@ Amiko Cavalinho noted that he wasn't changing his vote (he was heading to the gym), and that by then, he was fairly certain all the active players in the thread were not scum. That is why he did not vote for me, and looked at N1k0 (and drew my attention to him).
I've at this point reached the same conclusion as well, and that we should be looking at lurkers. My guess is that two of the lurkers are mafia and watched us fruitlessly scumhunt (why I'm not a fan of Day 1 lynch cases), and the scummiest reads there that I have are Valenius and N1K0, in that order. Even if there is one among the active participants (I don't think that's very likely anymore), I have utter conviction that two out of three are mafia given our stances on the Amiko case, and my and OnceKing's spat. It may be masterful play if two of us were able to pull it off to throw everyone off their game (in which case, I think that you two have won the game already). In this case, I feel the best play is to look at lurkers, because I'm fairly certain there's at least 1-2 in a pool of 4, and a 0-1 chance in a pool of 3. Better odds, so to speak.
I'm still an open lynch target though if you guys feel like it. I don't think OnceKing is scum anymore (most likely), however and I don't feel that a Day 2 lynch of myself is going to reveal info if I turn up Green (which was why I was fine with being lynched Day 1).
I'm saying that out of the 3 people who currently actively participate, myself, Amiko, and, at the time, OnceKing. Out of this pool, I don't think any of us are mafia based on Day 1 shenanigans and absolutely CERTAIN that 2 out of the 3 of us are not mafia. Why would OnceKing initiate a claim onto Amiko, and then go back and forth for so long with me? It's possible (and remains possible in my mind) that he could've initiated it early on Amiko, or swapped onto me, just to throw everyone off their/our trails. Same with my abrupt vote onto Amiko. If Amiko, myself, or OnceKing turned up red, the others are much less likely to be suspect the either two remaining players since, hey, why would they go after them Day 1?
The parenthesis is just me noting that I currently doubt Amiko and OnceKing are working together in this (but if they were, they've probably won since town isn't likely to lynch both of them).
This is a POSSIBLE scenario, but I don't think it's REALISTIC. At most, there's 1 mafia among the three of us, and I think our pool is entirely town at this point.
This is why I think we should be going after Day 1 lurkers today (where all my scummy reads are currently). There's at least 1 mafia there, maybe 2.
If there are 3 mafia, they win with one mislynch and a nightkill. I dont think there are 3 mafia, but that's irrelevant atm.
On February 20 2014 02:37 theDragoon wrote: @OnceKing
On my previous post I said I don't have a strong scum read on Beneather but if Valenius flips red I started thinking about his most likely partners and Beneather looks to be the most logical choice.
If you read through Val's filter, a lot of it his him asking Robik why he thinks Val is scummy. Val also voted for Robik because he pretty much didn't like Robik's read on him. However, Val never mentions Beneather at all despite Beneather actually having a solid case, and an actual vote on him. I was a bit hesitant to make this connection because I thought if they were mafia teammates then Beneather wouldn't have such a solid case against his partner. So the question is, why did Val OMGUS Robik, who didn't have a solid case against him and ignored the only guy with a real case on him with Beneather? My guess is they planned this to keep themselves apart, to eliminate any possible connections between each other. Beneather knows that Val won't get lynched since he was mainly off town's radar and votes for him so that it's less likely that we make the connection between the two.
Another thing to note is that neither of the two jumped on any of the possible bandwagons on day 1: Cavalinho, Lord Tolkien, and N1k0. Again, this supports the idea of them trying to distance themselves away from each other, and with the lack of a bandwagon it makes it easy for them to just watch town go at each other. The three way tie between Cavalinho, LT and N1k0 was also in their favor since any one of the three being lynched results in a mislynch for us.
While this is a plausible outcome, the same applies to myself and OnceKing, or OnceKing and Amiko, and Amiko and myself.
I disagree, in that I find it highly unlikely that mafia would bring up a reasonable case against themselves FIRST (as Beneather's was), . and that extrapolating that if Valenius flipped red, it would entail his complicity. It could be possible that they are, but as with my previous explanation of why I think it's unlikely we have MORE than one mafia amongst the 3 Day 1 participants, I apply my skepticism here as well. It's far more likely for mafia to start bussing one of their own when the lynch seems nearly inevitable.
That being said, Beneather did post his vote after you posted yours on myself and we had ourselves a possible deadlock, so it is a possible explanation for that. However, I am just going to apply Occam's Razor for a moment and view that as mere coincidence. His continued non-contribution concerns me, however.
Additionally, what is your view on N1K0? You've spent most of your analysis on just Valenius and the possibilities that arise from lynching him. It's not a shoo-in at this point. What do you think a red flip of N1K0 means?
My vote was on OnceKing at that time, and Cavalinho's vote was on Amiko (NOT N1k0; he had no votes on him). I was originally going to point out that based on the vote post beforehand Amiko had no votes, but reviewing Cavalinho's filter, you are correct, as it would've been a MAJOR discrepancy. That being said, your sleep post was posted 45 minutes before Cavalinho swapped his vote to N1k0.
Voting for Robik at the time, with not case presented is odd, and I feel everyone else has done a good enough job picking out why it was (link). If you had felt that he was scum, you should've brought it up and pushed it, like I was poking Cavalinho to do based on his early scumread on IAmRobik (he didn't).
The second post, dissuading my inquest into game setup (Note: Not role setup, game setup) was just dismissing my question. As i’ve stated since, my question wasn’t an aim to dig out roles of people, but to find out the Mafia/Town setup. I still disagree with those of you that say this isn’t important. 3 Mafia: If we mislynch tonight, we lose. 2 Mafia: There’s another day. Behaviour patterns. If you’re looking for 3 mafia, and trying to make connections between 3 players, and it turns out there’s only 2.. your whole analysis of player relations will be off.The same is true for the other situation.
The goal is not to mislynch tonight. A Day 1 mislynch is highly probable due to the lack of information to extrapolate from.
While the point about behavior is noted, this is not relevant today (and arguably Day 1). It changes the likelihood and distribution of scum to probably be 2 lurkers+1 active Day 1 participant most likely, from 1-2 lurkers and 0-1 active Day 1 participant pools. It doesn't change our main strategy or lynch pattern at this time. We'll know if there are 2-3 mafia if we mislynch green (because we'll likely lose during the night if 3); if we lynch a red, then it becomes useful to extrapolate whether or not we have 1 or 2 left. This is more relevant Day 3 given our current trajectory.
When I read Robik's quoted post on you, I construed it as mostly as a joke, (and if not, mafia bait). You reacted quite strongly to it. The same goes for the underlined quote. Your reaction to both was certainly scummy.
I won't comment on your additional thoughts (I agree with some of them, and disagree with others), but on the questions specifically directed towards me.
Tolkien’s post following last night (Feb 19, 13:49). You stated that my vote on Robik was when no real case was brought up against me. Then, in your discussion on arguments with OnceKing you stated the issue you had were the multiple minor details he was bringing up ‘Grasping for straws’. This is the same reason which made me vote him. His original read on my scummy-ness was because I went to bed at 3:00am when the game started. Just wtf.
My main focus was the fact he was pointing out joke lines (which I thought were clear) and specific word usage, ex. (newbie), in his initial lynch case against me. Unlike with Robik, there was essentially a formal case presented by him against me which I found worrying alarm bells in (instead of just pouncing on Robik for his reads). The other points are valid and I would not have gotten a mafia read if he had just pointed those out without mentioning the other points.
Again, it was a joke line from what I can tell, or bait.
In your response to Tolkiens questions about your first real post you brought up that LT saying what good could come out of his lynch.. on Day1, with an undetermined amount of mafia, no. That’s not a good town play, by either of you. Following a lynch policy for 2 days, also allows for 2 mafia kills, leading to a total of 4 kills. Assuming one of you were mafia; You’ve either got 4:1 (initially 2 mafia) or 3:2 (initially 3 mafia. The 4:1 isn’t bad odds, and wouldn’t be a terrible solution. 3:2 would be ridiculous, going to lynch wrong and lose based on day 1 assumptions.. in what world is that good odds? Assuming neither of you were mafia, and you both had bad reads.. the game’s practically over. 3:2 (initial 2 mafia), or Dead start of night two (initial 3 mafia). 1 in 4 of those situations is one that i’d choose to be in. Either way, it’s pretty scummy. Tolkien. you’ve been reasonably smart throughout so far, did you not run the numbers?
This and your much earlier carelessness for lynching Amiko “at this point it doesnt matter” are showing you as very lynch-happy. If you’re bluffing and hoping the “I’ll martyr myself” post for lynchings was a town move, it isn’t. I’m disappointed I didn’t pick up on it earlier.
I need clarification on the first part. Are you talking about the double-lynch proposal?
On the second part, noted, but I've discussed this to death, and explained myself here far too often.
@N1K0
I do have a strong town read on LT, i would have a moderate town read on theDragoon if it wasnt because of his vote on LT because he thought he saw a mafia slip on him.
Why do you have a strong town read on me? If I were stepping back from myself for a moment, I wouldn't have a strong town read on myself after Day 1. Middling at best.
Also, why do you read theDragoon as town again, and why did his vote on me impact your read so?
That being said, ##vote n1k0, based solely on the quality of contributions thus far from the two, but I am strongly reserving the right to change my vote pending additional analysis, and I am still waiting on Beneather to comment today. Still, this is where I'm leaning now.
On February 20 2014 16:09 Valenius wrote: Secondly, yes the double lynch situation put forward of lynching yourself, but only if we lynch onceking in the following day.
It's a gambit I was willing to take at the time. If I turned up red, there is no reason for you to lynch him: if I turn up green, there's still no need for you to actually follow through on it, no one actually agreed to it.
The trade is only bad if there are 3 mafia: if there are only 2 mafia and my read was correct, the exchange is incredibly good.
Even if there were 3 mafia, it's still 2 mislynches and we lose. As we were likely going to mislynch anyways Day 1, It would've been worth it. As is, the proposal was still useful despite it's non-use for me to gauge other players and their reactions (despite my wavering as the game progressed).
I'm not commenting on anything hypothetical about mafia numbers until after the flip, and any speculation right now is silly. If there are 3 mafia and a green flip, they win. If it's a green flip and they don't win, we have 2 mafia. If red flip, either 1 mafia (most likely) or 2. No use talking about it. The flip will determine the course of the game and how the effective endgame will play out.
Depending on the flip, the vigi (if we have one) should shoot tonight or tomorrow night 100%. If green, and we don't lose (we most likely won't lose), I would shoot their scummiest read tonight. 50% chance of hitting scum, skewed by reads. If red, up to you.
On February 21 2014 05:54 Beneather wrote:You say that you have a strong read on Cavalinho being town but you keep your vote on Robik instead of trying to save the obvious town Cavalinho. It still doesn't make sense to me( I think someone brought this up but whatever).
His post that he went to sleep makes sense, given timezone and vote distribution at the time, despite the errors in his defense. The reasoning clears.
On Tolkien his read is very town to me and I would be shocked if he was scum. He has been the most active and his posts have a lot of content in them.
Why?
Your reads on everyone else? I asked for that last time and you didn't provide.
I'm honestly on the fence about whom I feel is scummiest, but given N1K0 has given basically no defense for himself, I can't even in good conscience change it.
On February 21 2014 12:25 Amiko wrote: n1k0? more like d2k2! (day 2 kill 2)
I think this flip gives us some good info.
For the moment these are the questions I am thinking about. We can talk about them d2 if you guys prefer (or maybe put it in a last minute nightpost).
(1) Is there any reason why n1k0 didn't try claiming a town role to try to save himself? (2) Do you think it is more likely mafia joined the vote on n1k0 (all but theDragoon) or voted Valenius (theDragoon) (3) How good does this feel (spoiler: really good)
I would do so if you believe you are a potential mafia target.
