|
On December 06 2012 12:08 Keirathi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 10:10 austinmcc wrote:On December 06 2012 10:04 Keirathi wrote:On December 06 2012 09:32 austinmcc wrote:On December 06 2012 09:26 Blazinghand wrote:
the lack of a PM and the lack of a rolecrumb is meaningless on an investigative role. The lack of a check/result crumb and the lack of pressure on sandro is trohblng Yeah, it should be. I didn't crumb the risk/Gonzaw PM in bureaucracy either. I crumbed the hell out of being mason with Sciberbia in Can't Believe. But that's the only thing I've crumbed ever I believe. What I'd say is this - look at Sandroba's posts. Look at his N1, his N2. I probably cannot drop my confirmation bias, and I don't want to just yell my head off for 40 something hours today. But I believe that some of his posts that look like they have content don't, they're full of "reads" that aren't actually based on anything. A lot of the other posts don't have content at all. Your confirmation bias? Confirmation bias comes from not being sure about something but convincing yourself anyways, not from having a 95%+ guaranteed scum check. Here's part of my problem (aside from the fact that you had a red check and didn't do anything about it): your WBG/ShiaoPi analysis doesn't fit with what sandro did in Chrono before he died. "I wouldn't trust Toad as party leader", and calling Dieno town, etc. And him not giving strong reasoning for his reads isn't alignment telling at all (hell, didn't you play with him in Looney where he did basically the same thing?) I can't tell you whether Sandro is playing to this meta or that meta. I can tell you he's scum. Then, I can pressure Xatalos for saying things about Sandroba that I personally don't find to be true. Right now, I don't care what Sandroba normally does as town or scum, because I know his alignment. I care what Xatalos thinks about Sandroba, because it's telling of Xatalos's alignment. Also yes, I played in Looney Lynching. And in Looney Lynching I actually DIDN'T lynch Sandroba D1. Do you know what I did do? I had a blue role, I was a veteran. And I decided to give away votes on D1 (everyone thought I was retarded) and be coy about my claim on the day I was lynched (people lynched me anyway). That's the only time I've ever been lynched, and it was because I'm a 'tard when blue. That's beside the point though. Sandroba is scum. Xatalos has some odd thoughts on him. I like investigating that. Again, you're completely missing the point of what I'm trying to say. Your actions during the day yesterday just don't line up with what a person with a scum check would do, IMO. So if you're an information role and have a scum check on someone, you really have 3 options: 1) Claim to get them lynched. Fine, you didn't want to do that. 2) Push as hard as you can for that person to get lynched without claiming. Make a case. Make a meta case. Do whatever you can to get SOMEONE to think that person is scum. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but you still have the claim to fall back on later. 3) Think you have zero chance of getting the person lynched without claiming, so you engage that person, and try to get them to slip up, and make some associative cases for when you do decide to claim. Which is what you said you were doing. But, if you have a scum check on someone and don't think you can push them to a lynch, why in the world wouldn't you go back and look at some scum games of that person to see what they tend to say about their teammates? Why would just assume that "sando saying WBG is town means that WBG is scum, and sandro pushing ShiaoPi means ShiaoPi is town"? Would you assume the same thing if that scum check was on marv, who has a history of bussing 'liability' teammates who are likely to get lynched anyways? You put no effort into doing anything that can be seen by me as even remotely pushing a town agenda towards a scum scum check. THAT'S my problem I know there will be postgame discussion on this. I may well be in the wrong. But I think I'm willing to argue there's a fourth option:
(4) Know a dude is scum, make sure you don't ever die without telling town, and try to use that knowledge to hunt MORE scum, not just the guy you know.
Did it work? NOT PARTICULARLY WELL. But I don't think it's too farfetched to argue that if you know someone is scum, when he wants to lynch A and defends B, there's a decent chance that B is scum and A is not. Or at least that A is not. I believe I'm an idiot for taking it into account as much as I did, but I don't see it as not being something to use.
|
I'll note that I don't think I couldn't have pushed Sandroba. Yes, I could have made a case, picked up some votes, it would look better today. But I tend to overvalue blue roles, and was hoping to get another check off.
Moreover, hmmmm. If you don't think it makes sense for me to act as I did on D2, does it make sense for me to claim at the end of N2?
If I'm scum trying to trade 1 for 1 with a townie, it's much easier to claim at the start of D3. I can claim tracker on Sandroba, watcher on DYH, cop, whatever. But if I'm faking, I could fake that I found out just now.
If I'm scum trying to bus...same thing. I want town to flip scum AND I want to look town. Moreover, I would have discussed this with my scumbuddies, so if I'm scum and bussing...we all AGREED that I should make this play right at the end of night
Does the timing actually make sense as scum? I guess you can argue that apparently it's stupid whether town or scum, but...oh well.
|
On December 06 2012 12:21 austinmcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 12:08 Keirathi wrote:On December 06 2012 10:10 austinmcc wrote:On December 06 2012 10:04 Keirathi wrote:On December 06 2012 09:32 austinmcc wrote:On December 06 2012 09:26 Blazinghand wrote:
the lack of a PM and the lack of a rolecrumb is meaningless on an investigative role. The lack of a check/result crumb and the lack of pressure on sandro is trohblng Yeah, it should be. I didn't crumb the risk/Gonzaw PM in bureaucracy either. I crumbed the hell out of being mason with Sciberbia in Can't Believe. But that's the only thing I've crumbed ever I believe. What I'd say is this - look at Sandroba's posts. Look at his N1, his N2. I probably cannot drop my confirmation bias, and I don't want to just yell my head off for 40 something hours today. But I believe that some of his posts that look like they have content don't, they're full of "reads" that aren't actually based on anything. A lot of the other posts don't have content at all. Your confirmation bias? Confirmation bias comes from not being sure about something but convincing yourself anyways, not from having a 95%+ guaranteed scum check. Here's part of my problem (aside from the fact that you had a red check and didn't do anything about it): your WBG/ShiaoPi analysis doesn't fit with what sandro did in Chrono before he died. "I wouldn't trust Toad as party leader", and calling Dieno town, etc. And him not giving strong reasoning for his reads isn't alignment telling at all (hell, didn't you play with him in Looney where he did basically the same thing?) I can't tell you whether Sandro is playing to this meta or that meta. I can tell you he's scum. Then, I can pressure Xatalos for saying things about Sandroba that I personally don't find to be true. Right now, I don't care what Sandroba normally does as town or scum, because I know his alignment. I care what Xatalos thinks about Sandroba, because it's telling of Xatalos's alignment. Also yes, I played in Looney Lynching. And in Looney Lynching I actually DIDN'T lynch Sandroba D1. Do you know what I did do? I had a blue role, I was a veteran. And I decided to give away votes on D1 (everyone thought I was retarded) and be coy about my claim on the day I was lynched (people lynched me anyway). That's the only time I've ever been lynched, and it was because I'm a 'tard when blue. That's beside the point though. Sandroba is scum. Xatalos has some odd thoughts on him. I like investigating that. Again, you're completely missing the point of what I'm trying to say. Your actions during the day yesterday just don't line up with what a person with a scum check would do, IMO. So if you're an information role and have a scum check on someone, you really have 3 options: 1) Claim to get them lynched. Fine, you didn't want to do that. 2) Push as hard as you can for that person to get lynched without claiming. Make a case. Make a meta case. Do whatever you can to get SOMEONE to think that person is scum. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but you still have the claim to fall back on later. 3) Think you have zero chance of getting the person lynched without claiming, so you engage that person, and try to get them to slip up, and make some associative cases for when you do decide to claim. Which is what you said you were doing. But, if you have a scum check on someone and don't think you can push them to a lynch, why in the world wouldn't you go back and look at some scum games of that person to see what they tend to say about their teammates? Why would just assume that "sando saying WBG is town means that WBG is scum, and sandro pushing ShiaoPi means ShiaoPi is town"? Would you assume the same thing if that scum check was on marv, who has a history of bussing 'liability' teammates who are likely to get lynched anyways? You put no effort into doing anything that can be seen by me as even remotely pushing a town agenda towards a scum scum check. THAT'S my problem I know there will be postgame discussion on this. I may well be in the wrong. But I think I'm willing to argue there's a fourth option: (4) Know a dude is scum, make sure you don't ever die without telling town, and try to use that knowledge to hunt MORE scum, not just the guy you know. Did it work? NOT PARTICULARLY WELL. But I don't think it's too farfetched to argue that if you know someone is scum, when he wants to lynch A and defends B, there's a decent chance that B is scum and A is not. Or at least that A is not. I believe I'm an idiot for taking it into account as much as I did, but I don't see it as not being something to use.
Your 4th option is the same thing as the third option. You're playing the "long game" because you ddin't think you could get sandro lynched.
And you're right, it's not out-of-this-world-unheard of for a scum to attack a townie and defend a scum partner (hell, attacking townies is what scum have to do to win a game), but its a fucking ridiculous assumption to assume that every person that a scum targets is town and everyone they defend is scum.
And again: why didn't you do ANY kind of research into the matter? Maybe sandro loves to bus as scum every single game. Don't you think that would have affected your reads at all, if you wanted to play the "long game"? That's the part I don't get. Nothing you did matches up with what I would expect a reasonable person with a scum check to do. And I don't think you're an idiot in general, so that just leaves you lying and getting caught with your pants down.
|
Blazinghand
United States25560 Posts
So there are a couple of things I don't like about austin's claim, and make me think it's a fake claim, ignoring rolecrumbs and role pm shenannies.
1) He didn't act on his N1 check in any way. I don't think with an N1 scum check on Sandro anyone would really be so passive. Like, shit man, why not push Sandro? Why pussyfoot around him? You can be like "oh I want more info" but nothing austinmcc does towards Sandro actually is like "yes info plz" or pressure or really anything you do to someone you have a strong scumread on.
2) His N2 check is sub-optimal. The #1 shots for last night for scum were DYH and Kei, who are the most confirmed. players. In theory, even though MrZ has been playing for the town all game, MrZ/BH is at least possible. The DYH 30 seconds claim and shot confirms him, and Kei has a flipped partner and is literally confirmed. I wasn't a realistic shot.
3) He didn't result-crumb. Without a result crumb at the start of D2 he's committed to claiming at the end of N2, which isn't how you do things as an investigative role. His actions don't really make sense
4) His red check is on a near-universal townread and he himself is scummy. Austinmcc is a great 1-for-1 sacrifice for the scumteam, especially eliminating someone who's a universal townread (but not confirmed). Right now we're at LYLO-1. If we lynch Sandro, then Austin, there are 2 scum left and we're at LYLO. Good situation for scum all things considered.
I see no reason to believe this claim.
##vote: austinmcc
|
On December 06 2012 12:27 Keirathi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 12:21 austinmcc wrote:On December 06 2012 12:08 Keirathi wrote:On December 06 2012 10:10 austinmcc wrote:On December 06 2012 10:04 Keirathi wrote:On December 06 2012 09:32 austinmcc wrote:On December 06 2012 09:26 Blazinghand wrote:
the lack of a PM and the lack of a rolecrumb is meaningless on an investigative role. The lack of a check/result crumb and the lack of pressure on sandro is trohblng Yeah, it should be. I didn't crumb the risk/Gonzaw PM in bureaucracy either. I crumbed the hell out of being mason with Sciberbia in Can't Believe. But that's the only thing I've crumbed ever I believe. What I'd say is this - look at Sandroba's posts. Look at his N1, his N2. I probably cannot drop my confirmation bias, and I don't want to just yell my head off for 40 something hours today. But I believe that some of his posts that look like they have content don't, they're full of "reads" that aren't actually based on anything. A lot of the other posts don't have content at all. Your confirmation bias? Confirmation bias comes from not being sure about something but convincing yourself anyways, not from having a 95%+ guaranteed scum check. Here's part of my problem (aside from the fact that you had a red check and didn't do anything about it): your WBG/ShiaoPi analysis doesn't fit with what sandro did in Chrono before he died. "I wouldn't trust Toad as party leader", and calling Dieno town, etc. And him not giving strong reasoning for his reads isn't alignment telling at all (hell, didn't you play with him in Looney where he did basically the same thing?) I can't tell you whether Sandro is playing to this meta or that meta. I can tell you he's scum. Then, I can pressure Xatalos for saying things about Sandroba that I personally don't find to be true. Right now, I don't care what Sandroba normally does as town or scum, because I know his alignment. I care what Xatalos thinks about Sandroba, because it's telling of Xatalos's alignment. Also yes, I played in Looney Lynching. And in Looney Lynching I actually DIDN'T lynch Sandroba D1. Do you know what I did do? I had a blue role, I was a veteran. And I decided to give away votes on D1 (everyone thought I was retarded) and be coy about my claim on the day I was lynched (people lynched me anyway). That's the only time I've ever been lynched, and it was because I'm a 'tard when blue. That's beside the point though. Sandroba is scum. Xatalos has some odd thoughts on him. I like investigating that. Again, you're completely missing the point of what I'm trying to say. Your actions during the day yesterday just don't line up with what a person with a scum check would do, IMO. So if you're an information role and have a scum check on someone, you really have 3 options: 1) Claim to get them lynched. Fine, you didn't want to do that. 2) Push as hard as you can for that person to get lynched without claiming. Make a case. Make a meta case. Do whatever you can to get SOMEONE to think that person is scum. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but you still have the claim to fall back on later. 3) Think you have zero chance of getting the person lynched without claiming, so you engage that person, and try to get them to slip up, and make some associative cases for when you do decide to claim. Which is what you said you were doing. But, if you have a scum check on someone and don't think you can push them to a lynch, why in the world wouldn't you go back and look at some scum games of that person to see what they tend to say about their teammates? Why would just assume that "sando saying WBG is town means that WBG is scum, and sandro pushing ShiaoPi means ShiaoPi is town"? Would you assume the same thing if that scum check was on marv, who has a history of bussing 'liability' teammates who are likely to get lynched anyways? You put no effort into doing anything that can be seen by me as even remotely pushing a town agenda towards a scum scum check. THAT'S my problem I know there will be postgame discussion on this. I may well be in the wrong. But I think I'm willing to argue there's a fourth option: (4) Know a dude is scum, make sure you don't ever die without telling town, and try to use that knowledge to hunt MORE scum, not just the guy you know. Did it work? NOT PARTICULARLY WELL. But I don't think it's too farfetched to argue that if you know someone is scum, when he wants to lynch A and defends B, there's a decent chance that B is scum and A is not. Or at least that A is not. I believe I'm an idiot for taking it into account as much as I did, but I don't see it as not being something to use. Your 4th option is the same thing as the third option. You're playing the "long game" because you ddin't think you could get sandro lynched. And you're right, it's not out-of-this-world-unheard of for a scum to attack a townie and defend a scum partner (hell, attacking townies is what scum have to do to win a game), but its a fucking ridiculous assumption to assume that every person that a scum targets is town and everyone they defend is scum. And again: why didn't you do ANY kind of research into the matter? Maybe sandro loves to bus as scum every single game. Don't you think that would have affected your reads at all, if you wanted to play the "long game"? That's the part I don't get. Nothing you did matches up with what I would expect a reasonable person with a scum check to do. And I don't think you're an idiot in general, so that just leaves you lying and getting caught with your pants down. Tbh, I wasn't actually planning on having to convince people. I know he's scum. If he dies, you'll know he's scum. If I die, you'll know he's scum. And if I got lucky and caught someone else, same thing...the proof is in the flips.
