[END] Bioshock Mafia

[boo]

I gave a reason, see below. Does knowing that in any way change the impact of my vote? Nope.

By the time I voted, it wouldn't have mattered who I voted for. I also didn't see a good reason to vote for AP, as the case against him was silly, in my opinion. Instead of hopping on that bandwagon, I threw my vote somewhere else. I didn't see much point in explaining that, so I didn't.

That isn't a reason.

[DisgruntledPorcupine]

Nah, I like watching everything unfold from the afueras. That's just how I like to play mafia. I'll leave the public speculation to you folks. Forgive the intrusion, I'll only butt in when the game dictates I have to.

Well then, I'm going to force you to play

I'm going to vote for you tomorrow, and I am going to campaign for other people to vote for you too.

(I'm also looking at a few other people, and I might post my thoughts later if I can bring them all together. But for right now, this seems like the most fun thing to devote my time too.)

Added: Quiet players get a rougher time because being quiet usually means you are trying to blend in and avoid notice. Something baddies do. It's harder for a bad player to be vocal because they have to bullshit most of the time, and it is only a matter of time before someone calls you on bullshit. Some people are really good and being vocal baddies, but it is a difficult art to master.

I'm reading you as baddie. Perfectly content to sit back and watch everyone else make mistakes while you slide by day by day. Not on my watch.

Added: Novel reasoning Dex.

Just wanna say something because this is what gets me frustrated at almost every single mafia game. Just because a player is quiet does not mean they are bad. Yes, baddies do sometimes lay low to avoid attention. But baddies also can be talkative in a game. Play style does not dictate affiliation on either the good or the bad teams. Just ask MP. He is always one of the most vocal people in every game and just because he is vocal does not make him a civilian every single time, just as someone being a quieter player does not make him or her a baddie. The problem with these games, as Kev (agleaminranks) pointed out, is that the antics that happen in each game most of the time consists of someone throwing out some bullhonkey accusation that seems to stick with everyone else for some reason and then that person ends up getting killed. There is never any concrete evidence and the whole game plays out as more of a guess-and-check type deal and the people that win are the people that happened to get luckier than everyone else. As mattchu pointer out earlier, the things that would incriminate someone happen outside of public knowledge in the thread, and the reasons people get lynched is usually for some reason that has nothing supporting it, just some half-hearted accusations that cant necessarily be proved or disproved, just people hop on board with it. "BADDIES DO THIS, YOU MUST BE BADDIE" is not a reason to kill someone, nor is "I READ YOU AS A BADDIE YOU MUST BE BAD EVERYONE VOTE HIM" Point is, play style does not make someone bad, good, or anything for that matter. It's like saying someone cant write good literature because they are left handed.

Agreed.

[DisgruntledPorcupine]

To add onto that, once a game really winds down it's slightly understandable, but going after someone for being quiet early in the game is something I could never understand. Hell even late in the game I would only go after a quiet person as an absolute last resort. I rarely see going after a quiet person work.

[DisgruntledPorcupine]

And RIP you wonderful song.

[LittleTiger]

RIPiywg Agleaminranks.

I think it is quite clear that everyone plays differently. Whether that is quietly or loudly... neither is a good reason to accuse someone of being bad,imo, unless there are other contributing factors to suspecting someone. Personally, I try to judge based on connections, what is being said, voting... and anything else that can build a picture of what is going on. I won't fault anyone for choosing their own method of play - it takes all sorts of players to make a game FUN and interesting plus, I find it refreshing to see all the new voices in the games!

Not sure who I am looking at today. But I know I won't be voting Zany Dex for being, well, Zany - he is always this way regardless of alignment. I also don't see anything screaming Ace is a baddie either... yet.

I'll be back tomorrow.

[nutella]

RIP gleam.

RIP Gleam. A shame you had to die so early Kooby.

Which sucks, because I was one of the people I was going to be looking at today. Dex is currently my top suspect though. His drive-by-post-vote doesn't sit well with me, and then him saying he did it because he saw a bandwagon forming and wanting to jump on it doesn't sit well at all. My main concern is that we lynch him nearly unanimously and he winds up being bad. The sad part of that being I could see that happen because.....well, he is quite zany after all. :P

...wait what

am I seeing a possible slip up here or am I not reading this right

[Flyin' High]

Frozen then shattered does not sound like a pleasant way to go.

[nutella]

Also I loled at this:

Which sucks, because I was one of the people I was going to be looking at today.

