Perfectionist Mafia - Resultas

[Sanjay]

Not a mason.

I don't think there's any possible way for Mufasa to be scum, but seriously, what the heck, Mufasa? Why not just say you targeted Starbuck?

[Mufasa]

Because at the time I didn't feel it was the best option for me to tell the town, and I feel mr suave isn't innocent.

[Sanjay]

I abducted it. I'd like everyone to answer the following:

Are you in a masonry?

People should answer this.

[MrSuave]

nope not in a masonry!
and difference in dramonic play? well he seems less direct and more just... going with the flow. IMO he's playing like the game he was scum D=.

[Max]

EtherealCookie is being prodded.

Vote Count:

MrSuave (2): Mr Suave, Mufasa
FaerieLord (2): FaerieLord, manho
manho (1): Santos
Ethereal Cookie (1): Ethereal Cookie
dramonic (1): dramonic
Sanjay (1): Sanjay
Mufasa (0)
Santos (0)

5 To Lynch (self votes discounted if it's lylo)

[FaerieLord]

assume that there exist a scum in each mislynch wagon, and from that assumption, i deduce that FL is the scum or (dramonic, santos, (cookie/sanjay) are all scum). i vote you as you have the highest chance to be the scum.

That is such a horrible assumption. There could exist one or two.
That's like me saying "I can assume that there are scum amongst us, and from that assumption I shall vote: x"

You're just stretching to try and find a reason to vote for someone to seem opinionated

i'll read the exact vote in context when i have time. but you are now saying that you hammer others to get SW lynched? there is no logic in it

Said the guy that came up with that beautiful assumption.
Of course it makes sense
Lynch a town to get a scum tomorrow
1 scum > 1 town
It's easy percentages

[EtherealCookie]

Sorry, back, been busy. Not a mason. Why is Mufasa voting Suave, again?

[Slatorade]

Hello I am Mufasa, if I could have a minute of your time.

I explained to VI this once before that my brother whoot1234 who lives in the samehousehold often times posts without realizing that my account was autosigned in, and vice versa, thus resulting in some technalities, However, I can sware on the good lord that we do not converse roles, we do not know eachothers abilities and such forth. I really am embrassed that my brother has posted so many times, and has followed me into so many games, I will have a little one to one chat with him. But if not I understand. Just wanted to say sorry for any inconvenience Thanks. Mufasa

[dramonic]

For people who dont understand the comment:
Mufasa just got banned indefinitely.

[MrSuave]

is that so...

[EtherealCookie]

Maybe...

We should call in The Replacements?

[manho]

assume that there exist a scum in each mislynch wagon, and from that assumption, i deduce that FL is the scum or (dramonic, santos, (cookie/sanjay) are all scum). i vote you as you have the highest chance to be the scum.

That is such a horrible assumption. There could exist one or two.
That's like me saying "I can assume that there are scum amongst us, and from that assumption I shall vote: x"

You're just stretching to try and find a reason to vote for someone to seem opinionated

read the post where i voted you. i've stated clearly the flow of the deduction.
there is scum in the set {FL, dramonic}
there is scum in the set {FL, santos}
there is scum in the set {FL, cookie, sanjay}
and there is scum in the set {Sanjay, MrSuave, Santos, dramonic}
if you(FL) is not the scum, then dramonic, santos, and (cookie or sanjay) had to be the 3 scums, which is really unlikely.
so i voted you.

i'll read the exact vote in context when i have time. but you are now saying that you hammer others to get SW lynched? there is no logic in it

Said the guy that came up with that beautiful assumption.
Of course it makes sense
Lynch a town to get a scum tomorrow
1 scum > 1 town
It's easy percentages

but why not try to lynch the scum first?

[FaerieLord]

read the post where i voted you. i've stated clearly the flow of the deduction.
there is scum in the set {FL, dramonic}
there is scum in the set {FL, santos}
there is scum in the set {FL, cookie, sanjay}
and there is scum in the set {Sanjay, MrSuave, Santos, dramonic}
if you(FL) is not the scum, then dramonic, santos, and (cookie or sanjay) had to be the 3 scums, which is really unlikely.
so i voted you.

Yes, but again. You're assuming a scum per wagon.
That's a big assumption.

In addition, even if an assumption is true, that doesn't mean it's built on correct premises. For example, I'm going to assume there is scum in the game. Therefore, I'll vote: x. My assumption is correct, but that does not mean that its a solid argument.

Also, I'm pretty sure we have by now concluded that there aren't 5 scums, due to the nature of the PMs. Yet you are assuming 5 scums BC, reckoner, dramonic, santos and {cookie or sanjay}. So obviously, it's really unlikely. It's pretty much false. Only two of those could be scum simultaneously.

i'll read the exact vote in context when i have time. but you are now saying that you hammer others to get SW lynched? there is no logic in it

Also, again you have obviously not yet seen the nature of the votes on BC and Sposh. Both were hammers in order to get to next day and lynch SW, so arguing that I was on the wagon is a pretty horrible argument.

but why not try to lynch the scum first?

Because the rest wanted to lynch the other first and it's a majority rule to lynch?

[Max]

zwetschenwasser has replaced Mufasa.

[manho]

read the post where i voted you. i've stated clearly the flow of the deduction.
there is scum in the set {FL, dramonic}
there is scum in the set {FL, santos}
there is scum in the set {FL, cookie, sanjay}
and there is scum in the set {Sanjay, MrSuave, Santos, dramonic}
if you(FL) is not the scum, then dramonic, santos, and (cookie or sanjay) had to be the 3 scums, which is really unlikely.
so i voted you.

