[Council of Villains] A State of Corruption [Concluded]

[Askthepizzaguy]

maybe because he has nothing to say?

fos:ATPG

Watch where you point that thing, Motep. It has terrible aim.

[ULC]

Watch where you point that thing, Motep. It has terrible aim.

[Motep]

fingers all around!

But seriously, Pizza. The town is blindly following you. I suspect a trap, honestly. You speak out against a bandwagon on Tincow, and yet you condone one on Nictel. To kill a lurker. A lurker is such a convenient target, no? Always suspect in these games. And so it is easy to push the town into killing them, because most of us tend to look at what is in front of us and ignore what is not there, a nice place for a mafia to be. But we see this, and kill them. And so where else for the mafia to hide but in plain sight? Not only that, but to take a role in guiding the town! But this is suspicious, too, and everyone sees it. And so what must be done now? Hide in lesser places? For some. But it is still good to control the town, and guide them into killing where you want to kill while thinking you are their innocent leader. How do you have this? By claiming a probable role. Another bounty hunter thing? A bit risky, seeing as it could be taken, but with enough care given analysis of such roles (this one could probably kill) you can pick one that is unlikely to be taken. And so: fos: Kojiro
A good friend to have along, two people both herding the town, coming from opposite directions and converging for the "greater good". I still levy my suspicions, and it is late, and my mind is semi-erratic, and this may not make a whole lot of sense as I may have missed a few details that are important but I think that the ultimate reason for this here already.

vote:ATPG

[Askthepizzaguy]

fingers all around!

But seriously, Pizza. The town is blindly following you. I suspect a trap, honestly.

Close!

(It's a tarp)

You know who complains about the town blindly following me to their doom, and I mean A LOT?

You speak out against a bandwagon on Tincow, and yet you condone one on Nictel.

The only way to actually lynch someone is to place more than one vote on them so.... yeah.....

I fail to grasp your point, which you obviously think you have, but is invisible to me.

To kill a lurker. A lurker is such a convenient target, no? Always suspect in these games.

Not really. We've backed off of the "lynch the lurkers" thing for a while now, and for good reason. You do it enough and all the mafia has to do is not lurk and their odds of victory skyrocket.

Nictel's not lurking, either. He's shown up every round. He's simply not CONTRIBUTING when he obviously could be doing so. By my calculations that's either a basic townie or a mafia ducking suspicion, which BTW you'd know if you read any of my posts this round. Why you're accusing me of starting a wagon on a lurker, is beyond me, and it speaks to you not putting much thought into your FOS and subsequent vote on me.

And so it is easy to push the town into killing them, because most of us tend to look at what is in front of us and ignore what is not there, a nice place for a mafia to be. But we see this, and kill them. And so where else for the mafia to hide but in plain sight?

Well, they could also hide in not plain sight, or perhaps someplace in between....

Not only that, but to take a role in guiding the town! But this is suspicious, too, and everyone sees it. And so what must be done now? Hide in lesser places? For some. But it is still good to control the town, and guide them into killing where you want to kill while thinking you are their innocent leader. How do you have this? By claiming a probable role. Another bounty hunter thing? A bit risky, seeing as it could be taken, but with enough care given analysis of such roles (this one could probably kill) you can pick one that is unlikely to be taken. And so: fos: Kojiro

.....

Maybe you're unaware of this, but the logic you're using here is pretty tortured.

No offense, but when you ask yourself no less than six leading questions in order to arrive at your conclusion, it is reminiscent of something else.

A good friend to have along, two people both herding the town, coming from opposite directions and converging for the "greater good". I still levy my suspicions, and it is late, and my mind is semi-erratic, and this may not make a whole lot of sense as I may have missed a few details that are important but I think that the ultimate reason for this here already.

vote:ATPG

Who had the most to gain from the double lynch yesterday? Could it be the mafia? Yes.... and WHO, my friends, would have the audacity not to vote for either of the tied candidates, in order to maintain the tie, and therefore cause two innocent people to die? Why the mafia of course. So the one who did not vote for the tie was actually most responsible, and therefore the most guilty.

FoS: Askthepizzaguy, for not leading the town toward disaster. As we all know, bad moves are usually townie moves, and moves that look wise in retrospect are caused by perfect information syndrome. You thought you could get away with it, but I agree with Motep, you've been leading the town astray by having lead the lynch on no one so far, which actually makes you the lead sheep herder of them all.

You thought you could get away with it with your logic and reasonableness and your not actually doing what you've been accused of, but I see through such simple tricks.

J'accuse, Pizzahut boy!

[Askthepizzaguy]

Nictel hasn't logged in or flinched at all since I began this wagon on him.

I would expect some sort of reaction by now if I were right. Still possible he's guilty and hasn't read a word of this, but my suspicions are starting to waver.

[Motep]

Close!

The only way to actually lynch someone is to place more than one vote on them so.... yeah.....

Ensuring the death of everyone you want to kill and noone who is the brainchild of anyone else. "Dont bandwagon on anybody unless I call for it, and only I call for it."

I fail to grasp your point, which you obviously think you have, but is invisible to me.

I am not the most clear person, I am afraid. And I am sorry if I have confused you.

Not really. We've backed off of the "lynch the lurkers" thing for a while now, and for good reason. You do it enough and all the mafia has to do is not lurk and their odds of victory skyrocket.

My spirit soars to hear this news. My experience on the matter is a bit out of date, and I am personally glad we got away from this. But if we stay away from the lurkers entirely, than we make another safe spot.

Nictel's not lurking, either. He's shown up every round. He's simply not CONTRIBUTING when he obviously could be doing so. By my calculations that's either a basic townie or a mafia ducking suspicion, which BTW you'd know if you read any of my posts this round. Why you're accusing me of starting a wagon on a lurker, is beyond me, and it speaks to you not putting much thought into your FOS and subsequent vote on me.

Even better then! Not lurking, but being barely active to not count as a lurker. Someone lazy? Someone who is busy now and is staving off a loss of his place for inactivity? Besides, with lurkers in clear suspicion, what next place to look than those simply avoiding that? I dont think mafia would be this stupid.

Well, they could also hide in not plain sight, or perhaps someplace in between....

The least suspicious place, that plain little thing that doesnt repel your eye but does not really draw it for too long. Loud obnoxious thing? Suspicious activity. A risky place, but one managable for the clever, and a place well worth the risk if played right. You and kojiro? I do not doubt in the least that you could pull this off.

Maybe you're unaware of this, but the logic you're using here is pretty tortured.

No offense, but when you ask yourself no less than six leading questions in order to arrive at your conclusion, it is reminiscent of something else.

I have to say, that is very amusing. I was going against both of you, but I realized he had not been included yet and I threw him in there in a way that seemed appropriate. My making of these posts is very linear, and I dont look back. Given enough time and effort, I could have polished that until it gleamed, but this is somewhat time sensitive. To top that off, I am somewhat lazy myself, and I do not really care if you think my logic is tortured. My mind is tortured! It is moving faster than my fingers, and I am merely trying to jot down what I recall of what I thought. I give it to you not on the premise that it is what is right, but that it is a possibilty. You guys may very well be happy, helpful people. And in the event of this, I am terribly sorry for bothering your work, but it is almost....too powerful. By following you two, and only you two, we cull out all other thought, and we become lazier and more vulnerable in the event that you are scum.

Who had the most to gain from the double lynch yesterday? Could it be the mafia? Yes.... and WHO, my friends, would have the audacity not to vote for either of the tied candidates, in order to maintain the tie, and therefore cause two innocent people to die? Why the mafia of course. So the one who did not vote for the tie was actually most responsible, and therefore the most guilty.

Those who pushed for, and those who let it happen. I was a bit late in my vote and was, admittedly, snoozing on the trigger. I will try to do better in the future to prevent such attrocities from occuring.

FoS: Askthepizzaguy, for not leading the town toward disaster. As we all know, bad moves are usually townie moves, and moves that look wise in retrospect are caused by perfect information syndrome. You thought you could get away with it, but I agree with Motep, you've been leading the town astray by having lead the lynch on no one so far, which actually makes you the lead sheep herder of them all.

You thought you could get away with it with your logic and reasonableness and your not actually doing what you've been accused of, but I see through such simple tricks.
J'accuse, Pizzahut boy!

Nobody is perfect.

EDIT: Sorry it took so long to respond. I have munchies, and needed to munch.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Ensuring the death of everyone you want to kill and noone who is the brainchild of anyone else. "Dont bandwagon on anybody unless I call for it, and only I call for it."

Classical_hero is still alive, isn't he? What about Johnhughthom? How about Beefy? I haven't ensured the death of anyone so far. It's not a foregone conclusion on Nictel either.

But if we stay away from the lurkers entirely, than we make another safe spot.

I try not to lynch people for being a lurker-style player; I try to lynch people for subtle behavioral abnormalities. The ones that demonstrate a different brain wave pattern from normal, while still attempting to behave normally and failing at it in small ways.

Those are the mistakes which are the hardest for the mafia to avoid making: ones they aren't aware of.

Even better then! Not lurking, but being barely active to not count as a lurker. Someone lazy? Someone who is busy now and is staving off a loss of his place for inactivity? Besides, with lurkers in clear suspicion, what next place to look than those simply avoiding that? I dont think mafia would be this stupid.

Mafia have been known to employ every strategy. Lurking, pretending to be totally inactive, voting once per round, abstaining most rounds, keeping activity low but just out of the danger zone, trying to find the happy middle sweet spot, and being a talkative bag of hot air like me. Mafia would be "this stupid", trust me on that. This is exactly how I'd picture Nictel behaving as mafia if he was trying to keep his head down. The trouble is, it's also possible he's behaving that way as town and it just looks like guilty behavior. I don't know.

The least suspicious place, that plain little thing that doesnt repel your eye but does not really draw it for too long. Loud obnoxious thing? Suspicious activity. A risky place, but one managable for the clever, and a place well worth the risk if played right. You and kojiro? I do not doubt in the least that you could pull this off.

I could live with being lynched based on the premise that my behavior is a probable strategy I'd use if I were mafia. It's a weak case, and a wrong one, but at least it's an attempt at solving the game through thinking instead of randomness.

I do not really care if you think my logic is tortured.

It is. However, the point is not whether or not your case lacks logic; the point is, is the case correct or not?

In my case, no. You're off target here. No amount of good logic could save your case. No amount of bad logic will make it any worse. However, if you wanted to lynch someone, I would suggest making sure the logic adds up first; people do respond to that, especially when they're indecisive. Case in point; this round itself.

Dirty little secret: Not everything you say has to make sense or be accurate to matter. What matters is where your vote ends up, and who gets lynched. If I had to lie through my teeth and speak gibberish in order to get votes on the correct candidates, that would still be a winning move. Putting a "case" together on someone has exactly one purpose; making your vote more appealing for others to follow. It has no impact on the rightness or wrongness of your vote.

And that's coming from me, mister giganti-case.

I am terribly sorry for bothering your work, but it is almost....too powerful. By following you two, and only you two, we cull out all other thought, and we become lazier and more vulnerable in the event that you are scum.

I have no power but what others give me. I don't actually control brain waves. If people want to ignore my cases they can do so. If they want to blame me alone when the cases turn out right or wrong, they may do so. However, this is still a democracy and they're entitled to ignore me and follow their own instincts. That's a nagging little piece of reality that no one likes to talk about because it involves owning one's own behavior, and that's just yicky. Blaming someone else is like delicious cake.

[Motep]

Classical_hero is still alive, isn't he? What about Johnhughthom? How about Beefy? I haven't ensured the death of anyone so far. It's not a foregone conclusion on Nictel either.

Fun, no?

I try not to lynch people for being a lurker-style player; I try to lynch people for subtle behavioral abnormalities. The ones that demonstrate a different brain wave pattern from normal, while still attempting to behave normally and failing at it in small ways.

A good tactic, and I would employ it if I had experience with these people to go by. But, I guess I just suck soo much that it strangles me and threatens to kill everyone around me. So, even if I did have experience, it would be moot.

I could live with being lynched based on the premise that my behavior is a probable strategy I'd use if I were mafia. It's a weak case, and a wrong one, but at least it's an attempt at solving the game through thinking instead of randomness.

Ah, but if you were mafia....this is how you would act. So, we cannot exactly trust your claims of innocence, now can we?

It is. However, the point is not whether or not your case lacks logic; the point is, is the case correct or not?

time will tell, and only time. Nothing is certain.

In my case, no. You're off target here. No amount of good logic could save your case. No amount of bad logic will make it any worse. However, if you wanted to lynch someone, I would suggest making sure the logic adds up first; people do respond to that, especially when they're indecisive. Case in point; this round itself.

Dirty little secret: Not everything you say has to make sense or be accurate to matter. What matters is where your vote ends up, and who gets lynched. If I had to lie through my teeth and speak gibberish in order to get votes on the correct candidates, that would still be a winning move. Putting a "case" together on someone has exactly one purpose; making your vote more appealing for others to follow. It has no impact on the rightness or wrongness of your vote.

And that's coming from me, mister giganti-case.

I have no power but what others give me. I don't actually control brain waves. If people want to ignore my cases they can do so. If they want to blame me alone when the cases turn out right or wrong, they may do so. However, this is still a democracy and they're entitled to ignore me and follow their own instincts. That's a nagging little piece of reality that no one likes to talk about because it involves owning one's own behavior, and that's just yicky. Blaming someone else is like delicious cake.

One of the main reasons I am doing this is to get these indecisive people to think for themselves instead of placing their trust in one person. But, if there is someone to trust, and you are actually not out to get us all, than I could see them doing much worse than you. Another reason is because it is fun. Another reason is because I need practice. Another reason is because I need something to do when my girlfriend is replying. The final reason, of course, is me putting off sleep as I still quest for food and need to think of what else I could eat in this foriegn house!!! They dont have any fruit....

EDIT: Screw it. She went to bed, the food here is pre-processed poo, I am tired, and I need to cram two weeks of homework into tomorrow afternoon. I would love to stay and chat, but I have better reasons to sleep than to stay. I hope you enjoy your sleep, and I hope you are not scum. Whether or not you are scum, you are a wonderful opponent, and well above my meagre abilities for such things. But if I don't put my foot in the water for fear of being embarassed by better swimmers, how will I ever become a better swimmer?