Total posts: 3,178
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If John and Rob are mafia why would Sally be?
This also isn't necessarily true? Based upon your analysis and my research I'd agree they're the most likely candidates to be scum chars. But that doesn't necessarily mean they actually are. It could be John and Kevin also fmpov. John being who killed Danny, Kevin being who killed Marco because he was going to expose John, no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm also not voting you anymore. I found the evidence i needed to hold your claim that Sally came clean as true. It just took a bit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If there were two mafia teams it would be 4v2v2
Town would have to lynch a scum every day and not VTNL to win. That's not balanced at all. The whole two mafia teams idea would be like, right up to the point of rigging a game against town inherently, without technically crossing the line cause there would still be a slim chance for town to win...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
How are you anti-town in his case?
Hammer in his case against Rational listed his actions, and a disposition on his probability on being scum, and of rational being 100% anti-town utility.
either he thinks the actions are scummy, anti-town in utility, or both. Either way, the two primary actions were forwarding an either/or choice involving mass claiming, and strongarming people into claiming. As I already pointed out, I outright advocated for a mass claim, and have been clearly aggressively strongarming people into claiming.
A third possibility I suppose would be he doesn't think the actions are signifigant at all. But if so, why post them then? That's total and clear contrivance at that point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Does selective application indicate a motive is genuine or contrived generally?
Contrived. This implies there is another player that he feels is anti-town but isn't advocating for them to be utility lynched
Ehhhhhh, It implies that there shouldn't be another player that is more anti-town in their view. Particularly if another is moreso violating supplied reasons of anti-town utility, no?
Hammer in his case against Rational listed his actions, and a disposition on his probability on being scum, and of rational being 100% anti-town utility. He didnt link anything.
Ignoring that such cases are inherently suspect because actions themselves aren't intrinsically indicative of affiliation
either he thinks the actions are scummy, anti-town in utility, or both. Either way, the two primary actions were forwarding an either/or choice involving mass claiming, and strongarming people into claiming. As I already pointed out, I outright advocated for a mass claim, and have been clearly aggressively strongarming people into claiming.
Yet he pushes rational as more likely scum than anyone else(and this is a forgiving description cause he said rational was 85%(most likely) town) and 100% anti-town in utility.
Again, then he should be all down for lynching me. Regardless of affiliation, cause of my clear anti-town utility heavily implied in his case.
Also, I'm just gonna point out, listing actions but not connecting the dots to those actions is sus AF to me and reeks of hedging bets against being FOS'd by making any implied connection plausibly deniable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
If someone is allowed to kill you, then you're allowed to kill them. That's basically your line of thinking.
If killing were exclusively a competitive game, yes. But it's generally not a game, so not really.
shut up about "advantages" and shit.
Lol, "please shut up about one of the primary basis by which we hold things as cheating in a game independent of it "breaking the rules" Sure, I'll do just that.
Everyone can do it, but that doesn't mean they should.
You're saying that "everyone is allowed to do it, so it's fine".
No it's not. That's not how this works.
But that is, in part, how it works for games, particularly when it comes to whether or not something is cheating.
What I'm saying is that you should not be able to edit or delete posts at all. It's the mentality of "either everyone can do it, or no one can do it", and I'm saying no one can do it.
And, again, why should no one be able to do it? Remember, you claimed it's cheating regardless of whether it is against the rules. As always I invite you to illustrate that, which you have yet to do.
Stick-em on the hands in football is against the rules. If it were not, it's use would not be "cheating". It was banned because it was seen as allowing people to accomplish what would otherwise be outside the realm of natural human capability.
But given that football is an athletic sport, that is actually relevant. We are already outside the realm of natural human capability already, being on well, the internet. If mafia we being played "realistically" it would be in person and there would be little to no recording of what's discussed.
You are bitching about how editing or deleting posts is not realistic, while ignoring that same logic applies to the playing of the game on a forum itself. Mafia realistically would not have recorded discussions to look back on over time, and you would have short time periods to decide. This style of play intrinsically ruins how the game would be "realistically" played as is. Appeals to "realism" are irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I've often advocated for the lynching of anti-town townies simply because they were a threat to town. It's not unheard of
I'm aware it's not unheard of. You are taking the supplied motive at face value. Again, if his motives are meta based, then those motives are being applied selectively. Does selective application indicate a motive is genuine or contrived generally?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm still at hammer and supa slightly susp since the start of the day. Haven't seen anything to change that.
Town Reads beyond Rational?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I favor Supa over Hammer
Because?
