For purposes of brevity, this post is dedicated to NQT.
The danger for team town if Tiruin is telling the truth
By popular demand, here is a logically sound argument proving that if Tiruin is telling the truth then the good guys have lost:
Either we day-lynch masons, scum or townies. If Tiruin is telling the truth and people vote accordingly, we don't have the numbers to day-lynch masons, so we'll either try to lynch scum or townies. If we try to lynch scum, they will try to assassinate all the masons and if Tiruin is telling the truth, they will succeed. If they succeed, then it's a 3:2 town/scum game where scum decide ties: in this scenario, town are bound to lose. If we day-lynch town, then only masons will survive, and scum will kill the surviving masons. No matter who we try to lynch, if Tiruin is telling the truth and scum rely on this fact, then team town has lost.
Is that clearer now? I hope for all town's sake you're lying, Tiruin.
For purposes of brevity, I'll be focusing on this part. NQT, it seems you've either little faith in the town - without a powerrole to catch scum - or are putting in the idea that scum can
easily trick town into lynching innocents. The latter insinuates that either you're scum, and are being honest in warning that your buddy is a really competent player, or...you're actually confused on who is scum and who is not, meaning you're sincerely worried that the remaining scum are one of the vets. The experienced ones.
Now, look at the chocolate colored part (yes it is literally coded as 'chocolate'
), I want to know
exactly why you're poking at perfect success in that matter.
If they succeed, then it's a 3:2 town/scum game where scum decide ties: in this scenario, town are bound to lose. If we day-lynch town, then only masons will survive, and scum will kill the surviving masons. No matter who we try to lynch, if Tiruin is telling the truth and scum rely on this fact, then team town has lost.
Sentences one and two were rational, fluid in thinking. Then we head to sentence 3.
So tell me, how confirmed are you over your reads that those people are scum (ie no vote)
Tiruin - I don't know what game he's playing. If he's mason and completely telling the truth then we're doomed. Vote record suggests scum.
Toaster - Vote record leans scum, crypto-lurks with short posts.
Dariush - Vote record leans scum (or taking into account voting blocks, mason), post record show angry strong scum hunting tendencies. Not a mason.
ZU - Vote record suggests town. Legacy arguments from Ford might be worth considering as he was convinced ZU was scum.
Hapah - active playing but standoffish in votes or applying pressure. Essentially a null read, leaning mason. Not a mason.
Obo - Lurker up for replacement. Voted consistently for DS, initially with good reason then later out of laziness. Could be anything. Darn'it someone replace him already!
DS - used to think was scum due to his irrational witch hunt on Ford. Could be mason, if Tiruin is telling the truth.
Given that, what are your reads now that the people are cleared from being a mason?
Next, your earlier assumption.
I'm not taking your claim at face value, I'm just saying hypothetically if you're telling the truth, it was a very bad move for you to make (which I'll explain for everyone below).
"Vote record suggests..."
How do these suggest anything?
Ugh, do I really have to explain this point every time I post? OK one last time and I hope everyone is reading this because I'm not going to repeat myself.
1. Scum have an interest in lynching team town (i.e. masons and townies, hereafter referred to as 'the good guys')
2. Scum know who the good guys are.
Firstly, on your two postulates above on scum:
1 > is obvious.
2 > does not know whether their target is town or mason - this does clarify you going after votes, of course, as the lynch is a 'safer alternative'.
Now let me debunk that because your other ideas came across as...faulty.
From the lynch vote record we can see who has tried to lynch confirmed good guys. While most lynchers will be innocent, we can spot a pattern in the voting.
3. Only scum have an interest in consistently lynching good guys and the ability to know who is good to lynch
4. Consistently lynching good folk looks suspicious
5. Voting patterns show who looks suspicious
This method got it's first small confirmation with ZZ's lynch. Before I had voted for him, but then I went and had a look at the vote records and they showed that there were much more likely targets than ZZ and so I changed my vote. Low and behold, ZZ was town, as predicted.
[...]
If you don't agree with this method, then tell me how do you hunt scum then? Because all I'm seeing you do is hunting town.
"Confirmed good guys".
This screams as you subtly being scum for me. Reason is, it seems you're acting this in a way that relates to the flip, but you're stating it as if their flip confirms those who voted them to be scummier. Its like you know they're town, and have no other way of persuading the rest other than relying on vote patterns. I agree with #3 & 5 - #4 is up to debate wherein being suspicious lies with the essence of the lyncher's posts.
Let me clarify this first.
Leafsnail, you messed up the vote count :/ NQT was voting for Dariush and not Toaster. Here.So now you say that there are more likely targets of being scum instead of "TZZ" looks town, right? Also, since you put in the idea 'if I was lying', why do you hesitate to give in that situation? If I was lying, what would be the most reasonable scenario then, for you?
If you don't agree with this method, then tell me how do you hunt scum then? Because all I'm seeing you do is hunting town.
Yeah, this goes with the above statements. Your last sentence really rings on my scum-dar. It can go both ways: You're going at that idea from after the roleflip, or you're insinuating that those people are town.
I was going after them before I knew their alignment.Yes, I do agree that TZZ's lynch was wrong (and also that he's using a translator...) but I've only seen the mistake - not by the flip - but what I missed in his post (I linked it in my post above) as I was more confused on him but thought he was scum instead due to his...antics.
It's not nice to respond to other's posts with pictures, IMO. Those can carry a thousand more connotations than words. This is for you TZZ.
I didn't say I don't agree with that method (or if I did, then perhaps I should've explained more, it was related to how you presented it), but what I'm saying is that while you do put a presentable case (I'm no psychologist despite taking the subjects, so apologies if I come across as...err, condescending?) I see points in your case that make you look scum.
Though, you haven't gone for the easy lynch (sifting thru 30 pages of the normal forum format >.>), nor have you tried to go and undermine a person just for lynching him. But for your explanations, they seem sincere and pretty much reasonable, despite my intuition feeling...off with them, but not in the way that says scum despite what I've written earlier [confusion and the "what is he going on with" feeling - I don't know the term for this]. Mostly, when this happens, I'm wrong and my intuition is right. I just hope this time that's right, so damned be I if you're scum.
UnvoteReads coming up in the next post.
Oh, and I hunt scum via the process of looking into their posts. While the vote pattern seems to be (or is, to others) a valid scumhunting tool, I've never relied on it much. Just applying pressure to those I feel are scum, then going on that tangent.
Author
Topic: Mafia and Masons and Hackers - Game Over! (Read 90751 times)