EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XVIII
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
I'm not entirely convinced by most of the current cases being thrown around, but I have some reasons to wonder about a would-be "town leader", under the circumstances. While overall, being up-front and visible shouldn't scream "Scum", with the overall activity level right now, it almost seems like a role-reversal. There's far too much lurking and too little discussion for any policy lynches to be all that likely to work out in favor of our beloved town. There's one person practically calling out the scum, perhaps he knows he's safe? It certainly appears nothing happened, almost like an effort to earn airtight credibility in this low activity hunt. On June 27 2012 00:53 Vivax wrote: + Show Spoiler + FoS: Esspen I think the focus has to switch to the less active posters (NrGmonk, AegonC, roflwaffle55y, Esspen). Consider the amount of content, not just the amount of posts. I'll give you my opinions regarding the lurkers, I hope it's gonna help you in making a decision on which one to lynch. If someone of the would-be-modkilled lurkers just posts and votes shortly before the lynch without a damn good reason to do so, we should obviously lynch him. I think it's good to have a consensus on this alternative, I would appreciate if townies expressed their approval if they agree with this. NrGMonk: Gonna vote for him if he posts right before deadline to escape the modkill. AegonC: Doesn't offer any reads with his generic minipost. His priority is next to NrG's. Esspen: Kinda weird posts. He posts first when it's about discussing the lynch all liars policy. What strikes me here is that he questions the policy, but concludes the post with his line about lynching blues and confusing scum. That might have been a slip.His next post says it was intentional, and he immediately uses that explanation to put his FoS on Release. He never took a hard stance during this, he never tried to post a case on Release when he had reason to. And then he completely forgets Release in his last post, to 'completely agree' with Keirathi and hopeless1der about the lurker lynch policy. + Show Spoiler + Saying that he would be a too obvious mafia isn't a valid defense for me either, mafia can be obvious if the players make mistakes, and I still don't buy above blue role lynch mistake as intentional. It might have been, but that'd be very risky play by a townie. roflwaffle55: He comments on policy (lynch > NL), doesn't like Release style of posting, promises more contribution after sleeping. Him commenting negatively on Release very early looks townie to me. I wouldn't vote for him instead of the other three as of now. Note the levels of effort. It's almost like it should be a foregone conclusion who to target. On June 27 2012 04:33 Vivax wrote: I'm highlighting this for the guys who say they vote for the majority cause they fear No lynch (hey, Esspen). No Lynch isn't possible here, you will only vote for the ones you truly believe to be mafia, and not try to hide behind the majority. If you do vote hiding behind a majority, it will come back to haunt you cause it's scummy. Pointing out a definition of scummy that suits his agenda of trying to get people targeted. On June 27 2012 08:39 Vivax wrote: I don't understand town atm. We had policy lynch discussion just at the beginning of the game where the general consensus seemed to be lynch all lurkers. I have yet to see one guy who says that we should lynch lurkers in absence of clear scumtells. And yet there are people voting for all sorts of people except for AegonC, the biggest lurker (looks like there's gonna be lots to be replaced tho). Did I miss any decisive scumtells out there? Again, targeting specific people based on a policy lynch that actually doesn't favor town very well in the current climate. On June 27 2012 19:25 Vivax wrote: Esspen voted for hopeless when rofl was set to lynch, as already mentioned. If one of them is scum, the other most likely is, too. With the current information available, I would go for one of them. Also remember that posting cases during the night can make you a target for scum. Speaking of it, I think I'm the designed nightkill simply cause noone suspected me yet. Townies who are believed to be townies are dangerous for scum, and I didn't see any blue role vibes for them to use yet, so they don't have many alternatives. Calling out the scum, but absolutely no interest in him? It's like he wants to look above reproach. I agree this is by no means airtight, but I've got an FoS on you, Vivax, and I'll be keeping an eye on you as well. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
You receive an FoS, and start discussing the merits of lynching me compared to a person who has a reasonable case against them. Better still, after running in those circles faster than a poodle on cocaine, you attempt to misdirect suspicion to a third party for lurking, even though killing just for lurking is a horrible plan when there's so many lurkers. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
I can't help that my alternate personality roflwaffles seemed suspicious to you. Hell, I know he was town, and he still looks a little fishy to me. I can, however, look at inconsistencies and strange behavior in people, and what you've been saying is enough to make me wonder about you. Granted, I don't know why Esspen made that miracle vote to save me. What I do know is that there's a few of us trying to pierce the pall of lies and the veil of obfuscation hanging over our town, and there's you, just adding a huge pile of vague suspicions and serpentine logic, trying to cast doubt in every direction. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
I don't know why you keep pressing lurkers, in a town of this activity level, that's like a surefire way to keep the heat off of the scum until it's too late. What we need to do is increase the pressure in general, spot inconsistencies, and lean on people. Right now, I have my sights on you. Think about it, people, Vivax is arguing in favor of a policy lynch that isn't clearly in the town's best interest right now, he's sowing confusion, he's trying to spread the blame around. This isn't majority lynch, so if there's enough confusion, all it could take is 1-2 scum votes to tilt things, without them even looking like they're working together. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On June 29 2012 01:21 Vivax wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On June 28 2012 00:25 JieXian wrote: No. It was between roffles and Hopeless. You weren't on the chopping block at all. If roffles was scum and Esspen saved him at the last moment -> Esspen = scum. Simple right? JieXian, you posted this earlier. Don't you support the gain of information from a lynch of either Esspen or the roflewaffle55 replacement? Right now two are pushing a case against me, one of them might be scum, and you prefer to suspect Bio. While I don't trust Bio entirely cause of Release's connection to him and his following death, it would be nice if town could focus and handle single cases instead of making so many at once, and atm my case and the Esspen vs rofl one are unsolved and need feedback. You're trying to push three people at once, one a lurker, and you say we should handle single cases? Then, from the same bit... On June 29 2012 01:21 Vivax wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On June 28 2012 00:25 JieXian wrote: No. It was between roffles and Hopeless. You weren't on the chopping block at all. If roffles was scum and Esspen saved him at the last moment -> Esspen = scum. Simple right? JieXian, you posted this earlier. Don't you support the gain of information from a lynch of either Esspen or the roflewaffle55 replacement? + Show Spoiler + Right now two are pushing a case against me, one of them might be scum, and you prefer to suspect Bio. While I don't trust Bio entirely cause of Release's connection to him and his following death, it would be nice if town could focus and handle single cases instead of making so many at once, and atm my case and the Esspen vs rofl one are unsolved and need feedback. You suggest lynching for "information". We stand to gain just as much, if not more, information from lynching for truly suspicious behavior and wishy-washy play than we do lynching based on some hapazard spreading of guilt. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
Right now it's feeling more and more like you're trying to flood irrelevant posts to cover for the inconsistencies we've been pointing out. I'm not going to take the bait on your OMGUS directed at me, because the evidence against you is standing for itself. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On June 29 2012 08:17 Vivax wrote: There is one thing I did that is pretty failsafe proof of my townie status. I'll post it in the second half of day 2. If you think you are a good townie, then you should have found it already. At least now town will know that there is at least one scum jumping on the bandwagon against me, and scum might even have started it. You keep bringing up this whole notion that spotting your inconsistencies somehow makes people anti-town, and that your behavior is so textbook that anybody who's above suspicion should refuse to suspect you because of it. This isn't a defense. This is an effort to encourage a fear reaction in anyone wanting to push a read on you. Also, if you've done something too textbook to miss, I would also consider it to be too textbook to trust entirely. On June 29 2012 09:13 dNa wrote: + Show Spoiler + ##Vote Esspen first of all sorry for my inactivity in the past 24 hours, i meant to check in but i kinda forgot :/ after reading everything that has been said in my absence, i come to the conclusion that there's too much bandwagoning going on. This might not neccessarily be a bad thing though. It might very well be, that all the people, who made a major case out of Vivax are scum. I'm pretty sure Esspen is scum, reason behind it being that he changed his mind about 5 minutes before the deadline to kill off hopeless instead of roflwaffles, whom i still consider to be scum as well. JingleHell (roflwaffle's replacement) is the other one who is making alot of ruckus in Vivax's general direction. Overall this whole case against him seems like a VERY good distraction from this little head-over-heels misshap that could've been disasterous for scum if it wasn't swept under the rug by a lot of commotion. The reason why i vote for Esspen and not for JingleHell is that, Esspen's posts overall are just confusing, not really helpful, and even if all my suspicions on them were wrong and they really would be townies, he seems the better guy to lose of them. I can understand why you'd see it that way, dNa. Like I said earlier, I can't help much the bizarre things that happened before I came in, regarding Esspen's behavior. The best I could suggest is that he might be scum, (there's some reasonable cases, for sure), and seeing a mislynch was guaranteed with either winner, he did a miracle save to make my predecessor look like a false positive. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On June 29 2012 10:20 Miltonkram wrote: @ Jinglehell What do you think of dNa's reasoning for his Esspen vote? Pretty scummy right? I have a few thoughts on this, but just in case you're right, I'd rather wait to post them until he's stated his reasoning for himself, to avoid muddying things up. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
after reading everything that has been said in my absence, i come to the conclusion that there's too much bandwagoning going on. This might not neccessarily be a bad thing though. While I don't agree with all of his reasoning, it seems to me that this was intended to suggest that he was contributing his final thought process, after reading cases made against both myself and Esspen. Not that it was his sole reasoning. Even with the weight of evidence stacking in certain places, the last thing we want is to tunnel so badly that scum could straight up roleclaim as scum and get away with it. I like his effort at objectivity, even if I don't agree with him on everything. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On June 29 2012 11:57 BassInSpace wrote: On my phone right now, skimmed over stuff. Vivax still holding out on defense post? And I'm guessing your failproof defense is that you attempted to switch last minute to roflwaffle in the day one vote but it wad too late. I'd guess he's hoping that someone will come up with a good defense for him, since his efforts to misdirect reads and pressure people into changing their votes have all failed. It would sound better if someone else found his "failsafe" evidence. I'd be willing to switch to another person with a fairly solid read against them if he could present his defense, but for now, delaying and scare tactics seem like an effort to just create enough confusion to get him benefit of the doubt, rather than a reason to target someone else. I'm still keeping vigilant, though, as should we all. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
I suppose, Vivax, that on night 1, you checked every single individual who was going to make a case against you today, and everyone is scum, right? Tell me, out of your "scumlist" you posted earlier, of Miltonkram, JingleHell, Esspen, Keirathi, NrGMonk listed in that order, why would you not have listed or weighted the names differently? Why would you discuss lynching for information that you already have and aren't uncomfortable giving out with a roleclaim? Something doesn't add up here, so I'm going to accuse you of a false roleclaim to get your head off the chopping block. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On June 28 2012 20:45 Vivax wrote: Regarding JingleHell vs Esspen: I think lynching Jinglehell would give us more information. Esspen might very well just be a sloppy player. But I prefer a Keirathi lynch cause of the scummy behavior and the low attention on him right now. You prefer a Keirathi lynch over someone you claim to KNOW is scum? Intriguing. This is all sounding increasingly desperate. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On June 29 2012 23:44 Vivax wrote: Lol what. I can only check one, and you know it. Also,there was no case against me on night 1. The cases started when I unfolded my suspect list, just that I wasn't sure of Esspen cause he covered you with his vote in the last minute, so I tried to breadcrumb it in a way that town would lynch one of you. Keirathi was simply the next one to suspect. There are still 2 other mafia besides you, and 4 people left to choose them from my list. Your behavior proves that you are scum, too. If you knew you were townie, you could just stay cool now, since no matter who of us dies today, the other will die too the next day. That's a situation with a guaranteed -1 scum. Actually, the cases started BEFORE you unfolded your "suspect list", and I believe they helped shape it, as it's been changing constantly since. I'm unsure how posting evidence (what I've done) is supposed to make me scum, compared to someone who's entire case is a (fake) roleclaim and a rather weak attempt at bullying the vote. You aren't answering why you were more interested in lynching Keirathi than me until recently, when you theoretically knew I was scum, and only really had him for lurking. I wouldn't buy that with a coupon and someone else's money. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
But I prefer a Keirathi lynch cause of the scummy behavior and the low attention on him right now. Somehow that's supposed to line up with Never been more interested in lynching him. I just found the reasons to add him to my list of suspects. I can place my FoS on multiple people at once. Your inconsistencies have been the primary basis of my case the entire time. And as usual, your tactic is to lie and manipulate, rather than just making a clear case and a clear defense. You accuse me of tunnel vision, but I've mentioned Esspen's behavior, even suggested a possible explanation for his bizarre vote, and reminded people that while there's a pile of evidence building, we should still remain vigilant for anything. I suppose that's tunnel vision too? | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On June 30 2012 00:30 Vivax wrote: JingleHell's first post against me contains these accusations (actually they are lines) after he quotes me 4 times to inflate his post, bolded ones are my answers: Exactly which post of mine suggests that I have no interest in what I'm targetting?What kind of bad accuse is this? Aside from your ridiculous arguments in your first case against me, you seem to assume again that I would just blindly pursue you in front of the other townies cause you returned scum. You should know that I wouldn't have managed to get you lynched if I didn't claim. You complain about my criticism of your effort, where it was clearly related to individual effort in each of your supposed "cases". Some of them were a single line (something you're trying to accuse me of now), while others were closer to a paragraph. You seem to consider Esspen's last minute save of [b]me to be scummy, why shouldn't your "attempt" also be scummy? You claim to be targetting people day2 based on analysis. Shortly after your fake roleclaim. Which is supposed to support a case that's utterly inconsistent with your agenda from the beginning of the day. And point four, I was talking about you calling out the scum, and them showing no interest in you. Why are you trying to turn that into something so unrelated? All of your "defense" is based on a rather bad semantics game. And right at the end, you admit that you're only roleclaiming to support your OMGUS case against me. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
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? | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On June 30 2012 02:00 Keirathi wrote: 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. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
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. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
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. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
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. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
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. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On June 30 2012 06:32 NrGmonk wrote: 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. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
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. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
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. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
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? | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
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? | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
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. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
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. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 01 2012 09:34 Keirathi wrote: 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. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
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? | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 01 2012 10:05 Keirathi wrote: 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? | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
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. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 01 2012 20:31 Esspen wrote: I agree with all of you! Uhm, half of what you're blindly posting nonsense to agree with is accusations against you. You might want to read through them and start considering some sort of actual defense. ##Vote Esspen | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 01 2012 16:46 BassInSpace wrote: + Show Spoiler + On July 01 2012 09:18 JingleHell wrote: 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. + Show Spoiler + On July 01 2012 09:30 JingleHell wrote: 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... 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. JingleHell, I feel like your second post is doing exactly what you cautioned against in your first post: metagaming the people who know more than us. Besides, I don't think Milton's point against keirathi holds any weight anymore, considering how Vivax flipped. Here's what got me considering that sidetrack. In retrospect, it feels like a rather obvious false trail. No contribution to the point he's bringing up, but it could easily be encouraged into tons and tons of finger pointing in every direction. Hell, it almost worked. On July 01 2012 09:13 Esspen wrote: I'm confused, why would mafia kill somebody we suspected of being mafia? Wtf? | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
I'm not voting for Esspen based on some sort of scum ulterior motive, like you seem to be suggesting. My vote on Esspen comes from generally scummy behavior, and the fact that twice now, he's vote-switched at the last minute to set up the only living person I know is town. Granted, I can't prove my innocence in any foolproof way. The best I can do is ask that you please give a read on me that doesn't involve rofls, or Esspen, and treat those as "potential additional weight", rather than the basis for a case. I've already explained the best rationale I can think of for Esspen's switch. While I understand why I'm under scrutiny at this point, all I ask is that we have more reasoning behind any votes against me than there were supporting yesterdays catastrophe of an OMGUS. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 02 2012 10:04 NrGmonk wrote: No one's posted in 5 hours O_O. Well, I didn't feel the need to respond directly to your analysis, and I didn't want to spam it out of existence, because it makes a lot of sense. If there's anything you'd like my input on (I have kind of already given mine on Esspen, including a vote, after all), I'll happily get on it. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 02 2012 15:09 Keirathi wrote: No. I'm gambling on the fact that the probability of having concrete information tomorrow is greater than the certainty that we have ZERO concrete information today. We won't have any concrete information. Unless you expect the scum to actually claim red roles, which I'm guessing isn't on the agenda. What we'll have is fewer town votes than today, and the same amount of good information. I can't imagine a scenario where this could possibly benefit the town. If it was early game and there were a lot of lurkers, to the point of it nearly being a shot in the dark, no lynch could easily make some sense. But not when it's so perilously close to us losing, and as good a case against one person as we could hope for. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 03 2012 00:06 Keirathi wrote: No. No, no, no to every single one of your points. How do you know we won't have any concrete information? Lets just make a hypothetical situation: Let's say I'm a doctor, and tonight I decide to protect you. I did my last minute role claim, saying that I'm protecting you tonight, and no one else claims any kind of vet/doc/jailer role. Day dawns tomorrow, and no one dies. I get a PM that my target was shot, and I share that information with the town. Now there are 2 people that are 100% clear (The Doc and his Target). Everything they've said and everything they will say, none of it has scummy motives; you don't have to try to pick apart their arguments. I'm not sure why you don't see the benefit of this. Yes, there is a chance that we have no useful information and we are back at this exact same spot tomorrow, but if we do by some miracle get concrete information, we are in a MUCH BETTER spot tomorrow. That's really all I can say. I don't want to spoon-feed the mafia with what to do to hard-counter my proposal. There are definitely more solid cases that can be made. Lets go back to my previous hypothetical. Now we have 2 people that are completely clean, and then 6 people (there was a doc save) that are still suspects. Even just the elimination of 2 people from the suspect pool has some subtle (and in some case, not so subtle) changes on every other individual suspect's case. Every thing that the 2 clear people have said has slightly more weight just because of the fact that we KNOW they aren't lying. Anyone who has every made an accusation towards the 2 clear people now looks slightly scummier, just because of the what-if of them being mafia and knowing that the cleared people were town beforehand. That said, there's not NECESSARILY a more solid case that can be made in our situation, even if we no-lynch. Its a gambling game (although, despite what everyone thinks, i don't think losing a townie is actually detrimental, ie 4 townies to vote tomorrow vs 5 today, but i can't seem to get the idea from my head and expressed into print in a convincing way, so I'm intentionally avoiding those arguments) on the hope that we do have blue role claims with good information. There's a very good possibility that we don't, but at the same time, I don't see how the case against Esspen changes any if we're back in this spot tomorrow. It doesn't magically make his case not the strongest still, it just means that maybe we have other information to consider alongside it. So basically, you're suggesting that we play russian roulette, but with 5 bullets and one empty chamber? No thanks. If you can post an argument that doesn't rely on a hypothetical best-case pure luck scenario for your suggestion to be a good idea, that's one thing. But right now, it sounds like a distinctly bad-for-town suggestion. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 03 2012 00:57 Keirathi wrote: This is the part of your argument that I don't understand. Right now: We have no concrete information, but a decent circumstantial case against Esspen. Worst Case Scenario tomorrow: We still have no concrete information, but still have a decent circumstantial case against Esspen. I don't see how that is distinctly bad for town. In fact, in every case EXCEPT for the worst case, its distinctly good for town. Every case except the worst case isn't a real analysis though. Right now, there's 3 scum. There's 8 of us total. Assuming we no-lynch and HAVE a doctor, since that's the only example you've given that provides real information, he has to pick 1 of 7 people who aren't himself to protect. Assuming he actually has perfect scum reads, that leaves him a 25% chance of picking the correct person to protect with his WIFOM logic. If he has 2 of the 3 scum pegged accurately, it drops to a 20% chance. It gets nothing but worse from there, down to ~17% and ~14%. So, in the best case scenario on your no-lynch plan, it's actually only a 25% chance of providing information. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 03 2012 01:26 Keirathi wrote: The same logic applies to jailer as it does to Doctor. Veteran would be slightly different, as only 1 person is clear rather than two, but same principals. DT is, of course, a different ballgame (albeit a less trustworthy one). But you hit the nail on the head: today we have 0 information. Tomorrow we have a 14-25% chance of information per bleu role we have. Maybe we have 0 blue roles, which is our absolute worst case scenario. We don't lose anything by prolonging our decision by a day to see if we do in fact gain information. But it still comes down to a ridiculous gamble, and it still all involves a lot of second guessing everything. And we potentially DO lose something, in losing a townie vote. And no matter what roleclaims pop up, it still comes down to neurotic metagame recursive logic to decide if we're thinking what the scum want us to think or not. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 03 2012 01:52 Keirathi wrote: Let me put it to you like this: You are walking down the street today, and someone hands you a random Lottery ticket thats scheduled to be drawn tomorrow. When you get home, do you throw it away? Or do you check the numbers tomorrow just on the off-chance that you've beaten all probability? No, see, that's not a valid analogy, because with the lottery ticket, if I don't win, I don't lose anything. In your suggestion of no lynch, we DO lose something if we don't win. Your continued refusal to look at this objectively is only making me wonder about your motives. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 03 2012 02:00 Keirathi wrote: I just don't agree with you that we do lose something. In fact, I think we GAIN something, in having less people to make cases against and therefor better voting odds. But, like I said, I can't seem to articulate my thoughts into print here, so I've avoided that argument. Better odds? Right now, with 8 people, we can have a single townie get misled and avoid a mislynch, as long as the scum gets 4 votes first. At 7 people, a single misled townie is 100% disaster for us. The only people who get "better voting odds" are the scum. You're either a hopelessly misguided optimist, or scum. After Esspen flips red, we're going to have a pretty much airtight case against you. Or were you hoping to fake a roleclaim to keep yourself out of the spotlight? | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
And frankly, setting it up before suspicion dropped on Esspen would be the only way to go if you were scum. If things were pointing at a townie for a mislynch, you could easily just not press the case for no-lynch. But since you mentioned it early, it becomes a viable contingency plan in case there's pressure, without seeming like a direct attempt to misdirect attention off of a scum. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
The only way I could be scum would be if I agreed with you that better mathematical odds are good, but kept pushing for a very anti-town decision that would, conveniently, protect the single most clear scum-read in the game. You don't have to have more flip flops than Daytona Beach to make what you're pushing for seem pretty ridiculous. The evidence already does that. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
A no-lynch scenario for information and time only makes sense if there's a lot of people and little information. Get it down to the wire like this, where there's almost no time left, and there's plenty of available information to sift through, and lynching makes sense. This isn't a game of chance, it's an educated guessing game. Some of us are actually trying to play that. If you want to play odds, try cards or dice. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
You can gamble in a game where the random factors aren't what make the game. Yes, this game is about educated guesses and gambles, nobody argues that. But luck isn't what determines the outcome. The hosts don't throw an eight sided die and the corresponding player gets lynched. That's russian roulette, essentially. We pick, based on all available information. And I've already pointed out, numerically, why the odds are stacked against your plan of combining a throw of the dice and WIFOM and hoping lady luck is with us. What you're trying to do now is railroad a bad plan over everybody. I don't know if it's emotional investment or ulterior motive, but given that Monk has used similar reasoning and you didn't respond to him nearly the same as you did to me, it's clear that you've got success of something tied to this plan in your mind, and it somehow involves me. Now I'm with Monk. We should forget about this no-lynch nonsense, and start working on the next set of suspicions. However, I'm getting a little frustrated right now, so I'd like some time to compose myself before I start my work on that, to avoid tunneling or confirmation bias, as I'd like to be objective so we can be as sure as possible of catching the scum. Does anyone have any reads to post? | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
Trying to evoke an emotional response to avoid debate doesn't help anyone, except maybe the scum, so stop doing it. In particular, when I've already hinted I'm done with the discussion, and said I want time to compose myself before making a case, you trying to push the argument just looks like an effort to discredit any future reads I make. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 03 2012 05:36 Keirathi wrote: That's exactly what you've done to me. Seriously, where do I go from here? If I refuse to vote Esspen because I truly believe my plan can work, then I look scummy. If I vote Esspen, then I didn't really believe it in the first place, so I look scummy. I'm really in a lose-lose situation now. No, if you're town and truly believe your plan can work, that's up to you, although in light of the arguments against it, it comes back to what I said earlier about hopeless optimism. I did suggest that as a possible alternative to scum. I'm not going to make a case against you based off of just one thing, or off of an emotional reaction. I'm committing words, more than once now, to both of those being distinct possible alternatives to scum out of your behavior. Under the circumstances, you should be glad for that, as it's a big grain of salt that can be applied to any reads on you based on everything you've done, although I still intend to go through your filter with a fine-toothed comb. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
And Vivax, remember. As town, it's perception and persuasion, not knowledge, that matter. I (barely) took that because I was able to make your side of it look scummy, even though you were pushing the right target for the wrong reason. Like I said, you did a fair job on reads and analysis, but you started working from that angle a little late. If you'd posted like you did right before you got lynched through that whole day, this would be heading for a townie victory right now, and we'd both be in the Obs QT, from a Jingle lynch, Vivax NK. GG all. Monk, you had me nervous a couple times. You were one of my biggest fears, since you know me a little. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
Actually, I planned to FoS you and drop it until you started attacking me because rofls lurked. I ended up with a huge target on my back. It was just way too late. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 03 2012 10:03 Keirathi wrote: reading through the mafia QT: No. No, no, no, no, no. I mentioned in one of my posts that I didn't want to spoon feed the mafia the game. What I meant was, mafia claiming blue roles would be the easiest way to cause confusion. Since you only needed to get one person lynched to win, it would have probably been worth the risk for one or two of you to fake role claim, even though in doing so, you're painting a big sign on your back. Everyone else seemed to expect the mafia to claim VT, which is the safe thing, but you were in a position where you didn't have the be safe, you just had to get a single lynch. That post was directly related to you actually believing Vivax's roleclaim. The fact that it actually swung so many votes ACTUALLY confused me. Somewhere in the QT, I said something about having trouble keeping it in mind that I was the scum, and not Vivax, just due to his countercase. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
And just in case you didn't watch the last song I linked that I found amusingly appropriate... Here's one dedicated to the town. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 03 2012 10:15 Keirathi wrote: As an aside, is it actually possible for mafia to not kill anyone at night? I never really thought about that, because in every version I've played its not possible. No idea, but it seemed like a good contingency plan at the time. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 03 2012 10:17 dNa wrote: i can think of no reason whatsoever not to kill anyone at night... maybe to fake a medic safe... but.. that would be some deep game .. Since Keirathi was pushing no-lynch, if it gained enough traction to do that and roleclaim, I suggested it specifically to fake a medic save and grab some townie cred for a couple of us to keep the confusion up. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
 I just wanted to establish a thread presence to get some credit to disassociate from rofls. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 03 2012 12:22 Miltonkram wrote: Thanks for the analysis Kita. I was planning on writing up a case against Bio but work ended up getting in the way and I didn't have time. If Vivax hadn't DT claimed and just played standard VT, Bio was next on my list and I would have put more effort into hunting him. I think a Bio lynch D2 could have won us the game considering how much more information a scum lynch gives the town. We actually thought you were DT, with a check on me. That's why you got the bullet. Since we knew I would show green to a check, we figured that's why you were so vehemently on my side during D2's wreck. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 03 2012 22:47 Keirathi wrote: That's the part that is so baffling to me. I've broken so many games with clever strategizing Well, clever strategizing broke this game too. Fakeclaim secured D2, and left Esspen as the one better target than me. So your pattern is unscathed at least, it just broke it a way you didn't want. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 03 2012 22:57 Keirathi wrote: Touche, good sir. Although, I think that was more of a case of unclever strategizing :p That all depends on your point of view, though, the same case could be made about your gambling fetish D3. No matter if it can work, this game is all about perception and persuasion. The fakeclaim was a similar sort of gamble, and, in fact, since he had me and Bio pegged as scum, it could have won the game, had he done it right, by building a case first, rather than hoping the claim would stand on it's own. Granted, it almost did stand on it's own, but almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 04 2012 09:24 kitaman27 wrote: Probably the biggest thing would be to interact with your scum buddies more often in the thread. I think if you were to flip at any point, bio would have come out looking pretty bad and several town players would be tough to lynch. I'll keep it in mind. I got paranoid when the spotlight landed on me, and probably overdid the separation. Of course, no matter what you do, it's all about the wine. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
Can't miss it. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
| ||
