761 replies to this topic

[TerrorChrist]

@TC - what is the name of your role? Is it "Ex-Lifeguard" or "First Aid Lifeguard"?

This is important cuz if it's "First Aid Lifeguard" it lends credibility to AKC's roleclaim.

If it's "Ex-Lifeguard" then we need to question why AKC's role name is specific and yours is not.

My first response was: how many times do I have to keep answering this question...I am an ex lifeguard. Then I figured I'd go and check...and what do you know... I am an Ex First Aid Lifeguard.

Also, I realized something: I am still alive. Why would maffia keep me alive? This makes me torn between two thoughts:

a) EM was my first suspect, for throwing around accusations without foundation (we've discussed that before)
On last Lynch, EM provided a list which actually sounded plausible and which I could not find any flaws with. So I went along with it, saying that it was a huge risk. Either the suspect was scum, or EM was.
c) The suspect was town, therefore, according to B, EM is my main suspect again.

However...
everybody knows I am town. Therefore, it was explained to me scum should whack me, to increase the chance of town doing another mislynch (better odds for them).
But scum killed someone else. Why? Perhaps because they were pretty sure I'd target EM again? So by keeping a known townie around, who they know would target someone...? So that people would trust that my call is at least based on good intentions?

That would actually be an argument to believe EM is town....

Unless of course scum thought I'd suddenly start thinking, and they want me to think I am alive because I would target EM which...

in short: I don't know anymore.

UNVOTE

VOTE COUNT
CanucksDynasty (1): AKCPLUTO

Not Voting (6): Preston, ccabal86, Electric Mango, reign of terror, CanucksDynasty, TerrorChrist

With 7 Alive, 4 is needed to lynch.

Edited by molestargazer, 13 May 2011 - 12:31 PM.

[TerrorChrist]

Also: what's the deal with "specific" vs "not so specific roles"? Are roles always supposed to be hugely specific?

[Preston]

Give it a couple of days. If I'm not lynched then it means either AKC or myself is scum.

I want to make sure I understand you here CD.

You keep saying "If X is not lynched in the next few days, then they must be mafia." If I understand you correctly, you are saying that since all 3 mafia are alive, if a single townie votes for a single OTHER townie then all 3 scum can bandwagon on that vote and finish the game - and hence the ABSENCE of such a bandwagon when two people are voting for each other would be proof that one of those being voted against is scum since all 3 arent free to throw their weight on someone else.

The problem I have with that kind of negative proof is that it presumes the scum would tip their hand by trying for a quick lynch - a tactic that could fail if townies are active enough. If you have a wrong target and scum simply stay quiet to let your suspicions stay where they are, that kind of reasoning is more likely to make us lynch the WRONG target instead of the RIGHT one. If you correctly pick a scum and they stay quiet even so, you still dont get any more proof to back it up and sway the rest of us; in short, scum will most likely react the exact same no matter WHO you are pointing out. I refuse to believe that they have not seen this for themselves.

If I've misunderstood you, please explain your reasoning in greater detail. If you believe your negative proof has more value than I understand, please elaborate. But right now, I find basing any lynch vote on that particular house of cards to be VERY weak.

My first response was: how many times do I have to keep answering this question...I am an ex lifeguard. Then I figured I'd go and check...and what do you know... I am an Ex First Aid Lifeguard.

This is a point towards AKC's towniness then. Not a 100% in-the-clear, but choosing between him and CD at this point I would probably choose CD. Too early to vote, though.

Also, I realized something: I am still alive. Why would maffia keep me alive?

Short version: It's a little dangerous to read TOO much into scum's motivations because you will find arguments for both sides.

Long version: You are indeed our only confirmed townie at present. However KevinH had nearly the same level of towniness due to being the only real d3mon defender on day 1 - and as a veteran his analysis makes/made him even more of a danger to the scum. His 'martyr' role could also be the sort that takes a bullet for someone else - so maybe they DID try and take you out last night and his ability made him die instead? We can't know for sure, obviously - but like I said about CD above, negative proof (proof by something NOT happening) is risky at best, dangerously misleading at worst.

We do not have much in terms of 'solid' info at this point - the only confirmed things we have are the two days' voting records, TC's role use, and the fact we have yet to see a confirmed vanilla townie.
We can and should look at behavioral information, but bear in mind what we saw happen day 1 - even very solid-seeming suspicious behavior can be wrong.

I want to hear from CD about his line of reasoning, especially now that AKC is looking less scummy.

-Preston

[Preston]

Also: what's the deal with "specific" vs "not so specific roles"? Are roles always supposed to be hugely specific?

Exact role names are not always THAT useful, though it can be used in some cases to see if one person's role looks made up - i.e. a scum fake claim.

AKC is claiming "Cowardly Lifeguard", and you are claiming "Ex First-Aid Lifeguard". Because yours is not simply "Ex-Lifeguard", AKC having his specify the 'cowardly' makes more sense and gives him some credibility.

However, looking at it again I AM noting that yours includes 'ex-' while AKC's does not.. It reduces the amount of townie points he gets from your proving that your role included 'first aid', but doesnt eliminate it entirely. Nothing says they both had to be ex-lifeguards, though I kinda would have expected the cowardly one to be the ex-. This may be reading too much into the role names, but picking apart role claims is worth doing because the absence of that 'ex' COULD mean that AKC is fakeclaiming by lifting that role directly from the previous game.

I'd say this knocks AKC and CD back to being neutral in my mind. I'll wait on CD's response to my above post before commenting further.

-Preston

[CanucksDynasty]

@TC - like Preston said, KevinH probably died protecting you. That's why your still alive.

[CanucksDynasty]

@Preston - I have not been lynched means only one thing...either I am mafia or AKC is mafia. We cannot be both townies as mafia has had enough time to get together online and vote in rapid succession to lynch me. An active townie to unvote is unlikely due to IRL responsibilities.

I'll post some more tonight.

[CanucksDynasty]

TC used the phrase "ex" when naming his role whereas AKC did not. A discrepancy that I find odd. And AKC rushed his vote on me without any real discussion taking place. He even tried to suggest that TC was mafia in his previous posts. I don't know what else I can do to convince you that I'm townie.

Vote: AKCPLUTO

[TerrorChrist]

Exact role names are not always THAT useful, though it can be used in some cases to see if one person's role looks made up - i.e. a scum fake claim.

-Preston

Wouldn't all roles be made up...?

[TerrorChrist]

@TC - like Preston said, KevinH probably died protecting you. That's why your still alive.

In that case, bye confusion, hi suspicion

Vote: Electric_Mango

[ccabal86]

At the end of the day, if nothing major comes up, I think I'm going to vote for CD.

My reasons: He has a very bad voting record - Took part in the lynching of 2 townies. And I already stated before that I think he may be using his confrontative behavior as cover (because it's not a traditionally "good" scum behaviour to stick out of the crowd, therefore we won't think he's scum). Plus I voted for him last day :-\

[CanucksDynasty]

At the end of the day, if nothing major comes up, I think I'm going to vote for CD.

My reasons: He has a very bad voting record - Took part in the lynching of 2 townies. And I already stated before that I think he may be using his confrontative behavior as cover (because it's not a traditionally "good" scum behaviour to stick out of the crowd, therefore we won't think he's scum). Plus I voted for him last day :-\

I'll blame you if the town lose.

I am behaving just like last game when I went after EM. I was townie then, I am townie now.

[Electric Mango]

Between AKC and CD I'm more inclined to believe CD as I've stated before. CD has been a lot more forthcoming with information and has provided good analysis. Narsis/AKC has not. CD gas fooled me before but I have to believe in my instincs. Also I don't believe AKCs role claim.

[Preston]

TC used the phrase "ex" when naming his role whereas AKC did not. A discrepancy that I find odd. And AKC rushed his vote on me without any real discussion taking place. He even tried to suggest that TC was mafia in his previous posts. I don't know what else I can do to convince you that I'm townie.

I saw yesterday how he tried to claim TC was mafia, and that DID strike me as curious - last game there was that hypothetical "Remorseful Henchman" role idea floating around, so I guess he was trying to reference that.
It's true that AKC rushed his vote. It's also true Narsis's day 1 accusations were made by the role AKC now has. If Narsis was scum, that might also account for how he stayed below the radar; he went inactive.
And finally AKC's roleclaim seems to revolve around "ex-" versus no "ex-".