So nope, didn't go look at any past Sandroba games. No clue if he likes to bus. All I know is that other people say he's lazy as scum. That's it. I'd argue that he's been relatively lazy this game, ymmv on that. Just figured the fact that he's scum and that will eventually be proven would magically work, regardless of how he plays this game.
|
On December 06 2012 12:32 austinmcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 12:27 Keirathi wrote:On December 06 2012 12:21 austinmcc wrote:On December 06 2012 12:08 Keirathi wrote:On December 06 2012 10:10 austinmcc wrote:On December 06 2012 10:04 Keirathi wrote:On December 06 2012 09:32 austinmcc wrote:On December 06 2012 09:26 Blazinghand wrote:
the lack of a PM and the lack of a rolecrumb is meaningless on an investigative role. The lack of a check/result crumb and the lack of pressure on sandro is trohblng Yeah, it should be. I didn't crumb the risk/Gonzaw PM in bureaucracy either. I crumbed the hell out of being mason with Sciberbia in Can't Believe. But that's the only thing I've crumbed ever I believe. What I'd say is this - look at Sandroba's posts. Look at his N1, his N2. I probably cannot drop my confirmation bias, and I don't want to just yell my head off for 40 something hours today. But I believe that some of his posts that look like they have content don't, they're full of "reads" that aren't actually based on anything. A lot of the other posts don't have content at all. Your confirmation bias? Confirmation bias comes from not being sure about something but convincing yourself anyways, not from having a 95%+ guaranteed scum check. Here's part of my problem (aside from the fact that you had a red check and didn't do anything about it): your WBG/ShiaoPi analysis doesn't fit with what sandro did in Chrono before he died. "I wouldn't trust Toad as party leader", and calling Dieno town, etc. And him not giving strong reasoning for his reads isn't alignment telling at all (hell, didn't you play with him in Looney where he did basically the same thing?) I can't tell you whether Sandro is playing to this meta or that meta. I can tell you he's scum. Then, I can pressure Xatalos for saying things about Sandroba that I personally don't find to be true. Right now, I don't care what Sandroba normally does as town or scum, because I know his alignment. I care what Xatalos thinks about Sandroba, because it's telling of Xatalos's alignment. Also yes, I played in Looney Lynching. And in Looney Lynching I actually DIDN'T lynch Sandroba D1. Do you know what I did do? I had a blue role, I was a veteran. And I decided to give away votes on D1 (everyone thought I was retarded) and be coy about my claim on the day I was lynched (people lynched me anyway). That's the only time I've ever been lynched, and it was because I'm a 'tard when blue. That's beside the point though. Sandroba is scum. Xatalos has some odd thoughts on him. I like investigating that. Again, you're completely missing the point of what I'm trying to say. Your actions during the day yesterday just don't line up with what a person with a scum check would do, IMO. So if you're an information role and have a scum check on someone, you really have 3 options: 1) Claim to get them lynched. Fine, you didn't want to do that. 2) Push as hard as you can for that person to get lynched without claiming. Make a case. Make a meta case. Do whatever you can to get SOMEONE to think that person is scum. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but you still have the claim to fall back on later. 3) Think you have zero chance of getting the person lynched without claiming, so you engage that person, and try to get them to slip up, and make some associative cases for when you do decide to claim. Which is what you said you were doing. But, if you have a scum check on someone and don't think you can push them to a lynch, why in the world wouldn't you go back and look at some scum games of that person to see what they tend to say about their teammates? Why would just assume that "sando saying WBG is town means that WBG is scum, and sandro pushing ShiaoPi means ShiaoPi is town"? Would you assume the same thing if that scum check was on marv, who has a history of bussing 'liability' teammates who are likely to get lynched anyways? You put no effort into doing anything that can be seen by me as even remotely pushing a town agenda towards a scum scum check. THAT'S my problem I know there will be postgame discussion on this. I may well be in the wrong. But I think I'm willing to argue there's a fourth option: (4) Know a dude is scum, make sure you don't ever die without telling town, and try to use that knowledge to hunt MORE scum, not just the guy you know. Did it work? NOT PARTICULARLY WELL. But I don't think it's too farfetched to argue that if you know someone is scum, when he wants to lynch A and defends B, there's a decent chance that B is scum and A is not. Or at least that A is not. I believe I'm an idiot for taking it into account as much as I did, but I don't see it as not being something to use. Your 4th option is the same thing as the third option. You're playing the "long game" because you ddin't think you could get sandro lynched. And you're right, it's not out-of-this-world-unheard of for a scum to attack a townie and defend a scum partner (hell, attacking townies is what scum have to do to win a game), but its a fucking ridiculous assumption to assume that every person that a scum targets is town and everyone they defend is scum. And again: why didn't you do ANY kind of research into the matter? Maybe sandro loves to bus as scum every single game. Don't you think that would have affected your reads at all, if you wanted to play the "long game"? That's the part I don't get. Nothing you did matches up with what I would expect a reasonable person with a scum check to do. And I don't think you're an idiot in general, so that just leaves you lying and getting caught with your pants down. Tbh, I wasn't actually planning on having to convince people. I know he's scum. If he dies, you'll know he's scum. If I die, you'll know he's scum. And if I got lucky and caught someone else, same thing...the proof is in the flips. So nope, didn't go look at any past Sandroba games. No clue if he likes to bus. All I know is that other people say he's lazy as scum. That's it. I'd argue that he's been relatively lazy this game, ymmv on that. Just figured the fact that he's scum and that will eventually be proven would magically work, regardless of how he plays this game.
We aren't talking about why you didn't try to get Sandro killed. I thought we already agreed that was a terrible decision.
We're talking about why you pushed to get WBG lynched because of his interactions with Sandro, while simultaneously saving ShiaoPi. If you know Sandro is scum, those kinds of interactions with Sandro can definitely be mined for information, IF YOU KNOW HOW YOU EXPECT SANDRO TO ACT. Just assuming that "scum isn't going to attack a teammate or defend a townie" is such faulty logic (and I can give you as many examples as you want of the opposites being true) that I don't believe that even you, as pants-on-head as you can get at times, would assume that and leave NO room for any other explanation.
|
On December 06 2012 12:31 Blazinghand wrote:
So there are a couple of things I don't like about austin's claim, and make me think it's a fake claim, ignoring rolecrumbs and role pm shenannies.
1) He didn't act on his N1 check in any way. I don't think with an N1 scum check on Sandro anyone would really be so passive. Like, shit man, why not push Sandro? Why pussyfoot around him? You can be like "oh I want more info" but nothing austinmcc does towards Sandro actually is like "yes info plz" or pressure or really anything you do to someone you have a strong scumread on.
2) His N2 check is sub-optimal. The #1 shots for last night for scum were DYH and Kei, who are the most confirmed. players. In theory, even though MrZ has been playing for the town all game, MrZ/BH is at least possible. The DYH 30 seconds claim and shot confirms him, and Kei has a flipped partner and is literally confirmed. I wasn't a realistic shot.
3) He didn't result-crumb. Without a result crumb at the start of D2 he's committed to claiming at the end of N2, which isn't how you do things as an investigative role. His actions don't really make sense
4) His red check is on a near-universal townread and he himself is scummy. Austinmcc is a great 1-for-1 sacrifice for the scumteam, especially eliminating someone who's a universal townread (but not confirmed). Right now we're at LYLO-1. If we lynch Sandro, then Austin, there are 2 scum left and we're at LYLO. Good situation for scum all things considered.
I see no reason to believe this claim.
##vote: austinmcc
You and BH claim role PMs that SAY THE OTHER PERSON IS TOWN. Keirathi and WBG's PMs don't say that. DYH was up there with you guys.
I chose between you, Keirathi, and DYH.
Eliminated folks based on setup speculation. Risky for you and MrZ to snap counterclaim Mason on Keirathi, and it can't be the case that only one of you is town because both your role PMs say the other guy is town. You are either BOTH scum or NEITHER of you is scum or your pms lie. It's not a bastard game, so PMs lying goes out the window. Therefore, you're either both scum or neither of you is scum.
Keirathi doesn't have that same PM. Heck, yesterday people were on his case about the color of certain words in his PM. It's different. That doesn't mean he's scum, but he doesn't have the same 2 for 1 risk problem as you and MrZ. That, in my mind, makes him less confirmed. He's confirmed to be a mason with WBG. His alignment is not.
DYH ... was an option but I didn't go with it. 15 player game and only 1 kp? I loves me some setup speculation, and that felt wrong. So I didn't want to check him because options were: (1) he's not actually a town vigi; (2) he is a town vigi, but claimed one-shot, and scum is okay with letting him live because his reads don't frighten them; (3) he is a town vigi, scum needs him gone.
There's my thought process. Out of the masons, you and MrZ are taking a big risk counterclaiming. I don't currently think you guys are scum, and your PMs rule out a 1 scum/1 town mason pairing. Keirathi doesn't have the same, so you're more likely town than he is (this isn't just my opinion, there were a LOT of people thinking that you and MrZ are town now based on those PMs). So if I'm watching a mason, I watch you. Between you and DYH, EVEN IF DYH is town, there's a chance he's still not the kill, so I'd rather watch you.
|
On December 06 2012 12:36 Keirathi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 12:32 austinmcc wrote:On December 06 2012 12:27 Keirathi wrote:On December 06 2012 12:21 austinmcc wrote:On December 06 2012 12:08 Keirathi wrote:On December 06 2012 10:10 austinmcc wrote:On December 06 2012 10:04 Keirathi wrote:On December 06 2012 09:32 austinmcc wrote:On December 06 2012 09:26 Blazinghand wrote:
the lack of a PM and the lack of a rolecrumb is meaningless on an investigative role. The lack of a check/result crumb and the lack of pressure on sandro is trohblng Yeah, it should be. I didn't crumb the risk/Gonzaw PM in bureaucracy either. I crumbed the hell out of being mason with Sciberbia in Can't Believe. But that's the only thing I've crumbed ever I believe. What I'd say is this - look at Sandroba's posts. Look at his N1, his N2. I probably cannot drop my confirmation bias, and I don't want to just yell my head off for 40 something hours today. But I believe that some of his posts that look like they have content don't, they're full of "reads" that aren't actually based on anything. A lot of the other posts don't have content at all. Your confirmation bias? Confirmation bias comes from not being sure about something but convincing yourself anyways, not from having a 95%+ guaranteed scum check. Here's part of my problem (aside from the fact that you had a red check and didn't do anything about it): your WBG/ShiaoPi analysis doesn't fit with what sandro did in Chrono before he died. "I wouldn't trust Toad as party leader", and calling Dieno town, etc. And him not giving strong reasoning for his reads isn't alignment telling at all (hell, didn't you play with him in Looney where he did basically the same thing?) I can't tell you whether Sandro is playing to this meta or that meta. I can tell you he's scum. Then, I can pressure Xatalos for saying things about Sandroba that I personally don't find to be true. Right now, I don't care what Sandroba normally does as town or scum, because I know his alignment. I care what Xatalos thinks about Sandroba, because it's telling of Xatalos's alignment. Also yes, I played in Looney Lynching. And in Looney Lynching I actually DIDN'T lynch Sandroba D1. Do you know what I did do? I had a blue role, I was a veteran. And I decided to give away votes on D1 (everyone thought I was retarded) and be coy about my claim on the day I was lynched (people lynched me anyway). That's the only time I've ever been lynched, and it was because I'm a 'tard when blue. That's beside the point though. Sandroba is scum. Xatalos has some odd thoughts on him. I like investigating that. Again, you're completely missing the point of what I'm trying to say. Your actions during the day yesterday just don't line up with what a person with a scum check would do, IMO. So if you're an information role and have a scum check on someone, you really have 3 options: 1) Claim to get them lynched. Fine, you didn't want to do that. 2) Push as hard as you can for that person to get lynched without claiming. Make a case. Make a meta case. Do whatever you can to get SOMEONE to think that person is scum. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but you still have the claim to fall back on later. 3) Think you have zero chance of getting the person lynched without claiming, so you engage that person, and try to get them to slip up, and make some associative cases for when you do decide to claim. Which is what you said you were doing. But, if you have a scum check on someone and don't think you can push them to a lynch, why in the world wouldn't you go back and look at some scum games of that person to see what they tend to say about their teammates? Why would just assume that "sando saying WBG is town means that WBG is scum, and sandro pushing ShiaoPi means ShiaoPi is town"? Would you assume the same thing if that scum check was on marv, who has a history of bussing 'liability' teammates who are likely to get lynched anyways? You put no effort into doing anything that can be seen by me as even remotely pushing a town agenda towards a scum scum check. THAT'S my problem I know there will be postgame discussion on this. I may well be in the wrong. But I think I'm willing to argue there's a fourth option: (4) Know a dude is scum, make sure you don't ever die without telling town, and try to use that knowledge to hunt MORE scum, not just the guy you know. Did it work? NOT PARTICULARLY WELL. But I don't think it's too farfetched to argue that if you know someone is scum, when he wants to lynch A and defends B, there's a decent chance that B is scum and A is not. Or at least that A is not. I believe I'm an idiot for taking it into account as much as I did, but I don't see it as not being something to use. Your 4th option is the same thing as the third option. You're playing the "long game" because you ddin't think you could get sandro lynched. And you're right, it's not out-of-this-world-unheard of for a scum to attack a townie and defend a scum partner (hell, attacking townies is what scum have to do to win a game), but its a fucking ridiculous assumption to assume that every person that a scum targets is town and everyone they defend is scum. And again: why didn't you do ANY kind of research into the matter? Maybe sandro loves to bus as scum every single game. Don't you think that would have affected your reads at all, if you wanted to play the "long game"? That's the part I don't get. Nothing you did matches up with what I would expect a reasonable person with a scum check to do. And I don't think you're an idiot in general, so that just leaves you lying and getting caught with your pants down. Tbh, I wasn't actually planning on having to convince people. I know he's scum. If he dies, you'll know he's scum. If I die, you'll know he's scum. And if I got lucky and caught someone else, same thing...the proof is in the flips. So nope, didn't go look at any past Sandroba games. No clue if he likes to bus. All I know is that other people say he's lazy as scum. That's it. I'd argue that he's been relatively lazy this game, ymmv on that. Just figured the fact that he's scum and that will eventually be proven would magically work, regardless of how he plays this game. We aren't talking about why you didn't try to get Sandro killed. I thought we already agreed that was a terrible decision. We're talking about why you pushed to get WBG lynched because of his interactions with Sandro, while simultaneously saving ShiaoPi. If you know Sandro is scum, those kinds of interactions with Sandro can definitely be mined for information, IF YOU KNOW HOW YOU EXPECT SANDRO TO ACT. Just assuming that "scum isn't going to attack a teammate or defend a townie" is such faulty logic (and I can give you as many examples as you want of the opposites being true) that I don't believe that even you, as pants-on-head as you can get at times, would assume that and leave NO room for any other explanation. Why did I claim when I did if I'm scum?
Between my earlier filter and Dandel Ion/Sandroba's earlier filter...who looks town to you.
Either way, Sandroba and I should both end up dead here. I have given you what I can of why I did what I did D2. I'm not going to change my story to something you'd prefer or would believe more. I did what I did, for the reasons I say I did, whether it's stupid or not.
So tomorrow I'm looking at LazerMonkey and some other general stuff. I don't like what I saw from Xatalos tonight. ShiaoPi is still doing whatever ShiaoPi's doing this game. I'm going to deal with that tomorrow. You can believe me or not, lynch me or sandroba or someone else or whatever.
|
Also, you were scum in Aperture 2. Your partner Hiro bussed your godfather/joat on day 1. Yet you didn't even CONSIDER the possibility that sandroba was? Or that WBG could actually be town?
|
Austin, thx for making life easier =)
We can lynch austin then shiaopi -> lazer -> debears if we haven't won by then. Can scum just concede and save us the time?
##Vote Austin
|
On December 06 2012 10:52 austinmcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 10:46 Xatalos wrote:On December 06 2012 10:31 austinmcc wrote:
I don't want to quote the giant post there, but I think you're making things up. One of the two things Sandroba "tried to figure out" was Marv's sanity, something that scum would want to know. If he's not sane, he's not necessarily a N1 kill.
The "pressure" you quote is 3 small questions to people. Do you find that he followed up on his questions? Do his reads look like he actually cared about his questions and the way that other players answered? If "he asked these three questions" is something you find townie...there's a problem.
In fact, you'll notice that you said Sandroba felt "townish" after REPLACING ONE OF YOUR TOP 3 SCUMREADS at 19:54 on December 3. Out of the posts you listed of Sandroba's, the following were prior to that:
His asking about marv's sanity
His 3 dinky questions
His reads at the end of the night, which are half "it's so obvious I don't need to explain it"
That's what you had to work with when you first said Sandroba seemed townie. Sandroba, the guy who replaced one of your top 3 scumreads from D1.
Dandel Ion wasn't a strong scumread for me to at any point, maybe slightly leaning scum. He was just someone I wasn't feeling comfortable about since he didn't really seem to care. But Sandroba was the opposite, instantly asking relevant questions and sharing his opinions about any topic. Granted, I'd like to see some more evidence for his opinions from now on, but the point is that he clearly cares about what's happening in the thread and tries to actively direct the flow of the thread. IMO his posting style is a bit like MrZentor's, except more townish (with more reasoning and less sheeping). If you find Sandroba scummy, you should find MrZentor scummy as well (granted, he's clearly a Mason, but I mean on principle). If Dandel Ion wasn't a strong scumread for you, then who WERE your strong scumreads D1? 3 different opportunities you grouped together VE/DYH/Dandel Ion. VE was scummiest to you, you did say that. And I'm not whether I believe you'd have put 2 scumbuddies in a list of three. If Dandel Ion wasn't a strong scumread, was DYH? If neither of those were strong scumreads, you just had a strong scumread on VE and nobody else?
I didn't really have any strong scumreads during Day 1. I had some slight townreads (DarthPunk, austinmcc, debears) and some slight scumreads (DYH, VE, Dandel). It's all evident from my filter. I was willing to lynch one of those three, and since DYH was basically the only realistic option, I voted for him in the end. I'd say that I was actually suspicious of VE and DYH but only uncomfortable about Dandel, making him not the ideal lynch for me. Luckily we didn't lynch him and he was replaced by a much more useful player. It's useless to get stuck on something like how Dandel/Sandroba became scum->town in my mind, since it should be pretty obvious just looking at the differences in their posting. Also keep in mind that my original scumread on Dandel was weak and it didn't require much to change it. But DYH only became town in my mind with his Vigi claim (really unlikely to be a fakeclaim) and VE actually was Mafia. So that's that.
On December 06 2012 15:15 sandroba wrote:
Austin, thx for making life easier =)
We can lynch austin then shiaopi -> lazer -> debears if we haven't won by then. Can scum just concede and save us the time?
##Vote Austin
I think you must be town at this point, but please put in some more effort. If you're town, you of course know that austinmcc is Mafia, but that's not the case for the rest of us. Why are Lazermonkey and debears suspicious? Why should we lynch austinmcc instead of you? Where does your strong townread on me come from? austinmcc is actively participating in the discussion recently while you are not, which is making it slightly harder for me. If you're town, there's no danger in participating. What you say is true and your posts will be logically coherent without any effort. If you're Mafia, it's of course easier to just stay on the background and let things roll at their own pace. No risk involved. So, don't be lazy about this (although austinmcc is likely lynched anyways) and show without a doubt that austinmcc is the right choice.
|
On December 06 2012 12:42 Keirathi wrote:
Also, you were scum in Aperture 2. Your partner Hiro bussed your godfather/joat on day 1. Yet you didn't even CONSIDER the possibility that sandroba was? Or that WBG could actually be town? Of course I considered the possibility.
I didn't know what to make of ShiaoPi. Everything I wrote about WBG were my true thoughts, regardless of Sandroba's comments. There's absolutely a possibility that my read was wrong (it was). But I decided that between me not loving the marv interaction, never having an explanation on him disbelieving marv's claim, AND Sandroba's actions D2, I was confident in WBG being scum.
I didn't go "What is Sandroba doing I will do the opposite." It was an additional factor for me beyond my basic thoughts.
We can discuss whether I'm a jubjub, or King in the Jub, postgame. Yes, some/all of you think what I did, if I actually took the course of action I did, was stupid. Fine. Stupid is on another axis. It makes my claim less believable than if you didn't think what I did was stupid, but votes iz fer scumminess and not stupidity.
Heck, if you want to talk meta, and how I didn't go check on Sandroba or anything, go look at my blue games.
(1) Message DT in Bureaucracy - I decide it's a good plan to look like a paranoid idiot early on in order to not be a threat to anyone and survive until lategame (Kind of a good idea? But definitely altering my play that whole game because of a role)
(2) Mason in Can't Believe - Mason chat has bunch of discussion about when to claim, how to claim, etc. etc. Sciberbia and I got caught up in being blue, wasted a lot of time being idiots. Heck, I flipped mason and Sciberbia DIDN'T CLAIM to be my buddy, because we were so paranoid.
(3) Vigi in...LVII? I think that's right. Two-shot vigi. Shoot someone N1. N2 what do I do? Hold my shot instead of dropping a lurker or anyone helpful to town, thinking, as I did here, that by using my powers later on I could potentially benefit town. Ended up dead.
(4) Veteran in Looney Lynching - THIS ISN'T EVEN A POWER ROLE. I JUST DON'T DIE TO ONE SHOT. And yet i STILL concoct a stupid plan to give away votes at the end of D1, which I thought would make me look townie and draw a shot, but everyone else finds scummy. Then on the day I get lynched, I decide to be all mysterious and save my claim til the last moment hoping someone would figure things out and not even really understanding why some folks were voting for me.
2 times I've been blue I actively played differently than normal because of blue. The vigi game is the same logic as here, "Well, won't get the most of out my power NOW, because I can potentially get MORE out of it if I use it later too." Mason game is partially just us being idiots at some points in time because of blue.
If you're going to think I'm scummy because I didn't do homework you would have done, you should at least do the same homework yourself. I appreciate that you don't think I'm an idiot, but here's a different question, do you think I'm an idiot when I'm blue?
|
Day 3 Votecount
austinmcc (4) < --- Gonna get lynched
Keirathi, Xatalos, Blazinghand, sandroba
sandroba (1)
austinmcc
Not Voting (4)
debears
MrZentor
ShiaoPi
Lazermonkey
~32 hours until deadline.
|
I've thought about this a little more. Why would mafia retardedly trade 1-1 for me today?
For me there is really 2 plausible possibilities:
1) Somehow we are already at mylo. I found this one unlikely. Even accounting for the multiple claims and the lack of a RB claim I think having a 5 person scum team seems very imbalanced.
2) Austin is actually Traitor. This is the most fitting explanation I found. It explains everything perfectly. It is ideal for the traitor to trade 1 for 1 with me in this spot specially with ShiaoPi being the most likely target for today. It also explains Austin behavior yesterday perfectly.
@xatalos before I subbed in this game I was following this thread along with syllo and trying to determine people's alignment. I think it was the Bluelights method comment that sealed the deal for us of you being almost certainly townie. I can't imagine anyway a mafia would reference such random obscure fact to justify his actions and it pretty much proved that you were sincere and thought this was a legit strategy and in town's best interest. After that I'd reread all your comments and noticed the same streamlined flow of thought in them, with no apparent or agenda behind them.
|
For those voting me, if you think the timing of my claim is stupid, or my actions D2 are stupid, or whatever, I'd like to see what you think about this.
You think my timing/actions are stupid. You think they're stupid whether I'm town or mafia, yes? It doesn't magically make sense for me to claim at what apparently was a retarded to time if I'm mafia, does it? If you think I should have claimed at the start of D2, or been more apparent during D2, how does that lead you to believe that I am mafia?
If I were mafia, I could have:
(1) Planned this ahead of time. Could have acted in accordance with how you think I should have on D2. Could have claimed at the start of D3, said I got a N2 check.
(2) Not planned this ahead of time. Still would be more believable I guess to claim at the start of D3, say I got a N2 check.
If you think the timing is wrong, or my actions are wrong, for me being watcher, fine. But how are they right for me being mafia? The timing/actions would still seem wrong to you, regardless of my alignment, right?
|
@austin yes. That's because you are most likely traitor. Then you don't need to be stupid.
|
On December 07 2012 01:01 sandroba wrote:
@austin yes. That's because you are most likely traitor. Then you don't need to be stupid.
I love it when people condemn others based off pure speculation of what exists in a closed setup
Great analysis
|
He is either that or scum, which one makes more sense?
It is not speculation it's behavior analysis ty.
|
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
I am buying austins claim.
which leaves me with ##vote: sandroba
Okay lets condense my thoughts a bit.
BH is town to me, that makes Zentor also town as proxy, as I believe the PM BH posted to be correct (see wording and confirming them as town to each other). Austin's claim timing and stuff may be off but what the hell, why do you lynch the claimamt with no counterclaims? Seriously just compare the filters from austin and sandroba and tell me with a straight face that austin is scum. He is way too active and contributing in comparision to sandroba who just seems to be cruising by and dropping a remark now and then when it befits him. In this direct scenario of austin vs. sandroba the choice should be easy and clear. lynch sandroba......
Now onto the rest of the players.
debears is town in my eyes, which leaves me with those players left from whom I am expecting to be scum.
Xatalos, sandroba, Keirathi and Lazer.
I am calling the scumteam xata,sandroba,Lazer. I know we would have 4 scum in a 15person game, but that would be the only way I can see us having this many power roles....
Outlined my thoughts on sandroba above already so lets head over to Xata:
For the love of god, I cannot know how he arrives and a 100%-townread on sandroba, yes meta-wise he is doing more than usual, but give what is in this thread a closer look, how much of an impact did he really have? Not much at all, he is blending in, throwing us a bone when he likes to, but prefers to keep much to himself or not be here at all. At best I would have put sandroba at a townish-leaning null, with austins claim, easy he is scum. Also look at what we have already for this day, sandroba is just being a dick while austin is constantly arguing to lynch sandroba, being present, answering questions and scumhunting further. If sandroba flips red, I am pretty sure Xata will do the same.
now Lazer has been absolutely worthless and nonimpactful this game, that coupled with the fact that bugs flipped town and Keirathi did claim makes me choose Lazer over keirathi as last scum. Also in direct comparison of the two, Keirathi is most surely the more productive and decisive one (even if wrong with this tunnel on BH and later his vote on me). Remember the last time Lazer did anything? Oh right yeah, he just kept tunneling me to no avail, easiest thing to fake as contribution if scum.
I know it is a lot of associative tells in this, but it all adds up. so yeah kill off sandroba then xata and lazer and we won.
|
##Unvote
##Vote: sandroba
That makes more sense, at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
