Zombie Apocalypse - Game Over: SK (T1mm) Wins

For your simulated organized crime needs.

Moderators: jestingrabbit, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
greenlover
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:56 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby greenlover » Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:56 pm UTC

Tim - actually, nothing you've said so far answers any of my questions. See, I didn't vote for you because early random votes are scummy, or misreading the rules is scummy - I voted for you because its unusual for you to do either of those things, at least in the games I have played with you. The idea behind that is that I hadn't played with you when you were mafia before, so your change in playing style is because of a change in alignment. However...now I have a played a game with you in which you were mafia, and you didn't play like you are now. So now its pretty clear that your change in playing style isn't due to a change in alignment. Now its just...well, unreadable. :P

Also, I guess I should respond to what TMG stated in his last post -

TheMaskedGecko wrote:What's interesting about this is that GL took this up later in the game and votes for tim.
I...did? I didn't realize that Misnomer was arguing meta against Tim.

TheMaskedGecko wrote:And yes, I know I offered him townie points for this, but in hindsight that whole post is scummy.
Flip. Flop. Without a logical justification, to top it off.

I'm going to do a re-read, and an analysis of the remaining players. I'll post again once it's done.

User avatar
t1mm01994
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:16 pm UTC
Location: San Francisco.. Wait up, I'll tell you some tales!

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby t1mm01994 » Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:10 pm UTC

I'm changing meta because my old meta caused me to get lynched very early. Check the difference between Amy's Surprise and Hogwarts, and see how there are MILES between there.. I don't have a meta down yet.

User avatar
Woopate
Scrapple
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:34 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby Woopate » Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:49 pm UTC

I don't have much time right now. I'll throw some opinions down later tonight, for now, everything misnomer's posted in sequence:

Spoiler:
Misnomer wrote:Yo, I'm Misnomer, I've just watched my first superbowl and you shouldn't lynch me because I'm drunk. Also, you shouldn't lynch me because I'm actually pretty decent at scumhunting.

Initial thoughts on the setup is that our potential cop/cops is/are pretty weak - they can confirm town or scum, but they can't confirm sk. Indeed, if they get a sk/doctor result, they might unwittingly screw town over by revealing it: either way, they'd be announcing a target for scum, and the death of said target would boost scum's survival chances.

Misnomer wrote:
TheMaskedGecko wrote: wrote:
Never played a game with an SK in, can someone more experienced tell me what usually happens. It would seem that they have no real reason to pick a side. However my guess would be that they'll bump of a couple of town first and then just keep balancing the sides out, to keep us fighting as long as possible. On the last night they'll want one town and one scum but by that point we'll have lost anyway. This is just spec, I would appreciate if someone would confirm/correct this
That's more or less what usually happens, although I'd be surprised if they deliberately went exclusively after town first - they'll probably want to deal an early blow against scum in order to see off an early endgame, but avoid wiping them out completely until town's numbers have also been thinned.

Mod: are scum and sk kills processed simultaneously, or does one take priority?
Might have important implications for the endgame.

trineroks: yes, a pure random lynch would be useless, but D1 lynches are rarely actually random. Even if people claim they're just picking names out of a hat, who votes for who can still prove highly useful for later scumhunting. Also, it's a 4/11 chance of hitting anti-town, which ain't too shabby tbh.

NInja'd: what T1mm said, but... T1mm, is your vote on GoP serious?

Misnomer wrote:
t1mm01994 wrote: wrote:
Seeing how /everyone/ always complains about boring day 1's, I figured I might do some spicing up... But if someone can tell me it's a bad idea to lynch GoP, I'd be happy to believe it.


Yes, D1s are boring, and any effort at spicing them up is to be commended. But why exactly did you choose GoP? Is it actually based on 'statistics'? And is this mainly to generate discussion, or are you actually pushing for a GoP lynch over rival candidates?

Misnomer wrote:Yikes, the sk is nk immune? Totally missed that in my initial skim. That changes the balance somewhat, and makes the sk a far more dangerous opponent for town, as we cannot hold out hope of them being killed in the mafia crossfire.

However, it's important to note that an early sk lynch is just desirable, not vital - we shouldn't be avoiding lynching people who we think might be scum just because a sk lynch would potentially be better.

Misnomer wrote:Not entirely sure I agree with you there eculc. There may come a point mid-game where a sk lynch would be suicide, as it would hand scum a majority. But even with the possibility of a mikeD modkill (and that would appear to be a slim possibility, as we seem to have acquired an extra player in the signups topic - you might want to look into that Mod) a D1 sk lynch would give us 5/3, which would not be endgame territory. As I've said though, I consider the point moot - at this stage, we should be hunting anyone vaguely anti-town, as wider tactical considerations are at best a distraction for the time being.

Misnomer wrote:
t1mm01994 wrote: wrote:
I've got very little to go on so far, as every post so far has basically been composed of 1 or 2 rules, saying very little to nothing at all.

So, to change that, I will try and post a somewhat longer post.
The doctor(s) are very risky this game, and so are the cops. Doctoring someone might protect scum from a SK night kill, copping someone might lead to a doctor/SK result, which is not too great in itsself. Vanilla town/cop and Mafia are excellent resutls though, so cops should pretty much go on their usual jobs of copping whoever they think is scummy. In late game though, if SK is still alive and we don't have 2 dead doctors, we shouldn't trust any doc claims, as it's a really easy move for SK to make. On the other hand, scum can pretty easily claim cops, because they can produce results true or false as they please, just as long as they avoid the Doc/SK.
tl;dr: Don't believe any claims you see in the forseeable future.

FoS: t1mm01994

Scum cannot be protected by doctors - there is absolutely no reason for doctors to worry about using their powers.

Misnomer wrote:
Radical_Initiator wrote:Misnomer snapped a little early, but early game seems a good time for shooting without looking first.

Shooting? Blimey, it was only an FoS.

But yeah, regarding the various suspicions that my FoS has earned me, I would like to point out that I did NOT FoS t1mm because he appeared to misunderstand the rules. Instead, I voiced my suspicions because he appeared to be soft-advocating a course of action that was harmful to town. Advocating tactics harmful to town is scummy - the defence that the rules were not read therefore cannot be taken at face value. It might be true, but it might also be cover.

Not to mention it's bad logic regardless - even in normal games where a doctor can protect anti-town factions from other anti-town kills, the use of doctor powers is hardly considered 'risky'. It read, and still reads to me, like a subtle attempt to put doubt into the heart of potentially newbie doctors and dissuade them from using their powers.

My FoS stands.


Now, I appear to have fallen behind somewhat, Readthrough and more comprehensive post to follow.

Misnomer wrote:Big messy analysis post go go go!


Trinerocs:
1. First post and immediately advocates day skip. I hold with the consensus that this is a disasterous move, but I am aware that it is often standard play elsewhere. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and call it neutral.
2. Queries presence of non-existant games mechanics. Interesting but irrelevant
3. Defence of NL plan and explanation of non-present mechanics. Benefit of the doubt continues and I call it neutral
4. Calls for speedy SK lynch. Neutral
5. Question on death role revealing. Neutral
6. Points out that SK is kill-immune, not lynch-immune Neutral
7. Backs of from NL position. Neutral
8. Becomes the third player in as many posts to plead newbieness. Neutral
9. Seems to imply that they won't scumhunt! I'm going to flag this as slightly scummy, but tbh it's more bizarre than anything else.
10. Defence of above position. Neutral.
11. EBWOP to correct typo. Irrelevant
12. Snarky response to fearless' FoS. Neutral
13. Irrelevant
14. Says he opposes fearless lynch. Neutral

Fearless:
1. Intro post - states unfamilarity with extra roles concept. Neutral
2. Claims cuteness - Irrelevant.
3. Analyses the problems with SK removal and doc claiming tactics. Slightly townie.
4. confusion at TMG lynch-immune sk claim. Neutral
5. Calls for lurker lynch. Ever so slightly scummy, because lurker lynches tend to harm town more than scum.
6. Irrelevant post regarding eculc's internet access.
7. Comments that Trin should not be suspected. Neutral
8. Defends self from fearless - votes radical after rejecting newbie defence. Bit of a wishy-washy case, but then it is a D1 vote. Neutral
9. Unvotes, and FoSs trine and eculc for various forms of low-content activity. Neutral
10. Defends actions, nothing much new. Neutral
11. EBWOPs and accuses Trine of jumping on the bandwagon against them. Neutral

GoP:
1. Bizarre intro. Shoots down day skip suggestion - as GoP is a regular player here though, he's just reflecting consensus, so this can't be seen as townie. Neutral
2. Brief rejection of the claim he's good at scum (not to self: check this). Neutral
3. Decent setup explanation and analysis. Slightly townie.
4. Says he is pinged by trine, but that this could be due to different meta issues. Neutral
5. Calls eculc out on GL vote, and votes for him. Slightly townie
6. Questions trine's decision not to scumhunt. Neutral

TMG:
1. Points out setup makes follow-the-cop difficult and allows for easy scum claims. Slightly townie
2. Some irrelevant stuff on non-present mechanics. Queries what usually happens in games with SK. FoSs trine for nl suggestion. All fairly neutral
3. Says we can't trust our doctors Neutral
4. Believes SK is lynch immune, mistaken but not an obvious scumping - Neutral
5. Clarifies mistake. Neutral.
6. Clarification of his position re: dockilling. Neutral
7. First impressions post - key points are suspicions of eculc and RI, with a content-incuding lurker-vote on GL. Slightly townie
8. FoSs eculc for their GL vote. Neutral, as it comes after consensus emerged.
9. Unvotes GL following the creation of content. Neutral
10. Irrelevant post about trine's usual haunts.
11. Analysis/summary post. Thinks eculc and fearless scummy, votes eculc. Stresses closeness of deadline. Slightly townie

Radical_Instigator:
1. Contentless intro post. Irrelevant
2. Humourous yet irrelevant post.
3. Thinks 2 doctors at the end will tie the game. Neutral
4. Superbowl discussion. Irrelevant
5. Underworld discussion. Irrelevant
6. Points out to eculc that sk cannot be nk'd. Neutral
7. FoSs Trine for NL advocacy - safe, neutral.
8. More of the above. Neutral
9. Complains that there's not much to go on, but doesn't support T1mm suspicions. Neutral
10. Defends self, pleads newbieness, wants to know what content they are supposed to be producing. Neutral
11. Content! Few clear conclusions, but content nonetheless, and a quick scan makes it seem sensible. Slightly townie.

t1mm:
1. Introduces self, links to help post - noble, but pretty irrelevant gameplay wise.
2. Random vote is random and apparently aimless. Weak-argued lynches are of course a standard feature of D1 voting, but there should be at least some reasoning or purpose behind it, otherwise D1 becomes a massive waste of time. Slightly Scummy
3. Explains why NL is a bad idea, because D1 lynches aren't random lynches. Semi-experienced, so familiar with consensus, therefore neutral
4. Says vote on GoP is serious, without putting forward any reasons why it should be serious. slightly scummy
5. Says he voted GoP because he'd rather lynch someone experienced if he had to random lynch. But just the post before he said that D1s shouldn't be about random lynches. Scummy
6. Unvoted his 'serious' vote on the basis of a non-defence. slightly scummy
7. Claims the doctors are in for a hard time, being in the worst-case scenarios only able to protect 4 out of 10 players. Neutral, though significant for later.
8. Ah, the post that earned him my FoS. Points out how 'risky' doctors allegedly are, which as I have said above appears scummy. Furthermore, upon re-analysis his claim to have not read the rule fulls flat - his previous post clearly reveals that he knew doctors could not protect scum. SCUMMY
9. Says he's not used to the mechanics. Neutral
10. Claims initial vote was a joke, contradicting his earlier claims. Weak suspicions of GoP. Slightly scummy
11. EBWOPs.


mostlynormal:
1. Picks up on the doctor's ability to know the result of their actions. Runs through the potential implications of this, and also puts forward a plan to deal with claiming. Slightly townie
2. Not sure what to make of this: more useful doctor analysis, but then FoSs TMG for advocating sk lynch - as has been pointed out, SK is also the natural enemy of town. Neutral on balance
3. Agrees with eculc that my actions are suspicious, citing meta saying that T1mm has a history of appearing suspicious (therefore presumably I should let it slide? don't agree with that logic at all...). Rejects suspicion of trine. Basic discussion of setup issues and doubts. Neutral
4. Votes for RI on the grounds that they've been producing little content. I think there's a bit of a case to be made here, but it's the kind of accusation anyone can make, so I'm gonna call it Neutral.
5. Switches to voting for fearless after they vote for RI - this pings a little, and make me wonder if mn nd RI could be scumbuddies - though this is only a doubt in my mind as opposed to an actual provable theory yet. Still, slightly scummy.
6. Accuses eculc of plagiarism. Neutral
7. Reiterates suspicions of fearless. Neutral

eculc:
1. Intro post. Supports the Patriots therefore Scummy. Irrelevant
2. Irrelevant post about trouble getting internet access.
3. Same as above - irrelevant
4. Points out that mikeD hasn't posted yet, and suggests preferring scum lynch over sk lynch on the back of this - misses fact that sk can't be nk'd. Neutral
5. Corrects post, but stands by main points - more 10-player spec. Neutral
6. FoS's me for my Fos on eculc, but says there is admittedly little to go on. I'm going to resist my OMGUS instincts and call this neutral.
7. Maintains suspicions of me, rejects suspicions of radical. FoS fearless for active lurking. Sticks an immediate second lurker-vote on GL - completely uncalled for, and smacks of bandwagon formation. Scummy
8. Immediately unvotes in face of opposition, pleads newbieness. Neutral
9. Rejects suspicions of radical. Neutral
10. Summary/analysis post - finds people suspicious that other people have found suspicious, not much new content. Neutral
11. Brief response to plagiarism allegations. Neutral

Greenlover:
1. Argues that removing SK should be town priority. I'd argue against this analysis, but it's not scummy by itself. neutral
2. Voices suspicions of eculc and t1mm, both of which seem sound to me. Slightly townie

Woopgate:
1. Weeeeird intro. Irrelevant


Ok, that's a lot of stuff there but my main suspicions are T1mm and eculc.

Vote: T1mm
FoS: eculc

T1mm has not only acted suspiciously, but has repeatedly contradicted himself, for example by claiming to have no knowledge that doctors couldn't protect scum when he previous posts clearly discuss this. My scumdar is going wild, and I think he would make an excellent D1 lynch.

Failing that, I'll vote eculc if I'm able to get online again before the deadline.


The thing that really stands out to me is the targeting of t1mm. One of the posts fingers t1mm, and two others back that up, and in his "post-by-post" analysis, where Misnomer labels almost everything t1mm did as scummy. That's a pretty hard push towards lynching t1mm. And it pushes t1mm pretty strongly into townie books for me. If it was a FoS on scum to avoid suspicion later I think he would have backed off after a post or two, lest he actually endanger a fellow scum. Though, that could easily be some WIFOM, since iirc (like I said not much time) there wasn't much support from others on the t1mm accusations, so he just kept pressing the attack, waiting to back down until some other people jumped on the wagon and actually endangered him.

Also the loss of a doctor in trine is a pretty big blow. We now either have no power roles, 1 doctor, 1 cop, a doc and a cop, or 2 cops. Someone worked out the probability on that before, any chance we could see how this influences things? (If nobody's run the numbers by the time I can post more in depth I'll see what I can do.)

I think this coming night phase the sk will go for someone he/she reads as a strong townie. Since it's unlikely the mafia night killed one of their own, Misnomer was a sk kill. I'm gonna take a look see who might have wanted Misnomer out of the picture. (in hindsight, this might be t1mm. No fingers yet, but there's a pretty clear motive. t1mm still reads pretty townie to me)

User avatar
TheMaskedGecko
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 10:20 am UTC
Location: Wales,UK

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby TheMaskedGecko » Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:59 pm UTC

@GL: I'm sorry, I hadn't fully twigged that you were playing the meta. I'd assumed your suspicion and subsequent vote were mostly based on tim's randomish vote. To be fair though the post in which you announce your suspicions begins with the quote from Tim unvoting GoP. The other person to vote on that was misnomer and when he flipped scum the link seemed clear to me. This is also the reason for my flip flop. The vote for Tim seemed of the wall enough that I assumed that scum wouldn't do it. However, taken in conjunction with a similar move from confirmed scum it seemed a lot less towny.
ConMan wrote:the neighbourhood’s favourite lizard

Yeah, I don't care if it's out of context, it massages my ego and so it stays.

Mostlynormal
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby Mostlynormal » Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:14 am UTC

What jumps out at me the most right now is the sheer amount of FoS's that were piled upon eculc. It seems there are two ways to read this--scum were quietly distancing themselves from a scummy looking scumbuddy while trying to get a townie (fearless) lynched or scum were trying to pile up suspicion on eculc so they could get another townie lynch D2. It was almost like an FoS bandwagon was rolling, but since that's so unprecedented I don't know how to read it.

While I'm unsure about TMG's alignment, I can totally understand GoP's vote for him. TMG found it suspicious because it was so close to the deadline, but that seems weird to me because it was also close enough to the deadline that fearless was obviously going to be lynched.

It's true that Misnomer was attacking T1mm pretty hard when almost no one else was, so if it was distancing, it was pretty strange distancing. I'm feeling pretty good (though not positive) about T1mm's towniness right now.

Normally I would take a look at the people who joined the bandwagonny looking vote on fearless, but One of them is me, one of them I just called pretty townie, one of them (R_I) be scum but is newbie and so it's harder to tell, one of them is the orange one, who showed up late in the day and so far has been pretty helpful, and lastly, there's eculc, who's vote is also a possible bandwagon vote.

So R_I and eculc had the two scummiest looking fearless votes yesterday. I've got a lot of suspicions right now, ranging everywhere for a lot of reasons, so I'd like to get more information before narrowing things down.

User avatar
Gopher of Pern
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:28 am UTC
Location: Central Coast, Australia

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby Gopher of Pern » Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:36 am UTC

Misnomer's distancing from t1mm is exactly what I would suspect of him. It actually makes me a bit more suspicious of t1mm. Along with t1mm's demeanor so far today, I would not be unhappy to see them lynched.

TMG, what was wrong with my timing? I didn't agree with the fearless lynch, but there was nothing I could really do to stop it, so all I was really doing was letting my opinion be known. Plus, you called me names! Meany!
Look In My Face
Stare In My Soul
I Begin To Stupefy

User avatar
Woopate
Scrapple
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:34 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby Woopate » Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:48 am UTC

One thing that jumps out to me is that Misnomer DIDN’T join the Fearless bandwagon in any way shape or form. No votes, no fingers. That strikes me as bizarre behaviour. This might be some crazy amount of forethought, where mafia (or at least Misnomer) saw that Fearless was rapidly being swamped over by votes, knew that there was no need to add to the pile, and throw some doubt which would be given more credence on day 2 (based on the premise that the suspicions of someone who didn’t bandwagon are less likely to be mafia treachery). I think that this was not a pattern followed by other scum, though.

I agree with the idea that there were a lot of fingers on eculc, and that there might be something there in the way of useful data. I’ll throw down a list of everyone who fingered(*snicker snicker* I won’t change!) eculc, with an asterisk on fingers that were chronologically “replaced”. Actually, even better, I’ll throw down a list of FoSes in general.

eculc:
TheMaskedGecko*(later FoSsed trineroks)
TheMaskedGecko**(later becomes vote)
Misnomer
Radical_initiator
Woopate
greenlover*(simultaneous with finger on Fearless)

Trineroks:
TheMaskedGecko*(later FoSsed eculc)
Radical_initiator*(later FoSsed eculc)

T1mm01994:
Misnomer*(changes FoS to vote, then FoSses eculc)

Misnomer:
eculc*(later FoSsed fearless)

Fearless:
eculc**(later becomes vote)
greenlover

greenlover:
TheMaskedGecko(day 2)



Fearless did not FoS anyone, but voted eculc. Difficult to call that an OMGUS though, given the flak Fearless was getting, and really, the best bet for Fearless to recover was to try to get people to change votes to the second scummiest (by popular opinion.)

Same with MostlyNormal, who voted Fearless and fingered no one.

Misnomer, who was scum, was only FoSsed by eculc, and voted on by no one. Is eculc a possible sk candidate? I know I’m currently analyzing the flak on him, but it seems to me if he fingered Misnomer, perhaps something happened that solidified his reading of misnomer as scum, so eculc noted that and then voted the bandwagon to be less conspicuous. I’ll take another look and come back to this later.

TMG fingered eculc, then trine, then eculc, then voted eculc. On day 2, Gecko Fingered greenlover. Something seems off about Gecko, but I’m not ready to call it a FoS just yet.

On to eculc. When looking at the data like this, and in rereading the posts wherein the fingers were thrown, it strikes me that not a few (more like a bunch) of the fingers happened alongside a vote for someone else. As of right now, I do not think that there was some sort of mafia FoS bandwagon plot to generate suspicion for day 2. I actually think that he gave off just that much scumminess.

User avatar
Woopate
Scrapple
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:34 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby Woopate » Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:52 am UTC

EBWOP: Newb question: I just noticed I put a lot of crap in bold this post, as well as in my post history of Misnomer, I left the bolding on his votes and FoS. Given that bold talks to mods, am I allowed to use it for other reasons? If not I'm sorry and will stop.

User avatar
Woopate
Scrapple
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:34 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby Woopate » Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:17 am UTC

With regards to what I said about eculc possibly being sk, and strongly suspecting Misnomer, I just reread the context of the FoS, and it was an early game semi-random finger. I think the situation which I posited is less likely now.

User avatar
t1mm01994
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:16 pm UTC
Location: San Francisco.. Wait up, I'll tell you some tales!

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby t1mm01994 » Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:47 am UTC

Quick response to everything so far: MN, I think you agree that eculc appeared scummy day one. However, I wasn't intending to put a vote on it as it looked more like new town than scum... The FoS is just there as a motivation to step it up, post some content, and make it good (it worked on R_I).
I still can't really get my head around GoP. He's said very little except stating the overly obvious (trine seems to come from a different meta, TMG is buddying him), and even that he has not said very convincingly. A quote snipe from a few posts back:
Gopher of Pern wrote:I dont agree with everything TMG said (especially about bass. Bass rocks!), but i don't find the disagreements scummy.

Wait. You don't respond to everyone, so it's pretty unclear why you responded to this one, and you only reacted to say you disagree with stuff (unclear what "everything" is), but you don't think he's scummy for it. Could you elaborate on this point a bit, especially combined with the vote for TMG for him buddying you? I'm currently buying a GoP + TMG scumteam quite well.

User avatar
TheMaskedGecko
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 10:20 am UTC
Location: Wales,UK

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby TheMaskedGecko » Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:51 am UTC

It seems that the calls of buddying are reaching an critical mass. So it seems I'm going to have to do a post-by-post walk through of why GoP seemed so towny to me:

He didn't react defensively too tim's silly vote at the start. If he had he would have appeared scummy but I would have been surprised if any non-newb player had made that mistake. neutral

He has similar thoughts to me regarding our lynch priorities. slight-town

He gives trine the benefit of the doubt. neutral

votes eculc for his GL vote. towny

And that's as far as it gets before he accuses me of buddying. He hadn't done anything immensely towny but was the only one who had done nothing questionable or scummy. So I made favourable (fuck off american spell check) assessment, one that says "No change" and give him credit for a towny move. He went to the top of my town list more by default than anything else as everyone else seemed more scummy to different degrees. I don't see the point where I said something unreasonably buddyish.

A proper game analysis will follow later today.
ConMan wrote:the neighbourhood’s favourite lizard

Yeah, I don't care if it's out of context, it massages my ego and so it stays.

User avatar
eculc
Wet Peanut Butter
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:25 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby eculc » Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:08 pm UTC

Alright, now that my PC is working again, I'll start off D2 with some (short) analysis.

preliminary feelings:

Woopate: He's posted good content that seems to be pretty unbiased, some of which are general summaries. not much to say yet, but leaning town.

TMG: probably town so far. Posts plenty of big analysis posts, and is usually pretty unbiased. his first post D2 pointed out some of misnomer's actions, which seems pretty accurate. leaning town.

T1mm: points out misnomer's reaction to his rando-vote, and FoSes GoP due to misnomer protecting them. later on, explains the change in meta as trying something to not get lynched early. I'm not sure If I should read that as giving a reason to cover himself, or as a real reason to change it. those seem to be the most important points so far, so Neutral.

GoP: nothing much so far D2, besides the reaction to TMG pointing him out. looking back at D1, doesn't seem to say much, so Neutral

That's all for now. I'll be back in the none-too-distant future to add some more thoughts.
Um, this post feels devoid of content. Good luck?
For comparison, that means that if the cabbage guy from Avatar: The Last Airbender filled up his cart with lettuce instead, it would be about a quarter of a lethal dose.

User avatar
eculc
Wet Peanut Butter
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:25 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby eculc » Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:16 pm UTC

Alright, now to continue:

GL: defends his vote for t1mm on basis of changing meta, which is reasonable enough. I'd like to think that meta isn't necessary to play the game, but if someone *is* using it, and someone abruptly changes, that's a sign of something. what that might be, though is unclear. Neutral

No-one else has posted yet, so I'll hold off judgement until then.

As far as woopate's suggestion of probabilities:

total people is down to 8, with spread of 5/2/1.

there are at most 2 power roles, which leaves at least 3 vanilla town.

Here's a list of all the possible power-role cases:

0 doc 0 cop
0 doc 1 cop
0 doc 2 cop
1 doc 0 cop
1 doc 1 cop

as you can see, there's a 2/5 chance that we have a doctor still, and a 3/5 chance that we have at least 1 cop. there's a 1/5 chance that we have 2 cops, and a 2/5 chance that we have none. there's a 1/5 chance that we only have 1 doctor and no cops and the same for 1 cop and no doctors. Worst-case is that we have no power roles left, which is 1/5 chance.
Um, this post feels devoid of content. Good luck?
For comparison, that means that if the cabbage guy from Avatar: The Last Airbender filled up his cart with lettuce instead, it would be about a quarter of a lethal dose.

User avatar
t1mm01994
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:16 pm UTC
Location: San Francisco.. Wait up, I'll tell you some tales!

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby t1mm01994 » Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:49 pm UTC

Drop the TMG GoP case, I'll figure that out later. First things first, which means that in this case
Vote: Eculc
for making huge posts with little to no content, and posting statistics which very likely are false. We don't know what randomizing method the mod used, so we can't stat anything there. Mod might have thought 1cop and 1 doc are just fine, I'll just spread a bit of wine around it..
And eculc missed me making a case against GoP TMG, and hasn't listed anyone as scummy for a while...
Trying to keep his neck off the chopping block so to speak.
eculc, I gave you time, I gave you hints, just... You still look scummy.

User avatar
eculc
Wet Peanut Butter
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:25 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby eculc » Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:03 pm UTC

t1mm01994 wrote:Drop the TMG GoP case, I'll figure that out later. First things first, which means that in this case
Vote: Eculc
for making huge posts with little to no content, and posting statistics which very likely are false. We don't know what randomizing method the mod used, so we can't stat anything there. Mod might have thought 1cop and 1 doc are just fine, I'll just spread a bit of wine around it..
And eculc missed me making a case against GoP TMG, and hasn't listed anyone as scummy for a while...
Trying to keep his neck off the chopping block so to speak.
eculc, I gave you time, I gave you hints, just... You still look scummy.


huge posts with no content...I'm not trying to be the best player ever, but I'm still not sure what the problem is.

stats that are false...if you want to work them out yourself, go right ahead. If I made a mistake, I apologize, but my stats are referring to what *might* be true. I'd appreciate it if you didn't accuse me of blatantly lying by posting FACTS. yes, mod might have decided that 1 cop 1 doc is fine. but WE DON'T KNOW, do we? that's why those are there.

and you're accusing me of not making a big deal over something? sorry, it didn't seem like something to get killed over. and yes, I'm trying to not get lynched. is that so wrong?

I feel like I should OMGUS, but until now you haven't done much wrong. so FoS: T1mm until something else happens.

and no, I haven't marked anyone as scummy in my first two posts this week. am I supposed to have done that already? you didn't seem to have much of a problem with it until now.
Um, this post feels devoid of content. Good luck?
For comparison, that means that if the cabbage guy from Avatar: The Last Airbender filled up his cart with lettuce instead, it would be about a quarter of a lethal dose.

User avatar
t1mm01994
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:16 pm UTC
Location: San Francisco.. Wait up, I'll tell you some tales!

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby t1mm01994 » Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Luckily, the OMGUS comes out, albeit not so far as a vote.
As far as stastics go, if I have a dice with 5 2's and a 1, the only 2 options are that
1: I throw a 1.
2: I throw a 2.
I hope you agree that even though there are 2 options, there is not a 50% chance to throw a 2. This is similar, we just don't know how many 2s there are.

But alas, I'm drifting off subject.
Let me break it to you in a less straight-up offensive way, (sorry for the offensive part):
If you had to lynch 3 people right now, who would they be, and why?

User avatar
Woopate
Scrapple
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:34 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby Woopate » Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:30 am UTC

Alright. I Think that was directed at eculc, but I'm going to expand that challenge to everyone. It seems like a good way to get useful data. Also this is because people have been mentioning that a lot of what I've been posting has been summaries or statistics, and while I've been trying to include opinion in those posts, down the road they may seem Suspiciously devoid of content.

1. Eculc
Eculc has been suspicious for a while now, myself and others have already posted the reasons. He posts very good defensive posts, but it seems eculc has to do a it a lot. I was heavily spectating the FAID pony game, where the Great Hippo was Constantly attacked, but because of his defense, he managed to stay in another day, despite actually being scum. I'd like to not see that happen this game. In fact, I'll put my money where my mouth is.
Vote: eculc

2. Radical. We havent heard from him since the lynching. He was online today. Active lurker (So I've been led to believe through research) can work as a scum tactic. Before that he had to get called out before his posts had much content.

3. T1mm. I admit it straight up, this is because others have found him scummy. I'm really not getting much of a read off most Anyone today. Because this is as insubstantial as a bandwagon, I've mostly stayed out of the discussion, and haven't thrown a FoS.



2.

User avatar
eculc
Wet Peanut Butter
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:25 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby eculc » Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:00 am UTC

t1mm01994 wrote:Luckily, the OMGUS comes out, albeit not so far as a vote.
As far as stastics go, if I have a dice with 5 2's and a 1, the only 2 options are that
1: I throw a 1.
2: I throw a 2.
I hope you agree that even though there are 2 options, there is not a 50% chance to throw a 2. This is similar, we just don't know how many 2s there are.

But alas, I'm drifting off subject.
Let me break it to you in a less straight-up offensive way, (sorry for the offensive part):
If you had to lynch 3 people right now, who would they be, and why?

1: You. For all of the distinct attacks on me since my post today, as well as some of your actions D1. changing up meta, misunderstanding rules, double-standards for votes and FoSes, the random vote at the beginning. it just feels...wrong. It feels like that's too many mistakes to make, along with the things that were clearly not mistakes.
2: Mostlynormal. Not much to go on so far, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe they're town either. they've pointed out a few things to discuss, but nothing that holds any weight. the lack of anything meaningful since early D1 (and anything at all since mid-D1) suggests that they're trying NOT to say anything, which means that they feel safer not exposing themselves.
3: Radical, for the noticeable lack of substantial content. I don't have much of a reason to think that he's town, and he's as-of-yet not posted anything today, either. granted, I can see how others would see me in the same spot, so I'm not going to push too hard on that.

I have a distinct feel that TMG and woopate are town. from the sheer volume of analysis and opinionation that has been brought in from them, I feel like they could definitely be good guys. one thought that _has_ crossed my mind, though...is it just a tactic? to convince people to feel the same way that I do now? something to think about, I suppose.

And since you want a vote from me so badly, t1mm, you can have one.

Vote: T1mm01994

I don't have time to do the stats again now, but suffice it to say that I see my errors, and late EBWOP Disregard them for now. I'll probably be able to get the new ones up by tomorrow afternoon.
Um, this post feels devoid of content. Good luck?
For comparison, that means that if the cabbage guy from Avatar: The Last Airbender filled up his cart with lettuce instead, it would be about a quarter of a lethal dose.

User avatar
t1mm01994
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:16 pm UTC
Location: San Francisco.. Wait up, I'll tell you some tales!

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby t1mm01994 » Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:12 am UTC

@Woopate: now check who found me scummy. Misnomer hunted me, he turned out scum. Greenlover joined, but backed of to "unreadable" at the start of this day. GoP suspected me straight after I suggested a TMG GoP scumteam, and as primary reason because Misnomer would likely launch a great attack at a not-yet scummy scumbud, and now eculc straight after I vote him.
By the way, I think eculc is SK, not scum. For scum I'll stay on GoP TMG now, so my top 3 atm would be
1: eculc (1 NK less is a good thing, if we mislynch there basically is no way for town to win now)
2: GoP (if GoP is scum, then surely TMG is too, made this case earlier in thread)
3: TMG.

User avatar
Woopate
Scrapple
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:34 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby Woopate » Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:25 am UTC

Your post motivated me to go take a look through the post history, looking specifically for scum flaggings on you. Here is what I found:

DAY 1:
-Misnomer(scum) immediately begins questioning the motive for the random-vote opener t1mm pulled, and follows up with a FoS.

-MostlyNormal points out t1mm has a bad habit of looking scummy when he's clean. I'm not familiar with any level of meta, so I'll have to factor in my opinion of MN.

-TheMaskedGecko reports t1mm's random vote a townie action, then overall rates t1mm as neutral.

-eculc jumps into the "points out t1mm's random opening as strange behaviour" clown car of confusion.

-greenlover joins the clowncar

-MN thinks t1mm does not seem scummy, consistent with previous opinion.

-misnomer(scum) reasserts his FoS from the very beginning of the game.

-TMG says t1mm pings a little bit for some meta-thing. Throws t1mm at an upper-middle point on a scum-scale. Scum is top.

-misnomer(scum) makes a reaction list to t1mm's post. Comments "scummy" or "slightly scummy" on 6 points, "neutral" on 4, "irrelevant" on 1 (a note on this list. Misnomer(scum) gives a "neutral" or "irrelevant" to all but one point, which gets a "scummy". Worthy of consideration). Upgrades FoS to Vote against t1mm.

-Greenlover votes t1mm because of an apparent drastic change in meta. I wouldn't know, however MN mentioned t1mm comes off scummy-when-townie from rules misreads more than once in the meta. So far MN has defended t1mm pretty strongly. If either turns out scum The other will probably shoot to the top of my list.

-eculc concurs with Misnomer's analysis post, with the special exception of "some of the points about t1mm"

DAY 2:

-greenlover explains suspicion is the result in a change in t1mm's meta. This reinforces comments on a changed meta. Could be scum found a useful excuse for the t1mm fixation.

-I state that I feel strongly that t1mm is townie because of how hard Misnomer(scum) pushed against him. The reasoning I used there still feels pretty strong to me. I also suggest t1mm might be a sk, but that it's a slim possibility.

-mostlynormal also reports a strong townie feeling towards t1mm.

GoP: "Misnomer's distancing from t1mm is exactly what I would suspect of him. It actually makes me a bit more suspicious of t1mm. Along with t1mm's demeanor so far today, I would not be unhappy to see him lynched." There might be some heavy meta behind this statement, but to someone not really familiar with the meta, this feels SSSSSOOOOO WIFOM it's not even funny. I'm going to change the formatting because I think this is an important post people should pay attention to.

-eculc rates t1mm neutral.

-eculc FoSses t1mm. This seems a fishy flip-flop, but is also OMGUS. Adds to my scum reading on eculc.

My final word(for now) on t1mm: based upon the re-evaluation you earned with your plea targeted directly at me, you are no longer my number 3 pick. I admitted when I made that pick that it was based on feeling. I now have an opinion based upon evidence. I do not believe that Misnomer(scum)'s all-out attack on you was a distancing tactic. There have been claims on both sides of the fence that your meta is consistent with previous meta(in MostlyNormal's statement that rules misinterpretations have caused others to false positive you before), and inconsistent. MostlyNormal's statement was quite early in the game, but so were the things that are being referenced as off-meta for you. Since I have no meta knowledge, and lack the desire to look up your old games, I must take the position that unless there is a consensus on your meta, such opinions must not influence my opinion of you.

I also made sure to evaluate my stance on the GoP-TMG thing. It's not something I really paid much attention to before, but now I see there is some pretty distinctive buddying going on. GoP calls TMG out on it, though. I get the feeling that if one of these people is scum, the other is innocent. Right now I'm leaning TMG for scum.

On note of the lurkers, Radical and MN, I find it strange, t1mm, that you put MN as your no. 2 to lynch when mn has defended you three times. I do not think it's deliberate, but strange nonetheless. I'd be interested in hearing your motive.

User avatar
Woopate
Scrapple
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:34 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby Woopate » Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:28 am UTC

EBWOP: please disregard my comment about MN. I thought t1mm had put MN in his number 2 spot, when it was eculc. Should have taken a second look to verify who said what.

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby Radical_Initiator » Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:00 pm UTC

Woopate wrote:2. Radical. We havent heard from him since the lynching. He was online today. Active lurker (So I've been led to believe through research) can work as a scum tactic. Before that he had to get called out before his posts had much content.


Active lurking. What a load of nonsense. I tend to leave myself logged in for a while, during which time I have to get back to work; I'm going to do the same after this is submitted. Got multiple deadlines to rush through in the next few days, so if active lurking bothers you quite so much, let me help you out.

Vote: Radical_Initiator
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
Woopate
Scrapple
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:34 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby Woopate » Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:20 pm UTC

Erm, I'm not sure you meant it this way, but I read that in a very irritated voice. If your work is piling up, believe me I understand. I'm sure we all do. You've mentioned you are busy before. That takes precedence over any game. I just sorta hope this doesn't lead to bad blood outside the context of the game.

WITHIN the context of the game.... I don't think that changes too much. If you need out I don't think anybody can stop you, so I'm gonna keep my vote right where it is. You also still occupy the number 2 spot on my list. expanding upon outside frustration adds no new data and relieves no suspicion.

User avatar
TheMaskedGecko
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 10:20 am UTC
Location: Wales,UK

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby TheMaskedGecko » Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:32 pm UTC

Woopate: Catch up post, votes fearless; safe option. Finds t1m towny for similar reasons to me, discusses possible reasons why misnomer died. Then he puts tim on @ no. 3 on his scum list, a descision he barely backs up. In fact that whole post is very weak. He votes eculc because <paraphrase> 'everyone else finds him scummy. Then he looks back at people who find tim scummy and decides he's town again. Where there is opinion in his posts, it seems to be agreeing with other people rather than original content. mild scum

Gopher of Pern: Calls me out for buddying, something I don't see but it seems everyone else does. As I've said previously, his timing is a bit odd. The stats put eculc and fearless close in the votals at that point, so this could feasibly be read as a distance gone wrong. Feels that tim was being distanced as scum. And that's it. He's gone down slightly in my estimation.neutral

Eculc: Analysis seems ok. Messes up the stats. Omguses tim. Has started to post original content. neutral

greenlover: I thought we had him when he agreed with misnomer but now I know he's playing the meta I don't know what to think [i]neutral[i/]

Ok, tireder than I thought. Part 2 to follow.
ConMan wrote:the neighbourhood’s favourite lizard

Yeah, I don't care if it's out of context, it massages my ego and so it stays.

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby Adam H » Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:31 pm UTC

24 hours until deadline.

Votals:
Eculc - 2 (T1mm01994, Woopate)
T1mm01994 - 1 (Eculc)
Radical_Initiator - 1 (Radical Initiator)
-Adam

User avatar
t1mm01994
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:16 pm UTC
Location: San Francisco.. Wait up, I'll tell you some tales!

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby t1mm01994 » Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:35 pm UTC

Woopate wrote:GoP: "Misnomer's distancing from t1mm is exactly what I would suspect of him. It actually makes me a bit more suspicious of t1mm. Along with t1mm's demeanor so far today, I would not be unhappy to see him lynched." There might be some heavy meta behind this statement, but to someone not really familiar with the meta, this feels SSSSSOOOOO WIFOM it's not even funny. I'm going to change the formatting because I think this is an important post people should pay attention to.

I found this strange, as well. To be fair, it's his first post after I FoSed him so it might very well be a covert OMGUS. At any rate, an all-out attack on a scumbuddy with neither of the 2 having /any/ suspicion on them at that moment seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

@R_I: If you want to be replaced, tell the mod to get you a replacement. If you don't want to be replaced, work out your work stuff, and drop in a post every now and then. If you'd like to hear the finesses of not posting too much, greenlover is your man.
@TMG: I find it strange how your view of GoP's day 1 went from "most townie person in the game by miles" to "neutral".

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby Radical_Initiator » Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:39 pm UTC

t1mm01994 wrote: If you want to be replaced, tell the mod to get you a replacement.


Done. Have fun.
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
t1mm01994
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:16 pm UTC
Location: San Francisco.. Wait up, I'll tell you some tales!

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby t1mm01994 » Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:41 pm UTC

If that was meant to sound as irritated as it looked, my intention was not to irritate you. Real life swoops in at times, and there is not much one can do about that. If you've got time on your hands (doesn't need to be that much time) feel free to swoop into the mafia forums again... Good luck on the job ;)

Mostlynormal
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby Mostlynormal » Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:29 pm UTC

I still don't feel too comfortable with the eculc lynch. I know I've played the newbie card about him several times now, but I just think that scum in general, even newbie scum, would be more careful than town, and wouldn't be playing as strangely. I don't know. At any rate, lynching him just doesn't sit right with me for some reason.

TMG has been pinging me on and off about little things since the beginning of the game. It almost seems like his last post about GoP was a subtle attempt to distance himself. Anyway, I'm more comfortable with lynching TMG.

Vote: TMG

As a side note, T1mm's behavior today hasn't seemed all that townie, and while I don't think Misnomer's attack was likely distancing, it's certainly a possibility, or a possibility that T1mm is the SK. Just leaving this here so people don't think I did a 180 if I find T1mm scummy tommorrow.

User avatar
Gopher of Pern
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:28 am UTC
Location: Central Coast, Australia

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby Gopher of Pern » Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:48 pm UTC

My experience with Misnomer is that they are experienced - they would have no problem bussing a fellow scum, especially if there is little chance of them getting lynched. I'm not saying I think T1mm is neccessarily scum, but that it doesn't make them look any townier in my eyes.

My top 3 at the moment is eculc, TMG and t1mm. I'll admit I haven't got very good reads in this game. Misnomer took me by surprise.

Vote: eculc
Look In My Face
Stare In My Soul
I Begin To Stupefy

User avatar
eculc
Wet Peanut Butter
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:25 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby eculc » Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:34 am UTC

Welp, doesn't look like my chances are too good at this point. That's a shame, I suppose, but at least I wasn't D1. Still, my opinion as I stated it stands, and I agree with MN's latest post about T1mm. he seems to be playing pretty aggressively today, and that's definitely a change from yesterday. This'll likely be my last post today.

So...Sucks.
Um, this post feels devoid of content. Good luck?
For comparison, that means that if the cabbage guy from Avatar: The Last Airbender filled up his cart with lettuce instead, it would be about a quarter of a lethal dose.

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby Adam H » Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:54 pm UTC

The din in the safehouse has reached deafening levels. Radical Initiator starts hyperventilating. "It's too much it's too much it's too much no no no no stop it go away..." He cries, rocking back and forth on a ratty old couch. "I used to have a job!! I was happy! I never had to KILL anyone!" Abruptly his sobs stop. He runs into the other room and slams the door as the rest of you stand in shocked silence. After a long minute, the young man walks dry-eyed out of the bedroom. T1mm awkwardly says "Rad... you OK there?" But the young man just cocks his head curiously and says "Rad? Oh, he's not here anymore. Please, call me Webby."

Webby has replaced Radical_Initiator.


(apologies if my attempt to explain the weird phenomenon of "replacement players" has touched a sensitive subject. It is not my intent to make light of DID.)
-Adam

User avatar
TheMaskedGecko
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 10:20 am UTC
Location: Wales,UK

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby TheMaskedGecko » Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:31 pm UTC

t1mm01994: Foses GoP based on misnomer play. Tries to fit GoP's accusation into a worldview where I'm scum. Really punishes eculc for messing up the stats. I don't know about meta but there is something odd about how he's playing. Very agressive. minor scum

MostlyNormal: Hasn't said anything I disagree with, except the vote on me. slight town

Radical_Initiator: Not worth analysing someone due to be replaced, although it does remind me that I want to go back through past games and see whether self votes are generally a town or a scum action.

The three I would lynch:

tim-his weirdness is really pinging me
woopate-playing it safe
eculc-although I don't find him as scummy as the others do.

Re: change of heart on GoP-a)It was about as subtle as a bull elephant having a wrestling match with a sumo wrestler in an aquarium which also sells pottery and intricate glass sculptures; b)He was never most towny by miles, more least scummy by two and a half microns; c) He has become less towny.

Vote:Tim
ConMan wrote:the neighbourhood’s favourite lizard

Yeah, I don't care if it's out of context, it massages my ego and so it stays.

User avatar
greenlover
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:56 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby greenlover » Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:28 pm UTC

Hm. At this point, I'm guessing that eculc is mafia. However, I'm pretty confident that TMG is sk. First, he was the only one in his analysis to set aside a specific portion to finding the sk - why the special emphasis if he doesn't want to throw people off his trail? Second, he's been budding GoP so bad recently - look at his list of suspects in his last post, for example: nearly identical to GoP's, except that he exchanged out himself for Woopate. Those two things are pretty much the only SK tells that exist, as far as I know. Thus,

Vote: TMG

And the analysis that I promised isn't going to happen until the next game day - just not enough time to go through all the players at this point. Yes, I have a masters in procrastination. Why do you ask? >.>

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby Adam H » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:39 pm UTC

Deadline in 5 hours.

Votals:
eculc: 3 (t1mm01994, Woopate, Gopher of Pern)
t1mm01994: 2 (Eculc, TheMaskedGecko)
TheMaskedGecko: 2 (MostlyNormal, greenlover)

Reminder: in most cases tie votes will result in a random lynch between those with the most votes. However, if the final votes are 4v4, there will be no lynch.
-Adam

User avatar
t1mm01994
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:16 pm UTC
Location: San Francisco.. Wait up, I'll tell you some tales!

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby t1mm01994 » Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:33 pm UTC

I figure that if I accuse people, I will get more people accusing me, as well.. Ah well, I can live with that, especially if the accusations aren't that well justified (eculc using meta as an argument against me). To respond to TMG's accusation: I'm playing this aggresively because I'm quite sure that at least 2 out of you 3 (eculc, GoP and TMG) are scum or SK. As such, I can now justify an agressive playstyle against you.

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D2: No Sleep for You

Postby Adam H » Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:31 pm UTC

The crystal blue eyes of Eculc glaze over as he breathes his last breath. You all are getting better at this whole cold-blooded murder thing. But now you have to dispose of four bloody corpses - after giving it some careful thought, you decide to just dump them right outside the front door. You don’t have the time or energy for anything more.

When you open the front door, though, you see that the sun is almost completely below the horizon! Soon, zombies will be pouring down the street, bent on destroying the last bastion of humans in town. And there are only 7 of you to defend it! You dump the bodies on the doorstep, then quickly decide that four people can secure the first floor, leaving three for upstairs. That leaves no one on the roof, but in retrospect that was a silly place to defend anyways.


Final D2 Votes:
eculc: 3 (t1mm01994, Woopate, Gopher of Pern)
t1mm01994: 2 (Eculc, TheMaskedGecko)
TheMaskedGecko: 2 (MostlyNormal, greenlover)

Eculc has been lynched.

It is now night. Kill them zombies and give me your night actions. Night 2 will end Monday, February 20, 8:30am CST.
-Adam

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - N2: Braaains

Postby Adam H » Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:36 pm UTC

It was 4 am when the zombies broke in. Gopher o'Pern warned the rest of you - first he gave a desperate scream from upstairs that pierced through the gunfire, then he barreled backwards down the staircase, firing his automatic rifle into a pile of undead flesh that creeped after him. As he held off the mass of zombies, the four of you that stayed downstars during the night quickly barricaded the bottom of the staircase with the couch, table, chairs, and an enormous bookcase.

Gopher takes a ragged breath and tells you what he knows: "They came from the roof. I didn't notice until they were right on top of me, and when I did they were already swarming the hallway. I shot a path through them to go get the Masked Gecko and Greenlover, but... they're dead. They were shot in the middle of the night; I don't know who did it, but I saw the bullet holes."

You spend the rest of the morning side by side spraying lead over the makeshift barricade, until at last the threat passes. For now.


Eculc is dead. He was Vanilla Town.
TheMaskedGecko is dead. He was Vanilla Town.
Greenlover is dead. He was Vanilla Town.

Day 3 starts now. 5 players alive, 3 votes to hammer. Deadline on Friday, February 24, 4:30pm CST
-Adam

User avatar
Woopate
Scrapple
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:34 am UTC

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D3: Fractures

Postby Woopate » Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:56 pm UTC

Well shit.

I'll content up after I wake from this sleep I'm about to attempt.

User avatar
t1mm01994
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:16 pm UTC
Location: San Francisco.. Wait up, I'll tell you some tales!

Re: Zombie Apocalypse - D3: Fractures

Postby t1mm01994 » Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:23 pm UTC

TMG was town? Well there goes that theory... And we're 2/2/1 now. That's pretty hard to win.. We need to hit scum tonight, and the SK needs to hit scum as well, and day 4 we need to kill the SK. Let's get on with it.. After I reread to view who wants GL and TMG dead.


Return to “Mafia”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests