Mini 453 [insert title here] -- MOD ABANDONED

[Sonicpulsar]

/confirm

[Sonicpulsar]

Vote: TrustGossip

Something wrong with the statement "could use a boy to unwind".

[Sonicpulsar]

At some point, something has to happen that validates or invalidates what someone else has said. In other words, someone has to get their head near the chopping block before much will happen unless people are stupid (read: crafty).

We've obviously learned a few things about a couple of people already, just by putting someone's feet to the fire. But we won't know exactly what we've learned until someone makes a mistake (read: crafty) or someone is killed. It's possible (and perhaps silly of me to state this) to put too much or too little (duh) emphasis on the first random/semi-random votes.

[Sonicpulsar]

Random voting is useful only to scum. So I moved the game out of that stage.

Wow, you did a fantastic job too...

unvote, Vote: remussaidow

[Sonicpulsar]

Crafty: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/crafty

What I use the parantheses for is to say one thing (usually what I believe to be true), but could very well mean another. In other words, when someone calls someone else "brave", very often you can also call that person stupid. Bravery and stupidity tend to go together. Thus, when I was calling something someone might say a mistake, they "could" be doing it on purpose, but probably not.

[Sonicpulsar]

More up front? The entire point of my use of parantheses is to say things meaningful to the sentence that don't necessarily belong in the sentence itself. Kind of like an aside, if you remember what that is (actors say something meaninful to the audience that doesn't really belong in actual dialogue on stage). Anyways, enough of that.

At this point, I'm waiting for others to casts some votes or ask questions about the votes that have already been cast. Seems like a lot of people are holding their breaths for something.

[Sonicpulsar]

I've read and reread most of the past couple of pages looking for some insight in to remus's defense and realized he hasn't really laid any sort of groundwork for his defense. At least I can't really find any substance in any of it, which leads me to believe he's scum or he'll be a useless townie for us. Mainly whining and silly retorting. My vote stands.

[Sonicpulsar]

FOURTH VOTE COUNT

@the top of the page, even!

yellowbounder-1-remussaidow
Aceiks-1-Haut Boy

remussaidow-6-ChaosOmega, Sonicpulsar, yellowbounder, YogurtBandit, BeanBrew, Qman

with 12 alive, it will take 7 to lynch

this count is current as of post 124

Ok, so I have a few things to discuss/state. Six people (me included) voted to lynch Remu on Day 1. The reasons were various, but that's not the point of this post. I'd like to shed light on the fact that we can probably assume there's anywhere between 3-5 mafia. Once Remu hit 6, there was PLENTY of time for the scum to throw in one more vote. This leads to two pronounced possiblities.

1. All of the mafia were already on Remu.
2. Remu is scum and they didn't want to see him die.

If Remu had proved to be a townsperson, we could have blamed no one but ourselves. Depending on the mafia numbers (the more there are, the better it would have been for them), it makes more or less sense for them to have "revealed" (the last vote) one of their numbers at the beginning in order to go ahead and kill a townsperson.

The mafia's goal is never to kill all the townspeople, rather it's to get an appropriate ratio that damn near guarantees a win for them assuming none or few of the specialized roles exist in this game. Once that ratio is hit, they win. If you don't understand this paragraph, I can expand upon it further.

Thus, we're left with deciding which of the two scenarios is most likely. I seriously doubt all or most of the mafia were already on Remu and that they were sparing his life to help keep themselves hidden. I find it much more likely that Remu is indeed scum and he wasn't lynched because of it.

My vote stands.

[Sonicpulsar]

Remu, I think you misunderstand me. My reasoning for voting for you has now changed. Before it was more random bandwagoning than anything else. Now I vote for you not for anything you have said, but for what others have done and not done. It no longer really matters "how" you got to L-1, only that you did and what that speaks of other people.

[Sonicpulsar]

Depending on the mafia numbers (the more there are, the better it would have been for them), it makes more or less sense for them to have "revealed" (the last vote) one of their numbers at the beginning in order to go ahead and kill a townsperson.

You obviously aren't reading everything I'm writing. Depending upon the number of mafia, they may not care to "sacrifice" one of their own to ultimately win.

Suppose we had killed you and you were a townsperson, then they kill another townie at night. The "best" case scenario is that we wind up killing the scum who cast the last vote to kill you. Assuming we don't screw that up, that'd leave 3 townies dead and 1 scum dead at the end of Night 2. That leaves only 8 people in the game, with probably 2+ (my guess is there are at least 4 in the game, possibly 5). If we assume the worst case scenario for the mafia (only having 3 people at the beginning) is less likely. That means they've gone from 4/12 or 5/12 down to 3/8 or 4/8. Which is very MUCH to their advantage. Even if they started with 3/12, having 2/8 by the end of night 2, their ratio hasn't changed.

I state all of this because it seems to me that it was a wise move for the mafia to kill you if you're a townie, even if it reveals one of them, but you were not killed when I "think" they had the chance. This leads me to believe that we're sitting on my second scenario. You're scum.

My vote stands.

[Sonicpulsar]

Wow. You're still missing my point. I was providing evidence for why I think 1 of my 2 scenarios exist. After that, I lend evidence to why I think it's scenario 2 over scenario 1. The entire reason why I think these scenarios exist is because I assume the mafia are playing to win.

I can't think of a good reason for why you weren't lynched when only one more vote needed to be cast unless you're scum. Can you provide me a REASONABLE and PROBABLE scenario that exists for why you weren't lynched under the assumption you're not scum?

[Sonicpulsar]

I'd suggest that since the mafia DID NOT lynch you on the first day, they are "playing to lose" as you so eloquently put it or that you're scum. I wasn't attempting to show any real "statistics". I was purely stating the outcomes from 3 different starting conditions. All 3 outcomes spoke for the fact that it (seems to me) it would have been wise for the mafia to lynch you unless you're one of them. I am (and was) the first to admit that my statements are based on a few assumptions.

As I stated in my previous post. Show me why it was wise for the mafia to not lynch you if you are NOT one of them.

[Sonicpulsar]

All I did was state a few scenarios that exist. I never really took it any further, I never fleshed out my own personal views of the percentages, etc. I gave a QUALITATIVE analysis, not a QUANTITATIVE analysis (generally associated with statistics). But this is really a moot point. In fact, I'm getting fairly tired of having any sort of discussion with you because you don't seem to pay attention or listen to details.

To answer the first part of your list post, I already discussed that even in the town's best case scenario and we can 100% guarantee a death of a mafia after Day 1 (the scum revealed himself as the hammerer), it'd still be to the advantage of the mafia, with the small caveat that we'd still be relatively in the dark about the rest of the mafia. While I know that's not exactly the case, it shouldn't have been such a strong motivation as to warrant NOT lynching you when they had the chance.

You still have not attempted to refute my above claim. Even if a hammerer was lynched on Day 2, they'd still be at an advantage (most likely) or on par with where they were before, but with less people (less likely, requires there are only 3 mafia to begin with).

Did I miss anything about the existence or non-existence of specialized roles in this game? As far as I know, it's still up in the air but with it being a mini game, I've been going with the assumption that there are not.

[Sonicpulsar]

Ok, so maybe Aceiks just summarized everything clearer in one post than I did in like 5, but my point still stands.

I think it far less likely that the mafia were attempting to avoid having a member be the hammerer on Day 1 than they would be to get into the power position of a townie being lynched on Day 1. In other words, I think a lynched townie (even if only Vanilla) on Day 1 far outweighs the negatives associated with immediate suspicion cast upon the hammerer, even if it would have been a scum.

But maybe that's just me.

[Sonicpulsar]

I was hoping for more discussion before I leave tomorrow (Friday) and won't get back until Sunday (late). That pretty much just leaves today. How about some prodding?

[Sonicpulsar]

Oh, and if anyone cares, I'm going to an ultimate frisbee tournament in Tulsa, OK. Weep for me if the temperature is >100

[Sonicpulsar]

I think you're blowing what Eteocles said a little out of proportion. He merely said he was a little concerned with it. I'd guess he just didn't remember (pay attention) to your earlier post/promise.

The only reason this game is dead is because too many people aren't posting anything at all besides "I'll post later". Either suck it up and do a reread/make an intelligent post or get a replacement. I can't reply or discuss things unless people post. I've thrown myself pretty far out there (as well as a few others). It's time everyone do the same.

I'd also like to see a deadline added, for no other reason than to see the game actually progress.

My opinion of Remus hasn't changed. My vote stands.