By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Mafia Round 50 - Superheroes & Villains

DarkThanatos on 27 November 2012
Yoshiya said:
DarkThanatos said:

Sigh. I'm not trusting him. I'm trying to catch him out and at the same time, get a win-win. 

If he is trying to get rid of a powerful role then that Haxton will claim and we will stop. If he is a rolecop then Mafia will already know the role so it doesn't matter if that player claims, and then we would know Mantle was scum and would kill him. 

If Mantle is town, and has a role which can find scum, then he would have found scum, we would lynch Haxton, and then the doc would protect Mantle. 

By doing this it's a win-win for town. I find your push on me here when I'm trying to setup a win-win disturbing. 

HoS Yoshiya

I question your willingness to completely turn your opinion on someone from being your "biggest scumspect" to effectively "confirmed townie for a Day" and suddenly I'm scum? Please explain the logic behind that.

Where did I say confirmed townie? I didn't. My "willingness" is because it is a Win-Win situation for town, as i said in the post above. 

You are scummy because you are pushing an easily explained point, which has literally just been explained to you. 

You are doing your damndest to try and remove suspicion from Mantle and it is rubbing me the wrong way. And I'm not the only one that has noticed this. 



So hyped for Rome 2: Total War

Around the Network
mantlepiecek on 27 November 2012
DarkThanatos said:
mantlepiecek said:

The bolded isn't wrong imo at least.

DT said he is suspicious of zero - then zero said that at least one person amongst 4 who were pushing him were scum - then DT said that it is possible through statistics since there are 1 scum out of 4 players as a ratio - I asked does that work even if zero was scum? LIke he thought at the time - He said it is possible scum of opposite factions/3rd party serial killers may vote other parties since they try and get a mislynch - Said he didn't know how 3rd party players play since he has never been 3rd party so he maybe wrong.

This is in short why I think DT is scum. That is apart from what he said later on - he asked if I was on the second team.

When did I say I was suspicious of Zero before then. Quote me when I said that. 

Because as far as I can remember I only mentioned Zero being scum when you asked "what if Zero is scum". 

You are lying Mantle. I do not like liers. 

Yes, now I see that you actually didn't say you were suspicious of zero.

I got confused.

However I did ask you and you never replied to that part. You just said that If zero was scum, it would be so and so. Basically, you made a generalized statistical theory on both. That regardless of zero's alignment, the statistics would still remain the same 1 out of 4.

What made me suspicious though is you made a generalized theory and not that you were suspicious of zero, and then tried to make up a theory for it.

You made up a theory to support your generalized theory. The made up theory being 4 + 1, or so, and the generalized one being zero will have at least one scum on him by virtue of 1 out of 4 ratio regardless of his alignment.



tabaha on 27 November 2012
theprof00 said:
1 why do you think he wanted to lynch mantle? Not saying you're wrong but why would he want to?
2 ill respond to that later maybe
3 why do you think he didnt trust hatz?
4 why do you think he wanted to lynch 9tc
5 no comment
6 whats this about formatting and voting 9tc?

1- first thing that came into my head after reading the post

3- I didn't say he didn't trusted hatz. what i said was that he FoS'd hatz based on hatz not trusting 9TC roles. But again, i still need to go back to check if this is what really happened

4- to make it easier for me to be lynched in the future. if i was lynched first, 9TC's lie would be exposed.

6- the white lines separating his vig role from his investigation role. He first voted me and only after it he noticed that aspect and voted 9TC instead. did he really read 9TCs post correctly? He wouldn't need if he knew it was fake



 

tabaha on 27 November 2012
theprof00 said:
tabaha said:
theprof00 said:
What do you mean you knew you were doing it wrong?

I have enough intelligence to notice that i'm not acting the best way


so why are you only telling us this now and not then?

I'm going to make you the favor of linking the post AND quoting the lines where i explained it
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4920600

"I was panicking and facepalming way too much to do things properly. But point is, i can't think of a way to convince people that he was lying and making sure he wouldn't kill me the day after."



 

DarkThanatos on 27 November 2012
tabaha said:
theprof00 said:
Tabaha please do tell your weak case on dt.


1. I interpreted http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4915853 in a not normal way and i saw it as he wanting mantle lynched by saying: "why not both"

2. the video he posted here: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4915893 - bery very week

3. In somepost that i didn't wrote down I think he FoS'ed Hatz because hatz didn't trust 9TC (i'm not sure if this one is has the facts correct. I only have HoS@ hatz wrote down)

4. It seemed to me that he jumped too fast for 9TC lynch

5. It really looks like he's really fishing for roles.

6. When 9TC quoted his pm i think he put a vote on me, and only after he notices the strange wa about the formatting and votes 9TC

that's it


1) 9TC was wanting to vote Mantle but wasn't sure which one to go for. He could have chosen both if he wanted to. It's an appropriate image considering the circumstances. But I do think Mantle is scum now though. 

