Open 120 - Rebels in the Palace - Game Over! before 756

[Corvuus]

.... so tempted to vote citytube simply for spelling my name wrong!!!! Must... Resist....

Vote zwetschenwasser

for being at the bottom of the list.

Corv

[Corvuus]

It is an interesting setting. Victory condition completely dependent on one player.

The other part that is interesting is that there doesn't seem to be a mention of night actions/night kill ability at all. We won't know for sure until after N1 but if there is no NK ability (i.e. no power roles) then that certainly changes the dynamic of this game. The closest thing I can think of from the PMs is that rebels are 'uninformed majority/townies' and Guards are 'informed minority/mason/no NK type'.


----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebel PM:
Quote:
You are one of eight rebels. You win when the King is lynched. But who is the King? Happy hunting... You lose if the King and guards outnumber you.

Guard PM:
Quote:
You are one of three guards to the Magnificent King ____. To win you must lynch enough rebels that you, your fellow guards, and the King outnumber them. You lose if the King is lynched.

King PM:
Quote:
You are the King! To win you must lynch enough rebels that you and your loyal guards outnumber them. You lose if you are lynched.
--------------------------------

unvote

C

[Corvuus]

if there is no night, and the only deaths are from lynches, then town is pretty heavily favored.

The easiest way to pseudo-calculate it would be from worst case scenario.

I.e. how soon will town lose from random mislynches.

VC: 3 guards and 1 King win when they outnumber the rebels. Thus only 4 rebels remaining and all scum alive is earliest possible win.

8 rebels initially, town can do 4 random lynches and mislynch before losing. The odds of that occuring (randomly) should be 8/12 the first day, 7/11 2nd day, 6/10, 5/9. This translates into 2/3 chance of mislynch day 1, 63% day 2, 60% day 3, 55% day 4. So worst case autolosing for town is that.

If at any point town randomly lynches scum (guards) then the game almost goes into autowin (gain info and scum VC requires an extra town kill), and a random King lynch is a win.

In the end, town has at least 4 days to get it right, and a random 1/3 chance of doing so and if town ever 'gets lucky' then they get another two days (one from preventing mislynch and one from lynching scum so scum VC requires extra town death). In the end, if the only info scum has is 'who' the King is, then I don't see how this is really balanced unless there is some type of hidden condition where "if town fails to find the King before X number of days, then King auto wins" type.

At any rate, i think we should try to scumhunt for a few pages before bringing this up again.

C

[Corvuus]

sorry, crossposting.

Lynx: I'm assuming that the role PMs posted by the mod are the ones we received and if this is 'nightless' then there can't be power roles for anyone. So I don't see how me stating what i view as 'mod given information' is 'revealing' or changes anything.

C

[Corvuus]

the small caveat to add #14 is that the guards only know who the king is. The guards don't know each other. So the King will have better odds of surviving random lynching but guards are just as likely to vote guards as they are rebels. If the guards random lynch one of their own, then it is a double whammy as they lose a player and a day.


C

[Corvuus]

the mod's gameplay notes:

B-5. The mod will send a PM at the beginning of each new day.

so the mod will post flavor of death, 'night scenes' and such and then a new 'day/round' will start.

there is nothing in the mod's role PMs that indicate any abilities so while we may have 'nights' to break up the lynches, I assumed "nightless" meant that this isn't a normal mafia game where scum pick a NK and can talk together, and town uses their power roles. Instead, it is 'nightless' in the sense that scum don't communicate, NK, and no power roles.

If you are claiming otherwise, then say what you think Lynx.

C

[Corvuus]

sigh, stupid thing ate my post.

I think we should table the random voting discussion for now simply because mindless random lynching gives us a certain %, but info/discussion + lynch results can give us a higher %.

Short example: we talk, discuss, and if at any point we lynch a guard (king would be autowin) in the next 4 days, then we can look back and see how that player responded or reacted to various things. If we just 'stayed' silent and started rolling dice, then it is just 'bots' playing while we scumhunting can improve our odds beyond the % of random lynching.

----

I think EMPking's original point is 'reaching' but the point is to get a response/information.

Shin didn't acknowledge, comment or say anything about EMPking's point and just posted his #65 (which is a kind of repeat of his last post).

and the whole "poor scum" and "sigh, what are we going to do" (and then immediately saying that random lynching is the best) just strikes me as out of place.

Corv

[Corvuus]

well, it ate my original post but suffice to say that I think my post is clear enough in stating that Shin made a comment, got voted (EMPking), ignored it, and then repeated his comment without saying or doing anything and all of that together seems out of place.

Of course, the fact that you only quote part of my post without understanding any of it makes me feel like 'you are reaching', but then we risk getting far too silly.

Corv

[Corvuus]

I still want a response from Shin but I was reading through something somewhere else (either a different game with shin or signups) and Shin and Magus are supposed to be the same person. So he didn't really 'replace' but rather just changed his name over/got a new account.

So please don't use that as a reason and even if Shin was 'completely' new, he may have experience in RL mafia or other places so 'join dates' don't necessarily mean much.

C

[Corvuus]

ok, i just have to ask, what does 'PRUFT' mean?

----

Lynx: i don't understand your post. Could you clarify what you mean, since a literal reading of EMPking's response is: "blah blah, distraction if I respond to it as it was *not* a strong vote at all" is "blah blah, *not* a vote he'd stick with" and indeed it wasn't a vote Shin stuck with as you point out that he changed it without a reason or a response (and Shin's reasoning for new vote is basically the same as his original vote for EMPking).

C

[Corvuus]

... interesting. I assumed it was a 'QFT' type thing.

... that being said, you are on my 'list' for that. or at least explain what 'truthery' you are agreeing with.

---------------------------------

My attention and vote stays on Shin until I get a response for why random lynching is the "best" (Shin->post#73) or gives town the 'highest' chance of winning since I consider both to not be true.

Reasoning has been given before but short version is, discussion + guard lynch *can* potentially be gamebreaking.

