Yes here

----

@drealmer7
Well I'm glad you investigated me, so that I know that my stat wasn't too low and I didn't fail the mission.

Which leaves JMich with a FIN of 6 maybe being to low or even a sabotage - on the FIN team.
Or Agentcarr maybe sabotaging - on the INT team. (no way the stats were too low there if everyone claimed true)

@Quadralien: Could we have a votecount, please?

I'm confused. You think there aren't a bunch of intruders and that it is just 1 killer?

One person had to commit the deed. They could switch it up, but most of the time, the same person does the killing until caught while the rest use their roles. With so many roleblocking or being roleblocked or with other roles, these are the only 3 people who have not stated an action nor claimed to be roleblocked.

May we please have your stat value relevant to the Day 2 crisis event?

Why is this necessary? Why are you pushing for it? Are you making a list of what stats to kill off first? This smacks of pretending to be useful, but not really being all that useful to me.

It's clear that if we failed on stats, it was the FIN side, but strangely day 1 we succeeded on a STR check with a combined 12...The INT side should have crushed the check...

The only other option is if scum has some ability to induce an outside failure in some way...but even a -5 on INT side still would average over 6.

I'll double check this when I'm at home, but here's a provisional vote count:

Bookwyrm627: 4 (trentonlf, adaliabooks, CarrionCrow, RWarehall)
Vitek: 1 (drealmer7)

Bookwyrm627 is closest to lynch at L-3.
Not Voting: Bookwyrm627, yogsloth, mchack, agentcarr16, HijacK, JMich, flubbucket, Vitek.

Are you for real with this?

It's clear the side you were on didn't fail? Why? Why is that clear?

I'm not asking for your birthday and serial number here. I'm not looking for what color kryptonite will kill you fastest. Just your INT score so we can do legitimate analysis.

Excuuuuuuuuuuuse me!

1st link: He simply says he doesn't find you most likely.

2nd: Maybe just covering his ass? Maybe he really didn't think you were that suspicious at the time, but he changes that later I believe. That is the most current I think, and I laid out reasons to support why he said it and why he voted Ix anyway (remember he said 90% sure he wasn't scum but felt strongly that the flip would tell him who was. I think he meant you and/or bookwyrm627, actually, the 3rd and 5th votes, because I do also believe there was an intruder in on the first 3 votes for Ix, and then look at [url=http://www.gog.com/forum/general/forum_mafia_31_crisis_at_space_station_epsilon/post343]this votecount. In it, I think that it is possible in that list there are 1-3 intruders, so, I do the odds, and get you.)

3rd link: That's not what he says at all!!!! He says usually you're at each-other's throats and he is uncomfortable with how you haven't done anything to irk him yet. To me, that could mean he was implying that he is a bit suspicious of your behavior in this game. Regardless, that link is less damnable of you than some others.

If only krypsyn's INT had been higher and he'd been able to articulate some of his suspicions more clearly and with more elaboration, we would have learned more of his thoughts. Fucking intruders, killing a hard-working grunt, probably because he was SO STRONG and they feared his ability to subdue them physically. Plus, know we're out a strong man for future CRISIS events.

I have the thought that the last crisis event failed not because of sabotage, but because of JMIch's inadequate stats. I think it is more likely that had if it been sabotage someone would have died, and the indication that it was just a failed event because of stats is that we all lived. Just a theory. I also am thinking any of the 3 I previously mentioned could have still sabotaged it at this point, though I'm still inclined to believe RW is who he says, I have slight suspicions.

Hmmm, well, I still believe they talk about who to kill and decide what gets done as a group as far as killing goes at least, if not also their ability uses (coordination.) Finding the one who actually does the deed isn't as important as finding who the mastermind is behind it all, especially since I think it is likely to usually work that way in a "mafia-esque" power situation, the guy in charge rarely pulls the trigger.

And then, ESPECIALLY, say, just for example, that crewdroog (I use this name because she was a new player, which is what my example is about, it would have been interesting that crewdroog abandoned because she didn't want whatever intruder responsibility she had, or, how she was being told to use it?) or carrioncrow are intruders, and one of them happens to be the one that has the power to actually "kill" whoever, they would most likely be taking guidance and defering to the judgement of more experienced players on their intruder-squad on which targets to pick.

And your list of 3 people yet to claim role or that they were roleblocked I don't understand at all. Does that mean uou believe EVERYONE who has claimed anything so far? Or just that you find it most likely that anyone not having claimed at this point of anything about any action or role is more likely to be an intruder? If that is so, why?

Legitimate analysis? How? Please, what's the target number? Knowing exactly who has exactly what seems like information that is more useful to scum than town as they can then decide to kill off high stat value targets.

It's pretty darn clear we succeeded day one with only a 6 average on one side. And on day 2 we failed with at least that on the FIN side and a much higher average on the INT side. No analysis you can do will change this incongruity. So the overkill of information begs the question, why do you need exact numbers? Helpful to scum, not so helpful to us.

Cool, thanks.
I wondered if it is possible RWare misled us and actually submitted (or his buddies) different team but this proves it isn't the case.

You too. Can we have the value of that stat? Did I miss it somewhere?

Note: I've tried to divide things up some to make it easier to read. Notepad can get screwy with line breaks; I've tried to remove extra line breaks, and my apologies if I missed any.

Your turn for a Misinterpretation Correction. Please review the now bolded word in the quote of me. I was willing to push some of the existing wagons, but not all of them. You ignore how Adalia's wagon may have been able to roll, but I voted Ix even though Adalia's wagon STILL had more votes AFTER I added mine to Ix. A Quad Vote Count is two posts down from my Ix vote.

Later in the day, I found Ix's arguments rather less than compelling, and my vote on him solidified. Even Trent's inspired defense of Ix didn't persuade me, I'm afraid.

As for the "sudden" extra votes: mchack joined a day after I did, Krypsyn joined 3 days after I did, and Vitek (apparently tired of Ix's struggles) joined shortly after Krypsyn.

You are complaining that I "got to work", rather than bailing out, going to sleep, or spinning in circles? Why yes, I did decide not to sit around staring at everyone else while we waited.

-----

So, now you display one of my reasons for lynching Ix, my questioning Drealmer about why he thinks exactly one scum was on Ix's wagon (which is partly a response to him saying I'm probably scum), and me trying to get other people involved and working towards a lynch (not necessarily my candidate!) instead of sitting around and possibly ending up the same way YOU GUYS did Day 1 (gratz on that No Lynch! :P). Then Adalia asked a question, and I suggested a way to answer it, assuming Adalia is willing to go with my plan. Would you mind linking me to where everyone objected to the idea of lynching Ix? I specifically asked for reasons not to lynch him,
and I seem to recall only one person replying (Trent's spirited defense, already linked above).

I notice you might be going back to that tactic you used to lynch ME a few games ago. I've got my Eye on you.

While I'm at L-4? No.

I think there is at least one more such remark by someone, but I'm tired of looking for it.

-----


Then you'd be wrong. Again. Your assumptions about players and/or the game are going to keep getting you in trouble.

The "worst that can happen" line is actually in response to something else. I was on an ipad, and our ipad is stupidly annoying to use when trying to do anything beyond very, very basic posting. The evidence I am providing for my assertion about the mobile limitation is the brevity and non-complexity of the very post you are linking.

I was responding to this line, snipped for length (of my post) and focus:
Go to his post to see the full version.

-----

Are you saying that Adalia is town? If so, why did scum me choose a different town player entirely and work to lynch him instead of the easier, further along choice? Not like there was a lack of suspicion about Adalia/HSL at the time. Where are your accusations against Yogsloth for sitting on a townie's wagon for so long? He's even admitted that he'd do it again (assuming he had the same information).

It is a minor oddity, and I pointed it out to see what you'd have to say about it. I do believe I mentioned that "Other than that, the breadcrumbs do look legit." Do you dislike me saying that I think your breadcrumbs are not false leads?

Heh. Like town actually needs any help dragging their feet.

Thanks!

-----

I'm curious, RW. Why did you choose the people you chose, and why assign them to the teams they were assigned to?

-----

Whoa, whoa, whoa. We can get information from crises without townies having to reveal their PM or their role? THIS! IS! SPARTAAAA!

-----

So someone used a day action on you? Or else someone popped something like one of those illegal drugs you referred to?

-----

Quad puts the tentative list in the second post while we wait for the confirmation, and then he marks it confirmed when the team is sent off. There is also a history of each crisis in that same post.

-----

This post is long enough, I'm going to take a break here and start my next Wall O Doom.

I'm in bizarro-world. I'm the one pushing to slow down and actually analyze the hard data. When did THAT happen to me?

No, RW, you ding-dong, the purpose is not to identify targets (as if Scum would even give a crap - how does that make sense when there are claimed power roles on the table?) but to quantify the likelihood of failure based on stats vs. sabotage.

If we can look at the stats, we can get an actual braining attempt to discern between stat failure and sabotage likelihood. If we're going to witch-hunt saboteurs, wouldn't it be swell to have some actual data to back it up?

Can you think about this for just a f***ing moment? You've already claimed to be the friggin' captain of the station. You've claimed (and been confirmed by the mod) as being the one who selects all the teams. You've claimed to have a 2nd power as well... but you won't list your INT score... because that would tell Scum too much?

Are you even listening to yourself?

The ugly part will be when crisis events start requiring stats of 8 or better from all people to succeed. It's just a matter of time. If scum has chunks of the pertinent stat numbers, they'll be able to pick off key people, then let whoever's left get wrecked by the crisis events.
From there, it'll be the survivors (since I figure someone's going to eventually get killed during a crisis) fall on each other with the whole straight failure or sabotage debate.