mini 2140: partition (this is over)

[Albert B. Rampage]

Mod: is it possible the groups are re-arranged in the middle of the game?

[Albert B. Rampage]

Middle of the day, rather.

[Morning Tweet]

So conversely, if you're scum, you'd pick the 1/1/1 since that also lets you be lazy and win

1/1/1 is a long hard road to victory for the scum, they automatically lose 1 player no matter what the town does.

If I were scum I would put all in 1 group.

Yeah but if you push town to lynch group one, then you'd win immediately.

additionally, if the town does lynch one of the smaller groups, town is gonna waste all their time D2 going after the big group which only has 1 scum, letting the scum in the smaller group to have an easier time. I could see the scumteam plausibly choosing 1/1/1

[dsjstr]

MT which group would you vote for?

[Albert B. Rampage]

If it's 1/1/1 you should vote for my group, group 2.

[schadd_]

Mod: is it possible the groups are re-arranged in the middle of the game?

no

[clidd]

I take back what I said about doing an analysis. I am no longer feeling so cognitively motivated.

[clidd]

In summary, I have these combinations in mind:

1- (1)(1)(1)
2- (2)(1)(0)
3- (2)(0)(1)
4- (0)(1)(2)
5- (0)(0)(3)
6- (3)(0)(0)
7- (1)(0)(2)

The first is less likely, as it proposes a slow game and would involve Scum!Albert involved, something that I find a little inconsistent considering that the appropriate form of distribution would be to place players who are vocally transparent in each of the groups, because at the same time as one scum is eliminated, players of relevance would also be, which also makes it evident that the composition {Clidd, Albert} is strongly antagonistic to this idea, which is why I imagine it to be unlikely. The second would also involve Scum!Albert, but it doesn't make a lot of sense because it would be better done with the addition of 1 ~ 2 players to group 2, something that would be more interesting in the sense of cost-benefit, especially because the group 3 does not seem to me to be a weak trio verbally, which would be characterized as a disadvantage for group 2 early in the game and would make this type of formation unfeasible. The third is plausible, considering that the camouflage of 2 members in the group with the largest number of players would be a safe move, while one of the members of group 3 would be instructed to push against the smaller group, being able to use both the pretext of Albert's existence, which is a slot with a shallow playstyle, as well as the numerical justification, considering that only 2 players will be lynched, therefore, the loss would be, theoretically, less than the lynch of group 1 ~ 3. The fourth would make sense only in the scenario where the two scums in group 3 were planning to deliver Scum!Albert via buss to gain town credibility early in the game, but the fact that they only put one more player in the group, instead of adding more players, reduce the damage done and imply a very early disadvantage for them, which might not be worth it in the long run, considering that there would eventually be speculation and suspicion about the centralization of votes in the group, which probably would not take long to lead to the inference that there was a bus in the middle of the wagon. The fifth would be possible in the scenario in which Scum!Dsj, Scum!Enomis and Scum!Mohab were able to embark on a risky gambit, but I believe that this would underestimate the cognitive capacity of group 1 and does not fit the profile of Scum!Dsj ( at least as far as I observed in our scum in common), where he would probably strongly suggest the change of composition due to the lack of security he would feel. The push, in this context, would also be group 2. The sixth seems more plausible to me than the fifth, considering that there are players like Scum!Hoctac and Scum!Ame who could build a narrative where groups 3 and 2 were the main lynchs , under the pretext that the numerical force of group 1 would make the materialization of a lynch unfeasible, and that it would be safer in the mathematical sense to choose groups 2 and 3. The seventh also makes sense, with the same push reasoning of compositions 3 and 5.

Conclusion:

compositions 3, 5, 6 and 7 make sense in my conception, considering that I can imagine the establishment of pushs on group 2 only because of the existence of Albert in it. That said, I am inclined to think that group 3 has expressive chances of having scum in its composition.

[clidd]

This is a true bruh moment.

VOTE: group 2

Why is a bruh moment ?

[clidd]

Spoiler:

...I just noticed something lmfao

this has Hoc written all over it xDDD

yeah this has to be Hoc

I don't know what you're talking about, Ame.
:shiftyeyes:

I don't know what you're talking about, Ame.
:shiftyeyes:

look at the groups

I know it's about the groups. I can only think of 1 thing.

Group 1. One of these things is not like the others.

what is this?

This sporadic behavior by Ame does not seem natural to me. I don't know to what extent she still has some paranoia for my slot, or if she is acting in bad faith with this push.

[clidd]

VOTE: Group 2

Spoiler:

[clidd]

Oh, I almost forgot: VOTE: Group 3

[clidd]

I know I said I had a hunch that group 3 had 2 scum in it, but I am actually having a hunchier hunch about group 2 being all scum, so let's vote group 2, shall we?

I feel that your comments on posts 56, 57 and 138 were a more fluid progression. This change in posture did not seem to me to be within the investigative instance of before, which gives me the impression that it is a forced inference.

[clidd]

Something about scum!Albert's plan being "enter hard pushing group 1 in hopes of lynching it" doesn't sit right about me. It feels full of agenda and scummy, so I'm leaning town on him.

I'm not sure if this is a valid motivation for a TL. At the moment, my TL on him is justified by the composition of the groups, which weigh more on the scenario of Town!Albert being *him* (if you look at his past games), than Scum!Albert deliberately pushing a group maliciously.

[clidd]

VOTE: group 3

You are voting your own group?

I was also thinking of voting for group 3 tbh

Group 1 is too risky and if there is 1 member in group 2 then even without reads it would be a 50/50 we get them the next day.

I still don't understand the reasoning of voting in your own group.

[Hoctac]

VOTE: Group 3

clidd, how do you individually read the three inside group 3?

[dsjstr]

VOTE: group 3

You are voting your own group?

I was also thinking of voting for group 3 tbh

Group 1 is too risky and if there is 1 member in group 2 then even without reads it would be a 50/50 we get them the next day.

I still don't understand the reasoning of voting in your own group.

Lets say worst case scenario there were 0 mafia in group 3. Then the setup would be limited to either 3-0-0, 2-1-0, or 1-2-0. I don't think that is the case and originally I was leaning towards group three because it would be the safest option now I think

there is mafia in the group.
VOTE: Group 3

[Hoctac]

Hoctac (91) - Suggesting we lynch group one if there's enough scummy players in there, although he presently thinks there's scummy players in group three. You're worrying me hoctoc

What worries you about this, Morning?

If

there are enough people acting scummy in group 1, we should lynch group 1. Right now though, I find people in group 3 are acting scumy.

Could you expand on what you find scummy about that statement?

[Morning Tweet]

General wariness abt people wanting group one lynched. What i find worrying abt that statement is the possibility you use it as a reason for pushing group one after finding a few scummy individuals in there. i wouldnt go so far as to call the statement scummy though

presently i think if there's any less than 3 scum in group one, we shouldnt lynch it. Even scumreading 3 people in group one prolly wouldnt be enough for me, since it's likely at least 1 scumread would be wrong

[dsjstr]

MT what do you think about Mahob switching from group 3 to group 2?

[clidd]

VOTE: Group 3

clidd, how do you individually read the three inside group 3?

I see Mohab500 as a potential scum for what I mentioned on post 187 and for the strange transition between posts 149, 163 and 166, as he does not contextualize the reason for voting on group 2. Dsj has very strange/confused opinions on posts 49 and 51, which are aggravated on post 189. However, posts 178 and 191 demonstrate a volatility that is making me reflect. In the case of Enomis, I liked post 63 initially, where he performs some calculations to give substance to the opinion, however, the difficulty on presenting a reason for voting on post 90 seemed more like an attempt to highlight the problem than necessarily proposing a solution, considering that he makes the intention of voting explicit but does not execute it, which suggests a scummy slow-push without compromise.

So due to the combination of the impressions I had about the slots, added to the composition speculations I made on post 182, it is very likely that their group has scum.

[clidd]

Hoctac, what do you think about Ame's push on group 2 ?

[Morning Tweet]

MT what do you think about Mahob switching from group 3 to group 2?

I figure it probably came as a result of Ame implicating group 2 as being scummier than group 3. Mohab comes across as someone who would turn on group 3 if someone made a compelling enough case for it, so im generally not bothered by it

Going by what ive seen from the members of group 3 so far, i feel like there's a decent chance they're all town and group 3 is what scum wants us to pick today

[Hoctac]

Hoctac, what do you think about Ame's push on group 2 ?

Not a fan tbh.

Ame, why is clidd scummy?

[Morning Tweet]

Clidd you're coming across to me as someone who just wants to get group 3 lynched, rather than simply find scum and attack wherever they are

Although your 188 is an exception to this, where you say that Hoctac's reasoning for TLing ABR may be faulty. what do you think the odds are that Albert is scum?