Open 680.1 C9++ | Endgame

[ThinkBig]

VC 1.5

Official Vote Count

Necta

(3): davesaz, Alchemist21, CommKnight

Umlaut

(3): Green Crayons, Narna, FireScreamer

Brian Skies

(1): Titus

Alchemist21

(1): RoryMK

FireScreamer

(1): FrankJaeger

FrankJaeger

(1): shannon

shannon

(1): Umlaut

Not Voting

(2): Brian Skies, Necta

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Deadline

: (expired on 2017-05-03 20:06:48)

[Titus]

VOTE: shannon

[FireScreamer]

VOTE: shannon

Is anyone allowed to ask why or are you wanting to engage Shannon herself?

[Green Crayons]

Is this one of those things whereby acknowledging the vote itself disrupts the reaction test?

[Green Crayons]

Also, why'd Titus have to jump in front of my shannon vote?

I very obviously telegraphed it.

It's coming. Just you wait.

[Titus]

VOTE: shannon

Is anyone allowed to ask why or are you wanting to engage Shannon herself?

You can ask.

[FireScreamer]

Why?

[Narna]

Oh lordy, I need to lay off the vodka redbulls.

VOTE: Umlaut

[davesaz]

Sounds like a good thing to be careful with.
Got a reason for the vote?

[Narna]

Umlaut and Titus are voting together. Given the events of last game, one or both should be scum.

[shannon]

Shannon why are you offering to recind a vote if it makes someone uncomfortable?

It's not a literal offer, it's intended to show that the vote is not Serious.

^^That's what makes me think faux claims. Also no one else is taking it seriously as they would if it was a real claim. I always policy vote fake claims, no matter how fake,

You didn't vote Titus last game for fakeclaiming "two letters."

When she first claimed I thought it was real. When she rescinded it I already had a town read on her, *and* a scum read on the person she had tried to fake out. In that instance, voting Titus might have shifted the whole game in a way I didn't want it to go.

@shannon:

Because they're both making faux claims and I thought it was time to change things up

If you suspect them both, why change it up when the first one was already gaining votes (and was a wagon you started)? What makes you think they're faux claims?

I'm interested in your answer to this question.

I've never been a mason so I don't know exactly how I'd claim, but I think 'Hey mason buddy' 'Don't out us yet, buddy' kind of stuff is not the way.

Umlaut and Titus are voting together. Given the events of last game, one or both should be scum.

I think the last game might introduce some biases here that aren't helpful, to say the least.

[shannon]

PS I will be out a lot for the next three days with a work thing. I will be able to post in the evenings but not during the day.

[Titus]

Why?

Vuz lols

[CommKnight]

On a serious note. VOTE: FireScreamer.

His play feels off from last game.

{FrankJaeger, Brian Skies, Narna}
{Alchemist, Green Crayons}
{davesaz, Titus, shannon, RoryMK, Necta}
{Umlaut, FireScreamer}

If FireScreamer is red, I'm willing to bet Shannon is too.

VOTE: shannon

Is anyone allowed to ask why or are you wanting to engage Shannon herself?

Also, the likelyhood of mafia last game being mafia this game will actually probably be unlikely. So I'm pretty confident in the team being green this time around. But TB definitely rolled some of our bloc from last game as red this one. I'm willing to bet on it being FS of all people.

[Green Crayons]

I've never been a mason so I don't know exactly how I'd claim, but I think 'Hey mason buddy' 'Don't out us yet, buddy' kind of stuff is not the way.

The question focused on why you switched from Suspect #1 to Suspect #2, when both suspects were doing the same suspicious thing. I don't think you answered that yet.

[Green Crayons]

@Comm:

Also, the likelyhood of mafia last game being mafia this game will actually probably be unlikely.

What role someone was last game doesn't have any impact on their chances of rolling scum this game.

[davesaz]

@CommKnight:

Please explain Frank, Narna, and Necta. There may be more but this should be quite sufficient for now.
Also the tiers could use some labels as there are at least two ways they might be interpreted.

[FrankJaeger]

If I were scum I'd be more likely to...

As scum I'd actively...

What makes it way easier?

I've done something actually AI...

But yeah. I feel like I've done something this game that I actively wouldn't do as scum ...

All of these posts are bothering me.
Half of them look like coaching. Im not sold on that though.
Fire is putting alot into how he is being perceived. Which isnt a BIG deal but it seems like thats where his effort is right now.

[FrankJaeger]

@Comm:

Also, the likelyhood of mafia last game being mafia this game will actually probably be unlikely.

What role someone was last game doesn't have any impact on their chances of rolling scum this game.

Well...

[FrankJaeger]

I think it would be less likely to roll scum twice in a row.

Umy, does the math confirm this?

[Narna]

It is less likely, but at the end of the day it's kind of arbitrary. I was scum in my last game on the site, so I'm less likely to be scum now. It seems like a bit of a fallacy.

[Narna]

I see CommKnight has turned a new leaf. I'm not sure on the FS read, but I'm a big fan of the new CK.

[Narna]

@CommKnight:

Please explain Frank, Narna, and Necta. There may be more but this should be quite sufficient for now.
Also the tiers could use some labels as there are at least two ways they might be interpreted.

Explain the postless Necta read.

uh..

[Umlaut]

I think it would be less likely to roll scum twice in a row.

Umy, does the math confirm this?

No, this is basically the gambler's fallacy. You can say in advance of both games that someone is unlikely to roll scum twice in a row, but once they've rolled scum once they're already "halfway there" so to speak, and are just as likely as anyone else to roll scum in the second game.

(Phoneposting and a little buzzed, will write about the actual game later)

[FrankJaeger]

Man that is counter intuitive in my brain