Mini 436 - Game over - Mafia wins with no casualties!
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I'll do my part in trying to get this to move since I have been one of the quieter people.
After reading the posts over and then reading the posts by Miztef and Ryan I don't think there are any new general observations for me to make.
To me, the most suspicious thing is Snitchkin's "proving a point" but I don't really think that counts for too much.
In regards to my lack of posting. It isn't that I have been ignoring the game; I have been reading it. I just haven't seen anything particularly noteworthy yet that wasn't already discussed, and a mere "Yes, I agree" is fairly pointless.
In any case, start posting so that this game can begin to move somewhere.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
As I said in my previous post, Snitchkin has my suspicion, but it would be stupid to put him at -1 right now. Definitely safest to wait until he explains himself.
Mod edit
Votecount:
VanDamien 2 (ryan, Vollkan)
Miztef 1 (Paradoxombie)
Deathsauce 1 (HurriKaty)
StallingChamp 1 (Snichkin)
Snichkin 5 (TopHat, VanDamien, StallingChamp, Miztef, Albert B. Rampage)
With 12 alive it takes 7 votes to lynch.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Definitely a very strange thing to say. Either Albert is mason, scum or trying some really weird tactic (though I can't think of any possible way this can be pro-town). I would like Albert to explain though, since it does not necessarily make him scum (though it is still very odd).Miztef and Ryan are townies.
FoS:Snichkin-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Yeah, it is possible. It is also possible you are mafia and trying to get them killed. It is also possible any of us could be mafia. The logic here isn't good in my opinion.Let me ask you this Miztef, is it possible that Tophat and Hurrikaty are mafia and he's trying to throw blame at both of us hoping a bandwagon will start on me? (risky yes, but still possible) Thoughts?
Basically, I find the whole Hurrikitty thing fairly meaningless: A) Most of what Ryan said was a rant on bandwagoning and B) It doesn't prove anything. The other thing I don't get, is that each person has disagreed fairly clearly, yet TopHat seemed damned sure they were scum. Something about the poor logic and quick, definite conclusion is odd but I will have to wait and see if something else comes up.
Also, even though Albert says a tell can be pro-town, I don't like his tactic which basically encouraged one of Ryan or Miztef to claim. I mean, he was proving a point, but doesn't it also just feed information to the mafia?-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I just don't like this. Albert makes a massive statement (Ryan and Miztef are town), then gives no explanation other than that he is pro-town and not to dig into it. Albert may be pro-town and may have a good basis for his statement, but without reasoning it just seems suspicious.Take it as what it is. A tell.
Don't dig further, there is nothing beyond it. I'm as pro-town as they come.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
"god awful" pretty much sums it up. I don't want an explanation because we are curious and think it would be a novelty, I want one so that I can have a better idea as to whether or not you are scum. The fact that you keep dodging this question on the basis that you are "pro-town" really doesn't do much to redeem you.Nah, I'm tired. No explanation until day 2 for you.Unvote, Vote: Albert B. Rampage-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I don't think Miztef meant he ACTUALLY wants 7 people to pile onto Tophat and lynch him, more that he just suspects Tophat at the moment.
For now, I am ambivalent to this plan. It doesn't seem to have anything wrong with it; but that could all change if someone raises a valid objection.
Care to elaborate regarding Tophat, Miztef?-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I agree. Albert's play has been scummy. He exaggerates his role tremendously and, furthermore, his claim contradicts the rules. Yes (acknowleding his most recent post) it doesn't necessarily contradict the rules since non-standard roles based around the "usual mechanics" may be included, but I quote the article ABR linked us to:
Not that it proves anything, but it gives a further indication of the unlikelihood which, combined with ABR's conduct and misrepresentation of his power, convinces me.The Psychopath actually describes two different roles, neither of which are very common.
I do have a question though.
Miztef wrote:
Now, the article states:However, there is still a chance it is a possible, and I believe we should ask a person the majority of us agree is scummy to hammer him. That way, if he is telling the truth, we at least used his power to the best of our ability, with the least risk.
Does that mean DeathSauce only will die, or DeathSauce AND the lyncher will die if ABR is Psychopath?The Psychopath is a normal townsperson, except he has a bomb and an aggressive streak.
If the Psychopath is lynched, he takes someone down with him - the first player who voted for him that day dies as well.
If it is the first case, then Miztef's plan (ie. the scummiest person hammers ABR) doesn't need to be enacted since only DeathSauce will die.
In the alternative, if it is lyncher AND DeathSauce I think I have an idea even more cunning than Miztef's!
The first player who voted dies, right. So, if the lyncher dies as well, why not have DeathSauce unvote ABR, then have other people join the wagon and put ABR to -1 and THEN have DeathSauce REVOTE. That way, DeathSauce is both the first voter AND the lyncher - meaning we don't risk losing a second town. Unless you feel damned sure someone else is scum, this option is certainly the safest.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I cross-posted with DeathSauce. Reading what he said made me wonder if the Psychopath powers (ABR's version or the official version) qualify as: "usual game mechanics: Killing, Protecting, Investigating, Voting." seeing as on the wiki it defines the role-type as "other".
This makes my uneasiness with a lynch increase slightly, but I will wait and see what other people think of it.
Mod edit
Votecount:
Albert B. Rampage 4 (DeathSauce, Paradoxombie, VanDamien, vollkan)
Snichkin 2 (StallingChamp, Ryan)
Deathsauce 1 (HurriKaty)
StallingChamp 1 (Snichkin)
Not voting 4: Albert B. Rampage, darhken, Miztef, Tophat
With 12 alive it takes 7 votes to lynch.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Reading over this.unvoteit is is the safest thing to do in light of what you guys have brought up.
Isn't scum psychopath entirely different to ABR's claim. Then again, the role has been varied slightly, though I doubt he is scum psychopath.the only really bad situation is if he is a scum pyschopath or a jester role. Then we are in a bit of trouble.
Have to catch a bus, I would have elaborated on some things otherwise.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Just to make this clear, which of the following scenarios do ABR and VD each want;The thing is, VanDamien, if you don't get lynched today, you have a chance of getting away.
If I don't get lynched today, I have 0% chance of getting away the next.
Do you understand this ??
1) VD to be lynched?
2) VD to lynch ABR, killing VD and another player of ABR's choosing?
In both cases VD dies and has no chance of "getting away". Also, VD has claimed vanilla and said
Albert saidThen I die, and maybe you can catch a scum on your way out; either way whoever's left can get back to hunting scum without some starnge role that doesn't belong in a normal game, IMO.
If option 2) of the above was taken, wouldn't that prove one of you right or wrong?No, get YOURSELF lynched, so I will be proven wrong very quickly.
If ABR is telling the truth then VD (who ABR is certain is scum) will die also, along with ABR's chosen NK target.
If ABR is lying, then VD won't die and VD will be proven correct, winning their bet.
What do other people think?-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I don't want to vote until I am sure of what is happening here, since we could potentially lose 3 pro-town if this thing gets stuffed up.OK, so the two people who will die on the off chance Albert is telling the truth are ready to accept their fates; I expect to start seeing some votes.
As I understand it, ABR wants VD to hammer him, killing both ABR and VD. Then ABR will NK Paradoxombie. ABR seems convinced that one or both of VD and Para are scum, whereas VD and Para are sure ABR is lying.
Personally, I am inclined to believe ABR's claim. As DeathSauce said, it explains his initial behaviour which we all thought was odd. For that reason, I am hesitant about going through with this, since it could turn out really bad. Having said that though, ABR seems to be certain that VD and/or Para are scum so I suppose there is a good chance that a scum may be killed.
I am prepared to go along with this if other people think it is a sound strategy. At the moment, the risk of it is making me uncertain.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Miztef's plan seems a lot safer in my opinion, since it means we can lynch on day 2 and have a better chance of catching the scum. For now, I think I will support Miztef's plan since it reduces the chance of having multiple pro-town deaths.
In regards to who should be lynched today, I think Miztef's candidates are the most likely. Personally, I favour Para as the candidate because of:
The risk of lynching ABR today is enormous and, as Miztef pointed out, a lynch tomorrow is much safer. Hence, I don't like Para's eagerness to have the ABR lynch carried out today since it is fairly obvious that we can lynch ABR tomorrow with a far greater likelihood of killing a scum as well (maybe 2). Regardless of how much you dislike ABR's strategy, lynching him tomorrow is definitely the safest option (rather than a lynch today). There is no possibility of him "getting away" as Para suggests, since Miztef's plan is for ABR to be lynched tomorrow.
To keep it simple, I don't believe ABR, and I'd rather risk the consequences of killing him than risk letting him get away with an insane strategy like this.
For now,FOS: Paradoxombie. Even if you think ABR is lying, it is still better to lynch him tomorrow so that if he turns out to be telling the truth (however unlikely you think that to be) we can have a higher likelihood of catching the scum.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Para:
Para, I don't follow your logic at all. Your argument is that we should lynch ABR today in case "he actually has a powerful anti-town ability/influence." Couldn't the same be said for anybody? We have no idea regarding anybody's role and ability. Just because ABR has claimed psychopath doesn't increase the likelihood he actually has a different role. Furthermore, as DeathSauce said, ABR's play has been enitrely consistent with him being a Psychopath.I meant he is a risk if he isn't a psychopath and he actually has a powerful anti-town ability/influence.
I don't even understand why you're so quick to believe him at all
But if you want to, you need also accept the possiblity that he is actually is some other role with an equally crazy ability and a reason to lie
And I think such a situation is more suited to ABR's behavior
I don't necessarily believe ABR's claim, but it certainly has a real possibility of being valid. Hence, as stated, it is safest to lynch ABR tomorrow.
Given Para's continued eagerness to lynch ABR today, along with the fact that he seems to be increasingly grasping at straws in finding reasons to lynch ABR (the whole "powerful ability" thing), IVote: Paradoxombie-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I thought of this earlier and it is a real problem. I mean, if someone refuses to hammer it probably means that they are not vanilla town; the trouble then is that there is no way to differentiate between power roles and scum. I mean, it really is no different to a regular lynching in that there is always the risk of killing a pro-town, but here the lynchee has to actually do it themself.Mitzefs plan wouldn't even work for the obvious reason that you can't force someone to hammer you and kill themselves. Why has no one pointed this out?
Hypothetically, if it were day 2 and someone had been declared the most suspicious, what would happen if they refused?
I will come back to that in a second, because VD's latest post brings something to light here. VD says 9:3 is most possible at the moment. If we lynch ABR today (and he is telling the truth) and 1 pro-town skilled along with a pro-town at night by ABR and a pro-town by scum, we run the risk of it being 5:3 tomorrow; losing (ignoring power role effects).
Lynching ABR tomorrow is also able to cause a loss but, there is an added complication, if it is day 2 and someone refuses. In that case, if we lynched the refuser, ABR would live. Here is a real problem with Miztef's plan, it all depends on someone voluntarily allowing themself to die and, obviously, we don't want to be forcing claims. Equally, however, if ABR is lying then this will cause him to be kept alive indefinitely because we won't lynch out of fear of the risk.
I am sure there is some complex probability argument to justify lynching ABR today or tomorrow, but I can't be bothered working it all out at this stage.
Miztef's plan has a flaw which needs to be resolved. The idea that it gives us a better idea is probably correct, but even so, its operation is unworkable.
Which means, I guess, that a Day 1 lynch of ABR is back on the cards for me, unless someone can prove a Day 2 lynch is safer in respect of probability of loss or, alternatively, explain how to resolve the Miztef problem.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
ABR's cop point is another upside to Miztef's plan.
Miztef has explained the flaw's solution and I think it works in that case.
Para expressed some criticisms.
As ABR said, an investigation will help us gain a better idea. Lynching ABR today without that knowledge is an unnecessary risk.Id think a scum would choose to be lynched so we have to waste another day lynching ABR, right? Therefore, in order for someone to hammer ABR they'd actually have to be pro-town and we'd be sacraficing them unintentionally.
As long as we actually suspect scum, ABR will live, it will be when we make a mistake that he is taken out.
there's the obvious risk of letting ABR go free indefinitely but also,
Even though a mislynch is a likely eventuality in every game,
it seems unethical to me use a plan that requires a Vanilla to die in order for ABR to ever get taken out.
therefore, I cannot support that plan
If a scum refuses and is lynched, then we have caught a scum; a good thing regardless of whether ABR continues to live. The only real problem is that only a vanilla will lynch. If ABR is lying, that doesn't matter. If ABR is telling the truth, it means we lose 2 pro-town and possibly a third if ABR stuffs up his NK. But, again, we face that same problem if ABR is lynched today as you seem to be advocating.
The only way to avoid the risk is not to lynch ABR at all which, as both you and Miztef agree upon, is undesirable. Thus, lynching ABR today is not the best choice since it means we lack potential knowledge we can have tomorrow.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I read over Ryan's posts and most of the major things have been addressed. Something which jumped out at me, though, was Ryan's post 269.What do you guys think, Miztef, DeathSauce, Volkan, VanDamien ?
Ryan, in 269 you voted for ABR and then said that "Mitzef makes some solid points in post 265 and also points out how we the town can still keep our numbers after Day 1." Since Miztef's plan revolves around lynching ABR on Day 2, isn't it contradictory that you voted ABR? In fact, you acknowledge that a Day 2 lynch will help the town whilst voting to lynch on Day 1. If you know that a Day 2 lynch is more productive, why on earth would you vote for a lynch today?
Additionally, as ABR said there is no way the scum could or would have planned this since aside from the whole communication problem, all this has the effect of doing is getting ABR lynched. There is no justification for a scum plot to have ABR claim Psychopath since it is simply going to result in ABR's lynch.
Aside from everything raised by ABR, my main question for you Ryan is why you acknowledged a Day 2 lynch of ABR would be better and yet, just before that, you voted ABR. You did not even rebut what Miztef and others had said regarding Day 2 being safer.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Ryan, as it stands ABR is being lynched on Day 2. If he is scum, he will die then anyway. At this stage, you still seem determined that ABR should be lynched today, again ignoring the fact that a lynch tomorrow is probably safer (unless DogMom's numbers argument she alluded to proves otherwise).Why all of a sudden should your past posts not be seen as scum? Don't try and change the game ABR, you've still done numerous scummy things in this game and really never denied it-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I think that is the basis of the Day 2 lynch plan. Nobody is convinced ABR is entirely telling the truth, so they want him lynched tomorrow where we have a better idea of who is scum. Having said that, I think DogMom makes a very valid point about not lynching ABR at all unless we are dead certain he is lying. In any case, it seems to be an unwise choice to lynch ABR today.If he's confirmed as scum, you're pegging 2 other people as his scumbuddies, I'm assuming. I sure wish I was as certain as you guys - I'm just not seeing the entire case against Albert. YES, he made a spectacularly weird claim, but that's not entirely an impossible claim. I'm just not convinced.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Well. Assuming the balance is 9:3 and ABR is telling the truth (for the purposes of argument):Thing is, if we lynch him, we absolutely must do it when we have at least 6 more townies than we do scum. Otherwise, town loses IF he's telling the truth AND the lynch vote is a townie and ABR chooses a townie for his NK.
If we lynch ABR AND the hammerer is town AND ABR NKs a town, and then the scum NK a town. Day 2 starts at 5:3. Loss.
If we don't lynch ABR and we lynch a scum and then scum NK a town. We start Day 2 at 8:2. If we lynch ABR AND the hammerer is town AND ABR NKs a town, and then the scum NK a town. Day 2 starts at 4:2. LYLO.
If we don't lynch ABR and we lynch a town, and then scum NK a town. We start Day 2 at 7:3. A lynch of any town player plus scum NKing a town will cause 5:3. Loss.
The second option is the worst case scenario if we lynch a scum today. It is lylo, not loss (as opposed to worse case today).-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Doozy is a good way of putting it. DogMom really outdid my feeble attempt at numbers analysis. I think waiting for Ivy is our best bet, since it will give us more information in order to potentially make a more informed lynch today.This is a doozy for sure. However, it is good to know that even at worst possible case, if we lynch albert today, we wont auto lose.
Also, has DogMom's wall of numbers altered the stance of the "Lynch ABR today" people?-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Hurrikaty definitely needs to post something substantial. The fact that she has made one sentence posts is inadequate and it shows that she is aware of the game, but is not contributing.
Why are you so sure it isn't a strategy? I don't for a second believe that it is a strategy, but you can't just dismiss the possibility. There are good reasons to be suspicious of Hurrikaty, as there are with any lurker. Until Hurrikaty posts something of some substance, there is every reason for people to think she is intentionally lurking.I only defend her because so many of you try to say how scummy she is all the time, where as I don't believe so. She may be lurking, but I think thats due to personal reasons not as a game strategy. Until I see some decent evidence against hurrikaty, or the lurking proves to be quite intentional, I'm not voting her.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I agree with that, though when you say "if she doesn'tSo, does that mean the plan is to lynch hurrikaty?
I'm willing to vote her today if she doesn't post within the next 24 hours. I am inclined to agree with death and ryan in this situation, that katy's lurking has become quite the fiasco.post" I would add the caveat that the post needs to be something beyond: "Yes I am here, sorry I have been really busy/forgotten about the game/etc. Please don't lynch me." I want this post to be substantial and I want subsequent posts to at least be on par with everyone else.
Also, I agree with DeathSauce here:
I don't see how she is cleared even if she suddenly starts posting eleven paragraph PBPAs. It is apparent that she has been lurking AS A STRATEGY and now that strategy has failed. Only a complete fool would continue a behavior that has been called out and identified as anti-town.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
HurriKaty is at lynch -1, given that Para did not unvote and, therefore, his vote did not count.
From what I can see, one of Para, Miztef, PI, TopHat or myself will have to cast the lynching vote. I'd like to say something like: "I'll give HurriKaty one last chance, but so far all that has yielded was her post 409." It looks like we will only get more of the same "siege mentality" defensiveness from her.
My question: Are the arguments against HK sufficient to warrant a lynch at this point?
My answer: Yes.
But I want feedback, since this can't just be rushed.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I don't think there is much of a chance of that, given that ABR claims to be a psychopath. I find it unlikely that there would be another weird role (I think you mean "Jester" by suicidal role) in this game. Obviously, it is still a possibility which we can't dismiss but I don't think the likelihood is that high, since it would create a very messy game.
I feel there is a 10% chance she is some sort of suicidal role that wants to be lynched. Before I drop the hammer I just want to hear 1 or 2 opinions on the possibility of her being some sort of "get lynched" role.
Another reason supporting that, though this is really open to debate. At post 176 ABR said he is the test subject for the psychopath role. Is it possible, if that is the case, that this because this game is a test for the psychopath that it is less likely that there is something else weird, like a Jester?
Having said that, HK's conduct is rather "suicidal" so I can see why you would think that way.
Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
OMFG pretty much sums it up...A reread is definitely needed here.OMFG, we lost the doctor and cop! What an insane D1/N1. Did anyone even guess Albert was a doctor?!?!
I would never even considered the possibility that ABR could have been a doctor. I guess we all just assumed he was either a lying scum or a truthful psychopath.
Additionally, some input from PI and TopHat is definitely needed. The way things have progressed, we need all the discussion we can get. Having two people basically sitting out does not help.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I'd definitely say unfortunately. Aside from the fact that it would mean we would still have a doc, it would allow us a discussion point from which we could gain a better understanding, based upon how people behave to ABR and everything. Everything to this point has been pretty much centered around ABR.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I just wanted a consensus, hence my post 427. I didn't want to rush it if people had a good reason not to. Miztef raised the issue of the suicidal role. I didn't think it was likely, but I wanted to wait to see if people felt otherwise.vollkan's desire for approval before hammering Katy bugs me a bit right now.
Snitchkin, Tophat and PI really need to start posting.
Now,
Interesting. VD accuses Stalling of coaching Ryan. Stalling rebuts by quoting the rules which state you can talk outside the thread IF YOUR ROLE PM SAYS SO (which he bolded). Stalling appears to be under the impression that the scum can talk outside the thread. I'd be very interested to know what gives him that idea.VanDamien wrote:
Why? You tell me. A slip, frustration, thought it was disguised?
Rules wrote:
-You may not discuss this game outside the topic, unless your role says you can. If your role says you can talk outside this topic, you can do so during day, night, via msn, aim, PM, or whatever you wish.
Emphasis mine.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
You haven't understood what I said. In 427, I said that I personally thought HK was scum but that I wanted more discussion and agreement before hammering. Then in 432, Miztef raised the issue of the suicidal role. That was the sort of thing that my post 427 was about; I wanted to know if anybody had any reasons against the lynch. I didn't expect unanimity, I wanted to know whether other people felt a lynch was justifiable at that point.Except, Miztef raised the suicidal role issue after 427. That was post 432. There was enough convinced that she was a good lynch to put her at -1, and you in 427 claim you feel the arguments are enough. Did you expect unanimity?
Yes. I was suspicious of HK for her lurking. Had she posted, I would have dropped my willingness to vote for her, but that wouldn't mean that I would not have some level of suspicion for her given her past lurking.Furthermore, in 406 you begin with agreeing to drop your willingness to vote Katy if she posted something of subtance, but then agree with DeathSauce that even substance at this point probably wouldn't help.
My numbers were totally dodgy there. It was a stupid mistake on my part, not an effort to confuse. That's all I can really say in regards to the numbers.I'm also beginning if your numbers in 340 weren't intentionally wrong to add to the confusion, as you recognize 4:2 is LYLO, but miss (twice) that 5:3 is also lylo, and not loss.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Okay, things are moving slowly again, that's good.
