|
Also, what are you talking about Curu, are you posting without reading the thread completely? I'm embroiled in an argument with BC about whether to use the DT check or not (We should), and I called out DB for being mafia for not suffering a penalty for revealing SS' role. As well, lynching Jackal just because of his role is incredibly dumb.
|
What do you mean, Kurumi?
|
On July 26 2011 05:56 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 05:51 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On July 26 2011 05:44 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On July 26 2011 05:40 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On July 26 2011 05:33 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On July 26 2011 05:27 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On July 26 2011 04:58 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On July 26 2011 04:52 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
So you're saying not to use a day DT check on a potential lynch target, on the off-chance that he might be an SK and get town-cred? Also, how exactly do we confirm him besides killing him? Sounds like rather bad reasoning, to me. use a dt check on SS first. Don't trust someone whos suspect to give real feedback. Make him earn his damn check. You do not reward roleclaimers ffs. How contradictory. You think that having SS use his rolecheck is rewarding him (not town, just him) for roleclaiming, but then say we should wait for another DT to check supersoft to confirm him as town or not. Here's how that fails: -Framers -Fake DT claim to take out Day DT -Continual Role block after today on SS -Having to have an actual DT claim to confirm him So, you don't want to reward roleclaimers, but then want another DT to claim to confirm a known DT, who's alignment is unknown? That makes no sense at all. The best thing to do, is to use his check, and have him announce his result to town. The catch is we don't act just based on his check. We can check a lynch candidate if we want, but that gets dangerous if he's scum, though another 1-1 trade wouldn't be that bad. The other thing we do is check someone suspicious, who isn't necessarily getting lynched today and having him announce his check, and just leave it until we can confirm him. Then if he gets popped, we know all his checks and results, and if we can act on them, and if he gets confirmed another way, well we know all his results too. I'd actually suggest checking you or DB, and then leaving it for now. As well, why would we check people asking to be checked, and why would anyone be dumb enough to ask for a DT check on them without already being suspicious anyways? If they're asking to be checked, they're town or a covered role. Town wouldn't want to waste a DT check on themselves, as compared to suspicious people. Use the tool to hunt mafia, not to confirm town. An innocent check doesn't prove innocence, but the only way we're getting a red check back at this point is millers or a day-framer. Day 1 has the least chance of anything interfering with the check, and is the best time to use it. I'd rather have 1 check in, than have none and SS gets shot tonight. Check the bolded part. In almost every case of someone asking or begging for a dt check they are town or covered role. Most people do this to confirm themselves and thus starting a blue circle that can rofl stomp mafia. It is very common practice for people to want to be cleared as to move through a game with 0 harassment from anyone. No mafia would willingly throw himself up for a dt check as it would screw him in the end. You say no townie would want it used on them, but that would again, leave you a pool of 0 people to check. you are then down to the idea of "we want you checked you let yourself get checked or lynched" which is a horrible way to play. Seriously, you all are talking about role use being the huge factor in catching people. I now say, everyone go back read pick your power 3 and realize playing lets analyze roles, or someones role means they are legit, etc.... and realize roles do not say shit about the players alignment. Who cares if SS's check is an alignment check if you don't know his alignment. Have a watcher/tracker check him. If he visits anyone at night at this point in time he is mafia. have a dt check him. Dt's could breadcrumb results, or the like. Seriously, before a plan is proposed you sort it out, you make it ideal, you account for multiple situations. So far the only situation proposed by you lot is SS is likely town for shooting a red. Likely town does not mean town. What? So, instead of using a check, and just leaving it, until we have a second DT out themselves or breadcrumb and die, you're saying never use the check? Did I understand that correctly? Please tell me how what you're trying to say is optimal play. How is not having a check better than having one? The only situation proposed by you, is that we don't use the check at all. That's asking a claimed and outed DT to not check people or reveal his checks, until another DT checks him. In what world does that make sense? Ask yourself how you would play this out in a normal game. If a DT claimed, would you ask him to not check anyone until another DT checked him and claimed it? That sounds really dumb to me. In a normal game, on day 1, if someone claimed dt and said x was red, I would kill the dt first. Every time. In a setup where mafia, third parties, or town can be a dt, I will never trust the claimant ever on day 1. Nor should anyone else. Ok, so where's the part where we're trusting him by having him use a check on an agreed upon target? That's what I'm wondering about. You're saying that by letting him check, we're implicitly trusting him to be town, but that is not the case. We can let him sit in unconfirmed limbo for now, but why not use his check? It doesn't hurt us to use his check, the same way that killing the DT actually tells us whether the check is true or not. By giving him a check we give legitmacy over time to his supposed alignment. Say he is mafia, he checks kita, kita flips town, he gives us a town. That makes him look better as he complied to the check. Say both kita and SS are red, he says kita is town it still gives both a look of legitmacy. One for complying for the check. Its subtle and its insidious. Someone who is not confirmed you do not let slowly insinuate they are. Had you guys outlined you planned on trusting his check with a grain of salt I would be less worried than i am now.
