Total posts: 5,653
Posted in:
Claims
1. Water - Survivor
2. Drafterman - Survivor
3. PressF - Survivor
4. Speed - Survivor
5. Disc - Survivor
6. Pie - Survivor
7. Supa - Survivor
8. Arose - Survivor
9. Oromagi - Survivor
10. Sir - Survivor
11. Greyparrot - Survivor
12. Avoid - Survivor
UVC
drafterman - 1/7 - disc
AvoidDeath - 1/7 - AvoidDeath
VTNL - 1/7 - Grey
Created:
Posted in:
Ongoing
Mharman - Survive the Killers Mafia (DP1)
Sign-ups
Discipulus_Didicit - OSBM (This one will really blow your minds)
In the Hopper
Virtuoso (TBD)
PressF4Respect (Just a Regular Game of Mafia, themeless)
A-R-O-S-E ~ Player's Choice of Role Madness (Powders Pow-wow -- Batman Bizarreness - GotG Gagglefrick)
SupaDudz (Big Mouth, South Park, Teen Titans,)
drafterman (Semi-Open)
Speedrace (You'll Go Crazy MCU)
TUF- Recycled Roles mafia
ILikePie5 - Pick 1: Narcos, Riverdale, Bakugan Battle Brawlers
warren- open setup, likely themeless
On Hold
Buddamoose
Created:
Posted in:
Then I will RL. Today, I am feeling ironic, so I select, for death, VTL AvoidDeath
Created:
Posted in:
I assume SK's know their targets identity so can just directly kill them each night. So not only is there incentive to lynch hoping to get an SK, there is incentive to lynch hoping you kill an SK target as well.
Banking on doc protections, role blocks or bus drivers seems like a bad gamble.
Created:
Posted in:
So, to recap:
Town (doc + RB) wants to kill SKs and Mafia. Doesn't care about Survivors.
Mafia (RB + BD) wants to kill SKs and Town. Doesn't care about Survivors.
SKs each want to kill two specific players themselves, doesn't care about anyone else.
Survivors just need to live and avoid being NK'd and lynched.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Does it count if their target is killed by another party, or is lynched?
Created:
Posted in:
Incentive to lynch just hoping to get one of the SKs, then.
Unvote.
But I see nothing better than to random lynch.
Created:
Posted in:
Ah, so each SK has two specific individuals they have to kill. Hm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Everyone has an affiliation.
Created:
Posted in:
Pushing lynches in general is going to be difficult without tipping your hand as to what affiliation you are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Are the SKs enemies of each other?
That survivors can win when "all living serial killers have met their objective" implies that more than one SK can win.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
My understanding is that the Survivors don't win or lose as a team, you win or lose individually. Survivors have no incentive to protect or kill any other survivor unless they pose a threat. I would say that deliberately going after the protective roles and siding with the killing roles puts all survivors in danger.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@frenzy
My first post was congratulating Speed. He did exceptionally well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
A serial killer wins by killing all three targets.
What are the three targets SK must kill?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Town can lynch you on principle? Also, siding against the SK's and Mafia means you reduce the number of kills per night which increases odds of survival.
That said, I'm sure there is a game breaking combo in here somewhere. If all the survivors sided with one party, then that party autowins.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
You are literally accusing Lunatic of having incorrect reads when you yourself admitted that you never suspected Speed and had incorrect reads.
I lead 1 potential mislynch.
Lunatic led 1 potential mislynch and 5 actual mislynches. There is no comparison.
It wasn't Lunatic's fault that he didn't catch Speed. It was that Speed didn't slip. Also, his read against you in DP3 was pretty logical. You were clearly tunneling, which is anti-town.
No it isn't. Tunneling is only as good or as bad as the initial read or logic. Tunneling itself is neutral.
You assumed that you had 100% certainty, or at least close to it.
And? Being wishy washy doesn't get anyone lynched. Being certain does.
That's just it. Given the info that town had, doom was inevitable unless airmax was scum. They didn't have enough evidence to lynch anyone. By that point, they really had no path to victory.
Then what is so brilliant about that plan that did absolutely nothing to help town improve its odds?
The whole game was tragic. The tunneling that you, Wylted, and GP did in DP3 completely threw town offtrack.
The only people willing to listen to reason were Wylted and GP.
You made yourself look scummy in that toxic dogfight (granted, so did Lunatic and Wylted) and got lynched.
I'll admit my contribution and it would have probably been better to just ignore Lunatic's analysis for the drivel it was, but that doesn't make him MVP, nor does it make me (or anyone else) worse than him.
