Epignosis wrote:To answer DrWilgy's questions:
DrWilgy wrote:Please if you can validate Zebra's lust to get caught when I was the only person who pointed out the suspicion of this post, do let me know. Hey Epi, if this was a baddie trying to get caught. Why didn't you see it, catch it, and call Zebra out on it? (this one's important)
Civilians frequently look bad, and that doesn't mean they are. One cannot know if zebra was intentionally trying to get caught until after the lynch. Knowing the alignment now, I can comb through the thread and determine if I think zebra was trying to get lynched or was trying to avoid getting lynched. It's called a "lynch analysis," which I thought you would like better since it's not a "night kill analysis."
-> 1
DrWilgy wrote:
"
" - Epi
I'm starting to notice a habit of you leaving vague smileys in place of thoughts, why does this make you ponder?
zebra was under a lot of pressure, but voted you and was the very first voter. There was no intention of holding the vote in case self-preservation was necessary.
-> 2
DrWilgy wrote:
"LC raised the possibility at the time. Note zebra's reaction: zebra doesn't contest LC's accusation implied accusation, but rather wants to know why LC thinks what he does. Then zebra states the obvious and waves it away with a dismissive, "Okay."" - Epi
So this one is interesting since you are once again allowing baddie action to rule the course of the game. Analyzing NK's, reading into baddie actions that could have been Zebra trying to bring me down, It could've been LC trying to get me to go down with a teammate of his. There are many possibilities based on these quotes that you drew your assumptions from that you don't consider... But clearly you are no fool, so it's the WIFOM.
You are insistent that mafia
inaction rule the course of the game. I am not. I am considering both possibilities. Are you seriously insisting that people trying to consider why someone was killed or why there was no kill at all is a
bad thing?
-> 3
DrWilgy wrote:
"Then there's the missing night kill that gave the impression that the kill was missed. I think the night kill was missed on purpose to drive the attention away from zebra and Wilgy's contrived exchange." - Epi
That would imply that I gave up the kill for mind games which would be dumb, really dumb. Similarly to how civs never "no lynch" a mafia should never "no kill", but you honestly believe that I did that even though I still was receiving heat both before and afterwards. Also if avoiding attention was my play style this game would I be posting as much as I am? again with the claim of aggro play, but I don't see how you can call my play this game as avoiding attention.
DrWilgy wrote:Epignosis wrote:It doesn't imply that at all. I think you slipped.
Bs Epi. Your angle was that of Zebra and I being teammates. That would mean I at the minimum had some responsibility for the kill.
Not at all. Only one captain kills. The others cannot submit the action for the killer. You could be a non-killing captain with a deadbeat partner, but your response to me didn't allow for that possibility. You immediately said, "That would imply that
I gave up the kill."
-> 4
I am not even close to through with you.
1. So, this doesn't make sense from a teammate perspective. If I'm a teammate and I know Zebra is bad, why do I need her to fabricate things that make her worth a lynch? Unless you don't think I'm competent enough to bus a teammate who lead a bs wagon on a civ. If Zebra was trying to get caught with that line of hers, did it work? If it didn't wouldn't you consider the possibility of it not being fabricated to be slightly greater at the least?
2. That just seems to match Zebra's MO. I don't know if I've played a game with her where she actually hesitated to drop a vote.
3. I thought about this overnight. It still feels bad, but it doesn't necessarily make the theorist mafia. Mafia kill someone -> someone theorizes why -> theory leads to credit or discredit for someone else, but the mafia who placed the kill are going to use this to their advantage yes? that's why speculation and distrust of night kill judgement seem natural to me and why I see them as bad. I.E. I could claim that ballsy mafia just wanted to credit Scotty, through "Scotty would never do that!"
I guess the main problem with it is that the WIFOM is always poisonous.
4. So, putting myself in the shoes of Zebra's teammate, the angle where I have a responsibility to my team, it's a slip if I say I? when I'm actively forcing the angle of a responsible teammate? That's not a slip, that's me looking at your angle as best as I can and responding to it from the teammate angle. If it makes you feel better, when I tried to look from that angle I didn't specifically think of what captain I was.
DrWilgy wrote:birdwithteeth11 wrote:DrWilgy wrote:/sigh that was the point Scotty.
If the argument was "Zebra was trying to get lynched" that would imply that she made her posts obviously scummy. I being the only player to cry scum on that post, would that make it a obviously scummy post? if a post was obviously scummy, other's would've noticed it and called it out.
Others did notice it and called it out as well. You act like you were a working as a one-man army here.
I'm not a one man army and that's not what my intention was. I looked and quoted all responces to the "purposely" fishy quote that I could find and all I found were suggestions of neutral or no suspicion. The ones I found were what I quoted. If there are more please point them out to me, for I missed them.
I'm waiting for a response BWT. It's actually pretty shady that you'd vote me while not actually looking at this and replying.
Epignosis wrote:DrWilgy wrote:Here's my new list based on recent events
Scotty or LC still stands, LC with a slightly higher chance of being mafia.
Epignosis
SVS
As of rereading through BWT, I no longer suspect him at this time. I need to relook at Sriracha, DF and Marmot. LC case coming shortly.
You no longer suspect birdwithteeth11, even though you suspect me. This is you reason why:
DrWilgy wrote:birdwithteeth11 wrote:a2thezebra wrote:Long Con wrote:a2thezebra wrote:Your meta's looking pretty bad right now Wilgy, to be honest.
What do you mean by this?
I mean that from what I know about Wilgy based on my experiences with him in other games, this feels way more like his baddie game than his civ game. I'm just being honest.
Just like you were so confident with sig?
This comment right here and the following one felt genuine. I.e. not talking to a temmie.
That was May 08, 2016 11:23 am
Never mind that bwt had a
much longer exchange with zebra on that topic that you didn't comment on. That's not why I care. This is:
Epignosis wrote:a2thezebra wrote:Goddammnit sig, why are you so scummy as town and so innocent as scum?
a2thezebra wrote:DrWilgy wrote:
Sig did you just vote me for promoting discussion?
sig wrote:I'm going with Wilgy no on topic posts, and very few off topic posts, his one truly on topic post, is bad imo.
linki: I see Epi ninjad in and voted for MP.
What classifies a post as being bad? Gambler's fallacy has been brought up this game, so does that make my subject point irrelevant? I get the feeling that you are trying to strong arm me here Sig.
I think he is, he is. And it's a sorry excuse for a permanent vote.
sig
I finally know your meta sig, I've played enough games with you. You're bad and you're going down.
Fail.
That was May 05, 2016 9:55 pm.
Yet you think bwt is good because he made the same point I did three days later.
Yes actually, and if you read what I had stated, I also noted that the comments afterwards by bwt make me feel good as well. I think it's rather easy to go "ha you blew it" to a teammate and nothing else, which is what you did. BWT made several comments to Zebra through several posts one after another. I don't think that a baddie would format a response to a teammate like that due to them needing to be more meticulous and careful with their replies.
Long Con wrote:DrWilgy wrote:Also, @LC what would you classify as original proponents?
Um.. Scotty and I are the original proponents. This isn't a classification issue, this is who we were discussing. Not up for debate or opinion.
-> 1
DrWilgy wrote:Over analysis of night kills have caused very tragic results. My clearest memory of this happens to be your death in a realm reborn. Golden was super murdered because of it and all the players over analyzing it.
Epi, it seems as though this is the place to which you have pushed Wilgy, can you respond to this? I don't remember the circumstances of your death and Golden's "super-murder" offhand, so I don't get the context Wilgy is framing this POV within. "Over analysis of night kills have caused very tragic results." is a really vague, sweeping comment.
-> 2
I believe there is a scale difference in the missing of a kill and who the target is.
I don't quite get what you're saying here.
-> 3
This would be different if there were kill blocking roles, but I don't believe that there is any way possible for that to be the case.
That is the same conclusion we all already made, no one is contesting that. Why even say it??
-> 4
Missing a kill as BWT put it is probably the worst thing a baddie can do.
What BWT said was "I think the missed NKs were a deliberate attempt to try and draw attention onto low posters and non-active players. Looked good at the time, but as you've probably learned from last night, it's much better to try and kill someone. It's the best way to try and cause chaos and confusion."
Hindsight is, as it always is, 20/20... why are you bringing BWT's comment into this? I don't understand some of what you're saying, Wilgy, and when I understand
what, I don't get
why.
-> 5
1. Sorry I worded that funny, I should've stated what pattern are you referring to? And you are correct that the pattern changed. I need to examine why, and evaluate how I feel about it, at this point I'm leaning that you are bad, and Scotty is good.
2. Tragic results was vague, describing it as "easily to manipulate by baddies" would've been better. Also I'm referring to the event in which Epi was killed, and Golden was super framed for it, then super murdered for it.
3. I feel that examining causes of a missed nk, is different from examining who was NK'd. The severity of missing a nk seems too great to not examine, along with not very easy to manipulate. I would suppose It could set up for a frame, but that would also mean the "to be framed player, or players" have to not show up, and that is completely out of baddie control. Examining who was NK'd leads to WIFOM and WIFOM leads to tears.
4. To apply that fact to and credit the theory of the kill was missed rather than the kill wasn't submitted. I couldn't recall if the relation was made on that premise. I know I at least didn't say anything about that.
5. No, I was referring to this quote here that I agree with,
Snip from birdwithteeth11 wrote:Also, I think a baddie not sending in a NK under any circumstances is one of the worst possible actions a baddie could take. To me, it's the baddie equivalent of what a lynch is for the civvies: the most powerful tool at one's disposal.
Did I miss anythin?