I think you are going to be one of the people I look at today, birdie boy...

[Epignosis]

RIP Gleam. A shame you had to die so early Kooby.

Which sucks, because I was one of the people I was going to be looking at today. Dex is currently my top suspect though. His drive-by-post-vote doesn't sit well with me, and then him saying he did it because he saw a bandwagon forming and wanting to jump on it doesn't sit well at all. My main concern is that we lynch him nearly unanimously and he winds up being bad. The sad part of that being I could see that happen because.....well, he is quite zany after all. :P

Aces is shortly behind him for voting for a similar reason, and then saying he isn't going to bother explaining his reason for his vote. This is definitely shaping up to be one of the weirder games I've played so far.

Linki: That's why I'm looking at him as well, DH. It's not so much the reasons behind it, but rather the "if you're going to be quiet, I'm voting you". There's no logic behind it.

Linki2: We will sacrifice ourselves so that you might live. #Based #TYBG

All your suspicions sound great. I still want to know about my #1: You.

And it's funny how juliets was satisfied with your unsatisfactory explanation enough to vote for A Person.

[S~V~S]

A moment of respect for a man we can all, as mafia players, relate to, Big Tony. RIP Mr. Gandolfini

[juliets]

RIP Gleam. A shame you had to die so early Kooby.

Which sucks, because I was one of the people I was going to be looking at today. Dex is currently my top suspect though. His drive-by-post-vote doesn't sit well with me, and then him saying he did it because he saw a bandwagon forming and wanting to jump on it doesn't sit well at all. My main concern is that we lynch him nearly unanimously and he winds up being bad. The sad part of that being I could see that happen because.....well, he is quite zany after all. :P

Aces is shortly behind him for voting for a similar reason, and then saying he isn't going to bother explaining his reason for his vote. This is definitely shaping up to be one of the weirder games I've played so far.

Linki: That's why I'm looking at him as well, DH. It's not so much the reasons behind it, but rather the "if you're going to be quiet, I'm voting you". There's no logic behind it.

Linki2: We will sacrifice ourselves so that you might live. #Based #TYBG

All your suspicions sound great. I still want to know about my #1: You.

And it's funny how juliets was satisfied with your unsatisfactory explanation enough to vote for A Person.

What are you talking about? As far as I remember it was Elohcin's point I agreed with. I don't remember BWT having any impact on my vote. Can you pull up the quote you are talking about?

[Epignosis]

RIP Gleam. A shame you had to die so early Kooby.

Which sucks, because I was one of the people I was going to be looking at today. Dex is currently my top suspect though. His drive-by-post-vote doesn't sit well with me, and then him saying he did it because he saw a bandwagon forming and wanting to jump on it doesn't sit well at all. My main concern is that we lynch him nearly unanimously and he winds up being bad. The sad part of that being I could see that happen because.....well, he is quite zany after all. :P

Aces is shortly behind him for voting for a similar reason, and then saying he isn't going to bother explaining his reason for his vote. This is definitely shaping up to be one of the weirder games I've played so far.

Linki: That's why I'm looking at him as well, DH. It's not so much the reasons behind it, but rather the "if you're going to be quiet, I'm voting you". There's no logic behind it.

Linki2: We will sacrifice ourselves so that you might live. #Based #TYBG

All your suspicions sound great. I still want to know about my #1: You.

And it's funny how juliets was satisfied with your unsatisfactory explanation enough to vote for A Person.

What are you talking about? As far as I remember it was Elohcin's point I agreed with. I don't remember BWT having any impact on my vote. Can you pull up the quote you are talking about?

You actually pointed out his inconsistency before I could: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 742#p23742

Yet you never followed up on it. You never even commented on his response. Why is that?

[juliets]

He explained it by saying he knows Vomps personally and understands how his personality impacts what he did. It didn't seem to me there was anything more to say - did you expect me to argue about Vomps personality and what it did or didn't mean?

[Epignosis]

He explained it by saying he knows Vomps personally and understands how his personality impacts what he did. It didn't seem to me there was anything more to say - did you expect me to argue about Vomps personality and what it did or didn't mean?

I answered that. http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 763#p23763

No, I did not expect you to argue about Vomp's personality. I expected you to press birdwithteeth11 for criticizing early random voters, and yet defending the one person who voted random early. You haven't done that. Why?

[Mongoose]

RIP gleam.

RIP Gleam. A shame you had to die so early Kooby.

Which sucks, because I was one of the people I was going to be looking at today. Dex is currently my top suspect though. His drive-by-post-vote doesn't sit well with me, and then him saying he did it because he saw a bandwagon forming and wanting to jump on it doesn't sit well at all. My main concern is that we lynch him nearly unanimously and he winds up being bad. The sad part of that being I could see that happen because.....well, he is quite zany after all. :P

...wait what

am I seeing a possible slip up here or am I not reading this right

I caught that too but assumed he omitted a word. If not, it's pretty damning. If bird is legit civ, then that typo could cost him more than NASA's missing hyphen did with their Mariner 1 probe.

[juliets]

He explained it by saying he knows Vomps personally and understands how his personality impacts what he did. It didn't seem to me there was anything more to say - did you expect me to argue about Vomps personality and what it did or didn't mean?

I answered that. http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 763#p23763

No, I did not expect you to argue about Vomp's personality. I expected you to press birdwithteeth11 for criticizing early random voters, and yet defending the one person who voted random early. You haven't done that. Why?

Because he already gave me his answer. Why would I press him more? He gave me his answer about how well he knew Vomps and I was satisfied.

[Mongoose]

Frozen then shattered does not sound like a pleasant way to go.

Nooo, it doesn't. Vaguely reminiscent of a scene in Jason X where he plunges a girl's head into liquid nitrogen and then slams her head on the counter, shattering it into a million fragments. Gross.

[Epignosis]

He explained it by saying he knows Vomps personally and understands how his personality impacts what he did. It didn't seem to me there was anything more to say - did you expect me to argue about Vomps personality and what it did or didn't mean?

I answered that. http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 763#p23763

No, I did not expect you to argue about Vomp's personality. I expected you to press birdwithteeth11 for criticizing early random voters, and yet defending the one person who voted random early. You haven't done that. Why?

Because he already gave me his answer. Why would I press him more? He gave me his answer about how well he knew Vomps and I was satisfied.

Would you kindly tell me why that defense of Vompatti clears birdwithteeth11?

[indiglo]

RIP Gleam (I have decided the last game or 2 to just say that, rather than the "iywg" part... it's never fun to die in a game, regardless of alignment, so RIP dude or dudette.)

I try to stay out of these debates about how mafia "should" or "shouldn't" be played, and who "should" or "shouldn't" be suspected for what reasons. Bottom line - we all make our choices as to how we play a game. Civs want mafiosos dead, and mafiosos want civs dead. To reach each objective, both groups will play differently, react differently, and build cases - either based on something OR based on nothing. (Remember a mafiosos' job is lie, twist things and misrepresent.) Even honest to goodness civs can misinterpret something and be wrong. Also, some players will press other players extensively just to see how they react in order to get a read on them. All of these choices we make on how to play, how to react, building cases, defending ourselves, etc. have repercussions. Sometimes for the good and sometimes for the bad, but every choice has a result.

Luck is also a huge part of mafia. Ask any of us who have been around playing mafia for multiple years - you can play a perfect game (as a civ or mafia) and still lose. Surviving till the end or dying in the beginning doesn't necessarily mean you played better or worse than anyone else. Maybe you got lucky. Maybe you got unlucky. Maybe the host made a HUGE error, maybe a player made a HUGE error. At the end of the day we can turn our computers off... and THAT'S when real life happens - you know, the stuff that matters. I remember being new to mafia and totally enthusiastic and passionate about it. It's wonderful to see that in some of our newerish players, and reminds me of those old times when I felt the same. Now I just can't play as passionately, but it can still be fun.

I think I was going somewhere with this, but I'm lost now.


Anyhoo, will definitely be interested in taking a closer look at BWT today.

Linki.

[thellama73]

Frozen then shattered does not sound like a pleasant way to go.

Nooo, it doesn't. Vaguely reminiscent of a scene in Jason X where he plunges a girl's head into liquid nitrogen and then slams her head on the counter, shattering it into a million fragments. Gross.

Or that scene in T2

RIPIYWG agleamintheranks. I have to say, I'm pretty surprised to see him night killed, when it looked like he had a good chance of being lynched anyway. Maybe one of the bad teams saw his behavior as as unnerving as we did.

My top suspect is Zany Dex. Not sure about Aces, and so far I'm not seeing what Rob is in BWT. I'm a little pinged by LT going gung ho after me yesterday and then suddenly abandoning it when it became clear that AP was going to be lynched. Have you changed your mind about me, LT?

We'll see what turns up today.

P.S. I don't suspect players for being quiet alone. I suspect players for being defiantly quiet and refusing to give any account of themselves. By doing so, they certainly harm the civ cause, or at the very least offer no help to it.

[Epignosis]

and so far I'm not seeing what Rob is in BWT.

He criticized people for early random voting.

Vompatti was the only one to do this.

He excused Vompatti.

[Mongoose]

RIPIYWG agleamintheranks. I have to say, I'm pretty surprised to see him night killed, when it looked like he had a good chance of being lynched anyway. Maybe one of the bad teams saw his behavior as as unnerving as we did.

My top suspect is Zany Dex. .

Is the drive-by voting your main reason for suspecting Zany Dex, or other reasons that haven't yet been fully enumerated?

Did you not find bwt's comment troublesome?

I miss hedgeowl. Where are you, owlie?

[Draconus]

Bwt didn't strike me as odd quite yet. Did I miss something?

[juliets]

I don't know if we are even talking about the same thing anymore Epignosis. Below is what BWT said originally about Vomps, then comes my question, then comes BWT's response. He is saying he didn't consider Vomps even though Vomps voted randomly and early because he knows Vomps very well and he is inane and a bit crazy, thus he (BWT) didn't think he (Vomps) would take that risk as a baddie. My question was why didn't BWT see Vomps in the same light as others who voted early and random and BWTs answer was the "why". Thus, my question was answered and i felt no need to question anymore. His defense of Vomps WAS his explanation of why he exempted him from the group - they are one in the same. (The last quote is screwed up but i think you will understand)

I am not, by the way, defending BWT as being a civv.

Linki: I do agree about Vomps. I highly doubt he would have taken such a risk by voting so early. Not to mention how long it took him to type out the entire logic of all his coin flips. If that was me, I'd have to randomize my vote just to not let that work go to waste.

Hi bwt - just straighten me out on one thing - you say that people who randomize today when there has been a decent bit of discussion, especially if there is another 24 hours to go, ping you. It seems like Vomps fits that definition but you also say you dont think he would have taken the risk by voting so early and he typed out his randomizing logic. So why is Vomps exempt from the definition that seems to fit him?

I know Vomps and talk to him a good deal online outside of here. For the most part he's very inane and a bit crazy, hence why I don't think he would take such a risk as a baddie. Unless he's completely pulling the wool over my eyes, in which case I would congratulate him.

Basically, I don't think the way he randomized warrants more attention from me at this time. Whereas I think some of the other people who have randomized or discussed randomizing (see: A Person) make me question their intent behind it.[/quote]

[thellama73]

and so far I'm not seeing what Rob is in BWT.

He criticized people for early random voting.

Vompatti was the only one to do this.

He excused Vompatti.

He said "people who have randomized or talked about randomizing (e.g. A Person)" so Vomps wasn't the only one on his list. I don't know, I have been reading him as civ so far, but perhaps you are on to something.

linki: juliets. I also feel almost positive that Vomps is civ.

[Draconus]

Nevermind after rereading his post I noticed this: "My main concern is that we lynch him nearly unanimously and he winds up being bad."

I apparently miss things when I skim

[Epignosis]

and so far I'm not seeing what Rob is in BWT.

He criticized people for early random voting.

Vompatti was the only one to do this.

He excused Vompatti.

He said "people who have randomized or talked about randomizing (e.g. A Person)" so Vomps wasn't the only one on his list. I don't know, I have been reading him as civ so far, but perhaps you are on to something.

linki: juliets. I also feel almost positive that Vomps is civ.

I don't have a problem with Vomp.

I have one with BWT. He was contradictory and has said nothing to dissuade my opinion.

[Mongoose]

Nevermind after rereading his post I noticed this: "My main concern is that we lynch him nearly unanimously and he winds up being bad."

I apparently miss things when I skim

It could have been a typo (just omitting the word "not" before bad. It seems like a pretty big mistake to make otherwise. I don't know what to think.

[Draconus]

Nevermind after rereading his post I noticed this: "My main concern is that we lynch him nearly unanimously and he winds up being bad."

I apparently miss things when I skim

It could have been a typo (just omitting the word "not" before bad. It seems like a pretty big mistake to make otherwise. I don't know what to think.

That's true.

[Hedgeowl]

RIPIYWG agleamintheranks. I have to say, I'm pretty surprised to see him night killed, when it looked like he had a good chance of being lynched anyway. Maybe one of the bad teams saw his behavior as as unnerving as we did.

My top suspect is Zany Dex. .

Is the drive-by voting your main reason for suspecting Zany Dex, or other reasons that haven't yet been fully enumerated?

Did you not find bwt's comment troublesome?

I miss hedgeowl. Where are you, owlie?

We are on the road to a family reunion. Will not be around much this weekend. I am trying read this without getting carsick, but not succeeding.

[Mongoose]

RIPIYWG agleamintheranks. I have to say, I'm pretty surprised to see him night killed, when it looked like he had a good chance of being lynched anyway. Maybe one of the bad teams saw his behavior as as unnerving as we did.

My top suspect is Zany Dex. .

Is the drive-by voting your main reason for suspecting Zany Dex, or other reasons that haven't yet been fully enumerated?

Did you not find bwt's comment troublesome?

I miss hedgeowl. Where are you, owlie?

We are on the road to a family reunion. Will not be around much this weekend. I am trying read this without getting carsick, but not succeeding.

Um yeah, I can see how that would not be very conducive to game playing!

We shall mess your shrewd observations!

[Matahari]

A lot of reading to do! Goodbye Gleam, I'm sorry I didn't get the chance to play with you-

I want to understand the BWT stuff, so maybe someone can answer this and help me out. A baddie wouldn't have written the post in question, unless it was a slip. Is BWT likely to make slips when bad? A civ could have written that post and made typos, 2 actually. Is BWT known to make a lot of typos? Is he known to make more mistakes when bad than when he is a civ?

Maybe someone who has been on a team with him several could answer those questions. And if there is no answer to those questions, then maybe his post was not a slip, and just typos.

Also, I love zany dex and aces. That is all.

[Snow Dog]

Frozen then shattered does not sound like a pleasant way to go.

Nooo, it doesn't. Vaguely reminiscent of a scene in Jason X where he plunges a girl's head into liquid nitrogen and then slams her head on the counter, shattering it into a million fragments. Gross.

Or that scene in T2

RIPIYWG agleamintheranks. I have to say, I'm pretty surprised to see him night killed, when it looked like he had a good chance of being lynched anyway. Maybe one of the bad teams saw his behavior as as unnerving as we did.

My top suspect is Zany Dex. Not sure about Aces, and so far I'm not seeing what Rob is in BWT. I'm a little pinged by LT going gung ho after me yesterday and then suddenly abandoning it when it became clear that AP was going to be lynched. Have you changed your mind about me, LT?

We'll see what turns up today.

P.S. I don't suspect players for being quiet alone. I suspect players for being defiantly quiet and refusing to give any account of themselves. By doing so, they certainly harm the civ cause, or at the very least offer no help to it.

Except he wasn't killed by a baddie team was he. It was a civ kill. Or have I misunderstood the roles?

[Snow Dog]

RIPIYWG, may you watch over the thread in death just as you did in life. Silently.

Brilliant!

[Bullzeye]

I guess Gleam basically asked for that NK. It's a shame if he was a civvie but also kind of odd because he seemed to be setting himself up for a lynch anyway.

RIP Gleam. A shame you had to die so early Kooby.

Which sucks, because I was one of the people I was going to be looking at today. Dex is currently my top suspect though. His drive-by-post-vote doesn't sit well with me, and then him saying he did it because he saw a bandwagon forming and wanting to jump on it doesn't sit well at all. My main concern is that we lynch him nearly unanimously and he winds up being bad. The sad part of that being I could see that happen because.....well, he is quite zany after all. :P

Dex confused me because I don't think I've seen anyone admit to jumping onto a bandwagon before. It definitely doesn't seem like the kind of thing a civvie says even if it was true.

I gave a reason, see below. Does knowing that in any way change the impact of my vote? Nope.

By the time I voted, it wouldn't have mattered who I voted for. I also didn't see a good reason to vote for AP, as the case against him was silly, in my opinion. Instead of hopping on that bandwagon, I threw my vote somewhere else. I didn't see much point in explaining that, so I didn't.

That's not really much of an explanation and really you could've just said that at the time and you'd probably have been okay. It's more weird that you just slipped in and voted with no comment IMO. I feel like the case on AP did have some merit, the thing I pointed out that I thought explained his self vote (but obviously didn't) is the main reason I voted for him and at the time it did make sense.

[Snow Dog]

By the time I voted, it wouldn't have mattered who I voted for. I also didn't see a good reason to vote for AP, as the case against him was silly, in my opinion. Instead of hopping on that bandwagon, I threw my vote somewhere else. I didn't see much point in explaining that, so I didn't.

How fatalistic of you. And on a furhter note, i'lll be looking at you

Nah, I like watching everything unfold from the afueras. That's just how I like to play mafia. I'll leave the public speculation to you folks. Forgive the intrusion, I'll only butt in when the game dictates I have to.

This doesn't seem right somehow. Like refusing to play. How about we all lynch him tomorrow whatever his alliance?

Yes. Let's just lynch players because they play quiet and are honest about it. I'm looking at you, Snow Dog.

Is what lizard tongue man said very strange? Yeha, I think so. he basically said don't look at me I Don't like being looked at. That's not quite the way I would play, or how I think most civvies would play, but I don't think it made him bad. Now you're saying, let's lynch him no matter if he's civvie or not.

That's very bad, SD. It's basically saying that we should lynch people who don't like to talk because they aren't contributing. And that's something baddies like to do because they usually don't fight back too much because they are... by definition of the plan, quiet.


LINKI: Boo

Same opinion as you on Aces. Not as convinced he's abd as you seem to be, but I do think he's being strangely suspicious.

I admit my post was a bit hasty but I said it as a player of mafia. I thought his attitude was all wrong but you know that's just my opinion. In the end it might have come to nothing depending if others wanted to lynch him.

Anyway he was killed by a civ.

[thellama73]

Except he wasn't killed by a baddie team was he. It was a civ kill. Or have I misunderstood the roles?

Yes, you're right. I'm not used to civs killing at night so I didn't notice that.

[thellama73]

Which means Atlas either a) failed his 90% kill chance b) was role-blocked or c) didn't send in his PM. The latter seems the most likely to me.

[boo]

On the civ killing him Snow Dog, I would also keep in mind that with only one person killed (Ryan), gleams killer and all the other Splicers and Bots become LMSing within that group, and need to kill all the others. For all we know, he was killed by a civ who thought he was a civ, with the killer taking the approach of "Ryan could die any time, I should kill as many potential current teammates as I can so if he is, I don't need to kill them later".

I'm not really sure we can put much value into who those 'civvies' try to kill. WIth Ryan alive, they'll want to kill just about anyone not under Ryan in that first group, and with him dead, they want everyone within that group dead. It's really going to be, "I wouldn't mind this player dying" type of strategy for those roles atm I think, until the game progresses and they can form a better idea of whether they think Ryan will last to the end (I'm unsure of whether or not the part in role role that says they know who ryan is, and therefore will not kill him, means that they know who Ryan is, and aren't allowed to target Ryan for a NK, or if they don't know who has the role, but if they target him, the kill chance becomes 0).

The only thing I take away from his death is that it probably wasn't a player whose taking heat that NKed him, because if they did think they were a possible D2 lynch candidate, then trying to kill a probable front-runner is a move which makes very little sense, as it could wind up having people who were looking in they direction focusing more that way then they otherwise would have.

[boo]

Which means Atlas either a) failed his 90% kill chance b) was role-blocked or c) didn't send in his PM. The latter seems the most likely to me.

Atlas doesn't have the kill yet (Jack has to die).

[thellama73]

Which means Atlas either a) failed his 90% kill chance b) was role-blocked or c) didn't send in his PM. The latter seems the most likely to me.

Atlas doesn't have the kill yet (Jack has to die).

God, these roles are complicated.

[boo]

Which means Atlas either a) failed his 90% kill chance b) was role-blocked or c) didn't send in his PM. The latter seems the most likely to me.

Atlas doesn't have the kill yet (Jack has to die).

God, these roles are complicated.

Hmm, long descriptions, relatively simple when you focus on the kill chance and any conditions that tend to be set around the kill chance.

Essentially, last night, there were (assuming none missed the PM/were RBed)
-1 NK with a 10% chance
-1 NK with a 25% chance
-1 NK with a 40% chance or a 10% chance (this early in the game, the 10 makes more sense imo, since it comes with a bit of security to it).
- 1 NK with a 30% chance
-1 NK with a 5% chance or a 35% chance (I'm not sure if this one means on the second night they target the same player it gets up to a 35% chance, or on each try there is a stacking 35%, but is only good for 2 tries, so a 70% chance the second time. I think it just means a 35% chance, and they can double target the person they pick if they don't kill them the first try).

Someone better then math at me can figure it out, but by my guess, that means we can reasonably expect (ignoring various chance-reducing parts of roles), on the top end, that one of these roles will manage a kill a night, a rare night where none of them kill (made more likely on the low end obviously) and 2 of their kills to go through about every 3rd or 4th night.

Then there's the Big Daddies who start killing (well one does, the other can as well) start killing N2.

[Draconus]

A lot of reading to do! Goodbye Gleam, I'm sorry I didn't get the chance to play with you-

I want to understand the BWT stuff, so maybe someone can answer this and help me out. A baddie wouldn't have written the post in question, unless it was a slip. Is BWT likely to make slips when bad? A civ could have written that post and made typos, 2 actually. Is BWT known to make a lot of typos? Is he known to make more mistakes when bad than when he is a civ?

Maybe someone who has been on a team with him several could answer those questions. And if there is no answer to those questions, then maybe his post was not a slip, and just typos.

Also, I love zany dex and aces. That is all.

I don't think David is very likely to slip that badly. But I'm not 100% sure.
At this point I'm just grasping at straws trying to contribute.

[birdwithteeth11]

RIP Gleam. A shame you had to die so early Kooby.

Which sucks, because I was one of the people I was going to be looking at today. Dex is currently my top suspect though. His drive-by-post-vote doesn't sit well with me, and then him saying he did it because he saw a bandwagon forming and wanting to jump on it doesn't sit well at all. My main concern is that we lynch him nearly unanimously and he winds up being bad. The sad part of that being I could see that happen because.....well, he is quite zany after all. :P

...wait what

am I seeing a possible slip up here or am I not reading this right

Not really a slip-up, since it was something I meant to say. I have a very hard time reading Dex, and read him as a baddie at some point in every game I play. I think it's because his playstyle is so unpredictable. So what I'm saying is that my main concern is that I am misreading him again and he just found a really weird way to vote on Day 1 and draw a lot of attention to himself (like he usually seems to do). That seems to be a common theme with him as well.

and so far I'm not seeing what Rob is in BWT.

He criticized people for early random voting.

Vompatti was the only one to do this.

He excused Vompatti.

I gave my reason why I did. I think if Vomps was actually bad, he wouldn't have given such a long-winded explanation to the reason for his vote. I'm curious as to why you don't think I've given a satisfactory answer yet about this.

Also, what exactly happened between Aces and boo? I'm going to go back and look for the quote that started that, because I feel like I missed something.

[birdwithteeth11]

EBWOP: Nevermind. I think that was more about Aces initial vote for boo. Unless someone can correct me on that.

[Boomslang]

RIP gleam.

RIP Gleam. A shame you had to die so early Kooby.

Which sucks, because I was one of the people I was going to be looking at today. Dex is currently my top suspect though. His drive-by-post-vote doesn't sit well with me, and then him saying he did it because he saw a bandwagon forming and wanting to jump on it doesn't sit well at all. My main concern is that we lynch him nearly unanimously and he winds up being bad. The sad part of that being I could see that happen because.....well, he is quite zany after all. :P

...wait what

am I seeing a possible slip up here or am I not reading this right

Although I don't think this slip up is as big as people are saying, it does seem a bit strong-arm-ish. "Nearly unanimous" is the kicker. I'm watching Dex as well, but the nearly unanimous part suggests that BWT is trying to draw attention away from other targets. Maybe he knows something we don't?

[birdwithteeth11]

I wouldn't really say I'm trying to draw attention away from other targets. While I do have some reservations about Dex, he's still my top suspect for now. With Aces behind him. Although I'd like to hear more from both of them.

[nutella]

Whoa what okay you're just confusing me more now. By "My main concern is that X", I assumed you meant "I hope X doesn't happen." So did you just still not realize that you missed a negative in that statement? Boomslang seems to think you meant "I hope X does happen" which would mean you want to lynch a bad Dex nearly unanimously, and idk why you would need to specify that.

[Draconus]

Thank you for asking this nutella. I was about to ask the same question. I had assumed a typo when Mongoose brought that up but bwt just stated otherwise.

[thellama73]

The way BWT worded it was confusing. I think most of us read "concern" as meaning "worry," but he seems to have meant it in the sense of "priority."