Be Excellent To Each Other

Sore loser? Me? Naaaaaaaww.

Feex

We shall see.

Shame MYP DECIDED TO FUCK OFF AND LEAVE US IN THE LURCH.

Good playing all round I thought. Except for Albin0

People... I tagged Kalmar RIGHT FROM THE VERY START

I gave reasons for it.

I told you to look at the people who started voting for me (Kalmar,Zaphod,Mr Dom), because the only reason for a crasher to attack in the game was defensive.

I pointedly didn't move my vote away from Kalmar, even though it could've saved my life.

And the only person to pay any attention to me, you also ignored too.

I thought about it...

It did not help with teh Bestman going on his honeymoon 1/2 way through..

Good job you were doing the four sentence thing, then.
What was with that, anyway?

I think next game I need an "immune to killing night actions" role.

We'll just lynch you on day one

That was awesome.

Went for you on the first night because you were last to vote Joans. Sorry, but thanks!

I would also like to hear what Dave's 4 word thing was about!

I have no clue. Nothing to do with me!!!

(Posted in reply to Kalmar, somewhere else)

Thing is, from that, getting Grim... was obvious. (His defense of you, plus evidence b below)
When asked on day 2 who I was suspicious of. You, Albino (playing the worst game), and Grim...

Evidence b: "if they think no lynch is what we should be doing (should we really?) then all voting may buy a thin veneer of repectability"
Yes, I did pick up on Grim... going from not voting for the leader to voting the other way round the moment I raised the point. Tell a bad guy how to behave to appear good, and watch them hop to it...

2 down, look at the opening Kalmar defense, and you have your third crasher (Mr Dom).

Thing is, you'd expect, given the inherent nature of 4 word sentences, and the required density of information, people would actually try and think about what you were saying. It appears not. Shame, as everything there was enough to wipe out the starting crashers with one possible Zaphod shaped loss.

----

The 4 word thing was a plan with a few different possible goals

First of all, I was fairly sure that I wasn't going to survive past day 1, so bear that in mind. Nobody ever pays attention to day 1 as people see it as a shot in the dark, when it rarely is.

1) A completely different posting style from games past. Albeit maintaining the slightly unhinged approach I enjoy. Only a truely stupid person could mistake such a style for a bad guy. (Oh. Gill = Awesomes, mind.)
2) Requiring people to actually think if I had any information, If people have to think about something, they're less likely to be led. My latter day posts were done in such a way to give out enough (and as pointed out above, it was enough to get all three starting crashers, if anyone was willing to pay attention. Gill = Awesomes. Not Gill = Not Awesomes.)
3) If I don't have any information, I can go one of two ways.
- Make out as if the 4 word thing is a gag, and so harmless to bad guys, avoiding the day 1 night kill
- Make out as if I am a power role, and in so doing, absorb both night actions for only one, fairly inevitable, loss.

And a few other more minor reasons.

The main problem arose when I went to play ODST with Dimmers, and so missed the middle of the day, and got done by the bridal party for being quiet. QUIET?!?, after _that_ start?

Bah. I wasn't really the last to vote either as it should have already finished. I went out about half four with the intention of having time to come back and read things properly. Instead I started skim-reading stuff at 5 to 7 and just threw my vote in at the last minute.

Except I didn't have the first clue what you were going on about (and I'm still not quite sure). And, of course, we wanted you dead.

I was gutted when myself and the crashers decided to kill the same person two nights running though.

Did me and Mr Chris mention Myp!!

If it were the main evidence it would've been evidence a.

But seriously, you haven't? Even despite the rules making it clear that you must kill someone at night giving a rather damn large hint that people remaining alive is good for you?

But why? Neither bad side had elimination as a goal. Less people = less space to hide.

Well, stats is done. Zaphod continues on his most boring streak, Myp continues his "Stealing Zaphods roles" streak.

And Joans ends his "Getting lynched" streak.

No we figured that, which is why we were most happy when we targetted the same person as Mr Russell. I mean I didn't get what you were on about at the time. Your four-word sentence thing was throwing me right off.

Yes, of course we got that. Which is why I voted for you (in a retaliatory style) rather than sitting there waiting for nightfall like an obvious crasher.

Plus with the crypticness, I thought there was a good chance of getting a lynch. True!

I had guessed you were a crasher

Although being part of 3 wedding party it was easy to see

Ok, a run through my posts.



Cake is good.



Bad wedding person is trying to take away the cake.



Quite publicly broadcasting that Kalmar is "just here to cause trouble"



Kalmars second post was in essence accusing the bride of being fat. You can see why that may tip a couple of alarms. I try and get a response out of him, and he acts as I would expect from a crasher.

Originally, I was going to put "Kalmar attacks cakey lady", but that would've been a clear bride roleclaim.



Who provides the cake? Bride and Groom, after cutting it. Therefore I want them to survive.



Very little != nothing. Very little also != has insider info.
Cakey lady = bride.
Important point is that I stick with Kalmar. At this point, there were a couple of people with vote counts only slightly lower than mine. Changing could have swung the votes away from me by offering a second target, and I chose not to. Why this didn't alert more than one or two people



If you can't get that one...



4 word sentences making clear the pattern of my posts.

Try checking opening votes on me. - Maybe they'd have found 2 in the first 3. It smacked of defensive voting. It was.

Do crashers want lynch - Well do they? No. Maybe I'd get a behavioural change here from any not currently voting. Anyone using this as a defense becomes immediately suspicious later.
Also, trying to get the guests to think along the correct lines (of someone about to be demonstrated as a guest) rather than following the cookie trail left by the crashers.



What circumstances would crashers want a lynch? When they needed to defend themselves. Again, trying to get people to think rather than just blindly follow whatever the crashers wanted.

I was rushed doing that post, so I didn't make clear what my question was in response to. My next post was just a repeat, with bolding of what I was.

So often people leave posts that are not picked up on. I'd rather hoped that by making posts that by their very nature, you had to think about, people would. Sadly, Only Gill and maybe Runcle
did.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it does.

<reddwarf>Blatant clue, innit?</reddwarf>

With all due respect Dave, no way in hell was anyone going to decode any of that lot! Cryptic doesn't even cover it.

Fair play for guessing me but it was a 50/50 chance - I wasn't leaving clues in order to be cheeky, I was genuinely just playing as a guest character. And with the vague idea that a crasher would be expected to play very cautiously to avoid detection.

I'd be interested to know what anyone else thought..

If anyone had not noticed that I was speaking in a defined pattern, do you think they would've missed it after that?

If I'd put - when kalmar was voting for me - that he was attacking a lady (of which there are two in the game), do you think someone, probably a bad guy on the lookout, wouldn't have noticed? It would've been a big enough clue, which is why I didn't use it in the end.

I've admitted that some of what I said was cryptic, and deliberately so. And I've detailed my reasons. At least one person managed to get a significant amount from it, she did her best and was pretty much ignored too.
It would only have required a handful of people to pay attention, and I'd hoped, given that people tend to acknowledge that I tend to know what I'm on about, that people would actually try.

It was the nature of the retaliation which was the real kicker. (And I know how hard it is to appear guesty when you're trying to, rather than actually are)

The only problem is, I wasn't "attacking a lady" - I made a wedding related joke referencing the bride, yes. The type of joke that a crasher shouldn't make.

You seem to think that this is blindingly obvious proof that I was a wedding crasher, on the basis that your guess did turn out to be correct. It was a bit of a stab in the dark though, really, wasn't it?

But the thing is, it isn't actually a thing a guest would do. It's the kind of thing a bad guy would think a guest would do.

Hmm. I shall ponder that one.

but um, we're all just people pretending to have roles.

Surely someone pretending to be a crasher pretending to be a guest is the same thing as someone pretending to be a guest.

Malc

No, because a guest isn't trying to hide something.

But they are trying to avoid coming across as a badguy. Which again, isn't that the same thing?

Not quite.

Look back over the archives, you should see the difference.

(Besides, it obviously worked this time.)

Did I play any different to normal?

Malc

Not that I noticed!

Anyway, great game, cheers everyone

And yet I was playing in a way in which I thought I would if I was a townie, just sometimes saying the opposite of what I actually thought.

Malc

Was a fun game.. when is teh next one

Do the goodies ever win?

You're always a pain to read due to being quiet and reserved when playing. I _think_ there was one post which made me sit up and go "eh? Somethings a bit off here", but I wasn't exactly in a position to find out more. (But note: Early in this thread, I note Zaphod is playing a bit differently, and come up with an idea of what he'll do if he's good/bad.)

Would've gone for Mr 465 before you, to be sure.

Not since you started playing...



Tee hee.

yes, the goodies win more often than nt. They were quite unlucky here, and the rules benefitted the bad guys more than normal. In a regular game it is rare these days for the bad guys to win. It takes a host of bad decisions by 'the mob', as per the Ghostbusters game.

Dave, Stat me!

Total win stats, Primary conditions only:

13 games.

'Mafia' win condition reached: 7 times
'Town' win condition reached: 4 times
'SK' win condition reached: 3 times
'Cult' win condition reached: 2 times
'Other' win condition reached: 1 time

In all SK won games, it's been via a weakened win condition, either kill 5 people, or kill a specific person, rather than kill everyone.
One 'win' was a town/cult draw.

We really do need to find a way of anonymising this. People rely too much on what other people are known to be like, or are reticent to vote people out because they are new, or because they always get voted out early, or because Albino is frothing at them like a loon etc.

What kind of statistics do you want?

(Oh, Ok, the person who's reached their win condition the most times is Kalmar. Happy now?)

(albeit with a lower win percentage than Dimrill, Grim... and Mr Dom)

To be fair I think we'd still be able to identify Albin0 even if he was anonymised.

I don't see a big problem, as long as we're not playing too often.

@Mr Dave: thank you, that's the one

Yeah, I always have to play within the basis that I will only last a couple of days. Which certainly leads to some interesting plays.

Although I think it'd be fairly easy to guess which one was me even if anonymous.

Keep watching.