Normal Game Thread Full Metal Panic!: Fighting Boy Meets Girl Mafia

:^)

 

Again. When you were asked why you claimed, the initial reason you gave (other than "why not?") was that you wanted to be confirmed before you died. You can insist after the fact that it was not a cause-effect relationship, but that's not what you told us before.

So we're back to being confirmed then. Because the only time you don't need to say whether or not you are Scum is when you are confirmed.

Only if we ignore all of the glaring issues your claiming has created for the Town.

But we already knew that your action redirected kills at that point. That's what a Guardian fundamentally does.

Yet, in every instance where someone has asked you ro clarification, you have (rightly) viewed such requests with suspicion.

Before I begin, from the context of your post, this is the paragraph you seem to be referring to:

I came to this conclusion because your previous line comments on the paragraph above this, referring to the "no further information" line that concludes that paragraph. Further, your next line seems to refer to the paragraph after this, referring to the "you haven't accomplished anything" line.

With that out of the way, let's analyze my use of the English language.

Subject
Direct Object
Indirect Object
Verb
Prepositional Phrase
Gerund Phrase
Infinitive Phrase
Conjunction
Complementizer

First sentence is broken into three clauses: "you stated that," "because of your role, we can safely assume (that)," and "pou is Town." All three are independent clauses joined by "that" as a complementizer, which serves as a sort of hybrid object/conjunction. Each clause/phrase is grammatically complete, except that I dropped the complementizer between the second and third clause, which is a very common colloquialism of modern English.

Second sentence is broken into four clauses: "you forgot to account for the fact that," "because you at one point basically claimed (that)," "you were a Doctor," and "the Mafia might have shot directly at you." The first, third, and fourth are independent clauses joined by complemntizers, while the second is a dependent clause appropriately joined by a conjunction. All four are grammatically correct, except that I again dropped the second complementizer.

Third sentence is broken down into eleven clauses: "This could have been mitigated," "if you'd asked pou about the penalty before explaining what," "the penalty meant," "because at least it would mean that," "were pou Scum," "she wouldn't know to play along (with it)," "but you explained the penalty first," "so we can no longer treat pou's answer as genuine," "because you literally incentivized her to lie about it," "if she is Scum." The first, third, and fifth are independent clauses joined appropriately, while the second, fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh are dependent clauses, most joined with conjunctions but one joined by switching from SVO to VSO. All are grammatically complete, except that I drop an implicit part of a prepositional phrase in the seventh clause.

So, in the end, while I was using compound sentences, none of it was grammatically incorrect, aside from some very common colloquial implicit drops.

Right, but actions and words and all that jazz. You say you want to help the Town, but your actions have harmed the Town, and you are now refusing to acknowledge this.

Again, only if we assume that you were not the target for the kill.

The difference is that you say a thing, I counter that thing, and you just say it again. You are repeating countered points. I am repeating the counterpoints. There is a pretty important distinction between the two.

This is pretty fundamental. If a move is the best course of action, it might be unpleasant but it is not bad play. You are not at fault for the unpleasantness of the best course of action. You are at fault for bad play. Maple's posts, to which you agreed, seem to characterize this as the latter, not the former.

Then we will not be able to assume that the kill was on pou.

 

Glob clearly doesn't have a good grasp of what is going on, because she can't articulate a cohesive explanation for why she claimed, and doesn't seem to understand that she has not provided sufficient information for us to make assumptions she is demanding we make.

I will note that the notion of prioritizing certain players for protection isn't as intrinsically wrong as you seem to believe. It's about mitigating risk. If the Doctor has 10 players to choose from, the Mafia has a 9/10 chance to kill any player, which means there's a good chance they can get away with killing a player we are treating as confirmed. If the Doctor instead has 3 players to choose from, the Mafia has a 7/7 chance to kill the other players, but only a 1/3 chance to kill one of those selected players. This sacrifices the chance of randomly stopping the Mafia kill (which, in this analogy, is a 1/10 chance) in exchange for heavily incentivizing the Mafia to not kill specific players.

In this particular instance, I don't feel like we have any players deserving of this kind of play, but this strategy, in the abstract, isn't wrong.

I personally recommend Kittens on a Slide. It always helps settle me down.

As a member of the Town, a risk to you is as risk to everyone else. Mafia is inherently a cooperative game.

Prada's character claim is strong enough that, barring better evidence, he is not a primary suspect right now. That doesn't mean he's confirmed Town.

 

For now I can put prada on the backburner. SK has also put a little more effort in so I'd rather follow an evilgenius lynch. Especially after that last vote. Although I can get aboard a maple lynch as well.

 

Truth but right now it's a randomized pickings
Lets say we have 14 players (is that how many players we have now?)
So we create an alliance of 5 players that leaves 9 or something minus scum of 2-3
6 6 easy night phases for mafia.

Well see i dont know if the logic behind targeting the two was similar but i definitely didnt target her because i thought she could eventually clear me.
I am willing to call pou a lean townie, depending on what happens in future nps.

I dont know what your role is but im willing to confirm you as nonmafia definitely anything after that is a question mark

Ok so heres what i dont get by lines you wrote more on cris then maple vote maple and then cross cris of your list at a finger click. Pretty silly really

Musings intresting

What &.& just because someone says theyre vanilla you're just able to clear cris 0.0 0.0 after suspecting them for a while?

Mhmn.

Ok but like wouldn't i have been confirmed when i died, so that wording legitimately doesnt make sense. Im not repeating myself anymore why i claimed, even though i expanded on my thinking as day 1 progressed. Im not repeating myself any more on anything it's getting silly

Yes, but i do not die from a redirected kill.

Im not responding to you talking about your use of english language, frankly it was a waste of your time, and was like &.& why. In fact it was pretty rude and you didnt clear up what you said at all

Perhaps but youwasting your time here is also harming the town.

Because even when you ask something new I've already answered that question before. You literally are posting long posts for the sake of it and i dont want to go in a circle any more. It's distracting

Oh my cupcakes. I just...
The kill only appears as failing on me in the write up if the kill was misdirected &.& &.&

What. Dude. I keep telling you over and over again why.
I know what im doing and why i did it so you need to get off your high horse

 

I'm back at home finally, so I'll start working on a response once I finish my shower

 

Sure, but in this scenario, let's assume that we go with completely random instead. Assuming self-protection purely for simplicity, there is a 1/14 chance that you successfully stop Mafia kill. Statistically, these odds aren't really that much better than 0%. The idea behind selective protection is that you go from a 1/14 chance for each Towny to having certain Townies at basically 100% chance to survive and the rest at 0%, depending on how you divide it up. If there are players of higher importance, it can be worth to make such a trade off.

Yes? How is this even relevant?

Us: "Glob, why did you claim?"

You: "To be confirmed before I died!"

Us: "How would claiming accomplish that?"

You: "It wouldn't."

Us: "But...what?"

You: "Because I'd be confirmed when I died."

Us: "What?"

I'm not really sure which point this is responding to, because it doesn't actually address any of the points. I'm going to assume its to the part where I said that we already knew that you redirected kills onto yourself, because that's the only one for which these even kinda makes sense.

So, you stated that you clarified how the penalty works in order to avoid false suspicion on players when a failed kill showed up on you.

I pointed out that, as you had already claimed Guardian, we would already know that kills on you were possibly on other players.

Can you explain how your response A) addresses this point or B) has anything to do with clarifying how the penalty thing works?

I'm sorry, you what? You what? You tell me that I can't into English, I demonstrate that I can, in fact, into English, and I'm the one being rude? Is this some kind of ******* joke?

There's nothing to ******* clarify, because its all written in plain, grammatically sound English. Its also a point that I've rephrased several times now. Its not ******* difficult.

You say that we should treat pou as confirmed Town because of your role. That is to say, because the only kill last Night was against pou, she is likely Town. However, the kill could have been against you. You made yourself a huge target yesterday, and refuse to clarify if the kill had to be against pou or not. If the kill was against you directly, and not against pou, then pou is not necessarily Town.

Therefore, as pou might have been Scum, when you asked her about the penalty, it was potentially beneficial for her to lie about it, so as to deny you confirmation. If, however, you had not explained the penalty thing first, but had instead asked her about it first, she would not have had a reason to lie, because she would not have known that she could safely lie about it.

By explaining the penalty before asking pou about the penalty, you nullified anything we could hope to learn from you revealing the penalty.

If I say "hey, person who might be Scum, did you get a message last Night?" then that person does not know if I'm referring to something that my role does 100% of the time or not. If they lie about it, and it is 100% of the time, they have created a scenario where one of us must be lying. This is bad. So they probably will not lie, even if they are Scum. If, I however, say "hey, person who might be Scum, I have a 50% chance to send a message, did you get one last Night?" the person now knows that they can safely lie about not getting the message, denying me confirmation without forcing a 1-for-1 trade, and that even if I die and am shown to be truthful, they are not caught.

Trying to prevent the Town from being misled because someone can't grasp fundamentals is the opposite of harming the Town.

Can you quote an example of this?

So what you're saying is that, if someone tried to shoot you directly, and the kill failed, it wouldn't appear in the writeup for some reason? Because I have a hard time believing that.

I mean, you saying you know what you're doing, and you demonstrating you know what you're doing, are not the same thing.

 

Well i mean yes if it's a important role we have confirmed but that's really not fair. And what if we get wrong? Then we're screwed it's way too early to even consider such a thing.

By the way the Me: Us: there's your example right off the back we've already talked about the nature of my claim, the reactions of town. Im not going over it again.

I dont even know what i need to explain &.& it's one line where i didnt even mention the penalty.

There's a difference between using English in a way that makes sense through choice of words and being grammatically correct.
Why are you getting worked up?

No the kill was not against me because i did not protect myself &.& a penalty can only be applied to my target. Pou was my target.

Honestly. Im not an idiot. I know what im doing, i know my playstyle, i know my role so really you need to back off. You might know how to play but until you've seen my role pm you dont know how to play my role.

No, because the worded format is the same as i was alerted it would be if i blocked a kill. Even then someone would have had to block it, there werent two attempted kills last night

 

2 hours later.

Water wastage is bad ya know.

Must be a good excuse you're writing.

 

tbf, I was in the shower for an hour

and it's coming

 

You're gonna prune up like a raisin.

 

a bit late for that

 

@Dr. White what's with that going for me?

 

Right so needing 3-4 hours to think of a reply is a joke. If you're actually town you need to know that you can play this game without writing a bible like Rot.

Just looks like you're thinking of a claim/getting coached by team/etc... and trying to get all the details right.