|
On July 24 2010 15:49 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 15:46 youngminii wrote:On July 24 2010 15:31 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On July 24 2010 15:28 youngminii wrote:
Now who's the one causing spam/clutter. It's a solid plan. If he's scum it doesn't matter, he's not going to learn the identities of any blues/DTs. Also, it'll become inherently obvious that he's scum (alongside with his 'DT') by the way the game turns out. Stop arguing a lost cause, it's a good plan apart from the blue mass claim. Do you not realize how pm circles work? He is the direct contact of a "dt" who would be working with the contact of another dt, etc.. If hes red, two people pm him seperately with contacts, he can get info quite easily once you know who someone is. Offs them. If red, his DT is actually non existant. He could be GF who got checked dt went "hurr most likely legit what gf would choose hatter" and gave info, and then ends up getting filtered (as he's still the voice of his dt) so he still gets fed info from the other dt via a chain. HE still ends up in a better position. You would get tops of one red, for however many confirmed blues/greens you give him + names of circles to snipe. It bewilders me that this is lost on you when he can easily prove his case while maintaining the circle he wants to create. Can you pay attention for a minute? I'm saying that he gives the second DT group the name of the original DT. The second DT group can confirm with the DT that citi.zen claims is DT. If he does claim, then it's guaranteed that either citi.zen + DT are both scum or citi.zen + DT are both town. Information such as 'this guy is blue' won't be given out (until maybe later in the game where it's pretty much confirmed that the groups are real), only 'this guy is not red' would be passed around. We would get tops of TWO reds and he doesn't get any blue information until later. I can't believe you don't see this, it's blatantly obvious. Your also assuming that his DT is fine with his name being passed along to until they can confirm eachother an unconfirmed "dt" which leads into possible mafia faking dt to get his info. So instead of bagging two red, a dt can still die. Your idea also has its problems.
Yes I am assuming that his DT is fine. Please think logically, why would citi.zen's trust circle have any problems dealing with the second trust circle? If there's only one trust circle that approaches citi.zen then it's guaranteed that they're town. Only something like what you're doing where you try and get the second group NOT to claim to citi.zen hampers this theory. If two trust circles approach citi.zen then he can decide what to do from there.
|
BC seems confident about southrawrea and does have good analysis on him. And I would like to lynch mafia this time round.
So
Changing my vote
##unvote youngmini
##Vote: southrawrea
|
Your also assuming both DT's have a trust circle. DT's could very easily not trust who they have checked based on actions within a thread, and so haven't talked to them. So one singular circle talking could be a mafia one. The reds could still offer up one of their own in the attempts to delay a townie circle from forming long enough to potentially kill the key members of it. I don't get what is the issue here.
I proposed a sure fire way to A) confirm hes legit + he uses his ability
b) his DT is automatically confirmed by proxy, as would be whoever he checks, then its just a matter of the second dt pming the second confirmed person to citizens dt and voila, you have a circle made that is confirmed via 1 death, as opposed to blind trust.
C) its alot harder for mafia to fake as they can't fake hatters powers when they die.
I'm not exactly sure why you want citizen to be in charge of said circle, when it can be better confirmed legit with his death.
|
On July 24 2010 15:55 Tricode wrote:
BC seems confident about southrawrea and does have good analysis on him. And I would like to lynch mafia this time round.
So
Changing my vote
##unvote youngmini
##Vote: southrawrea
indeed a good example of putting the spot light on one of those inactive bastards like i was wanting to do
##vote southrawrea
|
Just pointing out that point C) is moot 'cause when you flip, you flip your role. And yes, I am assuming both DTs have a trust circle. It would be pretty funny if the DTs weren't making trust circles, wouldn't it? The confirmation process you're describing seems like an unnecessary town (mad hatter) lynch to me. Also, what about the bombs he's placed? Seems to me that you could be scum and by offing citi.zen you're potentially getting 3 kills in one go. It seems more beneficial if town just believes in the plan without all the tiny points that you're bringing up at the last minute.
|
On July 24 2010 15:59 Divinek wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 15:55 Tricode wrote:
BC seems confident about southrawrea and does have good analysis on him. And I would like to lynch mafia this time round.
So
Changing my vote
##unvote youngmini
##Vote: southrawrea indeed a good example of putting the spot light on one of those inactive bastards like i was wanting to do ##vote southrawrea
Everyone now hold your horses on voting south rarwar. Four is a good motivator, I don't want any more or this is going to turn into an unstopable bandwagon like yesterday.
|
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?
|
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.
|
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
|
On July 24 2010 16:02 youngminii wrote:
Just pointing out that point C) is moot 'cause when you flip, you flip your role. And yes, I am assuming both DTs have a trust circle. It would be pretty funny if the DTs weren't making trust circles, wouldn't it? The confirmation process you're describing seems like an unnecessary town (mad hatter) lynch to me. Also, what about the bombs he's placed? Seems to me that you could be scum and by offing citi.zen you're potentially getting 3 kills in one go. It seems more beneficial if town just believes in the plan without all the tiny points that you're bringing up at the last minute.
Because I am 100% certainbased on how hes been playing that if he is legit there is a bomb on me. He has posted more than once that he has suspicions on me, so regardless, I'd die. So if i was scum, no it wouldn't be 3 free kills. You are taking huge leaps of faith whereas you shouldn't be in a position where if hes mafia, town loses. The tiny holes you are describing are actually quite large and I gave a plan to fix said hole, and instead people are wanting to take everything in faith, very scary concept in mafia. IF a DT claimed he would have to offer a red, a vig would have to claim his shot and be willing to die to prove it/be checked, etc... The fact your expectations of a hatter in a much more sensitive spot doesn't meet the same standard is just odd.
|
On July 24 2010 16:17 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 16:02 youngminii wrote:
Just pointing out that point C) is moot 'cause when you flip, you flip your role. And yes, I am assuming both DTs have a trust circle. It would be pretty funny if the DTs weren't making trust circles, wouldn't it? The confirmation process you're describing seems like an unnecessary town (mad hatter) lynch to me. Also, what about the bombs he's placed? Seems to me that you could be scum and by offing citi.zen you're potentially getting 3 kills in one go. It seems more beneficial if town just believes in the plan without all the tiny points that you're bringing up at the last minute. Because I am 100% certainbased on how hes been playing that if he is legit there is a bomb on me. He has posted more than once that he has suspicions on me, so regardless, I'd die. So if i was scum, no it wouldn't be 3 free kills. You are taking huge leaps of faith whereas you shouldn't be in a position where if hes mafia, town loses. The tiny holes you are describing are actually quite large and I gave a plan to fix said hole, and instead people are wanting to take everything in faith, very scary concept in mafia. IF a DT claimed he would have to offer a red, a vig would have to claim his shot and be willing to die to prove it/be checked, etc... The fact your expectations of a hatter in a much more sensitive spot doesn't meet the same standard is just odd.
Now that I think about it... lynching him, wouldn't that be bad? I mean he has TWO bombs, therefore his bombs could be going off on innocent civilians!
|
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.
|
On July 24 2010 16:25 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 16:17 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On July 24 2010 16:02 youngminii wrote:
Just pointing out that point C) is moot 'cause when you flip, you flip your role. And yes, I am assuming both DTs have a trust circle. It would be pretty funny if the DTs weren't making trust circles, wouldn't it? The confirmation process you're describing seems like an unnecessary town (mad hatter) lynch to me. Also, what about the bombs he's placed? Seems to me that you could be scum and by offing citi.zen you're potentially getting 3 kills in one go. It seems more beneficial if town just believes in the plan without all the tiny points that you're bringing up at the last minute. Because I am 100% certainbased on how hes been playing that if he is legit there is a bomb on me. He has posted more than once that he has suspicions on me, so regardless, I'd die. So if i was scum, no it wouldn't be 3 free kills. You are taking huge leaps of faith whereas you shouldn't be in a position where if hes mafia, town loses. The tiny holes you are describing are actually quite large and I gave a plan to fix said hole, and instead people are wanting to take everything in faith, very scary concept in mafia. IF a DT claimed he would have to offer a red, a vig would have to claim his shot and be willing to die to prove it/be checked, etc... The fact your expectations of a hatter in a much more sensitive spot doesn't meet the same standard is just odd. Now that I think about it... lynching him, wouldn't that be bad? I mean he has TWO bombs, therefore his bombs could be going off on innocent civilians!
It is possible yes, but in the same regard, you get a 100% confirmed dt, who will check another dt and confirm him, then you have a fairly large circle, a group of dead players to mark off a player list, and the dts have a much smaller list to check off of and can be safe having very little doubt of infiltration.
|
On July 24 2010 16:17 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 16:02 youngminii wrote:
Just pointing out that point C) is moot 'cause when you flip, you flip your role. And yes, I am assuming both DTs have a trust circle. It would be pretty funny if the DTs weren't making trust circles, wouldn't it? The confirmation process you're describing seems like an unnecessary town (mad hatter) lynch to me. Also, what about the bombs he's placed? Seems to me that you could be scum and by offing citi.zen you're potentially getting 3 kills in one go. It seems more beneficial if town just believes in the plan without all the tiny points that you're bringing up at the last minute. Because I am 100% certainbased on how hes been playing that if he is legit there is a bomb on me. He has posted more than once that he has suspicions on me, so regardless, I'd die. So if i was scum, no it wouldn't be 3 free kills. You are taking huge leaps of faith whereas you shouldn't be in a position where if hes mafia, town loses. The tiny holes you are describing are actually quite large and I gave a plan to fix said hole, and instead people are wanting to take everything in faith, very scary concept in mafia. IF a DT claimed he would have to offer a red, a vig would have to claim his shot and be willing to die to prove it/be checked, etc... The fact your expectations of a hatter in a much more sensitive spot doesn't meet the same standard is just odd.
My leaps of faith do not put us in a situation where if he's mafia town loses. I told you time and time again there's no loss for town if citi.zen is scum. You are the one taking leaps of faith saying "100% certain there's a bomb on me" and you seem to believe in all these little holes. They're not large, it's not town loss if citi.zen is scum and why would you want to off yourself (if you're so sure citi.zen has a bomb)? 3 lives is a huge price to pay just to check citi.zen. This is quite suspicious.
|
On July 24 2010 16:26 tree.hugger wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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.
|
Imo I have evidence against chaoser, and I do believe chaoser and infundilbxbum are linked. Up to you to read my post though, I suppose.
|
On July 24 2010 16:36 youngminii wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 16:17 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On July 24 2010 16:02 youngminii wrote:
Just pointing out that point C) is moot 'cause when you flip, you flip your role. And yes, I am assuming both DTs have a trust circle. It would be pretty funny if the DTs weren't making trust circles, wouldn't it? The confirmation process you're describing seems like an unnecessary town (mad hatter) lynch to me. Also, what about the bombs he's placed? Seems to me that you could be scum and by offing citi.zen you're potentially getting 3 kills in one go. It seems more beneficial if town just believes in the plan without all the tiny points that you're bringing up at the last minute. Because I am 100% certainbased on how hes been playing that if he is legit there is a bomb on me. He has posted more than once that he has suspicions on me, so regardless, I'd die. So if i was scum, no it wouldn't be 3 free kills. You are taking huge leaps of faith whereas you shouldn't be in a position where if hes mafia, town loses. The tiny holes you are describing are actually quite large and I gave a plan to fix said hole, and instead people are wanting to take everything in faith, very scary concept in mafia. IF a DT claimed he would have to offer a red, a vig would have to claim his shot and be willing to die to prove it/be checked, etc... The fact your expectations of a hatter in a much more sensitive spot doesn't meet the same standard is just odd. My leaps of faith do not put us in a situation where if he's mafia town loses. I told you time and time again there's no loss for town if citi.zen is scum. You are the one taking leaps of faith saying "100% certain there's a bomb on me" and you seem to believe in all these little holes. They're not large, it's not town loss if citi.zen is scum and why would you want to off yourself (if you're so sure citi.zen has a bomb)? 3 lives is a huge price to pay just to check citi.zen. This is quite suspicious.
I am not sure you really get the idea. There is a loss for town just by talking to citizen in the first place if hes scum. He would still represent a large piece of a circle for being unconfirmed. Also, 3 lives (it would suck completely if his bombs were both on town) However, it makes the dt's jobs easier to check. It gives a 100% confirmed alliance, lets them share notes on who checked who, when, gives them the ability to systematically find people and root them out. Someone flips red, kill them someone flips green they go on a list, flips blue go on a list. once you've offed all reds, move on to analyzing peoples posts for the most likely to be gf if hes not dead already. The cost is no worse than if he died at night and had his bombs on two townies, as this way his death actually gives information in the form of a confirmed circle. His play is game breaking for whatever side he is on, so what your calling tiny holes as i have said are actually very large.
Just go back and do me a favour and see how hatters have been played previously, they have been used multiple times for information/double lynching, its not a strange concept for me to expect a similar play.
|
I don't mind if hatters are used for double lynching. The 'information' part doesn't apply because it's an open death setup. 3 lives is a huge amount and as I said, it doesn't break the game if he is scum. It will become overtly obvious if he is and two scum will be ours for the taking.
I have an even better plan than your 'kill 3 people to confirm 1 DT'. Why can't we get the second DT to just check the proposed DT and citi.zen? Your logic seems like that of one who's grasping at straws. There's absolutely no downside to the plan if citi.zen is scum. We don't need a huge trust circle that is passing on every single bit of information with each other, which wouldn't be optimal even if the DTs were confirmed because of possible GF in the group. We just need a huge trust circle that is passing on the relevant information.
|
On July 24 2010 17:02 youngminii wrote:
I don't mind if hatters are used for double lynching. The 'information' part doesn't apply because it's an open death setup. 3 lives is a huge amount and as I said, it doesn't break the game if he is scum. It will become overtly obvious if he is and two scum will be ours for the taking.
I have an even better plan than your 'kill 3 people to confirm 1 DT'. Why can't we get the second DT to just check the proposed DT and citi.zen? Your logic seems like that of one who's grasping at straws. There's absolutely no downside to the plan if citi.zen is scum. We don't need a huge trust circle that is passing on every single bit of information with each other, which wouldn't be optimal even if the DTs were confirmed because of possible GF in the group. We just need a huge trust circle that is passing on the relevant information.
Actually, your wrong. IT takes two nights for a dt to clear a dt and a hatter, that means 4 night kills for mafia, which is > than the 3 if the hatter dies.
I don't get you, you seem far to willing to trust a play that is game breaking without realizing its consequences. You don't get two mafia if hes fake claiming You get him. As if he is a red claiming, two dts are sending him information via their curriors unless they were stupid and roleclaimed him themself. This gives him an in to both dts. If someone so much as slips up in pms once, info is given, a dt is dead. Hell just knowing who is in a circle can help you figure out who else is in that same circle. I do get where you are coming from but you honestly don't see the bigger picture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