Corv

[Corvuus]

yay crossposting....

ok, I get it now.

In the end of my post #84, I confused Shin and Citytube for some reason. weird.

I do think EMPking should answer your question Lynx but could you also respond on the fact that Shin has his 'random' vote on you still and what you think about Shin?

Corv

[Corvuus]

hi shin.

do you think you could cite a specific part of the rules you are thinking of? (like the letter and number)

And I guess time for the big mindgaming question. *drumroll*

You favor "random" lynching, if town said we were up to randomly lynching you, what would you say?

Corv

[Corvuus]

....

Shin: I guess it is probably too late but it wasn't my intention to get you to replace out or anything. This game is about reactions, responses, etc. If you did put in the effort and respond then we would get reads from you, etc. etc. and can discuss/make a better informed decision.

It was said several times (by several players) that they didn't want to do 'completely random lynching' without discussion and there is a reason why. You said that you thought Random lynching was the best several times so we wanted to know why you thought so, reads, etc.

but oh well. It is just beating a dead horse apparently. The only thing I think I get out of this is that it is unlikely that Shin is the king.

I'll post more later today.

Corv

[Corvuus]

sorry, did I miss something? Your latest post doesn't make sense Zwet, or at least, I can't figure out who or what you are talking about.


C

[Corvuus]

i just don't like avatars. simple as that.

Shin could still be a guard, but it is doubtful he is the 'king' due to attitude and also, if he was, and pursuing this course (for whatever reason), I don't think the 3 guards would necessarily stand by and watch or "hope it all blows over" due to the emotional WIFOM/mindgame. At any rate, I don't see much purpose in talking about shin until we get a replacement and see their response, etc.

-------------------------------------------

If it has any of 'us' making the decision then it really isn't random is it. I assumed random lynching to be 'rolling dice' or saying 'top 4 players on the list' die for the next 4 days, etc. etc. or something that is somewhat impartial.

If guards or king happen to be there, then gg.

At any rate, whether we decide to do 'purely' random lynching or not, we *must* have discussion, get responses and reads from people. If we find a guard at any moment in the next 4 days then we can re-read them and there is a good chance that they will have slipped up. I won't say more than that.

-----------

If it wasn't clear, I am waiting until we get all our replacements back.

C

[Corvuus]

I've already given a response to this, but I am interested in hearing what others say. My vote is 'no, and I wouldn't agree to it even if a majority agrees to it unless it was specified that it would happen after discussion (or tomorrow after we do lynch someone today since the odds doesn't change much due to their being no night kill) and that the 'targeting' would be something that is truly random with no influence. My previous example was killing the top 4 names on the list (or middle 4, bottom 4) or something that has a reasonable chance of hitting a guard/king and blatantly 'wide' enough that we might get some reaction out of it.

---------

I do find it interesting that you want to see how EMPking reacts to being 'picked' for a 'random' lynch and that is precisely the question i asked your 'player slot' before he replaced.

Corv

[Corvuus]

Lynx: I had hoped so too, but apparently it won't be until we get everyone to read the several posts made that say "don't talk about random lynching until later". Shin was one of those who either didn't read (or didn't care) or simply thought "random lynching is best" for who knows what reason.

Either way, if the only way for us to move past this is for all of us to vote on it, then I'm voting no and I won't agree to a random lynch without discussion first. Nothing will change my mind on this.

Corv

[Corvuus]

Qangan:

Shin had 4-5 votes (7 to lynch), I hadn't voted for him yet but I was interested and willing. Assuming Shin was the "king" and had gone 'crazy' into self-voting (and mod hadn't replaced him) then he was very very likely to have been lynched. If he was a guard, then no one would know or really try to save him, but if he was the king, then I'd have to accept that his 3 guards (who can't communicate) all decided not to help or try to distract from his impending lynch. Perhaps they are all 'cool customers' who thought we wouldn't quicklynch someone so early but it isn't very likely especially if the king's play is erratic/scummyish and self-votes.

If you still think we should lynch Shin/Zach, then make your case. I just don't see Zach as being a king in this case.

C

[Corvuus]

Zach: I'm interested in getting a response out of you, so if you could make a comment or impression you have of me and my point on Shin, then that would help me get a read on you. I don't mind you and EMPking 'going at it' but it isn't helping me get a better read on either of you.

---------------------------------------------

I think all of us stating whether we support or do not support 'random' lynching is enough.

As I said before, (and perhaps several times so no one cares) I would only accept 'random' lynching if it was 'impartial random' and potentially would play out all four of our days. (i.e. lynch the top 4 player slots, mid 4, bottom 4). We could then decide whether to 'still' go through with it before the first lynch and may generate reads based on which '4', people were willing to 'allow' to be lynched. Lynching randomly one day at a time without history or discussion is not worth it.

C

[Corvuus]

no, not 140. I meant my comments on Shin before you replaced in, not my comments on the result of you replacing in.

C

[Corvuus]

..... activity isn't great, people keep talking about 'random lynching' ...so... here is a "new plan".

Someone other than Zwet, Zach, or EMPking (or myself) do the D12 roll function 4 times and post their results here.

I (or someone else) will then roll and say the order for the 4 players to be lynched in the next 4 days.

It will show people what a 'random lynch' will look like, and depending on the players that come up and the order of the lynching, may get a response out of guards/king.

At the very minimum it will give us "something" to talk about instead of this 'back and forth' and inactivity of players.

The 'random lynch' list is by no means binding but just to show what it *would* look like and remove any further discussion of it.

Corvuus

[Corvuus]

'trust'? I don't see how trust enters into it if it is just 4 random d12 roll.

if anything, it will get people to stop 'lurking/inactive' and actually post or do something.

Otherwise, I don't see what we are 'waiting' around for. The lurkers/inactive may stay that way, the 'active' people may just nitpick each other to death, etc. etc.

We are 'stagnating' and I think we need to do something to get some discussion going and it might as well be 4 random people put on the block.

Corv

[Corvuus]

well, putting that I asked you not to roll aside for now, I also don't know how to interpret your roll since you remove a 'd' after each roll.

So the first roll is obviously Wall-E, the rest.... are the numbers = players (in which case the higher numbered players were not in it) or are the numbers shifted by when we remove wall-E.

i.e. Wall-E, EMPking, BlakAdder, Corvuus (numbers excludes bottom playerlist)

or

Wall-E, Lynx, Orangepenguin, ZachRulez. (i remove player from previous list).

Other than that clarification, I'd like people's response/reaction.

C

[Corvuus]

Ok, so that is what a random list would look like.

8 rebels, 4 scum (1 is king). The odds of hitting a guard (I will treat king as normal scum but killing king is autowin) is 4/12 or 1/3. and, as I pointed out earlier, the worst case is the case to consider where we miss 'all 4 days' in a row. i.e. scum stay at 4, rebels drop by 1 each time.

The chance of this occurring is 4/12 for day 1, 4/11 for day 2, 4/10 for day 3, 4/9 for day 4. So 1/3 chance of hitting scum day 1, and the odds improve if we 'keep missing' and day 4 is 4/9 (almost 45%-ish). So it is basically 4 rolls to see if we hit scum with each roll being at least 33% and up to 45%-ish.

Overall, the odds of getting at least 1 guard on the above list, is fairly good. Getting the king on the list is so-so, while having 4 townies/rebels on it would be extremely unlucky.

I do think the order should still be randomized again, but at any rate, this is what Random lynching would look like. Let's set aside the issue for now and have discussion, comments/reactions first and only do the list if we get close to deadline/no progress forward.

If you have any questions or comments, say them now, otherwise I don't want to hear about random lynching anymore.

Corv

[Corvuus]

No, we would stop from 'mindlessly' following the list and discuss several of the possible results gained.

I don't want to say more than that.
----------------

Even if the list is hypothetical/never carried out, at least:

1. People will stop debating who rolls, what random, what is the probability, etc. etc. and waste more posts on something we should have finished with already. I just showed and told them, so no more 'fluff' activity posts on nothing.

2. For all we know, all 4 on the list could be guards, a king or any other variation. Heck, all 4 could be townies. Once people see the list, they may alter the list, change their minds, shift their votes, etc. etc. it just requires time and discussion and it could tell us alot or tell us nothing. Either way, we will talk about something.


C

[Corvuus]

you guys voting for Wall-E do realize that once we start we are going to lynch all 4 right?

Vote Wall-E

I think the votecount has Wall-E at L-1.

C

[Corvuus]

orolan: why roll again now?

Vote Lynx

C

[Corvuus]

vote orangepenguin

C

[Corvuus]

hmm.

I have to consider some things but I'm not ready to support lynching anyone right now.

We have 9 players left, 2 are inactive/being replaced (although numberfourteen did vote on random lynch so I don't know why he is listed but at any rate) so technically that lives us with 7 players left in terms of 'voting'. If those 2 are town/rebels, then the remaining 7 will be 4 scum, 3 town; lylo with a majority of 5 to lynch. I.e. a misplaced townie vote (although, guards shouldn't have been able to confirm other guards so they shouldn't know and it be just as random luck if they do hope on a wagon) could lead to our loss.

I guess the person I want to hear most from now is Ortolan.

C

[Corvuus]

ok.

Vote Zachrulez

C

[Corvuus]

interesting. Zach, who was Shinnen, was the 'almost' quicklynch at the beginning of the game. Odds was that he wasn't the king, but he could still be a guard and turns out, he was.

Shinnen rvs'ed Lynx, who we know is town.
Shin's comments... don't really point to a guard or king connection.
Zach didn't like the Random scheme, but went along with it, and then when it got to his own lynch, tried to derail it. Had comments for EMPking and Zwet for this but in the end gave up.

There is a possibility, but I have to consider more.

At any rate, bottom line is, 2 guards and 1 king are left, thus we have an 'extra' day now. We could do a random list again (check probabilities?) or do discussion. 8 players, 3 scum, so 3/8 probability... and then odds of hitting the king (with 2 potentially inactive players) aren't good at all. So i'd favor discussion.

Corv

[Corvuus]

calm down guys.

EMP: asking for a self-vote is not nice.
Hohum: asking for him to be replaced is not nice.

---

Guards of course will try not to pick another guard but the fact is (open setup for evidence) the guards do not know who the other guards are initially.

I don't see anything from Zach that is a 'breadcrumb' or hinting that he is guard (or that the guards should try to derail his final random lynch, etc.) and looking through the overall game, the guards have apparently not verified but if they had, or if Zach had seen something that they had, then that would change things.

Zach may have already known? or he didn't want to risk it?

-----

Arbitrary voting is ok for discussion. The odds of hitting/lynching the king arbitrarily are not high at all but getting a reaction/response and a guard isn't bad.

-----

EMPking: you list 1/6 odds, when you say guard, do you mean king included in that (with no scum knowledge) or guard and another guard (with knowledge). because if guards and king know each other (3 scum) then, supposedly, they won't vote for each other and the odds won't be 1/6?

C

[Corvuus]

I don't have much time right now for a re-read (random, 'who is king', etc.) but I favor discussion over random lynching.

We have 8 players, 3 scum, 5 to lynch. Depending on who and how, and what is said, information can be gained since a mislynch could occur but (for example) a king lynch would have to be all 5 townies and this isn't that likely and a guard connection or lynch could occur with discussion.

C

[Corvuus]

Ok.

I read Qangan and Ortolan.

I think I understand where you are going with this so hopefully you don't mind me altering it.

-------------------------------

In normal games, it isn't optimal if players say who they think is townie/scum (ranking/listing, etc.) since it ends up giving scum more information in choosing NKs, etc. etc.

There are no night kills/night actions here, so there is NO downside to saying who we *want* to lynch (let's say 2 people since we have at least 2 attempts) and who we think is town (1 person).

I'm not saying we quicklynch anyone (if somehow 1 person ends up being #1 to 5 people) but it gives us something to consider/discuss.

-------------------------------------------------------

For my two:

#1: Hohum.

Not based on his recent posts (but it did make me read/consider him more) but I don't like numberfourteen (the player hohum replaced) posts (bleh, only 4 total??).
"I want to vote shin, really hate self-voters, but don't want to screw replacement" (shin turned up guard; rebel or guard who saw a crumb) and also the misleading part about "There is only so much information to gain since no one has any info to give away in this game", isn't true.

He was so-so on random lynching (had to be truly random and not controlled by players?) and when the voting started, was here and around to vote and lynch players on the list but wasn't here/around for Shin's lynch who did turn up guard. It most likely is a null tell since 14 was inactive/dropped off face of the earth and then replaced by hohum so we don't know if 14 would have tried to derail Shin's guard lynch, etc.

I *do not* want Hohum quicklynched and I am not voting him at this time. I want a reaction/response other than the EMP/Hohum interaction to get a read on.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For my #2, I don't know. Before re-reading Zach/Shin (with hohum/14), I would have said Zwet or EMPking since they post 'a good amount' but not much constructively except getting in 'emotional bickering/fights'. They pushed for Zach's lynch and 'following' the plan but that could be null; Zach himself (on replacing in) pushed for EMPking's lynch for even mentioning this plan (point for EMPking not being the King since Zach as a guard would know that) and Zach did have negative interaction with both EMPking/Zwet. I don't like their meta/play style but the odds of them being king are not high.

I'll say BlakAdder/TonyMontana so I can hear more from him.

-------------------

For the one person who I would pick as 'most town', I'd pick Trumpet of Doom.

Corvuus

[Corvuus]

huh.

I'd still like a response from hohum but

Vote TonyMontana

I don't know what you are playing at but I'm willing to lynch you to find out.

First, you count down the rolls by 1 each roll, so indeed the number does land on Zwet as it *has* to. (I believe on the 5th roll).

If it was d8 several times and never landed on Zwet, then your statement would be 'true' but as it is, it is false, and I don't know what the point of it was.

Did you decide it on a whim? Prior thought? What was the point?

C

[Corvuus]

edit:

wow. i did it in my head, miscounted the 5th one. Actually wrote it down just in case and it doesn't land on Zwet after 7 dice rolls.

...

either way, I don't understand the point of it since even if the dice don't land on Zwet, how does that make him not the king, and how would the dice be interpretable at all if it was anything. And what was your purpose in doing it? Just roll to see who you would choose not to lynch?

unvote

I don't like it, so I want to hear your reasoning Tony.

C

[Corvuus]

what is the profit in #6?

and if there is a profit, why not roll again... and again... and again.

I actually never used the dice function so let's see if this works.

<1>d<8>

C

[Corvuus]

hmm.

Original Roll String: 1d8 (STATIC)

1 8-Sided Dice: (2) = 2

[Corvuus]

Original Roll String: 1d8

1 8-Sided Dice: (8) = 8

[Corvuus]

let's see if I did this right.

1 - TonyMontana (BlakAdder)
2 - Corvuus
3 - Empking
4 - hohum (Numberfourteen)
5 - ortolan
6 - Qanqan
7 - Trumpet of Doom
8 - zwetschenwasser

Original Roll String: 1d8

1 8-Sided Dice: (5) = 5

Original Roll String: 1d7

1 7-Sided Dice: (1) = 1

Original Roll String: 1d6

1 6-Sided Dice: (5) = 5

Original Roll String: 1d5

1 5-Sided Dice: (5) = 5

Original Roll String: 1d4

1 4-Sided Dice: (3) = 3

Original Roll String: 1d3

1 3-Sided Dice: (2) = 2

Original Roll String: 1d2

1 2-Sided Dice: (1) = 1

[Corvuus]

Corvuus, Zwet, TonyMontana, Trumpet of Doom;

Qangan, Empking, ortolan.

(if I counted this right).

So according to you, this would mean that hohum couldn't be the king, and EVERY time we do this iteration 'someone' will be left over (Zwet in your case, hohum in my iteration) and so what is the profit or point that you are trying to make (despite my horrible counting/dicing).

Corvuus

[Corvuus]

if your answer is that it is satire, then why post #315 and not say anywhere that it is satire/silly/not serious?

and, then, wouldn't it be ironic since you say Zwet is scum, but you just rolled and said that Zwet isn't scum/king?
-------------------

either way, what did you read in isolation?

C

[Corvuus]

vote TonyMontana

I've already read and given my 2 cents on players/game, so I'll just wait until the weekend when you post more of your thoughts.

Thanks,

C

[Corvuus]

when i first read his original random roll post, it stuck out since i miscounted, and I considered why he would do that.

the only reason would be that zwet is king, he is guard and that it is incredibly stupid move. that is why I decided to actually write down the actual player names to check my original thought and did my edit post since I got it wrong and it didn't make sense that way. thus my unvote and ask for 'why'.

However, his response and after writing it out and 'replicating' the action, the move is still nonsensical and it is just 'fluff'.

At any rate, you are telling me that my interpretation of his actions should be:

1. TM says town is dumb due to random rolling, etc. etc.

2. TM, to prove town is dumb/random rolling sucks, decides to roll something completely irrelevant to anything (it isn't possible for the game playing out, etc.) and then after the arbitrary roll makes the arbitrary statement that Zwet can't be the king due to sheer arbitrary odds. (if it was 7d8 versus 7 diminishing dice rolls, then that would actually make 'more' sense since the other way always produces one person at the end).

3. TM says 'my plan was not rocket science, it is easy', list steps, 'profit'. This makes less and less sense if you argue it is a joke, especially since TM says Zwet is scum (in isolation) and arguably I can see his point but that is still EMPking and Zwet saying what they do is a joke... which is what TM is doing as well.

To argue 'would a guard/scum' do this is not valid.

He probably figured no one would care or say anything (or that I would miscount, ugh) so not expecting to be 'called/pressured' on it, he gives a contradictory stance. To argue that he is town precisely because it would be stupid to do this... is mindgame.

If he was so 'pro-town', then why not skip all the fluff, post his point/read on Zwet in isolation, give discussion that is USEFUL instead of a 'satire/ironic' random roll post and say town is stupid for doing so?

Either way, I'm not quicklynching him for this. I want his read on Zwet in isolation and better posts. If he is town, then he should do some work and prevent his mislynch. If he is scum, again do some work in order to try to prevent his lynch. You may have a read on his meta from other games, I don't.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To ortolan's other points:

It isn't irrelevant. Guards do not start off knowing other guards obviously, but if they can crumb or notify each other then they gain advantage.

The point is to pressure and question 14/hohum on what his view/read etc. is and everything else. We simply do not know if the guards confirmed each other or not; they may have. I want a response out of hohum, not you, since he may say something revealing, read wise or other. So don't answer or help him in his response please and keep that in mind in the future. Same thing for TM.

At this point, I consider it unlikely that you (ortolan) are guard trying to help them (odds, meta, etc.) but how do you think it will look for you if they DO flip guard?

If you have further comments/problems with my position/case, then let me know *after* TM posts his view/points on Zwet in isolation.

If it is decent/i get a better read on him, then good. I have no problem with being wrong. TM just has to convince me.

------------------------------------------------

Since you asked why I picked Trumpet as likely to be town; I'll ask you the same. Why pick me? My answer (short version) is that his stance/meta is similar/close to mine.

Corvuus

[Corvuus]

post #61 of Zwet.

You do not explicitly say you are joking EMPking, but my interpretation/read on you... well, I consider it the same/equivalent and that your style is... 'haphazardous' and at some point it is likely that you will say that you were joking.

i.e. you are the type of person to put yourself in a situation similar to TM. Claim something or say too much/too extreme, and then say "joking, ha..ha..".

At this point, you (and Zwet) are consistent with yourselves; other responses/actions, but as I pointed out in my previous post; You two are on my list to get to after hohum/TM. If TM shows me a different read on zwet from my own, then we can discuss, look at both, etc.

C

[Corvuus]

I've only seen you in two other games, but no I didn't see you claim to be joking.

If you would like, I will recant that statement but I would find it amusing if later on you do say you are joking at some point.

C

[Corvuus]

sorry, lots of stuff came up.

re-reading and post in a bit.

C

[Corvuus]

orotolan:

I don't understand your play since you are

1. blatantly defending another player (TM)
2. Blatantly saying things which shouldn't be said unless you are advising scum.
3. apparently this is all based on your belief that scum couldn't have verified each other, and thus there is no buddying to worry about and you think the fact that you blatantly buddy must somehow mean that you are rebel and so is TM since guard/king wouldn't be so obvious??

i.e. you and TM's actions are suspicious, yet your 'defense' is that it is so BLATANT and 'stupid' for scum to do that it is not suspicious at all.

I couldn't careless if we lynch Zwet today, but I find it INCREDIBLY ironic that a defense for Zwet is as simple as "posting nonsense 1 liners, blah blah, joke, blah, crap" is so BLATANTLY scummy that he can't possible be scum since scum wouldn't do that.

and yet, the argument for TM and yourself Oro is pretty much exactly the same, yet it is ok when you and TM do it?

So explain to me why should I accept your version when it is possible that TM is king, you (oro) are guard; TM did something crazy/weird/scummy as King, you as guard have to help him so you 'blatantly' do so and rely on the fact that it is so 'blatant' scummy that you won't be lynched for it since it is 'too stupid for scum' to do.

In the end, the original 'reasons' for going after TM aren't that important and don't even have to be right. His response/reaction to it, is important and I will vote and pressure him more simply because of his post #11 (will post point on zwet later, go look at someone else and stop looking at me (paraphrased).

He could have been 'more townie' looking if he just posted his view of Zwet in isolation. Instead, he chose to make his 'random/satire/whatever' post, comment on it, get called on it, and THEN he goes after Zwet. Why attempt to scumhunt 'then' and not 'earlier' and if his point (which you say) was to clear someone (joke or not), it 'cleared' Zwet, yet he found Zwet the easiest target to go after to remove attention from himself?? Yet you find this all ironclad reason to believe that he is rebel to the point of defending him? If this was a 'normal game', would you still do this?

----------------

As for how scum could verify each other, yes, it could be through RVS, words, comments, etc. Guards all know who the king is so they can use that. It may create false positives and other problems for them internally but there are only 2 guards left and a King. The guards know the king, and through interaction without even 'key' words, they may know each other. For you to claim that guards have NO idea who each other are, I think is false since my biggest problem with right now is that scum appear to not be trying to check/find each other... implying that they have already found each other.

If I had a certain point or thing to look at, then we would have already lynched them. Of course, we may be scrutinizing the king right now, and the guards see each other's reactions. Either way, I think I am valid to assume so simply because I can see how people react when I do so.

------------------

Trumpet, I didn't read any of your other games. I read you this game only. Maybe it is my assumption but based on your words/personality, I think I have a read on you and that you are town. This may change, but as it is right 'now', I won't agree to your lynched, but neither will I defend you.

In terms of my scum/anti-town ranking; TM, Oro, (14/hohum inactive/replaced is somewhere in the middle here until I get a response from him) Zwet, Emp.

FoS Zwet

with you for more 'useful' posting/read from Zwet but I want more responses from TM/Oro.

Q, i'm neutral-leaning townie on but time will tell.

C

[Corvuus]

really?

I'm tempted to lynch you unless you can explain exactly what you mean Zwet.

First: What signal am I giving? or what are you reading/interpreting that you think i am giving a signal? Who am I giving it to? i.e. who do you think is scum, etc. more you say the better.
Second: 'different ways scum can talk'; what does this mean?
Third: It is an open setup so we all have the same information EXCEPT Guards have the name of the King written in. Guards can look at each other in whatever way they choose. It doesn't have to be something completely obvious nor does it mean guards 100% *know* each other or anything. They may merely suspect that they know who is a guard, may have false positives, or other problems in 'talking' to each other but I see no reason to assume that guards have NO IDEA at all who each other are. I doubt until a lynch and flip will they 100% know, but they could have a 75-80% certainty that this person should be a guard, based on words/interaction that they take meaning in, etc..

--------

To elaborate more:

Oro asked me to 'prove' that guards know each other. I could say "prove that they don't" or I could say that they already know or that they are right now testing/examining each other and doing it (what I think at least) in an incredibly stupid way.

I.e. All guards know who the King is. King acts scummy/anti-town. A guard (or more) will defend King. King is 'safe'/unlikely to be lynched if played 'right'. Guards see defense of King, all guards know who the king is. Chance of false positives since maybe rebels will defend the king 'by accident' and various other situations, but hey, there are ALOT of possibilities and variations that scum could try or have tried just to see if someone is a guard by response. I think it would be foolish to assume that they have no idea/clue at all.

I'll leave that possibility as it for now but I'm perfectly willing to pressure/bandwagon someone just to see what happens and threaten lynch if it gets me a response. There are no nightkills in this game, so unless a majority thinks i'm crazy/scum, etc. and I risk being lynched, there is no reason for me not to be blatantly belligerent in getting responses/reactions and I think it is my optimum move.

Corvuus

[Corvuus]

oro:
Answering for another player I consider defending another player. TM can go after Q himself and make his defense and posts on his own. If he FAILS to do so, then that is information/read. Why? Because if he doesn't defend against Q but just goes after Zwet instead of trying to defend himself at all then that is scummy to me, and hey, wow, look at that, It is EXACTLY what he is doing. Ignoring Q, and going after Zwet. Why? Oh, maybe because YOU are defending him. And he is moving on to talk about lynch probability but NOT Q at all. Why? etc. etc.

So yes, I find it suspicious of both of you.

--------------

2. Blatantly saying things which shouldn't be said unless you are advising scum.

What are these?

Oro: It is obvious. Read your post again and think about it. To say more is just giving out info.

--------------------

3. apparently this is all based on your belief that scum couldn't have verified each other, and thus there is no buddying to worry about and you think the fact that you blatantly buddy must somehow mean that you are rebel and so is TM since guard/king wouldn't be so obvious??

I'm not saying scum haven't verified one another, ironically at this point I'm feeling increasingly strongly that the king knows who one of his guards (at least) is. That doesn't mean no-one else has picked up on it, though. What I object to is your position in 342 that "WELL YOU DONT' KNOW, they might have found some AMAZINGLY CLEVER way of cross-confirming each other while the townies are oblivious to it." Again I ask you to describe any way this could actually be done in practice e.g.; or in fact I will go you one better. Do you think random voting the king would be a good way to subtly telegraph your role as a guard? Do you think breadcrumbing something strange about the king would be a good way to subtly telegraph your role as a guard? If not how do you suggest, they are going to do so with no risk of being caught?

Oro: If you think you know who a guard is then say it. Otherwise, your post is quite stupid since you said to 'me' before to prove that they have not confirmed/know each other at all and now you say that you think they have so who is it and what was said. The rest, I don't know how much to say since I didn't say that they did a AMAZINGLY CLEVER WAY of confirming each other but that it could be REALLY stupid but obvious to them and not to us. If they did RVS vote the king, then that is really stupid. If it is a breadcrumb that is strange, then it is findable upon re-read and will end up being really stupid. So what is your read and your suggestion?


-------------------------

i.e. you and TM's actions are suspicious, yet your 'defense' is that it is so BLATANT and 'stupid' for scum to do that it is not suspicious at all.

How are

my

actions suspicious? We've already seen yourself and Qanqan's justification for TM's actions being suspicious. I think it's poor, but you don't need to go there again. Just tell me why

I'm

scummy.

Oro: I did. Heck, you ignoring it is scummy in itself but maybe that is just how you play. If you don't find yourself defending/buddying with TM suspicious at all, then what do you think is scummy?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I couldn't careless if we lynch Zwet today, but I find it INCREDIBLY ironic that a defense for Zwet is as simple as "posting nonsense 1 liners, blah blah, joke, blah, crap" is so BLATANTLY scummy that he can't possible be scum since scum wouldn't do that.

and yet, the argument for TM and yourself Oro is pretty much exactly the same, yet it is ok when you and TM do it?

I don't understand what you are arguing here. TonyMontana is attacking zwet. You are saying you find zwet scummy. Yet you find TM scummy also???? And someone in all of this is apparently defending zwet- it's not me though. Who are you talking about?

Oro: Since this will answer your other points as well. I will tell you my meta or what I think and I mentioned this in my previous post.

First off, several players say I am 'most townie'. I DO find this suspicious. Either they think so, or they are guards just 'saying so' to buddy me or get my voting to be along with them or to mislynch me upon their flip.

How do I determine this? I decided to be AGGRESSIVE and EXTREME and see what people say about me then. I go after different players ( i will come to everyone in due time) to get a reaction out of them *AND* for the players who said "Corvuus is so townie", I will get a read off of them when they think I've gone 'less townie', etc.. I don't trust them or you 100% at all for 'saying i am most townie' and I actually trust you (oro) least since

1. You said you thought I was most townie in your post #15
2. Q said someone else (EMPKing) and you said you thought me instead in your post #16.

I could have just said "yay, i am most townie, i will just sit back and watch people die and hope that town gets it right". Instead, I interpret that my best optimum play is to USE this to my advantage in getting reads/info out of people and I can also test reads on people who said "corv is most townie", especially if they are guards and I do something that they don't like. Just because I don't explicitly mention you (since i would say your post would make you my biggest supporter back then oro) doesn't mean I didn't see what was going on, didn't like it and what I think about it.

I don't believe any of you who 'voted me most townie' mean you will stick with me 100% all the way through, but scum may not know that and heck if scum are in it and I go after a guard, then they will change their reaction and response as well. Whether you agree with me or not, "if corvuus is most townie, and he votes someone, then others vote with him, etc. etc", I can get reactions out of those who didn't 'pick me' and of those 'who did pick me'. I get information and reads and all I have to do is go after someone extremely and see how people respond.

I've chosen TM for this. You can argue whether I should have gone after someone else, but frankly, it didn't matter. He happened to say something and it was after I was 'said to be townie' and I decided to choose this path (I realized I would be almost impossible to lynch since I wouldn't self-vote). If you think I am town (as you stated) and you aren't scum and have NO info on TM's alignment, then why not wagon him for information/reads? Instead, your action defends him and he ignores it. Why? He has nothing further to say about Q or me but goes after Zwet? Why? He has nothing to say about Q (while you do) and still goes after Zwet. WHY?

I have no problem with seeing Zwet and TM as scummy and as buddies, and heck, for all I know TM may be King, Zwet and You (oro) are his guards and you are busing a guard to verify the King and playing it out that way.

Your play is scummy and you didn't answer or respond about it at all.

----------

If you didn't get it from my above points/post, as a Rebel, i play a solo-hand. I could have chosen to say that the ones who said I am town are 'suspicious' but I chose my way to do things and test things out and I am fine with it since hey, look at that, my 'biggest supporter' of me being town now finds me scummy, what a great reversal. I won't worry about you flipping guard and me getting mislynched based on that.

I gave a reason for why I thought Trumpet was townie. You can disagree with me, i couldn't careless. My reason was more detailed than yours or Q's so I find it scummy that you say "it is interesting" when your case is worse. Hypocrite much?

Q said he has pro-town vibe from me, and as I said above and before, I will get responses/reactions out of him as the game progresses. I see him as neutral since his play isn't horribly scummy to me but he also named me most townie and I don't know why yet (genuine or manipulation) so as I said, neutral.

But hey, if we want reads on mine, TM and Q's alignment, then maybe we can go ahead and lynch you Oro and find out .

Corvuus
P.S. you didn't answer any of my points in your post. please try.

[Corvuus]

Corvuus, it's just something that bothers me. It looks like you're directing the king/guard to act a certain way to defend your master, by your capitalizing of words and other verbiage. Tony, it doesn't help to criticize something we already did.

I'm keeping my vote on TM until TM and Oro answer my latest post in a decent way but then I will be voting you Zwet for this response and

FoS

for now. Lynching TM first, Zwet second (like Veerus said) is fine with me.

If it isn't obvious, saying "to defend your master", etc. you accuse me of being guard.

What did I say that bothered you, what was directed by 'capitalizing of words and other verbiage'. Otherwise, your post is a bunch of crap.

---------------------------------------------

Veerus, do you have comments on the person you replaced or points brought up against your player slot? I don't think you said anything about it.

Thanks,

Corvuus

[Corvuus]

hey,

really busy at the moment so I won't be able to post that much. (notice in all my games effective now).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm ok with a TM and then Oro lynch.

Oro, do I even need to bother to respond to your post when it is full of hypocrite and failure?

You are using your buddying to me to say I am scum? When obviously, it is you as scum trying to buddy to me, failing and now trying to build a case on me but you won't even say it until TOMORROW? Heck, you claim I'm king, so if you have evidence, then say it and try to get me lynched right? But you aren't voting me and the fact that you won't (or can't) say anything is just more evidence that you are full of BS when I did ask for what you 'see' or 'think' you see.

The fact that you say I'm 'withholding' information and it is scummy is hilarious when you say I am king, give no reason (you say you will say it tomorrow?) and that is blatantly worse 'witholding information' and even worse scummy.

What do you see with me? What do you see with Q?


-------

I told you my plan and heck I even hinted/said it BEFORE you said or did anything.

So to say "haha, Corv got 'caught' and is backtracking about players buddying comments to him, blah blah, didn't say anything about buddying because he didn't notice/see it/care" is quite false. Maybe you should try rereading my post instead of interpreting whatever you want to make yourself look 'less scummy' (since right now you look really scummy) since my comments/plan (pre-your 'suspicion' post) prove your view point false.

--------------

you say "I am mocking your suggestion that scum have found a way to confirm themselves without letting us know".

Well, gee, this is quite hilarious. I didn't say that they confirm themselves completely without us knowing. I said it could be something we may not see or recognize or it could be really obvious and stupid and we wouldn't think of it.

And hey, look at that, you defending/buddying with TM, and then buddying and trying to lynch me? Well, I can mock you as being a stupid/obvious scum if that is what you like.

I will also mock your suggestion since you have "hinted" that you can somehow show that Q is a guard and that I am a king (I'm not the king, and I have no idea what you are looking at for Q) and that would prove your statement false since the hypotheticals of what you 'can say' are all quite dumb.

You will say I am king, and that everyone who voted me as most townie is a guard? LOL, let's lynch you first to find out how stupid that is.

Or wait, somehow I'm king and then I confirm Q as being a guard (for what reason?) and then instead of hiding behind a 'cloak' of townliness (if I am king), I decide to make a plan and get reactions/response and be extremist to get reactions out of those who 'claimed' me as most townie'. I'd love to hear what Trumpet has to think about any theory you will 'reluctantly' spew out 'tomorrow' instead of today.

---------------------------

You call me defensive? LOL. You are the one who is defensive since you "refuse to post" your case on me (as a king no less!) until tomorrow?

I'm aggressive/offensive because there is no NK possibility and since I'm town, 3 players saying they view me as townie means I can be extremist without getting lynched. but hey, you are the one who is 'backtracking' and claiming that you 'did this all for a reason' and 'acted scummy', buddied me, etc. and that you did this on 'purpose' and that you see I am king now but you refuse to say why?

First: How is Q blatantly buddying to me?

Is it because he has a case/wants to lynch TM? Or is it because I am undecided about him ('neutral'). Why not post your 'phantom case' now?

I could go on and on but it all amounts to "put up or shut up" and you need to back up why you call me the king.

----------

As for TM/Zwet, it is COMPLETELY different, but hey, it isn't like you are working logically anyways.

TM's reasons for Zwet is not my reasons and the way he did it appears to be shifting suspicion from himself, etc. etc.

My reason for Zwet is him calling me a guard/king/scum and not saying anything substantial either way.

and hey, look at that, you said I'm a king/guard/scum as well, so I'm perfectly fine with lynching you since you haven't said 'why' or anything else and this would be a quite 'stupid' game since the possibilities you present to me of your alignment are:

1. TM is king, you are guard. TM acts scummy, you act scummier in order to get lynched instead of him, or heck, you also want to try to see if you can get someone other than your king/buddies lynched.

2. You are guard and Zwet is King, TM with you? or maybe not. You don't know about TM for sure, but thought he was and trying to make a play? TM is trying to fight the 'good' fight in confirming Zwet before he dies and you laid the groundwork by saying "Zwet is 99% town".

3. you are guard, someone else is king (TM would be rebel in this case) and you are trying to setup mislynches of TM and myself with your flip; or conversely use TM's flip somehow to get another rebel mislynched.

4. you are rebel. You just happen to be scummy, buddy up to a player by action, attempt buddy by words, and then lie, bs, and refuse to make a case/vote in lylo (when you claim you know the king and that the player at L-1 is 99% town to you!).

Ironically, I think possibility #4 the least likely of all.

Corvuus
p.s. it has occurred to me that when you say 'tomorrow' you could mean 'tomorrow' in Real Life day, but the fact is, I asked you for your case/view before and you still haven't made it for several days or say what you "see". So my point of you being scummy for withholding stands.

[Corvuus]

if I didn't get so busy and actually had time, there were still things left to try. Ironically, when I got back, I was lynched, and I think Zwet was the lynching vote (that punk) when I did the most to help him.

--------

I didn't know who guards were initially but I knew Zwet and Zwet... well... I think he was the worst king ever. I had several ideas/concepts but Zwet made me think he was a Jester King trying to get himself lynched and I had to alter alot.

Notes:

I was going to do discussion and not random lynch vote but Zwet screwed that plan. He was already acting in a way that I think he would be lynched via discussion so I had to go with the 'stupid way'.

So I had to 'cheat' on the random lynch vote. I had a feeling who guards may be and I knew Zwet was King so I crafted the 'ask inactive players to roll' on purpose.

I expected EMPking, Zwet, etc. (or anyone) to roll before they did and if the result wasn't to my liking (i.e. Zwet appeared), I could reject/argue out of it since it wasn't what I asked for. It didn't turn up Zwet and I doubted 2 guards would be on it so I figured it was good enough to continue on with a likelihood of 1 guard for 3 townies.

After the random lynching, there were different options to pursue, but I wanted to play cautious and 'see what happens'. But Zwet pulls out the 'i'm scummy! lynch me muahhahah!" and so I had to switch and try to pick up momentum to stop Zwet from killing himself. Sadly, he never took the hint and probably thought I wasn't a guard and that is why he hammered me.

Oro's logic was faulty (and he is a liar if anyone actually read) and if I was around (and Zwet didn't vote me) I think I could have gotten him lynched instead since his claim that he 'buddied' me to test things out is blatantly false. I simply wasn't around to stop it.

---------

As for Zwet, I continuously couldn't understand his play. Q guessed I was a guard I suppose but Zwet didn't? or he didn't care? Either way, I assumed that as a guard and 'picked as townie' by Trumpet, Oro and Q; I thought I should take 'initiative'/momentum take the lead and Guard and King would follow... except Zwet seemed to be trying to get attention and himself lynched and so I had to keep altering my play due to him so that

1. He would be lynched eventually but only after TonyMontana for sure, and possibly 1 other 'victim' (meaning we would win despite his play... sigh). I went afk at this point so that is as far as I planned. Oro or Veerus were my potential mislynches to go after.

2. If I get lynched, I already created a false impression and linking with a few, so I could hope the remaining guard and King could hide/figure it out.

At any rate, I don't think Zwet realized who ANY of his guards were since he is voting for Q at the end as well. And if he is king and thought I was 'hinting/speaking' to guards, then WHY say anything about it at all and not realize that, if I am hinting, I am talking to HIM. This convinced me that he was trying to get himself lynched which kind of annoyed me enough to consider voting him just to end the game.

I had reasons for other things I did but bleh, most of it I dropped or couldn't pursue since Zwet was, by far, the scummiest thing in the entire game. If it was a normal mafia game, I would have bussed him just to get rid of him, so I guess it was interesting in that Zwet did the "worst" play a king could possibly do.

I'm interesting in hearing what Zwet has to say for himself, even hearing who he thought was his guards would be interesting.

Sidenote: Zach's final plea to Zwet/EMPking made me think Zach was guard (EMP possible?) but Zwet said no, and I thought 3 for 1 trade at that point was sufficient and not worth trying to derail it.
--------------

Notes to mod:

I wouldn't have substituted TonyMontana in for Veerus. In some situations it is ok (like if TM had been nightkilled or didn't have strong easily readable post/opinion).

I would also ask whether you did your first vote count on purpose or not.

Corv

[Corvuus]

ugh crosspost:

Zwet, seriously, you hammered me to make yourself look better???

sigh.

If you thought i was rebel, I could understand your action since it would be a win for you, but if you KNEW I was scum, why would you still do it? I was your best chance to win and Oro's case/lying was easy to pick apart and I could convince Trumpet and pull enough votes together since Oro was easy.

at what point did you know I was guard and then why did you play the way you did? If you had simply 'stopped posting' for a while, I could have prevailed against Oro with Q.

The point isn't for you to remain until the end (indeed, if Q was lynched instead of you, it would be impossible for you to win) so your best course was to stick it out with the guards remaining, not hammer me because of what I had done for you and how you would be "99%" cleared.

sigh. Zwet, when you post "i am surprised i lasted so long", are you saying this because you tried to get yourself lynched?

Corv