On October 10 2010 08:04 DoctorHelvetica wrote: This is my analysis of SiNiquity, a player of whom I have been suspicious of since day 1 but is growing ever larger now on my radar.
His first posts are useless and I won't quote them for the sake of saving space. They concern the issue of protactiniums smurf.
He continues throughout the beginning posting a lot but making empty arguments others have already made. "Who is protacts smurf?"
On October 06 2010 11:29 SiNiquity wrote: This presumes the Mafia is in a position to win - if they feel like they're losing, then it's the town's game to lose by following through with the lynch.
On October 06 2010 11:29 SiNiquity wrote: This presumes the Mafia is in a position to win - if they feel like they're losing, then it's the town's game to lose by following through with the lynch.
As long as the mafia are still in the game, they stand to lose by not night-killing the VI, regardless of whether it's also "the town's game to lose." To win, the mafia must remove both the VI and the town. A 1% chance to win the game is still preferable to simply losing. I know I've seen games where 1 mafia took out several town by himself with some clever lynch voting. :/
We should also try to start figuring out (if we've already done this, sorry, I just jumped in :/) what role Godfather is posing as, to help the DT do his job with the utmost accuracy. My first thought was that Godfather would pose as VI, and after that I can't decide which of the blue roles (barring DT of course) would be the most viable to pose as. Posing as bulletproof or veteran would cause the DT to defend him heavily against lynch kills, but I think the same probably applies for medic, mad hatter, and vigilante. Any other opinions?
Once the VI is truly out in the open, we could argue that Mafia forfeits now or we lynch the the VI. My point is, by lynching the VI we -also- lose, so yes if the mafia is down then they have no reason to follow through with the kill, just as we have no reason to follow through with it. Granted I see no reason why the mafia wouldn't kill the VI just to get rid of him, but I don't agree that we would be in a position to blackmail them.
Same obvious argument. Of course we can not lynch the Village Idiot.
On October 06 2010 11:22 Protactinium wrote: I'm sorry, am I attacking you? I was pretty sure I was just attacking your ideas, good sir.
Well, then can you offer a logical argument as to why mafia would abstain from night-killing village idiot if village idiot is exposed and town makes the threat I outlined above? I would be glad to hear any thoughtful criticism, as this plan needs to work perfectly to actually get rid of that idiotic nuisance.
Basically, if the town's going to be that much of a panda poacher than mafia can just do the same thing. They don't hit the VI. Then what? We doom ourselves? Chances are we change our mind and the mafia are 1 up on us. Basically, the plan revolves entirely around wifom, which should rarely be used in mafia.
Alright, we have two explantions from why they voted Proctat. What about you, Sinquity?
I called him out to reveal himself, he didn't. If he wants to take his identity to the grave then that's his decision.
On October 06 2010 12:04 SiNiquity wrote: 6. Voting is mandatory. You may NOT abstain. 7. If you miss a vote or fail to post during one day cycle, you will be modkilled.
Not voting: bumatlarge, kane]deth[, Infundi, Crisis_, Happy.fairytail
Not posted nor voted: XeliN, JeeJee
Under the current rules we're looking at 7 mod kills. Hope some of those are mafia :\
Backseat modding, no reason to post this whatsoever.
On October 06 2010 11:22 Protactinium wrote: I'm sorry, am I attacking you? I was pretty sure I was just attacking your ideas, good sir.
Well, then can you offer a logical argument as to why mafia would abstain from night-killing village idiot if village idiot is exposed and town makes the threat I outlined above? I would be glad to hear any thoughtful criticism, as this plan needs to work perfectly to actually get rid of that idiotic nuisance.
Basically, if the town's going to be that much of a panda poacher than mafia can just do the same thing. They don't hit the VI. Then what? We doom ourselves? Chances are we change our mind and the mafia are 1 up on us. Basically, the plan revolves entirely around wifom, which should rarely be used in mafia.
Alright, we have two explantions from why they voted Proctat. What about you, Sinquity?
I called him out to reveal himself, he didn't. If he wants to take his identity to the grave then that's his decision.
10 minutes left.
more backseat modding. so far has added zero content or thought to this game
On October 06 2010 13:44 DoctorHelvetica wrote: I don'twouldn't mind if it'swere over. I think it sets an interesting precedent for future games with a village idiot, but I guess it is pretty anticlimactic.
there, subjunctive. better?
seriously tho, it's gg. Fortunately it's on day 1, so continuing is effectively the same as rehosting.
Exactly. I COULD go through all the hassle of making sure everyone resigns up, reassigning roles, and remaking a new thread... but why bother?
No I agree. Except then at least I'd have a chance at a mafia role I'm always town-aligned, gets old after awhile.
What is the point of this? It's obvious at this point that BB wasn't going to end a game. This is a convenient time for mafia to come out and say "oh but I hate my role as (town role), let's restart". Not overtly suspicious but this is when he became a blip on my radar as "possible red" instead of just "awful and useless town player"
now ALL THE WAY from page 22 to 39 he spams one-liners with NO information. Look at his post history in his profile. It's ridiculous. he goes out of his way to confirm himself as town during twilight and then just continues spamming the thread. word.
Here is his first "big and useful" post. Which was utterly useless. Let's look at it (I'll be posting my thoughts inside the quote in red)
On October 08 2010 12:15 SiNiquity wrote: Disclaimer: This post is does not in any way encourage additional posting of PM or PM related information, nor do I wish to further the discussion of the PMs themselves. This post contains full disclosure of BM's method to further discourage any claiming. However, the prior claims are here to stay, for better or for worse. There's nothing that can be done, yet they've altered the meta game and as such cannot be ignored.
he claims he doesn't want to encourage durther discussion of the PM's but yet his entire post is centered around discussing EXACTLY that.
Alternatively a host could simply come out and confirm that the PM messages were different dependent on host, alleviating us of this meta-game aspect entirely. But if not, then the information's there, and should be taken full advantage of by the townies.
It had already been confirmed some pms were sent by artanis and that they were worded differently.
Now, in short, for those that don't feel like reading the spam starting from page 29 and going really until about page 35, Bill Murray demanded players to roleclaim, but emphasized players should carefully reread their PMs before claiming. It was actually very clever, as there was an underlying secret that only town players would recognize: town players were not PM'ed the word "town" but rather "townie" as their role. XeliN sums this up nicely: complains about spam despite being a terrible spammer himself. BM's plan was clever despite the fact that it was totally useless because not every role PM was worded the same way. SiNiquity either doesn't know this or is feigning ignorance.
On October 07 2010 16:42 XeliN wrote: My take on the whole "Town//Townie" questioning. It seems quite clear to me that the distinction Bill is trying to highlight here is not whether someone is Green or Blue, but on what a Town player was actually PM'd in their role. Seems a little bit shady as a strategy although nonetheless quite effective as I'm now fairly sure he is legitimately Town.
On October 07 2010 16:47 XeliN wrote: In fact it's not even "my take" it's blatantly what he actually means as he frequently say's
"go back and look at your role PM, then tell me Town//Townie"
Him being established town (here's where "my take" is appropriate, you can make up your own minds!) doesn't mean he is correct in calling for bloody's lynch, but I'm going to need to go over the thread more purely with that in mind. OpZ is also suspect to me, along with BC, for missing Bill's intention which was quite blatant, although ofc if they were mafia they would miss it as their role PM would not make his intention blatant.
Ironically, Bill, either in a burst of genius or insanity, incessantly insisted the correct answer was "town." And, best of yet, some people fell for it:
On October 07 2010 14:02 DoctorHelvetica wrote: town
but i'm more confused by your plan than anything
On October 07 2010 14:49 infinitestory wrote:
On October 07 2010 14:46 Bill Murray wrote: You, too, infinitestory.
I claim town.
I have no idea where you could possibly be going with this.
On October 07 2010 14:53 BloodyC0bbler wrote: I'm town, and you already know that.
(Note: BC is especially guilty in this regard, as he kept referring to the town post in the OP as his point of reference). In fact the only player that correctly roleclaimed as far as I can surmise is OpZ:
On October 07 2010 15:16 ~OpZ~ wrote: Really? my role PM says townie. It was also sent by Artanis. Was yours sent by Artanis? -_-
Even now Bill maintains "town" is the correct answer, and his vigilance for this charade is admirable yet simultaneously disturbing on some deeper level. However, props to him for maintaining it for so long (I'd certainly be convinced).
bill maintained town was the correct answer because that's the PM he received. people received different PM's so none of what you just said matters in the slightest bit. there was no trap.
Now there is the caveat that there were different wording in the PMs based on the host. do you even realize this sentence makes your ENTIRE post fall apart?
On October 08 2010 05:41 BrownBear wrote: Both Artanis and I sent out role PMs, to make our workload easier.
As such, take the following conclusions with a grain of salt: I will
Confirmed players from my perspective:
Bill Murray
~OpZ~
XeliN (maybe, first one to put 2-2 together but never identified "townie" as the correct solution).
Suspect players from my perspective:
BloodyC0bbler (claimed "town")
DoctorHelvetica (claimed "town")
infinitestory (claimed "town")
Divinek (just didn't get it, went off on XeliN)
Amber[LighT] (just didn't get it, went off on XeliN)
Nuke (just didn't get it)
you agree with BM's methods and come out with compeltely different conclusions. there are two scenarios that makes this possible. one is that you are dumb and did not understand what BM was saying. you say earlier in the thread that bill murray maintained "town" as the correct answer when it was indeed townie. how did you know this was BM's intention? He never claimed it was. This means you were communicating with BM via PM (which is a rule violation), or because you are both mafia. Or you recieved a role PM that said townie which just goes to prove that the role pms are different.
Still need to look at the votes over the past day to see if there's anything worthwhile there. But I'm certainly curious as to what one of the "town" players will flip ~ if town, then there's possibly a host discrepancy. If not, then this only confirms my suspicions. It's the strongest lead we've got and I see no reason not to pursue it.
Anyway I'm off to bed to mull this over.
Even though he interpreted BM's argument THE OPPOSITE of how BM interpreted it. He still accused bloodycobbler. It seems strange to me that there is nothing in common between their conclusions other than the fact that they both painted BC red (bill murray and SiNiquity)
what did we learn from this post? 1. there is a big possibility BM and SiN have communicated out of game 2. despite interpreting BM's argument very differently SiN still accused bloodycobbler and insisted BM is 100% town.
On October 09 2010 11:54 kingjames01 wrote: I set my alarm so I could wake up before Day 2 ended and I went and checked the voting thread. I noticed that 4 players haven't put their votes in!! SINiquity, XeliN, kane]deth[ and cSc
There's no way that all 4 of you are mafia. DON'T GET MODKILLED! VOTE!!!!!! Remember even if you vote for or against Double Lynching it doesn't count as your lynch vote.
You still need to vote! If you guys lose the game for us tonight I am going to freak out.
cSc is the only one who hasn't voted yet.
On October 09 2010 11:48 SiNiquity wrote:
On October 09 2010 11:41 LSB wrote:
On September 08 2010 13:30 BrownBear wrote: 2 Double Lynches remaining
Interesting...
Anyways, why not use one now, we got a good plan to go with for BM
Wait. So we're double lynching just to lynch BM "for free" tomorrow?
If BM's not mafia, there's no guarantee that Mafia won't gamble that he's not a VI and we waste our double lynch. I also don't believe there's more than 1 VI (protact), but that's just a hunch on my part.
Look, now that I understand BM's plan, I agree it was utterly and ridiculously stupid (seriously - "Hey guys I'm town, so what are you, town/townie, oh and btw if you're blue answer 'town' since that's the super-secret right answer, but otherwise tell me are you town/townie" Gee I wonder what -mafia- would respond with?). From my perspective (i.e. OpZ's), I thought it was all a clever trap.. too clever for BM though, and I should've realized that. But even as bad as his version was, I think it's a stretch to suggest a non-town player would initiate such action relying on some "correct" wording of town PMs which, if wrong, would mean his doom (as it turns out, there was more than one "correct" wording so either way he was right, but he couldn't have known that).
So in short, no, I don't think we should double lynch just to lynch BM, and I'm not convinced we're going to have enough information tomorrow to justify using one of our (two) double lynches.
Also james is correct ~ I've only voted for double lynch so far (and now unvoted). Still weeding through the thread to find my vote candidate.
What is this post about? Protecting BM and explaining his late vote. Mafia like to vote late so that they make sure to have the least conspicous vote possible.
He says "I understand BM's plan" yet in his previous post he interpreted CLEARLY in the exact opposite way BM did. If that is the case there is no way he understood what BM was doing unless they communicated or unless SiN has really really bad reading comprehension.
On October 09 2010 12:47 SiNiquity wrote: I don't think either Misder or XeliN are mafia, and if my tired count is correct they're the current big leaders in the vote.
Would you like to explain? Misder didn't end up being mafia, just a bad townie. But why even say this if you aren't going to provie a reason? Not only does he not back up his defense but he doesn't propose an alternative. He isn't scumhunting which is what town should be doing. Lynching mafia.
If SiNiquity is mafia, Bill Murray definitely is. SiNiquity you have some explaining to do. How did you "know" BM was using the word "town" to trick people and was actually looking for the word "townie". How did you understand BM's argument yet come to different conclusions?
If your role PM said townie than what you said makes sense. If you're admitting to that then a lot of what you said makes sense under that light. Obviously you didn't say that so I hope you can see how the conclusion that you and bill murray had communicated out of game could be drawn?
No I never said (and note that I -still- have not said) what my role is directly because BrownBear explicitly said to stop discussing PMs, and me saying "hey my PM said ________ and was from _______" would be violating this, as well as the disclaimer of my own post (the one from page 39, the long analysis one). I did however allude to it as heavily as I could: Smiley face by Opz when saying who I thought was likely town, saying this was all from "MY" perspective, then clarifying in a later post that "MY" perspective was the same as OpZ's perspective.
I can see how the conclusion could be drawn, but you also mentioned another possibility (namely the real one) but completely dismissed it and used the other one to draw conclusions. That's just dishonest.
you could be very well lying but your defense is satisfying to me. I'm not saying you're definitely mafia but pressure needed to be applied to you to clear that up, is that ok with you? you seem personally very offended
lol offended? No. I'm only offended that we're making crucial decisions on analysis like that. If you are alluding to the fact that my retorts were pointed and often critical of your analysis, then sure.
On October 10 2010 11:37 Artanis[Xp] wrote: Sorry that it's a bit late guys. Night 2 Pandain missed the Mad Max night so he tried to steal the videotape from someone. That person was quite attached to his Mad Max video which was soon filled with the green blood of Pandain. Pandain the Townie is now dead
Voting for day 3 has now begun. Don't forget that it's a double lynch people.
I hate to state the obvious, but only one person died. Are people notified if they are hit but saved (i.e. bulletproof vest, medic save, etc)? I didn't see anything in the OP but I could be blind.
Granted it's more likely that someone's been poisoned.
If your role PM said townie than what you said makes sense. If you're admitting to that then a lot of what you said makes sense under that light. Obviously you didn't say that so I hope you can see how the conclusion that you and bill murray had communicated out of game could be drawn?
No I never said (and note that I -still- have not said) what my role is directly because BrownBear explicitly said to stop discussing PMs, and me saying "hey my PM said ________ and was from _______" would be violating this, as well as the disclaimer of my own post (the one from page 39, the long analysis one). I did however allude to it as heavily as I could: Smiley face by Opz when saying who I thought was likely town, saying this was all from "MY" perspective, then clarifying in a later post that "MY" perspective was the same as OpZ's perspective.
I can see how the conclusion could be drawn, but you also mentioned another possibility (namely the real one) but completely dismissed it and used the other one to draw conclusions. That's just dishonest.
you could be very well lying but your defense is satisfying to me. I'm not saying you're definitely mafia but pressure needed to be applied to you to clear that up, is that ok with you? you seem personally very offended
lol offended? No. I'm only offended that we're making crucial decisions on analysis like that. If you are alluding to the fact that my retorts were pointed and often critical of your analysis, then sure.
I didn't dismiss it. If that is indeed the case then I understand why you interpreted Bill Murray's arguments the way you did. Otherwise the only explanation is that you communicated with Bill Murray outside of the game. I'm not saying one is true and that you're mafia. I'm saying that one of those MUST be true.
It deserves focus because of that possibility. I really don't see any other way you could have come to the conclusions you did about BM other than that.
Crucial decisions? What decision did I make here exactly other than the decision to put pressure. Mind you that's exactly what we as a town need to be doing. Pressuring people.
I never said you made any decisions ~ I'm only saying that every night's lynch is based on stuff like that, and if it's inaccurate or incomplete then you're doing everyone a disservice, because they're probably not going to take the time to so thoroughly analyze your analysis.
I understand the point you were driving at now, but much of your post contained inaccuracies (i.e. me spamming for 17 pages vs 3, and it's not nearly as bad as you allege), misquotes (taking "Look, now that I understand BM" as "I understand BM"), bad summaries ("siniquity saying stupid things about lynching VI, no shit"), etc. That's just off the top of my head, the rest is in my post.
Ironically I'm setting the bar ridiculously high for myself now when it comes to analyzing anyone
If your role PM said townie than what you said makes sense. If you're admitting to that then a lot of what you said makes sense under that light. Obviously you didn't say that so I hope you can see how the conclusion that you and bill murray had communicated out of game could be drawn?
No I never said (and note that I -still- have not said) what my role is directly because BrownBear explicitly said to stop discussing PMs, and me saying "hey my PM said ________ and was from _______" would be violating this, as well as the disclaimer of my own post (the one from page 39, the long analysis one). I did however allude to it as heavily as I could: Smiley face by Opz when saying who I thought was likely town, saying this was all from "MY" perspective, then clarifying in a later post that "MY" perspective was the same as OpZ's perspective.
I can see how the conclusion could be drawn, but you also mentioned another possibility (namely the real one) but completely dismissed it and used the other one to draw conclusions. That's just dishonest.
you could be very well lying but your defense is satisfying to me. I'm not saying you're definitely mafia but pressure needed to be applied to you to clear that up, is that ok with you? you seem personally very offended
lol offended? No. I'm only offended that we're making crucial decisions on analysis like that. If you are alluding to the fact that my retorts were pointed and often critical of your analysis, then sure.
I didn't dismiss it. If that is indeed the case then I understand why you interpreted Bill Murray's arguments the way you did. Otherwise the only explanation is that you communicated with Bill Murray outside of the game. I'm not saying one is true and that you're mafia. I'm saying that one of those MUST be true.
It deserves focus because of that possibility. I really don't see any other way you could have come to the conclusions you did about BM other than that.
Crucial decisions? What decision did I make here exactly other than the decision to put pressure. Mind you that's exactly what we as a town need to be doing. Pressuring people.
I never said you made any decisions ~ I'm only saying that every night's lynch is based on stuff like that, and if it's inaccurate or incomplete then you're doing everyone a disservice, because they're probably not going to take the time to so thoroughly analyze your analysis.
I understand the point you were driving at now, but much of your post contained inaccuracies (i.e. me spamming for 17 pages vs 3, and it's not nearly as bad as you allege), misquotes (taking "Look, now that I understand BM" as "I understand BM"), bad summaries ("siniquity saying stupid things about lynching VI, no shit"), etc. That's just off the top of my head, the rest is in my post.
Ironically I'm setting the bar ridiculously high for myself now when it comes to analyzing anyone
You didn't say "now that I understand BM", but rather "I understand BM".
On October 10 2010 08:04 DoctorHelvetica wrote: After two more useless posts SiN posts this:
Look, now that I understand BM's plan, ...
What is this post about? Protecting BM and explaining his late vote. Mafia like to vote late so that they make sure to have the least conspicous vote possible.
He says "I understand BM's plan" yet in his previous post he interpreted CLEARLY in the exact opposite way BM did. If that is the case there is no way he understood what BM was doing unless they communicated or unless SiN has really really bad reading comprehension.
On October 02 2010 14:25 meeple wrote: Yeah ten minutes a day isn't really playing mafia... you're just doing the bare minimum not to get banned. What's the fun in that?
On October 05 2010 08:07 meeple wrote: a) Mafia statistically hide more amongst the inactives than amongst the active, its not just about non-blues.
b) An inactive lynch has the dual purpose of encouraging both mafia and town to post more. If someone's town then hopefully they'll contribute to productive discussion, but if they're red it leaves a big trail for someone to analyze. The chances of getting village idiot isn't equal to hitting red because there's much more reds than idiots.
On October 06 2010 05:47 meeple wrote: Random lynching is almost never good... read my previous post about how voting inactive is far superior...
On October 06 2010 05:27 Pandain wrote: I don't count Cynan as inactive and Nobody should vote for him because his actions thus far are in accordance with his previous play. That's not to say I'm not watching him(I am) but he's not that suspicious to me.
Whoa whoa... weird defense of cynan... the votes against him were just to bump him back into posting... which he did, so those should eventually fade away to other, more suitable targets. However, he's definitely not in enough danger for another townie to worry about him getting the chop. This makes a lot more sense if you're an anxious red protecting your buddy...
On October 06 2010 05:47 meeple wrote: Past that... I'm going for cynanmachae because I got a lot of funny twinges from reading Pandains post. Besides the possible red link, where if Cynanmachae turns up red, Pandain should also... if Pandain turns out to be green, it "might" say good things about Pandain, since the likelihood of scum sticking up for a green in those circumstances is pretty small...
On October 08 2010 05:19 meeple wrote: BM the problem with you spamming is that you'll never be taken seriously... I have no idea why anyone followed your bs Protact vote... There's 25 people in this game and your posting constitutes a full 1/6 of all the replies in this thread... I hope to god you see a problem with this... especially since most of those replies are like quadruple posts...
If you're so certain of BC, why would you want dts to check him before we lynch? That makes so little sense... stop the shit and do some real analysis... not this stuff about Role PMs
As for me... I see nothing but arguing about shit-all and my eyes are weary. I wasn't completely satisfied with Pandain reasoning for sticking up for Cynan... especially with Cynan's vote for him later... possibly to distance themselves from each other...
Lastly, Someone go Protect/Investigate Xelin. Brownbear just told us straight out that he's Red or Blue
Despite what it may seem I doubt that a host would really make that mistake... that's a pretty big fuck up...
On October 07 2010 15:25 meeple wrote: This is pretty ridiculous... BM stop shitting up the thread
@drag_ I don't think he can be VI since shouldn't there be only one per game? Besides BB made it clear that if you spam to get killed as VI, he's just gonna modkill you.
To be honest, it should happen anyways... I don't know why it hasn't happened before... he usually spams the fuck out of the thread to piss people off and people end up ignoring him or lynching him right away to get rid of the annoying bastard.
On October 07 2010 15:27 meeple wrote: Ah edit... probably doesn't mean that there's only one VI per game... I misinterpreted...
On October 08 2010 05:20 Bill Murray wrote: I am certain of BC, but noone will fucking lynch him. That is why I'm asking DTs to check. If he comes back as "town", he is the godfather. If he is blue, he is possibly legit.
No one will listen because you're blabbering like a fool... the tactic of "I'm loud and obnoxious so listen to me" works in preschool, but not in mafia man
On October 09 2010 13:18 Protactinium wrote: Hrm would anybody be averse to me just flipping Misder? It'll save some time for anybody waiting.
Jesus, you're dead... don't backseat mod. This is BrownBear's game...
Annd that's it. All of his posts. Could be blue skating by, could just have a lot of shit going on. I'd like to hear more.
I'm also suspicious of the fact that CynanMachae is still alive, primarily because it sounded like he soft-claimed blue, Pandain even called him out on it, and he never really refuted it. Surely the Mafia didn't miss this ~ yet they haven't hit a blue yet. It could be they're not blue hunting and are instead simply targeting more experienced players (Bum, Infund, Pandain + whoever they poisoned). He also hasn't been terribly active (got put off by BM spamming which is understandable).
Annnd now no one's been poisoned. :o
On October 10 2010 14:05 ~OpZ~ wrote: I took a hit last night.
On October 10 2010 14:05 ~OpZ~ wrote: I took a hit last night.
err what? it's possible that mafia could poison someone and just have one of their members claim they took a hit you know.
Not saying i think that's the case atm, i've generally seen opz in a pretty good light this game, but don't jump to conclusions so easily!
Sorry, should have included the word "allegedly." Agreed, it's possible. And actually regarding this: The narration usually has some indication how the player was killed (normally it doesn't matter since it's just a mafia hit). However, are players that are poisoned in this game indicated as such, or are they just "killed" like everyone else?
Also, I'm near certain of OpZ's innocence, only because it seems highly unlikely that he would come out and counter-claim everyone's PM claiming, and be in alignment with mine.
This also fits with my theory that the Mafia's not actually blue hunting, but rather hunting experienced players. Hmm. Opz (allegedly), Bum, Infund, Pandain.
Foreword: My analysis is not perfect, but here it is. Oh and by the way, after going through his post history and what he has said he is an excellent choice for today's lynch. Fantastic. Glad we've got that out in the open. Well since you've been through my post history, I expect all of the following will be new and enlightening, since I just responded to Dr. H yesterday.
SiNiquity was extremely active prior to the start of the game, but he went 49 hours between posts once the game started ~ anyone can verify this with the "find" function Alright, let's do that.
September 11 2010 - first post. September 16 2010 - 5 day gap September 17 2010 - 1 day gap September 19 2010 - 2 day gap September 20 2010 - 1 day gap September 21 2010 - 1 day gap September 22 2010 - 1 day gap September 27 2010 - 5 day gap October 04 2010 - 8 day gap October 04 2010 09:24 <-- Post that I received my role October 04 2010 13:00 <-- Game starts October 06 2010 10:41 <-- First "official post" October 06 2010 12:59 <-- Day 1 ends
(a) That pre-game stuff is not "extremely active" by any stretch of the imagination, and even when I did post it was spam by definition as the game had not started. (b) No, I didn't post on day 1 until towards the end, because there was nothing of substance to post about. It's Day 1. I started posting when there was something of interest, namely the revelation by BrownBear and Protactinium that Protactinium was a smurf.
He voted for Protactinium because he smurfed, and this was a bad reason. See point (b) for Dr. H.
SiN took "BM knew protactinium was smurfing... as solid evidence..." I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. I didn't take BM's claim that he was smurfing as solid evidence, I took BrownBear/Protactinium's claim that he was smurfing as fact.
On October 06 2010 10:11 Bill Murray wrote: OK. It's not fair. If I want to meta him, and provide both town and mafia games, I have to say who he is. That is NOT FAIR to me making a case on him.
They wish to remain unknown, I am honoring their request. You may meta all you want with the game they played as Protactinium. I'm sure you can work with that, but it's really not up for discussion.
On October 06 2010 10:11 Bill Murray wrote: OK. It's not fair. If I want to meta him, and provide both town and mafia games, I have to say who he is. That is NOT FAIR to me making a case on him.
They wish to remain unknown, I am honoring their request. You may meta all you want with the game they played as Protactinium. I'm sure you can work with that, but it's really not up for discussion.
What a strange rule. Oh well, I guess we must live with injustice.
I'm leaving it up to Protactinium. If he wants to reveal himself I have no problem with that. If he wants to remain secret, I have no problem with that either.
On October 06 2010 10:25 Protactinium wrote: I won't reveal myself, since that would take effort. Somebody else can graciously do it and save me the trouble if he/she would like.
On October 06 2010 10:11 Bill Murray wrote: OK. It's not fair. If I want to meta him, and provide both town and mafia games, I have to say who he is. That is NOT FAIR to me making a case on him.
They wish to remain unknown, I am honoring their request. You may meta all you want with the game they played as Protactinium. I'm sure you can work with that, but it's really not up for discussion.
What a strange rule. Oh well, I guess we must live with injustice.
I'm leaving it up to Protactinium. If he wants to reveal himself I have no problem with that. If he wants to remain secret, I have no problem with that either.
In my view it is the smurf's burden to enforce the secrecy of his own identity if he so wishes. I don't think mod intervention in protecting someone's identity is fair.
Agreed. Mod should neither encourage nor discourage one to reveal the smurf's identity barring any smurfing rule.
On October 06 2010 10:54 SiNiquity wrote: so protactinium, who are you? You're tied for the lead to be killed.
demanded that he reveal his smurf (not asking what the reasons behind his smurfing could be), and lynched him for it. That's one way of putting it, but that's like saying Romeo and Juliet are a couple of peeps that died for love - accurate only in the weakest sense. See Dr H, point (b). As for why he might, well probably for fun. But let me bit a pedantic: what does smurfing do? Well it conceals your "true" (i.e. more well-known) identity. What is the impact of this in a game of Mafia? It removes an entire player's history from the meta game. Is this advantageous to the town? No, because Mafia is a game of information, and more information is advantageous to the town (less is advantageous to the Mafia).
Couple in the fact that BB said that revealing for him to reveal who Protactinium was wasn't up for debate and that he was going to keep his smurf secret. Again with the over-simplification. BB originally said not to reveal the smurf, then backpedaled into saying he wasn't going to reveal it and would give a "stern look" to anyone that did. Protactinium then came out and said he didn't care and would let anyone who wanted to reveal his smurf. The series of quotes are above.
When you factor in that a mod will usually only let someone smurf for a good reason On what basis do you make this claim?
it is easy to guess Protactinium is most likely a good player. Offing a good player who doesn't have their name behind them would be a good day 1 lynch if you could push it. The implication of this being "SiNiquity offed Protactinium because he's a good player." Which when you actually read it is stupid, because I voted for him to put pressure on him to reveal his smurf and explicitly said so multiple times (again, see point (b)). And just to spell it out (because I seem to consistently underestimate the difficulty it is to make these connections) the implicit implication is that had he revealed his smurf, I would've moved my vote.
Posting about people getting mod-killed is almost as bad as posting vote lists to maintain a level of "contributing activity". One of the #1 thing that usually 1 mafia on a team does is post vote lists to seem active. This is the same general thing, what makes it worse is that this was already posted in BB's vote thread. He didn't even get it himself, he simply reposted a mods information. Yes, I was re-iterating the rules for getting mod-killed, one of which was not voting, since 5 out of the 7 people were actively posting in the thread but not voting in the voting thread. If they're posting in the main thread, but not voting, then the most obvious conclusion is that they're not reading the voting thread. So yes, I tied BrownBear's list with the rules to emphasize that 5 out of 7 people, who were participating, were about to be killed. But you take this and make it look criminal.
Day 2
Keep a close eye on time stamps oh I will (at this rate I'm doubtful you'll get the joke here).
Now, we can see that he posted once during the night period first half of day 1 then came back 24 hours later... Wait, you made that dramatic "Watch the timestamps..." for that? You don't think you could've just said that? Also I was going to rail you for the night / day 1 mix up, but I think that was just an honest mistake.
... to post analysis on me... Don't take it so personally. It was not an analysis on just you, it was an analysis on everyone who claimed "town" when I thought BM meant "townie."
...claiming that I fell for bm's trap and that referring to the OP as a defense was part of my guilt. Keeping in mind that in the rules comparing PM's is against the rules and a modkillable offense. So suspecting me based on NOT breaking the rules. Keeping in mind that "BM's trap" was using "town" as bait (since the real answer was "townie.") So not only was it the wrong answer, it was someone relying on the OP. You can't deny that this is suspicious from my point of view. But then BrownBear confirmed that the PM wording differed and BM explained he really did mean "town," which nullified my theory. But congrats, you're back on my radar. Not for suspecting me, but for making me effectively reiterate everything I've already said a third time. It's almost like you prepared this last night and didn't post it until today (you said you went through my "post history" yet seem to be completely oblivious to the rebuttal I made to Dr. H which addresses most of this).
After that he vanished for just shy 24 hours AGAIN...
lol really, could you be any more over dramatic? This whole post reads like this.
...then started by a few one liners. Yes, I come back and see people pushing for double lynch on day 2, so I start going -wtf- why are we double lynching on day 2?
From there he moved into saying
Look, now that I understand BM's plan, I agree it was utterly and ridiculously stupid (seriously - "Hey guys I'm town, so what are you, town/townie, oh and btw if you're blue answer 'town' since that's the super-secret right answer, but otherwise tell me are you town/townie" Gee I wonder what -mafia- would respond with?). From my perspective (i.e. OpZ's), I thought it was all a clever trap.. too clever for BM though, and I should've realized that."
First off, he had agreed to BM's plan as clever just 24 hours before hand. Because I misunderstood it. This is blatantly stated in the post that you are quoting and analyzing. Ok, now that I've hit my head a few times, I think I've got it. "Look, now that I understand" means that before I didn't understand, but now I do. I can't believe I'm having to connect dots like these.
He also then said that rather than having his own perspective (he was using opz's) I'm dying here. Stop. STOP.
he should have realized the clever trap he liked the day before was too clever for BM? ...Yes. Holy shit. YES. That is absolutely correct.
This seems to me as not really contributing It's seeping from my computer again.
as it is backtracking since he was coming under heat for supporting something really stupid. No I was "backtracking" (just to be pedantic, the correct derogatory term to use here is "backpedaling") because Bill Murray came out and said precisely what he meant. Which was not what I thought he meant.
town players were not PM'ed the word "town" but rather "townie" as their role. XeliN sums this up nicely:
actually, it's the opposite, siniquity. you must be blue/mafia.
I can see him doing this as both town or mafia aligned, but he should have stressed his own reasoning behind it (who convinced him, etc..) rather than just saying someones perspective and moving on. Yeah, I wonder who convinced me I was wrong in my interpretation. It certainly wasn't the person quoted above. And if you still don't get the "OpZ's perspective" thing then you're too dense to be doing this kind of analysis. Especially because it's in my "post history:"
If your role PM said townie than what you said makes sense. If you're admitting to that then a lot of what you said makes sense under that light. Obviously you didn't say that so I hope you can see how the conclusion that you and bill murray had communicated out of game could be drawn?
No I never said (and note that I -still- have not said) what my role is directly because BrownBear explicitly said to stop discussing PMs, and me saying "hey my PM said ________ and was from _______" would be violating this, as well as the disclaimer of my own post (the one from page 39, the long analysis one). I did however allude to it as heavily as I could: Smiley face by Opz when saying who I thought was likely town, saying this was all from "MY" perspective, then clarifying in a later post that "MY" perspective was the same as OpZ's perspective.
I can see how the conclusion could be drawn, but you also mentioned another possibility (namely the real one) but completely dismissed it and used the other one to draw conclusions. That's just dishonest.
you could be very well lying but your defense is satisfying to me. I'm not saying you're definitely mafia but pressure needed to be applied to you to clear that up, is that ok with you? you seem personally very offended
lol offended? No. I'm only offended that we're making crucial decisions on analysis like that. If you are alluding to the fact that my retorts were pointed and often critical of your analysis, then sure.
Does everyone have a broken shift key around here? :\
Spent most the day removing the tint from my car (fuck you nanny states) and now playing catch-up.
From what I can gather, XeliN is getting lynched for the same reason as yesterday (I actually couldn't find many posts by him recently), Amber because of OpZ's analysis, and still looking for the south / kane beginnings.
On October 15 2010 07:13 ~OpZ~ wrote: oh. and im 99% confirmed. no body mentioned that. two people died so no one was poisoned. thank you medic.
I don't follow. Someone gets poisoned and someone gets hit, after which you claim a hit (1 person dies). Then they poison someone again and hit someone again. Initial poison victim dies and new mafia hit dies, so 2 people die last night and no one knows the difference.
The only way we'd be able to tell with such certainty as you claim AFAIK is if the the host were to allude to the poisoning in the narrative. I asked if this would be the case a few pages back but didn't get a clarification.
I don't doubt that you're town, but I just don't follow how 2 people dying last night guarantees your innocence (even up to 99% confidence).
w/e. my gut says BC. He's too strong a player (from the way everyone's treating him anyway, I only played in one other game with him) to be making the mistakes he has: ignored dr. h analysis / my response despite alluding to it in his post (the "I'm not perfect bit" after I railed on DrH, probably overly so, for messing up some things), redoes analysis half-assed, some stupid shit in there like "wtf perspective?" and pads his post with tons of quotes. Then ignores my response to his analysis entirely (yet ironically complains that people ignore him when he posts) and continues to name drop me as a lynch candidate all over the place. There's also the mafia hitting every strong player (opz, LSB, infundi, bum, pandain and even BM) but somehow BC's still alive. Divinek too, despite playing a seemingly very pro-town game. After so many mislynches I'm very distrustful of the huge lead South has had this entire day. So I'm going with my gut, because this lynch feels like every other lynch this game. And those haven't gone so well.
EPT
I'm always town-aligned, gets old after awhile.
Ok, now that I've hit my head a few times, I think I've got it. "Look, now that I understand" means that before I didn't understand, but now I do. I can't believe I'm having to connect dots like these.
