|
On May 08 2012 13:48 Cephiro wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 13:45 wherebugsgo wrote:
your entire assumption falls apart when you realize that the basic assumption can be wrong and that even if two of them were town, if all 3 died that opens windows into finding OTHER scum.
The rest of your post is just total horse shit because it assumes that 2 of them were townies, and that only the ratios matter. True, I did not cover all the possibilities. But the chances of lynching 2 or 3 scum out of 3 persons on a mass lynch is highly unlikely, so I provided the best possible still likely-to-happen scenario.
No it's not. You don't even base this argument on anything.
The likelihood of lynching two scum out of three if you choose all three players completely randomly is pretty low, but when all three of those players are almost universally considered to be scum the likelihood gets multiplied many times over.
On May 08 2012 13:48 Cephiro wrote:
I do not believe that you can currently correctly decide other players alignments based on someone flipping, as you have been wrong so many times already.
At no point have I said only the ratios matter, but they are crucial information in specific situations.
You're just fear mongering based on known information. That's a scum tactic.
There is almost no way you would say that I have been wrong "many times already" when there have only been two town flips. I have been right 1 time out of 3. That's better than you, as you've been right...well, never.
If you want to base this shit on known information then clearly my track record is infinitely better than yours, since you've defended a flipped scum.
|
On May 08 2012 13:51 wherebugsgo wrote:
*entire argument, rather
at any rate I have no idea why I am bothering to argue with you. The fact remains that as long as the people we want to kill remain alive, we cannot progress into finding other scum because we have next to no pressure on them. It all basically comes down to luck who is on the chopping block, and they'll always have immune friends in the minority pool who can save them.
It's basically a race against the clock; either we get a set number of correct lynches in (and to do this we at all times need to know ALL of the players who are most likely to flip scum, as we have no way of controlling who ends up in the majority really) or we don't.
That means every single opportunity that we get matters. VE screwed up the first one by saving sandro and now sandro has been in the minority twice in a row. We got the second one alright. The third one was messed up because of me, albeit there were circumstances for me out of my control (obviously I'm not going to skip a school final just to get a scum lynched in a forum mafia game)
If you were town you would accept that in order to move on from this stalemated situation we would need to kill our prime suspects. If you're town and you continue to be antiprogress you'll just make yourself look like an ass postgame. I'm completely fine with that, and as you are too I'm still pretty sure you're not town. The discrepancy between your behavior here and in DFM2 is just too great for you to be town here, unless your play has degraded so far that you can't actually reason your way out of a paper bag.
It is not a degrade of my play, merely a variance. At the moment the best solution as me for a townie with no credibility has been to take the joker role, possibly being to influence the final result of the day in town favour if the scum takes a risk. The problem I see is, whatever trust-circle you have formed, I am sure is infiltrated by scum, if not initiated by scum. I would not mind working in unison at all, but as your attitude for the whole game pretty much has been fuck Cephiro, why should I even bother? Playing in unison may be optimal play towards wincondition if it reaches perfection, but I am fairly sure perfection is not going to happen, which is why I'm trying something else.
|
On May 08 2012 13:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
No it's not. You don't even base this argument on anything.
The likelihood of lynching two scum out of three if you choose all three players completely randomly is pretty low, but when all three of those players are almost universally considered to be scum the likelihood gets multiplied many times over.
This is just bullshit. You've been universally wrong twice, right once so far. Looks to me that the likelihood just gets divided by many times over.
On May 08 2012 13:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
You're just fear mongering based on known information. That's a scum tactic.
There is almost no way you would say that I have been wrong "many times already" when there have only been two town flips. I have been right 1 time out of 3. That's better than you, as you've been right...well, never.
If you want to base this shit on known information then clearly my track record is infinitely better than yours, since you've defended a flipped scum.
No need to fearmonger. Also, I've been right three times out of 3, how is that? I knew VE was town, I knew BC was scum, I knew Sheth was Town.
BC would have died even if I hadn't overslept, as I was not going to vote for him. Let me explain it to you so you'll understand as well: As BC was universally outed, and his team agreed to bus him, the best play in this situation to try and take as many with him as possible. This is where my "bad town play" comes in. I was telling people how I considered him town, and he backed me up in return to some extent, to try to convince me of his townyness. This made BC fairly sure that I would have voted for him, as is also explained by him only giving 2 votes to me, as he was expecting me to give him easily at least three. That would have been enough to save himself but get me lynched, and as I would have flipped town, he could've argued about how he was right and possibly gained some credibility. The real situation was however that I trapped him all along. I ensured the BC lynch.
|
there have been ample opportunities for you to actually work with the obvious townies, but at every juncture you just continue to defecate on our ideas and make progress next to impossible.
THAT is why we have been calling you scum, because when you are town you do not do that.
In fact at one point you accused me of tunneling when I had merely made my second post that even addressed you. At that point everything you've been saying has screamed scum agenda, since in every post you make at least one gross (and often illogical) exaggeration, usually rooted in some sort of fear mongering.
|
On May 08 2012 14:03 Cephiro wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 13:53 wherebugsgo wrote:
No it's not. You don't even base this argument on anything.
The likelihood of lynching two scum out of three if you choose all three players completely randomly is pretty low, but when all three of those players are almost universally considered to be scum the likelihood gets multiplied many times over. This is just bullshit. You've been universally wrong twice, right once so far. Looks to me that the likelihood just gets divided by many times over.
AND YOU'VE BEEN WRONG EVERY SINGLE TIME.
I'm done arguing with you. You're scum. You're not interested in the objective truth. You're merely interested in grossly exaggerating, misleading, and disrupting based on false assumptions and logical fallacies.
|
On May 08 2012 14:06 wherebugsgo wrote:
AND YOU'VE BEEN WRONG EVERY SINGLE TIME.
I'm done arguing with you. You're scum. You're not interested in the objective truth. You're merely interested in grossly exaggerating, misleading, and disrupting based on false assumptions and logical fallacies.
I'VE BEEN RIGHT EVERY SINGLE TIME UNLIKE YOU, LEARN TO READ.
|
Another Bill Murray situation, hard to believe it
|
On May 08 2012 14:08 syllogism wrote:
Another Bill Murray situation, hard to believe it
Considering my playstyle so far has now been explained and outed, you will see me step up my play as proof.
If you are too stubborn to believe me after that, that's town's loss.
|
I'm not talking about you
|
On May 08 2012 14:11 syllogism wrote:
I'm not talking about you
Explain "Bill Murray situations" please?
|
On May 08 2012 14:08 Cephiro wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 14:06 wherebugsgo wrote:
AND YOU'VE BEEN WRONG EVERY SINGLE TIME.
I'm done arguing with you. You're scum. You're not interested in the objective truth. You're merely interested in grossly exaggerating, misleading, and disrupting based on false assumptions and logical fallacies.
I'VE BEEN RIGHT EVERY SINGLE TIME UNLIKE YOU, LEARN TO READ.
On May 03 2012 09:34 Cephiro wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 03:36 Foolishness wrote:
Is there anyone that actually does not want BC to die? Me.
On May 03 2012 15:16 Cephiro wrote:
I'd say there's easily at least 3 mafia in that list. Do you really think that there were 4 mafia in the majority yesterday? Please.... I can understand your town reads on syllo and Katina but I have no idea how you find BC scum when you see gonzaw and wbg as town. -_-
On May 04 2012 17:01 Cephiro wrote:
Few random facts:
1) You're not getting me lynched today.
2) You're not getting BC lynched today.
3) You need to get your head checked if you think I'm scum.
On May 04 2012 17:45 Cephiro wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 17:41 EchelonTee wrote:
it's 4:30 am. i'm sleeping. hopefully when I come back I will be more ineberiated and thus more ready to deal with the shenanigans of this thread.
hey people
DISCUSS THE BC LYNCH. you know, the one that most people agree on? is it an easy bandwagon? A good lynch on scum? we should discuss it! Nothing to discuss about, it's another bad lynch on a townie, just like the earlier one on VE.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
|
+ Show Spoiler +On May 08 2012 14:13 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 14:08 Cephiro wrote:On May 08 2012 14:06 wherebugsgo wrote:
AND YOU'VE BEEN WRONG EVERY SINGLE TIME.
I'm done arguing with you. You're scum. You're not interested in the objective truth. You're merely interested in grossly exaggerating, misleading, and disrupting based on false assumptions and logical fallacies.
I'VE BEEN RIGHT EVERY SINGLE TIME UNLIKE YOU, LEARN TO READ. Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 09:34 Cephiro wrote:On May 03 2012 03:36 Foolishness wrote:
Is there anyone that actually does not want BC to die? Me. Show nested quote +On May 03 2012 15:16 Cephiro wrote:
I'd say there's easily at least 3 mafia in that list. Do you really think that there were 4 mafia in the majority yesterday? Please.... I can understand your town reads on syllo and Katina but I have no idea how you find BC scum when you see gonzaw and wbg as town. -_- Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 17:01 Cephiro wrote:
Few random facts:
1) You're not getting me lynched today.
2) You're not getting BC lynched today.
3) You need to get your head checked if you think I'm scum.
Show nested quote +On May 04 2012 17:45 Cephiro wrote:On May 04 2012 17:41 EchelonTee wrote:
it's 4:30 am. i'm sleeping. hopefully when I come back I will be more ineberiated and thus more ready to deal with the shenanigans of this thread.
hey people
DISCUSS THE BC LYNCH. you know, the one that most people agree on? is it an easy bandwagon? A good lynch on scum? we should discuss it! Nothing to discuss about, it's another bad lynch on a townie, just like the earlier one on VE. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
^ Bullshit post by wbg as he totally ignored to read this post by me on purpose:
On May 08 2012 14:03 Cephiro wrote:
BC would have died even if I hadn't overslept, as I was not going to vote for him. Let me explain it to you so you'll understand as well: As BC was universally outed, and his team agreed to bus him, the best play in this situation to try and take as many with him as possible. This is where my "bad town play" comes in. I was telling people how I considered him town, and he backed me up in return to some extent, to try to convince me of his townyness. This made BC fairly sure that I would have voted for him, as is also explained by him only giving 2 votes to me, as he was expecting me to give him easily at least three. That would have been enough to save himself but get me lynched, and as I would have flipped town, he could've argued about how he was right and possibly gained some credibility. The real situation was however that I trapped him all along. I ensured the BC lynch.
|
Did we not learn anything from gonzaw and Wiggles about feeding trolls?
|
On May 08 2012 14:16 Katina wrote:
Did we not learn anything from gonzaw and Wiggles about feeding trolls?
and where have you been all day, miss?
|
On May 08 2012 14:18 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 14:16 Katina wrote:
Did we not learn anything from gonzaw and Wiggles about feeding trolls? and where have you been all day, miss?
Out making Foolishness' life hell.
Going to repost this because I find it interesting even though he withdrew his accusation.
On May 01 2012 03:38 Foolishness wrote:And since I did say we should focus on who we want to kill. I'm going to start off by saying we should kill chaoser. Let's look at his first post: Show nested quote +On April 30 2012 22:32 chaoser wrote:
I don't know if everyone voting the same answer leads to no minority and then the game going to round B...has anyone asked the hosts about this? Also, I do think that a one person minority and everyone else being in the majority is the right thing to do. Everyone goes to Round B and while yes, it's possible that many townies might be killed at 0 votes, I highly doubt it will really get that bad. The really really bad townies will obviously die this way but that's good for the town as well since it gets rid of distractions early. It's like a vigi hit that the whole town controls. It's basically multi-lynch but not everyone knows the votes. I'm sure the votes will end up sorting things out though. Invisible hand! Free Market! I see here an apathetic attitude towards the town agenda. Notice lines like, "The really really bad townies will obviously die this way but that's good for the town as well since it gets rid of distractions early" which are clearly non-sensical since everyone in this game is good. What really irks me is when he says "It's like a vigi hit that the whole town controls. It's basically multi-lynch but not everyone knows the votes. I'm sure the votes will end up sorting things out though." Is this even helpful in any way? Why would he bother saying these things? Everyone here has read the rules and knows what is going on. It is obvious he doesn't care about what's going to happen..."I'm sure the votes will end up sorting things out..." His attitude is "don't worry guys things will work out in the end". We all know that there is a crap ton we need to be worried about so that 5 people don't end up dying day 1. He has taken a stance on that he wants everyone to be in the majority, but this was originally Wiggles idea. It seems his main reason for justifying the plan is that it is better than Palmar's (not going to discuss whether or not his plan is actually better as that's not what this is about). As I stated above he is okay with having everyone in the majority since he thinks things will work out, and if anyone dies it will be the "really really bad townies" of which do not exist in this game. If you click his filter you can see a few other things that only further my case. He asks a lot of questions and does it in a way to throw doubt around. I have no problem with people asking questions but it does not seem his goal is to accomplish something for the town. Rather he is making everyone skeptical of all the plans that are presented thus far. chaoser needs to die. If he is in the majority we should see to it that he is killed.
It seems chaoser hasn't been very prominent in the discussion. These same arguments are starting to circle back.
|
I agree that chaoser is a prime suspect and I regret that he didn't die today.
I've been pushing him for a while but the suspicion hasn't stuck because everyone is unsure on him.
|
On May 08 2012 14:03 Cephiro wrote:
No need to fearmonger. Also, I've been right three times out of 3, how is that? I knew VE was town, I knew BC was scum, I knew Sheth was Town.
BC would have died even if I hadn't overslept, as I was not going to vote for him. Let me explain it to you so you'll understand as well: As BC was universally outed, and his team agreed to bus him, the best play in this situation to try and take as many with him as possible. This is where my "bad town play" comes in. I was telling people how I considered him town, and he backed me up in return to some extent, to try to convince me of his townyness. This made BC fairly sure that I would have voted for him, as is also explained by him only giving 2 votes to me, as he was expecting me to give him easily at least three. That would have been enough to save himself but get me lynched, and as I would have flipped town, he could've argued about how he was right and possibly gained some credibility. The real situation was however that I trapped him all along. I ensured the BC lynch.
How did you know those players were town or scum? I don't know anyone's alignment but my own.
Why didn't you PM anyone that you were going to do a "bad town play", so that there was some corroboration that you were trying a gambit? Doing a bad town play looks an awful like scum play if you don't explain it.
Why didn't you reveal this explanation directly after the BC flip, as opposed to now? You could've tried to regain some town trust and refocus attentions on scumhunting scum, if you were town.
|
I hate your play Cephiro, you've been figured out as scum and you're being an asshole about it.
We need to murder chaoser and sandroba too, then figure out the remaining two.
We really need to kill sandroba, as that will clear up so many things. sandroba isn't even contributing in the thread or out of it, as he's not being a fucking douchebag like Cephiro.
I discussed this idea with syllogism yesterday, it's actually very likely that since sandroba almost died on day 1 that his team has basically considered him an autolynch if he ever gets into the majority, so while his team wasn't ready to outright vote for him and out themselves on day one it's very likely they've been stacking the odds to get sandroba into the minority.
Sandroba has managed to get into the minority two days in a row, three people have been on the opposing side both times:
Katina
Gonzaw
MZ
Katina, what is your current thoughts about sandroba?
Do you still think I'm scum?
|
Hey lets stop calling each other douchebags and threatening with requesting bans and dumb shit like that, alright?
Thanks.
|
On May 08 2012 16:21 EchelonTee wrote:
How did you know those players were town or scum? I don't know anyone's alignment but my own.
Why didn't you PM anyone that you were going to do a "bad town play", so that there was some corroboration that you were trying a gambit? Doing a bad town play looks an awful like scum play if you don't explain it.
Why didn't you reveal this explanation directly after the BC flip, as opposed to now? You could've tried to regain some town trust and refocus attentions on scumhunting scum, if you were town.
Replace "knew" with "I was right about them". No need for nitpicking...
Why would I have PMed anyone? There is no-one in this game I trust to that extent. If I had happened to PM a scum of his team, the whole thing would've been ruined.
I chose not to reveal it right away as I was hoping I would be able to take the same principle further, but no-one that I consider scum is even trying to contact me anymore. By telling this now I was hoping that certain players would actually consider other possibilities than just blindly believe in that one opinion that they've established.
The true skill in mafia is not about always having your reads right from the start, but being able to adjust from your wrong opinion into the right one.
On May 08 2012 18:26 Palmar wrote:
I hate your play Cephiro, you've been figured out as scum and you're being an asshole about it.
You're just whining because you don't have the power over me you wished you had. Stop crying over your ego and start playing for town, if you are town as you claim. Your filter is even worse than mine, and I doubt you've pulled off a gambit of the same sort. I would gladly be proven wrong however.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
