It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
HijacK:
avatar
flubbucket: Prod-like poke.
At least it wasn't a rod-like poke ;-)
Happy New Year to all!

Here’s a final post before getting too wrapped up in New Year’s Eve celebrations….

avatar
adaliabooks: @crisitgale you say you don't see ddickinson as being the scummiest at the moment, so who do you think is the scummiest?
I believe CSPVG looks the scummiest. See posts 1074, 1408, and 1506 for the rationale. Some things have changed since those posts, but my basic suspicion has not.

Following is my impression of the dialogues between JMich, Dedo, Lift, HJack up through JMich’s vote for Hijack. In most cases I’m stating my impressions from the posts. I attempted to add double quotes when quoting directly. Each line includes the author and post number.

JMich (1445) – What role would HijacK have that a PGO claim would work?
Dedo (1451) – Let’s not role fish (nudge, nudge)
JMich (1452) - What role would HijacK have that a PGO claim would work? “I don’t care about Hijack’s role.”
Dedo (1451) – Let’s not give scum more info about Hijack. I can think of a scenario that works.
JMich (1453) – Would love to hear it later. What role would HijacK have that a PGO claim would work?

After this exchange, I thought JMich looked suspicious for seeming to contradict himself and pressing too hard.

Add Lift into the equation:
JMich (1450) – Hypothetical example of reasoning behind a false PGO claim.
Lift (1463) – Huh? What are you talking about? Hijack’s role is not important. You’re asking Hijack to reveal his role.
JMich (1468) – Explains hypothetical example. Then, “I don't care what role HijacK has, I'm asking you what role you think Robb believed HijacK to have. Unless you already know HijacK's role, which would bear the question of how do you know it.”
Lift (1477) – “Really? Role-fishing again? Now not only for HijacK's (for someone who doesn't care what role Hijack has, you brought it up too often) but now for mine as well? Beating around the bush and implicitly asking what I know?”
JMich (1482) – “Why would Robbeasy falsely claim PGO instead of anything else? ... Better yet, what is the scenario you believed happened? The question you keep avoiding.”
JMich (1524) - Share a scenario you believe fits a false PGO claim.

By this point my main thought was…why doesn’t Lift provide an example? But it still seemed odd that JMich is arguing so emphatically for Robb.

Then in a switch of focus, JMich voted for Hijack after a detailed analysis
avatar
JMich: here
. His reasoning seemed well thought out. I resonate with the part on why Hijack seems so hesitant to share more about who he (Hijack) initially thought was scum. I don’t think Hijack has posted since JMich’s vote. Glad to see the prod. I'm middle of the road on Hijack.

If Hijack is scum, then ddickinsion’s theory
avatar
ddickinson: here
is a possibility. Ddickinson’s most recent posts have seemed more like town. That along with all the other happenings, I no longer support voting for her. I have questions about the message, but it will wait.

So I was leaning JMich towards town when all the no-lynch stuff started. I plan to address that but this post is long enough already and it’s time to celebrate.

Happy New Year!
high rated
Happy New Year!
avatar
HypersomniacLive: Happy New Year!
lol love it!!!

Happy New Years!!!!! 15min away EST time!!!

Be safe and have fun!!!
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
avatar
Sage103082: lol love it!!!

Happy New Years!!!!! 15min away EST time!!!

Be safe and have fun!!!
We're done with the fun here, it's now almost 07:00 Jan 1, 2015; time to hand the helm over to you.

Have a blast kicking the old year out of the door! :-)


P.S. How's Gizmo doing?
avatar
trentonlf: But, I will not lynch someone just for lurking.
But Lift will, because he sees no other option. I present a case why No Lynch in this specific game may be a possible option.
If you believe No Lynch to not be a viable option, do you then agree with Lift that we should lynch a lurker so we avoid a No Lynch?

Yes, if you think someone is scum, that trumps both No Lynch and Lurker Lynch, and it is what I keep advising people to do. But if you can't find someone scummy enough, I advise against lynching for lynch sake.
A new year is at hand and so is a new post from your favourite, always town lurker. Herald my coming with the sprinkling of flowers through your streets; the drinking of vile looking, neon-coloured cocktails; and a group of bulls painted gold that will pull my chariot through the streets of this fair burg. For I bring you my irrelevant opinions, and I do expect you to read them thoroughly.

I do apologise, I got a little lost there. In anyway, I have not yet read all of the latest posts (the last of which, at the time of writing, is post 1641), but I have compiled notes on the posts I have read:

1502 - Robb - I would desperately like to answer this question, but since you will only allow yogsloth to, I will remain silent.

1505 - adalia - Where did we find out that RWarehall was a restrictor or where was it theorised that he was one? I ask only because I have no recollection of anyone other than yourself stating this. (Note: I wrote this some time ago and not even I am sure what I was going on about here.)

I do, however, agree with your assertion that trent is acting in an odd manner this game. Unfortunately my suspicions about him are little more than a gut reaction. Such readings, I admit, are not very helpful because they are not based on any evidence, and my feelings of this kind in particular seem directed at people that the rest of the players seem to believe is town, such as dedo.

1516 - adalia - I also feel that Robbeasy leans towards being town. As stated in this post by adalia the reveal was done in a manner, and at a time, which I feel lends it credibility. Not to mention the fact that it gives a rational explanation for Twilight's death, an incident which would otherwise not make much sense, and the fact that his description of the PMs he has received from flubbucket, particularly the minimal information contained therein, matches my experience of receiving PMs from flubbucket.

1520 - dedo - One does not really see the case against ddickinson, but I may not have been paying close enough attention to her (?) actions.

1524 - cristigale - The last suggestion that, as this may be a role madness game, Rob may have some other, invented or bastardised role seems highly unlikely to me. His story, for the time being, fits and I feel this post is little more than silly grasping at straws.

1525 - Robb - I assume by 'town' you mean someone whose role PM states beyond any doubt that they are X town of some sort and that by 'townie' you mean some sort of neutral role where the word town may not be mentioned in their PM, but their interests lie with helping the town. By those definitions of the terms, I would be the former. My role PM specifically states that I am the,"Town Cop."

1526 - Lifth - This, like cristigale's post before it, strikes me as a silly attempt to grasp at straws. Yes, we may be in a bastard game where everything from the roles to the flips is askew in some way, but I believe that it is much wiser (at least at this stage) to only assume that we have a bastard game when it comes to the role flips. It isn't very helpful to speculate about the possibility of bastard roles unless we have observed that there is at least one in the game, thus having evidence to support the conclusion that there may be more. Accusing Robb of having such a bastardised role is unhelpful, as it is nothing but a baseless accusation with no rational way of backing it up.

1530 - yog - I know this seems like self-serving protection, but this is an assessment of our current two cops dilemma that I agree with.

1559 - Ixam - I cannot remember the last time Ix posted, and cannot even recall a time when he posted anything I would deem useful. He's another of those players that seems to have the miraculous ability to never post but never be called on this fact.

1560 - adalia - At least books brings up Ix's lurking. One does, however, not really understand his reason for voting for ddickinson. I know that saying one is a newbie can only be used as an excuse for a little while, but I do not really see many of these scummy slips ddickinson has made. In short: I do not see myself voting for ddickinson at this stage.

On the other hand, this may be down to the fact that I feel Ix to be the much more scummy of the two. Ix has posted very little and been generally silly, aggressive in a directionless sort of way, or less than helpful when he does. I find his behaviour far more strange, and think that he warrants a looking into.

1568 - ddickinson - This post I don't much care for. One doesn't like it's air of,"No, but really I have an important role, but do go ahead and lynch me if you must do so for the good of the town. It'll be your loss." This is to say nothing of its other poor argument about acting differently if ddickinson were a mafioso.

1578 - JMich - I am not sure that I like the idea of a no lynch, at least for today. I think it would be much more helpful to lynch someone today in an attempt to discern if there is any sort of pattern to the flips. Yes, we may kill another townie, but I think we should attempt to our little pattern seeking experiment while we still have players to spare.
avatar
CSPVG: snip.....

1502 - Robb - I would desperately like to answer this question, but since you will only allow yogsloth to, I will remain silent.

..snip...
1525 - Robb - I assume by 'town' you mean someone whose role PM states beyond any doubt that they are X town of some sort and that by 'townie' you mean some sort of neutral role where the word town may not be mentioned in their PM, but their interests lie with helping the town. By those definitions of the terms, I would be the former. My role PM specifically states that I am the,"Town Cop."

..snip
CSPVG - what does your role state (if anything) about the size of your job?

And thanks for that answer.
avatar
trentonlf: But, I will not lynch someone just for lurking.
avatar
JMich: But Lift will, because he sees no other option.
Not entirely true. I do not advocate to lynch someone just for lurking (that's Yog's play), but I do advocate to rather lynch someone who appears scummy than to lynch no one. Even if one isn't totally sure that the lynchee is scum (how can you be sure). But yes, lurkyness can be one sign of scumminess. But I didn't vote on you only because of your initial lurkiness, but because I percieved your other posts as leaning scum as well. Just read the post where I vote. I tried to explain it there. And cristigale gives more good reasons in Post 1637. Repeated role fishing (even while saying you don't care about the role) and your strangely persistent defense of Robb. And you didn't answer my question concerning this: Why are you so 100% sure that Robb is town? Is that something you know? Or are you just defending your scum-buddy? Or why else this emphatic defense?


avatar
cristigale: ... By this point my main thought was…why doesn’t Lift provide an example?...
Good post all in all. But I want to answer your question: I didn't provide an example for some role, because I didn't base my suspicion on a specific set of roles, but, as I wrote, on Robb's behavour and decisions, which were anti-town. And, as I wrote as well, I don't see any reason why a PGO shouldn't be anti-town or at least a loner. But for some reason, basing a vote on suspicious behavior without knowing the exact roles wasn't enough for JMich ...
I forgot something important:

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!
avatar
Lifthrasil: HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!
Keep your voice down... ugh... ;)
avatar
Krypsyn: Keep your voice down... ugh... ;)
Hangover?
avatar
CSPVG: 1505 - adalia - Where did we find out that RWarehall was a restrictor or where was it theorised that he was one? I ask only because I have no recollection of anyone other than yourself stating this. (Note: I wrote this some time ago and not even I am sure what I was going on about here.)

1560 - adalia - At least books brings up Ix's lurking. One does, however, not really understand his reason for voting for ddickinson. I know that saying one is a newbie can only be used as an excuse for a little while, but I do not really see many of these scummy slips ddickinson has made. In short: I do not see myself voting for ddickinson at this stage.
We never had solid confirmation that RWarehall was a restrictor, I just assumed that the mention's in flubs flavour post (of tape etc.) might have been a confirmation of his role. But it may just have been that the flavour post was made up from our interactions through out the day.

At the time I saw ddickinson's slips as being genuine slips rather than just newbie mistakes and as such had her as prime target. But I'm not so sure now as some of the things she said in her defence have given her some town points for me.

And with that said here's what I've been thinking:

WARNING: Wall of text approaching!

So I've been reconsidering the situation and come up with a few ideas.

I haven't got a solid read on anyone really. My various candidates for being scum have in some way knocked my judgement so I'm taking a different approach.

Basically I'm going to look at two things and see where they get us, role claims and night actions. (there will be quite a few assumpitions made here, nothing is fact or solid evidence, just my logical conclusions based on the evidence available)

Let's start with Yogs. Right now there are two things that I see supporting his claim. One somewhat trivial and subjective, the other not. The first is his response to the lack of flip and his attitude since. As scum would presumably not be bothered by a lack of flips this reaction is less likely from scum, and if it is an act for this very purpose it's masterfully done. The second is CSPVGs claim and read.

So lets look at CSPVG. If Yogs were scum that would have to make CSPVG scum as well or naive. Now if Yogs were scum and CSPVG naive that would mean we have no actual town cops, or at least no counter claims. This seems unlikely, while it's possible we have a cop sitting on his counter claim to not draw attention and muddy the waters I'm discounting this for the moment, as scum deciding to claim not one but two cop roles knowing there would likely be a real town cop seems a very dangerous ploy. Ditto for CSPVG being scum. So it looks likely that Yogs is town. CSPVG has less to confirm his claim, yogs was blocked when he tried to investigate him but this could have been purposefully to confuse town, or just a general scum role block to stop our cop getting a read. I do however tend to believe him, I think the details of his claim (name etc.) seem legitimate and it's only the timing of it that gives doubt, but I can understand his reasons for doing so.
So if CSPVG and yogs are town, unless CSPVG is naive (we have no way to know yet) that makes Lift town to due to CSPVGs read. (and also makes him entirely correct about my early ignoring of this fact)

Then we have HijacK and Robb. As I have already stated, I believe Robb's claim. While trawling the mafia wiki the only other possiblity I've found which would explain the interaction between Twilight and Robb, is if Twilight had a weak modifier and Robb is scum (this means Twilight would have died just by visiting a scum player at night).
So let's look at that scenario. If that were the case, Twilight would be town and a scum kill. But we got no flip, which would invalidate the two best theories we have on flips at the moment (no flips for scum or no flips for town kills). While we could have a more complicated system, like purely random flips (highly unlikely) or some kind of Janitor role. But as I understand it a Janitor usually cleans up their own kill, and even if we can assume they can choose to clean a fellow scum's kill that wouldn't explain either RWarehall or Twilight's lack of flip.
Which logically suggests that Robb is telling the truth or there is a more complicated and unusual role available (again, I'm discounting this as the simplest answer is usually the right one)
HijacK's night action and evidence gives strength to this story too.
Now let's look at HijacK. He could be a scum tracker / watcher / whatever who chose to reveal this role to point a finger at Robb over Twilight's death. This would suggest that Robb at least is town, and Twilight possibly too (why follow him otherwise?). He could also just be scum who knew who Twilight was visiting (if he was scum too) and used this info to fabricate a claim. But if that were the case I would imagine he would be pushing for Robb as a PGO and to lynch him, whereas this conclusion doesn't appear to have crossed HijacK's mind until Robb's claim.
So I tend to believe his claim too.

So with those assumpitions made we have me (obviously), yogs, CSPVG, Lift, Hijack & Robb all town. That's still a lot of potential scum, so let's have a look at the Night actions.

We know someone killed Darko. We can reasonably assume this was the Mafia Faction kill. That means we have one mafia who performed that action. We know (yes dedo, I know we 'know' nothing :P ) someone blocked yogs and can also assume this was probably a Mafia action. That's two mafia night actions accounted for.
I've been working under the assumption the Mafia probably have a role cop (it's role madness, it's a fairly common mafia role and a lucky scan N0 might have given them Darko's role and explain why he got hit instead of a cop)
The question is whether Twilight was that Role Cop, or whether it was someone else, and whether there are three or four mafia.

So with all those assumptions made we have 8 suspects for scum:

dedo, trent, Sage, JMich, Hyper, ddickinson, cristigale and Ix.

With there being anywhere from a 25% to a 50% chance that any given one of them is scum, depending on how many scum are left.

Of those eight I would rank them in order of least scummy to most scummy as follows:

ddickinson, JMich, Hyper, cristigale, trent, Sage, dedo and Ix.

Which right now makes Ix the best candidate, and at the risk being hypocritcal by doing the very thing I voted trent for doing:

unvote trentonIf, vote Ixamyakxim

So that's where I'm at... I doubt it will be much help to anyone, as many of you don't seem to share the same views and make the same assumptions that I have, but who knows.
avatar
adaliabooks: Which right now makes Ix the best candidate, and at the risk being hypocritcal by doing the very thing I voted trent for doing:
Shocking how quickly your vote came off trenton. I'm so surprised.

*sarcasm off*