Game Thread MS Paint Mafia U-Pick Edition [Day 5]

[OGSniper]

It's a game of social deduction, it's not about hard evidence, and you know this.

If your pushes are borderline conspiracy theories rather than profiling and analyzing players then you're roleplaying instead of playing properly. In any case this is a game, you'll play towards your goal; and if you're behaving in a manner that seems opportunistic and recklessly aggressive without care for Town then that's enough for me to consider you mafia.

I do not have an investigative report of sorts on you, but I can offer an ISO on you.

"It's a game of social deduction, it's not about hard evidence, and you know this."

Hmm, Hard evidence is important in Mafia. There is literally a rolecop who finds out someones role. And then you get a message saying what their role is. Hard evidence is used in the game and is very important. And yes, a part of mafia is about hard evidence but it is not what mafia is about.

Borderline Conspiracy theories? I was thinking abstractly and I found something that could of lead to mafia. Were there holes? Yes. But no one will ever have all the information and one as to rely on their gut and reason.

And what theories or theory of mine is a Borderline Conspiracy Theory and explain why it is.

Your first post is literally throwing shade while entertaining the idea of lynching the Miller.
You do not commit to anything, you just throw it and hope it sticks.

What proof do you have that Rubik is Miller? In my mind, I am not throwing shade on a Miller. I am throwing shade on a potential Miller. I have no proof if Rubik is Miller. Do you? If not, then dont say that he is. You are (un)intenional trying painting me in a bad light. Why is that?

There is nothing to commit to because there is no Hard Evidence to say that he is lying and is Mafia acting like a Miller. You would know about Mafia acting like Miller, wouldnt you Ex. Do I have to remind you?

Your second post (and its eventual follow-up) is also just throwing shade by calling Amber's post weird. Not because of the part one could naturally find weird, which is Amber associating herself with Rubik, but because of something completely unrelated: it being "happy".

It says a lot of nothing and is also extremely non committing. The fact it's an extremely random shade that does not try to be aggressive towards them actually makes me believe that if you're mafia then Amber is also potentially scum.

Everything and anything can and will be scutinized in mafia. I explianed my post in with reason. I brought up a solid and plausible point. A lot of nothing? Umm, no Ex, it isnt. I saw something and I said something. Everything has to be put under a microscope and be questioned. Waht was there to commit to? What I brought up was not enough to pressure. Maybe for you it is, but to any sensible mind, it isnt. There wasnt anything darning to continue with and like I said

Yeah just thought I would point that out.

This contradicts your leading actions. You ended up not only voting, but was also one of the main pushing forces during early-mid D1. If you're "an anti-D1 lyncher" why did you vote and instigate people?

Okay, this is your first post with a point. I should have elaborated. I have said this in different Mafia games



I should have elaborated liker I said.

Overly defensive over a simple misunderstanding.

And this is bad? I didnt know what he meant and why I was brought.

Random accusation of Killjoy being the owner of the secret vote despite having literally no evidence and making a solid point towards the argument of it not being Killjoy's. Seems like a legitimate brainstorm, but comes across as an attempt of figuring out people's role and weaponizing it against them, which is not the towniest mentality.

Reasonably suspiscion matey. The Bonus Vote is on the same person that Killjoy is voting for, so I made a reasonable argument

The second sentence you wrote is you literally what you have been bashing me for. How you got that I have no idea, but I like how you are following leads and saying about something you see. You should do it more often.

Similar here. They notice it isn't Killjoy's and start pressing him to out their role. Nobody is afraid of you and this poor attempt of intimidation is cringe.
They shrugged it off because it's a random accusation that contradicted itself. There's nothing to defend themselves from if the accusation you put forward has little to no thought put into it other than trying to be a bully.

Actually, you didnt read the context of the message and you didnt put my response to it. I made a mistake. I accidentally didnt read a part of a post by Killjoy in which he did answer the question. I apologize after that and read his post. Please go back and get the proper context. If you accidently didn't read that post it is fine.

This is the first decent post. It's a decent logic, at least during the context before Killjoy claimed.
Now we now know it to be extra wrong since Lissi flipped town.

Thank you for agreeing with me. I had no definite way of knowing that my theory was wrong.

Congrats on successfully rolefishing. Of course it wasn't a wise move, but you kept accusing them of random **** and telling them to claim, what else did you expect them to do. Not only that but you still hope someone will counterclaim it, furthering the early role claim bonanza that is characteristic of mafia.

He gave that doctor claim freely. Random ****? If you are talking about my theory (which you congratulated me for some decent logic.), then please explain why. If you are talking about that fact that Killjoy was making threats to me, then you should ask Killjoy about random ****. Think about it Ex, if two people claim a Doctor role, then one of them is lying. Then we eliminate the threat. Let me know I if need to get into some superb logic on this matter because I am ready.

More role fishing. Why would you ask if they were the owners of the bonus votes if you were thinking they were from Killjoy?

Well, first off because I was thought it was from him. It is very possible it wasn't from him. Jamie quoted me said he was gonna try something and pinged himself. I was asking if it was from him. What is your problem with this? Are we not trying to figure out where the Bonus Vote came from?

If your theory was that Killjoy and Lissi were scumbuds then I don't see why you stuck with Killjoy instead of voting Lissi which was a much easier target that would help you reach the same outcome on whether or not your theory was right. This reeks as wanting to stay away from the wagon in hopes it made you seem better, but in my opinion it gives the complete opposite impression since it's contradicting how you'd also be interested in lynching Lissi and yet avoided her wagon.

I didnt switch because at this point, I was still having little nags on my theory and Lissi was still the top wagon, which fine for me, and this gave me time to still think through my theory. She would have been still lynched and I would have gotten my answer. If another wagon started to pick up some pace then I may have voted for Lissi then.

Even more, it's weird how you "sticked with it" because at the second Killjoy claimed to be Doctor and nobody counterclaimed this theory of Killjoy being the owner of the bonus vote. You yourself showed that you were not that certain about it when you tried to rolefish it from Jamie by asking if the secret vote was his.

Jamie replied to me post about the Bonus Votes and said he was going to try something and pinged himself. I didnt know what had happened if anything so I asked him about teh Bonus Votes because he said he was gonna try something.

I don't. You're randomly labeling people as mafia, I don't see why he can't randomly (or supposedly randomly, since I'm sure that if KoD is town he likely has decent logic behind this read).

KoD was saying that Jamie was town because he deemed so. That is not possible according to the rules, because he didnt assign the roles, so he was being comedic about it. (I got the context from his other posts that he was most likely to be playing around.)

Again, I made a plausible theory. Does it have holes? Yes. Is it perfect? No. I was not randomly labeling people as mafia. Please show where I have and did.




Your 2 responses before your last one are fluff and me messing around.

How do you know we're at 3 mafia? We have 10 players and Lain. The usual ratio for mafia is (Total-1)/4.
Considering we have very high odds of having 1 or 2 indetps, this means the setup could be very likely to have only 2 mafias.
If anything this is what feels like a scumslip.

I dont know what is going on with lain but this is how I got to that conclusion.

-Most mafias I have played have had almost the same amount of players and Mafia members.

-(I am including lain.) There is 11 of us. Mafia , from what I have seen, are a 3 to 1 margin. 3 divided by 11 is 3r2.

We get 8 town to 3 mafia or 7 town to 4 mafia. Both seem to be reasonable with 8 to 3 being the most reasonable.

 

[OGSniper]

Because if I only asked the person who sent me the message replied then everyone would know their role

Explain for me please. I am confused.

 

[OGSniper]

@OGSniper Even though quoting something destroys the OGQuotes all of this was from D1. you're going off of N1 seems like you're trying to sweep that under the rug.

Well first of all you didnt answer my question. Explain what I am destroying. It appears to me that that was some sorta confusion along the line. I answered all of your questions about my theory truthfully and you then said that you werent talking about my theory. Explain how I am supposedly sweeping stuff under the rug.

 

[OGSniper]

My first sentence is a slice of bread.

You keep saying plausible. I don't think it means what you think it means. You have to have something before you can drop it.

Yes minor pressure. The post I responded to was your response to my singular vote. Votes you received after don't make your post less squirrelly.

Please explain what you mean by a slice of bread and you things you have done to Ex that is a slice of bread.

This is what the definition of Plausible means. Please explain how my theory is not plausible.

Yes, I am overwhelmed rn. Before when you asked about me and Jamie I was not becasue it was only one vote. Me being squirrely doesnt hint to alignment, I might say. It is a normal way of acting when one starts to be bombarded from multiple people.

 

[Killjoy262]

What proof do you have that Rubik is Miller? In my mind, I am not throwing shade on a Miller. I am throwing shade on a potential Miller. I have no proof if Rubik is Miller. Do you? If not, then dont say that he is. You are (un)intenional trying painting me in a bad light. Why is that?

There is nothing to commit to because there is no Hard Evidence to say that he is lying and is Mafia acting like a Miller. You would know about Mafia acting like Miller, wouldnt you Ex. Do I have to remind you?

He literally soft claimed right off the bat.

Reasonably suspiscion matey. The Bonus Vote is on the same person that Killjoy is voting for, so I made a reasonable argument

The second sentence you wrote is you literally what you have been bashing me for. How you got that I have no idea, but I like how you are following leads and saying about something you see. You should do it more often.

You had an issue before the bonus vote due to me putting you in the example instead of, say HHH, or Minish( AGAIN EXAMPLES)
here:

Lets say Ex, OG, or anyone else unvotes right after the game gets out of RVS and defended their early D! unvote after the game gets serious, would they look sus? If not that's kind of hypocritical doing it now.

_____

Reasonably suspiscion matey. The Bonus Vote is on the same person that Killjoy is voting for, so I made a reasonable argument

The second sentence you wrote is you literally what you have been bashing me for. How you got that I have no idea, but I like how you are following leads and saying about something you see. You should do it more often.

And it took you until N1 that it could've been anyone who could've done that in order to make me look sus?

He gave that doctor claim freely. Random ****? If you are talking about my theory (which you congratulated me for some decent logic.), then please explain why. If you are talking about that fact that Killjoy was making threats to me, then you should ask Killjoy about random ****. Think about it Ex, if two people claim a Doctor role, then one of them is lying. Then we eliminate the threat. Let me know I if need to get into some superb logic on this matter because I am ready.

I was being threatened with a possible lynch. What would you do if you were in my posission? just say "Oh well, sucks for me I'll take the loss!" No, you'd be forced to claim.

Actually, you didnt read the context of the message and you didnt put my response to it. I made a mistake. I accidentally didnt read a part of a post by Killjoy in which he did answer the question. I apologize after that and read his post. Please go back and get the proper context. If you accidently didn't read that post it is fine.

You still decided to come at me full force after I pointed out that I answered your question.

Well first of all you didnt answer my question. Explain what I am destroying. It appears to me that that was some sorta confusion along the line. I answered all of your questions about my theory truthfully and you then said that you werent talking about my theory. Explain how I am supposedly sweeping stuff under the rug.

I wasn't saying YOU destroyed anything. I was talking about how when quoting someone who quoted someone else, the original quote(s) are scrapped. Also quote where you initially asked for clarification regarding the missing quotes when I quoted Ex.
The topic, from what I saw was more on D1 well before your 'theory'.

 

[HangryHangryHippo]

Please explain what you mean by a slice of bread and you things you have done to Ex that is a slice of bread.
View attachment 75219
This is what the definition of Plausible means. Please explain how my theory is not plausible.

Yes, I am overwhelmed rn. Before when you asked about me and Jamie I was not becasue it was only one vote. Me being squirrely doesnt hint to alignment, I might say. It is a normal way of acting when one starts to be bombarded from multiple people.

It's not a bread crumb but a whole slice of bread.

For it to be plausible it has to be probable or reasonable. For it to be probable it has to be likely to be true. If it was likely to be true you wouldn't be the only person on that train of thought. For it to be reasonable it has to be founded in logic, which your theory wasn't but rather supposition. You reasoned neither that the bonus vote was KJ's nor that KJ was scum, you supposed both because they were convenient for you to do so. Circling back to probable, since neither was logic'd neither has much weight in likelihood of truth so we find ourselves in the land of possible but not plausible. And since we are dealing with non-plausibilities, there's no reason to double down in the face of a doc claim. That, in itself, is suspicious. Calling for a counter claim is suspicious. Trying to force a "slip" argument on Ex is suspicious. All of this putting together makes it logical to conclude you are mafs. Therefore plausibility says my vote is in the right place.

I didn't ask about you and Jamie. I made a comment about you two because of the light hearted banter during extended night. It's not plausible for you to have targeted Jamie because of that conversation though so ultimately that comment is irrelephant.

 

[Morbid Minish]

Can someone sum up for me the last few pages of arguments cause I'm gonna be honest, I ain't reading all of that.

@ExLight you remind me of Stufful or Pancham.

I'm kinda interested in the fact that no one thought to discuss Rubik saying that he's like a super miller or something d1. Like what does that mean? You're town and will invest scum and also flip scum or something?

 

[OGSniper]

Can someone sum up for me the last few pages of arguments cause I'm gonna be honest, I ain't reading all of that.

@ExLight you remind me of Stufful or Pancham.

I'm kinda interested in the fact that no one thought to discuss Rubik saying that he's like a super miller or something d1. Like what does that mean? You're town and will invest scum and also flip scum or something?

I know you dont want to but I suggest you do so that you can form your own opinion on what has happened. I would hate for someone to try and change something or paint or twist someone and their words.

 

[HangryHangryHippo]

Can someone sum up for me the last few pages of arguments cause I'm gonna be honest, I ain't reading all of that.

@ExLight you remind me of Stufful or Pancham.

I'm kinda interested in the fact that no one thought to discuss Rubik saying that he's like a super miller or something d1. Like what does that mean? You're town and will invest scum and also flip scum or something?

Nah, he said to kill him rather than investigate him so he's bound to expect clarity from his death. He's probably mafs that can only win with town if he's not lying jester. Questioning it would run contrary to my assertion that he's a jester though so I ain't gonna do it.

 

[OGSniper]

He literally soft claimed right off the bat.

Doesnt mean he is.

You had an issue before the bonus vote due to me putting you in the example instead of, say HHH, or Minish( AGAIN EXAMPLES)
here:

_____

I merely asked why I was chosen. From what I remember, you didnt say something like "For the sake on an example..." or yada yada, so I was trying to figure out why I was being brought up and (from what I thought.) brought into a conversation that I wasnt and didnt want to be in.

And it took you until N1 that it could've been anyone who could've done that in order to make me look sus?

Yeah to show that Lissi wasnt mafia. How else would I know without hard evidence? What kinda made me stay on you was the fact that after I said something about a possible connection about the Bonus Vote and you is after I said that the vote is/might be/prolly is yours, it change to Minish. So that made me think that you were trying to make it look like "hey, the vote was changed to someone else, so it isnt me."

I was being threatened with a possible lynch. What would you do if you were in my posission? just say "Oh well, sucks for me I'll take the loss!" No, you'd be forced to claim.

You do make a point; desperate ties call for desperate measures. I would make the claim. I was putting it out there that only you can make that choice, no matter the pressure. Can pressure cause one to do different things, yes it can. I didnt want it to look like I made you do it because I cant make you do it

You still decided to come at me full force after I pointed out that I answered your question.

Yup, my theory wasnt hindered by the fact that I thought you didnt answer the question.

I wasn't saying YOU destroyed anything. I was talking about how when quoting someone who quoted someone else, the original quote(s) are scrapped. Also quote where you initially asked for clarification regarding the missing quotes when I quoted Ex.
The topic, from what I saw was more on D1 well before your 'theory'.

Okay, I see and understand what you are talking about, but I still understand the whole D1 or N1 thing. Could you show me what you mean by it.

