Mini 427 - Clue Mafia 1 - Game Over, Who Won!?

BillyTwilight · Post Post #10 (isolation #0) » Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:53 am

Accuse: DragonsofSummer

Sometimes it's just that easy.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #28 (isolation #1) » Thu Apr 12, 2007 5:04 am

unAccuse; Accuse: Battle Mage

BillyTwilight · Post Post #49 (isolation #2) » Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:57 am

Jack, can we get a better reason for trying to fake a post restrict than "it was amusing"?

BillyTwilight · Post Post #51 (isolation #3) » Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:46 am

Not that I can see. What reasons would someone have for being able to contribute less to the discussion and get away with it? Amusing

shouldn't

be one of them.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #55 (isolation #4) » Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:13 pm

It's one thing to joke in the random vote phase, and that (obv. from the way my votes are placed in all three clue games) doesn't bother me at all. However, faking something that could conceivably be maintained throughout the entire game bothers me, especially when an excuse of "I find it amusing" gets you off the hook.

Please note, I am not accusing Jack of scummy behaviour or anything, especially since it only lasted one page and its fairly obvious that he didn't intend to maintain the ruse for long; I just don't think that joking about something that possibly relates to your role and could have an effect much deeper into the game is a good idea.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #57 (isolation #5) » Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:31 pm

BillyTwilight · Post Post #75 (isolation #6) » Wed May 02, 2007 1:21 pm

Why aren't we bandwagoning Battle Mage again?

BillyTwilight · Post Post #93 (isolation #7) » Wed May 09, 2007 1:02 pm

Why not? Nothing seems to be making this game move anyway.

unvote; Vote: Mr.BuddyLee

BillyTwilight · Post Post #108 (isolation #8) » Mon May 14, 2007 5:58 am

I think we need to decide how we are going to play all of these games at once. Theoretically, we should play them all as individual games, but I am not sure that the psychology of the game will allow that. Here is the basic question: should we allow information from each of the game threads to affect one another. Should we allow quoting in one game from the next, and vice versa. Again, I think from theoretical standpoint we should play each individually, but I don't think that this works well considering the human element. Specifically, we can be sure that scum in each game will be using all three threads in deciding their night kills, and I think that town roles with night actions will do the same. I think we give an advantage to the scum in all the games if we don't allow cross-threading, so to speak. For instance, BM has already claimed town in all three games, but he said he didn't have the same town role. I think scum in each game would weigh that kind of statement into who their night kill will be.

The problem with this is of course that gambler's fallacies will probably arise. I would like to know what all the players feel about this, and if we should establish ground rules on what, if any, inter-game actions should be allowed and how to handle them.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #125 (isolation #9) » Wed May 16, 2007 3:19 am

Sorry guys, I was using one of my friends computers checking the threads and forgot to log him out an log me in. MoS, can you please delete that last post. Sorry.

unaccuse, Accuse: Jack

Let's see where this takes us. Jack insta-claimed when he was close to a lynch in Game 3; he hasn't been nearly so forthcoming here.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #145 (isolation #10) » Mon May 21, 2007 4:24 am

OK, I guess I need to clear up what happened at the end of day 1.

Last week I was having some computer issues, and I ended up using one of my friend's computers to check my games. When I looked at the boards Jack was at Lynch -2 and TCS had asked for a vote on Jack so he could hammer. I was suspicious of Jack since the beginning of the game with his fake post restriction, and I didn't like his play for the majority of day 1. However, I didn't really want him lynched, it was more of a test for TCS. I posted a vote for Jack, but forgot to log my buddy out and myself in; obviously that's why post #122 is by a player not in the game. Importantly, this was a L-1 vote, not a hammer. As soon as I posted, I realized my mistake. So I signed myself in, drafted an edit (post #125) and posted. In the three minutes that it took me to do that TCS had already posted twice, including a vote for Jack.

Technically, my vote in #122 didn't count, so my edit post #125 was the hammer vote. I want it on the record though that my intention was to put Jack at Lynch-1, and TCS hammered immediately.

