its very simple. either you or whod is evil. you are paired on the list. given that there was one kill yesterday we know that there was one person who was unwatched. the obvious motivation of the mafia is then to frame the person they were watching. whod came in very early (before anyone else that watched you) and reported that he did not blink at you. why would he do that if he was evil? if he assumed that he was the only person who was watching you, it would be better to say that he blinked and since someone got the kill off and you were watched successfully other nights when kills didn't go off, that you were evil. he didn't do that so he's either stupid and evil or good, i prefer to assume good atm.
the best motivation for whod or you if you were evil was to try and frame the other person for the one kill last night, not clear them for it by claiming to not blink. he claimed to not blink and you claimed to blink, your actions more closely correspond to evil than not.
of course should you die innocent we will all kill whod tomorrow :P
Let's look at the facts. 18 players. 15% of that (for a traditional size mafia) is 2.7, rounded up to 3. Throw in each of them allegedly having their own kill and allegedly being not-networked, and it could go up to 4, maybe 5 since on any given night about half of their kills will work. Slightly less, actually because there are masons in the game.
We've killed 1 (one) Angel. You're set to kill a villager tonight, and let's say, another one of their kills goes through tonight. Two dead. 6 left. The three to four angels left at that point are in control of the vote. Assuming they weren't all pants-on-head stupid and at least tried talking to kime, they can throw the bandwagon wherever they so desire. Or at least tie it up with whomever your supposedly clairvoyant network decides to blindly sacrifice tomorrow.
Also, as you noted, Whod claims to have watched me successfully last night, along with another (WildPantha). Yet someone died. Were I an angel, this would've blocked a kill, leaving an angel entirely unsuspected alive. Or someone who was blinked at. Furthermore, the obvious route would be to make it look like the other was guilty. However, it also happens to be the most likely occurence for a villager. I'm being honest as opposed to self-centred.
Moreover, this is exactly what I was warning against at the beginning of the game, getting false leads from blinking data and following them to a village loss.
sorry oats but no. there were 3 mafia to start with. one of them got through last night because he was unsuccessfully watched by me and I sent out orders too late.
only two people were succesfully watched last night to my knowledge that could account for the missing kill. one of them was you and the other was whod.
you are more likely to be evil and if not, then whod goes tomorrow. simple.
EDIT: Also, the "sorry but no" thing. Kinda old. Kinda annoying. I can understand keeping some things close to your chest, but seriously? This is why people sit back and blindly trust the network and go inactive. Refute my numbers. Refute my posturing.
Something more than "no, yer bad 'cause I'm networked and you're not, and if I'm wrong we'll bandwagon this other person".
I'm assuming either you or someone else watched me, Duna, since it sounds like your strategy involves covering all the bases. Don't leave me wondering if I'm going to be your next suspect if Oats is confirmed evil.
Well, I know I'm a villager, I have argued as such and I have been asking people to play Phalla in a way that isn't "Confirm villager -> Network -> vote the way our overlords tell us".
But apparently that makes me evil. And thus bandwagoned. And when I die another person gets bandwagoned on the same evidence as me. The only difference between Whod and I this game has been a few dozen posts and some posturing.
Granted, what evidence there is on me is suspicious but, again, there is another person who looks exactly as guilty as I do. I just can't wait until it turns out that both Whod and I are innocent and a baddie was withholding kills.
Also, still waiting on finding out how dunnumbers knows there are only 3 angels. Seems low, given they can been neutralized so easily.
Anyway, Oats, I think it's early for you to resign yourself to your fate. If a good case can be made for you, people won't vote for you. But if you sit there just saying "i'm gonna die," people are going to think they should vote for you, if only to not look suspicious.
Sorry for all the posts, I'm posting faster than I can think, and I'm thinking fast all of a sudden. I'm going to put good faith in Oats and put a vote towards Whod just to show that it's not necessary to blindly follow Duna.
Not that I have doubts about whose side Duna is on at this juncture, but he has taken an overlord role that I fail to see how he earned. He calls Oats for sure, even though as far as I can see, there is an equal chance it's Whod.
you will know who i watched tonight before i go to bed and who my last suspect is aside from whod/oats.
i know there are 2 mafia left because i know the number of kills on day 1,2,3 and 4. today specifically, i know exactly who was successfully watched. if there are 3 mafia to start that means one of you is evil, if there are 4 to start, that means both of you are evil. if there are 5 to start then the game would already be over since 4 baddies = 4 goodies.
nobody likes dying oats but either you or whod are DEFINITLY evil. you appear to be more evil than him based on the information i have and i would rather go with you first.
Sorry for all the posts, I'm posting faster than I can think, and I'm thinking fast all of a sudden. I'm going to put good faith in Oats and put a vote towards Whod just to show that it's not necessary to blindly follow Duna.
Not that I have doubts about whose side Duna is on at this juncture, but he has taken an overlord role that I fail to see how he earned. He calls Oats for sure, even though as far as I can see, there is an equal chance it's Whod.
you can look at me picking out kime yesterday or at my day 1 reveal which is now confirmed by the death of my mason buddie wildcat if you like....
The only thing about you that made me suspicious of you was musing about the angels. And if kime is to be believed, accurately at that.
EDIT: When ya botched your vote. Swing and a miss was about that.
I'll remember to keep my rampant curiousity to myself next time. And shh... my bbcode is flawless :P
Duna, the thing I don't understand is you claim to know for sure who is evil to a certain degree. I'm assuming this comes from analyzing blink claims here in the public thread, but how do you know who you can trust aside from your late masoned friend?
Sorry for all the posts, I'm posting faster than I can think, and I'm thinking fast all of a sudden. I'm going to put good faith in Oats and put a vote towards Whod just to show that it's not necessary to blindly follow Duna.
Not that I have doubts about whose side Duna is on at this juncture, but he has taken an overlord role that I fail to see how he earned. He calls Oats for sure, even though as far as I can see, there is an equal chance it's Whod.
you can look at me picking out kime yesterday or at my day 1 reveal which is now confirmed by the death of my mason buddie wildcat if you like....
its like you are begging to be suspicious.
It would have been confirmed had Wildcat said anything. At this point it time it is merely very likely.
I'm actually willing to assume that Duna is on the village side, that's not my issue. My issue is that I fail to see how he's uniquely qualified to single-handedly call all the shots.
I'm actually willing to assume that Duna is on the village side, that's not my issue. My issue is that I fail to see how he's uniquely qualified to single-handedly call all the shots.
thats how network heads work. you speak for the network....
Sorry for all the posts, I'm posting faster than I can think, and I'm thinking fast all of a sudden. I'm going to put good faith in Oats and put a vote towards Whod just to show that it's not necessary to blindly follow Duna.
Not that I have doubts about whose side Duna is on at this juncture, but he has taken an overlord role that I fail to see how he earned. He calls Oats for sure, even though as far as I can see, there is an equal chance it's Whod.
you can look at me picking out kime yesterday or at my day 1 reveal which is now confirmed by the death of my mason buddie wildcat if you like....
its like you are begging to be suspicious.
It would have been confirmed had Wildcat said anything. At this point it time it is merely very likely.
ah yes, his name upon death matching up with the name i gave my mason friend on day 1 is just a coincidence!
I'm actually willing to assume that Duna is on the village side, that's not my issue. My issue is that I fail to see how he's uniquely qualified to single-handedly call all the shots.
thats how network heads work. you speak for the network....
besides Wildcat, how have you confirmed that anyone else is trustworthy enough to form a network?
I'm actually willing to assume that Duna is on the village side, that's not my issue. My issue is that I fail to see how he's uniquely qualified to single-handedly call all the shots.
thats how network heads work. you speak for the network....
besides Wildcat, how have you confirmed that anyone else is trustworthy enough to form a network?
Sorry for all the posts, I'm posting faster than I can think, and I'm thinking fast all of a sudden. I'm going to put good faith in Oats and put a vote towards Whod just to show that it's not necessary to blindly follow Duna.
Not that I have doubts about whose side Duna is on at this juncture, but he has taken an overlord role that I fail to see how he earned. He calls Oats for sure, even though as far as I can see, there is an equal chance it's Whod.
you can look at me picking out kime yesterday or at my day 1 reveal which is now confirmed by the death of my mason buddie wildcat if you like....
its like you are begging to be suspicious.
It would have been confirmed had Wildcat said anything. At this point it time it is merely very likely.
ah yes, his name upon death matching up with the name i gave my mason friend on day 1 is just a coincidence!
Have you seen the episode the Phalla is based on?
EDIT: If there is a seer, and you have a very short list of people who should die, this game would be over by now. Or there would be more than 3 angels in the game, since every villager can stop the mafia dead in their tracks.
If I'm so suspicious why isn't it just "you were seered, die" or "whod was seered, you must be evil, die" or "you were seered, Whod die"?
It's day 5, which means 4 seerings. 3 mafia in 18 people with 12 half-role blockers, two masons and a seer.
Also, the Nightengale/Sparrow thing is obvious to anyone who has seen the episode.
What's the name of the seer? The Doctor? Does he have a timey-wimey machine that goes PING!?
yes, let me reveal all of the game mechanics for everyone to see and exploit. thats a smart thing to do. i was only 60% sure you were evil instead of whod but this whole exchange is very reminiscent of the PMs that kime sent me before he died. i'm still marking you for death oats.
With respect to me dying, that's a given. With respect to you being unsure of wanting to kill me, you're lying through your teeth. You had some evidence on kime, but your public argument boiled down to "he posted a lot". I'm now posting a lot and I'm going to die. Meanwhile, the silent, kill-hiding angels are going to survive, your next vote will also miss its mark, and then they'll have a majority.
You've told us there's a seer. You already revealed the pertinent part of the game mechanics. The last half of my previous post was me mocking you. The fact that, if Sally Sparrow and Nightengale both existed, they'd be masons or some other kind of special is pretty bloody apparent if you know the source material.
Posts
its very simple. either you or whod is evil. you are paired on the list. given that there was one kill yesterday we know that there was one person who was unwatched. the obvious motivation of the mafia is then to frame the person they were watching. whod came in very early (before anyone else that watched you) and reported that he did not blink at you. why would he do that if he was evil? if he assumed that he was the only person who was watching you, it would be better to say that he blinked and since someone got the kill off and you were watched successfully other nights when kills didn't go off, that you were evil. he didn't do that so he's either stupid and evil or good, i prefer to assume good atm.
the best motivation for whod or you if you were evil was to try and frame the other person for the one kill last night, not clear them for it by claiming to not blink. he claimed to not blink and you claimed to blink, your actions more closely correspond to evil than not.
of course should you die innocent we will all kill whod tomorrow :P
More thorough reply coming in a bit.
We've killed 1 (one) Angel. You're set to kill a villager tonight, and let's say, another one of their kills goes through tonight. Two dead. 6 left. The three to four angels left at that point are in control of the vote. Assuming they weren't all pants-on-head stupid and at least tried talking to kime, they can throw the bandwagon wherever they so desire. Or at least tie it up with whomever your supposedly clairvoyant network decides to blindly sacrifice tomorrow.
Also, as you noted, Whod claims to have watched me successfully last night, along with another (WildPantha). Yet someone died. Were I an angel, this would've blocked a kill, leaving an angel entirely unsuspected alive. Or someone who was blinked at. Furthermore, the obvious route would be to make it look like the other was guilty. However, it also happens to be the most likely occurence for a villager. I'm being honest as opposed to self-centred.
Moreover, this is exactly what I was warning against at the beginning of the game, getting false leads from blinking data and following them to a village loss.
only two people were succesfully watched last night to my knowledge that could account for the missing kill. one of them was you and the other was whod.
you are more likely to be evil and if not, then whod goes tomorrow. simple.
EDIT: Also, the "sorry but no" thing. Kinda old. Kinda annoying. I can understand keeping some things close to your chest, but seriously? This is why people sit back and blindly trust the network and go inactive. Refute my numbers. Refute my posturing.
Something more than "no, yer bad 'cause I'm networked and you're not, and if I'm wrong we'll bandwagon this other person".
You've seemed kinda suspicious to me for a while now.
I'm pretty much resigned to my fate, I'm just pissed off that I'm dying because the horrendously wrong network deems it.
Duna makes a good case for Oats being evil, but Oats also seemed strongly in line with going for a strong village victory in the beginning.
But apparently that makes me evil. And thus bandwagoned. And when I die another person gets bandwagoned on the same evidence as me. The only difference between Whod and I this game has been a few dozen posts and some posturing.
Granted, what evidence there is on me is suspicious but, again, there is another person who looks exactly as guilty as I do. I just can't wait until it turns out that both Whod and I are innocent and a baddie was withholding kills.
Also, still waiting on finding out how dunnumbers knows there are only 3 angels. Seems low, given they can been neutralized so easily.
However, people will log on, check to see who has had their name in bold red the most times, and vote that way.
EDIT: Do you really want me to make a case for you dying instead of me? Seriously?
Not that I have doubts about whose side Duna is on at this juncture, but he has taken an overlord role that I fail to see how he earned. He calls Oats for sure, even though as far as I can see, there is an equal chance it's Whod.
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
EDIT: When ya botched your vote. Swing and a miss was about that.
i know there are 2 mafia left because i know the number of kills on day 1,2,3 and 4. today specifically, i know exactly who was successfully watched. if there are 3 mafia to start that means one of you is evil, if there are 4 to start, that means both of you are evil. if there are 5 to start then the game would already be over since 4 baddies = 4 goodies.
nobody likes dying oats but either you or whod are DEFINITLY evil. you appear to be more evil than him based on the information i have and i would rather go with you first.
They can do that you know.
Makes other people look evil. And then the village does the work for them.
you can look at me picking out kime yesterday or at my day 1 reveal which is now confirmed by the death of my mason buddie wildcat if you like....
its like you are begging to be suspicious.
I'll remember to keep my rampant curiousity to myself next time. And shh... my bbcode is flawless :P
Duna, the thing I don't understand is you claim to know for sure who is evil to a certain degree. I'm assuming this comes from analyzing blink claims here in the public thread, but how do you know who you can trust aside from your late masoned friend?
It would have been confirmed had Wildcat said anything. At this point it time it is merely very likely.
Well played, sir. Well played.
it can make them look evil too if someone was watching them at the right time, there is little reason to hold back a kill in this particular game.
thats how network heads work. you speak for the network....
Right.
Baddies don't want to survive or anything.
Clearly they get more from being found out by public game mechanics.
ah yes, his name upon death matching up with the name i gave my mason friend on day 1 is just a coincidence!
besides Wildcat, how have you confirmed that anyone else is trustworthy enough to form a network?
.... a seer.
Have you seen the episode the Phalla is based on?
EDIT: If there is a seer, and you have a very short list of people who should die, this game would be over by now. Or there would be more than 3 angels in the game, since every villager can stop the mafia dead in their tracks.
If I'm so suspicious why isn't it just "you were seered, die" or "whod was seered, you must be evil, die" or "you were seered, Whod die"?
It's day 5, which means 4 seerings. 3 mafia in 18 people with 12 half-role blockers, two masons and a seer.
Also, the Nightengale/Sparrow thing is obvious to anyone who has seen the episode.
What's the name of the seer? The Doctor? Does he have a timey-wimey machine that goes PING!?
yes, let me reveal all of the game mechanics for everyone to see and exploit. thats a smart thing to do. i was only 60% sure you were evil instead of whod but this whole exchange is very reminiscent of the PMs that kime sent me before he died. i'm still marking you for death oats.
You've told us there's a seer. You already revealed the pertinent part of the game mechanics. The last half of my previous post was me mocking you. The fact that, if Sally Sparrow and Nightengale both existed, they'd be masons or some other kind of special is pretty bloody apparent if you know the source material.