MAFIA 52: You Can't Take The Sky From Me [HIDDEN]

[Foxcastle]

##VOTE TEMASEK

Thank you. Now that that's out of the way, do you have any theories on who is the last Reaver?

I was not able to pay much attention over the weekend, so I'm not really caught up. I would assume it's not in the VTs, because those are too obvious for Damo to scan and I would think the reavers would want to leave the last mafia alive. Probably not Peter, because they would expect the play to lynch him and either hit or have his shot to shoot. Probably not you, since you could prove yourself at any EOD.

[peterlund]

##vote foxcastle

Sigh, that's four times. You or dargo should vote once again to disambiguate.

@teacon: you are only required to bare vote twice now.

Difficult it seems. How many times should I vote more?

[damo666]

peterbot melting down

[xorxes]

##VOTE tamesek22

Wrong spelling.

I can't remember is dargo clear or still a Reaver possibility?

Not clear, but he could not have triggered the third warning if my theory is correct, so his participation here doesn't really add anything.

[Foxcastle]

peterbot melting down

It seems fine for me

[xorxes]

##VOTE TEMASEK

Thank you. Now that that's out of the way, do you have any theories on who is the last Reaver?

I was not able to pay much attention over the weekend, so I'm not really caught up. I would assume it's not in the VTs, because those are too obvious for Damo to scan and I would think the reavers would want to leave the last mafia alive. Probably not Peter, because they would expect the play to lynch him and either hit or have his shot to shoot. Probably not you, since you could prove yourself at any EOD.

Also, probably not me because I'm already clear.

So, who then? Teacon?

[xorxes]

##vote foxcastle

Sigh, that's four times. You or dargo should vote once again to disambiguate.

@teacon: you are only required to bare vote twice now.

Difficult it seems. How many times should I vote more?

Don't bare vote anymore. If you want to vote, just add some comment with it.

[teacon7]

I'm catching up. Is anyone online?

[damo666]

peterbot melting down

It seems fine for me

I was joking about all the votes. I expect you know that though.

[xorxes]

I'm catching up. Is anyone online?

I'll be here for ten minutes or so.

[damo666]

I'm catching up. Is anyone online?

Yes

[xorxes]

@teacon, if you can bare vote twice that would help with testing a Reaver violation theory. Then you keep voting as much as you like as long as you do it with protection (adding some other words).

[Jamiet99uk]

Do you require me to vote any particular number of times?

What is the theory exactly?

[xorxes]

Do you require me to vote any particular number of times?

What is the theory exactly?

No, you are already clear if this theory is correct.

[xorxes]

##Vote Xorxes

If that's what triggered the D1 level 1 warning (a post with a bare vote) then this:

##VOTE GOLD

Should be what triggered the second level 1.

Jamie had made a bare vote before that, so that would clear him.

damo and Jamiet have also made several bare votes since, but there has been only one more warning, so they should be clear (if this is the criterion).

Then we have:

##vote kalel

##VOTE KALEL

##vote Goldie

##Vote worcej

that could have triggered the last warning.

[teacon7]

BAM. Ace shot @Assasin.

http://bit.ly/30fE4Tx

Finally some crossfire. I think scum is hosed at this point? Unless there's a deep threat, it's almost autowin now.

[teacon7]

@jamiet - Congrats! That sounds like a big achievement. Was your textwall from the thesis?

@peter - hunh. I guess I missed the conditions for the vengeful shot in your role desc. I wasn't attempting to misrepresent you - I misread it.

[xorxes]

There, hopefully that nips this in the bud.

##Vote Foxcastle

We can't have everyone do it though, or we won't learn anything.

Or someone should do it once, someone twice, someone three times and someone four times. Then the number of warnings should tell us who the infractor is.

[teacon7]

bunny was the one leading the rule vio investigation, which means we might want to look into his lists - was he keeping accurate records of who did what?

It makes sense now why he ignored my question about votes. I'm still catching up, but imo we may want to look into that.

[Jamiet99uk]

We can't have everyone do it though, or we won't learn anything.

Or someone should do it once, someone twice, someone three times and someone four times. Then the number of warnings should tell us who the infractor is.

Can someone explain?

Are Reavers not allowed to move their vote?