As for TCS, I think he voted more for shits and giggles than anything else. I wonder why he never gave Jack a chance to at least claim, but I don't think scum would play so carelessly.

I'm suspicious of MBL because he quickly tried to jump onto a wagon, and he jumped on mine instead of TCS', who in my view was the real hammer. However, I can see this play being just as likely to come from town as from scum, so he won't get my vote yet. However, MBL hasn't posted a lot in this game, and has tried to stay under the radar. Ancalagon had quietly pointed this out on a couple of occasions - this might have been some motivation for the night kill. Also, when Jack asked everyone to vote MBL, MBL never defended himself to the forming wagon; he stayed quiet and simply let it blow by. Smart play for scum, especially considering that it pretty obvious the wagon was going nowhere. For now I will

FoS: MrBuddyLee

.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #156 (isolation #11) » Tue May 22, 2007 6:14 am

I am a fairly easy lynch target today, and TCS has not attacked me. I don't think that TCS is scum. I take offense at MBL calling my play yesterday terrible. It was a mistake, but I was

not

the hammer vote, regardless of technicalities. And I am still completely OK with making that vote. If TCS had backed off his threat to lynch Jack I would have been more suspicious of him; I think his quick play is more indicative of a townie getting a gas out of the early game than of a scum playing carelessly.

MBL, after being fairly quiet yesterday you have attacked from the get-go today; this coupled with going after the easiest lynch target and attacking those who defended me is starting to really blip on my radar. Continuing to call my vote the hammer vote when it's obvious that my vote was intended to be a lynch-1 vote also strikes me as a misrepresentation and an intentional one at that.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #160 (isolation #12) » Tue May 22, 2007 10:58 am

MBL,

How, exactly, am I trying to rewrite history? Let's suppose that I had seen TCS' post #123 before posting my post #125, and let's suppose that on seeing that I had said, "hmm... I don't want to hammer Jack," and then

not

voted for him in post #125. Do you think that my screw up vote should still have counted? I think so, because my intention was obviously to put Jack at Lynch-1 and TCS' intention was obviously to hammer him. I am

not

trying to "rewrite" history, and you consistently trying to attack me for hammering Jack is misrepresenting what actually happened. If I had seen TCS' hammer vote before posting #125 then I

still

would have posted with a clarification vote, because in my view post #122 is a legitimate vote against Jack and TCS' post #123 is a legitimate hammer vote. To maintain the integrity of the game I would have posted the correct vote even if it meant lynching Jack when I wouldn't have hammered him myself had TCS voted before this all started.

As for my "let's see where this takes us" comment, the point was to:

A.) Get a claim from Jack. He had already given a roleblocker claim in Clue 3; I figured that another claim from him in a different game would give us some gauge to judge his alliance in both games.

B.) See what TCS would do. I wanted to test his promise of a hammer vote; if he had backed off of that I would have been

more

suspicious of him.

As I have said before, I wouldn't have hammered Jack myself but I was not against a Jack lynch. I don't suspect TCS because I don't think he'd hammer so quickly as scum in this game and because he is defending an easy lynch target (me) as opposed to going all out against me. I suspect you for the same reason. You posted very, very little in Day1, even ignoring completely a bandwagon that was starting against you by Jack. At the beginning of Day 2 you immediately go on the attack against the most lynchable player in the game and you are misrepresenting history in that attack. Scum.

Accuse: MrBuddyLee

.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #166 (isolation #13) » Tue May 22, 2007 6:30 pm

alko: I respect you for at least understanding the process of events and not constantly misrepresenting like MBL, even though it's been explained to him as much as possible.

Your first argument: I put him at lynch -1. He could have claimed if TCS wasn't waiting to pounce within one minute of my post. Even had I been sure that TCS would follow through with his threat, there is no way I would have known that he would have done so ONE MINUTE after I made the original post (#122). I expected at least a few hours and more likely a day for Jack to get in a response before being hammered.

Secondly, just because TCS claimed he would hammer does not make it so. That's the whole point of testing him. TCS has played similarly in the other 2 Clue games,

without

following though with the quick lynch attitude. Call me crazy, but that tells me that he is more likely town in this game and scum in one or both of the others.

The philosophy that you propose in the last part of your post is silly. At its extreme you are saying, "why would you vote for someone and not want them lynched." There are a hell of a lot of reasons to do so. To see how other players respond to that vote, to see how the player being voted for responds to that vote. To look at how quickly people on the wagon already jump off or how tenacious they are in staying on, etc, etc, etc. I think you have to be pretty silly to think that wagoning someone to Lynch-1 gives the town no viable information to work with. Hell, it's one of Glork's favorite tactics, and he is one of the most renowned scum hunters on the boards. And to top it off, Jack has been the pushiest and (IMO) scummiest player in all the games so far, or at least he had been up to that point in the game. Just because I wouldn't hammer him myself doesn't mean that I have to be completely against his lynch. That kind of consideration is made all the time in mafia - ie. "I would prefer to see X-player lynched, but I am not against a Y-player lynch."

MBL:

See the above about your first point. I'd like to add that being "not against a Jack lynch" has a much less negative connotation than "being in favor of a lynch" (which you morphed it to), but I digress with the semantics.

Not trying to be offensive to you MBL, but I think I have a better handle on how people might play a multi-thread game like this than you do. TCS' hammer vote for example. Suppose he is scum in either one or both of the other games, and town here. Suppose also that he has a chance to speedlynch in all three games. In that situation, would you lynch in the games you were scum in and refrain in the game you were town? I know this can get into WIFOM territory in the blink of an eye, but it seems to me that the

better

play is to lynch in a game you are town. It makes you look more reasonable in the other games. I think TCS would rather take a lot of heat in this thread for a speed hammer and avoid it in threads were he is scum. So your whole point is not what I am saying (do bad things and BT will forgive you!); I am saying that his play in this thread makes more sense to me as cover for the other threads than it does as opportunistic scum who was willing to make a huge gamble. The fact that he is defending an innocent only makes me lean further to that line of thought.

As for your last couple of points, well, enough with the charade. My vote WAS NOT the hammer vote. I am voting you not because you are attacking me, but because you continue to attack me while LYING about the events that occurred at the end of Day 1.

DoS:

I wasn't the lynch vote against Jack (see post #160 for fuller explanation).

BillyTwilight · Post Post #177 (isolation #14) » Mon May 28, 2007 4:00 am

chaotic_diablo wrote:I'm going to side with Billy on this. He has justification for his actions that make sense. The arguments that Billy voted a -1 is like a hammer given the threat of TCS is pretty much void given that Billy did explain consistency in TCS's actions in previous games. In fact, they are actually the same game.

I don't quite understand the MBL votes given the reasons are crap and I'm kind of suspicious of the people who actually followeed through with that sort of poor reasoning.

What reasons for voting MBL do you see as crap? My main problem with MBL is that he is constantly mischaracterizing the events at the end of day 1, not only in this game, but in the other two games as well. I think that is well worthy of a vote, especially since most people who have commented on it have agreed that my interpretation of events is the correct one.

Alko, can I get some feedback from you on post #166?

On a reread, I really don't like DoS's post #165. He is piling on without adding anything or committing a vote or the like. Minor scumtell.

FoS: DoS

.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #199 (isolation #15) » Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:54 am

I am still sticking with the vote against MBL, less because of TCS' claim and more because of the same reason I was voting him in the first place. In lieu of lynching MBL, I think DoS is the second best play for the day, mostly because of post #165.

As far as TCS' claim goes, I think its very odd. I really

don't

think that TCS is scum here, but I am getting a nagging feeling from the way that he claimed, seemed to realize he'd made a mistake, then quit posting for a while. Plus, the stuff about his PM saying something about "making sure you are correct" doesn't sit well with me; it seems a little... forced.

