EPTPhagga, my queries//case are below. Spoilered as quite large.
+ Show Spoiler +
@Phagga
Regarding the PLAN: Your position as endorsed by yourself is in the spoiler below.
+ Show Spoiler +
On August 07 2013 21:26 phagga wrote:
When geript asked everyone to claim, my reaction was not "oh well, claiming VT is useless information, I might as well claim". I thought "Why does he want everyone to claim? What's the ieea behind it?". And for that thought my own role was absolutely irrelevant. All I wanted is to know why he thinks it's a good idea to claim.
When geript asked everyone to claim, my reaction was not "oh well, claiming VT is useless information, I might as well claim". I thought "Why does he want everyone to claim? What's the ieea behind it?". And for that thought my own role was absolutely irrelevant. All I wanted is to know why he thinks it's a good idea to claim.
And earlier to you:
On August 07 2013 20:19 phagga wrote:
Well, after he lined it out I thought the plan was ok. I was back then expecting the unlynchable to claim under any circumstance, although I see now why he doesn't (makes more sense to claim D2 if still alive). With that in mind, I expected the claims to give us some lead on who to lynch. At the same time I saw no real downside for town. Hence I thought the plan is worth trying out. Also, as I explained, I hoped that scum and/or jester might make a mistake with claiming, leading to confirmed townies.
Well, after he lined it out I thought the plan was ok. I was back then expecting the unlynchable to claim under any circumstance, although I see now why he doesn't (makes more sense to claim D2 if still alive). With that in mind, I expected the claims to give us some lead on who to lynch. At the same time I saw no real downside for town. Hence I thought the plan is worth trying out. Also, as I explained, I hoped that scum and/or jester might make a mistake with claiming, leading to confirmed townies.
- Initial position on Geript plan: "skeptical" // "seeking further info"
- After plan explained: "believer"
Now whilst I can agree that skeptical is a "townie"-ish trait to exhibit and you do indeed seek more information from Geript; its the post-plan behaviour that I find odd.
=====================
Exhibit A - 1
On August 07 2013 16:12 geript wrote:
+ Show Spoiler [The Plan] +
+ Show Spoiler [The Plan] +
Here let me spell it out for you because apparently you missed the obvious logic of it:
We get 3 unlynchable claims = no worse than 33% win chance
We get 1 unlynchabl claim = no worse than 25% win chance, but really since every VT will be able to recognize that only 1 unlynchable claim and therefore limit his scum hunting to 1 of 3 people which gives us good odds to find scum instead of jester
We get 2 unlynchable claims = it gets tricky I have a plan for this specifically but it doesn't work if I explain it.
As you can see, every situation of claiming is pro town. Not one single bad option.
We get 3 unlynchable claims = no worse than 33% win chance
We get 1 unlynchabl claim = no worse than 25% win chance, but really since every VT will be able to recognize that only 1 unlynchable claim and therefore limit his scum hunting to 1 of 3 people which gives us good odds to find scum instead of jester
We get 2 unlynchable claims = it gets tricky I have a plan for this specifically but it doesn't work if I explain it.
As you can see, every situation of claiming is pro town. Not one single bad option.
On August 07 2013 16:31 phagga wrote:
Ok, I have my own thoughts on this for later, but I guess it's worth a try.
I'm VT.
Which obviously means that at least one of you two is lying.
Ok, I have my own thoughts on this for later, but I guess it's worth a try.
I'm VT.
Which obviously means that at least one of you two is lying.
When I (and Oats) press you for these further thoughts later. What we get is the following:
On August 07 2013 18:44 phagga wrote:
basically there were some constellations that would confirm towns (3 claimed unlynchables / 2 claimed jesters / 1 claimed unlynchable), which is why I liked the idea of claiming, but I obviously could not say that back then.
My issue is that this "thought" mimics the Geript plan to a "tee"; thus providing zero "own thoughts for later" as you had promised.basically there were some constellations that would confirm towns (3 claimed unlynchables / 2 claimed jesters / 1 claimed unlynchable), which is why I liked the idea of claiming, but I obviously could not say that back then.
My explanation is that you were stalling - by lying/exaggerating - your claim. This is typically not a townie indicator.
--------------------
Exhibit A-2
After further pressure from myself regarding the plan we receive:
On August 07 2013 20:19 phagga wrote:
Of course if I then later post them they look like geripts plan, because they are tied to his plan.
Well, after he lined it out I thought the plan was ok. I was back then expecting the unlynchable to claim under any circumstance, although I see now why he doesn't (makes more sense to claim D2 if still alive). With that in mind, I expected the claims to give us some lead on who to lynch. At the same time I saw no real downside for town. Hence I thought the plan is worth trying out. Also, as I explained, I hoped that scum and/or jester might make a mistake with claiming, leading to confirmed townies.
Of course if I then later post them they look like geripts plan, because they are tied to his plan.
Well, after he lined it out I thought the plan was ok. I was back then expecting the unlynchable to claim under any circumstance, although I see now why he doesn't (makes more sense to claim D2 if still alive). With that in mind, I expected the claims to give us some lead on who to lynch. At the same time I saw no real downside for town. Hence I thought the plan is worth trying out. Also, as I explained, I hoped that scum and/or jester might make a mistake with claiming, leading to confirmed townies.
Firstly, as discussed in Exhibit A-1. Regardless of whether your ideas are similar to Geripts, you clearly expressed that you had additional thoughts - so far this has not been evident.
Secondly, You are still seeking the lynchproof townie.
Thirdly, the "mistake claiming leading to confirmed townies" seems so far fetched and reads me like you are trying to dangle a carrot in front of us.
What I see: Originally you were a skeptic to a "plan" to break the game..
now..
A rapid change of heart such that your scum hunting foundation is based around claims and plans, whilst still seeking the lynchproof.
=====================
Exhibit B-1
On August 07 2013 16:31 phagga wrote:
Ok, I have my own thoughts on this for later, but I guess it's worth a try.
I'm VT.
Which obviously means that at least one of you two is lying.
Ok, I have my own thoughts on this for later, but I guess it's worth a try.
I'm VT.
Which obviously means that at least one of you two is lying.
This was your first post to rub me the wrong way. Given the whole "skepticism" of the plan and your quick "convenient" turn-around; this exchange reads to me as forced and "pot stirring".
Now.. town *CAN* intentionally stir the pot to get reactions; but do you actually follow through with any pressure?
The answer is .. no.. not until much later.. Again, this is not typically a townie indicator.
--------------------
Exhibit B-2
On August 08 2013 02:35 phagga wrote:
Again, when I asked for his plan I did not think that far. I really just tried to figure out what he wants to achieve with massclaiming. I just did not like the thought of needlessly putting out information if it does not benefit town.
The benefits for scum? Mocsta mentioned it, there is the possibility that it makes it easier for them to pick a good NK. However, I did not think of that at the time. When I claimed, I could not think of a downside.
Again, when I asked for his plan I did not think that far. I really just tried to figure out what he wants to achieve with massclaiming. I just did not like the thought of needlessly putting out information if it does not benefit town.
The benefits for scum? Mocsta mentioned it, there is the possibility that it makes it easier for them to pick a good NK. However, I did not think of that at the time. When I claimed, I could not think of a downside.
Firstly, lets assume that you withheld due to skepticism; rather than being concerned about being counter-claimed.
Secondly, I dont follow "I could not think of a downside, when I claimed" as identified in Exhibit B-1.
Town wouldnt put all their eggs in one basket (a plan) to scum hunt; nor would they create a situation to call someone a "liar" and then not proceed with a meaningful pressure followup.
=====================
Exhibit C
On August 07 2013 17:57 phagga wrote:
Ok, this is not what I expected to happen at all, although it makes sense for either not-town role to claim jester. What I'm more surprised is that the unlynchable did not claim yet. I suppose someone is holding back to draw out a fakeclaim? That did not really work though, as we have 4 claimed VTs and a jester now.
Ok, this is not what I expected to happen at all, although it makes sense for either not-town role to claim jester. What I'm more surprised is that the unlynchable did not claim yet. I suppose someone is holding back to draw out a fakeclaim? That did not really work though, as we have 4 claimed VTs and a jester now.
I Disagree.
Firstly, the plan is a deterrent for the lynchproof/jesters to come out as it gives each party at best a 50% chance to win.
Secondly, I already provided logic on why mafia would be seeking the lynchproof.
Thirdly, you only became a "believer" after two had already claimed. Yet, now is surprised that the remaining two people (myself/hapa) did not claim non-VT roles... lol.
Overall, this post has too many logic gaps for me; I would expect more transparency from a townie that has converted from skeptic to believer.
=====================
Exhibit D
Your case on me boils down to OMGUS.
You don't like I keep querying your mentality, so call me anti-town..
=====================
Exhibit E
On August 09 2013 01:02 phagga wrote:
Now I'm the one posting from phone.
Jesters wincon is relevant to town because it influences towns behaviour in 1-1-1 on D2. With the new information it means that town is in an almost unwinnable situation.
And I thought of that question too, but it got answered before I could ask it. So I disagree that a townie would not think of it
Now I'm the one posting from phone.
Jesters wincon is relevant to town because it influences towns behaviour in 1-1-1 on D2. With the new information it means that town is in an almost unwinnable situation.
And I thought of that question too, but it got answered before I could ask it. So I disagree that a townie would not think of it
Last time I checked, we were in D1. Im concerned you are planning for D2 already.
======================
TL;DR
- Feigns contributions regarding the Geript plan by promising further content, and delivering none
- Constantly is looking for the lynchproof townie
- Intentionally claims, and proceeds to accuse people of "lying"; yet does not meaningfully follow up.
- Is more concerned about preparing for D2.