I'm still not sure I buy your voting rationale as a form of proof, but the rest might have some promise.

As for AKC's roleclaim, chronology seems to be:
Day 1 lynch: We found d3mon was "Security Guard" - verbatim from last game
Day 2 start: TC displayed the same ability as the "first-aid lifeguard" from last game, but did not name his role.
Day 2 end: AKC roleclaims as "cowardly lifeguard".
Day 2 end/Day 3 start: TC says his role is "ex-first-aid lifeguard" - different name from last game.

The first two items set up the possibility/probability that survivors from the last game were possible and that they might have the same name. It's not until AFTER AKC claimed that the possible name difference appeared. The obvious question is that if survivors are present and AKC is taking the place of a REAL 'cowardly ex-lifeguard', why hasn't there been a counterclaim? But we don't know if a 'cowardly ex-lifeguard' even exists this game, so that absence is no proof, and the role AKC claims is not testable. So the only remaining question for me is would scum take the risk of claiming a role that is likely to already exist, knowing that the other person may counterclaim?

I want to hear AKC's response to all this.

As for you yourself CD:

I am behaving just like last game when I went after EM. I was townie then, I am townie now.

This much I can agree with - your behavior is unchanged. You said it yourself at one point that you tend to pick someone and focus on them very strongly - even when you're wrong. You were wrong on day 1 when you led THAT charge. The only question is per ccabal's statement, if that focused style is being used as scum cover to target townies and then claim honest mistakes. It's a viable possibility, but there's no proof either way; doubly so since you are claiming vanilla townie.

I'm not sure I want to 100% narrow the field to AKC vs CD just yet - I know CD is a veteran and could be doing a very good job as scum - but I find myself having a LOT more to examine/critique about AKC than CD. That may be a sign in itself.

-Preston

[CanucksDynasty]

Right now there is 1 vote each on ACK, CD, and EM. If two of us are townie...it should be game over with mafia rapid voting. If no one is lynched in the next couple of days...it means 2 of us are mafia. The flaw in this logic is if there are only 2 mafia instead of 3 (which I doubt).

[Electric Mango]

It's getting quiet around here.....

[CanucksDynasty]

It's getting quiet around here.....

Deadline isn't until May 23rd. And didn't you say you were going to write up something on ACK?

[Electric Mango]

I started compiling notes of narsis/akc posts thru April 6th but Preston already recapped him before I was finished. I'll still finish mine though so we can get a comparison. It just seems like things have slowed down and I'd like to hear more from everyone, especially those that haven't posted much recently.

[AKCPLUTO]

I want to hear AKC's response to all this.

I think you have done a magnificent job with your analysis. In my mind, I am innocent until proven guilty. As such, I am going to invoke my right to remain silent.

[Preston]

I think you have done a magnificent job with your analysis. In my mind, I am innocent until proven guilty. As such, I am going to invoke my right to remain silent.

While I appreciate that you think I've done a good analysis, when you're the focus of suspicion I'm not sure how helpful it is for you to be silent; that just lets the current status of you-being-suspected remain as-is without really trying to counter it yourself. 'Proof' rarely happens, especially once an investigative role is used up. Generally speaking, posting SOMETHING for people to respond to is better than posting nothing.

If both you and CD are done trying to present defenses of yourselves... that leaves us exactly where we were, unsure and looking for anything on either side to tip the scales.

If you have any reactions or thoughts or other elaborations on your previous stance against CD that you think we should consider, please get those out in the open now - anything could tip the scales at this point, at least in my mind.

-Preston

[AKCPLUTO]

At this point, I would rest my case insofar as CD's voting record speaks for itself, whereas I am a simple and innocent townie who has made a legit role claim that has yet to be undermined. Furthermore, CD's veteran slyness should be kept in consideration insofar as he knows how to pull a few fast ones, which is exactly what he has done throughout the game with the aforementioned votes. With that, I am not sure what else I can or should say. As such, as I said and will say again, I am innocent until proven guilty and so, I invoke my right to remain silent.