Conquer Club

Skoffin wrote:

TX AG 90 wrote:All that Skoffin and you never elaborated on what we have been waiting for - How do you know you were targeted for a kill? We need some details on that.

Because I was told as much - stop asking me for more as I will not be telling you anything else at the moment. I don't know why people keep asking me these questions when they are unnecessary to the point.

I only ask because based on this post, we all expected to hear more on your attack:

skoffin wrote:I will make an actual proper post later today; but a quick clarification is that by attacked I mean someone tried to kill me.

And only you know if the question are "unnecessary to the point", because the rest of us know nothing of what happened to you. So how do you expect us to determine its relevancy.

Also, which "point" are you referring to?

TX AG 90 wrote:Dude, I was putting forth another possibility to you being the poisoner and you come at me like that?

I don't owe you anything. Play the game to find scum, not to make friends. If you think I'm scum, say so. If not, then say so. But my criticism of your reasoning is entirely orthogonal to Tobikera's argument.

I'm not fishing, I just want to know if there is a passive poisoner out there. Blacky doesn't have to go into complete specifics, but if he did a night action to someone who is a sting ray (non violent unless stepped on) or something like that and got poisoned I think it's worth noting. So yes, Blacky's action could have triggered someones passive ability.

The passive poisoner theory has been discussed at length. Blacky has had plenty of opportunities to comment on it if he wants to. Continuing to ask just looks scummy IMO.

I'm just trying to put the pieces together and this one fits as well as Tobi's very plausible theory.

Tobi's theory is absurd. He has described a set of circumstances which possibly fit the facts (he misdirected me and blacky got poisoned by me). They fit the circumstances equally as well as any number of any plausible theories (he misdirected me and blacky got poisoned by someone else). Suppose Tobi's theory is right, that I am a poisoner. If he hadn't redirected me, that means someone else would have gotten poisoned last night. The fact that he did target me is entirely irrelevant (to first order) to whether I poisoned someone. His argument is literally "I redirected Mets; blacky got poisoned; therefore Mets is the poisoner." It's hard for me to overstate how absurd that argument is. It's a complete and total non sequitur.

Note that Tobi explicitly did not say what you claim he said, about how blacky is unlikely to be a poisoning target on his own. (Even if that was his point, it's still pretty weak. Town who think blacky is scum could have poisoned him. If he's town, scum could poisoned him. There's too many possibilities.) He has straight up said modus ponens proves Mets is guilty.

Blacky cold help put this theory to rest or support it - his call.

No, in all likelihood neither of these happen. What happens if Blacky says "I visited X last night?" In the entirely likely case that X doesn't claim passive poisoner, all that happens is that Blacky exposes his night information and we get nothing out of it. It's possible that by blacky saying what he did, we lead to a chain of circumstances whereby it sheds more light on what happened to blacky. It's pretty unlikely though.

You adamantly trying to steer the conversation elsewhere (especially when elsewhere is a FoS at you as a poisoner) is suspect.

I responded to Tobi's post several times explicitly engaging with his theory, and I'm continuing to respond to his theory now in my response to you. Choosing to respond to something else in this game does not qualify as "adamantly trying to steer the conversation elsewhere." When a person is suggested as scum, they don't have to drop everything and continue to respond only to that single line of argument for eternity.

TX AG 90 wrote:

skoffin wrote:I will make an actual proper post later today; but a quick clarification is that by attacked I mean someone tried to kill me.

And only you know if the question are "unnecessary to the point", because the rest of us know nothing of what happened to you. So how do you expect us to determine its relevancy.

Also, which "point" are you referring to?

I concur. How you know is extremely relevant to the point. For example, if you're scum, you could be entirely faking this to explain the lack of a night kill last night. Or you might have some other way of knowing that explaining would out you on. I'm not necessarily saying that you should explain how you know, but claiming that it is not germane is a big stretch.

Typical. We get a tiny snippet of information via CLAIMS (so not even confirmed), and the players think they're on a field trip.

All the new information, including the no night kill thing, tells us NOTHING yet in this game.

So can we stop wasting time and exposing town abilities and start to actually scumhunt.

We had counterwagons to jfm, we had obvious rolefishing, we have agenda driven day 2 posts.

Vote people based on actual things said and votes placed. Don't get distracted by setup or flavor. It's a noob trap.

In a more standard game, I would say that we probably don't have 3 people being targetted for a kill so one of them is definitely lying, but in this game it's too soon to tell.

Skoffin wrote: The point is that I was attacked by scum.

These types of statements are exactly why you deserve scrutiny. What you claim to know for sure is that you were attacked. The bit about the attack being by scum is speculation, not a fact, as you state here. And in that same post, you state that you suspect there's also an SK. So the statement-as-fact "I was attacked by scum" is suspicious.

Metsfanmax wrote:If you think I'm scum, say so. If not, then say so.

I don't know if you're scum or not, but you sure are acting weird and contradictory. Maybe that's your style.

1. Tobi provided us a very solid (but not conclusive) theory on the plausibility of you being the poisoner
2. I provided another possibility and asked for more information from blacky (who hasn't been heard from in days)
3. You took me to task and conitnue to do so about finding out more from blacky -YET
4. In the very next post you go after skoffin for not sharing enough

Blacky said he was poisoned and not much else. Skoffin said someone tried to kill him and not much else. You seem to be afraid of blacky saying more and say it's a waste of time asking, but along the same line of reasoning I'm taking with blacky, you are pushing skoffin. Where's the disconnect?

Metsfanmax wrote:

Skoffin wrote: The point is that I was attacked by scum.

These types of statements are exactly why you deserve scrutiny. What you claim to know for sure is that you were attacked. The bit about the attack being by scum is speculation, not a fact, as you state here. And in that same post, you state that you suspect there's also an SK. So the statement-as-fact "I was attacked by scum" is suspicious.

I am a honest flamingo - typing with bird feet is hard enough, but you should just trust this face.

TX AG 90 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:If you think I'm scum, say so. If not, then say so.

I don't know if you're scum or not, but you sure are acting weird and contradictory. Maybe that's your style.

1. Tobi provided us a very solid (but not conclusive) theory on the plausibility of you being the poisoner
2. I provided another possibility and asked for more information from blacky (who hasn't been heard from in days)
3. You took me to task and conitnue to do so about finding out more from blacky -YET
4. In the very next post you go after skoffin for not sharing enough

Blacky said he was poisoned and not much else. Skoffin said someone tried to kill him and not much else. You seem to be afraid of blacky saying more and say it's a waste of time asking, but along the same line of reasoning I'm taking with blacky, you are pushing skoffin. Where's the disconnect?

I am not pushing Skoffin to share more information. I already said as much:

Mets wrote:I'm not necessarily saying that you should explain how you know

I'm pointing out that the information Skoffin has shared is sketchy and so we should be treating Skoffin's information with care, not just accepting it as the gospel.

Skoffin wrote:

TX AG 90 wrote:

Sirius Kase wrote:Blacky wasn't being discussed for a lynch, this poisoning seems random.
'

Not so random. I think Blacky is one of the more experienced players. Therefore, if he is town (which I believe), then he would be a prime target.

Is he? Is he really?

town, prime target or experienced?

Skoffin wrote: Pike - you are looking at the 50% part. There is still the 20% night kill part, which we do not know if it is an instant kill or a delayed kill. It specifically is worded as failure MAY mean death, potentially implying you could have a chance to undo it.

Forgetting his post restriction slip comment, I actually think this is his biggest slip

Not sure who that "his" is referring to

Skoffin wrote:
Blacky and tobi are the most interesting prospects for the day.

I agree that I've been suspicious of blacky because he admitted voting jfm only to get a claim, and how he put forth a super weak case on dakky with just a collection of quotes and virtually no explanation and then acted as the white knight of not lynching pershy without giving town another alternative between a pershy lynch and a no lynch (saying stuff like this:

blacky365 wrote:Oh damn... newbie put pershy at L-1!!!
Can’t believe wot I’m seeing here...

Given that there is a real chance he would die tomorrow I'd rather wait until then to consider him as a lynch candidate though.

Metsfanmax wrote: This is incorrect logic. Things we know:
1) Blacky was poisoned (probably, but not certain)
2) I was redirected by Tobi

How does it logically follow that I am the poisoner of Blacky? There is a logical link missing. (If we had clear evidence that the person who targeted blacky was redirected, your argument would be stronger, as that would be the missing link.) I am not denying modus ponens, I am denying that you are using it correctly. There is still a possible set of circumstances whereby there is a poisoner who is not me, and that person targeted blacky. As long as that is possible one cannot say there is a logical inference that I did it.

I would assume not everybody targetted blacky. My assumption would be at most 2 people (+you), giving you a rough 1/3 chance you're a poisonner. Not enough to warrant a lynch atm, but worth keeping in mind.

BuJaber wrote:In a more standard game, I would say that we probably don't have 3 people being targetted for a kill so one of them is definitely lying, but in this game it's too soon to tell.

Did dakky ever mentionned him knowing he was targetted? I thought he was just assuming he has been

TX AG 90 wrote: I'm not fishing, I just want to know if there is a passive poisoner out there. Blacky doesn't have to go into complete specifics, but if he did a night action to someone who is a sting ray (non violent unless stepped on) or something like that and got poisoned I think it's worth noting. So yes, Blacky's action could have triggered someones passive ability.

So you want blacky to say who he visited, so that person would flavor claim to see if its name looks potentially like it has a passive poisoning ability? I wouldn't bank on that, especially since there might be other redirecting roles out there.

MOD NOTE: I have asked Chap to clear his cache, he seems to still have an ongoing issue.
If that doesn't work, I will forward this to Admin for investigation.
Will keep you all informed, hope to see Chap back soon

Tobikera wrote:Last night I could mis-direct someone's action. According to the mod, my abilities will be different on N2, but that's neither here nor there. My role is a TOWN role.
I am a squid and last night I squirted ink on a chosen person to mis-direct them.
I chose Metsfanmax.
I believe he is the poisoner. He was after someone else (no clue who), and my ink re-directed his action to blacky (who can still be scum, or can be town). I assume the action which was re-directed is targeted at a random player (in this case black).

When you say "my ink re-directed his action to blacky", is this something you know or something you assume? My reading (and presumably others' based on the reactions) of it was that you merely assumed this to be the case (seeing as you do not choose who it is redirected towards), but after ZaBeast's post I realised that there are some who believe the opposite.

Once again, my apologies for my silence over the weekend.
I do find it very difficult to post at weekends due to kiddie duties!!

These are the facts;

• 1. I did not go for food, I played my night action
  2. I did not get a response for my actual night action
  3. The result I received was that I was poisoned
  4. Going on the wording on the PM, it seems there is a healer/doctor role who can reverse the poison, thus saving me

IMO one of the following has occurred;

• 1. I was directly targeted by scum/3rd party
  2. My night action triggered a defensive mechanism causing me to be poisoned
  3. I was never the intended target but was poisoned due to redirection/bussing

As was pointed out earlier, I was never under any scrutiny so cant imagine that scum have targeted me.
Im not sure about bussing or redirection at this point.
Im most convinced that I accidentally bumped in to the wrong person... that person is obviously scum to me!

I dont wish to name the target of my night action as that will just be pointless and allow him to make up a nice story!
I am also not prepared to make a claim at this point.

ZaBeast wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: This is incorrect logic. Things we know:
1) Blacky was poisoned (probably, but not certain)
2) I was redirected by Tobi

How does it logically follow that I am the poisoner of Blacky? There is a logical link missing. (If we had clear evidence that the person who targeted blacky was redirected, your argument would be stronger, as that would be the missing link.) I am not denying modus ponens, I am denying that you are using it correctly. There is still a possible set of circumstances whereby there is a poisoner who is not me, and that person targeted blacky. As long as that is possible one cannot say there is a logical inference that I did it.

I would assume not everybody targetted blacky. My assumption would be at most 2 people (+you), giving you a rough 1/3 chance you're a poisonner. Not enough to warrant a lynch atm, but worth keeping in mind.

No one is claiming I targeted blacky. I did not claim that. Tobi did not claim that. Tobi claims that he applied a random redirect on me, and that it happened to land on blacky. Since there are 14 players alive other than myself, the chance that a random redirect would land on blacky is 7%. Also, his claim has as much evidence behind it as if he had picked his N1 target out of a hat: based on his reasoning, he could have levied exactly the same argument at whoever he applied the redirect to. Perhaps the reason he is so firm in his belief that I am the poisoner is that he already had reason to be suspicious of me based on D1, which would explain why he targeted me for the redirect, and then after got blacky got poisoned he decided to arrange the facts to fit his theory, rather than allow the facts to guide his reasoning.

Metsfanmax seems to have a knack for explaining why black is white, and his fog machine is working hard.

For PIkachon and others: Almost everything we do early on in mafia games is based on assumptions. We do not know the mind of the mod, nor how he set things up. So, yes, based on my action of mis-directing Metsfanmax, which he has readily verified at least twice, his night action was diverted from its intended target and I ASSUME impacted blacky. WHY do I ASSUME this. Well, first, it's the most simplest and most elegant explanation. Second, no one else has indicated that they experienced the diverted action. We have reports of some who say they were attacked, but they don't count because Metsfanmax action was diverted. Blacky is the only one reporting a negative outcome during N1. No one reported a positive outcome, except me....my diversion worked and was verified. Third, if Metsfanmax tried to get a favorite food instead of execute his night action he would be dead, the mod would have reported that he failed, OR he would have been successful and told us about it as his excuse. Fourth, if I mis-directed Metsfanmax's night action, where did it go, if not to blacky?

But, no, he calls the most logical and simplest explanation (1) wrong, (2) ridiculous, and (3) absurd. Please go away, nothing to see here. He protests too much. In any other game that I have played, this kind of information would be immediately acted on. This is better than any slip you all were imagining from D1. This is a verified action, and a reaction. I think the results of N1 make him scummy and his over-the-top, denigrating defense he is throwing up makes him scummy. If y'all can't see your way through his rhetoric, then scum will surely win this game. I am very disappointed that no one has taken my prima facie evidence and voted to lynch Metsfanmax.

Tobikera wrote:Metsfanmax seems to have a knack for explaining why black is white, and his fog machine is working hard.

For PIkachon and others: Almost everything we do early on in mafia games is based on assumptions. We do not know the mind of the mod, nor how he set things up. So, yes, based on my action of mis-directing Metsfanmax, which he has readily verified at least twice, his night action was diverted from its intended target and I ASSUME impacted blacky. WHY do I ASSUME this. Well, first, it's the most simplest and most elegant explanation. Second, no one else has indicated that they experienced the diverted action. We have reports of some who say they were attacked, but they don't count because Metsfanmax action was diverted. Blacky is the only one reporting a negative outcome during N1. No one reported a positive outcome, except me....my diversion worked and was verified. Third, if Metsfanmax tried to get a favorite food instead of execute his night action he would be dead, the mod would have reported that he failed, OR he would have been successful and told us about it as his excuse. Fourth, if I mis-directed Metsfanmax's night action, where did it go, if not to blacky?

But, no, he calls the most logical and simplest explanation (1) wrong, (2) ridiculous, and (3) absurd. Please go away, nothing to see here. He protests too much. In any other game that I have played, this kind of information would be immediately acted on. This is better than any slip you all were imagining from D1. This is a verified action, and a reaction. I think the results of N1 make him scummy and his over-the-top, denigrating defense he is throwing up makes him scummy. If y'all can't see your way through his rhetoric, then scum will surely win this game. I am very disappointed that no one has taken my prima facie evidence and voted to lynch Metsfanmax.

No. Mets is in the right here, and you are wrong. The simplest explanation is that the poisoner targeted Blacky directly and was not interfered with. Why are you so adamant that this explanation has to be dismissed right away?

I find the notion that blacky would never have been targetted by scum to be rediculous.

It is a baseless assumption.

First of all, we don't even know who scum are. And we don't know their intended motivation behind the target they chose.

In fact we don't even know if blacky is even town and not just lying. It certainly would have been an effective lie considering the reactions. But that's okay my point isn't that we should consider him to be scum. Assuming he is town IS a reasonable assumption in my opinion, though I can come up with at least two VERY good reasons for scum to claim what he did.

What ISN'T reasonable is to jump through hoops to force an explanation for all claims and actions at this point in time.

What is the hurry? Why can't we actually wait until we have additional info so that we don't have to fill the gaps ourselves.

You realize that fundamentally the game isn't about night actions at all. You scumhunt through posts and who dies.

I don't townread metsfan and I haven't found his posts to be indicative of someone scumhunting, but the case being presented to support lynching him is just terrible. It encourages haphazard play and lynching based on leaps of faith in hopes of getting lucky.

As far as I'm concerned there is definitely scum among those voting for jfm on day 1 and that's where I'd like to focus on. When we have enough info that we can actually piece together some of the night actions with a reasonable amount of confidence we can lynch based on that then.

Tobikera wrote:Almost everything we do early on in mafia games is based on assumptions. We do not know the mind of the mod, nor how he set things up. So, yes, based on my action of mis-directing Metsfanmax, which he has readily verified at least twice, his night action was diverted from its intended target and I ASSUME impacted blacky. WHY do I ASSUME this. Well, first, it's the most simplest and most elegant explanation. Second, no one else has indicated that they experienced the diverted action. We have reports of some who say they were attacked, but they don't count because Metsfanmax action was diverted. Blacky is the only one reporting a negative outcome during N1. No one reported a positive outcome, except me....my diversion worked and was verified. Third, if Metsfanmax tried to get a favorite food instead of execute his night action he would be dead, the mod would have reported that he failed, OR he would have been successful and told us about it as his excuse. Fourth, if I mis-directed Metsfanmax's night action, where did it go, if not to blacky?

We don't know what Metsfanmax's action was so it could have gone anywhere, in most games a large portion of all actions don't give any form of feedback to the one targeted by them. For all we know Metsfanmax had originally targeted blacky365 with something that could have prevented the poisoning. Your entire case hinges on scum not wanting to target blacky365, and well...

BuJaber wrote:I find the notion that blacky would never have been targetted by scum to be rediculous.

It is a baseless assumption.

Further, if we are to take Skoffin at her word then why not accuse Metsfanmax of that attack also? -Skoffin has not been particularly active throughout this game and surely that's a good a reason for scum not to NK her as there is for blacky365.

—

Metsfanmax wrote:

Skoffin wrote: The point is that I was attacked by scum.

These types of statements are exactly why you deserve scrutiny. What you claim to know for sure is that you were attacked. The bit about the attack being by scum is speculation, not a fact, as you state here. And in that same post, you state that you suspect there's also an SK. So the statement-as-fact "I was attacked by scum" is suspicious.

Scum =/= Mafia, scum also includes malignant third party roles such as SKs.

BuJaber wrote:As far as I'm concerned there is definitely scum among those voting for jfm on day 1 and that's where I'd like to focus on. When we have enough info that we can actually piece together some of the night actions with a reasonable amount of confidence we can lynch based on that then.

Speaking of jfm, his last post was on Saturday and he has posted only 3 times in D2 which is in conjunction with being "confirmed" as a self-protecting doctor pretty much scummarining. And his posts D2 are gibberish, including the vote on me just for the sake of voting.

I asked you all D1, will his claim give him a free pass to the end of the game?

His claim has nothing to do with me giving jmf a free pass. His play has.

@tobi, I have to agree with several of the other guys pointing out that your explanation (while it might be correct) is unlikely. I'm not going to reiterate all the reasons put forward, but I'm disappointed to know that you seem to think that scumhunting is only based on night actions. Hopefully, I have misunderstood you when saying that your "evidence" is better that whatever came out of D1.

@Pika, who would you vote now? I mean, if you had to...

dakky21 wrote:

BuJaber wrote:As far as I'm concerned there is definitely scum among those voting for jfm on day 1 and that's where I'd like to focus on. When we have enough info that we can actually piece together some of the night actions with a reasonable amount of confidence we can lynch based on that then.

Speaking of jfm, his last post was on Saturday and he has posted only 3 times in D2 which is in conjunction with being "confirmed" as a self-protecting doctor pretty much scummarining. And his posts D2 are gibberish, including the vote on me just for the sake of voting.

I asked you all D1, will his claim give him a free pass to the end of the game?

I seem not to have to defend myself as much on D2 but i am here

You're not either scumhunting or attacking anyone, so whats the purpose of a self-defending doctor who is here but doing absolutely nothing?

Why would a doctor lurk? There is a person on need of medical care. Is doctor obligated to help him? I don't know, but I do know if the doctor speaks up, he could commit himself to something he doesn't want or intend to do. Sometimes it's best to lurk and decide without saying too much.

Sirius Kase wrote:Why would a doctor lurk? There is a person on need of medical care. Is doctor obligated to help him? I don't know, but I do know if the doctor speaks up, he could commit himself to something he doesn't want or intend to do. Sometimes it's best to lurk and decide without saying too much.

They are not related. You can scumhunt while keeping information secret. Scumhunting has nothing to do with disclosing who you plan on using your action on.

jfm10 wrote:
I seem not to have to defend myself as much on D2 but i am here

So the only reason you have to post is to defend yourself from potential accusations?

And I agree that tobi's accusation is baseless. I was working under the wrong assumptions.