|
On July 24 2010 04:59 SiNiquity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 04:40 chaoser wrote:It's a huge issue that Tricode's target was BC, and NOT Jayme or Roffles. If his target had been one of the latter two, then, in the absence of a counter-claim, we could safely assume that the mafia had targeted BC. However, because Tricode's target was BC, that makes it still possible that BC is red. This is something we can't really even test out by lynching Tricode (thus why that's a terrible idea), because if he flips red, then yes, so is BC, but if he flips Vigilante, then BC remains unconfirmed. I just realized, if they both really were mafia, wouldn't Tricode WANT to claim he hit Jayme or Roffles? That leads us to the assumption that BC got hit by mafia-->he is to be trusted. In this way, they can both lie and get away with it and gain an advantage? If Tricode claimed to hit Jayme or Roffles, then we'd first have to verify Tricode before BC could be verified. If Tricode really is Mafia, then claiming to hit BC is smart because we gain nothing by lynch-verifying him under the pretense that he's not Mafia. In short, claiming to not hit BC but rather Roffles or Jayme gives us an incentive to lynch him, because we gain something from his death (BC's innocence).
mm, ok this is true too. damn this is getting complicated...either way, i think two mafia both lying is sub-optimal play from mafia and 1 lying mafia is just bad play. This doesn't mean they're 100% confirmed but I think at least they get a little bit of trust
|
On July 24 2010 05:01 chaoser wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 04:46 Bill Murray wrote:BM, I was wondering if you could clarify the majority part?
The OP lists "48 hour days, 24 hour nights", I didn't see anything about majority and since it can be anti-town it would be nice to have the extra time.
Thanks, if someone hits majority they're dead and the day ends and goes to twilight if it ends in an hour, will twilight last 47? no. If it ends in 1 hour, will twilight last 1 minute? no. I would definitely give a reasonable amount of time as to not make it unfair for the town, but what you're asking me to do is essentially "baby" people who don't know not to reach majority before they've discussed shit. Sorry, I don't understand, what does "hit majority" mean?
i think he means that if player x gets 13 votes the day ends as soon as he sees it and player x is lynched. (as in majority is like 51% of the voters)
|
|
|
On July 24 2010 05:07 chaoser wrote:
oh oh, got it, thanks BC
np
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On July 24 2010 04:59 SiNiquity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 04:40 chaoser wrote:It's a huge issue that Tricode's target was BC, and NOT Jayme or Roffles. If his target had been one of the latter two, then, in the absence of a counter-claim, we could safely assume that the mafia had targeted BC. However, because Tricode's target was BC, that makes it still possible that BC is red. This is something we can't really even test out by lynching Tricode (thus why that's a terrible idea), because if he flips red, then yes, so is BC, but if he flips Vigilante, then BC remains unconfirmed. I just realized, if they both really were mafia, wouldn't Tricode WANT to claim he hit Jayme or Roffles? That leads us to the assumption that BC got hit by mafia-->he is to be trusted. In this way, they can both lie and get away with it and gain an advantage? If Tricode claimed to hit Jayme or Roffles, then we'd first have to verify Tricode before BC could be verified. If Tricode really is Mafia, then claiming to hit BC is smart because we gain nothing by lynch-verifying him under the pretense that he's not Mafia. In short, claiming to not hit BC but rather Roffles or Jayme gives us an incentive to lynch him, because we gain something from his death (BC's innocence).
The absense of a counter-claim establishes:
A: There was a vigi hit and It was performed by Tricode
OR
B: Tricode and BC are on the same team.
Because there has not been a counter-claim, and because Tricode chose the sub-optimal hit target, (if he had been mafia) then we can assume that Option A is correct.
|
Clearly it is bad to lynch tricode but its bad to roleclaim to him as well before we have cleared him.
At least let it pass 24 hours.
If there are a mad hatter I think that he should step forward. He is still probably safe because the mafia don't know who he has put his bombs on. If he steps forward and no one else does it than tricode is safe. If someone else does then we have a 1v1,
If we dont have a mad hatter but 2 vigilantes then its trickier.I would probably still advocate for him stepping forward because if we are fast we can use his nightkill to kill someone likely from the roleclaiming lists.
On July 24 2010 02:05 chaoser wrote:
Even if this is all some complex plot to get a lot of blues on one person, the suicide bomber still has to decide on whether 1) there ARE that many blues on the teammate he's going to blow and 2) which of his teammates to blow up. It's a stupid idea for mafia to double-lie for both BC and Tricode cause when one falls, the other will too. The only way I can see this somehow working out in mafia's slight favor is if BC is mafia (godfather even), he got hit by Tricode and protected by someone else but the chances of that are so low and can be checked via a DT visit.
I don't think that the chances are that low for BC beeing GF. If he is mafia then he would be a good candidate for the GF position. Remember that the mafia choses their GF themselves so he will porbably be one of the good players. Other alternatives would be amber citi.zen or Infundibulum.
Then if he took a hit it would be very suspicious not to tell town.
Im not saying that this is a likely scenario at all because he would have to be very lucky to be hit by a vigilante and protected by a medic but it is possible.
On July 24 2010 02:11 Amber[LighT] wrote:
It's a dead end though. Once we lynch Tricode that only gives us a hint of who BC is, depending on the flip. BC will not be confirmed 100% from lynching Tricode, and then from there we don't have a lot of connections. BC wasn't really involved with much other than a few posts about the bandwagons and BrownBears plan.
I think we should just avoid them and go for players like Youngminii or Subversion.
Why would you say youngmini? He hasn't been a suspect since day one and I just made a big post saying that its not very likely that he is mafia. You are getting more and more suspicous every day..
On July 24 2010 04:49 tree.hugger wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 04:40 chaoser wrote:It's a huge issue that Tricode's target was BC, and NOT Jayme or Roffles. If his target had been one of the latter two, then, in the absence of a counter-claim, we could safely assume that the mafia had targeted BC. However, because Tricode's target was BC, that makes it still possible that BC is red. This is something we can't really even test out by lynching Tricode (thus why that's a terrible idea), because if he flips red, then yes, so is BC, but if he flips Vigilante, then BC remains unconfirmed. I just realized, if they both really were mafia, wouldn't Tricode WANT to claim he hit Jayme or Roffles? That leads us to the assumption that BC got hit by mafia-->he is to be trusted. In this way, they can both lie and get away with it and gain an advantage? Actually, you're absolutely right. Tricode is confirmed as town. But BC still is the same. At this point, I advocate a mass roleclaim to Tricode. He can then tell the town how many of each blue role claimed, and build a circle.
No he is not we need to have a 100% sure townplayer before roleclaim. At the moment he is only likely town. Do not claim.
|
Also not that we have 8 people who is abstaining at the moment. If 13 abstains then there is no lynch today.
Please don't abstain people!
|
On July 24 2010 05:37 lakrismamma wrote:
Also not that we have 8 people who is abstaining at the moment. If 13 abstains then there is no lynch today.
Please don't abstain people!
We're not explicitly abstaining, we're just voting for double lynch. I'm sure most of us will choose someone to lynch by the end of the day.
|
Here's the diagram I drew up of all possible ways everything could be:
![[image loading]](http://i26.tinypic.com/8wcc34.png)
|
Actually, wait the bottom two right ones are wrong, sorry, let me rethink those
|
I also forgot about if someone was GF
|
On July 24 2010 05:00 SiNiquity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 04:49 tree.hugger wrote:On July 24 2010 04:40 chaoser wrote:It's a huge issue that Tricode's target was BC, and NOT Jayme or Roffles. If his target had been one of the latter two, then, in the absence of a counter-claim, we could safely assume that the mafia had targeted BC. However, because Tricode's target was BC, that makes it still possible that BC is red. This is something we can't really even test out by lynching Tricode (thus why that's a terrible idea), because if he flips red, then yes, so is BC, but if he flips Vigilante, then BC remains unconfirmed. I just realized, if they both really were mafia, wouldn't Tricode WANT to claim he hit Jayme or Roffles? That leads us to the assumption that BC got hit by mafia-->he is to be trusted. In this way, they can both lie and get away with it and gain an advantage? Actually, you're absolutely right. Tricode is confirmed as town. But BC still is the same. At this point, I advocate a mass roleclaim to Tricode. He can then tell the town how many of each blue role claimed, and build a circle. DO NOT MASS ROLECLAIM TO TRICODE
Just in case someone missed it at the bottom of page 86. Tree.Hugger's logic is flawed, the flaws have been identified, stop pushing for it until he has been 100% cleared (which, at this point, he has not).
DO NOT MASS ROLECLAIM TO TRICODE.
|
Huh, didn't know majority vote ended the day prematurely. Just abstaining for the moment to "stay active" but I'm not interested in the day ending early either.
## Unvote
|
|
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On July 24 2010 06:24 SiNiquity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 05:00 SiNiquity wrote:On July 24 2010 04:49 tree.hugger wrote:On July 24 2010 04:40 chaoser wrote:It's a huge issue that Tricode's target was BC, and NOT Jayme or Roffles. If his target had been one of the latter two, then, in the absence of a counter-claim, we could safely assume that the mafia had targeted BC. However, because Tricode's target was BC, that makes it still possible that BC is red. This is something we can't really even test out by lynching Tricode (thus why that's a terrible idea), because if he flips red, then yes, so is BC, but if he flips Vigilante, then BC remains unconfirmed. I just realized, if they both really were mafia, wouldn't Tricode WANT to claim he hit Jayme or Roffles? That leads us to the assumption that BC got hit by mafia-->he is to be trusted. In this way, they can both lie and get away with it and gain an advantage? Actually, you're absolutely right. Tricode is confirmed as town. But BC still is the same. At this point, I advocate a mass roleclaim to Tricode. He can then tell the town how many of each blue role claimed, and build a circle. DO NOT MASS ROLECLAIM TO TRICODE Just in case someone missed it at the bottom of page 86. Tree.Hugger's logic is flawed, the flaws have been identified, stop pushing for it until he has been 100% cleared (which, at this point, he has not). DO NOT MASS ROLECLAIM TO TRICODE.
Since you last posted that, I responded to your points.
In the absence of a counter-claim, Tricode is confirmed town. Now I'm fine with a waiting period for a counter-claim, say, until midnight tonight, but if there isn't one by that time, then Tricode's vigi claim can only be true.
That's because the only other option (Tricode and BC on the same team) is rejected because Tricode chose to say that he aimed for BC, which makes him innocent, rather than aiming for Jayme or Roffles, which would make BC look innocent, and which, we can assume, would've been what the mafia would've done.
What about this don't you understand?
|
On July 24 2010 05:10 tree.hugger wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 04:59 SiNiquity wrote:On July 24 2010 04:40 chaoser wrote:It's a huge issue that Tricode's target was BC, and NOT Jayme or Roffles. If his target had been one of the latter two, then, in the absence of a counter-claim, we could safely assume that the mafia had targeted BC. However, because Tricode's target was BC, that makes it still possible that BC is red. This is something we can't really even test out by lynching Tricode (thus why that's a terrible idea), because if he flips red, then yes, so is BC, but if he flips Vigilante, then BC remains unconfirmed. I just realized, if they both really were mafia, wouldn't Tricode WANT to claim he hit Jayme or Roffles? That leads us to the assumption that BC got hit by mafia-->he is to be trusted. In this way, they can both lie and get away with it and gain an advantage? If Tricode claimed to hit Jayme or Roffles, then we'd first have to verify Tricode before BC could be verified. If Tricode really is Mafia, then claiming to hit BC is smart because we gain nothing by lynch-verifying him under the pretense that he's not Mafia. In short, claiming to not hit BC but rather Roffles or Jayme gives us an incentive to lynch him, because we gain something from his death (BC's innocence). The absense of a counter-claim establishes: A: There was a vigi hit and It was performed by Tricode OR B: Tricode and BC are on the same team. Because there has not been a counter-claim, and because Tricode chose the sub-optimal hit target, (if he had been mafia) then we can assume that Option A is correct.
The flaw in your logic is that choosing to claim the "sub-optimal hit target" (i.e. BloodyC0bbler) ==> Tricode is innocent. As I explained above, claiming BloodyC0bbler is not sub-optimal for Mafia. I will demonstrate my argument again.
Suppose Tricode had instead chosen to claim Jayme or Roffles, the "optimal hit target." If Tricode is telling the truth, then the Mafia attempted to hit BloodyC0bbler, but was instead protected (medic / veteran life). If Tricode is lying (i.e. is Mafia), then Tricode did not put out an extra hit, and barring anyone else coming forward, BC is also lying.
Therefore, Tricode's death will either condemn BC or exonerate him. Thus the town has an incentive to lynch Tricode, as there are concrete, indisputable implications which will result from it! Compared to claiming BloodyC0bbler, where lynching Tricode only yields definitive information about BC in the case that he was lying, there is now a disincentive to lynch Tricode (the possibility that he's telling the truth, thereby revealing, "well yep he was telling the truth, but BC is still unknown.")
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On July 24 2010 06:44 SiNiquity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 05:10 tree.hugger wrote:On July 24 2010 04:59 SiNiquity wrote:On July 24 2010 04:40 chaoser wrote:It's a huge issue that Tricode's target was BC, and NOT Jayme or Roffles. If his target had been one of the latter two, then, in the absence of a counter-claim, we could safely assume that the mafia had targeted BC. However, because Tricode's target was BC, that makes it still possible that BC is red. This is something we can't really even test out by lynching Tricode (thus why that's a terrible idea), because if he flips red, then yes, so is BC, but if he flips Vigilante, then BC remains unconfirmed. I just realized, if they both really were mafia, wouldn't Tricode WANT to claim he hit Jayme or Roffles? That leads us to the assumption that BC got hit by mafia-->he is to be trusted. In this way, they can both lie and get away with it and gain an advantage? If Tricode claimed to hit Jayme or Roffles, then we'd first have to verify Tricode before BC could be verified. If Tricode really is Mafia, then claiming to hit BC is smart because we gain nothing by lynch-verifying him under the pretense that he's not Mafia. In short, claiming to not hit BC but rather Roffles or Jayme gives us an incentive to lynch him, because we gain something from his death (BC's innocence). The absense of a counter-claim establishes: A: There was a vigi hit and It was performed by Tricode OR B: Tricode and BC are on the same team. Because there has not been a counter-claim, and because Tricode chose the sub-optimal hit target, (if he had been mafia) then we can assume that Option A is correct. The flaw in your logic is that choosing to claim the "sub-optimal hit target" (i.e. BloodyC0bbler) ==> Tricode is innocent. As I explained above, claiming BloodyC0bbler is not sub-optimal for Mafia. I will demonstrate my argument again. Suppose Tricode had instead chosen to claim Jayme or Roffles, the "optimal hit target." If Tricode is telling the truth, then the Mafia attempted to hit BloodyC0bbler, but was instead protected (medic / veteran life). If Tricode is lying (i.e. is Mafia), then Tricode did not put out an extra hit, and barring anyone else coming forward, BC is also lying. Therefore, Tricode's death will either condemn BC or exonerate him. Thus the town has an incentive to lynch Tricode, as there are concrete, indisputable implications which will result from it! Compared to claiming BloodyC0bbler, where lynching Tricode only yields definitive information about BC in the case that he was lying, there is now a disincentive to lynch Tricode (the possibility that he's telling the truth, thereby revealing, "well yep he was telling the truth, but BC is still unknown.")
I'm not concerned about lynching Tricode, I want to establish his innocence.
And once again, in the absence of a counter-claim, Tricode MUST be innocent, unless both him and BC are lying. And again, I think it's self evident that the mafia would rather have made BC look like a confirmed townie, than Tricode.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
And, I see what you're saying, you're arguing that the incentive for the mafia to discourage a test-lynch on Tricode is enough for them to make it look more like Tricode is innocent. I can see that argument, but I believe that the mafia (at this point) would be confident enough so that the town would not waste a lynch on a test which would, in the unlikely event of it being successful, only yield one other mafia. We're somewhat past the point for tests.
I think also, the mafia would be pretty sure they could bandwagon one of our other standbys if Tricode got in trouble. I think the mafia would prefer to let a player like BC fight for himself (were they on the same team) and I think they'd probably win that fight.
|
On July 24 2010 06:48 tree.hugger wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 06:44 SiNiquity wrote:On July 24 2010 05:10 tree.hugger wrote:On July 24 2010 04:59 SiNiquity wrote:On July 24 2010 04:40 chaoser wrote:It's a huge issue that Tricode's target was BC, and NOT Jayme or Roffles. If his target had been one of the latter two, then, in the absence of a counter-claim, we could safely assume that the mafia had targeted BC. However, because Tricode's target was BC, that makes it still possible that BC is red. This is something we can't really even test out by lynching Tricode (thus why that's a terrible idea), because if he flips red, then yes, so is BC, but if he flips Vigilante, then BC remains unconfirmed. I just realized, if they both really were mafia, wouldn't Tricode WANT to claim he hit Jayme or Roffles? That leads us to the assumption that BC got hit by mafia-->he is to be trusted. In this way, they can both lie and get away with it and gain an advantage? If Tricode claimed to hit Jayme or Roffles, then we'd first have to verify Tricode before BC could be verified. If Tricode really is Mafia, then claiming to hit BC is smart because we gain nothing by lynch-verifying him under the pretense that he's not Mafia. In short, claiming to not hit BC but rather Roffles or Jayme gives us an incentive to lynch him, because we gain something from his death (BC's innocence). The absense of a counter-claim establishes: A: There was a vigi hit and It was performed by Tricode OR B: Tricode and BC are on the same team. Because there has not been a counter-claim, and because Tricode chose the sub-optimal hit target, (if he had been mafia) then we can assume that Option A is correct. The flaw in your logic is that choosing to claim the "sub-optimal hit target" (i.e. BloodyC0bbler) ==> Tricode is innocent. As I explained above, claiming BloodyC0bbler is not sub-optimal for Mafia. I will demonstrate my argument again. Suppose Tricode had instead chosen to claim Jayme or Roffles, the "optimal hit target." If Tricode is telling the truth, then the Mafia attempted to hit BloodyC0bbler, but was instead protected (medic / veteran life). If Tricode is lying (i.e. is Mafia), then Tricode did not put out an extra hit, and barring anyone else coming forward, BC is also lying. Therefore, Tricode's death will either condemn BC or exonerate him. Thus the town has an incentive to lynch Tricode, as there are concrete, indisputable implications which will result from it! Compared to claiming BloodyC0bbler, where lynching Tricode only yields definitive information about BC in the case that he was lying, there is now a disincentive to lynch Tricode (the possibility that he's telling the truth, thereby revealing, "well yep he was telling the truth, but BC is still unknown.") I'm not concerned about lynching Tricode, I want to establish his innocence. And once again, in the absence of a counter-claim, Tricode MUST be innocent, unless both him and BC are lying. And again, I think it's self evident that the mafia would rather have made BC look like a confirmed townie, than Tricode.
I agree that either Tricode is innocent or both BC and Tricode are lying. But there's nothing "self-evident" about what the Mafia "would rather have done," as this will just go down the WIFOM rabbit hole. You may have your hunches, but nothing conclusive can be drawn, and that's my problem with mass roleclaiming to Tricode. He is not conclusively innocent. Just like d3 is not conclusively innocent (Mafia could've put 2 hits on Foolishness), and it's why we didn't mass roleclaim to him Day 2.
|
To be honest I do agree with your hunch of Tricode being innocent  I also think that d3 is innocent as well. But sadly neither are conclusive, and we should be wary of roleclaiming based on hunches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
