RE: Murder By The Book - Day 3: The Book of Revelation
04-09-2014, 05:00 AM
(04-09-2014, 01:46 AM)Truegreen Wrote: »1. You claim Cyber did not make sense as a nightkill target due to his poor posting frequency/You claim you also did not post frequently.
2. You and Cyber both had a low post frequency but enough to be merely seen as semi-active.
3. I can see no reason Scum would have identified you as dangerous before the first night. (If there is some power that can do this I would like to know)
4. Assuming (1.) is true and there has been no night-kill on another player highly active or inactive this suggests that even if Mirdini was targeted the first night it is due to his semi-activity or something he stated in one of his few posts not any determined 'dangerousness'.
5. Cyber shared a similar level of activity as Mirdini.
6. Mafia perform most if not all night kills. As they are always the same their kills are likely to share some logical reasoning or methodology. Basically it will produce a pattern.
Mirdini, I think you have internalized this attack too much, assuming that it is something specific to you that has lead to the attack. I propose that it is the continuation of a specific pattern which gives us insight into the Mafia's thought processes.
While Schaz has already rebutted this sorta I might as well clarify my argument (and also be forced to resort to going over my meta explicitly but well that's why we have day/night 1 sigh). Have relisted the parts of your argument I have particular issues with.
Re: 1./2. Yeah I didn't quite make this clear enough but let's compare cyber's day one posts and my day one posts:
The point was less 'scum are killing people with this many posts' and more 'scum are not shooting people based on keeping the game "fun"' (i.e. killing lurkers or people who aren't going to contribute anything to the game) - cyber and I had both made posts, and they were moderately entertaining (or at least I'd like to think so). In looking back cyber'd actually done more than I remembered he had (still not much but hey I never even voted D1), whereas there were plenty of slots that had done even less over the course of d1/were being replaced for the mafia to kill. You say in your estimation the mafia are following a pattern of killing "semi-active" players (by which you apparently mean players with 3 or less posts on d1) for some reason.
Why in the world would they do that? Objectively speaking these players aren't a threat, and are statistically just as likely to contain power roles as players who might be much more problematic in the long-run.
Whiiiich brings us to
3./4.
While referring to my own meta (by which I mean my mafia conduct as a whole which is something several other people (see schazer list) know about) is something I try to avoid ('look at me I'm a special snowflake' etc.) since it's kind of half of my case and I've only got the day to make said case I guess I have to do that
I've played mafia for a pretty long time, and generally people seem to think that I am quite good at getting in the way of scum as a town player (whether they're correct or not is irrelevant here). This has led to me being promptly shot by the mafia in quite a few games:
n' that's only the ones I could find at short notice. Either way, getting me out of the way as quickly as possible is something that at least makes sense from a scum standpoint, whereas killing cyber and then me based on 'semi-activity' is not.
and finally
5./6. As mentioned above, this pattern makes no sense because there's no good motive behind it. Additionally, trying to find patterns in two nights of kills based on what kind of players turned up dead is... not a very reliable methodology. Yeah, basing the gamestate on meta-reasoning isn't foolproof either but it's all I've got to go on after a no lynch, third party death and third party lynch and it makes a sight more sense than 'scum decided to kill people with 2-3 posts because who knows'.