|
On June 30 2012 02:00 Keirathi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 01:36 JingleHell wrote:
Vivax thought Keirathi was a better target for a vote than me earlier in the day cycle.
Vivax fakes roleclaim to support an OMGUS against me.
Keirathi jumps in supporting that.
And somehow, according to Vivax, the case against HIM is a bandwagon? As far as you, this is a contentless post. Tell me why my logic is wrong. Present a case to me. Don't just accuse me of bandwagoning you. I gave solid evidence and a fully laid out list of why I'm voting for you, yet you did nothing to try to change my mind. Seems like you've already given up.
If it seems I'm resigned to my fate, it's because all of the posts I've already made demonstrating that Vivax is manipulating reactions and emotions to support his OMGUS against me have been utterly ignored, and the bandwagon is being jumped on.
|
On June 30 2012 02:46 Vivax wrote:
If you kill me, you can hide saying you had no reason to believe I might be DT.
This statement literally only makes sense if you're not DT. How else could people hide behind that disbelief? Thank you for admitting you made up the case against me.
|
EBWOP: Let's face it, if you died and flipped DT, people who refused to believe your roleclaim would look like bandwagon scum.
|
On June 30 2012 03:03 Vivax wrote:
Also notice how JingleHell is running out of options, his post become increasingly smaller. His last one revolves around one line he misunderstands.
I don't misunderstand it at all. If you get lynched and flip DT, anybody who refused to believe you will look like they jumped on your bandwagon to save me. Nobody in their right mind would hide scumminess behind scum behavior.
The only way it could possibly be safe to admit they didn't believe your roleclaim after a lynch on you is if you flip anything other than DT.
I don't call it running out of options. If I go back and reiterate every single point against you, it will look scummy, like I'm trying to confuse the issue with inflated posts. You've already accused me of that once, so make up your mind on which one is bad.
My posts become smaller because there's less I need to say to point out your inconsistencies, because they're coming one at a time now.
|
Keirathi, what would a roleclaim by me at this point prove? If people refuse to see my case on it's own merits, and react to a manipulative OMGUS against me, a roleclaim to counter Vivax's or try to make myself seem more valuable than him would easily be turned into a transparent last ditch effort.
No, either take the case I laid out for it's merits, or don't. It's not in my hands at this point, but I hope we can all take a step back, read through filters again, and see what really makes sense, before it's too late.
|
On June 30 2012 06:28 Esspen wrote:
If I vote now for Vivax and then in hour NrGmonk shows up and votes for JingleHell, who is going to be lynched?
Plurality, in the case of a tie, first one to the tie number dies, I believe.
|
On June 30 2012 06:32 NrGmonk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 22:56 Vivax wrote:Well, read the secret then, I don't even have to play with unrevealed cards cause I am going to die anyway: + Show Spoiler +Now decide if you would rather take the risk of lynching me or the guy who initiated all this bandwagon on me. It's sad however that noone suspected him besides me. Who's the guy you suspected from day 1? You have FoS for both Esspen and Keirathi. Btw Esspen just removed his vote off JingleHell, just as he was about to be set to be lynched. This puts a lot of suspicions on Esspen, as he did the exact same thing yesterday and is just generally flimsy. He actually voted for Jingle at 1:36 and then took his vote off Jingle at 2:36. As of now, with a bit over 2 and a half hours left until the day is up, I'm going to ##vote JingleHell, because of this. Going to be active until one hour from this post, at which time I have to leave. Going to look for more stuff and I'll try to post more soon.
Well, the lurker bandwagon seals my fate, without actually looking at the cases. I bet Vivax is laughing about how easily manipulated this town is, all it took was a couple of implied threats and a fake roleclaim.
|
I can't believe so many people bought into the smoke and mirrors.
On June 29 2012 20:58 Vivax wrote:
Also, thank you for giving in to the pressure created by my delayed defense.
Upon my eventual death you might be the first to land on the chopping block.
Directed at Milton, a threat, not so subtle. "Agree with me or else".
He's made similar attempts to direct people via reactions that way throughout. He hasn't trusted in his innocent motive to shine through his "case". He's shoved his purported innocence down people's throats, even going so far as to make a blatantly false DT claim.
The whole OMGUS against me (he'll say it wasn't, but after I replaced in for an inactive player, I went for him long before he was interested in anything besides lynching Keirathi, even though he claims to have known all along I was scum. Sure.) anyways, the whole OMGUS against me is based on his claimed innocence and the fake roleclaim. If you don't assume he's innocent, and look at the cases side by side, where he's tried to manipulate, I've tried to expose.
I'll be waiting by the tree. Hopefully to see justice done.
|
On June 30 2012 07:27 Keirathi wrote:
Here's how I see it: There's a small but very real possibility that Vivax is actually DT. He was being put under pressure via votes, so decided to claim his role.. If that's the case, then lynching him to "prove" it hurts town more in the long run. We can always hope for a Doctor, and guarantee some good results.
There's a decent probability that he's Mafia and use the claim to buy himself an extra day. In this case, lynching his target hurts town in the short run, but basically guarantees us a mafia kill tomorrow, and possibly more leads from a real DT.
IMO, its better to take the safe route than to just bet on the fact that he's lying. The opportunity cost is small enough at 10 players that its worth it.
Small opportunity cost? With three scum, and only 7 of us left, with night kills, there's only 2 mislynches needed to bring our team down to equal with the scum.
Worse, it's plurality, so if the scum vote fast at that point, we lose.
|
EBWOP: If you couldn't tell, the point was, there's no "small opportunity cost", we should target scummy.
|
On June 30 2012 07:32 Keirathi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 07:30 JingleHell wrote:On June 30 2012 07:27 Keirathi wrote:
Here's how I see it: There's a small but very real possibility that Vivax is actually DT. He was being put under pressure via votes, so decided to claim his role.. If that's the case, then lynching him to "prove" it hurts town more in the long run. We can always hope for a Doctor, and guarantee some good results.
There's a decent probability that he's Mafia and use the claim to buy himself an extra day. In this case, lynching his target hurts town in the short run, but basically guarantees us a mafia kill tomorrow, and possibly more leads from a real DT.
IMO, its better to take the safe route than to just bet on the fact that he's lying. The opportunity cost is small enough at 10 players that its worth it. Small opportunity cost? With three scum, and only 7 of us left, with night kills, there's only 2 mislynches needed to bring our team down to equal with the scum. Worse, it's plurality, so if the scum vote fast at that point, we lose. One scum dies either today or tomorrow.
If a scum dies today, we don't lose a town vote in the process of lynching a scum. If a scum dies tomorrow, we do lose a town vote.
Since the DT claim is easily refuted, and an obvious desperation measure, buying into it makes no sense, so why not just vote based on behavior to begin with, and keep a town vote alive?
|
GG, Vivax I wish you could have tried more analysis and less manipulating earlier. We might have gotten the right guy in the end.
|
Since it would be unproductive and silly to even consider discussing suspicions right now, I'd like to just go ahead and mention the elephant in the room, so we can get back to hunting scum sooner.
We all know why Vivax looked like scum. Apparently, in his mind, we're not good enough to understand his reads, so he had to resort to scummy behavior, instead of just working with us and trusting us to do the right thing. So let's have a moment of silence for the dearly departed, and clear the air after that unfortunate mislynch.
Anyone feel the need to say anything?
|
On July 01 2012 09:13 Esspen wrote:
I'm confused, why would mafia kill somebody we suspected of being mafia? Wtf?
Well, answering that requires that we understand what the scum were thinking. We don't, so all we can do is drive ourselves into a state of paranoia trying to metagame the people who know more than us.
The best thing we can do is try to find the case where Milton being dead is beneficial to the scum. Look at his discussions, look at his thought process, look at other people's thought processes about him. Time to dive into the filters and start trying to piece things together, IMO.
|
EBWOP: GG, Milton. Here's a virtual moment of silence.
|
Milton calls Keirathi scummy. Which was something Vivax also thought before the OMGUS against me exploded into a rather unfortunate shitstorm. + Show Spoiler +On June 30 2012 07:59 Miltonkram wrote:
Keirathi, the question doesn't come down to "what does town lose if player X is telling the truth." It comes down to who you think is scum. The fact that you acknowledge that there is a decent case against him but you does not reflect well on your alignment. Here is why I'm voting Vivax over JingleHell: Vivax's play has been incredibly scummy, JingleHell's has not. It's that simple. On June 30 2012 08:02 Miltonkram wrote:
EBWOP: "The fact that you acknowledge that there is a decent case against him but you don't vote for him does not reflect well on your alignment."
Keirathi, of course, was right in the thick of a lot of the hot points of that mess, and now he's trying to discuss policy when we're in a world of trouble numerically.
Milton's other suspicion mentioned at one point...
On June 29 2012 10:20 Miltonkram wrote:
What do you think of dNa's reasoning for his Esspen vote? Pretty scummy right?
Bear in mind, even though yesterday went terribly, Milton was one of the few people really trying to consider the cases, and look at alternatives even after it started exploding.
This isn't even a read, this is ONLY Milton's last couple of times saying someone looked scummy, which gives us a place to start looking. After the debacle, I'm going to be as methodical as possible to avoid a town loss because of another OMGUS shouting match.
