Insane Cop Posse: a ww minigame

[BRickAstley]

Lol! Seriously uberfish?

I got Matt scanned as town. Though, that's kinda a well duh right now. :P

[uberfish]

Tasunke:

Brick is clearly scum, for the reasons I already pointed out on day 1: contradicting himself and making up forced reasoning to "suspect" people. Further, he was trying to look pro-town by talking about how we should do traditional scumhunting, but when I then did some legitimate scum hunting on Brick himself, he majorly overreacted and threw a vote on me that was pretty much OMGUS.

Also I scanned him as guilty, making me specifically the sane cop, although I'm not sure whether it's possible to prove anything from that.

[BRickAstley]

Brick is clearly scum, for the reasons I already pointed out on day 1: contradicting himself and making up forced reasoning to "suspect" people. Further, he was trying to look pro-town by talking about how we should do traditional scumhunting, but when I then did some legitimate scum hunting on Brick himself, he majorly overreacted and threw a vote on me that was pretty much OMGUS.

Contradiction: I explained that somewhat already. I wrote that first part as my initial response, and then scoured the rest of the thread looking for anything that I could find on people. The second part was written and re-written multiple times, and I had a slightly different view later on, as explained here:

My current opinion is that the process of figuring is mostly good, but Matt's attempts in particular do seem rather tryhard and more confusing compared to the rest.

Making up reasoning & scumhunting: These are connected, and quite wrong. This claim has its roots in you asking me about what I thought of you and Q:

Brick, what's your view on Q and myself?

So, I gave an answer. After I give an answer, you accuse me of trying to make up an answer and just following you on a Q read. I then got mad, because it felt like you A) led me into this accusation, just because I responded to your question, and B) Had done so in a way that no matter how I answered, you have a good "case" on me. SO yes, I responded in anger, but I did not just vote you out of spite, but because I felt like you were trying to throw a case on me., and set me up as your easy and securable mislynch for Day 2.


Speaking of which, that's why I now think the night kill also shows that it was uberfish.
Alive at night was:
uber
BRick
tas
matt.

Now, the obvious wolf move, i would think, would be to kill tasunke. So, why was Matt killed instead? Well, if Uber is scum, it makes some sense: He's been doing his best to sound like a helpful villager, and tasunke is a nice confirmed villager, and I'm the person with emotion, so naturally I'm the scum let's kill him and game over village win yaaaaaay. It all seems perfectly orchestrated to pin me as a wolf and net Uber the win, no hassle, no questions asked.

So tasunke, I'm asking you to not just slip and go the easy way, but to look and see that Uber's been pulling the strings on us.

Also tasunke, what was your scan result from last night? That might help us put together the alignment puzzle better.

[uberfish]

LOL trying to pin the Matt kill on me brick? You killed matt because matt and myself were likely to vote together against you today, better to take your chances with Tasunke the complete unknown.

Brick, there are good answers to questions and bad answers, and yours was bad. I even told you what a good answer would have been. Questioning people, and voting them if I think their answer is suspicious, is a standard scum hunting technique of mine, go read any past ww game, so "oh you'd have just interpreted anything I said as scummy!" is nonsense.

[Tasunke]

Brick

[BRickAstley]

LOL trying to pin the Matt kill on me brick? You killed matt because matt and myself were likely to vote together against you today, better to take your chances with Tasunke the complete unknown.

Brick, there are good answers to questions and bad answers, and yours was bad. I even told you what a good answer would have been. Questioning people, and voting them if I think their answer is suspicious, is a standard scum hunting technique of mine, go read any past ww game, so "oh you'd have just interpreted anything I said as scummy!" is nonsense.

You think I would be that scared of Matt? No, if I were wolf, I would have killed you, because you're the best scum hunter in this game and not having you to deal with would make this infinitely easier. Why in the world would I put myself in THIS BIG of a hole and be this obvious of a lynch?

And my answer to your questioning is what I honestly thought. I don't understand why me thinking something that Matt did looked somewhat scummy, is irrevocable guilt just because you don't agree with my assessment. I don't think that will go anywhere though, because no matter what I say you'll find some excellent point of reasoning that will make me look the fool no matter what I say, since you are a better wordsmith than I am.

Please rethink tasunke, and what was your result?

[BRickAstley]

Also uber if youre gonna pull look at my past play, both of the last games you ran, i was emotional and stumbling in my scum hunting, both when I was right (tasunke in last game) and when I was wrong (novice in both games), and I was slightly more level headed in my big scum game of 15, so if you wanna play it that way, then I should at least get some credit there.

[uberfish]

Also uber if youre gonna pull look at my past play, both of the last games you ran, i was emotional and stumbling in my scum hunting, both when I was right (tasunke in last game) and when I was wrong (novice in both games), and I was slightly more level headed in my big scum game of 15, so if you wanna play it that way, then I should at least get some credit there.

That's a straw man argument... You being emotional isn't relevant to whether you're scummy or not, and I didn't bring it up.

And btw "I wouldn't have killed this guy as scum" isn't a meaningful defence either because that is just WIFOM. And especially not in a 3 player endgame. I already did the scumhunting on you yesterday, so if you killed me you'd just give my arguments against you more credibility after I flipped town.

[uberfish]

To summarize for the benefit of the lurkers.

- Brick contradicted himself in post #32 by saying that Matt was both helpful and unhelpful. This was suspicious so I questioned him about his reads.

- Brick then clarified that he was voting Matt for being confusing, based possibly on my earlier post where I had stated that I was confused about the setup. This was a bad reason to be voting Matt since being confusing isn't a scum tell unless Matt was trying to confuse people *on purpose* which wasn't the case.

- Brick follows a general thread that Q is scummy. This is again odd because Brick is voting Matt, and the reason Q was considered scummy was because he didn't provide much reasoning for voting Matt. And also brick is now anti-Matt for doing too much analysis and anti-Q for doing too little.

- Brick flips out and attacks me after I vote him, on the hypothetical basis that "Uberfish was going to attack me no matter what I answered." Despite me having been a town read previously. (and, you know, the fact that if you've contradicted yourself as town you know you're going to be questioned - that's how the game works)

- Brick's defence today consists of "I'd have night killed someone else if I was scum" and the Strong Player Paranoia Gambit.

In summary: Brick accused matt of being tryhard. Brick's actually the one being tryhard and coming up with bad reasons to suspect people.

[Tasunke]

Okay, full disclosure: due to various factors I ended up not making a scan last night.

1. assuming I'd die

2. distracted by other factors

Therefore, I'll have to go by coin toss/ wolf tells alone.

Or do I?

Yes, I would have much more information right now if I *did* do a scan ... but I do still have some information to go on.

1) I can only be sane if Matt is insane. Brick got two innocent reads, and Uber got innocent/scum. only 20-25% chance that Matt is insane.

if Matt!= insane, Either Uber is sane, Brick is wolf, and Matt is Naive, or Uber is wolf, Brick is sane, and Matt is Naiive. (Brick can only be naiive if Matt is insane. Which would also force me into sanity)

Of course I would like to consider myself insane ... but there is also the possibility that I am paranoid. And, of course, I could also be sane assuming Brick= naiive and Matt = insane.

I will consider my sanity as an outlier, and therefore exclude it for now.

therefore, under that assumption, I can only be Paranoid/Insane, and Matt can only be Naiive. Well, even if I wasn't making assumptions, there is a 75% chance that this is the case anyways.

1 Brick= Naive, Uber= scum, Tas = sane. 2 Brick= Sane, Uber = Scum, Brick = Sane, 3 Tas = Paranoid, Uber = sane, Brick = scum, 4 Tas = Insane, Uber = sane, Brick = scum, Tas = paranoid.

See ... only a 25% chance that I am sane and that Matt is insane. Same odds as N1 actually, which makes total probability of his insanity to be 1/4*1/4 or 1/16.

(well, I suppose there is a chance that it wouldn't affect the probability ... but then, either statistics or myself would have to be sane for that to occur )

Unfortunately ... this looks like between Brick and Uber, at least mathematically, it is still somewhat close to 50%