Category 5 Hurricane

I did not claim anything of the sort. I've claimed to have a "surprisingly quiet night". I am intentionally being a little bit vague about what that means, but it means I have nothing to report @TheIrishman. And regarding my comment about Anon_Kat, if any investigative action was used on me, the results would have cleared me of being a suspect of killing FRAYDO. His vote therefore can't be a result of any investigative action.

Yes.

I mean, the intended balance effect of neutrals is that they tilt the game a little towards scum without increasing their number.

By happening to have them and sending them to a designated target?

The closest I am to believing this is that if there are two scum and two neutrals, the game would still last a good while in the worst-case scenario. I won't completely cross it out. Unless we get a third neutral claim...

Every time a neutral tries to hold a gun to people's heads, they get killed. When nobody is on your side, you can't threaten a group.

Yeah, about an item he recieved, which was revealed to come from KY.

No, I'm talking about KY there. TheIrishman effectively confirmed at least one part of his role, and it makes sense to me that such a role is neutral.

Because at least his role has been confirmed already, though, yes, the mere fact that he's claiming neutral when someone else is neutral raises suspicion on both players, until one flips.

Wait, you're claiming neutral and you believe him?

What hints?

It might not be that the strat actually had much to do with it, I just remember it being pointed out after the game was over.

I don't remember all the details, but I think it was Day 1, and the guy opened up showing proof that Town lynches Mafia on Day 1 at a lower rate than the percentage of Mafia in the game. Therefore if everyone commits to voting random, they'll have a better chance to lynch Mafia. He wound up swaying some people to his argument, but the other half of the players didn't agree and had a big fight over it. And yeah, if I recall, he earned some town credit for trying to metagame in a way that he "proved" was town-favorable, and won the game off of it.

I did watch several games, but there are a few reasons why I never became a regular player there. The playstyle was just one of them.

It was funny, the Mafia team went here to read the games I played, and decided I wasn't the vig, because I "play too smart" to make such a stupid kill.

In the one game I actually played there, I got yelled at when I was the Town Vig and didn't use my night kill to resolve a tied lynch by killing the one who didn't get lynched. I looked at it and decided that they were both town, so I went after a different target. They went on and on about it during and after the game, complaining I made an inoptimal kill by not doing the "right kill"

Yeah, those guys play the same games so often that they lean more on statistical analysis than actual mind games.

I'm reminded of the time on Mafia Universe where someone argued, and showed statistical proof, that voting randomly is better than doing actual case work. He was Mafia.

Frankly I'm guessing that he might have been pushed to participate and couldn't think of anything, so he just voted for the guy who talked to him, and then ran off.

It can't be a result of any investigative action, so he's basing that vote on something I said, I guess.

Ok. Going to say why?

Why are you insisting on this path of claiming to know how an action works? I don't see any reason why it couldn't also be a roleblock. There is nothing that says actions must have only one effect.

Hell yeah man, glad to help.

Orangep47 W Shade939 e Killing_You K iLTS n Chopbam o Category5 w Mojoman N Anon_Kat o Retaliation t FRAYDO h Irishman i Louis n

I meant to say "not have been defined well enough, regarding the 'knife'", and then decided to rewrite the sentence and forget like half of it.