Of course we'd take it with a grain of salt, I'm taking everything in this game with a grain of salt, because if I trusted everything I read, I'd be pretty silly. That's also why I'm saying we can also check people who aren't major lynch targets yet, and then just ignore the results until someone else confirms SS, he gets shot by mafia, or we even flip him ourselves with a vig.
|
On July 26 2011 06:03 redFF wrote:Show nested quote +On  July 26 2011 05:59 sandroba wrote: WhO iS to say we have to trust his Check BC??? We can still lynch kita regardless. That doesn't mean shit. But if he says kita iS red we Kill kita on the spot. If kita flips  Green we Kill SS. SS being confirmed has nothing to do with this. What about kita iS so scummy, yes he asked a lot of questions but it was a confusing time. I'd like to see him post a bit more before you Start acting like the whole town thinks he iS scum and wants him lynched.
The thing about Kita's questions, is that they all serve to direct suspicion or distrust onto others, and that's why they look scummy.
On July 26 2011 06:01 sandroba wrote:
@Wiggles I was under the impression penalties are not revealed to us and not even the player who aquired them except when they really come into play.
Hmmm,
Are we allowed to talk about the penalties we suggested?
Penalties aren't revealed to us, but it's stated in the OP that revealing who you picked for/their role will trigger them. That's the only trigger we know of, and it should have set off a penalty when DB revealed he picked for SS and his role.
If we can talk about penalties, then we can maybe figure out if I'm wrong, but from what I suggested and inferred from the OP, they seem of a more instant nature, than something delayed.
|
On July 26 2011 06:24 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 06:15 Curu wrote:@BC It's a Pro Town power because it massively helps Town and very minimally hurts it. We are not saying he's very likely/confirmed Town because of his power. We are saying it because: It makes no sense for supersoft to be Mafia because if he was, he would just claim that yes he did kill YM and could provide his reasoning for it. Tackster goes safe, supersoft probably goes safe too, he had no reason to shoot Tackster if he was Mafia. If he's a 3rd then putting an alignment check in his hands, who gives a crap? You yourself agreed he is likely Town (but that it doesn't mean confirmed Town, which is right). Well, why so vehement against a likely Town player using his free DT power and giving us information? On the offchance that he's going to lie as 3rd Party (3rd Parties have no reason to lie about the alignment check, as he would get killed the instant he is caught lying) or the teeny tiny chance he's Mafia? And yes he was forced out but if he was Mafia then when forced out he would merely have just said yeah I shot YM cause I thought he was scum, my mistake sorry guys instead of willingly revealing that he wasn't the one and then shooting Tackster. There's no reason not to use his power. I would much rather have BC checked at this point unless you guys are up for lynching him. Simple reasoning to your bit on no sense. Take a look at the game flamewheel wrapped up few weeks ago. As red I directed a town hatter at a member of the mafia who was most likely going to live? Why? Credibility. I then had the team split on two opposite ends of an argument pushing for a lynch where both candidates were town. Why? Because no mafia would do that, etc... Doing what makes the "least" sense as a red at points will end up with the highest reward. Its unexpected and thus accepted as legit as it would be insane for a red to perform the move. There are many players who like to make gambits, or do moves like this and it is very rough to just outright accept someones claim at face value. His shooting tackster has even added to the "validity" of his claim. Why would mafia kill a person so quickly into the day when they could cover it up, etc... If you can't trust his check, then why use it? He checks me, says i'm green. Town goes, well i think hes lying. I get lynched and flip green. It says nothing of his alignment. If he says x flips red and he claims they are red and the person dies and flips town, yes then hes screwed. But if hes red all checks will flip as green until the mafia hit a point wher elosing 1 red is worth the exchange for one town. If he is SK he will most likely out the reds, etc... We as town cannot trust his checks fully, but third party or mafia can. They get far more information from a check than we as a town do. They can fire their shots based on his checks, etc... Stacking hits is a normal strategy, they know who to rb, etc.... We are giving freebie shots to non town groups based on his checks if he is in fact town. If he is third party doesn't matter much other than it builds him credibility to live, and as red again builds credibility to live.
On July 26 2011 06:28 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 06:22 Curu wrote:
No, I just think BC is far scummier. Kita has asked some questions and acted suspicious, but BC is straight up here arguing against a very likely Town player using his free DT check because "he might be lying." Thats because you guys are straight up not thinking. I am being logical, concise, and most importantly I am thinking on a level beyond "herp derp we got a blue". If I was red, why would I argue against his checks? Why would I throw myself into the fire of this nonsense and try to fix an obvious error in town judgement. Use your damn heads. Take a step back from the general "hes an alignment dt" and seriously think of motivations behind all sides for the move, how it benefits each side, which side benefits the most from all perspectives, etc... Town is almost always at the bottom of the list. His checks will hurt us more than help us at this point in time.