2) What do you mean about the video? That video was in referal to 9TC's epic fail post. It was supposed to be part of my bigger post but it failed the first time. 

3) 

DarkThanatos said:
hatmoza said:

Unvote

Vote Tabaha

 

If tabaha is not scum we lynch 9TC. I'm done with this day. And I'm quite annoyed that I'm one of the few who see 9TC as very odd.


I see 9TC as odd. 

But I find you voting Tabaha odder. You have said there is something incredibly fishy. We don't need to rush a decision. Why vote him if we are still investigating? 

HoS Hat

My original post. I suspected him because he said he thought the voting on you was fishy, but then he followed the train and voted you for no good reason. 

4) If you remember correctly, I was against the 9TC lynch the first time. Only when more information came out did I vote him. 

5) Just Mantles. The other one was tabaha to save himself from my vote, turns out he didn't need it in the end. 

6) You are correct- 9TC voted his PM. It looked legit if illegal, so i voted you. Then afterwards on closer inspection I realised the errors and realised it was partly a fake, so i voted 9TC for trying to mislynch.



So hyped for Rome 2: Total War

Around the Network
Yoshiya on 27 November 2012
DarkThanatos said:
Yoshiya said:
DarkThanatos said:

Sigh. I'm not trusting him. I'm trying to catch him out and at the same time, get a win-win. 

If he is trying to get rid of a powerful role then that Haxton will claim and we will stop. If he is a rolecop then Mafia will already know the role so it doesn't matter if that player claims, and then we would know Mantle was scum and would kill him. 

If Mantle is town, and has a role which can find scum, then he would have found scum, we would lynch Haxton, and then the doc would protect Mantle. 

By doing this it's a win-win for town. I find your push on me here when I'm trying to setup a win-win disturbing. 

HoS Yoshiya

I question your willingness to completely turn your opinion on someone from being your "biggest scumspect" to effectively "confirmed townie for a Day" and suddenly I'm scum? Please explain the logic behind that.

Where did I say confirmed townie? I didn't. My "willingness" is because it is a Win-Win situation for town, as i said in the post above. 

You are scummy because you are pushing an easily explained point, which has literally just been explained to you. 

You are doing your damndest to try and remove suspicion from Mantle and it is rubbing me the wrong way. And I'm not the only one that has noticed this

I never said you said confirmed townie that was what I said you were effectively doing...

Also, @bold, when have I ever said that Mantle is not guilty? I agree with his suspicions on you yes, but that doesn't mean I think he is townie. Also, where have other people pointed out that I am trying to remove suspicion from Mantle?

Since when did scum push "easily explained" points anyway? Isn't the whole point of scum play to avoid going near the easily explained points to allow for easy mislynches? If I was really scum don't you think I would have moved on from you now seeing as I have thus far only managed to convince Mantle and maybe Trucks of your scumminess and one of those was already onto you...



mantlepiecek on 27 November 2012
DarkThanatos said:
mantlepiecek said:

Why would he suspect zero is one and someone else is on another? He was using statistics, it was pure mathematics without inclusion of feelings about other players who were pushing for zero.

He said it is possible that someone is scum from the 4 who pushed zero - after saying he is suspicious of zero. To me that means he thought there are 2 scum teams before this. But how and why?

Him saying he doesn't know how 3rd party players play is really really weird in my eyes, since he did say that ninetails could be sk who changed his PM during day 1.

I specifically asked him how is it that he thinks a scum player will try and push suspicion on his teammate on day 1 - to which he replied it could be possible that there is 3 + 3 scum or an SK trying to mislynch. That is about as far-fetched as anything. He had obviously not thought much about it.

He then later said that 3 + 3 scum theory is just a theory. But why make that theory? And then to accept it as truth, and use it along with statistics for supporting zero's claim that there is one scum pushing for zero out of 4?

Quote me where I said I suspected Zero was scum. Your entire case is based around that I suspected Zero beforehand, and I don't recall saying any such thing. 

Statistics is a useful tool. You are making it sound like I used purely statistics and was certain from it. Forgive me if i am mistaken (I'm not) but you even said yourself "From my calculations I would suspect the scum team to consist of DarkThanatos, Haxton and Tabaha"  I even said specifically it was a weak case against the 4 players, just that it was stronger then the flavour hunters. I then voted Yoshiya out of those four players because of his other points, and guess who is now nipping at my heels like a wounded dog... 

You specifically asked me... You are indeed correct. You asked me a question, and I answered how my theory would still work under your conditions. IT STILL MAKES LOGICAL SENSE. 

It is just a theory. I did not say it was a fact. and why make a theory? Why make a suspicion? Why voice your scumspect? Why do anything? 

MANTLE. YOU USE YOUR BEST GUESS AS SUPPORTING FOR EVERYTHING YOU DO. It was my best guess as to the situation, and I still maintain that opinion. It would make sense if i was to use my thoughts to support my accusation's don't you think? 

I have replied to the first part.

As far as statistics being a useful tool, you aren't even using them properly. Yes it helps, but you didn't even use it properly. When I said "From my calculations" I was not referring to any mathematical calculations. Haxton didn't come into my suspect list till he voted NT.

Yeah, it was a weak case against 4 players but I never said you used it as a case against them.

Yes, your generalized answer makes no sense to me DT. How can it work the same both ways?

Why make a theory when you have no information about it? Actually no one even cares to make theories during day 1 other than the usual "Oh we have 15 players so it is possible we have 4 scum/3 town and 1 sk " theories. You instead made a theory out of thin air, and supported zero.

Your guess for making that theory was that you thought large games will always have more than one scum faction. To me it felt like justification more than a reason.



tabaha on 27 November 2012
zero129 said:
tabaha said:

Well I'm happy that a mafia got killed tonight without the loss of any town power role.

What I am not happy about is how I acted when 9TC said he had scanned  me and the result was me being scum. He could have been useful for town if he stopped lying. I shouldn't have voted for him when he said i was scum. I failed there and I admit it. I was panicking and facepalming way too much to do things properly. But point is, i can't think of a way to convince people that he was lying and making sure he wouldn't kill me the day after. I literally have zer0 credibility as a player here. And let's be sincere, mafia probably knows pretty well that he was lying and tried/is trying to use it on its favor.

If there's people that believe that 9TC was lying about the scan, please keep an eye in who already voted me on this day.

And btw, mafia is probably thanking god that mario has died tonight and filpped scum. He had no important role and it put some credibility on 9TC so people can trust his scan on me easily

So pretty much you panicked when 9tc placed a vote on you and countered his vote with a vote in return.

And now you saying anyone that suspects you cos of what 9tc a confirmed townie says are most likely scum trying to use what he said against you.

Have i got this all right here??

almost. but you can't generalize it like that



 

Final-Fan on 27 November 2012

Mantle, I do have misgivings about DT, but I don't see that your avenue of attack has any merit at all.

As I understand it now, he had a theory about mafia voting for zero, you SPECIFICALLY ASKED him how it would affect his theory if zero himself were mafia, and he came up with a scenario based on that request reconciling both possibilities. He's wrong that the likelihood of mafia voting zero is exactly the same either way, but I don't really see how defending a pet theory is scummy when I don't see a logical motivation for a mafia member to do so.



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

DarkThanatos on 27 November 2012
mantlepiecek said:

Yes, now I see that you actually didn't say you were suspicious of zero.

I got confused.

However I did ask you and you never replied to that part. You just said that If zero was scum, it would be so and so. Basically, you made a generalized statistical theory on both. That regardless of zero's alignment, the statistics would still remain the same 1 out of 4.

What made me suspicious though is you made a generalized theory and not that you were suspicious of zero, and then tried to make up a theory for it.

You made up a theory to support your generalized theory. The made up theory being 4 + 1, or so, and the generalized one being zero will have at least one scum on him by virtue of 1 out of 4 ratio regardless of his alignment.

@Bolded. I call bullshit. Highlighted below is why.

mantlepiecek said:
Final-Fan said:
mantlepiecek said:

The bolded isn't wrong imo at least.

DT said he is suspicious of zero - then zero said that at least one person amongst 4 who were pushing him were scum - then DT said that it is possible through statistics since there are 1 scum out of 4 players as a ratio - I asked does that work even if zero was scum? LIke he thought at the time - He said it is possible scum of opposite factions/3rd party serial killers may vote other parties since they try and get a mislynch - Said he didn't know how 3rd party players play since he has never been 3rd party so he maybe wrong.

This is in short why I think DT is scum. That is apart from what he said later on - he asked if I was on the second team.

-snip-

Why would he suspect zero is one and someone else is on another? He was using statistics, it was pure mathematics without inclusion of feelings about other players who were pushing for zero.

He said it is possible that someone is scum from the 4 who pushed zero - after saying he is suspicious of zero. To me that means he thought there are 2 scum teams before this. But how and why?

Him saying he doesn't know how 3rd party players play is really really weird in my eyes, since he did say that ninetails could be sk who changed his PM during day 1.

I specifically asked him how is it that he thinks a scum player will try and push suspicion on his teammate on day 1 - to which he replied it could be possible that there is 3 + 3 scum or an SK trying to mislynch. That is about as far-fetched as anything. He had obviously not thought much about it.

He then later said that 3 + 3 scum theory is just a theory. But why make that theory? And then to accept it as truth, and use it along with statistics for supporting zero's claim that there is one scum pushing for zero out of 4?

Nigh on every point is because of that. 



So hyped for Rome 2: Total War