| Sparks said: NOTE: Please do not comment on the likelyhood of a scenario, just if you think I am missing some piece of the puzzle or you disagree with a conclusion. >>Scenarios were RCTjunkie is telling the truth: 1. Multi-faction scum: 2. Bus driver & another killing party: 3. Thief: >>Scenarios were RCTjunkie is lyng about everything: 1. One scum faction: >>RCTjunkie is only lyng about losing his bulletproof: 1. One scum faction again (turned out exactly like above): |
In scenario 1, a vigilante could have been the other attacker. In fact, without a bus driver or thief scenario, that's the thing that makes the most sense, as a vigilante is the only one that would have a reason to attack, so it doesn't mean there are two factions. We can only conclude that there are two killing parties, a mafia faction, and either a second faction, a serial killer, a vigilante, or maybe even a paranoid gun owner that RCT attacked in the night. It's really hard to say what the second faction is. It doesn't tell us much about RCT or prof's alignment.
In scenario 2, the bus driver would almost certainly be town, since a mafia bus driver wouldn't try to stop a kill, except perhaps to protect their own from a vigilante. Also, wouldn't a person know if they'd been bussed? You'd think RCT, as honest and cooperative as he's been, would have mentioned that crucial detail.
In scenario 3, the problem is that RCT did say he was attacked, at least at first, though I think he was confused and the message doesn't actually specify, nor would it. I don't think it matters that our abilities have come from items thus far, in fact, I think it matters more that some abilities don't come from items, which it didn't in the case of spurge. The fact that there are a mix of item based and non-item based abilities suggests there must be a reason for having the specification of an item. Why bother specifying that an ability is an item if being an item has no effect on gameplay? The point of having the item specification is probably that there is a thief. That said, you admit that poisoner is still possible, and any killing party could simply decide not to kill to create confusion, so there could still be a second killing party. And it has no indication I can see of prof's or RCT's alignment.
If RCT is lying, it doesn't mean there's only one scum faction, as there could be a poisoner, which you admit just below this. Which in turn means prof isn't definitely town. In fact you mention poisoner right after saying prof is town. What the heck, man? Also, we may have had an attack that no one reported. Think about it, if RCT is lying, and doesn't have a bulletproof vest, maybe someone else does, like you were saying at the beginning of this day. That person might not want to announce that they lost their vest, because they want to keep the mafia guessing about why the kill didn't go through.
If RCT is just lying about his vest being lost, then everything I said above applies here too. Also, in this case, we don't know that he wasn't attacked, as even if he's lying about his vest being gone, it could be that he was attacked but the vest has more than one use. Regardless of what RCT is lying about, however, it's definitely a scummy move to lie in this case.
I realize some of my considerations aren't all that likely, but you did say likelihood wasn't important here.