Alko, do you have any comment about my rebuttal post to your vote of me a couple of weeks ago?

BillyTwilight · Post Post #203 (isolation #16) » Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:28 am

Alko,

I am going to have to disagree with you on most of your points in this post. Everything your saying is hinging on my foreknowledge that TCS

would

hammer, and hammer very quickly in this scenario.

These are all valid reasons for voting somebody you don't want lynched, but the point I'm pushing is that your vote put Jack at lynch -1 with at least one player hungry to place the final vote on. These reasons you give for voting somebody are reasons to place votes that would either put heat on somebody or push them close to a lynch, but the vote you made actually helped bring about the lynch.

Well,

every

vote anyone places on someone will help bring about their lynch, but that's not the point. I maintain that I had no way of knowing if TCS' would actually go through with the lynch, and even if he did I had no way of knowing it would be so quick. I still feel like getting a claim from Jack was appropriate at the time, and he was in no hurry to claim at lynch -2. In retrospect, I suppose I could have threatened a vote and pointed out that if I voted for him TCS might hammer, but that's very contrived and dumbed down in my opinion, and looses its pushing power, because

no one could have known for sure that TCS would fulfill his promise.

I don't think that pushing somebody to the point of being lynched gives us no information. Every little thing gives us information, but
causing him to be lynched before we could get information from him
does take away information from the town. We did gain information from TCS, as you have pointed out. Also, it may be one of Glork's favorite tactics, but the tactics used for one player doesn't always work for any given player. It's one of Glork's favorites because it works for him and he knows how to use it very well.

Emphasis mine. Again, I will not take responsibility for the speed with which Jack was lynched. I think we did learn a lot about the game from this lynch, but probably not enough to balance out the loss of Jack's role. If you want to tell me that my play was bad, then I will accept that, but I refuse to accept that it was "scummy". If that's the case then TCS' lynch vote is an even worse play; I still don't see either vote as being scummy.

As for the "X-player vs. Y-player" argument, I never said that that was what was going on, it's just the most common example of a situation in mafia where a player doesn't prefer another player's lynch, but is okay with it. I didn't explicitly want Jack lynched immediately, but felt it was worth the risk of having him lynched to gain information about the various players in the game.

TCS has a guilty on MBL. His sanity is not known if he is a cop, and there is some discussion about him being a cop at all, considering Ancalagon was a cop as well. I tend to believe his claim; mostly because I felt he was town before he claimed and I feel like his claim was spur of the moment, something I don't typically believe TCS would do as scum, considering his play in Clue 2 and 3.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #209 (isolation #17) » Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:25 am

unvote

.

I want a claim from MBL and I want to weigh it against TCS' claim. Something still doesn't sit right with me here, but I am willing to re-vote MBL in the event that his answers are unsatisfactory.

it makes me wonder why TCS cop has such little faith in his own abilities that he chooses to kill himself rather than his confirmed guilty...

QFT

BillyTwilight · Post Post #212 (isolation #18) » Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:12 am

I

will

hammer, if we don't hear from him soon. I unvoted because I was afraid of a quickhammer by TCS. Since MBL hasn't bothered to defend himself I am getting itchy fingers. Post defense please MBL.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #215 (isolation #19) » Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:37 pm

HMM. Somehow I miscounted the votes against MBL. MBL's been active in another game I am in with him. He posted on Sunday in Clue 2. He has had a threat of lynch against him ever since early Saturday. He posted 5 or 6 times this afternoon in Mafia 64. He's purposely not defending himself.

Vote: MBL

BillyTwilight · Post Post #232 (isolation #20) » Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:07 pm

Battle Mage wrote:hmm im not entirely sure where we are with this game.
However,
FOS: BillyT, CES
for acting suspiciously at the end of yesterday.

Please explain. I wanted to give MBL a chance to claim and defend without fear of TCS hammering him before MBL had a chance. I didn't completely believe that there would be two cops in the game. I thought he was at lynch -1, but because MoS went back and added a vote to MBL for someone who voted after the official vote count (it was you BM, posts 205 and 206). I counted the votes in the vote count post then added your's to that and that gave me enough for lynch -1, so I unvoted waiting for a claim. Realized my mistake a revoted him after that.

Still have a very large

FoS: DoS

for his post #165. Will reread and post before I got out of town tomorrow.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #233 (isolation #21) » Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:13 pm

Battle Mage wrote:hmm im not entirely sure where we are with this game.
However,
FOS: BillyT, CES
for acting suspiciously at the end of yesterday.

Please explain. I wanted to give MBL a chance to claim and defend without fear of TCS hammering him before MBL had a chance. I didn't completely believe that there would be two cops in the game. I thought he was at lynch -1, but because MoS went back and added a vote to MBL for someone who voted after the official vote count (it was you BM, posts 205 and 206). I counted the votes in the vote count post then added your's to that and that gave me enough for lynch -1, so I unvoted waiting for a claim. Realized my mistake a revoted him after that.

Still have a very large

FoS: DoS

for his post #165. Will reread and post before I got out of town tomorrow.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #245 (isolation #22) » Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:21 am

Well, it sucks that DoS is done for the day. He was chief suspect on my list. Will reread tonight hopefully and look at everyone else.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #247 (isolation #23) » Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:54 pm

Reason please?

BillyTwilight · Post Post #250 (isolation #24) » Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:41 pm

We are in day 3 in this game already Ecto. Plus, there are going to be different players alive in each game, so I really don't see how your suggestion is going to work. But you are right, we need to do something to get these games going.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #253 (isolation #25) » Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:05 am

Battle Mage wrote:your reaction yesterday to the lynch on scum. Same reason as i gave for your FoS on this page.

Please explain what was scummy about that reaction? You do realize that MBL was a SK, so I would have had no "scummy" reaction against it, if you mean something along the lines of trying to get a partner lynched. I hope you also realize that I was the driving force for getting MBL lynched in the first place. You are starting to look really bad to me right now, BM, please give me any

specific

reason why you think I should be the lynch for today.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #254 (isolation #26) » Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:07 am

EBWOP: ... the lines of trying to get a partner lynched.

should read

... the lines of trying to *not* get a partner lynched.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #257 (isolation #27) » Thu Jul 26, 2007 7:30 am

Waiting on BM....

BillyTwilight · Post Post #259 (isolation #28) » Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:11 pm

See my post #177 and Ecto's post #178. I found him suspicious to b epiling on without committing a vote, and setting up a situation where "one or the other is scum" with no real evidence to that.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #261 (isolation #29) » Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:37 am

WTF, BM? Do you pay attention at all? I thought MBL was at lynch -1. TCS was not voting for MBL yet. TCS claimed to have a guilty on MBL and he had already shown a willingness to quicklynch in this game. I wanted a claim before TCS could lynch. It's called standard play. Maybe you should learn it sometime.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #268 (isolation #30) » Sat Jul 28, 2007 6:42 am

Battle Mage wrote:
BillyTwilight wrote:WTF, BM? Do you pay attention at all? I thought MBL was at lynch -1. TCS was not voting for MBL yet. TCS claimed to have a guilty on MBL and he had already shown a willingness to quicklynch in this game. I wanted a claim before TCS could lynch. It's called standard play. Maybe you should learn it sometime.
lol chill out with the insults, and get a grip. what you did was fine, NORMALY, but normally, it isn't the scum who you are trying to derail the wagon of. Frankly i think you are of limited use to this game anyway, and as the only person i have a real scummy vibe from, you're today's lynch matey.

Wow, that's nice. I attempted to derail the wagon of a SK who (even if I was mafia-aligned) I would have had no way of knowing he was scum? Your whole argument is based on me trying to keep a scum alive, which is moot because MBL was SELF-ALIGNED. Why would you think I am of limited use to this game? You have no inside information about me, as far as I know, so you can't tell what my role is. Secondly, I was the player who pushed from early day 2 to get MBL lynched anyway, so at least I have been actively participating in going after scum.

Effectively you had nothing to do with MBL's lynch. You disputed TCS' cop claim from the moment that he claimed. You only voted MBL when it looked like MBL was prime for a lynch. You have been throwing suspicion my way and voting for me ever since the fiasco at the end of day 1, which is opportunistic and scummy. You have no case against me at all, yet you are trying to get people to lynch me on a lark, and in a game where we haven't managed to kill a mafia-aligned player yet, this is terrible play. We have 8 players, three of which are probably scum, which means the chance that we are in LyLO now is very good. And you want to lynch me because "I think you are of limited use to this game anyway"? Your play could just be typical bad Battle Mage play, but at this point I am beginning to think there is something more going here, since you refuse to back off a vote that has no merit and if followed through to its conclusion will probably end up with town losing. For now

FoS: BM

for attempting to pursue a dangerous lynch on crap logic and refusing to see the light of day when he's been taken outside in the middle of July.

MoS, Dos isn't allowed to post in this game "until further notice". I don't know if he's picked up a prod or whatnot, but just in case you forgot...

BillyTwilight · Post Post #270 (isolation #31) » Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:27 am

I think its a dangerous lynch because I think we are in LyLO. I am town. Therefore a lynch of me = town losing. Having a hard time with that concept, BM?

BillyTwilight · Post Post #272 (isolation #32) » Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:04 am

Please point out where I EVER asked for a no lynch. 3 is a guess. If 4 we would have lost already and if 2 it would mean scum would start at 2 out of 12, which is highly unlikely. Could be 2 scum groups of 2 each, but with an added serial killer, I find 5 out of 12 (40%) to be non-town alligned a bit much as well. I think three is the best guess, which means we are probably in LyLO.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #278 (isolation #33) » Sun Jul 29, 2007 4:25 pm

chaotic_diablo wrote:
BM wrote:hmm LyLo is a possibility i suppose, but i don't see why there are definitely going to be 3 scum, rather than 2. Still, if you think we are at LyLo, why aren't you campaigning for a No-Lynch?
Billy wouldn't campaign for one because he is sane.
you didn't ask to No Lynch. thats exactly my point. If you really believed we were in LyLo, you would be bright enough to realise that No-Lynching is the best policy in order to ensure a victory.
Ensure a victory? Please explain how. No lynching is more like stalling a loss

Thanks you, CD. No lynching is not a good option in LyLO. As for BM, I find it very suspicious that he wants to pursue a lynch of any player on such weak grounds as "you aren't very important to this game, anyway" when we could obviously be in a precarious situation.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #296 (isolation #34) » Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:02 pm

Reread the entire game, and I am really at a loss here. It's just too damn short to be in the position we are in. A lot of players have so few posts its hard to figure anything out about them; dahen for instance, has been almost completely silent, with only 8 posts.

I'd really like to think that BM is scum, but I can't help but believe that he's just had some illogical play. I am suspicious of alko, but it's mostly gut and I can't put a finger on it. There simply isn't enough information in the thread to get a clear picture about anyone in the game. I'm beginning to lean towards BM's way of thinking and to vote no lynch, but I hate no lynches on principal. I'm frustrated.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #308 (isolation #35) » Fri Aug 03, 2007 2:11 pm

Battle Mage wrote:ok, lets say we lynch today, and we hit scum. assuming the NK goes through, tomorrow we are left with:

4 town, 2 scum.
Surprise surprise, we are back at LyLo again. Again with an even number of players. And even if we managed to get lucky a second time consequtively:

3 town, 1 scum.
Still LyLo. Notice that the same is true if we No Lynch today, HOWEVER we have significantly better odds of hitting those 3 consequtive scum-lynches.

Now i don't mind us playing the day out if what you want is info. But lynching today is just plain dumb imo.

chaotic_diablo wrote:BM, Do I really have to fill in all the gaps for you?

At Lylo, there are three scum members. Since we have a total eight players, mislynching a town will make us lose since scum will NK during the night and end the game. A ratio of 1 to 1 with scum to town. They don't even have to go on to the next day. In addition, longer games means there are more opportunities to slip-up. Scum will want to lynch as quickly as possible.

Since scum want a lynch, then that automatically means town will want to do the exact opposite, right? Not entirely. What town wants is to find scum and prevent a stalemate. No lynching achieves neither of those goals as I explained in post 297. In fact, I stated that it puts us in a full circle. As a result, town will want a lynch as well.

I'm following my own advice to the letter. If no lynching doesn't help, then obviously the only other answer is lynching. But lynching will help scum win, right? There are complications.
Scum need to lynch town. They can't just go with any lynch so it's perfectly fine for town to want a lynch as well. Just as long as that lynch is scum.

I actually agree (gulp) with BM's logic here... but I see an even better reason to no lynch, and that's to get DoS back into the game. I'm assuming that since his enforced silence started at daybreak then it will end for tomorrow... and even if someone else is silenced at least will have what they said today and we can get DoS' take on the game tomorrow. That could be very important in who we decide to lynch.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #341 (isolation #36) » Thu Aug 09, 2007 7:30 am

BM's reactions to dahen's vote and his flipflopping on the LyLO issue is enough to

unaccuse, Accuse: BattleMage

.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #343 (isolation #37) » Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:51 am

I am going to be out of town for the next week, with no internet connection (going camping in the great wild, yay!). I'd prefer not to be replaced. This will be my last absence till probably Christmas. Posting this in all of my games.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #345 (isolation #38) » Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:18 pm

Nothing to see here.....

Where'd everybody go?

BillyTwilight · Post Post #391 (isolation #39) » Mon Sep 24, 2007 10:25 am

Wow, I should have checked in on this game a long time ago. I'd love hearing more of my scuminess from BM, but it'll have to wait till tomorrow if we last that long. Gonna reread Ectomancer in isolation and then vote.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #392 (isolation #40) » Mon Sep 24, 2007 10:38 am

Well, this kind of sucks. I think I much prefer a BM or chaotic lynch to either of the candidates above. But if we have to choose between the two, I think Ecto's play has been a little more off than HC's.

Accuse: Ectomancer

.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #395 (isolation #41) » Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:33 pm

I'm sucking up to BM! Really! Good grief, BM is the last person I'd suck up to. I want to

lynch

BM... but I'm not getting what I want. Oh well.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #404 (isolation #42) » Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:23 am

Please explain the last part, DoS.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #406 (isolation #43) » Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:58 pm

If you can explain it without claiming, be my guest. Otherwise, yeah, I'd like a claim.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #411 (isolation #44) » Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:06 pm

Have you ever seen a role where someone could impose a self-silence on themselves? Don't you think that if DoS were town and knew he would be silenced at some point in the game he would (or should) have let us know what was going to happen so we wouldn't lynch him on the day he was quiet? It's not that we were *likely* to do something like that, but it's rather important information for the town, and he never mentioned anything about it the first two days of the game.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #430 (isolation #45) » Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:57 pm

Prod received as well. I am gonna try to get back into these Clue games. Basically slacked for the better part of the last 3 weeks.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #448 (isolation #46) » Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:34 pm

HC,

Interested in how you got this.

I am Mr. Green, a government worker whose being blackmailed by Mr. Body, etc. I'm vanilla town. And I'm gay.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #473 (isolation #47) » Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:36 am

BM, what "evidence" are you talking about? I don't see anything in his analysis of alko's play that is very damning.

Alko, weren't you the cook in Clue 2? Please elaborate. It's one thing to pull a gamblers fallacy on if you are scum or not in multiple games, but to draw the same name in two of the Clue games? Especially when all of the characters are not in all of the different games, and considering how the cook is not a name that really goes with the other claims in this game so far... It's a 1 in a ridiculously-large-number chance that you would be the cook in two of the three Clue games. I'm willing (for the moment) to believe you've gotten a couple of your roles confused. However, I would like you to elaborate on your claim here.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #486 (isolation #48) » Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:23 pm

al_kohaulec wrote:
BillyTwilight wrote:BM, what "evidence" are you talking about? I don't see anything in his analysis of alko's play that is very damning.

Alko, weren't you the cook in Clue 2? Please elaborate. It's one thing to pull a gamblers fallacy on if you are scum or not in multiple games, but to draw the same name in two of the Clue games? Especially when all of the characters are not in all of the different games, and considering how the cook is not a name that really goes with the other claims in this game so far... It's a 1 in a ridiculously-large-number chance that you would be the cook in two of the three Clue games. I'm willing (for the moment) to believe you've gotten a couple of your roles confused. However, I would like you to elaborate on your claim here.
Yes, it should even say that in the opening post. And I'm a little confused by something you say in the beginning. The gambler's fallacy part. IIRC, it was TCS who tried to pull that argument, but it sounds like here you're trying to attribute it to me.

And I don't see how you can claim any name doesn't fit in with the other roles when every role after the 6 main characters are equally valid contenders.

But I do agree Yvette is the most likely the last scum, and I can't imagine one of the six main characters not being in the game, so that would only leave me and Haschel, and I've been distrusting of Haschel for his play and his claim so

Vote: Haschel

Whoa, I am really confused here. Alko, you were the Cook in Clue 2, correct? I wasn't attributing a gambler's fallacy to anyone yet, except possibly myself. I was saying that I find the probability of you being randomly assigned the Cook in both Clue 1 and Clue 2 seems extremely large to me. You can call that a gambler's fallacy if you want, but considering not all of the roles have been in every game and therefore we can't assume that there even is a cook in Clue 1, the chances of you being the Cook in both games just seems so small that you would have to do some serious convincing to make me believe it.

I assumed when you claimed cook that you were confusing Clue 1 and Clue 2. Please clarify; I want a definitive statement saying, "I am the Cook in both Clue 1 and 2." I know you were the Cook in Clue 2 (your dead and revealed) but please just make this statement so I can be sure that there is no confusing of the games going on here.

Until there is clarification on this I don't want to proceed in a lynchmob forming against Alko. We can't afford a lynch in this game based on what might be confusing which game is which.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #500 (isolation #49) » Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:17 pm

I'm down. Not buying the cook claim.

Accuse: Alko

BillyTwilight · Post Post #515 (isolation #50) » Fri Dec 07, 2007 12:19 pm

yay! I didn't think there was any way alko was the cook in 2 of the clue game.

Lynch FTW.

BillyTwilight · Post Post #518 (isolation #51) » Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:32 pm

Well, yes and no.... this might be where statistics come back to bite me in the ass, but here is how I look at it.

Assuming that The Cook is known to be in every game, there is a 1/12 chance that a player might draw that character for a given game. Simplifying to only 2 games, that's a (1/12)^2 chance that a given player would draw that character in both games = 1/144.

Now, you are completely correct that in each game he still has a 1/12 chance of being the Cook, independent of the other games. Being or not being the Cook in one game has no "real" affect on his draw in the other game... mathematically speaking. However, it remains that this player would only have a 1/144 chance of being the cook in both games... those are odds I would bet against

before

it was revealed that he was the Cook in one of the games, and therefore they are odds that I

personally

would bet against even

after

it was revealed that he was the Cook in one of those games, when the mathematical odds become much larger that he is in fact the Cook in both games.

What it really came down to though was that I couldn't even be sure the Cook was in all the games. Given that even had I known the Cook was in all the games there still was less than a 10% chance that he would be the Cook in any given game, compounded by the fact that he already was the Cook in another game... well, I felt pretty safe in hammering him, even though I knew it could end up being the wrong decision.

Mathematically unsound though it might be, and as I said in the thread a Gambler's Fallacy to boot, it's one I'm willing to take, and one I feel will lynch correctly more often than not.