I'll try and do so this night (almost did it last night, but didn't feel it was necessary given probable mafia kills), but we'll see.
On February 20 2014 12:54 Lord Tolkien wrote: I would like Beneather to contribute NOW, and I will bring up a case against you, even if only to pressure.
You shouldn't ever say that you are "voting to pressure" or "building a case for pressure" because that defeats the purpose of it (they know that you don't really think they're scum, so they're not threatened by it, so there's no pressure).
Fair.
Third, Beneather’s posts seem too conclusive to me. I think most of us post cases as a way to get information push it forward with new thoughts as we go (OnceKing on me, me on Cavalinho, Tolkien on OnceKing, OnceKing on Valenius, Valenius on n1k0). I see Beneather’s posts as votes with a justification. I think this is a little more scummy because they comes late in the day.
Minor correction: OnceKing stated the N1K0 case, and I started the Valenius case Day 2 (I also decided to point out N1K0 as a possible open case). Valenius started the first vote on N1K0, but the crux of the case was made by OnceKing.
Now specifically on the reads:
1) OnceKing took up the case on N1K0 which I deliberately left open (had no one else raised it, I would've done so later), to see who took it up. I'm at this point 100% confident he's town.
2) Similarly, N1K0's red flip rules out Valenius, who's responses Day 2 acquitted himself well enough in my eyes, and doubled up on this with his early vote against N1K0, when implicating Beneather would be easier (and not point suspicions at N1K0). There are discrepancies in the details at times of his defense (which I have already pointed out), but mostly minor and nothing gaping. He's reading solidly town to me.
3) Reviewing Amiko's filter, I'd put him under scrutiny Day 3. His filter Day 2 reads non-committal and unhelpful, most of it rehashed points made by others before. The only worthwhile and original contribution made Day 2 was the vote analysis, which given the direction Day 2 took after I directed focus onto lurkers, was irrelevant. Now, he did voice his unease with N1K0 during the night phase, but didn't press it and instead wavered on N1K0 for awhile (was among the last to vote along with Beneather, just a ~1hr difference). Out of myself, OnceKing, and Amiko, Amiko currently reads the scummiest.
4) theDragoon's filter Day 2 also reads questionably with N1K0's flip taken into context. The post he voted on Valenius, he had a soft-defense of N1K0, ultimately wavering with a ambiguous read on him.
That being said, he made this post:
If N1k0 gets lynched today and flips red this makes Valenius more likely to be town because he is the first player on day 2 to vote N1k0. There’s no way a mafia Valenius would initiate the lynch on his teammate who has already gotten suspicions from everyone. If Valenius is mafia, then his vote would be cast later after he sees N1k0’s situation unsalvageable. But if N1k0 flips green, then Valenius is definitely the best lynch target on day 3.
Which is solid analysis of their likely relationship, and very relevant in either scenario, and thus gives a town read to me.
5) Beneather has 1 post Day 2, which was pretty much...useless, in all honesty. It tries to paint Valenius as likely scum after N1K0, and all that. I mean, I can't say much else about it. It just reads scummy to me.
The three players who should be put under scrutiny Day 3, depending on Night Kills and actions, would be Amiko, theDragoon, and Beneather for possible scum. In order, I would currently lynch:
1) Beneather 2) Amiko 3) theDragoon
I would currently advocate being ready to claim blue roles Day 3 (at worst, Day 4), and for Vigi (if we have one) to shoot either tonight or Day 4 night.
I mean, unless I actually hear something substantive from him, it's [le]terally the easiest vote to make.
There's no reason for him to be so quiet, especially with the flip. In the event he's town, it still removes an idle town member, and paves the way for the end-game.
On February 23 2014 03:32 Valenius wrote: Looking back through his profile, Beneather seems to have been modkilled in most of the games he's played due to inactivity. sigh.
It sucks for town. Can't get a good read on him and our only option is to lynch him anyways.
EPT
