I knew you were trying to discredit me.
WEREWOLF: PROLE LOUNGE AND TROLL GRAVE!
- Thread starter /MSG/
- Start date
I knew you were trying to discredit me.
P.S. Nigels peek was Captain Billy
Nigel did you put your peek down? Cause I saw you talking about Captain not "gunning" for anybody, and figured that was your peek. But now I am wondering if that was just a coincidence of language?
Yeah, that was my message to Billy that I was the seer and that I knew who he was. I didn't expect anyone else to get it.
In RE: to mott giving shit to captain billy
First, due to how much shit mott gets from everyone, it's understandable why mott would want to dish it out.
That saaaaaid....
mott, I don't know why you would put all your focus and energy into getting killed on day2, then criticize someone for basically doing exactly what you advocated. Here are some valid reasons why his shot of you wasn't bad:
1) Lets pretend billy decided to actually follow your logic about either himself or superfreak being a wolf if you come back village. Well, billy is the vigilante, so if he were to follow your logic, then killing you would help reveal superfreak to be a wolf (this is obviously incorrect, but it follows your logic pattern so I don't know why you'd criticize him).
- or -
2) Billy thinks there is a decent chance you are a wolf, and he also knows he was to get a shot off soon or likely be nightkilled. Just because you end up as a villager this time doesn't mean that his logic for killing you isn't sound. Don't be results oriented. You have to look at the % of the time you are a wolf in that spot.
3) Lets assume that billy isn't supremely confident you are a wolf, but there is a decent chance you are. Say, 50/50. If he's right, he's bagged a wolf. Awesome. If he's wrong, he's actually minimized his risk, given that you were likely to be mislynched ANYWAY. Although shooting any villager sucks, if you have to kill a villager, it's better that it's one that is going to be mislynched, rather than him killing a villager that may not have died otherwise. For example, if he killed someone like 3d, then the end result would be 2 villagers guaranteed dead via his actions rather than just nipping it in the bud with killing you.
First, due to how much shit mott gets from everyone, it's understandable why mott would want to dish it out.
That saaaaaid....
mott, I don't know why you would put all your focus and energy into getting killed on day2, then criticize someone for basically doing exactly what you advocated. Here are some valid reasons why his shot of you wasn't bad:
1) Lets pretend billy decided to actually follow your logic about either himself or superfreak being a wolf if you come back village. Well, billy is the vigilante, so if he were to follow your logic, then killing you would help reveal superfreak to be a wolf (this is obviously incorrect, but it follows your logic pattern so I don't know why you'd criticize him).
- or -
2) Billy thinks there is a decent chance you are a wolf, and he also knows he was to get a shot off soon or likely be nightkilled. Just because you end up as a villager this time doesn't mean that his logic for killing you isn't sound. Don't be results oriented. You have to look at the % of the time you are a wolf in that spot.
3) Lets assume that billy isn't supremely confident you are a wolf, but there is a decent chance you are. Say, 50/50. If he's right, he's bagged a wolf. Awesome. If he's wrong, he's actually minimized his risk, given that you were likely to be mislynched ANYWAY. Although shooting any villager sucks, if you have to kill a villager, it's better that it's one that is going to be mislynched, rather than him killing a villager that may not have died otherwise. For example, if he killed someone like 3d, then the end result would be 2 villagers guaranteed dead via his actions rather than just nipping it in the bud with killing you.
Apparently the wolves didn't see it either. I thought 100% billy was dying night 2, as I figured with your sparse posting wolves would pour over your posts and quickly be able to find the peek.
It was an interesting dynamic that day with mott, because I was wondering if billy saw that you peeked him, in which case he either has to argue that your peek was mott wolf, keeping the heat off of himself, or basically out himself as the vigilante, which obviously would be bad.
But I guess that didn't end up mattering much anyway.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Derp, derp, I'm Super Freak, Derp, derp, I don't know the difference between one and zero, derp, derp, I voted to kill someone who was going to die anways and gave the wolves cover, derp, derp.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
No it twert.Dung all ready clarified he was speakng gibberish. I didn't mean to imply that wasn't skilful playing. Regardless of being giberish or code it was a tell and you spotted it. I meant that it was good fortune for your team.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Derp, derp, I'm Super Freak, Derp, derp, I don't know the difference between one and zero, derp, derp, I voted to kill someone who was going to die anways and gave the wolves cover, derp, derp.
Mott, as much as I think you're wrong about this, I laughed so hard. You have no idea. You are going to just infuriate people. Is that why you do this? It's awesome! I just did it to watermark and drove him off the board for two weeks! LMAO
In Re: to "No Lynch"
It's pretty much always in villages best interest to vote no lynch every single time, and here is why:
On day 3 with 8 people, if you are a villager you are looking at 7 other people in the game, 3 of which are wolves.
All else being equal, your chances of nabbing a wolf is 3/7 = 42%
If you vote no lynch, wolves are forced to kill a villager, and you go to day 4 with 7 people. You are now looking at 6 other players, 3 of which are wolves.
Now your chances of bagging a wolf are 3/6 = 50%. an 8% increase in avoiding a mislynch.
Keep in mind, before the no lynch, you STILL have zero room for error. You must kill a wolf or you lose.
After no lynch, you are in the same exact situation, still have to kill a wolf, still zero room for error, but now your chances have gone up by 8%.
Even if you are 90% sure that a particular player is a wolf, you should still vote for no lynch, because there is a non-zero chance that the person you thought was a wolf 90% of the time is nightkilled. If they are a wolf, they'll still be there after no lynch and villages chances have collectively gone up with zero loss.
The only downside with a no lynch in this spot is you go to a true must lynch situation on day 4 where you can't vote change or unvote, but as long as you aren't stupid, that really shouldn't be a problem.
It's pretty much always in villages best interest to vote no lynch every single time, and here is why:
On day 3 with 8 people, if you are a villager you are looking at 7 other people in the game, 3 of which are wolves.
All else being equal, your chances of nabbing a wolf is 3/7 = 42%
If you vote no lynch, wolves are forced to kill a villager, and you go to day 4 with 7 people. You are now looking at 6 other players, 3 of which are wolves.
Now your chances of bagging a wolf are 3/6 = 50%. an 8% increase in avoiding a mislynch.
Keep in mind, before the no lynch, you STILL have zero room for error. You must kill a wolf or you lose.
After no lynch, you are in the same exact situation, still have to kill a wolf, still zero room for error, but now your chances have gone up by 8%.
Even if you are 90% sure that a particular player is a wolf, you should still vote for no lynch, because there is a non-zero chance that the person you thought was a wolf 90% of the time is nightkilled. If they are a wolf, they'll still be there after no lynch and villages chances have collectively gone up with zero loss.
The only downside with a no lynch in this spot is you go to a true must lynch situation on day 4 where you can't vote change or unvote, but as long as you aren't stupid, that really shouldn't be a problem.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Actually I wasn't trying to get killed. I figured I was going to die early like I always do and I was trying to evoke a response to gather information. Both Billy and Freak were playing vanilla. It was also a trap to get the wolves to expose themselves and I did get one to do so. Only problem was I didn't calculate Billy would pop a cap in my ass so I cop a mia culpa there.
But really, Watermark and I were right. Lynching a player who was going to be modkilled anyways was just plain dumb and it had bad consequences.
Not lynching granule has potential worse consequences. Do you see this or no?
Not lynching granule opens you up to the absolute worse case scenario. No other situation has worse potential results.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
"Keep in mind, before the no lynch, you STILL have zero room for error. You must kill a wolf or you lose."
You know what was so cool? I said this five times last night before "night" and watermark just couldn't grasp it. Said I was talking nonsense. I was irrational. And then he had that whole "est" "confusion".
Man it was weird.
Darla it's lunchtime and I would appreciate a sandwich.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Um, which wolf did you trick into "exposing" themselves, I must have missed this? You know Mott, Damo is very particular and he would send me back if I didn't get him extra foamy lattes! This big trap of yours must have sprung then! Refresh my memory?
Also:
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...WOLF-Proles-vs.-Trolls-**&p=955424#post955424
Absolute soul read by rana concerning darla. People aren't giving rana enough credit. Not to mention pegging damocles as well.
Pretty impressed by rana this game.
Especially considering Im pretty sure I had a convo with her in one of the early games about how one can pick up stuff just by the tone of a particular player. And she nailed it with darla this time around.
Nothing is irrelevant in this game, and this can show how even when you have little to initially go on (ex: day1) there is still stuff to look for if one becomes well versed in how people sound in various roles.
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...WOLF-Proles-vs.-Trolls-**&p=955424#post955424
Absolute soul read by rana concerning darla. People aren't giving rana enough credit. Not to mention pegging damocles as well.
Pretty impressed by rana this game.
Especially considering Im pretty sure I had a convo with her in one of the early games about how one can pick up stuff just by the tone of a particular player. And she nailed it with darla this time around.
Nothing is irrelevant in this game, and this can show how even when you have little to initially go on (ex: day1) there is still stuff to look for if one becomes well versed in how people sound in various roles.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well yea I do do it to aggravate freak (I wonder why?) but as for what I"m saying it's a fundamental principle of statistics. They were making a decision on Granule based on statistics. Statistics measurse correalations between populations and samples of populations. Once it was determined that Granules was to be removed from the population (in this case literally) via the mod kill. Those statistical calculations became null because he was no longer part of that population. In other words he should have counted as nothing towards their calculation. It's for this reason I'm not fond of "Mod Killing" (no Grind, that's not a criticism) though to be honest I have no better alternative on to how to handle players who don't participate in the game.
In reality, the two villagers who didn't participate by far did more to hurt the village then anything any of the villagers did. Not that I'm taking anything away from the wolves but if Granule and Watermark had not been mod killed for inactivity/non-voting there would have been one more day to go at least and probably more.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Granule wasn't mod killed, he was lynched.
And as far as water's "inactivity/modkill" I am not even going to go into that, because it would be pointless. I think one or two people will be clever enough to read everything and figure out what happened, or was being attempted I should say, but I will never comment on it.
Think what you want. Water was fucking irrelevant.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
BW, I think you've got me wrong Grind. I'm not criticizing Billy for capping my ass. Hell I thought it was hillareous and it wasn't something I expected. I laughed my ass off. Billy definately made the game fun.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
He certainly was last night. LOL
Why thank you, sir, I did heed the advice.
btw I would have 100% modkilled watermark even if village nabbed a wolf.
Yeah it's a shitty situation, but it wouldn't be fair to the wolves just to give a random villager a pass. It's honestly not fair to anyone.
And yes the the spirit of the rule is to keep people active and get them on record with the most important thing in this game, but not modkilling in this situation would open up the ability for wolves to not put their vote down and then go "ohhh I was just checking my email, damnit!"
If I start making excuses for one person, everyone would freak the fuck out why I let one person have a pass and not the other, etc.
I'm pretty proud of my strict modding this game. Got everyone active and in the mix, and as predicted, I knew everyone had the opportunity to cast a fucking 5 second vote and not bitch out.
Yeah it's a shitty situation, but it wouldn't be fair to the wolves just to give a random villager a pass. It's honestly not fair to anyone.
And yes the the spirit of the rule is to keep people active and get them on record with the most important thing in this game, but not modkilling in this situation would open up the ability for wolves to not put their vote down and then go "ohhh I was just checking my email, damnit!"
If I start making excuses for one person, everyone would freak the fuck out why I let one person have a pass and not the other, etc.
I'm pretty proud of my strict modding this game. Got everyone active and in the mix, and as predicted, I knew everyone had the opportunity to cast a fucking 5 second vote and not bitch out.