Mafia V: The Cult of Sekham

The Game Room
1461

[QUOTE=Kyrie Eleison]
Your contention is that, unbeknownst to you, your list has only townies on it, and that Zeriel knows this? On the surface, Zeriel’s contention that it’s a “townie-as-scum” list does look questionable. However, if he’s right, and your assumption seems to be that he is, I’ll FOS the both of you as scum staging a fight. My back of the envelope calculation of the probability of randomly constructing a list containing only townie players, assuming 30 players and 6 scum, is 0.57%. For 5 scum, it’s 0.84%.

Granted, that assumes that selecting eight players that have failed to come to NAF’s attention is equivalent to selecting eight players at random, which might be contested. Nonetheless, if that list proves to have only townies on it, you’ll both come up smelling funny to me.
[/QUOTE]

I would be shocked if there were only townies on that list. But who knows, anything is possible.

1462

[QUOTE=Kyrie Eleison]
Your contention is that, unbeknownst to you, your list has only townies on it, and that Zeriel knows this? On the surface, Zeriel’s contention that it’s a “townie-as-scum” list does look questionable. However, if he’s right, and your assumption seems to be that he is, I’ll FOS the both of you as scum staging a fight. My back of the envelope calculation of the probability of randomly constructing a list containing only townie players, assuming 30 players and 6 scum, is 0.57%. For 5 scum, it’s 0.84%.

Granted, that assumes that selecting eight players that have failed to come to NAF’s attention is equivalent to selecting eight players at random, which might be contested. Nonetheless, if that list proves to have only townies on it, you’ll both come up smelling funny to me.
[/QUOTE]

My original contention was that NAF’s behavior was contingent on me finding out if he had that kind of knowledge–that is, if he was scum then my list of people he didn’t list were maybe scum too. Since then, I also stated that I’d think he was scum if his lists proved he had special knowledge. I know two of his original eight are–myself and zuma. (you of course are only sure of one.) I know one of my original list of lurkers not listed by NAF is in fact scum–AZTeach/Kat. So far that’s two hits pointing to NAF having special knowledge–not nearly enough to go vote on, but enough to suspect him.

Oh, and NAF, I thought the guessing originally was that there were at least 3 and likely 5-7 scum.

1463

Hal, you’re right to an extent–I made a dumb decision that I’d make an early vote based mostly on the pattern of the votewar between Mal and Kat, and you and Idle for the reasons stated were the top two on that list. I’m trying to get out of the mindset that early finger-pointing in the day tend to kickstart discussion, but it’s a habit with me in live-action games to come out the gate with strong accusations regardless of what side I’m on. Online, as I’m finding here and in the vastly different small noob games on mafiascum, is another animal.

unvote Hal Briston, but I’m still half-heartedly convinced there’s something important in the pattern of votes for Mal and Kat yesterday.

And NAF says I’m not controversial enough and that I fly under the radar. :dubious: :stuck_out_tongue:

1464

[QUOTE=Zeriel]
My original contention was that NAF’s behavior was contingent on me finding out if he had that kind of knowledge–that is, if he was scum then my list of people he didn’t list were maybe scum too. Since then, I also stated that I’d think he was scum if his lists proved he had special knowledge. I know two of his original eight are–myself and zuma. (you of course are only sure of one.) I know one of my original list of lurkers not listed by NAF is in fact scum–AZTeach/Kat. So far that’s two hits pointing to NAF having special knowledge–not nearly enough to go vote on, but enough to suspect him.

Oh, and NAF, I thought the guessing originally was that there were at least 3 and likely 5-7 scum.
[/QUOTE]

Lemme tell you, if there are 7 scum and a recruit we are screwed also. I don’t know if Blaster made this game that unbalanced, but we don’t stand a chance if there are that many scum. There isn’t enough to balance it out on our side.

1465

My post at the end of Day 2 was for MHaye. I know he didn’t get a lot of attention during that day, but Pasta made a long analysis of his posts in 1127.

My initial suspicion for him was based on the bandwagoning of Mtgman at the end of Day 1.

I went back and re-analyzed his posts from the end of Day 1 until now.

In 1261 he says:

In one post he defended Kat (now known to be scum) and accused me of failing “to produce reasoning for a conclusion” when in fact, the whole point of Post 1108 was that * I had no *conclusions.

He then insinuates that he insulted me (1277) when my Post 1268 was merely reasons for voting for him, and showed no hint of insult.

vote Mhaye again

1466

This is what I did on Day One (why does this remind me of those “what I did on vacation” first essays for Spanish class after the summer?):

I’d introduced myself during the night and mentioned that I hadn’t seen the “you’re in” until Monday morning, when it was night already.

Post 1027 I gave a list of people I’d noticed, for good or bad, including myself as a joke.

1112 and 1113 I explain about that being a joke and spell out my location field. I tend to shoot my mouth too fast and here we can’t edit, oops; that’s why two posts.

1202 I ask to keep Mad on and not rely too much on “scum tells.”

1256 I vote for sachertorte

The next time I got in it was after dusk, so I didn’t respond to sachertorte’s response to my vote. I could do it now I guess but I think it might muddle the waters, since I’m not re-voting him at this point and want to wait and read what people post tonight-rl and think things through.

1467

[QUOTE=Zeriel]
I stand by my suspicion. You’ll note my vote’s still on Hal.

I know I’m a townie, and I was on the list. I know AZ/Kat was scum, and she wasn’t on the list even though she easily could have been. My point has been from the get-go that your “subjective” list of people-you-don’t-notice has the potential to be carefully crafted to hide scum lurkers. So far, the only dead scum is from the list of lurkers you didn’t happen to notice lurking. Of COURSE I find that suspicious.
[/QUOTE]

Zeriel, we’re pretty much having the same suspicions on this one, but I would like to point out that my belief is not that NAF carefully crafted the list to hide scum lurkers, but that NAF presented a subjective list of people he didn’t notice which is colored by the fact that had ArizonaTeach and NAF both been scum, that alignment would cause NAF to legitimately leave ArizonaTeach off his ‘I haven’t noticed you’ list. i.e. NAF noticed someone not notable because they are both scum. I don’t expect the list itself to be carefully crafted.
Did that make sense? I feel like I’m babbling.
Furthermore, I think there is more to NAF’s statements than just the fact that ArizonaTeach was missing from his list and turned out to be scum. NAF’s words imply to me that NAF knew ArizonaTeach was scum. Ergo, NAF is scum.

1468

Since I have the spreadsheet already, I’ll post the post numbers for each person for day two. Hopefully this will help people investigating others, and maybe encourage everyone to sum up their contributions (Thanks, Nava).

This list is for Day Two up to post #1273; in other words, it doesn’t include the extra day.

Autolycus
1024
1110
1120
1125
1269

Captain Klutz
1100
1103
1104
1106
1136
1264

Cookies
983
1049
1055
1143
1154
1171
1201
1229
1237
1239

DiggitCamara
1012
1045
1096
1139
1145
1146
1159
1160
1163
1168
1185
1188
1206
1211
1244
1245

fluiddruid
992
1031
1039
1041
1078
1222
1224
1227
1250
1251
1266

FlyingCowOfDoom
1038
1063
1117
1122
1247

Fretful Porpentine
999
1009
1015
1064
1070
1074
1082
1114
1131
1231
1248

Hal Briston
986
1005
1011
1054
1068
1094
1144
1147
1186
1187
1189
1192
1267

HazelNutCoffee
984
1018
1080
1093
1174
1180
1243
1254

Hockey Monkey
987
1003
1016
1195
1215
1220
1221
1234
1253

Idle Thoughts
1006
1010
1013
1023
1084
1088
1089
1092
1097
1118
1167
1226
1228
1240
1270
1271

Kat
1020
1021
1046
1056
1059
1107
1124
1170
1176
1183
1184
1273

Kyrie Eleison
1000
1001
1050
1052
1061
1062
1072
1095
1149
1152
1166
1172
1193
1207

MadTheSwine

Malacandra
1060
989
1027
1033
1111
1115
1121
1126
1135

MHaye
988
996
998
1156
1225
1232
1238
1258
1260
1261
1262
1263

MonkeyMensch
1173
1190

NAF
985
995
997
1002
1077
1098
1101
1138
1148
1155
1157
1164
1175
1194
1208
1210
1214
1241

Nava
1022
1028
1044
1112
1113
1116
1202
1256

Pasta
1026
1081
1127
1181
1255
1257
1259
1272

Pleonast
1004
1036
1205

Queuing
1043
1087
1090
1105
1133
1141
1150
1161
1165
1169
1178
1179
1196
1199
1204
1213
1217
1218
1246

sachertorte
994
1032
1048
1051
1085
1086
1119
1129
1158
1162
1177
1182
1265

Scuba_Ben
1014
1030
1040
1042
1053
1058
1066
1067
1071
1073
1083
1109
1197
1198
1216
1233

SnakesCatLady
1091
1099
1142
1230
1242
993
1008
1017

storyteller
1029
1076
1079
1128
1203
1212
1219
1252

USCDiver
1025
1037
1102
1108
1268

Zeriel
990
991
1047
1057
1123
1130
1200
1209
1223
1249

1469

[QUOTE=sachertorte]
Zeriel, we’re pretty much having the same suspicions on this one, but I would like to point out that my belief is not that NAF carefully crafted the list to hide scum lurkers, but that NAF presented a subjective list of people he didn’t notice which is colored by the fact that had ArizonaTeach and NAF both been scum, that alignment would cause NAF to legitimately leave ArizonaTeach off his ‘I haven’t noticed you’ list. i.e. NAF noticed someone not notable because they are both scum. I don’t expect the list itself to be carefully crafted.
Did that make sense? I feel like I’m babbling.
Furthermore, I think there is more to NAF’s statements than just the fact that ArizonaTeach was missing from his list and turned out to be scum. NAF’s words imply to me that NAF knew ArizonaTeach was scum. Ergo, NAF is scum.
[/QUOTE]

Well you are misinterpreting my words, but at least this is a legit argument. Zeriel’s argument bothers me because it seems so oportunistic, he had been somewhat obsessed with me for a while and it feels like he is jumping now that someone else has some suspicion of me. But I am going to drop it for now, I have a tendancy to get self absorbed when it comes to accusations against myself. If y’all agree with me you will vote, if not you won’t.

1470

[QUOTE=Zeriel]
My original contention was that NAF’s behavior was contingent on me finding out if he had that kind of knowledge–that is, if he was scum then my list of people he didn’t list were maybe scum too. Since then, I also stated that I’d think he was scum if his lists proved he had special knowledge.
[/QUOTE]

Understood. However, I took NAF1138 to be implying that during the course of your discussion, you began referring to his list as a list of townies, implying that you had more knowledge of its composition than perhaps you ought. He implies that this was a meaningful slip on your part, rather than just a poorly chosen expression, which wouldn’t be meaningful at all.

That wasn’t the only basis for his vote for you, but it was part of it. What struck me as odd is that if his supposition is true, and you did reveal knowledge that the list was composed only of townies, he damns himself by damning you. It would mean that either he beat 1:100 odds, and constructed a list of 8 townies without foreknowledge, or that his list is less random than it ought to be. That’s a necessary prerequisite for you to be able to perform such a slip. In other words, if this part of his accusation is true, he’s either a very lucky townie, or you’re both scum.

Unfortunately, I don’t know what to make of this. I would imagine it will be some time before we find out the truth behind everyone on that list. And I find it difficult to determine whether this fault in NAF1138’s reasoning is malicious, revealing, or just erroneous.

1471

[QUOTE=sachertorte]
Since I have the spreadsheet already, I’ll post the post numbers for each person for day two. Hopefully this will help people investigating others, and maybe encourage everyone to sum up their contributions (Thanks, Nava).
[/QUOTE]
Damn, that’s a rather large request for info. Still, it can pretty much only help. Here ya go:

Hal Briston
986: “…sorry to see you go, zuma”
1005: Props to Pleonast for catching Malacandra’s “heads I win, tails you lose” post regarding zuma.
1011: The Crusader is better off going for the definite kill every other night rather than the 50/50 shot each night. Moot point now, though…
1054: Call for gender clarification from everyone.
1068: Correction of Fretful Porpentine, who FOS’d me for pushing Mgtman into the voting lead, something that was untrue (and later acknowledged).
1094: Announcement that I was foolishly taking it upon myself to create a voting spreadsheet, a la Millit the Frail in M3.
1144: Response to Queuing’s ill-placed vote for me.
1147: Note that I was moving the Spreadsheet from Google to my own host.
1186: More back and forth with Queuing.
1187: A response to a question on the history of players subbing in and being scum.
1189: Still more with Queuing.
1192: Announcment that I’d be redoing my bathroom and spending some family time, so I’d be posting very little for five days.
1267: Vote for Malacandra, based on the above-mentioned zuma bit, coupled with the fact that I’d been too busy to keep a close enough eye on the board to develop any other suspicions.

1472

[QUOTE=USCDiver]
He then insinuates that he insulted me (1277) when my Post 1268 was merely reasons for voting for him, and showed no hint of insult.
[/QUOTE]

Weird. USCDiver, all of the links in your post appear to be of the form

http://”http//boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8744018&postcount=1108"

in your post. However, when I quote you to respond, they look correct in the edit window. Am I the only one seeing this?

1473

[QUOTE=Kyrie Eleison]
However, when I quote you to respond, they look correct in the edit window. Am I the only one seeing this?
[/QUOTE]
No, I see it in the same, incorrect form, no matter how I’m viewing them.

The quotation marks are the problem – they’re causing the software to think it needs to parse it as a URL, when it doesn’t.

1474

Bizarre… I composed the post in Word and it may have parsed the links inappropriately

1475

Let me try this again… it appears Word uses a different ‘quotation mark’ symbol than vB.

My post at the end of Day 2 was for MHaye. I know he didn’t get a lot of attention during that day, but Pasta made a long analysis of his posts in 1127.

My initial suspicion for him was based on the bandwagoning of Mtgman at the end of Day 1.

I went back and re-analyzed his posts from the end of Day 1 until now.

In 1261 he says:
In one post he defended Kat (now known to be scum) and accused me of failing “to produce reasoning for a conclusion” when in fact, the whole point of Post 1108 was that * I had no *conclusions.

He then insinuates that he insulted me (1277) when my Post 1268 was merely reasons for voting for him, and showed no hint of insult.

vote Mhaye again

1476

By the way Blaster Master, that is only one Vote for MHaye

1477

[QUOTE=USCDiver]
Let me try this again… it appears Word uses a different ‘quotation mark’ symbol than vB.
[/QUOTE]
Ahhh, yeah, that’ll do it…it most certainly does.

Not only that, but it uses separate marks for opening and closing quotes. It’s something that causes a lot of havoc with the searches I write at work. The answer is to always use Notepad for things like this.

1478

[QUOTE=sachertorte]
Since I have the spreadsheet already, I’ll post the post numbers for each person for day two. Hopefully this will help people investigating others, and maybe encourage everyone to sum up their contributions (Thanks, Nava).

[/QUOTE]

Gah, I hate homework:

Kyrie Eleison

1000 – Inappropriate speculation of who killed whom, based on color.
1001 – Correction of omission in inappropriate speculation.
1050 – Explanation of and apology for inappropriate speculation
1052 – Expression of suspicion regarding Idle Thought’s discussion of what he does at Night.
1061 – Suggestions regarding post counts and their significance. (I don’t like 'em)
1062 – Revelation of gender (Male)
1072 – Discussion of whether it’s suspicious to find newly subbed-in players suspicious. (Me: It’s not.)
1095 – Announcement of holiday departure. (I had fun, thanks.)
1149 – Discussion of Malacandra’s Day-opening remark. (It was ironic)
1152 – Summary of the candidates I was currently examining (Hal Briston, Fretful Porpentine, fluiddruid, and Kat)
1166 – Vote for Kat.
1172 – Discussion of fluiddruid. Mild FOS of NAF1138.
1193 – Somewhat fluffy discussion of “3rd vote is scummy.”
1207 – Response to storyteller0910’s inquiry into the reasons I listed for voting for Kat.

1479

USCDiver
1025 Checking in after Dawn of Day 2; mention my intention of reviewing Mtgman’s lynching
1037 can’t figure out the zuma killing
1102 can’t find anything scumming in the Mtgman lynching
1108 explaining why I didn’t take notes on my Mtgman review (I didn’t find anything to note; also left for California)
1268 Vote for MHaye

1480

Wow, a lot to catch up on. Not bad at all.

[QUOTE=FlyingCowOfDoom]
Well, my suspicions from yesterDay are still pretty much the same. I do think **Pleonast **is even more scummy than he was before, now that I see that AZTeach/Kat was a cultist. The **mtgman **lynch happened pretty quickly and **Pleonast **was one of the players that voted to swing the vote from AZTeach/Kat to mtgman. Adding that to my previously existing suspicion of him, I’m pretty comfortable with voting Pleonast.

–FCOD
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, more and more he’s seeming to be the only one that’s taken a very far lead in my own mind too.

[QUOTE=Pleonast]
To those of you who complain about my vote for Mtgman: I switched my vote from my first-in-line candidate (Mal) to my second. I was the only one voting for Mal at the time, and Mtgman was already up 5-3 over the nearest competitor. So hardly an earth-shaking vote, especially on the Day 1 when information is sparse.
[/quote]

Snipped.

But this doesn’t really take away the suspicions I’ve had. In order to win this game it requires town being able to at least try to think how scum would think. It seems more likely to me that scum wouldn’t TRY to make any earth shattering votes but more or less try to ease into the mob slowly (like with a vote that wouldn’t have mattered much). It’s true that yours didn’t, but it was another nail in the proverbial coffin and drew Mtgman’s votecount farther from Kats/ArizonaTeaches which is what I (and others I think maybe, although I can only speak for myself) am looking :dubious: at.
As for the “FOS” slang..I dislike it myself. As you see, I usually only use it if/when it’s in context to what someone else said, and even then I put quote marks around it. I just don’t get the “FOS” term. There’s suspicious of someone, and then there’s voting for someone. And often they go hand in hand. But I don’t see the point in saying “FOS” player x without doing anything there. I’ll say who I’m suspicious of and then vote. That’s what I’ve always done and what I’ll always do no matter if I’m town, power role, or scum.

Just my two cents on it.

[QUOTE=NAF1138]
Lemme tell you, if there are 7 scum and a recruit we are screwed also. I don’t know if Blaster made this game that unbalanced, but we don’t stand a chance if there are that many scum. There isn’t enough to balance it out on our side.
[/QUOTE]

Seven scum and a possible eighth for 30 players? Plus two other roles (the Crusader and the Psychopath) who have the potential to off people each Night? That’s impossible. As someone who has hosted many of these games, I can honestly say that those odds would be too far in favor of the bad side if that were the case.

Just based on my own experience, I’d guess, if you wager in the roles that did or COULD be killers (and I have no idea if the secret role might ever be able so but let’s not count it out) and then the recruit, a guess of four to five Cultists would be a bit closer. I could see as little as three and MAYBE as many as six, but in those cases it’s pushing it, I feel.
I don’t know what to think about the NAF/Zeirel thing. Zeirel I’ve felt fairly neutral on so far but NAF I had some suspicions on early in Day One for awhile. But in each of my analysis’s he faded more and more from it (as did sach and Clockwork/Kyrie).

It’s like watching a tennis match.
And I’ll do my best to sum up my posts when I return. It’s lunch time. HOT WINGS! :smiley: