Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 56

Author Topic: Supernatural Mafia 6 - Game Over!  (Read 170606 times)

Persus13

  • Bay Watcher
  • 6th King of the Mafia
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural Mafia 6 - Day 3 solves metaproblems
« Reply #525 on: November 15, 2013, 09:14:11 pm »

Persus:
Also, Cult can only kill, and is a NORMAL SCUMTEAM.

We have only seen Cult priests resurrect to Cult in previous games - yet Meph has told us that resurrection is never certain, and the role PM for known Scum priests warns that it may not work as expected.  Despite this - several players (including notquitethere) very firmly challenged that even Imp knows that Scum resurrect players as Scum, period.  I'm not convinced by people telling me, however firmly, that something is impossible when there is, in fact, a chance that it is possible.

What if all 5 cult kills S2 only 'happened' to be kills - that there was a hidden roll and 'conversion' could have occurred instead?

What if the 'unseen' role this game is a shared Scum team role, very similar to S2's cult, only they do have a form of convert-or-kill, and they were so similar otherwise to the S2 cult that Meph remembered them as the same?

Questions such as these make me wonder if we -could- have conversions, at least rarely, this game.  That alone makes me care which Scum is lynched first.  Otherwise - it doesn't matter.  But if it matters - it matters a lot.  Because of the cost of 'if it's true', I care.
Because the flavor seems to clearly indicate a lack of "hidden conversions". It clearly states that blood and some form of sacrificial killing is required to summon Cult's old gods.

I'd also appreciate if you actually answered my questions.
Logged
Congratulations Persus, now you are forced to have the same personal text for an entire year!
Longbowmen horsearcher doomstacks that suffer no attrition and can navigate all major rivers without ships.
Sigtext

Imp

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural Mafia 6 - Day 3 solves metaproblems
« Reply #526 on: November 15, 2013, 10:07:02 pm »

Sorry about not answering questions, Persus.  Posting from work, and slowing down and making sure I do this time.

PPE:  Ahh, I see why I 'missed' your questions.  Though your post was made over 20 minutes before mine, I'd had to work on mine in dribs and drabs for over an hour and wanted to post it as is once it finally was done.  I saw your post, barely skimmed it, and just posted over it, with every intention of really reading it later when time allowed.

Important! Cults in Supernatural CAN NOT CONVERT. Imp, you should know this. CULT DOES NOT equal Vampire. Cmega3's death perfectly fits the flavor of Cult in Supernatural 2.

Please read Supernatural 2's flavor at least.

Also, Cult can only kill, and is a NORMAL SCUMTEAM.

The cult in S2 did not convert.  I know they did not.  I also know they pick someone to sacrifice.  Sacrifice has more than one meaning - sacrifices -almost always- are killed throughout fantasy.  But sacrifices are also sometimes possessed.

It has not been stated that Cults can only kill (or even that they can only convert) -

Meph - Is it possible for the Scum team in this game to have a 'night action' that could kill or convert, instead of always only killing or always only converting?
It is possible. Although such an ability would have to have constraints on it or some other balancing factor to keep the game fair.

So Meph has said - unless something's typoed or he misunderstood my question - that in this very game we play now - it is possible for the Scum team we face (call them Cult or Cuddles, I carefully worded that question - the Scum team we actually face in this game!) to have kill and conversion both - and he said "It is possible."

I didn't ask him if the kill-only results from S2 were the only possible results that the Scum team in S2 could have gotten when they picked their sacrifices.  Do you want to ask him that?

Do you believe Caz rezzed Nerjin and NQT claimed that he did and that's why you think he's a converter?

Great question.  I believe it's possible - and if that DID happen, then we'd better kill NQT asap, because NQT worked hard to look like a confirmed (Town) priest.  Why?  The only reason I can think of is to cover being a converter as being another converter.  Fortune Tellers have appeared 4 times in previous S games (though once as Scum), making them the most common of the investigative types (Dreamwalkers and Seers 3x, theif, sage and oracle 1x).  Fortune tellers are also one of the easiest to 'defend' against for a Converter- just camoflague as another changer type.  And converters are very important for their team to protect.  There's really no 'defense' against the other investigators that I can think of.

However - this is only possible.  Do I believe it happened - no, but I believe it could have happened.  And is only important because of the danger a Converter presents if it exists in play.

And this is Persus13 not NQT who posted. However, I'd love to know what your basis in thinking NQT is a converter is from. Is it because he's a priest?

Whoops, was supposed to be another quote insert there, and a direction to NQT.

