WW 19 Game Thread - Mobster Mayhem - GAME OVER

[zakalwe]

Q, are you really accusing Azza of lurking? This is Azza, remember. He just doesn't post that much. It's like when I was all upset that nobody was pushing Sareln to post more -- well, not everybody is going to post at the same rates you want them to, and that doesn't mean that

Azza, I'm never on for deadlines -- I usually am at work, but today's a Saturday and instead I was out getting lunch with my roommate.

Vig or wolves mind shooting me? Dinner went shitty tonight. Or rather, the food was good - but the post dinner went shitty. Fucked that up, fucked up the lynch today, just off me -- that's how the village finally won last time anyway, with me gone.

You want to be vig shot?

Unrelated - I wish you hadn't answered that question for Waterbat, Novice.

Serdoa, you're being too confrontational. If you want us to listen, ease up a bit. You're not the only one who is entitled to an opinion.

[Mattimeo]

Why is this thread 58 pages long? Scum please kill me so I don't have to read all this.

^

One of the things though... the Vig shot represents a way to remove the fool card. We can vote for somebody to "lynch", then throw them the fool card on the same night. Then the item will be removed from the game with them without having to eat any mislynches.

Except that vig shot occurs before item passing...

Fairly. Certain I won't get vig killed

Nice claim you have there.

Also we are not touching upon the people who barley posted anything this day. Ex Mattie... Isnt that wierd?

Mattie

Ryan

All these complicated "what novice might do with the card if he's scum" - surely he gets the scum actually in possession of the card to pass it to a town, and claims to have done it himself. Everything else just seems way too much of a scum breadcrumb trail when we eventually crack it. We can still waste an ouija reading on him tonight (before both lockpick and passing) if we really want to confirm that he's actually not a complete idiot and truthfully claiming possession while actually being scum.

[Lewwyn]

The scrapper link:

http://www.cassidyweb.com/ww19/

[Lewwyn]

I've been reading today thinking about the current dynamics, but honestly without votes and the impetus of them I can't tell who's blustering and who believes what they're saying. I would do a list of who I think is suspicious, but I'd rather just wait and vote on it later.

I'm just asking that please, please continue to vote and actually discuss during Day 2 during the earlier part of the day and not all in the last 6 hours when I'm asleep. HALF the posts from Day 1 occurred in the last 6 hours while I was asleep. I think we should consider voting for people who do not vote early on in the day. The earlier people vote the sooner we see people's intentions. Force people to make a stand early in the day so we can actually have discussions before the twilight...

[Ryan]

No, he was not. He was advocating that we lynch the one with the card IF there is no one better showing up.

Rowain wanted to get rid of the card in a way that focused on the card as the issue. He then changed to wanting to lynch me. That is unrelated. That doesn't mean his initial stance wasn't still based primarily on the existence of the card.

The idea I'm talking about is not asking for someone to be lynched on the basis of the card. It is a proposal to get rid of the card as the result of a lynch. It is an exact inversion of what Rowain was discussing.

I don't see the difference to what Rowain said and it feels like you are twisting his words. Firstly the lynch was going to remove Novice a suspect of being scum plus the card. Which what you were saying since in a same way you are relaying on the fact that wolves aren't influencing the votes and that town lynch. Secondly you mentioned in a very early post that you prefer Vigi not shooting so it doesn't fall into scum hands why the change of heart ? Thirdly I am still waiting for you to respond to the argument that Serdoa and Rowain made against you and uberfish that you both ignored responding to . I cannot link it right but it disproved the reason of you and fishes vote against Rowain . You didn't respond to that but choose to switch your point of view on the Vigi shot. All of these are increasing the level I was doubting you pretty heavily .

[Ryan]

@Waterbat You have posted barley at all and provided close to now explanation for your votes or anything. At first you said this :"lynching novice seems to have the least net downside to it (absent other useful data)." and then your vote was finally set to "this lso seemed like something was off there with Zakalwe its thin" I dont understand that change vote or the reason for that change in fact I barley got anything from your posts except ideas already mentioned just to escape a convorsation. Looking at your posts its about scrapper and thats it. You provided zero information and the stuff you wrote is basically filler in my eyes.

@mattie and bigger , Well I think we shouldnt let them off for this, but meh life can get you busy. and Mattie :P

@ Selrahc this is the quote I wanted to link earlier :

Qgqqqqq Wrote: Sorry x-post with 375.
I'm explaining my reasoning.
Yes I do find Rowain suspicious but its no because I don't agree with him, its because of the way he is driveing his train - not for the sake of catching wolves but a veritable policy lynch where he basically says "we have to lose a villager, why not this one."


Yeah, that argument was brought now so often, but I still wait for someone to show me when Rowain actually stated that. Oh wait, pindicator found it:

(Today 13:13)pindicator Wrote:

(Today 03:44)Rowain Wrote: I'm still the opinion that it better to lynch a villager with the card than to lynch a villager without it.
So who has a good enough chance to be scum to outweight the risk of lynching a villager? Our back and forth has drawn too much talk so far (which makes it in itself already a good move for scum) but I think there are some names worth a closer inspection.


Well, probably good you called me out on that, because i didn't read this thoroughly the first time. I took the bolded bit and glossed over the rest, so boo on that example. But this later one is the one i had in mind:

(Today 05:23)Rowain Wrote: Yes getting rid of the card trumps lynching a random villager. Are you of different opinion? You rather want the card in play and lynch a villager?


So it could just be a lazy re-writing of the first point. Enough that i don't think that is his guilt all in one.


Serdoa : "Well, so we agree that he never stated what 4 people provide as reason to vote for him? Thats great. If now only those people, like Qgqqqq, would actually start to reread themselves instead of simply latching onto a wagon because it is so much easier that would be great.

Btw: Thanks pindi, I was getting unsure myself now what Rowain had actually written, but I was certain that I would remember if he actually really had stated that we have to lynch a villager anyway. Of course, one can construe the posts you quoted above as that, but I'd consider that ill-intent, because it seems obvious that is was meant differently, as you point out. I also understand that you have other reasons which let you lean more to him than to Selrahc. Not sure I agree with them, but at least it feels honest and not something you make up just to vote for him as I get the feel with some of the others.

Also, I agree with you that we should not put too much trust in the seer-scans. Thats a good stance to take. Hopefully that will be kept as soon as the first screams that he found a wolf. "

Ya i am waiting for the response.

[Mattimeo]

Also, I agree with you that we should not put too much trust in the seer-scans. Thats a good stance to take. Hopefully that will be kept as soon as the first screams that he found a wolf. "

What? A guilty read is 100% garunteed to be guilty, and the only way to get an incorrect town read is if both the person scanned and novice are scum. And you're saying we can't put any trust in that?

Also, if you're insisting on cropping random letters from the middle of my name for no reason, at least do the right thing and indicate such with an apostrophe.

[Ryan]

i am sorry. Some english names are hard for me to remmber or pronounce. I wont type it like that again.

[Selrahc]

Except that vig shot occurs before item passing...

Hmm? So if somebody passes an item to somebody who dies, then the item pass fails?

I wasn't taking that rule as meaning a kill would make an item pass fail. Just being meant to stop people from using an item in the same night they get it. You might be right though.

That would be.. hmm. If somebody is killed on the same night they pass an item, then they don't get to pass it and it dies with them? But then also, people can pass items on without fear of losing them because of the passee being dead. I guess it has positives and negatives.

It would scupper that aspect of the plan though.

Ya i am waiting for the response.

If that is addressed to me, I would like you to parse your question a little better.

[Serdoa]

Also, I agree with you that we should not put too much trust in the seer-scans. Thats a good stance to take. Hopefully that will be kept as soon as the first screams that he found a wolf. "

What? A guilty read is 100% garunteed to be guilty, and the only way to get an incorrect town read is if both the person scanned and novice are scum. And you're saying we can't put any trust in that?

Also, if you're insisting on cropping random letters from the middle of my name for no reason, at least do the right thing and indicate such with an apostrophe.

Mattimeo, you realize that the upper part is a quote from me, which Ryan just re-quoted, yes?

Also, a guilty read is not 100% guaranteed to be guilty. If novice is village and would be scanned, he would show up guilty, despite him being village. If he is scum but doesn't have the card he would also show up guilty. So even in the case of a guilty-result there would be room for debate. Though I assume you meant for players besides novice. What would be correct.

Unfortunately, if he is scum, but another scum has the card, you have only a 2/15 chance to actually get a guilty-result with the board. 13.3% - most of the time, you will get an innocent read. And because you do not know if novice is scum or village and therefore also not if another scum has the card, your innocent reads are worthless and maybe even dangerous because you'd give a potential wolf a free pass due to a wrong read. Yes, of course, if you get a innocent read, in theory most of the time the player is indeed innocent. But you don't know when this is not the case and therefore every read can potentiall be wrong and therefore you can't use them. Not sure how often that needs to be explained, imo it is not rocket-science.