there.

 

Lastly, when you talk about me only quoting parts of your quotes, and ignoring large chunks of them. I didn't quote any of your posts, I gave a summation of my interpretation of them. I included key phrases that seemed suspect. I included post numbers to let anyone go back and check the original context, it was either that or copy and add in 37 links, or have about 6 posts with the full quotes which nobody in their right mind is going to read.

 

You went and dug out a nothing post from me getting probability wrong to tie it onto my iso on you in order to make it seem like your sudden suspiscion of me isn't completely OMGUS.

 

And please please stop going back to the tried and tested Ron defence "I didn't do this last game, I did this this game, I've only been scum once, etc, etc." because when you quote meta, you usually get it wrong, 2 games in a row now you've used meta information from previous games and got facts wrong. Nothing sets off my scum-radar faster than someone saying "I am not scum because I don't play like this when I'm scum" (Swiftstrike did it earlier in the game, and it stuck out to me then too).

 

You're right though, you were only scum once, and I pinpointed you on day two and would have pushed you to the noose until your roleclaim made me back off.

[Ron Simmons]

Again also, you've only taken a couple of the more fluffy points to dispute, while ignoring the contradictions, voting for someone while also saying you don't think they're scum, jumping on 'slip ups' that aren't actually there.

I haven't ignored the contradictions - I addressed the main one, but the rest from what I see there are simple CHANGES OF MIND, as people frequently do in these games. There's nothing scummy about that - but there's everything scummy about exhaggerating what these things actually are. I don't know how you can accuse me of being selective with a straight face (I assume you haven't got one) given how you carefully picked which parts of each quote to use in your case.

 

Lastly, when you talk about me only quoting parts of your quotes, and ignoring large chunks of them. I didn't quote any of your posts, I gave a summation of my interpretation of them. I included key phrases that seemed suspect. I included post numbers to let anyone go back and check the original context, it was either that or copy and add in 37 links, or have about 6 posts with the full quotes which nobody in their right mind is going to read.

It doesn't matter WHY you did it, you still blatantly shortened quotes and took them out of context. You've accused people of being scummy before based on SELECTIVE quoting - and that's exactly what you've just done.

 

You went and dug out a nothing post from me getting probability wrong to tie it onto my iso on you in order to make it seem like your sudden suspiscion of me isn't completely OMGUS.

A "nothing post"? You dug out a nothing "in jest" post of mine and tried to make me look scummy! But the post I "dug out"? That's not nothing at all. You got the probability wrong then when someone picked up on it you INSTANTLY corrected yourself - and there was quite a significant difference between your two figures. I don't see how anyone can view that as anything but suspect.

 

And please please stop going back to the tried and tested Ron defence "I didn't do this last game, I did this this game, I've only been scum once, etc, etc." because when you quote meta, you usually get it wrong, 2 games in a row now you've used meta information from previous games and got facts wrong. Nothing sets off my scum-radar faster than someone saying "I am not scum because I don't play like this when I'm scum" (Swiftstrike did it earlier in the game, and it stuck out to me then too).

"Tried and tested defence" of "I've only been scum once etc, etc"...erm, I HAVE Only been scum once and it was in the last game! So how can it be a "tried and tested" defence if I've only just been scum?!

 

You're right though, you were only scum once, and I pinpointed you on day two and would have pushed you to the noose until your roleclaim made me back off.

Ooh, you sleuth. You accused me of being scum and you were right. What you're FAILING to mention is nearly every other game you've played where you've incorrectly accused me of being scum.

[Ron Simmons]

EBWOP - Missed some of your points:

I was correct in saying that there was a 1 in 240/256 chance of 2 people picking the same 2 numbers from 1 to 16.

 

Chris posted a link explaining that probability is greatly increased when you are looking at 2 people out of 16 picking the same 2 numbers from 1 to 16.

 

And to add, I didn't *use* my incorrect maths to start a wagon on anyone. At the time I was still pushing that TDK was scum. I was trying to establish a factual base around the numbers argument because people were going back and forth with different opinions on the probability.

Or you quite subtley tried to push someone else into harms way whilst doing that. Also, you took credit for correctly accusing me of being scum last game, and you've obviously backed off on TDK/brownie after an initial push...maybe your scum nose isn't as good as you think. Or, maybe you're scum.

As far as changing the context of the lurker/cop remark, it hasn't changed, you responded spotlightmagnet's comment about lurkers saying that it was frustrating, and that maybe a cop could remedy it. I also note that you only denied softclaiming cop, and not rolefishing for it.

You were selective about what you quoted, and presented it in a way that made it look much worse than it actually was. You tried to frame me using selective material. Try and justify it if you like, but it still doesn't change what you did.

Your "I'll get you next time" comment, I didn't say it wasn't in jest I said it was an odd phrase to use.

And you don't think presenting it like this:

#387 admits that he was getting excited waiting for bristep's response, said "I'll get you next time" - Just an odd phrase to use

makes it look completely scummy? Another case of false representation by you.

 

Just because you said "I know I said the numbers theory was rubbish but I'm going to use it anyway (paraphrased)" doesn't make it any less of a contradiction in my mind.

People CHANGE THEIR MINDS in this game. You can't possibly keep a consistant opinion as the flow of the game changes and people make new points.

[Retro Red]

Now on my phone, will have to be brief. Chris posted a link showing my math was wrong, I used that to make my correction. You're ignoring that.

 

The 'I've only been scum once' prior to this game was 'I've never been scum before' tried and tested.

 

Accusing you of scum in every other game I've played. 2 games, one of which I was scum the other I don't recall going after you and if I did I didn't make a big iso read.

[Ron Simmons]

Now on my phone, will have to be brief. Chris posted a link showing my math was wrong, I used that to make my correction. You're ignoring that.

 

The 'I've only been scum once' prior to this game was 'I've never been scum before' tried and tested.

 

Accusing you of scum in every other game I've played. 2 games, one of which I was scum the other I don't recall going after you and if I did I didn't make a big iso read.

I'm not ignoring the link. I think that forced you into correcting your intentionally false maths.

 

The 'I've only been scum once' prior to this game was 'I've never been scum before' tried and tested.

If you look at my play style, how I'm playing now will almost certainly match up with my non-scum games. It's a relevant defence, I get accused of being scum in nearly every game which is frustrating, but I get involved in play, as you should, and that makes me an easy target to accuse. Last game when I was scum I felt more comfortable in sitting back, because I knew who the scum was (or so I thought) so could easily blend in. In this game - and in my other games - I actually have to scum hunt to win. So that means I have to present cases, and therefore play differently. I'll regret pointing this out in later games when I actually am scum I'm sure, but what the hell.

 

And your other games? You HAVE gone after me, particularly in the one where you were scum. As you're doing now. Coincidence?

[Snake Plissken]

Ron to be fair it's a game about figuring out who is scum and who isn't. Of course you are going to get accused of being scum, it part of the basics of the game, if at some point everyone isn't being accused of being scum then something's wrong...

[Ron Simmons]

Ron to be fair it's a game about figuring out who is scum and who isn't. Of course you are going to get accused of being scum, it part of the basics of the game, if at some point everyone isn't being accused of being scum then something's wrong...

Of course, that's completely fair. It's just the manner which Bristep has done it, he's selectively chosen what words to quote from my posts and it makes me look like scum, whereas if you read the entire quote in context or in full I don't think it does that. It's a false representation of what I've done this game. I'm not annoyed at being accused of being scum, I'm annoyed at HOW he's done it. His justification of "well I was right last game..." is also a little arrogant. Unless, of course, he's intentionally trying to push a mis-lynch.

[swiftstrike]

Swift's 1,1 seems to be tactical because he picks 1 as his first number (Chances are most people will second guess and avoid the very highest number), then 1 as his second (even if that's not the case, the likely chance is that they won't pick 1 a second time, so I'll end up highest out of that pack).

My number where a tactical pick I nicked them right from the mafiascum game that I linked to earlier in the game.

--

I have a few thoughts on the case against Lion and Chris.

 

Firstly, I can't accept that scum would willingly sacrifice the chance of the two of their players getting power roles by choosing the EXACT same numbers, simply to create distance. The same effect could be achieved simply by them picking the same first number, would look less suspicious and, if it's a high enough number, still keep them relatively high up the list.

 

Like, for example, Swiftstrike and Andrew The Giant who picked 1, 1 and 1,2 respectively.

 

It might not seem that suspicious on the surface but given that it was Swift who pushed that we need to look at the numbers and then turned attention to Lion and Chris' choices, I think it's worth looking at. Swift also made a big deal about Lion RVSing Chris "to create distance" and, yet, he did the exact same thing to Andrew, who made his first post (of only two so far) almost immediately afterwards. It seem to me that Swift might well be using Lion and Chris picking the exact same numbers to distract attention from the fact that he's done something very similar, but smarter, to what he's accusing them of.

 

FOS: Swiftstrike

 

FOS: Andrew The Giant

 

Also

MOD: In case you missed it in the sign up thread Kenny McBride said he'd take Family Guy's place

Finley you seem to be pushing me based on the fact you claim that I have done nothing but push this day on the numbers when in fact that is a large misrepresentation which you should know well seeing as about the only thing you have done all of this day phase is to disagree with everything I have said. Here you accuse me of trying to distance myself from andrew in a smarter way that the Lion vote and yet actually looking at the RVS vote I made, I clearly referenced the fact that I had voted for andrew on the basis of him picking similar numbers to me which is hardly drawing less attention to the picked numbers.

--

8 - Quick Topics will be available to talk in at night only. No discussion may be done outside of the thread during day phase.

 

No idea if this is a rule change in general as I havent played in a while but this is an interesting change that caught my eye as it means that scum wont be able to talk to each other during the day phases. This could account for people playing in a different manner than they have before.

 

As for my number choices I picked one and two because I figured no-one else would be that cheeky and go for the two highest numbers.

This is interesting unfortunately it ruins the though I had that Finley had been asked to discredit me in every single point I made as I got a little to close to something, but never the less does raise some interesting play that hasn't been in place since the first mafia game played on this site.

[spotlightmagnet1]

I was wondering swift what you made of the pattern between Andrew the Giant, Bristep and Snake (now) I pointed out earlier, being they picked numbers 1,2; 5,6 and 9,10? I'm not keen on using just numbers and number patterns but the more I look at it the pattern of four numbers between them just seems a little neat.

[swiftstrike]

I was wondering swift what you made of the pattern between Andrew the Giant, Bristep and Snake (now) I pointed out earlier, being they picked numbers 1,2; 5,6 and 9,10? I'm not keen on using just numbers and number patterns but the more I look at it the pattern of four numbers between them just seems a little neat.

I would have thought that the scum would look to randomise they numbers a little more than that if they where looking at picking them. I actually can't believe how much focus people have put on my number analysis considering I HAVEN'T actually done a number analysis, just talked about how strange it was that Chris and Lion had the same numbers and then the RVS random vote, now Chris has provided info that nullifies the though that picking the same numbers is so out there.

[unfitfinlay]

Swift's 1,1 seems to be tactical because he picks 1 as his first number (Chances are most people will second guess and avoid the very highest number), then 1 as his second (even if that's not the case, the likely chance is that they won't pick 1 a second time, so I'll end up highest out of that pack).

My number where a tactical pick I nicked them right from the mafiascum game that I linked to earlier in the game.

--

I have a few thoughts on the case against Lion and Chris.

 

Firstly, I can't accept that scum would willingly sacrifice the chance of the two of their players getting power roles by choosing the EXACT same numbers, simply to create distance. The same effect could be achieved simply by them picking the same first number, would look less suspicious and, if it's a high enough number, still keep them relatively high up the list.

 

Like, for example, Swiftstrike and Andrew The Giant who picked 1, 1 and 1,2 respectively.

 

It might not seem that suspicious on the surface but given that it was Swift who pushed that we need to look at the numbers and then turned attention to Lion and Chris' choices, I think it's worth looking at. Swift also made a big deal about Lion RVSing Chris "to create distance" and, yet, he did the exact same thing to Andrew, who made his first post (of only two so far) almost immediately afterwards. It seem to me that Swift might well be using Lion and Chris picking the exact same numbers to distract attention from the fact that he's done something very similar, but smarter, to what he's accusing them of.

 

FOS: Swiftstrike

 

FOS: Andrew The Giant

 

Also

MOD: In case you missed it in the sign up thread Kenny McBride said he'd take Family Guy's place

Finley you seem to be pushing me based on the fact you claim that I have done nothing but push this day on the numbers when in fact that is a large misrepresentation which you should know well seeing as about the only thing you have done all of this day phase is to disagree with everything I have said. Here you accuse me of trying to distance myself from andrew in a smarter way that the Lion vote and yet actually looking at the RVS vote I made, I clearly referenced the fact that I had voted for andrew on the basis of him picking similar numbers to me which is hardly drawing less attention to the picked numbers.

--

8 - Quick Topics will be available to talk in at night only. No discussion may be done outside of the thread during day phase.

 

No idea if this is a rule change in general as I havent played in a while but this is an interesting change that caught my eye as it means that scum wont be able to talk to each other during the day phases. This could account for people playing in a different manner than they have before.

 

As for my number choices I picked one and two because I figured no-one else would be that cheeky and go for the two highest numbers.

This is interesting unfortunately it ruins the though I had that Finley had been asked to discredit me in every single point I made as I got a little to close to something, but never the less does raise some interesting play that hasn't been in place since the first mafia game played on this site.

 

Honestly, I'm pushing you BECAUSE I disagree with everything you've said. The theory that scum would deliberately put themselves to the bottom of the draft list makes no sense, and I know from the last game that you are smart enough to see that. That's why I've been trying to figure out why on earth you've been so committed to the idea? So far that's the only theory that makes any sense to me.

 

When did I say that you've done nothing but push this all day? You haven't but it has formed a major part of your posts and is the reason that you are trying to push a lynch on Chris and/or Lion.

 

Seriously, taking you out of the equation for a second, can give me even a remotely credible reason why the scum would willingly sacrifice the chance of powers in order to create distance?

 

Out of interest, what information did Chris B provide that nullifies the thought that picking the same numbers is so out there?