[QUOTE=NAF1138]
Oy, we would have known if she was the Avatar instantly because the Avatar is a Day killer.
That being said, I would like to hear more on what you think about Hal. I am not sure why you voted for him.
It seems like you said that you are voting for him because others are finding him suspicious…which seems .
I am going to guess that I am misinterpreting you though. Please to explaine further.
[/QUOTE]
So much for lunch break.
Basically, I looked at the voting patterns on Mal and Kat, and I determined who acted to make sure that Kat wasn’t in the dunking seat. Both Idle and Hal made essentially poorly-supported votes that kept the tally between the two potential dunkees close (albiet with Kat consistently in the lead by one. So I’m suspicious of both of them.
This is, at this point, a early-day vote. I’m willing to change it when there’s responses.
I’m less suspicious of Idle, at this moment, only because he brought the final vote. I’m still suspicious of him, because a tiebreaker could have easily continued to lean towards Kat and a dramatic vote change like that can make a reputation, after all. So for now I vote for Hal for making a poorly-supported vote that kept Kat within spitting distance of alive.
[QUOTE=Scuba_Ben]
Given the information available to Diggit at that time, I figure the odds were 1/28. The role description does not discuss whether a failed attack (50% chance) will also activate the Psychopath.
[/QUOTE]
Well let’s find out:
BM can you tell us if a failed or blocked attack on the Psyco will activate him/her?
Basically, I looked at the voting patterns on Mal and Kat, and I determined who acted to make sure that Kat wasn’t in the dunking seat. Both Idle and Hal made essentially poorly-supported votes that kept the tally between the two potential dunkees close (albiet with Kat consistently in the lead by one. So I’m suspicious of both of them.
This is, at this point, a early-day vote. I’m willing to change it when there’s responses.
I’m less suspicious of Idle, at this moment, only because he brought the final vote. I’m still suspicious of him, because a tiebreaker could have easily continued to lean towards Kat and a dramatic vote change like that can make a reputation, after all. So for now I vote for Hal for making a poorly-supported vote that kept Kat within spitting distance of alive.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Scuba_Ben]
Given the information available to Diggit at that time, I figure the odds were 1/28. The role description does not discuss whether a failed attack (50% chance) will also activate the Psychopath.
[/QUOTE]
Blaster would have to clarify, but the Crusader’s role description reads in terms of him “losing his nerve” if he fails his roll, i.e. not making the attempt. From that perspective, I’d say it’s likely that the odds of this are 1/28 * 1/2 * X, where X is the inestimable probability that Diggit elected to make an attempt on the first night.
Zeriel, that would be useless. We would have absolutely no way to know who Diggit tried, or even if he did try. We would just be wasting our time.
[/QUOTE]
I can’t totally agree with you without looking through his posts–if I were the crusader, damn sure I’d be leaving breadcrumbs just on the off chance that I activated the psychopath.
[QUOTE=Queuing]
And stats rears its ugly head again. I, like Fretful, do not agree with this either. It might be true if the cultists did act randomly, but they don’t, so its kind of useless.
…
ON PREVIEW: Scuba Ben, I find what you are saying odd. First you say we should look at who wanted to DiggitCamara dead, now you are openly threatening anyone who dares mention Malacandra? Huh?
[/quote]
I’m slowly getting away from pure stats, as if this was a stats game we could simply roll dice.
I’m exploring whether it would be useful to determine if DiggitCamera was murdered for a particular reason or if the Cultists simply, well, rolled dice and his number came up. (On further reflection – no, it probably wouldn’t be useful. I don’t recall any posts saying essentially “Go after X and don’t worry about Y; they’re going to bite it anyway.”)
I’m not threatening anybody who goes after Malacandra, again I’m exploring a line of investigation. Or are you trying to defend him?
[QUOTE=Zeriel]
I can’t totally agree with you without looking through his posts–if I were the crusader, damn sure I’d be leaving breadcrumbs just on the off chance that I activated the psychopath.
[/QUOTE]
I suppose, but it is not just the crusader who can activate the psychopath. It says
It seems to be me to be to much of a chance of you yourself being nightkilled by leaving breadcrumbs for a fairly small reason.
I have stated this before, but I feel the only way to get a lone killer is purely chance.
BM can you tell us if a failed or blocked attack on the Psyco will activate him/her?
[/QUOTE]
Good question, and it was poorly worded in the description, but Kyrie Eleison got the gist of what I was going for here:
[QUOTE=Kyrie Eleison]
Blaster would have to clarify, but the Crusader’s role description reads in terms of him “losing his nerve” if he fails his roll, i.e. not making the attempt.
[/QUOTE]
That is, he has a 50% chance of losing his nerve, and thus he wouldn’t even attempt the attack. The Psychopath would not be activated if he didn’t know someone was thinking about attacking him, they would actually have to try. Thus, a failed or blocked attempt would not activate the Psychopath. However, from the perspective of the killer, a failed or blocked attempt would be indistinguishable from the activation of the Psychopath.
[QUOTE=Scuba_Ben]
Let’s see who defends or attacks Malacandra toDay. He’s the obvious first target, as he came within inches of being yesterDay’s player in the wet seat.
[/QUOTE]
This is a thinly veiled threat, but call it what you want. I do like that you say you are not threatening anybody and then add:
[QUOTE=Scuba_Ben]
I’m not threatening anybody who goes after Malacandra, again I’m exploring a line of investigation. Or are you trying to defend him?
[/QUOTE]
Another thinly veiled FOS. To me it seems that you are trying to end a line of investigation by basically saying anyone who mentions Malacandra will be investigated.
My personal belief is DiggitCamara chose not to kill on Night One and therefore had to kill on Night Two. I believe he chose storyteller because it was storyteller’s indictment of MtgMan that largely led to his death. DiggitCamara has already lost this game as he (the crusader) will not be able to successfully produce a non-believer/cultist night kill.
I do not believe the psychopath was activated:
Based on the evidence, a Night One activation is the only possible activation time.
The Crusader likely skipped the first nightkill as the probability is only 50% and the first day yields little information
Whoever activated the psychopath would know that activation was a possibility and would have good reason to target the same person the next night. It does not appear that such a sequence occurred, although the Crusader’s 50% probability obscures things.
We probably don’t need to worry about whether or not the psychopath was activated since this information will become easily apparent tomorrow since the Psychopath must attempt a kill every night. Without a Crusader, two deaths in one night will confirm a psychopath activation, as well as when (barring doctor blocks, alchemist… blah blah).
[QUOTE=sachertorte]
My personal belief is DiggitCamara chose not to kill on Night One and therefore had to kill on Night Two. I believe he chose storyteller because it was storyteller’s indictment of MtgMan that largely led to his death. DiggitCamara has already lost this game as he (the crusader) will not be able to successfully produce a non-believer/cultist night kill.
[/QUOTE]
Where do you get this from? Want to explain this a little further?
Blaster Master:
Based on the events of the past two weekends where the Days have both ended on the weekend when everyone is not around (including the GM), I put forth the idea that Saturday and Sunday be treated as one day to compensate for the slower traffic on weekends.
Alternatively, if you could tweak the rules so that Days only end on weekdays, I think that would be helpful to all. (e.g. force days that would end on Saturday to end on Friday instead, and force days that would end on Sunday to end on Monday)
[QUOTE=Queuing]
Where do you get this from? Want to explain this a little further?
[/QUOTE]
It’s a non-important piece of information. According to the rules the Crusader’s win condition requires a successful Crusader kill of a non-believer or cultist. DiggitCamara did not achieve this requirement. He can’t win.
[QUOTE=sachertorte]
It’s a non-important piece of information. According to the rules the Crusader’s win condition requires a successful Crusader kill of a non-believer or cultist. DiggitCamara did not achieve this requirement. He can’t win.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but why do you think he killed storyteller because he couldn’t win?
[QUOTE=sachertorte]
Blaster Master:
Based on the events of the past two weekends where the Days have both ended on the weekend when everyone is not around (including the GM), I put forth the idea that Saturday and Sunday be treated as one day to compensate for the slower traffic on weekends.
Alternatively, if you could tweak the rules so that Days only end on weekdays, I think that would be helpful to all. (e.g. force days that would end on Saturday to end on Friday instead, and force days that would end on Sunday to end on Monday)
[/QUOTE]
Ugh, sorry for the double post. While my availability is way down on the weekends (I usually actually do stuff), please god no. Why make this game even longer? Particularly based on one weekend’s worth of information?
[QUOTE=Queuing]
Ugh, sorry for the double post. While my availability is way down on the weekends (I usually actually do stuff), please god no. Why make this game even longer? Particularly based on one weekend’s worth of information?
[/QUOTE]
If the days are too long, then perhaps we can shorten them instead so that the day doesn’t end on a weekend? With 5 day Days and 2 day Nights, we are stuck on a weekly schedule that has us pinned into having the important part of the Day landing on a weekend.
[QUOTE=sachertorte]
Just a few thoughts before the end of day. I counted today’s posts. Some of the things I thought were interesting is people I thought weren’t posting enough actually had decent post counts (I haven’t checked for post fluffiness yet). And some people have nearly stopped posting all together that I hadn’t noticed were slacking. I don’t know if this means anything or is helpful. At the very least it points to people who need to be poked, and poked often tomorrow. I offer the following without further comment:
Day Two Vote counts up to post #1273 (approx 4:30PM EDT)
[QUOTE=sachertorte]
If the days are too long, then perhaps we can shorten them instead so that the day doesn’t end on a weekend? With 5 day Days and 2 day Nights, we are stuck on a weekly schedule that has us pinned into having the important part of the Day landing on a weekend.
[/QUOTE]
I would definitely agree with this.
.