WW33 - Walking Dead [GAME THREAD]

[Catwalk]

zakalwe, I think you're grasping for straws now. Jabbz may well be a serial killer, but if we lynch the serial killer we die tonight and the bandits win. I'm going to take my chances that there isn't a serial killer, and in the event there is one we can do little other than pray anyway. Jabbz is an exceedingly likely SK candidate if there is a SK, but that has little relevance. Do you agree with my analyses above?

[Hashoosh]

So I take it you haven't changed your mind on me, Jabbz?

If catwalk is to be believed, then my set-up calculations will have to go as follows:

CCDDV X X

CCDDVVV

0 Ts makes some sense, that would mean we had two vigs shoot on n1 (jabbz and qgq), then qgq again on n2. Roles are:

1msD + 1sD + 1sV + 1msV + 1msC + 3 scum = 8

Giving 5 vanilla villagers. If that's the set up, Zak and Mattimeo need be hanged.

This is based off of two assumptions: Catwalk's not full of shit, which is very hard to tell. He's scanned two people who have also died before he could act on the scans. He bungled his role reveal, but I'm not sure if that's scummy or townie




The second is no serial killer. With the knowledge of a 3 kill night, we know DDV to be true, which means a serial killer can only occur with a godfather on the 1T set up:

T DD V X X X

By the way, the likelihood of rolling 1 T out of 7? 1.5625%. Yeah.

Now, lets look at set ups were we do have the serial killer:

T DD V X X X

We need to have at least 5 vanilla town in here. That means, with the 4 scum, we have 4 town power roles.

The doctors and at least one vigilante means there's one other power role to fill with three letters to go. Not looking good for this. Variations where that's possible:

TDDVVVV

5 town, 1msD, 1sD, 2msV, 4 scum. 13. The fact that there should have been 4 kills a night, and that only one person has claimed msV while another has claimed 1sV puts this in the ground pretty fast. Certainly in the realm of possibility, but I just don't see why people would be posting what they are if it were true.

Anyother way of solving for TDDV X X X?

There's TDDDDVV. That's it. And no one else has claimed msD, and there are two vigilante claimants. Plus Catwalk. This really really doesn't fit with anything anyone who has every motivation of not lying has said.

In short, Occam's Razor.

Leaving us with:


CCDDVVV

Zak and Mattimeo are thus both lying, and they are the remaining bandits.
Catwalk is a multi shot cop
Qgqqqq is a multi Vigilante
Jabbz is a single vigilante (and a misguided one)
Hashoosh is a vanilla survivor.

So, Jabbz, please change your vote to Zak.

[Hashoosh]

I hope you guys stop, reread the threads, and realize that the only reason people are voting against Az is he defended me, and himself, wouldn't accept hollow warrant-less arguments against him, and now, doesn't want to admit what his role is, which for the record, no one else has done either. Rowaine has been pushing this thing since D1, and I think there is some serious maliciousness involved in that push. Best of luck to us I suppose.

Way to spin Jabbz.

Lets see where was my vote on D1? Not on Azarius.

So lets recap the flow of actions:

1) I talk about a theory concerning zak-novice. and vote Jabbz.

2) Azarius votes me (because of said theory and demands explanation)

3) I ask him if he needs an explanation and if he and you are a pair.

4) Azarius doesn't get the pair comment and still demands the theory explained

5) I explain the pair and ask himn if he really needs an explanation and why.

6) Azarius denies the pair doesn't answer the need question and keeps his vote on me. And keeps his vote on me and so on.

Since then he has still not answered the need question. He has still not explained why me speaking about a zak-novice theor was worthy a vote especially one that except a short detour to Qg stayed on me for 2 day now.
But filled the thread with pictures and BS without even trying to answer those 2 questions.(why did he need so desperately and explanation of my theory and why was my mentioning it soooo scummy that he doesn't look left or right).

Nice spin yourself, you "respond" without actually making any valid points. Lets go down the list.

On the vote, I didn't say you had the vote on Az, that would be too obvious, instead you have been pushing this "Az is scummy" line since day 1, which is what I actually said.

6. He likely kept his vote on you because you are being far more aggressive about a stupid conjuncture conjuncture than is warranted by a townie.

You say that Az hasn't answered the qeuestions, or explained why he thought it was worth a vote, but he has posted more than almost anyone else, and while there are pictures yes, there is also a substantive amount of content aside from those pictures in most of the posts. Point in fact, he didn't start posting those pictures until Brick died, and no one had a problem with Brick posting pics. Why is it suspicious all of the sudden when Az does it?

I still think Rowaine looks scummy, and I don't see anything but town tells on Az, defensive, fighting back against an overly aggressive push by you, and full of logically constructed arguments.

I might not be able to post again before days end, have to take my daughter to the airport, but I feel completely comfortable leaving my vote on Rowaine, for these and above listed points. Once again I urge everyone to read up on the whole stupid argument, and you will find that at the very least Az and possibly Rowaine don't look scummy, or more likely, that Rowaine is trying WAY too hard, and is a good candidate for swinging, or a mass beating as happened last night.

Good luck to us all.

zakalwe: I think he was instrumental in keeping the Rowain/Azarius spat going. I will try to dig for quotes on this tomorrow, out of time tonight.

Good luck with that. Instead, why don't you consider why Jabbz kept his vote on Rowain on day 2, if he really wanted to save Azarius. That's a question he has dodged at least twice now.

Take note of when Jabbz' last post was on day 2. 4 hours before the deadline. Well before the Goreripper vote picked up momentum.

I think he as answered it to, specifically in relation to the bolded portion. Now, I'm going to trust Jabbz isn't using his daughter as a shield for this forum game. If he is, . But I really doubt it.

Plus Zak, he hasn't dodged the question at all, he's actually answered it before. Not to mention his vote wouldn't have saved Azarius, due to tie breaking rules. Truly, you are grasping at straws here.

[Jabbz]

Wow, way to parse a very small amount of what I said, and try to base a case on it.

Adding emphasis to make it clear.

So, Qg is claiming to be the multi-shot Vig. I suppose that's a reasonably safe claim, as we know there was at least a 1sV. The odds are much more in favor of a 1sV + SK however. It is possible that he is being honest, we didn't see a second (third) kill on night two, so it could be that the 1sV couldn't repeat.

Despite that however, I find his arguments about who he shot and why to be rather suspect. They sound a lot more like the types of shots a SK would take, especially the night 1 shot. As I said in the post above regarding Zak (I think it was Zak) there wasn't enough information to make a real claim on Day1, which is WHY we ended up sacrificing the guy who didn't respond. Your night two shot makes a lot more sense, but is also EXACTLY what a Sk would do in that situation.

Since you know it is almost 100% unlikely that there is a MsV AND a SK, you can feel free to make that claim, as no one will likely claim it instead. We may not have nailed down a scum, but I think we found our SK. Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, killing the SK is bad for us, so we have to know you are evil, block you perhaps if what Cat says is true (he is I believe claiming to be a MsRB, which means we also have a 1sRB) then we should block him and hope for the best? Or should we trust his judgment, knowing that it is in his best interests to kill a mafia, or he loses anyway? I'm not sure on that point. Either way, We know who you are now Qg, and your time is limited.

We didn't know there was at least a 1sV, there could have been a full V at that point. I slipped there. What we couldn't have was a 1sv + v AND an sk. The only possible options at that point, as I could understand them, were 1sV + sk, or 1sv + V. The first day shot was bad, and yes, so was mine. I find it unlikely however that both of us would make stupid mistakes on the first night, especially as, from what I can see, he isn't new to this game. The odds of a 1sv + SK are lower than the odds of a 1sv +sk. Everything he claims would apply to an SK. So really easy question for you. Does an SK HAVE to kill every night? More to the point, is there any reason a SK wouldn't fire on night 2? We only had two deaths on night two, and Qg claimed one. If the answer to the first question is yes, then I can't be the SK. If the answer to the second is no, then I can't be the SK. I'll give you a hint, I'm not the Sk.


You continue the selective picking of my statements here.

You said "we know there was at least a one shot vig" which is the same thing everybody had been saying. There is no unique knowledge in that statement.

And in that post you are quoting, you say that Q was scummy for shooting Sunrise. That's pretty rich, coming from someone who allegedly shot Novice because he defended Rowain (alignment unknown at the time) who had made some accusations against Azarius (alignment unknown at the time). You barely even dared to vote on day 1, and yet you took your only vig shot on night 1, on that basis? That's not a credible story.

22 1/2 hours to go.

Please look below for what I actually said.

Since everyone else is owning up, I am a 1-shot vig.

Protip: Claiming to have an unimportant role is frowned upon as it makes it easier for scum to figure out who has the important roles.

And that after you hinted to be survivor yourself

Do as I say, don't do as I do.

Here is where I started getting suspicious. It was like he was trying to leverage my newness into getting me to admit to a more serious role, trying to get information that I shouldn't be giving at that point.

Azarius: Rowain attacks Jabbz...

Well no innocent child
Lets start with jabbz - everyone knows strangers are up to no good.

...and you revenge vote for him. Except you're not voting due to the Jabbz vote but due to the novice-zak theory. Which is sort of analogous.

This started faster than I expected. Rowain, care to elaborate on that theory?

So Rowain's pair comment makes sense, I'd say, at least as an observation about the interconnectedness of existence.

Then I saw him defending a guy that, at the very least, I had my suspicions about.

I didn't really have anything overly concrete on him, other than a very bad feel. I didn't put a vote on him, because I was afraid doing so would get me targeted, and with as many votes as there were on Ryan, I couldn't see it going any other way, even if I tried to get him. It turned out to be an obviously bad choice. TBH embarrassment as much as anything else has kept me from copping to it, as people didn't seem to be very ok with the idea of a 1sV taking the shot first night :/

I said I was concerned about coming out and making myself a target. That's why I claimed to have trouble voting. I also said that I was already suspicious about him because of his trying to pressure me, as a noob, into making a mistake and outing my role early. Add that to knowing Az well, and having a pretty solid read on him, I felt comfortable at the time making that call. I made a mistake, that doesn't make me scummy.

For the record, I don't believe you are scum trying to frame me, I think you are missing key information in your reading, and confirmation bias is screwing with your results.

[Catwalk]

Hashoosh, your problem is that Zak and Mattimeo can make the exact same analysis. 2 out of you 3 are lying, and we have nothing but town and scum tells to rely on to find out who those 2 are. Also, I'm not sure why you're dismissing the possibility of Jabbz being a SK. Finally, your 1 in 7 Ts math is terrible. You're basically talking about the chance of rolling another 6 when you've already had 5 in a row.

[Jabbz]

zakalwe: I think he was instrumental in keeping the Rowain/Azarius spat going. I will try to dig for quotes on this tomorrow, out of time tonight.

Good luck with that. Instead, why don't you consider why Jabbz kept his vote on Rowain on day 2, if he really wanted to save Azarius. That's a question he has dodged at least twice now.

I never said I was trying to save Az, or at least I'm pretty sure I didn't. Even if that was the case, it was secondary to trying to get someone that I was 100% positive was guilty to hang. We can win if we lynch an innocent (az), we can't win if we fail to lynch the guilty(I thought Rowain).

[Qgqqqqq]

Okay so the following are FACTS. If anyone disagrees, please post why or else accept them as such.

• I am a confirmed Multi-shot town vigilante. The reasoning for this has been explained a few times thus far but it seems to be the only possibility.
  
• We are at LyLo. If we lynch anything but a scum today, then both the town and the SK will lose the game. (Reasoning: because of this rule [In case of an even split (ie. 3 town, 3 mafia at the start of a day), mafia wins.] the mafia only need an even split. If we lynch a town then the setup is 2/1/2 or 3/2 and the scum will roleblock/kill me and whoever they think is the SK [probably roleblock SK because he could be kill immune] and then win off having an even split on the next day. If we kill a scum, then the SK will remain in the game, and have a chance of victory.
  
• As a result of the above two, every non-scum must vote with me (as a confirmed villager), no matter what. If even a single one votes differently then the scum will be able to use that to kill a non-scum. (This is the case even if it looks like a candidate is winning by a lot - remember scum can coordinate votes in a way we cannot.

Is this understood?

unvote

[Catwalk]

"More to the point, is there any reason a SK wouldn't fire on night 2? We only had two deaths on night two, and Qg claimed one. "
Very simple answer. Out of 3 kills, 2 of them hit the same target OR 1 of them got blocked by the bandit roleblocker.

[Hashoosh]

Well, since p(T) = 0.5, we know that p`(T) is also 0.5.

That means that yes, rolling 6 `(t) has the probability of 0.5^7. What are the chances of flipping a coin 7 times, with only one head?

[zakalwe]

zakalwe, I think you're grasping for straws now. Jabbz may well be a serial killer, but if we lynch the serial killer we die tonight and the bandits win. I'm going to take my chances that there isn't a serial killer, and in the event there is one we can do little other than pray anyway. Jabbz is an exceedingly likely SK candidate if there is a SK, but that has little relevance. Do you agree with my analyses above?

I'm not voting for Jabbz, am I? I'm just pointing out that I think he's lying.

I do agree with your analyses, except that I won't assume that there isn't a SK. That just artificially simplifies the equation, which may yield the wrong answer. But I think you got everything right this time, concerning the possible constellations.

So if I assume that you're innocent, then this does indeed mean that both Mattimeo and Hashoosh are scum. But Jabbz looks like a liar, too, which means there is a risk that we hit the SK if we pick the wrong target out of the three. And like I said, this is still assuming that you are town, so it's not really so simple.

Hashoosh is now trying to make it simple, and I think it's because he just wants me dead.