Mafiascum.net

In post 1121, VP Baltar wrote:Is there reasoning beyond that I've missed?

In post 1094, VP Baltar wrote:

In post 1086, Blair wrote:P-edit: I'll ISO him and find the quote from him, but basically when I initially looked into the vote count after you said he was lying, I started scrolling and saw "two votes," then realized one of them was actually in a quote block and thought "whoops, that's one vote, actually." I kept scrolling to make sure the quoted vote was current, and it was, but guessed that R2R probably didn't do that diligence. That ended up being his explanation, and since his explanation matched my (unstated) explanation, I'm inclined to believe it.

Looking back at this as well. He explained his reasoning in #547, which you say you believed.

But in post #570 you said this:

In post 570, Blair wrote:No, I think R2R lied about the vote count for some unknowable reason. I pretty plainly said I'd be okay with lynching him today if I can't have Quick.

you said he's still lying and that you'd be OK with lynching him. I don't believe you ever said yesterday that you believed his reason given. Am I missing something?

In post 1125, Blair wrote:

In post 1121, VP Baltar wrote:Is there reasoning beyond that I've missed?

I'm trying to avoid hiring a skywriter here.

Yeah, that's the basic premise.

In post 1096, Blair wrote:

In post 1094, VP Baltar wrote:you said he's still lying and that you'd be OK with lynching him. I don't believe you ever said yesterday that you believed his reason given. Am I missing something?

You're right, I never said I believed him yesterday.

I waffled back and forth a bit on whether or not I bought his excuse. I'm still waffling on it. It's not a verifiable thing. I was okay with testing it on Day 1, because zero information Day 1 lynches are historically risky, today I think we can do better though.

In post 1130, Blair wrote:

In post 1096, Blair wrote:

In post 1094, VP Baltar wrote:you said he's still lying and that you'd be OK with lynching him. I don't believe you ever said yesterday that you believed his reason given. Am I missing something?

You're right, I never said I believed him yesterday.

I waffled back and forth a bit on whether or not I bought his excuse. I'm still waffling on it. It's not a verifiable thing. I was okay with testing it on Day 1, because zero information Day 1 lynches are historically risky, today I think we can do better though.

I'm not sure why Quick is pretending this doesn't exist.

When I believed R2R was lying, I was open to lynching him.

Now I am not sure if R2R was lying and would rather lynch Gamma.

In other news: Votato is openly manipulating Quick, and Quick usually notices things like that but hasn't pointed if out in this case.

In post 1002, Quick wrote:

In post 1000, Blair wrote:Which part do you disagree with?

And what agenda do you believe I have?

(Hint: My agenda is to lynch Gamma)

I thought your agenda was to "sort" Gamma. It's a lynch now? Why? I think your reasons for wanting to lynch there are bad and you'd be better off on the R2R wagon I think.

In post 1046, Quick wrote:

In post 1045, Blair wrote:

In post 1039, VP Baltar wrote:like why is she acknowledging r2r is prob scum and then pivoting to a Gamma case...huh?

There are really only two explanations:

1. Gamma is town; Blair is scum with Ready2Rock

2. Blair feels more confident in her Gamma read.

Occam's Razor might be prudent here.

R2R is a better push since it appears Gamma is the better player.

In post 1132, Blair wrote:You're missing the forest for the trees.

In post 1133, VP Baltar wrote:Blair, at what point did you reconsider your view of r2r's comment I made my original case on? Also, what do you think of his votes and contribution to this game?

Quick wrote:

In post 1132, Blair wrote:You're missing the forest for the trees.

Devils in the details, Blair.

Why is Gamma a better lynch than R2R when R2R was the off wagon?

In post 1135, Blair wrote:I don't get this. Are you suggesting that there is something inherently optimal about lynching the runner-up after a mislynch?

In post 1137, Blair wrote:I'm not voting for Gamma to sort R2R.

I'm voting for Gamma to sort Gamma.

Your belief that "second tier wagons are often scum" is unsubstantiated.

In post 1139, Blair wrote:I am aware that people believe it.

I am not aware of evidence of statistical significance.

In post 1137, Blair wrote:Your belief that "second tier wagons are often scum" is unsubstantiated.

In post 1128, VP Baltar wrote:P.edit: yo, hellbrooks, welcome.

In post 1137, Blair wrote:I'm not voting for Gamma to sort R2R.

I'm voting for Gamma to sort Gamma.

Your belief that "second tier wagons are often scum" is unsubstantiated.

votato wrote:

In post 1137, Blair wrote:I'm not voting for Gamma to sort R2R.

I'm voting for Gamma to sort Gamma.

Your belief that "second tier wagons are often scum" is unsubstantiated.

what do we gain from sorting gamma via lynch? it seems that thats a pretty bad information lynch. flipping r2r gives us a lot of information about the NPOM wagon. Flipping you gives us a lot of information too.

In post 1147, Blair wrote:

votato wrote:

In post 1137, Blair wrote:I'm not voting for Gamma to sort R2R.

I'm voting for Gamma to sort Gamma.

Your belief that "second tier wagons are often scum" is unsubstantiated.

what do we gain from sorting gamma via lynch? it seems that thats a pretty bad information lynch. flipping r2r gives us a lot of information about the NPOM wagon. Flipping you gives us a lot of information too.

Yeah, lynching me today would mean lynching Gamma tomorrow.

So let's skip that formality.