Avogadro's Number Mini Mafia

On October 10 2014 10:20 GlowingBear wrote:


YES!!!

I like playing with you

On October 12 2014 14:37 DarthPunk wrote:


How the fuck am I more suspicious than Glowingbear?

On October 12 2014 16:11 geript wrote:

Oats' reasons for people being mafia are really bad. He also defends DP in an odd way; ie he calls the reasons for thinking DP is mafia bad but doesn't really seem interested in looking at the people using bad reasoning at all. Scumpile for now.

On October 12 2014 16:12 Barakos wrote:


What makes a Prime-claim confirmed town? There are four possible setups with no primes at all and several more with multiple primes, so claiming prime and not getting cced does not confirm you as prime.
Plus: the only way we know, that a prime-claim might be mafia is, if there were more than three primeclaims, since such a setup isn't possible, therefore prime is the easiest thing to claim as scum...
Care to explain your logic?

On October 12 2014 16:43 Barakos wrote:
... still don't see your logic, and disagree on the "no reason to think about this"-part, but this won't lead anywhere...

since you seem to be around:

Why is DP in your town?

On October 12 2014 16:51 GlowingBear wrote:


THIS is a very good observation

On October 12 2014 17:04 GlowingBear wrote:


Sounds townish.

What do you think about it?

On October 12 2014 17:17 Barakos wrote:


Last post on this prime-thing by me, since I don't see it leading us anywhere but you asked:

If scum claims there are 4 possible scenarios:
a) town has no primes (chance is 4/12) - their claim goes through unnoticed, since it is the only primeclaim
b) town has 1 prime (4/12) - their claim goes through unnoticed, since 2 town-primes is a possible scenario
c) town has 2 primes (3/12) - their claim goes through unnoticed, unless a town powerrole claims, since the only possible setup with 3 town-primes involves no town prs
d) town has 3 primes (1/12)

Only c) + d) force a scum within the primeclaims, c) does this on the cost of a town blue-claim, d) confirms to mafia, that there are no blues to play around.
So mafia is taking a 4/12-chance of being in a 1/3 respectively 1/4 chance to get lynched by claiming prime, while gaining huge setup-information, IF they are forced in such a situation. The other 8/12 put mafia at no risk until the setup becomes more clear, which won't happen at D1.

On October 12 2014 19:02 DarthPunk wrote:


The setup does not make primes mutually exclusive. There could be as many as 3 and as few as 0.

On October 12 2014 19:08 DarthPunk wrote:


Yeah what I am saying is that there could be more. I see no reason not to believe hopeless for now.

And yeah the modifications are to help scum be able to fake claim something.

What do you think of glowing bear?

On October 12 2014 21:17 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Come on Oats you were mafia with him in the said game.. Don't you remember anything?

On October 13 2014 00:32 raynpelikoneet wrote:

It's not a fight.
It's me calling GB scum for something and him saying "i misphrased my post that's why it's scummy".

On October 13 2014 01:02 GlowingBear wrote:


Propose something different, contribute. You've being hiding too much.

Who's mafia?

On October 13 2014 01:03 raynpelikoneet wrote:

I am trying to get more information since you are just staying in the sidelines and not telling what we should be talking about. Which is scummy since you seem to think both of us are town. Two townies are fighting and you don't give the thread a new direction while clearly being here. Why Oats? What should we talk about?

On October 13 2014 01:08 GlowingBear wrote:
I've just skimmed your filter and I couldn't see you pushing anyone.
There isn't a single scum read from you.

And as Rayn said, we've been debating for two pages, and you think we are both town. Why not strongly interveining and put us in the direction of your scumread, if you have one?

On October 13 2014 01:20 VisceraEyes wrote:

##Vote: Oatsmaster
There's need now bitch.

On October 13 2014 01:23 GlowingBear wrote:


This is a good observation.

Also, I noticed that Oats, who's being too passive, never cited sqrt in his posts.

I am NOT doing associative reads right now. I just think that lynching one of them would be pretty informative.

On October 12 2014 17:19 Chairman Ray wrote:
I'm pretty confident that sqrt is scum atm.

Sqrt entered the thread with a joke scumclaim (which is fine imo), but then left for a few hours, and re-entered the thread with some really bad reads after some people were pushing on him. There's a clear difference when town is giving bad reads and when scum is giving bad reads, and it's clear that his reads show a scum mindset. His reasonings are all just "this person did X, therefore he's mafia", without any regard to why X is scummy.

I will summarize all his reads:

CR is mafia because he made 2 filler posts
VE is mafia because he gave a townread on geript and himself
Geript is mafia because he's buddying DP
GB is mafia because he didn't want to discuss one of his scumreads

What else do those 4 reads have in common? Firstly, they are barely relevant to the game with everything else that's happened. Secondly, they all appear near the start of their filters.

So what does this mean? This means that sqrt probably just clicked on a few people's filter, read until he could comment on one thing, and then stopped there. Scummy as hell.

One other thing that I find interesting. When I defended sqrt's read on GB, he responded to me normally. Let's take a step back and look at this. Sqrt thinks I'm mafia. That means when I ask him something, it should cross his mind that I'm mafia with an agenda other than getting more information. He should have noticed that I asked him about GB, and didn't respond at all on his reads on me. That's one very obvious thing a town sqrt should have noticed. What's more interesting is that he has both GB an I as scumreads, but when I defended GB, he responded to me like he's trying to convince me of his read. For someone who accused geript and DP of buddying, it should have been 1000% obvious that I'm buddying GB, but nope, not at all. Scum scum scummy scummy scum scum.

##Vote: sqrtofneg1

On October 13 2014 01:27 GlowingBear wrote:


I'm not lynching for info. You've being too passive and rayn brought a good point regarding sqrt.

You both are acting scummy.

On October 13 2014 01:32 GlowingBear wrote:


LOL it totally makes sense. That guy claimed scum. He says hi and goes into lurking. Doesn't contribute at all but with bad reads.

WHY is nobody pushing him? Easiest thing to do as mafia.

On October 13 2014 01:33 GlowingBear wrote:


Will be associative if one of you flips mafia. But I'm not willing to lynch you based on associative reads now. That's what I'm trying to say.

On October 13 2014 01:32 VisceraEyes wrote:

I'm not trying to get lynched - I'm trying not to do shit while rayn is alive. Jeez, I'm not like playing against my wincon or anything Oats.

On October 13 2014 01:37 GlowingBear wrote:


I meant unflipped association. I'm not trying to lynch you out of unflipped association. That's what I'm trying to say.

God my phrasing is awful...

On October 13 2014 01:52 geript wrote:

what?

On October 13 2014 01:42 GlowingBear wrote:


Because I said you never cited sqrt in your posts, which could make people think I was making unflipped associations, or that I was willing to lynch you both out of unflipped associations. I'm not.

The game is actually pretty hard to figure out, IMO.

I'm worried about Snow Man and Kush.
Where are these guys?

On October 13 2014 02:00 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Oats why are you not voting for GB?

On October 13 2014 01:58 geript wrote:
It's almost as if Oats is trying to pretend that he's palmer in his posts. It's like really weird and I don't think I've ever seen anything like this from town oats before. Plus, he has 3 pages of filter already. That's not unusual but I'd expect he'd have an actual read on someone or something that's worth my time reading his filter.

On October 13 2014 10:26 geript wrote:
I'd like to point out and it got glossed over, Oat's start so far despite being reasonably active looks exceptionally different. He has no strong scum reads, which he tends to have by this point. He's been reasonably passive which is his scum play. He's called a billion people and a half people town it seems; people which btw are totes not clearly town. Like why I'm confused why we want to go on a policy lynch who has a history of going afk and flipping anything over a scummy oats.

On October 13 2014 12:16 Hopeless1der wrote:
"I havent called anyone town"

"except those 4 guys"

...

Is Sn0 mafia Oats?

On October 13 2014 20:24 GlowingBear wrote:
I know we are not lynching DP today. But you have to see what I'm seeing.

I'd rather lynch oats. Why is oats confirmed town to you, Rayn?

On October 13 2014 20:48 GlowingBear wrote:


I can see scum on ritoky as well.

Oats, when you keep posting without giving direction to the thread or at least giving reasoned reads, you are not contributing, you're being passive. It's not a comparison.

Who else do you think is scum?

On October 13 2014 21:40 GlowingBear wrote:
If even after that, if even after I show you that there is much more passive people in the game, with more suspicious traits, you still believe I am top scum, you're probably scum or not as good as people say.

On October 13 2014 22:14 GlowingBear wrote:


Passivity is mostly a scumtell

I'm starting to not care anymore. 13 people in the game, only 5 or 6 are active. I'm wasting my breath with people that are already convinced I'm scum, even if I'm showing I'm not.

I'm voting sqrt and I'm not taking my vote out of him unless if it is to lynch you or DP.

I want to clarify anything that makes you guys say I'm mafia. But I can't even understand why are you reading me that way. Nobody pointed out a fluff of mine. I've already explained my blue tell/scum tell on DP. I'm constantly evaluating lynch options. I can't do more, really.

On October 13 2014 22:23 raynpelikoneet wrote:
##unvote
##vote Oatsmaster

Consider my vote here. I am still at work and only on by phone.
Let's not kill gb, at least he is fucking trying. Oats doesn't think anyone is really mafia in oats' y way and if geript is town his read is probably right.

On October 13 2014 22:46 GlowingBear wrote:
I mean, the guy isn't even trying to figure the game properly and simply drops a vote on me and says UNTIL TUESDAY.

Lol...

On October 13 2014 23:09 GlowingBear wrote:


Because he doesn't care. He just drops his vote and whoever gets lynched, it's fine, because there is already townies being voted. He simply does not care.

On October 13 2014 23:32 GlowingBear wrote:


The "too scum to be scum" player

On October 13 2014 23:37 GlowingBear wrote:


They do.
I'm one.

If you keep believing someone is "too scum to be scum", you'll let a lot of obvious scum slip through your fingers

On October 14 2014 00:59 GlowingBear wrote:
Lynch sqrt with me oats. You won't get people to lynch ritoky and we can always reevaluate our reads on him during d2 since he posted a fair amount of information

On October 14 2014 01:31 GlowingBear wrote:


Sigh...

Is he your mafia partner?
Do you really think he is town?

On October 14 2014 03:52 geript wrote:
I actually think we should lynch Damdred here. He only has 2 pages of filter and in the last 4 town games he's had 4-5 minimum on day 1. He started the day of exceptionally odd. I think you, me and DP all noticed that he's a bit weird. He's actually reading me right, which is something he has yet to do as town. He's also done nothing. I remember meta'ing him in a previous game and noting that passive Damdred tends to be mafia damdred. I don't see why he's town at all actually. Kinda surprised I haven't seriously filtered him before now.
#vote

On October 14 2014 03:56 VisceraEyes wrote:

Calm the fuck down Oats, I asked geript a question and I want an answer. You don't tell me to go away from asking a player WHO IS NOT YOU a question.

On October 14 2014 04:10 Hopeless1der wrote:
that is to say, it was a prelude to lynching geript.

On October 14 2014 04:13 geript wrote:

Explain your shit vote VE.