|
On April 07 2013 03:54 TheRavensName wrote:
To be quite honest? Yes I think its a fake claim. his way of play does not make sense for a vigi. He talks about not wanting to draw attention as scum, but you don't do it as a Vigi either because then you'll never get your shot off. Your playing off the assumption that there is either vigi, and that if there s one he wouldn't just shoot Rainbows and then claim the hit after so he can still actually shoot while still being able to push a lynch.
TRN Care to explain this a bit more clearly?
Here is what I think. Scum see a lynch coming for jampi town, they can NK Saraf and get rid of a townie, and they can RB Ranbows because they think his claim is true. While at the same time, they can build a case for lynching him in Day 2.
|
VOTE COUNT:
TheRavensname (1) Obzy
Rainbows (0) Smancer
Note Voting: e'erbody else
Deadline is in 33.5 hours. Voting is mandatory.
Currently TheRavensName is set to be lynched
If you see your vote (or anyone else') out of place please inform me or someone else on the hosting team so that we can correct it.
|
On April 08 2013 23:03 Smancer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2013 03:54 TheRavensName wrote:
To be quite honest? Yes I think its a fake claim. his way of play does not make sense for a vigi. He talks about not wanting to draw attention as scum, but you don't do it as a Vigi either because then you'll never get your shot off. Your playing off the assumption that there is either vigi, and that if there s one he wouldn't just shoot Rainbows and then claim the hit after so he can still actually shoot while still being able to push a lynch. TRN Care to explain this a bit more clearly? Here is what I think. Scum see a lynch coming for jampi town, they can NK Saraf and get rid of a townie, and they can RB Ranbows because they think his claim is true. While at the same time, they can build a case for lynching him in Day 2.
If that's the case then scum played it wrong. Saraf was for the rainbows lynch, killing him removes atleast one vote from rainbows. They could have hit someone else and achieved a similar result. And if rainbows was really roleblocked they should have faked a roleblock on one of their own and forced more doubt onto rainbow,s claim. The way they played it instead helps rainbows more than it hurts. Rainbows got away last game with killing the first person ti suspect him, brushing it off as WIFOM and then won with a risky fake claim. No reason he wouldn,t try it again. The only defenses he has going for him are just as easily explained by him being scum and faking.
|
Why would they fake a RB on their own? That's just stupid. If they did that then everyone would wonder why the real vigi hadn't killed rainbows. And then they'd have to claim vigi, which would get one of theirs dead almost guaranteed.
The played correctly. Don't kill rainbows (because they don't have to, and if he were lying real vigi would kill him). Then kill saraf who will give us almost no reads on who they are because he hasn't done much.
|
On April 08 2013 22:59 Smancer wrote:
##Unvote
You're right. Your claim was never countered. If you were scum, that would have been a ballsy thing to do without knowing if town had a vig or not.
TRN did say that he didn't believe you, I think his argument was over meta. And your case that you built against TRN was actually really good.
Rainbows case against me is based just as much on meta... he's saying I'm usuakky aggressive day 1, which is actually a meta lie because look at the first game we played together, I was called out for being excited to start and then not posting for a little bit.
|
[Ates blue.QUOTE]On April 09 2013 00:36 jrkirby wrote:
Why would they fake a RB on their own? That's just stupid. If they did that then everyone would wonder why the real vigi hadn't killed rainbows. And then they'd have to claim vigi, which would get one of theirs dead almost guaranteed.
The played correctly. Don't kill rainbows (because they don't have to, and if he were lying real vigi would kill him). Then kill saraf who will give us almost no reads on who they are because he hasn't done much.[/QUOTE]
Read the op. There is no garentee there is every role. Your assuming there is a vigi without proof other than the claim. There is no breadcrumbing and no playstyle that indicates a blue.
|
Afk phone is about to die. Will be back after class.
|
Ravens - What proof are you honestly expecting? If his playstyle screamed "I'm blue, I'm blue" without the claim, then he actually would be playing rather poorly (Up until the point he claimed) (I'm not considering his play after the fact for the purpose of this argument). The goal of blues, as I understand it, is to be thought of as VTs so they aren't targeted and immediately killed. And if he breadcrumbed in the first 30-odd hours of day1 as a vigilante, what sense does that make? Iirc; I don't remember who said it, but likely many people - vigilantes don't need to breadcrumb. Their shot is their breadcrumb. Breadcrumbing only matters if you are expecting to have to claim, imho.
|
I've tried to do some analysis based on the lynch and the NK, not sure if this gives very much, but I did spend some time writing it so feels stupid not to post it I guess  .
Final vote:
+ Show Spoiler +TheRavensname (1) Rainbows
Rainbows (2) Warent, TheRavensName
Smancer (0)
Saraf (0)
jrkirby (2) JarJarDrinks, nobodywonder
jampidampi (4) Smancer, Obzy, Fishgle, Moloch
JarJarDrinks (3) Saraf, jrkirby, jampidampi
My first assumption is that Mafia will try to spread out their votes as much as possible to make it harder to later find a pattern in their voting. At the same time they will try to hide among the townies as much as possible.
My second assumption is that townie lurkers are much better for mafia than active townies. (Yes I know I'm pointing out some obvious stuffs, but this is as much for me as it is for you)
Since it was a close vote, 4 against 3, 2 and 2, and with two unpredictable lurkers around whom could de-burrow and switch their votes at any time (?). There should be at least one scum among those who voted for Jampi, perhaps even two. Absolutely unnecessary for all three of them to vote for the same guy. So:
Third assumption; at least one scum (maybe two) among those who voted for jampi.
Not sure if you guys are fans of statistics - but let's do some statistical analysis anyway. Let's pretend for a second that we have no information what so ever and just chose to Lynch someone randomly - with 3 mafia and 10 players - our chance to lynch mafia would be 3/10 = 30%. Not very good. If there are two mafia among those who voted jampi the chances (no other information) is 50%. Better, not very good. If it's only 1 of 4 we actually end up at 25% - less than just going for someone at random.
However if you are among the townies who voted jampi and applies the same logic. You should either end up with a 33% (one scum voted jampi), or 67% (two scums voted jampi).
Now; let's add some reads. If you are among the townies who voted Jampi and have a strong town read on one of the others whom also voted jampi - you would end up with a 50% (1 scum) or 100% (2 scum) chance (obviously only with a very strong town read). If you have scum read on one of the others as well you should probably write a case.
From this perspective Saraf was a good NK, since he was not among the ones whom miss-lynched jampi. It was also a kill that gave us little new information in the sense that he was a fairly strong town read (at least for me). Point is, the townies among Smancer, Obzy, Fishgle and Moloch have better "guesses" than the rest right now. Oh, and this could be good to come back to as the game progresses and we have more "hard facts".
So my first suggestion is that we focus on these four for a while Smancer, Obzy, Fishgle and Moloch. It would be very good to hear your reads on each other, for example.
TLDR: Let's try to look more closely at those who voted Jampi, there is likely at least one scum hiding among them.
More filters. bbl.
|
Out of all those who voted jampi, my strongest scumread is smancer.
|
On April 09 2013 02:28 jrkirby wrote:
Out of all those who voted jampi, my strongest scumread is smancer.
On April 08 2013 07:05 Obzy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I liked him before the mislynch occurred, and although the fact that we mislynched made me suspicious of the other people on jampi's wagon, a quick skim through his filter leads me to still lean town on him (Fish, that is). He reacted very much like me, and agreed with my reasoning - + Show Spoiler +On April 07 2013 02:49 Fishgle wrote:holy shit. things are happening. First off - fuck you rainbows, for being such an arrogant emotional mess. Here's a tip: it's less about what you say, and more about how you depict it. You didn't make any friends because of your abrasive behavior. I understand you were forced to reveal so you wouldn't get lynched, but it was your own damn fault that everyone suspected you. second - fuck you rainbows, if you're actually abandoning the game. third - THERAVENSNAME, WARENT, JAMPIDAMPI why are your votes still on rainbows? Are you guys implying that rainbows' reveal was a fake? If it were fake, there's a huge chance someone would counter-reveal, making it a terrible move for scum. it just doesn't make any sense for him to be scum, no matter how badly he plays. 4th - i think obzy has done a good job explaining further reasons as to why it's unlikely that rainbows is scum. 5th - someone asked about a comment i made about a read on Moloch. disregard it. we have bigger fish to fry now. plus, it was an early-game hunch. Moloch's posts have gotten a lot more substantive and level-headed from since i got the read. 6th - http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=405359¤tpage=18#345 - http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=405359¤tpage=12#231I really think this is the best lead we have so far, coupled with the fact that he's still pushing a lynch on rainbows, who just revealed as the vigilante. ##Vote:jampidampi if I had to be suspicious of somebody on jampi, at the moment, it's smancer, not fish. his scum reads, I would've been quite happy with pre-lynch - now, I'm obviously a bit more skeptical - but I don't think that they make him scum, just reaching with the association to a jampi case. I'm more suspicious of Smancer than the other two, although they obviously all need to keep talking, along with everybody else ^^ Specifically regarding smancer; what's with the rainbows flip-flop? I'll admit, my own confidence was shaken - but really, does the jampi lynch change rainbows' situation? Rainbows wasn't even here for the majority of the jampi stuff. (Which is fucking bad, no doubt! But for Smancer to bring up rainbows after the fact? =l *shrug* Also not liking Jarjar for lurking - why not nobodywonder as well? Jarjar just happened to be the one being voted for lurking at that time. This isn't concrete, of course - but if I had to pick somebody on jampi's wagon that was actually scum, it would be Smancer, not Fish or Moloch. [Naturally, I am ignoring myself. ^^] Does anybody have any opinions on this?
(What I mean to imply is quite clearly - I agree. I want all three of them to post, though.)
|
You keep asking for us to post, and I have posted. I don't want to spend too much time defending myself here. I thought jamp was scum. I was the first to vote for him when no one else had voted for him. I don't know what the proves, but here was my case... I thought it was a good one:
+ Show Spoiler +On April 06 2013 21:40 Smancer wrote:I def went to bed too early last night, before the shit hit the fan. If you call whiskey and Advil PM going to bed, its more like passing out. With my huge fatness it is the only way to sleep :-) Earlier I based my case on kirby voting Rainbows. I thought Rainbows was doing a good job of getting the ball rolling and I thought jkirbys vote on him was scumy. Then he thought Rainbows was talking to him However based on the course of the night, between TRN, jamp and Rainbows I think we have a scum. The problem is to figure out who. I actually don't like Rainbows case against TRN. My opinion is that his case boils down to TRN was lurking. TRNs reaction seemed normal. What didn't make sense is jampidampi. His case against Rainbows really was bad. Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 15:03 jampidampi wrote:
Rainbows says how he likes Obzy. If you look at any mafia games posts, when someone likes someone, he thinks that guy is town. Just look at the list posts in this game: "I don't like XXX" is used in contexes, where people think XXX is scummy. Yet when I ask him to explain his liking of Obzy, he says he liked the name and that he has posted a lot, when at the time, Obzy had three posts. If look at those three posts, that is not a good basis for a town read.
Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 15:03 jampidampi wrote:
This scummy since Rainbows clearly cares his image.
I don't understand this. I want to find the scum, but, I also care about my image. I am town I want people to think I am town too. In regards to your point about Rainbows thinking someone was town. I think Rainbows has had more scum reads in this game so far than anyone. Lastly your demand for Rainbows to answer your questions is just silly. Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 14:00 jampidampi wrote:
Rainbows you better answear my questions. NOW So late in the game, when the focus has entirely shifted, you want him to go back and answer questions on policy? Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 14:20 jampidampi wrote:On April 05 2013 09:45 Rainbows wrote:
My point. Keep in mind the following question isn't policy-based.
Let's say we have this one guy, super emotional, yelling at people, voting all over the place. Call him guy A. Guy B is cool, suave, making decent points here and there, voting is in line with his thinking. Guy C is hardcore lurking are barely here, but won't get modkilled because he votes. Guy D is kinda wimpy, and sheeps cases but is also hard to read.
Who do we lynch? Rainbows, what is the purpose for this post? Why should we tell beforehand what kind of behaviour we see as scummy? And your other big question you demand answered is why he made this comment: Those are your big questions? That has nothing to do with the current case he made against TRN. Or any of the recent pages for that matter. ##Unvote ##Vote:jampidampi Rainbows why are you sticking to your TRN vote and not voting for jampidampi after you saw how bad his case was.
Anyway, Obzy I have read you town all game. And you were the second to vote for him.
Fishgle was the third vote, and my read on him is town as well.
So of us four I get to Moloch. I think his vote was the most suspicious as it was the fourth and final. Mine, Obzy's and Fishgle vote post for Jampi was detailed and made a good case. Moloch's unfortunately wasn't that detailed, and it looks like he is just sheeping. Furthermore he makes a post and then immediately changes the subject to JarJar.
My ready on Moloch has been town as well. Perhaps I am tunneling hard in the sense that I think everyone who agreed with me was town.
I personally think there is more to read into TRNs and Rainbows back and forth. But Warrent is probably right that one of the votes for Jamp was scum.
|
On April 09 2013 00:37 TheRavensName wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 22:59 Smancer wrote:
##Unvote
You're right. Your claim was never countered. If you were scum, that would have been a ballsy thing to do without knowing if town had a vig or not.
TRN did say that he didn't believe you, I think his argument was over meta. And your case that you built against TRN was actually really good. Rainbows case against me is based just as much on meta... he's saying I'm usuakky aggressive day 1, which is actually a meta lie because look at the first game we played together, I was called out for being excited to start and then not posting for a little bit.
I never said you were aggressive, I said you were 'rather active' as in, more active than this game. You also actually did some scumhunting day 1 and voted accordingly, instead of the incredibly wish-washy nothing posts Day 1.
Someone tell me this: What has Raven done this entire day besides poop on me because he's mad?
He's scum. I encourage you all to vote for him. Stop wasting time saying my claim is fake because A) It's real. and B) It's suicide for scum to fakeclaim on Day 1.
Raven, if you're ACTUALLY town, find my scumbuddies yo. Everyone here except Obzy really has layed their version of smackdown on me for being slightly spammy day 1 and providing cases on multiple people. I've been active and not holding back, and what have I gotten for it? Shit.
##Vote: TheRavensName
|
If you can lay down your reasons why you think it's a fakeclaim, I will gladly roflstomp them into the ground.
This is incessant.
|
On April 09 2013 03:23 Rainbows wrote:
If you can lay down your reasons why you think it's a fakeclaim, I will gladly roflstomp them into the ground.
This is incessant.
Why are you still alive?
|
Smancer - I thought at the time for sure, and perhaps maybe think, that the voters on Jampi were town. I was pointing out that if one of them was scum, you would be my guess. My vote isn't on you at the moment, though.
|
On April 09 2013 03:27 Warent wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 03:23 Rainbows wrote:
If you can lay down your reasons why you think it's a fakeclaim, I will gladly roflstomp them into the ground.
This is incessant. Why are you still alive?
Because Roleblocks are good.
|
@Warent - assume rainbows is town. scum will specifically not kill him, because he's a lynch candidate.
assume rainbows is scum. he lives because we have no other vigilante.
either way, all it means is we don't have a vig that isn't rainbows.
|
On April 09 2013 03:29 Obzy wrote:
@Warent - assume rainbows is town. scum will specifically not kill him, because he's a lynch candidate.
assume rainbows is scum. he lives because we have no other vigilante.
either way, all it means is we don't have a vig that isn't rainbows.
Why is he a Lynch candidate?
|
On April 09 2013 03:35 Warent wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 03:29 Obzy wrote:
@Warent - assume rainbows is town. scum will specifically not kill him, because he's a lynch candidate.
assume rainbows is scum. he lives because we have no other vigilante.
either way, all it means is we don't have a vig that isn't rainbows. Why is he a Lynch candidate?
Because I made cases and people got mad, which in turn made me mad so I claimed and now everyone thinks it's fake trololol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
