TL Mafia LVII - Page 71

On September 08 2012 15:58 BroodKingEXE wrote:
Guys this lynch is not happening. Its like 12:00 PST I'll make a good case in the morning, but Im forced to say Im Watcher. Night One I visited BC and got back GK -_-.

On September 09 2012 07:57 Z-BosoN wrote:
BKE played this awfully... I think two things could have absolved him (disregarding his poor choices of decisions toward the very end):

1) Him leaving a breadcrumb. This would make his claim seem more believable...

2) A vet confirming my question earlier on, a question in which I probably would have insisted in if I weren't unnecessarily pressured to having defending myself during the last hours of day two.



This makes me highly suspicious of the remaining vets. Because BKE would clearly be a scumtell later on once the real watcher showed himself and attacked BKE. The only information that was required was the likelihood of there actually being a watcher, in which case BKE's claim would have been stupid as hell, as we were certainly gonna peg him scum once the real watcher showed himself.

I don't like how none of the veterans helped out at all during all of this. I am strongly inclined to think that at least one of them is scum. I also expected hapa to consider this, because something similar happened in XXIV (thrawn's vigi claim would have been utterly stupid as scum, because the real vigi would simply unmask him later on.)

The situation here was a bit more delicate, because we don't know for certain if there HAS to be a watcher. If someone could confirm the likelihood of there being a watcher (as I think it is very high), then BKE might actually have been saved.

But I'm sure that if this were the case, then at least someone with more experience would manifest himself.

I myself should have just not bothered with the crappy case against me, because lynching a watcher is quite a loss, and I should have been more insistent of when I thought of this possibility.

We are still in a good position, and I will go over the vets' filter, probably tomorrow.

@austin
Now that you cannot possibly lynch me, save your case against me for day 3, should we both live. Discuss what I've discussed here, and see if you agree. If your case against me had come a little bit later, (it was 5 minutes after the quote referenced above), I would have interpreted this as scum-motivated attempt, because it could have been an intentional disruption.
Your attack on me couldn't have been more badly timed, and your reasoning for giving up on voting for BKE would have even gotten my support if I had a clearer head about my initial thought on how stupid it would be for a watcher fakeclaim, if the odds are there is always a watcher.

You are thick, but I'm confident that I can defend myself against your arguments if you can be more objective and less narrative/judgemental with your cases.

@Hapa: I don't like how you ignored/didn't see this possibility. Also, you hopped on austin's poor arguments needlessly, as it was clearly not going to get anything done, and even questioned a distant post I had made. His case against me seemed genuine (but stupid), your decision to hop on it + not even considering this point I made about a BKE fakeclaim out of the blue, after having said that you thought I was a "confirmed townie" did not.

---

After cooling off and having thought more carefully about this, I feel very strongly about this point. Now that I have basically called everyone out, someone please confirm, as I am confident there is at least a townie vet:

Can we, with bloodyc0bbler's 100% certainty, assume that there necessarily is one, and just one watcher?? If not 100%, how likely is it?

On September 09 2012 08:07 Z-BosoN wrote:
One more thing that's nagging at me:



If he visited BC and got back GK, why didn't he die? If the watcher watches a house, is he not "visiting" it as well, and thus will get killed by the bomber?
I'm not getting these roles at all...

@Hapa: I don't like how you ignored/didn't see this possibility. Also, you hopped on austin's poor arguments needlessly, as it was clearly not going to get anything done, and even questioned a distant post I had made. His case against me seemed genuine (but stupid), your decision to hop on it + not even considering this point I made about a BKE fakeclaim out of the blue, after having said that you thought I was a "confirmed townie" did not.

On September 09 2012 08:21 austinmcc wrote:
(1) Breadcrumbs can be laid by both sides. No reason for scum not be leaving breadcrumbs for fakeclaims except laziness.

(2) It's a watcher/tracker game. Generally in a normal the roles aren't in the OP if they're not going out. We don't know #s, but all of those roles are most likely in the game. The numbers are up to whatever setup palmar rolled or picked, we can't know for sure. Nobody can answer your question.

---

All scum can carry out a NK in addition to their role. GK used his role on BM24, killing BM24 and anyone who was visiting him. GK carried out 1 of the scum NKs on BC. It did 1 KP, nobody protected or jailed BC, BC died. Some unknown person carried out the 2nd scum NK on an unknown person. That person was protected or jailed.

---

---

The case against you isn't poor. You say it is, hapa doesn't like it because of his earlier meta read, but I'm alright with calling you out for what you've done so far. You look bad. I'm not awful at this when I put effort in. Not a vet, played poor in newbie games, but I've been doing pretty well lately. Pretty sure you're scum.

On September 09 2012 08:21 Hapahauli wrote:
@ Z Boson

1)First of all, I don't like you making posts criticizing BKE's play. I'm still a bit stupified from the result, but in retrospect, he did all he could to defend himself.



2)Austin doesn't necessarily have a poor argument. Your Mattchew Vote post does not make you look good. I know I mentioned that I thought you were town based on GoodKarma's filter, but the more and more I think about it, the more and more I think that GK's filter was a massive WIFOM mindbomb.

I never said you were a confirmed townie I said you were "likely" town, and I'm going to have to throw that assumption out the window for now.

It's a watcher/tracker game. Generally in a normal the roles aren't in the OP if they're not going out. We don't know #s, but all of those roles are most likely in the game. The numbers are up to whatever setup palmar rolled or picked, we can't know for sure. Nobody can answer your question.

On September 09 2012 08:42 Z-BosoN wrote:


1) Yea, jumping around his vote, ignoring his own cases, and looking to join the bandwagon with most votes on it seems extremely defensive.

2) How does it not make me look good? What's the theory? Are you gonna throw me in with the other dozen of people who could have maybe soft-defended Mattchew?
And dare you not use the GK argument, as I have shown it to be terribad, and you actually agreed with it.
Also, I don't absolutely neglect looking suspicious, my concern with you is more related to the timing of when you chose to go after me. What could you, as town, have possibly hoped to accomplish? The town focus should have been on validating the BKE lynch. Do you agree with this? Don't dodge, answer: yes or no.

Did you read my post? Both you and austin have ignored the most important part of my post. Like I've stated, I think focusing on the veterans, for this night, should be ideal, as I have reason to believe at least one of them is.

How does it not make me look good? What's the theory? Are you gonna throw me in with the other dozen of people who could have maybe soft-defended Mattchew?

Did you read my post? Both you and austin have ignored the most important part of my post. Like I've stated, I think focusing on the veterans, for this night, should be ideal, as I have reason to believe at least one of them is.

The town focus should have been on validating the BKE lynch. Do you agree with this? Don't dodge, answer: yes or no.

Also, I don't absolutely neglect looking suspicious, my concern with you is more related to the timing of when you chose to go after me. What could you, as town, have possibly hoped to accomplish?

On September 09 2012 08:44 Z-BosoN wrote:
Also, @austin:



Yea, but bloodyc0bbler "knew" that nn weren't self-aware. This could easily be one of those things. That's why I want a vet confirming this, what is the statistical likelihood.

[Did you read my post? Both you and austin have ignored the most important part of my post. Like I've stated, I think focusing on the veterans, for this night, should be ideal, as I have reason to believe at least one of them is.

Theory is simple - why attack the person pushing the lynch and seemingly criticize the argument behind the lynch... then end up voting for the lynch. As town, it would make more sense for you to full-on support the lynch with your post. I find that stuff scummy, but no where near definitive (hence me not bolding your name red).

I agree with you. I stated somewhere before in my filter that scum were willing to sacrifice GoodKarma. The scumteam's willingness to part with another member after the Mattchew lynch tells me that the scumteam was not afraid to play from behind. They must have been in very good standing after Day 1. There's a reason why they went all out to kill the two best scumhunters in the thread night 1.

Well of course yes, though I don't know what exactly the purpose of this question is.

I thought I had BKE nailed as scum and was comfortable to pursue other reads. Again, your ##vote post really stands out to me. I'll have to read your filter and decide whether it makes you scummy or not. That's all.

On September 09 2012 09:36 Toadesstern wrote:
yeah I'm back but it's 2 am so I won't really read anything yet other than what's really obvious because I'm tired and will post tomorrow.
Why should I be scared? The assumption that mafia was looking d1 and therefore suicided GK is complete bullshit.
They suicided because they wanted to kill blues, not because they thought they could afford it. That's the worst reasoning ever. Even if they thought they could afford it they wouldn't just do it until they think it's worth it so what you've got is an action that made sense from a scumpoint of view no matter of "standing".

If they considered it a -EV move they wouldn't have done it no matter how good or bad in a spot they thought they are.
If they considered it a +EV move they would have done it no matter how good or bad in a spot they thought they are.

They apparently thought they're going to get a bunch of blues when bombing into BM24. Everything else would be playing against their wincon as they'd be giving away "charity" lol

On September 09 2012 09:43 Z-BosoN wrote:


Well, it was because they wanted to kill blues AND because they thought they could afford it. If they thought they couldn't afford it, they would probably suicide GK later in the game.

It could also be that they felt forced to suicide him because he was posting ultra-scummy, and he would have been a nice delicious lynch choice for day 2.

You should be scared just like you were scared in night 1, remember your-good-bye-they-are-going-to-kill-me post? Especially now, with two vets gone.

What is a +-EV move?

On September 09 2012 09:55 Toadesstern wrote:

There's no difference in when you use the suicide-bomber except for the fact that it is better the earlier you use it because with a lot of people alive it's more likely to kill multiple people.
The KP is stable, it's no difference whether they lose him n1 or n2 or n3 except for the fact that doing it later might actually risk not being able to use his ability because he might be lynched (although quite unlikely at that point of time).

There's not a single reason to use that role late except if you don't want to use it at all because you're going to lose that one guy no matter what.

The night has just started I'm not going to post something about my reads right now lol.

a +EV move is something from poker, something that gives you more advantages than drawbacks, while -EV is the opposite.
For example if you have to pay 1$ to role a dice (6 sides) and get 10$ if you role a 6 but don't get something when rolling 1 to 5 that's +EV because you'll end up making money by doing that. If you have to pay 1$ but only get 5$ it's -EV because you lose money.
Same thing goes for mafia. If they thought they could bomb away multiple people they thought it has more advantages than drawbacks. Like if they thought they'd kill BM24 + 2 blues in exchange for 1 mafia memeber that might be worth the trade no matter of position, or if they considered it likely to get BM24 + 3 blues, go figure.

If they think it's worth the trade they'll do it no matter what position they're in because it always improves you position, no matter if you've got 5$ in your pocket or 100$, doing the 1$ to win 10$ thing always makes sense.
If they think it's not worth the trade they wouldn't ever do it because no matter if you've got 5$ in your pocket or 100$, doing the 1$ to win 5$ will always but you at a worse position in the long run.

So what we get from that is that mafia thought bombing BM24 will kill a bunch of blues. Nothing else because if it's -EV they wouldn't have done it no matter what, if they thought it's +EV they would have done it no matter what.

Can we, with bloodyc0bbler's 100% certainty, assume that there necessarily is one, and just one watcher?? If not 100%, how likely is it?

Rewok

Since BKE flipped town, this caught my eye:

On September 08 2012 01:27 Rewok wrote:
TBH with you, I'm a little hesitant to lynch BKE. I'll vote for him because it's better to get some blood than no blood, but it wouldn't hurt to open our search up a little bit. Don't we have more than 24 hours left?

Personally, I've had Mav on my radar for awhile because of posts he had on both Mattchew and Ottox (will find them later - gotta run to work now.) And this recent ShaoPi thing seems rather fishy as well.

So here's my ##vote BKE, with the readiness to unvote it and switch it up if we find someone better.


First he's hesitant to lynch BKE. Then he wants to vote for him because "it's better to get some blood than no blood" - NOT because he thinks BKE is mafia.

He then points fingers at two people (Mav and ShiaoPi).

Vigi shot anyone?

On September 09 2012 11:17 Hapahauli wrote:
I retract my vigi-shot call on Rewok. He mentions the "lynch for blood" stuff earlier in his filter, and I'm willing to chalk it up to bad town. His giant wall-o-text posts giving everyone null-reads actually reads town to me - seems like a genuine attempt to contribute, despite being useless.

However, I do think we should look into vigi-shotting [b]ShiaoPi[b]. Shiao is hardcore lurking in comparison to his other games as VT. Absolutely no content in Shaio's filter, and there are a couple of posts that fingerpoint like mad:

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=361826&currentpage=47#929

Shaio originally wasn't posting because of "internet concerns." I believed Shiao at the time, but now it's becoming a habit.

On September 09 2012 11:42 Shady Sands wrote:

Why are you calling for a vig shot on Shiao for lurking and no call for a vig shot on me for lurking? I'm fingerpointing too.