 

[OGSniper]

It's not a bread crumb but a whole slice of bread.

For it to be plausible it has to be probable or reasonable. For it to be probable it has to be likely to be true. If it was likely to be true you wouldn't be the only person on that train of thought. For it to be reasonable it has to be founded in logic, which your theory wasn't but rather supposition. You reasoned neither that the bonus vote was KJ's nor that KJ was scum, you supposed both because they were convenient for you to do so. Circling back to probable, since neither was logic'd neither has much weight in likelihood of truth so we find ourselves in the land of possible but not plausible. And since we are dealing with non-plausibilities, there's no reason to double down in the face of a doc claim. That, in itself, is suspicious. Calling for a counter claim is suspicious. Trying to force a "slip" argument on Ex is suspicious. All of this putting together makes it logical to conclude you are mafs. Therefore plausibility says my vote is in the right place.

I didn't ask about you and Jamie. I made a comment about you two because of the light hearted banter during extended night. It's not plausible for you to have targeted Jamie because of that conversation though so ultimately that comment is irrelephant.

You are already coming out the gate with how my theory isnt plausible. You never explained how or what was wrong with it. In order for me to say that grass fed cows are healthier to eat then grain fed cows, I have to have proof. Hard evidence.

If it was likely to be true you wouldn't be the only person on that train of thought.

Proof for this. One cannot use powerful words properly without some old fashioned logic.

It's not a bread crumb but a whole slice of bread.

I dont remember talking about bread crumbs.

 

[ExLight]

Can someone sum up for me the last few pages of arguments cause I'm gonna be honest, I ain't reading all of that.

OG is unironically insisting I'm mafia because I said "meow meow meow" and I dropped an ISO on him

 

[OGSniper]

OG is unironically insisting I'm mafia because I said "meow meow meow" and I dropped an ISO on him

Okay, well the "meow meow meow" part was me joking around and you dropped a ISO on me because I was pressuring you a ton. When the heck did I say you are mafia? Please show Minish and everybody when I did. I dont remember me doing such a thing.

 

[Morbid Minish]

Okay, well the "meow meow meow" part was me joking around and you dropped a ISO on me because I was pressuring you a ton. When the heck did I say you are mafia? Please show Minish and everybody when I did. I dont remember me doing such a thing.

I did see where you said his one post was a scum slip. I think I got why you thought that, but it definitely wasn't a scum slip. Ex was apparently contacted by someone in the night. He knows they are incenaroar, but not who they are. They must have told him that he reminds them of a certain Pokemon. So Ex is trying to figure out who contacted him by asking everyone to answer that question and see which answers matches the message he received last night. But he doesn't want the person's role to be outed so he asked everyone to do so, so that the actual Incenaroar is obscured amongst the other answers.

 

[Killjoy262]

Doesnt mean he is.

You said he never claimed, I'm pointing out that a soft is still a claim.

I merely asked why I was chosen. From what I remember, you didnt say something like "For the sake on an example..." or yada yada, so I was trying to figure out why I was being brought up and (from what I thought.) brought into a conversation that I wasnt and didnt want to be in

Lets say Ex, OG, or anyone else unvotes right after the game gets out of RVS and defended their early D! unvote after the game gets serious, would they look sus? If not that's kind of hypocritical doing it now.

Yeah to show that Lissi wasnt mafia. How else would I know without hard evidence? What kinda made me stay on you was the fact that after I said something about a possible connection about the Bonus Vote and you is after I said that the vote is/might be/prolly is yours, it change to Minish. So that made me think that you were trying to make it look like "hey, the vote was changed to someone else, so it isnt me."

You do make a point; desperate ties call for desperate measures. I would make the claim. I was putting it out there that only you can make that choice, no matter the pressure. Can pressure cause one to do different things, yes it can. I didnt want it to look like I made you do it because I cant make you do it

So you admit that you pressured me into claiming.

Okay, I see and understand what you are talking about, but I still understand the whole D1 or N1 thing. Could you show me what you mean by it.

After going through the quotes, all I remember is I was adding onto what Ex was stating.