I like the posts by Leech and Loud Mouth Lee.
havingfitz voted for me.
when way earlier he wrotehavingfitz wrote: I have never even heard of mountainous games or knew they meant something with respect to the type of game set up. I just thought it was the mod's name for the game.
IDK about this.havingfitz wrote:VOTE: iamausername for rolefishing.
Seriously...did you expect any town PRs to reveal themselves? Though I do support scum claims. You first?
he also wroteXite91 wrote:Read your posts as if they're not yours, then you might understand.havingfitz wrote:@Xite...how am I looking scummier by the day?
Whoo-hoo another noob I get to mess with!!!
Interesting...tomorrow wendy wrote:I didn't like how havingfitz played along with iamausername's claim thingy early in the game.
I like the posts by Leech and Loud Mouth Lee.
havingfitz voted for me.
unvote, vote: havingfitz
Unvote, Vote Wendy
How does that seem fishy? They actuallytomorrow wendy wrote:btw, I did read this game, but my eyes glazed over by page 7. I understand that I am supposed to post about once a day.
he wrotewhen way earlier he wrotehavingfitz wrote: I have never even heard of mountainous games or knew they meant something with respect to the type of game set up. I just thought it was the mod's name for the game.IDK about this.havingfitz wrote:VOTE: iamausername for rolefishing.
Seriously...did you expect any town PRs to reveal themselves? Though I do support scum claims. You first?
seems fishy.supporteach other as posts.
he didn't directly deny knowing the roles. In one case he is flippant, and in the other he denies know what "mountainous" is rather than simply stating that he didn't know the roles in this game.havingfitz wrote:Apparently as well as iamausernameXite91 wrote:You're funny. Do you even read mod-posts?havingfitz wrote:VOTE: iamausername for rolefishing.
Seriously...did you expect any town PRs to reveal themselves? Though I do support scum claims. You first?
could this be an example of "buddying up"?Xite91 wrote: Second, maybe he just didn't think about it? Yes, he seems scummy, but not based off of a null tell.
seems insincere to mehavingfitz wrote:Why?tomorrow wendy wrote:I didn't like how havingfitz played along with iamausername's claim thingy early in the game.
seems sincere to meWhat do you like about them?tomorrow wendy wrote:I like the posts by Leech and Loud Mouth Lee.
he seems dumb. i've played beofre online, i've read games here.I voted for dalt. What do you think of his play? What is you mafia experience?tomorrow wendy wrote:havingfitz voted for me.
remind me, why was LAL enforcement a reason to try to lynch dalt but not a reason to lynch Nexus? Was it because your scum buddy was voting for Nexus and you didn't want to be on the same wagon?OMGUStomorrow wendy wrote:unvote, vote: havingfitz
a certain person that has said that you were scummy more than a couple times without voting for you.Aside from me....once you have finished catching up, what other player or two are you suspicious of?
bolded for duhiamausername wrote:It's not usually done, I know, butI have reason to believe we should massclaim immediately in this particular game.I'm really hoping I don't have to explain why.
calling me a noob and ovnoob was insulting. now you are just trolling for information to discredit me, either language barrier or grammar or something. too transparent, sorry.Xite91 wrote: By the way, this isn't an insult (I'd be much more harsh if it was) but is english your first language? I'm just curious
is totally insulting. do people where you live not defend personal honor. keyboard cowards annoy me.Nah, it really isn't. I was just trying to tell you, in a nice-ish way, that you're an idiot.
b.s. I'm brand new here. you've been calling him scummy for pages.I'm not voting him now because I'm more interested in you,
FU2 buddy ;PXite91 wrote: Yes, those were insults,
if it can't be a part of a case, than it is not game relevant, no? dropping it like bad habit.that question was genuine curiosity, and I wasn't planning on and I swear to you that I will not use the answer for any case made against you in this game, and if anyone else does, I will instantly jump their shit
I also benefit from reading game knowing dalt's role PM. Hence my OMGUS vote on h.fitz.I was calling you scummy for jumping onto the guy with the most suspicion using a null tell. Thatisscummy
sunlight is the best disinfectantI am honored, though, that you would put a quote of mine in your sig
saw you posting elsewhere, decided to page you.havingfitz wrote: I am not online continuously.
not sporting. tacky.Xite91 wrote:or maybe pick on newbies more,
fleasAnyways, you're really jumpy... Why is that?
need to read more carefully, will do so with these in front of me.Lateralus22 wrote:1. What do you think about the Lateralus / Nexus situation
2. Your current views on Korashk/LlamaFluff?
3. What do you think about the Lateralus / Xite situation?
4. Any other suspicians or alternates to who could be scum if fitz turns up town?
agreement. How can a person claim any sort of authority for compensation in this text-based forum game without having read and understood the first post by game moderator? In clear red letters he wrote that there were two scum and 10 townies, no power roles. Accusing iamausername of rolefishing seems fishy to me. Possibly h.fitz was trying to emulate a powerrole, possibly he was scum thinking that rolefishing would be something that he might be accused of later.LML wrote:With that being said, the opening post of any game has tons of information that the typical pro-town player NEEDS to be aware of. In this case, THE ENTIRE DAMN SETUP.
sorry. Was trying to be a baller.iamausername wrote: Yeah, that actually makes sense as a reason for finding fitz's first post scummy. I don't agree with it, but I can at least see where you're coming from.
aaaaand you've lost me. It's really too early in the game to go calling scumteams IMO, even if you actually had a decent basis for it. And you don't.tomorrow wendy wrote:calling scumteam of "Xite91 + havingfitz"
trying to rationalize gut is a tricky business. Was he looking out for his partner?OK, that's way more of a stretch than the first quote. So you think that fitz not only knew the setup, but also realised what I was trying to achieve with my gambit and deliberately acted ignorant to shut it down? No offense to him, but I just don't think there's any basis to believe that he's sharp enough for that.tomorrow wendy wrote:To me you post replying to iamausername seems to be written with the voice of a scum player impersonating town, playing along by pretending to not know the setup but to still try to stop the gambit by accusing the gambit author of being a rolefisher.
I thought about this some more. Doesn't this game require the assumption of competence? I am familiar with Hanlon's razoriamausername wrote: No offense to him, but I just don't think there's any basis to believe that he's sharp enough for that.
replacing an inactive player by being as active as possible should help balance the information inconsistency as presented so far.Xite91 wrote: You seem to have a pretty "clear" read on me and Fitz without having read that carefully... hmmm
if you understood, why didn't you claim vanilla? He followed up by stating that he was serious, and you still did not claim, or endorse his plan.PranaDevil wrote:Exsqueeze me? No evidence that I understood the set-up? You mean beyond thinking iam was joking about claiming, thus quite obviously showing that I found it funny BECAUSE everyone would be going "I'm Vanilla, how's about you?" Nope, no evidence there, no siree.tomorrow wendy wrote:9 – Prana (first to claim on iamausername’s massclaim list) states that iamausername post was not a serious post. Does not claim. No evidence that he understood the setup from first post.
Prana was first to claim per the list, and declined to claim. He also stated that he understood the setup on page one, but decided to not go along with the gambit that he says he immediately understood.Leech wrote:
Almost everyone didn't claim vanilla. So why is Prana the only one you're questioning about this?
because I he wroteLeech wrote:
@Wendy: Why didn't you acknowledge the fact that Prana wasn't the one that "ruined" Iam's gambit after I pointed that out?
PranaDevil in post 8 wrote:Beautifully done. I had to stop for a moment before it clicked, at which point I had a good hearty laugh at that, purely because it made me stop and think. Even if you're scum I might keep you around if you keep the comedy up. .iamausername wrote:It's not usually done, I know, but I have reason to believe we should massclaim immediately in this particular game. I'm really hoping I don't have to explain why.
unvote; vote: LoudmouthLeeBecause I feel like a wagoning.
iamausername in post 12 wrote:It wasn't a joke. I really believe that a massclaim is a viable strategy here, but the more it gets discussed beforehand, the less effective it is likely to be. Think about it.PranaDevil wrote:Beautifully done. I had to stop for a moment before it clicked, at which point I had a good hearty laugh at that, purely because it made me stop and think. Even if you're scum I might keep you around if you keep the comedy up. .iamausername wrote:It's not usually done, I know, but I have reason to believe we should massclaim immediately in this particular game. I'm really hoping I don't have to explain why.
andPranaDevil in post 18 wrote:Still quite happy with where my vote is currently lying.
where he states that he understood the setup and iamausername's massclaim gambit when he wrote post #8.PranaDevil wrote:No, sorry, his gambit "failed to catch scum" because I don't think it was a worthwhile gambit. Scum early on would play safe and claim vanilla. Which means unless scum were the last two to claim they would have to have been a complete dolt (dalt?) to make that mistake in a normal game, let alone a game like this where everything is staring you in the face.tomorrow wendy wrote:His gambit failed to catch scum due to your play. I assumed that you did not understand. To be clear: you knew the setup on page one? Why didn't you go along with the massclaim after iamausername stated that he was serious?
so if you understood then what did you think that iamausername meant when you wrote "Beautifully done. I had to stop for a moment before it clicked, at which point I had a good hearty laugh at that, purely because it made me stop and think."PranaDevil wrote:What the? Read what I'm saying, namely this:tomorrow wendy wrote:so you didn't understand his gambit at post 8? then once he made his "It wasn't a joke" post at post 12 you did understand?
Why did you choose to not go along with it? Why didn't you claim?
"In fact I've never once said I understood the goal of it until he said what the goal was, so thanks for putting words in my mouth there."
He damned sure didn't say what the goal of it was in post 12. Please to be not putting words in my mouth any longer.
When it was announced in the Sign Up thread, so before the game had even began.tomorrow wendy wrote:2 questions for everyone that didn't replace in:
at which post number in the thread did you understand that this setup was open, with 2 vanilla scum and 10 vanilla town?
Buggered if I know, and I'm not about to go check just because you wish to tunnel on me for some god awful reason. But here's a hint, it's a damned sight later than post 12.at which post number in the thread did you understand that the goal of iamausername's post at post #8 was to catch scum claiming power roles?
please cooperate. can't catch scum if I state goal of questioning prior to receiving answers.Xite91 wrote:What is the point of this?tomorrow wendy wrote:2 questions for everyone that didn't replace in:
at which post number in the thread did you understand that this setup was open, with 2 vanilla scum and 10 vanilla town?
at which post number in the thread did you understand that the goal of iamausername's post at post #8 was to catch scum claiming power roles?
I mean, aside from clogging the thread?
I see no benefits in these questions being answered by anyone because there is no way this can help us figure out who's town or scum, because anything coming off of this info would be a null tell IMHO
I still don't understand why you decided against claiming. What would it have hurt?PranaDevil wrote: I thought a JOKE was beautifully done. I wondered why he wanted us to claim and then realized "Ah, it's an all Vanilla claim, he's pissing about, clever".
So I thought his goal was to crack a joke in the RVS.
I felt I made that blindingly obvious at the time what with the "I had a good hearty laugh at that" line.
the numbers down the left side are the numbers for each post where a vote was made. the row of the top is each of the players, and the column under each name is who they voted for, and how many votes were on the wagon. the column on the right is the page number where each vote occurred.Xite91 wrote: Also, why the pic? trying to make more sense of it, but I just don't know
It is better to have less information from today then waiting until we have more information (like who is clearly town) when scum can use that information to kill two clearly pro-town players in a row.PranaDevil wrote: While I agree at some point we could do with a No Lynch to even out the numbers properly, I don't feel Day 1 is EVER the day to do it, as you lose information from the lynch, and leads to day 2 with no information beyond who died. I don't like that.
lat is more likely to be town1. What do you think about the Lateralus / Nexus situation
not very scummy2. Your current views on Korashk/LlamaFluff?
i prefer to lynch Xite today if enough people don't see the light and elect nolynch3. What do you think about the Lateralus / Xite situation?
nexus4. Any other suspicians or alternates to who could be scum if fitz turns up town?
don't know what to make of it? Lynch h.fitz!@noone but myself really: I find it interesting that both Xite and wendy are linking fitz to each other. Im not sure what to make of it right now, but I'll have to look back at a couple things when I feel this becomes relevant.
but dalt didn't change his vote, so doesn't it balance. Besides, Prana needed a good poke. I'm back to thinking that h.fitz and xite are scum.Nexus wrote:Wendy: You're changing votes a lot. Since you've been here, you've voted for: havingfitz (14/8, post 288), PranaDevil (15/8, post 333), HERSELF (16/8, post 369), and then unvoting and voting a no lynch 2 minutes later (16/8, post 370). What? Absolutely ridiculous. In the space of 2 days, you've changed your vote four times.
Draw #6129 on 8/18/2010tomorrow wendy wrote: xite are scum.
someone asked how to prove that something is random,
so I'll demonstrate.
I will use the lottery drawing at http://www.calottery.com/games/fantasyfive/ as my random number generator
the drawing is in a few hours, so I'll place my vote tomorrow with the result
the game posts five numbers, and I'll use the last of the five
if the last number for the AUG 18 drawing is
even = i'll vote for h.fitz
odd = i'll vote for xite
nah, I am a little bit more confident that h.fitz is scum than xite, but xite would be easier to lynch. Rather than waste a bunch of brain resources, I did the equivalent of flipping a coin, and we got to share a teaching moment as a side benefit.Nexus wrote:Wendy, you've changed your voteagain
...I don't think using a lottery is a good way to choose who you're voting for :/
havingfitz wrote:Posted again for tw as s/he has failed to respond:
havingfitz wrote:tw...why don't you present a case on me that is not based on OMGUS...or if it is based on that...admit it for what it is. All you're doing is cheerleading. No posting of any value. Additonally...tomorrow wendy wrote:don't know what to make of it? Lynch h.fitz!@noone but myself really: I find it interesting that both Xite and wendy are linking fitz to each other. Im not sure what to make of it right now, but I'll have to look back at a couple things when I feel this becomes relevant.
How so...either way we still end up at D2 with 3 flips behind us? A lynch today coupled with tonight's NK will be the two flips you mention.tomorrow wendy wrote:"If it could be useful after having two flips, wouldn't it be better to lynch today so that it could be useful tomorrow rather than waiting an extra day and having an extra townie dead before it becomes useful?"
-- if we do that then no-lynch becomes optimal on day 2, and informed scumhunting still doesn't begin until day 3.
tomorrow wendy in 381 wrote:crap, sorry for the alt fail. Ironically, I was determined to take a lynch rather than out my alt.
at the risk of being accused to providing information over analysis, please enjoy
it will help get more information out of your reread, I promise.
Xite91 wrote: Also, why the pic? trying to make more sense of it, but I just don't know
Leech wrote:Finally something we agree on. I have no clue what that chart is supposed to show. Maybe an explanation is in order.Xite wrote:Also, why the pic? trying to make more sense of it, but I just don't know
I didn't notice that I had left off the Iamausername column and page number column on my screen shot.tomorrow wendy wrote:FWIW nolynch today is optimal for town. at some point we will have to get of of evens (NL @ 4 alive with 1 scum remain is really rough for town, and each day we wait until then yields a slight loss of expected win %)the numbers down the left side are the numbers for each post where a vote was made. the row of the top is each of the players, and the column under each name is who they voted for, and how many votes were on the wagon. the column on the right is the page number where each vote occurred.Xite91 wrote: Also, why the pic? trying to make more sense of it, but I just don't know
1)I'm not really pushing it. If I wereXite91 wrote:1) Or because they seem to be a little less... involved... with the game? Also, it's not a scumtell that you suggested it, it's a scumtell that you're STILL pushing it, and you didn't start pushing it until you had a lot of pressure on you.tomorrow wendy wrote:1) I specifically asked LML and CA because I believe that both of them are experienced enough to know that nolynch is optimal, and their silence on the subject is interesting since my advocacy for nolynch is being used as a scum-tell against me by a couple of players.nah, I am a little bit more confident that h.fitz is scum than xite,2)...I don't think using a lottery is a good way to choose who you're voting for :/but xite would be easier to lynch.Rather than waste a bunch of brain resources, I did the equivalent of flipping a coin, and we got to share a teaching moment as a side benefit.
2) Bolded.....
that + utilization of the reverse scientific method (determine conclusion then sort evidence to find support for conclusion) sums it up the approach rather nicely.[/quote]Lateralus22 wrote: Love how both of you like to attack tomorrow wendy when he posts fluff yet you attack him when he's posting useful information when Xite (and kinda fit) says that it will be useful later. If it is why are you complaining? Looks like both of you saw IIoA was a scum tell and decided to bash anyone who does so no matter what the content is.
not really. my signal:noise ratio is rather better than your'sXite91 wrote:Interestingly this same argument would work for you was well, wendy.tomorrow wendy wrote:it just occurred to me that an excellent argument for lynching xite is that it would shut him up, and make the game more readable for future replacements and those who reread the game. A more informed town is more likely to succeed, and a more readable game thread yields a more reading of the game yields a more informed town.
alt fail combined with what I assumed was a more common "adel makes vote diagrams more often as town" meta. I alt slipped, and realized that I needed to post a vote diagram screenshot quickly to meet that meta-expectation. Admittedly, this can wifomed to death, so I'm not claiming it for a town tell or anything, but you asked twice nicely.Leech wrote: @Wendy: I still want to know why you are posting those graphs before a flip.