In post 286, Rectiplanes wrote:That guy showed up and hammered before this game was much more than half a day old (blitz game is that way, folks) and Monkey got to talk in twilight.
Did he want Looker the quickhammerer lynched?
No, he wanted more conventionally scummy guys picked apart. He wanted us to look at guys like Knightmare and Umlaut.
Why do his reads have any credibility? Yeah he was town, doesn't mean that his reads were any good.
Love the cherry picking you have done this game Knightmare.
Oh, and if Knightmare really thinks his solve could be wrong, he would be trying to sort Umlaut. He hasn't been doing that because he's waiting to hear Recti's take before defining a stance. Let's get Knightmare's read on Umlaut before Recti gives his solve.
Yeah because monkey was wrong about me and I know that....?
And his read on me was based on one sentence, whereas Planes has a lot more to analyse.
"Don't be afraid of losing people. Be afraid of losing yourself by trying to please everyone."
"If you're bored contemplate the fact that the collective reads of n players in a n-player game of Mafia define a set of vectors in an n-space, and useful game information can be extracted from this."
~Rectiplanes
After work tomorrow I'll reread everything and ask some questions. In the meantime, today we have LuckyLuciano vs Votato. One of them is scum. For the sake of argument let's say we lynch correctly. Day Four LyLo will almost certainly be Umlaut, Knightmare, and the winner of the LuckyLuciano/Votato 1vs1.
It's probably helpful to discuss who people think is the scum out of Umlaut/Knightmare as well, to generate some associatives for town to work with tomorrow and maybe complicate scum's life a bit today. Everyone agree?
In post 688, votato wrote:We want to make sure we don't get sidetracked and spend too much time focusing on tomorrow. we need to get through today as well. there's also the possibility that both lucky and i are scum.
Posting from my phone. Will be at my PC tonight. Note that when Recti looks ahead to tomorrow and acknowledges that the second scum is likely in {Umlaut, Knightmare}, Votato does 2 things.
(1) He moves the discussion back to today. Everyone knows that there is at least 1 scum been me and Votato. As town, I know it's him. If he's town, he knows I'm scum and should
want
to discuss my possible scum partner with Recti, who is conftown and dies tonight. Redirecting discussion from tomorrow to today doesn't jive well with a player who, if town, would know that I am scum.
(2) He mentions that both he and I could be scum together. While true, if he is town then he knows that it is in fact
not
possible for us to be scum together. There is literally no town motive for him to entertain that thought. All it does is inject unnecessary wifom into our associations. It also comes across as conceding that he will flip scum and he's looking to shape what happens after his lynch.
1) i didn't say we should ignore tomorrow. We just can't get so caught up in tomorrow that we forget today.
2) yes. I know that. Even if I'm scum i know that though. He doesn't, and he seems to be ignoring a possibility, even if it is unlikely. I'm not looking to shape what happens after my lynch. I'm looking to shadow what happens after yours
"It is not our ignorance that will kill us, but our arrogance"
"I expect that 90% of what you say to me is one form of trickery or another" - a friend irl
In post 694, LuckyLuciano wrote:Knightmare, let's play a game. Vote me. When Umlaut doesn't hammer he is confirmed town. Let's narrow the PoE. If I'm wrong and the scumteam is Umlaut + Votato, you can blame me for the loss.
that's a super risky strategy as town, because he auto loses if he's wrong. As scum there's no risk because either km is scum so umlaut won't hammer, or umlaut is scum and still won't hammer.
"It is not our ignorance that will kill us, but our arrogance"
"I expect that 90% of what you say to me is one form of trickery or another" - a friend irl
In post 702, LuckyLuciano wrote:Oh, and if Knightmare really thinks his solve could be wrong, he would be trying to sort Umlaut. He hasn't been doing that because he's waiting to hear Recti's take before defining a stance. Let's get Knightmare's read on Umlaut before Recti gives his solve.
what have you done to sort Umlaut?
"It is not our ignorance that will kill us, but our arrogance"
"I expect that 90% of what you say to me is one form of trickery or another" - a friend irl
"It is not our ignorance that will kill us, but our arrogance"
"I expect that 90% of what you say to me is one form of trickery or another" - a friend irl
Btw, the offer for KM to vote me to test Umlaut works because based on everything that KM had said up to that point indicated no reason to think Umlaut is scummy. That he now says maybe he's wrong means either he has a reason to scumread Umlaut that he isn't sharing or he's going to wait until Recti posts to shape his stance on Umlaut based on how Recti frames the game. If you don't want KM to take a stance on Umlaut before Recti does, you are rejecting an opportunity to understand the thought process of the players in the PoE
In post 711, LuckyLuciano wrote:Btw, the offer for KM to vote me to test Umlaut works because based on everything that KM had said up to that point indicated no reason to think Umlaut is scummy. That he now says maybe he's wrong means either he has a reason to scumread Umlaut that he isn't sharing or he's going to wait until Recti posts to shape his stance on Umlaut based on how Recti frames the game. If you don't want KM to take a stance on Umlaut before Recti does, you are rejecting an opportunity to understand the thought process of the players in the PoE
it only works if you're right. what if you're wrong about either me or KM?
"It is not our ignorance that will kill us, but our arrogance"
"I expect that 90% of what you say to me is one form of trickery or another" - a friend irl
what if you're wrong about yourself? what if you're the scum? what if this is all a dream and there is no mafia? Al Gore didnt invent the internet, you are just a figment of his imagination. He's having a super vivid dream because the year is 1993 and hes hiding in a broom closet in the White House while Monica Lewinski and daddy Bill are outside, and this dream is how hes blocking out the thought of his one true love, Bill Clinton, making love to someone else.
"It is not our ignorance that will kill us, but our arrogance"
"I expect that 90% of what you say to me is one form of trickery or another" - a friend irl
"Don't be afraid of losing people. Be afraid of losing yourself by trying to please everyone."
"If you're bored contemplate the fact that the collective reads of n players in a n-player game of Mafia define a set of vectors in an n-space, and useful game information can be extracted from this."
~Rectiplanes
"It is not our ignorance that will kill us, but our arrogance"
"I expect that 90% of what you say to me is one form of trickery or another" - a friend irl
"Don't be afraid of losing people. Be afraid of losing yourself by trying to please everyone."
"If you're bored contemplate the fact that the collective reads of n players in a n-player game of Mafia define a set of vectors in an n-space, and useful game information can be extracted from this."
~Rectiplanes
oh, maybe I know how nvm.
I just said that cuz he ruined this game(more or less)
[clarification]
Spoiler:
"Don't be afraid of losing people. Be afraid of losing yourself by trying to please everyone."
"If you're bored contemplate the fact that the collective reads of n players in a n-player game of Mafia define a set of vectors in an n-space, and useful game information can be extracted from this."
~Rectiplanes
The more the two of you collectively try to dismiss my {KM, votato} solve by defending one another, and with random distractive shitposting, and by just making the sharpest 180 degrees turn I have ever fucking seen since being called the scumteam, the more your entire set of interactions prior to being called the scumteam looks like theater.
In post 636, Knightmare491 wrote:Your theory of a knightmare+votato scum team includes multiple leaps of logic.
Plays that we do not need to do as scum, to make the game harder for ourselves.
In a game where there is no info to be gained from day 1 and the player who qhed is juicy ML bait.
We do not need to start bussing since the start of day 2. Say one of us get lynched and the other doesn't get killed that immediately puts the attention on the other player.
It's a terrible play to make and totally needless. All of which you conveniently seem to be ignoring.
In post 562, Knightmare491 wrote:@Planes you can see the difference in Lucky in this game and Newbie 1995. No colored VCs, nothing.
KM's entire scumread of me is associative with Votato. Why does he prompt Recti to make an association-independent scumread on me instead of elaborating the case himself?
because there is literally no content in this stupid fucking game and looker just gave mafia 2 free lynches.
Also Knightmare: I'm waiting for Recti to post his reads which are going to be based on
so much content
.
In post 695, Knightmare491 wrote:I would've done that if Planes had, had his say. Right now I don't want to do that and lose in case it is votato+umalaut.
In post 703, Knightmare491 wrote:Yeah because monkey was wrong about me and I know that....?
And his read on me was based on one sentence, whereas Planes has a lot more to analyse.
"It is not our ignorance that will kill us, but our arrogance"
"I expect that 90% of what you say to me is one form of trickery or another" - a friend irl
Spoiler: Lucky-votato interactions, Day 2 (continued)
In post 418, votato wrote:ok lucky, im not sure what game you're reading, but that narrative isnt remotely accurate. here's what really happened (note that most posts have been excluded, but i feel that this is a representative sample):
[long list of posts establishing that votato pushed Knightmare]
sorry, thats a really long wall. but what lucky said just isnt true.
In post 429, votato wrote:lucky: while we're sitting here, care to address the wallpost i made?
This is really off. If Lucky is interested in arguing that votato is scum, he ought to respond to that wall if only to reiterate his case. If votato wants his wall addressed, he should be at least somewhat indignant when Lucky blows him off.
In post 455, LuckyLuciano wrote:Fuck it, I'm done with this idiot. VOTE: Looker. VOTE: Looker. I used my double vote, he's hammered.
In post 508, votato wrote:My solve rn is {Km, lucky}. I don't like how they've buddied, i don't like KM's thought process, lucky's case on me was god-awful. But looker is also so damn scummy. and then there's you over here lurking away. But a solve requires two, and the two i see are KM and lucky.
In post 511, votato wrote:yeah im definitely paranoid. but of the four scummy people, I've narrowed it to two that are actually scum, and one useless asshat (well really two) that we can afford to mislynch. Or I'm wrong about it being KM and lucky and it is looker with umlaut. either way, the game is more or less solved.
In post 514, LuckyLuciano wrote:"I've narrowed down the PoE from 'everyone' to, 'everyone who isn't an IC'"
In post 515, LuckyLuciano wrote:"Within this group, I have split it between people who are probably scum, and people who look scummy enough that we can mislynch them, and I'm okay with mislynching them for reasons."
If Lucky and votato are scum together then it's sort of surprising Lucky would keep picking on votato here, but not if we've already established the plan is to powerbus votato.
In post 530, votato wrote:lucky doesn't appear to be on the table here. I'm down for that lynch too. Also lynching him doesn't do as much to solve the game. Lynching km gives a 95% solve, looker an 85% solve, but lucky gives like a 60% solve. Km and looker give poe on each other. A lucky lynch doesn't give that
I honestly just don't even understand what kind of position votato is giving on Lucky here. He should want to lynch whoever he most thinks is scum, and even if he's scum he should want to lynch whoever he
says
he most thinks is scum, but here he is bringing up "I really want to lynch Lucky" but like not even trying to make a case there. I suppose I can appreciate Looker as a survival vote though.
A couple of general conclusions here:
votato is way scummier individually than Lucky is.
If the team is {Lucky, votato}, then Lucky is not just distancing but hard-busing his partner and has been doing so since Day 2.
I could believe scum!Lucky would hard-bus his partner, if his partner were as scummy as votato.
I need to reconsider the {Knightmare, votato} possibility, since my whole aversion to it was based on assuming it was unlikely scum would fight their buddy so hard. One way or another, scum fought their buddy so hard, so I have to think more about which is most likely.
“There are two kinds of people in this world: those who say, ‘There are two kinds of people in this world: those who say there are two kinds of people in this world,
In post 636, Knightmare491 wrote:Your theory of a knightmare+votato scum team includes multiple leaps of logic.
