|
On July 18 2012 09:03 Hapahauli wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 08:55 YourHarry wrote:On July 18 2012 07:10 Fulla wrote:Where the hell is obvious? Sigh.. It seems it's all down to me, I hate it when this happens. Let obvious be lynched or vote tube and force a no lynch. On July 18 2012 06:16 JingleHell wrote:
Fulla, when he made that post, he was leaving his vote on tube, and also called me suspicious. Does that make us the fourth and fifth scum in that list of three you're accrediting to him?
Good point, I overlooked that. Let's see what he flips then. ## Vote Obvious.660 This vote was made 50 minutes before the deadline. At this time, Obvious.660 had 6 votes vs. iamperfection's 3 votes. Fulla could have voted on someone else or not voted and the Obvious.660 lynch was VERY IMMINENT. There is no way scum Fulla would have risked looking suspicious knowing that he will be a part of a mislynch that was going to happen ANYWAY. A single vote isn't enough to clear a lurking player (with 4 posts) that shows up right before the lynch deadline. Moreover, what about the content of his post? He overplays the importance of his post ("Sigh... it seems it's all down to me..." WAT) and clearly demonstrated that he's not keeping up with the thread and votecount. Hell, he doesn't even know the game is plurality lynch before voting. For all I know, this sudden "I'M POSITIVE HE'S TOWNIE" stuff could've been a plan between the two of you in Mafia QT.
Lurking is not excusable behavior for TOWN AND SCUM. And in the absence of strong scum/town read, it may be OK to start a bandwagon against a lurking player. But when a player is obviously townie (and in my opinion, Fulla is obv townie), deciding to lynch a lurking townie may not be the best play for town. Hopefully he would start posting more.
|
Nope, it's just the voting. I understand that lurking is generally a scum tell but towns also lurk too. I do not like people lurking, of course, but that does not mean he's scum. And lurking, low post count, and showing up right before the deadline IS sort of same thing. The fact that he voted for town, which should have been clear to him if he were scum, when his vote did not matter makes him strong town. Personally, this kind of evidence is more reliable than evidence one can "manufacture" from analyzing people's posts, partially because scums know what kind of things tend to be deemed scummy and can engineer their posts to look town.
|
I retract my claim that Fulla is definitely town. It seems, as Hapha pointed out, that he didn't know this was plurality lynch, in which case scum Fulla could have wanted the mislynch - he was just wrong in thinking that his vote made the difference.
I still think he's probably town because he didn't know the rules, because scum Fulla would have access to QT. And while it is true that this thread contains at least two posts that discuss the rules of plurality lynch, it is much easier to accept non-active townie missing this amidst hundreds of posts. It is also possible that scum Fulla pretended to not know about plurality lynch. And although scums sometimes feign ignorance, in this specific case, I don't see much benefit in faking not knowing about the rules of the lynch - especially coming from a player that has been accuse of not being active and not reading the thread.
|
On July 18 2012 10:32 iamperfection wrote:
Some food for thought while we enter the terrors that are the night. Why would i knowingly put myself under so much heat. When i Voted for obvious their was one exactly one vote for him. If i was mafia i could posted lip service comments to try and hid but i diddnt i put a claim out there and i think its going to lead to some information. The bandwagon on obvious happened after me.
The mafia have the information advantage and if they wanted to risk it they could have not voted for obvious at all if they so desired. I will be able to work on this tommorow morning and i will post before the deadline what i think happened.
You can say this for everyone who have voted for Obvious.660.
From scum's perspective, it is a choice between not wanting to look scummy by avoiding to contribute to a mislynch a player they know is town vs. putting their voting power in effect in order to favor a mislynch over a scum lynch.
|
One good thing about vigilante using his power early is that we will have a confirmed townie starting Day 2, which is always good. It also prevents vigilante from having to claim if he/she gets pressured close to a lynch. It also helps detective to narrow down the list to investigate from. Of course, it can be argued that this could also help scums to narrow down who they need to roleblock, technically, but in reality this doesn't really matter as much because scums never get information on whether their roleblock is successful. Thus, while it is true that they have one fewer person in the list of people to roleblock from (reduced from like 7 to 6), they don't know if they connected/missed the power role. On the other hand, detective investigating a vigilante who later claims would be a waste of one night action.
|
Of course, the downside of this is that vigilante has less information compared to later in the game. But considering the advantages of using his power early and the fact that vigilante may be NK'ed later in the game, I would support vigilante using vig power to take out whoever he thinks is most scummy.
|
On July 19 2012 04:30 Mufaa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2012 04:03 YourHarry wrote:
One good thing about vigilante using his power early is that we will have a confirmed townie starting Day 2, which is always good. It also prevents vigilante from having to claim if he/she gets pressured close to a lynch. It also helps detective to narrow down the list to investigate from. Of course, it can be argued that this could also help scums to narrow down who they need to roleblock, technically, but in reality this doesn't really matter as much because scums never get information on whether their roleblock is successful. Thus, while it is true that they have one fewer person in the list of people to roleblock from (reduced from like 7 to 6), they don't know if they connected/missed the power role. On the other hand, detective investigating a vigilante who later claims would be a waste of one night action.
I might be missing something, but how does this confirm a townie d2 if a vig shoots? Wouldn't it just confirm that we have a vig who has no shots (unless he claims). If he claims though and we don't have a medic it stands to reason he'd die next night to remove the confirmed townie since they're much more dangerous to scum than the other townies that aren't trustworthy. If the mafia targets him n2 and he lives we gain save a person and break even compared to if he hadn't shot at all at the expense of confirming a medic among the 7/6 remaining town. To me this feels like a very high-risk play for a very low reward unless the Vig is so confident in his read that he's almost positive he can hit scum.
Yes, what I meant was that it confirms vigilante to be the confirmed townie. Since he used his shot, there is no reason for him to not claim. And he would be confirmed because no one would fake claim vig. unless scum playing sub-optimally risky. And although there is some chance that vigilante would be targeted next by scum, there are at least two reasons for scums to target think about targeting another player.
1. It is better for scums to NK medic or detective.
2. Because it is highly likely that there is a medic, and even if there isn't, scums would not know that there isn't a medic. So trying to NK the spent vig may lead to a waste of their kill power.
I do not understand your second paragraph. Please explain.
|
On July 19 2012 04:32 Mufaa wrote:
EBWOP: If the mafia targets him n2 and he lives we gain save a person and come out ahead/break even compared to if he hadn't shot at all at the expense of confirming a medic among the 7/6 remaining town.
I am trying to understand this. Sorry that I cannot. Are you proposing that vigilante to claim before he shoots? That would mean that he could be roleblocked OR killed. I don't think that would be a good idea.
|
On July 19 2012 04:50 iamperfection wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2012 04:44 Hapahauli wrote:On July 19 2012 04:32 iamperfection wrote:So you want me to throw out fingers of suspicon that really would serve no purpose other than to be used against me later. What purpose would fos serve the game will change in a few hours and as town the very little information we get come from the result of the night actions. Why be pigenholed now during the night. Its the same reason calgar is upset that jinglehell is trying to make a final be all decesion on who vig should kill. Also you didnt answer the question. my position on obvious was by far the worse i can do nothing to change on what i posted on day 1. Why wouldnt i just make a throwaway vote and semi bandwagon later on sombody else with less votes if i was a lurking mafia? I'm assuming the "throw out FOS" bit is in regards to my linked reply. I'm saying to take a strong stance against someone. You're wishy-washy and simply throw around suspicion without committing anywhere. This is a mafia-trait. TBH, I don't even understand your question. Its not like you voted for Obvious - you voted for him when his fate was still in question. How does your vote for Obvious vindicate you? Because your thinking it in too simple of terms. If im mafia i know that obvious is town i wasent wishy washy at when i voted for obvious so according to your own logic my action at that time was more likely town. Take it further. When obvious is killed its natural to look at who caused the votes to happen how did it benfit me going later into the game how is it going to help the mafia win. Sure i could get the mis lynch on day one but im not set up in benfitual way at all on day 2. Ive been saying all along the goal is to win not looking good with logic or survivng lynches the goal is to make the town win. If im mafia my position makes no sense.
Imagine a player who was wishy-wash about a player and then voted him, who then flipped town. The player would be very suspicious (LOL, this is actually exactly how I acted on D1, but I have an excuse  ) ..So the other side of the coin is that, scums would act decisive and firm in their opinion - because typically that's how townies act and they want to fit in.
Also, you are saying everyone who didn't act wishy washy when they voted Obvious.660 is town? I think that's pretty much everyone except me.
|
Evul was an interesting choice... I suspected Hapha to be targeted by scums. Or calgar, if he is town. But I suspect that he is a scum.
|
When Evul asked for a replacement, there was no hint of him being a power role. There are two possible explanations for this:
1. Scums didn't read that Evul is replacing out. (Not likely that all three or four missed this)
2. Some of scums really did not want speedbumps, who was going to replace Evul, to contribute to scumhunting
There is a third explanation, but I do not want to disclose that right now.
|
Also, it would be interesting for people who were roleblocked to claim roleblocked.
|
On July 19 2012 08:57 JingleHell wrote:
YourHarry: It's day, we need to scumhunt. Concealing a hypothesis like that just sounds suspicious.
It may sound stupid later when I do reveal it, but I have a reason for not wanting to disclose it. I will bring it up in next 8 hours or so.
And what I am about to do may make me look like I am jumping on calgar bandwagon that you started, but too bad. I am about to jump on it. Full throttle.
First, I need to defend against calgar's accusation of me.
|
On July 19 2012 08:59 drwiggl3s wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2012 08:57 YourHarry wrote:
Also, it would be interesting for people who were roleblocked to claim roleblocked. Are you saying we should tell the mafia who our blues are already?
Vanilla townies also get roleblocked. So do scums 
|
BTW, drwiggl3s, if you were roleblocked, don't claim
|
They would know you were power role.
|
On July 19 2012 09:03 calgar wrote:
@YourHarryCare to respond to anything? Nice OMGUS also. You were joking about defending me earlier. Asking people to claim? There's #12 on my list. "I do not want to disclose that right now." --> anti-town play. #13
This can't be what's actually going through your head. Just because I said I do not want to disclose it at this moment, but that I will talk about it sometime very soon, that's an automatic anti-town play that makes it to your made up #13 (WOW!) reasons why I am scummy. The list is indeed very long.
##Vote calgar
I will respond to your posts just for the benefits of other players. Soon, now is time to get some supper.
|
On July 19 2012 09:05 calgar wrote:
EBWOP I see your point, I retract #12.
What do you mean, you see my point? What point?
|
On July 19 2012 09:03 YourHarry wrote:
They would know you were power role.
Shit, I am an idiot. I hope they didn't RB you.
|
On July 19 2012 07:30 calgar wrote:
Alright townies, I'll call it like I see it.
@YourHarry You’ve been called out for anti-town play and you haven’t done a single thing in my eyes to change. I can’t come up with a list this long for any other player besides iamperfection.
1. Your “read” on how fulla is “positively town” is very bad logic. Piling on to a vote right before the deadline is far from pro-town. I’m pretty sure you’re the only one getting that feeling because he is crazy suspicious to me. You then backtrack – see #9.
First, I retracted my assertion that Fulla is definitely town. This is NOT because my logic was bad, but that I realized that the premise in which I drew the conclusion from was incorrect. After Obvious.660 flipped town, I wanted to see what kind of conclusions I could draw from it. I quickly skimmed the pages prior to the mislynch and noticed Fulla voting for Obvious.660 even though his vote did not matter. This struck me as an obvious townie action, because while scums want to execute mislynches, no scum would unnecessarily contribute to lynch a player they know will flip town. This logic still stands.
Above argument is even stronger in Fulla's case because Fulla did not have previous suspicion of Obvious.660. He suddenly appeared, and without much reason, unnecessarily added his name under the list of players contributing to Obvious.660's bandwagon. Scum Fulla would not have done this, knowing that simply staying away or voting for another player would still end up in Obvious.660's death.
Of course, it turns out that Fulla did not know the rules of plurality lynch and that he actually thought that his vote would make a difference. So, my argument no longer stands because my argument relied on Fulla knowing that mislynch would occur regardless of his vote.
As an aside, I still think Fulla is very likely to be town. I outlined why this is the case in earlier post, but this has nothing to do with my defense.
2. You lack any strong reads or dedicated suspicion. See what I’m doing here with this list?
True. Is this a scum tell? Are you going to argue that scums, since they know everyone else is town, would have hard time coming up with arguments for their "fake" suspicion? If so, I would agree with it. But it would not be difficult to manufacture fake suspicions. And I personally know that making lengthy posts analyzing players' scumminess would seem very protown. Scum Harry would have spent the effort to engineer some of these "dedicated suspicion".
Sometimes, I may have somewhat strong scum reads by Day 1. In this game, I had fleeting suspicions on various players which is clearly outlined by my (albeit short) posts and voting patterns. Again, you can argue that this is suspicious, but scum Harry, wanting to fit in with town, would have controlled his voting. Be strong and dedicated in your read, scum Harry would have reminded himself. Always back your voting and explain yourself, too, scum Harry, so people would read you as town.
Incidentally, I do not blame people for finding me suspicious for being all over the place, often with little reason. I often get in this kind of trouble in my other games. And I agree that I should explain myself more, although this is sometimes hard because my suspicions are often based on things that are seemingly trivial stuff. So, while it would be better for the town if I explained myself better and kept myself away from other players' suspicion, if there is one thing I am NOT going to do as a town, it is to build a fake case or engineer plausible reasons that I don't necessarily believe to be true just to convince others to lynch a player I think is scum.
3. I think it’s possible that you bussed iamperfection in your post: “Jingle, iamperfection, tube... Can't be this easy right.”
It is a possibility. So? This is not evidence.
Pick any combinations of players, and you can come up with a fiction of X, Y, and Z scum team based on bussing and buddying.
4. Your analysis of obvious’ summary quote as sounding like “like forced narration to seem pro townie” is a weak justification for piling onto the veteran. In fact, your words sound like what is quoted.
[sarcasm]Yes, I knew he was the veteran!! [/sarcasm] BTW. Based on the your questions regarding the mechanics of game (before this game started), I think you are intelligent enough to avoid this kind of fallacy if you are genuinely scumhunting.
Regardless, I still maintain that I do not understand why people think/thought that they found Obvious.660's list scummy. (But then, why did I vote for Obvious.660? I already explained this. I initially dismissed Obvious.660's sudden accusation of tube for changing his writing style, but I changed my mind after reading Jingle's post). But just because I think Obvious.660 is scummy, does not mean that I would find all of his posts scummy.
5. My reads are all different than yours so maybe I just suck. Or maybe you’re purposely spreading suspicion on other players I have pegged as town.
Well, I was wrong about Obvious.660. So, I can't say that your reads have been good. But if I really wanted to spread suspicion, whether town or scum, I would do it in a much more constructive way instead of posting one liners.
6. “And, I want you guys to be convinced that if tube is town, so am I.” WHAT? You just called him out for being suspicious for piling on. Where does this one liner come from? Where is your reasoning, your logic? Why would a town drop random one-liners like that making vague suggestions about innocence. You don’t need to claim innocence, you show it, which you haven’t.
I almost forgot about explaining why I said that. My reason for saying that was based on the fact that scum Harry would not have a strong reason for preferring Obvious.660 mislynch over tube mislynch. And at the time, the two primary suspects projected to be lynched were tube and Obvious.660. And if tube is town, it would be hard to explain why scum Harry would suddenly change his vote to jump on a different bandwagon. Either mislynch would have suited scum Harry just fine.
7. Your posts have attempted to spread blame to me (subtly), jingle, iamperfection, tube, and obvious. Which is it, now?
You? Well, technically, I am not trying to spread blame. That doesn't sound good. How about, I am trying to find scums!
8. You began the game with contentless, spammy, directionless one-liners until you were pressured. Anti-town as I have said before. You even agree with me on this one!
Did I say I was being anti-town? If I did, I would be guilty for not inciting more discussions by providing stronger reads. But I did not have any strong reads - which was reflected in my quick changes in my voting. Don't blame me for not trying, though.
9. Your votes lack conviction and you backtrack. Obvious backtracked also but we agreed on most things and he pressured people to talk. That's why I felt strongly he was town. You happen to share neither category with obvious.
I will repeat: I did lack conviction. I did backtrack. I am guilty of these things. But I explained why these are not necessarily scummy. And while we disagreed on many things (? what did we disagree on?), I don't see how that makes me scum. Scum may even try to agree with others. And as for pressuring people to talk, I did some of that too. But even if I didn't, I wouldn't consider it as a strong evidence.
10. Mind telling me what this great excuse that explains your anti-town play is? “(LOL, this is actually exactly how I acted on D1, but I have an excuse )”
Well, my excuse is that I intended to pressure people. But more importantly, shh... + Show Spoiler +
Your days are numbered playing like this.
Wait, is this a scum tell LOL. Do you actually know that I am town and blaming my poor play for what is obviously going to turn out to be a mislynch?
IGMEOY iamperfection, YourHarry, fulla
As for town direction, I propose to pressure the above and decide from there.
WOW So many reasons why I am scum. I must have made many mistakes playing scum
Many of the points he made above are redundant. If you were genuinely scum hunting, you could have simply stated something like "Harry is suspicious because he lacks conviction and has changed his votes many times without reasons," instead of carefully packaging redundant "evidence" into different dressings.
I accuse calgar of trying to scam town into thinking your case is actually more substantial than it is.
In addition, I accuse calgar of trying to rolehunt and making a fallacy that only scums would make (assuming decent intelligence) to artificially make me look scummier. Another evidence for similar scummy behavior can be seen HERE. He did add an EDBWOP post immediately after that, but I am not sure what he was referring to. Waiting for him to clarify.
He also seems to be planning ahead to guide the towns to agree on the "list of people to be lynched" to choose from. But this could just be my imagination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
