Hyena didn't deserve this.
I'm sorry.
But gj mafia.
I'm never gonna play well in a VFM.
Goodbye.
Return to: VFM40 | Salem Witch Trials II | Mafia Win
Crimson97 wrote:Love how jezz starts a trial on me based on activity when most players were being inactive. They literally have no case on me other than that and the wagon suddenly blows up. They're protecting Royee. Hyena is the only one who gave another motive and it doesn't even make sense.
/Vote guilty Royee
S0me0ne23 wrote:All three viable wagons having pretty much the same make up is not a good sign tbh.
S0me0ne23 wrote:I accuse LOLingHyena of witchcraft.
/vote Guilty LOLingHyena
non271103 wrote:Also it's interesting he pops up right after he's put on trial.
Crimson97 wrote:Jezz92 wrote:/vote Eragon1329 not guilty
/vote Jalandh not guilty
/vote Phone0Ix not guilty
/vote Multiuniverse guilty
/vote Royee guilty
I accuse Crimson97 of witchcraft
Hey you know what's funny? You accuse me but don't vote.
OptimisticalOne wrote:JoltikIsDubby wrote:OptimisticalOne wrote:@Everyone: what do you all think about mass-claiming right now? it's a good idea imo. Would start lots of discussions and save us the possibility of forcing our medium to PR when scum can lie about what they are.
Plus, the medium can only communicate with the dead thrice. It's not a sustainable practice.
Maybe we should just have people claim if they are or aren't a PR? That way, evils won't have as clear of an idea of who to kill at night.
I like this idea as well if everyone's up for it, but we need to figure something out soon.
Both ideas also force Scum to lock in their claim early, which leads them to be less flexible (for lack of a better term) In how they act. Does that make sense? I hope.
More poeple are online now. Jezz, what do you think of this idea?
LOLingHyena wrote:Jezz92 wrote:Non, I don’t understand your explanation of you voting guilty on all the trials. If you don’t find the targets townie enough to inno, why vote guilty as opposed to just abstaining until you actually have a confident read on them?
Let me ask you this, Jezz. Do you plan on voting either of guilty or not-guilty on Multi or Royee later in the day? The way I feel about all of this is that abstaining from a vote in this type of setup is much worse than voting guilty or not guilty. Yes, I think it'll be hard to get associative reads this game without flips, but what I see right now is people putting more effort into figuring out why Non made those votes (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) instead making an effort to sort Multi or Royee (which IS a bad thing, I think).
S0me0ne23 wrote:Jezz, what was the last game we played in together?
Crimson97 wrote:Jezz92 wrote:Chemist forgetting jaland is in the playerlist means he’s not scum buddies with jaland probably.
Ejj suggesting a trial on every player is probably townie?? Fakeable, yes but showing comfort in having a trial on every player including yourself (which from a scum POV also includes both your buddies) is something I don’t see very likely coming from scum. Weak read though.
Don't you think the first thing is easily fakable too?
S0me0ne23 wrote:It's interesting how people view Wabbit's accusation of Eragon as being a good play even though nothing has really come out of it. Like I think Wabbit is town, but the consensus around him is weird.
The atmosphere around Royee is really weird; nobody's really defending him, the pushes on him are overeager, and I'm pretty sure I'm the only one concerned about this. He could just be a wolf and I'm overthinking this, but I really can't ignore how easy pushing him would be, and how little effort anybody is putting into actually sorting him.
TheWabbit wrote:I'm really concerned at how people are giving easy Town reads. Eragon1329's proposition of mock trials do nothing regular trials cannot perform. Mock trials potentially limit out posts further: It poses no real threat to scum and would just expend most of our posts in doing one. The limit alleviation 1 hour prior to the end of the day is a bit arbitrary—not everyone may be present within the short interval. That being said, I think their proposition can come from either alignment.