|
Post by Yaw on Jan 4, 2004 13:43:42 GMT -5
Sorry to hear about the flu, AuntieSocial. In light of that, your absence recently isn't suspicious at all. I hope you and your family are feeling better. (There have been colds and flu really going around this year... ) I guess that means the best bandwagon is the ck-wagon. So, Unvote: jacopo7531 and Vote: ck. And I wouldn't say I was on a "crusade". For one, I despise the term. At any rate, the reason I was looking as such things as who is logging into the board was to help get this game going. I recall from when I was modding the first game that it can take some time and effort to get those who have signed up to start playing, so in noticing who had logged in I could see if there was anyone who was unlikely to know we were playing that I knew how to contact. In fact, I did leave notes with Arutha and ck to let them know the game is underway -- not because of what roles they may or may not have, but because having everyone playing is the best way to ensure that this game is good. (It's also a major handicap for the town if there's a lot of inactivity.) It just happened that in looking at this for the noble cause of getting a good game, I noticed that jacopo7531 had logged in several times and not posted. I'll admit that logging in doesn't automatically mean that someone has seen the thread, and that sometimes the board has randomly indicated someone was logged in when they weren't, but because this wasn't just an isolated login I was reasonably confident in the assertion I made (that is, jacopo7531 had seen the thread and hadn't posted in it yet). The real reason for looking at activity like that is to determine who is actually playing, and who it might be worth asking the mod for replacement. If everyone were posting, it wouldn't even be an issue. I also wouldn't say I have a "campaign". If you look at my posts thus far, any action I've taken or discussed has the desired result of provoking conversation. The more information we have, the better we'll be able to root out the scum. This does mean that at times we may have to prod people to post, or put pressure on people to see if they are scummy. I want to lynch the Catholics as much as everyone else, but I'm trying to be careful and as analytical about it as possible, because I want us to be as sure as possible that we are lynching Catholics and not innocent townies.
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Jan 4, 2004 14:55:00 GMT -5
pieisgood: (2) ck, arutha jacopo7531: (1) Yaw Auntiesocial: (1) muddog ck: (1) pieisgood
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Jan 4, 2004 14:56:20 GMT -5
*cough* Look up. I changed my vote to ck.
|
|
muddog
Maverick's Chew Toy
The blue things are books titles Plato, and the kid has a jar of Play-Doh
Posts: 29
|
Post by muddog on Jan 4, 2004 16:19:23 GMT -5
Sorry about the flu Auntie, I had it earlier, and it is a nasty case floating about this year. Going with what I said earlier about putting the pressure on suspicious people, and what Yaw said about a near lynch scareing people into talking, I feel that I should change my vote. Mind you, though, this is not perminant untill more evidence comes to change it either way. UNVOTE: AUNTIESOCIAL VOTE: CK
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Jan 4, 2004 16:25:28 GMT -5
Well, that's three. Let's see what ck has to say for himself before we pile on anymore votes, ok? My fear is that if he isn't scum and we put on one more vote, the Catholics could put on a quick 5th lynching vote and get a townie out of the way. Right now it's more to our advantage to pressure people and generate information to discuss, not to kill off players.
|
|
muddog
Maverick's Chew Toy
The blue things are books titles Plato, and the kid has a jar of Play-Doh
Posts: 29
|
Post by muddog on Jan 4, 2004 16:28:30 GMT -5
To support my vote on CK, I reread the thread, and lo and behold, he has only posted twice, one to vote on pieisgood for reasons of pie's silly comment at the start, and again to "support" his vote by accusing pieisgood of being scum because he defended himself. Point a finger of suspicion, set up room for a bandwagon, and sit back and let the innocent townies kill off themselves. Smart move for a scum to start. Hopefully, three votes will make him more apt to talk, and let us see if he really is scum.
Just so everyone knows, I will most likely be posting like this, one to say what I initialy feel about recent postings, and another to back up or change my opinion.
|
|
muddog
Maverick's Chew Toy
The blue things are books titles Plato, and the kid has a jar of Play-Doh
Posts: 29
|
Post by muddog on Jan 4, 2004 16:30:59 GMT -5
Yaw got in a post while I was still typing up my second, so I guess I should probably post again, agreeing to what yaw said, leave it at three, let him talk, and then make a decison.
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Jan 4, 2004 19:08:58 GMT -5
*cough* Look up. I changed my vote to ck. Sorry about that Yaw, thanks for telling me. pieisgood: (2) ck, arutha ck: (1) pieisgood, Yaw, muddog Not voting(4) Auntiesocial, griffey, jacopo7531, kaeis
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Jan 4, 2004 19:15:28 GMT -5
I certainly find both ck's and Arutha's bandwagon ride to be suspect, especially when they are the only two riding on said wagon ... I would, however, like to hear what ck might have to say in his defence (if he can offer one) before joining the group who would see him killed ... ck, what have you to say for yourself?
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Jan 4, 2004 19:25:25 GMT -5
P.S. On a personal note ... the flu seems to be making it's departure from my humble abode. We have not had what you would call a joyous December. In addition to the illness that first took the spouse & sibling (and ultimately hit me December 22nd), we had to buy another vehicle (the spouse's winter beater didn't pass the emmissions test and after spending $450 to get a conditional pass, it decided to shake uncontrollably at higher speeds. Higher speeds being anything in excess of 60-70 km/h). Then, the day we brought the new (used) truck home, we were sitting (more like reclining since we were both feeling poorly) in the living room when we heard a crash from the spare bedroom. On inspection, we discovered that the ceiling in the closet had collapsed. It seems that the roof is leaking and with the high volume of rain we have been experiencing, the drywall gave way. So, we have temporarily sealed the roof (where we believe the leak to be) with cold tar and will have to see to a new roof in the spring.
My reaction to all of this? Without a trace of emotion, I surveyed the drywall debris on my hardwood floor and looked at my spouse. "I am going back to University this summer." With that, I left the room, closed the door (with the spouse still in the room) and went to bed.
Maybe "God(s)" doesn't want me learn why people believe in him/them... *shrugs*
Anyway, 'tis a new year, things will hopefully be better ...
|
|
|
Post by Arutha on Jan 5, 2004 17:11:12 GMT -5
Arutha- here is the flaw in your logic. I can prove that Arutha's mafia. He could be acting suspicious, but instead he's not acting suspicious just to throw us off his tail!!! Also, I will point out that the odds are greater that you and ck are mafia than the odds of me being mafia. If you notice, nobody is coming to my aid when I'm accused, but you and ck are very clearly together. This means that if I'm mafia, both jocapo and kaeis are my fellow mafia because they are active. If you two are mafia, either jocapo or kaeis are mafia. In other words, you are 2 times as likely to be mafia as me. And hence forth are the flaws in your logic, 2 out of 10 players last game were randomly assigned to be mafia, going on the same principal that 2 people are mafia this game thats 2 out of 10 again, the chance of CK being selected both times is very rare, i cbf doing the maths to determine exactly how rare so for that reason of probibility i support him in knowing that mathematically he is most likely not scum, However i thought u were not going to have revenge votes, i have clearly outlined MY reasons for voting for you and what i have seen suspicious, because i think someone is not mafia and others are i am his "brother"? would that not mean that others who you support are your siblings? you have not accused them and have pointed a finger squarly at us, if you do not remember u accused me of supporting Yaw before, because i pointed out my theory on probability
|
|
|
Post by Griffey on Jan 5, 2004 17:23:20 GMT -5
To Auntie, two words: "That sucks!!" But I'm certainly glad things are getting better for you. ;D
Back to the game: Arutha, the odds of ck being picked for the mafia again are the same odds as anyone else being picked for the mafia. He has the same chance of being scum as anyone here, mathematically speaking.
That being said, I am going to have to agree with Auntie on this: I'm going to wait until ck gives some kind of response before deciding to vote for him or not.
|
|
|
Post by Arutha on Jan 5, 2004 17:52:08 GMT -5
Actually he dosent, do a probability graph with it, include being picked in both games. My father is a maths teacher and that crap has been drumbed into me. Likelyhood of being picked twice is 2 out of 50 - or 1 out of 25.
|
|
|
Post by pieisgood on Jan 5, 2004 17:56:19 GMT -5
Arutha: I never accused you of supporting Yaw, just of supporting ck.
Griffey: You're absolutely right on the probability thing. For Arutha, the mathematical reason:
You're right; starting at the very beginning it was unlikely for ck to be scum twice in a row. However, right now it is a given than ck was mafia last time; so that means he has a 2/10 chance of being mafia twice in a row; same as us being mafia this time.
Using the same logic; let's say I flip a coin and it comes up heads. Are the odds then greater that it will come up tails on the next flip because I hit heads the first time?
[ipast outcomes don't affect future probability...[/i]
-pieisgood
|
|
muddog
Maverick's Chew Toy
The blue things are books titles Plato, and the kid has a jar of Play-Doh
Posts: 29
|
Post by muddog on Jan 5, 2004 18:12:17 GMT -5
Thank you, pieisgood, I would have said exactly the same thing had I seen the post first. To summerize these past posts
CK HAS A 1 IN 5 CHANCE OF BEING SUCM , JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE
Thanks for letting me get that rage out, I hate it when people try to skew data. No double post this time
|
|