EPTTL Mafia XXXI - Page 58
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
SouthRawrea
Canada608 Posts
| ||
|
Misder
United States1557 Posts
Oh, and since I never actually said goodbye, GL town. + Show Spoiler + I can't wait till the post-game analysis. | ||
|
BrownBear
United States6894 Posts
Misder: updated, ty ^^ | ||
|
Protactinium
Canada550 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On October 14 2010 17:04 Protactinium wrote: I'm pretty sure somewhere down the line hosts/people agreed to only have one normal game running at a time... i thought sign ups would take a week and this game would be done by then | ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
| ||
|
BloodyC0bbler
Canada7875 Posts
Right now I want to lynch south and Sin. Sin for the same reasons as yesterday and south because he was super high on the vote list yesterday. I would prefer Sin to die, but as yesterday no one agreed with me I will vote for south for now as he was a target everyone could agree on. I will be around off and on most of the day so hopefully we get some activity going so we can make a good solid lynch today. | ||
|
Divinek
Canada4045 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On October 12 2010 08:04 meeple wrote: Alright... so I was going to write something up on Crisis_ but he's just not that interesting... and not really a contender... I did do a drag_ analysis a while ago since he was someone slipping under the radar. drag_ He hasn't been that active, but when he has... it's generally been pretty genuine. Examples include: In all his posts I can't find anything really scummy and there's nothing fishy about his votes... so for the moment I'm treating him as green. For my votes... since I've been falling a little behind... I weighed in some of the top contenders for a lynch... and figured that Xelin and Southrawrea were the people I felt most scummy of. I'm sure that one of the bandwagons are on a red... and that some of the people who haven't voted yet are mafia waiting to swap a close bandwagon and save their buddy. I'm watching SINiquity, kane]deth[, SouthRawrea, CynanMachae, ghrur, and Crisis_ for that reason On October 12 2010 08:22 ghrur wrote: + Show Spoiler + On October 10 2010 22:15 kingjames01 wrote: Okay, so after making that previous post, I went back through the thread with the intention of extraction each and every post made in-game by the players from the short list above. I wanted to cross-reference their votes made in the other thread so that I could look for inconsistencies and patterns, complete with timelines and personal comments. I started in numerical order as dictated in the OP and I was typing this all up in a text editor but I just have to share with you something. SouthRawrea is either a very bad Town or a very bad Mafia. Let's examine his 17 posts. + Show Spoiler + On October 05 2010 09:29 SouthRawrea wrote: This game: There are several differences in this setup than regular mafia games in case you can't be bothered to read the role descriptions. 1) Detective must wait until Night 2 for investigation which is frankly not helpful as it is 1 less report overall per detective. 2) Vigilante gets their shot or bat back if they overlap with mafia. Not a huge deal as an overlap isn't that likely. 3) Godfather can fake Village Idiot. Frankly as some have stated before this may be a bit OP and is a very good reason for Vigilante to save their bat. 4) Roleblocker now cannot block someone twice in a row which make DT claiming a little more viable especially once mafia loses a KP. 5) Mafia can practically save a KP for the next day while the poisoner is still alive. Three huge things to watch out for 1) Like stated earlier, the Vigilante must not shoot until we get a Village Idiot report as it is the only way of safely killing a potential Village Idiot/Godfather as town. 2) Mafia can continuously use poison from any point in the game and have on of their players claim hit Veteran. The mafia will then be able to unleash 3 NK at any one night from that point onwards while having 1 NK the night before the claim and 2 NK for every night in between. This can be dangerous if town is too trusting of the hit claim and/or forgets about the 3 NK. Ex: Night 2 : 1 poison 1 shot Day 2: 1 death, mafia claims hit Night 3: 1 poison 1 shot Day 3: 2 deaths Night 4 1 poison 1 shot Day 4: 2 deaths Night 5: 2 shot Day 5: 3 deaths 3) Finally in a Lylo situation with Village idiot still alive, mafia can have a joint-win with the Village Idiot by lynching him. This will result in the day ending with both the Village Idiot and the Mafia's win requirements being fulfilled. (VI gets lynched and mafia # = town #) Comment: This post reiterates content from the OP with commentary and ways the mechanics will come into play. There is no stance taken on how Day 1's lynch should take place. Overall a very shallow post. Note that SouthRawrea advocates saving the Vigilante to use against the Village Idiot. My question is what takes preference, killing a Red or the VI? + Show Spoiler + On October 05 2010 11:27 SouthRawrea wrote: I'd have to agree with most of this. Mafia often snipe the quiet folk as they are often medics or other good power-roles. In my first game on TL where we were mafia that was one of the tell-tale signs of the medic we sniped. I'd also agree with you on the DT building an argument but I'm against claiming at this point in time until the DT builds up a few more reports. He can't just let his reports do the work for him; he has to be a proactive townie. I'm going to assume that last part was directed to me. This kind of situation was common on the site I used to go on and made the Village Idiot all that more dangerous. This reinforces the reasoning that I had for saving the vig shot until we're sure that we've got either the idiot or the GF. Comment: Seems to be a passive-aggressive push for the Blues to come out of hiding. The Medic should not be "one of the quiet folk" or the mafia will know who he is. The Detective has to be a "proactive townie". Again, he says to save the Vigilante but adds that the Godfather should also be considered a good hit. How do we identify the Godfather anyway? Could be well-intentioned advice; I'm not sure. Supports ~OpZ~. + Show Spoiler + On October 05 2010 21:48 SouthRawrea wrote: Woot no joint wins!  )))Comment: No substance. Expresses happiness over the ruling that VI cannot share wins. Consistent with above post. + Show Spoiler + On October 06 2010 05:04 SouthRawrea wrote: At this point in time I would have to say that NuketheBunny's current strategy is pretty blatant and although I don't completely agree with how he's going about doing it, I would have to say I would like to get the more experience inactives to say something. I'm seeing some of the newer players being earnest in their attempt to play (ex: kingjames01) and this is a good sign. As they are much newer I wouldn't expect them to contribute as much. We're only 3 pages into this game so far however and although I believe we're jumping the gun on the entire: lynch inactives. We are left with the problem of only 11 hours left in this game and plenty of inactives though so if we must come to an accord quickly for our lynch. Random Lynch is a good option in this game as we have many newer players which also explains the high number of inactives. Oh god I'm terribly sorry about how unorganized this post is, I'm brain dead at the moment. :/ What I mean to say is that this day is short, we have lots of new players who are inactive, we should random lynch because many players haven't been given a proper chance to post as of yet. Comment: Wants inactive players to be more active. Does not support lynching inactives this early in the game. Supports voting randoms. Is neutral to NukeTheBunnys. October 06 2010 05:07. (07:53 remaining Day 1) ##Vote Divinek Justification: None provided. I don't understand this vote. I just checked and SouthRawrea is the only other person to have voted for Divinek including retracted votes. Was Divinek chosen randomly, then? Or is there some other reason? + Show Spoiler + On October 06 2010 05:46 SouthRawrea wrote: That's not how RNG works usually. A couple people will RNG rolls and the town will bandwagon  . Derp. Sorry my head wasn't all there when I was typing up that post.Comment: Divinek points out that SouthRawrea does not justify his vote and assumes it was random. SouthRawrea says that random votes start bandwagons. + Show Spoiler + On October 06 2010 09:45 SouthRawrea wrote: Err BM he wasn't in TL Mafia XXX... ? I'd also like to hear more about the smurf thing :O. Comment: Indicates he does not know the smurf's aka. + Show Spoiler + On October 06 2010 11:20 SouthRawrea wrote: It's funny because I remember who pro is and I'm going to leave pro be. Comment: Indicates he does know the smurf's aka. I don't understand. October 06 2010 13:00. (00:00 remaining Day 1) Protactinium is lynched. Comment: The day finishes and he never switched his vote from Divinek who he "randomly" chose. + Show Spoiler + On October 06 2010 21:46 SouthRawrea wrote: I lol'd so so soooo hard. Comment: No substance. Inanity. + Show Spoiler + On October 06 2010 22:06 SouthRawrea wrote: Hey Happy.. the game is still on .. reaad. Comment: No substance. Also, ironic since Happy.fairytail was modkilled and replaced. "reaad" October 07 2010 13:00. (00:00 remaining Night 1) bumatlarge and Infundibulum are killed. Comment: No direct link between these three players. + Show Spoiler + On October 09 2010 07:00 SouthRawrea wrote: AH forgot about this game totally with getting my haircut and preparing for other stuff and what not :/. Strangely enough I find myself agreeing with BM's take on Happy.fairytail and BC. I'm going to completely ignore the Role PM controversy (with the whole TOWN vs CITIZEN thing) as even if it wasn't a miscommunication, in my opinion BM comes out on top simply because it is slightly suspicious. I would like to say this, I've been pretty inactive this day but I find that Misder's posts during day 1 have been consistent with not wanting to lynch without reasons. Eventually he gradually admits that he wouldn't want to lynch an inactive but votes for Xelin and then switches to Opz because he was inactive as well. This to me screams timid town role behaviour rather than mafia simply because his votes aren't quite bandwagonesque. In this case I believe that NuketheBunnys if mafia. Comment: Explains inactivity. Will ignore PM controversy. However, the PM controversy makes BC look suspicious. Justifies Misder's choice to lynch inactives on Day 1. Inconsistent with above. Claims NukeThe Bunnys is mafia. I just read the rest of the post and his logic for this claim very tenuous. Nuke is mafia because he opposes Bill Murray. Also, insinuates that NukeTheBunnys makes "empty promises". Opposes Happy.fairytail/BloodyC0bbler. Supports Bill Murray. Supports Misder. Opposes NukeTheBunnys. October 09 2010 07:01. (05:59 remaining Day 2) ##Vote NukeTheBunnys Justification: NukeTheBunnys opposed Bill Murray October 09 2010 07:27. (05:33 remaining Day 2) ##Vote Double Lynch Justification: None provided + Show Spoiler + On October 09 2010 08:31 SouthRawrea wrote: I was actually pleased that NuketheBunnys made that post and then I read it. >.> Think of analysis like an English essay. The point of it is not to summarize but to prove a point. :/ A couple ways to improve this is to perhaps cut out some one liners or group them all together and provide your point for them altogether. An example of what you could've done is instead of saying "buddies up with xelin even more", you could've tried to indicate a connection between the two and went over a handful of their posts in relation to each other (When doing this just look to see if there is anything that shows an obvious connection between the two). If this is horrible advice I'm sorry but I'm pretty sure that it's good advice . You did provide a conclusion at the end which was essential but it'd be nice if you could link it all together.Comment: Here SouthRawrea supports NukeTheBunnys post? Then proceeds to disparage his arguments because they do not prove a point? Will investigate more. Okay, I just looked up the post. It is a very detailed look into Bill Murray's behaviour in the game. I think that the evidence provided paints a very convincing picture. Why does SouthRawrea not comment on the validity of the arguments rather than the structure of the post? Also, why doesn't he quote this post so we know what he's talking about? Finally, he doesn't retract his earlier insult about delivering on "empty promises". Opposes NukeTheBunnys. + Show Spoiler + On October 09 2010 08:46 SouthRawrea wrote: I can answer #1 for you Kingjames: Usually it's safer to maintain a worst case scenario mindset until we get a bit more insight into whether or not there is a roleblocker. (ex: roleblocked claim) Comment: This was an answer to my question about why Pandain assumes the presence of the RoleBlocker. Satisfactory and illuminating. October 09 2010 13:00. (00:00 remaining Day 2) Misder is lynched. + Show Spoiler + On October 10 2010 05:58 SouthRawrea wrote: Hey people that voted Misder, I'm checking you out. Comment: Empty and completely unnecessary threat. I'm sure anyone who is innocent will do the same thing. Supports Misder (who is dead). + Show Spoiler + On October 10 2010 10:45 SouthRawrea wrote: Just because I'm not allowed to PM, I'd like to express my wish to PM Pandain expressedly. PANDAIN I WANT TO PM YOU. Just a suggestion: Questioning of Siniquity/BM on the part of the mods might be a good idea. People who voted for lynching Misder in order of best reasons: Pandain - Pretty well done analysis on http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=151150¤tpage=38 ~OpZ~ -For the unexplained vote Misder put on ~OpZ~ infinitestory - Actually makes a post explaining why he though Misder was suspicious though I can't see why he'd vote for him in particular because he had plenty of other suspects at the time. DoctorHelvetica - No good reason. He was tunneling Siniquity the entire time and gave no real reason for Misder. LSB - He basically goes to pandain "who know you might be right" and votes Misder... drag_ - Absolutely nothing. A total of 10 posts. There almost seem to be 12 posts but 2 of those are from a link of siniquity's This was just me scanning over the posts and making it public who I'm going to examine. I would start with drag_ but because he has so little posts I thinking I'll examine him and LSB (as JeeJee didn't make a single post). Most likely within the same day I will go over DoctorHelvetica and/or Xelin because this particular post caught my eye. It just seems like a post that could be reduced to under 10 words and has no explanation within it and only an elongated 1 point opinion. I know I've been guilty of this to some degree except without just providing opinion. However it seems like major "slipping under the radar" to me. In case of my death tonight Suspects: Xelin, DrHelvetica, BloodC0bbler and at least 2 of the newer players including KingJames, drag_ and infinitestory. Comment: Publicly states he wants to break the rules. Implies that he does not have the ability to PM. I don't understand the "Questioning of Siniquity/BM on the part of the mods". Lists the players who voted for Misder during the previous day and their justifications. Only provides a link to Pandain and summarizes the rest in his own words. Of the 6 voters, only Pandain has a good reason apparently. Expresses intent to investigate drag_, LSB, DoctorHelvetica and/or XeliN. Will keep an eye out for this. For good measure, he accuses (without justification) BloodyC0bbler, kingjames01 and infinitestory. Suggests that he might die overnight. Supports Pandain. Opposes drag_. Opposes LSB. Opposes DoctorHelvetica. and/or Opposes XeliN. Opposes BloodyC0bbler. Opposes kingjames01. Opposes infinitestory. + Show Spoiler + On October 10 2010 10:53 SouthRawrea wrote: :D I'm glad you could consolidate your posts. No hard feelings? I actually think I screwed the ctrl+f thing that one time while searching. It began the search part way through. Sorry about that. It wasa genuine mistake. I was going back through what I searched through just to make sure everything was right and yeah you did express suspicion. I'm in no way clearing you though .Comment: I think he is referring to DoctorHelvetica's response. Very slimy and takes back his earlier statement about DrH's lack of justification for voting Misder. This seems suspicious. Is neutral to DoctorHelvetica. + Show Spoiler + On October 10 2010 10:55 SouthRawrea wrote: Other junky posts were available at the time . I just felt you didn't have as good of a raisin bran muffin. (reason)Comment: LSB defends his vote and SouthRawrea implies that LSB should have chosen someone else. + Show Spoiler + On October 10 2010 11:01 SouthRawrea wrote: EBWOP: Sorry for triple post but post 1 is directed toward DrH and Post 2 at LSB Comment: No substance. Confirms that his previous two posts were directed at DoctorHelvetica and LSB as I thought. October 10 2010 13:00. (00:00 remaining Night 2) Pandain is killed. Conclusion - Casts vote on Day 1 without justification - Indicates that he opposes lynching inactives because the "town will bandwagon" - Justifies Misder's choice to lynch inactives - Implies he does not know the smurf but in the following post says he remembers who the smurf is - Accuses NukeTheBunnys of being mafia since he opposes Bill Murray - When NukeTheBunnys replies, SouthRawrea dismisses all arguments by saying it's not in an essay form. Calls it "good advice". - After Misder is lynched and revealed to be Town, SouthRawrea quickly aligns himself and makes an empty threat - SouthRawrea publicly aligns himself to Pandain citing that he was the only one with a good "raisin bran muffin" - In the same post SouthRawrea accuses drag_, LSB, DoctorHelvetica, and/or XeliN, BloodyC0bbler, kingjames01 and infinitestory - Suggests that he might be a target that night - 2 hours and 15 minutes later Pandain is killed - No post since Together in one place, these posts paint SouthRawrea into a very small corner. I propose that the town takes action. I want SouthRawrea to explain himself. This is a beautiful post. the last part is especially great for summarizing why SouthRawrea seems suspicious Allow me to further this by looking at some of his recent posts: + Show Spoiler + On October 10 2010 10:45 SouthRawrea wrote: Just because I'm not allowed to PM, I'd like to express my wish to PM Pandain expressedly. PANDAIN I WANT TO PM YOU. Just a suggestion: Questioning of Siniquity/BM on the part of the mods might be a good idea. People who voted for lynching Misder in order of best reasons: Pandain - Pretty well done analysis on http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=151150¤tpage=38 ~OpZ~ -For the unexplained vote Misder put on ~OpZ~ infinitestory - Actually makes a post explaining why he though Misder was suspicious though I can't see why he'd vote for him in particular because he had plenty of other suspects at the time. DoctorHelvetica - No good reason. He was tunneling Siniquity the entire time and gave no real reason for Misder. LSB - He basically goes to pandain "who know you might be right" and votes Misder... drag_ - Absolutely nothing. A total of 10 posts. There almost seem to be 12 posts but 2 of those are from a link of siniquity's This was just me scanning over the posts and making it public who I'm going to examine. I would start with drag_ but because he has so little posts I thinking I'll examine him and LSB (as JeeJee didn't make a single post). Most likely within the same day I will go over DoctorHelvetica and/or Xelin because this particular post caught my eye. It just seems like a post that could be reduced to under 10 words and has no explanation within it and only an elongated 1 point opinion. I know I've been guilty of this to some degree except without just providing opinion. However it seems like major "slipping under the radar" to me. In case of my death tonight Suspects: Xelin, DrHelvetica, BloodC0bbler and at least 2 of the newer players including KingJames, drag_ and infinitestory. Once again, accusing multiple people without detailed analysis. Instead, he scans and accuses. Why would anyone accuse 6 people at once? It seems to just cause confusion and make people point fingers instead of doing what town should ACTUALLY be doing. Analyzing behavior, focusing on specific, scummy points, and hunting reds. Pointing all around does nothing. It's just as good as using a RNG. + Show Spoiler + Double Lynches are situational and in games usually by Day 3, the town has gathered enough information that they have at least a handful of suspects in mind especially if there is a claim/counterclaim situation at hand. Notice, he only posts a reason AFTER he voted and AFTER someone questioned him on it. Trying to slip under the radar? Probably. + Show Spoiler + I accused NukeTheBunnys based on his hesitance to analyze Bill Murray even though he was sure the Bill Murray was either Village Idiot or Mafia Interestingly enough, this is why I'm also accusing you. SouthRawrea has been hesitant to go into any detailed analysis about players despite his accusations. + Show Spoiler + I realized that i was low on the post count at this point in time and that I had to take a bit more action. Once again not empty. >.> Now this is truly interesting. Why would one be afraid to be low on post count? BM is very high on post count and it isn't exactly helping. But here's the thing, posts reveal information. SR might be hiding in the shadows because he doesn't want to give town any more information than necessary, much like the advice listed in the most basic of guides, http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=132936. So what does he do? He gives posts with little information. Absolutely minimal. An empty threat to boost his post count so he's less likely to get noticed. Very fishy to me. The lack of analysis and the boosting of post count with spam posts seem really suspicious to me. If he were pro-town, he'd definitely be more active with useful, beneficial posts instead of just throwing it off with On October 12 2010 08:49 SouthRawrea wrote: Okay first of all that's what she said and second: drag_ A new player he spends his first few posts, like many other new players, trying to orient himself in this game. Here in this analysis I'll be avoiding posts such as these in order to get to the point (I may however refer to them to attempt to get a better grasp on his behaviour) : + Show Spoiler + On October 06 2010 01:47 drag_ wrote: Hi guys, I'm generally going to be posting around this time as it fits my time zone/schedule better I don't really understand the point of voting inactives off? I'm new at this game, but surely that just makes it really easy for the mafia to avoid getting voted off for the first few rounds. Unless they're just really lazy... The first post giving insight into his mindset is: + Show Spoiler + On October 06 2010 05:42 drag_ wrote: It's a hard choice for me, because there's so many layers meaning (if unclear read the Old Man and the Sea) behind every post. However, you, Mr. Kingjames seem to be trying a little too hard in my eyes to already single out a target and to shift blame elsewhere. I'm a little more skeptical of people who post a lot of accusative posts as opposed to just general conversation. He begins by expressing his inability to make a choice which can be perfectly normal depending on your approach to this game on your first play. The real defining factor here is that he does not like the fact that Kingjames01 begins laying down an FoS on Crisis_. This is due to the reason that this attack was premature in drag_'s opinion and prefers to have lighter topics fill the thread. One could argue that he wants to come off as a timid player as to slip under the radar. The other likely scenario here is that he isn't completely familiar with the game's mechanics. Let's delve further into his posts. As this next post is upon the same topic, we are able to see a more detailed analysis on the characteristics we took a peak at in the previous post. + Show Spoiler + On October 06 2010 06:26 drag_ wrote: This just furthers my point about you. You act as if my post was all part of your multiple phase plan, before completely changing the subject to you accusing me of lying in wait and singling you out with my 'slimy words'. Once again another clear shift of blame from yourself towards me and another accusative post. If this were a debate I would have to hand the win to kingjames01. drag_'s response to Kingjames' response is that of one who reads selectively. He first avoids the fact that Kingjames is actually working earnestly to earn the town information and skips to the part of the post directed at him. I am personally confused however by his accusation of a multi-phase plan. I can only assume that he means Kingjames laid a trap for drag_. This however is not the case as drag_ really did come out of hiding from having only 1 post to a sudden assault on Kingjames' playstyle. Now comes an example of classic hypocrisy: Drag_ attacks kingjames, Kingjames attacks drag_, drag accuses kingjames of shifting blame all the while shifting blame from himself. Brilliant. As any faction in this game, drag_'s intention would be considered sound as he is defending himself from a retaliatory post. What needs to be taken note of here is his opposition to early votes on people. This suggests that he has an affinity for passive play in this particular game but is quick to defend himself. This next post I find is riddled with distinctive traits. + Show Spoiler + On October 07 2010 15:20 drag_ wrote: I don't really understand you Bill Murray. You post a lot of spam posts and you draw a lot of attention to yourself while alienating yourself from the rest of us. This could mean your VI and you're trying to piss us off and make it look like your mafia so we vote you off. That seems a little too obvious though. What I do think could be possible is that you are using this spam to make it look like your VI when you really could be red, but we don't lynch you because we're scared you're VI. Not an accusation per se, just general chit-chat. The first thing that I notice is one thing he says in particular: "alienating yourself from the rest of us". He clearly believes that he is the same as the rest of the players and this is the way the game should be. Out of the three possible color-coordinated roles one can get (barring Village idiot) who benefits the most from making others think they are exactly the same as the rest? Mafia. The blues do benefit from this but not as much and the townies shouldn't care at all as they are trying to find mafia, not fit in. Next: He shows his disdain for Bill Murray's spam quite clearly but he himself suffers from the opposite: lack of posts. Lacking posts or having the bare minimum is another commonly used tactic to slip under the radar. I will clarify here what should already be known by all the players here just to emphasize my point: Trying to slip under the radar is an anti-town move. I know I am guilty of this to an extent but if you've played with me you'll know that I'll come up with several large posts throughout the course of a game. As well another thing I find strange is that he still thinks that chit-chat is the best course of action at this point in the game. Huh.. The two explanations that I can think of are : 1) STILL not familiar with the game or 2) Trying to slow down town's progress. Regardless, I move on. It seems hypocrisy is this man's strong suit as with only 4 in game posts he posts this: + Show Spoiler + On October 08 2010 05:30 drag_ wrote: There are so many little sub-arguments going on right now I'm really struggling to make heads or tails of anything. That said, while BM may be a tool, I think it's more important to crack down on inactive people. In a 25 person game it's really easy to slip under the radar. I feel like focussing on BM is just a waste of time atm. He pulls the confused card that is used every once in a while in a mafia game to give himself an excuse not to formulate an opinion at that point in time. Not a good thing to be doing as town. The next little bit although it may be hypocritical, it erects a facade. It makes it seem as if he is not one of those inactives that he wishes to crack down on and that he is genuinely interested in advancing in discussions as town. This here, although it may not be much evidence, screams mafia to me. I skipped a post because I felt that the question he asked wasn't worth analyzing but this next one contains a bit of information that we can squeeze out. + Show Spoiler + On October 09 2010 03:21 drag_ wrote: Just because he's an "asshole" (mean to imply his posting habits are annoying) does not mean I consider him mafia. Secondly, I feel he is harmless, but I didn't rule out the possibility he isn't. I am really curious to discover what he is - he's really giving me a mind-fuck and I wouldn't mind his death via vigilante. Sure enough he wants Bill Murray dead but not by lynch.. simple. The information we can gain from here is that so far up until this point he has not had a SINGLE opinion on the alignment of a single player. He does not want to make any enemies and sure as hell does not want to be Public Enemy #1. He's perfectly okay with picking on Public Enemy #1 however as that is a relatively safe move. He has yet to contribute in ANY way at all, not even in the slightest. And yet another post from this "great" player: + Show Spoiler + On October 09 2010 02:23 drag_ wrote: Ok thanks for clarifying. I guess I'll give a little insight into what I'm thinking: NuketheBunnys: This guy kinda seems a little clueless of the big picture, I'm not so sure on his analysis and his comments, he seems to focus on inactives. However, I think it's pretty fair to say he's town. The style of his writing and the way he comes off is very hard to fake imo, so I'd be fairly sure he's town. Say 85% BM: Asshole. Would be a definite target for tomorrow, however I'm unsure about him today. DocH + Pandain: I'm almost positive you two are either Blue or Red. There's something not quite right about both of you, but I can't put my finger on it. ATM I'm more inclined to agree that you're Blue, however I'm a little skeptical at your strong support of a double lynch. That said, I have no real reason to suspect your red - just a gut feeling you know? BM: asshole. That said, I feel you're pretty harmless. You clearly have this whole "TL Mafia" persona, from looking at your other posts outside of mafia. I feel that although he looks harmless, he needs to die. I hope he gets vigi'd but he would definitely be a target for me tomorrow. Xelin and Crisis_: These guys are shady. But I really no connection between the two of them - I have a feeling one of them is red and the other is green, however I can't put my finger on it. KingJames: Really got no read on you - you were really aggressive on day 1, but since then you've basically posted 0 content. This might be because you don't want to stick out - meaning you could either be taking orders from someone else, or you don't want to become a target. Really unsure about you. Other people really haven't been on my radar. These aren't meant to be taken as accusations, more just what's running through my head if you feel me. Aside from calling BM an asshole twice (lol) he finally starts coming up with a couple of opinions on people. What I would want to say here is something along the lines of no one cares but I wouldn't do that . He however returns to his timid stance when he says "these aren't meant to be taken as accusations". I'm sure even he can see a common theme within his posts. " I'm going to attack only when someone really won't be able to get me back and I'll stay quiet about everyone else and perhaps just quiet in general so that no one notices me."Ah and his longest post! + Show Spoiler + On October 12 2010 04:55 drag_ wrote: Ok, I did some voting analysis for what it's worth. There a lot of assumptions, but here goes: Firstly, some assumptions. The mafia has 5 votes. I think it's fair to say that they clearly do not vote in one big block. However I think it's also fair to say that they don't vote for 5 different guys completely randomly. My guess would be that the mafia may be split into 2 or 3 groups - where each day 2 people will vote for the guy they want to hit to make sure he dies, and the others will vote relatively randomly to prevent any sort of pattern emerging. This could be true because the mafia will never stay in one group, because if one gets caught then it makes it much easier to find the rest. This is all theory - no factual evidence to support this, but I think it could possibly make sense. Therefore, to identify some clue of who the mafia is we need to look at someone who votes for the person killed, and then votes for someone on pretty weak evidence. However this is far too general, and cannot be conclusive. However the vote for the double lynch just passed yesterday gaining exactly the 12 votes needed. Now there were 20 voters yesterday - I will not include myself because I'm confident in my not being red. If we look at around two hours before the vote there are three votes for double lynch that come in the space of 15 mins. Now there is nothing overly suspicious of this, except that all three of these people had voted before with who they wanted to lynch and then as it seemed the double would not pass they support it. These are: LSB Sinquity Crisis_ Now just for fun I'll do a little probing into each of them. That's what she said. I'm unsure about LSB - he didn't make a vote first day so it's hard to analyze what the rationale behind his vote was. Sinquity is a little more fishy potentially. On day 1 he voted for protactinum, who was later lynched. He does not post an actual reason for protactinium, unless I can't find it. Also, on day 1 the person who attacked him the most was Panda, a very good townie. Panda was later bumped off the next day. However next day he votes for meeple, and is the only one too, seemingly without any reason. Then a full day later he posts his rather short explanation This really is not convincing reasoning to me. It seems half hearted, and furthermore he does not follow up with this after he votes. He has not mentioned Meeple at all since this post if I searched correctly. The timing of his vote for Meeple is also peculiar. He votes at 11:45, when it is almost certain that Misder is going to be lynched. At his time of voting he still hasn't provided justification for Meeple, I believe. This to me almost seems like he just picked a random then attempted to justify it later. Why? I believe he was waiting to make sure misder got lynched. Once it was clear he cast a vote that would draw attention away from himself. Furthermore he votes for the double lynch late in the evening, at 10:22, under the pretext that Xellin told him that there were unlimited doubles. This is dubious. If you were curious, you would look on the front page, where it clearly states there are 2 remaining. Unless of course he's looking for an excuse to pull back on his vote at a later date. Once again why? At his time of voting there was a lot of voting activity in general. It was not absurd to see someone withdrawing from the double. However his vote gave the double a 1 vote security against this. It would be more revealing if every time someone pulled out, one person immediately took his place to make an exact 12. He himself then pulls out because he sees Xelin "lied to him". This draws attention away from him and to Xelin, when it was a simple problem to begin with, and it supplies him with a fair motive to change his vote. Although I'm unsure why he pulled out. This is what puzzles me. One possible motive is that he wants to give a conservative front and act as if he wants as little death as possible, contrary to the mafia. I'm unsure, but I have to say the statistics are little curious. Crisis_: He follows the same pattern of voting for the person who gets lynched, and then voting seemingly randomly. He votes for protactinium, and then he is the ONLY person to vote for BillMurray. He once again posts his vote before giving a reason. His explanation is also not very convincing: He posts this after his vote. This is not an explanation of any detail. He later claims he will change his vote, but of course he does not. However, he does participate in the voting thread again. This clearly means that he hasn't forgotten, but has no intentions of switching his vote. At 8:49 at the end of Day 2 he makes this post From this we know that he is aware Panda is online, and Panda replies to his question 3 minutes later, yet it takes Crisis a full 1 and a half to change his post, and he provides 0 reasoning for it. This makes it seem as if he is asking someone else about the double lynch. His vote change is at the same time as Sinquinity's. To me it appears that he was waited for Sinquinity to reply to his question about the double lynch, and getting the go ahead from siniquity, he changes his vote. From the time of their posts we can tell that they were online at the same time. Sin had not posted for awhile, while we know that Crisis had been online for a long time. There is very little reason I can see for the delay in Crisis changing his vote, unless he was waiting for something, like Sin answering his question. This may also explain Sin's post including Xellin. A potential scenario: Sin replies to Crisis to vote for the double. Sin then sees it might not past and wants to vote for it to create a bandwagon effect, or just for some insurance. However he sees the proximity of their posts and sees this could be a link between them. He puts in the bit about Xellin as a cover story. The above is merely theory, and of course cannot be proven. However, I felt like it was an interesting idea, and wanted to share it. That said I'm suspicious of crisis and siniquity until they can prove otherwise. He's off too a good start with naming his suspicions. He then begins by pushing suspicion on to Siniquity because of votes he has placed? Huh.. I wonder who killed Misder then. Oh yeah.. He asks alot of "why?"s but never really says anything. He posts that he believes he waited to make sure Misder would get lynched which really doesn't say much. drag_ however sees this and goes on to say that he's confused but you can clearly tell that he has no idea what any of Siniquity's behaviour means. He maintains the same pattern for analyzing Crisis_ and then follows it up by avoiding a conclusion and weakening his post's credibility by claiming that it's all only a theory. He basically admits that it all means nothing. But oh no! He's going to be suspicious of the two! Based on his activity level and his level of influence within the town, we know that nothing is ever going to happen. The post he makes here is long sure enough but it only voices his apparent confusion. It provides other players the sense that he is in fact contributing when really he isn't. Also: What ever happened to analyzing LSB? His votes have been wishy-washy from Day 1 as well. He votes for the one person he communicates with on Day 1 and that is Kingjames. Is there any good reason other than the fact that he seemed to view Kingjames aggression as overzealous? No. He then make a vote for Misder which he NEVER mentions. Good job mate. Finally his current vote is for someone he's confused about. None of his votes are proactive or pro-town in anyway. Drag_ has been consistently trying to fit in as part of the town while not contributing in any way other than a couple of opinion posts. He tries to make up for this by making it seem like he's posting worthy material and ignoring his blatant hypocrisy but it's just not happening. It may be a bit too hard on him to attack his weaknesses in his first game but remember: mods balances the teams so there are bound to be new players in the mafia team. I am convinced that drag_ is the most mafia-esque of them all. Death to drag_ P.S. I keep my promises although I didn't get around to making a 2 person analysis as this one was longer than I though. I think this boils down with me agreeing to the meeple and ghuru analysis, and not the south one lol. It comes out as the first two seem like genuine attempts to try and understand why someone is doing what they're doing and then coming to a conclusion. While souths post screams like he's trying to force someone to come to a certain alignment by the time he's done. The arguments are weak and narrow minded, and the case against him is monumental. | ||
|
CynanMachae
Canada1459 Posts
On October 14 2010 21:05 meeple wrote: Just threw my vote on the doctor for now... I'll try to make an informed decision later on And why would you do that? There is plenty of much better candidates o.o Pretty dead today yea... my vote is gonna go on South again as well | ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On October 14 2010 21:05 meeple wrote: Just threw my vote on the doctor for now... I'll try to make an informed decision later on -sloppy placeholder vote -excuse for future inactivity you've been contributing less and less to this game as time goes on. i know you're busy cohosting my game but not as busy as me. you've been slipping by pretty inactive for the entirety of this game but never really done enough to draw suspicion to you. I have a feeling mafia have been hiding amongst inactive players for a while. The town has clearly been on the wrong track with its accusations. Why should the mafia take the risk of staying active in the town? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know WIFOM. But this game and us winning it depends on being able to predict and discern what the mafia is thinking and why. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
IRC games are live chat and usually take from like 30 minutes to ~2 hours depending on how things go (for a 9 player game) that is all! <3 | ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On October 15 2010 06:46 ghrur wrote: Despite this hotbed of activity (sarcasm), my suspicions are still on the same people. Crisis_ and SR. Really though, we honestly need more activity. We can't get ANYWHERE if we just have no one posting. There are no developments. On the otherhand, I don't want to make random accusations just to pressure people and cause chaos. =/ I guess I'll just inspect the recent posts more carefully later. If nothing comes about, I'll probably stick with Crisis for my earlier reasons. Same. Haunted Mafia is finally getting into the swing of things so I feel I have more time. SouthRawrea you need to defend yourself. You barely got out of yesterdays lynch (help from mafia buddies?) and you come out with an OMGUS defense and a bad excuse for inactivity. If we don't lynch you, who should we lynch? | ||
|
~OpZ~
United States3652 Posts
i really wish i knew who he was because he needs to be making large posts explaining why he "thinks" someone is protown, or about why he thinks someone is mafia.... I'll probably vote siniquity with you BC. | ||
|
~OpZ~
United States3652 Posts
| ||
|
~OpZ~
United States3652 Posts
| ||
|
SiNiquity
United States734 Posts
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). | ||
|
Divinek
Canada4045 Posts
On October 15 2010 08:19 SiNiquity wrote: 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). i pm'd bb the first time this came up as it's pretty important and he said there would be no difference so we would have no idea if someone was killed by poison or not | ||
|
BrownBear
United States6894 Posts
| ||
|
SouthRawrea
Canada608 Posts
On October 15 2010 08:19 SiNiquity wrote: 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). He's trying to manipulate information. This is precisely why I brought up the possibility of this happening early in the game. If I am to be lynched today, I suppose it is my fault for being inactive for some parts of the game but please enlighten me as to how my play has been worse? I see alot of people placing their not-so-good reasons. As for a defense, the only person that came up with a formulated accusation was Kingjames and I've more than defended myself adequately. The people that voted me that day had failed to respond to my recent actions. Ghrur for example completely overlooks my defense and proceeds by calling Kingjames01's analysis beautiful and fails to notice my gigantique analysis on drag_ which also fulfilled my earlier promise. Alot of the current votes on me are remnants of votes that should have been quelled yesterday but are still there. Some might be there in questioning of my list of people that I made and others might be there simply because they don't want to believe that the defense that I wrote up is good enough. So be it. Just know that at this point in this day that there are no proper accusations on me and that you should rethink your votes and the situation that I am in. Just know that it was not me vs Amberlight and Xelin yesterday. Rather I was pitted up against them against my will. Is there really still a big case on me? I think not. | ||
| ||
