|
Why the fuck would layabout give 4 votes to chaoser? Assume Chaoser is scum for now.
Before night 2 Layabout, LSB and Chaoser had:
chaoser (3)
LSB (2)
layabout (5)
8 votes in total.
We know Layabout somehow got vote he shouldn't.
We know it fits the amount of votes (8/9 doesnt matter who LSB sent his vote to it would end up at Layabout either way) sent to palmar.
We can assume that scum syphoned the votes traded to Palmar in order to gain the majority of the votes.
Trades night 2:
Sent:
chaoser (3) -> 1 vote to palmar/layabout = 2 votes left
LSB (2) -> 1 vote to palmar/layabout = 1 vote left
layabout (5) -> 4 votes to chaoser = 1 vote left
Received:
chaoser (3) + 4 votes from Layabout = 6 total
LSB (2) + 0 votes = 1 total (0 as he died)
layabout (5) + 9 votes (intercepted from palmar) = 10 votes
Had layabout only given away 1 vote or given his votes to palmar (thus giving to himself) layabout would have been on 14 or 15.
1) Why did he not send his votes to palmar - which meant himself?
2) Why did he not send to LSB?
3) Why did layabout not keep as many votes for himself as possible?
1) If Layabout was shot during night the votes would have probably ended at Palmar. Not a good situation for scum.
2) The pressure was on LSB and Layabout. If layabout had send votes to LSB it would just further incriminate the 2 as scumbuddies. Would not have been a problem had mafia gained majority but if they didn't the votes would be better on the last remaining scum.
3) Same as 1 and 2. If layabout was shot the votes would have been lost. It was the best of 2 worlds for scum to send the votes to chaoser. If they had gained majority it didn't matter where the votes where. If they didn't the remaining votes would be on the last scum who we hadn't caught on to yet (chaoser).
If scum were to use the most insanely overpowered powerrole in this game it would be insanely stupid of them to give AWAY votes.
Which is why chaoser is the last scum.
|
Edit:
Sent:
chaoser (3) -> 1 vote to palmar/layabout = 2 votes left
LSB (2) -> 1 vote to palmar/layabout = 1 vote left
layabout (5) -> 4 votes to chaoser = 1 vote left
Received:
chaoser (2) + 4 votes from Layabout = 6 total
LSB (1) + 0 votes = 1 total (0 as he died)
layabout (1) + 9 votes (intercepted from palmar) = 10 votes
Now it should look right.
|
No comments on my correct scum find =(
Things talking in favor of Chaoser:
He did say he was okay with a lynch on VE after night1.
He have distanced himself from Layabout throughout the game.
Things talking againts chaoser:
VE was already palmars target from day 1.
He gradually distanced himself from layabout the more lay was painted red by town.
He have several times called LSB town. Later changing to neutral.
On February 01 2012 17:07 chaoser wrote:
He looks like he was regular mafia too so it wasn't even like I was saving someone "important". Not to mention that at that point layabout had more votes so if I was mafia I would try to save layabout over LSB. Also if I was mafia
But why would VE sacrifice himself for LSB if he wasn't important? I think it was LSB who had the powerrole but it worked even though he was shot.
(at work can't really finish this...)
|
1) Why did he not send his votes to palmar - which meant himself?
2) Why did he not send to LSB?
3) Why did layabout not keep as many votes for himself as possible?
1) If Layabout was shot during night the votes would have probably ended at Palmar. Not a good situation for scum.
2) The pressure was on LSB and Layabout. If layabout had send votes to LSB it would just further incriminate the 2 as scumbuddies. Would not have been a problem had mafia gained majority but if they didn't the votes would be better on the last remaining scum.
3) Same as 1 and 2. If layabout was shot the votes would have been lost. It was the best of 2 worlds for scum to send the votes to chaoser. If they had gained majority it didn't matter where the votes where. If they didn't the remaining votes would be on the last scum who we hadn't caught on to yet (chaoser).
So here's where you're wrong
1) False conclusion, Palmar was being shot by mafia. Even if layabout thought he was going to be shot, this point would never have been something for him to fear since, as mafia, he would already know that Palmar was going to die.
2) Two problems with this one. First, let's look at what you ultimately conclude. Your final conclusion from this situation should be "The person who is sent votes from layabout, who siphoned votes, will be incriminated". You try to frame it as "LSB getting votes from layabout would incriminate him more" but because layabout was going to siphon votes off Palmar (as is theorized), ANYONE he sent votes to would be incriminated, not just LSB. Secondly, this idea then discredits your last point of "if the mafia didn't gain majority, it would be better on the last remaining scum.". This point also doesn't make sense if you think I'm the last remaining scum.
a) I would be put under suspicion when I previously wasn't. If we were both scum, why would he do something that essentially "outted" me thus losing the game for the mafia team? It would be more logical to place it on LSB, who was already under suspicion.
b) If layabout was indeed scared that he might get shot during the night as you purposed during the night, why would any other mafia give votes to layabout/palmar then? It would make more sense, if LSB and I were mafia, to give vots to each other, not layabout. Just like how you're saying layabout giving votes to palmar is "not a good situation for scum" since layabout might have had the "fear of death", the logic should then carry over to ANY mafia member giving to palmar/layabout given your first conclusion. Why did you only think about "fear of death" to explain your first conclusion but leave it out here?
3) Once again you bring up this idea that layabout was scared of getting shot and losing votes. This again contradicts your idea that if this really was the case, that LSB and I (if I was mafia) would, as part of the plan, give palamr/layabout our votes.
You are clearly cherrypicking logical points and trying to paint something that fits your narrative. However, your narrative sucks cause of all the logical holes in it. I've been the most outspoken about you as scum and now it seems I finally understand the final gambit. Layabout giving votes to me was an act of incrimination. The siphon was a way of getting rid of votes. The plan this whole time was to get rid of votes. The less votes there are, the easier to gain majority. This fits with the "fear of death" that you so nicely pointed out idea.
Layabout was fearing death. He knew that him and LSB would probably either get shot (if there was vigis) or get lynched the next day. Looking back on it, I doubt he actually thought he could get majority. So the idea was to siphon votes, get shot. Also, place votes on me, the one who has been most outspoken of dirkzor, "incriminating me", and then get ME lynched. This gets rid of not only however many votes he would be stealing but also get rid of however votes I would end up having. More importantly though it would get rid of the person most vocal about dirkzor.
As can be seen in dirkzor's shitty holey post against me, he has an agenda, and will do whatever it takes, to get me lynched. even use bad logic.
If you look through my filter, you'll see that given what we know, I'd be the LEAST likely to be mafia. I pointed out problems with Dirkzor, VE, and layabout in my day one post. I said I'd be ok with and would have pushed a VE lynch for Day 2. I was ok with and would have pushed a layabout lynch for Day 3. I have also been as thoughtful in my posts as possible. I've taken stances and been very detailed about my thoughts. Dirkzor on the other hand, made a shitty case against prplhz, and aside from one post about LSB, has done absolutely nothing for town.
|
Now that I am sober and on the better end of a hangover I think I am able to make a bit of sense out of this. The vote siphon role doesn't make sense unless it's a one off ability or we would have seen it already I think. What does make sense is scum has a bus driver.
|
He gradually distanced himself from layabout the more lay was painted red by town.
Once again misinformation. I already pointed out my suspicions against layabout on day 1. Are you saying that I bussed pretty much every single on of my teammates?
Things talking in favor of Chaoser:
He have distanced himself from Layabout throughout the game.
Things talking againts chaoser:
He gradually distanced himself from layabout the more lay was painted red by town.
Either you can frame it as "Chaoser was suspicious of layabout since day 1" for a positive or "He has been distancing himself from layabout since the start of the game". You can't use the same point as both a townie thing AND a scummy thing. That makes no sense.
Also, the idea that "VE was already palmars target from day 1." as a negative for me is ridiculous. From what we know, mafia was going to kill Palmar Night 1. Had palmar actually died that night, his case against VE would have probably died as well (In fact, Palmar's target at the start of Day 2 wasn't even VE, it was LSB). So why would I feel the need to bus a teammate if I was mafia if the person who was targetting him was going to die, and by his own submission "Due to him being scum, and no one believing me VE is scum.", no one else believed VE was scum?
|
EDIT: I want to make clear the the "fear" in point one against dirkzor is "fear that layabout wil die and palmar will get the votes instead" That is not a fear that layabout should have felt
The "fear of death" I talk about is indeed just that, a fear of dying.
I'll see you guys today, work/classes calls!
|
On February 02 2012 01:34 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +He gradually distanced himself from layabout the more lay was painted red by town. Once again misinformation. I already pointed out my suspicions against layabout on day 1. Are you saying that I bussed pretty much every single on of my teammates?
and I wish I had written more but the trend so far for layabout has been a noncommital and slight derailment of conversation followed by his sketchy defense of VE. While I do admit that it IS possible he actually does feel this way, it is more likely that his latest posts are a last minute defense of a scummy VE and is, in my opinion, scum.
Looks a bit fishy, maybe a bit short is the reason why.
Show nested quote +Things talking in favor of Chaoser:
He have distanced himself from Layabout throughout the game.
Things talking againts chaoser:
He gradually distanced himself from layabout the more lay was painted red by town. Either you can frame it as "Chaoser was suspicious of layabout since day 1" for a positive or "He has been distancing himself from layabout since the start of the game". You can't use the same point as both a townie thing AND a scummy thing. That makes no sense.
Or, he took your idea and addressed how it could benefit scum and benefit town. Perfectly legit and actually a good way to stay impartial.
Also, the idea that "VE was already palmars target from day 1." as a negative for me is ridiculous. From what we know, mafia was going to kill Palmar Night 1. Had palmar actually died that night, his case against VE would have probably died as well (In fact, Palmar's target at the start of Day 2 wasn't even VE, it was LSB). So why would I feel the need to bus a teammate if I was mafia if the person who was targetting him was going to die, and by his own submission "Due to him being scum, and no one believing me VE is scum.", no one else believed VE was scum?
I have to leave now, I'll justify later if needed.
|
Lol what... your post make no sense...
Your first post where you said you thought VE was scum was AFTER night 1. So you knew that palmar had survived when you bussed VE. In the same post you said small things about layabout (wall of texting). You never really called him scummy until way later when palmar had painted him bright red. Thats why i think you are gradually finding layabout more and more scum in the same pace as town finds him more and more scum.
Also the fear that Palmar might live was a very real possibility as he was saved night 1, why not night 2? But at the same time scum had to kill him because they knew he was/is one fo the few who can't be talked around. Talked around like you are trying to do now Chaoser.
About votes going to you being stupid from scum... Not really because as you say its all wifom. Did scum give it to you to paint you red or because you actually are red. You are trying to spin it one way where I believe the other.
If layabout was giving votes to LSB it would in no way point him as town as we already found him scummy. He had to find a target that would make atleast a little town. Why not give 4 votes to palmar then? Or to someone else? I don't think you were the greenest one here...
I think I'm right... you can only prove me wrong by dying. And you will =)
|
|
|
On February 02 2012 01:26 Jackal58 wrote:
Now that I am sober and on the better end of a hangover I think I am able to make a bit of sense out of this. The vote siphon role doesn't make sense unless it's a one off ability or we would have seen it already I think. What does make sense is scum has a bus driver.
Good call Jackal. Mafia self-targets layabout, then scum driver switches Palmar and layabout. Thus medic is really on layabout, not Palmar. Even if medic did WIFOM, it wouldn't have mattered.
|
Your first post where you said you thought VE was scum was AFTER night 1. So you knew that palmar had survived when you bussed VE. In the same post you said small things about layabout (wall of texting). You never really called him scummy until way later when palmar had painted him bright red. Thats why i think you are gradually finding layabout more and more scum in the same pace as town finds him more and more scum.
On January 30 2012 11:00 chaoser wrote:
Ok so I'm finally caught up (on start of Night 1) and my thoughts:
I replaced into the game. You can take my statement for what it's worth but I did only catch up to the start of night 1/end of day 2.
As can be seen in my next post, I only knew palmar survived after my first post.
On January 30 2012 11:54 chaoser wrote:
Back from running. The shot on palmar pretty much confirms him for me.i gave my vote to him but it didnt go through
Unless you're saying I set up a bus on a teammate, misrepresented what I knew so that some time in the future I could go back and give an excuse that I actually didn't know palmar had died yet when I made my first post. That is so convoluted it doesn't make any sense.
I think I'm right... you can only prove me wrong by dying. And you will =)
Pretty sure a no flip isn't going to prove anything.
|
On February 02 2012 04:30 Paperscraps wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 01:26 Jackal58 wrote:
Now that I am sober and on the better end of a hangover I think I am able to make a bit of sense out of this. The vote siphon role doesn't make sense unless it's a one off ability or we would have seen it already I think. What does make sense is scum has a bus driver. Good call Jackal. Mafia self-targets layabout, then scum driver switches Palmar and layabout. Thus medic is really on layabout, not Palmar. Even if medic did WIFOM, it wouldn't have mattered.
so I guess the question arises, is LSB or Layabout the bus driver? Or is the final mafia the busdriver?
|
I think I'm right... you can only prove me wrong by dying. And you will =)
Pretty sure a no flip isn't going to prove anything.
Or are you saying I'm the final mafia and thus game will end?
If I get lynched and game doesn't end (it won't cause I'm townie), please be sure to lynch Dirzok next.
|
On February 02 2012 04:30 Paperscraps wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 01:26 Jackal58 wrote:
Now that I am sober and on the better end of a hangover I think I am able to make a bit of sense out of this. The vote siphon role doesn't make sense unless it's a one off ability or we would have seen it already I think. What does make sense is scum has a bus driver. Good call Jackal. Mafia self-targets layabout, then scum driver switches Palmar and layabout. Thus medic is really on layabout, not Palmar. Even if medic did WIFOM, it wouldn't have mattered.
I think Palmar got bussed with Chaoser. I think layabout tried to give Palmar his votes to try to avoid being lynched.
|
Jackal58 that makes no sense. Tons of other people gave Palmar votes, you included, and they didn't end up with chaoser.
|
On February 02 2012 05:02 prplhz wrote:
Jackal58 that makes no sense. Tons of other people gave Palmar votes, you included, and they didn't end up with chaoser.
Dammit don't fuck up my fantasies with facts. 
|
If Palmar was bussed with anybody he was bussed with layabout who then received all of Palmar's votes and if Palmar was medic/jailer protected then scum just hit layabout to kill Palmar. I think it was pretty clear that Palmar wasn't a veteran or he wouldn't have traded 2 votes night1 and 1 vote night2. He expected to be protected again but somehow he died.
The bussing ability is usually not a one shot ability? Then I don't fully get why scum didn't use it night1. I also find it unlikely that layabout gave his votes to Palmar because then they would have ended up back at layabout. Palmar was not really coming around on layabout and chaoser was openly arguing and disagreeing with Palmar so it makes sense for a town layabout to give chaoser votes and consequently also for a scum layabout.
|
On February 02 2012 01:26 chaoser wrote:
This gets rid of not only however many votes [layabout] would be stealing but also get rid of however votes I would end up having.
@ChaoserThis should be a non-factor, because if you are town you will be giving all your votes away tonight to your most pro-town read.
Also Chaoser you have to agree it looks suspicious that you received votes from layabout. The WIFOM behind it is just that, WIFOM.
Dirkzor is suspicious as well, because he only has 1 vote.
Both Chaoser and Dirkzor have questionable posts in their respective filters.
On January 30 2012 11:00 chaoser wrote:4) I think paperscapes and LSB give me tonie vibes. paperscapes posts have been informative while also have shown that he is trying to create a positive town environment. Especially here, a good post to keep people on topic and recenter the debate about vote trading: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=303505¤tpage=12#229LSB, as well, put forth a good vote plan though I disagree with it (I like the free-trade idea better)
This post is interesting to say the least. LSB seems "tonie" to Chaoser. Chaoser supports free trade. Good and bad here.
On February 01 2012 03:51 chaoser wrote:
Secondly, Townies in my head:
Palmar - Stop being a dick, I've PMed the mods about it. There's aggressive play and then there's dickish play. You're doing the latter.
Paperscape
LSB
Scums in my head:
Dirkzor
Layabout
???
LSB is still town, Dirkzor and Layabout are scum.(Chaoser's perspective) More good and bad.
On February 01 2012 03:59 chaoser wrote:
Actually, I take back my townie read on LSB. Re-reading through his filter has made me downgrade him to a neutral. I will need to think again about his alignment. I still stand by my assessment of layabout.
Then Chaoser downgrades LSB to neutral, probably due to Palmar calling Chaoser out on the read.
On February 01 2012 05:15 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2012 05:09 risk.nuke wrote:
LSB was palmars target when VE played his crazy move which to me seems to have been made out of desperation. That makes LSB look really bad.
On other accounts I view both LSB and Layabout as just about the same.
*Alot of act, little under the hood.
*Questionable behavior. But palmar's only real argument against LSB is that he gave his vote to layabout. When compared to what layabout has done and posted, I don't think it's the same condemning thing at all.
Interesting??
On February 01 2012 10:39 chaoser wrote:
Obviously layabout needs to tell us who he gave votes to but right now it looks like to me, that Palmer was probably right about his reads. Might have been a last ditch ploy (obviously there was some way/probably mafia action that allowed layabout to get to 10 votes, there's no way people actually gave him that many...right?) to get enough votes to gain majority outright and win the game. Thank god Node killed LSB or who knows what might have happened.
Something doesn't feel right about this. Could be a slip or deduction, I am leaning towards the former.
On January 30 2012 16:19 Dirkzor wrote:
I wanted to give palmar or LSB my vote - in that order. But figured that they would get a lot of votes anyway. Then i started to look for a less obvious townie.
I gave him 1 vote because i think he is town. I was just playing with him Purgatory (he was scum) where he played differently then what he does now.
LSB is obvious townie to Dirkzor??
On January 29 2012 21:25 Dirkzor wrote:
I will only give away 1 vote. No matter what plan or what trick I won't give away more then 1 vote.
This post by Dirkzor doesn't sit well with me.
On January 31 2012 04:39 Dirkzor wrote:
I agree that either Palmar or VE have to die. Or both due to No flip.
I would vote VE now, but I don't want to hammer (my vote won't be the hammer i know) until everyone have had a chance to claim the hit on either one. If no one claims it could still be a scum nightvig. How likely do you find that mafia have a nightvig?
If no one claims the hit I think the jailer should claim. Because if no one claims the hit or the jail we would have lynch both to be sure.
Ruse to get jailer to reveal or townie mistake? Probably townie mistake, since I was RB'ed last night, I don't think we have a jailer.
Dirkzor and Chaoser have against each other for awhile now.
On February 01 2012 04:03 chaoser wrote:
Huh? Who is they? layabout and dirkzor? Or do you mean LSB and layabout?
I don't think the latter if that's what you're saying
Interesting redirection from LSB to Dirkzor.
On February 01 2012 04:09 chaoser wrote:
I have respect for players who I think are good but that doesn't mean if they don't agree with me or see things my way that they are immediately scummy. There have been many times that I have disagreed with other good townie players and is to be expected. In my opinion, Layabout on day 1 was less scummy than dirkzor or VE. It was only his posting on day two that pushed him into extremely scummy. So I can understand LSB's justification for giving him a vote.
Another defense tactic for LSB.
On February 01 2012 04:20 chaoser wrote:His[Dirkzor] forced vote on prplhz reminds me of VE's forced votes and posts on both you and paperscapes. His defense of his vote was, in my opinion, lacking. He added nothing of substance to the VE lynch posting: Show nested quote +I agree that either Palmar or VE have to die. Or both due to No flip.
I would vote VE now, but I don't want to hammer (my vote won't be the hammer i know) until everyone have had a chance to claim the hit on either one. If no one claims it could still be a scum nightvig. How likely do you find that mafia have a nightvig?
If no one claims the hit I think the jailer should claim. Because if no one claims the hit or the jail we would have lynch both to be sure. in which he discredits his OWN reason for not voting VE: "but I don't want to hammer (my vote won't be the hammer i know)" and then adds in a weird suggestion about how the jailer should claim. He then continues to criticize VE with: Show nested quote + lol! That changed your mind? What about the late claim to get hit? Which was equally late. Yet you have been vague up until this post of VE. Just minute before you had yet to make up your mind... when he himself has been equally noncommital: Show nested quote +VE looks way more scummy then palmar. Why not claim directly after night post? Why wait? Palmar posted instantly and VE have had more then enough time to think it over.
But I still hate being unsure. I'll mindfuck myself until the game ends =(
I see some hypocrisy in this post.
On February 01 2012 04:23 chaoser wrote:
The only post that I like so far is his[Dirkzor] post on LSB and that one I am currently checking with LSB's posts in context. Aside from that though, he gives off scummy reads to me.
This post below by Dirkzor is the one Chaoser likes, which is interesting.
On January 31 2012 02:38 Dirkzor wrote:Just because palmar is almost certainly town does not mean his reads are correct. But how can you question his towness? I can't think of a scenario where scum would have the guts to not shoot, only so Palmar could claim to get jailed. About LSB, who Palmar wants dead, and 2 more sheeped (wtf?): He have been very vocal and active so he must be town - or what Prplhz? (joking) What bothers me about his filter is that he have constantly been pushing his plans. Plan 1 (click) was basicly the same idea that was already in the thread + the self correction mechanism. Rough layout of Plan 2 (click)Then he sees the light (click) as an explanition to why he changed from his plan 1 to plan 2. Is the same post he calls Sentinel scum for essentially supporting what was his Plan 1 (see spoiler below) + Show Spoiler +Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 04:17 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On January 27 2012 02:57 Dirkzor wrote:
@Lay
I don't know if you misunderstood the mechanic or I misunderstood your post.
It IS possible to have more then 5 votes during the daytime. If everyone give their votes to palmar he could potentially have 31 votes day 2. Come night 2 he would have to give away atleast 24 votes to one person.
I think that paperscraps have a point that we need to agree on a method to control the votes.
1) and 2) are only viable for a short amount of time (as lay pointed out) but can be good in the start to keep votes spread out.
3) is the best way to continuosly keep track of where people put their votes. 3 takes more management, but will be better in the end. I suggest Day 1 and 2 circle trading to start stability, then once the game starts intensifying and we get more information we can switch to plan 3 when everyone's ready. Given that 1) is trading 1 vote and 2) is trading all but 1 vote, I'd have to go with 1 because if mafia somehow gets ahold of votes and don't give them away, we give them less VP to vote with and can stop them before it's too late. I don't like this post. In fact this plan is very bad. If I was mafia, I would love this plan and support it, because of an easy counterplan.First of all, look at the concept of stability. Sentinel proposes that stability is more important in the early game than in the late. This is very wrong. Stability is more important in the late game than in the early. In the early game, although it is bad if the mafia suddenly gets 5 extra vote power Day 2, we still have time to account for it. However if the mafia suddenly gets 5 extra vote power Day 3, it could suddenly lose the game. Day 1/2 we have the freedom to try to achieve information at the risk of loosing vote power, day 3/4+ we do not simply because there is the high chance of loss My plan accounts for that because it focuses on stabilizing the late game, after a very tumultuous night 1. Secondly, look at information. Sentinel makes the fundamental assumption that circle-jerking will provide meaningful information. It won't, but it will provide a lot of WIFORM. However vote transfers will always have lots of information because every vote transfer is known. People will need to account for their votes. Sentinel's plan achieves neither of his goals of stability. In fact, there is a very dangerous counterplan that guarantees mafia an overwhelming advantage day 3 Counterplan: Between Day 1 and Day 2, give town 1 VP, and give mafia 1 VP 1: All mafia live. N3 Mafia has 13 VP, town has 17 VP. If town gives up 2 VP. If one townies mistransfers, mafia wins2. 1 Mafia is lynched. N3 Mafia has 10 VP, town has 20 VP. If town gives up 5 VP, mafia wins. More likely, 1-2 townies will mistransfer leading to Mafia entering with 12-14 VP, and town having 15-16 VP. This sets up lylo as the town has to be unanimous in order to unseat mafia. I believe this flaw is intentional and therefore I have a Red read on Sentinel Conclusion: I should read the thread before posting. And ##Vote: [UoN]SentinelWhy is it that Sentinels logic is scummy when LSB himself had the same logic to begin with? In his 2nd case/post on sentinel he is even calling him scummy even though he changed his mind later on - the same way LSB saw the light and changed his mind when paperscraps called him out on it. Its a double standard at its finest. + Show Spoiler +On January 29 2012 07:11 LSB wrote:We have about 3 hours to get a lynch in and I will spend this time to push forth what I think is the best lynch, [UoN]Sentinel. I can see similarities between my mafia play in previous games and his play here. One of effective plays a mafia can do is to blatantly play for the mafia side. Sometimes town doesn’t notice, and sometimes a few people do notice but they don’t do anything till it’s too lateIn addition, this play is very effective for this setup, even if you are exposed, you could simply transfer 2 of your votes away to your team, minimizing a loss of a sacrifice. As I have stated here, the plans that [UoN]Sentinel proposes all have effective mafia counterplans: -Circlejerk is obvious, but mafia friendly -His wait 2 nights and then free trade is disastrous, and results in either a D2 or D3 lylo. -His wait 1 night is almost as bad, and put on shaky reasoning To say that I am ‘giving him too much credit’ or ‘he can’t possibly scheme that for ahead’, would be an unfair underestimation. His posts demonstrate he is capable of thinking ahead and the ability to formulate intricate counterplans. Although he had a change of heart in the later stages, this only happened after I called him out on his plan, and it is standard play to drop any obvious mafia tactics as soon as possible. Because of his blatant attempts to mislead the town, to me he is the most obvious mafia I would not oppose a LSB lynch at this moment.
This accusation is way more reserved than Dirkzor's on prplhz. Where did his fire go?
On February 01 2012 04:21 Dirkzor wrote:
What I find weird is that multiple people have called me scum with no reasoning at all.
Chaoser, node and Prp (he gave a little, but bad, reasoning)...
We know Chaoser is on Dirkzor's radar.
On February 01 2012 18:51 Dirkzor wrote:
Why the fuck would layabout give 4 votes to chaoser? Assume Chaoser is scum for now.
Before night 2 Layabout, LSB and Chaoser had:
chaoser (3)
LSB (2)
layabout (5)
8 votes in total.
We know Layabout somehow got vote he shouldn't.
We know it fits the amount of votes (8/9 doesnt matter who LSB sent his vote to it would end up at Layabout either way) sent to palmar.
We can assume that scum syphoned the votes traded to Palmar in order to gain the majority of the votes.
Trades night 2:
Sent:
chaoser (3) -> 1 vote to palmar/layabout = 2 votes left
LSB (2) -> 1 vote to palmar/layabout = 1 vote left
layabout (5) -> 4 votes to chaoser = 1 vote left
Received:
chaoser (3) + 4 votes from Layabout = 6 total
LSB (2) + 0 votes = 1 total (0 as he died)
layabout (5) + 9 votes (intercepted from palmar) = 10 votes
Had layabout only given away 1 vote or given his votes to palmar (thus giving to himself) layabout would have been on 14 or 15.
1) Why did he not send his votes to palmar - which meant himself?
2) Why did he not send to LSB?
3) Why did layabout not keep as many votes for himself as possible?
1) If Layabout was shot during night the votes would have probably ended at Palmar. Not a good situation for scum.
2) The pressure was on LSB and Layabout. If layabout had send votes to LSB it would just further incriminate the 2 as scumbuddies. Would not have been a problem had mafia gained majority but if they didn't the votes would be better on the last remaining scum.
3) Same as 1 and 2. If layabout was shot the votes would have been lost. It was the best of 2 worlds for scum to send the votes to chaoser. If they had gained majority it didn't matter where the votes where. If they didn't the remaining votes would be on the last scum who we hadn't caught on to yet (chaoser).
If scum were to use the most insanely overpowered powerrole in this game it would be insanely stupid of them to give AWAY votes.
Which is why chaoser is the last scum.
Personally I like this post by Dirkzor.
Dirkzor has been stepping up his game as of late, but I think him having 1 vote is also curious to say the least.
With that said Chaoser is still my FoS.
WIFOM
+ Show Spoiler +Is mafia trying to play two townies against each other? Chaoser and Dirkzor obviously think each other are scum. Let us speculate.1 townie dies tonight, we lynch Chaoser tomorrow. Game doesn't end. Another townies dies, we lynch Dirkzor. Game doesn't end. Then another townie die. That is 5 townies down. Now we are on D6 and have to lynch with 5 players remaining and 1 being mafia. We still aren't on mylo. If we ML on D6 then D7 we have an epic three-way and lylo.
Seems more likely that mafia went for a power play, hoping more people would give votes to Palmar. That would mean Chaoser and layabout would have the majority.
Chaoser needs to die. I don't see any downside to it.
This is where we currently stand.
Node (1)
Jackal58 (3)
chaoser (6)
prplhz (2)
jaybrundage (3)
risk.nuke (4)
[UoN]Sentinel (2)
MeatlessTaco (1)
Paperscraps (3)
Dirkzor (1)
45 - 3(WBG) = 42 - 2(VE) = 40 - 3(Palmar) -1(LSB) = 36 - 10(layabout) = 26 votes remaining.
|
On February 02 2012 05:54 Paperscraps wrote:
Chaoser needs to die. I don't see any downside to it.
'Nuff said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
