|
On November 01 2011 09:32 risk.nuke wrote: But jesus christ I'm even off tracking myself, Why are you still blind and talking about Skrammen. Toadesstern have accidently done several scumslips, wake up!
Basically what I tried to point out (I'm not the most eloquent with words ).
I think though there's a big bandwagon train on Skrammen based on very little, and the main perpetrators seem less than clean. There's only a bit of time left to vote, I hope people work out that they've already slipped into a mob mentality rather than voting for a lynch with good reasoning.
TL will be down for extended maintenance in 06:20:29.
What do?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 02 2011 00:48 Toadesstern wrote: got home from university now and yeah let's get a little analysis what happened last day.
Let's just pretend we don't know a thing. In that scernario everything's possible. I could be green, I could be red, Skrammen could be green and Skrammen could be red. Same with Zanfa and risk but I'm going to talk about Skrammen and me since the two of us are the main subjects in this thread right now.
1) Both red Let's start with the easy one and pretend both Skrammen and I am red. In that case the two of us are stupid and I'm blaming him to be mafia while he is blaming me to be mafia. I know we're not really blameing each other but I did vote for him so I guess that counts, too. That does not sound like a good plan for mafia imo.
2) Both green Next possibilty: We're both green. If that turns out to be true towns horribly fucked. Not because of the fact that both of us are green but since we didn't even get a majority on a green while mafia is probably even helping us or at least spreading their votes and therefore we might have 1 or 2 mafias on Skrammen as well. And still we don't get a majority. If that's true we got a major problem because we're not going to get a lynch anytime soon (= free kill for mafia without having the chance to kill a mafia or at least get GRANTED information). => pretty much everyone could be mafia because they're able to vote whoever they want without having to manipulate votes at least a bit.
3) Skrammen green, I'm red In that case town got a heavy problem as well. Skrammen was closest for having a majority and it's pretty much the same as the second possibility: I'm mafia and I went for a wagon issued by someone else and still town hasn't got a majority. That would mean that out of those 6 votes probably 2 or 3 votes are issued by mafias (my vote at least + maybe my buddies) while 3 townies voted for Skrammen, 3 voted for me, 2 voted for Zanfa and 1 voted for Chocolate. That's not exactly what you want to do as town, no matter what.
4) I'm green, Skrammen is red In that situation mafia is probably not going to vote for skrammen in the first place. They want to safe their buddy as long as it's possible without leaking information of who actually is mafia out of votingbehaviors right before the deadline. Also this would mean we got at most 1 mafia voting for Skrammen (that is if they got balls). I doubt they got the balls to put their mafia buddy on a 6-votes position themselves, just to make those other 2 mafias really hidden. There could always be a hero votechange 1h before the deadline which would have made a lynch. So in that scenario we probably got about 5 townies voting for Skrammen, maybe it's even 6, while mafia is trying to get us on someone else. Therefore they got either 2 votes on me, 1 vote on me + 1 vote on zanfa or 2 votes on zanfa (the third one is Skrammens vote on choc), while 3 townies did not choose to vote for Skrammen.
For me it's kind of clear. I can rule out possibilty 1 (let's face it, noone's that stupid). I think 3 is pretty unlikely. I just think town should be able to get more than 3 votes on a single person without mafia therefore I think there's no mafia votes on Skrammen. If there are we're really fucked. 2 and 4 could be possible in my opinion. Having 5 or 6 townies able to focus their votes on 1 single person while 3 are not sure what to do sounds reasonable for me (compare with example 3: I don't think we got only 3 people being able to focus their votes while the rest is spreading their votes for whatever reason). Therefore I'd say its 4 > 2 > 3 > 1
I'm still not saying I think Skrammen's 100% sure red, and if he's green than risk is green as well. But I think it's a better explanation than the two of us being green or 'me red + Skrammen green' or both red.
I agree, both red is almost impossible, especially considering how hard you pushed to get that one single extra vote.
If you're both green then we have several issues. One would be we don't actually have a real clue as to who the scum are, since the 2 of you are our 2 main candidates. Both green seems unlikely given that there's a real case for both of you at this point.