If you think Supa's analysis is faked, then how TF are you not finding Hammers to be even more suspect?
Better question, what metrics are you using to gauge whether it's genuine or contrived?
Created:
Posted in:
Not clear town motive, should I say reasonable and realistic town motive. He states utility, but utility as a motive doesn't make sense as it's being inconsistently applied if that's the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Hammers analysis and advocacy lacks clear town motive. It's beneficial primarily and near exclusively to scums, and his rationale is being inconsistently/selectively applied.
All signs of contrived/faked/manufactured(the specific adjectives all being synonomous in this context) analysis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
I'm starting to think there is at least one probable scum in the 4 that voted for RM....I'm leaning toward either Drafter or Supa.
Vaarka: Post something useful
How about you do the same? Because if that is not useful then the following is the same
- "Quit bandwagoning so much"
- "LMAO predicting budda and Sup
- "people who use emojis in their posts unironically lose credibility." (Why? 😂) Oh cause "you don't like seeing them." Whether or not you like them doesn't matter, imagine that.
- meta argument regarding whether or not something constitutes aa cheating(tangential to the game and not indicative of affiliation. So far on the site two people have edited posts in game. Rational and I. Rational was town, at endgame it will be clear I am too. That's 2 townies committing the act, 0 mafia.
It'd be highly lacking in logic to hold the act of editing or deleting is in itself indicative of affiliation.
So come on Mr "I don't give a crap about theme". Let's see some behavioral analyisis. Who is town, who is scum, who is null? For what reasons are they as such? Why are those reasons indicative of either affiliation?
Aka, let's see something useful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
If you truly think that editing or deleting posts in a mafia game are okay, then you're retarded
Says the guy not supplying a reason why it shouldn't be. You say it's logical, ok, show the logic then. As I said, illustrate how it affords an unfair advantage. That's the primary motive behind cheating, indeed that's really the primary basis for things being cheating or not.
Your line of reasoning is that this is okay because "the second person could just change their post to the same role that person one changed it to and it would have the same effect
That's not my line of reasoning at all. What would even lead you to think that? My points is clearly that editing or deleting posts does not afford an unfair advantage to one aide or another.
Claims of "This is a game where once a post exists, it should stay in existence, and it shouldn't change."
Why? The concern is in it affording an unfair and unequal advantage. It does not, in fact it can otherwise correct what would be unfair advantage.
How is it fair to his teammates in your hypothetical that the player did that? On top of that, it affords town an unfair advantage, it doesn't disadvantage them. Unless you are willing to posit that lynching scum doesn't benefit town and harm mafia? Because that's the only way your example at all would illustrate it provides an unfair and/or unequal advantage.
Created:
Posted in:
So FMPOV it's basically me taking your word over his over an interpretation of a show I know nothing about and how that might apply to character assignment in this game.
However, I would agree ultimately it's an interpretation. Im suspicious of how Rational, who has knowledge of the show, claimed he was uncc'd main character. When clearly she is not. Clearly misleading, and though being misleading doesnt make him scum, it does make him suspect fmpov.
It's important to note that if he can produce evidence of Sally coming clean that I could have missed, then he returns back to leaning town because his view here
I am the only family member who ends up helping Danny's story of being beaten to a pulp get out.
Could result in a view that the person is a main character by virtue of coming clean about her faults and misdeeds in a family that appears from what I've read to be riddled with them.
I got it:
After Season 2 made it very clear to Sally that her children were morally unkempt reflections of her fractured history with Robert, the queen matriarch finally toppled her own throne in an emotional blaze of glory. Seriously, Sissy Spacek was to be marveled at, particularly as a drunk and callously hateful Sally scathingly indicting John for Sarah's death. While there are absolutely untold skeletons left in her closet, Sally finally made public the much-ballyhooed story of Robert beating a teenage Danny
Seriously had to go 3 pages in for this xD.
Unvote VTL Hammer
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
Doing this is actually cheating, even if it's "not a rule".
And why would that be the case? What unfair advantage does editing or deleting posts afford that anyone else does not otherwise possess? Fair being, treating someone in a manner that is right or reasonable and treating people equally.
Furthermore how does the following afford an unfair advantage?
You could literally post "I am mafia, here is my role, and my justification", and then edit it to say "Yeah that's sus, VTL [player]". Better yet, you could remove the post entirely, and no one would know unless they saw it before and then saw it disappear
Considering that the original act of posting the entire PM regardless of motive, is unfair to the rest of those a part of that person's affiliation, and clearly unfairly disadvantages them, editing and/or deleting posts would quite actually be countering that unfair result in this circumstance returning back to the status quo of the player not violating a standard rule of not posting your pm, and/or game-throwing.
Look, if editing and deleting posts was either only able to be done by one side, or could be done at anytime and was not otherwise limited to a 15 minute time frame, I would agree that post editing and deletion should be outright banned. But it's not, and I fail to see how it should as fmpov it doesn't unfairly disadvantages anyone or treat anyone unequally as we all have the ability to do so and can have realistic and/or reasonable reasons for doing so regardless of affiliation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
So FMPOV it's basically me taking your word over his over an interpretation of a show I know nothing about
I included a source for my analysis of what I'd found, no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I can see reading that someone is a "matriarch" and then thinking that they are a, if not the, main character
This is true, but aren't you ignoring that Rational has extensive knowledge of the show? He should know she's not the "main character" and yet did not correct it and went along with it.
I have yet to see where Sally admits her misdeeds and "comes clean". If Rational can evidence that she does, I would def agree with the following
If this is a show that toys around with no really good or bad characters, then a character that realizes their previous mistakes is about as good/town as we're going to get.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Sally is town because of how she ends up being the only family member to admit her sins and do right by Danny
Ok, and do you have evidence for this? Either I've missed it in my research or is hasn't been there.
Budda you are fake as fuck one minute defending me next lynching me.
You act like it's for no reason. If it was for no reason then sure, that'd be fake. But I evidenced exactly why I was FOS'ing you. Either show it's false, in which case, that would be grounds to reconsider from what I've found thus far .
"Fake" doesn't just mean switching on reads. Switching or evolution of reads happens naturally all the time as more evidence is produced/discovered...
Created:
Posted in:
What about lying? Should we make a rule against town players lying because lying is inherently suspicious?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
Who gives a shit if you're "deleting a redundant post" or "just fixing a typo"? You shouldn't do it. There's no way of knowing, after all, if the post you sent me had some sort of scum tell, and you realized and edited or deleted it.
So because there is no way of knowing it definitively, it automatically makes it evidence of guilt? Interesting
The entire point of players being prohibited from editing posts is to prevent that
There are plenty of behaviors that facially appear suspicious but ultimately are not indicative of affiliation in and of themselves. Such as advocacy for mass claiming. Should we make a rule against advocating for mass claims because it appears suspicious?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
You give this reason for him being sus but "he's still pretty much null".
Solid observation. Idk if you have reached my reads posts, but I'm differentiating between "sus" and "scum read".
I also outlined my metric of analysis in my case against Hammer, which you probably haven't gotten to yet. Upon reading that you will see that Hammer hit on all three metrics, Rational was hitting 1/3 that being acting in a manner i percieved as exclusively benefiting mafia.
It was later clarified as a misunderstanding/rational backtracked on said hypothesizing near afterwards. Could feasibly be either one at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
Isn't there a rule against editing or deleting posts? If not then there seriously needs to be one.
Nope, that discussion stalled out and no concensus was met on it. And why would there necessarily need to be? If you can't think of numerous reasons why editing or deleting might otherwise be done with good intent(sich as not having redundant posts) that's your own fault, not anyone elses 😂.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
Yeah I did, I quoted exactly what you did in response to you saying all you've seen was me saying Rational should claim, and Rational telling me to kindly go off myself 😂.
So i deleted the post cause it was unnecessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
I don't think ur gonna find much in his previous game play to accurately gauge how he behaves as town v how he behaves as scum. He came across as scummy to town in all three beginner series 1.0 games, 1/3 times being scum. So I'm liable to think he generally comes across scummy even if town.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
Despite what I just said about "not going for the easy lynch", I'd rather lynch RM than lynch nobody
Well he claimed at L-1, so following thru with a lynch on that refusal was unnecessary. But you at least reached the point where i explained why the lynch might be necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Not implied. It should be noted that there aren't many "good" and/or "innocent" characters in the show from what I can tell.
All that evidence was to highlight that Rational was lying and conveniently did not correct Sally Rayburn not actually being the "main character". Also conveniently leaving out that the reason why John hates Danny so much as to be murderous, is their sister Sarah's drowning. Something that would not have been had Sally not pushed Sarah away out of her hatred of her own daughter, into being with the "black sheep" of the family, Danny. Black Sheep in quotations because the rest of the family was not better than him, and in many aspects much worse, particularly in the realm of violence and the eventually conspired murder of Danny by his three other living siblings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
Idk what point in the DP ur at so I can't really say what ur using to draw that conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
Unvote VTL Rational
I'll get back to hammer, but I think you should explain urself and fully claim with paraphrasal.
Created:
Posted in:
Jane and Nolan Rayburn are probably two of the most innocent and good characters of the show. Their parents are fucked up, and their grandparents are too in turn. The grandmother covering up years of abuse and other things, the grandfather being a raging alcoholic apparently.
If anything it could be argued that Sally Rayburn and Robert Rayburn could be seen as the primary antagonists. They created a fucked up family, and they caused Danny to return by deciding to sell their properties, leading eventually to all three other siblings to conspire in his death.
And she let it all happen by letting that hatred foment towards Danny regarding Sarah's death despite her playing a heavy hand in the reason why she was there to drown in the first place because she hated her own daughter.
Sally Rayburn looks like the character who is most aware of her own sins, most aware of the hand she played in the family ending up pretty effed in their treatment of Danny. The other characters are in essence products of her own complicity in Roberts abusive behavior.
Created:
Posted in:
So I did some research on this show. The following linked has some interesting information:
Consider:
Danny was murdered by his siblings, and despite his troubled past was the season one protagonist. He was the character who shone a light on the families holier-than-thou behavior.
Sally Rayburn, even being the matriarch IS NOT THE MAIN CHARACTER.
Rational, why you lying? Especially trying to act like Sally is obviously town?
"Sally Rayburn, who we later discover told her children to lie to Detective Potts after Robert nearly beat Danny to death all those years ago, is still coming to terms with her guilt — not only for covering up her husband’s abuse, but for the hatred she felt toward Sarah. If Sally had never pushed her daughter away that fateful day, Danny would have never taken her out on the boat, she would have never drowned, and Danny could have possibly lived a normal life. Possibly"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
It isn't. Is the observation that logs occur in nature evidence that log cabins occur spontaneously
Except, you are positing "spontaneous" where it being spontaneous is not necessary to Abiogenesis.
Spontaneous- performed or occurring as a result of a sudden inner impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus
An external stimulus to go from organic matter to "life" is not antithetical to Abiogenesis. The jump could be directly or indirectly.
No, the table is not evidence it was created spontaneously. But "spontaneous creation" and "coming from" are not synonomous with one another.
There must be prior life
Then, as previously illustrated, you are arguing for an infinite transitive series which is antithetical to the overwhelming evidence that illustrates the universe is most likely finite and has a beginning. How scientific of you discarding overwhelming evidence to conclude something antithetical.
Such as discarding inductive reasoning
I did not discard it, It isn't evidence. It doesn't exist in reality. It's baseless conjecture. No science supports it.
You can keep repeating this, and it doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, its not going to make the evidence that supports abiogenesis, not evidence.
I argue against abiogenesis because science argues against it.
Except science doesn't, partly because if abiogenesis is not true, then you necessarily have to accept the universe itself is timeless and infinite because the transitive series of life is itself infinite. And inifinite and timeless things(transitive series of life) can only result from that which is infinite and timeless itself(the universe.)
I've said nothing about a timeless universe. The universe being finite and life coming from life may both bfactsts
They are both facts. Life comes from life is not the same as saying "life only comes from life". Which you are claiming by default in arguing against Abiogenesis.
Again, these theories aren't many in a vacuum. They have implications regarding other highly evidenced theories, such as the Big Bang and the universe being finite and having an age.
Again, if life only comes from life, then the transitive series of life, and by consequence the universe itself, is timeless and infinite.
like light being propagated as a particle and a wave. They only seem to contradict to neophytes who pretend to know science.
Except, light being a particle and a wave can both be true and it not be a paradox. Water is comprised of matter, water often moves in waves.
Something being both infinite and finite, IS A PARADOX though.
When scientists found out that light was also propagated as a wave, they did not discard the particle theory of light, because the clear science supported it. They had to stay with the science
They didn't discard it because it can be both a particle and a wave and that's not paradoxical in the least bit. Light is made up of particles, and acts like a wave in motion. And you want to say other people are neophytes?
Seriously, again, the inherent and intrinsic nature of transitive series is that they have to have a beginning, or be infinite. It can't be both, and it can't be neither. Something is either infinite or finite, something is either timeless, or it has an age. If life ONLY results from life, you are by consequence conceding that the universe is timeless and finite. Because only that which is timeless and finite itself(the universe) can produce(indirectly) infinite and timeless things(infinite transitive series of life.)
