Triple Tickle Game Thread (Day 4)

I was going to try and argue that the whole reasoning is bad and way overblown but I’m honestly not really in the mood to get into a pissing contest and it won’t do anybody any good.

Except you’re way overconfident and wrong. But it’s whatever this isn’t even real Mafia because there’s 4 factions and no real strategizing.

From Spak, very blatantly

He said if you were Killer it is malicious, and if you were town it is unintuitive.

So I’m supposed to be flattered by that?

No? But you aren’t supposed to just ignore the player.

Like what’s your point? It’s almost like you try way hard to be super precise over dumb things and completely fail to scrutinize other people’s logic for some reason.

Like do you think this is a fair assessment of what I’ve been doing?

Because if I recall correctly, I called you out for not being Specialist because you made the super obvious point that you had a giant case as to why someone else was Specialist. And outside of that, I haven’t said I think anybody else is, or why.

Or isn’t, whatever. Like you want to execute Scum, and are so pushy about who might be it (which btw narrows the pool just the same), but seem to have no problem with crap like that.

It doesn’t have to be a fair assessment. You shouldn’t ignore an entire interaction just because of that. Also I got permission to post the screenshot so I’ll be doing that soon :> just have to get my computer

You’ve made it clear your intention is to hunt for people that aren’t Spec. You pointed out what you read as an overreaction to a vote (valid), and then implied that they were Spec (bad). You then ruled out Sam as Spec from your PoV, and assuming you’re scum, that’s already a third of the game. Your strategy leads directly to fishing for the Spec, and you’ve dug in rather than change your ways when it’s been pointed out. Trying to avoid getting Spec killed is priority 1, but publicly hunting for who isn’t Spec makes them way more susceptible to NKs.

Here’s the fault in your logic. Maybe if you would have asked, this could have been made obvious before. I said it points to 1 of 4 roles meaning it could be any one of them. I have been consistently saying that in my opinion, it’s going to be very difficult for a third party observer to clearly differentiate the Specialist from a Killer, because I expect their reactions to pressure initially to look the same.

So no, I wasn’t “spec” hunting. How do you square my comment then that the least likely role for Phone to be is Specialist with your argument?

And if your point is that I shouldn’t be hunting for anybody not Spec to execute, and just vote randomly, then why is your gripe with me?! Like why aren’t you actually criticizing Golden Girl here far more?

I thought that was an inconsistency in your play. Since you said “1 in 4” and the other three roles are pretty much identical, I read it as pretty clearly implying that you mean he was Spec. That was my bad; re-reading it with your intention behind 1 of 4, that point is pretty null imo. Still not great since that’d give the Spec a 1 in 3 chance to be shot if true, but much better than what I thought you suggested.

Because GoldenGirl is obvious town lmao

I’m sorry but if you think I’m going to post 127 times on a dead thread just to try and scrape what little information we can possibly get out of today as scum, then you’re not thinking straight


14 votes in >5 minutes.

Also, anarchy. Cool concept

Like I said, if we’re trying to find Killers D1, then I’ve put something out there to think about. If we’re going to just vote randomly, then that’s fine. There is a substantially better play long-term though, and sorry to have to say it, but it would be to vote Golden Girl who (i) you actually suspect and (ii) have reasonable certainty is not Specialist.