We Need Serenes Forest Mafia Mafia 5 After All! - GAME OVER

[Makaze]

12 minutes ago, Omega. said:

The main thing in your favor is that so many people have called you V that it had me considering it was TMI on the part of the wolves/ITP. I can't say that's enough for me to want you to stay, though.

I mean I think it is, and those people are Snike and Walrein. See my argument re: Walrein town reading me for the effortless obliviously hard defense. I don't think Walrein does that as Mafia, they're not nearly as skeptical as they should be.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Makaze
pronouns

[Makaze]

1 minute ago, Makaze said:

I mean I think it is, and those people are Snike and Walrein. See my argument re: Walrein town reading me for the effortless obliviously hard defense. I don't think Walrein does that as Mafia, they're not nearly as skeptical as they should be.

Meant as town here; my bad

Edited April 23, 2018 by Makaze
pronouns

[Makaze]

@Snike @SatsumaFSoysoy

please tag me when you respond to this

What do you make of Beru? Sorry if I missed this.

[🔥YOLOSWAG🔥]

Ok, we have like what, 8 hours?

I'll be around on and off today. I'm fine going Makaze, but I want to hear from Snike and if Walrein doesn't do anything still I wouldn't be too sorry if we still go him.

@Alette

I'm wondering where you want to go today? I keep seeing you defend people but I don't know who you think is the lynch. Still Snike?

[Makaze]

##Votals

@Iris @SB.

[EvanManManMan]

46 minutes ago, Makaze said:

I can see this argument. I can't really explain it, but I don't think I would try to pocket him if this was me being Mafia, because I would have every reason to actually read him and expand my PoE for later days. In addition, I have gone to greater lengths to townclear multiple players, so I don't see why I would be different with Walrein here. This makes more sense as a w/w association than anything else, if I'm lying.

It doesn't promote w/w interactions. Your switch on Walrein leads me to one of these conclusions:

1. You are town who just didn't pay attention to anything

2. You are scum that decided giving in and scum reading Walrein was a better play

[EvanManManMan]

46 minutes ago, Makaze said:

Nope. We have a watcher.

Ask if you can make 2 bets when motivated though. And if you win, do you get two vigs? Because if so that is the best option.

I only get one charge per correct bet, so I would need two correct bets to get two vig shots.

And doesn't the watcher have some sort of negative modifier?

[Makaze]

Just now, EvanManManMan said:

It doesn't promote w/w interactions. Your switch on Walrein leads me to one of these conclusions:

1. You are town who just didn't pay attention to anything

2. You are scum that decided giving in and scum reading Walrein was a better play

I don't see how number 2 makes sense with how I have cleared everyone else. But this isn't really worth arguing.

[Makaze]

1 minute ago, EvanManManMan said:

I only get one charge per correct bet, so I would need two correct bets to get two vig shots.

And doesn't the watcher have some sort of negative modifier?

Fails if the person does something, yeah.

They could watch Fable though? So you're a better option either way.

But I still don't really buy the motivation claim. See: Why didn't Mack target Kaoz n3?

[Makaze]

4 minutes ago, EvanManManMan said:

It doesn't promote w/w interactions. Your switch on Walrein leads me to one of these conclusions:

1. You are town who just didn't pay attention to anything

2. You are scum that decided giving in and scum reading Walrein was a better play

Re: #2: My argument was that my reasons for clearing Walrein are unique and stand out hardcore. I don't think I would do that as scum unless I actually thought it would pocket Walrein. Realistically I don't think any town that I town read without reasons would just accept it when I usually play so rationally. That's the argument. Not about how opportunistic the switch would be (you would be right if I had cleared Walrein for cause before).

[Makaze]

Re: Watching

You can safely target me, I am not going to act tonight.

I realized that Fable was a bad choice because scum would never kill him with that claim.

[Makaze]

Just now, Makaze said:

Re: Watching

You can safely target me, I am not going to act tonight.

I realized that Fable was a bad choice because scum would never kill him with that claim.

@Beru

[EvanManManMan]

54 minutes ago, Makaze said:

@EvanManManMan it automatically converts them, let me see if I can get it

Walrein's side

Shinori's side

The Shinori side of associations is honestly pretty weak.

The Walrein side is mostly hypothetical cases as in it's not hard to place town motivation behind their actions. The most damning thing here was the spontaneous townread of Shinori, but that isn't even that bad when you consider that they could have just forgot to explain and if nobody told them to explain, they wouldn't have merit too. Their laziness is also making me think that laziness had an effect on why their Shinori read remained unexplained

I'm not convinced.

[Makaze]

4 minutes ago, EvanManManMan said:

The Shinori side of associations is honestly pretty weak.

The Walrein side is mostly hypothetical cases as in it's not hard to place town motivation behind their actions. The most damning thing here was the spontaneous townread of Shinori, but that isn't even that bad when you consider that they could have just forgot to explain and if nobody told them to explain, they wouldn't have merit too. Their laziness is also making me think that laziness had an effect on why their Shinori read remained unexplained

I'm not convinced.

What alternative mindset do you imagine for Shinori?

I can see the laziness argument. It's not nearly as bad as the way Shinori handled them.

Once again, what do you think happened if Mack was motivated for n3?

[EvanManManMan]

1 hour ago, athena_57 said:

 

These two are both good points and sadly point in different directions. I don't agree with Evan it completely clears him, as if scum blocked someone who's now dead he can safely fakeclaim being roleblocked, but I do agree it makes it a lot more likely for him to be town.

Snoyke raises a good question as well, the only answer I can think if is the ballsy play of hoping scum avoids Kaoz because Mack outed he would be on him.

I am not convinced in this vote anymore, especially considering people I read as locktown (Fable, Refa) have left the wagon and only Makaze and Omega remain.

##Unvote

Makaze's stuff on Shinori/Walrein interactions isn't wrong, but I am increasingly worried about how certain he is of his reads. I don't expect full blown paranoia, but if points like the above quote from Evan have been made, how can you remain so convinced based on the in my eyes bad but not damning interactions with Shinori?

I would consider him fakeclaiming roleblocked, had the roleblocker not been compulsive. Compulsive means that he absolutely has to roleblock somebody, meaning unless the person they killed was roleblocked, his claim can't be fake, and I doubt scum would simply waste a utility like that for distancing purposes.

[Makaze]

Just now, Makaze said:

What alternative mindset do you imagine for Shinori?

To the one I'm describing, I mean.

I legit don't understand why he would deny mentioning Walrein and get on eclipse's case, then say "Why didn't you ask me about (townflipped Eury) instead?"

[Percivalé]

if I were sk and I hit rolebomb I would ragequit the game

[🔥YOLOSWAG🔥]

7 hours ago, Walrein said:

are people really that weirded out by the kaoz/mack deaths btw

like they're pretty blatantly PR kills (and mack probably suicided with one of his targets anyways) as opposed to SPKs

that's what happens when you've got a pubclaimed jailkeeper, mang

I'm just confused as to why you targeted Kaoz; he was likely to be killed in all circumstances. I was surprised he lived N2 or whatever it was after he claimed. 

[EvanManManMan]

1 hour ago, Makaze said:

With regard to this and at @EvanManManMan too: I was waiting for you guys to catch up and realize it yourself, but we know why Walrein's action failed: Fable claimed that it makes sense with his role. Then he explained it with his full claim: He is a role bomb. If he gets NK'd, the player who killed him loses all their abilities.

Also, Walrein did not offer this speculation himself, which says to me he knows it didn't happen. If he had been roleblocked or thought he was he probably would have said it immediately upon realizing it's what happened, regardless of what his claim is.

 

An ability failing has nothing to do with who he targetted, unless the person is a commuter esque role where they can make all actions against them fail.

[Makaze]

4 minutes ago, EvanManManMan said:

I would consider him fakeclaiming roleblocked, had the roleblocker not been compulsive. Compulsive means that he absolutely has to roleblock somebody, meaning unless the person they killed was roleblocked, his claim can't be fake, and I doubt scum would simply waste a utility like that for distancing purposes.

... like I said, Fable explained why his action failed. Fable cannot be targeted by manipulative abilities (he is a role bomb).

I also noticed that the way Walrein worded it, he was not claiming to be roleblocked. He was claiming that his action failed. I think he knew it was Fable's role that caused it and that's why he a) never claimed the roleblock until now and b) didn't offer this self-clearing roleblock reasoning on his own.

[Makaze]

7 minutes ago, EvanManManMan said:

An ability failing has nothing to do with who he targetted, unless the person is a commuter esque role where they can make all actions against them fail.

I think you are wrong. Fable's ability cannot be motivated, so they got a failed result. Fable argued this.

I also question the logic behind roleblocking Walrein over known town PRs.

Did anyone actually claim roleblocked for n1?

Edited April 23, 2018 by Makaze
pronouns

[Percivalé]

hey guys let's not think too hard on the roleblocker language. when I got jailed I got told my action failed. obviously I was roleblocked but I wasn't told specifically that. I just assumed I was roleblocked.

[EvanManManMan]

23 minutes ago, Makaze said:

Re: #2: My argument was that my reasons for clearing Walrein are unique and stand out hardcore. I don't think I would do that as scum unless I actually thought it would pocket Walrein. Realistically I don't think any town that I town read without reasons would just accept it when I usually play so rationally. That's the argument. Not about how opportunistic the switch would be (you would be right if I had cleared Walrein for cause before).

Your reasons for clearing Walrein were shit. You just said "He is lock town because his tone" and left it at that. Yes it was unique but it was unique for a reason. That being said I want you to rewrite this argument because you make it seem like you cleared Walrein for actual reasons.

[Percivalé]

I think it's just action failed versus action succeeded. it's not really that deep

also yes I did claim an action that day, if you look back you'll see it. I wasn't open about having an action.

[Makaze]

1 minute ago, Vi-astra said:

hey guys let's not think too hard on the roleblocker language. when I got jailed I got told my action failed. obviously I was roleblocked but I wasn't told specifically that. I just assumed I was roleblocked.

I mean yes

but I think that walrein would have said "I got roleblocked n1" if that was their assumption

i can't prove this, but I think they actually suspected it was fable's role that caused it

and that required them to know where the rb went

Edited April 23, 2018 by Makaze
pronouns