Bay 12 Games Forum

Your turn is over, you are dead

Quote from: hector13 on September 10, 2016, 10:55:17 am

Why not ask me about my suspicions to clear up any misunderstanding you might have?

I've been subtly trying to get people to bring more stuff  (non-threatening, even totally fabricated, if they need to!) to the conversation. That was your cue as much as it was anyone's. Too subtly?

Nobody picked up on it, so yes, obviously

Quote

I didn't want to roleflip you because you seemed to think you would be more useful to town while still alive

Even when I said "Almost tempted to get myself lynched, tell everything and let my roleflip confirm (or correct, if I'm squirreling) my own claim, at this rate." and went even further than that in the next post?

That means nothing. Considering that the Evil role has been solo for the entire rest of the game, it makes no sense for scum to offer themselves up like that. You really need to work on this bait thing, methinks...

Quote

You've said that I visited Moonlit N1 when that wasn't the action I took. This does add credence to my belief that something isn't right with my results from N1. Perhaps as you say, you were what did it, and my paranoia about scum doing it is unfounded.

I currently have two main theories. Firstly and easiest that you are lying, which makes you scummy. Secondarily is that I have a hidden redirect to my own skill that mislead you, which makes me a spoiling role, not a true investigator as I imagineb I am, much as per Fish was last turn, and one or other of us should probably be roleflipped if we can't trust my result not to mess up everyone's logic for the round.

(I would rather have not claimed at all, but the stagnation of conversation and the apparently passive Evil role is making me twitchy.)

Like I've been saying, you may not have influenced my result in the slightest. I was voting FoU D1, so if he is scum, who do you think he's going to target during the night? Some weird shit went down, and I've been saying all along I don't know what caused it. All I know is something isn't right.

Quote

You get to decide whether you find something suspicious, but then you don't seem to ask about it until the day is almost over,

I was trying to get a response well before half the day-cycle had passed, you recall...

Quote

which I don't understand, so I'll ask a question about it.

How come you waited this long to ask about something that - from the information you had - you knew was wrong?

I wanted the villain to dig their own grave. Even if it then needed my death to convince others of my sincerity in pointing out that this is what they've done. I wasn't actually expecting you to definitely be the one, but you're too good a player to have dug yourself into one so plainly whilst the true enemy has resisted my deliberate temptations, mis-hints, promises and threats, so I'm seizing on this. I had indeed planned to make my full reveal just before day-end (especially if under threat of personal Lynch), so it pains me to be described as acting as the day is almost over when I ended up acting more than a third of a (RL) day before deadline.

7 hours, aye? You had 41 before that, almost the entirety of which you knew the action I said I performed wasn't the action you were reported that I performed. You could easily have said that me targeting myself wasn't the information you had without revealing anything else about your role. Considering the dearth of activity we've had this day, and FoU's protestations that my vote on him in the same time frame on D1 was me trying to speed through a lynch, I'm afraid I have to call bullshit on you.

Considering nobody else has taken the bait on any of these temptations, hints, promises, and threats, or even mentioned them in passing, I think we can say that they were not the work of a master-baiter. /pun

Quote

Now I find that [personal role unreliability] may have been your fault, and you didn't seem to think it necessary to point that out when I brought it up.

I think you'll find I was fishing for more detail a number of times. (Just because I didn't label it with @everybody, let alone @you, didn't mean I wasn't asking you questions, increasingly unsubtly...)

Clearly everybody missed them. Do point them out please.

Quote

I only know that my results on N1 were unreliable. This could've been as a result of your action, it could've been a result of a hidden auto, or it could've been something unrelated. How else do you propose I work toward ruling these things out?

If I'm roleflipped, my currently full and frank 'knowledge' can be confirmed or seen in the true light of whatever there yet remains hidden even to me. As an openly outed investigator, I'm no less useful than the one who can only hint as to (perceived) facts that only the opposition knows to be true (or mistaken). The uncertainty in my role is the biggest disadvantage, either way, and a scummily-inclined player would prefer that to remain. (i.e. Either knowledge lost by the silencing of the inestigator-in-hiding, or no public revelation of the background to the public detective's raving proclamations.)

What uncertainty regarding your role? You can tell if someone is visiting, and thus performed an action on someone, and also tell if another person was visited, and thus had an action performed on them.

Moonlit, who I visited according to your results, doesn't appear to have had anything terribly terrible happen to them, at least as far as they've reported. Given your penchant for assumptions, I would hope that would tell you my action is at the very least not malign.

Alternately, you (assuming Town Investigator or approximate variant) now have knowledge about Moonlit that should rule them in/out of Town's suspicions if we can trust you (and trust me that this is what even happened). You've likely revealed enough to make you a target for true-scum, depending upon mechanism at their disposal, and your own flipping would authenticate any statement of yours regarding Mooonlit, thus more easily zeroing in on whoever the true enemy is from who remains. Given the Townie wincon (but not the Scum one) that seems like a reasonable-enough sacrifice to me, much as I do my own. YMMV, but there's got to bena good explanation for it. At least a hint. (See end if this post.)

From this I would have to assume you know what my action is, else I can kick the weak support out from under it and completely invalidate it. What is my action?

(There's another conclusion that I've made, related to the above, but I'm waiting to see if another individual does/doesn't act upon it, themselves. No hints what it is and which it is, though!)

That you're neutral and making up nonsense to satisfy your wincon?

Quote

You defending Fallacy was suspicious

If we're in league as Evil Cow-orkers, then Town had bigger problems than my potential self-sacrifice to further the cause of Evil.

Suspicious /=/ damning

In case it escaped your notice, I was distracted by something I thought was more suspicious. Like I said, we each get to decide what we find suspicious and otherwise.

Just because I think FoU is being hugely suspicious does not mean I expect everyone else to agree, so I felt you were offering a dissenting opinion, but not necessarily one that I felt needed challenged at that point.

Quote

along with what I assume you think was the most suspicious thing you could say.

You flatter me. I merely voiced what I expected anybody to already be thinking... Almost disarmingly so.  Maybe that (the subtext, not the text) was the more suspicious, but then if you've gone that far in the stream of logic then you must consider yet a further level of bluff, and counter-bluff and counter-counter-bluff, and so on.   Suspicion = i²/2 + i⁴/4 + i⁶/6 + ... + i²ⁿ/2n?  (I think that probably converges, as n tends to infinity, but I haven't checked.)

You've hit the nail on the head there, except with the suspicion part. Just because you voice something you think everyone was thinking, doesn't mean they were thinking it. Not only that, over-thinking it leads to WIFOM. I don't like wine, so you may keep it.

Quote

being the only person with a case from D1

I don't rate your case, compared to your usual standards (even the random fire approach). I would even guess that you have a target in your (Neutral?) wincon, and you suspect it to be Fallacy, so unwavering are you. But it stands out as odd. Which is not what I expect from your town-tell, even less than it is what I'd expect of your scum-tell. (Five and a half hours to change my mind about that, isn't it?)

Well the only other person you seem to think suspicious beyond me is yourself, and I've already told you what I think of that. What reason would I have for pursuing either Moonlit or TBF over FoU?

...

Trick question! If I have to pursue them for those reasons, why aren't you?

Quote

while TBF and Moonlit haven't done anything of note during the day,

Troubling, but for my own part I've found they've passed mini-tests that inspire me with confidence. Perhaps accidentally/unknowingly, but they've they've played the game and won more of my confidence, in a roughly Beyesian manner of adding up assumptions and later confirmations/refutations to those assumptions, as things go on.

(i.e. Even though silence is hurting them, their occasional activity has seemed more than useful.)

How sure are you of the efficacy of these tests?

What have they said that is useful?

Quote

That's a lot more role-fishy than what you were supposedly doing before. What I can reveal might reveal more about Moonlit, if you did change my target, and I'm unwilling to do that in case he is town.

If you truly suspect your information is useless, then your best chance is to see how useful my information is. Or resign yourself to being the Fish-role of last round (by your own hand or mine) if you don't have anything useful to say about it. Direct or meta- or meta-meta-...

All I can truly say is the results I received from N1 are not right for what I did. This does not mean that all my results are invalid, though it would be quite foolish not to consider that possibility wouldn't you say?

Once again, my results could have been manipulated by someone who is not you and is not me. There are three other players in the game, why are you reducing it to just you and I?

---

I'm slightly miffed that TBF promised a reason for voting me, and FoU has conveniently disappeared since voting me. 2 hours to go.

gj gais

FoU, 'cause in all the arguing I forgot I hadn't done that yet

hector13, grand champeen.

FoU


Starver:

Is there any reason you can give behind why you trust FoU, without saying more than you want to?

PPE: TBF: a quick summary would suffice.

I disagree, but I'm more interested in your views on FoU. You seem to think he's town, seein' as how you're defending him. What makes you think that?

hector: You were all for lynching me yesterday. What changed?

Obviously someone hasn't been reading. I got a bit of a shock upon discovering that my action may not be reliable shortly before I posted.

Perhaps you should explain your OMGUS, though?

My personal theory is that everybody has a role in the previous round that their own role parallels significantly. Case in point my role.

It's not really a case nor a point if you don't actually provide your role. /pedant

... but only pedantic to a point. Why are you role fishing?