S-FM 204: Insanity

[ThePaladin]

I've had Paladin pinged as suspicious for stuff like dodgy statistics [post #205]

and continuing to buddy RLVG [post #515] even after I point out the buddying undertones [post #498] and RLVG himself hinting at buddying undertones [post #236]

and of course a really bad setup strategy [post #518]

but in light of the recent rereadings I think I'm bumping him up to top lynch priority. His use of buddying undertones and setup strat.s to make the game nicer / easier for a cult leader makes me suspect he could be cult leader. Obviously it's a huge jump to wonder if he's cult leader specifically, but lynching cult leader n1 makes a really nice bonus thought on top of suspicious behavior anyway.

-vote ThePaladin

My pseudo-statistic were fine and were close enough to actual numbers if you did the math. I'm not going to do 10permutations and combinations and probability analysis to give you well there is an exactly 19.25342% chance.


There aren't buddying undertones. Talking about stuff isn't buddying. Being friendly isn't buddying. Calling out people on BS reasoning of other players isn't buddying. Learn what buddying is. Buddying is unecessarily defending players who have good,solid reasoning against them.

I also talked about jester king and asked question about what he should do, therefore I am jester king. Literally half of active players have asked question and done setup spec. Either you scumread everyone whose done this or no one with this reasoning. You can't just use 1 person or it doesn't make sense.


I've already stated that the actual sinisters probably don't know they are sinisister[at minimum however many sinisters we have minus 1-2] don't know their role or certain roles such as that asylum role that when dies a sinister learns their alignment would be useless.

Pretty Sure I'm just repeating myself with this. Are there any posts you think I haven't commented on?

[yzb25]

I reread your post that was directed at RLVG and better understand it now. My bad. Still, you wrote it in a very obscure manner which you yourself acknowledge, and which projects the opposite of your meaning on a first read.

Nor was I saying his point(s) weren't valid or correct, per se, but they were simply reiterations of previously made points in response to a very unfounded and unsubstantial read by Taekyon, and I do not agree with the characterization that somehow Gyrlander is now a "valid contributor" as a whole.

Thank you for subtly and unsubtly demeaning my intelligence multiple times in your post.

Naturally, it's not my intention to paint Gyrlander as a "valid contributor", but simply someone who has contributed. I definitely did not feel like he was hiding behind anyone / sheeping anyone with that response to Taekyon though :P

My pleasure, though in all seriousness it wasn't intentional. If I did it might be a note of frustration. Paladin is openly playing against the town right now, and the only "serious idea" he has had was that "don't do any night actions for 5 days" which openly goes against town interests. Bby not responding to his dissidents properly he's making this 1000x worse. You're not acknowledging that. It's getting under my skin.

[ThePaladin]

My setup strategy is game breaking even if there is cult. I already went through numbers.

most likely a cult doesn't know they are cult and will follow through

Even if cult hit properly by that time.

13-3-3=7 . Neither cult has anywhere close to majority.

[ThePaladin]

Naturally, it's not my intention to paint Gyrlander as a "valid contributor", but simply someone who has contributed. I definitely did not feel like he was hiding behind anyone / sheeping anyone with that response to Taekyon though :P

My pleasure, though in all seriousness it wasn't intentional. If I did it might be a note of frustration. Paladin is openly playing against the town right now, and the only "serious idea" he has had was that "don't do any night actions for 5 days" which openly goes against town interests. Bby not responding to his dissidents properly he's making this 1000x worse. You're not acknowledging that. It's getting under my skin.

Town knowing for a fact they are town while sinisters don't know who they are is against town interests?
how.

This is literally the M-FM heaven's again with reasonings against game breakign strategies.

[secondpassing]

Hi, I can't be here long. When's EOD?

[Kovath]

Naturally, it's not my intention to paint Gyrlander as a "valid contributor", but simply someone who has contributed. I definitely did not feel like he was hiding behind anyone / sheeping anyone with that response to Taekyon though :P

My pleasure, though in all seriousness it wasn't intentional. If I did it might be a note of frustration. Paladin is openly playing against the town right now, and the only "serious idea" he has had was that "don't do any night actions for 5 days" which openly goes against town interests. Bby not responding to his dissidents properly he's making this 1000x worse. You're not acknowledging that. It's getting under my skin.

I didn't mean that he was sheeping anyone, which was a mistake on how I framed my language. I meant the point about sinisters not having buddies had been made before, I believe? Maybe my timeline is wrong but that's what I remember, that multiple people made the point that there are no scumteams. If so, it wasn't a big leap to just repeat that point.

To be fair, your case originally began with points about his setup spec and buddying undertones - and that was what I responded to, questioning the strength of those points. IMO that doesn't qualify as anti-town play on his part.

Since then, admittedly, I don't think he's handled himself very well on the defense - so when you say I'm not "acknowledging that", it's truthfully only on the basis of your points against his setup spec and not how he's defending himself, which I now feel has been more anti-town than the former.

[ThePaladin]

Hi, I can't be here long. When's EOD?

• 00

• 00

• 00

• 00

DAYS HOURS MINUTES SECONDS

[Kovath]

Err, to clarify my last two previous paragraphs since they don't read clearly even to me:

I began to question your points, yzb, BEFORE Paladin came in to start defending himself, which was in a way that I do find kinda weird. So when you say how my "not acknowledging that" gets under your skin, I feel you might be looping in my arguments as continued defense of how Paladin is handling himself atm - which it is not.

[yzb25]

My pseudo-statistic were fine and were close enough to actual numbers if you did the math. I'm not going to do 10permutations and combinations and probability analysis to give you well there is an exactly 19.25342% chance.

I'm not taking this any further until you properly explain how you tried to approximate the chances someone is not the alignment they think they are.

For those who need context, Paladin said there's a FIFTY PERCENT chance you are not the alignment your rolecard says you are, which implies that HALF THE PLAYERS are in different alignments to their actual roles. I have no idea how you got those kinds of stats.

There aren't buddying undertones. Talking about stuff isn't buddying. Being friendly isn't buddying. Calling out people on BS reasoning of other players isn't buddying. Learn what buddying is. Buddying is unecessarily defending players who have good,solid reasoning against them.

I also talked about jester king and asked question about what he should do, therefore I am jester king. Literally half of active players have asked question and done setup spec. Either you scumread everyone whose done this or no one with this reasoning. You can't just use 1 person or it doesn't make sense.

As RLVG literally explained to you in this game, buddying in a setup where scum can't confirm eachother d1 consists of hints and prods. But sure, act oblivious again.

On the topic of RLVG explaining that to you: if RLVG actually is town, he probably had such a powerful response to you saying "there's no buddying in this setup" (voting you and writing "liar" in caps) because he was under the impression you were buddying with him.

Oh, and you mentioned unecessarily defending players who are being voted for valid reasons:

"Too unfucksgiven to constructive posting.

Paladin is Town, yo.

-vote gamefreak" - RLVG baselessly defending Paladin and revoting Gamefreak, immediately after Unknown had given valid reasons for distrusting Paladin.

"Hey RLVG let's play this checkers game some more." - Paladin, who is too innocent to notice such things.

I've already stated that the actual sinisters probably don't know they are sinisister[at minimum however many sinisters we have minus 1-2] don't know their role or certain roles such as that asylum role that when dies a sinister learns their alignment would be useless.

Is this meant to address the fact that, despite being good with setups, the only setup strat you've presented is a strat that would play right into cult leader's hands?

Even if for some ungodly reason host has made a cult leader that doesn't know he's cult leader, that doesn't stop cult leader visiting others and making a cult.

Pretty Sure I'm just repeating myself with this. Are there any posts you think I haven't commented on?

Don't worry, you've never taken the time to say any of this before in this manner. And you have yet to finish responding to this post.

You also haven't tried to justify that god-awful idea to take no night action / lynch for 5 days, yet again.

[yzb25]

My setup strategy is game breaking even if there is cult. I already went through numbers.

most likely a cult doesn't know they are cult and will follow through

Even if cult hit properly by that time.

13-3-3=7 . Neither cult has anywhere close to majority.

cult converts on n1
cult converts on n3
cult converts on n5

So, if you give the counsellor and director FIVE NIGHTS to check 10 players (which they probably won't because there's a high chance one gets converted, and that they both check one person accidentally)

You'll get an 8 person cult. Even if a couple don't go off due to roleblock or something and you get 6, the scum will still hold a majority over the town.
That is terrible. Admit that is terrible. For the love of god. And try to explain how a fuck-up so hard occurs from a player who can read setups so well he can break them.

[ThePaladin]

I'm not taking this any further until you properly explain how you tried to approximate the chances someone is not the alignment they think they are.

For those who need context, Paladin said there's a FIFTY PERCENT chance you are not the alignment your rolecard says you are, which implies that HALF THE PLAYERS are in different alignments to their actual roles. I have no idea how you got those kinds of stats.



As RLVG literally explained to you in this game, buddying in a setup where scum can't confirm eachother d1 consists of hints and prods. But sure, act oblivious again.

On the topic of RLVG explaining that to you: if RLVG actually is town, he probably had such a powerful response to you saying "there's no buddying in this setup" (voting you and writing "liar" in caps) because he was under the impression you were buddying with him.

Oh, and you mentioned unecessarily defending players who are being voted for valid reasons:

"Too unfucksgiven to constructive posting.

Paladin is Town, yo.

-vote gamefreak" - RLVG baselessly defending Paladin and revoting Gamefreak, immediately after Unknown had given valid reasons for distrusting Paladin.

