Ah, there we go. I wish you guys would have reacted a little faster.
One sec, analyzing wagon.
So.
I was right after all.
Daykilling without any reason is remarkably dumb, which is why I doubt there's an actual daykill.
PPE:
TolyK:
First, replies, then analysis.
- that was nowhere near day end
I had to give time for people to react and for reads to be put out there. Consider that, if we had not extended, the day would now be over. This point is moot.
- you did not cite ANY reason for the killing
Actually, go back and read my posts. I've been scumreading Caz all game, if you haven't noticed. This point is moot.
I didn't notice, specifically because you mentioned NOTHING of it in the dayvig post.
Also, pardon my time miscalculation, as I had literally JUST started playing the game around 24 hours before.
- you weren't voting for him (were you? I think not)
Voting for him would have been redundant and useless. He would have been able to figure out that this was a reaction test if I had voted him. This point is moot.
Well, not if you had presented it correctly. Whatever, moot is moot.
How can Scum sniff out power roles quickly? If you're a dayvig, HOW can they know who you are via observing at night? Or, how do you know they have an investigative role?
Oh, I don't know... maybe the lookout mechanic? There's also a high likelihood that scum have investigative roles, since this is a PR-heavy setup. It would be unbalanced for town to have a lot of power roles and scum not to.
Quite a bit of speculation. Rolecop is one of many power roles scum can have, so I don't see how it's more likely than a roleblocker or even mechanics-specific role.
Alright, we have 13 players. Considering normal rules, that's three or maybe four mafia. In terms of power balance, at least, since this is not quite a normal game (by the description).
Chance of you hitting scum D1: 3.5/12
Chance of scum hitting you N1: 1/9.5
Chance of you hitting scum, assuming worst case (two town deaths): 3.5/10~1/3
This is actually good analysis, and is a bit of a townslip, or at least a non-third party slip. It's assuming that we have no serial killers or other anti-town third parties and that there are only two scum. (If my math is correct.) However, keep in mind that night kills are not just a roll of the dice. Scum choose their targets, so considering myself a high-value target is more reasonable than examining statistics on the night kill.
Uh. I said... 3 or 4 mafia...
Scum choose their targets, yes, but
how would they know you were a dayvig without first investigating you, if you didn't shoot the first day?
You can't be more valuable to be killed just because you've got an undetected gun in your pocket...
And statistics don't work if you don't know the situation, so assumptions.
Actually, a tl;dr for this would be "you want to use your vigkill, so you use it right now otherwise you might not have the chance", which is horrible town logic and mediocre scum logic as well. You come off as either a day-SK or a mafia member where the mafia daykills instead of nk's. Or just a really selfish vigilante.
But now we're on the second post where you mention an SK. That's a little inconsistent. You seem to be arguing that I'm "horrible town" more than that I'm scum or anti-town here, yet you still feel happy to lay down a vote. Why are you not worried about lynching town?
Uh, where did I say you're town in here?
I said that this logic would be horrible were you town. Which is why I said that you are most likely NOT town.
If you were town, I'd prefer to lynch you than any other townie specifically for the reason that you can kill people, and are doing it without thinking (thus you could very negatively affect the outcome). So... lynching you in ANY case is better than a random lynch.
Inconsistent? I don't think so.
PR= power role? What if you just shot one? Also, people get the second flip EXCEPT YOU POSTED IT BEFORE PEOPLE COULD GET TO TALK TO HIM without any change in perception (it's like talking with a dying cancer or AIDS patient).
Actually, I specifically asked him, several times, to give reads, which he has not done despite giving him time to do so. You're acting as if my alleged action cut off discussion, when it explicitely did not. (Seriously, go back and read the post with the "dayvig" in it. I encourage discussion.) Also, yes, PR=rower role.
Your action cut off "pure" discussion, i.e.
where people didn't know one of the participants was going to die. ("Change in perception").
What I mean is, if you wanted to get genuine discussion to analyze after he was dead, it would've been wasted as people's perception of the situation changes after they know that he's about to die! Especially scum buddies, who will probably go bus him if that happens! See the problem?
Also, if you were all about efficiency, then why not kill at day end, where there are already formed reads and you know who is scummiest in your eyes.
So... you have a problem with me killing too early and with me killing too late? Seems a little like a catch-22, doesn't it? Caz hadn't posted his reads and still hasn't, despite the "dayvig" being in the late-middle of the day. (I didn't post it at the beginning of the day, and you saying so is a subtle but noted misrepresentation.)
@bottom: see above.
Nope. Where did I have a problem with killing too late? Please specifically quote it. I do not remember saying ANYTHING like that, but feel free to prove me wrong.
You seem to be going in the "WOW" factor, also "no scum would be that stupid", as evidenced by the first linked post (dayvig announcement) and by my three posts here (sorry 'bout that).
So, vote for Scripten.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. It could go two ways: 1) You believe that no scum would be this stupid and are voting town or 2) You think that I am scum... drawing attention to myself intentionally... so that I can take a refuge in audacity... despite being fairly townread and having no votes on me...?
Strange. I will be very excited to see how you choose to respond to this.
Very excited, indeed.
"WOW": He did a vigkill D1, then said "discuss this", must be part of a big show.
"no scum would be that stupid": to out themselves as daykilling vigilante who missed, then suspicion is lifted from you, yes. Especially being "townread" and having no votes on you, you can even get away with never having suspicion on you.
Technically, shooting D1 isn't really that stupid, but shooting at the beginning of the day (rather, not right at the end) is definitely.
Hmm... interesting presentation here. This is true, but I didn't post the "dayvig" at the beginning of the day. The end of the day is suboptimal because it gives no time before the lynch for discussion, so I wonder why you keep saying this. Also, does "stupid"=scum to you? Because you seem much more concerned about arguing that I'm stupid than you are about arguing that I'm scum.
I'm saying (since you're likely not actually stupid):
it would be stupid for town to do that
you're likely not actually stupid
=> ergo, you're not town
+ we lynch non-town
=> ergo, we lynch you
QED.
Sorry again for "beginning of day".
For more information why "end of day", please contact Jim Groovester.
(More seriously, though, your post was near the end, which actually does null some of my points).
Scum Points
- Inconsistent with hypothetical situations, using only the most convenient situations where it suits arguments rather than taking the situation and analyzing it
- Makes several allusions that he is voting "stupid town" rather than scum; some of these appear to be unintentional (IE scumslips)
- Subtly misrepresenting me on a few points, namely revolving around encouraging reads, discussion, and using the dayvig action at various points in the day
Town Points
- Wants a reason and motivation for actions, though the accusation holds no weight, it does have pro-town motivation inherently
- Uses statistical analysis relatively accurately, which is town-motivated unless it wholly replaces scumhunting, which it has not
Eh, whatever. I can't really comment on analysis of myself from someone who I was voting to lynch, can I?
I mean, I can, but what's the use?
I'm hoping to get more from a couple of players as they desperately backpedal.
Why would you even say that? It's like trying to explain that you're still doing stuff, while simultaniously nullifying it.
"We will be bombing your positions at 12 o'clock at 0200 hours" and then actually doing it.
As a plus, we won't actually be lynching a vigilante. I'm guessing my vote stays on for now?