Open 680.1 C9++ | Endgame

[Alchemist21]

I can either explain it to you and it will be awkward, or we can just accept that you didn't realise I was being sarcastic and move on.

I mean I can't really argue with you if you say it was meant to be sarcastic, but when multiple people are asking you a serious question when trying to get a read on you, sarcasm isn't the answer. Ircher tried that shit too in the last game.

[Umlaut]

Actually, all the examples I can find are directed at me. It's possible I'm just an egomaniac.

He also took Titus' case against me from 1220, 1224 and parroted it back in 1234 even though it was terrible. Others (well, Shannon) followed it but he repeated it as if he'd thought of it himself.

See now that one makes a little more sense. I think it might just be your confbias from the last game talking here though. Someone said the exact thing about me when I voted you (something about "agreeing 200%") and I was Town. You just remember Comm doing it because he was scum in that game.

(nothing wrong with being an egomaniac like me though)

oh shit it was Umlaut who made the 200% comment lol

...which kind of proves your point, doesn't it.

Shit did I just scumread everyone who voted me last game?

[Alchemist21]

Well I'm pretty sure Umlaut's Town now.

[davesaz]

So that catchup had a lot less content than I expected, after subtracting all the math talk.
Gamblers fallacy is fun to watch (and exploit!) in RL. I love to be the mathematician at a hold-em table of optimists.

@Comm, thanks for the tier explanation. I think you forgot to explain the reads.

Titus is abnormally quiet, and despite how she reacted the other time I saw her this way and called her on it, I think it is indeed AI for her.
VOTE: Titus

[shannon]

I can either explain it to you and it will be awkward, or we can just accept that you didn't realise I was being sarcastic and move on.

I mean I can't really argue with you if you say it was meant to be sarcastic, but when multiple people are asking you a serious question when trying to get a read on you, sarcasm isn't the answer. Ircher tried that shit too in the last game.

Ah so that's where we're missing each other; you're trying to ask a serious question about something I said just out of hand.

[FireScreamer]

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Comm

This gamblers fallacy stuff is lol. Time to pressure Comm till he reveals it was all a ruse and he is actually 1 shot doc pretending to be scummy.

And come on guys what are the odds of him doing that twice in a row

[FireScreamer]

Dave can you provide links to early day 1 scum Titus being quiet and early day 1 town Titus being active?

[Narna]

It's about determining whether it's scum or townlol. You think scum has reason to commit blatant logical fallacies? Or worse, is the CK who fooled everyone last game a total shitter?

[FireScreamer]

Eh. Usually I'd assume it's a town gambit but Commknight has already shown a willingness to make plays as scum. I don't think he should be gambiting and if that is what he is doing the quickest way to shut it down is votes.

[CommKnight]

Look at that OMGUS vote. I'm interested in what we can squeeze out of you FS.

@Dave, It's a pretty simple tier. Not lynch D1 is just my gamble of them not rolling scum again. The TR's are TR's. Neutral, I got nothing on. Honestly the Umlaut/FS duo I'm interested in. Also Umlaut even admitted he's SR'ing all the ones who voted him last game.

@FS, No, not a 1-shot Doc. Don't you know? The mod broke the game and made me a Jester-Vig-3rdParty-Vampire. I can bite in the day and shoot at night and if I'm lynched I win.

[FireScreamer]

Even is this was OMGUS that's NAI. However I challenge anyone in the thead to seriously decide that I wouldn't scumread you for this if it was targeting anyone else.

[FireScreamer]

I warn you Comm. If you try and take me down here you will lose. If you are town you need to reconsider suiciding based on a provable logical fallacy. It would leave town with nothing to go on tomorrow.

[CommKnight]

I warn you Comm. If you try and take me down here you will lose.

If you are town you need to reconsider suiciding based on a provable logical fallacy. It would leave town with nothing to go on tomorrow.

That isn't an argument that says you're town. That in fact points more towards a threat. If that is indeed how you wish to play it, we'll do it that way.

[shannon]

Oooh err it's getting interesting.

If I knew how to put gifs in I'd do the popcorn one

[FireScreamer]

I've already made a statement in the thread I wouldn't have as scum. And I assure you it wasn't a threat. It was a certainty.

[FireScreamer]

If people come at me with questions in an attempt to sort me il work with them. If people come with accusations based in provably flawed logic I'm going to treat it as hostility.

[FireScreamer]

If this is town vs town and you tunnel me down scum will just hop on the side that is making sense. That isn't your side.

[FireScreamer]

Generally I bet that this is reaction test nonsense in which case I'd tell you that you don't have town credability doing this so knock it off.

[Green Crayons]

The math stuff is dumb because everyone (should) recognize that what you rolled last game has no causative effect on what you rolled this game BUT ALSO any given player has less of a chance to roll scum twice in a row in the same game setup (4/13 + 4/13 = 8/26) than roll scum once and then town once in the same game setup (4/13 + 9/13= 13/26). Also that math is very simplified because not every game has a set 4 anti-town slots but the general principle is there.

But that's not the point.

The point is that Comm is like "well obv probabilities matter super most and therefore I'm not going to vote D1 for anyone who rolled scum last game" when he himself rolled scum last time, thereby (1) broadly laying the bad groundwork for why we shouldn't vote him D1 and also (2) planting the buddying seeds in the minds of his prior game scumbuddies' minds that they definitely shouldn't vote him either.

[Green Crayons]

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Comm

This gamblers fallacy stuff is lol. Time to pressure Comm till he reveals it was all a ruse and he is actually 1 shot doc pretending to be scummy.

And come on guys what are the odds of him doing that twice in a row

AGV

AGP

[Green Crayons]

I can either explain it to you and it will be awkward, or we can just accept that you didn't realise I was being sarcastic and move on.

I mean I can't really argue with you if you say it was meant to be sarcastic, but when multiple people are asking you a serious question when trying to get a read on you, sarcasm isn't the answer.

Ircher tried that shit too in the last game.

Was he scum?
Is it alignment indicative?

[shannon]

It's so weird playing another game with the same people, it's like we're in a continuation of that one somehow.

[Umlaut]

The math stuff is dumb because everyone (should) recognize that what you rolled last game has no causative effect on what you rolled this game BUT ALSO any given player has less of a chance to roll scum twice in a row in the same game setup (4/13 + 4/13 = 8/26) than roll scum once and then town once in the same game setup (4/13 + 9/13= 13/26). Also that math is very simplified because not every game has a set 4 anti-town slots but the general principle is there.

[Umlaut]

Time to pressure Comm till he reveals it was all a ruse and he is actually 1 shot doc pretending to be scummy.

Why did you say this?

[shannon]

The math stuff is dumb

because everyone (should) recognize that what you rolled last game has no causative effect on what you rolled this game BUT ALSO any given player has less of a chance to roll scum twice in a row in the same game setup (4/13 + 4/13 = 8/26) than roll scum once and then town once in the same game setup (4/13 + 9/13= 13/26). Also that math is very simplified because not every game has a set 4 anti-town slots but the general principle is there.

Shun the non-believer, shun, shuuuuuuuun