I don't know if he's priest or not.  I don't even know if he's a Changer or not - or if he'd still appear to be a Changer after being checked out by a Fortune Teller - After all, if he's telling the truth about Nerjin, then he's used up his oneshot Change and might appear now as a survivor - and be totally honest about being a priest, just he's no longer a Changer.  No Fortune Teller has ever investigated a priest after they used their res in a Supernatural game yet.  I tentatively believe a 'spent Priest' would still read as changer though.

No, my worry about NQT is because of how careful he was to establish himself as a priest - he was the game's second role claim, and unlike the first (yours), which brought otherwise hidden knowledge to the game (no one but you knew you were attacked or the details) - we knew someone had rezzed Nerjin.

If NQT is Town then he surely told the truth about his action and its results.  He had no idea if the rezzed Nerjin was Town or not, but he sure was in a hurry to establish himself as the cause.

If NQT is Scum and priest (and I do believe he is), then he had to know that Nerjin didn't come back Scum (Scum priest in the past did know, S5 N3 if I remember right, but not verifying right now).  He may or may not have thought that maybe Nerjin returned as Town - or maybe Scum priests get enough clues (since they expect to res someone as Scum) that he had reason to think Nerjin was still Town).

NQT was pushing very hard that having ressed Nerjin as Town -proved- that NQT was Town, since Scum -could not- do that.  I don't buy that, that's a bad assumption and trying to use that shows further bad intentions.

But - if NQT is Scum, and is a type of Converter - then he knows the rest of the Scum team - which means he knows there's a priest on the Scum team.  He can breadcrumb (even if he couldn't get Caz's cooperation - he can just not reveal the breadcrumb then if he can't for some reason 'use' Caz's role - like if Caz was lynched D1).  He's covered if the most common investigator type checks him - in fact, why even check him.  On D2 he claimed Priest with 'proof' of an unchallenged res - and if we ever found Caz, why would we suspect two Scum priests, so with NQT being the 'second priest' clearly NQT is Town.  (that one works even if NQT isn't a priest or a converter)

And the final reason why I suspect NQT could be a converter, he reacted to my challenging your assertion that he could not be a Vampire Lord.  If he's not one, or anything like one, why react?  But he did.  That makes me react - and the reaction is 'lynch him fast if possible'.
Logged
For every trouble under the sun, there is an answer, or there is none.
If there is one, then seek until you find it.
If there is none, then never ever mind it.

Imp

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural Mafia 6 - Day 3 solves metaproblems
« Reply #527 on: November 15, 2013, 10:11:36 pm »

If NQT is Scum and priest (and I do believe he is),

Minor correction - that line should have read

Quote
If NQT is Scum (and I do believe he is) and a priest
Logged
For every trouble under the sun, there is an answer, or there is none.
If there is one, then seek until you find it.
If there is none, then never ever mind it.

ToonyMan

  • Bay Watcher
  • Danger Magnet
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural Mafia 6 - Day 3 solves metaproblems
« Reply #528 on: November 15, 2013, 10:16:07 pm »

Could NQT res Nerjin on N1 if he were a vampire lord though?  Who res'd Nerjin?  If we take his word that he's a priest then either:

1.  He's really a town priest and got a successful res of Nerjin.
2.  He's a cult priest (one of which has already died) and managed to get a failure res of Nerjin, which would now be somehow working in his favor.  I don't buy it.

Unless NQT isn't actually a priest at all (which means Caz would be his buddy and was the true player that res'd Nerjin (and failed)) I can't believe it.

If Caz really is NQT's buddy then they pulled one hell of an act.
Logged

ToonyMan

  • Bay Watcher
  • Danger Magnet
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural Mafia 6 - Day 3 solves metaproblems
« Reply #529 on: November 15, 2013, 10:19:12 pm »

Wait a second...now that I think about it.  Why wouldn't Caz res Nerjin on Night 1?  It would be perfect.

MOD:
How do stacked resurrects work?  I think you mentioned you flip a coin but I don't remember.
Logged

Max White

  • Bay Watcher
  • Still not hollowed!
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural Mafia 6 - Day 3 solves metaproblems
« Reply #530 on: November 15, 2013, 11:25:10 pm »

Max White - Why are you so sure that there are two Scum?

Why are you so sure that the other kill is a monster hunter, and that the other killer is on Town's side?

We have no proof that the sword-wielding killer is anti-Town - but we also have no proof that the sword wielder is Town either, do we?
1. Because that is how many you would expect in an eleven person game.
2. Because ghouls tend to eat people rather than slash at them with swords.

Gee, you make me wonder.  When you talk about 'the mechanics' of what happens when either you or Persus is lynched, you're willing to discuss the possibility that you might be Scum.

But just a couple lines above that, the only two possibilities that exist to you are that I'm lying or that I've been tricked - the possibility that you might be Scum doesn't cross your fingertips there.

Schrödinger's Box, perhaps?  Nah, whatever it is, I suspect Occam's Razor can solve it.  The simplest answer, would that be that there's a new role that requires me to lynch you?  Or one that makes me get a false inspect result on you?  Or that Persus13 and I are lying?  Or that you are lying?

Surely one of those is true.  I wonder if it's the one that Occam's Razor suggests.
Because if you are trying to make me figure out why your inspect is wrong, I know what I am. When trying to present the possible outcomes to the town I accept that you don't know what I am for sure, so I will look at things from your point of view.

Your asking me to explain why you got a certain inspect when I don't really know any better than you, just that you are wrong.

Max— it doesn't look like fortune-tellers can be redirected, but there can be scum-fortune tellers. I guess you anticipated people following you in a Persus lynch, right?
Well you know, you see the little [1] next to your messages, and it builds a little anticipation, and then you read that you actually hit scum and it is a pretty good feeling, so yea, I did rush in with the feeling of being the hero today and it didn't exactly go that way... But I guess I can live with that. Persus gets lynched tomorrow, Imp gets stabbed tonight, there is a good chance we actually win on day 4, so if I am to be lynched then ok.
As long as the hunter attacks Imp, this can work out pretty well!

Max: Meph's "New Role" is one of the roles in the OP, not a newly created role.
Oh, really? Because you know a few posts after he very specifically says otherwise. What do you know about the new role that we don't?

Experience has taught me that this isn't something you can always expect Max White to do.
<3 U 2 Jimmy-kun.


*sits down*  *raises hand*  *speaks in a calmer voice*  Guys?  Can we -please- lynch this man first?  Just in case he is a converter of some sort?  You do all hear the level of BS he is throwing, right?
Look your logic makes no sense at all.
NQT specifically made some bullshit post right on day 1 with a hidden meaning in it about how he was a priest, and he revealed that on day 2. How would he be able to make that claim if he was a converter of some sort? He would need to know the role of his target before hand, and that isn't possible.

It looks more like you know that if we lynch Persus you loose a member, and if you lynch me Persus is tomorrow, so you are trying to lynch somebody else to delay that.

You made a mistake by trying to fake claim me, and now trying hard to lie your way out.

Tiruin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Life is too short for worries
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural Mafia 6 - Day 3 solves metaproblems
« Reply #531 on: November 16, 2013, 12:14:52 am »

Ok, I'm skimming while reading.

Imp: Minor correction note. Your role picks on the role. I REALLY REALLY doubt whether NQT used his priest power or not makes him different. He'd still be a Priest, albeit a Priest who has done in his piety (think ADOM style piety or any darn roguelike wherein you have 'piety points' and can't do stuff again after spending it).

He says he used his thingy. He's still a Priest. I don't see how that changes his Changer thing like you see there.




TOONYMAN!     D:
Why don't you see these things?!





I've mentioned Supernatural 2 at least once before and have recommended reading it.
My pride states that you haven't stated it with a bigger signboard. But in reality, I missed it.
Thanks!



This either will attract the scumkill/actions to me, or not. Either way, I will drink a toast and be merry. I can be a knight. I can be the hunter. I can be whatever they want me to believe, but I ain't claiming until everyone claims.
Target me scum, I want you to~
Are you admitting to lying then?  If you really are the hunter then you're town (or a third-party I guess) that is lying.

..Also still waiting on that long list I asked you before Toony.
What list?  Also I hope I don't have to write anything long...

Quote
Also, why are people extending?  We have the entire weekend and most of Monday with an already clear lynch candidate.
I am the people now? Ehh, my mind was fuzzy back then to check on time. It's mostly always like that in regard to time.
Somebody has extended before you, don't be so selfish.
.. ::)
Why yes, Toony. Yes. I am lying to protect the hunter or whatever. I'm a useless role wherein I hope to bait the scumteam to use and waste an ability on me because I'm poking at basic human psychology by being straight in your face with my plexiglass shield of transparency. Burn me and my status of being loquacious and rather boring at times! Rawr!

Also, sarcasm. I do that. Dryly. Defense mechanism? No. That's how I do my fun with answering questions that are..ehh. Confusing(?). I said I'm not the hunter! Believe my directness.

And the list is above in size 18 font. How did you miss that.. (I can understand exams but..ehh, maybe I'm being too sensitive now) :(

For the scumteam, through empirical evidence (or as far as I see) as of now, is proven not to convert. Whoever secret role there is, is either town or scum--but not, as I believe, a converter given the case (I mean how long did it take for us to confuddle the way out of CULT, NO CULT, YES CULT; CULT!).

Also I'm not selfish...I was really looking forward to extending. Only that my mind was fuzzy and I didn't think directly about the time back then. But I see a huge conundrum with the cases at hand and thus went to extending.
Wait a second...now that I think about it.  Why wouldn't Caz res Nerjin on Night 1?  It would be perfect.

MOD:
How do stacked resurrects work?  I think you mentioned you flip a coin but I don't remember.
Perfect how?


Max White - Why are you so sure that there are two Scum?

Why are you so sure that the other kill is a monster hunter, and that the other killer is on Town's side?

We have no proof that the sword-wielding killer is anti-Town - but we also have no proof that the sword wielder is Town either, do we?
1. Because that is how many you would expect in an eleven person game.
2. Because ghouls tend to eat people rather than slash at them with swords.
...Ghoul? I thought those things were only in The Great Temple (the one with 4 orbs and such and such and the werewolf and ghoul won a mutual victory mafia?).
Anyway, where are you talking about ghouls now? Where's that tangent I missed?

Also for future reference, I'm with the belief that either the special role is a modified role (as in with "benefits") or something on the scumside, if we're going with the '11 player-2 scum team' OR...well, falling on the former (mod. role on town/scum - unsure but doubtful that it's one of those who claimed) and that we've an '11 player-3 scum team' wherein the 1 player acts like a balance depending on the roles given out. Though I'd not like to debate this sort as it gets in the pudgy line of game mechanics. A rather..bad way to win a game for anyone, really.

Max: Why are you missing my request on you paraphrasing/expounding on your N1/2 results? Why are you ignoring me like Caz? Because that's how I feel.

Max: Meph's "New Role" is one of the roles in the OP, not a newly created role.
Oh, really? Because you know a few posts after he very specifically says otherwise. What do you know about the new role that we don't?
It does? Really? O_o
Persus: Where and what is your reference. I sincerely doubt you there. As in, really.



Imp: I am curious. Could you summarize your case on NQT compared to those you've action'd? As in, Max? What makes NQT worse than that dude your action calls out on? Survivor > Watcher = lynch NQT first?
It doesn't follow as I see it.
Logged

Persus13

  • Bay Watcher
  • 6th King of the Mafia
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural Mafia 6 - Night 2 - 1 REPLACEMENT NEEDED
« Reply #532 on: November 16, 2013, 09:49:18 am »

Max: Meph's "New Role" is one of the roles in the OP, not a newly created role.
Oh, really? Because you know a few posts after he very specifically says otherwise. What do you know about the new role that we don't?
It does? Really? O_o
Persus: Where and what is your reference. I sincerely doubt you there. As in, really.
Oh Bleh, I messed up on reading this:
Also, I find I must apologize to you. It seems that one of the roles in this game has, in fact, not appeared before. I thought it had, and it's been in the possible role set for quite a while but...apparently I was mistaken. But all of the others have shown up before.
I thought that the possible role set meant the OP Town Role List at the time and said as such.

More later, if I have more.
Logged
Congratulations Persus, now you are forced to have the same personal text for an entire year!
Longbowmen horsearcher doomstacks that suffer no attrition and can navigate all major rivers without ships.
Sigtext

ToonyMan

  • Bay Watcher
  • Danger Magnet
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural Mafia 6 - Day 3 solves metaproblems
« Reply #533 on: November 16, 2013, 12:45:22 pm »

PFP
Toony~
@Tiruin:
ToonyMan: Read back on Caz. Report back. What is your read. What has been your read on me and him.
Why or how couldn't you relate what you just said earlier. Like, in my post here.
Yeah yeah, I see now.  Caz accusing you of vote-hopping wasn't true (which is scummy).  However your reaction to their vote and how you're reacting now screams THEY'RE WRONG THEY'RE WRONG I MUST PROVE THEY'RE WRONG TO SURVIVE which I find pretty desperate.
What do you do when you see someone attempting, or in the least, erring when addressing you and seemingly provoking you passive-aggressively? Meaning: Denouncing you and your work?
Ignore it probably?  If they aren't actually attacking me then why do I care?  I could just use that as leverage to vote them with my own attack.

