|
so i guess im in Apparently, you need to be new so nevermind!
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Oct 8, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
i am the n0 cop and sitting here is guilty of moider. ##vote: sh
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Exmond posted:Gentlemen and ladies I'd like to point out.. CORRUPTION within the ranks. Take a look to the left and notice my shiny new avatar. I won it through gruelling hard work (or lack thereof). But you know who did not get an avatar.. are you the mafia, exmond
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
counterpoint: sitting here smells bad
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Thranguy posted:Yeah joining bandwagons seems more suspicious than starting them ##vote Tyrannosaurus Is it a bandwagon if there are only two people involved?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Sitting Here posted:my suggestion is that we all work together to find a way out of this crazy situation actually no
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
but for realsies, sittinghere is scum
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
that's not an insult directed at sittinghere. it's just slang for a member of the mafia
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
SurreptitiousMuffin posted:I feel like "ironically" trying to start a bandwagon is either 1) a person who doesn't realise they're actively aiding the scum or 2) scum trying to double their income in a way that's plausibly denial How are we meant to discuss things if no one is willing to land a vote on anyone else? The day ends in 24 hours.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
SurreptitiousMuffin posted:Standard mafia practice: first day is a no-vote. Random voting (ESPECIALLY in early stages) has an extremely high chance of hitting the town. You need to build up a profile. lol. what, no. by not voting we lose an opportunity to track down the scum. yes, there's a chance of hitting town but if we no-lynch we surrender our only means of getting accurate information from the moderator . you should never no lynch. it's bad strategy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
SurreptitiousMuffin posted:You're going to get information from the moderator anyway -- somebody innocent is going to die and who they are tells you a lot. I mean if a random lynching happens, it happens and that's more data, but I'm not voting in it today.  Assuming true randomness in lynch targets, the town has a greater probability of eventually hitting scum if it lynches someone D1 than it does in putting the decision off. In the "No-Lynch" scenario, there are four town members and two scum members alive on D3. If the town mislynches the game ends that night when the scum kill. In the YOLO scenario, there are three town members alive and two scum left on D3. The town mislynches and the game ends. Putting aside math, a No-Lynch forces all the town roles to operate on minimal information. There's no way to use the flip, bandwagons, and cases to inform role choices. Nor is there as much information to operate on D2. While people can analyze the scum kill, there's little information to glean from the day itself. Everything ends up swaddled in circular reasoning. In light of your recent posts, I really don't think you are scum. In fact, I'm about 85% sure of it. I do, however, think that a No-Lynch on D1 is the worst possible move that the town can make.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
That chart should be entitled "Percent Chance of Hitting Scum in a 9 Player Game" btw
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
Sitting Here posted:qpq craves death i guess it is legit the only thing that keeps me going Exmond posted:Keep in mind we dont know how many scum players there are? I thought it was random assignment of people? from op: https://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Backup6 quote:The setup is determined by randomly selecting one row or one column from the above table, then filling in the remaining 6 roles with 5 Vanilla Townies and 1 Mafia Goon to create a 7-town, 2-mafia setup.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
people should vote sh, imho
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
there's no need to apologize, friendo who do you think is the most suspicious person iit atm
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Exmond posted:My list of suspcious people, ranked in order why those people, specifically?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
Sitting Here posted:vote jonjoe since he's not playing lol. im dumb
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
exmond and muffin seem town to me. the former because his reactions read as genuine and the latter because it seems unlikely that scum would backtrack after a call for a no-lynch im most suspicious of sittinghere, t-rex, and b-mond1. my suspicions against sh started as a joke but i havent like her reactions and stuff
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
Him. Reevaluating. ##vote: T-Rex For the most substantively suspicious act.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
Rex, who is your scumbro?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Why do you want a no lynch after the discussion above?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
On mobile. Why Exmond?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Is there anything more than the "fishing" post?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Can see it but am not convinced. See it as more townie not knowing what they are doing. The follow-up defense strikes me as a little more odd, but I would rather lynch someone else.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Exmond posted:I give you a few scenarios The defensiveness here gives me pause but I don't know how much of that is new player anxiety.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
What do you think of b-minus?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Re: b-minus1 My suspicions against b-minus were largely born out of his lurking and unsubstantive posting. He responds to other posters and seems aware of the conversations occuring, but his posts tend to focus on mechanics rather than his reads on other players. b-minus1 posted:Hi everyone. It's time to kill scum and chew bubblegum. And I'm all out of gum. b-minus1 posted:was there seriously discussion of a d1 no lynch option? b-minus1 posted:True, I tend to lurk on d1 but I am lurking more than usual. I'll put a stop to that. b-minus1 posted:Thank you for that calm, rational response. That definitely has swayed my decision. It's a tactic that scum tend to rely on, because it allows them to appear engaged without actually exposing themselves or their teammates. They are never forced to defend their reads because they don't make any. b-minus1 posted:Exmond do you have a real reason for suspecting mojo? because im not seeing it b-minus1 posted:I’m with you for the most part. I wouldn’t call a second vote on a player a scum tell, especially this early in the game. However… In the two posts where b-minus talks about reads, there is very little commitment. The first is a clarifying question that sows doubt without ever clarifying his reasoning for why he does "not see it." Depending on the direction of the town's discussion, he can claim to have been on both sides of the argument. In the latter, the vote against T-Rex is framed is "weasel words." If T-Rex flips wrong, he can claim that he was only voting to put T-Rex under pressure or because he wanted some serious discussion. It's making a lynch against T-Rex more likely without committing to it. In closing, I've talked myself into ##vote: b-minus
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
SurreptitiousMuffin posted:Right now, I'm following QPQ's lead on this one. Not super happy about it but fingers crossed. you should not follow my lead without thinking through my cases because it's been forever since i last played. also, the number of new players is absolutely wreaking my ability to read people. i can't tell what actions are being taken because people don't know how to play and which are being taken because people are trying to mislead the town. there also hasn't been a ton of discussion, which means that there aren't a lot of facts to back up cases. My top three lynch targets today would probably be: 1.) b-minus 2.) T-Rex 3.) sitting here
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
i'd advise everyone to hold for mod clarification. i made my post without reading the most recent posts in the thread, which is generally a no-no.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
minus, claim your role
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Please, God, do not speculate about other people's roles. Do not claim your role unless you are about to be lynched. b-minus, what are you?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
my opinion on thranguy right now is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. i need some time to think about him. if anyone has some real good reads, i would drop them now before someone hammers.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
I'd drop that silver hammer down upon his head. Bang, bang Muffin's silver hammer to make sure that he is dead.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Would prefer a hammer now to prevent any possible error. No one is going to post a case in the next 3 minutes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
tbqh, i assumed seb was scum after yesterday's flip. did not think exmond was scum, but his latest posts don't make me feel great. idk. need to reread. need to hear more from thran
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
what confuses me is that i did not see exmond as "threat numero one" until he posted a preemptive defense of himself for activities that didn't seem that suspicious
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
it is like a character on murder on the orient express screaming, "YEP, DEFINITELY HAVEN'T MURDERED ANYONE!" before getting interviewed by poirot
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
tell me what you think of the game, friend anyone look suspicious atm?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Absolutely not. ##vote: T-Rex
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Oct 8, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
There is no guarantee of there being a cop or a doctor If there is a cop, there is no guarantee that he/she has useful information If someone claims cop, there is no reason to trust them because scum could easily fake a claim The set-up is built to stop an easy mass claim scenario
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 22:51
|
|