|
On March 30 2011 01:41 Tackster wrote:
Ok sorry about the multiple posts - i thought people would prefer broken up posts rather than a long one - now I know for the future!!
Why is no one commenting on the fact that the stun gun didnt claim to work the way people are saying??
Because people are lazy and would rather take the easy lynch than think for themselves.
|
Sigh. Does anyone remember XXXVI?
Deconduo, as you have realized, I never claimed veteran. I only claimed that I was hit. I saw no need to give red/black more information on how to kill me, so I left out why I survived. lol at me being black. I'll take that as a compliment, as they are often some of the most pro-town people in-thread.
Bum, do you remember the entire argument that we had in XXXVI? This seems just like that. (minus me actually being SK ofc.) For everyone's sake, let me recap:
LunarDestiny was an SK, and the mafia found out about it. Bum was mafia, and wanted to knock off LD because he was being very pro-town. So he claimed DT, and said that LD was black.
The problem is, SK's are very pro-town players so why would you expose one before you needed to? The general strategy for SK's is to act like town, because they can only be killed with a lynch. Now, there was one good point to Bum's argument however: If we killed the SK, then we would have less KP out. In this game, killing another black will almost certainly not lower their KP!
In the end, this is what clued me in to Bum being Scum, and it got him lynched. I had a hard time arguing the point back then, but now that there is precedent, I hope people understand how this argument is correct.
Let's pretend that I am black. I've been playing very pro-town, so REGARDLESS of the possibility that I was black, why would you out me at this point? I'm now pissed that my cover is blown, and I want to kill everyone. Why should I help the town if I'm going die soon? If I was black, you would have eliminated one of the most helpful people in this game so far!
In this game, the timing was even worse: we have a lynch set up on Tackster. Why bring this up now? Why not bring up something like this after the lynch? Calling out an SK now would only hurt the town.
Deconduo, I'm quite honestly confused by this play. You've played enough that I would have thought you'd think of this. Everything about it makes me think you are scum, but your vet claim/PM looks ligit. Would LSB give a vet role to Mafia? It seems unlikely, but it is insane...
|
Bum got lynched because he claimed to have 3 reads and forgot he claimed he was role blocked on night 2.
|
Oh, and if I were black, why would I run for mayor? It puts me in the spotlight, and doesn't to me a lick of good if I'm already bulletproof...
|
On March 30 2011 02:00 Jackal58 wrote:
Bum got lynched because he claimed to have 3 reads and forgot he claimed he was role blocked on night 2.
Sort of. People bought his story for a long time. I was one of the only ones argueing against him and brining his claim under scrutiny. The final blow was actually him reporting the wrong name for Beneather the Bodyguard. It should have come back as blue or something, and he put it as green.
|
On March 30 2011 00:58 Tackster wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 20:57 CubEdIn wrote:
You're wrong, there were many people who questioned other things, like why Lemon is "cleared".
I myself have asked for extensive explanations on why we are only focusing on Tack, you need to go back and read the thread more carefully.
And no it wouldn't make sense to steal from Coag, as a KP is more important than a RB for mafia.
And as Coag was clearly the shooter, and jackal's item got stolen, that safely clears them both. As much as you can have someone cleared in a game of Mafia.
So it's between Lemon and Tackster, and it doesn't make sense for mafia to double-shoot Annul if they KNEW Coag had the real gun. It would make much more sense to use the "stun gun" to RB annul's potato.
Anything else makes a lot less sense than this theory. Why does Jackal having his item stolen clear him in any way? Thats wrong imo.
Eh, I admit, I'm biased towards Jackal, it's not a very good reason, at the time I was thinking that if he were mafia he'd protect the item and wouldn't really go along with a plan that involves two other people. But he could have, had he been sneaky enough. But yeah, if you wanna place a vote on someone, do Lemon. He's the only one that has even a slight chance of being lynched instead of you imo.
|
On March 30 2011 01:10 Tackster wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 01:08 GGQ wrote:On March 30 2011 00:57 Tackster wrote:On March 29 2011 10:58 GGQ wrote:
The argument that Tackster can't be mafia because he didn't know coagulation had the gun is fundamentally flawed. There's one thing that everyone, including coagulation, seems to be forgetting.
Coagulation claimed that he had a stun gun that would disable his target's power. That's why scum redirected Coagulation to annul; to disable annul's hot potato so that it wouldn't blow up and kill the other scum who was assigned to shoot annul. Meanwhile Tackster stole from jackal to prevent jackal from shooting him. That fact that Coagulation ended up shooting annul was completely accidental by the mafia.
Thus the 4 kp are as follows:
Red hit annul
Red hit Kav or Gmarshal
Black hit Kav or Gmarshal
Coag hit Tackster, but was redirected by scum to hit annul because scum thought that his stun gun would stop annul's potato from killing the scum who killed annul.
GG lynch Tackster That's why scum redirected Coagulation to annul; to disable annul's hot potatoThis is not how the stun gun was claimed to work
Meanwhile Tackster stole from jackal to prevent jackal from shooting him
This has already been proved not to make me scummy. Tonnes of town would have stolen from jackal too.
Seeing as there was no way scum thought that controlling coag to 'use' his item on annul could have worked this disproves the theory entirely!
I've already explained why it would be bad town play for you to steal from jackal. Even if you think that is true given how the stun gun was claimed to work how does your theory make sense? [/i]
I don't just think it's true, it is true. See this post that you never responded to before:
+ Show Spoiler +[B]On March 28 2011 16:36 GGQ wrote: Show nested quote +On March 28 2011 15:45 Tackster wrote:On March 28 2011 15:43 GGQ wrote:On March 28 2011 15:27 Tackster wrote:On March 28 2011 15:20 GGQ wrote:
Also, I was gonna point out what Chaoser or Coagulation pointed out above.
If you are town, stealing Jackal's item was retarded. The town thing to do would be to role-check someone. If you lived or died, you would be giving the town some great information. The much simpler explanation is that you are red. By your standards: Situation 1: I DT check and get shot. Town now has more reason to lynch Jackal (GOOD) Situation 2: I DT check and some1 else gets shot. I 'claim' a check on Jackal that can't be confirmed and we end up in this situation. (BAD) Situation 3: I steal and get the gun. We're now in the same situation as yesterday except town gets to lynch instead of leaving the kill to someone else (VERY GOOD) Situation 4: I steal and don't get gun. I am shot. Same situation as 1. (GOOD) Situation 5: I steal and don't get gun. I am not shot. We are now in this position.(BAD) So a DT check either has 50% chance for the positive result you're looking for or 50% this situation comes up. A steal on the other hand has a 66% chance for a positive result or 33% this situation comes up. Your logic is poor because you assume that each situation has an equal chance of playing out under each scenario. LOL actually I stated by your standards. I was being pessimistic. By my standards the chances are much higher... You realise you're implying the situation YOU suggested would be worse for town right? Lastly my stats would be poor not my logic and unlike the other players in this thread that can't confirm their abilities I can confirm when I state I am good at stats. Theoretical Physics is not an easy degree to get! Perhaps not, but it has little to do with stats. For the rest of this post, I feel like you are mixed up in both your semantics and logic, but I'm just going to leave all that alone and try to be more clear. What I meant is that you are just looking at some percentages without taking the context of the game into account. Let's assume you are a green. You know that all the other townies in the IG want you dead. You know that most of the town has you pegged as scum and wants you dead. Given that your death would NOT result in town losing the item game (there's not enough KP floating around for that), there's no reason for you to try to stay alive. As long as you are around, covered in scum and drawing votes your way, you'll just distract town from finding the real scum tomorrow. If someone is going to shoot you, then you thank them and look forward to seeing jackal hang the next day. Furthermore, on the chance that you might survive (hey, you never know; it's insane mafia! look at what you are claiming now... you are a green and someone out there somewhere decided to save your ass) you would use your DT check item because you know how valuable a DT check is for town. Even if it's not from a trusted source (you)... you know you are going to die soon (most likely to a lynch the next day) so then town will know your check was true. In that situation, any town with killing power would very much like to know whether or not jackal is scum going into night 2. Instead you have simply shrugged off a DT check from you, saying that it wouldnt be trusted (guilty conscience?). Finally, on to why your logic was just bad. Take a look back at all those "situations" you listed. Compare your 'bad' situation (5) to your 'very good' one (3). The only difference between these two situations is that you have the gun in the 'very good' one. Seriously. Not only is that bad logic, it's also a possible scumslip in wanting the gun for yourself. TL;DR stealing instead of inspecting was very anti-town
I'd particularly like a response to my third point there. According to you, if you steal the gun and survive, that's VERY GOOD. If you fail to steal the gun and survive, that's BAD. Wuddup wit dat?
And yes, it seems I was mistaken about the stun gun, I remembered it being a simple roleblocker. Perhaps the mafia were hoping that if annul's potato blew up the mafia shooting him, at least it would take Coagulation along with them?
The main problem I have with the idea of anyone else in the IG being red is that they knew Coagulation had the gun and Bum insists that it was red who shot annul (a tracker among the blues perhaps? I dunno). I'm depending on both of these things being true, so Bum had better be damn sure. If jackal, coagulation or lemonwalrus were red, then they would know that Coagulation's shot would kill annul. In fact this would be perfect because they kill annul without risking one of their members to the random potato explosion. BUT red also shot annul. Why would reds possibly risk one of their members to the potato if they knew annul was going to die from Coagulation's shot? The only answer is that they didn't know, which means that the red in the IG must be the only person who didn't know that Coagulation had the gun, which is you.
Of course, it's conceivable that it was the blacks who misdirected Coagulation's shot to annul. But the blacks didn't know Coagulation had the gun either. If they misdirected Coagulation, they were misdirecting his stun gun. And the only reason that they would do that was if they were trying to shoot him and didn't want him to stun their shooter. And obviously they didn't try to shoot him (nor would they have any motivation to, since they are out of the item game). So it couldn't have been the blacks.
PS, if you mosey on over to the voting thread, you'll see I still havent voted for you. I'm not unreasonable or jumping to conclusions here.
|
Well it makes little sense for Black to shoot annul because they would have to suffer if the items get to town. If it was a vig who was just wrong, then he should have come up and face it by now.
Thing is, a mafia with extra items spells trouble for blacks, but i don't know.
Here's the thing though, if we are wrong and we DO lynch the wrong scum, we can still prolong the IG with medics/bus drivers, so it should still be OK.
Dun dun dun.
|
People are discussing whether or not Kav is black...
This stun-gun scenario makes no sense. Why won't people address that instead????
And CubEdIn I figured it makes sense to vote Lemon instead. I just think that Jackal is mafia and wanted to leave no confusion for tomorrow.
So what I'll do is this- I'm voting Lemon for now and hoping people ACTUALLY CHECK THIS STUN GUN SCENARIO. It doesn't make sense. I'm a green and you are very capable of coming to that conclusion if you check for yourself instead of trusting to posts that reference others WRONG.
If i am lynched tonight when I flip green remember that we need to read into both Lemon AND Jackal. I still think what happened earlier points to Jackal. In fact even though i'm quite certain coagulation is probably green no one can be certain. CHECK THINGS don't get lazy...
|
Check my last post, Tackster!
|
On March 30 2011 02:16 Tackster wrote:
People are discussing whether or not Kav is black...
This stun-gun scenario makes no sense. Why won't people address that instead????
And CubEdIn I figured it makes sense to vote Lemon instead. I just think that Jackal is mafia and wanted to leave no confusion for tomorrow.
So what I'll do is this- I'm voting Lemon for now and hoping people ACTUALLY CHECK THIS STUN GUN SCENARIO. It doesn't make sense. I'm a green and you are very capable of coming to that conclusion if you check for yourself instead of trusting to posts that reference others WRONG.
If i am lynched tonight when I flip green remember that we need to read into both Lemon AND Jackal. I still think what happened earlier points to Jackal. In fact even though i'm quite certain coagulation is probably green no one can be certain. CHECK THINGS don't get lazy...
I fully expect to die tonight no matter what color you flip. You stole my band aid you bastard. 
|
On March 30 2011 02:29 Jackal58 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 02:16 Tackster wrote:
People are discussing whether or not Kav is black...
This stun-gun scenario makes no sense. Why won't people address that instead????
And CubEdIn I figured it makes sense to vote Lemon instead. I just think that Jackal is mafia and wanted to leave no confusion for tomorrow.
So what I'll do is this- I'm voting Lemon for now and hoping people ACTUALLY CHECK THIS STUN GUN SCENARIO. It doesn't make sense. I'm a green and you are very capable of coming to that conclusion if you check for yourself instead of trusting to posts that reference others WRONG.
If i am lynched tonight when I flip green remember that we need to read into both Lemon AND Jackal. I still think what happened earlier points to Jackal. In fact even though i'm quite certain coagulation is probably green no one can be certain. CHECK THINGS don't get lazy... I fully expect to die tonight no matter what color you flip. You stole my band aid you bastard.
Your fault for saying you were going to shoot him. Next time don't tunnel townies and you might live <3
|
On March 30 2011 02:30 deconduo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2011 02:29 Jackal58 wrote:On March 30 2011 02:16 Tackster wrote:
People are discussing whether or not Kav is black...
This stun-gun scenario makes no sense. Why won't people address that instead????
And CubEdIn I figured it makes sense to vote Lemon instead. I just think that Jackal is mafia and wanted to leave no confusion for tomorrow.
So what I'll do is this- I'm voting Lemon for now and hoping people ACTUALLY CHECK THIS STUN GUN SCENARIO. It doesn't make sense. I'm a green and you are very capable of coming to that conclusion if you check for yourself instead of trusting to posts that reference others WRONG.
If i am lynched tonight when I flip green remember that we need to read into both Lemon AND Jackal. I still think what happened earlier points to Jackal. In fact even though i'm quite certain coagulation is probably green no one can be certain. CHECK THINGS don't get lazy... I fully expect to die tonight no matter what color you flip. You stole my band aid you bastard. Your fault for saying you were going to shoot him. Next time don't tunnel townies and you might live <3
lol did you just threaten to kill Jackal??
|
sigh
chaoser, read jackals quote again...
|
I don't get it lol. Why does tunneling=mafia wanting to shoot you? If he's tunneling a mafia then yeah, mafia wants to shoot you. But if he's tunneling a townie mafia just needs to sit back and lawl.
|
There is a possibility the blacks could have shot annul. I just know that a KP was used on annul, and the opposite faction probably used the mindcontrol thingy jigger.
And kav it isn't important to start defending yourself right now, we can discuss that later, because even if you might be black, it isn't as important since we know the red in the IG is close. And of course I remember that game kav... -_-
Tackster, you are also quoting wrong references, at least form me. That KP list was flawed in regards to you and coagulation, I corrected it with some help from townies.
|
On March 30 2011 00:50 Tackster wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 09:08 Lanaia wrote:
Yeah, people who aren't in the game who keep posting are confusing people. See: Tackster.
I'm tired of the lack of activity from most people. I know there are a few who are obviously not inactive, but I'm really bothered by it. It's things like that which make people like me unable to read others. I know we can't just assume all of those people are scum (I'm sure not EVERY scum would lurk). Also I think there's more than 10 lurkers.
@LSB Are you prodding/notifying people who are inactive or at least threatening them for being inactive?
What's the See: Tackster about? Are you claiming i'm not in the game?
Never mind, I kind of thought the people posting who weren't in the game were confusing you. You were an example in that post. Apparently I misread you there.
|
Ok here we have 2 separate points:
#1 Whether or not stealing from Jackal is pro-town, anti-town or a non-tell.
#2 Whether or not the events from last night imply I am scum or not.
Now while I am not interested in an argument about who is right or wrong I am interested in discussing if I am scum or not. The reason i did not directly reply to that post of yours was I felt it would just lead to a 'I know better than you' argument which nobody wins. Let's address it rationally which you seem to be doing.
#1 Whether or not stealing from Jackal is pro-town, anti-town or a non-tell.
Point 1: People can do what they think is good for town and be wrong:
Many people have pointed out that they would have stolen as well in that scenario. This doesn't make them scum for doing so. This means their opinion was a steal was necessitated in the situation. Even if we conclusively prove that stealing was anti-town that doesn't make everybody who concluded otherwise a non-green faction. Similarly I thought that stealing was pro-town (I still do) and did what I thought would help town. If it turns out I made the wrong assumption about stealing that does not imply that I'm mafia. If you need I can quote people that said they would have stolen too but i'd rather not as it has been well established and will take a long time to prove something that isn't intrinsic to the point only this situation.
Point 2: I'm not taking the probability of how each scenario will play out
Your logic is poor because you assume that each situation has an equal chance of playing out under each scenario.
This doesn't make any sense. My labeling of good/bad etc. is a label on each scenario that is my read on how likely the scenario is to go well. You're implying a scenario I label GOOD could have a large possibility of going badly which i haven't taken into account. But in that case it is no longer GOOD. The chances for it to play out well or not are in the labels themselves. If you have a problem with how I label a scenario then attack my assessment of the scenario. Don't say i didn't assess it.
Point 3: I'm ignoring the context of this game in particular
What I meant is that you are just looking at some percentages without taking the context of the game into account.
This is the same as the previous point. Each scenario is taken in context of THIS game, not all games. Check how the scenario's are written. If you disagree with a particular one say that. Don't say I've ignored this game for each scenario - this game is the only one I have to go on.
As long as you are around, covered in scum and drawing votes your way, you'll just distract town from finding the real scum tomorrow. If someone is going to shoot you, then you thank them and look forward to seeing jackal hang the next day.
This is stated in a way that ignores the context of the game. It takes into account the scumminess I have (which you claim me of not doing) but doesn't take into account other game mechanics - for instance the fact that if Jackal was red he would have a gun. Extra KP for scum. You said that then Jackal will hang the next day. So now you are ignoring the fact that this is insane mafia and he may in fact not be? Also outside of the points being made he would have an item that protects him at night if i didn't steal from him. If he is mafia and wasn't lynched then he would be immune at night. But that's outside this point...
Furthermore, on the chance that you might survive (hey, you never know; it's insane mafia! look at what you are claiming now... you are a green and someone out there somewhere decided to save your ass) you would use your DT check item because you know how valuable a DT check is for town. Even if it's not from a trusted source (you)... you know you are going to die soon (most likely to a lynch the next day) so then town will know your check was true.
Again here you don't take into account any other information - only the fact that if I don't die and I DT checked the information is then useful after I die. This isn't compared with any other possible outcomes. It's stated as a fact for an outcome you are for. If you aren't comparing outcomes then you are only 'for' it on impulse.
Point 4: My logic is bad
Compare your 'bad' situation (5) to your 'very good' one (3). The only difference between these two situations is that you have the gun in the 'very good' one.
Scenario 3:
I have the Gun. Town has the lynch. Basically the night passed and town gets to make the decisions - not the scum and the vig, who may or may not be green.
Scenario 5:
I don't have the gun. Someone else was shot. We are now down a green and have allowed the decision to be made by the scum and a vig, who may or may not be green.
How are those scenario's the same?
How is the only difference that I have the gun?
Remember that I am working out the choices from the point of view of a green. So taking the gun out of red hands is a win for town no matter which situation. As a green I have to view owning the gun as beneficial.
The question is whether or not it is a greater asset then dying. As we are listing situations whether or not I die that is already taken into account!
#2 Whether or not the events from last night imply I am scum or not.
Point 1: The original post is wrong
And yes, it seems I was mistaken about the stun gun
If you were mistaken about the gun then your earlier post based around the stun-gun now doesn't make any sense. And we can conclude you were wrong about it - go check what coag said. I can't be bothered trawling for it now but I know I am right so if you disagree go confirm please.
Point 2: You're reason for the control doesn't make sense if I am red
Perhaps the mafia were hoping that if annul's potato blew up the mafia shooting him, at least it would take Coagulation along with them?
Ok that is possible. But if I was red i would be:
#1 Taking out coagulation from the IG. If coagulation pop up green that looks good for Jackal. Why would I want that? But if I'm not red this is fine.
#2 Shooting someone who I am assuming is going to die anyway from a potato? (annul)
Remember that the potato has a chance to take out someone that visits AND annul. If I assume the potato is going to kill coag cos he visits I don't need to shoot annul.
Point 3: You're reason for scum definitely not knowing who had the gun is wrong
Why would reds possibly risk one of their members to the potato if they knew annul was going to die from Coagulation's shot? The only answer is that they didn't know, which means that the red in the IG must be the only person who didn't know that Coagulation had the gun, which is you.
I don't understand what you're saying here. If we assume a red shot annul (which you did) then red risked dying to the potato REGARDLESS of whether they knew coag had the gun. Coag having the gun has nothing to do with red shooting the guy holding the potato. This makes it even less likely that red controlled coag onto annul.
But coag insists he was controlled onto annul therefore either
- Coag is lying
- Black did the mind control
But if coag is lying then he would be red and shot who red did as well. That doesn't make any sense and leads me to believe that black performed the mind control.
That analysis is independent of whether I am scum and independent of knowledge of who had the gun. If black performed the mind control then they didn't know who had the gun any more than I did. So saying the mind control rests with whoever did/didn't know who had the gun is pointless.
If you ask me why coagulation was mind controlled onto annul I couldn't possibly tell you. Assuming black and red don't want to work with each other they may simply have picked up on when coag outed that he had the gun and decided the game would take longer if jackal and I remained.
|
*sigh*
Now that Bum says he can't confirm the color of the KP on annul this whole thing needs to be done again.
Bum stop making mistakes goddamit!!
|
On March 30 2011 03:05 Tackster wrote:
*sigh*
Now that Bum says he can't confirm the color of the KP on annul this whole thing needs to be done again.
Bum stop making mistakes goddamit!!
Where did I say that? It's reasonable to assume it was red, but black would still benefit. People gave good reasons to why only red would shoot in the IG, so it's clear they tried someway, but black would as well, even if it was just to kill annul 
It's kinda fun not making sense. You guys should seen the plan I had cooked up to have one of my blues counter claim me, oh boy you guys would have been yelling at me so much. But alas, there is already enough on everyone's plate, that crucial discussion could not be wasted
Amuse me some more tackster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