You? You scream scum in the same way as Caz is doing here. Trivial error, which you denounce without addressing my posts toward you as a whole.
'Omg I see nao! But your reaction!'
Really? Is what my perceived reaction of great importance to you that you miss the trigger of the action-or may I say, whether or not the person holding said reaction was acting out a pressure attack? Because a pressurized attack was what I was mostly leaning on at the time. Do note, since you read back, that I was never truly sure.
I admitted that I was wrong and Caz was lying, and look, he's scum!  I just sort of feel your defense to prove that you definitely aren't reacting and totally shouldn't be voted is odd.  The fact you're almost forcing me to even respond to this list is telling enough, but I generally find you town with the Caz thing and also:

So I went and took out my blade and flourished it with a nice speech. See the results? I bet you do.
However, the bolded portion up there. I never had the intent of 'IF YOU'RE WRONG THEN I HIT YOU TO SURVIVE'. I don't practically care if I die or not, as my use is pretty much. . .ah, let's say, some sort of passivity in this lot of people. Survival is the least of my concerns, sir, and if you're looking more onto that notion, then I have due right to suspect you.
Mostly for quite everything you've said to me thus far has been lacking. Desperation? Quite a superficial note to focus on, too.
You keep dropping hints that you're a damn Hunter!  I get it, a Hunter can't be cult either so you are totally not scum and shouldn't die.  But your little implications and hints are annoying, because if you really are the Hunter you're lighting yourself like a match (and also lying to the town).

Could you explain your thought process in detail about this? I know that exams pretty much suck up your thinking and/or sleep deprivation affects judgement (null), but WHEN you do post, I would LOVE to see a concise explanation from you.
Thought process on WHAT?  Voting you??  I'm already done with this, I have no intentions to vote somebody right now who was right about Caz and is likely our fucking hunter.

Because you're my #2. Right after Caz.
I see you haven't placed your vote.



Wait a second...now that I think about it.  Why wouldn't Caz res Nerjin on Night 1?  It would be perfect.
MOD:
How do stacked resurrects work?  I think you mentioned you flip a coin but I don't remember.
Perfect how?
Imagine your scum team has a priest, town lynches one of their own on Day 1.  If you res them and it succeeds then that's another partner to your cause, if you fail and they're still the same alignment, town has to waste a day debating whether to lynch them again or not (if they do lynch him then they wasted a lynch and if they don't he can always have suspicion drawn to him as "the resurrected guy" especially after we lynched an actual scum priest).  Why wouldn't Caz use their resurrect on Night 1?
Logged

ToonyMan

  • Bay Watcher
  • Danger Magnet
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural Mafia 6 - Day 3 solves metaproblems
« Reply #534 on: November 16, 2013, 12:47:52 pm »

I swear to god if you're the hunter Tiruin I am going to strangle you after the game is over for making me read your vague bread-crumbing.
Logged

Imp

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural Mafia 6 - Day 3 solves metaproblems
« Reply #535 on: November 16, 2013, 02:18:02 pm »

I decided to trawl the old S games for some statistics which I share here, as well as my conclusions how this data may apply to our game:

Questions considered:  How many baddies there were at the start of each S game, what percentage of the players were baddies, what percentage of the players were Town:


Baddie is interpreted as anti-Town, players that actually needed most of Town dead to win.  Thus baddies are only:

Scum Team any flavor
Demon (Serial killer)
Ghoul (Serial killer)
Necromancer (serial killer)

I counted the following roles as neutral/pro-Town, because they didn't need to focus on killing Town:

Devils (might offer to 'help' anyone in play, for a price)
Wererats (survivors)
Guardian Angel (non-Town protector)



Town win:  S1 started with:  13 players, 3 scum(killers) 1 Demon (1 Devil):
Ratio of 4/13 baddies: 30.8%
8/13 Town:  61.5%

Scum win:  S2 started with:  12 players, 3 scum (killers) 1 ghoul
Ratio of 4/12 baddies:  33.3%
8/12 Town:  66.7%

Scum win:  S3 started with:  13 players, 2 scum (converter) 1 necromancer (1 wererat)
Ratio of 3/13 baddies:  23.1%
9/13 Town:  69.2%

Resurrected 3rd party win:  S4 started with:  14 players, 2 scum (converter) (1 guardian angel) (1 devil)
Ratio of 2/14 baddies:  14.3%
10/14 Town:  71.4%

No win:  S5 started with:  14 players, 3 scum (killers) (1 wererat)
Ratio of 3/14 baddies:  21.4%
10/14 Town:  71.4%



Observations:

The Baddie percentage has dropped over time.
Games with more players can have -fewer- baddies, even controlling for having the same Scum type -
Killer-Scum games: S2 had 4/12 baddies, S5 had 3/14 baddies
Converter-Scum games:  S3 had 3/13 baddies, S4 had 2/14 baddies

That however fits the observation, 'The Baddie percentage has dropped over time.'



Guesswork applied to this game:
We have 11 players -

if 2/11 baddies   18.1% (low end, the only game lower had a converter)
if 3/11 baddies   27.3% (high for recent games, low for older games)
if 4/11 baddies   36.4% (Slightly higher than the highest game yet)

My guess from the numbers is:  we probably started with 3 baddies, but 2 or 4 does not seem impossible.

If we have more than 2 Scum, having a converter (at least a converter who can ensure conversions) seems improbable (highest converter baddie count was 3/13 - 3/11 seems a big change)


So:  I feel less worried about NQT possibly being a converter, and much more comfortable with lynching Max White first.  NQT does remain my second highest Scumpick though.
Logged
For every trouble under the sun, there is an answer, or there is none.
If there is one, then seek until you find it.
If there is none, then never ever mind it.

Mephansteras

  • Bay Watcher
  • Forger of Civilizations
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural Mafia 6 - Day 3 solves metaproblems
« Reply #536 on: November 16, 2013, 02:30:33 pm »

The Scribe's Tally Sheet
Imp: notquitethere
Max White: Imp, Jim Groovester, Toaster, Persus13, ToonyMan
Persus13: Max White



Day ends ~5pm Pacific Monday


Meph - Did you miss me asking about THIS GAME when you answered the question : "Is it possible for the Scum team in this game to have a 'night action' that could kill or convert, instead of always only killing or always only converting?"
I noticed. There is an unaccounted for role this game that has not been seen before. Therefore, for that particular role, just about anything is possible. But I will state that the Scum team for this game, as a team power, has not changed from previous games.

MOD:
How do stacked resurrects work?  I think you mentioned you flip a coin but I don't remember.
It is decided randomly, yes.
Logged
Civilization Forge Mod v2.80: Adding in new races, equipment, animals, plants, metals, etc. Now with Alchemy and Libraries! Variety to spice up DF! (For DF 0.34.10)
Come play Mafia with us!
"Let us maintain our chill composure." - Toady One

Imp

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural Mafia 6 - Day 3 solves metaproblems
« Reply #537 on: November 16, 2013, 07:22:59 pm »

Perseus:
Cmega3-erratic voting and buddying of me D1
Toaster-Kleril acting oddly opening of D1. Kleril also buddied Cmega. Toaster jumped onto the Nerjin bandwagon at the perfect time and provided the momentum to get others to vote him. Voted Caz but attacking other people.
NQT-Rolefishing slightly. A little overly defensive, although that may be because three people are attacking him.
Imp-Lurking and hasn't really contributed a lot to the game besides several outside the box ideas.
Max-Has voted a grand total of one person the entire game. without a single FOS.
Toonyman-Not sure
Nerjin-majorly lurking
Jim-NQT has a point but seems town to me.
Tiruin-also unsure.
Perses-Knight, poor town if attacked by monster hunter.

Oh yeah!  I meant to ask you this earlier, but kept forgetting.

Why'd you include yourself in your suspicions list, and why'd you misspell your name when you did so?



Tiruin:

Max White - Why are you so sure that there are two Scum?

Why are you so sure that the other kill is a monster hunter, and that the other killer is on Town's side?

We have no proof that the sword-wielding killer is anti-Town - but we also have no proof that the sword wielder is Town either, do we?
1. Because that is how many you would expect in an eleven person game.
2. Because ghouls tend to eat people rather than slash at them with swords.
...Ghoul? I thought those things were only in The Great Temple (the one with 4 orbs and such and such and the werewolf and ghoul won a mutual victory mafia?).
Anyway, where are you talking about ghouls now? Where's that tangent I missed?

S1 saw a ghoul.  Didn't see much of him, he was the Scum kill N1.  His role PM:

Pandarsenic (other)
    You are a Ghoul. A strange, twisted being that exists on the border between life and death. Your mind has been warped by the constant pull of these forces, and you only find release in the death of others.

  Each night you may either choose to Kill another player or Consume a dead player. If you Consume a dead player your next Night Kill will be powered by dark magic, and you will be unstoppable.

 You win when all other players are dead.

His N1 action (which happened before the kill did) was to eat the D1 lynch corpse.  We have no ghoul-kill flavors to read, but it is extremely unlikely that ghouls kill with swords, I agree.


There have been two other non-Town serial killer roles present from the start of play.

1)  A necromancer in S3 who needed to first raise a zombie from any dead corpse before he could kill anyone (meaning that a necromancer could NOT make a N1 kill attempt, his N1 would have been spent getting his zombie but we know Nerjin was raised so there's no corpse for a necro to use for N2.  N2 would have to try to get the corpse from the lynched Scum, so the soonest possible a necro could kill in this game will be N3).  Zombie kills were very gory.

