EPTNewbie Mafia XL
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
| ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
First off all, my prime playing time will probably be when you US folks are sleeping and the other way around. So please keep in mind that it may sometimes take several hours before I can answer question and provide my view points. We should try to find a middle ground between spam and lurking, obviously neither are good for town. But I rather we focus on posting when we have some new insight to provide, and thus help keep the thread atleast somewhat clean. Unessecary spam is just... spam. I fail to see how spam, confusion and weak claims are helping town. This is what've noticed after reading this thread (and I'm not alone): In less than 8 hours, Rainbows has provided three different "cases". The first one could be passed off as a joke. The second, according to himself a "serious" vote based on not getting an answer quickly enough (?). The third, and this time he really want to get a lynch going, based on nothing (or wierd reading skills). I would like to hear Rainbows explanation. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
| ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
At work now, I'll be back later today. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
A bunch of generic pro-town things being advocated. He provides a (bad) summary of events in the thread and... that's it. I was not providing a summary of events in the thread - I was summing up your actions. Perhaps it wasn't clear enough, no worries, hopefully this will make things more clear. ##Vote Rainbow As far as policies goes, this is my opinion: we should not lynch people based on whims, misinterpretations or lies. Rainbows third, so called, case against Saraf is completely based on either an obvious misinterpretation or a lie. Saraf: even if the spammiest asshole is just some poor well-meaning fattie (who should have applied the litmus test "does this post help town?") Rainbow: I think we should all rally around lynching Saraf, because he called me town and expressed interest in lynching someone he called probably town. Rainbow: Saraf seems to know I'm town, because he refers to me as such and tells me how I should be playing. Saraf has never called Rainbow town. Even if does NOT equal probably town! Rainbow must know this. I don't think this is a misinterpretation, I think this is Rainbow trying to create something out of nothing. Most likely reason the obvious one - he is scum. And he's not helping himself when he refuses to explain his own action but rather continue to accuse others. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 06 2013 01:49 Rainbows wrote: You were summing up the thread because I was the only one doing things. Saraf literally said: EVEN IF YOU'RE TOWN YOU SHOULD BE LYNCHED. Your defence is lawlzy, please try harder. He did. And you are trying to make Even if you are into probably are. These are two very different statements. What reasons do you have for twisting the meaning like that, unless you are trying to promote a miss-lynch? | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 06 2013 02:18 Rainbows wrote: You can tell by the context that he thinks I'm probably town. Just look at the statement where he tells me what I should be asking myself this game as town. Regardless, he wants to lynch me despite my alignment which is not town-mindset at all. We can keep arguing syntax or lynch scum, kk? No you really can't tell that from the context. Sarafs post is an answer to your statement about policy. Everything that follows is written in a general term, the statement you mentioned included. Obzy: If I had to pick a scumread, at the moment, it would be Warent for his vote and justification - things may change, though. Could you at least explain why you disagree with my justification? If there are flaws in my logic, I really want them to be pointed out. jampidampi: Warrent, your filter still doesn't give information what you think about anyone other than Rainbows. I'm sure you must have opinions on others. Well, the thing is I really want to stay on this topic, at least until I get a believable explanation. If Rainbow had backed down, when you pointed out his misinterpretation in this post: + Show Spoiler + http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=405359¤tpage=8#153 Honestly I don't have any other reads (that doesn't depend on this one), opinions - yes - but no facts. What about you jampidampi, any reads? | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
Hey warent, what's your read on me, and the people who voted on me? I just re-read everything, and I don't think the case against you is very strong. However you better elaborate some on that mystery read of yours. @Warent: You joined in much later than anyone else, and yet, you still choose to call out Rainbows? Doesn't anyone else stand as needing some scrutinizing? I mean, you can vote for and question rainbows and still investigating others. Okey, that's a bit unfair, I checked the thread before I went to bed and first thing when I woke up. Remember that we are in different timezones. Investigating and providing cases are different things, I am investigating other, but I don't have any other constructive cases. I Can't give you a more honest answer than that. Now return me the favor and tell me why you obviously disagree with my case against Rainbow? Warent, the reason that I didn't like your vote and justification is because it felt like Rainbows was solidly somebody to not worry about today, and you came in late enough that the initial salvo of joke votes, random votes, thread-starters had already occurred. When you came in, Rainbows was the vote leader (somehow -_-; ), and it looked to me like you were jumping in and making a case on an active player who had votes, I disliked that thread entrance quite a bit. (Specifically, the line "And I'm not alone" sort of caught me. Why does it matter, as an opening post? If there was a wagon forming after much discussion - sure. I like the power of numbers and agreement and stuff. But at that timing.... enhnhnnn) Alright, fair enough, you dislike that I entered late - and how I did it. You know why I entered late. And I'm not apologizing for providing a case. A case, which I still like to hear your opinion on. Oh, and in hindsight you are right about the "not alone comment", that was unnecessary. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 06 2013 08:01 Fishgle wrote: jarjar needs to stop lurking and explain his vote. i also want to see TheRavensName, jampidampi, and Moloch post more so I can get better reads on them. However, the more i look at Warent's entrance though, the scummier it looks. He gets mad at Rainbows for questioning him and then casts an emotional vote, despite not having any evidence. I think Rainbows was just throwing out votes to create discussion. Warent however, seems dead set on lynching rainbows, and argues semantics. Now, there's an interesting back'n'forth between rainbow and warent. The most interesting thing about it is that while rainbows is defending his vote, warent instead is defending saraf. What I think happened is that rainbows blindfired, got a lucky hit on a skinny (saraf), and then warent came in to try to defend his skinny exercise buddy. It doesn't help that Saraf is so anti-"spam". Obzy has posted just as much as rainbows, and i don't see anyone complaining that he's "spamming". Discussion is useful. What are we supposed to do, chit chat about nothing while the skinnys kill us off? True, some of rainbow's posts have been less substantial than i would have liked, but he got some discussion going. I don't think that's anything to get lynched over. I enter with a suspicion and I provided a case. As far as evidence go: I caught rainbow trying to to push towards a lynch based on a misinterpretation that has been pointed out to him several times - yet he argues that his interpretation is the correct one. Why are you ignoring what I wrote in that post? Cute theory. Need to sleep now. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
Before we forget about this: My initial concern was not about his first post. It was the lie (?) in this post that caught my attention: + Show Spoiler + http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=405359¤tpage=8#148 Obzy: I don't know what to think of Raven. He hasn't really posted enough - only his last two posts have content I care about; Why does he think Saraf called Rain an asshole and an idiot? "even if the spammiest asshole is just some poor well-meaning fattie" - how is that implying Rain, unless it's taken for granted that Rain is a spammy asshole? >_>;;; Also, how did Rain interpret it to be calling him out? - -; w/e. I would like to see Raven post more. Raven, are you implying that nobodywonder is town (haven't read him yet, will form an opinion momentarily) with this post? Up until know you've been careful, but now you've decided TRN is a good lynch target - why? Any other reason than Meta stuff? You think Rains case against him is good, care to elaborate some? | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
| ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
| ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
TRN: Jampi: Why are you calling Rainbows out for policy lynching? He seems to have made it pretty clear he hates policy discussion in general, and he has yet to really use it in any of his previous games. Jrk: Postig at random people is actually how rainbows plays. Look at the previous two newbie mini games for proof of that. Do you have another scum read? Or is the phrase other guy just referring to the lurkers? Doesn't this look like TRN pointing out that Rainbows behavior is just Rainbow being Rainbow, I fail to understand why he would do that (early on) if he were hoping for a lynch against him? | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
First of all, I'm can't be sure of this, but I've decided to stick with my vote on Rainbow, for the main reason outlined below. First and foremost I see no reason what so ever for a townie to lie + Show Spoiler + http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=405359¤tpage=8#148 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=405359¤tpage=17#338 My point is that all his behavior could very easily have been an act, trying to make us believe that he is just "to butt crazy to be a scum", he did trick everyone last game with a fake claim - I don't think he is stupid. Secondly, Lynching Rainbow will, according to my judgement, give us lots of valuable information. If he would flips green, everyone who has been defending him will look very, very townie - and those of us making cases against him has some explanation to do... You could argue that this is true for all lynches, but Rainbow is the case were most players have expressed opinions. Thirdly: Outbursts, Aggression (?), irrationality, rage quitting (?), And a vigilant claim on top of that... Well, to say it Rainbow style: Warent no like. Then, perhaps, I'm biased since I value logic and rationality. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
I'll explain everythingh tomorrow. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
Logic obviously doesn't work here, fine - I'll try to be a bit more aggressive (perhaps a claim in caps and threatening to rage quit will work?) You just lynched jampidampi - a lynch that put us back to square (minus) one - did it ever occur to you to consider the consequences of this being a potential miss lynch? Something I clearly pointed out here: Secondly, Lynching Rainbow will, according to my judgement, give us lots of valuable information. If he would flips green, everyone who has been defending him will look very, very townie - and those of us making cases against him has some explanation to do... You could argue that this is true for all lynches, but Rainbow is the case were most players have expressed opinions.? . As town; we don't know. We don't. Sure if we have a good read - go for it. But in the absence of a solid case, look at the consequences off the lynch. Lynching rainbow had given us tons of information, now we have... nothing. The whole case against Jampi is based on him providing a weak(?) case against Rainbow and asking question? Nothing solid, "gut feelings" and scum direction. Every single - (non general) - post/case/whatever from Obzy/Fishgle is based on their so called read that our emo kiddo Rainbow is town - a read that they in no possible way in hell can be so damn sure of as they make it sound (Rainbow claimed vigi - not wow raider - remember?). Rainbow is a good lair. There is nothing else of substance in their arguments. Nada. So another very important question is - why not focus on me, I provided a case against Rain before jampi, did I not? They are both pointing out that I look scummy for providing a case against their "town read" Rain, and some vague bullshit based on entering the game late (reason: I live in Norway - working full time), Yet they never commit - they wait. My simple theory is that they know that they would look really bad when I flipp townie unless someone else would push towards a lynch towards me first. Convenient to vote for a weak case against TheRavensName until Smancer shows up and repeats Obzy critics about jampis case and places a vote, (makes no sense for obzy to vote TRN and not jampi based on his analysis + Show Spoiler + http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=405359¤tpage=17#338 Allow me summarize: Rainbow - "The emotional and stupid townie" Having someone like this in the scum-team makes sense. He could vote around - provide stupid cases and perhaps get a miss lynch going. If he get's called of for starting a miss lynch? It was obviously only a troll or him "trying to get the conversation going". And oh, about his claim, we don't even know if there is a vigilant in this game, and some meta - fake claiming is what Rainbow did in his last game when he was being pressured. Obzy - "The rational and logical guy: The analyst" Plays the logical guys whom at first glance seems to analyze stuffs (writes quiet a lot without giving us anything useful) but at a closer look base everything on one "belief" - Rainbow is town - everyone who accuses Rainbow is scummy - because there is no possible way for Rainbow to be scum. Mm yes. That's all there is to the arguments. And the justification for Rain being town? "he acts to stupid to be scum". Shame on you if you fool me once - shame om me if you fool me ... Fishgle - "The 'average townie' that just follows the mob" Provides some theory about me defending Saraf (should I even bother to mention that's a lie - I've never defended Saraf, just read my filter), And again, points out I'm scummy, doesn't commit, lynch someone else for the exactly same reason - only different he wasn't the one needing to commit. Oh and @Saraf, I'm afraid that was just random head bashing on my keyboard and not real Swedish  .Sorry but I've not read the last few posts its 6 am here, need to sleep xD. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 07 2013 15:45 Obzy wrote: Ravens, what did you mean by this? You are implying that you like Kirby more than Jampi - sure, w/e - but why would you have to vote for Kirby =l You'd be voting for Jarjar. Am I getting confused over nothing? I think the way you acted pre-lynch was reasonably townie, it's just this post that confuses me. I'm curious about this as well? And did we forget about Nobody? | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
These questions from Jampi (Sarafs who brought them up first). Did anyone even try to answer them? Since it's almost midnight, I'll post this and go to bed. If you are lynching me for doing nothing, why aren't you lynching JarJar? If you are lynching me for bad cases, why aren't you lynching Rainbows? If you can answear these question, then fine, lynch me. But if you lynch me, you better make the most out of it postflip. Pressure the shit out of anyone who can't answear these questions. Pressure the shit out of anyone who voted for me with halfassed reasoning or blatantly sheeped. Hopefully I'm alive when I wake up. Goodnight folks. So, Smancer, Fishgle, Moloch, care to honour JarJars wish and provide an answer to these questions? | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
I hate all these shitty lurkers. I don't wanna lynch em cause... some of em are town. but I hate em cause they're terrible town. Yes, the lurkers are very problematic. Obzy, the reason; I brought up Smancer was because he was the one who committed against Jampi even though his vote basically was based on your analysis of Jampis case against Rain. I believe scum prefer to not start a miss lynch but rather try to convince others to start them. Look at this quote from Fishgle for example: Fishgle: My scum reads at the moment are: jampidampi, jrkirby, and warent Jampi was town and jrkirby looks very good after this last lynch. I was leaning town for Smancer - but right now the best way to get information will be if we can get answers from Fishgles/Smancer/Moloch on these questions: Jampi: If you are lynching me for doing nothing, why aren't you lynching JarJar? If you are lynching me for bad cases, why aren't you lynching Rainbows? And: If you were lynching Jampi for making a case against Rain - why didn't you lynch me? I just want the justification for Lynching Jampi. And what is your opinion about Fishgle, Obzy? | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
.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. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
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? | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
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? | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 09 2013 03:42 Obzy wrote: all it means was a poor word choice - i mean to say, it basically proves that we don't have a vig that isn't rainbows, and other than that, it shouldn't be a surprise at all that he survived. you just posted again and it sort of blows my mind: Because people have expressed interest in lynching him!? If you meant to imply that I wanted to lynch him - incorrect, sorry for the misunderstanding. If you meant to imply "Wow, who ever would have thought of lynching him?" - are you even reading lol >.> I take it that you, then, have zero objection to thinking Rainbows is town and have zero intention of lynching him yourself, or you never would've asked that question. However, before deciding to look at the voters on Jampi, whom I believe are at least reasonably townie and I would rather vote Ravens, you had indicated Rainbows, me, and Fish as potential scum, directly after the mislynch. So now you both do not understand why Rainbows would still be alive, AND the idea of him being lynched today had apparently not crossed your mind. In end-game I'll apologize for this tone if you are town, but honestly, I don't see a way that you could have logically changed your mind on Rainbows, secretly, to a point that it makes you ask why he would be lynched. Please convince me otherwise. Why do you find it likely that I would be able to convince people to lynch Rain today when I failed yesterday? Isn't a lynch candidate someone likely to be lynched? | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
| ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 09 2013 05:23 Obzy wrote: The problem is that Moloch, Kirby, nobodywonder, Jarjar, and Fish aren't posting (or at least - not enough). Ravens and Warent are posting and I'm getting scum vibes, but they could just be _relatively_ scummy compared to Rain and Smancer. To further identify if they are actually scum, I would like to be able to continue gathering thoughts on the other five. Would be very very good with some more activity, especially from nobodywonder and jarjar, problem with lynching lurkers now is that we can't afford more miss-lynches, and well feels like it's basically a shot in the dark when we don't have enough information. In any case I'm sticking to my previous post were I point out that our main focus should be on the four who voted for jampi, especially curious about your reads on each others (those of you who haven't provided that yet). Good night. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 09 2013 22:02 JarJarDrinks wrote: So jkirbys defense was pretty weak just like I expected. And looking @ Ravens last few posts, I think he may also be scum and trying to distance himself from kirbs. Here's his response to my case against kirby:He's trying to make it seem like he isn't defending kirby by saying I'm making him doubt his read while @ the same time saying that I don't really have a good argument against him because of my main point. And he's trying to apply that same argument to rainbows even though it's not really similiar @ all. And kirbys defense of jampi while earlier naming him a suspect is the strongest point in my case against him, it's certainly not the only one. Warent looks pretty bad to me too. On day 1 he tries to twist rainbows words and (mafia 101) makes a big deal out nothing:Man is he harping on that one post that rainbows made. And what better way to try to solidify that case? Kill Saraf and have him flip green. Back from work, was in a meeting the whole day, couldn't do much. Sadly need to leave soon again but I'll back in a few hours. I'll just say that I'm extremely curious how you get this into me twisting Rains words when that what was I was calling Rain out for. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 10 2013 00:52 JarJarDrinks wrote: Rainbow was right in that Saraf was basically saying that "we should lynch you whether you are scum or not". And it did seem like Saraf thought Rainbows was town even if he said the words "Even if you are" as opposed to "Probably are". That's just nitpicking words and harping on semantics. It amazes me that you chooses to bring that bullshit up again. For reference I put the original post in spoilers. Anyone capable of reading knows I'm right about this, shouldn't really be any need to discuss this further but you did just rose highly on my scum-read meter. + Show Spoiler + On April 05 2013 11:57 Saraf wrote: glhf Can we vote for a no-lynch in this game, or must votes be placed on individuals? Not talking policy Day 1 is bullshit. Scum know who scum are but we don't, and the only way we catch scum is by making them fuck up. Even if the policy ends up being "there is no policy", the debate drives conversation and conversation is the only reliable way we have of rooting out scum and eliminating them. Problems arise for town when scum derails the conversation, so here's some day 1 policy to chew on: In the absence of really strong reads, lynch the spammiest asshole who shits up the thread the most. Spamming the thread is a scum tactic to distract and disrupt town; even if the spammiest asshole is just some poor well-meaning fattie (who should have applied the litmus test "does this post help town?"), at the very least in Day 2 the thread will be less shit up, and it'll be easier to find scum without him shitting up the thread. Reading through Kirbys filter he comes out very townie to me. The only "weird" post were he provided reads on everyone - but I believe that was a response to us asking him to elaborate further on his early "mystery" read. Other than that most of his actions makes sense from my perspective. I'll re-read the case against Moloch and take a closer look at his filter. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 10 2013 03:38 nobodywonder wrote: Hi, nobodywonder here, I'll be here for about 30-45 minutes before I head to class. I'll be available from in about 3hrs then and get ready for the ultimate lynch then. So now I'll be rereading and taking questions. First thing, Warent, how did you read jrkirby as town? What kind of townie is he then? I read Kirby as town mostly because I disagree that his defense towards Jampi was faked - He claims to read Jampi as town at the time, and when I re-read the filters at least I agree that jarjar was a much better lynch than Jampi. Here he makes decent argument against a lurker with two or three horrible posts here - No reason for scum to prefer to lynch lurkers vs active players unless the cases are solid. + Show Spoiler + http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=405359¤tpage=19#370 The post below also makes sense to me. Kirby: It's not really the relevance of the questions. He had reasonable suspicion because there existed questions that had not been answered. It's enough excuse for him to make a case against rainbows. And just making a case against someone isn't a sure sign of scum. He made a reasonable case with poor persuasion. That's not a lynchable thing. Anyway I don't think he is scum. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
I know many of you have town reads on Rain now - but I do want to take a closer look at his claim and see what could have motivated it from a scum or town perspective. Please read and consider this. Motives for the claim from a scum perspective: Rainbow was set to be Lynched at the time, had he not claimed - he would probably go. If he is scum; fake claiming at that point is one of his best moves. These are the different outcomes: a) Claiming fails, he get lynched: No difference. b) There is a real vigi in the game who counter claims - it words against words - rain get lynched and mafia knows who the real Vigilant are. c) There is a real vigi in the game who counter claims: The counter claimer gets lynched - the real vigil is gone d) The lynched is stopped, someone else (town) gets lynched and the real vigi shots rainbow. Shot now used on someone who would have been lynched had he not faked claimed. Town loses one, scum loses one, and one power role loses its power. e) The lynched is stopped, there is no vigi in the game. Rain comes out looking like the good guy. So why not claim for example medic? On the surface claiming vigi seems to be one of the stupidest fake claims "because he will just get shot" and is thus more likely to be believed. But when looked at more closely it is motivated. Very good motives to fake claim vigi if you are set to be lynched. None of a-e would be worse for scum than a straight up scum lynch. Motives for the claim from a Town perspective: a) Claiming might stop the lynch Obviously a better town mindset would be to try to provide solid arguments instead, and some has pointed out that this was a stupid (not very motivated) claim from a town perspective. I've been trying to get some answers to why Rain wasn't killed by the Mafia, assuming the claim was real. The answers provided are. 1. There is also a roleblocker among the mafia so it is safe to keep him alive, and 2. Mafia would push for a mis-lynch on Rain on day two so we keep him alive. If you believe in the town theory you must believe in both 1 and 2. The flaws in number 2 is: Why kill Saraf then? He just wrote a major case against Rainbow before he was shot - he would most likely vote for a lynch towards him and perhaps even push it. And there are plenty of other good targets to try to get a mislynch on (!) If you are mafia and someone claims Vigi and if that someone is on the right track - you shot him. And also, why take the risk that we would lynch the roleblocker? Otherwise they will just effectively "lock" their role blocker onto one player instead of trying to block the medic for example. The are no good motives for scum to keep Rainbow alive - if the claim was real - does not fit Summing this up: - There are good motives for a mafia on the way towards a lynch to fake claim. There is nothing to lose and it's not a gamble. - There are no good motives for a Mafia to keep Rain alive if the claim was real. ##Vote Rainbows | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
At first I thought he was stupid, so I read that as scum, but after he claimed I realized that either he was going to die or he was just the stupidest vigi there was. Now he's just a terrible vigi. Just want to point out what TRN said earlier about Rain, he was voted MVP in his two previous game - I don't think he is stupid - I think he is a decent actor. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
At least READ and try to understand my analysis on the different perspectives on the claim above and I'll be happy. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 10 2013 06:56 Moloch wrote: Warent, I've been thinking along the same lines of you, but I still feel there's a better chance he's telling the truth than not. Your Mafia perspective is spot on. There was basically no downside to claiming at the point he was at. Your town perspective should include a #3 - The mafia assumed the medic would protect Rainbows, so they didn't want to waste their hit on him, and they knew they could roleblock him so he couldn't do anything anyway. Because of this newly added possibility, your claim that there is no good reason for Mafia to keep Rainbows alive is false, which weakens your argument by a lot. #3 Is a good point, And I've been considering it. But medic wouldn't want to save Rain from the REAL vigilant trying to kill him. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
| ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
Who pushed for not changing from another obvious mislynched: Obzy. Obzy if you disagree that fakeclaiming from a scumperspective was a good move you don't even have a clue what logic looks like. You keep repeating yourself "I feel scummy" but my posts "looks pro town". Can't do any indepth analysis from work, that'll have to wait. When I come back home I'll compare this lynch with yesterdays and see if we can draw some hard fatcs about that. I'm really tired of you guys baseing reads and lynches on guts instead of looking at possible motives. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
As such, he KNOWS there is a doctor. Saying that there can't be three blues is absolute suicide if he fakeclaimed. He would KNOW there's another blue. No one knows how many power roles there are, I believe they are distributed randomly. I don't know, you don't and Rainbow don't. there is no way he could have known if there is a doc or not. His "gogo another blueclaim challenge" is yet again not motivated from a town perspective. But from a scum perspective? Hell yes it is motivated. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=405359¤tpage=34#666 a few posts later Moloch points out a flaw and I answer to that as well But perhaps it's time to focus more on likely scum-teams rather than individual scums. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 11 2013 00:48 Obzy wrote: + Show Spoiler + I really, really hope I get shot tonight. If I don't, I might land a protect on somebody and the scumteam will require an additional mislynch to win, so they had better gift me this. Warent, entirely hypothetically, what if in my -imaginary- -luck shot- -guess- scumteam prediction you were replaced with Rainbows? And the number of blue roles, yes, is unknown to all players, but I feel it's a safe assumption that it's either 2 or 3, and we could all have safely assumed that at the beginning of the game. Then all of a sudden your scum read would be very similar to mine. And I like the idea of providing scum-team reads at this point in time instead of just looking at individual scums. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
Day one lynch: TheRavensname (1) Rainbows Rainbows (2) Warent, TheRavensName jrkirby (2) JarJarDrinks, nobodywonder jampidampi (4) Smancer, Obzy, Fishgle, Moloch JarJarDrinks (3) Saraf, jrkirby, jampidampi Day two lynch: TheRavensname (2) Rainbows, Moloch Rainbows (2) TheRavensName, Warent jrkirby (5) JarJarDrinks, nobodywonder, Fishgle, Obzy, Smancer JarJarDrinks (1) jrkirby #Fact 1 TheRavensName and Warent has been voting on the same lynch twice Fishgle, Obzy and Smancer - || - JarJarDrinks and nobodywonder - || - My assumption from day one: + Show Spoiler + http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=405359¤tpage=26#509 see this post for some reasoning Same assumption is most likely valid today - doesn't really change anything though. We also know that JarJarDrinks and nobodywonder have been voting on misslynches two days in a row. Obviously voting for a misslynch doesn't necessarily tell us much except that they have been wrong twice. Another fact that jrkirby pointed out before he was crushed: The three who voted JarJarDrinks on day one: Saraf, jrkirby, jampidampi are all gone. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
I mean, so did Smancer, Fish, and myself. Assuming your assumption is correct; Smancer obviously is my pick for the scum on jampi's wagon. Yeah, I should probably have mentioned that, just thought it was more obvious since you three had been voting for the lynch both times. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
Obzy just claimed medic, before I go to bed I want to look at motives for doing so. We don't know the number of power roles in the game. Claiming from a scum perspective: These are the outcomes: a) There is no medic in the game - no one counter claim - situation has improved drastically. b) There is a medic in the game - real medic counter claims during the night. Random townie gets killed - there will be word against word the next day. And real medic might get lynched next day. (If real medic gets lynched situation will eventually be 4 against 3 - without a medic. If the fake claimer has lots of town creds. this is the likely scenario) c) There is a real medic in the game- real medic does not counter claim during the night. IF the real medic gets NKed - fake claimer will be lynched next day. Otherwise real medic counterclaims the next day see b. d) There is a real medic in the game who doesn't counterclaim. See a) e) No one dies. Fake medic claims to have saved fake vigi. Everyone believes them and we are dead. Why e? How long can they argue that mafia has good reasons for keeping a claimed vigi alive? Obzy has hinted multiple times that he will die tonight implying he is not going to save himself, who do you think he will "save"? I think its a setup for the "save". Holy shit, that's a good plan, I'm impressed! Or did I miss some possible outcomes? (obviously me pointing this out drastically reduces the likelihood for this to happen, yet if I had waited i could either be dead or it would sound much more like a conspiracy theory) Claiming from the town perspective? Most already had town reads on Obzy. He said it himself few posts later. Rain: You know if anyone else is blue, they can claim because 3 blues in a game is super rare. cop/doc/vig is stupid op. if you're a doc/jk you can claim and then lynch me? never even thougt of thaat. This is the explanation given Obzy: If Rainbows was town, he would know that he was a proper vigilante, and there are two confirmed blues. Saying that there can't be three is flat-out-incorrect, obviously, and he wouldn't say it unless he believed it. If Rainbows was scum, he would know by now there IS no proper vigilante, and there is no roleblocker - as there were no roleblocks claimed, or roleblockings claimed. So there is no roleblocker. As such, he KNOWS there is a doctor. Saying that there can't be three blues is absolute suicide if he fakeclaimed. He would KNOW there's another blue. So I feel like it's a fact that Rainbows is blue, and he only made that statement because he was so certain there were only two blues, as it was his past experience. We don't know the number of power roles, I'm lost. I don't see any good motives for a doc to claim during the night. Obzys' own explanation boils down to "I don't want to play anymore". Well... I don't buy it and it might even be borderline against the rules - play to win. If the claim is true .This claim is motivated from a scum perspective, I'm actually quit surprised myself by this conclusion. Slight gamble should they kill the real medic, but if the intention is to not kill anyone and claim a save on rainbow - shit makes sense. Me pointing this out might change the course of action do - tomorrow we will be wiser. And perhaps I'm just very good at conspiracy theories. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 11 2013 05:43 Obzy wrote: Well, I'm now much happier lynching Warent. ^_^ Also - Can I can save myself? I didn't think I could lol I wrote up some things about why your theory is stupid, but I don't actually think there's any reason to poke holes in it - it's just bad and I think you're scum for it. Also: You say that I would claim to protect fake-Rainbows - what, you think that there was one blue? >.> Obviously you do not think there was just one blue. Way to make an argument, very townie indeed (sarcasm). Not bothering about logic and arguments, that's weapons of the scummy. Why did you claim? Enlighten us, how will it help town win? Power rolls are being distributed in a random manner (you are allowed to correct me if I'm wrong). If your claim is fake and there is a real doc in the game the claim is still a good move from a scum perspective - I explained why. Smancer, I think you've been manipulated by Obzy whole game... Take a look at your case against Jampi, where did you get that idea from? | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
@Smancer, I agree, but the night events must be considered as well. Good night. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
Good lord. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
I provided reason why it wasn't a terrible move from a scum perspective. Simple as that. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
This is probably our best option right now. ##Vote nolynch | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 11 2013 21:11 TheRavensName wrote: Then this whole day so far is very out of character for you. Quick question since your the guy here who analyzes EVERYTHING from a scum perspective... want to analyze the No lynch vote with no real debate first motivations by rainbows or should I just do that for you? Analyzing things from different perspectives can be useful. I think Rainbow did it as a joke (?), not sure though. Molochs reasoning made sense. If you have an analyzis you are obviously welcome to provide it. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
Good points, all three of you. Also from a completely objective perspective you have to consider yourself being lynched, it's 3/8 vs 3/7 that's only 5,4% percent. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 12 2013 01:28 Rainbows wrote: I want everyone to vote early in the day. Everyone. That means NW, JJD, Fishgle. No last minute shenanigans. ##Unvote ##Vote: Warent Who am I working with? | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 12 2013 01:39 Smancer wrote: Ok, so I decided to do what I said. I had three things to focus on Ravens versus TRN, Vote counts and patterns, and Obzy's Claim. I looked back at everyone, including myself, our filters. And I wrote down for each person who they voted for, in chronological order Day 1 and Day 2. The only mildly interesting thing I found was two people that have the exact same votes. NW and JJD. They are also heavily lurking JJDs filter is still one page. Day 1 each of them only made 1 and only 1 vote jkirby Day 2 each of them only made 1 and only 1 vote jkirby JJD's filter is still one page. I am looking through them because I am trying to find more evidence t support that they might be working together. I've been thinking about that but wouldn't it be a bit to obvious..? Another thing they do have in common is lurking heavily on Day1 though. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
I don't like how War got away without much scrutiney for the same things I was doing, I can't really provide an answer to this. don't like how he was acting Last night and didn't scrutinize something that has morepotential scum motivations then that bad medic claim,ut The medic claim was the most important event no one had looked at more closely. It had plenty of scum potential! I actually didn't think Obzy just would give up, and I was suspicious towards him from after day 1. Why? Him hardcore defending Rain didn't make sense to me, it did to you? In any case my analysis was still correct - but my conclusion was wrong. It was a horrible town move. Had been an at least an interesting scum move. and I don't like how hes posted so little I'm sleeping when most of the actions are happening, sorry about that, but can't really do much about it. I really don't understand do you think I'm working with Rainbow? | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
But yeah I've been reading town on nobody, I think he has some good reasoning overall when reading his filter. JarJar on the other hand. Well, he's been able to keep a very low profile. And two of his cases have been garbage, the one against kirby day 2 was slightly better. But he hasn't really done much. At this point in time I also know that you are town, otherwise you would have just jumped the wagon and lynched me. I've been positive towards Moloch. Nice reasoning overall, only him and I who tried to stop the Lynch on Kirby for example. His earlier post today, I agreed with at first. But TRN and you (Smancer) pointed out correctly that 4vs3 is much more "fragile" then 5vs3. I earlier pointed out that I believe there were at least one scum among obzy, moloch, smancer and fish. Not sure if that's correct anymore since it was a town who had second most vote that day. But IF I had to pick one of these, that would be Fishgle. I think hes play improved during d2, but d1 most he did was pointing out light uncommitical suspicions against a lot of confirmed townies. But I'm very uncertain about him. I don't believe in Rains claim, I never have. He should have died night 1. He successfully blue fished our doc yesterday. So my preferred lynch for today would be either Rainbow or JarJar. Unless we can agree with on one of them. I rather we No-lynch. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
| ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
| ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
| ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
I know many of you trust Rain. Consider this - if you think I'm working with Raven, why have we been focusing so much on trying to convince you guys about Rain rather than someone with fewer supporters? This is a critical time, were is JarJar, were is Moloch (?) (I really expected him to be more active, but he haven't posted during the last 24 hours or so...). Who benefits from conversation right now? Town does. Why? I AM town - and I am set to be lynched. There is no NEED for scum to act right now. Town on the other hand. We are running out of time. Seriously, look at jarjar, day 1 and day 3. Provide a terrible case -> go into lurker mode. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + All right, here's the promised case. I hope you Rainbows-supporters take a good look at it because this is a hell of a lot more in-depth than my previous reads. The Rainbows case: Exhibit A -- + Show Spoiler + Rainbows begins the game by starting some conversation; "don't talk policy", etc. "This is a hypothetical question", etc. At first glance, this seems very pro town. But how much does Rainbows actually contribute to the conversation? Other than "I was guy A", and Exhibit B, the rest of his posts before my first post are either trolly or directed at TRN and have nothing to do with the game. And, he never comes back to address anything about policy later, or people's opinions on policy. Exhibit B -- + Show Spoiler + Alright, a serious vote, or so he claims. Note that Smancer has not posted since Rainbows posted his hypothetical question. Possibly just a pressure vote, maybe looking to draw an OMGUS. Note that this worked very well for the scumteam in NMM XXXIX, because rayn caused TRN to OMGUS and be useless, then Rainbows played the straight man to get TRN to follow him around like a lost sheep. This time, Rainbows is playing the funny man, and I will reference this point again later. Remember also that Rainbows does not answer questions unless he is absolutely bombarded with them and is forced to answer. Exhibit C -- + Show Spoiler + Here we go, his case on me. The vote itself is a little suspect because it's based on a reading of my post that is just flat-out wrong. He takes my policy post, reads it as an attack on him and then you get the above. That can be hand-waved away as perhaps fishing for a reaction, but the second part cannot. He devotes an entire paragraph to point out a contradiction in my post that doesn't exist ("wants policy talk"/"doesn't bring up policy" when I did, in fact, talk policy) and follows it with a one-sentence retraction. He obviously knows he's lying here, so what the hell is going on here? I posit that he was hoping nobody would notice the contradiction in his own case while leaving himself an out in case the wagon on me didn't get rolling. Exhibit D -- + Show Spoiler + Next up, from the same post, his case on nobodywonder. If he hadn't included the reference to me it might have come across fine. "This guy is scummy, but not as scummy as I think Saraf is." He doesn't say that though. He does specifically what he accuses me of doing: he says I might be town, but leaves his vote on me anyway. He then says NW is scummy and wants more opinions on him. He knows the wagon on me might not stick so he's getting ready to start another one. Exhibit E -- + Show Spoiler + His case on TheRavensName. Three tries and none of the wagons stuck, and he didn't get OMGUS'd. This one was guaranteed. He saw how TRN played in XXXIX, he knows TRN is going to OMGUS and make himself look bad. The case itself isn't bad because he's right about TRN's contributions to that point: basically calling nobodywonder bad (and somehow therefore a townie?), and calling out Rainbows's case on me. Exhibit F -- + Show Spoiler + Another case, this time on JarJarDrinks. Now, JJD had the same number of posts as I do (excluding my "going to bed" post and the "brb, writing cases" post, he was (and still is) lurking something hardcore. This is an easy case to make, and a very good way to divert suspicion. With these last two cases he's saying "Why lynch me? I'm trying to hunt scum and help town! We should lynch TRN who's useless or JJD who's lurking!" Here's the part where Rainbows, if he was REALLY the Vigilante could have spent his bullet in the morning. In conclusion, while Rainbows gets conversations started, he never comes back to them to actually contribute. His cases are based on either misinformation (Exhibit C & D) or on easy targets (Raven = OMGUS & JJD = lurking). He is throwing wagons against the wall to see if they will stick, he is deliberately trying to get rises out of people by machine-gun voting and once called out instead of defending himself, he explodes. "I'm obviously town", he says, "you all must just be stupid". He is playing the "funny man" in a two-man (in this particular instance 3-man) shtick and the other two mafia look way reasonable by comparison. It worked for scum in NMM XXXIX and they're trying to get away with it again here. Saraf voted JarJar on day one. Moving on to Jampi: + Show Spoiler + Rainbows is really scummy. At the start, he had the opportunity to continue discussing what was being discussed, but instead he brings up this hypotetical question. Now what purpose does it serve? Scum could post this to know what kind of behaviour we find scummy. Town could post this to generate discussion. But I don't believe that. Rainbows had already got good discussion rolling about something that matters to town (policy). But instead he brings up something that can't benefit town. And there is no followup whatsoever. Rainbows asked if Ravens was scum or VT. Blatant bluefishing. No scum would ever answear "Yes, I'm scum". If Ravens had claimed VT there, scum would know he isn't blue. Ravens may have in confusion softclaimed a powerrole there. I can't find any townie reasonin Rainbows would ask this question. 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. Rainbows thinks he is the center of the thread and that he should be talked about. On April 06 2013 01:49 Rainbows wrote: Show nested quote + You were summing up the thread because I was the only one doing things. On April 06 2013 12:36 Rainbows wrote: Show nested quote + First post of the day. Neglects to comment on my play which I find exceedingly odd. I was pretty much the entire thread at that point. On April 05 2013 23:37 Rainbows wrote: Show nested quote + A bunch of generic pro-town things being advocated. He provides a (bad) summary of events in the thread and... that's it. [snip] Show nested quote + It is obvious that Saraf is referring to me here. I'm spamming, I'm doing a bunch of nuisance-like things and he doesn't like it. He says he would like to lynch me; even if I'm probably town. Saraf seems to know I'm town, because he refers to me as such and tells me how I should be playing. [snip] I digress, he's brought up the policy to 'lynch the spammiest asshole', but that in itself people are already talking about because I'm the center of discussion. So antagonisitic. On April 06 2013 12:12 Rainbows wrote: He didn't do anything of use early game. He was around, but chose to do nothing useful. He barely even talked to me, and pretty much ignored events in the thread. His real 'entrance' post to the thread is here: This scummy since Rainbows clearly cares his image. He cares that people see him as town. He cares enough to make a point of being the center of discussion. Scum care for their image. Here is another case of Rainbows caring about his image: On April 05 2013 23:37 Rainbows wrote Nobodywonder Show nested quote + NW gives a huge summary. and throws some shit. He meditates on the policy thing, which I told everyone wasn't policy. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOW PEOPLE THINK AND POLICY JESUS CHRIST PEOPLE. Had to get out of the way. This post, and subsequently the spoiler, show no effort on NW's part to come to a conrete read on me. He simply says that I'm doing things. He seems really apprehensive about giving an actual read and just flops around. I want peoples opinions of NW. Saraf might just be a banality-spewing town; and I'm unsure if his lolpolicy was serious or not. But NW - that guy. He's scummy. The only post which he brings up from nobodywonder is this one, where nobodywonder suspects Rainbows. Rainbows is hellbent in his interpretating that Saraf called him town, even when multiple people have said that was not what Saraf intented to say. If Saraf is town, what Rainbow did was scummy, because he has more reasons to potentiaaly misslynch Saraf. If Saraf is scum, it's still scummy. Rainbows appears to put pressure on Saraf and if Saraf is ever on the chopping block, Rainbows can go "oh shit, my reasoning is really dump" and save him. Jampi ended up voting for JarJar D1. Poor Kirby, what did he say: + Show Spoiler + Rainbows, what happened to your vendetta on saraf? Did you just forget? Honestly what you're doing is stupid whether you're town or mafia. Few people trust you - that's a good reason NOT to lead a charge. Maybe you should've asked the coaches to look over your long tyrade before you posted it. Kirby again: + Show Spoiler + I want to make a case against JarJarDrinks. Jarjar has been playing very lurky. There are only two players he has talked about: Me and Rainbows. His first post was a vote against me. On April 05 2013 21:45 JarJarDrinks wrote: K, just caught up. I think jrkirby is my scummiest read at the moment. He votes rainbows pretty early. Then later on he tells us that he feels like he "might actually be a fatty, and is just acting stupid" BUT he feels like he has to vote for him because he's "helping the skinnies". Anyone that votes for someone and then defends them is gonna read scum to me. ##vote: jrkirby Barely any reasoning at all. None of his other posts expand on this reasoning. He says that he likes that rainbows is talking a lot, yet he himself barely says a thing. On April 06 2013 04:06 JarJarDrinks wrote: Show nested quote + Reading rainbows as town mostly but that's due in part to believing that you're scum. He's talking alot which I like. Though he did that in the last game which had me fooled for quite a bit. My turn for a question: Why did you unvote? When I call him out on it he just says this: On April 06 2013 04:41 JarJarDrinks wrote: Show nested quote + I'm here now. Right now you're my top scumread so I'm focusing on you. Like every post you make looks more and more scummy to me. So now you were voting for him but it wasn't a serious vote? And then dissapears. For a whole day. RECAP: Votes for little reason, gives reads on almost no one, lurks, claims he likes people who post a lot, and never posts. Why not Rainbows: + Show Spoiler + Why not TheRavensName: + Show Spoiler + Why not jampidampi: + Show Spoiler + And his last contribution: remember: get jarjars; then go from there. Jampi voted jarjar. The only thing against me seems to be: I don't trust Rain. When reading the above posts - is NOT trusting Rain a reason to be lynched for? Obzy believed I, Smancer and Jarjar were the scum team. So I'm curious, what do you guys think about JarJar? (Sorry I didn't get the spoilers in the spoilers) | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
| ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 13 2013 00:44 Rainbows wrote: Yes, bring up all the dead people that voted for JarJar. You killed them, after all. That's a lie. Lynch from day one and day two in spoilers. + Show Spoiler + Day one lynch: TheRavensname (1) Rainbows Rainbows (2) Warent, TheRavensName jrkirby (2) JarJarDrinks, nobodywonder jampidampi (4) Smancer, Obzy, Fishgle, Moloch JarJarDrinks (3) Saraf, jrkirby, jampidampi Day two lynch: TheRavensname (2) Rainbows, Moloch Rainbows (2) TheRavensName, Warent jrkirby (5) JarJarDrinks, nobodywonder, Fishgle, Obzy, Smancer JarJarDrinks (1) jrkirby I did not Lynch them. And why the hell would I get rid of Saraf if I wanted to lynch you day2? | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 13 2013 00:50 JarJarDrinks wrote: Yes because he HAS TO BE the vigilante. That's the same point against Raven. Please answer me: how terrible would scum have to be to make that fake claim on day 1? It just would never happen. So you've been focusing on a blue role the entire game. And then who is the other person you focused on? Obzy, another blue. You are naive. He didn't only claim Vigi he also claimed that mafia has roleblocker, that makes it a dual claim that has to be true and a stupid mafia that didn't kill him d1. Claiming vigilant on day one was a good and motivated move from a scum perspective, I explained why in this post: + Show Spoiler + Right now I think scum is trying to get us to misslynch each others I've got town reads on both Kirby and Moloch. I've liked Molochs reasoning from day one and there isn't really any case against him. I know many of you have town reads on Rain now - but I do want to take a closer look at his claim and see what could have motivated it from a scum or town perspective. Please read and consider this. Motives for the claim from a scum perspective: Rainbow was set to be Lynched at the time, had he not claimed - he would probably go. If he is scum; fake claiming at that point is one of his best moves. These are the different outcomes: a) Claiming fails, he get lynched: No difference. b) There is a real vigi in the game who counter claims - it words against words - rain get lynched and mafia knows who the real Vigilant are. c) There is a real vigi in the game who counter claims: The counter claimer gets lynched - the real vigil is gone d) The lynched is stopped, someone else (town) gets lynched and the real vigi shots rainbow. Shot now used on someone who would have been lynched had he not faked claimed. Town loses one, scum loses one, and one power role loses its power. e) The lynched is stopped, there is no vigi in the game. Rain comes out looking like the good guy. So why not claim for example medic? On the surface claiming vigi seems to be one of the stupidest fake claims "because he will just get shot" and is thus more likely to be believed. But when looked at more closely it is motivated. Very good motives to fake claim vigi if you are set to be lynched. None of a-e would be worse for scum than a straight up scum lynch. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 13 2013 00:57 Rainbows wrote: You did not lynch them. Yet you did nothing to prevent their lynch, instead put your vote on me uselessly. I just said you wanted to avoid taking responsibility for your actions, and here you are. Another lie. Doing what I can to help Kirby before I had to go sleep: On April 10 2013 03:38 nobodywonder wrote: Hi, nobodywonder here, I'll be here for about 30-45 minutes before I head to class. I'll be available from in about 3hrs then and get ready for the ultimate lynch then. So now I'll be rereading and taking questions. First thing, Warent, how did you read jrkirby as town? What kind of townie is he then? Warent: And everything you just said about me could be said about you as well. Difference is, this is me trying to defend Kirby. Besides I love in Europe, I've not been able to be online around deadline. I've been forced to make my cases and then hope for the best - sad but true. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 13 2013 00:57 JarJarDrinks wrote: Oh, you want to bring up dead guys last contributions? I got one: Yes very cute. That would bring his track record to three miss lynches in a row. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
| ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 11 2013 06:25 Obzy wrote: At this time, Warent is 100% scum IMHO, and it will take a miracle for me to not vote him. Like literally there would have to be a ray of light fall upon my car in the middle of a storm as i drive home and fucking jesus would levitate down and gently rest his hand on my car's side-view mirror as I stop, stupified, and say "Please don't lynch Warent." - in perfect english, mind you - and then fly away surrounded by doves and a choir of angels If that doesn't happen I'm voting Warent. You never know, though! And again, nothing of substance. He didn't like that I analyzed his claim and found much better motives from a scum perspective then from a town perspective. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 13 2013 01:34 Rainbows wrote: If anyone thinks fakeclaiming vig day 1 is a good scum move, epecially for someone who apparently is decent at scum, lol. If having all of this suspicion on me was a good thing, lol. If Raven is town, lol. Instead of putting it in spoilers I'll just copy paste it here again. Motives for the claim from a scum perspective: Rainbow was set to be Lynched at the time, had he not claimed - he would probably go. If he is scum; fake claiming at that point is one of his best moves. These are the different outcomes: a) Claiming fails, he get lynched: No difference. b) There is a real vigi in the game who counter claims - it words against words - rain get lynched and mafia knows who the real Vigilant are. c) There is a real vigi in the game who counter claims: The counter claimer gets lynched - the real vigil is gone d) The lynched is stopped, someone else (town) gets lynched and the real vigi shots rainbow. Shot now used on someone who would have been lynched had he not faked claimed. Town loses one, scum loses one, and one power role loses its power. e) The lynched is stopped, there is no vigi in the game. Rain comes out looking like the good guy. So why not claim for example medic? On the surface claiming vigi seems to be one of the stupidest fake claims "because he will just get shot" and is thus more likely to be believed. But when looked at more closely it is motivated. Very good motives to fake claim vigi if you are set to be lynched. None of a-e would be worse for scum than a straight up scum lynch. To all townies out there: IF you have another possible outcome, enlighten me. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 13 2013 01:39 Rainbows wrote: That's a terrible scum move dude. A real vigi wouldn't counterclaim and just SHOOT me. I also wasn't that much in danger of being lynched; I could have turned it around if I wasn't so god-forsakenly pissed off. Fakeclaims are ones that are like 1-2 hours before the lynch to get an emotional swing from town or a counterclaim out. Outcome D d) The lynched is stopped, someone else (town) gets lynched and the real vigi shots rainbow. Shot now used on someone who would have been lynched had he not faked claimed. Town loses one, scum loses one, and one power role loses its power. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
Well, we need the rest of you guys to speak up. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
##Vote: Rainbows | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 13 2013 06:24 Moloch wrote: It doesn't matter if town wins by two votes or one vote. Having the extra person gives more chance townies will suspect each other (since there's more of them), and the vote will be split - giving scum a better opportunity to lynch a townie. Remember, if we miss this lynch, we've lost the game. Just feels like 5vs3 is a bit better though. The difference between 3/8 and 3/7 is only 5.4%... | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 13 2013 06:49 Rainbows wrote: we will win if we just vote warent. a nolynch now if too risky and i could get hammered by scum What he probably meant was that he would win. If you lynch me. His reasoning for voting me simply aren't there. I'm tired of pointing that out. Sure I could have been wrong about him, but they way he is doing this now? No. he has to scum. TRN is not scum, otherwise he would have just voted me. Smancer defended me earlier so he can't be scum. If you honestly believe that Rainbow (and jarjar - they are obviously working together) are both friendly, then you have to be scum together with nobody and fish. That would be epic, but I don't think it's the case. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 13 2013 07:33 Fishgle wrote: hi guys. sorry i always appear right before lynch time, but this is when i get home from class. Warent your whole case is ridiculous. You, TRN, and NW are scum. You've been defending them the whole game, TRN has unsuccessfully tried to get the Vigilante lynched (but you havent worried too much because you have a roleblocker anyway). You're trying to get either rainbows or jarjar lynched. I've already pointed out how obvious it is that mafia set-up JarJar to be killed. And Rainbows is the vigilante, ffs. ##Vote: Warent I'm scared of this, myself xD Third scum confirmed I suppose. Scum likes to try to get away with empty rhetoric while avoiding actual arguments based on content. "My case is ridiculous, that was very specific", Okey good sir, why is my case ridiculous? I've never defended NW that's a lie. And er, why would someone EVER read scum on NW over JarJar? That alone should make the rest of you town guys: Smancer, Nobody and Moloch realize that these three are full of shit. Read Fish filters, first day all he does is pointing suspicious towards confirmed townies basically, without committing. Having a careful approach, not to spammy. Earlier today he said he didn't want to lynch someone without good proofs. DId he provide you with any: "my WHOLE case is now ridiculous, hey look at that!" So anyway the one scum among fish, moloch, obz and Smancer was fish. This means they managed to spread themselves out on three different target on day 1. Fish earlier vote was an attempt to actually vote for Rain day 1 (makes it less suspicious, he has his vote on him until we started to go after Rain for real), JarJar jumped in and provided a horrible case against kirby to divert attention. Smancer provides a case against jampi and Fish can conveniently sheep onto that one. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 13 2013 07:38 Rainbows wrote: id actually prefer to lynch ravens, lol. Raven can't be scum. Then he would just vote me and win. Simple as that. So you have been full of shit from day one. Today you had to make an effort yesterday you didn't. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
| ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
| ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
##Vote: JarJarDrinks | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 13 2013 08:32 Fishgle wrote: @Warent Your defense of Smancer is "Smancer defended me, so he can't be scum". "TRN is not scum otherwise he would have voted for me" - it seems to me scum has been getting mis-lynches off the whole game with little direct effort. Why would he jump in now, since you already have enough votes anyway. Plus, he's your scum buddy, so... I've already told you why I'm not voting for jarjar, even if he does look scummy. It looks like a set-up. As for nobodywonder, sorry you're right, you haven't ever directly defended him. But he's as likely to be scum as jarjar is. Just as you are questioning why I'm choosing NW over jarjar, i'm curious as to why you do the opposite. I think warent is scum, guys. But if you guys insist, i'll vote for a no-lynch. It's a stupid idea, tho. The only way we'll have chance of winning this is if we kill off their roleblocker so that rainbows can get his nightkill off. Fish: Your defense of Smancer is "Smancer defended me, so he can't be scum". Huge difference now compared to the other days, when I flip green it's game over. Scum does not need to think about the future. game with little direct effort. Why would he jump in now, since you already have enough votes anyway. Plus, he's your scum buddy, so... Er, right. No he did earlier. I don't need to convince you of anything anyway. Nw is using logic and providing reason, he had his vote on me and started to think - "hey this might actually be wrong". | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 13 2013 08:39 Fishgle wrote: day 1 vote count JarJarDrinks (3) Saraf, jrkirby, jampidampi - first 3 to die Or perhaps the easy explanation? They were on the right track. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
| ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
| ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
Vote: No-Lynch | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
It's hard to get it right!  | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
##vote: no-lynch | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
| ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
| ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
| ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
| ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
| ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
##vote: JarJarDrinks | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
These are the reasons I came up with - based on the assumption that Rain is in fact vigi: A) Scum actually believed Rainbows would shot me and therefore chose to not RB and not kill. IF Rain turned around and shot someone else he would still not be confirmed as vigilant (with only one kill during the night). The problem with this reasoning is that, yes, had Rainbow shot someone last night (TRN) they, scum that is, could've killed off Rain and we wouldn't have a confirmed townie anyway. Then again if they DID believe that he would shot me they would have a 3v3 situation after two town kills last night. None of these makes much sense. B) Scum afk:ed through the night. Hm? C) We have a roleblocker and successfully roleblocked scum (good job if that's the case). Or scum killed scum: Killing TRN would make it seem like Rain got his "shot" off. It would be hard for him (based on the assumption that Rain is scum) to provide good reasons to be alive today otherwise if he still had his "shot". No competent scum team would keep a vigi alive that late into the game, would they? Well, if this is the case they (TRN/Rain) tricked me pretty badly. Should probably take a closer look at the last lynch, who switched at what time etc. Anyway we are either dealing with a fairly incompetent scum team or with a very competent one (Rain/Raven + someone). | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 16 2013 10:11 Moloch wrote: So, Smancer is definitely town. He was pushing for JJD yesterday. Warent is town, as both JJD and TRN committed to lynching him (and almost succeeded). Rainbows is town unless he's lying about vigi and decided to make the game harder for himself than needed by killing scum and *insert crazy conspiracy theory here* /crazy. That leaves NW and Fishgle. NW jumped off the Warent lynch while there was only Rainbows and JJD voting for him. He could have easily stayed and waited for TRN to switch without arousing too much suspicion, so I'm pretty sure NW is town. The general impression I get from Fishgle is jumping on the anti-JJD bandwagon to built trust while trying to steer blame towards Warent. He hasn't done anything that makes him look innocent like everyone else has. Go go gadget lynch Fishgle? Even I am having trouble to come up with more crazy conspiracies against Rain. I'll have to agree that Fishgle is best lynch candidate for tomorrow. | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
On April 16 2013 05:01 Smancer wrote: @Warrent. I don't understand A. Not to mention that we don't actually know for sure if Mafia has a rollblocker. I think what you are saying is that Mafia thought Rainbows was gonig to kill a townie. So if two townies died last night (Warrent + Somone_else) then it would in fact confirm Rainbows claim. So If just one townie dies, we still aren't sure there is a vig? C might make sense, but you are basing these cases on the assumption that Rain is Vigi. That would mean 4 Power roles on the town side. Yeah, exactly with two kills townie+townie or townie+bad guy the claim would be confirmed. Period. But this way they leave some doubt, but it would have been much better for them to just RB and kill him. OR let him shot and kill him. Well, maybe 4 power roles vs 2 makes sense..? | ||
|
Warent
Sweden205 Posts
I'll have to agree with Hapahauli, at least for me, the initial trolling just looked like its purpose was confusion. | ||
| ||
