|
To be fair, Yamato does have a point in that it clears one of you. There's no reason for scum to defensively jail N1, so whoever he didn't protect is pretty much confirmed town. It might be worth it. If the town JK thinks he'll be found out soon, he should claim. If he feels safe, then there's no reason to just yet.
|
Yeah, Yamato is town.
He pointed out earlier on that he thought he knew who the JK was.
On May 03 2013 03:02 yamato77 wrote:
Oh, and I'm certain that there is a town JK, and I'm fairly sure I know who he is.
I don't see any reason for scum to claim to know who the JK is, especially since he didn't try to gain any towncred from saying it himself. I was waiting to see if he brought such a point up, but he hasn't.
|
On May 05 2013 03:12 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 03:09 TheRavensName wrote:
I dunno, I think one of the lurkers has to be scum at this point. What happened to Sharrant and Giggles? They look way worse then anyone else to me right now for just how little they are actually doing, followed by stutters and Hopeless. sharrant played a huge role in the clarity lynch didn't he? If i am remembering correctly it would be ballsy as hell to bus your vig costing you two kp in one day
When would he have started bussing though? If clarity was already afk for quite some time it could be worth it.
|
Yeah, then Sharrant is pretty much confirmed town.
I still want to look into GiygaS and Stutters.
|
GiygaS was on Shiao and Clarity pretty early too. It makes me wonder if we're putting too much weight on potential bussing. They could've pulled a Boardwalk.
I checked an older game of GiygaS, L was the first one I found. He was town and got shot N1 in a game with 42 players. Really good D1 with lots of long yet concise posts analyzing a myriad of players. (link)
This game, he's done it a few times as well, like here and here. Concise posts, and he shows how his thought process evolves. At first, he doesn't suspect Ace (putting him as null), then rereads and changes his read. It's something he did in his town game as well. I see a lot of similarities, and his play seems to suggest a pro-town agenda. In general, too many similarities for me to consider him scum.
|
Presuming Hopeless will flip scum, I feel that clears Yamato entirely, as far as he's still on the table. Since we're leaving BC and Palmar until we're one mislynch away, and removing people I'm confident are town, we have Stutters, TRN and Bill Murray left.
|
|
|
On May 05 2013 04:38 Bill Murray wrote:It's not JUST because kush is scum and called him bro
I presumed so, so I was expecting you to tell me why.
|
Okay, I want to think about this.
I had Hopeless as scum partially because of having town reads on lots of other players. I might've given WoS and Kush town reads too quickly.
|
On May 05 2013 05:53 TheRavensName wrote:
i'm personally not a fan of how Artanis is saying we shouldn't lynch two of the most supicious people in the thread until were at a mislynch and lose. Kinda suggests to me hes scum with one of them/someone unlikely to be lynched and its an easy way to avoid killing them and its a crappy plan to cause a mislynch when at lylo.
1. I'm not saying we wait until MYLO, I'm saying we wait until 1 lynch before M/LYLO so we'll have time to lynch both.
2. I'm pretty much confirmed town to anyone that has read the thread.
|
If you want me to reword it to incredibly unlikely to be scum then I'll indulge you.
Who did you mason?
|
On May 05 2013 09:34 TheRavensName wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 09:13 Artanis[Xp] wrote:
If you want me to reword it to incredibly unlikely to be scum then I'll indulge you.
Who did you mason? Why does it matter?
It doesn't matter much, just curiosity.
GG OO.
|
Okay guys, I need 3 more applicants for the position of "confirmed townie" so I can proceed to carpet bomb into the rest. Any volunteers?
Applications will be reviewed after sleep.
|
Actually I'd only need one more if the JK claimed with whom he protected.
|
On May 05 2013 20:35 Bill Murray wrote:
HMMM I KNOW WHO I WANT TO LYNCH
|
On May 05 2013 23:08 TheRavensName wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 16:07 yamato77 wrote:On May 05 2013 14:20 Sharrant wrote:On May 05 2013 14:12 yamato77 wrote:On May 05 2013 13:19 Sharrant wrote:
Whether or not it happened, to discount scum jailing one of their own on day as "very improbable" is unwise in my opinion. Jailer claiming would give us one confirmed townie, then a dead townie the following night and no protection from that point on. And it wouldn't give us another confirmed townie because scum no doubt put more than two seconds thought into their night one jail.
If they did that, they'd first come to your conclusion, and then realize that they only had probably 1/3 chance of hitting a role that would be hampered by a role block, and that they could use their own roleblock for town cred.
Now it doesn't matter whether they did that or not, because just the fact that they could have done that means that you can't confirm a second person from a jailer claim. Thus I urge the jailer not to claim. Yes, you can, because scum wouldn't jail their own N1. Stopping a cop/other jailer is so much more important than the "town cred" from a N1 roleblock. Then how do you explain both of the people roleblocked on night one being alive? Surely if a vet would be considered confirmed town after such an action, the mafia would have had to kill him as quickly as possible, even if they were a mislynch possibility just based on the fact that the jailer could claim. The jailer wouldn't claim until a situation like this, and the chances of the jailer and the scum target both being alive, plus the scum jailer dead at this point in the game are relatively low. All of those things are required for this to be successful. You don't go in to a game, especially on N1 after a mislynch, assuming that your roleblock could somehow later on confirm a townie. You go in trying to stop a cop or a JK from getting off their night actions. It's not that difficult to understand. You're making this far too complicated. It's simple. Town JK roleblocked someone night 1, and he did it trying to protect them. That says nothing about their alignment. Scum used JK on someone night 1 trying to stop a night action, and that makes that person CONFIRMED not mafia. Sharrant kinda brings up a good point though. Why wouldn't they off whoever was protected then?
Probably because both of them were far from confirmed town. Both Palmar and BC were under suspicion.
On May 05 2013 23:13 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 14:12 yamato77 wrote:On May 05 2013 13:19 Sharrant wrote:
Whether or not it happened, to discount scum jailing one of their own on day as "very improbable" is unwise in my opinion. Jailer claiming would give us one confirmed townie, then a dead townie the following night and no protection from that point on. And it wouldn't give us another confirmed townie because scum no doubt put more than two seconds thought into their night one jail.
If they did that, they'd first come to your conclusion, and then realize that they only had probably 1/3 chance of hitting a role that would be hampered by a role block, and that they could use their own roleblock for town cred.
Now it doesn't matter whether they did that or not, because just the fact that they could have done that means that you can't confirm a second person from a jailer claim. Thus I urge the jailer not to claim. Yes, you can, because scum wouldn't jail their own N1. Stopping a cop/other jailer is so much more important than the "town cred" from a N1 roleblock. Scum can withhold their jail thing to claim a roleblock.
If they did, they did for a reason. I can't find a plausible reason. Nowhere did you or BC milk town cred out of the RB, unless I missed something. I therefore find it unlikely.
|
On May 05 2013 23:26 Sharrant wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2013 23:23 Artanis[Xp] wrote:On May 05 2013 23:08 TheRavensName wrote:On May 05 2013 16:07 yamato77 wrote:On May 05 2013 14:20 Sharrant wrote:On May 05 2013 14:12 yamato77 wrote:On May 05 2013 13:19 Sharrant wrote:
Whether or not it happened, to discount scum jailing one of their own on day as "very improbable" is unwise in my opinion. Jailer claiming would give us one confirmed townie, then a dead townie the following night and no protection from that point on. And it wouldn't give us another confirmed townie because scum no doubt put more than two seconds thought into their night one jail.
If they did that, they'd first come to your conclusion, and then realize that they only had probably 1/3 chance of hitting a role that would be hampered by a role block, and that they could use their own roleblock for town cred.
Now it doesn't matter whether they did that or not, because just the fact that they could have done that means that you can't confirm a second person from a jailer claim. Thus I urge the jailer not to claim. Yes, you can, because scum wouldn't jail their own N1. Stopping a cop/other jailer is so much more important than the "town cred" from a N1 roleblock. Then how do you explain both of the people roleblocked on night one being alive? Surely if a vet would be considered confirmed town after such an action, the mafia would have had to kill him as quickly as possible, even if they were a mislynch possibility just based on the fact that the jailer could claim. The jailer wouldn't claim until a situation like this, and the chances of the jailer and the scum target both being alive, plus the scum jailer dead at this point in the game are relatively low. All of those things are required for this to be successful. You don't go in to a game, especially on N1 after a mislynch, assuming that your roleblock could somehow later on confirm a townie. You go in trying to stop a cop or a JK from getting off their night actions. It's not that difficult to understand. You're making this far too complicated. It's simple. Town JK roleblocked someone night 1, and he did it trying to protect them. That says nothing about their alignment. Scum used JK on someone night 1 trying to stop a night action, and that makes that person CONFIRMED not mafia. Sharrant kinda brings up a good point though. Why wouldn't they off whoever was protected then? Probably because both of them were far from confirmed town. Both Palmar and BC were under suspicion. On May 05 2013 23:13 Palmar wrote:On May 05 2013 14:12 yamato77 wrote:On May 05 2013 13:19 Sharrant wrote:
Whether or not it happened, to discount scum jailing one of their own on day as "very improbable" is unwise in my opinion. Jailer claiming would give us one confirmed townie, then a dead townie the following night and no protection from that point on. And it wouldn't give us another confirmed townie because scum no doubt put more than two seconds thought into their night one jail.
If they did that, they'd first come to your conclusion, and then realize that they only had probably 1/3 chance of hitting a role that would be hampered by a role block, and that they could use their own roleblock for town cred.
Now it doesn't matter whether they did that or not, because just the fact that they could have done that means that you can't confirm a second person from a jailer claim. Thus I urge the jailer not to claim. Yes, you can, because scum wouldn't jail their own N1. Stopping a cop/other jailer is so much more important than the "town cred" from a N1 roleblock. Scum can withhold their jail thing to claim a roleblock. If they did, they did for a reason. I can't find a plausible reason. Nowhere did you or BC milk town cred out of the RB, unless I missed something. I therefore find it unlikely. Neither have been particularly close to the gallows either, and neither of them are stupid players.
But they were constantly people town talked about. Also, there were detectives alive that were a higher priority.
|
Hm, that might not explain N2 though. DT's claimed at D3 IIRC, and Rayn died N2. We're presuming the scum JK jailed defensively that day since we only had one claim (Ace). Gonna have to read back what happened on D2.
|
Just looking at the vote thread VE and Kush voted for Palmar. BC was never voted.
Also an interesting note given Rayn died that day. VE, to Rayn:
On April 25 2013 10:22 VisceraEyes wrote:
He's asking if you find anyone suspicious that isn't being looked at.
On April 25 2013 10:26 raynpelikoneet wrote:
WoS, but that's for another day.
Scrolling through the day there were a bunch of people that were suspicious of BC. Yamato and Mr. CC both said they didn't like him. That, and the two votes on Palmar leads me to believe there's a plausible reason for scum not to shoot either.
|
Sharrant, you're breakin mah balls man, breakin mah balls.
I really feel like the Town JK should claim here now that both BC and Palmar are back on the table. It'll at least help clear one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
