Game 19: Star-Crossed

I really really don't understand that mini bandwagon on Sylvester S, yes his idea was pretty bad but at least he tried.

No lynch for now.

Lara C. wrote:

Misato O. wrote:No lynch

So basically, I don't trust the concept of "LOL THEY WON'T GET THE KILL THROUGH, LETS LYNCH" On mylo.

Buuutttt, It's not mylo. I think we should nl today, since we have very little info, and lynch tomorrow or the next day.

I'm not saying use it as a strat - I'm saying it's possible. You will have to lynch on MyLo though, because if you NL, mafia gets kill and it turns into LyLo - or they don't get the kill and it remains in MyLo.


I disagree with NLing today, just because I think we could get some information based on reads/etc, but I'm fairly impartial right now.

Unlynch Sylvester S, No Lynch

I didn't say you said to use it as a strat. I just don't feel comfortable with it. But, you are right about that. It won't go anywhere if we don't take risks.

I mean, I'd like for today to go a bit longer, to get more reads out and all. When is deadline?

Clark the Conductor wrote:I really really don't understand that mini bandwagon on Sylvester S, yes his idea was pretty bad but at least he tried.

No lynch for now.

Well, yeah, he tried. But it may have been seen as scummy, since he didn't want to scumhunt 100%, per se.

Mini defence by Clark? n_n

Clark the Conductor wrote:I really really don't understand that mini bandwagon on Sylvester S, yes his idea was pretty bad but at least he tried.

No lynch for now.

Um. You just hammered nl.
>.>

Sylvester S. wrote:

Clark the Conductor wrote:I really really don't understand that mini bandwagon on Sylvester S, yes his idea was pretty bad but at least he tried.

No lynch for now.

Um. You just hammered nl.
>.>

How is 4 a hammer?

It's 5 not 4

Unlynch No Lynch

There, hammer safe. FOS on Katie though, saying "mini-defense by clark" is scumreading things that aren't really there, seems like she's just desperate to push someone. For the end of today, I have an FoS on Katie with a slight distrust of Sylvester, and a dislike/distrust for anyone who barely spoke today.

Lara C. wrote: Unlynch No Lynch

There, hammer safe. FOS on Katie though, saying "mini-defense by clark" is scumreading things that aren't really there, seems like she's just desperate to push someone. For the end of today, I have an FoS on Katie with a slight distrust of Sylvester, and a dislike/distrust for anyone who barely spoke today.

Yosuke and Mateo. Sorry, didn't have the names in mind. In my head, right now, scumlist is Mateo>Katie>Sylvester>Yosuke>Misato>Forrest>Clark>Myself

what do you want me to do?
just post CATS
CATS
CATs
CATS
not post at all, then i can guarantee you would call me out for lurking, so im asking you this. Would you like me to lurk, filler, or find anything scummy i can find?

Katie P. wrote:what do you want me to do?
just post CATS
CATS
CATs
CATS
not post at all, then i can guarantee you would call me out for lurking, so im asking you this. Would you like me to lurk, filler, or find anything scummy i can find?

No, I wan't you to call out anything scummy you can find - and then give us why you think it's scummy or back it up. Just saying "Mini defense by Clark? XP" does nothing unless you give insight as to why it may be said.

Lara C. wrote:In my head, right now, scumlist is Mateo>Katie>Sylvester>Yosuke>Misato>Forrest>Clark>Myself

That is a rather convoluted reads list. I mean, look, Mateo is your top lynch read. He's said only one thing:

Mateo P. wrote:Hi everyone
Lynch Sylvester S.
He's probably not even sylvester stalone and also he did math

I don't like him myself, but that is completely personal and not part of the game.

Katie, I suppose, a weak case could be made for at this point, what with the random stuff she said pre-game, and the martyr-ish attitude the two times after she got FOSed, but I'm just gonna chalk this up to a chick fight for now.

Spoiler:

Sylvester? He reminds me of my third grade math teacher; lynch him. Lynch him. Lynch him! This is for everything, Ms. Johnson!!!

Yosuke's activity can be summed up as thus:

Yosuke D. wrote:confirming

So I think there is cause for concern there.

Your read on Misato is interesting, considering the differing opinions you have on the value of lynch today. You were all for it in the beginning (#ifeelpersecuted), and even held onto it after me and Katie explained why this is A Bad Idea:

Lara C. wrote:While I follow the logic on pushing NL, this isn't classic. Mafia won't necessarily kill tonight, so we can lynch without fear of coming closer to MyLo/LyLo tomorrow. In fact, Even in 2v4 at day, we can probably still mislynch and win the game (although the odds are 33/67)

Side note: This is why probability is important, kids.
She responded, saying:

Misato O. wrote:So basically, I don't trust the concept of "LOL THEY WON'T GET THE KILL THROUGH, LETS LYNCH" On mylo.

Buuutttt, It's not mylo. I think we should nl today, since we have very little info, and lynch tomorrow or the next day.

