LaunchpadMcQ
Banned
monkey asked me to clarify later; I was intending to follow Kark.
I walked back on that stance. I'm in the Karkador boat.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Just Mafia |OT| Sometimes You Don't Need A Reason to Lynch Your Friends
- Thread starter CrimsonFist
- Start date
monkey asked me to clarify later; I was intending to follow Kark.
I walked back on that stance. I'm in the Karkador boat.
How is that possible?
If you were following me rhetorically, I made little to no push against Zubz. So that doesn't make sense.
If you intended to follow my vote, I was voting for No Lynch...but you said this:
Assuming "my guy" meant "my gut", you wouldn't have followed my vote, because nobody votes "No Lynch" based on "their gut", that doesn't make any sense
If you intended to follow my vote, I was voting for No Lynch...but you said this:
Assuming "my guy" meant "my gut", you wouldn't have followed my vote, because nobody votes "No Lynch" based on "their gut", that doesn't make any sense
weemadarthur
Member
We are playing flavourless mafia to play actual mafia, not to use mod semantics to cheat. I don't know whether I will support this idea at all.
So Launch claims he saw Kalor vote for Zubz, but mistakenly read it as "Karkador", and thought "oh yeah, that Karkador guy has his head on straight", so he went for it because I surely know what I'm doing...
That's all very nice and flattering for me...except, I'm not buying this excuse. There's nothing about my D1 play that indicates I "did my homework". There isn't even really 'homework' to do on D1, but let's dig a bit deeper.
I think this claim that he trusted "my" judgment on a push for Zubz is a contradiction. He appears to be lying, and there's evidence.
Launch seemed pretty aware of what I was doing D1, and we know because some of the few responses he made on D1 were directed at me and my shenanigans. It was some buffoonery that was easy for him to play along with.
It also had nothing to do with Zubz, which is why it's a wonder how he got the idea that I was making a push for him.
Responding to my No Lynch push:
Responding to my RNG backfire to find mafia:
Sarcastic response to my impromptu Batcomputer, which had him on the list (he said "It's not me" to say he's not the statistically-likely 1 mafia on the 5 names I pulled).
So I find it hard to believe that Launch's take-away from those interactions with me was "yeah, he's got his head on straight, I'll just pop in later and really follow Kark's lead on that gut feeling I had about Zubz". It was such a (literally) blind vote, he didn't even read my name right.
That's all very nice and flattering for me...except, I'm not buying this excuse. There's nothing about my D1 play that indicates I "did my homework". There isn't even really 'homework' to do on D1, but let's dig a bit deeper.
I think this claim that he trusted "my" judgment on a push for Zubz is a contradiction. He appears to be lying, and there's evidence.
Launch seemed pretty aware of what I was doing D1, and we know because some of the few responses he made on D1 were directed at me and my shenanigans. It was some buffoonery that was easy for him to play along with.
It also had nothing to do with Zubz, which is why it's a wonder how he got the idea that I was making a push for him.
Responding to my No Lynch push:
Responding to my RNG backfire to find mafia:
Sarcastic response to my impromptu Batcomputer, which had him on the list (he said "It's not me" to say he's not the statistically-likely 1 mafia on the 5 names I pulled).
So I find it hard to believe that Launch's take-away from those interactions with me was "yeah, he's got his head on straight, I'll just pop in later and really follow Kark's lead on that gut feeling I had about Zubz". It was such a (literally) blind vote, he didn't even read my name right.
LaunchpadMcQ
Banned
...well, yeah. I came back with 30 minutes left on the clock. No idea what was going on. Zubz with 2-3 votes on him and I was reading him as dirty from earlier posts. I didn't have a read on Cewyn. Thought I saw one other person who I tended to side with usually.
Oh, and by the way, the reason why I said I thought you had your head screwed on straight is because you seemed to be creating bait for information with the No Lynch push and the RNG. I've seen this kind of thing from you before, I knew you were town the last time you did it, so I just figured it was a similar kind of exercise.
Honestly, you're clinging onto something that just isn't there...
isaacnukem
Member
I actually don't, too, in retrospect.
Still, a huge possibility exists that one of you is lying. Unless someone else was doused along with me on the previous day, I think we should see this through.
I also think the way Karkador revealed he was also doused, which was first non-committal, was pretty sly. So I'm willing to see his lynch more than yours.
Please not this again. The last time it didn't help town.
?
weemad didn't say "I was doused" until until I pressed. How is this more committal?
Blargonaut
Banned
I believe you may paraphrase the message, that's indeed within the rules.
Kark, are you in or out on this
Yes, you can. And this is a game where words have a really important meaning. They may be the most important part of the game. So discussing semantics is an actual valid play during the game.
But forget it. She won't do it.
If you guys are talking about the game of "tell us what the douse PM says, and isaac will confirm", it's not something I'm gonna go along with, for two reasons:
1) Whoever goes first, the other players can just follow and say that's what they got.
2) Isaac has already shown a strong bias to want me lynched, so giving him the power to confirm/deny me is a bad idea.
also, if I flip and my role doesn't show any doused info, what do you do then?
1) Whoever goes first, the other players can just follow and say that's what they got.
2) Isaac has already shown a strong bias to want me lynched, so giving him the power to confirm/deny me is a bad idea.
also, if I flip and my role doesn't show any doused info, what do you do then?
I have to say, if I was the arsonist claiming to be doused on day two would be a fantastic gambit. It puts you out of the way of town (because it's likely the arsonist get them, and for all they know they are town), but is also very low risk move from towns point of view as well.
The only sticking point is the two dousing claims today. I highly doubt that the arsonist would have a multi-target ability instead of a x-shot (I equally find it unlikely they would have both of those simultaneously).
That belief leads to to think that today is a clear 50/50, in that one is lying and one isn't.
That's not to say that the one telling the truth is town (there's just as much to gain for a scum to out that they were doused, gets the town hunting the arsonist for them), just that it's more likely that the one lying is either Neutral or Scum. I don't see a clear benefit of a Town claiming that they were doused.
So I think that's it's clearly a vote for either Kark or weemad. It's not surprising to see Kark in the lead between the two (by a country mile), as they seemed to rub people the wrong way in a few places.
I'm gonna doo my own reads on both specifically later. But in the mean time, I welcome questions to me, as I don't have much else to say that hast already been debated a good bit.
My parents keep their AC too damn high. I know it's hot, but I'm a frozen pupper.
The only sticking point is the two dousing claims today. I highly doubt that the arsonist would have a multi-target ability instead of a x-shot (I equally find it unlikely they would have both of those simultaneously).
That belief leads to to think that today is a clear 50/50, in that one is lying and one isn't.
That's not to say that the one telling the truth is town (there's just as much to gain for a scum to out that they were doused, gets the town hunting the arsonist for them), just that it's more likely that the one lying is either Neutral or Scum. I don't see a clear benefit of a Town claiming that they were doused.
So I think that's it's clearly a vote for either Kark or weemad. It's not surprising to see Kark in the lead between the two (by a country mile), as they seemed to rub people the wrong way in a few places.
I'm gonna doo my own reads on both specifically later. But in the mean time, I welcome questions to me, as I don't have much else to say that hast already been debated a good bit.
My parents keep their AC too damn high. I know it's hot, but I'm a frozen pupper.
NeckToChicken
Unconfirmed Member
I had a plan cooking that involved Isaac making two fake douse PMs in addition to his and then randomly picking one of the three for you two (giving a chance for either or neither of you to get the real PM) in an order of his choice. However, this isn't definitive if you both answer correctly. And the first douse pm confirm makes every subsequent one worthless.
Another problem here is with Isaac. If he is the arsonist somehow, he's either:
A. In a bind to make sure you both get the fake messages, so that both of you still seem on the level and get torched. We'd either need to do this song and dance again or find an alternate means of determining who's about to burn.
B. Able to douse multiple people, doesn't care if one of you dies, and the PM check means nothing because you both have a real PM.
All in all: arson sucks, kids.
NeckToChicken
Unconfirmed Member
I believe we need to make our focus clear before there's too little time or a hammer falls.
Are we hunting scum today or the arsonist? While I'm fine with either (I AM WATCHING YOU LAUNCHPAD), it feels like the Kark-wagon is a little bit of both. Having the reason WHY any individual wants to put down Kark may come in handy later.
Are we hunting scum today or the arsonist? While I'm fine with either (I AM WATCHING YOU LAUNCHPAD), it feels like the Kark-wagon is a little bit of both. Having the reason WHY any individual wants to put down Kark may come in handy later.
Blargonaut
Banned
He's got us there, folks.
We could arrange a time for you two to simultaneously paraphrase to the minute. But I don't believe in people with deadlines much less players with promises
As for isaac; yes, we'd be granting him betrayal luxury. So? Town is smart enough to deal with that.
I'd like to see a show of hands on who is for what.
I am for hunting scum today.
As I've said before, the arsonist can wait. If we're going to start lynching claimed doused people to chase this arsonist, we're going to waste a lot of time for the same conclusion (a bunch of dead doused people). Meanwhile, no one chases mafia.
Lone_Prodigy
Member
One doused N1, two doused N2.
What if it's a sequence? If three get doused tonight, then it's geometric, or Fibonacci. If four get doused, it's exponential.
What if it's a sequence? If three get doused tonight, then it's geometric, or Fibonacci. If four get doused, it's exponential.
Lone_Prodigy
Member
I see no reason to chase doused people. Scum can be doused too.
And neutral hunting is universal so there will be little pushback, except from the actual neutral.
And neutral hunting is universal so there will be little pushback, except from the actual neutral.
NeckToChicken
Unconfirmed Member
If the joke here is "momentum gaining variant arsonist who has to douse the entire game before igniting", then I'm not laughing.
NeckToChicken
Unconfirmed Member
I would rather select a potential scum target over a potential arsonist today, on record.
Unfortunately, It feels like you're getting squashed as an arsonist target. Somewhat akin to Zubz day 2, and heaven knows that train had no brakes.
I do agree with L_P that scum can also be doused, which is why I think lynching the liar of the two claimed doused has a decent chance to turn scum. And the chance at hitting the liar is quite good for Mafia odds. 50% chance to get the liar. 50% chance that liar is scum or neutral.
I'm not good with math, but I'm p sure that's a 25% chance to hit scum, minimum.
Unless people think that the arsonists targets incread with every day, which I really can't see happening.
There is no reliable way to figure out who is lying here, especially if a scum douse is involve.
Not even by a flip. The only thing we can establish right now is that an arsonist exists.
I'm not inclined to believe anybody involved in this right now is an arsonist, because an arsonist really has no need to be this public about their activities.
If scum got doused, honestly, let them burn. I'm okay with being in that group. I imagine they aren't okay with it.
Blargonaut
Banned
Kark, why won't you Role-claim
Expect a big reveal 10 minutes to EOD deadline.
Between this and the no lynch gambit, Kark is having a mare
Lone_Prodigy
Member
Let's hunt scum then. Who are your suspects, Kark?
kitsunelaine
Banned
Obviously it's everyone who voted for him. /s
Game solved, just go down the list folks!
Was going over view posts again and I saw this, oh kark...
Blargonaut
Banned
ok
Neutral Arsonist would never* claim Doused as they'd be fucking themselves over once the wet pile was ignited and suddenly it's only them standing in the ashes [revealing themselves to be the huge liar]; *assuming that, they have a Win condition that does NOT entail 'them exiting the game upon ignition of a certain amount of players' as I'd naturally expect. Given that it's highly unlikely a dedicated Neutral Arsonist wouldn't exit the game upon meeting an ignition-kill quota, much less not having an ignition-kill quota to meet**, this *assumed-scenario is highly unlikely.
Note that out of these 4 possible Win conditions of a Neutral Arsonist... 2 of them, support the strategy of the Arsonist claiming as Doused; as a stalling tactic via self-victimization--
--Say you have an Arsonist variant who immediately Wins/exits the game, after meeting either an AMOUNT kill-quota or else a HIT-LIST kill-quota. Provided that such an Arsonist doused ALL their requisites before ignition and thus were able to kill all of them at once that ignition-Night, they wouldn't face the public the following Day as they'd have already won and exited the game. Hence, it could behoove such an Arsonist to claim as Doused themselves--
--Imagine you're such an Arsonist, you take a Night to Douse someone and then in the Morning you say you're a Douse-victim while it was you who Doused someone else. 2 alleged Douse victims that Day, and since an Arsonist traditionally is only able to Douse 1 a Night, one of them is probably lying. In that case, it would be the Arsonist themself the liar.........................................................................................................................................................................................now we get specific and look at the context, the real players in question.....uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh stalling tactic because Doused is already dead so why pursue such claimants, yeah, that's what Arsonist wants you to think
...if the Arsonist is NOT Neutral and is instead Mafia-aligned, x-shot Douser allowing scum to kill probably 3/4-Doused as a kill supplement...? Due to having the Mafia's team-based Win condition, they would definitely never claim as Doused, because a Mafia-aligned Arsonist wouldn't exit the game upon ignition and thus after the triggered multi-kill would have to face being outed as a Douse-liar the following Day. Especially if there's no evidence of a Firefighter, as it apparently is in this match since isaacnukem hasn't claimed to be cleaned. So I can conclude that either Karkador, weemad or isaacnukem definitely couldn't be 'Mafia-aligned Arsonist'. But they may still be Mafia-aligned.
So, uh:
COULD ONE OF THE DOUSED CLAIMANTS BE A NEUTRAL ARSONIST?
+2 points supporting (two possible Neutral Win conditions supporting Arsonist claiming as Doused as a stalling tactic in order to live to Douse more until full kill-quota is covered for ignition)
-2 points against (two possible Neutral Win conditions against Arsonist claiming as Doused, because ignition of Doused would entail Arsonist self-revealing themselves as a Douse-liar due to their post-multikill survival if they don't exit the game upon ignition/a kill-quota fulfilment)
TOTAL SCORE: 0 [insufficient evidence]
COULD ONE OF THE DOUSED CLAIMANTS BE A MAFIA-ALIGNED ARSONIST?
-1 point against (Mafia has Mafia's team-based Win condition, so a Mafia-aligned Arsonist wouldn't exit the game or have any kill-quota to meet for a separate Win; and because ignition of Doused would entail Arsonist self-revealing themselves as a Douse-liar due to their post-multikill survival, scum!Arsonist would never claim as Doused)
TOTAL SCORE: -1 [unpossible]
COULD THE ARSONIST BE MAFIA-ALIGNED AND/OR X-SHOT?
BETWEEN KARKADOR AND WEEMADARTHUR, WHO IS LYING ABOUT BEING DOUSED; GIVEN THAT BY VIRTUE OF TRADITION IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT AN ARSONIST CAN MULTI-DOUSE, NOT TO MENTION THAT THERE WAS NO PRIOR MULTI-DOUSE?
yep fuck me I dunno. Someone else drive and go over my case notes:
Neutral Arsonist would never* claim Doused as they'd be fucking themselves over once the wet pile was ignited and suddenly it's only them standing in the ashes [revealing themselves to be the huge liar]; *assuming that, they have a Win condition that does NOT entail 'them exiting the game upon ignition of a certain amount of players' as I'd naturally expect. Given that it's highly unlikely a dedicated Neutral Arsonist wouldn't exit the game upon meeting an ignition-kill quota, much less not having an ignition-kill quota to meet**, this *assumed-scenario is highly unlikely.
**The most likely Win condition for a Neutral Arsonist entails them Winning upon ignition of #-amount of Doused, exiting the game once fulfilled.
A second likely Neutral Win condition could possibly be to kill a list of certain players to Win, exiting upon their fulfilled deaths. Actually, Cewyn's flipped existence as a Mafia-aligned Switcher, mildly entertains this possibility; perhaps, one of the targets on the Arsonist's hit-list is a scum member, hence the scum!Switcher's existence in order to foil the Neutral's Douse attempts towards unwittingly protecting that marked teammate, along with their conventional Town sabotaging. Extra possible justification for that scum!Role's existence.
And a Neutral Arsonist's third more likely Win condition, could be that they must simply survive to the end of the game Winning with either Town's or Mafia's Win (once all Mafia are killed, or once all Town are killed or else once Mafia outnumbers Town, respectively). To this end, the Arsonist wouldn't have a kill-quota to fulfil; they'd simply just be a killer, here to indiscriminately dwindle down the population until either Faction is majority, not caring or even needing to care who's left at the end.
A second likely Neutral Win condition could possibly be to kill a list of certain players to Win, exiting upon their fulfilled deaths. Actually, Cewyn's flipped existence as a Mafia-aligned Switcher, mildly entertains this possibility; perhaps, one of the targets on the Arsonist's hit-list is a scum member, hence the scum!Switcher's existence in order to foil the Neutral's Douse attempts towards unwittingly protecting that marked teammate, along with their conventional Town sabotaging. Extra possible justification for that scum!Role's existence.
And a Neutral Arsonist's third more likely Win condition, could be that they must simply survive to the end of the game Winning with either Town's or Mafia's Win (once all Mafia are killed, or once all Town are killed or else once Mafia outnumbers Town, respectively). To this end, the Arsonist wouldn't have a kill-quota to fulfil; they'd simply just be a killer, here to indiscriminately dwindle down the population until either Faction is majority, not caring or even needing to care who's left at the end.
Note that out of these 4 possible Win conditions of a Neutral Arsonist... 2 of them, support the strategy of the Arsonist claiming as Doused; as a stalling tactic via self-victimization--
--Say you have an Arsonist variant who immediately Wins/exits the game, after meeting either an AMOUNT kill-quota or else a HIT-LIST kill-quota. Provided that such an Arsonist doused ALL their requisites before ignition and thus were able to kill all of them at once that ignition-Night, they wouldn't face the public the following Day as they'd have already won and exited the game. Hence, it could behoove such an Arsonist to claim as Doused themselves--
--Imagine you're such an Arsonist, you take a Night to Douse someone and then in the Morning you say you're a Douse-victim while it was you who Doused someone else. 2 alleged Douse victims that Day, and since an Arsonist traditionally is only able to Douse 1 a Night, one of them is probably lying. In that case, it would be the Arsonist themself the liar.........................................................................................................................................................................................now we get specific and look at the context, the real players in question.....uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh stalling tactic because Doused is already dead so why pursue such claimants, yeah, that's what Arsonist wants you to think
...if the Arsonist is NOT Neutral and is instead Mafia-aligned, x-shot Douser allowing scum to kill probably 3/4-Doused as a kill supplement...? Due to having the Mafia's team-based Win condition, they would definitely never claim as Doused, because a Mafia-aligned Arsonist wouldn't exit the game upon ignition and thus after the triggered multi-kill would have to face being outed as a Douse-liar the following Day. Especially if there's no evidence of a Firefighter, as it apparently is in this match since isaacnukem hasn't claimed to be cleaned. So I can conclude that either Karkador, weemad or isaacnukem definitely couldn't be 'Mafia-aligned Arsonist'. But they may still be Mafia-aligned.
So, uh:
COULD ONE OF THE DOUSED CLAIMANTS BE A NEUTRAL ARSONIST?
+2 points supporting (two possible Neutral Win conditions supporting Arsonist claiming as Doused as a stalling tactic in order to live to Douse more until full kill-quota is covered for ignition)
-2 points against (two possible Neutral Win conditions against Arsonist claiming as Doused, because ignition of Doused would entail Arsonist self-revealing themselves as a Douse-liar due to their post-multikill survival if they don't exit the game upon ignition/a kill-quota fulfilment)
TOTAL SCORE: 0 [insufficient evidence]
COULD ONE OF THE DOUSED CLAIMANTS BE A MAFIA-ALIGNED ARSONIST?
-1 point against (Mafia has Mafia's team-based Win condition, so a Mafia-aligned Arsonist wouldn't exit the game or have any kill-quota to meet for a separate Win; and because ignition of Doused would entail Arsonist self-revealing themselves as a Douse-liar due to their post-multikill survival, scum!Arsonist would never claim as Doused)
TOTAL SCORE: -1 [unpossible]
COULD THE ARSONIST BE MAFIA-ALIGNED AND/OR X-SHOT?
BETWEEN KARKADOR AND WEEMADARTHUR, WHO IS LYING ABOUT BEING DOUSED; GIVEN THAT BY VIRTUE OF TRADITION IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT AN ARSONIST CAN MULTI-DOUSE, NOT TO MENTION THAT THERE WAS NO PRIOR MULTI-DOUSE?
yep fuck me I dunno. Someone else drive and go over my case notes:
[...] weemad only insinuated their Doused status by nudging isaac in a "guess what, bro me too" way; expecting us to use our imaginations to fill in the __________
claim, which as we should all know by now, that hesitantly asking for others' creativity is the greatest scumtell of all.
Then we got Kark sidling in to claim Doused like in a "You know what? Now I feel like it" afterthought way, and this after weemad opened this Day pursuing & voting against Kark. Doubt there are 2 Doused, one of them is lying. [...]
[DOUSED]
Then we got Kark sidling in to claim Doused like in a "You know what? Now I feel like it" afterthought way, and this after weemad opened this Day pursuing & voting against Kark. Doubt there are 2 Doused, one of them is lying. [...]
Blargonaut
Banned
yeah fuck it I'm inclined to believe weemad & Kark is a TOWN v. TOWN situation. There's no possible way in this universe scum would ask for this.
VOTE: acohrs
I think how you acted Yesterday was Bad and you should be punished
VOTE: acohrs
I think how you acted Yesterday was Bad and you should be punished
Today, I'd say weemadarthur and launchpadmcq
Blargonaut
Banned
The truths about the Doused will be revealed once the Arsonist ignites and thus reveals the liar. They're already dead or not; there is no business to be concluded there.
YET ANOTHER EVENT TOWN SHOULD LEAVE THE FUCK ALONE
YET ANOTHER EVENT TOWN SHOULD LEAVE THE FUCK ALONE
Blargonaut
Banned
Why resolve this dispute?
Blargonaut
Banned
All Doused should Role-claim
if it'll get you talking then I will oblige,
unvote
Why are you lying about being doused?
What makes you leanscum on wee and launch, not saying I agree or disagree, just want to hear a bit more.
Also, what do you think about dusk?
LaunchpadMcQ
Banned
Weird comment to make. You think weemad is lying about being doused and you don't want to chase the arsonist, but isn't that the reason someone would lie about being doused?
If you're really suspicious of weemad and don't think he's the arsonist, wouldn't that problem just take care of itself if he's telling the truth?
LaunchpadMcQ
Banned
I get the motivation from people to want to go for scum, ignoring the doused and the arsonist as a problem that might actually help town, but keep in mind we're supposed eliminate all threats at some point...
And like someone mentioned, it could be scum-aligned arsonist, though I'm inclined to disagree with that
And like someone mentioned, it could be scum-aligned arsonist, though I'm inclined to disagree with that
If the arsonist is neutral he will leave the game after he complete his win condition (and if we are lucky he will take some scum with him). So I wouldn't worry about that winning condition. Is more important catching scum that the arsonist.
In fact, can we stop the arsonist talk and just do some scum hunting? All this arsonist talk is a really easy way to scum to look active and helpful.
BTdubs launch, wee's a she
never played with an arsonist before, but aren't they just as much a threat as scum? I get that they could also kill scum, but given the ratio of town to scum, it's much more likely that they will be taking down some with them? So, given that fact, why not place importance on finding them?
Who said I was lying?
LaunchpadMcQ
Banned
oh that's a good point. Nevermind then.
There's no gender pronoun but I'll amend that anyway. Thanks for pointing that out.
I am, you argue that Wee didn't explicitly say they were doused but she made a comment about it, which for all intents, was pretty obviously an admission of being doused. You then come in and claim that you were doused too. This after already being suspected of being the arsonist.
Also, I would argue that you have form for "lying", from #1455 'Launch seemed pretty aware of what I was doing D1, and we know because some of the few responses he made on D1 were directed at me and my shenanigans. It was some buffoonery that was easy for him to play along with. ' So, it's pretty obvious to all, or maybe just me, that this is another gambit, so why are you doing it?
Blargonaut
Banned
It was me, LaunchpadMcQ