|
On January 30 2012 03:45 Bromancipate wrote:
However, I think the most important thing to look at is the fact he asked the DT to do it How would the DT reveal his information to the thread? Unless he breadcrumbed and died, he would need to reveal himself, which only benefits one faction so early...the Mafia.
##vote Zarepath
Thank you for pointing out this facet of the analysis that I overlooked. As a reminder, please get your vote into the voting thread.
|
Success! We now have a firm piece of ground to from which to reason. Just as CosmosXAM has said, I am going to be looking hard at what happened directly after sl0osh posted his case and I posted my case.
|
On January 30 2012 13:12 zelblade wrote:
Nice lynch :D
Since it seems that most of us were on zarepath, I guess that the mafia probably have little to no thread presence. Suggest we take a hard look at the lurkers for the next lynch.
As stated earlier I need to go now and will be away from the thread for quite a while.
Of course we always want to be pressuring and scrutinizing lurkers, but let me put forth this idea. After looking at zarepath's posts when he was defending himself on day1, he tried to point us back to the lurkers quite a bit. + Show Spoiler +On January 27 2012 10:13 zarepath wrote:
I'm impressed with how thoroughly you've examined my posts. But honestly, if you were to decide that any other active player were mafia simply because you read a thread about active mafia, you would find similar "inconsistencies" that are simply misunderstandings in semantics.
I've done nothing but further town discussion, point towards suspicious people, contribute actual analytical defense of people that others are accusing, trying to aright the lynchpath -- etc.
There are numerous others who only accuse without good argument, refuse to defend themselves, or don't even post at all. While a wall of text analysis is impressive, it's operating on assumptions and while it might feel cool to be suspicious of an active town contributor, you really have nothing to go on here.
On January 27 2012 10:58 zarepath wrote:
Also: feel free to investigate me at night, if there's a DT (which I highly suspect to be the case, considering the numbers). It will be a waste of an investigation, but with numerous lurkers not being pressured, multiple suspicious people not being followed up on, we're going to waste too much time and attention on me without a confirmation. On January 27 2012 11:08 zarepath wrote:
I'm not talking about Feared Being. I'm talking about less-actives like zelblade, cosmos and yourself, who post little, small, and acusaTORY THINGS WITH NO REAL ANALYSIS
(sorry holding baby) On January 27 2012 12:24 zarepath wrote:
But we're having this 4-6 player discussion about an active townie while everyone else gets by just bandwagoning and not contributing anything.
This suggests to me that there is at least 1 more active mafia in the game. Let's not narrow our view to just lurkers. We can't get overconfident and discount possibilities because of 1 correct lynch.
|
If a vigilante shot get's roleblocked, does that count as his hit being canceled, thereby allowing him to shoot at anytime following that night?
|
Not trying to talk back here and I'll let this drop afterward but,
Doesn't a roleblocker block all night actions, in other words all features of someone's role? Meaning that a roleblocked vigi could not have fired his shot in the first place, and therefore it would not be wasted.
|
I feel the need to walk back my defense of SacredSystem a bit. In day2 I was very quick to defend him as he was an early supporter of my analysis. I was looking for things that would let me channel voting towards zarepath. I think that is very clear to everyone. However, after getting zarepath lynched I have looked more closely at the case Adam presented and now Bromancipate. This, on top of the fact that a unanimous vote means support of my analysis and the zarepath lynch are no longer good standards for innocence, makes me retract my earlier defense of SacredSystem. I am going to take advantage of night2 to really look into SacredSystem for myself. Also, I'm going to try and analyze zelblade's day2 posts since we seem to be focusing on his day1 issues a little too much.
|
I'm going to bed, but before I do I want to clear this up.
"On an other note, i think we can be reasonably sure that mafia does not have a godfather. If they had one, it would have been zarepath." -Simberto
You cannot use my reasoning that zarepath was a godfather to speculate on the setup of the game. It is still as likely as it was before we killed zarepath. I, for one, hope the mafia do have a godfather. That would make it less likely they have a roleblocker, which is what worries me right now.
|
On January 30 2012 17:37 Simberto wrote:
Well, no. According to the rules, the mafia can choose their godfather day1, and i feel that if they had one, they would have chosen zarepath because he was very much in the spotlight, and especially with the attacks at the end of day1, i see zarepath as being one of the most likely persons to be rolechecked. Thus, if mafia has a godfather, there is a high probability that they would have chosen zarepath for that job. Anyways it is only something that a possible detective needs to worry about at the moment. Still being suspicious of town checks does sound like a good idea though, you are correct about that.
You are falling into WIFOM again sl0osh. This is getting to be a habit. We have no way of knowing what the mafia's choice for godfather would be since we don't know who all of the mafia are. Just because being a godfather would have fit with zarepath's play does not mean that he was the most likely choice. In fact, since the mafia had the entire first day before they would have had to make a decision on who to be godfather, it is easily as likely that he would not have been chosen godfather after suspicion was thrown on him. But even these musings are unprovable. I'm just pointing out that you are ignoring possibilities.
|
EBWOP: whoops, that was Simberto, not sl0osh. Sorry sl0osh.
|
I think we need to do an inventory of mafia and town reads similar to what happened last night. Everyone should be compile their lists for early tomorrow. To establish a clearer understanding of what sides are being taken I think this will be very useful. So post your townie/mafia so that I can gather together my next big case. A few of you have already done something similar to this, like Bromancipate. However, I would like SacredSystem, Chocolate, Adam, MidnightGladius, pretty much everyone (including me) to post their town/mafia reads concisely early tomorrow so we can start the day off with as much information as possible about the state of the game.
|
Could people please make sure the author of the quote is mentioned when you are responding to things? It is really annoying when I don't know who said what you are quoting and I have to track it down.
|
My scum list: Simberto(very confident), SacredSystem(pretty confident), zarepath(dead)
My town list: sl0osh, Adam, Bromancipate, CosmosXAM, zelblade, MidnightGladius(if his hit goes through)
|
I will be making my case against [red]Simberto[red] today. This will include why he is mafia, why he is the most dangerous to the town atm, and why he needs to be lynched today above all others. This will be another wall of text post and so I encourage you to look into him yourself since it will take me a while to write. Don't just use his filter either, you need a sense of what was going on in the thread in order to see what I've seen.
|
Simberto's Filter
Simberto established himself early as someone that many of us trusted. He did this with his general activity level and his sincere efforts to focus on and pressure lurkers. What exactly did he do with his unquestioned position in the town? Very little. He has consistently thrown his suspicion on zelblade, but has never bothered to put together a strong, focused case or push hard. The closest he comes is this post + Show Spoiler +On January 28 2012 12:03 Simberto wrote:Hm, sadly, noone else seems to be online. Anyways, here is my conclusion. I would prefer if you try to look at how day 1 evolved with an open mind yourself before reading it to avoid confirmation bias, though. + Show Spoiler +I find the whole of day 1 interestingly consistent with a hypothesis of a mafia group consisting of zelbalde, SacredSystem, CosmosXAM and balt11tFakePromise, I feel as though saying that you are willing to take a 70% chance of killing an innocent man seems like you might have something to hide. Criminals tend to be fine with killing off innocent people, and you seem to fit that profile. Normal people would not be willing to take such a risk.
Zarepath's decision to lynch someone at random does sound like the calculated mind of a mobster. However, despite several conclusions that we all wish to draw, we need to wait, the mafia will all expose themselves at some point in time.
on a side note
Fakepromise agreed with him at 30% odds -_-
Now, at day 1, mafia who just wanted to be completely comfortable in their own room suddenly got attacked by the first post, pretty randomly. Not really a problem, just need to assault the idea of a random lynch, and maybe attack some other person who is at hand. Now, they point a bit onto FakePromise. Zelblade tries to post something inconspicious to not be the person of interest anymore, and makes the "to town" slip: Regarding the setup, 4 scum to 9 town seems like a lot of scum to me. This would lead me to believe that scum KP is probably 1, as anything else will probably be excessive. As such, we probably have only 2 mislynches before LYLO, unless there is a medic prot of some sort of course. Thus we need to make sure that we use these lynches well, and use logical reasoning to pin down the lynch onto the scum.
To town, we need to post more, as more posts = more contributions, and would allow us to make analysis and thus help to pin down who the scum are.
This puts him under scrutiny and into the spotlight. Anything he says now is constructed negatively. So mafia try again to push the spotlight onto someone else, the old target. My apologies for my absence since last night. School takes up quite a bit of my time, however, I have been able to watch the game develop, just not post.
As far as what I think, I believe FakePromise was extremely fast to agree with zarepath, almost too fast. He offered almost no grounds with his post, and agreed that a 70% chance of killing an innocent man might be worth it in the long run. The fact that he jumped so quickly to this conclusin in such a short amount of time makes him look suspicious as far as I am concerned. Now, we have one thing that i am not exactly sure of, which is Midnight attacking FakePromise, but maybe he really only want's to get lurkers to post.
I had yet to post because I was at school, sorry if inactivity would lead people to this conclusion. But in my opinion even pressuring someone like that will be cause of an emotional and defensive response making them see even more likely to be right to lynch. I am completely against random lynches on the first day because the odds are just too small, you wouldnt bet your life on a 1/3 chance would you? That is the same stance I am taking here even on the chance we do kill a mafia in my opinion it comes at too great of a risk and we dont need to kill a townie only to have more killed in the night, that just brings our numbers too low to fast.
Now this by CosmosXAM, this is just weird. Doesn't it sound like he is not defending FakePromise, but actually zelblade? To me it does. Then, we have SacredSystem answering a question directed to CosmosXAM. If that is not scummy, i don't know what is. On January 26 2012 07:01 SacredSystem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 06:53 zarepath wrote:
Right, we've moved on past random lynching.
Who do you think is suspicious? you and fakepromise you for coming up with random killing and fakepromise for agreeing with you And FakePromise comes up again. Note that up to this point, the spotlight was very much on zelblade only. CosmosXAM states the exact same thing afterwards, with the added OMGUS onto Chocolate. Now DoYouHas votes on zelblade, and instantly afterwards SacredSystem votes for FakePromise. Just look at it: Every time one of those four gets into trouble (zelblade and CosmosXAM), something from one of the others happens that redirects the thread towards FakePromise. As soon as Zarepath brings up Cosmos as an alternate lynch target, zelblade votes onto FakePromise. When they are equal on votes, balt11t very fastly votes for FakePromise to make him lead again. Now, take a look at the votes list. Interestingly enough, this team has votes 2, 4 and 6 on FakePromise. As i said before, 3 votes expected, and of course never vote in tandem to avoid suspicion. Now, i know that all of this hangs on zelblade being mafia, but this is my take on the situation at the moment. I would really like to hear what others think about it.
How has he used his voting? To flip-flop and bandwagon.
Day1, first FakePromise, then CosmosXAM, then Zarepath, then back to Fakepromise. I'm not going to criticize for his early arguments against FakePromise, it doesn't distinguish him from the crowd. However, I think his 2 posts that contain the vote change from CosmosXAM to Zarepath and Zarepath back to Fakepromise are extremely interesting. + Show Spoiler +On January 27 2012 09:26 Simberto wrote:
Very interesting. After reading this, and rereading Zarepaths filter 2 times, I can definitively see what you mean. Noticeable is that Zarepaths only real contribution was to defend FakePromise, which makes both of them extremely linked in my opinion.
If Zarepath should flip red, that would make FakePromise an almost 100% red too (while this does not necessarily work the other way around). Also that whole defense of FakePromise could really be the work of a frustrated mafia, too. And should he flip green, we need to take a VERY careful look at CosmosXAM and sloosh. I really dislike the way this case was built in the last minute, and the try to pull me on board beforehand, but i must admit that it seems like a strong case to me.
I will probably stay up a bit later tonight (this is far too interesting), so if we for some reason absolutely can't get a lynch onto Zarepath, i will change my vote to FakePromise. Please, everyone who wants to lynch Zarepath react as fast as possible, and everyone who does not want to do that, also react fast (and especially give reasons). We are running on limited time now, so i suggest that we concentrate on this one instead of half a dozen half-cases like we did before.
##unvote CosmosXAM
##vote Zarepath On January 27 2012 11:18 Simberto wrote:
Apparently, we won't get a lynch on zarepath in time, so i will change my vote back to FakePromise. At least this way we have one less lurker and absolute noncontributor. And if he flips red, we need to really take a look at zarepath. If he does not, we need to really reconsider our assumptions. I would suggest everyone with a vote on zarepath (or those random useless votes) to do the same, since voting ends in 45 minutes and we only have 4 of 7 needed votes on zarepath, while there are now 7 votes on FakePromise (which would be enough, but is not really safe).
##unvote Zarepath
##voteFakePromise
The bolded part of the first post is some extremely flawed logic which only has the purpose of pushing a day2 FakePromise lynch even if zarepath is to die. I pointed out the flaw in this logic when it happened with this post, My Post. My post is ignored, and this same bad logic pops up when he switches his vote back to FakePromise, this time a green flip is supposed to mean that the case on zarepath is based on poor assumptions and he is also green. Italicized is Simberto's call to pile onto FakePromise which would have the dual function of making the lynch safe and masking bandwagoners, of which he is one.
Day2 his voting is equally strange when you look at the posts that go along with it. He starts with a vote against zelblade, yet again without a strong case to back it up. Neither does he try to make this case later. Then we get a little filler on the reasons to claim a hit and how to do it. And then we get these 2 strange posts preceding his vote switch to zarepath. + Show Spoiler +On January 30 2012 02:04 Simberto wrote:
I think that for today, SacredSystem is not a very good lynch. I also still remain very, very suspicious of zelblade, and would really like to lynch him since so often stuff seems to lead towards him, like this Zarepath case does, too. Basically the moment the second Zarepath case appears, zelblade comes out of lurking and attacks SacredSystem (easy target), quickly reinforced by Zarepath himself.
This, in my opinion, makes the already strong case on zarepath stronger. There are also some more inconsistencies i noticed upon rereading the thread, but this could also be my confirmation bias speaking (which upon rereading day 1 seems to be pretty strong).
For the moment, to avoid falling into the same traps i did on day 1, i will keep my vote on zelblade for overall fishiness, but i won't be the reason the zarepath case fails unless something truly unexpected comes up.
I would also really like our friendly neighbourhood lurkers balt11t, bromancipate and chocolate to both post in this thread and cast their votes. On January 30 2012 07:27 Simberto wrote:
At this point, zarepath is dead. I must say that i am getting slightly suspicious of this action beacuse of the limited resistence it is met with. Either mafia has decided that he is unsafeable and don't want to invest to heavily in trying to defend him, or he is not really mafia.
Anyways the case is still pretty good, so we will see how he flips, and then go from there. My vote on zelblade is obviously useless at this point, so i will switch it over to zarepath, this way there are 9 people on him, so even if mafia decides to do something last-minute, they will still need to get 2 people of him. I also find it interesting how late people place their vote even though i though we wanted to place them as early as possible for transparency reasons. Not to mention balt11t being completely vanished and maybe even getting modkilled at this point.
##unvote zelblade
##vote zarepath
This first post contains an outright error on top of being fishy. Zelblade's original attack on SacredSystem came before my announced suspicion on zarepath, and his original case on SacredSystem came out before my analysis of zarepath. Simberto is linking zelblade's guilt with zarepath's, just like he did with FakePromise. Then he states that my case against zarepath is strong, that his own logic only strengthens my case, and that he found more inconsistencies on top the ones I pointed out. And yet, this is not enough to get him to change his vote. This sounds to me like he is keeping his options open.
In his second post he is switching his vote not because he has become more convinced of zarepath's guilt. Rather, he has become less convinced because of the lack of resistance to a zarepath lynch. Simberto cites the inevitability of a zarepath lynch and hops aboard in order to make it safe. Note that he never seems to display conviction in the guilt of the people he is voting for, with the possible exception of zelblade, but I think I have already explained the strangeness of that situation.
Then there are Simberto's unexplained logical mistakes. I have already pointed out one of them where I tried to correct Simberto and was ignored. Another is a more recent exchange where Simberto was downplaying the likelihood of a godfather being in the game because zarepath had not been the godfather. Start of the Exchange Not only is this wrong, as I pointed out, but it is a message that zarepath also used. Let me respond with a WIFOM of my own: in a game with 9 and 4, I don't know how likely it is that mafia get a Godfather.
It is pretty clear to me that the likelihood of the mafia having a godfather has gone way up since MidnightGladius's shot was not roleblocked. As a town we know that we have at least 2 blue roles, this raises the chances of mafia having at least 1 non-goon role, and I think it is safe to say that it isn't a roleblocker.
In conclusion, Simberto was in a position of trust and influence and has done very little with it. He has contented himself with conspiracy theories instead of actively pushing the lynching of a player he finds suspicious. This, combined with his scummy voting record and breaks in logic which favor the mafia are why I am confident that Simberto is scum.
|
I almost forgot to answer "why Simberto is the most dangerous, and why he needs to die today". Simberto is the most dangerous scum because he has so neatly avoided most people's mafia lists. He needs to die today because not only is he scum, but confirmation of that will give us a lot of information about zelblade, SacredSystem, and that whole situation in general.
|
|
|
On February 01 2012 01:24 Simberto wrote:
I was the first person to accept the day1 case against zarepath. At that point in time there was a very real chance that that case could succeed, and if it had succeeded, me supporting it might have very well been the deciding factor. Sure, it did not succeed, but that is not something i knew at that point in time, when there were still more then 2.5 hours on the clock. I only did change my vote away from zarepath when it became totally clear that there was no chance that we would get a lynch on him.
Being the first to switch to zarepath loses some of its redeeming value when you consider the timing. I distinctly remember not wanting to be the first person to switch to zarepath because I thought there was not enough time to swing 6 votes and I didn't want to give the mafia another reason to kill me. On top of that your post that went with your switch to zarepath essentially said, "If you think zarepath is mafia it means that FakePromise is mafia." which creates a disincentive for following you in that switch.
|
Ok, so Simberto agrees that his play did not favor the town day1. He also agrees that his voting looks really scummy now that we have the information we do. He hasn't explained away this typo + Show Spoiler +Distraction + "to town", which is very suspicious, as zarepath pointed out, and
|
On February 01 2012 05:30 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +He says that my case against zarepath day2 convinced him of how manipulated he was day1, but by whom? Certainly not zelblade who barely posted anything. The only real answer is zarepath. So then why is Simberto holding his vote on zelblade as the 'fishier' candidate instead of moving onto zarepath? Or is this 'the devil made me do it' defense something that has only come up after my analysis of Simberto because this supposed manipulation has not informed any of his day2 decisions? The answer to your rhetoric question is obviously zarepath. I was holding my vote on zelblade because there was no lack of votes on zarepath and i could switch my vote at any point (i even stated that i would switch to zarepath lynch if zelblade does not work in this post.) Also in that post i mention that i want to avoid falling in the same traps that i did on day 1, so this is not something that i just made up after the accusations today. I find it strange that you missed that after you apparently read my filter pretty exactly, i fear that you are falling into a confirmation bias trap at the moment.
The 'traps' you mention in that post is pretty clearly just confirmation bias, not the belief that you were being manipulated by mafia. SO, let me put this clearly. You state that I presented a strong case against zarepath, your own logic made it stronger, you found more inconsistencies in zarepath's posting than even I pointed out, AND apparently you were convinced that zarepath had manipulated you into anti-town action day1. How does this possibly fit with your actions day2? You don't bring up this manipulation theory, you don't add your own analysis to mine, and you don't switch your vote to someone who, by your own reasoning, is far more likely to be mafia than zelblade.
|
Bromancipate, while it is true that a zelblade lynch would give us information, a Simberto lynch also gives us quite a bit of information as well. If Simberto flips red, it all but confirms zelblade as town (unless Simberto is operating a long con bussing scheme). Also, it would be pretty strong evidence for narrowing our search down to either SacredSystem or Chocolate for day4. If he flips green (unlikely as I see it), it broadens our view of possible scum again, which is something I would like to know I need to do earlier rather than later. But look past all this to the endgame. We are 7 town against 2 scum. In order to win this game mafia are going to have to get 3 mislynches as well as not have their hit stopped the next two nights. This tells me that one of the only real ways that mafia have to win this game is by taking control of the days. Who among the remaining players really have the potential to take that kind of control? Myself, Bromancipate, sl0osh, Simberto, and maybe Adam. So not only do I think that I have made a strong enough case to get Simberto lynched on its own merit, but we would be safeguarding our endgame by lynching him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
