↑Agent_Ireland wrote:ok, I'm caught up, but there is a lot that has happened, so I'm not going to post a bunch of responses that happened on things from 5 pages ago. Any questions, feel free to ask me.
As for my vote on Lurker, I'm going to keep it here for now.
Does anyone object to asking what this electric company card does? Claiming VT doesn't save you from a lynch, but saying you have a power can save you, this could just be a bluff.
I believe he said it made him a 1-shot watcher, right?
↑Mehdi2277 wrote:He's not dying since now he can guarantee one person's live to the next day (if that person dies he'll have a guilty to claim). Preferably who scum would want dead most, but the action is definitely being directed.
In post 101, Baby Spice wrote: wrote:Firstly, 72% of the first wagon to get to four votes in a game has scum on it. (Using the vote count posts to determine when that four votes occurred)
Is this meant to be a serious statistic? If yes (which can be inferred from #148), is it based only on minis, or is your sample size very large?
Yes. Yes only mini's. They are standard enough here that this sort of crude analysis will work, and the sample size was way to small to be statistically significant (been too long for me to remember how to work out how many samples would be needed but suspect it would be in the hundreds.) But the overall trend was holding very well.
(If you're interested in a 3/10 game which is kind of standard for mini's, any random group of four players has about a 71% chance of containing at least one scum. That's why I trust my little four wagon stat despite the small sample size)
The real use will come later hopefully.
I tend to find that people who use statistics in mafia games are 79% more like to be full of bullshit. Mafia is not an exact science, and use of statistics and percentages are just ways for opportunistic scum to play off mislynches.
↑StrangerCoug wrote:Xisiqomelir and Lord Mhork are both town reads with the latter being a good deal more solid.
Why am I getting more solid? I haven't actually done anything so far except get on the lurker wagon.
Also can someone explain to me why a Vanilla claim about having one property before a subsequent 'oh yeah I also have another card and it gives me a one shot watcher' is worth a mass unvote? I think I missed some memo here.
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:55 pm
by Mehdi2277
Since it sounds similar to the role pm I got and would just recommend you look at yours and compare it to how he claimed.
And I mean his power can be required to target one person by having a town consensus saying he needs to target player x and then that player won't die unless scum want to sacrifice one of their own.
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:57 pm
by StrangerCoug
↑Lord Mhork wrote:Why am I getting more solid? I haven't actually done anything so far except get on the lurker wagon.
You're the bigger standout to me when it comes to scumhunting, though Xisiqomelir has done little to harm his position.
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 5:02 pm
by Jake from State Farm
↑Mehdi2277 wrote:And I mean his power can be required to target one person by having a town consensus saying he needs to target player x and then that player won't die unless scum want to sacrifice one of their own.
Did you really just type this?
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 5:03 pm
by Lord Mhork
↑Mehdi2277 wrote:Since it sounds similar to the role pm I got and would just recommend you look at yours and compare it to how he claimed.
And I mean his power can be required to target one person by having a town consensus saying he needs to target player x and then that player won't die unless scum want to sacrifice one of their own.
Well it might just be me, but I usually read my
entire
PM before I even post in the thread...
Also, that's a ridiculous idea. Woohoo. We get to argue over who's the towniest player, lurker gets shot, then the following night the obvious guy who we agree will never get lynched gets shot. We do the hard work of the mafia trying the make the NK decision for them. And that's just assuming that lurker is town. Remember this?
↑Lurker wrote:Ok, My first in a (hopefully) series of reads. First off I will read Lord Mhork.
His first vote, Post #119, He votes me for the same reason as Jal did, or as they call it, sheeping. He goes on to say that Jal is town.
One of these would be a bit of a slip, but permissible. Two however, seems like buddying.
In post 126 He says that Medhi was reaction fishing. He also said that early wagons were bad.
Medhi did indeed support reaction fishing as said in post #24. "It's the ideal time to reaction fish". However, she did not do so.
In post #130 he stills disagrees with the wagon point when It has been pointed out there is some sheeping on the wagon.
He also FOS's Robert, with no explanation other that "Get an avatar".
I have a scum read on this guy. I also think I may have convinced myself for pushing for his lynch.
Vote: Lord Mhork
First, why is sheeping bad? Why is it inherently scummy and voteworthy? What if I flat out admit that I liked the point Jal made so much that it seemed like the best vote?
Second, where did I say that early wagons were bad? Oh you must mean that
sarcastic
remark that I said was
sarcasm
and was obviously
sarcasm
because I was helping to build an early wagon.
Third, what are you even talking about with the sheep and me disagreeing with the wagon point? How do those two correlate in the slightest?
Fourth, you are an idiot. If you actually, you know, read my posts, it would miraculously become clear that the FoS was not due to the lack of avatar, but rather the reaction fishing! Egasp! Brilliant!
Fifth, your vote on me is bad and you should feel bad with your poorly done IIoA.
Sold.
L-1 VOTE: Lurker
One of these things is not like the others.
VOTE: StrangerCoug
This is flawed. I don't have to agree with everybody else on why Lurker is scummy; if I see something else instead, that's just as good.
But you said you were 'sold'. How is that not agreement?
↑StrangerCoug wrote:I don't like Lurker's accusing Lord Mhork of voting Robert2424 for not having an avatar. First of all, that's not his vote reason. Second of all, voting someone for having no avatar is patently ridiculous. Lord Mhork had also already told me that the early wagon thing was sarcasm.
Does not answer my question about what it was in Mhork's #227 which sold you on voting Lurker. There is a connection to his points #4 and #2, but those are defences of himself, not part of a case he made to vote Lurker.
@Robert2424
:
You say you "became" a D1 DV. Did you land on the Community Chest between your #352 and #353?
@Baby Spice
:
↑Baby Spice wrote:*****Really didn't like Xis' entrance or early votes. Easy target and bandwagoning. Add in way under posting.
I assume the bandwagonning vote is my Lurker vote. Who specifically is the "easy target" vote cited here? Is it Mhork or StrangerCoug? Why was he easy?
@Various
:
↑numberQ wrote:I have one question: Why did Lurker's claim make so many people back off? So, what, he says he's a watcher and suddenly you believe him? What about his post-claim actions changed your mind?
↑Lord Mhork wrote:Also can someone explain to me why a Vanilla claim about having one property before a subsequent 'oh yeah I also have another card and it gives me a one shot watcher' is worth a mass unvote? I think I missed some memo here.
Unless a player is egregiously scummy, I prefer not to lynch a PR claim D1.
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:21 am
by StrangerCoug
↑Xisiqomelir wrote:But you said you were 'sold'. How is that not agreement?
Of the four people besides Lord Mhork to post cases that were quoted in your post, Agent_Ireland's vote is clearly random while the other three discuss post #44. Lord Mhork's post discusses Lurker's later actions, and your "odd one out" suggests that going with him was a bad thing. Is something wrong with Mhork's post?
↑StrangerCoug wrote:I don't like Lurker's accusing Lord Mhork of voting Robert2424 for not having an avatar. First of all, that's not his vote reason. Second of all, voting someone for having no avatar is patently ridiculous. Lord Mhork had also already told me that the early wagon thing was sarcasm.
Does not answer my question about what it was in Mhork's #227 which sold you on voting Lurker. There is a connection to his points #4 and #2, but those are defences of himself, not part of a case he made to vote Lurker.
I saw his post as a counterattack demonstrating that Lurker's vote was weak, especially #4 since he insults Lurker in the first sentence.
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:07 am
by Baby Spice
↑Xisiqomelir wrote:I assume the bandwagonning vote is my Lurker vote. Who specifically is the "easy target" vote cited here? Is it Mhork or StrangerCoug? Why was he easy?
Didn't I already say earlier that Lord Mhork would be one of those easy targets?
Switching over to questioning SC is making yourself, and Jake, look better in my eyes.
Mhork is one of those that always seems a little scummy right from the get go.
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:08 am
by Robert2424
@Xis. That is what it said in the PM i got. Idk how it works.
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:19 am
by Mehdi2277
↑Robert2424 wrote:@Mehdi2277, You vote gives me pause. As somebody I was considering very independent and scum hunting, you change your style to following, Why?
Since at the moment I'm voted half of the wagon on lurker and not really found the 3 I voted to react badly. If I swapped back it'd be Xis, but I'd rather vote someone else on the wagon and Mog + Jal I think are town. So I'm willing to follow reasoning I like.
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:20 am
by Lurker
I'll be looking over the StrangerCoug issue now.
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:12 pm
by Lord Mhork
I don't like the way he back claimed watched after claiming VT. And I don't understand why electric company would give him watcher powers anyway. His claim looks fishy.
Also, have we played together before, Baby Spice? Your defenses of me are really, really weird.
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:51 pm
by Baby Spice
I've played under a couple of names here, and yes Mhork, it under one of those.
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:58 pm
by Robert2424
@ Mhork. I don't find it scummy. I think your reaching a bit.
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:48 am
by Agent_Ireland
Been busy the past few days. I'll catch up after work.
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:01 am
by Guy_Named_Riggs
Current Vote Count 1.07
StrangerCoug - 4 (Jake From State Farm, Jal, Xisiqomelir, Mehdi2277) (L-3)
"Mafia Watchers have been known to exist and have much less stigma attached to them. They can be used to find protective roles (by targetting likely Doctor targets), or to give foreknowledge of possible investigations (by watching a Mafia partner). In a setup with multiple killers, a Mafia Watcher may be able to identify opposing killers. They are fairly solid power roles in scum hands."
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:48 am
by Jal
I'll get to this later tonight. Sorry guys, been a bit busy.
"Mafia Watchers have been known to exist and have much less stigma attached to them. They can be used to find protective roles (by targetting likely Doctor targets), or to give foreknowledge of possible investigations (by watching a Mafia partner). In a setup with multiple killers, a Mafia Watcher may be able to identify opposing killers. They are fairly solid power roles in scum hands."
So then why are people so certain that lurker isn't scum?
