Yes you can share items, pretty sure it was asked pages back and that was the answer.

Well I can't read, thanks!

Dude, I thought she saw me looking up Arix, which would have been really awkward if I didn't admit to it or anything, so figured I'd better come clean on the whole thing. Normally I'm not into day 1 roleclaims and am kind of stunned we have so many for no reason ('cause we have way too many noobs in this game, which has its own entertainment value of course.)

SAW is not scummy for arranging info like that for us, it's how he plays. He did it last game too and he was (kind of) town there, he did a pretty good job at it too.

We have way too many friggin' factors in this game. Incidentally, since I'm resilient for today I should point out that my pokeman here is gardvoire or something (not in one of the games I played idk) and should make people shooting/lynch resistant if I throw it at them. I'll see who gives me the least scummy impression and pitch it then. Also: lynching is gonna take forever here. Huh.

I'm not too bothered by Furien. However I do notice Daganev talking about revealing there are two roleblockers (he just says this for no reason), then talking about not wanting people to roleclaim. HMMM. Then pressures Furien way too much over an innocent-looking typo. Getting scum vibes here. Also why did we all drop the "Dark Samus" thing? Just because the flavour doesn't confirm it doesn't mean it can't be true anyway. I'm going to Vote: Daganev because I'm not buying the Furien thing - I can at least confirm Furien's ability due to the fact that she's confirming mine, and we don't have a better vote bandwagon. I'm not necessarily convinced we need to lynch him but I kind of want to move in that direction.

Sham wanting to confirm that there are no outside characters: well, that would be nice, but obviously the only ones likely to be have those roles are scum, who aren't going to want to admit it, right? And no one's likely to have a Tabuu rivalry or anything...

No lynch posters: AHA! I love lynching no lynch posters, especially when we have as much info as we do. Another newbie scum tell. Harkux is another viable-looking choice too, I suppose. I could also be persuaded to leave all 3 of them alone for 1 day since they're all newbies.

Re: Dark Samus

In Metroid: Fusion (GBA) (sexy game) there was a clone of Samus walking around, with all of her powers and weapons and everything that you didn't have at the start, having recovered from some sort of devastating virus that left you lethally vulnerable to extreme cold. Go figure Dark Samus (Samus-X was it called? I'm not sure) had ice beam as a main weapon, and you ran into her several times during the story and had to run/hide/panic.

Edit: All in all, may make a reappearance in SSBB, but I've never played, so don't count on it.

Seems like in every game I've played on these forums it's been necessary to explain to noobs why day 1 no-lynch is a terrible horrible idea. Here's why.

The way you win Mafia as town is by gathering more and more information until you can be more and more sure that your lynch targets are scum. If you lynch someone day 1 and they come up scum, great, you can analyze who they were voting with and that kind of thing to try and extrapolate additional targets. If you lynch someone day 1 and they come up town, well, that's too bad but it isn't really that big of a deal unless you just accidentally lynched your doctor or something. The reason it's not that big a deal is that there are far more town than scum, and even if the day 1 lynch target is town you still gain information from the lynch and have more that you can analyze to try and find scum. On the other hand, if you choose to do a no-lynch, the day is essentially wasted and you gain no solid information apart from the identities of the people who get nightkilled, which aren't particularly helpful.

Yes, it's quite likely that you'll end up lynching town day 1. But if you choose not to lynch you may win the battle but you'll lose the war because you won't have enough information to hunt down the scum before they kill everyone.

I guess you could lynch me without knowing why I voted no lynch. My vote may be changed if something actually happens in the next few hours..or if I get bored of waiting.

Actually I have to wonder about those "peaceful presences" showing up voting no-lynch in the vote counts. Do you no-lynch voters have anything to do with that?

When you vote for something as controversial as no-lynch, you should give an actual reason for it if you have one. Making other people ask you why you're voting that way is just time-wasting and counterproductive.

Unlikely since the presences were there before the vote. That said, maybe they have to vote alongside the presences or something.

Fania: what? If you HAVE a reason explain it. My assumption was that it was the usual confused "I don't want to accidentally lynch a townie" thing every other no lyncher uses.

I didn't say I wanted anyone to ask me why I'm voting that way. I'll just say it's because I don't want to lynch the wrong person. Someone mentioned it a while ago and I'm going with it for now. And you don't have to be nasty about it. Yes it's my first time, but that's no reason for you to be nasty.

No one's being nasty. You, however, are acting scummy.

Unvote (still don't like Daganev) Vote: Fania.

I see lots of people lurking on the thread and not posting.

*is watching Lost*

I've got nothing to say! I'm just waiting for more developments so I can lunge in and go "AHA, SCUM!" all dramatic-like.

AHA, SCUM!

I disagree with this.

If you don't have solid information to lynch somebody, then don't lynch them. We don't want to unnecessarily lynch town. Yes, there are more town than mafia. But why give the scum the opportunity to secure a town lynch? Town will die in the Night, this is all but unavoidable during the Night after Day 1. So, we get more information after the Night. The investigators can find out more about the suspicious people from the previous day, and we gain information from any deaths during the Night. The difference? We avoid a death of town by town.

@Shiri: so any mistake is a noobie scum tell? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying. I'd like to give everybody a chance at benefit of doubt, you know? Not everybody's a bad guy. : )

Right. And this is the same every day. We ALWAYS risk lynching a townie. Rarely do townies get nightkills, too, though vigilantes exist, and vigilantes have less information than scum by definition. The only way to claw back ground is to kill scum with lynchings. Therefore we need to not give up on that opportunity for no reason other than "gathering more information" because we already have LOTS of information. Like a million times more than usual.


Um, yes, by definition of a scum tell. If it's a mistake indicative of being scum, it's a scum tell. Voting no lynch is one of those, because the overwhelming majority of people who do it in situations like these are newbie scum. Shamarah covered another earlier.

Did you even read what I wrote? You gain close to zero information from a nightkill - consider that the scum are likely to pick their kills so as to give us as little information to work with as possible. You should also consider the fact that investigations are not always reliable; the "investigators" could be lying scum, could encounter scum with investigation immunity, could be insane (receives opposite results), naive (receives only innocent results), paranoid (receives only guilty results), or could have any number of other restrictions on their roles. Yes, investigations are great and can be quite helpful, but relying on them to the exclusion of all else is utter idiocy.

Actually I find that the majority of people who vote day 1 no-lynch are townies who genuinely don't understand why it's a bad idea. Kiriwe, however, is raising more and more alarm bells.

I'm lurking on the thread because I'm watching tv and playing Lusternia. But I'm checking it to see what new info comes up too.