I have answered the questions with leading >> the number of > has no relevance.
And FTR to another question I saw laying around : I don’t know Kelly is town. But, I believe I killed that question by answering it 5 times in three seconds.
I find the death of NAF interesting. Why would scum shoot in that direction? Maybe one of the misspelled brotherhood is scum and wanted to confirm that misspellings were not a data point?
@ OaOW I remember asking on Day2 of Screamers “Why would scum kill TexCat?” and got enormous heat for assuming TexCat was the scum kill. While imho it’s unlikely, NAF could have been killed by a Vig, other non-3rd-party killing role or by a redirection. Why are you so sure scum killed him?
Anyway, I too was curious about the choice of NAF as a target. Here’s a brief summary of NAF’s contributions to Day1:
98 Asks about vanilla PM. Mentions role includes religion.
103 In favor of name claim - more information
115 Repeats reasoning for name claim, probably no benefit but more info is good
127 Scum don’t fish. Town shouldn’t be secretive.
129 Agrees to claim
138 More re: fishing in response to Special Ed
145 To Meeko, asks if he’s read post about value of name claim
149 More re:fishing
157 Claims Joesph Smith (Mormon)
158 Corrects coding
(179 OaOW votes for typo)
313 Responds to Kelly’s “I can’t believe the heat…” and proceeds to vote Kelly
349 Comment on scum knowing each other. Comfortable with vote.
403 Lynching Peeker won’t give info. Comfortable with vote. Suggests we should be looking at events surrounding name claim.
408 Comments on Peeker’s playstyle “living up to name”, not worth a vote
418 Explains FCS. Finds Story’s case on Chronos interesting, will re-read
427 Responds to Chronos re vote on Peeker. Anti-town is not pro-scum. Wants others to look at Kelly and other events of day.
493 To Meeko, asks about comment on odds of Kelly being town
515 Re: odds of Kelly again, thinks he’s noob scum
516 Fluff re: probability having no memory
569 Mistake to lynch Peeker. Wishes Kelly would respond. Comments on non-voters.
I’m not very good at doing WoWs and summing up the contributions of a player to the game but the main things that I get from the summary are:
- He was in favor of Town sharing information rather than being secretive
- I don’t think he ever commented on or responded to the votes related to the typo.
- He felt strongly about the case on Kelly and encouraged others to re-read and join
- He was pretty convinced that lynching Peeker was not the optimal move for Town
- He suspected that most Day1 info would be found by looking at the events surrounding the name claim
And then someone killed him. As there are no 3rd parties I assume it must be either the scum kill, receiver of a redirection or a vig kill, although I’d doubt the latter two as NAF was active, involved and made the case against the lynch runner-up.
So, assuming he was the scum kill, why choose him? I can think of several reasons:
- As OaOW points out, to remove suspicion from Meeko for the PM typo
- To remove Kelly’s main antagonist (and expose Kelly as scum?)
- To remove a strong player (I believe NAF is so considered)
- To remove a player at random (in the spirit of the name of the game)
- To make Town think No.1 or 2 above and so add momentum to suspicions from Day1 for a Day2 Meeko or Kelly lynch
A couple of plausible options, some data points, some WIFOM, I guess there’s not much point trying to make sense of the first night kill until later in the game when we have more info…
i’m not sure, was just an assumption. Someone killed him, and had a reason for doing so. if it was SK, we can still consider it. I find a town vig kill unlikely, though obv not impossible
Kelly this, Kelly that.
Tomorrow night, I am going to make a serious attempt to do a complete thread read (I haven’t properly read from about page 6 onwards). If I can’t find the time, I may elect to be replaced, if it’s not too late.
But give me 24 hours.
I never said that. I just said that your giving him a pass was really suspect. I have no idea if you’ll ever vote for him. But your justification for not voting for him was so odd, it pinged me because it was such an odd non-reason.
Anyway, it’s not like you’re a lock to be lynched. The day is young. I could just as easily change my vote–vote early, vote often is the philosophy, yes?
I’m also curious to see Kelly’s post as we haven’t heard too much from him.
Unless I’m missing something, the only other player who had a misspelling in their claim was Meeko.
Sunday morning vote count!
Freudian Slit (2) - voted by Rysto [655], Meeko [666]
Meeko (1) - voted by Freudian Slit [651]
You’re confusing a rock solid indisuputible case (proof) with a case. This is Mafia, not a court of law. The whole premise of the game is that you try to build the best case you can against someone and lynch them. Additionally, I don’t think anyone ever said they had proof, because if they did it would be foolish not to present it.
Meeko, you’re actually arguing my point. I was saying I could be specific and have no real case. I was saying that this case does have substance or meat, and then I got even more specific.
I think perhaps you get hung up on each sentence when you need to take an entire idea in it’s context.
I don’t know that you or Kelly are Scum. I’m pointing out how you actions could be interpreted as Scum-motivated.
I’m not trying to bait you. This is how I play. I question people on their statements and gauge their reactions. Some people take it more personally than others and feel as if I’m attacking them personally. I’m not, I’m just trying to figure out who is Scum.
This is another misrepresentation. I’ve never asked you to vote for Kelly.
Again, I’m just pointing out that you actions can be interpreted to have a Scum-motivation.
I have no knowledge of Kelly’s alignment or your alignment.
Why? I feel as if the accusation that you attempted to defend Kelly on Day 1 is the meat of the case. The case still stands even if Kelly is Town.
yeah, sure. I mean, it was a dismissal of an entire case in only 15 words.
Of course, agains, it’s the action, not the way you presented it that’s earning you heat.
Who is saying that Kelly were Scum? If I was sure that he was Scum, I would be voting for him right now. I’m not.
Scum will sometimes defend a Scum buddy to protect them. But Scum will also sometimes defend a Town person so they can say, “I told you so, look, I was saying he was Town, and a Scum wouldn’t do that, would they?”
So, there’s still Scum-motivation for doing that.
Again, I haven’t said that Kelly is Scum. Sure, it’s a possibility.
I’m getting the sense that your defense against the case has come down to: “No one can be sure I’m guilty, therefore you shouldn’t accuse me.”
Yes, you’re confusing a Smudge with a case.
Well, those can make up the meat, or substance of a case against someone. So, I suppose we actually agree.
No, that’s more of an insult than a smudge.
First off, I don’t hate you. I even kinda like you.
Secondly, I can use your vocabulary.
- The fact is you defended Kelly.
- I think it is possible that you slipped when you id that in an attempt to look more Townie or to defend a fellow Scum.
- Logically, is that were true, that would make you Scum.
My entire issue, remains that all of my heat stems from the fact that I pointed to probability. [Multiple facets of it, mind you, but still, the “odds” were brought up.]
I said in so many ways that Kelly, in my opinion, may not be scum.
Everyone apparently thought that was the worst thing to say in the world.
**
Apparently, Logically, Kelly has a greater chance at being town. Does any one doubt that?**
But, speak that idea, and it becomes scum motivation.
I don’t get that, at all.
But, you know, I think it’s related to the ““Accountabillity”” Snafu from Smash 2. – Not that I got that concept.
Would be intersting to literally do the math on choices, in a decision tree, and find out which route is “best practices” for Mafia, honestly doubt any of us are even close to perfect play.
Let’s address this one. I need specifics again.
Dare I make an assuption :
Are you saying that because I employ Logic, Facts, and [investigate, discover, and use] Slips, it logically makes me scum?
Peeker, get the brain bucket, I think I just went Pop!
"You might want to wear a helmet, so that it don’t make a mess when I blow your mind!"
Kelly has a greater motivation of being town than of being scum? Well, yeah. In every game, there’s more town than scum, so the probability of anyone being town is greater than of their being scum.
But Kelly does NOT have a greater probability of being town than anyone else. His role in previous games have absolutely no bearing on this game.
-
" Motivation " ? **I question the use of the word “Motivation”. ** As I see it, town doesn’t need " Motivation " they just are. Only scum would worry about having " Motivation " or not. This language here pings me, and would move me closer to voting you, if I didn’t already have a vote on you.
-
And you somehow dodge the direct question by using the word motivation. Again : Kelly has better odds of being Town in this game — Period. Full Stop.
Do not bring the other game into this. I have stopped arguing it on that basis.
**
I think you are trying to hold on to an honest and innocent mistake I made, just to get me lynched over you. **
Motivation? Yeah, there would be scum motivation there.
um…what? How did you get to that statement?
this is what I said:
I realize it might be more difficult for you to follow my ideas as we have different ways of communicating. But I really have no idea how you can take a 3 point case, remove one point and then go off on a completely different tangent.
If I had meant to say that your use of logic, facts and slips made you Scum, I would have been direct and stated that.
What I did was try to state the case against you using your vocabulary. (with a couple of typos id=did and in pont 3, is=if)
NETA: **Don’t bring “Kelly has better chances to be town, over anyone else” into it either. **
Everyone has the same HIGH odds to be town in this game. And that’s my point. Kelly has a great chance at being Town in this game. Everyone does.
Based on that, I don’t want to vote Kelly.
And it makes me scum?!
Everyone is motivated to act.
Many players look for the motivation behind a player and try to discern if their actions can be interpreted as trying to help Town win (Town motivation) or helping Scum win (Scum motivation)
Unfortunately, it’s not terribly easy.
Meeko, Freudian has better odds of being Town in this game too. Why are you voting for her then?
Odd, here you interpret the word correctly.
It’s possible that freudian is motivated to get you lynched to use up a mislynch and move the Scum closer to victory.
If you can’t force a Third point, go for the obligatory “Hi! Opal!”.
I didn’t get that 2 and 3 refered back to your 1. I have a main point, and then points under that use letters to refer back to the main point. There is an indention of sorts. I didn’t see an indention strtucture, so I Was lost.
**
Your 1 and 2 only hold water, so to speak, if Kelly is scum. **
Which again, why are you so sure that Kelly is scum ? If so, Vote Kelly.
I retract the use of the word “motivation.” I meant odds, and you’re right. I don’t know why I used it.
But as has been brought up, if Kelly has a greater chance of being town so does EVERYONE. Why don’t you just give everyone a pass on day one? Are you saying no one should vote for anyone because the chances of us all being town are so great?
Oh, ed. Don’t you ever get tired?
Meeko, it’s really very simple. You said you were willing to give Kelly a pass. When asked why, you provided a reason that didn’t make any sense. You’re now, pardon me for saying so, kind of flipping out about it. But your stated reasons for not considering Kelly were decidedly not:
because your reason relied on an assumption about probability that was, as you acknowledge, overtly fallacious. You made it a point to tell everyone you wouldn’t vote for Kelly that Day, and your reason was unreasonable. There’s your full stop.
ed, going forward, can I make a request that you not turn this into several pages and several small d-days’ worth of argument? It seems our rate of attrition for this game is unprecedented from a willing participant standpoint. Meeko isn’t going to drop it any more than peeker did. You saw how that turned out.