|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On July 23 2010 10:54 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 10:51 chaoser wrote:
So right now the consensus to move to tricode/zeks/amber/misder? Sigh...wtf did we do on day 2 then... Yup, that's the problem. We fuddled up day2. Theres a chance that one of the 3 remaining lynch suspects from day two are ACTUALLY mafia, but as of now it's too hard to tell which one. I for one feel it would be much better to focus on the quiet ones in this game, in order to at least get them to talk. Unless anyone disagrees with me, I think that should be our plan.
If by "we" you mean "I, Pandain" then yeah, that's right.
And I stand by that reasoning, and pretty much everything I've posted in the thread so far. Nothing I've seen from any of my suspects or Foolishness' makes me think any differently of them.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On July 23 2010 13:13 youngminii wrote:
I dare you to form a bandwagon on me. When I don't flip red you'd better be prepared to get nailed on by town the next day. Yes I'm talking to you chaoser and infundilxluxvbkjum.
It's iNfuNdiBuLuM.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On July 23 2010 13:16 BrownBear wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 13:15 tree.hugger wrote:On July 23 2010 13:13 youngminii wrote:
I dare you to form a bandwagon on me. When I don't flip red you'd better be prepared to get nailed on by town the next day. Yes I'm talking to you chaoser and infundilxluxvbkjum. It's iNfuNdiBuLuM. Lawl :D This never gets old.
No, it's old.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
It's a huge issue that Tricode's target was BC, and NOT Jayme or Roffles. If his target had been one of the latter two, then, in the absence of a counter-claim, we could safely assume that the mafia had targeted BC. However, because Tricode's target was BC, that makes it still possible that BC is red. This is something we can't really even test out by lynching Tricode (thus why that's a terrible idea), because if he flips red, then yes, so is BC, but if he flips Vigilante, then BC remains unconfirmed.
I would caution people to wait until the first 24 hours are up before roleclaiming to BC and Tricode, simply because I'm not sure if everyone in the game has posted, and we should make absolutely sure that no counter-claim has come up.
The last part of this analysis that needs to come is that we need to figure out if we can discern any other reason for the kills, other than random sniping for blues. Both players were somewhat un-influential, which strikes me as odd choices for the night kill.
DT's should get their information out there if they haven't done so already. Find a way, take a risk, see where that leads you.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On July 24 2010 04:40 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +It's a huge issue that Tricode's target was BC, and NOT Jayme or Roffles. If his target had been one of the latter two, then, in the absence of a counter-claim, we could safely assume that the mafia had targeted BC. However, because Tricode's target was BC, that makes it still possible that BC is red. This is something we can't really even test out by lynching Tricode (thus why that's a terrible idea), because if he flips red, then yes, so is BC, but if he flips Vigilante, then BC remains unconfirmed. I just realized, if they both really were mafia, wouldn't Tricode WANT to claim he hit Jayme or Roffles? That leads us to the assumption that BC got hit by mafia-->he is to be trusted. In this way, they can both lie and get away with it and gain an advantage?
Actually, you're absolutely right.
Tricode is confirmed as town. But BC still is the same. At this point, I advocate a mass roleclaim to Tricode. He can then tell the town how many of each blue role claimed, and build a circle.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
Let me clarify this.
It's an interesting case, in claiming who he hit, Tricode could've conceivably claimed one of the dead guys, or he could've claimed BC. If he had claimed a dead guy, then BC is confirmed. This is what the mafia would want if this was a ploy. However, by claiming BC, then he essentially exonerates himself, by choosing the less-optimal option.
Clear?
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On July 24 2010 04:59 SiNiquity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 04:40 chaoser wrote:It's a huge issue that Tricode's target was BC, and NOT Jayme or Roffles. If his target had been one of the latter two, then, in the absence of a counter-claim, we could safely assume that the mafia had targeted BC. However, because Tricode's target was BC, that makes it still possible that BC is red. This is something we can't really even test out by lynching Tricode (thus why that's a terrible idea), because if he flips red, then yes, so is BC, but if he flips Vigilante, then BC remains unconfirmed. I just realized, if they both really were mafia, wouldn't Tricode WANT to claim he hit Jayme or Roffles? That leads us to the assumption that BC got hit by mafia-->he is to be trusted. In this way, they can both lie and get away with it and gain an advantage? If Tricode claimed to hit Jayme or Roffles, then we'd first have to verify Tricode before BC could be verified. If Tricode really is Mafia, then claiming to hit BC is smart because we gain nothing by lynch-verifying him under the pretense that he's not Mafia. In short, claiming to not hit BC but rather Roffles or Jayme gives us an incentive to lynch him, because we gain something from his death (BC's innocence).
The absense of a counter-claim establishes:
A: There was a vigi hit and It was performed by Tricode
OR
B: Tricode and BC are on the same team.
Because there has not been a counter-claim, and because Tricode chose the sub-optimal hit target, (if he had been mafia) then we can assume that Option A is correct.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On July 24 2010 06:24 SiNiquity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 05:00 SiNiquity wrote:On July 24 2010 04:49 tree.hugger wrote:On July 24 2010 04:40 chaoser wrote:It's a huge issue that Tricode's target was BC, and NOT Jayme or Roffles. If his target had been one of the latter two, then, in the absence of a counter-claim, we could safely assume that the mafia had targeted BC. However, because Tricode's target was BC, that makes it still possible that BC is red. This is something we can't really even test out by lynching Tricode (thus why that's a terrible idea), because if he flips red, then yes, so is BC, but if he flips Vigilante, then BC remains unconfirmed. I just realized, if they both really were mafia, wouldn't Tricode WANT to claim he hit Jayme or Roffles? That leads us to the assumption that BC got hit by mafia-->he is to be trusted. In this way, they can both lie and get away with it and gain an advantage? Actually, you're absolutely right. Tricode is confirmed as town. But BC still is the same. At this point, I advocate a mass roleclaim to Tricode. He can then tell the town how many of each blue role claimed, and build a circle. DO NOT MASS ROLECLAIM TO TRICODE Just in case someone missed it at the bottom of page 86. Tree.Hugger's logic is flawed, the flaws have been identified, stop pushing for it until he has been 100% cleared (which, at this point, he has not). DO NOT MASS ROLECLAIM TO TRICODE.
Since you last posted that, I responded to your points.
In the absence of a counter-claim, Tricode is confirmed town. Now I'm fine with a waiting period for a counter-claim, say, until midnight tonight, but if there isn't one by that time, then Tricode's vigi claim can only be true.
That's because the only other option (Tricode and BC on the same team) is rejected because Tricode chose to say that he aimed for BC, which makes him innocent, rather than aiming for Jayme or Roffles, which would make BC look innocent, and which, we can assume, would've been what the mafia would've done.
What about this don't you understand?
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On July 24 2010 06:44 SiNiquity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 05:10 tree.hugger wrote:On July 24 2010 04:59 SiNiquity wrote:On July 24 2010 04:40 chaoser wrote:It's a huge issue that Tricode's target was BC, and NOT Jayme or Roffles. If his target had been one of the latter two, then, in the absence of a counter-claim, we could safely assume that the mafia had targeted BC. However, because Tricode's target was BC, that makes it still possible that BC is red. This is something we can't really even test out by lynching Tricode (thus why that's a terrible idea), because if he flips red, then yes, so is BC, but if he flips Vigilante, then BC remains unconfirmed. I just realized, if they both really were mafia, wouldn't Tricode WANT to claim he hit Jayme or Roffles? That leads us to the assumption that BC got hit by mafia-->he is to be trusted. In this way, they can both lie and get away with it and gain an advantage? If Tricode claimed to hit Jayme or Roffles, then we'd first have to verify Tricode before BC could be verified. If Tricode really is Mafia, then claiming to hit BC is smart because we gain nothing by lynch-verifying him under the pretense that he's not Mafia. In short, claiming to not hit BC but rather Roffles or Jayme gives us an incentive to lynch him, because we gain something from his death (BC's innocence). The absense of a counter-claim establishes: A: There was a vigi hit and It was performed by Tricode OR B: Tricode and BC are on the same team. Because there has not been a counter-claim, and because Tricode chose the sub-optimal hit target, (if he had been mafia) then we can assume that Option A is correct. The flaw in your logic is that choosing to claim the "sub-optimal hit target" (i.e. BloodyC0bbler) ==> Tricode is innocent. As I explained above, claiming BloodyC0bbler is not sub-optimal for Mafia. I will demonstrate my argument again. Suppose Tricode had instead chosen to claim Jayme or Roffles, the "optimal hit target." If Tricode is telling the truth, then the Mafia attempted to hit BloodyC0bbler, but was instead protected (medic / veteran life). If Tricode is lying (i.e. is Mafia), then Tricode did not put out an extra hit, and barring anyone else coming forward, BC is also lying. Therefore, Tricode's death will either condemn BC or exonerate him. Thus the town has an incentive to lynch Tricode, as there are concrete, indisputable implications which will result from it! Compared to claiming BloodyC0bbler, where lynching Tricode only yields definitive information about BC in the case that he was lying, there is now a disincentive to lynch Tricode (the possibility that he's telling the truth, thereby revealing, "well yep he was telling the truth, but BC is still unknown.")
I'm not concerned about lynching Tricode, I want to establish his innocence.
And once again, in the absence of a counter-claim, Tricode MUST be innocent, unless both him and BC are lying. And again, I think it's self evident that the mafia would rather have made BC look like a confirmed townie, than Tricode.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
And, I see what you're saying, you're arguing that the incentive for the mafia to discourage a test-lynch on Tricode is enough for them to make it look more like Tricode is innocent. I can see that argument, but I believe that the mafia (at this point) would be confident enough so that the town would not waste a lynch on a test which would, in the unlikely event of it being successful, only yield one other mafia. We're somewhat past the point for tests.
I think also, the mafia would be pretty sure they could bandwagon one of our other standbys if Tricode got in trouble. I think the mafia would prefer to let a player like BC fight for himself (were they on the same team) and I think they'd probably win that fight.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On July 24 2010 06:59 SiNiquity wrote:To be honest I do agree with your hunch of Tricode being innocent  I also think that d3 is innocent as well. But sadly neither are conclusive, and we should be wary of roleclaiming based on hunches.
No, I think we understand each other actually. I think that's a risk we should be taking, however, I'd like to hear what Tricode has to say about this. He's not the kind of player that inspires confidence in his play.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
Hahahaha, BC where was that Day 1?
Also, I think we should lynch youngjeezy. He's like Subversion, (and tied to him) but more annoying. I think, seeing how he's rendered an opinion on practically everyone in the town by now, he's a lynch that'll keep on giving. I've thought he's mafia from the beginning, basically, and he's continued to get pretty much everything wrong since then.
But I guess I'm open to lynching citi.zen as well, as he's been spectacularly unhelpful, and has been sitting firmly in that grey area between activity and inactivity that usually harbors at least half of the mafia.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On July 24 2010 10:46 citi.zen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 10:31 tree.hugger wrote:
Hahahaha, BC where was that Day 1?
Also, I think we should lynch youngjeezy. He's like Subversion, (and tied to him) but more annoying. I think, seeing how he's rendered an opinion on practically everyone in the town by now, he's a lynch that'll keep on giving. I've thought he's mafia from the beginning, basically, and he's continued to get pretty much everything wrong since then.
But I guess I'm open to lynching citi.zen as well, as he's been spectacularly unhelpful, and has been sitting firmly in that grey area between activity and inactivity that usually harbors at least half of the mafia. Pop quiz: out of BC's list of himself, me or pyrr, who has been "hugging that green area" closest?
Wait what? The green area? What green area? What are you talking about.
And if we're talking about the "grey" area that I mentioned then it's you. The person I said it was.
On July 24 2010 10:43 Subversion wrote:
I strongly, strongly believe that youngminii is not scum.
I really think we need to stop looking at the same people we have been since day 1/2, and start looking at new people with fresh eyes. The case against me was pretty ridiculous imo, based on 1 comment and an F'd vote count. youngminii is only in the spotlight because he was somehow, linked to me. How this happened I STILL do not know.
We're still beating the same dead dogs. We need to target a different "group", I strongly feel that the youngminii/dta/me/chaoser thing that has been going since forever is the wrong group of people. We've only lynched two of those people, and the two that only silly people read as town, how can we say the rest are innocent?
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On July 24 2010 11:04 Tricode wrote:
##vote Abstain
Place holder.
I want to see what everyone says before I place my vote.
And what is the point of abstaining? Abstaining doesn't do squat. Why post at all? Why not just not post and not vote? If everyone abstained all the time, then we wouldn't get anything done. Are people ever 100% sure that other people are mafia? Of course not! But you still have to vote anyway. You've abstained two straight days. If the mafia has influenced any of our votes (oh wait, they've all been close, the mafia has literally been at liberty to pick the people they want dead) then you are pretty much the most responsible person. Are you going to vote this time?
And what the hell do you mean that you're going to wait to see what people say? You said, back on page 82 that:
On July 23 2010 16:24 Tricode wrote:
When you guys do kill me to prove what I am saying, I will be honest, I tried reading this thread but it is hard with flame wars and ridiculous claims and finger pointing.
You hate reading the thread. But furthermore, you, through your actions of last night, have essentially become one of the town's most valuable resources. If you took any kind of initiative, you could help the town organize. Set an example and start posting constructively. Use your position as the game's most confirmed player to get people together, and forming a better circle. Don't just abstain and sit back.
We've had two people survive hits, and one outted Day Vigi, and there's not even the hint that the town has an effective circle together. We're literally playing against one of the worst mafia openings in recent memory, and we're not getting anywhere, thanks primarily to you. (and Pandain, but he can't help it) Get your act together, and play, or be subbed out for someone who will.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On July 24 2010 12:00 youngminii wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 11:41 tree.hugger wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 24 2010 11:04 Tricode wrote:
##vote Abstain
Place holder.
I want to see what everyone says before I place my vote. And what is the point of abstaining? Abstaining doesn't do squat. Why post at all? Why not just not post and not vote? If everyone abstained all the time, then we wouldn't get anything done. Are people ever 100% sure that other people are mafia? Of course not! But you still have to vote anyway. You've abstained two straight days. If the mafia has influenced any of our votes (oh wait, they've all been close, the mafia has literally been at liberty to pick the people they want dead) then you are pretty much the most responsible person. Are you going to vote this time? And what the hell do you mean that you're going to wait to see what people say? You said, back on page 82 that: On July 23 2010 16:24 Tricode wrote:
When you guys do kill me to prove what I am saying, I will be honest, I tried reading this thread but it is hard with flame wars and ridiculous claims and finger pointing.
You hate reading the thread. But furthermore, you, through your actions of last night, have essentially become one of the town's most valuable resources. If you took any kind of initiative, you could help the town organize. Set an example and start posting constructively. Use your position as the game's most confirmed player to get people together, and forming a better circle. Don't just abstain and sit back. We've had two people survive hits, and one outted Day Vigi, and there's not even the hint that the town has an effective circle together. We're literally playing against one of the worst mafia openings in recent memory, and we're not getting anywhere, thanks primarily to you. (and Pandain, but he can't help it) Get your act together, and play, or be subbed out for someone who will. I just love how you point fingers without any evidence and try and get on everyone's good side (PMing people, sucking up to BC). You don't even respond to my analysis and just say "spammer bad scum that's always wrong". Great play.
Woah woah woah. That post wasn't even towards you? What's your problem anyway with thinking that everyone is talking about you 24/7?
Your analysis? You're trying to bandwagon chaoser, now right? Old hat, even if chaoser is mafia, which I doubt, seeing as how his bandwagon was made of the same flimsy stuff that Hyperbola's was made out of. We have bigger fish to fry, and I long ago gave up on your ability to post constructively. I figured that ignoring you was enough, but the way you purposely misspell infundibulum's name is just petty, and doesn't belong in this game, and I recommend you take a long meditative retreat in Dharamshala when this is over, it'd teach you to be a nicer person, and stop thinking about yourself all the time.
I PM people because this game allows them, and they're a great way for discussing things privately with people. Nothing untoward about that. And where did I 'suck up to BC'? Please. I called him out a few pages ago for posting nothing of value, and not being of help to the town. I welcome the change in his play.
As do I welcome this change:
On July 24 2010 12:05 citi.zen wrote:
Ok, let's blow this taco stand.
I am a mad hatter. I am part of a dt circle. I would love to help the two dt's connect. Here's how we can do it:
1. Wait to see if there is a counter claim against me and Tricode, since together we should account for the 2 town Kp roles. If there isn't, we are both confirmed. If there is, we have a red player.
2. The other dt asks a confirmed person they checked to contact me. If more than one person comes forward I will ask the dt to claim. This way, if the mafia decide to fake claim we have two reds, not just one.
3. The two DTs, remaining publicly anonymous, are in contact. We give ourselves a chance to win.
If there is no counter-claim, say, in 24 hours, (that's the day with 12 hours remaining) I think the other DT should go ahead and do this. That said, if there is another vet or mad hatter, you'd better pick someone you trust and roleclaim to them, or else we're all screwed.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On July 24 2010 12:27 d3_crescentia wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 11:04 Bill Murray wrote:
d3, you voted for two people in the same post when there is a single lynch today, pick one, or i will pick one for you.
siniquity, see the above post where you may not vote for double lynch without voting abstain. oh so for some reason I thought double lynch had passed for today and not for tomorrow ##vote: abstain
If there are 13 votes for abstaining, then we accidentally end the day, correct? Please don't vote at all, or throw your placeholder vote on someone who is not going to carry the day in the end.
For example, I'll add to the double lynch.
##Vote Xelin (Haha, where has he been?)
## Vote Double Lynch
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
BC, if there is no counter-claim, then why would there be any objections to this going forward? At this point, if there is a remaining town KP role, they obviously must have figured out that they need to claim immediately, and they need to roleclaim, or find someone they trust to roleclaim for them.
I know we need to give this time to make sure everyone knows, but if there is no counter-claim, then there's really no other way to look at it, yes?
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
We're past the point of guessing on inactives. Mafia have been posting, they always do, and we should be able to find them based on evidence, not lack of evidence.
Not that I don't think southrawrea could easily be mafia, but I want to lynch someone who is active and who has people attached to him. Otherwise, we're back to Day three two again.
And citi.zen, I presume your detective has not discovered the mafia, otherwise you'd tell us, yes?
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On July 24 2010 16:06 youngminii wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 09:48 youngminii wrote:My case on Chaoser.+ Show Spoiler +Let us delve into the mind of scum. The pattern for a normal, general scum that doesn't go out of his way to do anything out of the ordinary is quite simple. Lay low on the first day or two and slowly come out with accusations. Be very careful of jumping on bandwagons as it may arouse suspicion. Rather than openly coming out and making a case on someone on the first day/two, try to find someone that is making a fool of themselves and make a small case to see if it gains momentum. I think we can all agree that this is a standard way of playing as scum, keeps the suspicion low while still contributing information. Now let us look at chaoser's early game. One of his first posts is to abstain. This vote does not change for the entire day. Fits perfectly in line with my 'lay low' theory, especially (as the wonderful Pandain pointed out) as chaoser was so against my 'no lynch' strategy. One would have to wonder why he didn't simply vote for someone if he was so against it. He raises the counter argument that voting to abstain is different from voting to no lynch, which is a moot point in my opinion really. I think it's less about the days and more about the fact that we get tons of information from looking at vote lists Cool, chaoser wants information from voting lists on the first day. In fact, he even points this out to the public. So why does he not vote for anyone? Oh right, abstaining doesn't label you as 'against' someone. Good stuff in my opinion, I'd probably do it too if I was scum. So up until early Day 2, chaoser continues to bring in a wealth of information (such as the voting history of certain people etc.) but doesn't actually accuse anyone. All he does is make some accusatory comment that doesn't really have any flair to it. See below. chaoser to BB: So basically you just said: "lawl, i messed up/made a mistake but oh well, not going to change." Anyone else find that suspicious? So early on in Day 2, after a small group of people (Divinek, DTA and Amber[light]) already vote for BB, chaoser joins in and mounts a small case against BB. + Show Spoiler +And to be truthful, I don;t really believe that BrownBear is townie just from the way he's posting. For the first day he pretty much posts nothing and bandwagons with no real reason. When people point him out of it (that he voted before reading) he goes oh well, it doesn't matter now when it CLEARLY did, the vote ended 6-5. Then, after a whole DAY of people pointing fingers at him he decides to come in and post about vets claiming and basically giving horrible advice. I'm inclined to say he's mafia who fucked up the first day and now he's trying to play dumb townie. Also, his whole ramble about claiming is pushing us off the topic of Subversion's suspicious vote as well as his little statement about how mafia isn't really making mistakes.
I'm not 100% clear on my vote yet but I'm watching BrownBear for now. And I also think we should vote double lynch. It's going to be 52 hours till the next lynch give or take, you guys don't think we'll have more than enough information then? After a page or two a LOT of people jump on the bandwagon. It's uncanny. Chaoser realises that if BB is lynched and he flips town then things will look bad for him, so he switches his vote to Subversion, another bandwagon being formed at the time. It's funny, after using that argument against BB he immediately switches to Subversion after seeing the possibility that he might be labeled as mafia (note: someone actually said that the '3rd/4th person on the bandwagon tends to be mafia' and could have affected chaoser's thoughts). The argument he uses against Subversion is one that has already gained traction from BC/Protractinium and so it's easy to ride with. Pandain then mounts an argument against chaoser, who responds by responding to each and every point. I believe they continue this argument via PM and sort it out there and Pandain drops his case on chaoser (I attribute this to Pandain being new to this game and not being very good at picking out lies/deceit etc.). Anyway, what does chaoser do now? Of course, he abstains. Oh, the joy of not really voting for anyone. A common trait of mafia is that they won't contribute too much in the accusations etc. early on. They will however, try and 'appear' to be useful by posting stuff that doesn't really cause them any risk in any way (ie. pointing at someone of being scum). They will often side with someone else or pick on a player that seems to be causing a ruckus which won't be seen as suspicious. In addition to this, scum will go to great lengths to defend themselves. Think about it (directed at newer players), if you are scum you are much more willing to come back to this thread and try to shake off any accusations against you. This is why RVS is quite helpful in smaller games. Often scum will 'lurk' meaning they'll browse around, read everything but won't post too much in order to stay under the radar. However, accusing them and voting for them will force them to come out and defend themselves profusely. We can see this in DTA, he was town and everyone started voting for him. He didn't reply in the thread for a looooooong time (I actually pointed this out but I was ignored /yay), indicating that he was in fact, not lurking but actually AWOL, which is a townie trait. Chaoser falls into the above mafia category. He immediately comes out of his 'useful/informative' shell and starts defending himself a LOT. His posts start becoming a lot of the 'discussion' going on. This continues for a long time, only defending himself and never accusing anyone asides from the occasional "your arguments are weak, why are you trying to get me lynched so bad? Are you scum?" type of argument. Now it's actually really painful to go through skimming page by page but the general trend I see right now is that a lot of people start jumping on the chaoser bandwagon. It's funny, he votes for DTA because he's getting a lot of votes for him. He then states: From reading this, I'll change my vote to Subversion even though that means I'll 100% die.
Darth, if you wanna help me, you could switch it over too and I think he'll be first.
##unvote
##vote Subversion Look at this from a scum perspective. He knows DTA is town. He knows that if DTA is lynched then he'll get an even worse image than before. So what does he do? He tries to side with DTA to lynch someone else that already has a lot of people voting for him. This is actually a good play by mafia as he had already taken the side of voting for Subversion earlier so if questioned, he could retaliate by saying "I already had my suspicions on Subversion before!" + Show Spoiler +On an unrelated side note, I find it funny how people are so quick to link me to Subversion (tree.hugger especially) because I defended him a bit whilst nobody links me to DTA's town and Hyperbola's town when I actually gave them proper defenses. Quite ridiculous imo. Blah blah DTA ends up getting lynched (one of the final votes by chaoser, although it could be argued that he did it to save himself) and ends up flipping town. I know I've always been wary of chaoser but I'd like everyone to read my analysis of him. I'm not going to analyse Night 3 'cause that was just a big spam fest and lots of people probably have an ill image of me now. I'd just like you all to trust me for once (I was right on hyperbola/DTA even though it doesn't mean anything, yes I know) and vote for chaoser. I would also like to mention that I believe infundlibsuvxkum and chaoser are linked but that discussion can be saved for another time. It's okay tree.hugger, you don't have to read this. You're clearly too good at this game to deal with my incessant postings.
What did I even say about you? My post was a comment on the two votes in quick succession to lynch South. Not everything is about you.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On July 24 2010 16:38 youngminii wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 16:26 tree.hugger wrote:On July 24 2010 16:06 youngminii wrote:On July 24 2010 09:48 youngminii wrote:My case on Chaoser.+ Show Spoiler +Let us delve into the mind of scum. The pattern for a normal, general scum that doesn't go out of his way to do anything out of the ordinary is quite simple. Lay low on the first day or two and slowly come out with accusations. Be very careful of jumping on bandwagons as it may arouse suspicion. Rather than openly coming out and making a case on someone on the first day/two, try to find someone that is making a fool of themselves and make a small case to see if it gains momentum. I think we can all agree that this is a standard way of playing as scum, keeps the suspicion low while still contributing information. Now let us look at chaoser's early game. One of his first posts is to abstain. This vote does not change for the entire day. Fits perfectly in line with my 'lay low' theory, especially (as the wonderful Pandain pointed out) as chaoser was so against my 'no lynch' strategy. One would have to wonder why he didn't simply vote for someone if he was so against it. He raises the counter argument that voting to abstain is different from voting to no lynch, which is a moot point in my opinion really. I think it's less about the days and more about the fact that we get tons of information from looking at vote lists Cool, chaoser wants information from voting lists on the first day. In fact, he even points this out to the public. So why does he not vote for anyone? Oh right, abstaining doesn't label you as 'against' someone. Good stuff in my opinion, I'd probably do it too if I was scum. So up until early Day 2, chaoser continues to bring in a wealth of information (such as the voting history of certain people etc.) but doesn't actually accuse anyone. All he does is make some accusatory comment that doesn't really have any flair to it. See below. chaoser to BB: So basically you just said: "lawl, i messed up/made a mistake but oh well, not going to change." Anyone else find that suspicious? So early on in Day 2, after a small group of people (Divinek, DTA and Amber[light]) already vote for BB, chaoser joins in and mounts a small case against BB. + Show Spoiler +And to be truthful, I don;t really believe that BrownBear is townie just from the way he's posting. For the first day he pretty much posts nothing and bandwagons with no real reason. When people point him out of it (that he voted before reading) he goes oh well, it doesn't matter now when it CLEARLY did, the vote ended 6-5. Then, after a whole DAY of people pointing fingers at him he decides to come in and post about vets claiming and basically giving horrible advice. I'm inclined to say he's mafia who fucked up the first day and now he's trying to play dumb townie. Also, his whole ramble about claiming is pushing us off the topic of Subversion's suspicious vote as well as his little statement about how mafia isn't really making mistakes.
I'm not 100% clear on my vote yet but I'm watching BrownBear for now. And I also think we should vote double lynch. It's going to be 52 hours till the next lynch give or take, you guys don't think we'll have more than enough information then? After a page or two a LOT of people jump on the bandwagon. It's uncanny. Chaoser realises that if BB is lynched and he flips town then things will look bad for him, so he switches his vote to Subversion, another bandwagon being formed at the time. It's funny, after using that argument against BB he immediately switches to Subversion after seeing the possibility that he might be labeled as mafia (note: someone actually said that the '3rd/4th person on the bandwagon tends to be mafia' and could have affected chaoser's thoughts). The argument he uses against Subversion is one that has already gained traction from BC/Protractinium and so it's easy to ride with. Pandain then mounts an argument against chaoser, who responds by responding to each and every point. I believe they continue this argument via PM and sort it out there and Pandain drops his case on chaoser (I attribute this to Pandain being new to this game and not being very good at picking out lies/deceit etc.). Anyway, what does chaoser do now? Of course, he abstains. Oh, the joy of not really voting for anyone. A common trait of mafia is that they won't contribute too much in the accusations etc. early on. They will however, try and 'appear' to be useful by posting stuff that doesn't really cause them any risk in any way (ie. pointing at someone of being scum). They will often side with someone else or pick on a player that seems to be causing a ruckus which won't be seen as suspicious. In addition to this, scum will go to great lengths to defend themselves. Think about it (directed at newer players), if you are scum you are much more willing to come back to this thread and try to shake off any accusations against you. This is why RVS is quite helpful in smaller games. Often scum will 'lurk' meaning they'll browse around, read everything but won't post too much in order to stay under the radar. However, accusing them and voting for them will force them to come out and defend themselves profusely. We can see this in DTA, he was town and everyone started voting for him. He didn't reply in the thread for a looooooong time (I actually pointed this out but I was ignored /yay), indicating that he was in fact, not lurking but actually AWOL, which is a townie trait. Chaoser falls into the above mafia category. He immediately comes out of his 'useful/informative' shell and starts defending himself a LOT. His posts start becoming a lot of the 'discussion' going on. This continues for a long time, only defending himself and never accusing anyone asides from the occasional "your arguments are weak, why are you trying to get me lynched so bad? Are you scum?" type of argument. Now it's actually really painful to go through skimming page by page but the general trend I see right now is that a lot of people start jumping on the chaoser bandwagon. It's funny, he votes for DTA because he's getting a lot of votes for him. He then states: From reading this, I'll change my vote to Subversion even though that means I'll 100% die.
Darth, if you wanna help me, you could switch it over too and I think he'll be first.
##unvote
##vote Subversion Look at this from a scum perspective. He knows DTA is town. He knows that if DTA is lynched then he'll get an even worse image than before. So what does he do? He tries to side with DTA to lynch someone else that already has a lot of people voting for him. This is actually a good play by mafia as he had already taken the side of voting for Subversion earlier so if questioned, he could retaliate by saying "I already had my suspicions on Subversion before!" + Show Spoiler +On an unrelated side note, I find it funny how people are so quick to link me to Subversion (tree.hugger especially) because I defended him a bit whilst nobody links me to DTA's town and Hyperbola's town when I actually gave them proper defenses. Quite ridiculous imo. Blah blah DTA ends up getting lynched (one of the final votes by chaoser, although it could be argued that he did it to save himself) and ends up flipping town. I know I've always been wary of chaoser but I'd like everyone to read my analysis of him. I'm not going to analyse Night 3 'cause that was just a big spam fest and lots of people probably have an ill image of me now. I'd just like you all to trust me for once (I was right on hyperbola/DTA even though it doesn't mean anything, yes I know) and vote for chaoser. I would also like to mention that I believe infundlibsuvxkum and chaoser are linked but that discussion can be saved for another time. It's okay tree.hugger, you don't have to read this. You're clearly too good at this game to deal with my incessant postings. What did I even say about you? My post was a comment on the two votes in quick succession to lynch South. Not everything is about you. Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 16:04 tree.hugger wrote:
Mafia have been posting, they always do, and we should be able to find them based on evidence, not lack of evidence.
Not that I don't think southrawrea could easily be mafia, but I want to lynch someone who is active and who has people attached to him.
I should've been more clear. I'd like to lynch a mafia with those characteristics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
