Mafiascum.net

Jebus, why aren't you voting GLados if you think CHad isn't in the game?

On the Korlash night action bit - if you failed, that means either you are not the role you say you are, or that you were blocked or something to that effect. If not a scum role, is it possible that there's a town roleblocker? Also, I don't believe a scum roleblocker would be too overpowering for this game based on the roles we've seen so far.

ZEEnon wrote:&& yupp, I confirm that I am masons with Albert B. Rampage.
I'm 100% sure that Albert B. Rampage & Xtoxm are town. Those two players I am confident in.

Mason =/= confirmed townie, keep in mind. See Large Normal 84, town got salted because of a scum-mason that appeared without any warning -.-

Albert B. Rampage wrote:Jebus, why aren't you voting GLados if you think Chad isn't in the game?

Good question. To be responded to with a and [/b]Vote: GLaDOS[/b]

Fixed:

Albert wrote:Its impossible she's not scum. There is no WIFOM in this. Just fact.

How do you explain a lack of a kill on N1?

Green Crayons wrote:

Albert wrote:Its impossible she's not scum. There is no WIFOM in this. Just fact.

How do you explain a lack of a kill on N1?

Could be that N1 they all enabled each other to have scum abilities. Or their NK has a chance of failing. Or anything, really. It doesn't matter.

"How do you explain a lack of a kill on N1" is as much useless as answering the question "How do you explain the Chad claim". We have to look at the evidence we have and draw conclusions based on that. At this point all the evidence points to Glados being scum.

... Processing ...

ZEEnon, there really are a "million different things" to explain Night One. Various conspiracy theories (i.e. maybe scum purposefully didn't nightkill to make claims more believable) are still thwarted if the has anything which also explains the lack of a nightkill.

For example, role would normally cast doubt on any theory concerning a lack of Night One kills. Suppose you protected Albert B. Rampage Night One; then it would be possible for the scum to have tried to kill Albert B. Rampage me: therefore the point of no-killing would be largely nullified, since the town could not reliably draw any conclusions.

ZEEnon wrote:Perhaps, GLaDOS may have coordinated the mafia to NK in order to make her claim more likely.

How often have you been scum?

I can tell you that in my experience I have seriously contemplated no-killing on the first Night of a game as mafia. I cannot even think of a single game off-hand where a mafia chose to no-kill on Night One. That is basically just giving all investigative roles a free investigation, and giving the town a free lynch. The advantages far outweigh the town than they do the mafia. In a game where the only information the scum has is "there was a Serial Killer," the mafia is going to know that the town has more beef than usual to counteract the Serial Killer. No-Killing on Night One just guarantees that the town gets to all that beef.

The fact is, if scum are going to no-kill to help "back up" a claim, they are going to do it when they can be surer that things will not backfire on them. On Night One it is simply a high-risk move with little chance of reward. Possibly making a claim more believable does not matter if the town just decides to use it's extra lynch to lynch that more believable scum a day later.

~

Furthermore, Albert B. Rampage, your argument against me based on Mastin's post is rather ridiculous, seeing as:

1.) ZEEnon "promised" to lynch me today I were innocent;
2.) You were asking the town to promise to lynch me today and saying that I be lynched today; and
3.) Mastin said he wouldn't not vote for me today if Gorrad was scum.

Based off your logic, if of those three players were nightkilled I would scum, guaranteed.

But I feel I might as well take you up on a bet.

Albert B. Rampage wrote:Its impossible she's not scum. There is no WIFOM in this. Just fact.

When I turn up town, I am going to give you a signature which you must include in your signature for the next six months. I will decide on what it will be when I have more time to think on it. If I am scum you can instead force me to take such a signature. Since it is "impossible" I am scum, this should clearly be a no-brainer for you.

~

.

GLaDOS wrote:Furthermore, Albert B. Rampage, your argument against me based on Mastin's post is rather ridiculous, seeing as:

1.) ZEEnon "promised" to lynch me today

even if

I were

proven

innocent;
2.) You were asking the town to promise to lynch me today and saying that I

must

be lynched today; and
3.) Mastin said he wouldn't not vote for me today if Gorrad was scum.

Based off your logic, if

any

of those three players were nightkilled I would scum, guaranteed.

1) ZEEnon attacked me on day 2 while Mastin never did.
2) I was in all likelihood being protected by ZEEnon last night
3) Gorrad being scum meant that Mastin *was* going to vote for you.

I accept any bet you want if the mod allows it.

... Processing ...

My point is that all three of you essentially said you would be voting for me today no matter what. Hence, on your logic, if any of those three players were killed then "all evidence" would point to me being scum.

~

bet? Superb.

You need to guarantee that you will not 'coach' or 'mentor' any newbies ever again. I am being completely honest in saying that your post towards Mastin earlier in the game (telling him to stop thinking and to latch onto another player for the rest of the game) was one of the most insulting posts I have seen made towards a newbie, period. You are not fit to be raising new players.

I don't care what what terms you would like to weigh against this bet -- they can be pretty much absolutely anything at all, so far as I am concerned (and this includes my main account). At least this way I feel like I am doing a favor to mafiascum even if I do get lynched.

I don't coach or mentor any players outside Road to Rome. What I said to Mastin applies to him from the context of this game and how we are both playing it.

I don't even know your main account, so how are you going to prove that you will follow through? You just might abandon this account and run away like a little girl.

... Processing ...

If you bothered to do any research whatsoever, you would find that this account has played in one other game (Mini #565, Lethal Weapon), and in that game I accidentally posted under my main account twice, which is petroleumjelly. Furthermore, if you go on mafiawiki and type "GLaDOS" in the search function you will get exactly two results. The second will bring you to my page (petroleumjelly) which clearly states that I was playing as GLaDOS in that game.

lol research? Why would I bother researching *you*? You are nobody to me.

And PJ, aren't you, like, a guy?

... Processing ...

No, I do not play on Epicmafia. I fail to see how my main account is relevant for this game, however, so I will ask that further conversation concerning my main account be halted. For this game, I am GLaDOS.

All right PJ. If you lose the bet, and are indeed mafia, you will ask Jeep to take off your "Best Mafia Performance" banner

... Processing ...

ZEEnon wrote:Weird, is your username GLaDOS taken from somewhere?

The video game features a psychopathic robot named GLaDOS (short for Genetic Lifeform and Disk Operating System). It is a popular game, and I expect I am neither the first nor the last person to make an account on a website under this screen-name.

Albert B. Rampage wrote:All right PJ. If you lose the bet, and are indeed mafia, you will ask Jeep to take off your "Best Mafia Performance" banner.

Done. But to be 'fair,' feel free to add to this bet since Jeep should (theoretically) be taking down my banner soon enough. I earned it from it the year before last, and the new banners are probably past due.

Now please let us refocus on the game rather than main/alt accounts and wagers. I do not want this to become a distraction.

~

I am not seeing how Jebus' role "does not dance around the main plot" while simultaneously being an "extremely minor" character. I do not understand his explanation.

That's how I took it too...a character so minor "it does not even dance around the main plot".

... Processing ...

Am I just reading this completely wrong?

dancing around the main plot = Major character. If you are not "dancing around" the plot, then you are necessarily of the plot.

GLaDOS wrote:... Processing ...

Am I just reading this completely wrong?

Not

dancing around the main plot = Major character. If you are not "dancing around" the plot, then you are necessarily

part

of the plot.

Or you're not part of it at all, in the case of filler characters that have nothing to do with the plot at all.