(shrug)
In my last game I played we didn't speedlynch ender241, so this game we probably will.
Xalxe, do you mean role names AND functions or just names?
Then what's the motivation behind asking others to claim role names if you aren't going to do so yourself?Xalxe wrote:Zora, I like pictures more than video, just FYI
Also, I will not fullclaim submitted roles just yet, but I've already given a hint.
I don't see any chaos. I don't see any uncertainty. Elaborate on this -- I don't see the drastic consequences of it.Internet Stranger wrote:Scum are the only ones that benefit from this. It creates chaos and uncertainty.
How about giving an explanation instead of... that?chesskid3 wrote:ok
this wagon is fucking horrible
Then why did you post your roles AFTER he made that statement?chesskid3 wrote:and I see where' he's coming from.
I can't tell if this is ad hom or basic mudslinging.CooLDoG wrote:chesses comments are as stupid as normal.
I spy a rolefish.brokenscraps wrote:Xalxe: how did you give us a clue as to your submitted role? I was assuming you were breadcrumbing a "I submitted Officer Rex Mannington" claim in your first post but apparently no...
Where'd the speculation of multiple scumteams come from? And why would it have any sort of impact on the presence of a Cop-like role?StrangerCoug wrote:A standard cop, not unless there are multiple scumteams. I sent in a role cop, though.DeathNote wrote:Also, is there no cops in this game? Is that what the post four means from the mod?
Allow me to rephrase.StrangerCoug wrote:The post of mine you just quoted, and even then, I don't think it should be seriously considered right now.Olinea wrote:Where'd the speculation of multiple scumteams come from?
I am completely aware, thank you.DemonHybrid wrote:OLINEA, YOU BOLDED THE WORD DETONATE.
Vote: Olinea
I'm pretty sure I refuted the Detonator thing, so is your vote built off of something else?Tasky wrote:fourth:
VOTE: Olinea.
No, I'm not joking.DemonHybrid wrote:Olinea, you have to be joking. You bolded the word detonate, the mod most likely missed it the first time, but the, suddenly, two people died.
I just want to hang you because you're now lying to our faces red handed. Give it up and die.
I've been going by Lynch All Liars ever since my first game.DemonHybrid wrote:tl;dr: Olinea, lets assume that you are a TOWN Detonator. Saying "whoops, I fucked up. Yes, I'm a Detonator and I killed the wrong person ._." would gain COMPLETE understanding to me but you are at the point where you are CONSTANTLY LYING.
Olinea, I know you're rather new to mafia, but not entirely new, so I'll ask you this: Have you heard of a Lynch all Liars policy?
Sigh.DemonHybrid wrote:Olinea, so help me god, if you're lying as town and you want to die just to prove a point, you have no clue how angry I'll be.Olinea wrote:Alright, so this is the only way to get the wagon off of my back -- I've seen what happens when DemonHybrid tunnells and it ain't good.
Furcolow, vote for me.
Which knowledge? The knowledge of my role?The fact you have this knowledge, to me, seems like to much.
Technically Zoraster brought the idea up in the pre-game thread before the setup was made, so you really can't say there was scum motivation in that.Zajnet wrote:FoS: Xalxe and Zoraster for that reason.
This is untrue. I've never been scum, but I tend to be very conservative in voting. I'd think a tendency to be unwilling to vote reflects on the player's style rather than their alignment.Xalxe wrote:Using an FoS without a vote indicates unwillingness to vote. Only scum are unwilling to vote.
I read a past Town game of DemonHybrid's and his behavior is mostly the same. He found someone who he thought was scummy and his arguments and misrepping against them almost got him lynched. I'm not saying he's close to being lynched but when I saw him as scum he was more broad and calculating. Mostly a meta argument.Tasky wrote:I assume from this post that you think DH is town. What makes you think that?Olinea wrote:I'm claiming to get DemonHybrid to stop tunnelling on me.
|Internet Stranger wrote:Olinea would have been safe had he just came out and said "I though Chesskid was scummy, so I blew him up". But Olinea cant use that line because he came out of the gate swinging and ready to play mad bomber right away.
I still want to know why Olinea would post a bolded detonate twice. TWICE!
Olinea wrote:@WhenInRome:
It was in response to dana's "ITT we learn Olinea is not the Detonator", hence the little tongue smiley.
Oh, for FUCK’S sake. Suddenly the justification behind an RVS vote is scummy? This has to be a joke.populartajo wrote:Olinea is very very likely SCUM and not because the detonator stupid stuff which is PRETTY OBVIOUS she is not, its becuase she is full of scumtells. Im not liking his justification for random voting in post 5, his sheeping to the claiming strategy in post 7, and more importantly she is freaking scared of Demon Hybrid, like too worried of being caught. Assuming Olineatown, I dont know where she got the conclusion that DH was tunneling townie instead of considering him as a scumbag trying to get advantage of her, which is the normal townie reasoning. This strongly suggest Olineascum.
Previously mentioned meta argument. Haven't gotten to know his scum game that much but from what I've seen it matches a town meta more than scum.populartajo wrote:why were you treating DemonHybrid as tunneling town then?Olinea wrote:Nobody likes to be pressured, especially as town because you’re unsure if the person in question is a misguided townie who should be directing their attention towards scum or scum trying to get a mislynch in.
ill watch the video tonight, from work i cant. :S
What do you mean by this?Nocmen wrote:I'm pretty sure it's someone on the wagon that killed chesskid.
Why is there a "we" in this? Your ISO reveals no prior suspicion of me.DeathNote wrote:I like the theory of there being a mafia matchmaker but we know that olinea's role is not this matchmaker or the detonator for that matter. We need to reevaluate why we believe him to be scum.
It's scummy of you to dodge my earlier question directed towards you.DeathNote wrote:Is it scummy for me to not watch the videos?
Completely legit. The "we" in this case refers to people who were suspicious of me. You were not.DeathNote wrote:Is this the question you speak of? I consider myself part of the town. We=town. Most of the town seems to think you are scum so I used "we". Was this really a legit question?Olinea wrote:Why is there a "we" in this? Your ISO reveals no prior suspicion of me.DeathNote wrote:I like the theory of there being a mafia matchmaker but we know that olinea's role is not this matchmaker or the detonator for that matter. We need to reevaluate why we believe him to be scum.
I specified that, yes.Fishythefish wrote:That's very interesting. I'd more or less been assume the mechanic was changed to PM.
@Olinea: did you specify that the player must type "detonate", in bold, in the thread, to set off the bomb? Please check the exact wording of your role submission (but don't quote it here).
You CAN be, if you watch zoraster's video, which is the information in question.Furcolow wrote:We're not all blessed with the informationOlinea wrote:It's scummy of you to dodge my earlier question directed towards you.DeathNote wrote:Is it scummy for me to not watch the videos?
It's anti-town to keep yourself uninformed.youhave, Olinea
Alright, fair enough. I hadn't realized the wagon was that small at the time.DeathNote wrote:Olinea wrote:
How do you know the people pushing my lynch were Town, and not scum looking for an easy wagon?
Olinea (5) - Tasky, WhenInRome, brokenscraps, Internet Stranger, Zajnet
Those were the people voting you at the time of my post. You were a big topic of discussion at the time which prompted me to give my post. Out of the people talking about you and those voting for you, not all could be scum. There is just no way.
Would you rather I asked where you got the information so you could interpret that as a rolefish?Tasky wrote:But, Olinea is scum anyway. To see why, go back to my post 188. I clearly state in that post that I have "a REALLY GOOD REASON to believe he is scum". (after the post 147/post 149 exchange) Now, that is not just some accusation that comes from nothing, but it's clear it has to do with some extra-information I possess. Now, as seen by post 191 Olinea has clearly seen my post. Yet he choose to ignore me. I think this is conclusive evidence that he is scum. why?
what does a townie do if someone accuses them stating to have some really strong reason which goes beyond basic scumhunting? they would know that information is wrong, and would wonder why. The very first thing a townie would do is to vote me. Taking this to an extreme, wouldn't you vote a cop who declared a guilty on you?
Is not strong reasoning, and appears to be more of a gambit than anything else.Tasky wrote:PS: People, can we PLEASE lynch Olinea? I have a REALLY GOOD REASON to believe he is scum (which is completely unrelated to the Detonator stuff.)
Reread the question. I'm asking if anyone sent in a role that functions that way, not if someone USED a role like that.Internet Stranger wrote:Hey Olinea, what exactly are you expecting to happen with that question?
Yea, whoever daykilled Chesskid, please confess so that we can lynch you. Even if you just sent in the role,you'll be suspicious enough top lynch anyways. I know that you probably would have confessed by now if you were town, buts ok, come on out and confess so we can lynch you.
There was not a clause like that.Fishythefish wrote:@Olinea: can you confirm that there was no clause in your submitted role about the bomb being passed pregame?
I'm conservative with my vote. I don't vote for somebody because they give anTasky wrote:I think a townie would have started by voting me.Olinea wrote:Would you rather I asked where you got the information so you could interpret that as a rolefish?
Woooo backstory.Xalxe wrote:Olinea's Question:Why did you pick Furcolow as the one who couldn't vote for you?
Hold on, I don't understand this list. You have me as Town and Tajo as scum. If that were the case, wouldn't the best move for tajo been keeping quiet about sending in the Yosarianite role?StrangerCoug wrote:Top 3 scum: populartajo, Internet Stranger, XalxeXalxe wrote:StrangerCoug’s Question:I’d like a Top 3 list of both Town and Scum. No, that’s not a question.
Top 3 town: Olinea and ender241 are the only two people on whom I've had a strong town read. Forced to pick a third name, I'd say Plum.
If tajo had stayed quiet about submitting the Yosarianite, and nobody would own up to submitting it, I feel as though people would say "well, nobody submitted it, so it has to be a fakeclaim", and probably be the straw that broke the camel's back.StrangerCoug wrote:I am not a strategy expert and I don't see how one of claiming submitting the Yosarianite role and shutting up about it is preferable to the other as scum. Explain in further detail, please.Olinea wrote:Hold on, I don't understand this list. You have me as Town and Tajo as scum. If that were the case, wouldn't the best move for tajo been keeping quiet about sending in the Yosarianite role?
I tend to assume everyone is telling the truth when they first start out -- I had no read on Tasky and figured he actually may have had false information on me -- but what would I do in response, say "uh, no you don't"? Asking where he got it is rolefishing and seeing as how people reacted negatively to my early claim I wasn't going to push the envelope; rather, I'd just hope Tasky would realize his PR is fallible.Fishythefish wrote:@Oli: about Tasky's gambit. My thinking here is that as town in your position I would have thought Tasky was either lying or wrong. Either way, I'd be extremely keen to know what he thought I was scum. Why didn't you feel that way?
Because I'd been considering both sides of the coin. I didn't have a read on you, Tasky; I couldn't decide if this was gambiting scum or misguided Town.Tasky wrote:If Olineas original response wasn't enough to make me convinced he is scum, then those definitely are:
Olinea wrote:Is not strong reasoning, andappears to be more of a gambit than anything else.contradiction.Olinea wrote:I tend to assume everyone is telling the truth when they first start out-- I had no read on Tasky and figured he actually may have had false information on me -- but what would I do in response, say "uh, no you don't"? Asking where he got it is rolefishing and seeing as how people reacted negatively to my early claim I wasn't going to push the envelope; rather, I'd just hope Tasky would realize his PR is fallible.
on the one hand you say how not believable my original statement was (you even seemed to know it was a gambit) and on the other hand you want to make me believe you believed my statement but thought I had some false information
You do realize this game is composed of completely new roles, and therefore the fallibility of PRs is likely to increase?Tasky wrote:btw, false PR-information are quite rare
Unless I’m completely missing the point of this statement, in this scenario you just outlined, I’m Town.Tasky wrote:and the worst thing a townie could to against them is do nothing, as they will just hurt the town.
Are you kidding me? What kind of townieTasky wrote:scumslip.Olinea wrote:I'm conservative with my vote. I don't vote for somebody because they give anextremelyvague message saying they have a reason to suspect me. That's practically OMGUS; it reeks of an"Oh, you found me out? You die now"kind of deal. PRs are fallible and I don't take them as conclusive evidence of anything, especially not on Day 1. What you were doing basically amounted to "Vote him, he's scum" and I ignore things like that.
you feared to come under suspicion? yes, that's exactly my point. of course the townie standing up against to the false PR-claim comes under suspicion, but there is absolutely not town-reason to want to avoid that suspicion.
Any PR with a guilty on me in this game sure as hell is fallible.Tasky wrote:but one shouldn'tOlinea wrote:You do realize this game is composed of completely new roles, and therefore the fallibility of PRs is likely to increase?assumePRs to be fallible. even if it ispossiblefor a role to be fallible, it is not exactlyprobableand one should always first consider the case where it isn't fallible.
Let's put it this way. Say I confronted you about it. What kind of questions would I have been able to ask without blatantly rolefishing?Tasky wrote:there are two scenarios: in the one you are scum, you were playing in the best and rational way
in the one you are town (the one described above), you were playing in the worst and most anti-own-win-con-way.
therefore your actions are much more likely to come from scum than from town
therefore you are much more likely to be scum than town.
What do I risk there?Tasky wrote:Let's take the extreme example of the cop-guilty again:Olinea wrote:Are you kidding me? What kind of townieintentionallycomes under suspicion? There certainlyisa town reason for not wanting scumhunting efforts to go towards one's self -- because it means that scumhunting (or faux scumhunting) isn't currently being directed towards scum. To you, because I'd rather people direct their attention towards scum, I'm scummy? Good one.
assume A declares a guilty on B, but nobody notices it.
a) if he stays quiet he avoids suspicion
b) if he attacks A he either finds a fakeclaiming scum or either way has a chance to resolve the issue, but he will inevitably come under suspicion
do you think a town-B would choose a) over b)?
I hope however that everybody sees that scum-B likes the result after a) much more than the one after b) and will therefore choose the former.
coming back to our (less extreme) case:
if you were town, the small amount of suspicion you could come into would be almost meaningless compared to the possible gain in questioning someone who claims some extra-threat reasons to vote you. and if you are town, what exactly could you fear in the exchange? consciously avoiding conflicts is one of the major and most reliable scumtells possible.
Basically sanity issues, but I also consider fallibility of a PR to be when something can tamper with definite results. Godfathers make Cops fallible, Undertakers for Trackers, etc. Since we don't know exactly what we're dealing with here, the accuracy of informative PRs can definitely be called into question.StrangerCoug wrote:Unless we're dealing with sanity issues, I can't make heads or tails out of this. Elaborate please.Olinea wrote:Any PR with a guilty on me in this game sure as hell is fallible.
This is about as blatant as a misrep can get. This is grasping at straws to pad your case and it's actuallyTasky wrote:haha. you fear investigation, do you?Olinea wrote:Any PR with a guilty on me in this game sure as hell is fallible.Tasky wrote:but one shouldn'tOlinea wrote:You do realize this game is composed of completely new roles, and therefore the fallibility of PRs is likely to increase?assumePRs to be fallible. even if it ispossiblefor a role to be fallible, it is not exactlyprobableand one should always first consider the case where it isn't fallible.
Alright, fair enough. I hadn't considered going on the offensive at the time, I'm pretty sure I had other people on my plate and I didn't need anbody else pushing it.Tasky wrote:something like: "Vote: Tasky. Whatever information you claim to have is wrong. You better elaborate on that 'reason' of yours or I'll lynch you for lying." Or maybe being a little more conservative you could have started with "Tasky, how strong is this 'reason' or yours?" to know more. then you could have acted accordingly to my answer.Olinea wrote:Let's put it this way. Say I confronted you about it. What kind of questions would I have been able to ask without blatantly rolefishing?
Pushing too hard for the true story behind your PR would indicate which type of informative PR you are -- for instance, "What does your "guilty" say about me?" "Says you visited chesskid during the pre-game" would indicate some sort of Tracker/Watcher role. If it resulted in a fullclaim, even worse.Tasky wrote:I don't understand this. could you rephrase?Olinea wrote:a) Outing another PR, or at least giving scum information about you (Should you be town)
Except for rolefishing Town PRs (if you're Town, but based on that earlier misrep I'm really doubting it)Tasky wrote:The whole Detonator-bullshit was obviously going to crumble sooner or later, especially considering that you have a confirmable role-claim. so a player should avoid confronting someone heOlinea wrote:b) Attracting even more suspicion during a period where I was still believed to be a Detonator (Should you be scum, this fills your agenda nicely)knowsis lying/wrong because of fear of suspicion? if you are a townie you have absolutely nothing to lose in such a confrontation. scum however, will want to keep out of it as much as possible.
Just because I HAVE the roleclaim doesn't mean "Oh, somebody FoS'ed me? ROLECLAIM TIME". While it was early I feel it was better than the alternative, which would be letting the entire thing snowball until the claim would be rather ineffective.Tasky wrote:This is exactly my point. There was the whole detonator-thing around and you knew you could free yourself from that (rather) easily (by role-claim). Therefore you wanted some hype around you, which you could then foil and come out well and townish from the exchange. I see the whole detonator thing as a very convenient shield against any other accusations. just because there is one (very weak) case on you (the detonator) that does absolutely not give you the right to avoid a scumhunting confrontation.Olinea wrote: Look. I avoided the issue because there were people with actual statements and questions for me instead of extremely vague softclaiming. I avoid you and it's a scumtell. I ask you where you got your info, or ask about the info, that's definite rolefishing -- a scumtell. Tell me what would have made this anything but a lose-lose situation.
this is another very huge scumtell, scum will always attack the weakest case on them and therefore make it seem like they have refuted all possible cases on them.
Nothing comes to mind, no :/Tasky wrote:no, it's not about you coming under suspicion, it's about avoiding a possibly information-bringing confrontationOlinea wrote: For your meta question, let me purge my games again. I've only got 4 completed Town games for reference (the other two are off-site in some subforum which you'd need to make an account for, then request to join; if you don't mind the hassle and would like to comb the threads anyways, I'll hook you up) -- lynched D1 in my first and NK'ed N1 in my second, but I'll see. I've got an off-site Serial Killer game here which you can reference but I'm not sure which meta you'd count that towards. Basically, Player A claims Neighbor, I jump on the wagon of Neighbor B, and come under a bit of fire. I can get back to you on this but I haven't come under much scrutiny for months until this game.
Tasky wrote:Olinea avoids direct confrontation which might bring a lot of information (if he was town) and prefers to sweep everyrealsuspicion against him under the rug.
-> Olinea plays to avoid suspicion instead of playing to scumhunt.
-> Olinea shields himself with a refusal to the extremely weak Detonator-case to avoid coming under suspicion from everything else.
Tasky wrote:Olinea, of course you know already you are scum, so I don't need to convince you.
He's reaching, and quite simply reiterating one point over and over again.Tasky wrote:(since my vote is stuck on obvscum-Olinea)
Tasky wrote:But, Olinea is scum anyway. To see why, go back to my post 188. I clearly state in that post that I have "a REALLY GOOD REASON to believe he is scum". (after the post 147/post 149 exchange) Now, that is not just some accusation that comes from nothing, but it's clear it has to do with some extra-information I possess. Now, as seen by post 191 Olinea has clearly seen my post. Yet he choose to ignore me. I think this is conclusive evidence that he is scum. why?
what does a townie do if someone accuses them stating to have some really strong reason which goes beyond basic scumhunting? they would know that information is wrong, and would wonder why. The very first thing a townie would do is to vote me. Taking this to an extreme, wouldn't you vote a cop who declared a guilty on you?
Tasky wrote:you feared to come under suspicion? yes, that's exactly my point. of course the townie standing up against to the false PR-claim comes under suspicion, but there is absolutely not town-reason to want to avoid that suspicion.
Tasky wrote:coming back to our (less extreme) case:
if you were town, the small amount of suspicion you could come into would be almost meaningless compared to the possible gain in questioning someone who claims some extra-threat reasons to vote you. and if you are town, what exactly could you fear in the exchange? consciously avoiding conflicts is one of the major and most reliable scumtells possible.
Tasky’s misrep can be found here:Tasky wrote:-> Olinea avoids direct confrontation which might bring a lot of information (if he was town) and prefers to sweep everyrealsuspicion against him under the rug.
-> Olinea plays to avoid suspicion instead of playing to scumhunt.
-> Olinea shields himself with a refusal to the extremely weak Detonator-case to avoid coming under suspicion from everything else.
I honestly can’t see where he gotTasky wrote:haha. you fear investigation, do you?Olinea wrote:Any PR with a guilty on me in this game sure as hell is fallible.Tasky wrote:but one shouldn'tOlinea wrote:You do realize this game is composed of completely new roles, and therefore the fallibility of PRs is likely to increase?assumePRs to be fallible. even if it ispossiblefor a role to be fallible, it is not exactlyprobableand one should always first consider the case where it isn't fallible.
Warning flares errywhere in here. Didn't like the "multiple scumteams" speculation the first time I saw it and the "Mafia C" strongly indicates SC's flip will likely be a Mafia B or Mafia C.StrangerCoug wrote:A standard cop, not unless there are multiple scumteams. I sent in a role cop, though.DeathNote wrote:Also, is there no cops in this game? Is that what the post four means from the mod?
I think you missed the point of it. I don't care about sending in a Rolecop. His speculation of multiple scumteams is bizarre at best. Inherently I'd assumeNocmen wrote:That is an interesting thing to point out, but I want to hear more based on what SC submitted if SC sent in Furc's role.
You're completely dodging the argument here. I don't care if you submitted a Rolecop, Godfather, and a Janitor. The speculation over multiple scumteams was unprompted. Submitting a Rolecop is not a scumtell but you're not addressing the main argument, which is that there was no visible reason to suspect multiple scumteams but you brought this up anyways.StrangerCoug wrote:I feel I made a reasonable deduction here. A standard cop only makes sense in a multiball because roles have to work for both town and scum, and I don't see how my post indicates that I took the possibility very seriously.
I don't think zoraster ever discussed the mechanic of the TTK, or how it functions, so why are you mentioning it like you know how it works?fishythefish wrote:@zoraster: your Time Travelling Killer? If so, the mechanic would have chesskid and cooldog retain their alignments?
Bah. Longer. Sorry.Amrun wrote:Olinea, you want today to be shorter?!
Null here. This wasThAdmiral wrote:talking about scumteams in 23.