Yes, but again. You're assuming a scum per wagon.
That's a big assumption.

In addition, even if an assumption is true, that doesn't mean it's built on correct premises. For example, I'm going to assume there is scum in the game. Therefore, I'll vote: x. My assumption is correct, but that does not mean that its a solid argument.

Also, I'm pretty sure we have by now concluded that there aren't 5 scums, due to the nature of the PMs. Yet you are assuming 5 scums BC, reckoner, dramonic, santos and {cookie or sanjay}. So obviously, it's really unlikely. It's pretty much false. Only two of those could be scum simultaneously.

forgot that BC is scum and we have two left. so we can't have those 3 all scum, and so you must be scum. my argument is valid and your example is invalid. and if you find my argument invalid, please give solid reasons instead of making irrelevance counter example.

i'll read the exact vote in context when i have time. but you are now saying that you hammer others to get SW lynched? there is no logic in it

Also, again you have obviously not yet seen the nature of the votes on BC and Sposh. Both were hammers in order to get to next day and lynch SW, so arguing that I was on the wagon is a pretty horrible argument.

i don't know the correct defination of "wagon", but you are among the people voting SW, BC... and my assumption is about who is voting but not who is on the wagon. and obviously you were voting those people.

but why not try to lynch the scum first?

Because the rest wanted to lynch the other first and it's a majority rule to lynch?

if the people voting cannot make a lynch, it is not majority. note that we need more than half of the whole town to get someone lynched.

[manho]

welcome zwet, can you confirm the action taken by mufasa at night?

[FaerieLord]

forgot that BC is scum and we have two left. so we can't have those 3 all scum, and so you must be scum. my argument is valid and your example is invalid. and if you find my argument invalid, please give solid reasons instead of making irrelevance counter example.

So you now change from "really unlikely" to "can't have those 3 all scum"

And you're still assuming. That's a solid reason

if the people voting cannot make a lynch, it is not majority. note that we need more than half of the whole town to get someone lynched.

Yeah, simple maths does not elude me.
The lynch would have still happened. I just sped it up.
I gave reasons, you just seem to skim by them
again
and again
and again

i don't know the correct defination of "wagon", but you are among the people voting SW, BC... and my assumption is about who is voting but not who is on the wagon. and obviously you were voting those people.

You know what...screw this.
I'm bored repeating.

Enjoy your vote

[Santos]

I am not in a masonry.

FoS: zwet

, for his predecessor's lies.

FoS: FaerieLord

for being at the end of every lynch; its not scummy, but I see it as suspicious and a very good point that manho brought up. However, FaerieLord, do you think manho is scum? If so, what examples do you have? If not, then do you think manho's lists of common voters are legitimate enough of reasons to think people are mafia for being on so many wagons?

[Max]

19 days to deadline and VOTECOUNT:

MrSuave (2): Mr Suave, zwetschenwasser
FaerieLord (2): FaerieLord, manho
manho (1): Santos
Ethereal Cookie (1): Ethereal Cookie
dramonic (1): dramonic
Sanjay (1): Sanjay
zwetschenwasser (0)
Santos (0)

5 To Lynch (self votes discounted if it's lylo)

[manho]

forgot that BC is scum and we have two left. so we can't have those 3 all scum, and so you must be scum. my argument is valid and your example is invalid. and if you find my argument invalid, please give solid reasons instead of making irrelevance counter example.

So you now change from "really unlikely" to "can't have those 3 all scum"

read the "forgot that BC is scum" in the quote.

And you're still assuming. That's a solid reason

an argument is valid if the premises(assumption) imply the conclusion, and there is no counter example for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false. "you're still assuming" is not a solid reason for proving my arugment is false. also, "you're still assuming" is not a solid reason to prove my assumption is unlikely, maybe you need some solid data to prove my assumption false.

...
You know what...screw this.
I'm bored repeating.

Enjoy your vote

i'm also bored repeating, and i enjoy my vote.

[FaerieLord]

an argument is valid if the premises(assumption) imply the conclusion, and there is no counter example for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false. "you're still assuming" is not a solid reason for proving my arugment is false. also, "you're still assuming" is not a solid reason to prove my assumption is unlikely, maybe you need some solid data to prove my assumption false.

A wait, so if I argue "Santa Claus exists because working elves exist." There is no counter example, nobody can say in certainty that I've never seen working elves, so therefore Santa Claus is real. Good job.

Also, I cannot provide solid data against guesses. That's like asking me to provide solid data of the above elves.

Either way, to answer Santos.
Do you people seriously not see the context of my hammer? Can you simply read the posts above the hammers? BC was to lynch him to get to SW. I hammered Sposh too again to get to SW the next day. The only reason I wasn't on the SW wagon was because I didn't make it on time. I think I've been constantly against SW.

Also, I'm not saying manho is scum, i'm just saying that the argument is complete bullocks. When you base something on false or unsure deductions, you cannot assume a correct answer.

Let's put this in simple maths

x+7 = 12 or 13
Therefore x = 6, since it is 13.

Yet it could be 12, so x = 5.
Manho is ignoring this hypothetical 5, just to justify a hunch.

[Santos]

I don't get it.

[Santos]

No matter, FaerieLord, who do you think is scum?

[zwetschenwasser]

First off, Mufasa should have been modkilled in this game because of his ban evasion, but since I'm here, I speak the truth that Mufasa is an honourable vigilante, who accidentally killed the doctor and has not been able to nightkill since.

[Max]

The reason I chose not to modkill was because this wasn't a game in which both played. So, the choice to replace was as I would rather not modkill this stage of the game