These are only highlights, please read filters and help with this, the last thing we want is for scum to poke and prod us into a horrid bandwagon.
|
On July 01 2012 09:34 Keirathi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 09:30 JingleHell wrote:
Keirathi, of course, was right in the thick of a lot of the hot points of that mess, and now he's trying to discuss policy when we're in a world of trouble numerically.
Not sure if you realize it, but my policy discussion was *BECAUSE* of the numerical trouble we are in.
I am aware of that. There's a reason I'm trying to advocate caution, because I agree with that much of what you said. I was just giving us a starting point based on the question of why Milton would be the scum's target. It seemed like leaving the extra consideration out wouldn't help, so I made sure to put a heavy disclaimer on my post instead.
The last thing I want is a shouting match again, I just want us to start breaking down posting, working on filters, and "why did Milton die" seemed like a good place to start.
|
On July 01 2012 09:53 Keirathi wrote:
I certainly agree, a shouting match doesn't solve anything.
So, you said you agree with much of what I have said. What specifically do you not agree with?
And to the point of defending myself because Milton pointed a very, very fragile argument towards me: since we now know that Vivax *WAS* town, how was my staunch DEFEND THE DT stance anti-town at all, even if he wasn't DT in the end? I still fully stand by my actions; taking a chance on lynching the DT, no matter how small, is silly.
And for more defense, lets assume that I am mafia for one moment. Why would I, BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE, lobby for a no-lynch policy for today? It's an extremely pro-town stance to take; a no-lynch doesn't benefit Mafia in any way whatsoever, and in every possible situation, its actually a bad thing for them. Higher odds that one of them gets lynched and all. Agreeing with the proposal after-the-fact is one thing; you can't really afford ti disagree with it if people in the town feel its the right decision, but to flat out propose it during the night before any discussion has taken place would be flat out idiotic. Not to mention, the call for last minute role-claims tonight hurts mafia too, because assuming everyone complies, they *WILL* be forced into lying. They will have to make up evidence to support there claims, and dismiss evidence of other people's claims. Much more liable to slip up when you have to lie.
My biggest concern is that discussing policy may well be what tips us into the point where we don't have time to hunt scum. I'm not entirely against a no-lynch, in fact, I prefer it if it's the best option, I just feel we're really running far too late to take that sort of risk. It's entirely in what-if land, and assumes scum don't have any scum-vigi holding a shot.
As for how Vivax flipped, yes, that was unfortunate, but it really has no bearing on the actual cases involved. Like I said, I'm not accusing you, not right now, likely not at all. I just thought those things were at least worth mentioning, and since Milton pointed that admittedly light finger at you, it would have been strange not to mention them as well, for things to look at while digging through filters.
Frankly, though, I think I may be looking too much at the small picture now, though. Can we find anything Milton and Release had in common? The two night shots?
|
On July 01 2012 10:05 Keirathi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 10:00 JingleHell wrote:
I'm not entirely against a no-lynch, in fact, I prefer it if it's the best option, I just feel we're really running far too late to take that sort of risk. It's entirely in what-if land, and assumes scum don't have any scum-vigi holding a shot.
There is no mafia extra shot role. The only possibility for losing tonight if we no-lynch is if we have another town vigi and he shoots a townie. I would certainly hope that wouldn't happen though.
Oh, damn, I should have read through the list of available scum roles more carefully.
I'd still rather dig through and find something, though, than discuss policy. Can we at least agree to disagree on that, and I'll promise not to point a finger if someone else wants to discuss it with you later and you talk about it with them? At least in the absence of an abundance of other reasons to suspect you?
So, back on track, can you think of a possible link between Milton and Release?
Or, maybe we're supposed to get confused about something like that. Maybe that's what we're supposed to do. That's the problem with the metagame. Regardless, since you're here and open to hunting, can you think of anything?
|
I'm going to let my defense stand as it already is, for now.
As a short recap: I can't help what rofl did or did not do, but the majority of the case against him was lurking, which I have not done.
The Vivax vs myself situation could have potentially been resolved much differently had he not OMGUS'd and then faked a roleclaim to try and force his assumption (based mostly on rofl's lurking) down all our throats.
As for Esspen, he could easily be scum seeing towny vs towny mislynch scenarios trying to set things up to force a third mislynch, via suspicious behavior.
I did ask if anyone wanted to discuss this during the night, I assume nobody really got in on that out of some sort of fear it was a scum ploy, which I suppose I should have considered, but I actually just wanted to get it out of the way ASAP, so we wouldn't waste time on it today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