This is that logic you were so keen on pointing out I'm lacking. Despite it being pretty clear you lack it yourself with
I have not dismissed that. That is just a red herring you wish to insert.
You evoke logic and science, and yet are not carrying out your logic to it's fruitful conclusions and are operating exactly as if the theory of Abiogenesis is in a vacuum and it has no relevance on other theories, and other theories hold no relevance with it. When that is untrue.
Again, if you diaagree with Abiogenesis, then you are de facto disagreeing with a finite universe that is not timeless. Because that is evidence that hold crucial relevance to holding that the transitive series of life cannot be infinite and timeless, because the universe(sum tota of everything in existence) is not, and therefore that transitive series has a beginning point, aka Abiogenesis.
You are more than welcome to argue that that which is finite and has an age, can produce/contain that which is inifinite and timeless. Be more than interested to hear what sort of evidence there is that would hold that as even being remotely possible 👍.
On a final note, if you don't like these necessary consequences of what you are arguing, then try actually carrying out your logic and rationale fully. As you have been cutting it short this whole time.
Ex: "Life comes from life"
Yes, that is true, but thats not a disposition on whether or not it makes sense that life can ONLY result from life. If that is true, then either life always was, or life couldn't ever have been because at one point there was no life for life to come from. Obviously there is life now, so we are left with two possible conclusion. Either life always was, or at some point in some way life came forth from non-life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
What are your reads independent of just rational?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
RM actually doesn't seem to be playing like scum, certainly not like last game.
True, that does slightly operate in his benefit fmpov, but I wouldn't expect him to act the same way as scum twice ij a row anyways.
Because Earth said he was role fishing. Not a scum tell on early day1.
Was this in response to why Earth was being excluded from potential scum? If so, how does Earth presenting a non scum tell as a scum tell, indicative of him being town?
Created:
Posted in:
**Unofficial Vote Count**
Rational (1/5) - Earth
TheHammer (1/5) - Buddamoose
Supadudz (1/5) - TheHammer
Earth (1/5) - Rational
_____________________
If I missed anything, sorry ahead of time
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Also, why must there have been one scum on Rationals wagon?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And what lead you to exclude Earth from that list?
Created:
Posted in:
Supa's response to RM's claim seems manufactured
I agree, it standalone seems manufactured, because it's over something, shall we say, less than sensible. But his rationale is being consistently applied, even if less than sensible. That's fmpov more in line with a genuine read as opposed to a contrived one.
Supa full claimed already, he was the first to claim...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheHammer
As for why 15%, you said it. It's an arbitrary and small difference, 20% works just as well. That's a dumb thing to criticize.
So it's dumb to point out that the way ur using probability is misleading and disgenuinely shades your analysis as being quantifiably susbtantiated? But where is that substantiation? Certainly not in anything you've stated so far.
Created:
Posted in:
Claims
Supadudz - Jane Rayburn - Vanilla
Buddamoose- Nolan Rayburn - Innocent Child
Rational - Sally Rayburn - ????
Unclaimed
Greyparrot
Earth
Danielle
Vaarka
Drafter
Hammer
Created:
Posted in:
Town Read
Supadudz
Lean Town
Rational
Null
Drafter
Danielle
Vaarka
Earth
Suspicious
Greyparrot
Scum Read
TheHammer
____________
The 4 nulls are exclusively the people who have not, or barely, posted. Tbh, GP is sus, not a outright scum read. His behavior still has realistic town motives and can be evidenced as possibly town in part. I'm just getting sus vibes from his BW onto dudz, but he has bw'd before as town.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
On a side note, I'm even more sus of GP at this point. Pouring over this DP I haven't seen anything put forth as why dudz is behaving in a manner that ls any worse than null. He's being overzealous and pinpointing things not remotely indicative of affiliation. Normally I would be sus of that, but being sus of "IWWT" statements belies a general lack of a fine understanding of the game. Ergo, he's still getting his sea legs under him. This even further evidenced by him asking
What do you mean by justification?
This being a core aspect of themed games. Characters having the roles they do is usually justified in PM's.
@Supadudz- Basically I'm asking for you to paraphrase your pm so I can see if the details TUF provided match with the role you have, even if just loosely.
Furthermore, his rationale appears to be being consistently applied. For example, he FOS'd both rational and I for "IWWT" statements among other reason(s). This consistency being indicative of it being genuine, albeit seemingly misguided, as opposed to contrived/faked analysis.
Created:
Posted in:
15% chance of being scum means he's more likely than average, assuming there's only one
And why would you assume that in a 9 player game? 1/8 ratio is a far cry from 1/3-1/4.
Beyond that, as I pointed out. Ur pulling things out of ur rear. What quantifies the other 4.4 percent jump to 15 in this math? Why is it only 4.4% and not some other arbitrary added percentage? Ur trying to pass off the appearance of critical analysis with percentage of probability, but usIng the percentages in the manner you are, is far from a critical application. Ergo, contrived AF.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheHammer
Supa's annoying posts are more than a good enough reason to want to lynch him 28 posts in the game
Lol... Please do explain how whether or not something is indicative of affiliation, changes based upon how many posts there are in the game?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheHammer
15% chance of being scum means he's more likely than average, assuming there's only one
Yeah, at this point it's becoming pretty clear ur pulling shit out of ur rear. And you wanna talk about "anti-town utility" 😂😂
Created:
Posted in:
On TheHammer
And why he is 100% sus AF, and likely scum
I've already previously pointed out that TheHammer is advocating for lynches off of things that aren't indicative of affiliation.
His posts give me cancer
As a reason for dudz lynch.
and the 100% chance we'd be cancelling his anti-town utility regardless.
As the reason for Rationals lynch.
It's important to remember that mafia are incentivized to appear as town, and consequentially incentivized to appear as if they are scumhunting. This doesn't just lead to slips in holding more knowledge that they otherwise should, but it also leads to their scumhunting oft lacking in certain areas.
Like for example, behaviors. Already knowing the affiliation of people is a hell of a detriment in trying to produce analysis that examines behavior to determine affiliation. This leads directly to a reliance upon things that aren't indicative of affiliation to decide lynches, such as...
His posts give me cancer
and
anti-town utility
This also leads "fluff" posting, in the sense that they often post recounting of actions, and probability of being town/scum, but do not link between. Consider that along with him clearly advocating a lynch of someone he views as most likely(85%) town.
In case anyone is confused, this is what happened:1. RM said earlier that the only options for character claiming were everyone keeps their character a secret or everyone claims and we try to work out the liars from there2. RM character claims3. RM references his earlier statement in an attempt to strong arm everyone else into character claimingThere's still an 85% chance he's town imo, but a lynch might be worth it considering the 15% chance he's scum and the 100% chance we'd be cancelling his anti-town utility regardless.
Note, the jump from action > probability of town/scum. He is clearly implying mass claim and strongarming people into claiming is scummy and/or anti-town in utility. But the problem with that is neither is true and he knows it.
This is where consistency in application becomes important, I outright advocated for a mass character claim and am aggressively strongarming people into claiming. By his measure i should have much more negative utility, and regardless of whether I'm more or less likely town, should be his primary lynch target.
Yet he goes after Rational? I wonder why? Clearly because he doesn't give a crap about utility anyways. He is contriving not only his reads, but his analysis itself is otherwise exposed as such as well, because it's not even consistent in its own primary rationale. It's being selectively applied.
The previous point operates as an exposure of the inconsistency in holding either as scummy as well.
__________
Further cementing Hammer as sus AF and probable scum we arrive at his potential motives. Given that "utility" was thoroughly debunked as a potential motive, we are left wondering what the motive may have been. Consider his behavior
- Advocation for lynches based off things not even remotely indicative of affiliation
- Inconsistent application of primary rationale, vis a vis "anti-town utility"
- Lack of linking actions to probabilistic determinations
- Wanting to lynch someone who he views as most likely(85% town).
And ask yourself, are there any realistic and reasonable town motives to these actions? I hold there are not.
- Lack of reasonable town motives
- advocacy for courses of action that would, by his own measure, most likely benefit mafia and disadvantage town
-inconsistency in application of rationale, primary or otherwise.
He's violating all three of this core differentiators between contrived/faked scumhunting and genuine scumhunting.
Full claim or not, Hammer is the best candidate for lynching so far, hands down fmpov.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
TheHammer unironically didn't hammer me when he had the chance
Understanding pulling off a ML of a main character would be beneficial. Doing so would have otherwise exposed him as even scummier than he has shown himself to be. Mafia don't benefit from 1 v 1 trades, that results in them losing, every time.
I'm in the midst of compiling a detailed case against him
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I have played in some mafia games on DDO, call me a newb idrc.
It wasn't an insult, it was an observation based off the reads and justification you've provided for them thus far. The reads don't make much sense and/or are not factoring in standard operating procedures(SOP).
Created: