Purgatory Mafia - Page 93

Starts out writing about Angels and Demons
Recommends we do not discuss Angel or Demon strategies so that we do not help them out.


Tells corrupted town to claim, which would allow the acolyte to kill them.


This is pointed out, and he acknowledges it. He doesn't say don't claim, but it is implied.
Bearing in mind that he later claims sage, he doesn't seem to understand how the sage functions after he received his role, (because he isn't the sage).


Emphasises the "Unless you have a counter" part. As if that justifies the don't talk about scum strats in an open setup stance. (it doesn't)


On his 12th post he promises to read BL's filter.Everything else before this has been roles and setup-based speculation.
This kind of posting is really safe to make at the start of the game as he doesn't need to make a stance on anything.
Note the Bolded part.
Note that HoD claimed that Grackaroni was "not demon" when he claimed.
Not only is this a contradiction, but this time he didn't add a condition whereby what he is saying doesn't apply as he did in his first post.


Not only is this general easy-to-give general advice but when he later votes, HoD votes to "avoid a no-lynch"


He has now talked a little about lynching lurkers,
He suggests lynching Palmar or Erandorr for inactivity. (this is pre-Wiggles case)


He steps up to defend himself and makes two contradictions:

underlined: "I didn't want to lynch a lurker..."- the plan i suggested was to commit to lynch a lurker to force activity-..."but then i suggested we lynch two lurkers to force them to be active". My plan was exactly what he claims to have tried to do but on a larger scale, he misrepresents my suggestion and says he disagreed and then suggested something that was exactly like my plan and says he felt it was a good idea.

bolded: "Don't use meta from my first (but recent) game against me. I have changed. Use meta from a game where i was account sharing day1 when you try to analyse my day1 play, or use meta from another game". The "I've obviously adjusted my play" really doesn't hold weight given how few games he has played.

The question to risk nuke adds to the discussion topic at the time. The rest is useless.


After some more comments about BL he decides to defend Palmar because town Palmar is valuable. He praises syllogism a lot.


Based on limited past experience and meta:
Eran lynch- fine
Risk lynch- unsure, wants to here more
Tyrran lynch- very limited arguments for him being scum, "placeholder vote"

He then calls Palmar apathetic, generally asks for thoughts on Tyrran.
Then he posts this:

In spite of the fact that at this point in time the tide was turning on risk and the votes were 6/5 risk/Eran before he voted.
and that he says he voted because he didn't want a no-lynch to occur he votes for Eran tie-ing the vote.
The two players that had a chance of being lynched were Erandorr and risk.nuke. This had been evident from before his post in which he voted Tyrran, and wrote a sentence on both risk and Erandor.
He avoids giving an opinion on risk.nuke.

HoD barely talks about either risk or Erandorr, he was actively taking part in discussion early on but when the lynch drew near he didn't bother to give a proper opinion or try to influence other peoples opinions.

He starts out by saying he still think's Tyrran is a good lynch and wants other people to contribute their thoughts. He does not commit to saying why or making a strong case.
If you are town and you think a player should be lynched, is this how you would approach it?
Asking other people to offer opinions and then give yours?
What if you think they are really scummy and have reasons?
Wouldn't you provide them and give people a reason to focus on that player?
However if you are mafia then saying you find a player scummy but not saying why makes a lot of sense:
If people start to indicate that they also feel the player is scum you can hide amongst them and seem like a townie voting for a player they think is scum.
It allows you to claim that you started the case or that you had been pressuring the player should player question what you have been doing.
It allows you to back off and not bring it up again should you widh because you haven't committed any arguments as to why you think that.


He defends himself and says that the reason people are calling his actions around the vote are that he was soft-defending risk. He then attacks that logic to defend himself.
Actually what is scummy is that he was disinterested in the vote because if he was/is mafia then he knew the players were not on his team but that one of them could have been on the opposite scum team. Should he get involved and one player gets lynched and flips scum and the other later flips scum, he would then receive a ton of attention. If he is town then he should not need to be so cautious and should have been making himself heard.
He then comments on RoL's plan by re-hashing outcomes i had previously outlined here and here


He was leaning scum on Erandor and Null on risk.
Which is interesting because on that day he basically ignored risk and his "leaning scum" was due to inactivity.
He draws a parallel between day1 this game and day1 steamship, implies that him not being aggressive day1 in both games and him being town that game means that he must be town this game. Not only is that poor logic, but he has criticised the points made against risk by addressing an aspect of the meta side and ignore the rest. (fun (slightly subjective)fact:risk just ignored the meta side and made weak comments that did not directly address the other points)


Underlined:Clearly a lot of people didn't have null reads on risk nuke as he had reached 9 votes before AND was under a lot of pressure at this time AND was lynched quite a while before the lynch deadline.
Why would HoD try to distance himself from a risk lynch?
Because he knew that risk was not on his team.

Bolded:"when I voted I hadn't read the newer parts of the thread very carefully as I was busy most of yesterday so I went with my best scum read at the time. Deal with it."
he basically admits that he didn't put effort into deciding who to vote +




Having popped in to defend himself he tries to force discussion about safer topics:
Speculation about about night actions!


I already highlighted why this is scummy/ incorrect http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=13077558
please read the full exchange for context


Not only is this stupid but it relies on assumptions about how the angels would act - He would kill Palmar because he could get him lynched? Based on the effort he has put into getting players lynched I sincerely doubt that this is the case.


He asks why i am discussing WIFOM.
I am accusing him of using WIFOM.
Note that the two are different and that as he is being accused and is scum it makes sense for him to make it seem like a discussion instead. If you believe that we were discussing it then he makes the point that i shouldn't be doing so because i believe it to be WIFOM. If i shouldn't be discussing it why should you be reading it?
He calls it a discussion to make you think it was a discussion and then dismiss it.

He also uses occams razor, its a simple solution, the simplest solution is usually correct ==> you should believe the simple solution i have suggested. There are many other simple solutions to "what happened and why" that he could have been defending. He is applying the logic to mislead in a situation in which it is not valid.


He speculates even more about angels and demons and commits to "focusing on more useful shit"
He does this by asking me to explain my "suspicious bastards" list after i had been pressuring him.
Now if you have had eve a cursory glance at my filter you will probably observe that i am thorough.
I highlight things and i had during the previous day/night mentioned things i found scummy about all but one of these players.
Other players have sheep voted or made baseless accusations and HoD could have picked up on one of these.
So i then posted a sort explanation of why and he responded:


underlined:This is quite a strange statement
why would i have posted 100% of my reasoning for all 6 of those players being scum. Since i had barely (if at all) mentioned Tyrran and since before he refreshed i hadn't mentioned Dirkzor, it is obvious that i hadn't posted all of my reasoning, thus he should not have judged my calling them suspicious by the standard of have you posted 100% of your reasoning?
+(i do not want to make an issuse of this now) it should be obvious why i believed Refallen lied about his vote on the deadline and it should be obvious why i might find that suspicious.
+Palmars flip may have made Jackal look suspicious but given that Jackal always focuses on Palmar day1 to me it didn't even make it much less likely that Jackal was a demon. My suspicion of him was based on his arriving at the last minute and basically deciding the vote having not made his stance on the candidates clear earlier (most of that was in the timeline post)



his original question was "Hey look - a list! Care to explain anything about it? Lists without reasons are pretty useless filler."
I wanted to make the point that given how vague this question was and given that i had raised suspicions about the players in the list i felt that it was redundant question. I then challenged him to make his first real contribution.
But alas my inept typing/formatting let me down.
And like every other person to lose an argument ever he corrects my grammar and ignores my point.


He is still poking people to get them to call Tyrran scummy without providing his own contribution.

He then makes a few more posts that speculate about night actions


He post's this.
most of the points are already made by sylloigsm here (clicky)here and
The reasoning was also outlined here from an exchange between myself and syllogism.
I later try to explain this to BH much to my own frustration.

This argument is completely not original.
He also makes it in a peculiar way
Bolded: they fact that the town response was negative does not also mean that scum would have expected an entirely negative response.
Underlined: In steamship, if town had lynched those 7 players you would have killed zephird, Greymist and cyber cheese, since Greymists role is what killed town after the roleclaim then that plan arguably would have won the game, so i don't get what your point is.
Your say you would like a tyrran lynch and you also encourage people to listen to syllo who wants to lynch risk. Scum HoD would have known for certain that a risk lynch was not going to kill his team-mate.


You criticise Grack for behaviour that matches yous (saying stuff early and then not contributing) and ask him a bunch of questions


FINALLY you post WHY you think Tyrran is scum!
why? because
"His passivity and seeming lack of confidence in his reads and overall disinterest in the lynches just seems unlike most townies, and unlike how he played in my prior game with him. While I didn't want to make the following point yet to see if he would keep doing it, Dirkzor already brought it up and stated it quite well, so no reason not to restate it now"
dirkzor wrote:

The point has been made that this matches your behavior around the lynch. You yourself highlight that Dirkzor had already made the point you are making. It is not original.

You then cast doubt of spaackle because he thought Palmar was town.
You encourage people to look at Bluelightz and tell you what they think.
You ask Cwave to clarify something.
You say a risk lynch is better than a RoL (which is relevant only because tehy are the two people that might ACTUALLY get lynched)
You say that would would prefer we lynch neither yet you fail to say why they are bad lynches and you do not provide any convincing reasons for why we should lynch others.

You then vote Tyrran, having stated a reason that applies to you, having made next to no effort to convince others to do so.
The only other person to vote tyrran was Dirkzor, i wonder why... (it was his argument you were using)

He starts out by saying he still think's Tyrran is a good lynch and wants other people to contribute their thoughts. He does not commit to saying why or making a strong case.
If you are town and you think a player should be lynched, is this how you would approach it?
Asking other people to offer opinions and then give yours?
What if you think they are really scummy and have reasons?
Wouldn't you provide them and give people a reason to focus on that player?
However if you are mafia then saying you find a player scummy but not saying why makes a lot of sense:
If people start to indicate that they also feel the player is scum you can hide amongst them and seem like a townie voting for a player they think is scum.
It allows you to claim that you started the case or that you had been pressuring the player should player question what you have been doing.
It allows you to back off and not bring it up again should you widh because you haven't committed any arguments as to why you think that.


He defends himself and says that the reason people are calling his actions around the vote are that he was soft-defending risk. He then attacks that logic to defend himself.
Actually what is scummy is that he was disinterested in the vote because if he was/is mafia then he knew the players were not on his team but that one of them could have been on the opposite scum team. Should he get involved and one player gets lynched and flips scum and the other later flips scum, he would then receive a ton of attention. If he is town then he should not need to be so cautious and should have been making himself heard.
He then comments on RoL's plan by re-hashing outcomes i had previously outlined here and here


He was leaning scum on Erandor and Null on risk.
Which is interesting because on that day he basically ignored risk and his "leaning scum" was due to inactivity.
He draws a parallel between day1 this game and day1 steamship, implies that him not being aggressive day1 in both games and him being town that game means that he must be town this game. Not only is that poor logic, but he has criticised the points made against risk by addressing an aspect of the meta side and ignore the rest. (fun (slightly subjective)fact:risk just ignored the meta side and made weak comments that did not directly address the other points)


Underlined:Clearly a lot of people didn't have null reads on risk nuke as he had reached 9 votes before AND was under a lot of pressure at this time AND was lynched quite a while before the lynch deadline.
Why would HoD try to distance himself from a risk lynch?
Because he knew that risk was not on his team.

Bolded:"when I voted I hadn't read the newer parts of the thread very carefully as I was busy most of yesterday so I went with my best scum read at the time. Deal with it."
he basically admits that he didn't put effort into deciding who to vote +




Having popped in to defend himself he tries to force discussion about safer topics:
Speculation about about night actions!


I already highlighted why this is scummy/ incorrect http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=13077558
please read the full exchange for context


Not only is this stupid but it relies on assumptions about how the angels would act - He would kill Palmar because he could get him lynched? Based on the effort he has put into getting players lynched I sincerely doubt that this is the case.


He asks why i am discussing WIFOM.
I am accusing him of using WIFOM.
Note that the two are different and that as he is being accused and is scum it makes sense for him to make it seem like a discussion instead. If you believe that we were discussing it then he makes the point that i shouldn't be doing so because i believe it to be WIFOM. If i shouldn't be discussing it why should you be reading it?
He calls it a discussion to make you think it was a discussion and then dismiss it.

He also uses occams razor, its a simple solution, the simplest solution is usually correct ==> you should believe the simple solution i have suggested. There are many other simple solutions to "what happened and why" that he could have been defending. He is applying the logic to mislead in a situation in which it is not valid.


He speculates even more about angels and demons and commits to "focusing on more useful shit"
He does this by asking me to explain my "suspicious bastards" list after i had been pressuring him.
Now if you have had eve a cursory glance at my filter you will probably observe that i am thorough.
I highlight things and i had during the previous day/night mentioned things i found scummy about all but one of these players.
Other players have sheep voted or made baseless accusations and HoD could have picked up on one of these.
So i then posted a sort explanation of why and he responded:


underlined:This is quite a strange statement
why would i have posted 100% of my reasoning for all 6 of those players being scum. Since i had barely (if at all) mentioned Tyrran and since before he refreshed i hadn't mentioned Dirkzor, it is obvious that i hadn't posted all of my reasoning, thus he should not have judged my calling them suspicious by the standard of have you posted 100% of your reasoning?
+(i do not want to make an issuse of this now) it should be obvious why i believed Refallen lied about his vote on the deadline and it should be obvious why i might find that suspicious.
+Palmars flip may have made Jackal look suspicious but given that Jackal always focuses on Palmar day1 to me it didn't even make it much less likely that Jackal was a demon. My suspicion of him was based on his arriving at the last minute and basically deciding the vote having not made his stance on the candidates clear earlier (most of that was in the timeline post)



his original question was "Hey look - a list! Care to explain anything about it? Lists without reasons are pretty useless filler."
I wanted to make the point that given how vague this question was and given that i had raised suspicions about the players in the list i felt that it was redundant question. I then challenged him to make his first real contribution.
But alas my inept typing/formatting let me down.
And like every other person to lose an argument ever he corrects my grammar and ignores my point.


He is still poking people to get them to call Tyrran scummy without providing his own contribution.

He then makes a few more posts that speculate about night actions


He post's this.
most of the points are already made by sylloigsm here (clicky)here and
The reasoning was also outlined here from an exchange between myself and syllogism.
I later try to explain this to BH much to my own frustration.

This argument is completely not original.
He also makes it in a peculiar way
Bolded: they fact that the town response was negative does not also mean that scum would have expected an entirely negative response.
Underlined: In steamship, if town had lynched those 7 players you would have killed zephird, Greymist and cyber cheese, since Greymists role is what killed town after the roleclaim then that plan arguably would have won the game, so i don't get what your point is.
Your say you would like a tyrran lynch and you also encourage people to listen to syllo who wants to lynch risk. Scum HoD would have known for certain that a risk lynch was not going to kill his team-mate.


You criticise Grack for behaviour that matches yous (saying stuff early and then not contributing) and ask him a bunch of questions


FINALLY you post WHY you think Tyrran is scum!
why? because
"His passivity and seeming lack of confidence in his reads and overall disinterest in the lynches just seems unlike most townies, and unlike how he played in my prior game with him. While I didn't want to make the following point yet to see if he would keep doing it, Dirkzor already brought it up and stated it quite well, so no reason not to restate it now"
dirkzor wrote:

The point has been made that this matches your behavior around the lynch. You yourself highlight that Dirkzor had already made the point you are making. It is not original.

You then cast doubt of spaackle because he thought Palmar was town.
You encourage people to look at Bluelightz and tell you what they think.
You ask Cwave to clarify something.
You say a risk lynch is better than a RoL (which is relevant only because tehy are the two people that might ACTUALLY get lynched)
You say that would would prefer we lynch neither yet you fail to say why they are bad lynches and you do not provide any convincing reasons for why we should lynch others.

You then vote Tyrran, having stated a reason that applies to you, having made next to no effort to convince others to do so.
The only other person to vote tyrran was Dirkzor, i wonder why... (it was his argument you were using)