Mini 735 - Bad Times In Kuribonia- Game over!

[Ythill]

Hey Ting, just respond to any of the 9 points in #470 that you haven't already addressed. K? If we want to get into the details, we can take it from there.

I'm headed out to run some errands but will respond to your latest post sometime tonight.

[Ythill]

Remember where I said you don't need to repeat yourself needlessly? Your whole WOW boils down to a few meaty bits. And, if you are town, I'd advise you to start basing your defense on things other than my supposedly dirty arguing tactics because, whenever I flip town, your OMGUS will be plainly visible to everyone.

1. Reecer was not defending himself.
2. I mentioned Reecer not answering questions as an indication of him not defending himself.

1. I get that Reecer was not defending himself and I have no problem with that answer.
2. There were no questions. I do not get why you lied to support your argument. Since you're such a fan of context...

Also, reecer - how is 12 using logic to cover up being mafia?

Ree dodged this question and you mentioned the comment again when you voted him but you never pressured him to answer the question. Why?

You'll note that that's not the only question I asked reecer which he dodged.

In fact, a lot of people asked reecer questions, and he ignored them. It was clear that reecer was not going to bother answering anything. I saw him as not answering because he

couldn't

answer. Turns out he was just playing badly.

You'll note that that's not the only question I asked reecer which he dodged.

I couldn't find another.

Cite please.

Specifics:

You'll note that that's not the only question I asked reecer which he dodged.

I couldn't find another. Cite please.

For context: My main point - that reecer was not bothering to defend himself. I've made this clear. You haven't disputed this.

Anyway, if you really want

questions,

I can point you to two, but MM hammered reecer.

I could also point you to questions from

others

which reece didn't bother to answer. I could also point you to

accusations

from me, and others, which reecer didn't bother to answer. Both of those two categories would illustrate my main point that reecer was not bothering to defend himself - and you're avoiding that main point.

Translation:

Yth: Why didn't you try to get an answer from Ree.
Ting: He didn't answer my other questions + other evidence = he wasn't going to answer me.
Yth: Okay, what other questions?
Ting: Do you really want questions? Oh my. I asked him two just before he was hammered.

Do you see what's wrong with this? No matter how valid of the rest of the stuff you said was, you claimed that your actions were based on evidence

which did not actually exist

at the time you took those actions. I don't think it makes you auto-scum, but I do want you to explain what happened.

Second point. If you had reached a conclusion that Ree would not defend himself and/or answer questions, then why

did

you ask questions of him later?

1. He already did answer me. You're either ignoring this, or deliberately dragging this down to a semantic argument that his answer was in fact, not an answer to my question.
2. My vote is obviously pressure on him to answer.

Little slip there, huh Ting? If he had answered your question (1), why did you need to put pressure on him with your vote (2)? Only one of these can be true. Either you thought he'd answered and so your vote was not pressure for an answer or you were pressuring him because you didn't feel he'd answered your question.

It can't be both. The fact that you are arguing both is evidence of what I said earlier: that you are saying whatever you believe will save you with no regard for what was true.

[Ythill]

Missed this point.

Yes, I was obviously not talking to reecer, especially since that was his last post before I asked my questions. My post where I look like I'm replying to reecer is not really me replying to reecer.

Strawman. It is entirely possible to reply to player A with the intention of manipulating player B, so it doesn't matter who your post was addressed to.

I'm not even going to address your it's-not-scummy-if-other-people-do-it-too arguemnt because it's just dumb. Ironically, it is dumb because it ignores

context

.

[houseofcards]

im here, srry lots of work i had 2 do will read and post tommorow morning

[Kieraen]

when?

VOTE:HOUSEOFCARDS

[qwints]

Kierean, he did say he'd post tomorrow morning. If he hasn't posted by then, I'm in favor of voting him, but why vote right now?

[Kieraen]

I thought he said that yesterday.

Okay, fair point.

UNVOTE

[qwints]

Now that I look at the time stamp, I think you were probably right. It looks like he posted around 11 p.m. last night his time. I got thrown off because his post was today, my time.

My bad.

[Kieraen]

VOTE HOUSEOFCARDS

I have stated my reasons, and now thinking he is lieing scum.

[qwints]

I'm fine with a HOC lynch at this point. Repeated promises to post content are crazy scummy.

vote: House of Cards

post or die.

[q21]

1. He already did answer me. You're either ignoring this, or deliberately dragging this down to a semantic argument that his answer was in fact, not an answer to my question.
2. My vote is obviously pressure on him to answer.

Little slip there, huh Ting? If he had answered your question (1), why did you need to put pressure on him with your vote (2)? Only one of these can be true. Either you thought he'd answered and so your vote was not pressure for an answer or you were pressuring him because you didn't feel he'd answered your question.

It can't be both. The fact that you are arguing both is evidence of what I said earlier: that you are saying whatever you believe will save you with no regard for what was true.

This does catch my attention. Going back through the thread to check shows that Reecer's supposed answer (post 98) is before ting's Reecer vote (post 120) which was made to force Reecer's to answer a question he had apparently already answered.

Offering direct contradictions as defence is scummy.

I'll wait to see Ting's answer until I hop on the HoC wagon, if I dislike his answer enough I might not make a HoC that vote.

[q21]

The only one that's truly unique is his interaction with qwints, the only person he every really attacked. If anything this points at qwints as scum more than it says anything about anyone else.

Except that he attacked him for lurking while your predecessor was also lurking. If qwints is scum, this will be the first time I've seen someone attack his buddy for something when another player is guilty of the exact same thing. There is no benefit to such an action.

The possible benefit is the chance to force your buddy into participation.

[Ythill]

The possible benefit is the chance to force your buddy into participation.

I suppose I can see that, but he'd also had to have gotten sloppy regarding your predecessor, or else he would have called out two lurkers for the same purpose, as a smokescreen, and for the chance to deflect his lurker-hunt to town if it was taken seriously. I still think it

suggests

qwints' innocence, as does my reread of the Ree wagon.

The latest qwints vote is interesting though, considering that it's early in the day and we all seemed to agree that care should be taken with the vote today. If qwints, HoC, and Kier are all non-mafia, this game is about to end. Personally, I'd like to come to a solid determination about Ting before we move to lynch anyone. I think there's a good chance he's mafia. HoC might be mafia, but he might just be a flake.

[qwints]

HOC has been using delaying tactics for over a month. If he was going to flake, he'd be gone already.

It's looking like we've avoided an insta-loss (which could only result from there being two mafia and HOC being the sk). I think the votes on HOC are the only way we're going to get anything out of him. We simply can't tolerate the risk of leaving such a hard core lurker alone any longer.

[q21]

Two scum and HoC being town is also an insta-loss...

[Kieraen]

I'm really stuck here.

What happens if HoC is Vig/SK. Thats also instant lose isn't it?

I'm willing to go through on a TING lynch after rereading some YTHILL's comments. I think we have a strong case against him, when considering the nature of the day one lynch.

I suspect that HoC is still playing some sort of lurking game (or is just utterly bored of the game...), and would make a good tomorrow target. Hopefully by then he will have posted something of use.

There is also room for analysis here on patterns of suspicion.

Me and qwints have both voted HoC. Possible scum teaming up against a likely SK/VIG?
While Q21 and YTHILL have been against such play, in favour of a TING lynch (I am assuming). I don't see much in this as a mafia would be hoping for a SK/VIG hit tonight. We have already disproved TING's SK/VIG role by his block on night one from MONKEYMAN.
------------------------------------------------------------

To be honest, after a little thought, I'm looking now at:
1) TING = mafia,
2) not much information to gather,
3) a silent TING and
4) a group consensus between me, QWINTS, YTHILL and Q21 on lynching TING). (tell me if I'm wrong).

I think we give TING two more days to respond, or continue with a lynch (I see little point in waiting for a replacement at this stage, if he has flaked).

any thoughts?

[q21]

I'm not against a HoC lynch, right now he is at the top of the list of people I suspect. However, I'm not voting for anyone until ting makes a response to the issue raised by Ythill and reiterated by myself in post 485. Based on that response I will decide who I want to vote for today.

[Kieraen]

You his scumbuddy...?

[q21]

Who's scumbuddy? ting or HoC?

[qwints]

Two scum and HoC being town is also an insta-loss...

Nope, sk could still hit mafia.
Cross kill means 2 townies, 1 mafia (LYLO)
Two townies killed means 2 mafia, 1 sk (mafia win).
1 mafia, 1 town killed means 1 mafia, 1 townie, 1 sk
1 sk, 1 town killed means 2 mafia, 1 town (mafia win)

Kieran, if you don't think HoC is the best lynch right now then why are you voting for him?

[q21]

1 mafia, 1 town killed means 1 mafia, 1 townie, 1 sk

Town cannot win from this position, though I guess they can still win it the event of crosskill.

[Kieraen]

Who's scumbuddy? ting or HoC?

why don't you tell us?

[Kieraen]

I thought he was a good choice, and was particularly annoyed by his lack of posting. I have been a strong attacker of HoC. My vote against him was angry, semi intent to lynch and semi pressure vote. But....

The latest qwints vote is interesting though, considering that it's early in the day and we all seemed to agree that care should be taken with the vote today. If qwints, HoC, and Kier are all non-mafia, this game is about to end. Personally, I'd like to come to a solid determination about Ting before we move to lynch anyone. I think there's a good chance he's mafia. HoC might be mafia, but he might just be a flake.

stopped me tunnelling. I had forgotten the arguments made against TING not least by me. I think we have a better chance with someone who has just started flaking now (TING) than someone who has been a consistant flaker.

[Ythill]

A couple of you seem to be in a hurry to end this day. Slow it down. We need to make a solid mafia lynch. Meanwhile, we need to expose the SK so that if there is still a mafioso left alive (which is doubtful), the SK will die tonight.

Personally, I would like Ting to respond to me. Then I would like time to challenge and consider his answers. At least.

Kier is following me again. Dude, seriously, why don't you do some scumhunting. Nobody has reread the MM mislynch yet. Maybe you should see what you can find by looking over that wagon? Or something? I'm guessing you probably want to end the day before the mafia figure out you're the SK, but that will only help you

if we actually hang mafia

.

[Kieraen]

Nope, sk could still hit mafia.
Cross kill means 2 townies, 1 mafia (LYLO)
Two townies killed means 2 mafia, 1 sk (mafia win).
1 mafia, 1 town killed means 1 mafia, 1 townie, 1 sk
1 sk, 1 town killed means 2 mafia, 1 town (mafia win)

Lets expand the maths...

There are 3 kills by tomorrow right, with one VIG/SK, one lynch and one mafia so.
---

1) TOWN lynchs: town
NK kills:town
MAFIA kills:town
---
result: 2 mafia, 1 nk--

MAFIA

win

2) TOWN: town
NK: town
MAFIA: NK

result: 1 mafia, 2 town
---
3) TOWN: town
NK: Mafia
Mafia: town

result: 1 town, mafia and NK
---
4) TOWN: town
NK: mafia
Mafia: SK

result: 2 town, 1 mafia
---

5) TOWN: NK
mafia: Town

result: 2 town, 2 mafia.

MAFIA

wins

---
6) TOWN: mafia
NK: Mafia
Mafia: Town

result: 1 NK, 2 town
---

7) TOWN: mafia
NK: mafia
Mafia: NK

result: 3 town,

TOWN

wins

---
8) TOWN: Mafia
NK: mafia
Mafia: Town

result: 1 NK, 2 town
---
9) TOWN: mafia
NK: town
Mafia: town

result: 1 Town, mafia, NK
---
10)TOWN: mafia
NK: town
Mafia: NK

result: 2 town, 1 mafia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This obviously discounts:
1) mafia and NK targeting the same townie
2) MOD's priority in kill order.


Essentialy (with very elimentary odds):

town has a 10% chance of winning by tomorrow,

Mafia have a 20% chance,

NK has 50% chance of being alive (however 10% that he loses anyway).