20th-Century Philosophy Mafia (Mini 1388) Game Over
-
-
Leafsnail
-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
In post 10, MagnaofIllusion wrote:So Leaf, Dun and qwints ... nothing to say at all about Benmage's statement?
Seemed kindof contrary to the spirit of the rules. If that's how it's done here now then whatever.
qwints wrote:Confirm stage is for confirmations.Neither policy is stupid though both have exceptions. Chainsaw defense noted.
A man who agrees with me in words but not in actions. The kind of man I hate.
Vote: qwints.-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
@qwintz: What policy are you working from exactly? Destroy All Jokes? I mean I assumed that you yourself were joking but if you are it isn't funny anymore.
In post 45, MagnaofIllusion wrote:
Um, whut? There is not a single rule in the Mod’s ruleset that says “Confirmation stage is only for confirmations. No actual discussion is to take place during that time frame”.
That's why I said spirit rather than letter. I've never seen anyone else start a game during confirmations so I assumed it was one of those unwritten rules like "Don't broadcast your role pm on national TV".
In post 45, MagnaofIllusion wrote:
Keeping that in mind scum generally have access to their QT during that period even if they do not have Daytalk I see no reason to artificially restrict discussion to Town in a period when the scum generally are planning the Town downfall.
Do you disagree?
No, but that's more of a "How would you set up the rules to a game you were running?" question. It's irrelevant to the rules of the actual game I am playing.
Although really if what you say about the scum QC is true that'd be a good reason not to start talking during confirmation even if you're allowed to - doing so would give the mafia a chance to talk about the developing daygame that they otherwise wouldn't have. Unless you're planning to let the day run right up to deadline and therefore need to squeeze every available second I don't see the benefit.-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
qwints wrote:I'm as serious about my policy vote as GreyIce and benmage are about their claims.
Hilarious. Please answer again in a way that is useful. What policy?
Ugh I can't play mafia ironically, guess I'll bite the bullet and not get the jokes.
@Benmage: First post looks serious and like a call to arms, the rest seem jokey and don't follow it up. How come.
@GreyICE, inte: Can I have a non-ironic post each from you two please. I'll give you a prompt of "The most interesting post so far" if you're stuck.
@MacDougall: Please post.-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
In post 72, qwints wrote:Leaf, the policy of lynch all claimed scum.
Even for jokes oh right I've already exhausted your dialogue tree, nevermind.
In post 74, GreyICE wrote:It's page 3, sup dawg?
Anyway, I thought post #38 was really interesting and contained some useful insight.
What do you think, Leafsnail?
D-, minimal effort, see me after class.
[quote="In post 73Seriously though, has anything of note happened other than GreyICE's joke claims? Sticking with Ben because of the sheep post.[/quote]
Nothing of note will happen if we all sit around complaining that nothing of note has happened.
@inte ugh-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
qwintz can you please stop being dumb and vote for people based on some kind of reasoning instead of regurgitating catchphrases, thanks.
In post 87, GreyICE wrote:In post 81, Leafsnail wrote:D-, minimal effort, see me after class.
More effort than you, Leafsnail.
Do bother to tell me, what amazing conclusions SHOULD I be drawing about the game so far? Because you've certainly drawn none. You've just sat there and expected the rest of us to draw some, and criticized us when we haven't done your homework for you.
So I need to give you a mild jokey criticism to make you post any substance?Unvote,Vote: GreyICE. How about I suggest that you are just sitting there doing literally nothing except maybe jabbing at anyone who talks to you in the hope that they go away? I don't see how you can complain about not being able to draw inferences from the game so far while also not attempting to create any discussion that might allow you to draw those inferences.-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
In post 103, shos wrote:Leaf do you think that is a scumtell, what you said right now?
I do think that being purely reactive is a scumtell, yes. It suggests you're only getting involved when your survival is on the line.
Re: nameclaiming - It'd allow the mafia to deduce roles, so bad idea.
In post 105, GreyICE wrote:
Don't mind discussion.
Mind people who sit there asking questions and complaining about others not having opinions when they've offered no opinions and answered no questions.
Seems hypocritical at best. At worst it's an awesome way to look town while saying nothing about anyone (which lets you jump on any wagon for any reason).
So answer me: qwintz, town or scum and why?
If you later today change that opinion I will want reasons.
I've answered all questions directed at me (exception: I won't answer "no u" bounceback questions if the other person hasn't). I'm trying to ask questions in order to gain decent opinions because I was finding the game completely unreadable due to virtually every post being ironic and contentless. There's at least something to go on now.
You are scum because you only seem to care about the one player who's asked a serious question of you. I don't get what kind of townie would sit around hoping that mafia will fall into his lap like that. I therefore think town on qwintz because I don't see him bussing so early if he's acting like an idiot anyway. His reaction (or lack of reaction) to getting a bunch of votes felt vaguely townish too.
In post 108, Dunhamganger wrote:Rolefish accusation retracted, of course.
Why are you voting shos exactly. Because it looks more and more like you're just leaving your vote there to avoid attention while making up reasons for voting him post-hoc.
[/quote]In post 111, qwints wrote:Not until the equally dumb play has stopped.
Please tell me what play you think is dumb and should be stopped qwintz.-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
@shos Actually I think qwintz's "inability to express an opinion or take a risk" accusation sounds about right. Do you deny that it's the case? If your excuse is that discussion hasn't been good enough then why haven't you tried to get it moving?
In post 120, MagnaofIllusion wrote:
That’s an interesting premise … what leads you to believe this is true in a Acosmist game at all?
Surely the point of a theme game is that the roles are related at least somewhat to the rolenames? Otherwise it's just "regular mafia with random names attached". Or am I the only one who thinks like that.
Dunham - mafia (thought I implied it in my accusation), not quite as strong a read as GreyICE right now. Waiting on an answer from him about his vote.
Mr.Ree - hasn't been playing at all so I left him null, but I now notice he has actually been online on the site (unlike MacDougall who seems to have vanished). So I lean mafia and I will support a lynch on him if he doesn't start playing.
In post 121, GreyICE wrote:
So your read on Qwintz is 100% based on me being scum.
Bzzzzt
Wrong answer
Vote: Qwintz
Hey Qwintz, lets say he does somehow get me lynched,and I flip town. Tomorrow he can just 180 and go "well, guess GI was town after all, and that means qwintz is scum!"
That's what I mean about leaving options open. It's scummy. And leaf is scum.
So you have a problem with my read of qwintz but no problem with my read on you? Ok then. I like the way your logic requires the premise "GreyICE is town" (bolded) to work. Might as well have just said "I am town, and Leafsnail is attacking me, thereforeqwintzLeafsnail is scum".
Incidentally if we're talking about hypocrisy your options are looking awfully open, what with you saying absolutely nothing about anyone who isn't me.-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
Unvote,Vote: Dunhamganger. You ignored my question in #112 and kept doing the same stupid thing before jumping off shos for no reason. MoI has a nice succinct case in #145, go read it everyone.
In post 145, MagnaofIllusion wrote:
Yes, you are the only one who thinks this way. In fact modern MS site-meta is to take nothing flavor wise for granted (be it how roles relate to flavor or how alignment relates to flavor).
Now I have to go look up your recent game history …
I'll save you the time - my last MS games were in 2010. The last (only, I think) one with rolenames like this was Go Play in Traffic (ugh how the fuck did we lose that game).
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?t=14014
This featured "red light camera, a cop" and "spike strip, a vigilante (with kill flavour "punctured")". Both of these strike me as pretty blatant, especially once the existence of a puncturing vigilante becomes public knowledge.
I'm aware that a claim probably wouldn't allow the mafia to perfectly work out everybody's role, but if the presence of a role is indicated to them (eg they are blocked, a kill is protected from, a player is killed) they may be able to work out which rolename fits that role best. Unless the current site meta is to assign the roles and the flavour they give literally randomly, which strikes me as pointless but whatever.
In post 145, MagnaofIllusion wrote:
So you think a scum-team of GreyICE / Mr.Ree/ Dunham works with qwints as Town?
Yes, that sounds fine. qwintz' more recent posts are decent.-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
In post 159, GreyICE wrote:
It is interesting how my logic requires GreyICE is town to work. On the other hand, the hypothetical involved me being lynched, at which point the question would be a binary "did Acosmith lie to the entire town or did Grey actually flip green?"
So, Leafsnail, if you did somehow lynch me today, is my green flip a green light for you moving onto Qwintz tomorrow, since your entire read on him is based on me being scum?
That's a weird hypothetical but the answer is no. Qwintz is now looking town on his own merits. Mr_Ree and Dunham are the suspects I have other than you.
In post 160, Dunhamganger wrote:inte took a pointless shot at me for not quoting the posts I was referring to (ironically, without quoting the post he was referring to) instead of commenting on the content of the case.
Sooooooo.
Scum?
Leafsnail's getting there too, since he waited for a cue from MoI to actually vote me after pretending that me not answering his liddle baby question was somehow the end of the world.
This is unbelievably dumb. You failed to answer the question (and in doing so failed to explain your shos vote at all) and also jumped votes for a really stupid reason. You haven't even bothered to deny the accusations I've made of you, much less explained them.
In post 174, GreyICE wrote:
I'll sheep you on Dunham tomorrow, Ree is too awful for words.
Leaf, I haven't forgotten about you.
So I'm bussing one of my partners today and putting another on my shortlist? Copying the suspicions of the person you've been accusing for most of the game strikes me as an odd tactic.
But if you want to vote for Dunham then please be my guest. Do it early and it will look less like bussing.
In post 180, shos wrote:Vote: Inte
his posts rub me off badly. arrogance coming off of them, and well, as post 167 said.
Arrogance isn't a scumtell.
In post 193, MagnaofIllusion wrote:So I think it is safe to say your ‘fears’ about mass-name claiming aren’t that strongly founded. Lastly here is a link to the last Philosophy game. Please review it and see if that game supports your fears. I very much doubt it does.
Fair enough, I withdraw that objection to a nameclaim. However, if the rolenames mean nothing with regards to roles and the mafia have fakeclaims (like they did in the linked game) I don't see how a nameclaim would gain us anything at all.
In post 193, MagnaofIllusion wrote:
That’s not my point. My point is that for you to believe qwintz Town and that particular team as scum that Grey would be the only one to get on that early L-2 wagon.
Do you think scum would allow a L-2 wagon on Town to form without making a L-1 vote to perhaps force a claim?
I see no contradiction. Bumping up a flash-wagon to L-1 would attract unwanted attention, so it's hardly a no-brainer action. Especially since Dunham and Ree are both looking to be the cowardly attention avoiding types.-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
In post 201, GreyICE wrote:
Oh you deserve to die. You're already lining up a mislynch of Dunham's flip.
I don't even understand what you're saying here. Vote Dunham.-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
The thing which bothered me about Mr_Ree over the other lurkers was that he was still around and making posts onsite. But now I've realisedFourTroubleis doing exactly the same damn thing. Jesus christ come and post your suspicions guys. What is it about this game that makes you two unable to post here.
Also Dunham's #224 should remove all doubts. I'd like all people who think Dunham is town to complete the sentence "Asking someone about somebody else's alignment is a loaded question because..."
In post 208, Shadow Dancer wrote:Some patience please, the important questions will be dealt with in due time, but not inappropriately rash.
Well, at least some answers to that seem pretty easy after reading through everything.
Pretty certainly dun, but that's no news at all...
Probably ben, at very least he's been frickin' useless so far.
Some people I'll need to ISO to get a better read on, I think... That may take some time.
Also there are still some lurkers around that I find it impossible and too early to get any read at all on, so I am happy with 1 and a half scum reads for now...
Why no vote and/or reasoning on Dun? Why Ben (who has been left unable to post due to Hurricane Sandy) and not any of the other lurkers who are far more suspicious? How about opinions on people who are actually making posts?
You seem to have just taken the prevailing opinion on who is scum and added a random lurker in an attempt to look original. This is a really bad post, and it comes after two days of furious active lurking. You've moved yourself into my top 3 scumreads (now Dunham, GreyICE, Shadow Dancer, with Mr_Ree moved to "please replace out or die to a vig").
In post 221, GreyICE wrote:I have to admit Dunham is utterly horrible beyond all compare.
Then vote him. Also explain how I'm "lining up a mislynch of Dunham's flip".-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
In post 229, GreyICE wrote:No. Because there's no town explanation for Mr_Ree's behavior. Dunham is playing like shit, but Mr_Ree is NOT PLAYING LIKE TOWN.
And you're saying "oh hurr durr Grey won't vote Dunham, even though I won't explain why I think Mr_Ree is town, or what he's done, etc. so he clearly doesn't want to be involved in the lynch lol he's scum."
You just want an excuse to push me tomorrow, because you can't get traction today. Fishing for a mislynch much bro?
@Xis: This is not me and Kast. Leaf is ACTING SCUMMY. Look over his posts, seriously, what makes you so sure he's town?
But the Mr_Ree vote is EXCELLENT.
Mr_Ree is a lurker who has no interest in the game. I certainly wouldn't call him town but he seems like a bad lynch. Dunham has performed multiple unjustifiable actions and the fact that he's actually been playing means it's a better lynch.
Your "fishing for a mislynch" accusation still makes no sense. Your argument revolves around a central assumption that "GreyICE is town".-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
- Maintaining a random vote and suggesting it was serious
- Coming up with a reason for that vote long after it was made... and then immediately dropping it after you realised the reason was wrong. But still maintaining the vote with no reasoning
- Sudden jump away from that vote for a bad reason
- Refusing to answer any questions about the above
- Referring to the most basic question possible as "loaded" and refusing to answer it-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
In post 244, GreyICE wrote:Leafsnail, why do you think Mr_Ree is disinterested in the game?
Tell me, Leaf
Because he wasn't posting in it-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
In post 263, GreyICE wrote:
If I am not interested in a game, I would not be checking it every 30 minutes to read the new posts.
I'd be like "this game is stupid, I'll open it up every once in a while to see what the dumb people in the thread have posted."
Active lurking, Leafsnail. Do you accept it as a scumtell?
What you just described is not active lurking. It's looking at a thread once in a while (the fact that someone responds 30 minutes after your post suggests they might be in the same timezone as you, not that they check every 30 minutes) and not caring enough to make a post. Mr_Ree's (not active) lurking does not seem like a conscious mafia strategy to me since it's at the point where it's causing him a lot more harm than good. It's more a null tell showing lack of engagement in the game.
Mr_Ree wrote:@Xis, yeah. I think so. I would have switched to Dunham a while ago but since both Ben and Grey seem to have such a problem with my current vote, I decided to leave it there until Ben either returns or gets replaced.
Wait, what the hell is this shit. Don't undermine my argument by actually being scum.-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
I'm prepared to cut Benmage some slack today considering he was caught up in a major natural disaster and all.
In post 277, Mr_Ree wrote:How are you not voting shadow?
Doesn't look like Ben is coming back anytime soon.unvote, vote Dunhamganger
Please explain "I would have switched to Dunham a while ago but since both Ben and Grey seem to have such a problem with my current vote, I decided to leave it there until Ben either returns or gets replaced" from #270. What the heck were you saying?
In post 303, Dunhamganger wrote:No one else has come close. Mr_Ree would be the worst offender, obviously, if Benmage hasn't just abused his limited access to throw a vote on the largest wagon for self-acknowledged town cred in MoI's eyes. Leafsnail is being petty and lazy and qwints just the latter, while I don't really understand what shos is doing.
Hmm... how to extract an answer.
Oh lord high Dunham, grand king of mafia and ultimate arbiter on the acceptability of questions, please bless us with your thoughts regarding the alignments of these misguided souls who would dare to vote you. Please do not to speak in certainties, instead speak in vagaries that you'll be able to go back on later should you so choose. Amen.-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
I'd like to draw everyone's attention that Shadow Dancer was posting plenty until three days ago. Then I called him scum in #228. He apparently decided to stop posting in this thread altogether, even though he's still around onsite. I sure hope he has a good explanation for this when he gets back!
In post 311, GreyICE wrote:OTOH I'm this close to just policy lynching Dunham for being angry that Benmage got caught in a major natural disaster.
I can't disagree with the sentiment but this strikes me as one of those "keeping your options open" things you keep complaining about
In post 314, Mr_Ree wrote:@Leafsnail: I don't quite understand what you're asking. What changed my mind? The news. I was looking up pics of the hurricane.
I get that. I don't get why Ben and Grey having a problem with your vote was a reason to keep your vote where it was.-
-
Leafsnail Goon
-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
In post 324, Dunhamganger wrote:See? That's not really scumhunting. That's pretending to produce results by portraying yourself as the catalyst of catching scummy behavior.
I've read this 5 times and I still don't understand what your point is.
In post 326, qwints wrote:I am willing to let Dun live, though I suggest he try to take a bullet ASAP.
Hmm yes ask scum to block their own kill, sounds like a great plan-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
@MoI: How did you go from
In post 304, MagnaofIllusion wrote:FUCK NO. NOW YOU'VE GOTTEN TO THE POINT WHERE YOU PISSED ME OFF WITH THIS CRAP AND THERE IS NO TURNING BACK.
...
SOMEONE HAMMER THIS CHEEKY FUCKING SCUMBAG BEFORE HE FAKE-CLAIMS SO HE DOESN'T OUT A TOWN POWERROLE!
to
In post 348, MagnaofIllusion wrote:
Bodyguard is a pretty damn stupid claim as scum so giving him time to prove it by flipping is the most Pro-Town move.
I really don't get what's so magical about a bodyguard claim, or why someone who was prepared to perform a lynch without a claim would then be convinced by that claim to stand down.
I wouldn't've said the Mr.Ree was a bad lynch so long ago, but it's being led by the worst possible people (Dunham, Grey) . Also Fourtrouble's jumping onto the wagon was terrible and GreyICE's replacing out of the game really irritates me.-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
In post 369, MagnaofIllusion wrote:
Yes it is pretty clear you don’t get it. I’m not generally of the policy of lynching un-counterclaimed Power-roles in Mini Games when nothing about the claim is inherently borked.
So he’s claimed Bodyguard. This leaves us these options.
1. He’s Town and telling the truth – If this is what has happened then he’ll be biting the bullet for some more useful Town sooner or later. Also it gives us some insight into the nature of the set-up with his Town flip.
2. He’s Scum and he’s fake-claiming Bodyguard – Well that means he’s incredibly stupid (aka RedFF level of stupid) and has now assured that he first actual claimed Town Powerrole can’t be killed on Scum’s schedule.
3. He’s Scum and really is a Bodyguard – well then some other killing force is out there and knows they can’t get to the really juicy Scum Roles he protects without killing him first. Problem solved.
If there is anything else going on (like he’s moron Town fake-claiming as VT) well whelp, Mod Blacklist post-game.
Does this help with your understanding?
This answers half of the question. It doesn't explain why you were ok with Dunham being lynched without a claim if a claim was sufficient to make you back off the lynch. "Hammer him without letting him claim" is surely something you only say if you're so sure of someone's guilt that no claim could sway you.
1 is irrelevant because he isn't town. 2 is pretty leaky (he could claim being blocked or strongman scum, or even just take the lynch since he was a dead man walking till he made that claim) and I don't get 3 unless "Dunham, a guy who should have been lynched day one, successfully protects a more valuable member of his team" is meant to be a good thing.-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
shos wrote:Town bodyguard??
Hilarious, please explain your horrible lynch hopping yesterday.Vote: shos.
@projectmatt: You had someone down as scum yesterday. Why not vote them then? You provided some opinions which is better than your predecessor but you didn't say anything of substance on the guy who really mattered, Mr_Ree.
@absta101: Can we have an ETA on that "close"? I'd like you to give particular attention to GreyICE's terrible past play when it arrives.-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
- Why you voted Dunham
- Why you unvoted Dunham and switched to Inte
- Why you revoted Dunham to L-1
- Why you then unvoted Benmage (a person you were not voting for) and switched to Mr_Ree for L-1
- Why you expressed surprise and regret that you put him to L-1 but didn't undo that action
Of all these the only one I can find any logic for is your Inte vote. You said Dunham was bad without any real reason but dropped him until he got to L-2, and didn't provide any reason for dropping that vote. You never provided anything on Mr_Ree except that he became scummier than a guy you weren't voting for, and you again slipped in that L-1 vote.-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
Playing purely reactively.
In post 406, shos wrote:@leaf: I know I wasn't all that hyperactive that I usually am, but since you ask so nicely I'll go over my ISO for you:
I voted Dunham for the first time in 217. as you can see from the next post that I made, this was not jumping on a wagon, since there were three other wagons with the same strength. I voted him because he was my strongest scumread, second to Inte. The only one except me who was voting Inte was dunham himself, so why keep my vote there.
Next I unvoted dunham for his spree of posts. it made me rethink about it, so I put my vote back on Inte. explanation on my inte read you can see in 298 and 302. But that lynch was not going to happen, hence revote dunham in 305.
Then 50 posts later I voted mr. ree for reasons that should be obvious; I kept confusing benmage and dunham in my mind this game, this is why I unvoted wrong. you can see that I also confused in 376, MoI pointed it out I think.
where did I express "regret" on putting him at L-1?? surprise yes, I said Ihad no idea this was L-1; but regret? where did you get that? I specifically said "This time however I will not unvote".
You say Dunham was your strongest scumreadwithout actually saying why, is the issue. Your eagerness to deny a bandwagonning accusation I wasn't making is nice, though.
What "spree of posts" are you talking about? If this spree convinced you to stop voting Dunham I don't see why you'd go back afterwards.
And I guess there was reasoning for your Ree vote if you call jumping on an L-2 wagon with no original thought reasoning
In post 407, projectmatt wrote:
We had several days before the deadline, I didn't say anything of "substance" about Mr Ree (although I actively didn't support his wagon) because like I stated I did not have a lot of time to read more in depth that day. By TOMORROW I meant tomorrow in real life time, not tomorrow in game time. I fully intended to put down a vote after I had a bit more time to read considering I might have seen something else that I would think is worse than what I saw while quickly reading.
That being said, expectactualcontent later today
Most of that's fair enough but if you say someone's scum there's no real reason not to vote them.-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
In post 479, shos wrote:why implausible? O__o I've seen it happen like twice, and never saw a town bodyguard. if scum have a powerful role or something it then bodyguarding him to protect scum power is an option in a game with a vig; and it can also make the vig find a false trail and lead town into mislynching. why would a bodyguard be town??? it only prevents town from being able to NK analysis, and it can only be useful if the bodyguard actually knows who to protect, since unlike a doc, it doesn't save a kill, it just soaks it...
This is ridiculous babbling. Town bodyguards can either shield good players or power roles. There's no way you could miss that. You've already said it was a softclaim, why are you trying to go back on that now?-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
In post 493, shos wrote:Alright. I'm a vig. I've been sorta crumbing this in many places in a way, all the vigbait stuff etc etc. and as I said, there is no reason at all imo for a vig and a bodyguard to exist as town together; if there are two kills per night, the odds of the bodyguard dying N1 is 2/9 +2/11 which is about 40% so didn't think that was logical and shot dunham.
This is unbelievably stupid. How could you be this stupid. I refuse to believe you're this stupid.
I guess we can test yourSKvigilante claim tonight though.Unvote. Kill a useless slot like FourTrouble or inte, tia.
In post 503, projectmatt wrote:I think Shos is real, by the way. Xisiqomelir's case is very misguided which makes me sad because I think that he is town.
PS:Vote: FourTrouble
Do not quicklynch me.
In post 507, projectmatt wrote:the lowest hanging fruit does not mean that they are town. especially when what the "lowest hanging fruit" is amazingly scummy. but eh, benmage, trying to save your partner from a lynch today, huh?
In post 514, projectmatt wrote:I don't have a super strong read but what he's done is bad and the interactions with him are making me think he's a lurker his buddies are desperately trying to protect.
Unvotefor a sec, need to think
VOTE: projectmatt, L-1.
This series of actions make no sense. First you vote FourTrouble (not a terrible vote, but I can't see why he rose above Benmage in your scum ranking), then you defend your read as strong and correct when challenged by one person, but dilute it and drop it when another person goes challenges it. Why? If you didn't have a super strong read on FourTrouble why vote him over Benmage, who you apparently have a strong read on? Why were you prepared to admit your read was relatively weak to absta but not to Benmage? It looks like caving in to pressure to me. Combine this with your not voting for a guy you called scum yesterday and it looks like you're using your vote more as a survival tool than a scumhunting/lynching implement.
Plus you're the same alignment as Shadow Dancer-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
I guess doublevoting explains your reluctance to vote earlier.Unvote.
Is there a reason why you're trying to lynch a nonplayer who's being replaced?
In post 534, Xisiqomelir wrote:A pool is probably better than a single candidate in case scumteam has protective roles too. Fourtrouble definitely belongs in it, and you should VCA off inte's flip for the #2.
I don't like this because it gives an SK a carte blanche to shoot pretty much whoever he likes ("Huh, sorry, I thought Xis' early voting of inte was really suspicious!"). shos is only worth keeping alive if we can keep him to a pool of named people.-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
Xisiqomelir wrote:You are correct, and shos also cannot be trusted to VCA correctly.
I'm thinking this is a good decision tree: "If inte flips scum, shoot Antihero or pmatt. If he flips town, Antihero or qwints".
Thoughts?
I like the general principle, but can Double Voter actually be a scum role? It's always been town when I've seen it before on places like #mafia. If it can be a scum role then I am fine with this decision tree.
In post 559, inte wrote:I'm fine with being lynched as long as one of {FourTrouble, Absta, Benmage, Xis} take the bullet
inte this isn't really your decision to make. I've had trouble reading you up to now due to you not explaining your reasoning at all but there seems to be a strong air of "literally anyone but me" about your posts now that you're being threatened.-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
In post 578, shos wrote:am I the only one who doesn't see why antihero is being voted?
if anti is lynched pool is qwints/inte
You may be a serial killer but this is probably the most sensible post on the entire page. Benmage's attempt to quickhammer for the win seems to have vindicated you.
In post 594, Benmage wrote:With a living vig, and scum never wanting spotlight.
You can mark me down as conftown now.
hmmm yes this is a good argument
VOTE: Benmage
(redirecters)-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
inte, and actually Pjmatt. I was thinking about the plausibility of a scum double-voter, and then realized the last Philosophy Mafia had a freakin' scum daykiller.
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 5#p3156775
There was a condition of having to lynch a buddy first but it would still break lylo. Pjmatt's role is nowhere near as powerful as that.
However, Benmage literally just tried to hammer and win so he's scum.-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
The previous Philosophy Mafia (although scum decided to bus instead). This Philosophy Mafia.
Benmage wrote:Well it would be easy enough (tomorrow, since again its D2), if shos said his shot got redirected, to than look back at a statement like this and analyze it.
I'd rather analyse the possibilities while the game is still happening thanksLast edited by Acosmist on Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
Benmage wrote:No, mafia could have made D3 mylo, but not have won.... lynching and nk-ing successfully D1/D2.
Day 2: 7 town, 3 mafia. 2 mafia players quickhammer a townie. We'll regard them as 100% outed.
Night 2: 6 town, 3 mafia. Mafia kills a townie.
Day 3: 5 town, 3 mafia. A mafia member is lynched.
Night 3: 5 town, 2 mafia. Mafia kills a townie.
Day 4: 4 town, 2 mafia. A townie is daykilled. A mafia member is lynched.
Night 4: 3 town, 1 mafia. Mafia kills a townie.
Day 5: 2 town, 1 mafia. A townie is daykilled. Mafia victory.
Benmage wrote:
But back to this game. There's a vig, or other killing entity, so already different game, different mentality. SO how am I scum, going to quickhammer and not be nk'd?
redirector
bus driver
Benmage wrote:
And if you're so concerned about the game ending today, how the hell does any logic in you jump to redirectors. You want to on the one hand be safe? And on the other hand defend your point with a rarely used role, redirector....
I have no idea what you're saying. I've explained why it's possible for a mafia quickhammer to win today (not sure why you're insisting redirectors are some kind of ultra-rare non-existent role, there was a relatively recent game with one and a bus driver: http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=23350 ).
So what you need to explain is: why did you try to hammer Antihero with no explanation or claim request, if not to win as scum?-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
Scum could daykill twice. Scumdiddaykill twice.
In post 606, Benmage wrote:Read the posts 582-594 again.
Then ask yourself, why the person I "quickhammered" isn't voting me.
Then apologize.
*reads dumb posts with no helpful information*
Antihero was voting you at the time you made this post. Whether he's prepared to gloss over a scumclaim as "poor impulse control" is irrelevant to my point in any case.-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
-
-
Leafsnail
-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
In post 622, projectmatt wrote:Hi. Hammer on Qwints.
"Hmm, I think this guy is scum because in one game there was a scum role with a somewhat powerful and yet different power." -Leafsnail.
You're not actually reading me but you are speculating into whether or not my role is scum - how on earth does my role being even possible for mafia translate into that player being mafia? Stop being paranoid and lynch the mafia.
I'm not saying you're scum, just that your role doesn't clear you. People clearing players for dumb reasons loses games.
In post 623, Antihero wrote:There was plenty of "fuck you" to go around after I cross-voted him (and he still believed he had hammered)... >_>
Your argument still rests on the existance of exotic roles. Nah, I think it's more likely that the scum are among inte/qwints or both.
There was "fuck you" after you pointed out to him that he hadn't hammered and he needed to make up a justification. A genuine anger hammerer would surely give that fuck you out first.
I do not disagree with you about inte or qwintz, but 3 scum is the standard in a 12 player game and I'd rather lynch the scum claimer. And even if it relies on "exotic" (ie slightly uncommon) roles I cannot see a better explanation for Benmage's victoryhammer.-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
-
-
Leafsnail
-
-
Leafsnail Goon
-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
In post 466, qwints wrote:So shos, you think it's more likely that there was 1 shot at Dunhum and 1 shot at MoI than2 shots at MoIwith a Dunham protect?
Post 523 and 541 are also implying the same thing as far as I can tell (either that or you're just saying there's a roleblocker in a weirdly accusatory and persistent way).-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
If qwints is telling the truth the scenario that works best is clearly
- Mafia killed MoI with an untrackable kill
- Dunham was blocked (he was an outed protective role, not exactly hugely unlikely)
- Vig/ SK killed Dunham
But herein lies the problem with qwints' claim - he attacked shos for lying about his action even though he should've known better than anyone that he was likely telling the truth. In other words it seems like he made up his inspection result after the fact, and he's failed to provide adequate explanation for the contradiction here.
In post 646, qwints wrote:I still don't understand the shos = town vig scenario. (I also think that the benmage/dunham confusion is pretty weird. Looking back, he made the mistake both when he unvoted and when he was commenting on the bodyguard claim being unlikely).
Here's the thought process it would require:
Shos day 1: A town bodyguard can't exist in the same game as a vig. I should risk outing myself to get Dunham lynched! It's still possible that he's a scum bodyguard though.
Night 1: I have to shoot Dunham now! Even though 1) Dunham's promised to protect obv-town and MoI is an obvious target; and 2) Dunham-scum is likely to be lynched anyway if he survives to end game.
Day 2: Oh wow, I was wrong! I better tell people by saying "Town bodyguard??" rather than claiming the shot that is bound to bring me attention.
On the other hand, the plan to force shos to kill who we say or lynch him is worth pursuing for at least one night. If, which seems unlikely, he's town then the mafia can't let him live long. That's probably true as well for a SK. And scum-shos gets outed if another vig or 3rd party shows up.
I agree that Dunham would be a bad vigkill. On the other hand he'd be an even worse SK kill, and your inspection result should have eliminated the possibility that Dunham caught shos' attack somewhere else.
In post 647, qwints wrote:Leaf, note that I'm also talking about a scenario with Dunham protecting MoI in 466. The only result I received is that Dunham protected MoI and my play's been based on that.
Look at the whole of 466
In post 466, qwints wrote:So shos, you think it's more likely that there was 1 shot at Dunhum and 1 shot at MoI than 2 shots at MoI with a Dunham protect?
Would the former have resulted in both Dunham and MoI dead ifDunham protected MoI?
I've been operating under the belief that shos's claim is inconsistent with my result.
It's a scenario where Dunham is protecting MoI... and also two people are attacking MoI. Two people who somehow slipped past you. Would you really expect to see a game where your role is useless against both scum factions?
shos' claim is consistent with your result, and I don't get why you think otherwise. You already said you accept that Dunham was blocked and that a mafia member slipped past you, which means that under your logic someone must've attacked Dunham. Yet you gave a lot of shit to the guy who claimed exactly that.-
-
Leafsnail Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 753
- Joined: December 31, 2009
We have four claimed PRs. The two which are town or probable town are not overly strong (Bodyguard is a weaker doctor, double voter who can't hide his ability is a weaker double voter). One of them is looking relatively likely to be an SK, and vig isn't the best town PR anyway. The last one is qwints who is scum. Considering this I think it's pretty likely there's another town PR we'd be pointlessly outing in a massclaim when we could just lynch scum instead.
-
-
-