"Hey RLVG let's play this checkers game some more." - Paladin, who is too innocent to notice such things.



Is this meant to address the fact that, despite being good with setups, the only setup strat you've presented is a strat that would play right into cult leader's hands?

Even if for some ungodly reason host has made a cult leader that doesn't know he's cult leader, that doesn't stop cult leader visiting others and making a cult.



Don't worry, you've never taken the time to say any of this before in this manner. And you have yet to finish responding to this post.

You also haven't tried to justify that god-awful idea to take no night action / lynch for 5 days, yet again.

Fifty percent:

You are either the alignment you recieved or you are not.

50:50 like a coin flip.

EACH player has a 50/50 chance. I even specified EACH I belive. You can have 3 jellbeans that are brown and 7 jellybeans that are read, but if each time I take 1 of each put them in a box and say draw one you ahve a 50:50 chance of getting either.
Till you know for a fact that you have ran out of one colour.


I got to l4 for no good reason. Unknown stated there was no reason then with no information suddenly decided my first post on page 1 gave a reason. That was contradictory.

How dare I want to finish a game of checkers. If you think there are undertones in checkers say what they are because I don't see any.


Already explained how math works in the optimal outcome for having 2 cults 13-3-3=7, neither cult knows who the other are. Neither is close to majority.


You are lying I literally just posted.

My setup strategy is game breaking even if there is cult. I already went through numbers.

most likely a cult doesn't know they are cult and will follow through

Even if cult hit properly by that time.

13-3-3=7 . Neither cult has anywhere close to majority.

[ThePaladin]

cult converts on n1
cult converts on n3
cult converts on n5

So, if you give the counsellor and director FIVE NIGHTS to check 10 players (which they probably won't because there's a high chance one gets converted, and that they both check one person accidentally)

You'll get an 8 person cult. Even if a couple don't go off due to roleblock or something and you get 6, the scum will still hold a majority over the town.
That is terrible. Admit that is terrible. For the love of god. And try to explain how a fuck-up so hard occurs from a player who can read setups so well he can break them.

Max cult size is 3.

Each cult is a different faction you have 2 seperate cults of 3 people.

[ThePaladin]

Occult Leader
-unique role-
You may convert 1 person to the occult every other night
You have 1 auto vest
You cannot convert other sinister
You know who the other members of the Occult are.
You are limited to a size of 3 members



Occultist
You know who the other members of the Occult are



Cult Leader
-Unique Role-
You may convert 1 person to the Cult every other night
You have 1 auto vest
You cannot convert other sinister
You know who the other members of the Cult are.
You are limited to a size of 3 members



Cultist
You know who the other members of the Cult are

Did you even bother reading the setup before you started using reasoning against a strategy?

We went over a 5-night thing. In M-FM heaven where we would all scrap night actions in order to pray.

In that game there was a 4person mafia| a cult whose members got to keep their actions| and an arson/witch combo and it still won town the game.

And in that game the mafia could even show up as town on the list.

[Unknown1234]

ThePaladin if you don't realize you and RLVG buddy a ton you're blind.

You have way too much of an ego to accept being wrong, and are way too stubborn to accept contradicting answers.

[yzb25]

Err, to clarify my last two previous paragraphs since they don't read clearly even to me:

I began to question your points, yzb, BEFORE Paladin came in to start defending himself, which was in a way that I do find kinda weird. So when you say how my "not acknowledging that" gets under your skin, I feel you might be looping in my arguments as continued defense of how Paladin is handling himself atm - which it is not.

Oh I think I get it. You mean I expected you to acknowledge it before you had much time to acknowledge it? That would mean my frustration is completely unfair heh. Tbh I'm really tired right now. The town is fucked so hard to have me as the one on the front lines trying to show the scummyness - I'm bad at debating anyway, and I'm slowing down and getting more incoherent heheh :3

In regards to Gyrlander, I don't know the timeline that well myself. If others made the point before him that certainly diminishes the post, but I still feel like it was his post, if you get what I mean.

[ThePaladin]

ThePaladin if you don't realize you and RLVG buddy a ton you're blind.

You have way too much of an ego to accept being wrong, and are way too stubborn to accept contradicting answers.

We are generally friendly with each other since we have similar though processes.

Same with me and fire.

Agreeing with each other is not buddying.

You and Mesk going, I trust this guy 100% and won't vote him is buddying.

[yzb25]

Occult Leader
-unique role-
You may convert 1 person to the occult every other night
You have 1 auto vest
You cannot convert other sinister
You know who the other members of the Occult are.
You are limited to a size of 3 members



Occultist
You know who the other members of the Occult are



Cult Leader
-Unique Role-
You may convert 1 person to the Cult every other night
You have 1 auto vest
You cannot convert other sinister
You know who the other members of the Cult are.
You are limited to a size of 3 members



Cultist
You know who the other members of the Cult are

Did you even bother reading the setup before you started using reasoning against a strategy?

We went over a 5-night thing. In M-FM heaven where we would all scrap night actions in order to pray.

In that game there was a 4person mafia| a cult whose members got to keep their actions| and an arson/witch combo and it still won town the game.

And in that game the mafia could even show up as town on the list.

3 members. I assumed that referred to the TOTAL number. On reflection I might be an idiot for thinking that.

I guess this changes everything. I'm sure we'd all be chuffed to let the cult grow to 6, and put the town in a 6v1v6, or a 5v1v1v6 =P

[Unknown1234]

We are generally friendly with each other since we have similar though processes.

Same with me and fire.

Agreeing with each other is not buddying.

You and Mesk going, I trust this guy 100% and won't vote him is buddying.

It's not blindness, and please stop redirecting it onto other players. Own up to buddying instead of trying to make others look worse. I actually don't know how you can justify that it isn't buddying, and I doubt I will listen to your logic anyways because I'm not the only one suggesting it.

[secondpassing]

I'm not taking this any further until you properly explain how you tried to approximate the chances someone is not the alignment they think they are.

For those who need context, Paladin said there's a FIFTY PERCENT chance you are not the alignment your rolecard says you are, which implies that HALF THE PLAYERS are in different alignments to their actual roles. I have no idea how you got those kinds of stats.


As RLVG literally explained to you in this game, buddying in a setup where scum can't confirm eachother d1 consists of hints and prods. But sure, act oblivious again.

On the topic of RLVG explaining that to you: if RLVG actually is town, he probably had such a powerful response to you saying "there's no buddying in this setup" (voting you and writing "liar" in caps) because he was under the impression you were buddying with him.

Oh, and you mentioned unecessarily defending players who are being voted for valid reasons:

"Too unfucksgiven to constructive posting.

Paladin is Town, yo.

-vote gamefreak" - RLVG baselessly defending Paladin and revoting Gamefreak, immediately after Unknown had given valid reasons for distrusting Paladin.

"Hey RLVG let's play this checkers game some more." - Paladin, who is too innocent to notice such things.



Is this meant to address the fact that, despite being good with setups, the only setup strat you've presented is a strat that would play right into cult leader's hands?

Even if for some ungodly reason host has made a cult leader that doesn't know he's cult leader, that doesn't stop cult leader visiting others and making a cult.


Don't worry, you've never taken the time to say any of this before in this manner. And you have yet to finish responding to this post.

You also haven't tried to justify that god-awful idea to take no night action / lynch for 5 days, yet again.

You're digging too deep yzb and you are blowing things out-of-context/digging for nothing.

First point: I don't find that statistic to be misleading in any way. In fact, I can't see how someone could use that statistic to push a scum agenda. Instead of fear-mongering, I think it reflects our feelings.
Those who do not agree with these feelings: I wish to hear your thoughts.
Do you think you are a lunatic?

Second point: If Paladin is too innocent to notice such things, then how is he buddying RLVG?
I'd say he's buddying RLVG as a natural course. There was no hostility I could detect between the two, and probably results from the craziness of playing a table top game on a forum.
-Insert advertisement here-

Third point: Paladin is suggesting the same strategy used in M-FM Heavens Descends Upon Thee. If he is really cult leader, there's too much WIFOM to go through. I think it is too risky for a cult leader to do.

Question addressed to everyone:
Do you think you are a lunatic?

[secondpassing]

Lol shoulda refreshed page.

[secondpassing]

yeah, SP has used some dodgy logic at times.

Unknown thinks Iced tone is off.

Both are definitely worth looking into.

What is the point of this post? As in, why did you post it?

[secondpassing]

Unknown, why aren't you on Iced_Monopoly anymore? What changed your mind?

[Unknown1234]

Unknown, why aren't you on Iced_Monopoly anymore? What changed your mind?

Because I haven't been around enough to make a case, and currently I've looked like a joke. It would be wasting everyone's time making a case this late when hardly anyone listens.

[Kovath]

Oh I think I get it. You mean I expected you to acknowledge it before you had much time to acknowledge it? That would mean my frustration is completely unfair heh. Tbh I'm really tired right now. The town is fucked so hard to have me as the one on the front lines trying to show the scummyness - I'm bad at debating anyway, and I'm slowing down and getting more incoherent heheh :3

In regards to Gyrlander, I don't know the timeline that well myself. If others made the point before him that certainly diminishes the post, but I still feel like it was his post, if you get what I mean.

Not really time, but more that my discussion with you, which began before his defense and didn't involve it, didn't translate into an implicit defense of Paladin's following behavior, which I did find strange and suspicion.

Ok, I can understand this point.

I really would like to see Gyrlander lynched atm but accept that time is running out with no traction - I'm warming to a Paladin lynch but think Gyrlander should be pressured ASAP.