2) A demon in S1.  He only got one kill, because he was also killed N1.  The Demon's kill was very gory.



We haven't seen a third party monster hunter yet, but we've seen both third parties and monster hunters.

Such a third party could even be a wandering human adventurer or something in flavor, or could be whatever supernatural thingy.

I'm simply not convinced with the evidence at hand that the Monster hunter (or whomever else if not a Monster hunter, whatever's out there waving a sword around) is actually Town or not.  Max did appear sure that the sword wielder was Town, so I wanted to know why he thought that was 'resolved' instead of 'undecided' as I do.

Imp: I am curious. Could you summarize your case on NQT compared to those you've action'd? As in, Max? What makes NQT worse than that dude your action calls out on? Survivor > Watcher = lynch NQT first?
It doesn't follow as I see it.

Familiar question.

But I never have stated my case on Max, so will do:  My investigation results make it clear to me that he has made a major lie.

My inspect on Max gave result Survivor, incompatible with his roleclaim.  If he's a Survivor he doesn't get inspections of any type, if he's a Seer like he claims he wouldn't inspect as Survivor (previous Seer was Fortune Teller inspected, did come up Watcher).

The summary of my case on NQT is here, top of the post.

The core of my reasoning 'lynch NQT first' is concern of possibility of converter.  The more likely that chance is, the more important it is to kill the converter first, and that converter cannot be someone with a 'Survivor' inspection from a Fortune teller - cannot be Max.  If there's a Scum Converter trying to 'hide in plain sight' - that's our claimed priest, especially given that there -was- a Scum priest who could have ressed Nerjin - and NQT could have claimed the rez.  I see NQT as high probability Scum, so that combined with chance of Converter + NQT's behavior - I was very concerned.  I am now less concerned about a converter being in play.
Logged
For every trouble under the sun, there is an answer, or there is none.
If there is one, then seek until you find it.
If there is none, then never ever mind it.

Tiruin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Life is too short for worries
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural Mafia 6 - Day 3 solves metaproblems
« Reply #538 on: November 16, 2013, 08:30:21 pm »

PFP - stuff happened.

S1 saw a ghoul.  Didn't see much of him, he was the Scum kill N1.  His role PM:

Pandarsenic (other)
    You are a Ghoul. A strange, twisted being that exists on the border between life and death. Your mind has been warped by the constant pull of these forces, and you only find release in the death of others.

  Each night you may either choose to Kill another player or Consume a dead player. If you Consume a dead player your next Night Kill will be powered by dark magic, and you will be unstoppable.

 You win when all other players are dead.

His N1 action (which happened before the kill did) was to eat the D1 lynch corpse.  We have no ghoul-kill flavors to read, but it is extremely unlikely that ghouls kill with swords, I agree.
AH, Good! Perhaps I can expound on how Ghouls kill, given how I was one before and did it with many humans. (<3 Bookthras)
So..yeah. Ghouls don't use weapons. They use..well, whatever is at hand. I was gonna kill Jim back in the day, but then I found him dead, so I made sure he's dead by making him dead-dead with bashing his head with a tiny rock.
..But the flavor for eating bodies? Usually nothing at all is left. Also I never used a weapon at all (preferably improvised/or presumably my claws)

Imp: I...really, really don't think drawing conclusions based on numbers and past games apply. Those things are role-tailored. Meaning they fit the roles given out moreso than how many is of x/y alignment.

Given recent ideas, the only tip I see of you placing NQT down before Max is...statistical evidence, though I've to say the interpretation of data needs to factor in other variables such as the roles and..well, not just numbers!

Because its curious that way, how you eliminate one over the other. Given the context.



Toony (busy-busy and emotional busy and stuff here so sorry for short poke)

I swear to god if you're the hunter Tiruin I am going to strangle you after the game is over for making me read your vague bread-crumbing.
I will facepalm and point out to you to sense what I'm trying to say in betwix the lines. I don't make my lies that apparent.
Though the imagery is nice that I'm frustrating you in a nice way :D ...You're ok with this, right?

PFP
Toony~
@Tiruin:
ToonyMan: Read back on Caz. Report back. What is your read. What has been your read on me and him.
Why or how couldn't you relate what you just said earlier. Like, in my post here.
Yeah yeah, I see now.  Caz accusing you of vote-hopping wasn't true (which is scummy).  However your reaction to their vote and how you're reacting now screams THEY'RE WRONG THEY'RE WRONG I MUST PROVE THEY'RE WRONG TO SURVIVE which I find pretty desperate.
What do you do when you see someone attempting, or in the least, erring when addressing you and seemingly provoking you passive-aggressively? Meaning: Denouncing you and your work?
Ignore it probably?  If they aren't actually attacking me then why do I care?  I could just use that as leverage to vote them with my own attack.
But..but denouncing someone is attacking them. Erm, did I see it wrong, or are you saying that you'd only take direct attacks and not pay attention to subtlety? I doubt that you'd do but..maybe my reading is just messy.

You? You scream scum in the same way as Caz is doing here. Trivial error, which you denounce without addressing my posts toward you as a whole.
'Omg I see nao! But your reaction!'
Really? Is what my perceived reaction of great importance to you that you miss the trigger of the action-or may I say, whether or not the person holding said reaction was acting out a pressure attack? Because a pressurized attack was what I was mostly leaning on at the time. Do note, since you read back, that I was never truly sure.
I admitted that I was wrong and Caz was lying, and look, he's scum!  I just sort of feel your defense to prove that you definitely aren't reacting and totally shouldn't be voted is odd.  The fact you're almost forcing me to even respond to this list is telling enough, but I generally find you town with the Caz thing and also:
Bwuh? I'm asking -not forcing- you to respond to the list because I attached your response + FoS given how it was directly connected to what Caz was saying (ie Switching votes accusation).
Though I never said I shouldn't be voted--I'm free to be voted, and then we'll squabble over the details as usual. Denying such a freedom of action is a note for suspicion. And yeah I'm reacting. Responding, reacting. But being defensive? As in, 'I'm protecting something'-ish defensive? No. I was being defensive on..the thing that Caz was saying. The one where I'm being defensive on my lack of vote switching? Yeah.

Because you're my #2. Right after Caz.
I see you haven't placed your vote.
In which Tiruin's though process is revealed.
Votes entail a sort of suspicion. A sort of leverage that would, in mostly all cases, affect how the respondent replies. I'm checking all my tabs and prodding them before making a decision. That's why I don't mostly FoS in games unless I get a good vibe on the person I'm targeting, and if my prediction on his reply being vague. Like...sensing if someone is at a breaking point or whatnot.

Yea, though your posts have the concept of brevity, I see a genuine sort of 'catching up despite RL' plot into them. However I'm checking up on them little details in communication.

Quote
Could you explain your thought process in detail about this? I know that exams pretty much suck up your thinking and/or sleep deprivation affects judgement (null), but WHEN you do post, I would LOVE to see a concise explanation from you.
Thought process on WHAT?  Voting you??  I'm already done with this, I have no intentions to vote somebody right now who was right about Caz and is likely our fucking hunter.
[/quote]wut. Noooo. I already saw your thing on voting me or whatever (somehow made its way from Toaster's post and all + the note on being vote switchy).
I meant your thought process on my reaction and all that. I believe there's something to be said more there.

Logged

Persus13

  • Bay Watcher
  • 6th King of the Mafia
    • View Profile
Re: Supernatural Mafia 6 - Day 3 solves metaproblems
« Reply #539 on: November 16, 2013, 08:50:00 pm »

Perseus:
Cmega3-erratic voting and buddying of me D1
Toaster-Kleril acting oddly opening of D1. Kleril also buddied Cmega. Toaster jumped onto the Nerjin bandwagon at the perfect time and provided the momentum to get others to vote him. Voted Caz but attacking other people.
NQT-Rolefishing slightly. A little overly defensive, although that may be because three people are attacking him.
Imp-Lurking and hasn't really contributed a lot to the game besides several outside the box ideas.
Max-Has voted a grand total of one person the entire game. without a single FOS.
Toonyman-Not sure
Nerjin-majorly lurking
Jim-NQT has a point but seems town to me.
Tiruin-also unsure.
Perses-Knight, poor town if attacked by monster hunter.

Oh yeah!  I meant to ask you this earlier, but kept forgetting.

Why'd you include yourself in your suspicions list, and why'd you misspell your name when you did so?
Because it was a list in order of scummitude of everyone. I'm not the only one who's been doing that.
Also, my forum name isn't a misspelling of Perseus (as everyone seems to think), it is a misspelling of Perses, a very obscure Greek Titan, father of Hekate, and Titan of destruction and stuff.

S1 saw a ghoul.  Didn't see much of him, he was the Scum kill N1.  His role PM:
That was S2, not S1.
Logged
Congratulations Persus, now you are forced to have the same personal text for an entire year!
Longbowmen horsearcher doomstacks that suffer no attrition and can navigate all major rivers without ships.
Sigtext
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 56