Oh and @Frog , shooting you was not a derp. One of the ways I could have lost was if one of you/iced was cult and converted the other and next day forcing a lynch on me. It wasn't town of me to kill you perhaps, but I stand by my decision
Oh and @Frog , shooting you was not a derp. One of the ways I could have lost was if one of you/iced was cult and converted the other and next day forcing a lynch on me. It wasn't town of me to kill you perhaps, but I stand by my decision
Nah mate.
I lynched a SK, then a Triad.
If I were to ever win F3 it'd require having Villager equity.
The 3 scum meant they'd kill me for having the most villager equity.
So yeah, I subbed into an unwinnable spot.
Not even salty about it.
The bolded is just false.
I know you're salty for losing, but this wasn't even a good game to get salty about.
[23:19:33] DarknessB: Sino is Mass Murderer -- I don't care if there isn't one in the setup!
[23:19:39] DarknessB:-vote Sino
Frog was right and played correctly. His only error was assuming that there couldn't be 3p in the setup and that there was 100% 4 Triad in the game. I mean, have you ever seen a Matt setup? :P
The thing is if I shot Iced, then I very easily lose if you're citizen and he just recruits the only citizen claim. Turns out he couldn't recruit, but I didn't know that. Killing Iced had the greatest potential to lose me the game of all 4 options. Killing Slaol would lose me the game if one of you two were cult. Killing Frog was sketchy, but kept me in it regardless and I could have always claimed to have shot Iced (him being immune NK). Anyways, day started an hour before a huge final for me and I had gotten little to no sleep the night prior. I shouldn't have claimed the kill, but when he flipped cult I thought I could bullshit it.
Anyways, if you still think killing Frog was bad on my end, then reply and we can have a discussion. You haven't thought it out fully (from the perspective Frog was citizen, Slaol ML, Iced triad/NK/cult).
When I saw Slaol flip cult, I knew I could make it Iced vs Slaol instead of Iced vs Me. I had 0 pressure on me all of last day if you read it again.
Yep, just one of the many possibilities in which I lost. I was actually pretty screwed as soon as it was 5 players alive(not shooting the night that I lynched sino was my biggest mistake all game). My win chances were very low if Slaol was ML, Frog cit, and 2 triad. If you don't want to take my word for it, put yourself in my shoes and run down the paths. I nearly lost the game because I didn't shoot after Sino lynch with the preflip role knowledge that everyone had.
Last edited by Fury; April 14th, 2017 at 01:10 PM.
Hey, looks like we're back to the regular accounts !
Be honest guys, that accounts swapping idea was the best ever.
[23:19:33] DarknessB: Sino is Mass Murderer -- I don't care if there isn't one in the setup!
[23:19:39] DarknessB:-vote Sino
How do they know I'm Sexy Isabella.
Thank you Anonymous Donor
So I do have one question. was i not stating my point clear in my posts (such as the one I quoted as an example)
My point was that we have 2 possible scenerios but based on which factors are assumed the expect answer is diferent
in the case of scenerio A we want outcome Y
in the case of scenerio B we want outcome Z
am I just bad at explaining things, or did I fuck up somewhere?
It was clear, however, at the time there were only 2 kills N1. And people pointed out that yzb wasn't a high priority kill target. So the fact that both were WD's were a fact of set up mechanic and not via role mechanic.
Matt also host slipped by stating he didn't treat the WD role as unique, so a lot of people assumed (correctly) that he reasoned that the WD's spawned together.
In fact there were 3 cults to start. Both SK's hit the same target N1 which lended itself to providing Fury's claim to be a vigi who couldn't shoot n1 more plausible than a series of chain events happening to make it so that the same target was hit 2 nights in a row, without any reasoning for it to be a necessary kill.
But again, I apologize for not even considering it. Fury was playing a great scum acting town.
So if people assumed that we started with two Witch Doctors (which we did) why was the whole second part of that post ignored which was pointing to Sino.
That is my point, only the first half pointed to Fury IF we had one WD
but in the case of two (Which was the whole point if the second half) that was completly ignored and i was "tunnel visioning"
I think you need to be mindful that posts not written in plain English can confuse minds which are already tired or apathetic. I'm a math guy, so letters are no stranger to me, but I can sympathize. Even if one has logically sound arguments, one must be able to convey them in a concise manner.
Also, you constantly harped on the point that the game started with 1 WD, but YZB made 0 sense to have been a converted WD, as I covered. So, you weakened your argument greatly by entertaining ideas which had a 1% chance of occurring. It probably shouldn't detract from the separate argument, but it (at least for me) led me to devalue your other argument.
And, when I said as much during the FM you failed to acknowledge it.
So that is my question, How do I articulate it better.
Just using the above quote as an example.
I kept trying to explain my target on you was only if we had 1 WD.
Step 1:
Ackowledge that we had two witch doctors
Step 2:
There are two ways to get to two witch doctors
A)A doctor was converted
B)WE started with two Witch doctors
Lets start from this part. Is there some way that my step 2 analyze is wrong? Because this was the only point I was trying to get through for most of the part.
If we accept that Step 2 is true.
Then we take each part seperatly
PArt A- A doctor was converted
The break down of this is what leads to Fury and what my whole argument ON THAT PART was
PArt B- We started with two WD's
I was always open to the idea that either of these were possible, but my question was to the rest of the players which do you think is true.
And then the conclusion
IF you think PArt A is true, Fury is guilty
IF you think part B is true, sino was guilty
TO me, I was trying to HArp that Part A was possible, not that it was true, just that it was possible.
In the case that A doesn't make sense (for insert reason) and therefore false
Then B is true
I don't know how there was a clearer way to write this
Lol so I got a Town role pm.
Then during the night one my role was corrected.
Good game I guess lol
Don't pet growlithe, he will bite you.
Aw, so you were trying to show that I was town and I killed you for it
That is why my vote was on Sino and not you.
But despite the logic break down on why Sino was my vote, i was "tunneling Fury" and voting Sino
You were tunneling him though -- you kept fighting for your one option to be correct..and that he had to be sk (which he was). I mean you replaced in and we were all there from the start so I couldn't see the game as objectively as you could. Regardless mistakes were made, I've apologized 4 times now and you're still harping on this for some reason.
Yea, while he says now he didn't mean to be pushing me, I just distinctly remembered him quite literally pushing me. Which at the time made him seem scummy trying to get rid of a confirmed town.
I want to know how to get my point across in a better way so next time there is no confusion on my point
You can be coincidentally right for the wrong reasons. He was only right if the game started with 1 WD. It didn't. By his own logic, I couldn't have been SK.
Right? If the game started with 2 WD's, then I was 100% not SK (according to him).
@PowersThatBe and @ccantman
I'd recommend you look into the Gettier problem if you want to learn more ^_^
Last edited by Fury; April 15th, 2017 at 10:26 AM.
Can you explain my 'totally derped' play?
Or was this just a comment made in anger?
I don't think I could have played better in the spot I was given.
Curious to hear your thoughts.
If it's just an angry comment, no problem mate.
We all get salty. Just try not to be so immature. ;)
Makes for a better community.