responding to the prod.
+ agree with Lowell on post 29
Why did you decide to vouch for him? Did you not realize what jerubbaal was trying to accomplish by questioning Mafiaplayer?Sammich wrote:Blah blah blah, if everyone thought that JDodge would be spamming goatse.
I guess I can vouch for him because I just got called a townie in my role pm.Mafiaplayer wrote:Okay, I roleclaim vanilla townie.
It's been a while since I had a night start, I'm having fun.
Immat chooses to use hyperbole to show us that he's displeased with the recent developments.Immat wrote:...Is this whole game going mad? Is every Townie going to claim right here and now and the Scum will have perfect cover? I can't believe the turn this game has taken. Why, Sammich, did you also play the stupid card and give a potential Scum an easy out?Can we just restart this whole game, theres very little chance of Town coming back from this...
Correct. My voting wasn't tried to test you. I voted you because I thought your were scummy. But your response must have been satisfactory, because I unvoted u.Imat wrote:I don't buy that you voted me to see if I'd panic. Your evidence showed me to be Pro-Town, and you only had that one point. Hardly enough for even Scum to panic over. Also, that you were checking if I'd panic seems to be an excuse to not answer my questions. I'm really not liking your play here Near, unless you can come up with a very good defense I think I'll park my vote on you and be as confident as possible given the nature of the game.
didn't you get a newbie of the year award or something. or am i confusing you with someone else.jerubbaal wrote:I actually have a reputation? That's a new one on me.
i'm not OMGUSing, really. my townie argument could be crap but that was the impression I got re-reading your posts. you are too logical you are too poised . i could be wrong.jerubbaal wrote: @Near - the "too townie" argument is completely crap. You're obviously OMGUSing (I wouldn't necessarily call that a scum tell for newbies all the time). You're still flailing about trying to find something to stick. This is pretty consistent with your MO thus far.
Didn't we already have a vig die? Is it possible (how about likely) that there is more than one?XReyoX wrote: On top of that, if MP is a vig, I'm just saying as an example, it could be killing the most protown people with its power.
I am still not sure about this. I will quote your two posts here:jerubbaal wrote: Near, I made it quite clear that the meta evidence I cited to vote Lowell the first time was extremely minor. Do learn to recognize sarcasm in type, it makes the game much more fun when people don't get anal about it.
jerubbaal wrote: After my extensive and rigorous metagaming of the 4 or so games avinashv has joined in something like a week's time (crazy noob), I'm going to Unvote, Vote: Lowell
At least in your second post, it seems that you gave this (or try to pretend that you have) quite a thought. I do not believe you when you say you were trying to be sarcastic.jerubbaal wrote: My meta on Lowell is simply that he's in another game with avinashv, in which consensus seems to be that avinashv is town. So he has additional motivation to kill someone who knows his playstyle and seems to be competent at the game. Scum tend to kill people they know might be threats, and there's some basis of knowledge here.
I believe there was someone else in the thread (don't recall who, I'll post it up in a minute) who was in a thread with avinashv, but the thread was on something like page 2. It's possible to have a read on page 2, but pretty unlikely enough to warrant killing. Or they could simply have killed avinashv because they recognized his name and didn't want overlap between their games.
I can accept the fact that you think so. But in my newbie mind, we are still in the very early game (page 6?) and this meta game thing isn't something we should ignore at the moment.jerubbaal wrote:Voting on minor stuff is good play in the early game, you can't get reactions unless you poke people.
Limit town's focus? How? Do you mean that I am trying to distract other townies by speculating on a confusing either/or situation? Is this really common? To me, this seems like an unlikely way for a newbscum to deliberately come up with in order to confuse town.On the other hand, you're still exuding scum tells. Setting up that either/or/both situation is something you see newbscum do all the time to try to limit the town's focus. Plus your reasoning is entirely speculative, with absolutely no basis. The reaching continues. As well as the OMGUS.
- your rolling dice in real game. and voting for urself. IMO, the probability of your being a townie AND getting the dice result to vote for yourself (1/11) is very small that it makes me think that probability of your being scum AND rigging the dice result to vote for yourself in order to show us that you are "fair" is significantly higher.Sammich wrote:Lolwut?Near wrote: Sammich: for reasons stated before by me and other people
Please be fair and give me a proper suspicion too.
At the time i wrote that post, it was mostly a gibberish. You should ignore it. But what do you think about this:XReyoX wrote:Near:Near wrote:jerubbaal is acting too townie, it feels like he's aligning his posts to use as defense later.
Sorry that i didn't ask you earlier, but could you clarify a bit more about how jerubbaal was aligning his posts?
Ok, here's yet another speculation by me, but isn't he trying too hard to look townie here?jerrubaal wrote:Top left corner of the box in your role PM, what is it? You have something there, I guarantee.
Incorrect. I don't think anyone has yet expressed his/her suspicion of jerubbaal. And my reason for suspecting Lowell is different. At any rate, I don't think this is very relevant to what you are trying to sayImat wrote:
But, on topic again, I don't like Near's post 164. Every player on his Scum list is there based on other people's evidence.
Do not put words in my mouth. I gave a reason for why I think you are not a scum. It's good that you are trying to make a point, but be accurate.Imat wrote: 3 out of 4 players on his Town list were, according to him, there for basically no reason. I'm on there for "The benefit of the doubt,"
Why? Because it looks like I am trying to buddy up with people? Isn't this another WIFOM situation? Saying I think someone is less likely to be a scum COULD be an attempt to buddy up, but it could also be an expression of my opinion. And if buddying up is considered scummy, scums would avoid it.Imat wrote: and while I enjoy being thought of as Pro-Town, any player putting somebody on their Pro-Town list for that reason is Scummy.
True, but I did mention this in my post - that it is interesting that I get the feeling that they are town even though they accuse me.Imat wrote: He openly calls Incognito Scummy and only provides Scummy evidence, yet he is on the Town list. Thats even worse than my "Benefit of the Doubt."
Let me ask you, do you think MP is a scum? I think the fact that he was confused when answering his role, as opposed to saying something else that's close to "townsperson" is a good evidence that he's not a scum.Imat wrote: MP is on the Town list for being able to state the exact name, the fact that he could only do so after being reminded of the Mod's post doesn't figure into this at all.
Funny how at least one person in my scum list (jerubbaal) accuses me of OMGUSing and two people on my non-scum list accuse me of trying to buddy up with them. Neither. I am expressing my opinion regardless how speculative (as brought up by jerubbaal) and scummy you might find my reasons to be.Imat wrote: XreyOX is the only player on Near's Town list with relatively sound Pro-Town reasons. Otherwise the list seems to be buddying up to certain players and distancing from others. What disturbs me is the fact that he buddies up to the players who attack him. Question mark?
I think it can help the scum help decide who they should kill. For example, I would guess that it might seem more advantageous for scums to kill a person who no one suspects is mafia than someone everyone is suspicious of. (Is this what you are thinking of?) But on the other hand, when this logic is applied once more to the night time killing pattern, it could become another instance of WIFOM.Imat wrote:
Also, the idea of a list doesn't sit well with me at all. A list helps Scum more than Town more often than not. If you want me to explain that, I'll do so, but the reasons seem almost obvious to me.
Yeah. But I did express this dilemma in my original post. I said I find it interesting why I find some attacks on myself as scummy and others non-scummy. Obviously, my views on people's scuminess change over time and as i re-read my posts.Incognito wrote:Near, I've read up on your current reads of people and I'm a bit confused here. It seems like you're reading a number of people as town but the reasons you've given just don't jibe well with what you've said so far in this game.
Your reason for labeling me as town is because I've gone after you for quite a bit of Day 1. You seem to apply that same level of reasoning to Imat as well since you referenced his Post 123 in which he contemplates the possibility of you being scum. So in essence, you've labeled two people as town just because of the fact that they foundyouto be suspicious. Interestingly though you labeled jerubbaal as scummy earlier because he thought you were scum as well (Post 110).
Can you please explain these inconsistencies?
Shrug. I still find it suspicious.jerubbaal wrote: I don't entirely agree with your read on jerubbaal but I will admit that I, too, was finding jerubbaal suspicious early on but for slightly different reasons from you. I thought his usage of night-time WIFOM against Lowell to try to figure out the reason behind the NK choice was a bit eyebrow raising and so I questioned him about it. His response was decent, and his contribution has been pretty good so far so I decided not to pursue it further.
Dice voting in real lifeIncognito wrote:Oh, so you take issue with all kinds of dice voting? I thought it was more because of the fact that he used actual, real-life dice as opposed to the ones provided by the site.
I wouldn't say this is scummy. I think it would be more scummy to try to come up with a reason to defend what I meant. It's probably not that hard.XReyoX wrote: Near:
Asking me to ignore some of your posts doesn't seem right. Even if it is a whole lot of rubbish, I'd like you to tell me where it has come from. It is scummy to throw something out here and wish someone can back you up or finding reasons for you.
I am new on this site and I have not yet finished a game yet. I am playing 5 different games right now, and I find it interesting that people find early voting/vote hopping scummy. It's not even that I was trying to start a wagon or tried to put someone at very heavy pressure. I would need to adjust my actions in the future to try to look less scummy.Y wrote: @ Near:Yet you've already voted at least three different people.Near wrote:i re-read the posts already and i get some hunches but i have no good suspect i can back up with logic. give me some more time.
I am also quite sure that Sammich lied about his dice rolling. But he could have admitted that he didn't actually roll the dice (and that he lied), yet he continues to lie and defends something that could be very trivial.XReyoX wrote:I think we should start whether lying is scumtell tho.
Which post is that?Y wrote:I was the one pointing the dice vote and the lack of that information that kind of vote gives us is my main reason.
@ Lowell: What? The post you refer to as coaching was supposed to make him talk. I don't know if I'm the cause, but he's talking. I got what I wanted.
Rolling a die in real life AND voting for yourself based on the dice outcome IS NOT scummy.Imat wrote:Does voting with real dice and rolling yourself truly make one Scummy? If not, is there any real reason to pursue this line of thought? Just know that it happened and leans you towards Sammich, then continue with the game. Anything else happens, you can look at him with real suspicions. This current line of thinking seems rather distraction-prone.
5. EVEN AFTER XreyoX pointed out the time difference of one minute between his posts that made it physically impossible for him to do this, he still maintained he didn't lie. See post 200Sammich wrote:In real game and voting for myself. Lolwut? But, it's not very easy to get a twelve sided dice in real life. It wasn't even a whole dice roll, per se. What I did was this.
1. Take two six sided dice. Dice one represents players one through five: Mafiaplayer, Incognito, Lowell, XReyoX, and myself. The sixth number on the die would indicate a reroll. Dice two represented thephantom, the catherder, Fat Tony, Imat, jerubbaal, and you, Near.
The odds of me being picked was actually 1 out of five players, but I wasn't shooting for that.
I rolled dice one and got the reroll number, odds of so being one out of six, even odds. Dice one rolled again got me, as you might think by now. The odds of me getting picked was one out of five players, and one out of six possible choices.
Dice two was an easier feat, and it rolled Imat. Right now that was one out of six possible choices, and the odds of him being picked were pretty average being that every player had one bid.
Rolling a dice that would've had more rerolls than players would've been stupid, so I took this to a simple heads or tails coin flip. Imat was heads, I was tails. It was even odds, entirely fair at 50/50. So, I flipped, and it came up tails.
Believe this story or not, there's not enough proof I rigged it IMO. Anybody can simply go offline and fabricate a story like this but who would really vote for themselves anyway?
The way I stated the reasons for suspecting jerubbaal was crap. It was an argument that will be defeated by the face of reason. I conceded that much. I was basing my suspicion on my hunches.gorckat wrote:Near: His early vote hops do seem scummy. I move my vote a lot because its the only thing a townie's got, but his reasons in this game look really thin.
In the same post he admits that a too townie argument may be crap, says jerubbaal is too logical:
Too Logical to be town? Too Poised? Makes no sense.Near 5 wrote:my townie argument could be crap but that was the impression I got re-reading your posts. you are too logical you are too poised .
This would indeed take very complicated reasoning. And for now, I will let go of this argument. It is irrelevant, now, anyway, since we know that Sammich was lying.gorckat wrote:Two separate issues:Near wrote:IMO, the probability of your being a townie AND getting the dice result to vote for yourself (1/11) is very small that it makes me think that probability of your being scum AND rigging the dice result to vote for yourself in order to show us that you are "fair" is significantly higher.
-The probability of Sammich being town: Assuming a standard 9/3 split and no SK, then its a ~72% chance of him being town, much higher than him being scum.
-If he's not scum, then the likelihood that he concocted the dice result: If he were scum and botched the tag, is it likely that he did it on purpose to invent his real world result? If he didn't screw it up on purpose, is it likely that he'd then invent a way to vote himself?
There are too many moving pieces to make him scum for rigging the die roll, and its bad logic to say so.
If you quoted my entire paragraph, you will see that I was trying to illustrate that it leads to a WIFOM situationgorckat wrote:That is actually a fantastic way to setup mislynches, especially if the townie being buddied up to is already considered scummy.Near wrote:And if buddying up is considered scummy, scums would avoid it.
Your confusion originates from the fact that gorckat decided to quote only part of my paragraph. What I really said:Imat wrote:And if people thought that Scum would avoid buddying up, wouldn't Scum avoid it? Truth is, no Scumtell doesn't come with its own circles. We can, I think, safely assume that Scum aren't stupid. Therefore they'll know what we expect of Scum and do the opposite. However, they'll know that we know that they'll avoid this behavior, so they'll exhibit this behavior. Its all very circular in the end.Near wrote:And if buddying up is considered scummy, scums would avoid it.
Near wrote: Why? Because it looks like I am trying to buddy up with people? Isn't this another WIFOM situation? Saying I think someone is less likely to be a scum COULD be an attempt to buddy up, but it could also be an expression of my opinion. And if buddying up is considered scummy, scums would avoid it.
Wow. Good. I think I know what you are thinking about, and I am pretty sure Sammich could figure out what it is after reading your post. However, the fact that he didn't bring it up until now makes this very unlikely.Immat wrote: And Near. Again, you're ignoring other possibilities concerning the dice throw. I won't point them out, because I want to hear them from Sammich, but you can't focus on one possibility of the event in question and form your opinions off of it. If it could only have happened one way, then I'd agree with you. But there are several ways this could have happened.
- Look at the list of players that were represented by each dice roll.gorckat wrote: As far as the "physical impossibility" of Sammich completing the rolls and coin flip- what makes it impossible?
-I have dice on hand at my desk
-I have coins in my pocket or in my desk drawer
-I have quick post enabled
Surely two people with the requisite equipment on hand to look at a player list and roll dice and then flip a coin must be scum! Although I'd have stuck with a d6 and rolled prime (me) /not prime (whoever i was rolling against) to see who to vote. Or maybe pips in the middle or odd/even or high/low. The only thing I'd question for an instant is the coin, but its not damning.
Plus, we don't see seconds, so there are really a full 1:59 he could have had to make his post.
But...Sammich wrote:No.gorckat wrote:Sammich: Was the die roll made up?
But if you look at it out of context I could've rerolled again instead of posting the result.
Besides, I thought it would lighten the situation.
Well apparently I'm still selling it, I don't think you bullying the case around has been as effective as you're giving it credit for.Near wrote:- Finally, he admitted that he was lying - once it became apparent to him that it was impossible for him to sell us his fabricated story.
Anyway, even if I I can believe that you only admitted this because you thought not doing so would put you in a danger of getting lynched, STILL, i do not believe you rolled the dice in real life. It's just so unlikely. Since, everyone thinks we should let go of this dice incident, here are my final sets of questions for Sammich. Upon your satisfactory answer, I will let go of this incident. Sammich, please answer:Sammich wrote: Fine it was a joke vote.
I think you are being too technical here. Of course 1 is "possible" but what do you think the probability of this happening is? If you have planned it ahead and had the dice and coin ready and had written down which pip represented who, then yes, it's possible. Did he have this set up ready just in case his html dice roll failed?gorckat wrote: @Near: The reason I voted you was not just using bad logic, it was because you pushed bad logicafteracknowledging it was bad with the second two townie argument, the loose feel of your early votes.
In 207, what you push as facts are not indisputable:
1. It was not impossible. I've already said I have the stuff on hand.Near wrote:The facts are:
1. It was physically impossible for Sammich to roll the dice like he described the process of in reality.
2. Therefore, Sammich lied. Repeatedly. He made up a story in order to convince us that he had in fact rolled the dice.
3. A townie (at least I would) just give up in the middle of it and admitted I was joking or I lied.
4. I think it's worth it to re-quote what Sammich has said:
5. EVEN AFTER XreyoX pointed out the time difference of one minute between his posts that made it physically impossible for him to do this, he still maintained he didn't lie. See post 200Sammich wrote:<explains process>
6. In my opinion, there is very small chance that Sammich is town. Add the fact that Sammich vouched for MP in order to imply that he is a vanilla townie.
2. He may not have lied. It was possible.
3. This is your opinion
4. ---
5. Again- it is physically possible
6. Opinion as fact?
The way you present your theories and opinion as fact is scummy.
Incognito, I think I mentioned that as an aside only once. That was when I was making a case that I think Sammich is a scum. At the time I was making my case and right now, the fact that Sammich vouched for MP is indisputable. Most of my posts content focused on the dice incident, because 1) we were disputing the facts of the dice incident 2) I find it more suspicious than the fact that he vouched for MP.Incognito wrote:Near's case against Sammich seems to mainly focus on the fact that Sammich may have lied about rolling dice but presents as an aside the other evidence that could be MORE indicative of Sammich being scum; the fact that he vouched for Mafiaplayer.
That is your opinion. To tell you the truth, yes XReyoX was correct. I was testing Sammich. I was not at all convinced by his answer. His answers were so short (maybe he was trying to avoid being trapped by his lies again) and there are other things that I want to point out. But untilIncognito wrote: Even the fact that Sammich has been avoiding XReyoX's questions seems like a better argument to be made here but Near chooses to push the minor offense instead. I don't even know what to make of this....
Again, it's still hard for me to believe that my vote-hopping makes me look scummy. But there is not much more I can say about this.Incognito wrote: Sammich seems scummy for avoiding XReyoX's questions and vouching for Mafiaplayer but Near seems scummy for his initial vote-hopping and pushing of this more minor case. I'll stick with my Near vote for now.
Yes, #1 has been asked several times and Sammich has answered yes to the question except once. The one time he admitted he lied, it was interpreted by many that he was joking. So I wanted to confirm this again. #2 has never been confirmed again after his initial post. #3 has been asked once by me but has never been answered.gorckat wrote:Haven't you and several others asked this throughout the discussion? It looks like you want everyone to see how reasonable you can be in letting it go.Near wrote:Upon your satisfactory answer, I will let go of this incident. Sammich, please answer:
1. Did you roll the dice in real life?
2. If yes, is your post at #175 an accurate description of what happened?
3. How did you remember which pip on the dice represented who? Did you write this down?
Yes, XReyoX was correct. I was testing Sammich. I will say more once Sammich answers to my question.gorckat wrote:
Second XReyoX- what test? What was asked there or answered in such a fashion that it wasn't before?
I am not exactly sure what you mean here. Are you saying that you think his procedure was a joke? No, that's not what he said. Re-read his posts that he wrote after and tell me you think he's joking.Y wrote:I have some thoughts about Near's accusations:
1. Joke = Random vote. I don't think he meant that the procedure he wrote was a joke. You're straw-manning.
This is your opinion. I have something I want to say once Sammich responds to my question.Y wrote: 2. As been pointed before me, you give priority to a somewhat irrelevant action, while ignoring completely one which is much more relevant.
I feel that this is an important piece of information, and I find Sammich very suspicious because of it.Y wrote: 3. You keep using the same argument, blowing it out of proportion.
Completely wrong. Once Sammich answers my question and I present my view, I think you will believe me. That is, you might still say my test was not very useful depending on how Sammich answers, but I am confident that townies will find my explanation genuine.Y wrote:
4. XReyoX asked you what "test" was it that Sammich passed, but you decided to just say he's right by agreeing with you that there was a "test".
What's halting our "progression" is Sammich not answering my simple question: Who he thinks are scums and why. After that, I promise I will make no more than 3 posts regarding this dice incident if you guys want me to stop. This is what I ask, and I think it's fair.Y wrote: I think Sammich had nothing to gain with his dice roll and I'm sorry I even brought it up in the first place. This whole discussion leads nowhere and it's halting our progression.
Do not lynch me until I have the chance to respond to Sammich's answer to my question.Y wrote: Since I think Near is confusing the town and does whatever he can just to get some one lynched, I'll Vote Near.
Mod:Can we have a vote count?
Hmm. Upon a re-read you might be right. But isn't this obvious? Dice voting on the first page obviously is a joke. It provides no content. But anyway, I misinterpreted his post.Y wrote:What I'm saying is that Sammich said "Fine it was a joke vote" meaning "Fine, it was a random vote". I believe so because he referred to all the other random votes as joke votes too.
Personally, I don't think Sammich can gain anything even if he can prove to us that he used dice in real life to do a random vote. At first I thought that Sammich *might* have thought that doing a random vote and illustrating that he actually followed the dice result even if it meant for voting himself would have made him look like a "fair player". But this is not that significant. The reason I find this important is that I don't think he actually rolled the dice. Less than two mintues.Y wrote: Since you believe it's so important, could you please tell me what advantage will he gain that merits such a procedure just to self vote? What gives him more advantage this way than if he would have just said that he votes himself, without the dice?
I did not misrepresent his words as if he was supporting me. When I wrote the post saying "Sammich you passed my test", I thought it might have been a little obvious that I was lying. When XReyoX followed up with a "test?" I actually blamed him for saying so. I wanted to make it unknown to Sammich if possible. But it doesn't really matter, now that i think about it.Y wrote:You used it as if XReyoX agreed with you that it's a test. You misrepresented his words as if he was supporting you, while he was actually questioning you
I didn't ask you if you think sammich lied. I asked you if sammich has lied even if it's something so irrelevant, and kept insisting on his *story*, and turned out that he was lying, would you not suspect him? I am guessing your answer is no, but since you convoluted your answer by stating answer to my second question, feel free to clarify yourself.Y wrote:No, I wouldn't. It's something so irrelevant, and I believe that doing the actual roll would be much easier than inventing the whole story.Near wrote:Here's a question for you Y and the others. If you knew for certain that Sammich lied and made up the dice roll incident, would you think he's a scum? How likely?
Accusing him for making that up is stupid if you ask me.
Yes. As I said: making that story up is harder than actually doing what he claims he did, and lying about it has no real purpose.Near wrote:Ok here's another question for the field: Do you think Sammich rolled the dice in real life?
If Sammich admitted to lying earlier, I would have less problem with him. It's the fact that he kept insisting on justifying himself that if he is indeed lying, I think there is very high chance he's the scum.XReyoX wrote:No, not really. What i think is lying about the diceroll achieve nothing in favour for the scum. It probably means he is a stupid liar only.Near wrote:XReyoX, this is what I think. If sammich has lied about the dice thing, he is very likely to be a scum. Do you not agree?XReyoX wrote:Near:
Why is it soo soo sooo important that you need to know whether sammich lied about his dicevote?
WTF. I have been defending myself from left and right. And in fact, it was the fact that I attacked you based on your dice incident that some people found me more scummy.Sammich wrote:
Near, attacking another player to shift suspicion from yourself isn't a very good defense. Tsk tsk.
I got more negative comments for pursuing this "useless" dice-roll incident than I received support. I am pursuing this because I think this is relevant.jerubbaal wrote: My read on Near has become somewhat jumbled. This Sammich thing is interesting though, because after jumping around at several targets and making half-assed cases, he's finally latched on to something which he perceives as having some support. This isn't completely scummy, but it is common scum MO to follow the support day 1.
Sammich, if you have been reading the posts in this game, it shouldn't take you more than 15 minutes answer my question. If you have not been reading the posts, you should. Else you should volunteer to find a replacement.Sammich wrote:Maybe because I have other things to do than sit at the computer and speculate about some user rolling a dice?Near wrote:I got more negative comments for pursuing this "useless" dice-roll incident than I received support. I am pursuing this because I think this is relevant.
Why the heck isn't Sammich answering my questions? Why is he not answering anyone else's questions?
I will get back to you all friday. I have some family business to attend to.
LOL. Y, you didn't have a single vote on you.Y wrote:Thanks. I'm so relieved now.Lowell wrote:I'm having second thoughts about Y. He's no longer atop my scum list.
Could you please give us some insight about who is at the top of your list and why?
I want to know what that role is called. Someone answer me please.Incognito wrote:What is the intention of this post?Near wrote:What do you call a person who is not a scum but wins with a scum and whose wish is to be lynched in order to save scum?
Let's start from the beginning. If sammich has indeed rolled the dice in real life to do a random vote, fine. It would make him very slightly suspicious, but it would not be that big of a deal.Incognito wrote: I still feel like the lying about dice rolling argument is a bit weak and doesn't actually equate to Sammich being scum; the vouching for Mafiaplayer and recent question avoidance does look pretty bad, however. Maybe once Sammich gets back Near could clarify his reasoning for the repeated questioning of Sammich's dice roll.
I did briefly mention this in the last post, but I feel like this is worth paying more careful attention to. He's claiming that he was able to remember exactly which pip represented who. And he credits his "short-memory" for it.Sammich wrote:Yes, yes, and no, short term memory is a good thing.Near wrote:Anyway, even if I I can believe that you only admitted this because you thought not doing so would put you in a danger of getting lynched, STILL, i do not believe you rolled the dice in real life. It's just so unlikely. Since, everyone thinks we should let go of this dice incident, here are my final sets of questions for Sammich. Upon your satisfactory answer, I will let go of this incident. Sammich, please answer:
1. Did you roll the dice in real life?
2. If yes, is your post at #175 an accurate description of what happened?
3. How did you remember which pip on the dice represented who? Did you write this down?
Actually I have one more question after this. But I want to wait for your answers to above first. THanks.
The order of this player very closely matches the orders of people who posted on this game. Note that Sammich is the 5th person to post on this game other than avinashv.Sammich wrote:1. Take two six sided dice. Dice one represents players one through five: Mafiaplayer, Incognito, Lowell, XReyoX, and myself. The sixth number on the die would indicate a reroll. Dice two represented thephantom, the catherder, Fat Tony, Imat, jerubbaal, and you, Near.
According to mafia wiki, jester wins if he gets lynched. Therefore, I brought it up. I don't see what is wrong with this.Imat wrote:...Really? A Jester? There aren't anywhere near enough players to even consider a Jester. Even if there were, Why would you want to bring it up in the first place?
In fact, I had this thought that Sammich was a jester a while ago. That's why I wanted to ask him who he thinks are scums and why. If he comes up with reasonable list and tries to come up with a good evidence to back it up, I would have thought that he was a scum. If he comes up with a list that is completely out of whack, I would have concluded that he was a jester. I was impatient and should have waited until tomorrow for Sammich to respond.Imat wrote: Possibly saving Scum partners bacon with a defense that looks reasonable at first but, when thought about, is weaker than any other defense in this game? In fact, the fact that you are pushing Sammich so hard based on not much more than the dice thing makes me feel this is likely. When people started questioning your partner, you jumped right on with them, seeing a chance to confirm your Towniness. However, when people realized there wasn't much reason to lynch him, you retract your attacks and call him the Jester, a weak call in such a small game. I don't like basing evidence off of pairs, but regardless of Sammich's alignment, you have acted Scummy all game IMO.
From what you and Incognito say, it sounds like it's not common to put jester in a small game like this. I wouldn't know, as I haven't played a game yet neither real life or on here with a jester. But if this is not a common practice, I would have to ask, why not?Imat wrote:I doubt theres a Jester in a game this small. Its next to impossible. And putting a restriction on the Jester which only allows him to vote himself would be evil Modding. I'm assuming we don't have an evil Mod.
His first vote on himself was random, his second was sarcasm in response to people pointing out him voting himself. I don't know why he hasn't unvoted, but it was a sarcastic vote.
I asked questions and posted my thoughts on Sammich. I have explained my reasons for being suspicious of Sammich. I should be to blame if Sammich investigation turns out useless, but you should question my weakness in argument or errors in reasoning rather than the result itself, because the reason for this dice incident getting drawn out so long is Sammich not responding to my question.Y wrote:Well, I think that by keeping us from progressing, Near does exactly what scum needs: Less info for the town and a possible no-lynch. All the players are concentrating in one player, while it's almost certain that we have more than one player playing against us. Near is narrowing all the town's investigation. Not only that we're probably missing a lot of info we could gather by looking at other players, but the only lead we are following gives us very little.
Since I believe we've accomplished almost nothing for the last seven pages or so, and since Near is the main player pushing us in that direction, I feel confident enough in lynching him.
Yes, I really thought Sammich was a jester but based on what people said here, this option doesn't seem likely. IF Sammich has an ability to vote on someone else, then I will forgo this argument. Based on this, I will decide whether or not to vote him off.Incognito wrote:I pretty much agree with Y. These last 7 or 8 pages have completely focused on this back and forth between Near and Sammich about this dice rolling incident and even after all of this, Near's final conclusion is that Sammich is a Jester? Why expend so much time and energy asking so many questions about this damn dice roll if you're just gonna come to the conclusion that someone is a Jester?