• We're Celebrating Diversity on TBT! Join our new mini-event this month by making a 3D craft that represents what diversity and inclusivity mean to you. For your hard work, you'll receive a newly released villager collectible and the chance to win the latest addition to our plush series! See the Celebrating Diversity 2024 thread to get started.
  • Animal Crossing Hide & Seek sessions from The Bell Tree World Championship are coming back -- check out the new TBT Neighbourly Hide and Seek thread here for details! Look out for an Among Us session here too.

Mafia TBT Mafia XV: The Siren's Call (Game Over/Mafia & Third Party Win!)

I'm placing a vote down for Dolby after going through his filter.


This is the first post he made that caught my attention. This is a perfect post from the perspective of a scum Dolby who knows Ryan and I are innocent. He analyses the situation with the mentality that one of us is scum, but doesn't commit to a position. I take a pretty dim view of any experienced player that seriously entertained the idea that I was a killblocked scum. I note that he doesn't find that possibility unusual, yet he labels the possibility that scum sent ryan out on a high risk mission to frame me as unlikely.
It merely didn't occur to me that both of you could have been telling the truth. As for thinking that it was possible that Ryan killblocked scum, it's merely because I've never played a game with a potentially town roleblocker before. I also doubt that scum would risk one of their own to get just own particular player out of the game intentionally(such as, for example, claiming town roleblocker in a closed set-up)

This post puts me off as well. Mentioning that SP is playing strangely, then conceding that it's common for him? Fenced. Saying that using the Yui=mark=scum argument is scummy, when his suspicions against me and Ryan were just as weak.

SP does play strangely all the time but he has never made seemingly noob arguments, that's what pushed me over, as for his suspicions against you and Ryan, I counted that as merely SP's usual strange behavior
Jellofish is an easy target.
I'm an easy target as well, and guess what. Jellofish just voted for me without explaining

I don't understand this post. Why would you need a defense?
Ashtot made a big accusatory post against me
Crystal is another easy target. Honestly, some of the same reasons you use for voting Crystal I could apply to you as well. Such as pushing already suspected players while bringing up nothing new.
Well, this is actually I pretty good game contribution-wise for me, I suppose that I could appear to be trying to blend in, but I did present a defense to Ashtot
tldr:
You are targetting easy players without your own developed reasons.
You have previously targeted people already under suspicion, again without your own developed reasons.

You're coasting by on other people's suspicions, on people that so far have been proven innocent.
Well let's see, I admit I bandwagoned onto SP without my own original suspicions, but so did 6 other people at least,
I created my own reasons for oath (with some poor word choices), and I created my own case on Jellofish

Really, I developed a my own view and reasoning on oath, who was innocent, however, using Dad's post as a structural point, so that's somewhat exaggerated, and a lot of people bandwagoned onto SP for the same reason (like nine other people), while he never produced a defense

##Vote: Dolby

Responses in bold. This isn't really as much as a defense, more like an attempt to explain my actions honestly, I know that I'm forgetting some tiny point that someone's going to use against me for not answering

- - - Post Merge - - -

Alright. It's Night 2, and I don't want to take any chances with this thief thing. Near the end of the night, I want a vigilante to shoot the Thief who has been least helpful to us (Cory, Natty or Trundle). This will hopefully have the added benefit of giving these three incentive to be more vocal and help us.

Comments welcome.

This is really a very good idea, it could also determine if they're lying or not
 
Alright. It's Night 2, and I don't want to take any chances with this thief thing. Near the end of the night, I want a vigilante to shoot the Thief who has been least helpful to us (Cory, Natty or Trundle). This will hopefully have the added benefit of giving these three incentive to be more vocal and help us.

It would be Cory, but I don't think this is a good suggestion for the vig. I still find the thief thing believable and that more clarity behind it isn't worth a non anti-town death. The vig should go with their gut imo.
 
It would be Cory, but I don't think this is a good suggestion for the vig. I still find the thief thing believable and that more clarity behind it isn't worth a non anti-town death. The vig should go with their gut imo.

You forget though, that roles with survivor elements are actually anti-town. As they can win with both town and scum, they become very dangerous when it gets down to lylo, as if they have even mildly developed reads (which they should at lylo), they can easily help scum quickhammer and win right there.
 
At least this gives us something to look into regarding who was very against Crystal, even though it wasn't the best choice (still better than Cariad imo).

How the heck was it a better choice than Cariad? At least C r y s t a l actually tried. Honestly I don't understand why people voted for C r y s t a l over Cariad.

Cariad - 5 - Trundle, Ashtot, Karen, Crystal, ryan88
Crystal - 7 - Tom, Dolby, Sataric, Yui Z, Minties, Jeremy, Dad
Dolby - 3 - KarlaKGB, Alice, JellofishXD
Ashtot - 1 - Natty
Dad - 1 - Cariad

Didn't vote: Cory, Alise.

I've pretty much given up because it's clear that there's a really strong scum team, but I really think that there are scum who voted for C r y s t a l. I just don't see the logic in voting for her over Cariad. I would think that everyone who voted for her (strong players) would be more logical and vote someone who is less important etc.
 
That said, the thieves in this game are kept somewhat in check by their little competition between themselves. True survivors are a bit more dangerous.
 
From what Natty and Cory have said about their gem things I do believe the three are thieves, it would be very hard for mafia to randomly come up with 3 thief claims (unless they're all scum and thief is three of their safe claims???).
 
From what Natty and Cory have said about their gem things I do believe the three are thieves, it would be very hard for mafia to randomly come up with 3 thief claims (unless they're all scum and thief is three of their safe claims???).

Yes they're either all thieves, or they're all scum, there's no way scum would try to fakeclaim thief if there are real thieves present. Hence why I think the least useful one should be executed as a check. Unless the vig has much better targets tonight.
 
The logic is whether you think Cariad was telling the truth about her role or not, Ashtot.

And Karla, I get your point but the win conditions of survivor but it's likely similar to the squids in Bird Mafia II. That being said, as squids we could have chosen to side with whoever we wanted in the end, but our only win condition was to ink the most people. Or in this game, have the most treasure in comparison to the other thieves. Winning the mini-competition is all that is necessary to win for them, not surviving.
 
...actually what if the thief side-game was the safeclaim for three mafia. I doubt it but...what if. Maybe Karla doesn't have a bad idea after all, if the vig doesn't have a better idea as to who should be shot. If there is a vig.
 
...actually what if the thief side-game was the safeclaim for three mafia. I doubt it but...what if. Maybe Karla doesn't have a bad idea after all, if the vig doesn't have a better idea as to who should be shot. If there is a vig.

Isn't that what he just said? Anyways I think Karla's plan is pretty good.
 
##Vote: C r y s t a l

lel

And it is what Karla just said, but that random idea just popped into my head. Again, I have my doubts as to whether or not there is even a vig. At least an unlimited shot one.
 
...actually what if the thief side-game was the safeclaim for three mafia. I doubt it but...what if. Maybe Karla doesn't have a bad idea after all, if the vig doesn't have a better idea as to who should be shot. If there is a vig.

That's pretty much why I want a thief shot, for reassurance, but also to give them a little incentive to talk. It's a high risk high reward plan for the scum. I believe it's low risk high reward for us to shoot one.
 
This idea ia literally the stupidest idea i have ever heard. I am trying to win my own game. I dont need you guys interfereing with it
 
Before any blues send in actions, please wait for my posts. At the moment I'm playing League of Legends but I'll be up late tonight making many posts and making sense of anything that just happened Day 2. Once we get our first scum down, it's going to be so easy from that mess of a night.
 
Again, it's up to the vig. Anyways I'll be back later but right now I've got to get around to some stuff I've procrastinated on. Sorry for being all over the place day two, guys.
 
This idea ia literally the stupidest idea i have ever heard. I am trying to win my own game. I dont need you guys interfereing with it

Don't give a **** about your game, if we can gain information out of your death then it's a good move for us.
 
Before any blues send in actions, please wait for my posts. At the moment I'm playing League of Legends but I'll be up late tonight making many posts and making sense of anything that just happened Day 2. Once we get our first scum down, it's going to be so easy from that mess of a night.

Oh I sent my action already
 
Back
Top