Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 I still haven't figured it out, I'm afraid. Regarding your thoughts of King James not being in charge, Jim, it very likely started out as a joke, but you have to realise that at the time of the first Gentlemen's Mafia, Jonnas wasn't even planning a sequel to it. It was all flavour at that point, but in order to really connect this game to the first, he decided to expand on all the flavour details and turn them into plot points. It would seem ReZ has kept Whiskertington the Cat and become an animal tamer as well. Regarding chair, I'm afraid we can't deduce much from his behaviour since he ALWAYS acts like this in mafias. However, I do find it suspicious that he's following jayseven's argument, which to me, quite frankly, doesn't make much sense. I've been suspicious of Zell since he blocked Dohnut and am still not sure I buy his excuse of being busy.
Fierce_LiNk Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 I still haven't figured it out, I'm afraid. Regarding your thoughts of King James not being in charge, Jim, it very likely started out as a joke, but you have to realise that at the time of the first Gentlemen's Mafia, Jonnas wasn't even planning a sequel to it. It was all flavour at that point, but in order to really connect this game to the first, he decided to expand on all the flavour details and turn them into plot points. It would seem ReZ has kept Whiskertington the Cat and become an animal tamer as well. Regarding chair, I'm afraid we can't deduce much from his behaviour since he ALWAYS acts like this in mafias. However, I do find it suspicious that he's following jayseven's argument, which to me, quite frankly, doesn't make much sense. I've been suspicious of Zell since he blocked Dohnut and am still not sure I buy his excuse of being busy. Oh, I know that it could mean something, which is why I asked for other information about the King showing some sort of "jealousy" over the Queen. So far, nobody has posted anything else. Do you have anything? Doublepost: When I say King, this is of course assuming that Lord James became King when he got married at the end of the last game.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 Oh, I know that it could mean something, which is why I asked for other information about the King showing some sort of "jealousy" over the Queen. So far, nobody has posted anything else. Do you have anything? Doublepost: When I say King, this is of course assuming that Lord James became King when he got married at the end of the last game. Nope, I don't have anything that proves or disproves that there's anything there. Marc could just a terrific liar. Lord James did "effectively" become King according to the epilogue of the first game.
Fierce_LiNk Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 Nope, I don't have anything that proves or disproves that there's anything there. Marc could just a terrific liar. Well, then maybe this "jealousy" thing or "intent" doesn't actually exist. This is why I want Marca to speak before I vote for him, because I consider him suspicious.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 Well, then maybe this "jealousy" thing or "intent" doesn't actually exist. This is why I want Marca to speak before I vote for him, because I consider him suspicious. I completely agree. But you have to admit it would require a damn clever mind to go back and use a detail from the epilogue to craft such an elaborate lie around.
Diageo Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 He is lying. I leave for one second and all your votes fall apart. The person I targeted last night was Marcamillian, and it said that Marcamillian was a killer and I fought him and barely won. Now I do realise that there might be redirectors, but as Rummy has said, you get told if you get redirected and to who. As well as my PM clearly stating Marcamillian. He probably didn't have to create an elaborate lie, he probably is all he says he is, except that he is Mafia and wants to kill the Queen. The reasoning for voting for Nintendohnut is utterly moronic. Rummy and Dazz have both investigated me, ReZ and Nintendohnut. Both getting evil and good respectively. That is no case against Nintendohnut. Now can we please get back to voting for mafia?
Cube Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 Now can we please get back to voting for mafia? I never stopped doing that.
Diageo Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 I never stopped doing that. Looking at it objectively. Yes, yes you have.
Fierce_LiNk Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 We're trying to find the mafia. I'm trying to be cautious and think things through properly, because last time we lynched a perfectly good townie in Mundi. Speaking of that, have we heard anything from Aqui1a for a while? I'm close to voting for Marca, but I'd like him to have his say before I go for it.
jayseven Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 All this king stuff just seems like an overwrought sidestory to the main point; we have people who can kill. We have their names. We have a neutral. Chasing a neutral is better than slinging words about for 50 pages because we get more information with a death and a new nightphase, and less chance of being distracted by nonsense and hyperbolic suppositions. I don't post much because I'm not willing to get involved with baseless gossip :P If nintendohnut is neutral then why did both dazz and rummy get their results wrong? If rummy is a stupid cop then we can dismiss his other results, but if dazz's info on nintendohnut is wrong then surely we have to dismiss all his previous results as well? That's the evidence we have. Two investigators have gotten nintendohnut's alignment wrong, according to nintendohnut. Not just wrong, but opposedly wrong. This is something solveable right now, rather than umming and erring over potentially flavoursome and irrelevent text. Unless someone wants to succinctly surmise the arguments on marc, I'm happy with offing a neutral.
Diageo Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 And in case someone gets offended, I meant the reasoning was utterly moronic, not the person who thought of it. It's just that anyone who read the thread properly could find the faults in that argument. No offence intended.
Fierce_LiNk Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 If nintendohnut is neutral then why did both dazz and rummy get their results wrong? If rummy is a stupid cop then we can dismiss his other results, but if dazz's info on nintendohnut is wrong then surely we have to dismiss all his previous results as well? That has already been looked at and we've already said that. Think Dazz even said that himself. Dazz could be a naive cop, with Rummy being the opposite of that. Like Ine already pointed out, they both investigated ReZ, and both got the same results as usual (the naive cop got good, the other got evil.) Did you read my previous post where I said all of this? I think because he wanted to verify that his results were correct, first. Hence why he kept targeting, before discovering it all came to evil. Then, they (Dazz and Rummy) cross-checked that Nintendohnut result, one evil, one good, so figured they must not have accurate information. It makes sense, to be honest. What are the chances of getting 4 good results out of 4 and 4 evil results out of 4? Including opposite results on one person. Somebody (maybe Rummy) suggested that the characters were opposites. So, maybe they should target each other, as mentioned above. I'm quoting myself there. It's not a great argument for lynching Nintendohnut, Jay. However, like you say, he's not town, so we can (technically) afford to let him go.
Diageo Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 All this king stuff just seems like an overwrought sidestory to the main point; we have people who can kill. We have their names. We have a neutral. Chasing a neutral is better than slinging words about for 50 pages because we get more information with a death and a new nightphase, and less chance of being distracted by nonsense and hyperbolic suppositions. I don't post much because I'm not willing to get involved with baseless gossip :P If nintendohnut is neutral then why did both dazz and rummy get their results wrong? If rummy is a stupid cop then we can dismiss his other results, but if dazz's info on nintendohnut is wrong then surely we have to dismiss all his previous results as well? That's the evidence we have. Two investigators have gotten nintendohnut's alignment wrong, according to nintendohnut. Not just wrong, but opposedly wrong. This is something solveable right now, rather than umming and erring over potentially flavoursome and irrelevent text. Unless someone wants to succinctly surmise the arguments on marc, I'm happy with offing a neutral. Both Rummy and Dazz basically targeted the same people. ReZ, Diageo and Nintendohnut. Rummy got evil on all three accounts. Dazz got good on all three accounts. Nintendohnut, who claims is a neutral, has made Dazz realise he might be naive. Now if you are to believe one of them is wrong but not the other. Then we are all good or all mafia. All three of us. It's much more practical to believe, that in such a large game, we would have a paranoid cop and a naive cop to keep things interesting. So the case you have on Nintendohnut, is the same case you have on me and ReZ. Secondly, the evidence we have on Marc is. I jailkept him, there was no kill. I was specifically told he is a killer and was trying to kill. Unless I was redirected, which I believe I wasn't because the PM said Marcamillian and we are told if we are redirected, then Marcamillian is a killer and evil. He has also come out with some info that he wants to take over the throne even though he is already a King. Which makes it even more likely that he is trying to get the keys to kill the Queen, like Angus, and they are mafia.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 All this king stuff just seems like an overwrought sidestory to the main point; we have people who can kill. We have their names. We have a neutral. Chasing a neutral is better than slinging words about for 50 pages because we get more information with a death and a new nightphase, and less chance of being distracted by nonsense and hyperbolic suppositions. I don't post much because I'm not willing to get involved with baseless gossip :P If nintendohnut is neutral then why did both dazz and rummy get their results wrong? If rummy is a stupid cop then we can dismiss his other results, but if dazz's info on nintendohnut is wrong then surely we have to dismiss all his previous results as well? That's the evidence we have. Two investigators have gotten nintendohnut's alignment wrong, according to nintendohnut. Not just wrong, but opposedly wrong. This is something solveable right now, rather than umming and erring over potentially flavoursome and irrelevent text. Unless someone wants to succinctly surmise the arguments on marc, I'm happy with offing a neutral. What's wrong with that argument is that Rummy and Dazz are not dumb cops (who get the opposite of the correct result), they're a paranoid and a naïve cop, respectively, meaning Rummy gets "evil" all the time, and Dazz gets "good". You suggested that Rummy was lying, but there is no obvious reason as for why he would be lying about this. Regarding the neutral thing, that's of course a thing to worry about, but we should worry about the immediate threats first and foremost. If Nintendohnut steps out of line, we know we can't trust him, but at the moment I'm more willing to believe him than Marc. Both Rummy and Dazz basically targeted the same people. ReZ, Diageo and Nintendohnut. Rummy got evil on all three accounts. Dazz got good on all three accounts. Nintendohnut, who claims is a neutral, has made Dazz realise he might be naive. Now if you are to believe one of them is wrong but not the other. Then we are all good or all mafia. All three of us. It's much more practical to believe, that in such a large game, we would have a paranoid cop and a naive cop to keep things interesting. So the case you have on Nintendohnut, is the same case you have on me and ReZ. Secondly, the evidence we have on Marc is. I jailkept him, there was no kill. I was specifically told he is a killer and was trying to kill. Unless I was redirected, which I believe I wasn't because the PM said Marcamillian and we are told if we are redirected, then Marcamillian is a killer and evil. He has also come out with some info that he wants to take over the throne even though he is already a King. Which makes it even more likely that he is trying to get the keys to kill the Queen, like Angus, and they are mafia. Basically, I agree with this, and I'm more and more enclined to believe you. Vote: Marcamillian My vote is back on him to demonstrate where I stand currently.
ReZourceman Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 Maybe Marcamillian is neutral. But I'm willing to go with it for now at least, it seems the most solid lead. Voteth : Marcamillian
Diageo Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 My vote is back on him to demonstrate where I stand currently. I don't know why, but that sentence made me laugh.
ReZourceman Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 And if he is mafia it clears a lot of people (potentially). (Cube and I, relentless against Diageo. Unless all three of us or two of us are mafia and we plotted to go at each other. I certainly wouldn't put it past if we were on the same team.) But I can assure you that isn't the case, I am definitely townie. if Marcamillian is mafia, Diageo is townie.
ReZourceman Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 How does it clear both you and Cube? I explained that in the rest of the post. :p
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 If anything, should Marc turn out to be evil, it makes Cube suspicious for wanting Lord James to come forward. And that's basically what bothers me most at the moment: I don't think anyone would actually go back and craft an entire lie around a piece of flavour from the epilogue of the last game, so I'm inclined to believe that Marc was in fact told in his PM about Lord/King James. What I don't believe is his own interest in the matter, which I believe to be far more nefarious. However, it does leave the question: what is Lord James's role in all this? Is he to be trusted?
Rummy Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 I don't get why dazz and rummy think they're both dumb cops. They both targetted nintendohnut and got good/evil and assume they're both wrong because nintendohnut says he's neutral... Surely it makes just as much sense for one of the cops to be right, with nintendohnut just lying. And if he is lying then he's surely lying about not being evil... So rummy, why didn't you immediately say "I targetted ReZ and he came up as evil" when you got that info (or did you)? Are there any other verifications? Danny just covered this. I have ALL evils, and Dazz has ALL goods, luckily we've targetted relatively similar people, albeit mine on Diageo was due to a re-direct(which still nobody has come forward with doing). Why not come out straight away as an investigator on the first day of the game and claim I've found someone evil? Gee...I don't know... I was thinking it might be a possibility that Rummy is lying, he said one of the reasons for not coming out on day 1 was because I was asking who targeted me (however, I believe that was night 2/day 3) BUT I think its more likely that he is just Dazz's counterpart. Swear to god I'm not. Basically that day was day 2(go back and read your own posts in this thread), so it was the first day of game(day one being all no lynch etc). I mentioned already I was suspicious of you, but obviously two in a row evil results made me wonder about myself. I think this idea of Dazz and Rummy targeting each other is stupid. Don't waste your time, there must be something more constructive you could do. Lol like what? Investigate people to get the exact same results we've gotten every single night?
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 I explained that in the rest of the post. :p Except your argument fails to make sense: if Diageo is proven good, you two appear suspicious. Sure, you say you'll believe Diageo is town if he is right about Marc, but you wouldn't exactly have a choice, would you? I know how crafty you are, Mr Jamieson, and I have my eye on you! :p
Rummy Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 It seems I've received word back, I can target myself, and I believe I probably shall tonight. There's too much risk for me and you to target each other Dazz, it'll just be an opportunity for people to jump on and cause confusion. I know myself so I can verify myself, not saying I don't believe you either, just there's no doubt on my own alignment :P Also second to me not saying much is the fact Dazz was clearing people I found evil, didn't exactly help the doubt. Getting 4 Goods is more likely than getting 4 evils.
Diageo Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 I explained that in the rest of the post. :p Explain it better because I didn't understand your reasoning. Are you saying that if Marc is evil, which would clear me as town. Then both you and Cube are cleared because you wanted to get me lynched?
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted May 8, 2011 Posted May 8, 2011 Explain it better because I didn't understand your reasoning. Are you saying that if Marc is evil, which would clear me as town. Then both you and Cube are cleared because you wanted to get me lynched? As far as I can see, ReZ is simply trying to spin the words to make himself and Cube seem trustworthy. In fact, it makes me quite suspicious of them both. ReZ is not stupid. He wouldn't make such an obvious logical mistake in his reasoning.
Recommended Posts