ThePaladin if you don't realize you and RLVG buddy a ton you're blind.

You have way too much of an ego to accept being wrong, and are way too stubborn to accept contradicting answers.

Don't contradicting answers just mean that one is probably wrong? Not a big point but what do you mean here.

[Unknown1234]

Wait to stubborn to accept that other opinions are correct over his own.

[Unknown1234]

Way too* sorry terrible grammar

[ThePaladin]

Not really time, but more that my discussion with you, which began before his defense and didn't involve it, didn't translate into an implicit defense of Paladin's following behavior, which I did find strange and suspicion.

Ok, I can understand this point.

I really would like to see Gyrlander lynched atm but accept that time is running out with no traction - I'm warming to a Paladin lynch but think Gyrlander should be pressured ASAP.



Don't contradicting answers just mean that one is probably wrong? Not a big point but what do you mean here.

I can go for a GF or Gyrlander lynch.

-vote Gyrlander

Just keep in mind anyone who shifts votes off a GF should be here at EoD to shift back if necessary.

[ThePaladin]

Wait to stubborn to accept that other opinions are correct over his own.

I have accepted other opinions and conceding many times before, I don't see where you get this from?

You just have to have good reasoning and show me how my logic is faulty/fallacious.

I don't see any of that so far.

[yzb25]

You're digging too deep yzb and you are blowing things out-of-context/digging for nothing.

First point: I don't find that statistic to be misleading in any way. In fact, I can't see how someone could use that statistic to push a scum agenda. Instead of fear-mongering, I think it reflects our feelings.
Those who do not agree with these feelings: I wish to hear your thoughts.
Do you think you are a lunatic?

Context is important there. He used that wildly out of wack statistic to discredit the lynch train on Gamefreak and not participate in the pressure vote. This was in the early days when all that had happened was Gamefreak making that susp. post and no defense, mind you. If it was an off-hand mistake in post #4 a more gentle tone would be appropriate, I agree

Second point: If Paladin is too innocent to notice such things, then how is he buddying RLVG?
I'd say he's buddying RLVG as a natural course. There was no hostility I could detect between the two, and probably results from the craziness of playing a table top game on a forum.
-Insert advertisement here-

I was being sarcastic when I said the innocent thing lol. He can't be too innocent to notice such things, because RLVG literally informed him in-game about how d1 buddying works. If you want to see a more fleshed out version of my argument for how RLVG has buddied (or pretended to buddy with paladin) I'd recommend my first paragraph in 498. Paladin continued the checkers game even after this post on 515 (I think it was 515, around there).

Third point: Paladin is suggesting the same strategy used in M-FM Heavens Descends Upon Thee. If he is really cult leader, there's too much WIFOM to go through. I think it is too risky for a cult leader to do.

Question addressed to everyone:
Do you think you are a lunatic?

It's not that risky, really. I mean, even after noticing that cult leader thing, I'm still not sure if he is cult leader. He could be another kind of scum. It's just a large possibility given that many of the misteps he has made point to cult leader.

[Kovath]

I can go for a GF or Gyrlander lynch.

-vote Gyrlander

Just keep in mind anyone who shifts votes off a GF should be here at EoD to shift back if necessary.

Do you scumread them or is this just policy?

[Unknown1234]

Way too* sorry terrible grammar

I have accepted other opinions and conceding many times before, I don't see where you get this from?

You just have to have good reasoning and show me how my logic is faulty/fallacious.

I don't see any of that so far.

You act like I'm the only one you don't listen to, do you need to argue about everything?

[ThePaladin]

Context is important there. He used that wildly out of wack statistic to discredit the lynch train on Gamefreak and not participate in the pressure vote. This was in the early days when all that had happened was Gamefreak making that susp. post and no defense, mind you. If it was an off-hand mistake in post #4 a more gentle tone would be appropriate, I agree



I was being sarcastic when I said the innocent thing lol. He can't be too innocent to notice such things, because RLVG literally informed him in-game about how d1 buddying works. If you want to see a more fleshed out version of my argument for how RLVG has buddied (or pretended to buddy with paladin) I'd recommend my first paragraph in 498. Paladin continued the checkers game even after this post on 515 (I think it was 515, around there).



It's not that risky, really. I mean, even after noticing that cult leader thing, I'm still not sure if he is cult leader. He could be another kind of scum. It's just a large possibility given that many of the misteps he has made point to cult leader.

i

Guess what would have happened if I pressured GF more. Spruance would have hammered. Sorry that I know when a guy has enough pressure on him. You don't need to vote a guy to go, hey this guy is doing scummy stuff.

I did ask how one says meta behaviour is suspicious rather than scummy. Because there is a difference. Suspicious is behaviour out of the norm which can also be scummy. Scummy behaviour can be within or outside the norm.

There are meaning behind words in english.

[secondpassing]

Context is important there. He used that wildly out of wack statistic to discredit the lynch train on Gamefreak and not participate in the pressure vote. This was in the early days when all that had happened was Gamefreak making that susp. post and no defense, mind you. If it was an off-hand mistake in post #4 a more gentle tone would be appropriate, I agree

I'll concede this point; however, I do not still agree it was scum motivated.

I was being sarcastic when I said the innocent thing lol. He can't be too innocent to notice such things, because RLVG literally informed him in-game about how d1 buddying works. If you want to see a more fleshed out version of my argument for how RLVG has buddied (or pretended to buddy with paladin) I'd recommend my first paragraph in 498. Paladin continued the checkers game even after this post on 515 (I think it was 515, around there).

To me, 515 just seemed like he wanted to win. And I can't tell sarcasm on the internet easily.
yzb post 498:
"Even though your time with him largely dropped after you taught him about this, you are now baselessly calling him town, and revoting Gamefreak to draw attention away from him."
I too read Paladin as town. Voting GameFreak made a lot more sense. So this I do not follow.

It's not that risky, really. I mean, even after noticing that cult leader thing, I'm still not sure if he is cult leader. He could be another kind of scum. It's just a large possibility given that many of the misteps he has made point to cult leader.

[ThePaladin]

Do you scumread them or is this just policy?

Policy/IDidntLikeHisPlaysyleFromLastGameIPlayedWithHim

And since he was scum that game, he could be scum again

[deathworlds]

Day will have a 24 hour extension.

[Kovath]

Policy/IDidntLikeHisPlaysyleFromLastGameIPlayedWithHim

And since he was scum that game, he could be scum again

Could you elaborate further? What specific features of his playstyle did you see in that game?

Also, reading your answer at face-value: "I didn't like him LAST GAME. He was scum LAST GAME. He could be scum THIS GAME."

Nowhere do you explicitly say, "I see the same things in this game, and that is why I am making this connection." -> It reads just like that weird vote reasoning someone gave earlier in this thread (don't remember who) that someone was often scum in previous games (but had no reference at all to anything from this game so far).

So again: please elaborate.

[secondpassing]

Context is important there. He used that wildly out of wack statistic to discredit the lynch train on Gamefreak and not participate in the pressure vote. This was in the early days when all that had happened was Gamefreak making that susp. post and no defense, mind you. If it was an off-hand mistake in post #4 a more gentle tone would be appropriate, I agree



I was being sarcastic when I said the innocent thing lol. He can't be too innocent to notice such things, because RLVG literally informed him in-game about how d1 buddying works. If you want to see a more fleshed out version of my argument for how RLVG has buddied (or pretended to buddy with paladin) I'd recommend my first paragraph in 498. Paladin continued the checkers game even after this post on 515 (I think it was 515, around there).



It's not that risky, really. I mean, even after noticing that cult leader thing, I'm still not sure if he is cult leader. He could be another kind of scum. It's just a large possibility given that many of the misteps he has made point to cult leader.

Context is important there. He used that wildly out of wack statistic to discredit the lynch train on Gamefreak and not participate in the pressure vote. This was in the early days when all that had happened was Gamefreak making that susp. post and no defense, mind you. If it was an off-hand mistake in post #4 a more gentle tone would be appropriate, I agree

I'll concede this point; however, I do not still agree it was scum motivated.

I was being sarcastic when I said the innocent thing lol. He can't be too innocent to notice such things, because RLVG literally informed him in-game about how d1 buddying works. If you want to see a more fleshed out version of my argument for how RLVG has buddied (or pretended to buddy with paladin) I'd recommend my first paragraph in 498. Paladin continued the checkers game even after this post on 515 (I think it was 515, around there).

To me, 515 just seemed like he wanted to win. And I can't tell sarcasm on the internet easily.
yzb post 498:
"Even though your time with him largely dropped after you taught him about this, you are now baselessly calling him town, and revoting Gamefreak to draw attention away from him."
I too read Paladin as town. Voting GameFreak made a lot more sense. So this I do not follow.

It's not that risky, really. I mean, even after noticing that cult leader thing, I'm still not sure if he is cult leader. He could be another kind of scum. It's just a large possibility given that many of the misteps he has made point to cult leader.

You also didn't answer the question in cyan posed also to you.
Do you think you are a lunatic?

[secondpassing]

Post Above

Ugh, so it go through when I thought sc2mafia was down.
Double post. Sorry.

[yzb25]

What is the point of this post? As in, why did you post it?

I was suggesting starting points for an inactive to look at. It wasn't a reflection of who I scumread, if that's what you're curious about.

What I did 8 hours ago is a reflection of who I scumread :P

[yzb25]

i

Guess what would have happened if I pressured GF more. Spruance would have hammered. Sorry that I know when a guy has enough pressure on him. You don't need to vote a guy to go, hey this guy is doing scummy stuff.

I did ask how one says meta behaviour is suspicious rather than scummy. Because there is a difference. Suspicious is behaviour out of the norm which can also be scummy. Scummy behaviour can be within or outside the norm.

There are meaning behind words in english.

Woah, the contempt in this comment is oozing. Guess people show their true colors when faced with the rope.

You are completely twisting how pressure votes work, in regards to justifying your twisted stats and diversion.

Let's suppose that given 24 hours, pressure vote X will naturally go to l-2/l-1.

Suppose an extra, unneeded person at L-5 speeds up the process and says "this is a good pressure vote because X, Y and Z" and votes - that won't result in the lynch being "tipped over the edge" and the last person hammering.

Rather, if more people than necessary are ready to pressure vote, what happens is the pressure vote gets sped up, and the last person no longer adds a pressure vote. And the GF pressure vote was a slow, shitty pressure vote which GF himself dissed. It took 24 hours to make a train, and at the start it looked like it might curl up and die. You did not use your psychic powers to predict the lynch train would stop perfectly at L-1 and deliberately not vote so as not to "tip it over the edge". You attacked it in its infancy, before it even had momentum.

Voting on a good pressure vote is never a bad thing. It only speeds up the time it takes to get pressure votes. You don't have to worry about "too many people agreeing to pressure vote" and it becoming a lynch, because the last few like spruance and gyrlander wouldn't hammer even if it did end up on L-1, as demonstrated by how we got an entire page of them specifically not hammering =P

This is such an obscure argument it takes a long time to refute, but I really hope people see how fucking insane this is as a comeback. ^

And, in regards to your meta argument, it's irrelevant. Because the votes were pressure votes. If Gamefreak was just being bad because of a bad meta, then the pressure votes would force him to drop his bad meta or be policy lynched. Pressure votes are the perfect response to the "bad meta vs. scum issue", which is why Kovath is so eager to pressure vote Gyrlander. Honestly, you're just reinforcing how important the pressure vote you rejected was.

But that was besides the point because Gamefreak was being worse than his usual meta. His first post was almost definitely an excuse to get away and not standard Gamefreak behaviour. Paladin's reasons for not voting him stand at a misread meta (irrelevant) and botched statistics at best. And at worst... well... Read the last few pages again folks :P

[yzb25]

I'll concede this point; however, I do not still agree it was scum motivated.




To me, 515 just seemed like he wanted to win. And I can't tell sarcasm on the internet easily.
yzb post 498:
"Even though your time with him largely dropped after you taught him about this, you are now baselessly calling him town, and revoting Gamefreak to draw attention away from him."
I too read Paladin as town. Voting GameFreak made a lot more sense. So this I do not follow.





You also didn't answer the question in cyan posed also to you.
Do you think you are a lunatic?

I don't know if I'm a lunatic. I have no way of knowing and will not waste time wondering about it on d1. I know it's unlikely I am not the alignment it says I am, and that is enough to convince me that just taking this as my alignment is the best course of action.

Again, I'm not explaining everything enough, which makes it appear out-of-the-blue/contrived. Apologies.

"Too unfucksgiven to constructive posting.

Paladin is Town, yo.

-vote gamefreak" -RLVG

This was the post RLVG made in defense of Paladin. RLVG had responded with no reasons for believing Paladin is town, and revoting a player he had already voted, and trying to annoy Unknown even though Unknown had presented reasons why he was voting Paladin. That's not a town-like way of defending someone.

Now, back to Paladin's attempt to restart the game:

I'd get if you wanted to keep going just to win. I know that feeling. But I also wouldn't pretend to be oblivious to the buddying undertones, that I had addressed and RLVG himself had hinted at (and took part in, with the defense of Paladin above). (Note, Paladin had been reading.) Furthermore, the checkers game had been ded for 10 pages. Paladin was literally like "come on RLVG reply pls" because RLVG himself had stopped replying lol. If he had just continued the game post-game or after they both died or addressed the buddying concerns this wouldn't be nearly as severe as it is.

And the CL thing is not that risky. And the fact you find this so implausible is reinforcing why it's not that risky - it's just not something you imagine people to catch on to.

After you've town-read someone, I don't expect you to immediately see my side of the fence. But there's a line to be drawn between skepticism and denial. Saying "I feel like you've made some errors, let's talk" is good and healthy. Saying "I'll concede this point but I still don't see it as scum motivated" is the point when I wonder about confirmation bias. You seem to be a little too trusting in a game about doubt and manipulation. ;)

[yzb25]

Sorry for these walls of text, there's just so much to say and reply to in this position heheh =3

We might have to find a way to organize this, or newcomers won't bother to read =(

[yzb25]

This was from last night, I didn't get a chance to post it in the crash:

Fifty percent:

You are either the alignment you recieved or you are not.

50:50 like a coin flip.

EACH player has a 50/50 chance. I even specified EACH I belive. You can have 3 jellbeans that are brown and 7 jellybeans that are read, but if each time I take 1 of each put them in a box and say draw one you ahve a 50:50 chance of getting either.
Till you know for a fact that you have ran out of one colour.

Just because there are two outcomes, does not mean they have an equal chance of occurring. I might get bitten by a snake tomorrow, I might not get bitten by a snake tomorrow. But that doesn't mean the chances of being bitten by a snake are 50/50.

You're not thinking about it correctly. If in a neighbourhood of 100 people 1/100 people get bitten by a snake tomorrow, then it's correct to say a random person has a 1/100 chance of getting bitten. If 2/13 or 3/13 people are actually a different alignment in a game of 13, then that means a randomly selected player has a 2/13 or 3/13 chance of being a different alignment from what they say they are.

Anyone can ask themselves, does it actually sound right that Deathworlds would design this in such a manner that there is a 50/50 chance my rolecard is completely wrong about even my alignment, given that there's a possibility most people will never find out their real role? Wouldn't that cross the line from being a crazy save into a straight up un-fun one?

I'm not sure what you're talking about by emphasizing the "each". You can't even write this off as Paladin being bad with stats - he's referenced permutations and has lots of knowledge about how to twist them. You must be aware that these stats are dogshit. They do not make plausible sense.

I got to l4 for no good reason. Unknown stated there was no reason then with no information suddenly decided my first post on page 1 gave a reason. That was contradictory.

How dare I want to finish a game of checkers. If you think there are undertones in checkers say what they are because I don't see any.


Already explained how math works in the optimal outcome for having 2 cults 13-3-3=7, neither cult knows who the other are. Neither is close to majority.


You are lying I literally just posted.

Unknown did give reasons he disliked your play. Do you deny that too?

And a little more of the "pff psychology in checkers so stupid yzb".

Now you're also repeating yourself, anything to drag this out for another hour I guess.

I am busy writing posts. It's not lying to say "a post doesn't exist" when I have no reasonable way of knowing that post exists. The only one overreading is you when you call me a "liar" for a decent mistake.

Anyway, for the love of god 7-3-3-1 is NOT good for the town.
Cult member:
"Hey guys, cult and occult and sinister non-killing hold a majority, if we all team up, we can win this because cult and occult both win together if they each control 50% of the vote. The witch / agent / executioner / Jester King can prove themselves with relative ease. So let's just lynch off the towns for the remaining days!"
Even if they're not clever enough to organize that IMMEDIATELY, the town still doesn't even hold a majority - they hold a plurality. If you just had 7-3-1 that would look like a BALANCED SETUP, so how does 7-3-3-1 or 7-3-3-2 not look like a SLAUGHTER for town?!

[yzb25]

GYAAAH EGGY! EGGY IS ONLINE

EGGY? ARE YOU THERE?

[Gyrlander]

I'm really fustrated for the Lunatic thing as I don't know if I should trust my gut reads Still, I feel bad about Taekyon. And you fuckers trying to lynch me are just looking for an easy one. Specially ThePaladin, bitch.

[yzb25]

I'm really fustrated for the Lunatic thing as I don't know if I should trust my gut reads Still, I feel bad about Taekyon. And you fuckers trying to lynch me are just looking for an easy one. Specially ThePaladin, bitch.

Tbh, I don't think it's fair to put Kovath and Paladin in the same camp.

Kovath seems genuinely pissed off at how you play. He's not taking the easy route by pushing a one-man policy lynch XD

[Gyrlander]

Tbh, I don't think it's fair to put Kovath and Paladin in the same camp.

Kovath seems genuinely pissed off at how you play. He's not taking the easy route by pushing a one-man policy lynch XD

I've always thought that policy lynches are beneficial to scum.

[ThePaladin]

Could you elaborate further? What specific features of his playstyle did you see in that game?

Also, reading your answer at face-value: "I didn't like him LAST GAME. He was scum LAST GAME. He could be scum THIS GAME."

Nowhere do you explicitly say, "I see the same things in this game, and that is why I am making this connection." -> It reads just like that weird vote reasoning someone gave earlier in this thread (don't remember who) that someone was often scum in previous games (but had no reference at all to anything from this game so far).

So again: please elaborate.

Basically lurking putting in minimal effort agreeing with a guy then disappearing into the abyss as a scum strategy
I havent plzyed with him enoigh to differentiate scummy meta from suspicious behaviour for him though

[ThePaladin]

I've always thought that policy lynches are beneficial to scum.

No...?
Policy lynches are also suppose to get people who are normally scummy so if they rolled scum, we can get them

[Gyrlander]

Why is GF the most voted wagon? He claimed Escort, so we just have to wait him to rb someone and then that person confirms and we know it's legit.