|
err my last post was replying to:
On July 23 2010 15:47 Divinek wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 15:45 SiNiquity wrote:On July 23 2010 15:32 d3_crescentia wrote:On July 23 2010 15:29 SiNiquity wrote:
Hmm interesting. So BC is either a Veteran or was protected by the remaining medic (orr Medics can protect the night they're killed, and Roffles protected BC). Is that last one even possible? Think so. Problem is that Roffles isn't around to contest it. But, as I said, if the vigi stepped up and said something it could drastically drop down BC's chances of being mafia, if we confirmed the vig by lynch. I realize this would be super-unhappy-times for the vig. =[ Why would it be bad for a vigilante who's already used their night hit to claim? They're essentially a townie at this point.. I guess it gives Mafia a little bit of info about who's who (so they know not to waste a hit on that player if they're blue-hunting). But isn't this outweighed by the benefit of knowing BC's claim for sure (again after DT checks). It seems like a bold move for Mafia to fake-claim the vigilante hit, as doing so means they're feeding 2 members to a town that hasn't caught a single one yet (tho hopefully today'll be different). well the only negative side effect would be the mafia knows he's exactly a townie
|
On July 23 2010 15:56 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 15:51 d3_crescentia wrote:On July 23 2010 15:36 SiNiquity wrote:On July 23 2010 15:27 d3_crescentia wrote:On July 23 2010 14:50 youngminii wrote:On July 23 2010 14:48 chaoser wrote:
I do however know that a Vigi hit SOMEONE tonight. That Vigi should claim since they are regular townie now and say who they hit and why. Mafia doesn't gain anything from them claiming, I think. Also, if it's a false claim, real Vigi can always claim as well and then we have a 1 v 1. Either way, one mafia is dying if they fake claim. I'm also going to go to sleep but I feel I have enough evidence to compile a case against someone by tomorrow morning There's no way of us knowing whether or not the claim is true or false. There may or may not be one or two Vigis and even then 2 scum can step up and counter claim. I actually disagree here. If 2 scum step up and counterclaim it exposes them in the open under public scrutiny. We can lynch the first claimant (the one who fired the shot) and see if he told the truth. Then we can have the other two shoot each other during the night with their vigi shots. If neither of them dies then we know they're both lying. Also, it seems like an incredibly BAD idea for a townie to claim vigi at all, period. What will be more likely is that the vigi will claim, no one will contest and the mafia will take out the vigi during the night to prevent any new information from being introduced into the game. If BC is lying, then there were only 2 hits last night. If there were only 2 hits last night, then no Vigilante fired a shot (unless Mafia stacked, but this seems highly unlikely). Therefore when we call for a Vigilante to claim, some Mafia could claim it worry-free, since no one else could claim it. Worse yet, this Mafia member that claimed could be Godfather and have picked the Vigilante role, so there's no way to know there either (or BC is GF under the guise of a Veteran). Thus both the claiming Vigilante and BC would need to be checked. If neither were Mafia, only then would we know for sure. We can't afford to check these people until the bomber is dead, at least by DT - because the Mafia would know we'd be checking them and then just get a two-fer. And by stepping forward it becomes difficult for the Medic to protect-confirm as the Mafia wouldn't want to target them anymore. It's possible to confirm them by lynching the vigi (depending on who he shot at and a few other factors). Then there won't be any mafia incentive to claim the vigi role. It's not the most optimal plan, so I'd really appreciate some input for a better alternative. As a general note as something I recommended yesterday. If a dt uses a rng to check someone where the rng in this case could be used twice, once for player once for day to use it. A dt could safely check you for surviving a hit day 2, and me day 3. IT gives the dt options to safely check without the fear of the bomber. The remaining medic should only claim to someone he protected once he knows for sure it was a mafia hit he blocked and not a vig one.
Mmm interesting. So even if the remaining medic did protect you, they shouldn't claim to you because [in theory] you could be Mafia protected from a Vigi hit.
|
So Tricode allegedly targeted BC. This is a bit of a shame, as it doesn't put BC's name in the clear. Even lynching Tricode would just confirm that BC did in fact take a hit as he says (likely, as otherwise both Tricode and BC are Mafia which would be revealed after lynching Tricode this evening), but still wouldn't confirm that BC was undeserving of such a hit (i.e. isn't Mafia).
|
On July 24 2010 01:38 citi.zen wrote:
It does confirm that either Tricode and BC are both red, or Triode is innocent. So it tells us more about Tricode than about BC at this time.
True. Though if Tricode were Mafia, it would give us 2 Mafia members immediately, which would be a wealth of information for us. It would be one hell of a Mafia gamble to fake all of this, as they would have to bank on us not lynching Tricode.
|
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?
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).
|
On July 24 2010 04:49 tree.hugger 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? 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
|
On July 24 2010 05:00 SiNiquity wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Huh, didn't know majority vote ended the day prematurely. Just abstaining for the moment to "stay active" but I'm not interested in the day ending early either.
## Unvote
|
|
|
On July 24 2010 05:10 tree.hugger wrote:Show nested quote +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.")
|
On July 24 2010 06:48 tree.hugger wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 06:44 SiNiquity wrote: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.
I agree that either Tricode is innocent or both BC and Tricode are lying. But there's nothing "self-evident" about what the Mafia "would rather have done," as this will just go down the WIFOM rabbit hole. You may have your hunches, but nothing conclusive can be drawn, and that's my problem with mass roleclaiming to Tricode. He is not conclusively innocent. Just like d3 is not conclusively innocent (Mafia could've put 2 hits on Foolishness), and it's why we didn't mass roleclaim to him Day 2.
|
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.
|
Mmm I realize this is not entirely pertinent to the debate at hand (as I just got back and page 91 was the last page at the time). But I leave it "for the record" ~ you can respond at your earliest convenience.
As for the citi.zen thing, I am again wary of any roleclaiming. However in theory, both town KP roles are now known, so if someone's lying then a true KP (vigi/hatter) would know and could say so. This takes both time and assumes they're checking the thread regularly (ex: already stated that a replacement is needed for LaXer, so perhaps he's the other KP and just hasn't read the thread). This may have already been brought up as I'm not 100% to to speed on the debate, just throwing my $0.02 in before I head to bed (wedding tomorrow, will not be very active).
+ Show Spoiler [My response to BloodyC0bbler] +On July 24 2010 13:37 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Here is the behemoth of a post. It is a shit ton of collection of posts of at this point, only five users. Sinquity, Infundibulum, Southrawrea, bumatlarge, youngminii. This is extremely long, and god knows insanely tedious. Sinquity+ Show Spoiler +
On July 18 2010 07:51 SiNiquity wrote:
[8] pandain - Voted Incognito; How do we know who's mafia?; Spam
[7] Pyrrhuloxia - Supports DT down the list
[5] youngminii - Spammed pg 13
[5] rastaban - Activity List; Lynch Inactive, worried about verifying RNG; DT should go down the list
[5] SiNiquity - Almost mistook initial deaths for actual deaths; Lynch: 3 inactives + RNG; This activity list (can't link w/out edit)
[4] divinek - Lynch inactives
[4] BloodyC0bbler - Good guidelines; Inactive List + RNG, but need method to verify the RNG
[3] lakrismamma - Lynch inactives
[3] DarthThienAn - Spam
[2] xelin - RNG Lynch
[2] Amber[LighT] - Inactive until night of July 18th; Plan now, vote later; Lynch inactive
[2] ~OpZ~ - Claims Chaoser, Darth, and Infundiblum are mafia; ER + Job interview [+ sarcasm?]
[2] roffles - Lynch random person over inactive
[2] Jayme - Lynch: Inactive = RNG in accuracy, up for either; Against Inactive List + RNG
[1] tree.hugger - Lynch: 5 inactives + RNG
[1] chaoser - Lynch inactives
[1] bumatlarge - Bitter about Divinek railroading him
[1] SouthRawrea - Voted Incognito, aka essentially posted nothing (11 posts total??)
[1] Infundibulum - DT should not go down list to do rolechecks
[1] d3_crescentia - Against RNG - same chance of landing blue as red
[1] zeks - Lynch inactive, DT check active
[1] Tricode - Kill least inactive idiot
[0] hyperbola
[0] brownbear
[0] foolishness
[0] Subversion
[0] LaxerCannon
[0] Misder
[0] Citi.zen
[0] ketomai
The above list is a summary of what's happened since the beginning of the game. Post counts are in brackets, though of course don't just use this post, read the thread from the beginning and get a feel for each player.
Also, of those that haven't posted since the beginning, those in italics are players who were marked as "posted" under rastaban's activity list. Maybe they haven't gotten around to the thread, or maybe they're trying to fly under the radar having already been marked as "active."
If you feel I've characterized anything inaccurately or unjustly, please let me know. Took me about an hour to complete so it's entirely possible. Let nothing go unscrutinized!
On July 20 2010 06:27 SiNiquity wrote: Sorry for my absence yesterday - visiting relatives (on my anniversary no less, though we celebrated last month prematurely while we were in Europe) went wayy longer than I thought. Went to bed thinking we weren't allowed to talk - glad BM changed his mind. Day 1 Votes: + Show Spoiler [Voting Record (ordered by votes)] +
Pre-game votes:
[link] jayme ==> Amber[LighT]
[link] DarthThienAn ==> Abstain
[link] DarthThienAn ==> d3_crescentia
[link] d3_crescentia ==> DarthThienAn
[link] citi.zen ==> DarthThienAn
[link] rastaban ==> citi.zen
Day 1 Votes
[link] youngminii ==> Pyrrhuloxia
[link] Pandain ==> Incognito
[link] SouthRawrea ==> Incognito (edited to Abstain few hours later)
[link] ~OpZ~ ==> Chaoser
[link] BloodyC0bbler ==> Abstain
[link] bumatlarge ==> Divinek
[link] Pandain ==> BloodyC0bbler
[link] Hyperbola ==> SiNiquity
[link] LaXerCannon ==> Abstain
[link] youngminii ==> Abstain
[link] Divinek ==> Abstain
[link] Tricode ==> Abstain
[link] Misder ==> Hyperbola
[link] Divinek ==> Hyperbola
[link] Pandain ==> Hyperbola
[link] Pyrrhuloxia ==> Abstain
[link] Zeks ==> Hyperbola
[link] SiNiquity ==> Hyperbola
[link] Roffles ==> Abstain
[link] tree.hugger ==> LaXerCannon
[link] Foolishness ==> Abstain
[link] Lakrismamma ==> LaXerCannon
[link] Lakrismamma ==> Subversion
[link] BloodyC0bbler ==> Pandain
[link] ~OpZ~ ==> BloodyC0bbler
[link] Pyrrhuloxia ==> DarthThienAn
[link] XeliN ==> Brownbear
[link] iNfuNdiBuLuM ==> youngminii
[link] youngminii ==> iNfuNdiBuLuM
[link] citi.zen ==> ketomai
[link] XeliN ==> youngminii
[link] chaoser ==> Abstain
[link] Amber[LighT] ==> Abstain
[link] tree.hugger ==> DarthThienAn
[link] Amber[LighT] ==> youngminii
[link] Roffles ==> youngminii
[link] lakrismamma ==> ketomai
[link] DarthThienAn ==> Amber[LighT]
[link] bumatlarge ==> Hyperbola
[link] BrownBear ==> Hyperbola
[link] Protactinium ==> Abstain
[link] Jayme ==> youngminii
[link] Foolishness ==> BloodyC0bbler
[link] Misder ==> LaXerCannon
[link] zeks ==> Abstain
[link] Subversion ==> Hyperbola
jayme ==> Amber[LighT] ==> youngminii
DarthThienAn ==> Abstain ==> d3_crescentia ==> Amber[LighT]
d3_crescentia ==> DarthThienAn
citi.zen ==> DarthThienAn ==> ketomai
rastaban ==> citi.zen
youngminii ==> Pyrrhuloxia ==> Abstain ==> iNfuNdiBuLuM
Pandain ==> Incognito ==> BloodyC0bbler ==> Hyperbola
SouthRawrea ==> Incognito/Abstain
~OpZ~ ==> Chaoser ==> BloodyC0bbler
BloodyC0bbler ==> Abstain ==> Pandain
bumatlarge ==> Divinek ==> Hyperbola
Hyperbola ==> SiNiquity
LaXerCannon ==> Abstain
Divinek ==> Abstain ==> Hyperbola
Tricode ==> Abstain
Misder ==> Hyperbola ==> LaXerCannon
Pyrrhuloxia ==> Abstain ==> DarthThienAn
Zeks ==> Hyperbola ==> Abstain
SiNiquity ==> Hyperbola
Roffles ==> Abstain ==> youngminii
tree.hugger ==> LaXerCannon ==> DarthThienAn
Foolishness ==> Abstain ==> BloodyC0bbler
Lakrismamma ==> LaXerCannon ==> Subversion ==> ketomai
XeliN ==> Brownbear ==> youngminii
iNfuNdiBuLuM ==> youngminii
chaoser ==> Abstain
Amber[LighT] ==> Abstain ==> youngminii
BrownBear ==> Hyperbola
Protactinium ==> Abstain
Subversion ==> Hyperbola
Comments: + Show Spoiler [Look at the data yourself first] +
Few things that jumped out at me:
• Jayme voted for youngminii, not Amber[LighT] (brings youngminii's vote up to 5 from 4 - this is important, as you'll see in a bit).
• Subversion Votes for Hyperbola with a one liner as night approaches, 45 minutes before the deadline. The vote was previously tied at 5-5. There wasn't a vote count with the Jayme mistake in it, as Jayme voted in between the Last Non-Final Vote Count (4.5 hours before deadline) and the Final Vote Count. It could be a freak coincidence, and had it been left at tied Hyperbola would've won, as he achieved more votes first. But maybe it was too close for comfort, as it was 7 - 5 before two people unvoted Hyperbole. Who's to say another wouldn't have jumped ship? Putting it 6-5 made it more secure.
• youngminii as implied by the Subv.'s move. Again, this could be coincidence.
• Rastaban left his vote on citi.zen, a pre-game/pre-role vote, despite promising to change it. He doesn't disappear after this, but rather continues in the thread to argue about the lynch/no-lynch debate, even up until a few hours before the deadline, without ever changing his vote.
• citi.zen and lakrismamma left their votes on ketomai, someone who was almost assuredly going to get mod-killed. Citi.zen did this initially to "get ketomai to participate," and lak followed suit, though when ketomai didn't participate (obv. modkill target) the vote should've been moved, especially after he was replaced by Protactinium. Likely a simple mistake, but should've been addressed more when DTA points out the wtf'ness
• BrownBear sticks out to me for the reasons already been covered. You'd think he's never played Mafia before based on the way he's playing, but that's hardly the case.
On July 22 2010 11:03 SiNiquity wrote: Much love BM. I just went through and tallied the votes since the start of day 2 because I was tired of all the miscounts (and wanted independent verification). Your tally is the first correct count since chaoser counted 10-15 pages back (tho Rastaban was often close). ## Unvote Abstain ## Vote Chaoser I could be a total sucker, but I believe Subversion, and Chaoser reminded me of pre-post-edit? Annnd apparently I walk away from computers and forget to hit post. -_-
Hmm interesting. So BC is either a Veteran or was protected by the remaining medic (orr Medics can protect the night they're killed, and Roffles protected BC). Is that last one even possible?
Now, these are only a few of the posts sinquity has made, but they show a general trend from day 1 and 2 posting where all he seems to do is post very short amounts of content. He has many posts where he quotes large posts and replies with very little, but on average spends most of the first two days talking about vote lists from day 1, then after his day 2 vote goes inactive for over 24 hours. I have ignored the day 3 posts as they are currently current and seems that he is taking a step out of his shell. My overall impression is that he is a Mafia being heavily coached, or a town who was unsure of how to contribute as he seemed to be posting, but nothing of real substance till today. Hopefully time will raw him out of his shell, but as it seems now, that isn’t something I see happening without heavy motivation. I am hopeful that this post calling him out will force him to contribute properly. Always did enjoy being at the top I'd like to address some things you've mentioned. Now, these are only a few of the posts sinquity has made, but they show a general trend from day 1 and 2 posting where all he seems to do is post very short amounts of content. I agree that several of my posts are short, and some (albeit not the majority) could be even construed as "spam" in that they're just "fun" comments (ex: I said I first learned about Mafia in college in response to someone saying they played in the 5th grade). Constructive? No. But if you're not going to have fun with this then why even play. In general though, I try to be helpful where possible, and I think my posts reflect that despite not being as lengthy as say Pyrr's DTA dissertation. Thus I do take some offense to the way you phrase "short amounts of content" in such a negative light, as if they're all (or even a majority) useless spam. He has many posts where he quotes large posts and replies with very little... I searched my posts from Day 1 and Day 2, and I don't really see this reflected that often. In fact unless I'm completely crazy, I would say this is a rash mischaracterization of my posts. but on average spends most of the first two days talking about vote lists from day 1 How can I talk about the vote list from Day 1 on Day 1??  I think you were referring to my activity list from that day, and yeah I talked about it because it was Day 1. What else you going to talk about? I also chimed in on the RNG discussion prior to my activity list compilation. As for Day 2, yeah I compiled a voting history, and then I talked about it. This is what lead to my original suspicion of Subversion, though he followed through with his reason / excuse and convinced me otherwise. ...then after his day 2 vote goes inactive for over 24 hours. Now this is just plain wrong. I think you're referring to my Day 1 vote. And yes, I was gone the whole day, came home shortly into "Night" and saw we couldn't post, so I went to bed. I explained this, don't make it out to be some "mysterious, unexplained vanishing act" that I pulled hoping no one would notice. Again, this is rash mischaracterization on your part. I appreciate the effort you're taking to look into everyone, and I understand that it is very tedious and as such errors are bound to happen, but if the rest of your characterizations are ripe with similar mistakes, I'd be wary of accepting any of the conclusions you've drawn. If you're trying to "figure me out" go for it. It's not hard. I'm a computer scientist / mathematician by trade, and as such I find data patterns to be extremely helpful (which is why I compiled the lists I did). I'm also wary of logical fallacies / leaping to conclusions, which is why you won't find me accusing players with the conviction of some of the others - even if I'm really convinced, I'll be wary of the possibility that I'm wrong (just as with any game of imperfect information), and that I'm ultimately acting on a hunch. This doesn't mean I'm afraid to lynch people, as I recognize town people will unfortunately be killed, and lynching is our only tool to find Mafia (well not counting blues I suppose). Hope this helps
|
Well with 2 / 2 KP roles have claimed (Tricode Vigilante and Citi.zen Mad Hatter), and with no counter claims up to this point, it seems likely that they're both innocent. The only scenario I can imagine where even one of these players isn't innocent is if:
1. Mafia knew the identify of the other KP role (else this player could blow the whistle at any time).
2. Knew that the other KP role would be inactive today (maybe they posted something to this effect).
As far as I can tell, the only way 1. could be accomplished is if they had already infiltrated a DT circle. This then requires
3. Knew that the DT would be inactive today (as the DT would also know 1.)
I searched and it seems Misder is the only one that hasn't posted since the Tricode / Citi.zen claiming party and has hinted he would probably be inactive this go-around. I think everyone else has at least posted, though a few only dropped in some one liners just saying they were either active or trying to catch up and didn't reference Tricode / Citi.zen directly, so it could be they missed it.
Am I missing anything, or barring this outlandish scenario are Tricode and Citi.zen clean?
|
On July 25 2010 04:27 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2010 04:18 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
Well the excrement has hit the air conditioning.
I need to think about this.
I'm actually not sure if the correct play is to lynch South here.
If he IS bomber like he says he is, it'll just be me and him dying. That gives a lot of information against me/him such as those who where making a strong case against me/people who ADMITTEDLY jumped on him. If he's mafia, we just killed a mafia, good job, we still can't 100% trust citi.zen since it could be a ploy to sac one mafia to make the other one more trusted. Not saying that I don't trust you citi.zen, I'm just saying that's a possibility.
Furthermore if Citi.zen is Infested Terran, the sac is worth it. He's a strong player who could argue for the other person to get lynched first if there's a counter-claim, hopefully get the DT circles before then, and then go out with a bang the next night.
On the other hand, if Southrawrea is Mafia, then the reason Mafia could've sent out a "weak" player is that he's the only one that hasn't replied since Citi.zen claimed. I did my list from Tricode, I'd have to make another since Citi.zen claimed.
|
On July 25 2010 04:52 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2010 04:40 SiNiquity wrote:On July 25 2010 04:27 chaoser wrote:On July 25 2010 04:18 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
Well the excrement has hit the air conditioning.
I need to think about this.
I'm actually not sure if the correct play is to lynch South here.
If he IS bomber like he says he is, it'll just be me and him dying. That gives a lot of information against me/him such as those who where making a strong case against me/people who ADMITTEDLY jumped on him. If he's mafia, we just killed a mafia, good job, we still can't 100% trust citi.zen since it could be a ploy to sac one mafia to make the other one more trusted. Not saying that I don't trust you citi.zen, I'm just saying that's a possibility. Furthermore if Citi.zen is Infested Terran, the sac is worth it. He's a strong player who could argue for the other person to get lynched first if there's a counter-claim, hopefully get the DT circles before then, and then go out with a bang the next night. On the other hand, if Southrawrea is Mafia, then the reason Mafia could've sent out a "weak" player is that he's the only one that hasn't replied since Citi.zen claimed. I did my list from Tricode, I'd have to make another since Citi.zen claimed. That's not true and you can't base any analysis on this hunch...
It was a hypothetical based an another unverified hypothesis (the sentence after the one you bolded). You could have just as easily have said "that's not true, as I haven't posted since citi.zen claimed" and been productive about it. But thanks for pointing it out nonetheless.
|
I would very much like to see your backyard
|
My guess is whichever red is volunteering themselves is a suicide bomber. They don't plan on sticking around long as the town's going to lynch them anyway, if not tonight then tomorrow night during the double lynch.
idk, citi.zen's push to get in the center of town circles troubles me.
## Vote citi.zen
Also don't like that he disappeared suddenly after urging everyone to vote now, don't delay!
|
Have we passed double lynch yet? If not, please vote for it
Passing double lynch does not end the day early ~ I was confused about that before but BM clarified.
|
Similarly, if citi.zen flips MH, we can't just kill South next day as he's likely IT as well.
It's a 50/50 shot, and neither is going to be "conclusive."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
