I stand corrected. You suggested he is either imbecile (I used the word "retarded" for comedic purposes) OR an intruder (we usually call them scum for short).



Really? I mean, for real?? We'll use next to no time in listing the people you didn't state you are suspecting of being scum at one point or another for whatever reason. You mean to tell me that you just generate thoughts and views but you don't really mean some if not most of them, just because they are possibilities rather than certainties?

I absolutely understand the concept of everyone having the potential of being scum (my "bitch, I might be" opening in each game points exactly to that). What I didn't understand so far is that you seem to not be convinced about anything you say about anyone.

That being the case you ask others to join your wagon on Vitek. Cool, I don't mind that, you have your reasons to suspect him more than others. But since you aren't convinced he is one and just going after the possibility of him being scum, it seems contradictory with your stance towards others who go after... well, anyone who isn't Vitek. Why others who vote for other people using more or less legitimate reasons are more likely scum trying to lynch a Townie? If we are measuring the possibility alone any lynchee is at 50/50. They are either Town or they are not.

Why do we join Vitek's wagon on the possibility of him being scum and not join any other wagon on the possibility of them being Town?



You are correct on this one. JMich and Yog were the ones who voted actually for Quad. I mixed you and JMich since you were suggesting it first. My bad.

I don't know about adding more to the log part though. You chose to add 5 lines of text in reflection on a detail that didn't even matter that much. Trust me, it's not in my best interest to make you write more stuff. It's hard to follow as it is.



I, personally, don't need them. I accept the fact that there will be people who don't agree with me or find me scummy, don't like the way I play and so on. It's only natural not to get around equally fine with everyone considering how many people we have here.

On the other hand I don't want them because they can be exploited. "Yeah, I had them lynched and they flipped Town, but I did say that I may be wrong and I apologized, so it's all good".

Sorry about that. I've got a really low FINe-print reading stat.

OK. No problem.

OK, about this. The mod being a player is a valid mechanic in Mafia games, and has happened a couple of times in the past here on GOG. However, it is really rare and is usually accompanied by all kinds of bizarre goings-on, from what I've gathered.
If I had to guess, I'd say that the Crisis Events are far enough out of the core Mafia rules that QuadrAlien probably didn't add any other weirdness to the mix.

TL;DR I don't think Q.U.A.D. is evil.

Hmmm...
I'm mulling over how you derive the pmf of the number of coin flips required to observe the same face on consecutive flips.

*watches in horror as drealmer7 slowly transforms into a large clam*

Hey, something I can do!
Assuming 25% scum and that the dispatcher is Town, the likelihood of randomly choosing 4 scum for the mission would be 1/1365.
I think it's safe to assume that's not going to happen, especially as (I hope) the mission participants aren't being chosen randomly.

No, he's not. He linked to a YouTube video that was presumably amusing (I didn't bother to watch it. Sorry!). It's part of the trash-talk? shock-talk? smack-talk? of the game.
We all have great fun creating strawman arguments and knocking them down. It's a lot easier to out-argue someone when (s)he doesn't have a brain.

Yes, that's pretty much what he's saying.
No offense intended.
To play this game, you've got to have a pretty thick skin, especially since apologizing can seem scummy. The disclaimers aren't actually the problem.
I would say the bigger problem is that you haven't actually focused on someone as scum. I'm usually pretty wishy-washy about what I think, because I don't want to make mistakes. From what I've observed, you're pretty much the same. Unfortunately, that makes some people, those who hold more strongly to their opinions, look at us askance. (ain't that a great word, hehehe)

TL;DR disclaimers are often seen as scummy

lol


Ah, heck. Unvote Krypsyn

Sorry, pretty princess. My heart's not in it.

No no no. What I mean is that there is a difference between having a hard notion/strong conviction/steadfast immovable opinion/point of view that someone IS an intruder vs. not thinking they MIGHT be, MAYBE, with no contrete feeling, with doubt, and room for alteration in such opinion. I'm in NO WAY certain that anyone IS an intruder. I just have suspicions based on varying minute factors that add up over time and are the best thing I, or anyone else, has in trying to figure out who the intruders actually are. My list is very fluid, very tentative, very arbtrary indeed, it is just meant as a point of discussion to be presented, and then from there I either would like reasonable response againt it or someone else's entirely individual own point of view not pertaining to mine at all, so we can all know where we all stand, discuss the options, and make the necessary gruesome decision together, as a group.

Case in point, I think it is more likely that Vitek is an intruder than anyone else at the moment. As I've said. I know I could be wrong, but, as much evidence/basis for judgement as anyone else has, that is the best I can do for now, and I am open to that state of mind being changed if someone wants to argue stronger for someone else to be eliminated or defend Vitek to get me to unvote him, I will listen to those reasons, and be open to considering anything with reason, but until presented with such, I am voting for Vitek. *shrug* what else can one do?
That is really just up to everyone individually at this point as far as I see it. Vote for whomever you want to, please. Once everyone has voted, we will see where we are at and discuss it further if a conclusion has not been reached by a majority vote. During this process of everyone else voting, I also figure other people who have already voted (myself included) could change their votes, so, yeah, it's just about really "getting it moving" at this point.


Okay now that is making complete sense to me, I understand your issue completely now. I did not mean for it to be that way, but, honestly, that is just the way it is, isn't it? That's not even exploitation is it? That's just the situation we are dealt, so to speak? I mean, I don't know, I'm new to this station and its protocals and ways of behaving, I really don't know, so...yeah, I can see your issue, but, to me that is just an obviousness that stands for each and every one of us, and, as I actually said, I didn't want to have to state but at a certain point felt like I needed to because of people jumping on people for making cases for people being intruders and such, well, I don't know what else to say when that happens other than the obvious disclaimers we are talking about. So, yeah, back to OTHER people's views and votes, don't you think we should get them all at this point in the day?

Sorry, I also assumed that the dispatcher can't choose himself, and can't choose the same person twice.


Oh, and I just noticed that that was an airplane post.

He un-voted because he admitted it was a premature vote and his reasons weren't good ones for doing so, and, as far as I understood it, to me, that was fair enough explanation to remove his vote, which I don't think he would have done if he were an intruder, he would have tried to stick with it more, I think. I of course understand how it goes, of course he could have realized that jumping on so quick made him seem suspicious and pulled off, but, I found his explanation, again, satisfying to think that he wasn't doing it because he was an intruder, and, at least compared to others at this point especially, isn't suspicious enough to be voting for. My opinion further changed my suspicions from there based on who did what and when and all of the nuances that I don't feel are necessary to go over at this point. Go ahead and make an argument towards why people should vote for a person, or why they shouldn't, make your vote, and move on to next person.

Agentcarr16, I read your log, is there anything you specifically want me to address at this point? I think you were mostly giving me input and didn't really require a response, but I want to make sure you know I read you and make sure you are good or if you have any further questions/concerns.

Thanks. Acknowledging that you read it is all I could have asked. No response required.

To further re-iterate. I'm just messing with Q.U.A.D., all in fun, because I think it works for the situation at hand. You know, it helps keep things light and morale higher while we have to work together to kill off each other and attempt to fix what is happening to us all, which is all quite grim, indeed. He's quite the endearing A.I., really, and all things said against him from me are merely jest and light-hearted.

Though, still, I am really curious what would happen if there was a majority vote to elminate the A.I. and just have the computer operate without it. I mostly think Q.U.A.D. would retaliate unkindly and probably kill me for actually having talked about it and making it ultimately come to that point, and, you know, maybe kill a random participant in the vote for it, who knows what else. I'm just having fun with the speculation!

It is a rather amusing possibility, isn't it...
Although we would probably have to take matter into our own hands and reprogram the computer ourselves. Considering that Q.U.A.D. said that he would be taking care of the punishment himself, I don't think he'd voluntarily erase himself.

*musing* that might make for an interesting mechanic...

Yeah, I mean, really, who knows what the realm of possibilities are. I've played these things back on the moon-colony called video-games, do you have those here?, where sometimes the possibilities seem endless and are really abstract or obscured in a way that you might not first realize upon getting into them.

I wonder if we voted to destroy/remove the A.I. program out of the computer (I agree, he would not self-erase and probably would retaliate against us doing something to him, but, you never know could happen and if we might be successful somehow!) if there would be a team that we could put together that had enough skill to keep the station fucntional, possibly fix things ourselves, or, at least gain control over whatever there IS so we can assess the situation at hand and go from there. Like I said at the beginning, maybe there aren't even intruders and just the A.I. is the issue, malfunctiong and thinking some are intruders when they are not, or, some other variance, yeah, I said it already, sorry for repeating.

Who knows, maybe we can get it to sing us a Daisy of a song some day.

Someone did try to vote QUAD earlier in the game...
Based on the resulting vote count, it appears not to be an option in this game.

Certainly, and I'm not arguing for doing such an action either. But, that doesn't mean that just because the computer wasn't registering the votes on itself (no surprise there really!) that individuals could not still go ahead and enter a bolded Vote QuadrAlien into the log, and, given that free will and fantasizing, a majority of the people here could, in theory, enter that vote, and, even if they aren't registering as votes to the A.I., it could cause the A.I. to get mad at such attempts and retaliate, or, something else or it could even be successful even with Q.U.A.D. saying that it isn't (lies from the A.I!) Yep yep, fun stuff.

Absolutely!

This takes me back to my original vote on Ix. He's been absent for over 2 days now, which I find quite weird considering he was the most viable lynch at that point. I'm not a fan of holding back, especially when you are the centre of what seemed to be the hottest situation at the moment (the crisis took some heat away but the wagon was still the most viable one). One would expect a person on the hot seat to be more involved, especially if they are Town. This doesn't make me want to change my vote right now.

I have to admit, common for games with too-long Days, I'm starting to fade in my interest a bit. I tried to read all that up there (about 719 forward), but man, I have a pile of work to get to and I don't think anything really worth reading happened, did it? Sorry. By my count we have about 7½ hours until the crisis event finally resolves, so thank god we'll have something real to talk about by that point.

Noting that Ix's strategy for dealing with the heat of his wagon is to simply disappear and let us talk ourselves out of it, which we seem to be trying to do.

I'm wondering if there might be more negative consequences if we don't decide who to eliminate before the crisis is over. Does anyone think that is a possibility?