COMPLETELY DIFFERENT

You say you are never wrong.
I provide a concrete example of you admitting you were wrong.

How is that different?

Yes, this approach makes lurkers very suspect, bysically the less you vote, the more people you are compatible with. So, it's only one element, that influences me, but proves nothing : I was doing the same thing in game13, and the culprits were not a complete triangle.

As for colour codes. The colours show "solidarities" (in the sense that robbeasy/redbaron are linked, damnation/twilightbard are linked), and my impressions of scum/town levels (so that I can disgard links that I don't find relevant because they touch assumed "townies").

So, red are links with nmillar, from people who aren't "cleared" to some degree (red_baron is probably town, because robbeasy plus maybe krypsyn). In general, in a link, the colour of the towniest gains priority over the colour of the scummiest, as scum-solidarity is more important than townie opinions.

-----

Also, just for the fun : Flubbucket had asked me about my old post 1492, and here is the graph version that was at its origin...

But is there any reason I am linked to SPF with 2 blue lines?

No.

(hm, i think i had corrected that mistake, but maybe i had corrected another "double")

(yeah, i checked, and that glitch was on all versions, thanks)

(well, all versions except a discarded variation where i had rearranged them to suppress my supposed townies and to number the lnks, and... hm... whatever)

(i like graphs)

I'm printing all the graphs out and sticking them to the front of the frig.

Just want to note, that it seems to me that this is exactly the approach most people have taken to me. And though I have said as much as I can to try and clear myself, it seems many people are simply convinced I'm scum, and can't be swayed other than something like Damnation clearing me.

Also, I've been accused of following others, however in most cases, (like this one in just a second) I've already stated that I think someone is scummy (and usually given at least some reason for it) before voting for him. What happens, as is happening in this case, is I think someone is scum, then someone else gives more concrete evidence as to why HE thinks they're scum, and so my initial suspicions are confirmed and I vote. And now I'm going to

Vote SirPrimalForm


Now if anyone tries to accuse me of following, please note that he's been on my scum list for quite some time, and the new graphs and such (thanks Telika!) has made me just that much more confident of my feelings about him.

You can't, they're not compatible with your fridge.

Seriously, they just show how i think, and what is my rationale, but they can't be used as tools to convince people, because

1) they're based on my own premise of "scum team probability", which may be contested (it just shows to me who has "more chances" to be part of a given mafia team, but it stays a blurry matter of general chances).

2) they are based on the idea that i am town, so I am not on them, so they are completely biased : as I seldom vote, there should be twice as many lines on it, showing how I could be part of virtually everybody's gang.

3) most of them have a bias of some sorts, because at this point, they become unreadable without some sort of filter. to give you an idea, the brute data is this (which may even include a couple of mistakes, as it was itself based on my spreadsheets). so this chart there should be "objective", but, as is, not very useful unless you've already decided what to look for.

Anyway.

This is a bit weird, for a mafioso.

I mean, it's more like a townie betting on "hah, told you". It wouldn't have cost much to a mafioso to remain silent at this point. Or is it just "hey i'm sorry I was going for a nolynch, look at me, I vote, but I'm a townie because I vote wrong" ?

Rahr.

Opinions on that post plz.

It isn't... I woth protesting too much.

Okay so it's POSSIBLE I'm wrong about A_Future_Pilot. but guys... I'm really not I'm so right!!

I'm not sure it means anything either way. It's maybe a bit lighthearted for someone whose teammate is just about to be murdered, but not unfeignably lighthearted.

Agreed. It is odd since nmillar was lynched, no need to even vote except to get it on record. Why??

On a separate note, I find Jmich's post #1572 an attempt to derail the train on nmillar (and or Rodzaju) as well as pray for more time.

Later in post #1690 poses the option (and votes for) No Lynch. Why is No Lynch a viable option over voting for one of your prime suspects??

(Here, but going to the gym, so I'll post later, just didn't want anyone thinking I vanished)

Since the last time there were multiple possible lynch candidates (aka day 1) the day ended with a nolynch, I'd prefer to have had an extension that day. The lynch of nmillar was a much better result though.

Read the whole post there. I assume there is a doctor (since Telika claims to have been healed from poison), and I assume the doctor can protect Damnation each night while Damnation clears or condemns the 7 people who have not yet been cleared. A lynch would mean a 1 in 7 chance of lynching the doctor, thus losing our advantage, while a nolynch means that either we rule out 2 of the 7 people the next day (1 from Damnation, 1 from Night Kill) or we clear one from Damnation and lose one of the confirmed townies to Night Kill.

So far, people claim my plan has holes, which I do accept, thus why I went back for a reread.

P.S. If you hover over a post, a chain with a number next to it appears, which is a clickable link to that post. Use the (url) tags to post a link to that post, makes it a bit easier to see which post(s) you are referencing to, assuming you have the time of course.

Well I was already very much against a no lynch and was prepared to take part in a wagon on nmillar or rodzaju and said I would switch my vote to one of them before the day's end (I was having trouble deciding).
You guys had lynched nmillar by the time I checked the thread that day so I just switched to Rod for the ineffective comedy value and to fulfil my 'pledge'.