Mini 343: Donnie Darko 0:0:0:0 Game Over

[olio]

vote: Save the Dragons

Long time, no sea.

[olio]

Make it eight.

unvote

[olio]

Its never the fault of the townie who gets lynched, its always the fault of those who lynch that townie.

Even when that townie just plays plain lousy? Even when that townie refuses to claim?

Oh, and can you please elaborate what you mean with your last post. I didn't quite get it.

[olio]

vote: chamber

And I'm saying pro town for me isn't the same as pro town for others, If I am pro town then I'm obviously acting as I do when pro town. And thats perfectly reasonable.

Please elaborate.

[olio]

Chamber, do you understand that if you don't feel the need to elaborate the part I quoted earlier, I don't feel the need to unvote? Heck, if it helps anything, you can call me st00pid for not understanding it as long as you do the elaboration.

I've mentioned it in the Vacation thread, but I'll be travelling around Ireland from 17th to 24th of July.

[olio]

Chess, at first your case against StD seemed solid, but your last post feels like you're grasping for straws.

I read Sentinel99's twilight post as an answer to hombre's earlier analysis:

Sentinel99 - disagrees with the bandwagon on Chamber(defending him? IDK...he doesn't have that many posts)

[olio]

I believe EmpTyger based on "too foolhardy a stunt to play from mafia at this moment", but at the same time "the perfect claim for a SK" is nagging in the back of my head.

I'd like to hear your rolename, if that's allowed by rules.

[olio]

"your" meaning EmpTyger

[olio]

You're right, it isn't perfect claim for SK. For SK with something extra in his/her role it could be a perfect claim. For normal SK it's a very risky gambit with not so great chances to succeed.

That said, I believe your claim at the moment. I do disagree with you that your rolename wouldn't give any extra information, but at the same time I see the benefit of keeping it disclosed. Latter seems to be better now.

vote: Scalebane

[olio]

Chess, I'm getting really bad vibe from your last post. You say don't have anything to add, and yet you:
a) set up a point when EmpTyger should reveal his information
b) impose a restriction on voting (I assume "safty" means "safety" in your post)
c) plan a course of action for the whole town

Point a)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to assume that Scalebane will get (at least) 4 votes today. Why do you think EmpTyger will reveal his information when Scalebane is at 4 votes? Why do you want to hear EmpTyger's information today?

Point b)
In case EmpTyger won't reveal his information we can never lynch Scalebane, right? Or if he gets lynched, that dumb hammerer must be scum? Where do you base such an assumption? If you're so sure that the person hammering Scalebane is scum (in case EmpTyger's info isn't out), why didn't you put your restriction of votes to 5 votes and get that possible hammerer-scum tomorrow?

Point c)
EmpTyger hasn't claimed a cop with guilty result on Scalebane, now has he? Where do you base your logic that if Scalebane is innocent, EmpTyger is scum?

unvote
vote: Chess

[olio]

At the moment I don't have time but for a one, brief question:
Why do you think EmpTyger disclosed information has anything to do with his vote on Scalebane?

[olio]

I really don't like olio's vote switch. I agree with STD's point about someone sticking their neck out so early in the manner that Chess has points more towards him being town over scum. He has been actively out there looking for scum and jumping on him so quick doesn't sit well with me.

Do you disagree with the points I made about Chess' post? That aside, it looks like to me that you and STD have forgotten one thing in this "Chess sticks his neck out this early ergo he can't be scum" -thingie: he entered this game as a replacement on day 2.

[olio]

It is interesting that you unvoted and voted for me based on one of my posts. I think it is a bad idea to vote for anyone based on one post.

In your own words:

This is how you make scum trip, apply pressure.

Explain following or just answer my brief question I presented earlier.

EmpTyger hasn't claimed a cop with guilty result on Scalebane, now has he? Where do you base your logic that if Scalebane is innocent, EmpTyger is scum?

That is exactly my logic. Emp did not claim cop, Emp claimed vig. and is pointing to Scale claiming he has more info to release at a latter time. Therefore, if Scale turned up innocent, then Emp mislead the town.

Clarification: I have already said fully why reasons for suspecting Scalebane. What I have not revealed is (1) my name and (2) my reasons for targeting CK last night. I have not done so because I have no cause to yet. I am not vouching for Scalebane’s alignment. I do find him most suspicious, and believe him mafia, but I do not want to imply that I am guaranteeing his guilt. I am not. These are only suspicions.

[olio]

Sorry Chess, I tried witty answer and failed. I was answering to your bewilderment how I can judge you based on one post with your own words: put pressure on scum and they trip. To make it more clear - I put pressure on you and you tripped.

You have still to answer this question:
Why do you think EmpTyger disclosed information (the things he hasn't told us after he claimed) has anything to do with his vote on Scalebane?

[olio]

Sorry, that was a very badly chosen word on my part. Luckily I put in that explanation in parenthesis.

I think that the information Emp is not releasing will shed some light on the validity of his claim, thus strenghting his accusation agaisnt Scale. Right now it is a toss up of "Do we believe him or not?" If we had a name then it may help with that decision and thus help us decided on what to do with Scale. Is that clear?

You're still implying that the information EmpTyger hasn't revealed has something to do with his vote on Scalebane. Earlier you said:

That is exactly my logic. Emp did not claim cop, Emp claimed vig. and is pointing to Scale claiming he has more info to release at a latter time. Therefore, if Scale turned up innocent, then Emp mislead the town.

You're trying to make Emp look bad when he hasn't mislead town by not telling something about Scalebane, because he says he doesn't possess such information and the information he keeps secret has nothing to do with his vote on Scalebane.

Sotty, how is EmpTyger hurting himself by not revealing his name? There hasn't been counter-claim from vig. How big is the probability that there isn't a vig in this game in your opinion?

[olio]

Actually, I think Sotty and Chess are distracting this game with their constant asking of EmpTyger's claim. Let it rest and get on with the game.

[olio]

egh... EmpTyger's name, not claim. Sorry.

[olio]

Sorry for the long list of quotes, just a little more dramatic when I let the facts speak for themselves. 7 people out of 9, ask for the name, including yourself.

Like I said, your

constant

name-calling is distracting in my opinion. Others - including me - have given it a rest it seems to me. You have to ask yourself the question I presented to Sotty and the question by EmpTyger:
How big is the probability that there isn't a vig in this game in your opinion?
How big is the probability that EmpTyger would know that there weren’t a real vig in this game?

Going after me for why I think Emp's information damns Scale and clears himself, all the while you have your vote resting on Scale.

You charge after my throat when I began to go for Scalebane, while your vote is on scalebane... interesting.

These quotes up here are lies

and I think you did it on purpose. You repeated the lie so it would work and at least it worked on EmpTyger, as I understood that he wants answer to those questions.

When I got bad vibe from your post Chess, I voted you. My vote didn't rest on Scalebane after that like you're saying.

I suggest Chess as a vig target for following night.

[olio]

Chess, I'm getting really bad vibe from your last post. You say don't have anything to add, and yet you:
a) set up a point when EmpTyger should reveal his information
b) impose a restriction on voting (I assume "safty" means "safety" in your post)
c) plan a course of action for the whole town

Point a)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to assume that Scalebane will get (at least) 4 votes today. Why do you think EmpTyger will reveal his information when Scalebane is at 4 votes? Why do you want to hear EmpTyger's information today?

Point b)
In case EmpTyger won't reveal his information we can never lynch Scalebane, right? Or if he gets lynched, that dumb hammerer must be scum? Where do you base such an assumption? If you're so sure that the person hammering Scalebane is scum (in case EmpTyger's info isn't out), why didn't you put your restriction of votes to 5 votes and get that possible hammerer-scum tomorrow?

Point c)
EmpTyger hasn't claimed a cop with guilty result on Scalebane, now has he? Where do you base your logic that if Scalebane is innocent, EmpTyger is scum?

unvote
vote: Chess

Check the last two lines. If you choose to display my previous posts, to check this - which you should - it's the post number 9.

[olio]

I'm on a work trip for the next five days. I'm unsure if I can check the thread during that time.

I'm still waiting to hear from Chess.

[olio]

Back from the trip and ready to continue.

Olio, maybe my post was not written as clear as I should have made it. I did not mean to say that your vote rested on Scale while you began to charge after me, I meant to convey that you were charging after me WHEN your vote was on scale, of course you switched it to vote for me. I wrote about the fact you voted for me based on one post back in post #171.

That was a good try to twist your own words. Are you implying that my vote was on Scale during that post in which I charged you and thus your point was well-placed and well-thought? Your post about my vote being on Scale did nothing but caused confusion and you did it on purpose.

Also I am getting confused by your posts. You wrote...

Like I said, your constant name-calling is distracting in my opinion. Others - including me - have given it a rest it seems to me. You have to ask yourself the question I presented to Sotty and the question by EmpTyger:
How big is the probability that there isn't a vig in this game in your opinion?
How big is the probability that EmpTyger would know that there weren’t a real vig in this game?

Then you suggest me for a vig target? Have you answered your own questions?

Why don't you answer those questions? Are you afraid that your scheme is exposed to those still not seeing it? I've answered those questions myself and you should be able to see it from my posts. If you don't quite get it, I'm happy to explain, but first: you answer those questions, please.

So I suggest that if we do lynch Scale and he is town, that we then consider lynching emp, unless emp can convice the town otherwise... on the grounds that emp mislead the town. That seems logical to me.

That's fine crap-logic, if I may correct.

In short Olio, u are really starting to look scummy to me personally. You are taking some heat and attetion off of scale, which is a known scum tactic, trying to save your partner.

So why aren't you voting me?

Check the last two lines. If you choose to display my previous posts, to check this - which you should - it's the post number 9.

I may be a moron but I just don't understand what you mean by this.

It was for others if they wanted to check that you're really lying with your "olio's vote is on Scalebane while attacking Chess".

Also you have still not said how I tripped.

This is like the 3rd or 4th time I think I have asked.

Looks like you have trouble reading my posts, which I apologize. I try to be more direct in future.

Your biggest mistakes so far:
- you say you don't have nothing to say and yet you present a plan based on crap-logic how town should proceed
- you say that EmpTyger's unrevealed information has something to do with Scalebane
- you blatantly lie, accusing me of having my vote on Scalebane while attacking you
- you're trying to twist the meaning of your own words
- you don't have guts to vote me, when you know I'm pro-town

But hey, you'll learn from this, I'm sure!

[olio]

My final thought is this, if Scalebane comes up clean then we take out Emp, unless Emp can convince us otherwise. Those are my two cents.

All I was suggesting is that if Scale would turn up innocent then we should look into and put some heat on Emp, BECAUSE HE DID MISLEAD THE TOWN.

So "taking out Emp" is now transformed to "putting some heat on Emp"?

[olio]

FYI: I don't really see the advantage of ansewering these questions but there they are. Now if you don't mind explaining how you are able to contradict yourself... saying Emp is not a vig then calling for a vig on me tonight.

I don't quite get how I have contradicted myself. When was the last time I said Emp is not a vig? When it comes to those questions, they were there to show that getting EmpTyger's name really doesn't bring any light to the situation if he is a vig or not.

I see the situation like this:
a) there's a very high probability that there's a vig in the game
b) there's a very small probability that there's an anti-town role who would know (on day 2) that there isn't a pro-town vig in the game

Those points lead to the following conclusion:
Anti-town player claiming vig on day 2 is very risky play, thus player claiming vig on day 2 has very high probability to speak the truth. His rolename would add very little to that probability and is thus better kept secret, in case an anti-town player tries to claim it.

I am twisting nothing, I am posting fact, quoting your posts! You had your vote on Scalebane when you posted your attack on me, then switching your vote to me. I quote you post AGAIN!

You pick one line from the bottom of the

one

post and have guts to say that I'm voting Scale while accusing you. If I would've changed my vote after my accusations, in another post, then your point would be valid. Now it's just technical nit-picking without any merit and you try to use it like it would really mean something. Let me put it this way: do you usually change your vote first thing in your post and then give your reasoning? Yep, didn't think so.

It seems to me that the problem you have with me is two fold.
1) I said I have nothing to add then seemingly add to the conversation (I say I did not ad anything, you say I did)
2) I make a connection to Emp's accusation/suspicion on Scalebane, saying that if scalebane is innocent and we lynch him, then we "take out" emp, providing that he cannot convince us otherwise.

Does that about sum it up?

Not quite. You're omitting the biggest point of all:

- you say that EmpTyger's unrevealed information has something to do with Scalebane

2) Actually, I do not. I say that it would lend creedence to Emp's claim. Knowing his name would help us to better trust his claim of Vig.

I read the following quote differently: (See my train of thought above about how EmpTyger's name wouldn't really make his claim more believable. )

Emp did not claim cop, Emp claimed vig. and

is pointing to Scale claiming he has more info to release at a latter time

. Therefore, if Scale turned up innocent, then Emp mislead the town.

Therein lies my biggest problem with you, the third point you didn't include in your list above - the third point you actually try to wriggle yourself out now.

You base your "EmpTyger is misleading the town" -logic to the information EmpTyger hasn't told us. That information has nothing to do with EmpTyger's vote on Scalebane. That effectively makes your second point above moot, unless you really think that everyone who accuses player, who turns out to be pro-town when lynched, is guilty of "misleading the town".

In other words: EmpTyger isn't the one misleading the town, you are.

So "taking out Emp" is now transformed to "putting some heat on Emp"?

Um... if you read the entire post...

UNLESS EMP CAN CONVINCE US OTHERWISE.

How is this still not clear?

You're not answering the question, but wriggling again. First you said: lynch him, unless he can convince us otherwise. Now you say: put some heat on him, unless he can convince us otherwise. Why the change of tone?

[olio]

Scalebane, I don't remember implying that you're not a townie because you defended yourself. Was that directed to Chess?

Do you think I am scum? If not, then leave me alone, if so then make it definitively known.

I believe you're scum. No matter what you say now, at one point you said that EmpTyger has info about Scalebane's scumminess, and if Scalebane turns out to be innocent, EmpTyger should be lynched because he mislead the town, unless he can convince us otherwise. I think it's convicting evidence that you're trying to rewrite the history.

FYI: I clearified my statement about emp's hidden info back on Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:20 pm Post subject: 189

I don't recall saying that it did directly effect scalebane, if I wrote it I was mistaken, if it was implied, again I am sorry. I do make mistakes and this maybe one of them.

Yep, you said yourself that you made a mistake and that mistake is what I'm calling you out for.

Or is it the part about Emp's hidden information making scale look more guilty, which I never claimed.

Sorry mate, you did claim that earlier, no matter how much you try to change that now, no matter how sorry you are and no matter if you think it was a mistake or not. I think it was a mistake on your part.

Emp, has said that he will reveal everything in due time. I trust that. Out of safty I ask that we not exceed 4 votes on Scalebane untill said information is out and Scale has a chance to defened. I say 4 because 6 lynches, anybody dumb enough to hammer before possible damning information is out must be an alien/scum whatever.

Defend against what? EmpTyger's name? EmpTyger's name as damning information?!?

Excuse my change of tone. I don't know why I changed it from "lynch him unless he can convince us otherwise" to "put some heat on him." Maybe, because the first post was on Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:41 pm and the second post was on Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:12 pm. That is 10 days, 1.5 weeks.

Sorry mate, in my opinion there's a good probability that you saw that EmpTyger won't be lynched after all and are now trying to soften up your earlier tone, so you won't seem so pushy about lynching him. I doubt you can convince me otherwise.

[olio]

Scalebane, I'd rather be addressed "he"

Still happy with my vote.

[olio]

Did you ever consider voting/FOSing me? And what made the solid case unsolid?

Chess' first post accusing you sounded good enough to base vote on... until you started your defense.

Defend against what? EmpTyger's name? EmpTyger's name as damning information?!?

Now this is just unfair. At this point Emp had not said that his name was bascially the only thing he had yet to reveal. I, like everyone else, did not know how much more information Emp had.

Exactly. Emp hadn't mentioned what info he has to reveal and yet you - and you alone - rushed headlong into assumptions that it must be damnating information on Scalebane, formed plans how town should proceed and yet you "didn't have anything to add to discussion".

While there may be a good probability that I saw emp would not be lynched (don't think there was ever any probability in that) and that is the reason I changed my tone, there is a chance that I just changed it unknowingly. You seem to be making a huge deal about this little thing.

You know how people catch good scum players? From little things. Unknowingly changing your tone is even bigger tell, which makes me ask the question: "Why would he soften his tone unknowingly?". Basically, it's a slip you made without noticing at first, and I'm pretty sure you have your WIFOM -answer ready for this point.

It is illogical for scum to push for someone to be lynched the next day, espcially someone as dangerous to the scum as a vig.

WIFOM much lately?

The way I see it is that you saw Scalebane as an easy lynch target, based on EmpTyger's unrevealed info, as well as a good chance that EmpTyger would get lynched once Scalebane turns out to be pro-town. In your over-eagerness to get lynch, you didn't notice that EmpTyger never said his info was about Scalebane. You were blinded with this opportunity to hang two pro-townies. You can't change what you wrote, so you can't change my opinion on this one.

[olio]

And no, that was not unfair. This is a game of mafia.

[olio]

*sign* Okay Olio, lets try this again....

Emp, has said that he will reveal everything in due time. I trust that. Out of safty I ask that we not exceed 4 votes on Scalebane untill said information is out and Scale has a chance to defened. I say 4 because 6 lynches, anybody dumb enough to hammer before

possible

damning information is out must be an scum.

PLEASE NOTE THE WORD

POSSIBLE

. For the love of everything holy, you think I am changing what I wrote I am not, I wrote POSSIBLE DAMNING INFORMATION, meaning the information maynot be damning or even have anything to do with scalebane.

In my opinion, that Possible Damning Information in that sentence doesn't

automatically

add to the previous sentence where you only mention Said Information.

The point stands, you said nobody should put on the 5th vote until said information is out, thus you imply in that sentence that said information has something to do with Scalebane's guiltiness.

It is illogical for scum to push for someone to be lynched the next day, espcially someone as dangerous to the scum as a vig.

WIFOM much lately?

Um, yeah this is nt WIFOM. Read it again...

Simplified WIFOM then:
Scum would be stupid to do thing A. I did thing A, thus I'm not scum.

Like I said before,

you

can't change my stance against you. In my eyes you're just answering the way scum would also answer. You've already called me blind, so let it go.

[olio]

Olio, I never claimed that I was not scum because I did something that was illogical for scum to do. I simply said that it was illogical for scum to do that. You were saying it was a scummy thing to do, I am saying it would be illogical for scum to do that. This is not a WIFOM argument, I am simply rejecting your premise that it is a logical action for scum to take.

Are you trying to drown my arguments in the sea of meaningless words? I found your tone-softening scummy, which means that I found

you

scummy. So if you bring "illogical actions for scum" in the discussion, do you think I suddenly start thinking you're not scum? I've never said it's logical for scum to want EmpTyger dead. Stop making false assumptions.

Does that help show why the scum pushing to lynch a claimed vig tommrow is illogical? It is dumb, too risky.

Think WIFOM as a gambit in chess: you deliberately create a weakness in the opening so you'll be stronger later.

In my opinion, that Possible Damning Information in that sentence doesn't automatically add to the previous sentence where you only mention Said Information.

The point stands, you said nobody should put on the 5th vote until said information is out, thus you imply in that sentence that said information has something to do with Scalebane's guiltiness.

Well, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, provided you allow for the possibility that I was NOT SAYING THAT. The fact remains that I allowed for the possibility of the information to not directly affect Scale.

Why did you allow such a possibility to remain? Why weren't you blunt with your words? Why did you want to cause confusion?

So we are clear, you opinion is not fact. Neither is my opinion or anyone elses. It is find, IMO, to state your opinion, but please do not state it in a factual way.

Why do you take them as facts? I've never said they're anything but opinions, opinions which I believe in.

[olio]

Chess' "I don't have anything to contribute" -post count: 2

[olio]

I've never said it's logical for scum to want EmpTyger dead. Stop making false assumptions.

I never said you did.

Yes you did.

I am simply rejecting your premise that it is a logical action for scum to take.

Think WIFOM as a gambit in chess: you deliberately create a weakness in the opening so you'll be stronger later.

Can you unpack this a bit?

Gladly... after the game.

Why did you allow such a possibility to remain? Why weren't you blunt with your words? Why did you want to cause confusion?

Now you accept the possibilty in the statement? I was uncertain. I wanted to try to help, but I did now know what the information was at the time.

No, I don't accept it. I'm merely questioning you to get you deeper in your lie. If you are uncertain about something, say it straigth. Moreover, if you wanted to try to help, that doesn't match with the start of your post which goes "I don't have anything to add to the discussion". In my opinion, of course.

I accept no opinion as fact, you gave the impression that your opinion was "unchangable" which is a bad stance, only facts (what was literally written) are unchangeable.

Unchangable by

you

.

[olio]

I wonder why everone assumes guilt instead of assuming the possible innocence.

Because they are playing a game of mafia. This isn't a real world court where people are innocent until otherwise proved. In a game of mafia you shouldn't trust anyone and you shouldn't give anyone benefit of doubt (excluding role-based exceptions).

Sentinel, when was the last time Emp claimed "he has information that he also claims to know is bad for us"?

[olio]

@Olio
I am curious what made you change your mind about Emp claiming his role. I am also curious who else you think is scum besides Chess. If Chess is the vigkill target, what are you going to do about the lynch?

Do you mean "what changed my mind to stop asking for his character name" or "what made me believe him"?

For the former, I wasn't initially comfortable with his claim as in my opinion it could be used as a cover for SK. So, in the terms of percents, I was 60-75% sure EmpTyger was town. Once he explained the probability of gambit, that number went up to 75-95%, and thus in my opinion made the nameclaiming a wasted resource at the moment.

I'd be happy to see Sentinel go too, based on his recent EmpTyger vote.

I'm also not sure where Chess slipped. And I'm also not sure saying that you were voting for scalebane is a blantent, intentional lie.

In my opinion he slipped in the post which he started "nothing to contribute" and then added whole lot of guidelines for town to follow. When it comes to me voting Scalebane while accusing Chess, I accused Chess in a post and changed my vote on Chess on the same post. Until the last lines of

that post

, I was technically voting Scalebane, but this is the first time I've ever seen anyone seriously start to nitpick timing of the vote

inside one post

. The nitpicking was done in such a force, that it made EmpTyger question me if I really did such a thing, and thus warranted "a blatant, intentional lie" -label on it.

That said, I'll

unvote: Chess

, based on MeMe's reaction.

vote: Sentinel

[olio]

How convenient.

vote: Scalebane

[olio]

How convenient.

vote: Scalebane

How convenient that your jumping on Scale without discussing anything? Yeah, I think so too.

So, do you believe Scalebane is pro-town and why?

[olio]

I don't like that the day is about to end when you have done nothing to further discussion and just jumped on Scale. Although I understand the vote, maybe you could expand on your worries and concerns surrounding him.

Well, I got you talking with my vote, if you didn't notice. Furthermore, what is there to expand? It's really simple: Scalebane makes a claim which is scummy and I vote him.

[olio]

Wow, Anix actually contributes something to this game. Chess, Anix has had all this time to forge his claim, while not participating in the thread. Your faith in him is saddening ;(

I'm Grandma Death aka Roberta Sparrow aka the doctor. I've been protecting STD every night.

[olio]

N1 I made an educated guess. Because there was no mafia kill on N1, I figured I had protected an innocent so I kept protecting STD for N2 too.

Chess, why didn't you ask why I protected STD for N1 and N2 only? Why did you include N3 in your question?

Ixnay, your turn to claim.

[olio]

I said nothing about any night in particular.
But it would be logical for you to protect him N3 as he claimed a tracker role on Day 3.

Exactly. So why did you include that night in your question? Why weren't you 100% sure that given these circumstances, I would protect STD on N3?

We can't also be 100% sure about Sotty's sanity without a guilty result, but I also think the game will end here.

vote: Anix

[olio]

Great game everyone! One of the most enjoyable ones for me to date!

EmpTyger, I think you coming out on D2 was actually pretty nice play and it helped me considerably.

Chess, your "I don't have anything to say" post had the newbie/scum -vibe all over it. Because I try to keep Tabula Rasa -mentality on every game, plus my protection of STD, I thought you were scum. Heh, it was a nice debate which left me wishing at times that English was my native language.

I hope you did realize that you should never trust anyone in the game of mafia (bar few roles helping you there) even if they say they are Jesus and claim they can read everyones mind on top of that. Just believe in yourself, keep posting, don't lurk and you'll be one hell of a player.

MeMe, thanks for changing my stance on Chess

STD, maybe it's time to change your title?

Anix, gotcha