Open 28 - Quack Mafia. OVER! But who won? before 466

curiouskarmadog · Post Post #625 (ISO) » Sun Sep 30, 2007 11:50 am

JDodge wrote:IF INDY/TAR IS SCUM (HE IS), I WOULD NOT HAVE KILLED HIM, MAKING THE EXERCISE POINTLESS.

I DID NOT WANT TO KILL THE MOST PRO-TOWN PERSON IF I WAS A QUACK. DUMBASS.

You're grasping at fucking straws, and the retardedness of it is really pissing me off.

first of all, no point in name calling..seriously.

next, AGAIN explain what this meant..I asked you why you did not "protect" Tar..you stated.

JDodge wrote:I can't prove whether or not I'm a quack by protecting scum

Sounds like you want to prove if you are a quack or not. How exactly do you plan on doing it? Why protect at all? Caught you in a lie...

more insults to come?

JDodge · Post Post #626 (ISO) » Sun Sep 30, 2007 11:52 am

curiouskarmadog wrote:ohhh, look, a vote AND he knows who the 3 scum are. I guess he no longer feels a no lynch is good..more backpedalling.

Y'assoume I wanted a nou lynch in the first place. I didnout. 'Twas a gambit it was. And payed ouff it has.

CKD wrote:so the only people who do want a lynch today is scum? LOL I want to lynch scum today AND tomorrow....FOR THE FOURTH TIME, how does no lynching today help us elminate scum? It only eliminates a a townie tonight, and we will bein the exact same place tomorrow.

You want an easy lynch on an easy target. Big difference.

CKD wrote:Oh, and again, please, what is Tar's case? How has he acted..seems he agrees with you today..

Also, anybody wonder why Tar has not questioned Jdodge's case against him once?..Also, anybody wonder why Tar thinks a no-lynch is a good idea?
these are 2 of our scum.

Yes, agreement = scumpartners, hence why I think Tar is scum.

O WAIT

JDodge · Post Post #627 (ISO) » Sun Sep 30, 2007 11:54 am

curiouskarmadog wrote:first of all, no point in name calling..seriously.

next, AGAIN explain what this meant..I asked you why you did not "protect" Tar..you stated.

No point in whining..seriously.

CKD wrote:Sounds like you want to prove if you are a quack or not. How exactly do you plan on doing it? Why protect at all? Caught you in a lie...

more insults to come?

How is that a lie? Isn't the object of the town night game figuring out your role?

curiouskarmadog · Post Post #628 (ISO) » Sun Sep 30, 2007 12:12 pm

JDodge wrote:
CKD wrote:so the only people who do want a lynch today is scum? LOL I want to lynch scum today AND tomorrow....FOR THE FOURTH TIME, how does no lynching today help us elminate scum? It only eliminates a a townie tonight, and we will bein the exact same place tomorrow.
You want an easy lynch on an easy target. Big difference.

so now you are an easy target? what makes you an easy target? the fact that you tired to pushed a idea that you KNEW to be a anti-town tactic? I placed one vote on you and asked you some questions..hardly a lynch.

JDodge wrote:
CKD wrote:Oh, and again, please, what is Tar's case? How has he acted..seems he agrees with you today..

Also, anybody wonder why Tar has not questioned Jdodge's case against him once?..Also, anybody wonder why Tar thinks a no-lynch is a good idea?
these are 2 of our scum.
Yes, agreement = scumpartners, hence why I think Tar is scum.

You forgot you were pushing a Tar lynching yesterday to...you forgot you stated you didnt target Tar last night because you thought he was scum. I am asking what that case was yesterday..or have you forgotten that already too? You cant use Tar's actions today to explain your case yesterday..another lie.

JDodge wrote:
curiouskarmadog wrote:first of all, no point in name calling..seriously.

next, AGAIN explain what this meant..I asked you why you did not "protect" Tar..you stated.
No point in whining..seriously.

again, you dont answer the question. How do you plan on figuring out your role? You state you did not portect Tar because you thought he was scum (still no Day 1 case)...you say you did not protect the most protwon person, because you might be a quack...

you lied when you said you did not protect Tar because you wanted to prove if you are a quack or not...then call me a "dumbass" when I asked you why you didnt target the most protwon person (because you have already stated you wanted to prove your role). lies.

you already know your alignment.

