Re: TWG CLXXX - OuO what's this? [Game Thread]
 

prec did you write that post before tps claimed his actions

Re: TWG CLXXX - OuO what's this? [Game Thread]
 

I think that there is a decent ish chance we lose if we lynch this phase
Aka 1/3
I'm not a gambler

Re: TWG CLXXX - OuO what's this? [Game Thread]
 

Get drunk with me at ltwg tonight friend

Re: TWG CLXXX - OuO what's this? [Game Thread]
 

The first part is def right. If we lynch correctly today he should hide behind u, prec, fg or blind and we should decide between those 4.

I do think he should hide tonight tho if we miss.

Re: TWG CLXXX - OuO what's this? [Game Thread]
 

The chance is actually 0%, but u mean get put in that nasty f4 situation.

Which is probably like 5% at most.

Re: TWG CLXXX - OuO what's this? [Game Thread]
 

hmm

i guess i'm just worried whoever's left in that endgame (which could be kingmaker) wouldn't know who tps hid behind, bc 2/3 of his eligible targets would be scum, so that's effectively his chance to die if he's hiding in the POE

like, count him as 2/3 of a night death, then scum factions either stack or they don't, so that's 5/3 or 8/3 deaths in the night (i'm assuming these are all town deaths as prev said)

i feel like the most he'd be doing at that point if he's alive is be able to confirm who's scum to each other, and if the SK is vested then they just win, because you can't have a lynch that day

tl;dr we should just lynch correctly

Re: TWG CLXXX - OuO what's this? [Game Thread]
 

ind is my friend

Re: TWG CLXXX - OuO what's this? [Game Thread]
 

Celery go away, you've been nothing but scared this entire game, grow some and make a move.

Re: TWG CLXXX - OuO what's this? [Game Thread]
 

oh...

Re: TWG CLXXX - OuO what's this? [Game Thread]
 

Votes from post 2564 to post 2729
Night in 25:17:45
---

• Votes -- Lynch -- Voters
• 1 -- Precarious -- the sun fan (55)
• 6 -- not voting -- blindreper1179 (29), Celirra (50), Funnygurl555 (10), inDheart (17), Precarious (3), Tps222 (2)

Re: TWG CLXXX - OuO what's this? [Game Thread]
 

It's ok Celery I bet u have average-sized testicles.

Re: TWG CLXXX - OuO what's this? [Game Thread]
 

Also because I forgot to put this in the OP and there have been various asks about this:

If final 3 is a Town, Wolf, and SK, the game ends in a draw.

Re: TWG CLXXX - OuO what's this? [Game Thread]
 

Yes. It doesn't change my analysis much though--actually, it reinforces a couple ideas. As I see has been pointed out, it completely clears Sun and Cel in all scenarios.

If a Hider hides behind scum or SK, they die. Tps is either scum or a hider; if he's a wolf, then he's the only wolf (in which case Sun and Cel, like everyone else, must be town). If he's not a wolf, then he's telling the truth (he mechanically can't be an SK), in which case he did hide behind Sun and Cel, in which case his continued survival clears them.

That leaves a pool of only four players that must contain both the wolf and the SK. (From my perspective, that pool is three, but whatever).


*****************
*****************


If we lynch correctly, that leaves one remaining anti-town player (as far as I can tell it wouldn't really matter if it's the wolf or the SK). Assuming a nightkill on a confirmed player, that would leave tomorrow at 4:1 with two players still confirmed, meaning there would be a pool of three players that must contain a wolf/SK. A mislynch there would take it to 3:1, and an NK to 2:1. At that point we would be down to one confirmed player, who would be the tiebreaker as the remaining town and anti-town inevitably accuse each other.

If we mislynch today, things get fairly confusing. We would enter the night at 4:1:1, with three confirmed (well, two, but for the purpose of this analysis Tps can be considered confirmed) town, and there's a decent chance the wolf and SK both target a confirmed townie. But, it's possible their kills overlap, or one or both chooses to take a shot in the dark at the other, given how volatile the next day looks.

Worst case scenario, we go into tomorrow at 2:1:1, with one confirmed player remaining. And...I just realized that's more dire than I initially thought, since 1:1:1 is apparently a three way loss, and 2:1 just turns into a 1:1 loss by the next day. But I think I see a possibility for brinkmanship here...

Re: TWG CLXXX - OuO what's this? [Game Thread]
 

I'm just going to say it; I think that if we mislynch today, our best option is to have Tps hide behind Sun or Cel again--without saying which one.

If we mislynch, we would go into the night at 4:1:1. Successful town kills by both wolf and SK would leave us with only two possible timelines: a 1:1:1 draw-loss, and a 1:1 loss with a definite anti-town winner.

However, if Tps hides and both Sun and Cel die, then we would be left with a 1:1:1 scenario tomorrow--unpalatable to both wolf and SK. This has the potential to encourage them to search for each other, rather than target guaranteed town players. (It's also possible they both target one of Sun or Cel, whether or not that is the one with Tps, leading to the dreaded 2:1:1, or possibly to a 3:1:1, which is still town winnable. If one of them hits the other, or they both hit each other, that simplifies things further in the former case, and results in an immediate town win in the latter.)

The advantage here is that by forcing three known town players into two "spaces", we can

(1.) scare them away from the confirmed town with the possibility of the inadvertent 1:1:1
(2.)Reduce the likelihood of them hitting two unique town by chance, by providing only two potential targets rather than three

It's possible I've overlooked something, so this idea should be discussed and vetted, but I think it has some potential.

Re: TWG CLXXX - OuO what's this? [Game Thread]
 

I would be ok with a prec lynch but would rather a no lynch by heaps and bounds

Re: TWG CLXXX - OuO what's this? [Game Thread]
 

the fact that he's ignoring the pressure and resorting to objective mechanics worries me

Re: TWG CLXXX - OuO what's this? [Game Thread]
 

It's pre, he dies today.

Re: TWG CLXXX - OuO what's this? [Game Thread]
 

I'm working out the stuff we can be sure of first.

Re: TWG CLXXX - OuO what's this? [Game Thread]
 

I'm sure this will be a reasonable assessment.

Emphasis mine.

First of all, I prefer Prec. Having said that, internal inconsistency in your first paragraph isn't a great sign. So you're sure on me, then

Hence you think I'm a serial killer and not a wolf, I suppose. Fine, but your assumption already breaks down.

It's true that, generally speaking, a wolf and a serial killer will approach their anti-town agenda in different ways. All wolf actions are colored by the fact that in the grand scheme of things, they ideally want to protect each other. A serial killer is unburdened by accounting for teammates, but also faces the reality that their death is an instant loss. Hence, while a serial killer is incentivized to catch scum, their need to do so is less pressing than the town's, since their own survival is their first concern. In a serial killer role, even more than a wolf role, I absolutely wouldn't have pushed so hard for your lynch, because it would make me doubly a target. If I'm right, I put a target on my back as an effective (and therefore dangerous) player. If I'm wrong, I compromise my own credibility while heightening my visibility, making me a more likely lynch target.

If you had recall my most recent game (Fire Emblem), you might have noticed I only became especially vocal and aggressive when I was under fire. Until then, it behooved me to blend in as best as possible. That is not the case here, because survival alone is useless. We need to catch wolves (or a serial killer, assuming its existence), and in you, I believe I've caught one.


***********************************
***********************************


Your first two attempts to parse my game rely on the joke phase. Anyone pointing to the joke phase meaningfully in D4 isn't arguing in good faith. More to the point, anyone paying attention to post-FE deadchat might have noticed that I expressed an intent to post more casually. That didn't really last, because I find a lot of that ends up as distracting white noise, but your approach here is intellectually dishonest.


**********************************
**********************************


Once again, any potential argument you might raise is undermined by its internal inconsistency and its intellectual dishonesty. You're writing to a preordained conclusion--just like you did on D2--and it shows.

Any D1 reads are of course limited by the relative lack of information at the time, but I want you to consider this.

Here, it's suspicious that I lean wolf on a wolf.

Here, it's suspicious that that I lean null on a wolf. Although Blind's reading completely divorces it from the fact that it was a replacement slot (remember Anti-Pearl?) and that my suspicion was due entirely to a lack of compelling reads elsewhere. It's in the very thing you quoted.

No one has ever read a town player as wolfy before! Except apparently reading a wolf as wolfy is itself wolfy, so I can only conclude that having any wolf reads as all is wolfy.

It's also a strongly hypocritical position on Blind's part, considering he wolfread DBP on D2 for a wolf-misread, which turned out obviously to be incorrect. So not only is someone misreading someone not a perfect predictor (obviously), but he himself misread someone--by appealing to that same flawed logic!

But while his criticism of my reads list is weak (and superficial too--appealing only to the results rather than the content), what's more telling is his need to reemphasize his own position on the list.

It's strange that he emphasizes his own town read there, as if he feels the need to reinforce his own standing now, when it appears to be separate from the other cited entries, which speak to an obviously thrown together case.


***********************************
***********************************


This is an actually valid point. In that instance, I copy-pasted the available list without actually paying it a lot of attention--as I said in that very same assessment, theorycraft didn't really have a role to play that early on. You can probably tell from my posts today that things have changed. At the time, the copy-paste was more an assessment of Blind's post than a meaningful reflection on the OP content.


***********************************
***********************************


It's pretty obvious in hindsight that Xiz didn't like the post because he was being wolf-read; I even said that a time when I stated it was mush. And I stated that because it was. It's difficult to do a D1 roster run, since there's no contextual information (votes, flips, role actions) and conversations are limited to that day. This game was especially annoying in that regard, since most players weren't especially distinctive on D1. I believe that's the reason we ended up with a Gradiant-Sun Fan kitb scenario--because people were pulled toward active, visible players.

More to the point, however, you failed to actually pull apart the actual list, despite my own dissatisfaction with it, because that would require a level of engagement you're not prepared to actually defend. I'd say that this post of yours is towny, that it represents a visible and aggressive (if not genuine) effort, but we all get by now this you're making a meta play here, and the lack of real analysis is telling.


***********************************
***********************************


Wary, not weary. Just a little pet peeve of mine. In terms of the actual argument though, why is this here? If everyone does something, it's NAI--which is to say, neither a piece of your actual case, nor a counterpoint that might suggest you're actually considering the evidence before you. It's just there to take up space--and maybe to come off as sinister on my part, even if the content doesn't support it.

Or maybe it's a meta-defense of yourself, given your repeated assertions that you're obviously town, that everyone knows it, and that you're not scared because people aren't voting you. Which I have to say feels a bit forced.


***********************************
***********************************


Incidentally, this is another instance of you sheeping someone, despite your protests to the contrary. In this instance, it was you copying an observation Funny made. You might have noticed that in my case on you, had you ever bothered to read or respond to it. But that would be effort-intensive, and since my points actually required thought, difficult for you to do successfully.

As to my actual availability, my brother was visiting last weekend, and I don't get to see him in person very often. I had to clean up before he arrived, and after he drove home again, I ended up getting busy with other things. There's a reason I'm not interested in playing turbos here--a lot of the time, it simply wouldn't be feasible schedule-wise.



***********************************
***********************************


Okay, I'm calling you out on this right now, because while it's not alignment indicative, it's fundamentally shitty play that drags down the whole community--and I'm not just blaming this on you. I'm not even blaming this on the TWG community. I'm blaming this on internet mafia as a whole--although you're certainly going to hear about right now.

This idea that changing your opinion is somehow bad is the most corrosive, anti-town perspective anywhere, and yet everyone seems to jump on it. Somehow, reevaluating is seen as a sign of weakness, of inconsistency, of convenient action. And that's bullshit. Reevaluation is a sign of engagement and interacting with the game. People should be reevaluating, reengaging, and--yes--second-guessing constantly.

Do you think I'm absolutely 100% convinced of your guilt--now, or even in the previous two days? Of course not. And anyone that claims certainly of anything absent mechanical proof is lying about it. In your case, your fundamentally dishonest approach to the game, and your aggression absent actual thought, makes me believe you aren't concerned with uncovering the truth--which speaks to an anti-town perspective. But even if you are town, you're not actually trying to solve things, and you're certainly not thinking about them. And in the case of this whole post, is there any question you made it because of my attacks on you?

Re: TWG CLXXX - OuO what's this? [Game Thread]
 

That's part 1 of my response. This is taking some time. In the meantime, I'd love to see Blind's response to my case, but I'm not exactly hopeful.

What would I hope is that everyone actually reads the cases--his and mine--and observes the actual difference in them. Why am I pulling his apart? Because I can. Because it's a weak case that he's hoping people won't bother to actually read.

So by all means, please do.