WW2 Mafia Endgame_Mafia Win!

[gregwolf121]

i hate to say this but with seven people alive and no mafia killed yet i think were at lynch or lose

[Rainbow Eater]

15. In scenes I may have a few hidden clues however don't read too deeply as there may be some red flags attached to them.

Police searched the scene and found that wercool was a soldier, but they also found a cowboy hat that, according to DNA tests, didn't belong to wercool.

not sure what this means or if it means anything, but sure looks suspicious.

[captainwalrus]

15. In scenes I may have a few hidden clues however don't read too deeply as there may be some red flags attached to them.

Police searched the scene and found that wercool was a soldier, but they also found a cowboy hat that, according to DNA tests, didn't belong to wercool.

not sure what this means or if it means anything, but sure looks suspicious.

Lol, if it does mean that cowboyz in involved, thanks for the boon colton, if it is a trick (and I sort of suspect it is, as it is just way too obvious) then, F**K you! Don't mess with us when we are at LoL.

[safariguy5]

I don't want to metagame too seriously, but isn't this a bit obvious? I know not to expect frequent posting over the holidays, but we have to think about this. Cowboyz could be a variety of roles... watcher, bus driver, jack of all trades... I know this is supposed to be a clue, but I don't know whether it's a good or bad one.

[deathcomesrippin]

But if it is a clue pointing to Cowboyz, wouldn't it indicate he was at least there? I think I

vote cowboyz

[captainwalrus]

I am going away from christmas to new years eve, sorry for the inactivity during this time.

[cowboyz]

I am going away from christmas to new years eve, sorry for the inactivity during this time.

same,
how bout a week long pause or at least no deadline until after NYE

[wercool]

this was my first nightkill.

[colton24]

Anyone here? Hello? Start posting before I make a deadline. NYE is past now....

[gregwolf121]

can you give us a vote count thanks bye

[captainwalrus]

yes, a VC would be nice, very nice.

[colton24]

Vote Count
cowboyz(1)-deathcomesrippin

Not voting: everyone but DCR

With 7 alive it takes 4 to lynch

[captainwalrus]

I think it is most likely that Cowboyz is a watcher, but perhaps there is something in his role in which he is clumsy or something and there is an x% chance that he leaves some clue of his presence behind. I have seen a role kinda like that in a game on a different forum, everyone thought the mod was throwing the town a bone cause they were loosing, but we ended up lynching our watcher. I don't think he needs to claim or anything yet.

[Rainbow Eater]

15. In scenes I may have a few hidden clues however don't read too deeply as there may be some red flags attached to them.

Police searched the scene and found that wercool was a soldier, but they also found a cowboy hat that, according to DNA tests, didn't belong to wercool.

not sure what this means or if it means anything, but sure looks suspicious.

vote cowboyz


This is all we really have to go on.

[gregwolf121]

why does the hat have to belong to cowboyz, its a cowboy hat not cowboyz's hat

[captainwalrus]

15. In scenes I may have a few hidden clues however don't read too deeply as there may be some red flags attached to them.

Police searched the scene and found that wercool was a soldier, but they also found a cowboy hat that, according to DNA tests, didn't belong to wercool.

not sure what this means or if it means anything, but sure looks suspicious.

vote cowboyz


This is all we really have to go on.

Did you not read my post?

[safariguy5]

Argh...no information whatsoever. Not enough people are posting. Can you prod some of the more inactive ones?

[Rainbow Eater]

15. In scenes I may have a few hidden clues however don't read too deeply as there may be some red flags attached to them.

Police searched the scene and found that wercool was a soldier, but they also found a cowboy hat that, according to DNA tests, didn't belong to wercool.

not sure what this means or if it means anything, but sure looks suspicious.

vote cowboyz


This is all we really have to go on.

Did you not read my post?

I did and I think you are wrong.

[deathcomesrippin]

I stand by my vote, solely because it seems to be all we have to go on.

[safariguy5]

I'm torn between CW and Rainbow Eater

On the one hand, the scene could just be a red herring... and he could be a pro town role.

On the other hand, we have nobody else to suspect because it's just so damn quiet...

[captainwalrus]

15. In scenes I may have a few hidden clues however don't read too deeply as there may be some red flags attached to them.

Police searched the scene and found that wercool was a soldier, but they also found a cowboy hat that, according to DNA tests, didn't belong to wercool.

not sure what this means or if it means anything, but sure looks suspicious.

vote cowboyz


This is all we really have to go on.

Did you not read my post?

I did and I think you are wrong.

Oh, okay. Why?

[pancakemix]

Did you not read my post?

I did and I think you are wrong.

Rainbow Eater thinks something, therefore it must be right? Yesterday , you seemed very aggressive about getting a claim from / and when you didn't get it, you voted / and an innocent townie was lynched because you didn't get what you wanted. The only people I've ever seen play that aggressively were scum, and so far you've given me more reasons to believe that than the contrary.

/ you need to claim or you will be lynched. A cop visited you and he died.

These two sentences are a large part of my reasoning. The first sentence exemplifies the aggression I spoke of earlier. The second is faulty reasoning

1.The only reason to believe / was visited was info provided by a claimed mason who proved his power role and you still didn't trust him.

only thing that was proven was that a vote was moved. does not mean that you are not scum.

Regardless of that, you voted me on a weak argument that you had to explain. When I showed how it was flawed, I never got a response from you.

why jump out to take the vote if it does not matter who gets the vote. seems like scum would to try and deflect any attention and make them seem town.

Because:

1. I was online

2. It was faster than picking someone else.

When CW showed you how it was flawed, you dodged the issue, THEN declined a response.

Why don't we, in order to get more info and increase activity, Vote safari. If he turns out town, the heat is on rainbow tomorrow, if he is scum, we lynch PCM tomorrow and we will be in a great place after day 3.

my vote is not on safari

Well why do you think PCM is scummy? Isn't because of his interaction with safari? so why do you suspect PCM more than safari?
While I think neither are really scum, I think doing what I said before would work best, especially if we have a town vig.

dude, quit being lazy. read the past 2 or 3 pages.

They were rhetorical, except for the last one.
Your argument seems to me to be, these two are linked together, and therefore probably scumbuddies, as shown by these few things X, Y and Z.
It is essentially the same point though, just different evidence. None of your evidence indicates that PCM is more likely to be scum than safari, yet you seem to act as if this is so.
From my point of view, while this may have started from you thinking they are linked (or it may have started from some other motive, no one can be innocent for sure) it has become just you attacking PCM, which I think is odd. Can you explain this?

seriously man, read the past pages.

reasons for voting PCM have bee removed for the sake of shortening a post which is already way too long

This seems really scummy. I think that you and pancake have something cooked up. That whole interaction between you two seems really fake.

unvote vote pancake

That sums up my concern.
The fakeness goes both ways, but you only attack PCM.

2. Just because he was visited by a cop (which, by your logic, should be questioned, because safari was scummy, so the following exchange is completely self-contradictory on your part) does not make him responsible, which is exactly how / responded:

If I had visited /, that would be reason for a claim, but there is absolutely no significant reason to suspect I could have visited him more than anyone else in the entire game, so what exactly are you accusing me of? The only role that would hold plausibility would be a PGO, which is a town role..... So your only possible motivation is to out a townie?

Also Skoffin has been gone since November, so...yeah.
Anyways, I don't need to claim, I have no votes on me, and town claiming needlessly just allows scum to be more selective in their kills.

Also vote Rainbow Eater, your accusations all game have been confusing and scummy.

Your response?

vote / you still have not claimed and are dancing around the issue.

/ gave you a completely legitimate reason not to force him to claim. You did it anyway. A townie was lynched. And what was a large part of the basis for the lynch of /? Death scene provided evidence.

Scene

/ had just got off the horn with his boss. He was sure this was a great choice after all and decided to have at it. He stealthly opened the door of an unrealeased third party's house. As he shifted through the occupant's belongings he heard a noise behind him. As he wheeled around he was struck in the chest with a 9mm from a silenced gun. As he crumpled to the floor another shot, this time to the head, finished him off and his bloody mess of a body fell lifeless.

That's funny, isn't that your reason for voting cowboyz? So it didn't occur to you that this might mean something else?

You're too aggressive to be town and your arguments are too flawed and self-contradictory to make any sense. Vote Rainbow Eater because the evidence provided in the scene should not just be taken at face value. Cowboyz's presence at the scene should be looked into, but there is more than enough evidence pointing in RE's direction.

[Rainbow Eater]

Did you not read my post?

I did and I think you are wrong.

Rainbow Eater thinks something, therefore it must be right?

lol you are such a dick. get over yourself.

Yesterday , you seemed very aggressive about getting a claim from / and when you didn't get it, you voted / and an innocent townie was lynched because you didn't get what you wanted. The only people I've ever seen play that aggressively were scum, and so far you've given me more reasons to believe that than the contrary.

He was at the scene of the crime, where a cop died, so yeah he needed to claim, or do something other than what he did. I was also not the only one who wanted him to claim, just the only one who kept talking.

/ you need to claim or you will be lynched. A cop visited you and he died.

These two sentences are a large part of my reasoning. The first sentence exemplifies the aggression I spoke of earlier. The second is faulty reasoning

1.The only reason to believe / was visited was info provided by a claimed mason who proved his power role and you still didn't trust him.

I did trust him,I thought he was town to begin with. Then he was acting like he had something to hide instead of just claiming(which is scummy) so I voted for him.

only thing that was proven was that a vote was moved. does not mean that you are not scum.

Regardless of that, you voted me on a weak argument that you had to explain. When I showed how it was flawed, I never got a response from you.

I gave you an explanation, I even put it in large letters and in bold, and when you asked me again I told you to go back a read, which you need to do:

The reason I my vote is on Pancake is because of this:

Alright fine, I'll claim (without any pressure by votes mind you). I'm the politician (vote stealer). I stole DCR's vote day 1 because colton pm'ed me and said I had this special perk. I stole cowboyz vote night 1. I know some people think this to be scummy, but I can back this up by placing the stolen vote on anyone.

If that's the case, I'm willing to take a vote for you to prove a point.

This seems forced and fake. Who cares who he put the vote on and why speak out about it how you are willing to take it? This screams that I am scum, but look I am proving that I am town. You had no votes, you would not have gotten lynched, but it seems like you want to make it a big deal that you are taking the vote. my vote stands.

why jump out to take the vote if it does not matter who gets the vote. seems like scum would to try and deflect any attention and make them seem town.

Because:

1. I was online

2. It was faster than picking someone else.

my response to this was already posted and I told you to go read it.

When CW showed you how it was flawed, you dodged the issue, THEN declined a response.

once again my response to this was already posted and I told you to go read it.

Why don't we, in order to get more info and increase activity, Vote safari. If he turns out town, the heat is on rainbow tomorrow, if he is scum, we lynch PCM tomorrow and we will be in a great place after day 3.

my vote is not on safari

Well why do you think PCM is scummy? Isn't because of his interaction with safari? so why do you suspect PCM more than safari?
While I think neither are really scum, I think doing what I said before would work best, especially if we have a town vig.

dude, quit being lazy. read the past 2 or 3 pages.

They were rhetorical, except for the last one.
Your argument seems to me to be, these two are linked together, and therefore probably scumbuddies, as shown by these few things X, Y and Z.
It is essentially the same point though, just different evidence. None of your evidence indicates that PCM is more likely to be scum than safari, yet you seem to act as if this is so.
From my point of view, while this may have started from you thinking they are linked (or it may have started from some other motive, no one can be innocent for sure) it has become just you attacking PCM, which I think is odd. Can you explain this?

seriously man, read the past pages.

This seems really scummy. I think that you and pancake have something cooked up. That whole interaction between you two seems really fake.

unvote vote pancake

That sums up my concern.
The fakeness goes both ways, but you only attack PCM.

My response to this again is:

dude, quit being lazy. read the past 2 or 3 pages.

Just because you are lazy does not mean I am scum, it means you are lazy

2. Just because he was visited by a cop (which, by your logic, should be questioned, because safari was scummy, so the following exchange is completely self-contradictory on your part) does not make him responsible, which is exactly how / responded:

If I had visited /, that would be reason for a claim, but there is absolutely no significant reason to suspect I could have visited him more than anyone else in the entire game, so what exactly are you accusing me of? The only role that would hold plausibility would be a PGO, which is a town role..... So your only possible motivation is to out a townie?

From pages 9 - 15 my vote was on YOU and not on skiffon / / 2.0. for all of those pages I said we need to hear from skoffin before we make any decisions. Once / replaced skoffin and pretty much said screw off, yeah my vote changed.

Also Skoffin has been gone since November, so...yeah.
Anyways, I don't need to claim, I have no votes on me, and town claiming needlessly just allows scum to be more selective in their kills.

The only reason no vote were on / was because everyone took them off so no scum could hammer with out hearing a claim from whoever replaced skoffin. This was posted numerous times, yet you did not read that either.

Also vote Rainbow Eater, your accusations all game have been confusing and scummy.

Your response?

vote / you still have not claimed and are dancing around the issue.

So by your logic, I am the only player who should have to answer question, even though I answered this question many times yet you are to lazy, again, to read. Good point......

/ gave you a completely legitimate reason not to force him to claim. You did it anyway. A townie was lynched. And what was a large part of the basis for the lynch of /? Death scene provided evidence.

HE GAVE NO REASON WHAT SO EVER

Scene

/ had just got off the horn with his boss. He was sure this was a great choice after all and decided to have at it. He stealthly opened the door of an unrealeased third party's house. As he shifted through the occupant's belongings he heard a noise behind him. As he wheeled around he was struck in the chest with a 9mm from a silenced gun. As he crumpled to the floor another shot, this time to the head, finished him off and his bloody mess of a body fell lifeless.

That's funny, isn't that your reason for voting cowboyz? So it didn't occur to you that this might mean something else?

My reason for voting cowboyz is because a cowboy hat was there. Why would the mod go out of the way to state that a cowboy hat there?

If no one votes, then no one claims, just like / stated before right? why should I claim with no votes? well that is where I am putting my vote, because I want to know what happened.

You're too aggressive to be town and your arguments are too flawed and self-contradictory to make any sense. Vote Rainbow Eater because the evidence provided in the scene should not just be taken at face value. Cowboyz's presence at the scene should be looked into, but there is more than enough evidence pointing in RE's direction.

Really, to agressive? man I must be the dumbest scum ever to set myself up to be the strongest advocate in the lynching of a townie.......... good job sherlock. good job.

[pancakemix]

I'm not going to go down the line quoting again because the last one took well over an hour and all I got was insults.

1. I'm going to explain to you the thing you keep dodging and telling me I and everyone else is lazy for not going back and reading. You did not say "Pancakemix, you look scummy". You said "You two look scummy", which is what CW was pointing out. (There's a big and bold explanation, btw. It's also underlined and italicized in case you miss it.) Regardless of that, you only attacked me for that. I understand why you went after me. I just think it's a poor argument and doesn't warrant a vote in the slightest. That's not all though. Not only do you not attack Safari, you deny you ever attacked him at all or even thought he was scummy. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

2. I'm going to post my reasons for taking the stolen vote again and you're going to quote your response to it because not only did I not find it, I have read every post in this thread and especially went over that page several times looking for a response because I planned my argument out.

1. I was online

2. It was faster than picking someone else.

3. You don't like responding to arguments, do you? Just attacking the half of the argument that looks bad without the other half? Because you haven't been responding to mine, and you didn't respond to /'s or CW's. CW's I already went over, now for /'s.

If I had visited /, that would be reason for a claim, but there is absolutely no significant reason to suspect I could have visited him more than anyone else in the entire game, so what exactly are you accusing me of? The only role that would hold plausibility would be a PGO, which is a town role..... So your only possible motivation is to out a townie?

Also Skoffin has been gone since November, so...yeah.
Anyways, I don't need to claim, I have no votes on me, and town claiming needlessly just allows scum to be more selective in their kills.

Also vote Rainbow Eater, your accusations all game have been confusing and scummy.

Let's start with the fact that you cut /'s post in half in order to skew the argument in your favor. Here is the post in its entirety, which you would know if you weren't too lazy to go back and find it. However, to respond, I'm going to divide it in half like you did.

I'm not sure what your response is supposed to mean. It doesn't address anything I said. It doesn't even address anything / said. Explain yourself.

At least you responded to this half in part, but the half you responded to (which is the only half you responded to earlier and used to justify your vote on him) is hardly an argument by itself. The important part is in bold. Respond to that half, please.

Again, I don't know what your response is supposed to mean. There was no question in there, and you cut it up to look like I pointed out that you OMGUS voted, which is not the point I made

4. You insult me and keep calling me lazy when all I got was this half-assed response to a post I spent over an hour writing and collecting quotes for? You didn't even read it carefully enough to comprehend the fact that I went back, got actual posts from this game, and collected them in a sound argument. Nope, all I got out of you was "You're a lazy dick. Go back and reread".

5. PCM's post: The RE Cutup Pt 2:

/ gave you a completely legitimate reason not to force him to claim. You did it anyway. A townie was lynched. And what was a large part of the basis for the lynch of /? Death scene provided evidence.

Scene

/ had just got off the horn with his boss. He was sure this was a great choice after all and decided to have at it. He stealthly opened the door of an unrealeased third party's house. As he shifted through the occupant's belongings he heard a noise behind him. As he wheeled around he was struck in the chest with a 9mm from a silenced gun. As he crumpled to the floor another shot, this time to the head, finished him off and his bloody mess of a body fell lifeless.

That's funny, isn't that your reason for voting cowboyz? So it didn't occur to you that this might mean something else?

That post I colored earlier? I bolded the good reason. You don't have to WRITE A RESPONSE IN ALL CAPS THAT PROVES YOU DIDN'T READ. Read my post before you respond to it

Again, you're showing that you didn't read my post carefully at all. I'm pointing out that the basis for the lynch of / was that the cop was killed at someone's house while investigating. The reason I bring it up is because yes, the cowboy hat is a notable detail, and I acknowledged it, but the cop's death at someone's house was in the scene, with Safari providing the info of Skoffin being the one investigated. That was the only reason you had for pushing for /'s lynch. Nothing else.

6. Instead of going back and editing what I've already written about you and Safari, I'm just gonna point out what you didn't read right (surprise surprise...).

1.The only reason to believe / was visited was info provided by a claimed mason who proved his power role and you still didn't trust him.

I did trust him,I thought he was town to begin with. Then he was acting like he had something to hide instead of just claiming(which is scummy) so I voted for him.

I was talking about Safari. You either a) wrote about /, which shows you didn't read or b) you ARE talking about Safari and are lying, because you never voted him, you voted me immediately.

Lastly, I just had to quote this last part of your post. You accuse me of exactly what you just did yesterday.

Really, to agressive? man I must be the dumbest scum ever to set myself up to be the strongest advocate in the lynching of a townie.......... good job sherlock. good job.

C wut eye did thar?

You've given me plenty of reasons to keep my vote where it is, and I could probably keep going, but I've ended up writing another long post. Maybe if the other players actually read this post and my last, they'll see what I see.

[captainwalrus]

Sorry If I;m going to double or triple post, but I didn't want to have to have to figure out who said what and when from that mess of tags.
First
[quote="Rainbow Eater]I did trust him,I thought he was town to begin with. Then he was acting like he had something to hide instead of just claiming(which is scummy) so I voted for him.[/quote]
What? That makes no sense. By that logic a mass claim is always best. Of course he could have something to hide, he could be a town power role!