She's going for the option number 3 I described earlier.
Then you responded:

Lara C. wrote:I'm not saying use it as a strat - I'm saying it's possible. You will have to lynch on MyLo though, because if you NL, mafia gets kill and it turns into LyLo - or they don't get the kill and it remains in MyLo.

I disagree with NLing today, just because I think we could get some information based on reads/etc, but I'm fairly impartial right now.

Which either indicates you Do Not Understand, or you have a bias you can't seem to overcome for now.
Overall, no idea why the low read on someone you part ideologically with.

Forrest Gump--

Forrest G. wrote:The "announce the kill before MyLo" was a pretty obvious thing. No softclaiming kills? This changes the way I thought this would play out since I expected scumhunting to be centered around that.

I agree with Lara C. on the mathia part.

2 days deadline? Not fun.

He has the Katie-esque "announce the kill is obv" --> "I'm so townie" hindsight bias, little cause for concern there, and he agreed with you. That's all he ever did. I'm taking a wild stab here; did you rank him lowly on your scum readings because he agreed with you? I mean. He's lurking >.>

Clark is Clark, no read but the at least he tried thong.

And You are You.

Overall: I predict Lara C. + Katie P. + Sylvester S. will be the power trio for this game. They shall henceforth be referred to as LarKaVester. I also predict one of these individuals will be the target of the Mafia night kill, when it hits, assuming we don't stupidly lynch on PMyLo.

Sorry to say, but that was hammer despite the unlynch.

Votecount 1.2
******************************
Sylvester S.(1)- Mateo P.
Katie P.(0)-
Yosuke D.(0)-
Clark the Conductor(0)-
Misato O.(0)-
Lara C.(0)-
Mateo P.(0)-
Forrest G.(0)-
No Lynch(5)- Katie P., Sylvester S., Misato O., Lara C., Clark the Conductor
Not Voting(2)- Yosuke D., Forrest G.
******************************
There are 8 alive so it takes 5 to hammer. Plurality applies.
Deadline is Friday the 13th at 9pm EST.

Nobody was lynched.

Night 1 Commence! Deadline is the 15th at 9pm EDT. (Sorry it's so long, I'd just rather have the games go at the same pace, just makes it easier for me!) Mafia, send me your kills either through PM here or on the server when you see me! (Or use "@mail ajhockeystar, message" with Lynch-E)

Forrest G. has requested to be subbed out, a new user is now using the account.

I apologize for being so late to update, my life is very busy right now.

During the night, I subbed out Yosuke D.. A new user is now using the account.

The person killed was...:

Votecount 2.0
******************************
Sylvester S.(0)-
Katie P.(0)-
Yosuke D.(0)-
Clark the Conductor(0)-
Misato O.(0)-
Lara C.(0)-
Mateo P.(0)-
Forrest G.(0)-
Not Voting(8)- Yosuke D., Forrest G., Mateo P., Katie P., Sylvester S., Misato O., Lara C., Clark the Conductor
******************************
There are 8 alive so it takes 5 to hammer. Plurality applies.
Deadline is Saturday the 21st at 9pm EST.

w000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000t

Still alive! I thought I was dead after the predicted LarKaVester kill. And you guys totally lied and said it wasn't hammer >.>

I can't believe I didn't use this to justify no lynching earlier, but the more people there are alive, the harder it is for Mafia to land a kill, statistically. Games 20 & 21 are just yololynch suckers imotbh

No Lynch. Also, why not just use a system of "lynching" until PLyLo where we do fakelynch ajhockeystar so we get our point across, without actually voting. Sound good?

Some thoughts in next post.

Okay, so I screwed up by saying that stupid "I predict someone from LarKaVester will be killed" thing. It really accomplishes nothing but encouraging the Mafia to target one of us >.> That was just stupid... Sorry. But hey, nobody died, might as well comb this information for all it's worth, still very sorry, which leads me to...

What if one of LarKaVester is scum?

Let's say Katie and Clark are mafia. Both are active and (probably) would have seen me send out this blaring alarm "KILL LARA OR SYLVESTER". Let's say both saw it (100%) and know, for a near fact (90%), that the other saw it. What's the probability they count on the OTHER one following this sign?

Katie says to herself, Hmm. Will Clark decide to follow this? I mean, if I follow this and choose Lara, then there's a chance he, too, will follow this signpost and target either Lara or Sylvester--50-50 he targets the same one I do. Clark tells himself the same thing.

So I'd say there's a 90% chance they both see it, a 2/3 chance they both decide to follow it, but then by pure luck one targeted me, the other Lara. Doesn't matter who targeted who. So, if we assume that one of LarKaVester is Mafia, and we know for a fact the kill did not go through, then that means...
10% chance one or both of them did not see it and it was just a random miss,
30% chance they both saw it, but one or both of them decides not to follow it, and it was just a random miss,
60% chance they both saw it, but missed by one targeting Lara, the other, Sylvester (lé sexy beast me)

All of this seems realistically likely.

What if two of LarKaVester are scum?

Wait, first of all, I'd just like to say that if I were mafia, the "One of LarKaVester will die" would likely have been considered a soft by aj, and the post deleted and I subbed out. Nothing about town softing, right?

ajhockeystar wrote:Before I start the game, it has been told to me that this game has a game-breaking strategy for mafia that involves them announcing a kill in mylo prior to hammering. So I'm just announcing this rule publicly - mafia aren't allowed to announce or softclaim their kill to their partner.

Weak evidence, I know, I screwed up anyways. So I'll make it up by doing two explanations for this one.

Lara and Sylvester are mafia. Sylvester, being an arrogant turd, will definitely follow his plan and target Katie. There is literally no incentive for him not to. Literally. Lara, knowing Sylvester is Mafia, has a 90% chance of detecting his soft in the first place, because she'd cling tight to her man. Would she follow the soft after detecting it, and target Katie? Again, there is little reason for her not to, unless she feared repercussions for her and Sylvester as being the only surviving members of LarKaVester which could become a Big Problem later on. I'd say, oh, 2/3 chance she would follow the softing? But we know for a fact there was no kill, so...
10% chance Lara did not detect the soft and just chose randomly like a n00b,
30% chance she saw it but did not follow it, because she wanted to keep LarKaVester alive, probably for a lynching of Katie on PLyLo,
60% chance she saw it and targeted Katie--whoahwaitwhat
60% chance something else entirely happened?

It doesn't really compute... It's realistically something like:
10% chance Sylvester is not an arrogant turd and does not target Katie and it was either random miss because Lara did not follow the soft or definite miss because Lara followed it
10% chance Lara did not detect the soft and just chose randomly like a n00b,
80% chance she saw it but did not follow it, because she wanted to keep LarKaVester alive, probably for a lynching of Katie on PLyLo

Ehh, none of that is very likely IMO.

So what if Lara and Katie are Mafia? Well, again, 10% chance one or both of them did not see the claim, 2/3 chance they both decided to follow it... But again, we run into the roadblock of why nobody died then.
10% didn't see it blahblahblah
30% didn't follow blehebleheblhe4
60% chance saw it targetd Sylvester blalmalmalallalalllama

Which realistically translates to:

20% chance did not see it
80% chance one or both of them saw it but did not follow it, because they wanted to keep LarKaVester alive, probably for a lynching of Sylvester on PLyLo

That is more believable, I'd say, than the above, but still not likely.

If none of LarKaVester are scum?

Figure it out yourself. Spoiler: nothing to figure out besides where you started.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tl;dr
It is more likely that one member of the mafia is in LarKaVester than both are, because outcomes where nobody died last night occur more frequently and easily when only one is mafia as opposed to if two are. If both mafia are in LarKaVester, you have to assume something freaky like one of them purposefully did not want to kill. Also, because Sylvester is the mastermind behind the soft, and nobody died, it decreases the likelihood that he is scum slightly because he would have followed his plan more often than a non-Sylvester scum would have followed it.

In other words:
"Chance none of LarKaVester are scum" > "Chance one of LarKaVester who is not Sylvester is scum" > "Chance Sylvester is scum" > "Chance Lara and Katie are scum" > "Chance Sylvester and one other LarKaVester are scum"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please try to understand this. Read it carefully. Actually, this is a life lesson in priority management. No, seriously. So even if you disregard me completely on this theory by itself, just try to learn something from it.

Slight FOS on Katie and Lara for being in LarKaVester and a lesser FOS on Clark for hammering nl.

Sylvester S. wrote:Okay, so I screwed up by saying that stupid "I predict someone from LarKaVester will be killed" thing. It really accomplishes nothing but encouraging the Mafia to target one of us >.> That was just stupid... Sorry. But hey, nobody died, might as well comb this information for all it's worth, still very sorry, which leads me to...

What if one of LarKaVester is scum?

Let's say Katie and Clark are mafia. Both are active and (probably) would have seen me send out this blaring alarm "KILL LARA OR SYLVESTER". Let's say both saw it (100%) and know, for a near fact (90%), that the other saw it. What's the probability they count on the OTHER one following this sign?

Katie says to herself, Hmm. Will Clark decide to follow this? I mean, if I follow this and choose Lara, then there's a chance he, too, will follow this signpost and target either Lara or Sylvester--50-50 he targets the same one I do. Clark tells himself the same thing.

So I'd say there's a 90% chance they both see it, a 2/3 chance they both decide to follow it, but then by pure luck one targeted me, the other Lara. Doesn't matter who targeted who. So, if we assume that one of LarKaVester is Mafia, and we know for a fact the kill did not go through, then that means...
10% chance one or both of them did not see it and it was just a random miss,
30% chance they both saw it, but one or both of them decides not to follow it, and it was just a random miss,
60% chance they both saw it, but missed by one targeting Lara, the other, Sylvester (lé sexy beast me)

All of this seems realistically likely.

What if two of LarKaVester are scum?

Wait, first of all, I'd just like to say that if I were mafia, the "One of LarKaVester will die" would likely have been considered a soft by aj, and the post deleted and I subbed out. Nothing about town softing, right?

ajhockeystar wrote:Before I start the game, it has been told to me that this game has a game-breaking strategy for mafia that involves them announcing a kill in mylo prior to hammering. So I'm just announcing this rule publicly - mafia aren't allowed to announce or softclaim their kill to their partner.

Weak evidence, I know, I screwed up anyways. So I'll make it up by doing two explanations for this one.

Lara and Sylvester are mafia. Sylvester, being an arrogant turd, will definitely follow his plan and target Katie. There is literally no incentive for him not to. Literally. Lara, knowing Sylvester is Mafia, has a 90% chance of detecting his soft in the first place, because she'd cling tight to her man. Would she follow the soft after detecting it, and target Katie? Again, there is little reason for her not to, unless she feared repercussions for her and Sylvester as being the only surviving members of LarKaVester which could become a Big Problem later on. I'd say, oh, 2/3 chance she would follow the softing? But we know for a fact there was no kill, so...
10% chance Lara did not detect the soft and just chose randomly like a n00b,
30% chance she saw it but did not follow it, because she wanted to keep LarKaVester alive, probably for a lynching of Katie on PLyLo,
60% chance she saw it and targeted Katie--whoahwaitwhat
60% chance something else entirely happened?

It doesn't really compute... It's realistically something like:
10% chance Sylvester is not an arrogant turd and does not target Katie and it was either random miss because Lara did not follow the soft or definite miss because Lara followed it
10% chance Lara did not detect the soft and just chose randomly like a n00b,
80% chance she saw it but did not follow it, because she wanted to keep LarKaVester alive, probably for a lynching of Katie on PLyLo

Ehh, none of that is very likely IMO.

So what if Lara and Katie are Mafia? Well, again, 10% chance one or both of them did not see the claim, 2/3 chance they both decided to follow it... But again, we run into the roadblock of why nobody died then.
10% didn't see it blahblahblah
30% didn't follow blehebleheblhe4
60% chance saw it targetd Sylvester blalmalmalallalalllama

Which realistically translates to:

20% chance did not see it
80% chance one or both of them saw it but did not follow it, because they wanted to keep LarKaVester alive, probably for a lynching of Sylvester on PLyLo

That is more believable, I'd say, than the above, but still not likely.

If none of LarKaVester are scum?

Figure it out yourself. Spoiler: nothing to figure out besides where you started.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tl;dr
It is more likely that one member of the mafia is in LarKaVester than both are, because outcomes where nobody died last night occur more frequently and easily when only one is mafia as opposed to if two are. If both mafia are in LarKaVester, you have to assume something freaky like one of them purposefully did not want to kill. Also, because Sylvester is the mastermind behind the soft, and nobody died, it decreases the likelihood that he is scum slightly because he would have followed his plan more often than a non-Sylvester scum would have followed it.

In other words:
"Chance none of LarKaVester are scum" > "Chance one of LarKaVester who is not Sylvester is scum" > "Chance Sylvester is scum" > "Chance Lara and Katie are scum" > "Chance Sylvester and one other LarKaVester are scum"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please try to understand this. Read it carefully. Actually, this is a life lesson in priority management. No, seriously. So even if you disregard me completely on this theory by itself, just try to learn something from it.

Slight FOS on Katie and Lara for being in LarKaVester and a lesser FOS on Clark for hammering nl.

Reading through this, and reading that end paragraph, I'm really, REALLY starting to think you're scummy. Also, the town softing kills and not dying for them=confirm is invalid, I already talked to AJ about it. With your very last sentence, Slight FOS on Katie and Lara for being in LarKaVester is the stupidest thing I've seen this fame so far. You're saying we're more likely to be scum because we're members of a list you grouped us in, based solely on how we posted day 1, followed by nobody dying in a game where the chance of a death is 1/36, far lower than if one or both of us had been scum. Also, please, try to actually scumhunt instead of using math - arbitrary numbering of people's human, illogical actions will not help us win.

Time to explain my "convoluted" lynch list.

Sylvester S. wrote:

Lara C. wrote:In my head, right now, scumlist is Mateo>Katie>Sylvester>Yosuke>Misato>Forrest>Clark>Myself

That is a rather convoluted reads list. I mean, look, Mateo is your top lynch read. He's said only one thing:

Mateo P. wrote:Hi everyone
Lynch Sylvester S.
He's probably not even sylvester stalone and also he did math

I don't like him myself, but that is completely personal and not part of the game.

Katie, I suppose, a weak case could be made for at this point, what with the random stuff she said pre-game, and the martyr-ish attitude the two times after she got FOSed, but I'm just gonna chalk this up to a chick fight for now.

Spoiler:

Sylvester? He reminds me of my third grade math teacher; lynch him. Lynch him. Lynch him! This is for everything, Ms. Johnson!!!

Yosuke's activity can be summed up as thus:

Yosuke D. wrote:confirming

So I think there is cause for concern there.

Your read on Misato is interesting, considering the differing opinions you have on the value of lynch today. You were all for it in the beginning (#ifeelpersecuted), and even held onto it after me and Katie explained why this is A Bad Idea:

Lara C. wrote:While I follow the logic on pushing NL, this isn't classic. Mafia won't necessarily kill tonight, so we can lynch without fear of coming closer to MyLo/LyLo tomorrow. In fact, Even in 2v4 at day, we can probably still mislynch and win the game (although the odds are 33/67)

Side note: This is why probability is important, kids.
She responded, saying:

Misato O. wrote:So basically, I don't trust the concept of "LOL THEY WON'T GET THE KILL THROUGH, LETS LYNCH" On mylo.

Buuutttt, It's not mylo. I think we should nl today, since we have very little info, and lynch tomorrow or the next day.

She's going for the option number 3 I described earlier.
Then you responded:

Lara C. wrote:I'm not saying use it as a strat - I'm saying it's possible. You will have to lynch on MyLo though, because if you NL, mafia gets kill and it turns into LyLo - or they don't get the kill and it remains in MyLo.

I disagree with NLing today, just because I think we could get some information based on reads/etc, but I'm fairly impartial right now.

Which either indicates you Do Not Understand, or you have a bias you can't seem to overcome for now.
Overall, no idea why the low read on someone you part ideologically with.

Forrest Gump--

Forrest G. wrote:The "announce the kill before MyLo" was a pretty obvious thing. No softclaiming kills? This changes the way I thought this would play out since I expected scumhunting to be centered around that.

I agree with Lara C. on the mathia part.

2 days deadline? Not fun.

He has the Katie-esque "announce the kill is obv" --> "I'm so townie" hindsight bias, little cause for concern there, and he agreed with you. That's all he ever did. I'm taking a wild stab here; did you rank him lowly on your scum readings because he agreed with you? I mean. He's lurking >.>

Clark is Clark, no read but the at least he tried thong.

And You are You.

Overall: I predict Lara C. + Katie P. + Sylvester S. will be the power trio for this game. They shall henceforth be referred to as LarKaVester. I also predict one of these individuals will be the target of the Mafia night kill, when it hits, assuming we don't stupidly lynch on PMyLo.

Mateo is #1 on my lynch list because of the fact that he just has that sole post;

Katie as a weak case is just that - there wasn't much else I could do casewise;

Sylvester gets 3 because he's trying at least, but in a way that isn't townie;

Yosuke obviously needed a sub, so let's chalk her #4 spot up to lurk/inactivity;

Misato is #5 because she offered up great ideas, that while I don't necessarily agree with them, are town-lead-y in a way, so again, at least she's trying;

I do agree that Forrest should have been much higher than I put him - I simply skimmed posts when making my list. After rereading, he should definitely be at 2 or 3;

Clark, again, not much to go off of, but seemed pretty town from what he's posted so far;

And of course me. So right now, I'd be all for lynching Mateo or Forrest.

Lara C. wrote:

Mateo is #1 on my lynch list because of the fact that he just has that sole post;

Katie as a weak case is just that  - there wasn't much else I could do casewise;

Sylvester gets 3 because he's trying at least, but in a way that isn't townie;

Yosuke obviously needed a sub, so let's chalk her #4 spot up to lurk/inactivity;

Misato is #5 because she offered up great ideas, that while I don't necessarily agree with them, are town-lead-y in a way, so again, at least she's trying;

I do agree that Forrest should have been much higher than I put him - I simply skimmed posts when making my list. After rereading, he should definitely be at 2 or 3;

Clark, again, not much to go off of, but seemed pretty town from what he's posted so far;

And of course me. So right now, I'd be all for lynching Mateo or Forrest.

Another comment on this - I hate to bring showdown meta into this, but Forrest's playstyle and need to be sub match a certain player's (@ajhockeystar can I say the username??), and his follow and give-up attitude is pretty common when playing as mafia. Not an actual read, just a comment.

You may reference a room player's playstyle and compare it to a player here, but you may not match it up with them, i.e. assume the anon player is that room player and make judgments based on the fact that you think it is them.

Alright.

Infer kiddies - the playstyle is very similar to that of F-oh-ex, where he'll be mafia and without any way of trying to "hunt" for scum townies, will flounder about - hell, we'll all do it in Vanilla, so why not here? The floundering strategy is very reminiscent of the way we all play as mafia goon in Vanilla games - and this theme is very, very much a vanilla theme.

I AM A SMALL CHILD AND SCARED BUT ALSO EXCITED TO BE PLAYING THIS GAME
AS SHOWN BY MY AVATAR I AM SCRREEEEAAAAAAAMMIIIIIIIIIING

I WILL READ WHAT EVERYONE SAID AND THEN DO SOMETHING
WHAT WILL I DO?
EVEN I DON'T KNOW!
STAY TUNED AND FIND OUT ON THE NEXT EPISODE OF DRAGON BALL Z- WAIT A SECOND THIS ISNT TV
STOP STARING AT ME

Sylvester S. wrote:Just to let you guys know, this game I'm going to map scumhunting evidence along the lines of information theory. I'm going to do it for sure, and I encourage you to do the same for a fun lil' change in the meta ^-^

I'll be using small tidbits of information called "teits" (tenth-bits) to crudely track evidence. Just think of it along the lines of, "Hey, Sylvester's totally sheeping behind Clark the Conductor, that's two teits against him, I'd say. Also, Misato had some nice relevant reads on everybody, minus one teit against her."

The structure is this: every person in the game has a 1/3 crude chance of being scum. Using the teit as our unit, this suggests that in order to have a 50-50 of that person flipping scum if lynched, you need...

log_1.1(3) = 11.53 ~~ 12 teits of valid information.

If you have a gut feeling, please don't hesitate to express it like this; it's easier to keep track of, and really cuts through the scum tactics of mystery and illogical passion.

THIS IS SUCH A TERRIBLE IDEA AS EXPRESSED BY LITERALLY EVERYONE ELSE EXCEPT MAYBE MISATO
IT MAKES IT SO THAT WE CAN HIDE BEHIND MATH AND PREVENT SUBJECTIVITY, WHICH IS ONE OF THE BEST WAYS TO FIND MAFIA
THERE ARE ONLY THREE KINDS OF PEOPLE WHO TRY TO USE MATH IN MAFIA
1) CITRUS FREAK
2) BAD TOWN
3) MAFIA
BY YOUR OTHER POSTS YOU ARE CLEARLY NOT A BAD PLAYER, SO ARE YOU CITRUS FREAK OR MAFIA? OR AM I STUPID AND WRONG AND YOU'RE ACTUALLY BAD?

Lara C. wrote:

Clark the Conductor wrote:is this mafia or mathia

You win this game already.

Can we lynch Sylvester for trying to Math instead of Maf?

I AGREE WITH THIS BUT WHY DIDNT YOU ACTUALLY LYNCH SYLVESTER UNTIL SOMEONE ELSE HAD? SEEKING SECURITY, PERHAPS?????

Sylvester S. wrote:

Lara C. wrote:

Clark the Conductor wrote:is this mafia or mathia

You win this game already.

Can we lynch Sylvester for trying to Math instead of Maf?

Hahaha.

It's not math, it's a clever way of tracking scumtells without losing them in translation.

NUMBERS = MATH
MAYBE THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY TRUE BUT YOU'RE USING NUMBERS TO DO SOMETHING WHICH IS BASICALLY MATH ANYWAYS

Misato O. wrote:Ok so, I want to hear more about this mathia strat.

If 12 is to a 50/50, can we deduce a sensible number for a 75/25 or so?

THERE ARE MANY POSITIVE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN MISATO AND SYLVESTER AND THAT SEEMS WEIRD TO ME

I MIGHT ACTUALLY BE WRONG ABOUT THAT BUT FROM WHAT I REMEMBER THIS IS TRUE

SYLVESTER WHY DID YOU MENTION MISATO AND CLARK OUT OF ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAD TALKED PREVIOUSLY?

Mateo P. wrote:Hi everyone
Lynch Sylvester S.
He's probably not even sylvester stalone and also he did math

Edit: Bold fail, had permission from aj

BY THAT POINT NOBODY WAS RANDOM LYNCHING, WHY DID YOU PROVIDE SUCH POOR REASONING EVEN THOUGH I AGREE WITH IT????

Lara C. wrote:Lynch Sylvester S.

Honestly, you shouldn't need math to scumhunt. It should be entirely based on tells, and it seems to me like the number of teits assigned is relatively arbitrary based upon however scummy you personally think an action is. So to me, something like a freudian slip would be worth 5 or 6 teits but to everyone else it may be worth only 2. SO I think math is the wrong way to go, and you bringing it in is trying to draw our attention away from actual scumtells and reads that could find a scum BEFORE they manage to kill us.

THIS IS A COMPLETELY FAIR POINT AND I AGREE WITH IT

Katie P. wrote:Ayy we started.
I WAS going to suggest keeping an eye out for people trying to softclaim kills, but that's not allowed, so idc tbh

Lara C. wrote:

Katie P. wrote:No pun intended

No pun intended on what? Also, I'm a tad FoS on you, solely because I feel vanillagers wouldn't have even thought about mafia SCing kills.

I DISAGREE
ONE OF THE BEST WAYS TO FIND SCUM IS BY PUTTING YOURSELVES IN THEIR SHOWS (AS TOWN) AND TRYING TO THINK OF STRATEGIES THEY WOULD USE. AS SUCH, STATING POSSIBLE MAFIA STRATEGIES ISNT TOWNY OR SCUMMY, AS I SEE IT

Sylvester S. wrote:

Lara C. wrote:Lynch Sylvester S.

Honestly, you shouldn't need math to scumhunt. It should be entirely based on tells, and it seems to me like the number of teits assigned is relatively arbitrary based upon however scummy you personally think an action is. So to me, something like a freudian slip would be worth 5 or 6 teits but to everyone else it may be worth only 2. SO I think math is the wrong way to go, and you bringing it in is trying to draw our attention away from actual scumtells and reads that could find a scum BEFORE they manage to kill us.

Ugh, yes, I suppose that's true, its effectiveness will vary based on prior knowledge of the system :/ In which case I'll use them to privately organize my thoughts, and speak of scumtells verbally. I'll drop all mention of it. All I ask is that others consider at least trying it, you know, maybe a little? To each his own? Is that alright? It helps me, at least.

On Katie P., I don't think discussing softclaiming kills is scummy. In fact, that discussion really should have been the first order of business when the confirmation stage was up. Coordinating softs is really the only way the Mafia are allowed to communicate (except voting patterns). The only thing strange about what Katie said is that she wanted to talk about it after D1 began, not in the confirmation stage. Which is, like, not a big deal.

OMGUS FOS on Mateo for shooting down my scumhunting method just by saying "math is bad".

OMGUS Town read on Lara for using words to describe why math is bad.

FEEL FREE TO USE YOUR SYSTEM TO SCUMHUNT, ITS JUST NOT A GOOD THING FOR EVERYONE TO USE BECAUSE OF THE PROBLEMS ALREADY OUTLINED

Katie P. wrote:Suprise suprise, good old me being FOSed already
I dont have much to say rn, but we will say as the game progresses

THIS IS HONESTLY COMPLETELY FINE, UNLIKE WHAT THE BELOW vvvvv SAYS

Lara C. wrote:

Katie P. wrote:Suprise suprise, good old me being FOSed already
I dont have much to say rn, but we will say as the game progresses

My FOS on you is probably the slightest FoS possible. It's Day 1, so town is scrambling to pick up on anything. Because other people have so few posts, I'm going off just what I already have, so right now I FoS you above all else. Are you mafia? No, probably not, but until we get more posts you're the closest to it fmpov.

Forrest G. wrote:The "announce the kill before MyLo" was a pretty obvious thing. No softclaiming kills? This changes the way I thought this would play out since I expected scumhunting to be centered around that.

I agree with Lara C. on the mathia part.

2 days deadline? Not fun.

THIS SEEMS TO BE USEFUL BUT UPON LOOKING AT IT MORE CLOSELY THIS IS LEGITIMATELY JUST REPEATING WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID AND/OR FILLERING
BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD!!!!!!

Sylvester S. wrote:

Katie P. wrote:So. There's a 1/4 chance we hit scum, which I don't think is worth lynching for. NL?

I agree. As in a normal game of Mafia, we should NL and scumhunt on MyLo; I predict we'll have three of these PMyLos until Mafia lands a kill.

Either we can have 1) two consecutive days of lynching, 2) a few days scumhunting and no lynching followed by a lynching day after Mafia lands a kill, or 3) any moldable, but risky combination thereof.

IMO I think option 1 > 3 > 2.

I DISAGREE WITH NLING AT THIS POINT ONWARDS UNLESS LYNCHING REALLY DOESNT GET US ANYTHING OR WE'RE IN MYLO
LYNCHING IS THE BEST WAY TO GET INFORMATION BY USING A CONFIRMED TOWN OR MAFIA'S INTERACTIONS WITH OTHERS TO HELP FIND SCUM
THE ONLY REASONS WE SHOULDNT LYNCH ARE 1) MYLO OR 2) WE HAVE NO IDEA AT ALL AS TO WHO COULD BE SCUM

Lara C. wrote:While I follow the logic on pushing NL, this isn't classic. Mafia won't necessarily kill tonight, so we can lynch without fear of coming closer to MyLo/LyLo tomorrow. In fact, Even in 2v4 at day, we can probably still mislynch and win the game (although the odds are 33/67)

WE REALLY SHOULDNT RISK IT AT ALL AND THE FACT THAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING THIS IS SOMEWHAT FRIGHTENING

Misato O. wrote:No lynch

So basically, I don't trust the concept of "LOL THEY WON'T GET THE KILL THROUGH, LETS LYNCH" On mylo.

Buuutttt, It's not mylo. I think we should nl today, since we have very little info, and lynch tomorrow or the next day.

I AGREE WITH THE NO LYNCH ON MYLO AND THEN IM EHH ON THE NL ALTHOUGH IT WORKED OUT QUITE NICELY

Lara C. wrote:

Misato O. wrote:No lynch

So basically, I don't trust the concept of "LOL THEY WON'T GET THE KILL THROUGH, LETS LYNCH" On mylo.

Buuutttt, It's not mylo. I think we should nl today, since we have very little info, and lynch tomorrow or the next day.

I'm not saying use it as a strat - I'm saying it's possible. You will have to lynch on MyLo though, because if you NL, mafia gets kill and it turns into LyLo - or they don't get the kill and it remains in MyLo.


I disagree with NLing today, just because I think we could get some information based on reads/etc, but I'm fairly impartial right now.

Unlynch Sylvester S, No Lynch

HOW CAN YOU DISAGREE WHILE BEING IMPARTIAL
LOGIC ERROR LOGIC ERROR LOGIC ERROR

Clark the Conductor wrote:I really really don't understand that mini bandwagon on Sylvester S, yes his idea was pretty bad but at least he tried.

No lynch for now.

THIS IS FAIR BUT THERE ARE REASONS FOR THE LYNCHES (WELL, THE SECOND ONE AT LEAST), MAKE SURE YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THEM BEFORE YOU MAKE A JUDGMENT

Katie P. wrote:what do you want me to do?
just post CATS
CATS
CATs
CATS
not post at all, then i can guarantee you would call me out for lurking, so im asking you this. Would you like me to lurk, filler, or find anything scummy i can find?

JUST DO THE LATTER, IT'S FINE IF YOU CAN'T ALWAYS GET SOMETHING, JUST CONTINUOUSLY TRY TO DO SO

Lara C. wrote:

Katie P. wrote:what do you want me to do?
just post CATS
CATS
CATs
CATS
not post at all, then i can guarantee you would call me out for lurking, so im asking you this. Would you like me to lurk, filler, or find anything scummy i can find?

No, I wan't you to call out anything scummy you can find - and then give us why you think it's scummy or back it up. Just saying "Mini defense by Clark? XP" does nothing unless you give insight as to why it may be said.

WHILE THIS IS FAIR AND THE INTENTION BEHIND IT IS GOOD YOU SHOULDNT TRY TO FORCE EVERYONE TO CONTRIBUTE BECAUSE LET ME TELL YOU THE ONE THING THAT DOESNT WORK IS THAT
EVERYONE SHOULD JUST BE DOING THEIR BEST TO CONTRIBUTE AND NOT PURPOSELY BE LAZY AND EVERYTHING WILL BE ALLLLLL GOOOOOD

Sylvester S. wrote:
Still alive! I thought I was dead after the predicted LarKaVester kill. And you guys totally lied and said it wasn't hammer >.>

WHY DO YOU IMMEDIATELY BELIEVE WHAT OTHERS SAY WITHOUT CHECKING
THIS IS A MISTAKE
DO NOT DO THAT

Sylvester S. wrote:
Also, why not just use a system of "lynching" until PLyLo where we do fakelynch ajhockeystar so we get our point across, without actually voting. Sound good?

NO
WHY, THAT'S COMPLETELY USELESS
WE SHOULDNT BE CONTINUALLY NO LYNCHING SINCE WE'RE GOING TO GET VERY LITTLE FROM DOING SO
JUST LYNCH PEOPLE AND UNLYNCH TO NO LYNCH IF YOU REAAAAALLLLLYYYYY WANT TO NL
IF PEOPLE HAVE NO LYNCHES ON THEM THEY WONT BE NERVOUS AT ALL AND THERE'S LITERALLY NOTHING GAINED FROM DOING THOSE FAKE LYNCHES UNLESS THEY'RE GOING TO BE FOLLOWED UP ON

Sylvester S. wrote:
Slight FOS on Katie and Lara for being in LarKaVester and a lesser FOS on Clark for hammering nl.

I READ YOUR WHOLE POST AND STILL THINK THAT IT DOESNT MAKE ANY SENSE
FIRST OFF, KATIE MAY HAVE BEEN ACTIVE BUT THERE WAS NO ACTUAL REASON TO TARGET HER WITH THE NIGHTKILL SINCE SHE DIDNT ACTUALLY DO TOO MUCH
YOU AND LARA? SURE. WHAT PROBABLY HAPPENED (ASSUMING YOU'RE BOTH TOWN, WHICH I DOUBT) IS THAT EACH SCUM TARGETED ONE OF YOU
THE FACT THAT YOU KEEP BRINGING KATIE INTO THE MIX MAKES ME FEEL LIKE IF YOU'RE SCUM YOU WENT AT HER WITH THE NIGHTKILL

FOR NOW I AM LYNCHING SYLVESTER S. BECAUSE HE'S THE SCUMMIEST AS I SEE IT BUT THIS IS LIKELY TO CHANGE, AND IT PROBABLY WILL

First of all: everyone who no lyched is an ass hat
Second of all: IM BROCK'S BROTHER

FORREST II DO YOU SEEK TO CONTINUE THE ENDEAVORS OF FORREST I OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE USEFUL
PLEASE ANSWER THIS WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR
THANK YOU