I see where you are coming from and it is a valid argument, but I reiterate what I said earlier.@Vollkan: Perhaps it's playstyle, perhaps we think differently, but perhaps it's a scumtell. I don't understand someone confident in their towniness seeking approval for any action they take. The way I see it, enough people here had found Katy suspicious enough to put her at -1, we were on page 18 on day one, the case was moderate, strengthened greatly by her horrible defense and admitting to lurking. As everyone has to be responsible for their own actions, deliberately creating an "out" by seeking approval for those actions is scummy.
I strongly suspected HK; there was a good case against her. However, I did not want to lynch at that stage in case I had overlooked a reason not to lynch, which Miztef raised. At that point, Miztef could also have hammered but chose not to because of that possibility, which was another reason why I thought it would be reasonable to wait. I hadn't considered that there might have been a suicidal role, so while I dismissed it as unlikely, it made me stop and reconsider.
As you say, maybe we have a different playstyle. I didn't want to lynch in case there was something I had not considered, which arose in the form of the suicidal possibility. Since that presented an additional risk, I wanted to know how serious people thought that risk was.
Agreed. I don't see your vote as anyway risky. It poses no danger of a rushed lynch and, if anything, is good because it promotes discussion.Furthermore, quick to vote? 3 RT days into day two, backed by a really strong feeling, plus my vote was the only vote at the time. With 5 needed, no one's in any danger from one vote. As stated before, I'm confident enough in my towniness to not wait around for someone else to lead me.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I think one major factor in our problem is that nearly all of day 1 centred on ABR. Now that he is gone we are lacking a way to go about this and we are under a lot of pressure.
I will make an attempt to spark some discussion:
I think what Miztef meant is that if you were a scum, you would have known both ABR and HK were both pro-town or possible pro-town and SK. Hence, his suspicion comes from you bandwagoning two people who ended up being town.ABR was clearly lying, I still don't understand why you guys couldn't see that.
So first I bandwagon a liar and then someone you admit was extremely anti-town and just because they both turned out to be actually town that makes me suspicious?
doesn't seem justified to me.
Though, the same might equally be said of VD who, at [182], unvoted ABR for the purpose of being the hammerer on the belief that ABR was lying. Then, at [362], VD states:
What I am pointing to here, is that both VD and Para wanted ABR lynched and then changed to HK. Miztef's post did not deal with them both. Something else is the way that they justified their change of mind - VD: "...as its next best lead" and Para: "...I was very wrong. Just wow."
I still don't believe Al, and hate that our cop could have to claim day 2 after only one investigation. I reiterate my willingness to hammer.
Until then Vote: Hurrikaty as its the next best lead.
Other comments,
Ryan, most of your posts of late are single sentence questions.
andI realize that the count of how many mafia to how many town is important but it seems very distracting to worry about the count instead of worrying about who is scum, how about we hunt some scum now?
It seems like you want other people to lead the discussion whilst talking enough so that you don't seem to be lurking. I'd like to see some substance from you rather than these one-liners.Well what direction do you suggest we go now? Without our doctor and cop we are in kind of a delicate situation
Trust, Miz and Death I don't get much of a read on here.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Whilst Gossip has not been saying much, I would raise two letters in rebuttal to your line of argument: HK. HK was even worse than Gossip in terms of lurking, since Gossip at least has a decent excuse, and HK was town. I don't say this to negate your point, it is just a qualification that needs to be added.I think I was pretty fair in my assessment of you in this game. You haven't posted a whole lot of content, you have admitted to lurking and you just admitted that because I brought up your name you came out of "doing your homework" to post. Obviously that means you are keeping track of the thread without posting content which to me is anti-town. I realize you had the comment about the scum possibly acting bolder (which was a good point) But nobody is really acting like anything right now and whether that be due to fear of lynching another townie or inactivity, getting some discussion going is our #1 asset right now which is what I had hoped to do with my analysis.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Para is definitely at the top of my list, followed by DeathSauce and then I am kind of lost. I am least suspicious of Miztef and, other than that, I can see reasons all round. If I had to pick a third I would probably say Ryan or VD. Having said that, though, we have Stalling and TopHat who we really know nothing about at all, so my suspicions are only based on the "active" players.
One question to VD:
What makes you so confident in Stalling and TopHat? I find I don't know enough to form an opinion on them?Miztef, ryan, TopHat, StallingChamp, and me are town, along with the one of Trust or vollkan who is not scum.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
With any luck we will have replacements soon. Then not only will we get more discussion, which we are in dire need of, but it will allow us to form opinions based on a greater amount of evidence, rather than in a complete lack of discussion (effectively) from two players.
Ryan wrote:
So you think Miztef and VD are town? It would be also be good to know your opinion as to who is scum, since your post 514 was pretty much an overall analysis without a definite statement of opinion. At the very least, it will make a contribution to our current level of knowledge in this game.I think I can speak for the game when I say, we all understand that "real life" takes over for this game. The thing is with this current stage of the game I would hope that our activity would pick up and it has kind of crawled to a hault. I appreciate you checking in at least and letting us know a few of your opinions, since this is an opinion driven game. There have been quite a few posts from people that I'd like to hear other perspectives from. Para has a couple of votes on him from (IMO) pro town players. Do you feel they are justified? Anybody else hit a blip on your scumdar?-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
@DeathSaucce: Miztef voted for you in post 539.
As an aside, that last bit there is interesting and does support DeathSauce's line of thinking.I believe this game needs more evidence overall. We should start bandwagoning/voting with intent to lynch people we find scummy and get some more information.I've already tried paradox, but he's seems to busy to defend himself at this time anyway. I'll try up to try deathsauce or VD next. If not them, then Ryan or Trust are fine with me as well.
I'll send out a unvote vote: DeathSauce first, as some people already agree with me that he is one of the scummier ones. (Vollkan, ryan, VD)
Some of the evidence against DeathSauce can be read in post 514 by ryan. I will try to further build the case.
Anyway, to the body of my post now:
@Ryan
A large number of your posts have been one sentence lines about wanting people to "weigh in" and wanting to "hunt scum". To me, that looks just like posting to avoid looking like lurking. This changed a bit when you made your massive post at [514]. Then, it relapsed with [532] and [534]. The strongest part of DeathSauce's argument against you is the fact that you accuse him or lurking whilst making insubstantial posts yourself. At [540] you said:
You seem most certain about VD and Miztef and then say you get a pro-town vibe from me. Then your scum are DeathSauce, Para and TopHat or SC. I suspect Para more than DeathSauce and I don't have an opinion on TopHat or SC (for obvious reasons). You are one of my third candidates Ryan because much of your posting looks just like you are trying to coax out people's opinions whilst posting little of anything yourself. You did make that large post, but it was only after I had pointed out your lack of content. There is some weight DeathSauce's argument.think the main case I have against Deathsauce is the lack of actual content. Looking back through his posts I just don't see alot that is worthwhile in finding scum. I just find it lurky and with the thread crawling right now I would hope some content would come. I do think fresh blood with replacements for StallingChamp and TopHat will be a welcome change, as TopHat fell off the thread completely and StallingChamp........well he's had other "issues" I believe.
Vollkan: I am leaning on VD being town with a definete townie being placed on Miztef. The three right now I'm thinking are scum is Deathsauce, Paradoxombie and either TopHat or StallingChamp. I get a pro town vibe from you with your posts and since I know I'm town, I'm thinking that 3 of those 4 are the scum as it looks like the overall thought process is that we have 3 scum.
@DeathSauce
You have not posted much of substance. That is the main argument against you. You have also been away, which offsets some of that. I don't need to make an analysis here like I did for Ryan because it is more your lack of posting which is the issue. Hence, I also am inclined to agree with Ryan. Your suggestion of the scum trio as Miztef, VD and Ryan is interesting.
Miztef has struck me as pro-town. VD and Ryan, however, have raised my suspicion a tad as you can see from this post and my past ones.
In regards to what you are saying, at [526] he stated:
The interesting thing here is that both yourself and Miztef have Paradox and VD (the "you" in the above quote as scum. Though he says that you are not likely to be a "scumgroup". At [500] Miztef made it look like he found Para the most suspicious. Though, he has his vote on DeathSauce now.Therefore, I'd have to say I find you, DeathSauce, and Paradox the most scummy, but not likely to be a scumgroup together. My forth choice would have to be a tie between Trust/ryan at this time.
Also, for convenience, these are the opinions of people:
Myself: Para, DeathSauce, Ryan/VD (leaning more to Ryan)
Miztef: DeathSauce, Para, Trust/Ryan/VD
DeathSauce: Ryan, Miztef, VD
VD: Para, DeathSauce, myself/Trust
Ryan: DeathSauce, Para, TopHat/SC
SC: -unclear-
TopHat: -unclear-
Para: -unclear-
Trust: -unclear-
Para and DeathSauce seem to have the bulk of the suspicion. I have to go to uni now but I will be back later to discuss any thoughts on this.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
There is a slight error in that last sentence. If there is an SK the ratio at the moment is likely 6:2:1. Hence, there would be no way for the scum to co-ordinate 3 votes, unless the SK were to jump on the bandwagon also, thereby outing the members of the two factions.You, for example, have been accused of being scum many times. If you are scum, it easily explains why the rest of the scum haven't jumped on the bandwagon. It could also be that the scum can't co-odinate the 3 votes needed in a fashion quick enough to win without one of use unvoting.
Lastly, The possibility of a vig or SK or other NKer would mean the scum doesn't auto win in that situation.
As such, if there are 3 mafia capable of co-ordinating a lynch, there would have to be a vig (or "other NKer") as the other NK party. Assuming it is a vig:
To run through the numbers, a lynch of a town now will bring it to 5:3. Then a scum NK will bring that to 4:3. If the scum were to have rushed, the vig would then know who to target, bringing it to 4:2. The next day, we would know who to lynch and we would win.
Either way, it is not surprising that the scum have not rushed a lynch.
I hope those numbers are correct.
Mod edit
Votecount:
DeathSauce 2 (ryan, Miztef)
Paradoxombie 1 (VanDamien)
ryan 1 (DeathSauce)
Not voting 5: TopHat, Paradoxombie, Trustgossip, StallingChamp, vollkan
With 9 alive it takes 5 votes to lynch.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
DeathSauce wrote:
"False dichotomies"? Can you clarify what post you were referring to by that, unless it was just a hypothetical?Uhhh, I am not pretending that everyone else believes that you 3 are the scum, setting up false dichotomies, or any of the other elements of "leading". I am stating my own belief and what I think we should do. If you can't see the difference, then I wonder if you are being intentionally obtuse.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
@Ryan
My suspicions are still directed at Death and Para, with my feelings on Death being strongest at the moment due to the above "false dichotomy" thing, which I shall explain my reasoning on now:
A "false dichotomy" is not what Death has used the term as. Taking the wikipedia definition:
This was in response to VD's statement that:"The formal fallacy of false dilemma—also known as false choice, false dichotomy, falsified dilemma, fallacy of the excluded middle, black and white thinking, false correlative, either/or fallacy, and bifurcation—involves a situation in which two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there exist one or more other options which have not been considered."
I asked for clarification by Death regarding the use of "false dichotomy" and at [585] Death answered a request by me for clarification on the "false dichtomy" with:Anyway, now we get to a point where general consensus is narrowing down to either DeathSauce or Para, not just myself, Miztef, and you, but Trust seems to be leaning that way also. The other two are inactive, and our three scum have jumped on the chance to go on the attack.
All of this consensus stuff began with my suspicion summary in [560]. Everything in there was true at the time, though things will have shifted slightly since then no doubt.Vollkan, the false dichotomy was in the excerpt I posted from VanDamien. He (falsely) claims that the general consensus is that Paradox or I is scum.
My point is that I don't like the fact that Death felt the need to resort to labelling VD with a logical fallacy, misapplying the fallacy as it turns out. Secondly, in the 585 quote above, Death dismisses the consensus notion as "false" which, of course, is wrong because at the time of [560] there was a consensus of opinion against Death and Para .
I am more than a little suspicious of the fact that Death has tried (and failed) to discredit the existence of any consensus against himself and Para. He could have ignored VD's statement regarding the consensus since it was fairly innocuous and obvious given what had been established in [560], but instead Death chose to attack it and alter it into an accusation of "leading" against VD.
This makes me very suspicious of Death and slightly more suspicious of Para, seeing as it would support them being scum buddies. For now,FoS: DeathSauce, to change into a vote if his explanation of the above behaviour is inadequate.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I used the wikipedia definition because it was at least clearer than anything I could write myself.
Now, rather than calling it a "false dichotomy" you have chosen to call it a "false choice", overlooking the point of what I said. There WAS a consensus of opinion against you and Para. T hat does not create a "false choice" by any sense of the phrase, it merely notes that majority suspects you and Para. The fact that you seem to deny a consensus and now continue to try to represent it as a "false choice"/"false dichotomy"/scum plot strikes me as very much an over-reaction.
Your most recent post now looks like an effort to frighten me into not voting for you. You begin by reiterating what I had just dismissed, then you assert that VD, Ryan and Miztef are acting in unison and then you tell me that if you get lynched the game is lost.
All of this strikes me as very defensive and it seems like I struck a nerve by questioning your false dichotomy thing.
vote: DeathSauce.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Cross-posted unfortunately.
Firstly, you entirely ignore the possibility that there are scum among the inactives. That is one major weakness in your assertion that Ryan/Miztef/VD are the scum, the other being the lack of evidence other than the fact that they have all thought similarly, which doesn't help you much since I agree with the arguments against you.To address the point that the bulk of the suspicion was on me and Paradox at the time of VD's post.
Don't you think that if there were three scum acting in concert in addition to four basically non-participating players that the scum's opinions will have the most weight behind them? Basically you are saying that the consensus was on me or Para because the scum said so.
And again in [592], you argue that the consensus is all a scum plot against yourself and Para. Here, I see one of the two players I most suspect tell me that the whole case against them is a scum concoction, pulling out phrases like "false choice" to somehow beef up their case. If you and Para are scum then it is impossible that all of the others are. Hence, I get into a "real choice" of either yourself being the scum with Para as a likely partner or Miztef/Ryan/VD being scum. On the totality of evidence, I think the former is definitely more likely. You are continuously raising my suspicion of yourself by this defensive behaviour and now trying to make me think I have fallen into a trap by the scum.
You aren't trying to scare anyone but I must unvote you or else we lose? You respond defensively by denying the use of scare tactics and then four words later you repeat what I had called the scare tactic.I'm not trying to scare anyone. I am a vanilla townie. Unvote me or the game is lost.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
What do you mean "we are sunk"? Trust has chosen not to vote, with very good reasons.
The situation is pretty frustrating. There is a strong case against Death but, on the other hand, there are dangers in making any movements with an incomplete set of players. There has to be at least one scum in the "actives" (or an SK) but beyond that we really have no idea.
What happens now depends on Para. I think he is justified either way, since there is a strong basis for suspicion against Death but there is also the understandable hesitation given the lack of players.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
My evidence against you is independent of the statements of those three and I've expressed all of my reasons in my last few posts.There is? I just see the three main suspects agreeing that I am guilty without providing any real evidence!
It is obvious to me that they are "collaborating" (though that word carries a particular connotation), as I explored in 560. Hence, I am somewhat frustrated. For now, unless Para can come up with a damned good reason to lynch Death I would suggest not to vote.I had thought that the collaboration between ryan. Miztef, and Van Damien would have been obvious to a simpleton, but if it is necessary to save my skin I'll post a full analysis with quotes from posts.
Hell vollkan, you even pointed out one that I missed in post 560
Now, to deal with the issue of Miztef/Ryan/VD:
Death, if you are town then your theory is quite likely correct, unfortunately that also means that we are immobilized until replacements come in since the "active" town would consist of only four people: Death, Vollkan (me), Para and Trust.
Now, I have done a bit of a reread with the intent of finding things to support your suspicion. The point of this is to play Devil's Advocate with my suspicion of Death, so I realise that quite a lot of what is below contradicts my own opinion: This is pretty massive....
1) All 3 were on the HK wagon, with Miztef and Ryan as the last 2 votes.
2) With respect to the suspicion raised against me by VD in relation to me asking for feedbackto lynch HK, Ryan at [480]:
.I think VD just misreadwhat was typed by Vollkan as the first time I read it I was thinking "what the heck" and than after I re-read it than it made sense. I'm with you Miztef, I'm having a hard time reading anyone here in Day 2
3)At [500] Mizef says he has no regrets about the HK lynch, says he has some suspicion on Trust, then refers to having minor suspicions of VD and Ryan. Expresses suspicion of Para. Concludes the people to "watch out for" are paradox/VanDamien/Truegossip. Interesting for Death that VD is in that trio.
4) Miztef at [509]:
What if the coin went the other way? This post is quite interesting in the sense that para is chosen over VD on a seemingly innocuous basis.Ok, it's time to push more info out of people. I think paradox or VD are a good start, so I'll flip a coin and..... Vote: Paradoxombie (because I got heads)
5) [510] Ryan accuses Death of lurking, this starts a bit of a debate between them
6) [514], Ryan's massive post. In this, his overall opinion of Miztef and myself is pro-town, he is neutral to VD and SC and somewhat suspicious of Death, Para and Trust.
7) VD at [523]:Explanation? Who ever said you get explanation with my new vote?
Paradoxombie and DeathSauce are scum; along with either vollkan or Trust, and I lean towards vollkan.
Miztef, ryan, TopHat, StallingChamp, and me are town, along with the one of Trust or vollkan who is not scum.
DeathSauce is gone for a few days, so he can wait. vote: Paradoxombie
Much of this has been confirmed to me by what people have said. More is obvious to me by posting patterns. That is all for now
I don't like this post. It is too blunt and lacking in explanation ("posting patterns"??). This supports Death's theory more than anything else so far. At [524] Miztef says VD is being "upfront" and odd given the sudden shift from me to Death/Para, but Miztef then labels Death/Para as "fine suspects". This is very interesting.
8) [526], Miztef says he finds VD the third likely scum but is more certain of Para/Death; could be an effort to advance his agenda and debunk somewhat the chances of him being scum with VD.
9) As referred to by me in [560], Miztef at [539]:
Miztef bases his vote on the opinions of Ryan, VD and myself and wants to build Ryan's case. Interesting.I believe this game needs more evidence overall. We should start bandwagoning/voting with intent to lynch people we find scummy and get some more information.I've already tried paradox, but he's seems to busy to defend himself at this time anyway. I'll try up to try deathsauce or VD next. If not them, then Ryan or Trust are fine with me as well.
I'll send out a unvote vote: DeathSauce first, as some people already agree with me that he is one of the scummier ones. (Vollkan, ryan, VD)
Some of the evidence against DeathSauce can be read in post 514 by ryan. I will try to further build the case.
10) Ryan at [540]:
Ouch...VERY interesting.Vollkan:I am leaning on VD being town with a definete townie being placed on Miztef. The three right now I'm thinking are scum is Deathsauce, Paradoxombie and either TopHat or StallingChamp. I get a pro town vibe from you with your posts and since I know I'm town, I'm thinking that 3 of those 4 are the scum as it looks like the overall thought process is that we have 3 scum.
From then on it is basically: Ryan accuses Death of lurking, VD says the consensus is moving to Death/Para and that he is "happy" with a lynch of Death/Para. Miztef at [574]:
It looks like a pro-town call for hesitation, but Miztef refers to getting "more opinions from the town" extrinsic to himself and Ryan. This bit is all mere semantics, but the words suggest that he and Ryan are scum...It's a possibility butblantly rushing into this is not the answer ryan. We should get more opinions from the townon this subject.
You, for example, have been accused of being scum many times. If you are scum, it easily explains why the rest of the scum haven't jumped on the bandwagon. It could also be that the scum can't co-odinate the 3 votes needed in a fashion quick enough to win without one of use unvoting.
Lastly, The possibility of a vig or SK or other NKer would mean the scum doesn't auto win in that situation.
Please refrain from drawing conclusions so quickly in the future.
Miztef's "confirm vote" is also interesting, since it is totally unnecessary and meaningless except as an encouragement of the lynch.
*breathes* Okay now that all THAT is out of the way:
If Death is town, his theory is quite likely correct, in which case we are at a standstill until replacement town players arrive.
If Death is scum, well, his theory is obviously a complete fabrication to throw confusion into the ranks of a town where we are down two players.
Waiting is most likely the best option for now, since I really cannot work out what course of action to take in the absence of replacers.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Hehe, I was waiting with baited breath to see what was going to happen with the unvote, though it ends up in you revealing it...
I discovered it when I was reading your post and I accidentally highlighted that bit with my mouse, then noticed it didn't look like a regular hyphen or an underscore so I copied it into the URL bar to see what character it was...needless to say I found out to my amusement.
You could have waited for Para, though, before you revealed it.
I'm not too sure about the ethics of something like that, though, even if it could have been a massive help to us. By the looks of the vote-count even the mod was fooled, unless he was aware and just chose to ignore it on the basis of it being invalid.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
This has certainly taken an interesting turn and for now I definitelyUnvote DeathSauce.
Miztef's ploy was unethical and, as VD and Death have pointed out, highly suspect. Adding to what has been said already, another major problem I see with your behaviour is that it demonstrates that at this stage of the game you were prepared to allow someone to be lynched when you yourself believed otherwise. I don't need to both making a comment on how incredibly risky that is.
You knew the tactic had not worked previously and I was able to reason out of common sense that it would be invalid above. As such, I find it rather suspicious that you are prepared to risk everything on this tactic which you yourself knew had failed.
What if both Death and the hammer were town? In that case, your little ploy would only create confusion and cause us to lose the game.
I was aware of your unvote, I think I must have been the only person to notice it before your revelation. At the time, I figured it was unethical and probably invalid and, whilst I reasoned that you were likely trying to use it as a trap, I realised it was a fairly suspect means of going about it. I suspected Death strongly and would not have been unhappy with a lynch at that point, though I gradually developed some reservations owing to the Miztef/VD/Ryan post.
Also, your latest post is very OMGUS and WIFOM:
I guess this is the first time you've been under suspicion the whole game and you have really cracked. VD's thing about ethics was not, from my understanding, hypocritical. You think it is hypocritical that he suspects Death but then votes you. The fact is, Miztef, that your unvote is incredibly suspect since it risks our entire game. If you (miztef) are town, then it was stupid, if you are scum then it has failed and you were pretty foolish to reveal it.interesting VanDamien.
Going after me on ethnically views? I'm not sure what to think of it right now, but I find it hypocritical that you would vote me and say "If you think Death is scum, let logic prevail" in the same post.
Also, I don't think any scums strategy would be to collaberate on bringing down someone with them... because they don't want themselves to be under suspicion at all!
I'm gonna vote: VanDamien.
The thing about "bringing them down" is total WIFOM. You dismiss the point because "A scum wouldn't do that, it would bring them under suspicion".
Then the vote which is just OMGUS.
FoS: MiztefI don't want to vote Miztef just yet, since this could well just be a stupid tactic by a townie. I've said my piece on the matter. Death, you have not escaped my suspicion, but given Miztef's actions I don't feel confident voting for you.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Good point. If Miztef is scum, which now seems more likely to me than yourself being scum Death, then we now have the necessary fifth vote in VD. That leaves Ryan as the most likely scum partner, which would support the findings in [604]. If you look, most of the posts which supported the Ryan/Miztef/VD trio were by Ryan and Miztef.I have made my views abundantly clear. I realize that there is still suspicion on me, but this schism in the ranks of who I believe to be scum is the only chance we have to lynch scum with the non-participation factor.
The only post by VD that actually supported that theory was [523] which was, as you can see above, was one of the most definite posts evidencing Death's theory. VD has pretty much undergone a turnabout from:
At the moment, I think it likely that Miztef and Ryan are scum partners with SC/TopHat as a third.Paradoxombie and DeathSauce are scum; along with either vollkan or Trust, and I lean towards vollkan.
Miztef, ryan, TopHat, StallingChamp, and me are town, along with the one of Trust or vollkan who is not scum.
My reason for not pegging Trust as a likely third is that Trust confirmed he was not going to vote to lynch Death. My reason for not pegging Para as a likely third is that Miztef has consistently been suspicious of Para. Neither of which are conclusive and both are potential thirds, but I don't think they are as likely as SC/TopHat.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Well, for starters his intentions were not obvious. I found it as I was writing my massive post [604]. I didn't know what to make of it since whilst it seemed likely it was a trap to catch yourself or Para, I also had the sorts of suspicions that Death raised in [607]. As I said back in [606], I was unsure of the ethics and I highly suspected it would be invalid.
I didn't know whether I should have revealed it or not. In the end, I chose not to but added
at the end of [604], mainly as a result of my uncertainty regarding the unvote.Waiting is most likely the best option for now, since I really cannot work out what course of action to take in the absence of replacers.
It seemed very unlikely to me that Para or Trust would vote to hammer without further discussion.
My intention was to reveal it after having some responses to my post [604] since I could see that acting in that way would generate quite a bit of information (ie. we could see people's responses to the evidence for Ryan/Miztef/VD and then see the responses to the unvote) and help get us out of the rut we are in.
A question for Miztef:
If you actually knew it had failed in another game, why were you prepared to take that risk here? Not only that, but it would have been entirely reasonable for a town player to lynch Death at that point (particularly since you yourself had encouraged the lynch). As such, even if your unvote had been effective, there was a high likelihood of a town player being caught by your trick. Did you consider that?-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
To summarise that post by Miztef:
1) If Death is town then Vollkan/VD/Ryan are likely scum.
2) If Death is scum then the players off the wagon are likely scum.
3) Regardless, Miztef is town.
3) refutes 1) due to the fact that Miztef was on the Death wagon (which sounds like some kind of military vehicle) himself. As such, if Miztef is a townie as his post suggests, then he himself demonstrates that it was reasonable for town to be on the wagon. Hence, being on the wagon is not evidence of likely scum.
I had found there to be a strong case against Death and felt confident he was scum. On that note, I still have suspicion of Death (his readiness to vote Miztef is another point here), but with everything that has now happened I don't feel confident placing a vote on anyone just yet. Miztef's "unvote" is not proof of scumminess, which is why I disagree with VD and Death's responses. Though, likewise, there are good reasons to be suspicious of the "unvote" (hence my FoS) and, as I have already said, we cannot just ignore it.
2) of Miztef's has problems due to the fact that we are down 2 players. If Death is scum, then it is unlikely scum were on his wagon; that is a likely though not certain proposition. That would leave 2 other scum. Miztef said:
If Death is scum, as he may well be, I don't think suspicion is justified towards Para and Trust on the basis of 2), due to the fact we are absent 2 players. Death/SC/TopHat is just as likely as Death/Trust/Para, or a mix of them. Maybe that is obvious, but it needs to be said.However, on the reverse, if deathsauce is scum, then players outside the bandwagon are most likely scum.
And, Miztef, you did not answer my second question:
Your latest post asserts that if Death was town (as you believed) then Trust and Para were also town. As such, isn't it true that the only people who could have been caught were Trust and Para? If you did believe that it was a scum wagon, why would you lay a trap for townies who were not on the wagon?As such, even if your unvote had been effective, there was a high likelihood of a town player being caught by your trick. Did you consider that?-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
That pretty much sums it up. It would be very useful were it not for its dependence on you/Trust having noticed it.So all we've really proved is that IF neither me nor Trust noticed the unvote, then we are either not scum, or not in LYLO, but not both.
Also, regarding the LYLO point I have a question:
If we screw up today it goes to 5:3 (assuming vig and not sk). Then a scum NK brings it to 4:3. The vig can then either bring it to 3:3 or 4:2. What happens at 3:3, or any even split like 2:2, 4:4, etc.?-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Reading Para's quote of Death made me notice something. Death said:
I have bolded the relevant bit. Relevant because Miztef actually said:Sorry, but this just baffles me. A player uses a highly questionable tactic in the game and then comes right out andsays that they saw it used in a game where it gave the scum the win, and you think it it's only FOS-worthy? Do you need Miztef to actually announce that he is scum? Because what he's done is just one step short of that.
The issue this brings up is that Death directly attributes the scum's win to the "unvote" (ie. "it gave the scum the win") whereas Miztef merely said that the scum won, with no causal linkage between the "unvote" and the scum win. Death said that in response to Para saying that Miztef's actions are only "FoS-worthy".I saw someone do it in another thread (it failed there, and the scum won) but I thought I'd try it out here anyway.
Maybe it was unintentional, I'll leave that to Death toexplain, but I find it interesting that Death has misrepresented what Miztef said to make Miztef appear as scummy as possible as a result of this.
As an aside, I don't think that Death or VD's voting for Miztef is scummy, even if I am suspicious of the misrepresentation I highlighted above. I disagree with their vote, but I can see it is justifiable since Miztef's actions could potentially be scummy.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Let me give you a hypothetical event: "I put a hat on and it rained". There certainly is no direct cause and effect and I don't believe there is any indirect causal link. What you have said and now continue to suggests is the "false cause" logical fallacy.You have to be kidding me. Miztef said "It failed there and the scum won." That certainly seems to link it as a cause and effect by any normal interpretation. Even if it isn't cause and effect, why would any pro-town player use a tactic that they saw in a game that even indirectly led to a scum win?
The reluctance by the two of you to vote for Miztef is incomprehensible.
The town in that game, from what has been said, lost due to the allegedly "good" town player making a case and voting for the "novice" town player. Of course, it is true that IF the scum had not noticed the trap and had fallen it then the town would have won, but the reverse is not true. The town could still have won even though the trap failed. By the sounds of it, the effect of the trap's failure was to prompt the "good" townie to further build the case. Thus, the trap may have been of some relevance, but it was not a necessary cause since the "good" townie did suspect the "novice". If the "good" townie had simply given a normal vote, the town would have lost then and there anyway.
And as Para said, you wouldn't support it as evidence of Miztef being pro-town.
Moving back,
The first thing which raised my suspicion of you (and of Ryan) was the lack of posting. That was by no means conclusive, but given the other stuff like the fact you seemed to consistently be making slight attacks on Ryan/VD, it made me feel that you were distancing and lurking. That, plus the lurking made me suspicious of you at that point, though most of my suspicion was at Para based on earlier events. There was other stuff earlier on, like your backflip on ABR and arguing that Miztef was supporting a scum HK but, again, a lot of that was similar to other people (including myself in some parts) so it wasn't really conclusive.I still would like to see an actual post of substance ofanything that I have done that appears scummy so that I can address it. All I have seen in the last three pages is posts saying "DeathSauce seems scummy", not a single one saying "DeathSauce seems scummy because..."
My suspicion against those three was fairly even and mild up until Death started with the "leading" and "false dichotomy" stuff. Until that point, I could understand the case against you, but my suspicion was effectively split. Then, your actions and responses to everything (ie. what looked like scare-tactics, accusations and continual denial of any legitimate case against you)
Having said that, I found the situation difficult once I found there to be some credit to the Miztef/Ryan/VD theory, ignoring the "unvote" thing which left me confused about what was going on. Hence, why I have unvoted now and am not going to vote you again just yet even though you have my suspicion, because too much else is going on for me to feel confident.
That said, I also don't like your latest post's suggestion that the non-voting of myself and Para is "incomprehensible". Your play of late has been to represent Miztef as being as scummy as possible based on what happened whilst denying the validity of any view which is not so strong.
In short, my dilemma is that as suspicious as I find Death, the collaborative behaviour between Ryan/VD/Miztef on the wagon makes me uneasy about it. Throw in the "unvote" and I see the Ryan/VD/Miztef trio dissolve somewhat, with Death's responses again heightening my suspicion of him.
If Death is town, Miztef looks to me to be likely scum with Ryan as a likely partner. VD has voted for Miztef, but it could be distancing to debunk Death's theory (this is really concerning me at the moment). If Death is scum, I think it highly likely that at least one of the inactives is his partner, but there is no evidence I can see supporting him being partnered with an active.
I am putting all this out here to get people's thoughts on it, since I need this dilemma to get picked through and be sorted out.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Running through Ryan's post I noticed a few things:
That seems to be one of the reasons people have for suspecting Miztef.Setting a "trap" always makes me think of a scum trying to save his own butt by posting something and than if the going got tough you could say "Well on post (whatever) I proved I was town by doing this" admitting to the trap was also surprising, I'm going to re-read what I missed from you while I was gone but for now my vote stands.
I have afew questions for Ryan, Death and VD (and Trust if you agree with them regarding Miztef):
1)If Miztef actually came out and tried to say what Ryan posits above, would you believe him at all?
2) If the trap had worked successfully (ie. it was a valid unvote and someone hammered without justification) what would your thoughts on Miztef be?
3) If the trap failed (ie. someone hammered and Death was lynched) what would your thoughts on Miztef be: (a) if Miztef had declared it to be proof of town-ness as in 1)?
and (b) if Miztef had acted as though it were a massive blunder?
These are the main scenarios which could arise. In each case, my own answer would be that I would become suspicious of Miztef. In the case of 1), my suspicion would skyrocket. If 2) arose I would be probably only as suspicious as I am now but I would also not be highly suspicious of the hammerer, given the possibility that a scum Miztef laid the trap in order to catch townies who were not yet on the wagon. Both 3) scenarios would make me very suspicious of him.
I don't think Miztef's actions are evidence for him being a townie, my point is simply that there is no gain for a scum in doing them. It would be WIFOM to say that since Miztef's unvote has no gain for a scum, therefore Miztef is town. However, I think it is justified to say that since Miztef's unvote has no gain for a scum it is not evidence that he is scum. I hope I have made the distinction clear.
That said, there are still legitimate grounds for suspicion (hence my FoS) since the tactic could still be used to trap a townie but I just don't think that to be overwhelming proof in light of the realistic outcomes of the above scenarios.
Also, Ryan said:
What do you mean by this? You seem to be suggesting that there is some link between you making "pro town moves" (?) and me not being convinced that Miztef is scum due to the trap. Maybe I am missing something, but I can't work out what you are saying.I've done enough pro town moves in this game that I'm a little surprised that a "trap" being set isn't looked upon as you (a self proclaimed pro town player) to be a little scummy.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Your post [607] was precisely what question 3) was addressing actually. In [607] you said:
I must have worded question 3) badly, since neither you nor Ryan answered it how I meant. What I was getting at is this:
It seems to me like that would have been a clever "out" for a scum. If the hammer fell on me, the thread is locked, then the next day you can come in and say "But I did a double-secret unvote!" It's too late and you get the bonus of being able to promote the player that dropped the hammer as scum.
This strategy is especially dangerous when we have an unknown second NK-able entity.
If Death was lynched and then on day 3 Miztef tried to use the trap as an out (this is the scum usage you suggest in [607] and has been the only actual usage by scum raised so far), it would cement people's suspicions of him. Certainly, I would likely vote immediately if Miztef tried that unless I had a tremendously good reason otherwise. That was scenario 3a of my questions.
3b was if Miztef said something like: "Oh gee, that sucks. I tried to make a trap but the mod didn't count it. I am so sorry". Again, I wouldn't buy that and would be very suspicious, though maybe not so much as for the 3a.
Hence, tying those together I can see no advantage for a scum Miztef in using the unvote as an "out" on day 3. Any attempt of him to do so would reasonably send people's suspicions sky-rocketing. Hence, I just can't see this as evidence of scumminess because the scum would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing it.
To play devil's advocate with myself here:
Maybe that explains why Miztef has revealed the unvote now. If Miztef realised that he has no advantage on Day 3 using it as an out, then he couldn't just try and evade the issue by not revealing it at all on the chance that somebody would notice it at some point (either before or after Death being hammered) in which case he would fall under heavy suspicion for not saying anything. Hence, as much as it has drawn Miztef under suspicion, maybe revealing it was the smartest thing for a scum to do.
But, all this depends upon a scum Miztef actually making this move in the first place and I can't really imagine a scum genuinely taking this course of action without first realising how completely risky and unable to really accomplish anything it would be.
If you had been hammered and came out town and Miztef never mentioned the unvote after that, I would have become very suspicious. If it was a pro-town move (albeit a stupid one) that failed miserably, it would only be reasonably for Miztef to announce his blunder. Hiding it at that stage would look, to me like he was trying to keep a "card up his sleeve" in the sense that he could reveal it when he was in a hard spot to generate confusion.I have a quick question for you vollkan. What if I had been lynched and Miztef never brought up the miniature unvote at all? That seems to be a possiblility no one has mentioned.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia