Mini 1021: Battousai's Mountaintnous Mountain Mafia (Over)

[LlamaFluff]

Llamafluff replaces Korashk

That I do. Should have thoughts soon.

[LlamaFluff]

Hi. Im the new korashk. I also love this setup given my hatered of power role heavy games. Some key things though

Things people do not realize
1) Overdefensiveness is a myth. It is the absolute worst tell in the history of tells on this site. I would rather use a RNG then lynch someone for it. This is because it not only is a subjective tell (you may see it as something different then the person you are sitting next to) but also because no one wants to be lynched.
2) Theory says we should no lynch (as 2:9 has better town odds then 2:10 IIRC), sad no one brought that up, but figured unless someone else liked mountanious no one would have. This of course is just theory, as if we ran the game by RNG.
3) Random wagons to start the game are good. For some reason most people nowadays think they are horribly scummy. Am I really that old of a player that meta has shifted that greatly? Possibly, but I challenge anyone who thinks that they are bad to give me reasons why that is true.

Analysis

17 (xite) - First legitimate tell of the game! Random vote +FoSs on the two people who seem to be somewhat out of the RVS stage. This argues that the random stage is over, yet no stances are taken on what "ended" it.
22 (fitz) - If he really did not read the setup, he is town. If he did this is a nulltell.
48 (PD) - See point 3 for part of this (wagoning). Sort of using a double standard on CA here and also still pressuring saga while not asking questions to, or having already determined which player is scummier.
64 (Leech) - Getting on LmL for bringing up him being an old player, but I do not know how or why this is any type of a tell. Seems to be a shot at the credibility of him without taking a stance on his alignment.
67 (xite) - Saying that everyone who has used early scumcatching things "seems to have failed" rubs me wrong. Now it could be that xite thinks that CA, PD and LML are all town here, not sure, although to not be a scumslip this would have to be true. Now, this also begs the question of why xite is doing nothing to diffuse the "town on town" fighting that they would expect to be occuring here. Odd enough he called CA and LML distancing scum earlier.
87 (xite) - Ok cool. Xite is scum as he is now saying that CA, PD and LML are all scum on information, which seems to go against them all "failing to catch scum" when what they did made them all go for eachother.

That is through page 4/5 for now. Xite and Leech are scummy to me. Saga and IUN are making me feel uneasy on a gut level for whatever reason.

[LlamaFluff]

122/124 (LML) - He is dead on about Nexus having suspicion lists that do not match the actions that he is exhibiting. While an immediate call out on this is not the best way to go about it to me, this is a good spot and an acceptable action. More interesting is the lack of real distinction I was able to find from Nexus in ordering his list.
126 (Nexus) - Just funny since Nexus called LML defensive, and this would qualify more to me. It is not a good tell, but worth noting that Nexus is attempting to apply a double standard here.
145 (IAU) - Basically just good posting. Points out a slight contridiction from CA.
174 (Nexus) - Finally moves off LML due to pressure. Not sure why pressure on him justifies removing a pressure vote on LML, or why Nexus was still pressure voting once it had been revealed as pressure (hint - As soon as a vote is called a pressure vote, it is no longer useful as a pressure vote).
~Wierd side note, I just realized there are three older people then me in this game. I think this is the first time that has happened in a long time.
179 (Lat) - Brings up the point that Xite-Nexus are basically indistinguishable, but comes to a different conclusion then me. I see this as a tell against them being partners more then them being partners.
181 (CA) - *twitch* First he seems to challenge a town read on him and IAU from Xite, I think CA had IAU as town, and I would expect to think himself would be town if he is town. Why is this being challenged? He really glazes over the Nex-LML debate, just taking one shot at Nexus before moving on. He votes Korask for

I see it as kind of a Town motivational rallying cry . . .

either side can do it

, and it strikes me as a cheap way for scum to earn town points.

a null tell! Which he attempts to justify as a scum tell, then proceeds to attack korashk additonally for being a dick (which he was, but that is not an alignment tell). Then he attacks IAU for 'tunneling' on him when he had not posted since the 'tunneling' started. Really bad post all around.
193 (fitz) - He continues to hound on dalt for a the whole "I am new" thing. At almost 200 posts into the game, it is the epicenter of action from fitz, who I know is a much better player then what he is exhibiting right now. Most of the other action in the game is going ignored by him at this point.
208 (xite) - I like the move of trying to put a vote on someone who is not getting pressure right now. I do not like the part about waiting to see if dalt gets replaced in other games though before making up mind too much. What does that have to do with anything?
216 (leech) - Why is this scummy? I will try and throw around a bunch of things like that to get people to listen to me if I otherwise cant.
217 (PD) - I do not even know what you want here from me. Saying that my predecessor was not that great of a player? If so, Korashk was not a very good player.
218 (xite) - How is the information biased? I thought that was the difference between inherent and research knowledge. Biased information is still gut, simply fancy. Just like High Class British Gut compared to Inbred Redneck Gut.
220 (IAU) - Reg no lynch: Yes late in the game is better, it did need to be stated that no lynching increases towns win chance by 5-10% (I think, have not looked at that data for a bit).
221 (xite) - If I have this right, you thought that nexus was a newbie showing some town tells, so you attacked him to see who would bandwagon, knowing that he would be bad at defending himself and look scummy? First, that is not a 'gambit', more of a trap, but not a good one, since most people will attack 'scummy'. By the same logic wouldnt you expect any newbie town to see the scumtells and jump on it? I just do not see this as without lots of pitfalls scattered throughout it. The wierdest part is, I actually can see the Nexus-town mindset in some of your posts, which was odd given your vote on him. This just is wierd.
250 (CA) - Why is Korask replacing out of only one game suspicious?

unvote

as I realize I never did upon replacing in.

CA, fitz and xite are scummy to me at this point. Probably will vote CA or fitz as some of the recent things I see are making me think xite is town, albiet a little bit crazy town in reasoning here.

Will try and get up a case/vote on them by tomorrow, as I will have no access this weekend due to having to help a professor in the field.

[LlamaFluff]

That brings me to suspect 1a. Llamafluff. Primarily for Korashk’s play. In the two post’s of content Llama has provided…the only things I have issue with are: the no-lynch comment and the subtle ad-hominem attack on me insinuating I am not playing well this game…which I read as people shouldn’t put any merit what I am saying (which coincidentally has been the case re: dalt).

BTW Llama…do you play on this sight under any other names?

I brought up no lynch as town no lynching at some point in the game significantly increases town win chances. I did not vote no lynch, but said that we should no lynch before this game is over, especially if we have a mylo situation.

Also I do have an alt which you have played with, more then once I think. If you know who it is hush, too many people know about it already, I would prefer if not everyone knew.

unvote as I realize I never did upon replacing in.

Why is an experienced player unvoting without placing that vote elsewhere? I'm sure you're versed in mafia theory enough to realize that not having your vote somewhere is pointless. Especially when immediately after you list two players you find scummy. Why didn't you vote for them, look at the reaction, and review the reaction? Unvoting for the sake of unvoting is poor play.

I was "voting" someone I did not think was scummy and have a town read on. I laid out my top two suspects with a brief reasoning for both of them being suspicious. I have not made a case or picked out which one I think is more likely scum yet, I do have a life outside of the game. Will have a case and vote out tonight though.

[LlamaFluff]

I also don’t care for llama’s entry comment regarding a no-lynch on D1. 2 vs 9 might improve odds of hitting scum…but not by much. And by that logic wouldn't 2v8 or 2v7 etc be even better?

Pointing this out real quick due to my like of the setup again. The reason that a 2:9 is actually slightly better odds wise then a 2:10 is the mylo vs lylo scenario. In a situation where two scum remain, straight lynching will arive at that point with six alive at the soonest, at that point the chance of lynching scum at random is 2/6, if you no lynch and lose another town member, the chance improves to 2/5, which is a 7% increase. At different levels this differs of course (at F3/F4 it is +8%, right now it would only be +2%), so later is better (as it increases at ~1% daily). Statistically speaking though it is better to no lynch right now then never at all, although the later you no lynch, the better the towns win chance is. [/engineering major math rant]

[LlamaFluff]

So statistics aside...

The biggest point against HF is his stubbornness on getting off the dalt wagon, and being somewhat stubborn is not much of a tell for him. In fact looking at some old games with him, it may be a slight town tell for him to latch onto a wagon that no one else agrees with. Also I think his response to the IAU "mass claim trap" is WIFOMed to come from town over scum, as a goon-goon pairing would raise a few questionmarks to scum about the setup.

Vote ConfidAnon

CA just is scummy all over the place.

First large part of the game, CA just random wagons around a bit. Not something I have a problem with at all, although his exit from the "wagon at random" strategy has one glaring contridiction in it.

No,

I am pushing for your [PD] lynch

based on the curious comment after you said you tried to start a bandwagon. It seems, to me at least, that the only motivation to call something out as "curious" is to leave it open as an avenue of suspicion. This is hypocritical in regards to you wanting to start a bandwagon.

I don't intend to push for a lynch this early, but I did suspect him.

The bolded contridicts with that fairly obviously. He expresses want of a non-random wagon (explicity stated), says he is pushing for a lynch (explicitly stated) and when he is challenged about the wagon, he quickly backs off of it.

So we get onto the very ugly hop onto the korask wagon that CA claims he had a whole lot of reasoning for when I first summarized his push, so lets break down his reasoning.

1) "I do not like the entire post". Great! Why?
2) "He made a votecount! That is IIoA!" Sorta but not really, IIoA more applies to summarizing events that are occuring and not giving your own insight to them, like if I broke down the whole LML-Nexus thing
3) "Voting due to not believing someone". His vote is not horrible in reasoning here, just lacks backing. He is voting someone who he thinks is scum trying to wagon baselessly.
4) "Saying he is useless". You say it is trying to give him reasoning to lurk, without him ever exhibiting lurker tendancies. The "I am outclassed" possibility is completely ignored by him here. If CA wants to go after lurkers, there are other candidates.
5) "Rally Cry". This continues on to be said as "either side can do it". So CA is trying to force a null tell into a scum tell here to help further his case, although he says he views it as a scum tell.
6) "He is rude". Again, not a tell.

So his entire case was a sweeping generalization (1), slightly misused tells (2), not tells (3, 4) and nulltells (5, 6).

So, ConfidAnon appears to be pretty blatantly responding to his wagon by lying low and waiting for it to blow over. I am disappointed that this appears to be working for him.

. . . or I just forgot about the thread. Tell me how that confirmation bias works out for ya.

Also, how's the tunnel? Any lights in there? As I said above, my rvs play was mainly to get reactions. I did not have every thing I did analyzed and planned out to a T . . . it was mainly for kicks and giggles, although I was interested to see how people would wagon and things of that nature. So lynch me.

CA reacts to this comment by missing the entire point. IAU brought up that he was lurking to get the wagon off him, CA responds by saying he is tunneling on him, which is not the case. IAU brings up some points, such as the contridiction that I mentioned already, and you never respond to him, instead you stop posting for a few days (ie lurking to get a wagon off of you).

Nexu's inconsistant suspicions are kind of scummy, but could be a noob mistake. So I like the Korashk vote better.

We also get a fun little fence sit on Nexus at this point. CA quickly justifies joining the Nexus wagon, but writes it off as something can easily be backtrackable to jump on a different wagon.

Confid is town
Username is probtown

Why?

Also there is the attack on town reads of himself and IAU, attacking town reads of people you do not think are scummy is in itself scummy. I mentioned this earlier and it also got ignored. CA has missed/ignored quite a few things directed at him.

The rest of him play has been attacking my slot because korashk got replaced. He says getting replaced is a scumtell, which is hard for me to believe as I have seen CA replace out of tons of games, as both alignments.

[LlamaFluff]

1) "I do not like the entire post". Great! Why?
2) "He made a votecount! That is IIoA!" Sorta but not really, IIoA more applies to summarizing events that are occuring and not giving your own insight to them, like if I broke down the whole LML-Nexus thing
3) "Voting due to not believing someone". His vote is not horrible in reasoning here, just lacks backing. He is voting someone who he thinks is scum trying to wagon baselessly.
4) "Saying he is useless". You say it is trying to give him reasoning to lurk, without him ever exhibiting lurker tendancies. The "I am outclassed" possibility is completely ignored by him here. If CA wants to go after lurkers, there are other candidates.
5) "Rally Cry". This continues on to be said as "either side can do it". So CA is trying to force a null tell into a scum tell here to help further his case, although he says he views it as a scum tell.
6) "He is rude". Again, not a tell.

2) Wouldn't a vote count be a summary of events that is occuring and not giving own insight into it?
4) Who said I was going after lurkers in particular? His post sets him up to go under the radar for day 1. I don't think he will disappear completely, but it still provides an excuse for a lack of analysis.
5) I play games on another chat mafia site (epicmafia). While that game is vastly different than mafiascum mafia, when I play, players who give rallying cry type comments (no big deal, we can still win this, no point in dwelling on mistakes, etc) are players I've found more likely to be scum.
6) I was never using it as reflective of alignment. You'll see in my original post that I voted him before calling out the elitist statement against noobs. The revote was more for dramatic effect/snarky commentary.

First note how CA has abanoned half his points already (1, 3, 6).

2) I guess it is a matter of opinion, but I do not view it has horrible IIoA.
4) "Setting himself up for", you are accusing him for something that

he never did

. Not only that but something that he might be able to do. There is a difference between saying "I think X is scummy for ABC, but D so i dont know, so vote Y" is setting yourself up to jump to X. "I am not good" is not setting yourself up for lurking.
5) I find the complete opposite true at the more "indepth thinking" mafia sites (no major shot to EM, but it is much more of jokey play). This game is about motivation to an extent, and keeping the game slow early on is a good way to zap that for mafia advantage.

CA reacts to this comment by missing the entire point. IAU brought up that he was lurking to get the wagon off him, CA responds by saying he is tunneling on him, which is not the case. IAU brings up some points, such as the contridiction that I mentioned already, and you never respond to him, instead you stop posting for a few days (ie lurking to get a wagon off of you).

Apparently you missed or didn't read the part of that post where I said I forgot about the thread.

Apparently you missed the question that you responded like this that IAU asked. Also the same question that I reasked you later, and you still never responded to, instead just attacking each of us for asking it to you. So how about an answer?

[LlamaFluff]

TW's play is really crap. I had a long post ready to go and was going to vote her...but her wagon is getting full way too fast.

So? If you think he is scum, why not vote him? Do you think he is town because of the wagon and getting railed on my scum? If so who? ALso what are your reasonings for thinking he is scum?

Never seen Adel/TW do this play before, only though I have seen him once breifly before only. Wierd part is I am not too sure he is scum here. He is basically right about nolynch I think, waiting is gambity as rarely a situation arises where there is no obviously town player late in the game (except maybe 5P lylo).

Still debating going over to xite wagon if we dont no lynch here.

[LlamaFluff]

my assessment: nolynch is optimal, followed by h.fitz lynch, followed by xite lynch.

All of those are good choices, CA maybe although I am still wondering how much of this is my "always scum" read of him acting up again. Out of Xite and HF I would rather lynch Xite at this point, but HF is still a good lynch.

I understand how your analysis works, what do you make of it though? As in who is playing to common scum voting patterns or anything like that, or is it just a WIP that is useful later?

@Everyone - What is your opinion on no lynch today after hearing the arguement from TW?

[LlamaFluff]

@Everyone - What is your opinion on no lynch today after hearing the arguement from TW?

You mean the alt that is intentionally playing a terrible game, even after (s)he is exposed as a non-newbie? Why would I take anything she is saying seriously when she's deliberately making bad plays? Why wouldn't I consider her argument on this matter another, intentionally bad play? Considering I've already stated my reasons on why I disagree with it, I don't see why a player that is trying to play horribly would sway me in any way.

Yeah this is attacking the presenter not attacking the idea.

There are distinct benifits for no lynching early, and benifits for no lynching late. TW points out the one that I missed in a statistic mindset, of as the game goes on kills become more obvious. If you have a four player scenario, chances are that one person is an obvious lynch. In this situation, that is not the case.

No lynching is not a good play, theory and practice says it is a good move. More on this in a bit.

I need two flips to make any real progress.

Really? So you're going to be useless until then? Considering we've already established that you are not a newbie, why are you maintaining this charade? This deliberate newbie play is what is keeping my vote on you. Your "mafia is stupid on this site" after seeing you are an alt, is really what's getting me. It's clear that you are intentionally trying to be a shitty player, and I want to know why. I cannot think of a pro-town reason to intentionally be a worse player than you are. No one benefits from this.

Think before you attack. What TW made was basically a vote analysis post, just one that is a little better then one that just looks at old post VCs. Him saying that it takes flips to make it very useful was expected. While I do not like him playing "weaker" then normal, making an alt to play far more aggressive, impulsive, etc is completely fine with me.

On no lynch - I actually like it for right now, but am against it in practice for a key reason. It will make an amazingly massive ammount of noise. People will split on it, some people will try to use it as a tell (which it is not as it can be argued as good and bad) but it will be used as a tell, which will create more noise, and just get in the way of scumhunting.

I will probably be voting Xite soon. She is scum.

[LlamaFluff]

TW is town. Lat, Wolf and IAU are also probably town (in order of decreasing strength of read). I want to tag PD on the end of that list but gut is not letting me.

I would be happy with a no lynch today, but see my previous arguement on it not being a fundamentally good idea in this situation.

Xite wagon is looking like it is made of town. Will put up reasoning for that sometime soon, but have a final this friday, then am helping my little brother move in for his freshman year over the weekend before I start up classes again Monday.

[LlamaFluff]

1) Why/How do you have Town reads on TW, Lat and Wolf?

This gets explained when I have not been drinking. Town tells are mostly gut mixed with weak tells though. Are you challenging any of these town reads?

2) Since you feel the Xite wagon is a town wagon, What is your read in Xite?

Scummy. She has been in my top few picks since I replaced into this game. Everyone voting her looking very town is her voting.

3) Your vote is CA right now, do you feel it's best placed there?

Not quite sure, I am probably going to move it to Xite pretty soon. TW is a strong town read, leads votes, and deadline appears to be approaching. CA is still very scummy though, I would be happy with a lynch of Xite or CA.

4) If you have a pro-town read on Xite, aren't you afraid of the scum jumping on at some point as a mislynch? If you have an anti-town read on Xite, why aren't you voting for him?

I want to at least lay out a few key points as to why xite is scum before I vote her, which I think that I will be doing here soon.

[LlamaFluff]

Due to an extreme lack of posting time over this weekend (yes I realize when deadline is but it cant be avoided) I am going to leave my vote on CA, for previous things, and a few additonal posts such as this.

It's somewhat hilarious that TW was Adel.

Was the slip-up with your alt a complete accident, Adel?

Also, not liking Xite's reactions right now.

Comes in and has his entire opinion on the TW/Adel thing as "lol its an alt". No push on alignment, no questions pretaining to the game, not even a hint of what he thinks TW is.

Also we have a setup to be able to move onto xite for "reactions" right at the time the xite wagon is starting to gain some ground near deadline.

[LlamaFluff]

Particularly as I would believe an alt would try and play differently to their normal account. So your evidence isn't all that useful. At least not to me.

Alts start like that, but as they go on you need to make a concious effort to keep them looking like a different person from experience.

A few people here are so obviously town it is painful. Will of course vote xite to not have TW get lynched. I brought up a few points against her in my catchup posts, and NW has brought up far more good points. Tomorrow morning/midday will likely be my last chance to post before deadline will change my vote then if needed, although if a CA wagon showed up out of nowhere I would be happy.

@Nexus - Is CA or Xite a better lynch and why?
@All TW voters - Does TW being an alt effect your read?
@CA - Where did you go? Opinons on people actually getting lynched?

[LlamaFluff]

Havent read since my last post but a skim shows lack of sudden CA wagon

vote xite

[LlamaFluff]

@ LF:

Did you ever finish reading the thread before deadline hit? If so, what was the last post present at that time?

Never did. I did debate setting my alarm for right before deadline and unvoting to force no lynch though. Reading through the thread though my vote would not have moved to TW, still read as town.

Going to try and get caught up a bit tonight before I have a bunch of stuff due friday.

[LlamaFluff]

For a vote now I am meandering between fitz, PD and one of LmL/Leech (they almost cant be scum together).

Lat raises a lot of good points on PD which I like since it validated my 'something isnt quite right' gut feeling from yesterday there. I would be voting fitz apart from one post of his that really makes me think that he could be town, while everything else reads heavily scum. The one post though I just put a lot of town credit behind.

Anyone want to no lynch?

[LlamaFluff]

I think the Xite wagon is town.

Llama, do you still believe that the scum would rather lynch TW than Xite, being that they were both town?

How do you feel about that wagon now?

Yes I do think that scum would be happier lynching TW then Xite. I still like that wagon a whole lot more then the TW wagon. Very pressed for time right now, will get in a bigger post tomorrow sometime.

[LlamaFluff]

Well, I still say that we should no lynch. TW proved how it is the correct move to make in this setup, logic and math back it up. People are just conditioned to be way against no lynching at all costs, even when an exception to the rule occurs like this game. I would be very happy with a no lynch today. The conditions are still ok for one, although theoretically it should have occured seven posts into the game.

I like the points that Lat has been raising on PD a whole lot, and over the next few days I will try and supplement the points of his that I see as key with a few additonal things that I have noticed.

I am pretty sure that Wolf, Lat and now fitz are town. IAU still probably but gut is making me wonder there, as I think the TW kill is either a move from a highly experienced or newbie scum team. I can see a few reasons that TW would be the correct kill for scum.

Fitz though I will go into a little bit more since that is a complicated read. It comes from mainly the early game where he got into it over the setup. This is a very unique setup, that most players are able to identify as scum as mountainous given that it is a two good team. It is very rare for that to not be either a 10:2 or a 8:2:2 setup. Once it is discovered to be a unique setup, scum would be paying more attention to the setup, and this was something that fitz did not do. Yes it is a WIFOM solution, but it makes some sense to me. Only downside is that a TW kill did benifit fitz a bit, that is even greater WIFOM however.

CA I now slightly lead town again. Im skitzo like that.

[LlamaFluff]

Never did. I did debate setting my alarm for right before deadline and unvoting to force no lynch though.

Seriously, how is the player that caused the hammering vote going to claim to unvote to force a no lynch? That makes no sense at all. If he wanted to force a no-lynch he would have refrained from voting. Considering his vote literally caused the lynch, that statement is a bold faced lie.

Well lets look at the options for yesterday: xite lynch, TW lynch, no lynch. (order of preference no lynch/xite >> TW)

I did not know who CA wanted to lynch. Wolf seemed to express some interest to lynch TW over xite to cause a lynch. If I voted no lynch, it left the worst possible option (TW lynch) as a high possibility given how few people were interested in a no lynch. That is why I said right before deadline, as it would not allow anyone to get a vote in preventing a no lynch. By voting for xite when I did, it ensured that my prefered lynch would occur if a lynch did happen.

[LlamaFluff]

I did not know who CA wanted to lynch. Wolf seemed to express some interest to lynch TW over xite to cause a lynch. If I voted no lynch, it left the worst possible option (TW lynch) as a high possibility given how few people were interested in a no lynch. That is why I said right before deadline, as it would not allow anyone to get a vote in preventing a no lynch. By voting for xite when I did, it ensured that my prefered lynch would occur

if a lynch did happen.

Why are you acting like I didn't understand you the first time? Here let me bold it so it just might sink in:

You hammered

. It's not "if a lynch did happen" when your vote caused the lynch. Your later statement that you were thinking about unvoting to force a no-lynch is completely invalid because

your vote was the hammer vote

. You could not have unvoted to force a no-lynch due to the fact that when you voted, it caused the lynch to happen and any unvotes at that point would not have counted.

Vote Count:

Xite91

-6- Lateralus22, Nightwolf, Leech, iamausername, tomorrow wendy, llamafluff

tomorrow wendy

-5- Xite91, LoudmouthLee, PranaDevil, havingfitz, Nexus

Llamafluff

-1- ConfidAnon

**seven to lynch**

Why are you acting like I have no idea what I was talking about? Here let me bold it so it just might sink in:

I put him at L-1

. It was a "if a lynch did happen" scenario as my vote did not cause the lynch. My statement about thinking about unvoting to force a no lynch is completely valid because

xite was at L-1

. I could have unvoted to force a no-lynch due to the fact that when I voted, it was not a hammer, just a failsafe to prevent a TW lynch.

weeee....

Serious post tomorrow I hope. Had to get caught up on classwork today.

Funny enough I think that this makes Leech kinda town since I think that he would research his opinion better.

[LlamaFluff]

Vote PD

I am just going to lay out a quick case here, not going to get into a big post war in part because it gets unproductive after a few exchanged, and in part because I really am pressed for time right now. I knew my fall load was going to be bad, but this is REALLY bad.

I'd be all for a Dalt lynch after that. I'm not one for an instant "Policy Lynch" as solely focusing on those will take us straight into brown trousers time. However I feel there's a huge difference between a general policy lynch of someone caught out lying, and someone who was using their lies to try and make town believe they were new and didn't really know how to play, especially when there's evidence to prove otherwise. It smells of trying to gain sympathy points and I don't like it.

This was from very early on in the game, and looking back, especially with dalt slot being town. The way this is worded it says that dalt is almost on policy lynch level already given that he has outright lied, it says that he is using a form of AtE, it does everything but vote dalt. But there is not dalt vote, as CA disappearing was more interesting for him.

Saying that someone is scum though to the point where you would almost policy lynch them is doing everything but allowing you to vote them at any point you want to in the future.

So for now...

unvote; vote: Korashk

CA looks scummy to me a little, but Korashk is saying more by not saying anything at all after he was called out on that point, and I think he was hoping it would blow over by the time he returned. I'd like to see more pressure on Korashk.

Interesting again. PD moves off CA who has been getting better (remember CA was voted over dalt for lurking) onto korashk for... lurking! This completely bypasses the logic presented about dalt being "policy lynchable" scum, and jumps onto someone who is not contributing to the game, another lurker lynch, at the time that the Korashk wagon is suddenly becoming popular.

So basically, your arguments [fitz on dalt] don't hold water, and thus they are invalid, the fact you continue pushing them despite people pointing this out makes you scummy, and look desperate to try and convince people you are right.

This... confuses me.

Recently PD completely agreed with the case on dalt, and was completely willing to vote him on exactly what fitz had said. The only real difference between here and there was that people has started saying "that is a stupid suspicion" and then just like that, PD abandons the dalt-scum thoughts to attack the inital pusher of it.

~~~

All for now. I have to do a pre-lab for fluid mechanics and get started on steel design if I want any free time later this week.

[LlamaFluff]

To clarify a bit between class and lab here...

I voted Xite when I did largely to prevent a lynch of TW. Read through my posts near the end of day one, and you will see more then once that I called TW as town. Xite was a fairly scummy player, whos lynch I was happy with, and compared to a TW lynch, was the hands down choice for my vote.

If the day was longer, no, I would not have voted xite when I did as I still had not laid out much of a case on her.

I did not realize the rules on no lynch, thinking it was the same as my ruleset (highest vote getter lynched, incase of tie no one lynched), and said that I would have unvoted to get a no lynch to happen. I was looking for a way to force no lynch and thought that I had found one.

But the main fact remains the following, and I will say it again

***I did not want TW lynched. That is why I voted for Xite at the time I did. It was a move to protect a town read and lynch a scum read that happened when it did due to deadline. If I did know about the no lynch rule, I still would have voted Xite when I did to make sure my town read lived***

Will post more after labs and when I finish other assignments.

[LlamaFluff]

I still don't buy his reasoning for voting Xite, particularly after being on the CA wagon anyway.

Why is that bad? CA and Xite were nice and neutraly towards eachother, so I do not know what you are trying to imply about that interaction.

I still believe that whilst town, tw's play was a lot scummier/anti town than Xite's, so there's no way I'm going to agree that the Xite wagon was better than the tw wagon. The fact that his vote tipped the scales for the Xite lynch makes me suspicious anyway.

TW read fairly heavily town. If I think that someone is town, I am going to defend them directly and indirectly. It would be like me calling you scum here for voting Xite when his play was a lot scummier then TWs, a completely subjective accusation.

His sudden decision to stop supporting a lynch on CA is very strange.

Why is second guessing my scum read bad?

[LlamaFluff]

@Wolf - These two made it not out of the question for you to vote TW, although still unlikely. At a tied wagon I was on edge for finding anything that would have caused a shift

Preview Edit: Oh great, a double replacement now as well. I can't say that the thought that it might just be best to lynch wendy('s slot) now didn't cross my mind as soon as I read that. /goes on to reread.

I'm torn. At least more so then I was earlier this morning when I made my other posts. But now that I've cooled down a bit (just reading overly angry posts tends to get me to a similar level of anger for some reason), my calmer mind is telling me to stick with Xite.

Going to see what else I can get through here, have to go to lecture in 10 minutes.

[LlamaFluff]

Well, I still say that we should no lynch. TW proved how it is the correct move to make in this setup, logic and math back it up. People are just conditioned to be way against no lynching at all costs, even when an exception to the rule occurs like this game. I would be very happy with a no lynch today. The conditions are still ok for one, although theoretically it should have occured seven posts into the game.

That's absolutely ridiculous. The math that you're speaking of talks about random lynches without any sort of knowledge. I don't even think you know the math that you're speaking about. It makes me wonder what you're trying to get out of this.

There is some thread in MD that proves that 9:2 is better then 10:2. I will try and find it tonight.

The risk of holding off no lynch is that as the game goes on, there may be more or less town reads by players. In a situation where there is someone that is an obvious town read, no lynch dooms them. In a situation where that is not the case, a no lynch really does not kill off the obviously town player. Everyone is just afraid to do it outside of a mylo situation because it has been beaten into them again and again in closed games.

Why should we not no lynch?

I am pretty sure that Wolf, Lat and now fitz are town. IAU still probably but gut is making me wonder there, as I think the TW kill is either a move from a highly experienced or newbie scum team. I can see a few reasons that TW would be the correct kill for scum.

This type of NK speculation is always very detrimental to town. You're pigeonholing the scum team in one way or the other, and that type of thinking leads townies to their demise.

*shrug*

This NK comes from someone who knows exactly what they are doing or has no clue what they are doing.

TW read fairly heavily town. If I think that someone is town, I am going to defend them directly and indirectly. It would be like me calling you scum here for voting Xite when his play was a lot scummier then TWs, a completely subjective accusation.

In a mountainous setup, the only way you're going to have that air-tight of a read in order to defend them to the grave is if you have knowledge of roles (read: Scum). In a regular game, you can get cop vibes, and results can easily give people real reasons to defend someone to the grave. If you were a townie, you woudn't have that read. I know that *I* wouldn't defend anyone to the grave as you are stating.

I always defend my town reads. If I think that someone is town, everyone is going to know about it if they are in danger of being lynched because there is no reason to let someone who you think is town get lynched. I thought TW was town, and I was not the only one who had that read. My town reads are generally very accurate when they get to the point that I had one on TW, and I will defend the player to the grave when I get that convinced of their townie-ness.

Is your arguement here that I defended my town read strongly so I have to be scum given that is was impossible for town to get a town read on TW?

You've misrepresented you reason for "hammering". You jumped to a NL today, To me, your last few posts have screamed scum.

I did not realize the no lynch rule, but if I did, I still would have voted at the point that I did. Also still no one has managed to prove why a no lynch is bad apart from "it just is".

[LlamaFluff]

Why should we not no lynch?

Ironically, I think you said it best earlier:

On no lynch - I actually like it for right now, but am against it in practice for a key reason. It will make an amazingly massive ammount of noise. People will split on it, some people will try to use it as a tell (which it is not as it can be argued as good and bad) but it will be used as a tell, which will create more noise, and just get in the way of scumhunting.

This is one of my major problems with you. You continue to push for something that you have clearly expressed would be bad for the town. You posted extremely valid reasons why it would be a bad move, as it gets in the way of scumhunting, yet you push for it anyway. Your own reasoning against it outweighs your reason for pushing it, but you continue to do so anyway. The fact is, the majority of the people have stated that the best time for a No-Lynch would be the day before MyLo. If we come to that consensus then it should happen at the immediate start of that phase, which would prevent the negative aspects that you have described above. The fact that you continue to push for it, even now, is only participating in the "massive amount of noise" you described earlier which is in all reality getting in the way of scumhunting. Considering you rationally explained that, and believe it, you are intentionally getting in the way of scumhunting.

This is why I am getting really flustered over this whole thing. It is textbook theory that no lynch on day one is the best possible move for the town. If no lynch does not happen, it is best to do it ASAP. This is not one of those things that is "its theory" things, but proveable with simple calculations. So logic says to no lynch, instead, people are against it, and that is where the whole noise thing comes into play and where I start to get annoyed as people are refusing to make the right move.

On the flip side to what I said about noise making it bad, the biggest drawback about waiting being bad is scum have a much better handle on the gamestate. This means that a kill usually is someone who is regarded as highly pro-town, which dillutes some of the reasoning to have a no lynch.

I do realize that I am contridicting myself at this point given that it is a situation where there is a best move and a "best" move, but I just want to keep pushing the point with the hope that people realize that there is a better move.

Out of pure curiosity, why are you advocating Mylo-1 instead of mylo no lynch?

[LlamaFluff]

I really think you haven't been reading, Iam. Check out Llama's reaction to NL compared to his reaction to NL today. Plus, he's singing the praises of Adel in such a way... befriending the dead pro-town is a way to look town when you're scummy.

You have a point since I never said that TW was town yesterday

Never seen Adel/TW do this play before, only though I have seen him once breifly before only. Wierd part is I am not too sure he is scum here.

TW is town. Lat, Wolf and IAU are also probably town (in order of decreasing strength of read).

TW is a strong town read, leads votes, and deadline appears to be approaching. CA is still very scummy though, I would be happy with a lynch of Xite or CA.

A few people here are so obviously town it is painful. Will of course vote xite to not have TW get lynched.

Oh.....

[LlamaFluff]

Responses to a few things

Yes I ran it by the mod before someone asks.

Will make more of a case tomorrow with any luck. As I said, I have a lab to writeup now.

[LlamaFluff]

I did not read the rules, it is as simple as that. I honestly dont get how that can possibly be a tell when I continue to state that even if I read the rules, I would have STILL voted for Xite. I am not in the least bit upset that she was lynched over TW yesterday. It was the ideal lynch for what I was presented with.

I recognize the game you pointed out had someone make that move, but I still think it is a town tell to an extent. Ignorance of setup tends to be a town tell, as scum inherantly know more about it.

For no lynch, I realize what I said about no lynch late being benifical, but what I ignored in my inital calculation was the stack of slow percentage growth. Here is the basis of the game if scum wins in a clean sweep, since any scum lynch will keep the same pace of lynch rates up and this is simplest. This is when to no lynch, scum lynch odds, and average

NL D1 (D2 - 18%, D3 - 22%, D4 - 29%, D5 - 40%) - Average - 27.2%
NL D2 (D1 - 17%, D3 - 22%, D4 - 29%, D5 - 40%) - Average - 26.9%
NL D3 (D1 - 17%, D2 - 20%, D4 - 29%, D5 - 40%) - Average - 26.3%
NL D4 (D1 - 17%, D2 - 20%, D3 - 25%, D5 - 40%) - Average - 25.4%
No NL (D1 - 17%, D2 - 20%, D3 - 25%, D4 - 33%) - Average - 23.8%

Now as I said, what I initally saw was the increase was greatest for a D4 NL (+7%), what I failed to realize was the little bits added up if a no lynch occured early. So there you guys go, math says NL on day one is +1.8% on NL D4 (with a D5 scum lynch it is +1.5% over D4 mylo NL).

Anyways now that the math is up there

unvote
Vote No Lynch

Seriously people, this is the best path to take at this point. Odds prove that it is the best path to take. I do not know what more I can say about it at this point, or see how it can possibly be up for debate when you do not even have to scroll up to see that NL will increase the towns win chances, and every day we lynch someone instead, the towns win chance goes down. You do realize that is why people no lynch in mylo right? It makes our win chance go up.

Anyway Leech, you say that I am taking TW ideas as my own so had to have killed her. That just is hard for me to even comprehend and it feels like you are just trying to force the NK to fit with someone (hey LmL, someone else is speculating now too). I am pushing what TW brought up because it took someone else talking about it for me to realize the piece of why it was the best that I was originally missing. If you want to call me scum for saying that, hell I am fine with it as long as you actually no lynch today. You just better have something apart from "wanted a no lynch when it is proven to be the correct move" as a tell.

[LlamaFluff]

Hah... lose our numbers... oh.

Lets see...

If we have an odd ammount alive at ANY point in the game, we cant lose the numbers unless scum no kill. We look for an odd ammount of total players, not an odd ammount of town. Why would you no lynch in a 4:1 scenario?

Also you do realize that lynching scum at any point in time does not change the fact that its best to no lynch. You can tell me that beyond a doubt scum will claim scum tomorrow, and I will still push for a no lynch. In absence of a scum claim, no lynch is best. TW was right about it.

@PD - I have played enough games that as scum, I can fairly accurately predict how strong the town is by knowing what roles scum has. Two goons is ultra weak, anyone with any experience should have a flag go up if they get that. Also even with 'talking and logic' no lynch is still the best move. If you say that discussion adds 10% to scum lynch chance, adding 10% to each number leaves no lynch in the lead.

So far for "arguements against no lynch" I have heard

1) We will talk about it which helps us lynch scum.

That is bad because as I said, any additional chance to lynch scum will do nothing to change no lynch being the right move, it will just increase both chances from high 20% to high 30%. Difference between the two will not change.

2) It will create noise.

This is a little better, but this only is an issue if people are being stubborn. The problem here is more one of the players in the game then one of no lynch being a bad move.

Lets keep hearing them people!

[LlamaFluff]

As for Llama, the thing you're still forgetting is your maths only works if nobody ever speaks at any point in the game and we just lynch randomly, once you take reads of people into hand then the numbers change (either more beneficial for the No Lynch, or less beneficial for the No Lynch depending on where the suspicion lies etc). But we wouldn't know that until the game's over anyways.

No my "maths" work regardless of the people talking or not. If you can say, beyond a doubt, that talking about the game will bring up our chances of lynching today 10%, it applies to a scenario where we have no lynched, and to a scenario where we have not no lynched. You are ignoring the fact that this 10% benifits us no matter what the past has been.

The optimal time for a No Lynch is pretty much "before MyLo", once we hit MyLo it's pretty much too late, but earlier than that I don't feel is optimal at all. Especially when you then consider that scum would be more likely to take out someone they feel is strong on the town's side anyway, which means on Day 1 with a No Lynch (as optimal strategy is it happens right off the bat with no discussion) someone who would be a great benefit to town winds up night killed without putting in any input.

Other people need to play better? Seriously, this is more fear mongering then anything else. Would be like me saying "We should no lynch because if we do lynch town might die".


I just realized how soon deadline is, so here are my semi-final thoughts on who is scum here

One of LmL/Leech is scum, I lean about 60/40 on it being LmL.

Last is going to be one of PD/CA/Fitz. I really do not see Lat, Wolf, Nexus of IAU are scum here. Lat is heavy town read, Nexus is awesome town for his reaction to TW crashing at the end of D1, Wolf reads like town similarly to Lat, but not quite as strong. IAU would not surprise me, but I dont think he is scum at this point.

I will vote for either LmL or PD over myself of course, but I still prefer no lynch at this state.

If I do get lynched, you sure as hell better nolynch within the first four posts tomorrow.

[LlamaFluff]

I did a little looking at pairings of my two groups, and realize that fitz does not work too well with either LmL or Leech. While I like PD for scum, he does not work too good with either of the two L's. However, CA works amazingly well as a partner to either LmL or Leech, which makes me wonder on him again. Right now I am just confused quite a bit, which is making me wonder if I have a read wrong.

This is a bit of a confusing situation to me, as between LmL and Leech, I read LmL as far scummier, but he does not work as well with CA or PD, and only slightly better with Fitz then Leech does.

If it came down to either a PD/LmL lynch, I would vote LmL at this state. I still say no lynch is the best move though, and still do not get why people insist on taking a route that actively damages the town.

[LlamaFluff]

Meant Sotty, also Llama will you please share your opinion on the scum team probablities in more detail for us please?

Leech is basically impossible to be a partner with Fitz given how hard he is fighting me over calling him town. I see no way that leech would stop someone from calling a partner town, so that pairing is out the window, and actually in the top few most unlikely pairings that can exist in the game.

LmL-fitz is very unlikely as there have been a few unwarrented acts of aggression between the two that make little sense given the gamestates when they did, since they had a high chance of turning distancing into accidental bussing.

Was a friends birthday today so was there most of the time, and have to get my last lab finished off right now since one of my partners seems to be flaking on me.

@LmL - Given that your two reasons for voting me are no lynch, which again I have shown is the right move, as even "with discussion" no lynch is a better lynch, and "speculation" which multiple people, including yourself, have done (aside you said pigeonholing scum, when you made a statement that basically said "all scum are in four people")

My Top Two (three?)
1. No Lynch
2. PD
3. LmL

2 and 3 are very close, and I would not hesitate to hammer either of the two if the opportuinity arose.

[LlamaFluff]

Also you do realize that lynching scum at any point in time does not change the fact that its best to no lynch.

You are saying that it's better to no-lynch than it is to lynch scum. That is rather absurd. No lynching will not win the game, lynching scum will. I find it frightening how you are putting so much weight on a move that might not even be entirely necessary.

Nooooooo.... that is not what I am saying. If someone is confirmed scum, they are obviously the best lynch, that cant occur in this setup. Lets say that we talk about the game at any point, and our chance of scum lynch goes up 20%, if you add the 20% on to every chance, every day, in every "when to NL" scenario, no lynch early STILL is the best plan. 47% is still 2% more then 45%.

Also seriously... "lynching scum wins the game". That is just a weak arguement to make NL look bad. No lynch makes lynching scum more likely, therefore no lynch increases our chance of winning the game. Yay!

Sure super accurate play can win the game without a no lynch, but that is still a weak arguement. The big difference though is if no lynch is ever "needed" we lose the advantage that lynching early could have provided.

[LlamaFluff]

unvote
Vote LmL

[LlamaFluff]

Oh yeah, that's true. Well then I'll put it on him, he's the scummiest in my eyes, closely followed by LmL.

unvote

VOTE: Llamafluff

Cool.

Anything behind that vote then the original "korashk was scummy?"

[LlamaFluff]

Nooooooo.... that is not what I am saying. If someone is confirmed scum, they are obviously the best lynch, that cant occur in this setup. Lets say that we talk about the game at any point, and our chance of scum lynch goes up 20%, if you add the 20% on to every chance, every day, in every "when to NL" scenario, no lynch early STILL is the best plan. 47% is still 2% more then 45%.

Actually, that is what you're saying. You said that even if you were told 100% that someone would claim scum in the next phase, you'd still push no-lynch today. In that event you are choosing to no-lynch over a scum lynch. If someone told you that, and you beleived it to be true, why wouldn't you try to lynch scum today and win the game in the next phase? My point, all along, has been that I feel no-lynching at this phase of the game is resigning to a LyLo situation. I don't feel it's trying to win, I feel it's trying to improve our odds at a moment where we're trying not to lose. Trying to win, and trying not to lose, are two entirely different things. I play to win, not to avoid losing.

What is that saying... "Dont chose a path that leads to victory but chose such that all paths lead to victory".

That is more what no lynch does. It makes a win more likely. If someone flat out claims scum, yes lynch them, if they dont, its not the best move.

Also seriously... "lynching scum wins the game". That is just a weak arguement to make NL look bad. No lynch makes lynching scum more likely, therefore no lynch increases our chance of winning the game. Yay!

Except it decreases our odds of lynching scum in this phase by 100%. If you want to talk about numbers, why not consider that one? If we mislynch today, unless my math is off about tomorrow being the day before MyLo, I will vote no lynch in the next phase and leave it at that. Today, I want us to try and hit scum. I will not resign to "playing to avoid a loss" until I have to. I do not feel that "lynching scum wins the game" is a weak argument. I feel that no-lynching at this phase is a weak idea.

It also decreases our chance of losing im mylo to 0%

I would rather win in lylo every game then win early half the time, but lose the other half.

ALSO....

Notice how most people who have been pushing me hard have not posted for the last 48 hours. If this is not "opportune lurking" I have no idea what is.

Leech is probably town with that last vote move of his.

I will vote Nexus out of self-preservation before deadline, but would almost infinately prefer to see a LmL lynch.

LmL has had his enitre case on me torn apart and proven hypocritical by not only me, but by multiple other people.

@mod

- What is the status on LmL? He has not posted in the game for a week.

[LlamaFluff]

Well, if the vote is how it is when I get back from my last class tomorrow (3-4 PST) I will move to Nexus, I really do not want to have to vote him though given my current town read.

[LlamaFluff]

@ Llama:

Has LmL overtaken Prana as your #1 preferred lynch?

Yes.

I will be on for about the next 20 minutes, then I usually get a chance to check stuff around 1PM my time due to a break between classes. For refrence it is a little past midnight now.

[LlamaFluff]

I think something was misunderstood there. I meant, does your other post mean that 3-4pm is the last time you'll be checking the thread this game day.

Dont know. I will for sure get to check around then, most likely be able to for a couple hours after, although I am not sure. Im a college student, its a friday... yeah its unpredictable.

[LlamaFluff]

Last mention of it I've seen was this:

LoudmouthLee has been prodded! Deadline has been extended to Sep 10th at 2300hrs (UTC-5)

(and I looked it up - UTC is the same as GMT)

Thanks. So 2300 Eastern Standard Time. That gives me all day to move my vote if it looks like my least preferred option among the three 3-vote wagons is the frontrunner.

Which is?

I really am not too sure what your thoughts are off the top of my head.

[LlamaFluff]

Small break before class to say that this really sucks.

I am almost certain that Nexus is town, but is my only vote to not get lynched... so I will be a bit evil here.

unvote
vote nexus

@Nexus - If you vote LmL, I will unvote you and vote LmL, putting him at tiebreak deadline lynch. This is true if anyone votes LmL that was not voting him already. I have class in 5 minutes, will check to see what happened after that since I need to hang around campus for a few minutes and colelct data for a lab.

[LlamaFluff]

unvote
vote LmL

There is a very high likelyhood this will be about my last post of the game day. I will be around for another hour tops.

[LlamaFluff]

My current two tells for Nexus town are

1) His reaction towards TW at the end of day one. He seemed genuinely frustrated that TW created a black hole of attention near the end of the day.

**Counterpoint - Nexus was voting TW. "Wasting the day" is only something to get upset about if someone is town.

2) Recent non-vote. I made a statement that said that I would vote Nexus, putting him as the tiebreaker deadline lynch, and he did not react with a self-preservation move that he easily could have made thanks to past suspicions.

My gut just says that Nexus is probably town. There are worse lynches out there but not many.

[LlamaFluff]

Vote No Lynch

[LlamaFluff]

Vote No Lynch

[LlamaFluff]

Vote No Lynch

No other option.

[LlamaFluff]

Guys, we are still no lynching.

[LlamaFluff]

No time right now due to classes. Expect something of decent length friday or saturday.

[LlamaFluff]

Quick bit inbetween classes. Nice to see Sotty is voting me on pure WIFOM.

Also Lat death is just more evidence as to why you should NL day one in this setup.

To respond to WIFOM with WIFOM though...

"Scum were on Xite wagon, which is why they killed TW"

If both scum were on the Xite wagon, it would be even better for them to leave TW alive as the people who had been voting TW would more then likely return straight to that wagon, during that point, the Xite voters would be free to start making pushes on other players and use TW-town D3 to get another mislynch.

"Why LmL dead over Llama"

Other theories then "Llama has to be scum" include - My predicessor was an idiot who people thought was scum, no one really thought LmL was scum until that point in the game. IAU is also town, if Llama gets lynched, it would make him probably scum in the mindset sotty is using.

Out of time for now and gut is telling me to

Vote Leech

He hasnt voted for scum (except maybe RVS, although I still say Leech-HF is the least likely pairing out there), he seems to come down on people trying to call others town harshly, went after me for getting Xite lynched over TW when he was voting Xite.

At this point I am going to venture a Leech-PD scumpair. I am more confident in a Leech-scum flip though so my vote is there.

[LlamaFluff]

So he's voted fitz in RVS, fair enough, but how do you know fitz is town?

I said Leech-Fitz is not a pairing, which I still hold to. If one flips scum the other one is surely town, so if Leech is scum (which I am saying) that makes fitz town.

Also you ignored my point in his end of day one stance. Thoughts on it?

[LlamaFluff]

He hasnt voted for scum (except maybe RVS, although I still say Leech-HF is the least likely pairing out there), he seems to come down on people trying to call others town harshly, went after me for getting Xite lynched over TW when he was voting Xite.

I haven't voted for scum? Well, you and Fitz are still alive so that is yet to be determined. I also love the "(Except maybe RVS)" when it was my vote on Fitz. So, you ignore my votes on you, and brush off my Fitz vote as RVS. It was at the beginning, but as time progressed I became more comfortable with it being there. It went from being my RVS vote, to an actual vote, before Xite made me change it. I guess I should have made that clear in the thread.

You know what's truly damning about that statement you made? Nightwolf. Every person Nightwolf's voted for (apart from Llama of course) has flipped town too. The major difference here, is that there was no RVS vote from his slot. Why is that a valid point against me, but not Nightwolf? When you're misrepping my earlier posts about you, and actually mixing someone else up with me when you're making your accusations, (I'm assuming that's what happened there, never said anything about calling others town) then I have to question how much you actually believe the case you're making. Seems like you're just trying to throwing shit around and seeing how much of it sticks.

Well that post was made in about a 15 minute time span between two classes, just like this one is being made during a study break for a midterm tomorrow, never realized that the fitz vote actually became a serious vote. That lessens the matter quite a bit, out of curiosity though, what have your thoughts about fitz been recently?

I never did realize that NW had the similar voting record as you however. I just had him down as a less townie seeming Lat for most of this game. This does apply to him a bit too, im not too sure on him, but I still have him as leaning town at this point. Interested to see where he opens up the day.

My point about you not liking me call people town is attached to my read of you-fitz not a possible pairing. Every time I called him town for his early reaction to a massclaim, you continually attack that town read. As I said before, that would be massively counterproductive for scum to do to their partner.

I never went after you for getting Xite lynched over TW. I "went after" you for making claims that weren't even possible in this game, and adapting TW's argument as your own in the manner that you did. When have I ever came down on anyone for calling someone town? I think you are mistaking me with someone else. You should quote where I've done this, because I do not remember saying that at all. I questioned you, once, about TW asking if it was just the theory of no-lynch which made you call TW town, but that was all I've ever said on the matter.

You went after me beacuse I voted (was tie breaking vote but not hammer) xite with intention of unvoting to get a no lynch. I did not vote someone that I thought was town, but one of my scum picks. While your vote on me evolved to being adapting no lynch, it started out being for voting Xite with intention to cause no lynch. Heres the quote

Seriously, how is the player that caused the hammering vote going to claim to unvote to force a no lynch? That makes no sense at all. If he wanted to force a no-lynch he would have refrained from voting. Considering his vote literally caused the lynch, that statement is a bold faced lie.

What confuses me is that if I'm right about the plays that Llama made about TW, and attempting to pull the "No lynch" innocence onto himself in previous phases, I find it hard to believe that his later plays are so sloppy.

ITS THE RIGHT FREAKING MOVE TO NO LYNCH AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE!!!! THERE IS ZERO DEBATING THIS FACT!!!! GRAWWWWWW!!!!

I said Leech-Fitz is not a pairing, which I still hold to. If one flips scum the other one is surely town, so if Leech is scum (which I am saying) that makes fitz town.

See, this is actually making me feel that Fitz is town. This seems like a classic pushing of a mislynch while setting up another. So, you're going to push my lynch, when I flip town in the next phase you say, "Ok, so Fitz HAS to be scum..." and then win the game for your scum team. [/quote]

That is not what I am saying. This is not a "exactly one of Leech-Fitz is scum" this is a "at most one of Leech-Fitz is scum". If either of you were to flip scum, the other would immediately become my strongest town read.

[LlamaFluff]

unvote

In light of some horri-bad stuff here

I think both scum were on the Xite lynch...though with both Xite and Tdel flipping town...scum could have been on both wagons as they were assured a mislynch. As I believe I mentioned before...I think Sotty is cleared in that CA was awol at the end of D1 and I'm inclined to think both scum votes were in play.

"Scum are all in the group of four im not in"

The D2 lynch (Nexus) and NK (LmL) were both focused on Llama...another huge serving of WIFOM. Fock.

This glazes over the fact that I did not want Nexus lynched, and only voted for him to get a LmL lynch to happen.

I had suspicions towards Llama earlier in the game which never went away completely. [/quote]

Which are? As far as I knew you were only suspicios of my predicessor.

He was a front runner for the D2 lynch and managed to survive.

This means....??

There also is the fence-ish move on PD to start off.

Need to reconsider this coupled with a few WIFOM things

[LlamaFluff]

Llama I pretty much think the vote counts on day one coupled with the fact you tied LML make you look really, really bad. Like, horrible. You could post nothing but rainbows and kittens and it wouldn't sway me from that fact. Vote count analysis is a bitch, but what can you do? You are easily the scummiest player on that play alone, hence my vote.

You cant just throw out "Vote Counts" without explaining it. Why is it bad? I pushed CA (you) until it became between Xite and TW when I voted a scum read over a town read. Next day I pushed PD, eventually moving to LmL and tried to stop the Nexus lynch. Again why is it bad? All you are doing here is making a point physically indefenseable by refusing to elaborate.

I will spend time re-reading the thread but the prevailing impression I get from the night kills is that scum are desperately trying to hide. They no lynched for a couple of days to stop us from figuring anything out. Why? What are they so afraid of? One of the other four might leapfrog you on re-read. Not holding my breath though.

Who does "trying to hide" point to? Also you already touched on why no kill likely occured, stall the game, another reason why no lynch is best right off the bat in this setup. That is just correct play from scum in a mountainous setup, which becomes more powerful when town delays no lynch.

[LlamaFluff]

@ Llama:

1) I'm unsure if this was actually asked already or not, but why did you choose to make the video post earlier?

Wanted to try something new and see how it worked out, also I had a new camera that I wanted to play with a bit. I am thinking about maybe making one again in the near future to see if it can help me get a handle on the game again.

2)

This glazes over the fact that I did not want Nexus lynched,

and only voted for him to get a LmL lynch to happen.

Please elaborate on the italicized.

Deadline lynch rules. I voted Nexus to put him at top forcing him to vote LmL, who I then revoted, putting him the frontrunner for tiebreaks. By voting Nexus I essentially was increasing the chance of a LmL lynch.

3) In your second post of Day 2, you write "Anyone want to no lynch?" Why did you ask that when I had already posed the question to everyone while yet ignoring my question on that topic at the same time?

I had not noticed your question.

[LlamaFluff]

Llama I haven't just said “vote counts” my post 907 explains why I am thinking the way I am. In a nut shell it comes down to the fact you should be dead and your not. But if there is something in 907 you don't agree with let me know and we can debate it.

Well, you seemed to say votecounts are a big reason behind the vote, which you are not elaborating on. Also there is a whole lot of WIFOM in your push on me. If you really want me going through and putting up alternative theories on each of your points I will, I already did that for a few of them which havent been responded to. This is just a WIFOM case from what I see, with a few of the points not even being explained.

[LlamaFluff]

vote havingfitz

Yes I know it goes against some stuff I said earlier, but this is where I stand

PD im thinking is actually town at this point
Leech is just stubborn town
Sotty is townish given the entry attacking NW which I dont see scum doing
IAU is a slight town read, I have my doubts on him being town but he leans there
NW is a little bit of a town read, but I dont have any justification for it, which has burned me in a recent offsite game

Also if fitz is scum, Leech and IAU are town. Sotty probably as well.

Few key points on fitz though, note that I will not be able to get into a post war since I have a steel design midterm friday.

Early on fitz latched onto the fact that dalt claimed to be new when he wasnt. This became his talking point for the entire day as apparently its the equivilant of claiming scum since its a lie. The following is a pretty good summation of the case

I haven’t tried to rationalize his reasons for lying. The fact his lie and play has garnered a good bit of discussion, and he has posted (albeit once) without any explanation since he was called out adds to my suspicion toward him.

Eventually he dropped it and voted me for primarily what my predicessor did

Aside this is interesting

I wasn’t using LAL as the lone reason for voting dalt. I also thought his game naivety was a bit overt and my suspicions were compounded by the fact dalt bailed on the game and failed to acknowledge a single point against him when he did post after accusations were made towards him.

What confuses me here is why this means that dalt was town to fitz. He says that dalt not responding to accusations, and falking on the game mean that he was not as scummy. Interested in the logic behind this assertment.

His move to me is one that is as indefensive as possible. He states that it is for korashks play, no lynch talk, and saying I know he isnt playing as good as he can.

First, korashk is something I can never really account for since im not him
Second, fitz came around on no lynch farily fast, so thats out the window

@Llamafluff….I have never played in a mountainous game nor gone into a game from the start aware there were only two scum. The no-lynch logic appears to make sense…it’s just a foreign concept to me to do one early in the game.

Third, ad hominem, which fitz has done at least

Sorry I didn’t spoon feed you. There a thingy on the bottom of the screen that allows you to sort on specific players.... These remain the only reasons atm for my suspicions towards Llamafluff so if you want more…just reread them repeatedly.

a few times

TW's play is really crap.

So fitz moves off someone from lying due to them flaking, onto someone for entirely what their predicessor has done.

This is from now though

I had suspicions towards Llama earlier in the game which never went away completely. He was a front runner for the D2 lynch and managed to survive. The player I have the strongest town view of (Sotty despite previous games) is of the mind Llama is scum. All these suspicions from a large portion of the players makes me think we can't all continue to be wrong. If one looks and sounds like scum they must be scum....right?

Lets break it down, apparently he was suspicious from me early on, although given what I just posted, all of his points are not on me, but my predicessor. Any other points are unexplained, so that point is just lip service. Me being a possible lynch D2, yet not getting lynched, is also a tell. An explaination there would be nice. Finally he says that he is sheeping Sotty, who is voting me based entirely on WIFOM (and ignoring my requests for further explaination).

Finally he uses a gamblers fallacy, saying that I must be scum because everyone else who has got lynched has been scum. Of course that would include Sotty (CA wagon day one), PD (always talked about as scum), and a few others at a couple of points.

So he is saying I am scum, but is not presenting a case once you break it down. His past points are nonexistant, he is following a WIFOM case blindly, and he is adding fallacys to boot.

There is more stuff out there between dalt push and now (like him being afraid to join TW wagon due to it going fast), but this is a good start as I have a ASCE meeting I need to be at in 20 minutes followed by a FE review session.

[LlamaFluff]

I really wish people would not do the bold responses.

As for my move to you...it wasn’t entirely your predecessor...it was primarily your predecessor. Your predecessor was the same role as you are...right? So the time he was in the game and any suspicions he raised are invalid?

Actually, it is entirely my predecessor. Your points against me were being abbrasive (applies to almost everyone at somepoint in each game) and talking about no lynch. You keep refrencing "earlier things" but I really cant find anything, would be nice to hear it again, or for once.

Anyway, what you seem to be saying here is something along the lines of "You have not died, but multiple people have suspected you over the course of the game. This means you are probably scum". That is about the only point against me that you are bringing up. Why cant the suspicion that has been on CA be ignored? The suspicion of PD? You seem to be applying this tell only to me.

@IAU - The reaction from Leech was him getting on me for essentially hammering Xite (the no lynch thing). I made a move that lynched a top scum pick, and he jumped on me for the no lynch statement, seeming to ignore the point that I did think Xite was scum.

[LlamaFluff]

I don’t “keep refrencing ‘earlier things’” as you say. I mention “suspicions towards Llama earlier in the game which never went away completely” once (Post 915) when I put my current vote on you to indicate the foundation of my current vote was based on those earlier suspicions (my ISO 14).

See thats my point, you are voting me for your iso 14, that was OVER 90 DAYS AGO. You have never added to it. Your three points were what my predicessor did, talking about no lynch (later you recended that point), and me saying you have played better then you are this game, which you HAVE.

Your paraphrase of what I “seem to be saying” is a bit misleading. What I am saying is you have been the prime suspect at one time or another for a majority of the players. IMO that is a fact that should not be ignored. Even if you were actually town....and both scum had been targeting you that would still put you high on the majority of the townies’ suspect lists in the game (6 of 9). I’ve said I don’t have the strongest feeling towards anyone in the game but of the players I am willing to consider (everyone other than Spotty ATM)....you are atop my list. Prana and CA/Sotty haven’t garnered nearly as much suspicion throughout the course of the game as you have so it’s not the same situation. Deal with it.

Sotty/CA I can see you arguing this point on, but PD has easily been as talked about as much as I have. That should have no bearing on who you suspect though. I already am basically discounting your 90 day (actually closer to 100 now) case on me which is basically what my predicessor did, so this is just an attack that is purely sheeping other players. You may be denying it, but when you say "you have been suspected by most players", that is sheeping at its most basic level.

Im not moving my vote. Fitz is scum here probably with IAU or Nightwolf.

If you want another reason, look at how he approached the end of yesterday where the vote getters were LmL, Nexus and myself. He sets himself up to vote anyone he wanted in such a way that near the end of the day he could vote anyone he wanted to (he jumped on Nexus who would be scum ideal lynch due to me and LmL continuing to attack eachother).

[LlamaFluff]

Im here, will not be posting much if at all until wednesday night due to way to much lab work and an upcoming midterm.

[LlamaFluff]

Prana

Leech: 2
Nightwolf: 2
fitz: -3
Llama: -5
Sotty: -8

......

I'm fully prepared to write off fitz/Prana, fitz/Sotty and Prana/Sotty as possible pairings

......

<possible pairs>
Sotty/Leech
Sotty/Nightwolf
Llama/Leech
Llama/Nightwolf
Prana/Leech
Prana/Nightwolf
fitz/Nightwolf

.......

Yeah, so pretty much, I think one or the other of Leech or Nightwolf is scum, but not both. I also think that whichever one it is, their partner is Prana, hence the vote.

So yeah, Sotty is town. Fitz too probably.

[LlamaFluff]

So yeah, Sotty is town. Fitz too probably.

Ok, I'm sure that if IAU were here he'd probably agree that we should take new knowledge into consideration before we assume things based solely off of a post he made in the previous phase. The fact that Prana flipped scum, does change things. Especially if you look over the points he made which were used to decide that Prana/Sotty were less likely.

I still do not see IAU being killed by Sotty. If you look at his buddy post, he puts Sotty as LEAST likely partner to PD. So why would Sotty go and kill the person who would probably be putting her as town in this situation? If she killed me or fitz as scum, it would leave IAU to go after Leech and Wolf which she can follow along with. I know people are arguing that stuff changes, but wouldnt scum want to take the risk of things not changing in this situation?

It just seems like a very poor move to kill who will surely be one of your biggest defenders who will also be pushing for a mislynch. Sotty scum I just do not see happening with that kill.

[LlamaFluff]

1) He put her as town before knowing Prana was scum. While he believed that to be the case, seeing it in a flip makes it true. If you read through the previous phases of the game knowing he's scum, it puts a different spin on things than going through looking for potential partners out of all the players in the game.

He put her as the most town IF PD flipped scum. What he literally posted was "If PD is scum, out of everyone I think Sotty is least likely to be his partner out of all players". If he posted that he just thought that she was town, then you have an arguement, but he posted specifically that a PD scum flip made Sotty probably town.

2) As far as I can tell, IAU never fully caught up on the game. He posted a few things he found interesting, but while looking for pairings, he never got beyond the half-way point of day 2. A lot has happened since then, and he only commented on a couple of current events. For all we know his opinion could have drastically changed after that fact.

He obviously read the entire game if he was voting for PD and was giving partner analysis on the entire game.

3) I can't stress this enough: WIFOM. Each and every NK in this game has been surrounded by it. Night 1: Wendy, Night 2: LML, Night 3: Lat, Night 4: IAU I'm not counting the no-kills as nights. Wendy's death caused a wifom explosion that, can still be debated on why he died. Fact is, He was one of the main suspects. The same can be said about LML the following night. Both of these kills obviously happened to create chaos and screw with the town. Night 3 Lat died and Prana almost got away with it due to the WIFOM being so severe. Night 4 was IAU which looks like was killed for being "most town". It could also be, specifically, because IAU would have cleared Sotty. Therefore it would be crazy for Sotty-Scum to kill IAU. Just like it would be "crazy" for Prana to kill Lat? It's not as obvious, but someone was bound to make that connection. I will admit that jumping to that conclusion is a bit of a stretch, but IAU was the most town.

WIFOM kills were only night one and two. Lat was not a WIFOM kill, that was a standard "get rid of obv-town threat" kill. IAU fell under the same category. I am not aruging that IAU was the most town, but other kills would have made sense for Sotty scum. I think Sotty killing IAU would have been a poor move on her part. While I would like her to be scum to justify my early read, I dont think she is.

If you are scum, who do you kill in that phase of the game? This is a serious question that I want an answer to. One of Sotty/Nightwolf has to be scum, so it's fair considering you have to be town at this point. If you are Sotty, IAU just pegged me and Nightwolf as the most likely partners to Prana, so she couldn't kill either of us. The choice would be between Fitz, You or IAU. Out of those three you have IAU which just posted this giant post that bleeds town to the point that he was easily the most town player. You have Fitz that is mainly inactive, and you have yourself. Considering you have been involved in a lot of controversy in this game, potentially more than Fitz depends on how you look at it... You wouldn't be a bad choice, but not a good one either. Fitz's inactivity makes him a bad choice to kill. It puts the strain on the rest of the town. Clearly, if Sotty is scum, IAU was the best choice she could have made. At this phase of the game, the scum would have been utterly stupid to let a threat like IAU remain in the game any longer as well. You were right earlier about scum killing "the most town players". At that point in the game I can't imagine IAU surviving no matter who the scum is.

IAU or Fitz were the kill from what I saw. Study break over though. More later.

[LlamaFluff]

Dear sober me

Drunk me wants to vote fitz still due ot how leech looks liek not scum for the ugly push on PD yesterday and sotty still not making total srnse as scum due to her getitng rid of a defender as opposed to someone who can deal damage also lack of real reasoning to not have PD and FITZ as partners if you look at end of the last day fitz really just igoring the PD stuff expect to say that PD was 'in trouble' at one opint while ignoring what was happening there you should look into why IAU said not him.

Love alchoholic me.

[LlamaFluff]

Proof im not scum post

Wolf was WIFOM town since he flaked sometime during the night.

[LlamaFluff]

Actually nvm, missed that fitz voted before the modkill

Vote No Lynch

Its the correct play.