The decision then lies in who is red and who is green. If he is red, then I don't have a clue who his buddies are, but likely one of them must have voted for him. The other voters just don't strike me as particularly scummy just yet. If YOU are red however, then you'd be on the right train voting the person with the highest votes. I still don't like your case against him basically being "He didn't say enough". For him I haven't seen enough to know for certain, maybe 60% if it wasn't for you. But I'm 85% on yourself. You FOSd around a while and joined the majority (granted you voted just early enough that it wasn't a guaranteed majority on him, but it was late enough to know the general feeling of the group).
That's what I think of the Skrammen/Toad situation anyway. I've got to eat, while I flick through the other posters.
|
I've just spent half my lunch hour catching up on this and reading through... I hope you're happy
That kill was.... unexpected. Reading back through his posts, Toad is the only person to REALLY benefit from it. I don't think Toad is that stupid, but do we have any scum around that are stupid enough to think that would work? It's such a BLATANT kill that it could mean almost anything with relation to Toads. I can't see it as unrelated though, so the options in my mind are:
1) Toads is scum. Risk was so vehement about it that killing him protects Toads, and nobody would really think Toads that dumb, so he could get away with it.
2) Someone else was trying to implicate Toads to get people off of them, which would make Skrammen scum most likely. Killing Toads would be too obvious perhaps, so framing Toads much better?
3) Risk only brought a case against ONE other person, which was against Harbinger. Perhaps killing someone not too obvious to keep people off himself.
However every explanation both prior to Risk's death and since then seems to include Toad or Skrammen as being red as an option. If one is red the other is almost certainly green, but at this point it is just far too unlikely that neither of them are red.
Once I'm home from work and not on lunchbreak I'll pull up Harbinger's post history as well, see what gems are hiding there, because of point 3, unless someone beats me to it. It's definately something worth looking into, especially as he was a part of the Skrammen "bandwagon". I know we have 48 hours, but I think initially at least we should put some focus on these guys. If we're so spread out like Day 1 we'll end up with a no-lynch, and I think I definately made a mistake not switching to Skrammen Day 1. Initially I was far more suspicious of Toads, but they're almost 50/50 now, and having the information from one of them would have made today a lot easier for us.
|
On November 03 2011 07:57 HarbingerOfDoom wrote: @Toad, he said if he flips red risk and bunneh have issues. Not if he flips green. He said that because risk and bunneh defended him.
I can't talk for risk, but as far as myself I don't think defended is the right word. On the first day I didn't think he'd done enough to be suspicious enough to be lynched, whereas I thought Toad most definately had. Since then, with his posting suddenly disappearing, and a couple of his posts just before that, you can see I definately became more suspicious of him. Between him and Toad it dropped to 50/50, and I'm still certain one of them has to be red. Too many explanations for what's happened so far leads to one of those 2 being a logically sound conclusion, and risk being killed just adds weight that there was something going on there. If I'm next on the hitlist though, I would actually think Skrammen over Toads, as obviously he wouldn't be dumb enough to kill his only 2 "supporters". Perhaps.
Hyshes
I jus reread the whole thread and i'm going to post a hard statement here.
Ciryandor - Toadesstern - Drem903
See I actually agree with the other feelings on this. Ciry, Toad and Drem have all (if I'm remembering right as I post) been reasonably aggressive towards each other at certain points in this game, including (withdrawn?) votes. If all 3 of them are scum, I think I would eat my own foot. Any one of them you could probably put together a reasonable case for if you took their posts in a vacuum, but all 3 together, with context, just doesn't make ANY sense, and seems to be a method of saying "Hey guys look at them!"... which is another way of saying "Don't look at me even though I'm here!"
However I also don't like what I saw with Toad and Drem's initial voting today. They voted for each other, and then both withdrew their votes from each other. Their reasoning was both "I was too hasty, these guys are totally more suspicious", and that makes me suspicious of both of them. Unless they were votes to see how people would react, remarkably synched together in reasoning, it seems too much of a coincidence to me.
However, I don't like that Skrammen hasn't posted since barely surviving. He's hiding too much for me, and my suspicion of him has basically done nothing since go up since I refused to vote for him. Unless I see something compelling from him, I'm going to have to make a provisional
##Vote SKrammen
Unless he posts something worthwhile, and worth waiting for, I'm unlikely to change this despite my other suspicions. It keeps coming back to him and Toads, but at least Toad doesn't look like he's trying to hide.
|
Unless he posts something worthwhile, and worth waiting for, I'm unlikely to change this despite my other suspicions.
Just quoting myself to add something to this. This is my current viewpoint with our current information, and this is a serious vote. However I don't think we can risk a no-lynch again. We all know full well the reasonings behind SKrammen, though I could elaborate for anyone who has missed the last 5 pages. However I think if we have enough people near the end of the day voting for someone specific but are still split, it would benefit us to force the lynch to at least get some real information. I would be extremely suspicious after Day 1 of anyone who may be trying to block a lynch from occurring.
|
On November 03 2011 11:41 HarbingerOfDoom wrote:@Bunneh I thought you were going to look into my post history and make a statement regarding it? Am I not special enough for that? :-( Show nested quote +Once I'm home from work and not on lunchbreak I'll pull up Harbinger's post history as well, see what gems are hiding there, because of point 3, unless someone beats me to it. It's definately something worth looking into, especially as he was a part of the Skrammen "bandwagon".
I will but it won't be for a few hours. Last night I went out after work, came home a bit worse for wear, got in the post that I did, but wasn't up to reading your full post history. I will have it analysed as townie or scum before the votes are finalised tonight though. From a quick scan (mostly from the posts you specifically pulled, so take it with a grain of salt ) I don't think you're showing up as Red, or at least not top 3 suspects.
##unvote drem ##vote hyshes
I no longer have a clue what hyshes is doing. Either he's a townie who has gone all emo because people put such a good case on him, or he's scum doing the stupidest thing."I could try and defend myself, or I can just agree to vote myself".
Yet if he was townie, why would he vote to have himself lynched? There's still time for him to put forward a case either to defend himself, or to make a case on somebody else. But instead he just spent the last 3 or 4 posts saying "Yeah lynch me". Wtf is that? A townie can be open and honest, the mafia are the ones far more likely to try and play silly bugger mind games like that.
FOS hyshes.
|
On November 03 2011 21:36 Toadesstern wrote: 1) We got a case here 2) If he is not willing to defend himself himself we can't stop lynching him because of that, because it's not making sense 3) The only possible thing is him being red and thinking he's going to get lynched anyway so he might as well try that one.
NO Townie want's to get himself lynched unless it's not possible to not get lynched for some strange reasons, but he'd still try to prevent it (look at my case).
I'm going to agree with this. What townie would try and get themselves lynched? All that does is dick the town over even more, so either he's given up playing, which means no big loss, or for reasons stated above, he's scum. I can barely even analyse it on any meaningful level, there's basically nothing to say.
I don't see what this could achieve as a townie, and it's definately enough to change my vote for today. hyshes is scum.
##unvote SKrammen
##vote hyshes
|
On November 03 2011 22:16 hyshes wrote: I'm not retarded, and this aint stupid play either. It's the only play i got left to have a possible chance on a town win. I'm just kinda hoping it will open your eyes. I'm just offering good working material here. for that purpose, i'm willing to do a sacrifice here.
After my action here it will be 6towns vs 3 mafia (assuming mafia kills a townie next night), so still a good majority for the town. Maybe if towns is lucky, it will be 7vs3..
Sacrificing yourself just to show you're green doesn't seem like it helps the town all that much. The reason being, IF you were to flip up green, then it drops to a 7/3. The mafia then get to ping someone else (right?), making it 6/3. At 6/3 it's going to be a lot harder for us to get a solid lynch on a scum.
If you throw yourself to the lions and turn out green, we're going to have real problems. If what you say is ACTUALLY true, don't sacrifice yourself, because in doing so you're basically sacrificing the town. This is why I think you MUST be red. You're right that you're not retarded, which is why the only possible option is that you're red.
Also in your other posts you refused to defend yourself against "retarded" logic (think that's the right quote, or the gist of it). The posts made against you are pretty sound logically, and your attitude to the accusation is entirely illogical.
|
Where is hacklebeast? He hasn't posted since his vote on Day 1.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 31 2011 01:24 HarbingerOfDoom wrote:I don't see how toad telling people to be active even if they are blues is suspicious, it isn't like he said "dt's and medics should role-claim in the thread" or anything. He, like most of us, is simply trying to encourage activity from everyone. It also helps make it clear that you must contribute to scum-hunting as a blue if you don't want to be mistaken for scum yourself. And just to call someone out a bit, I believe Skrammen has actually said the least of anyone so far, with a total contribution of:
Early thread, a defense of Toad, and poke at SKrammen. The few posts following this show a not-quite-but-kindof defense of the initial accusations at Toad, and continue aggression on SKrammen.
Following them, a move onto Drem with some reasonable arguments:
+ Show Spoiler +On November 02 2011 03:52 HarbingerOfDoom wrote:So while reviewing the voting and the resulting no-lynch, I noticed something very interesting from Drem: Show nested quote +So, the people i'm currently very suspicious of are: SKrammen and Zanfada. When i get more time to really look at everyone's posts this might change, but it's just those 2 for now.
##vote Zanfada If you were very suspicious of both of them, why would you leave your vote on Zanfada? At the time of your voting, you had the option to make it 2 votes for Zanfada, or 4 votes for Skrammen. If your goal was to get scum lynched, and you were very suspicious of Skrammen, why place your vote in a way that greatly increases the odds of a no-lynch rather than nearly guaranteeing a lynch on Skrammen? I would also like a bit more from hyshes on why he voted Zanfada, considering his voting post was the following: Show nested quote +I don't watn to be modkilled, so i'm going to cast a vote following my feeling here.
##vote Zanfada Do you still think he is scum? Were you around at all after more votes were in? If so, what was your reasoning for leaving your vote on Zanfada, rather than switching it to Toad? Since the failed lynch you seem to be focusing more on Toad, but haven't really made a committal statement yet, do you believe Toad to be scum?
I understand he may very well have been the person you were most suspicious of, but in the very post you used to place that vote you said you were very suspicious of Skrammen. My question was if you thought both were likely to be scum at the time, why would you vote in a manner that makes it less likely that either of them would get lynched? It isn't like you made an effort in your post to get people to switch from Skrammen to Zanfada to get him lynched instead, you simply said they were both very suspicious and placed your vote.
Let's spell it out a bit: Suppose you think A and B are scummy. You think A is 60% to be scum, B is 80% to be scum. If you vote A, he will almost surely be lynched. If you vote B, there is a small chance A will be lynched, no chance B will be lynched, a large chance nobody will be lynched. How does the second choice ever make sense, unless you think A is likely to be town?
I see nothing particularly wrong with these posts actually. Or anything so far. The posts have reasoned arguments, backed up by relevent posts.
The next period doesn't need a quote tunnel. After risk turned up dead, there's a couple of extremely strong posts trying to assess who would want risk dead. Of biggest note to me at that time, was when I threw up suspicion purely because you were the only other person risk implicated that wasn't Toad, you gave a good honest reply that showed both your positive posts and the ones that could implicate, you in an attempt to help what I was looking for. You were right that you were a potential benefactor from his death, but at the same time so were both Toad and Skrammen, far more so than you. A hit might have been a "subtle" one coming from yourself, but far more likely that it was from elsewhere either looking to implicate one of the 2 of them, or actually from one of the 2 of them.
Next posts of note I feel are the following: + Show Spoiler +xsksc, you've been pretty quiet, would you mind posting some of your thoughts/analysis? I pretty much have a null read on you currently. Ciryandor, I would also like to hear what your current thoughts are when you get the chance. You've posted today, but none of your usual analysis yet. @Skrammen Since you reappeared, I would like to reassert my earlier request; If you value your life, please make a post of the following: 1) At least 2, preferably 3 people you think are scum 2) Explanations and some analysis of why you think they are scum 3) At least 2, preferably more, people you think are town, excluding yourself 4) Explanations of why you think they are town 5) What you think the goal of the risk.nuke shooting was @hyshes Have you reconsidered your 3 scum picks yet? If Ciry and Drem are both scum, why would Ciry now be voting for and bringing intense scrutiny to Drem? Do you honestly think that mafia would be bussing one of their players on day 2? Drem, if you are still around, I would also like to know who are several people you think are likely to be town and why.
These to me are very townie signs. It's like 6 posts or so in a row which are actively asking others questions, and trying to find out information. Someone that active in looking for information is someone committed to finding something out. The only 2 options are "Who are scum?" or "Who are blues so I can kill them?". The tone of the posts though strike me more as the first one.
These are followed by the long post that first implicated hyshes. This is where it gets tricky for me. That post has perfect reasoning in it. After reading it, I had a similar sentiment that I hadn't shared about hyshes previously. And that's about when this whole game went tits up.
Now that final direct assault on hyshes came after several lines of questioning, and most other people giving what appear to be satisfactory responses, so the aggression towards hyshes would not be unwarranted. His reaction certainly didn't help us, and after your original attack and his responses to it I was 100% certain he was scum as well. It's hard to express in words though how I don't understand his reasoning behind his actions. I DON'T think that Harbinger's original attack was unwarranted or unfounded though, so I don't read it as scum attacking someone for a lynch. That would be too obvious.
My conclusion on Harbinger for the time being is Townie. Sorry it took so long to post this by the way, I know I missed when I insisted I'd have posted it by.
So assuming I rule out Harbinger for the time being, we have to go back on what we had prior to the hyshes thing.
In my mind it continues to be as follows:
1) Skrammen or Toad. Only 1, but almost certainly one. Otherwise I'll be a monkey's uncle and entirely thrown through a loop.
2) Drem. More to come on that, but he's been semi-active, and some dodgy posts.
3) No idea. Perhaps Chocolate? I'd have thought possibly hackle, but my real guess is that he was a townie who just lost interest from the start. I don't have a real lead on a 3rd at the moment though. I'd like to hear more from xkxdkskd though.
|
On the SKrammen - Toad thing, I can't help but think we've spent the time since the failed lynch day 1 pussyfooting around the issue because we can't say for certain. If one falls down, then we have a massive amount of information that we've been clamouring for since Day 1, yet done nothing about. The subtext of most posts seem to be "X Y and Z are suspicious, and obviously one of Toad or SKrammen are scum".
If one of them are scum, we should do something about it, not dick around. If one flips green, we know with absolute certainty who we want to lynch the following day.
If we were to vote based on percentage liklihood (something subjective), then the only choices I'm seeing right now is a 50/50 on SKrammen/Toad, and a 50-70 chance on Drem. However that 50/50 immediately becomes "the other guy is 100% the other thing) if we get a lynch there.
For this reason, I'm making my vote the one that gets the most information for us. It's not a choice anyone necessarily WANTS to make, since we have a 50% chance of getting it wrong, but at this point I feel it's now or never to get that 100% chance next time.
##vote Toadesstern
|
On November 06 2011 02:59 Toadesstern wrote: Well in that case I'm obviously on Skrammen. Given what I said earlier I think the outcome is always better if we lynch skrammen. If he's mafia than fine, we just lynched a mafia (same if you lynch me and I flip red). However since we got hyshes and risk the green case is really fucked up. If I flip green you can't tell a bit about other people because risk and hyshes, who both targeted me were green. So a logic like "let's just lynch everyone who pushed for toad" would be flawed. Plus I got to add that I still think the only reason you guys still think I'm 50% mafia is because of those weird lynches/kills by mafia. Yes both attacked me bot come on, noone could have THAT seen comming
I'm still conflicted on that. It's not JUST the suspicion of who else have died/lynched, there are parts of your behaviour that still strike me as scummy. But then there is also behaviour that strikes me as townie. I get the feeling that mafia would be more active than SKrammen is being though, however I could be ENTIRELY wrong on that.
My initial vote remains on Toads, however I feel Toads or SKrammen have to go today. If there are more people jumping on SKrammen near the deadline, I'll swap my vote to ensure we get the lynch we need. My vote for Toads first is my feeling that Toads is more likely scum than SKrammen. I might also see something between now and then that changes my mind anyway, so who knows.
@Harbinger: Tomorrow (RL time) will have to be for a true look back through his posts, since I have friends shortly arriving for a party at mine. My initial answer to that post is earlier I thought he was suspicious, but it may have been the feeling of "everyone is suspicious to me wtf do I do?!". I don't think he's posted that much in the last day or 2 (real life days, not ingame days) so I'd like to see a bit more from him, and potentially what he thinks of me, by the time I reply tomorrow. If that doesn't come through I'll go ahead and PBP (assuming this is play by play?) what I think of him anyway.
|
On November 07 2011 04:23 HarbingerOfDoom wrote:
Should be back in time to change as somehow I doubt this one will garner enough votes to ensure a lynch, but for now ##vote xsksc
Do you have some form of argument for this? I don't think this late in a game a vote can exist without some reasoning posted.
|
+ Show Spoiler +Toadesstern IMABUNNEH sermokala
xsksc HarbingerOfDoom
SKrammen Toadesstern
Drem903 xsksc
Who has votes on them from who. With the voting deadline not too far away, and myself needing to get to bed early today, I'd like to see some kind of decision. I don't want to end the day without a lynch. With votes this spread people need to make choices. There hasn't been that much discussion today (I'm as much to blame as anyone else for that), and we're still missing votes from people.
|
3 for Drem, 3 for Toad, and a random vote from Harbinger on xsxksdkds.
How many people haven't voted? And I implore Harbinger to pick either one of them. I think voting Toad gives us far more information than voting Drem, but if we sit around with a no-lynch again we're going to be in trouble. Still waiting for an explanation to the xkskskcxkfd vote as well. At the moment it just looks like you're deliberately blocking a lynch for one reason or another.
|
Bunneh will vote for Toad or SKrammen. It's on Toad atm.
|
Ah balls, I'm not going to let a no vote go through. In 15 mins I go to bed. If there's enough votes on Chocolate, I'll go for it. It's a risk, but a lynch is better than a no-lynch.
|
I'm going to regret this, I don't have Chocolate pegged as a scum, but I guess we need a lynch.
##unvote Toadesstern
##vote Chocolate
|
Right having taken the time to reread everything, I can say one thing - I think I was wrong on the Skrammen/Toad thing. Not wrong as such, but wrong to remain so stubbornly fixated on Toad from day 1. Having taken a stepback and read everything through again, I'm going to step out and say who I think is what.
Town Harbinger Ciry Toad
This isn't an uncommon feeling at this point I guess, though my decision on Toad might look odd to people, so I'll explain that briefly. Despite receiving varying amounts of pressure on every single day, he hasn't been afraid to continue to stand up and make himself heard. What's convinced me the most though isn't that he's attached himself to the other 2, but that they all 3 sort of slowly came together on opinions over the last couple of days. Now either it's a FANTASTIC mafia ploy and they are the 3 scum, but I find that so unlikely at this point.
Scum Skrammen Drem
While re-reading I read enough from Toad to convince me he probably wasn't scum, doing so had the opposite effect on SKrammen. He hasn't made any attempt to redeem himself in order to avoid a lynching. He hasn't tried to pressure others, which sounds like he doesn't NEED information because he already knows it. Drem is scummy to me after a reread. He's inconsistant, and his posts lack the attack of most people, which leads me to believe something similar, he's not interested in hearing a defense.
[purple]Unknown[/purple] Zanfa xksxksd
These are 2 I simply can't place. I don't think either has posted enough to get a particularly good read from, and through my guessing above, one of the 2 has to be scum. In my opinion Zanfa has come off as more scummy to me. He's quietly slipping onto the bandwagons, and reading his posts it almost seems like he's trying to avoid creating any kind of waves that might cause people to focus on him. xkskckxk has been more committed when he has tried to apply pressure, and seems to me just like a bit of a newbie who didn't want to go out on a limb early on, as his posts have increased recently, whereas Zanfa's seem to just stagnate.
That's what I think at the moment. Who gets shot tonight is probably going to play the biggest role, as Toad said. That alone might give us the information we need.
|
Ok apparently purple isn't a colour, but you get the idea >.<
|
|
|
|