Newbie 1013(GAME OVER!|Scum win!)

[AClockworkMelon]

Mike, are you kidding me? When I try to out the doc in the hopes of confirming two people I'm scum but when you ask the doc to claim in the hopes of confirming two people it's okeydokey?

Give me a break.

[mikemike778]

Mike, are you kidding me? When I try to out the doc in the hopes of confirming two people I'm scum but when you ask the doc to claim in the hopes of confirming two people it's okeydokey?

Give me a break.

You've missed the point.

The doc (if there is one) should be the one who outs themselves as they know

whether there is a saved player and who they are

. And its not the only reason I think your scum. I don't think you get over-excited and blurt out something like that ... I think you are far more calculated than that.

You've spent the whole game active - asking the right questions looking like a good little townie but are pretty careful about coming out with you really think . You've also been in on both lynches (admittedly so have most of us) making sure of course that you would only hammer zero to make sure the town didn't miss out on a lynch before the deadline.

Anyhow what would I know being a newbie and all that

[nameloc1986]

Its only 50% if there is a 'saved' player is in the game.

If there isn't then its 40%

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comapring that to 33% of a successfull lynch along with a 20% of saving a day kill, in fact the 20% is lower than that as the Doc could be lynched if we don't believe any claim. Which equates to about 39% chance of surving to Day 4 (33 * 120%) - is that right ?

-----------------------------------------------------------

If my sums are right (big if) ... I say any Doc should claim if there is a saved player is in the game.

a. I highly doubt (thought admit it's possible) that the scum did not nightkill on the first night. So I believe that there is a 'saved' player in this game.
b. If someone claims doc, then whoever is on that wagon should unvote, unless there is a counter claim. This should be done without waiting for the last minute. In that case, I'm pretty sure we'll avoid lynching the doc.
c. If we mislynch again, I'm not sure of how the statistics will add up because it's up to the doc to second guess the scum.

Anyhow what would I know being a newbie and all that

A little too late to play the newbie card if you ask me!

[nameloc1986]

Mike, I'm a little confused. At the start of your last post, you seem confident that you think ACM is scum, but yet by the end of the post you fall into a newbie self-doubt. On a scale of 1-10, how confident are you in your vote?

[mikemike778]

Mike, I'm a little confused. At the start of your last post, you seem confident that you think ACM is scum, but yet by the end of the post you fall into a newbie self-doubt. On a scale of 1-10, how confident are you in your vote?

I was being sarcastic.

Re 758.

[mikemike778]

Its only 50% if there is a 'saved' player is in the game.

If there isn't then its 40%

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comapring that to 33% of a successfull lynch along with a 20% of saving a day kill, in fact the 20% is lower than that as the Doc could be lynched if we don't believe any claim. Which equates to about 39% chance of surving to Day 4 (33 * 120%) - is that right ?

-----------------------------------------------------------

If my sums are right (big if) ... I say any Doc should claim if there is a saved player is in the game.

a. I highly doubt (thought admit it's possible) that the scum did not nightkill on the first night. So I believe that there is a 'saved' player in this game.
b. If someone claims doc, then whoever is on that wagon should unvote, unless there is a counter claim. This should be done without waiting for the last minute. In that case, I'm pretty sure we'll avoid lynching the doc.
c. If we mislynch again, I'm not sure of how the statistics will add up because it's up to the doc to second guess the scum.

Anyhow what would I know being a newbie and all that

A little too late to play the newbie card if you ask me!

a. There's also the possibility that Holy was saved first night although that's fairly low as well.

b. Seems sensible but it would make us pretty vulnerable to the bad guys if they did do the 'no night kill' tactic in a) and then claiming which makes a) more likely I suppose.

c. My stats were based on both parties randomly guessing

Everything seems centred on the doc, isn't there a chance there's a cop floating around somewhere, whats the standard practice for these - wait for a guilty result and then reveal. That wasn't a soft-cop claim by the way.

[AClockworkMelon]

You've spent the whole game active - asking the right questions looking like a good little townie

Right. Too townie to be town. Gotcha.

You've also been in on both lynches (

admittedly so have most of us

)

Then why even mention it?

making sure of course that you would only hammer zero to make sure the town didn't miss out on a lynch before the deadline

At least I didn't lynch before the town was ready. Oops.

[mikemike778]

I forgot my mark out of 10.

About 7/10

Civil still concerns me and at this point I'd probably be slightly against them both being scum.

[Robocopter87]

__________

:

|

Vote Count

|

:

MAD Scientist[0]
Civil Scum[1] AClockworkMelon
nameloc1986[0]
mikemike778[0]
Ant_to_the_max [1] Civil Scum
AClockworkMelon [1] mikemike778

:

|

Not Voting

|

:

MAD Scientist, nameloc1986, Ant_to_the_Max

:

|

Amount to Lynch

|

:

With 6 Alive it is 4 to Lynch.

:

|

Deadline

|

:

Midnight of November 26^th

__________

[Robocopter87]

Prodding MAD.

[Civil Scum]

Come on Robo, now why in the world would you do something like that?

Jk...jk

Wow, we have mad action here. Well, not Mad-action, but certainly some action. Should be caught up and with a post later tonight.

[MAD Scientist]

Replacement avoider. I had a rough day yesterday, so I didn't post last night, but I'll post content tonight

[Ant_to_the_max]

So...if no doctor claims...I think I'm going to go with my reasoning in my last post.

[Civil Scum]

Your reasoning that you are scum?

What happened to the idea of a no-lynch?

Long days of work here, some things to add I think, though my opinion of Ant remains largely unaffected.

[Ant_to_the_max]

Your reasoning that you are scum?

Shut up. Now you are just being stupid and avoiding my accusation.

[Civil Scum]

And you avoided my question

[nameloc1986]

So Ant, will you be voting for Civil then?

[mikemike778]

So...if no doctor claims...I think I'm going to go with my reasoning in my last post.

That we wanted a doc claim ?

Whereas ACM getting all 'excited' over the fact that 'MAD' hadn't posted for a while so therefore must be the doc on the grounds that Civil wanted a doc claim and then deciding to 'out' her is perfectly sensible town behaviour.

Hmm..

Ant moves up a spot on my suspect list I think which stands at:

1. ACM
2. Ant
3. Civil
4. MAD
5. Name

[Civil Scum]

Attempting to force the potential doc's hand doesn't seem a very pro-town thing to do to me.

It would be if you thought the doctor might be clueless, or headed for a NK the next night. Obviously, if they think they have a plan, then that's okay I guess. We can't force the doctor to claim. It probably means the doctor doesn't know anything right now, and that claiming would just lead to their death and would be much worse than if we no-lynched.

If there is a Doc ... they know more than us.

Not neccesarily. Although they seem to be planning on picking good protections and learning enough information to "solve" the game. And by planning, I mean hoping. That's one reason, the other reasons are that they are preferring to wait for a false counter claim to be made, or that the doc is MAD and she just doesn't want to claim.

I say any Doc should claim if there is a saved player is in the game.

Agreed

I meant waffling in the sense that ACM defined.

I guess baiting could be anything that was put out there, with the intent of getting someone to do anything. You could be baited into taking any action. I was kinda understanding it as baiting someone to fire back at you, or provoking them to do something like that or get riled up, and encouraging/goading as 'baiting' someone to go after someone else. But I think baiting can be used to describe behavior intended to influence any other behavior.

MikeMike: I only meant that I was inclined to believe that you find some of my behavior scummy. But you took it a different way. Also with a strange sense of sarcasm. Could you explain succinctly, why you are voting for ACM right now?


Ant, you've avoided several questions recently (atleast 3), and this "Shut up." - Now, forgetting for now the topic of friendly/unfirendly whatever, your last post is WAY off baseline for you. Which makes one wonder what's going on over there...


MAD: "Replacement" avoiders make me angry

[mikemike778]

Could you explain succinctly, why you are voting for ACM right now?

Because I think he's talking crap, probably lying and therefore probably scum.

[Ant_to_the_max]

name the three cuz I only see one that I have yet to touch on in your last post.

[nameloc1986]

Ant, can you answer my question?

[Ant_to_the_max]

Just getting home.

And I think I might just have to change my mind...on everything...
lemme get my thoughts together

[MAD Scientist]

Clock: your iso posts 154 and 155 were what I was referring to when I said you were baiting Civil. It looks like you're trying to get another argument going with him so that you can cast him as the defensive, annoying bad guy. You've also managed, basically the whole game, to avoid making cases against people. This could easily be because you're one of the scum. You've gone against the easy targets: Zero because we were approaching deadline and holycon because she was acting very bizarre. The whole doc-hunting episode also makes me wary. Perhaps I am stupid/naive to not want a doc claim, but honestly at this point would any of us believe it?

Hence, VOTE: Clock

Civil- replacement avoiders annoy me, too. I could give my laundry list of reasons, but why depress everybody else?

[Ant_to_the_max]

Thoughts from Nameloc and Mike's talk on the doctor claiming. Yes, as of right now, statistically we have a 33.3% chance of lynching a scum this day. IF there is a doctor, and IF the person he saved (assuming the scum tried to kill them) is alive, then right now the doctor has a leg up and has a 50% chance of lynching a scum.

Now, if this doctor decided to claim and share the person he saved (one that is still alive right now), the remaining two townies now have a 66.7% of lynching scum while the doctor and the saved townie have a 50%. Of course, the doctor is as good as dead during the night though.

If the person he saved is dead now...then it doesn't really matter. The doctor can keep to himself and try to save someone the next night. Possibly leaving the game up to one person does not sit well with me...at all...

So, no, I will not be voting for Civil for my previously stated reasoning.

Although refining my thoughts I am now saying it is Mike/Civil, Mike/Clock, or Civil/Clock. Which one of those three I have no clue right now.

As for the no-lynch we honestly would not gain anything from it. Statistically, you could argue we would, but there is more to this game than just numbers. I was wrong with that idea. And for the doc claiming, IF there is one, and IF AND ONLY IF the person they saved is alive, I think they should claim. Other than that...I don't care.