JDodge · Post Post #629 (ISO) » Sun Sep 30, 2007 12:14 pm

WHY DID YOU WANT ME, A POTENTIAL QUACK, TO GO AFTER THE MOST PRO-TOWN PERSON? WHY DO YOU WANT THEM DEAD?

curiouskarmadog · Post Post #630 (ISO) » Sun Sep 30, 2007 12:16 pm

lol, I didnt say that..please reread my post and quit redirecting..

and answer my questions

JDodge · Post Post #631 (ISO) » Sun Sep 30, 2007 12:18 pm

curiouskarmadog wrote:lol, I didnt say that..please reread my post and quit redirecting..

and answer my questions

Yes, you did. You're calling me a liar because I didn't target the most pro-town person.

Stop ignoring my other posts.

Aimee · Post Post #632 (ISO) » Sun Sep 30, 2007 11:21 pm

Vote Count!

JDodge (2) -- somestrangeflea, curiouskarmadog
somestrangeflea (1) -- Tarhalindur
curiouskarmadog (1) -- JDodge

Not Voting (4) -- JordanA24, Dasquian, mneme, Stewie

Need 5 to lynch.

curiouskarmadog · Post Post #633 (ISO) » Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:55 am

JDodge wrote:
curiouskarmadog wrote:lol, I didnt say that..please reread my post and quit redirecting..

and answer my questions
Yes, you did. You're calling me a liar because I didn't target the most pro-town person.

Stop ignoring my other posts.

Ok I am going to bold my questions so you cant keep avoiding them..many of these questions you ahve ignored or avoided 2-3 times...and they are starting to pile up..so if you can just reply to this post and answer the questions..I will even number them to make it easier for you to reply...

1.) Can you please quote where I said I wanted you to "protect" the most town player. I simply asked you why you didnt, if you want to find out if you are a quack or not.

2.) You claim that I am targeting you because you are an "easy target". Why are you an easy target? Is it because you pushed an game tactic that you know is Anti-town?

3.) When I asked why you did not "protect" Tar last night, you said you could not prove you were a quack, by targeting scum. When I asked you why you thought Tar was scum, you said because he was agreeing with you today. You avoided the question. That does not explain why you thought he was scummy yesterday or why you did not "protect" him last night. I am asking what that case was yesterday..or have you forgotten that already too? You cant use Tar's actions today to explain your case yesterday..Why did you feel that Tar was scum yesterday?

4.) You stated you wanted to prove if you are a quack or not. You claim you did not target Tar, because he was scum..and you are afraid to target the most protown (in your opinion) because you might kill them. Since proving you are a quack is so important..how do plan on doing that with your protections? Furthermore, if no one "protects" tonight, how do you plan on proving you are a quack?

5.) please explain why only scum would want a lynch today. Why wouldnt town want to lynch scum today?

6.) How does no lynching help the town eliminate scum?

7.) if you want a no lynch, why are you voting for me?

8.) you last most states, I am ignore your post, please provide me whatever you think I am ignoring of avoiding..Have you asked me a question?

8.) and finally, why do you keep avoiding my questions for the past 2 pages?

I look forward to your answers.

curiouskarmadog · Post Post #634 (ISO) » Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:30 am

question 8 is suppse to read

your last post states, I am ignoring your posts, please provide me whatever you think I am ignoring or avoiding (and post number)...have you asked me any questions?

mneme · Post Post #635 (ISO) » Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:41 am

As I mentioned (iirc) in an earlier post, this is a sucker bet game -- quacks have eliminated more town than scum have (obviously). We'd probably have much better odds had everyone either agreed to protect nobody, or to randomly choose between one of two people, or otherwise actually played more systematically.

So.. JDodge's claims about "no lynch" were entirely clear; we're in endgame with even numbers, so if we choose to go vanilla or mostly vanilla (with anyone who can't be close to absolutely sure they are a doctor -- and that's -probably- everyone, factoring in dead-person protects and scum kills, but someone might be able to get a high probablity of self-doctorness, since they can rule out the "or the targetter is lying" cases we have to include --refraining from a -- refraining from protecting), "No Lynch" is correct.

If one assumes vanilla play, the probability of the town winning without a no-lynch is 3/8*2/6*1/4 = 1/32.

If we no-lynch, the scum will probably kill a townie for us (and if that stalemates, we can start doing night gambits with maybe-doctors which will probably either give us enough info to be useful or reduce us to the good numbers, so it's all good), and we can play vanilla to try to lynch three times in a row...at 3/7*2/5*1/3 = 2/35. In other words, we almost double our chances of winning if we no-lynch today.

Also, protecting scummy players is correct; the town doesn't win by figuring out the setup. we win by not killing too many townies and figuring out who the scum are.

mneme · Post Post #636 (ISO) » Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:42 am

(protecting scummy players if you think you're a likely quack).

curiouskarmadog · Post Post #637 (ISO) » Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:50 am

interesting..seems like you answer one of jdodge's questions for him..you have any other input as to jdodge?

not buying the no lynch today/no night protections tonight bit..that will only set up Day 2.5..I think I know who at least 2 of the scum are...have you not read any of Jdodge's defenses...they are full of lies, misrepresentations, crap circle logic, but mostly avoiding questions...none of this has sent off any of your alarms?

Dasquian · Post Post #638 (ISO) » Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:51 am

OK, I'm all caught up and, wow, is this game ever a freakin' mess. So here's what I think we can know for sure (sorry for repeating known info):

- We will never know if Fernando was a Quack or Doctor

- Dral/Ms Piggy/d3sisted was a Quack, and killed Fernando N0

- The mafia either targetted Fernando N0 or had it cancelled by a Doctor

- There are at most 2 Quacks left, possibly none

I'm not sure if much more can be read into the claims as the dead players could be any random combination of Quack/Doctor and mess up the conclusions. For example, I would've said that AmeliaLi/~N9V~/Vel-Rahn Koon was certainly a real Doctor, because she was the only one to protect JDodge on N0. However, she may have been a Quack but Fernando might have protected JDodge. Likewise, any of the single-protects from N1 could be matched to Hjallti or Vel-Rahn Koon

My current suspicion list looks like this:

CKD - claiming not to have done anything N0 seemed like a cop-out in a game where it's the sort of information scum can get caught up on. Old news to everyone else, new to me and still relevant. He also seemed to go for d3sisted in a big way at the end of D1 - a mislynch is a mislynch.
JDodge - God only knows what he is playing at but a no lynch is

not

helpful at this point. We have no cops, no vigs, no nothing that can snag us a mafia except a lynch. If this is some incredible ploy to hoist out the mafia by their underoos then I don't see what it is; I'd like some answers and soon.
mneme, as Roach - replacing straight in and slapping an OMGUS 4th vote on d3sisted. Seriously, what the hell was this? Given he then thought d3sisted should role-claim, though, I'm inclined to think he just didn't have a clue.

It's worrying that the first two are at each others throats, with JDodge moving into ALL CAPS TERRITORY and curiouskarmadog preferring to

shout by putting everything in bold

... I'm reluctant to believe they're both scum, so another more targetted reread is in order before I slap down a vote anywhere. As for everyone else - no one leapt out as being consistently scummy, though as it seems that we had a nice big chunk in the latter half of day 1 where half the site played musical chairs with the various roles, it was hard to keep track. Mert/ssf seems to be pretty townish, I don't have much of a read on anyone else.

More later.

curiouskarmadog · Post Post #639 (ISO) » Tue Oct 02, 2007 12:41 pm

hey jdodge, this is going away, I see you posting everywhere else...

JDodge · Post Post #640 (ISO) » Tue Oct 02, 2007 12:56 pm

curiouskarmadog wrote:1.) Can you please quote where I said I wanted you to "protect" the most town player. I simply asked you why you didnt, if you want to find out if you are a quack or not.

curiouskarmadog wrote:so why not protect someone that you thought was the most protown?

The main point with that is that I was trying to see whether or not I am a quack, and if I were a quack I would likely kill said person.

curiouskarmadog wrote:2.) You claim that I am targeting you because you are an "easy target". Why are you an easy target? Is it because you pushed an game tactic that you know is Anti-town?

You assume that I actually thought a no-lynch was our best choice. I didn't. I wanted reactions.

curiouskarmadog wrote:3.) When I asked why you did not "protect" Tar last night, you said you could not prove you were a quack, by targeting scum. When I asked you why you thought Tar was scum, you said because he was agreeing with you today. You avoided the question. That does not explain why you thought he was scummy yesterday or why you did not "protect" him last night. I am asking what that case was yesterday..or have you forgotten that already too? You cant use Tar's actions today to explain your case yesterday..Why did you feel that Tar was scum yesterday?

For reactions obvobv. New game theory I'm developing.

curiouskarmadog wrote:4.) You stated you wanted to prove if you are a quack or not. You claim you did not target Tar, because he was scum..and you are afraid to target the most protown (in your opinion) because you might kill them. Since proving you are a quack is so important..how do plan on doing that with your protections? Furthermore, if no one "protects" tonight, how do you plan on proving you are a quack?

I don't plan on proving myself tonight.

curiouskarmadog wrote:5.) please explain why only scum would want a lynch today. Why wouldnt town want to lynch scum today?

Scum can win with a lynch today, town can't win immediately. If we lynch scum, nobody should protect. If we lynch town,

only people who are near-entirely sure they are not quacks

should protect.

CKD wrote:6.) How does no lynching help the town eliminate scum?

7.) if you want a no lynch, why are you voting for me?

Answered above

8.) you last most states, I am ignore your post, please provide me whatever you think I am ignoring of avoiding..Have you asked me a question?

You ignore my posts, not my questions.

8.) and finally, why do you keep avoiding my questions for the past 2 pages?

I look forward to your answers.

I don't like playing 20 questions.

curiouskarmadog · Post Post #641 (ISO) » Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:21 pm

JDodge wrote:
curiouskarmadog wrote:1.) Can you please quote where I said I wanted you to "protect" the most town player. I simply asked you why you didnt, if you want to find out if you are a quack or not.

curiouskarmadog wrote:so why not protect someone that you thought was the most protown?
The main point with that is that I was trying to see whether or not I am a quack, and if I were a quack I would likely kill said person.

So why did you say that I said I wanted you to target the most protown reason when it wasn’t true? And again, if you truly wanted to see if you were a quack, why did you not choose someone who you thought was the most pro town?

curiouskarmadog wrote:2.) You claim that I am targeting you because you are an "easy target". Why are you an easy target? Is it because you pushed an game tactic that you know is Anti-town?

You assume that I actually thought a no-lynch was our best choice. I didn't. I wanted reactions.[/quote]

(LOL) Nice back tracking..

JDodge wrote:
curiouskarmadog wrote:3.) When I asked why you did not "protect" Tar last night, you said you could not prove you were a quack, by targeting scum. When I asked you why you thought Tar was scum, you said because he was agreeing with you today. You avoided the question. That does not explain why you thought he was scummy yesterday or why you did not "protect" him last night. I am asking what that case was yesterday..or have you forgotten that already too? You cant use Tar's actions today to explain your case yesterday..Why did you feel that Tar was scum yesterday?
For reactions obvobv. New game theory I'm developing.

OMFG, please tell me someone else is reading this.

JDodge wrote:

You ignore my posts, not my questions.

Which posts?

JDodge wrote:

I don't like playing 20 questions.

You are ridiculous jdodge..granted I have not been on this site more than 4 months, but this is the most backtracking I have ever seen…

confirm my vote on Jdodge

JDodge · Post Post #642 (ISO) » Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:25 pm

I admit to lying about my true intentions regarding the no-lynch theory, and to not having a case on Tar D1.

But lynch all liars is a terrible meta anyways.

Aimee · Post Post #643 (ISO) » Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:55 pm

Remember, deadline is October 9. It is retractable, so if you increase the activity, I will remove it.

curiouskarmadog · Post Post #644 (ISO) » Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:52 am

well I think it is obvious who needs to go today...

mneme · Post Post #645 (ISO) » Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:42 am

cmk: I was interested in formulating a strategy, since it looks to me as if we're doing a great job killing ourselves, and despite JDodge's inherent scumminess, it's possible there was a point there.

But...lynch all liars is an -important- meme, and Dodge is clearly scum.

unvote
vote: JDodge

somestrangeflea · Post Post #646 (ISO) » Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:46 am

mneme wrote:But...lynch all liars is an -important- meme, and Dodge is clearly scum.

Meme? I'm not sure you quite get what a meme is...

...is a meme.

somestrangeflea · Post Post #647 (ISO) » Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:47 am

EDWOP: Actually, I can sort of see how it could be a meme, but nonetheless, "O RLY?" is fun...

Stewie · Post Post #648 (ISO) » Wed Oct 03, 2007 3:45 pm

I was expecting an explanation as to why no lynching would be a good idea. "I didn't really mean it" is not a good explanation, so

vote: jdodge

Dasquian · Post Post #649 (ISO) » Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:20 pm

Sorry, but JDodge is just acting way to scummy. He's promising marvellous mafia-finding tricks with his no-lynch leader, and not backing that up with anything, and is refusing to play ball. I did a reread and it seems my main gripe against ckd was him claiming not to have targetted anyone night 1, which was pretty weak by all accounts - and in recent pages he's been trying to have a proper discussion with JDodge which has just been shot down all over the shop.

Vote JDodge