Yes, Lunatic made some mistakes. The reason I nominated him for MVP was because everyone else played even worse, and the only players who played better (PressF and ILikePie) didn't make any positive impact for town. There is a good case to be made that PressF was MVP even though he ultimately failed, since he at least made fewer mistakes. But other than him and ILikePie5, who died in the first round, Lunatic was the only real candidate.
So everyone else played worse, except for the people that didn't. Okay. Neither Press nor Pie pushed for 5 myslynches in a row. And I think you are completely ignoring DP1.
Created:
Posted in:
Unvote
Given this set up and mechanics, I'm not exactly sure what the way forward should be. Town and Mafia both want to hide from the SKs. It's in everyone's best interest to just claim Survivor.
Created:
Posted in:
AROSE hasn't posted yet. Low activity, clearly he's scum.
VTL AROSE
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
After DP3, Lunatic was very pro-town. Yes, he was wrong in his lynches, but it would have been very hard for him to catch Speed the way Speed was playing.
Lunatic was the most anti-town element in the entire game, including the Mafia. His reasons were shoddy, his argumentation methods deceptive and polarizing, and his reads and lynches worthless.
I find it very surprising that anyone could nominate him MVP given this performance this game. You call him a "tragic hero" but all I see is "tragic." His reads weren't logical and scum hunting really only has value if you can actually do it well, which he showed he cannot. His "plan" wasn't brilliant. Granting him the benefit of the doubt regarding airmax being hated at LYLO, his plan only had value if airmax was, in fact, scum. If anyone else was scum then it was autolose for Town.
In which case, if the only way Town wins is if airmax is scum, then it would have simply been better to lynch him right then and there, mooting the entire plan.
It was less a "plan" than a realization of inevitable doom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Because he tunneled.
To get rid of an anti-town element. That's a good thing.
Lunatic being a distraction wasn't his fault, Grey and Wylted are just stubborn
Right, but how did that cost Town the game? Town wasn't willing to listen to anyone but Luna.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
If you agree that Luna was causing a lethal distraction to Town, and Grey was trying to get rid of that distraction, why do you attribute Town's loss to Grey, rather than Luna?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I believe I said, somewhere on DP1, that given the two wagons, mafia would take the free town mislynch. I think, between DP2 and DP3 things got too derailed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's unfortunate and I can't even really pin point why people just kept sheeping him. I think DP1 and DP3 might have burnt some people out. I'll have to work on cutting arguments like those down in the future.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@frenzy
Oh, awesome. Glad to have you on board. Good luck with exams.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Firstly, simply voting for a Mafia isn't a bus. A bus is actively pushing for another mafioso to get lynched.
Secondly, there was only ever one wagon on a mafia that wasn't yours, and that was Supa. The DP2 situation was kind of forced because it was one vs. the other and he really didn't have a choice. Even then, he made a one-off post about Supa lying and then disappeared for the rest of the DP.
Plugging these numbers into what I have, this game has actually decreased the % chance that a vote on a mafia is from a mafia (down to ~13%)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I never guessed it was speed, I had warren tell me because I was itching to know. Speed had me legitimately fooled. At the beginning of DP3 I thought it was Lunatic. After he seemingly placed stock in oro's rather silly theory, I began to FOS him because, from my POV, it looked a scum attempt to leverage one Townie's theory against another to force a myslynch. If you're scum, the only thing better than getting a Townie mislynched is getting another Townie to do it for you.
Oro's theory was objectively silly and an experienced mafia player like Lunatic should have recognized it as such. No one else was picking up on it and I even probably gave it more credit than it was due simply by replying to it at all (but I'm a sucker for that kind of stuff). When Lunatic came in with his "analysis" that continued to build off of it, with all of his misrepresentations of the game, that sealed it for me.
I'll admit, my FOS of him lessened as the DP went on, because his duplicitous and juvenile behavior is identical to behavior that he has exhibited in the past, as Town, but by that point I was too riled up and irritated with his antics I just wanted to see him gone; alive he was just a distraction. Which proved to be true, as he distracted Town all the way to a Mafia victory, flushing a 2 lynch lead down the toilet.
It's hard to say who I would have went after if Lunatic was out of the picture. I really don't operate like that. I look at the information available to me at the time, pick the person most likely to be scum, and push to get them lynched. I generally don't work with giant read lists or put everyone onto a sliding scale. There really isn't a point in trying to figure out the entire scum team DP1; you can only lynch one person a day. Even if you do happen to suspect more than one person, outing all of those suspicions is generally not beneficial.
Hypothetically, say if Lunatic was the NP2 NK target, who would I have went after DP3? I think oro might have been high up on my list. Water would have been alive instead of Lunatic, so the entire DP would have evolved differently and it's hard to say who I would have settled on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@frenzy
That's fair, but also feeds into it being a good move because it's something he probably would have done as Town anyway and Mafia are usually discouraged from that kind of thing. It was just splendid play all around.
Created:
Posted in:
I've been waiting to say this for a long time.
Speed, you did a fantastic job, especially against those odds. I'm not sure what inspired you to quais-CC, then retract-CC against Press, but that was a rather Townie thing to do. I really don't see Scum doing that kind of thing. And to keep him a live was a very big risk, but I think doing so cast doubt onto his investigations.
Overall you played extraordinarily well. Kudos to you.
For town, I hope you guys learned a valuable lesson:
1. Change in behavior =/= scum. Especially when the person in question only has a couple of games under their belt and has only ever been one affiliation. People can change their behavior for many many different reasons. Yes, affiliation can change behavior. So can role. So can theme. So can not getting enough fiber in your diet. Maybe he had surgery and was on pain killers. Maybe it's mid terms. Maybe he's been practicing for the big game. You gotta do more leg work than "He play not same, he not town."
2. Bussing is, in fact, rather uncommon. Mafia voting for mafia (when tallying end of day wagons) is rather uncommon. I've been collecting data based on Supa's archives. I know it isn't a lot right now, but I don't feel DDO data applies anymore. Too many new people and the meta is too different. But right now, the base chance of being mafia is around 25%. But if you look at all the wagons so far and pick a vote that was against a mafioso (at the end of the day), the odds it came from a mafioso is around 14%.
3. Claiming last or late isn't a scum indicator. The order in which people claim is, for the most part, random. Yes, scum prefers to claim last, but since claiming is mostly random and at the hands of other people, there is little they can do to force it.
Created:
-->
@AvoidDeath
When the current Mafia games is over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Pro life means just that, pro “life.” If you’re going to start deciding which lives stay and which go and decide that some kinds of killings are “just,” then you aren’t pro life.
And that’s what this thread is about. You said you’re pro life and you asked people to change your mind. I’m showing you really don’t care about life in general, just specific kinds of lives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
This is logically incorrect. If much more people are being saved by guns than taken, than that creates a net gain in lives. More people would die if guns were banned, so again this just does not logically follow through.
What doesn't follow through? The lives that are "saved" are only saved because other lives are ended. Ending lives isn't pro-life.
By your logic if you are not in favor of a knife or car ban than you are still deciding that some people should die, so therefore you are not pro life either.
Okay, I'm not pro-life. I never claimed to be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Your "fact" is that introducing a gun into a situation result in less lives being lost. Even if we accept this extremely dubious and debatable fact, at the end of the day, you are still deciding that some people should die.
That's not "pro-life", that's "pro-some lives over others."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Guns have statistically been used to save far more lives than they take. This is because of self-defense and DGU's. You just don't have an argument right now, it doesn't seem you came very prepared.
Guns literally cannot "save lives." They only take them or, at least, bring people closer to losing them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Guns aren't medicine, they can't "save" lives, only take them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I didn't claim you are okay with children getting murdered. I said you are pro-gun, ergo you cannot be pro-life.
Or are you pro-water guns?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's clear that you don't know what an ad hominem actually is and you are resistant to attempts to try and teach you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
You're Pro-Gun, ergo you are not Pro-Life.
Q.E.D.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Everything above the cut was off topic.
Nothing about the statement:"You've only ever lived in the city, so your arguments about farming are invalid" meets any of those definitions.It seems to meet this one,Derogatory - showing a critical or disrespectful attitudeIt is critical because it attempts to dismiss their presented arguments out-of-hand.
Critical statements about arguments are not forbidden.
It is disrespectful because it attempts to paint the individual as unreliable and or disingenuous.
Incorrect.
In fact, the trait identified by an ad hominem fallacy could very well be positive:"You're always fit and healthy, so your advice about what to do when a person is sick isn't valid."It's still, Derogatory - showing a critical or disrespectful attitude, because it is a statement clearly intended to disqualify arguments by sniping the individual speaker personally, and furthermore it is beyond the accuser's epistemological limits, making it a bald assertion.
Irrelevant. Attacking people's arguments is allowed.
Created:
Posted in:
Created: