The good news is if we can find Cyndaquil we probably found scum as no one is admitting to having my fire baby. Town wouldn't hide it, scum would. SO that's a bonus. Kind of.
It was my first post of the day. Maybe you're right, it looks like wisdom's taking the cake for dump stat over dexterity.
I SAID I WAS DRUNK ALL WEEKEND, WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME
You say that like it's unusual.
I really have little to offer right now. No night disturbances, much sedation, no further lynch train to dissect for FACTS.
Other than that, since whatever was done to @Lehki wasn't a vote or roleblock, maybe a jailing? Being drawn into a meeting with the administration that protects + blocks?
I don't think Shaddus would have come forward so openly about being blocked if he was mafia, especially when no one died, so while we have good reason to believe that people were bussed, we still have no explanation for the lack of deaths other than protection/jailing.
Eh... Not sure I buy warnings being jailed. I'd think it'd be clearer if they were jailed. To me, it makes sense that warnings either have something to do with posts/votes (which clearly isn't the case, unless Lehki is holding information back) or that it ultimately leads to banning. For me, the question is essentially only if it's a multi-level kill (have to target several times to ban someone) or if it's an arson-style kill.
The only thing close to a multi-level kill I've seen was Articuno in my last game, but even that was more of a freeze-arson than a stage kill process. I'm not sure how having one would benefit town or scum, meaning that if it is out there, it's likely a third party role that will need to successfully kill <X> people before they win, but I don't think Sylandra would include a role like that.
Also, re: Shaddus coming forward... That is, really, the only sensible thing for anyone to do, town or scum. That information would've surfaced eventually anyway, and it'd be a lot more damaging to be found out to be blocked and having kept quiet about it than just going "Oh, hey, I was blocked". So yeah; Shaddus is still a candidate in my eyes. Granted, being blocked on the night someone died is hardly conclusive evidence; I'd give it a one in three chance that he's scum (assuming there's also a doctor and a jailer around, that'd give three protections against death).
The only thing close to a multi-level kill I've seen was Articuno in my last game, but even that was more of a freeze-arson than a stage kill process. I'm not sure how having one would benefit town or scum, meaning that if it is out there, it's likely a third party role that will need to successfully kill <X> people before they win, but I don't think Sylandra would include a role like that.
Fun to theorise though.
Allyriannes character in Reign left characters with a rose or flower then blanket killed all those left, and that was a Sylandra game so I would say more than likely the role exists.
i however never really played with posting restrictions and unsure how they work. I would lean more with an arsonist than a third party upping the warnings.
2014/04/19 01:38:01 - Leolamins drained 2000000 power to raise Silvanus as a Vernal Ascendant.
2014/07/23 05:01:29 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Munsia as a Vernal Ascendant.
2015/05/24 06:03:07 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Arimisia as a Vernal Ascendant.
2015/05/24 06:03:58 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Lavinya as a Vernal Ascendant.
Fyler, you didn't get any sort of misfire or misdirection message supporting Vivet's claim that she tried to buff you but failed, did you? I mean, she's got no reason to lie, but it's just as possible she and Tremula are in cahoots in some way.
Do bus drivers see what they caused to happen? What happens if they target people who don't do anything at night?
This is what I'm referring to when I say that Shaddus surreptitiously supported Silvanus's argument. The argument itself is very weak and creates doubt around Vivet's honesty, while feigning neutrality on the subject matter. It may be incidental, but it's enough to make me narrow my eyes in scrutiny.
Well that is revealing information and lines up with what you said earlier about wanting to reveal sooner. I can see why you would want to do that, and now we can at least suspect there is a bus driver if you are to be believed.
However, that wouldn't be a very hard thing to coordinate between mafia members on night one, and convenient that you got bussed to the moderator of the Pokemon mafia game. This isn't to say I disbelieve you, just saying I don't believe yet. To Vivet: Any reasoning for giving your pokemon to Celina on night on? To Tremula: Does the Pokemon have a day or night power if any?
Also to the voting day 0 no lynch. I didn't think it was highly suspect with Ushaara's vote, I thought as far as day 0s go, I learned more from it than I have in most mafia games. But I will agree that some of them have also been quiet, especially for having voted in general.
I am going to disagree, obviously, but for other reasons.
I am suspicious of every bit of info that is freely given, especially on day one. You can easily read into Vivets mannerisms as town, but there is always the doubt that they are scum, and that is what I read into. Literally the only way this ploy would work is with Cyndaquil being messed up, unlike what you said above. Because it is the obvious choice. Also, revealing there is a bus driver early is good for town - unless there is no bus driver. Which was the entire premise to the questioning, to confirm the suspicions.
I see absolutely no problem with questioning and pondering out loud about the implications of such a reveal and the roles that it would be associated with. I did not paint either Vivet or Tremula as mafia, and framed all my suspiciouns as unlikely and it being a coincidence. But unlikely is still a scenario that can happen.
Also, there has been almost no conversation, I don't think questioning the only bit of info given would be considered scummy. You can see that I did not vote for either of them, and was satisfied with my questioning. And even mentioned that I believe Vivet (although reluctantly).
Speaking of scrutiny. Pay attention to Silvanus' defense against my accusation because there is a lot wrong with it. Compare bold with bold. Statements as to if Vivet is to be believed. Arguing that he believed Vivet does not hold up when the singular statement of if he believes her or not states that he doesn't believe yet. And frankly, if he did believe her statements there would be no need to call the statement into question. In fact, he continues to throw doubt on the situation afterwards.
Pay attention to the italics. And then pay attention to the utter lack of scrutiny paid to Shaddus's revelation that he was roleblocked, or Lehki's statement of raised warn levels. These statements are not called into question or shown any doubt. Lehki especially should come under heavier scrutiny, since while a roleblocker is a natural role to include in the game and would be a hard bluff, arsonists are a much easier bluff and can cause a lot of chaos as people go chasing after this mysterious and possibly non-existent arsonist. Such a bluff is also far more low-risk for scum, since it'd expose one, rather than two members when the lie would inevitably be found out.
As far as I can see, there is no pressing reason to call Vivet's information into question. And when the argument constructs the more complex scenario where Vivet and Tremula as a team decide to feign the existence of a busdriver, in the process revealing Vivet as an inventor and that there's a connection between them when the existence of a busdriver is disproven, as something more probable than "busdriver exists", then I find the argument to be made in bad faith.
"Oh yeah, you're a naughty mayor, aren't you? Misfile that Form MA631-D. Comptroller Shevat's got a nice gemstone disc for you, but yer gonna have to beg for it."
Well the reason why I believe Lehki, after I questioned him about a posting restriction, is that Sylandra modded a game with an Arsonist that ended up killing me, in that game. I do not believe there was a bus driver in the Reign mafia game.
I can also point out contradictions in your own posting. You discredit Lehki because because the arsonist is a role that causes havoc as people go looking out for an arsonist, while I would argue that a bus driver that doesn't exist would have the same impact. People would be reluctant to claim a role because their night actions may get bussed.
You also completely ignored one of my other posts about the bus driver in response to Lehki: "Probably a coincidence, but literally the only way to convince us there is a bus driver without having to reveal anything important happened, so I tend to be reluctant."
I did call Lehki's claims into question or did you just ignore the fact that I kept mentioning a post restriction and he voted to prove it? Here is that response in question: "To Lehki: do you have any type of posting restriction or anything that might come into play that may have triggered the response? Otherwise it sounds like an arson as to what Luce had said, also Reign game had an arson (and Sylandra modded that)."
You can pick and choose whatever you want to make someone look scummy, that's why you picked out parts of something instead of looking at the whole picture.
2014/04/19 01:38:01 - Leolamins drained 2000000 power to raise Silvanus as a Vernal Ascendant.
2014/07/23 05:01:29 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Munsia as a Vernal Ascendant.
2015/05/24 06:03:07 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Arimisia as a Vernal Ascendant.
2015/05/24 06:03:58 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Lavinya as a Vernal Ascendant.
Well the reason why I believe Lehki, after I questioned him about a posting restriction, is that Sylandra modded a game with an Arsonist that ended up killing me, in that game. I do not believe there was a bus driver in the Reign mafia game.
I can also point out contradictions in your own posting. You discredit Lehki because because the arsonist is a role that causes havoc as people go looking out for an arsonist, while I would argue that a bus driver that doesn't exist would have the same impact. People would be reluctant to claim a role because their night actions may get bussed.
You also completely ignored one of my other posts about the bus driver in response to Lehki: "Probably a coincidence, but literally the only way to convince us there is a bus driver without having to reveal anything important happened, so I tend to be reluctant."
I did call Lehki's claims into question or did you just ignore the fact that I kept mentioning a post restriction and he voted to prove it? Here is that response in question: "To Lehki: do you have any type of posting restriction or anything that might come into play that may have triggered the response? Otherwise it sounds like an arson as to what Luce had said, also Reign game had an arson (and Sylandra modded that)."
You can pick and choose whatever you want to make someone look scummy, that's why you picked out parts of something instead of looking at the whole picture.
You discredit Lehki because because the arsonist is a role that causes havoc as people go looking out for an arsonist:
I did not. What I did was call attention to the fact that Lehki revealed a statement of what had happened to them during the night, and you did not dismiss that statement as possibly false.
You also completely ignored one of my other posts about the bus driver in response to Lehki: "Probably
a coincidence, but literally the only way to convince us there is a bus
driver without having to reveal anything important happened, so I tend
to be reluctant."
I ignored it because the sentence itself was lacking in clarity. My interpretation was that the statement is "the only way to convince us there is a busdriver is by creating an elaborate story involving pokemon giving powers being diverted". Which is so bad, I'd dayvig you for that statement alone.
I did call Lehki's claims into question or did you just ignore the
fact that I kept mentioning a post restriction and he voted to prove
it?:
That is qualitatively different. Never once did you call into question that Lehki actually did experience getting their warning level raised. I didn't ignore it. It is an important part of why I'm convinced you don't have the well-being of town in mind and should be lynched.
Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.
I knew there was a reason I disliked playing mafia games with Kiradawea. She pulls things out of thin air and is usually wrong, like Tekora. So self assured of her own intelligence, she jumps at shadows where there are none (more than is actually healthy in a mafia game), and is actually good at masking her own possible scuminess beyond a mask of imperious posts.
'Take nobody's word for it' is an apt saying to ponder. Kiradawea should know it, she's in the guild that uses it for a motto. There's absolutely no reason not to believe Vivet, especially if others have come forward and substantiated it. That doesn't mean I shouldn't still be suspicious, because Sylandra is tricksey and known to use normally town roles to hide scummy people. I don't know that I've ever played in a mafia game with a bus driver, so I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of it, what it will and won't redirect.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
Other than that, since whatever was done to @Lehki wasn't a vote or roleblock, maybe a jailing? Being drawn into a meeting with the administration that protects + blocks?
I don't think Shaddus would have come forward so openly about being blocked if he was mafia, especially when no one died, so while we have good reason to believe that people were bussed, we still have no explanation for the lack of deaths other than protection/jailing.
To add to my other post, I'm just curious as to whether a/the bus driver moved a roleblock from someone to myself, or whether I was intentionally blocked.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
Well, Vivet already stated that she sent a Pokemon to Fyler, but it ended up with Tremula instead. So if we take everyone at their word (yes, yes, we can't really do that), then the bus driver must've switched Tremula and Fyler. So unless there are several bus drivers (which I would consider exceedingly unlikely), then you were intentionally blocked.
You discredit Lehki because because the arsonist is a role that causes havoc as people go looking out for an arsonist:
I did not. What I did was call attention to the fact that Lehki revealed a statement of what had happened to them during the night, and you did not dismiss that statement as possibly false.
You also completely ignored one of my other posts about the bus driver in response to Lehki: "Probably
a coincidence, but literally the only way to convince us there is a bus
driver without having to reveal anything important happened, so I tend
to be reluctant."
I ignored it because the sentence itself was lacking in clarity. My interpretation was that the statement is "the only way to convince us there is a busdriver is by creating an elaborate story involving pokemon giving powers being diverted". Which is so bad, I'd dayvig you for that statement alone.
I did call Lehki's claims into question or did you just ignore the
fact that I kept mentioning a post restriction and he voted to prove
it?:
That is qualitatively different. Never once did you call into question that Lehki actually did experience getting their warning level raised. I didn't ignore it. It is an important part of why I'm convinced you don't have the well-being of town in mind and should be lynched.
So....your beef with Silvanus is that he didn't suspect Lehki's claim, and your beef with me is that I did suspect Vivet's claim?
I think you're going out of your way to be pedantic and stir up trouble on purpose.
VOTE:KIRADAWEA
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
But I did suspect Lehki's claim... I believed him after his vote. You know, as much actual evidence that can be tested that we've been given alleviated my suspicion.
2014/04/19 01:38:01 - Leolamins drained 2000000 power to raise Silvanus as a Vernal Ascendant.
2014/07/23 05:01:29 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Munsia as a Vernal Ascendant.
2015/05/24 06:03:07 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Arimisia as a Vernal Ascendant.
2015/05/24 06:03:58 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Lavinya as a Vernal Ascendant.
For the record, to my awareness the bus driver is weird in the stack. If the bus driver targets him or herself, they can't be blocked, if they are blocked nothing happens, but otherwise their action resolves first. They are to my knowledge one of two roles that can throw off a jailing because of that. And even then the jailer ends up jailing the other target.
Most of the time, the only person who knows for sure who, if anyone, was swapped is the bus driver and scum/vig who see their target alive but someone else dead by their hand.
The bus driver doesn't usually get to see whether their actions had a tangible result until the dawn gives results, and only if those results are patently obvious to everyone, ie driver swaps Alice and Bob, and Bob ends up with a terminal case of knife to the throat, driver knows Alice was the intended knifee.
I think the biggest problem right now is there's not much to talk about outside of my circumstances and we're in a weird spot with people getting replaced. @Breandryn can probably talk more, I don't think they're getting replaced. Where are your thoughts on things?
Sorry, I wasn't around much this weekend. I posted saying that, but I think it got lost in other conversations!
I think we're seeing arguments spinning up quickly based on little information, so it may be helpful to try to sort out what all we know.
@othero made a list earlier of our potential game setup:
So we have: 3 mafia roleblocker bus driver shopkeeper/pokeball giver
On top of this, we have learned:
- @Shaddus was blocked - @Vivet is a shopkeeper - @Tremula and Celina were swapped - A night kill was somehow foiled
This last thing is super useful. What stops a kill? Odds are it is someone being jailed or someone being blocked, right? How do mafia kills work in the games here? Does the mafia act as a majority? Does one mafia member do the killing?
The bus driver makes things more confusing, yes, as it makes it harder to work backwards and figure out what happened...but in this case we know what the switch was. This means, first, that neither party was jailed, right? It also means that Vivet was not blocked. I have no huge revelations, but I do think we can start compiling some useful information.
@Shaddus did you ever mention if you were trying to take a night action or not, when the block hit? Just trying to piece out if people will notice blocks when they're not doing anything.
And I feel like Kira is stretching here, but I suppose there's really not a lot else here for them to analyze. I thought they were being a bit overly aggressive towards Silvanus but apparently this is standard behavior for them? I'm left not still not sure on anybody, though still not sure about going for a no lynch again. =/
I think we have about 3 days left to decide on a vote?
0
SylandraJoin Queue for Mafia GamesThe Last Mafia Game
edited January 2017
Some lines of recent conversation are veering too close to ad hominem attacks for my liking. To clarify rule #10: Criticism of play style and role is valid. Criticism of individual players as people isn't. This is an important distinction. Make sure your posts reflect that.
In reply to @Lehki's comment, the dayphase will end as of January 27th ESTif no lynch is reached before then (since I cannot recall when exactly I started on the 19th except that I believe it was night-time, and would therefore like to be sportsmanlike to ensure the final 24 hours.)
REMINDER: WE ARE STILL LOOKING FOR A REPLACEMENT FOR @KENDRA. PLEASE PM ME BEFORE THE END OF THE DAYPHASE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PLAY.
"Oh yeah, you're a naughty mayor, aren't you? Misfile that Form MA631-D. Comptroller Shevat's got a nice gemstone disc for you, but yer gonna have to beg for it."
0
SylandraJoin Queue for Mafia GamesThe Last Mafia Game
"Oh yeah, you're a naughty mayor, aren't you? Misfile that Form MA631-D. Comptroller Shevat's got a nice gemstone disc for you, but yer gonna have to beg for it."
Starting to think Kiradawea's role is incorporating one I played in a previous game where I aggressively pursued someone on fairly scant evidence... :P
While I'll admit Silvanus' hedging raised an eyebrow, I'm not sure that any of us think about our posts that much to be 100% consistent in how we describe whether we believe someone or not, so focusing so adamantly on that as evidence of guilt seems like a shaky foundation.
But that said, it did provoke something else that caught my attention, where Silvanus mentions being unsure as to how post restrictions work, but earlier admitted to having one (which I would imagine outlines how it is to function?). There's also the Los Alamos game he modded where I had a post restriction tied to a double-vote power (must include a certain phrase within the post to activate).
So without a clearer prospect, and if we don't get a replacement for Kendra, I'd be willing to vote for Silvanus.
(Since it seems to have been a Los Alamos character who targeted Lehki and we don't seem to think it was a benign action, lynching Silvanus would also test if there's any meta connection between previous mods and their games, and if Lehki was on to something with past mods forming the mafia.)
@Shaddus did you ever mention if you were trying to take a night action or not, when the block hit? Just trying to piece out if people will notice blocks when they're not doing anything.
And I feel like Kira is stretching here, but I suppose there's really not a lot else here for them to analyze. I thought they were being a bit overly aggressive towards Silvanus but apparently this is standard behavior for them? I'm left not still not sure on anybody, though still not sure about going for a no lynch again. =/
I think we have about 3 days left to decide on a vote?
No. I have a night defense but not a night action.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
Anyway, it's not just that Silvanus uses an inconsistent description on if they believe Vivet or not. Honestly, I find it to be immaterial. We can't ever know what's going on inside the mind of someone. I know I can be long-winded, so I'll try to summarize my thoughts.
I originally voted for Silvanus because I did not see any reason to call Vivet's proclamation that her night action was diverted into question. His response has reinforced my belief that he was actively trying to cast doubt on the existence of a busdriver.
Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.
@Shaddus If you dislike playing the game with me, then cease playing.
(Damn phone and text blocks, sorry)
We don't have a problem with you the person, We have a problem with your playstyle. Your style is much like a man with a flamethrower, hopped up on caffeine and jumping every time he hears a noise, suspicious or not. You have no real evidence or anything even faintly suspicious, but you're pointing random fingers anywhere but yourself. This is an inherent scum tell, trying to nervously divert attention via "getting the ball rolling" and trying to point at people you know aren't scum.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
Comments
I really have little to offer right now. No night disturbances, much sedation, no further lynch train to dissect for FACTS.
But still here.
I don't think Shaddus would have come forward so openly about being blocked if he was mafia, especially when no one died, so while we have good reason to believe that people were bussed, we still have no explanation for the lack of deaths other than protection/jailing.
Fun to theorise though.
Ixion tells you, "// I don't think anyone else had a clue, amazing form."
i however never really played with posting restrictions and unsure how they work. I would lean more with an arsonist than a third party upping the warnings.
Speaking of scrutiny. Pay attention to Silvanus' defense against my accusation because there is a lot wrong with it. Compare bold with bold. Statements as to if Vivet is to be believed. Arguing that he believed Vivet does not hold up when the singular statement of if he believes her or not states that he doesn't believe yet. And frankly, if he did believe her statements there would be no need to call the statement into question. In fact, he continues to throw doubt on the situation afterwards.
Pay attention to the italics. And then pay attention to the utter lack of scrutiny paid to Shaddus's revelation that he was roleblocked, or Lehki's statement of raised warn levels. These statements are not called into question or shown any doubt. Lehki especially should come under heavier scrutiny, since while a roleblocker is a natural role to include in the game and would be a hard bluff, arsonists are a much easier bluff and can cause a lot of chaos as people go chasing after this mysterious and possibly non-existent arsonist. Such a bluff is also far more low-risk for scum, since it'd expose one, rather than two members when the lie would inevitably be found out.
As far as I can see, there is no pressing reason to call Vivet's information into question. And when the argument constructs the more complex scenario where Vivet and Tremula as a team decide to feign the existence of a busdriver, in the process revealing Vivet as an inventor and that there's a connection between them when the existence of a busdriver is disproven, as something more probable than "busdriver exists", then I find the argument to be made in bad faith.
My vote stands.
---
@Ushaara I stand corrected and humbled.
Silvanus: Kiradawea (1)
REMINDER THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR REPLACEMENTS FOR @KENDRA. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED, PLEASE LET ME KNOW BY PM BEFORE THE END OF THE DAYPHASE.
I can also point out contradictions in your own posting. You discredit Lehki because because the arsonist is a role that causes havoc as people go looking out for an arsonist, while I would argue that a bus driver that doesn't exist would have the same impact. People would be reluctant to claim a role because their night actions may get bussed.
You also completely ignored one of my other posts about the bus driver in response to Lehki: "Probably a coincidence, but literally the only way to convince us there is a bus driver without having to reveal anything important happened, so I tend to be reluctant."
I did call Lehki's claims into question or did you just ignore the fact that I kept mentioning a post restriction and he voted to prove it? Here is that response in question: "To Lehki: do you have any type of posting restriction or anything that might come into play that may have triggered the response? Otherwise it sounds like an arson as to what Luce had said, also Reign game had an arson (and Sylandra modded that)."
You can pick and choose whatever you want to make someone look scummy, that's why you picked out parts of something instead of looking at the whole picture.
I did not. What I did was call attention to the fact that Lehki revealed a statement of what had happened to them during the night, and you did not dismiss that statement as possibly false.
You also completely ignored one of my other posts about the bus driver in response to Lehki: "Probably a coincidence, but literally the only way to convince us there is a bus driver without having to reveal anything important happened, so I tend to be reluctant."
I ignored it because the sentence itself was lacking in clarity. My interpretation was that the statement is "the only way to convince us there is a busdriver is by creating an elaborate story involving pokemon giving powers being diverted". Which is so bad, I'd dayvig you for that statement alone.
I did call Lehki's claims into question or did you just ignore the fact that I kept mentioning a post restriction and he voted to prove it?:
That is qualitatively different. Never once did you call into question that Lehki actually did experience getting their warning level raised. I didn't ignore it. It is an important part of why I'm convinced you don't have the well-being of town in mind and should be lynched.
I think you're going out of your way to be pedantic and stir up trouble on purpose.
VOTE:KIRADAWEA
Most of the time, the only person who knows for sure who, if anyone, was swapped is the bus driver and scum/vig who see their target alive but someone else dead by their hand.
The bus driver doesn't usually get to see whether their actions had a tangible result until the dawn gives results, and only if those results are patently obvious to everyone, ie driver swaps Alice and Bob, and Bob ends up with a terminal case of knife to the throat, driver knows Alice was the intended knifee.
I think we're seeing arguments spinning up quickly based on little information, so it may be helpful to try to sort out what all we know.
@othero made a list earlier of our potential game setup:
So we have:
3 mafia
roleblocker
bus driver
shopkeeper/pokeball giver
On top of this, we have learned:
- @Shaddus was blocked
- @Vivet is a shopkeeper
- @Tremula and Celina were swapped
- A night kill was somehow foiled
This last thing is super useful. What stops a kill? Odds are it is someone being jailed or someone being blocked, right? How do mafia kills work in the games here? Does the mafia act as a majority? Does one mafia member do the killing?
The bus driver makes things more confusing, yes, as it makes it harder to work backwards and figure out what happened...but in this case we know what the switch was. This means, first, that neither party was jailed, right? It also means that Vivet was not blocked.
I have no huge revelations, but I do think we can start compiling some useful information.
And I feel like Kira is stretching here, but I suppose there's really not a lot else here for them to analyze. I thought they were being a bit overly aggressive towards Silvanus but apparently this is standard behavior for them? I'm left not still not sure on anybody, though still not sure about going for a no lynch again. =/
I think we have about 3 days left to decide on a vote?
In reply to @Lehki's comment, the dayphase will end as of January 27th EST if no lynch is reached before then (since I cannot recall when exactly I started on the 19th except that I believe it was night-time, and would therefore like to be sportsmanlike to ensure the final 24 hours.)
REMINDER: WE ARE STILL LOOKING FOR A REPLACEMENT FOR @KENDRA. PLEASE PM ME BEFORE THE END OF THE DAYPHASE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PLAY.
Silvanus: Kiradawea (1)
Kiradawea: Shaddus (1)
While I'll admit Silvanus' hedging raised an eyebrow, I'm not sure that any of us think about our posts that much to be 100% consistent in how we describe whether we believe someone or not, so focusing so adamantly on that as evidence of guilt seems like a shaky foundation.
But that said, it did provoke something else that caught my attention, where Silvanus mentions being unsure as to how post restrictions work, but earlier admitted to having one (which I would imagine outlines how it is to function?). There's also the Los Alamos game he modded where I had a post restriction tied to a double-vote power (must include a certain phrase within the post to activate).
So without a clearer prospect, and if we don't get a replacement for Kendra, I'd be willing to vote for Silvanus.
(Since it seems to have been a Los Alamos character who targeted Lehki and we don't seem to think it was a benign action, lynching Silvanus would also test if there's any meta connection between previous mods and their games, and if Lehki was on to something with past mods forming the mafia.)
Anyway, it's not just that Silvanus uses an inconsistent description on if they believe Vivet or not. Honestly, I find it to be immaterial. We can't ever know what's going on inside the mind of someone. I know I can be long-winded, so I'll try to summarize my thoughts.
I originally voted for Silvanus because I did not see any reason to call Vivet's proclamation that her night action was diverted into question. His response has reinforced my belief that he was actively trying to cast doubt on the existence of a busdriver.