I found this very funny. :p
Also, what's giving you vibes that I'm an SK, foolishness? I'll agree to a check on myself if more people get behind it, but now if there's no reasoning there.
I'd say check BC, who was arguing against using a DT check at all, or DB, who should have suffered a penalty for outing SS' role, but didn't. Other than that, I'd say to check some low-key people.
|
On July 26 2011 07:45 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 07:43 chaos13 wrote:On July 26 2011 07:36 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On July 26 2011 07:32 sandroba wrote:
BC, let's assume ss is scum. How does an aligment check benefits him?
Also, you don't seem conviced Kita is scum. Would you oppose a aligment check on him? -_- they benefit him by A) giving info that regardless if you think it does or not, it helps "confirm" his legitimacy. It doesnt B) It lures town into false control of a role C) It sets up a slope of trusting someone we shouldn't trust D) It allows mafia to control general thoughts on rolechecks / lets them manipulate town as a whole There are more reasons but you should get the idea. An unconfirmed aligned dt's checks could be legit or not when he gives us the answers but if 1-2 of those checks turn up legit people will assume that dt is town when it does not mean that at all. There is far to much emphasis put on dt's and giving the mafia a potential tool to control town is terrible. As such, why would I want him to check anyone? Hmm...this is interesting. So what you're saying is that we would basically have to let him live if we want him to check people, but have to lynch him if we wanted to confirm his checks. That's something of a dilemma... Your entire theory is based on him actually being mafia though. On the one hand, we let him live while "checking" people's alignment. On the other, we let him live without being put in the spotlight with his checks. Or in a third scenario, we lynch him to confirm/refute his checks. If he flips town, we have truthful checks. If mafia, we just lynched scum and we can ignore all his 'checks'. The question is, which of these scenarios benefits us the most? And now someone isnt talking about lynching based off his checks, I think some lightbulbs might just be going on.
I've been saying that for a while -_-
|
On July 26 2011 11:06 supersoft wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 10:44 redFF wrote:On July 26 2011 10:43 supersoft wrote:On July 26 2011 10:41 redFF wrote:
So SS, If i have your role correctly, you can check one person a day, and can choose from any of the people that went on a 3 quote ride with you? yoep, volunteer to be another potential target of my check? go ahead and quote me 2 times OH WHY HELLO THERE please be so kind and quote this one more time ;-) or wait... lol, i can't believe it... Am I lucky and found a non-townie by accident? :D
What O.o Explain, please?
Also, don't GFs normally get picked on Night 1? That means Day 1 is the best time for a check, as there is no possibility of framers/covers or the GF, unless those roles may act during the day
|
|
|
On July 26 2011 12:54 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 12:50 Amber[LighT] wrote:On July 26 2011 12:46 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On July 26 2011 12:37 Mig wrote:
So right now the only thing anyone knows about you is that you want jackal lynched based on role flavor, you like to argue game mechanics and you do not want SS to check you. You said several times in the 10 page argument that it should be obvious that you are town. How exactly can anyone know you are town? You haven't done an analysis on a single person the entire game. And now that I ask for information you deny it, claiming you will make a case against someone once you find one scummy enough. You are more than willing to spend a lot of time defending yourself but I don't see you doing any scum hunting or even discussing any of jackal's recent behavior or the arguments people like syllo made defending him. Did you not notice how i mentioned earlier I was willing to swap to someone I felt better about but hadn't yet? No that would require you reading my posts. However, the game is about catching scum, not about someone giving their opinion on who feels more town than another player, or who feels slightly scummier than x. Without more information its like randomly drawing a bad choice from a selection of meh choices. How many people in this game are even talking? How many are even weighing in on the conversation at hand, who has outright dodged comments directed at them? I am fairly transparent where it matters. The game is not lets find townies, its lets find red. As of now I don't have any strong enough reads to properly push a lynch target. This is an issue that has been stated multiple times by multiple people. You only list off people you are confident enough at the time to lynch, not randomly spout names. Are you serious? What more against Jackal do you need? Him defending himself to be honest. I'm kinda tired of seeing others do it for him.
How does Jackal defend himself from his role PM though? That's what I don't get. Unless there's another reason to be voting for him, or you really think he faked parts of it.
Care to explain your stance on him a little bit for me?
|
On July 26 2011 13:31 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 13:21 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On July 26 2011 12:54 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On July 26 2011 12:50 Amber[LighT] wrote:On July 26 2011 12:46 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On July 26 2011 12:37 Mig wrote:
So right now the only thing anyone knows about you is that you want jackal lynched based on role flavor, you like to argue game mechanics and you do not want SS to check you. You said several times in the 10 page argument that it should be obvious that you are town. How exactly can anyone know you are town? You haven't done an analysis on a single person the entire game. And now that I ask for information you deny it, claiming you will make a case against someone once you find one scummy enough. You are more than willing to spend a lot of time defending yourself but I don't see you doing any scum hunting or even discussing any of jackal's recent behavior or the arguments people like syllo made defending him. Did you not notice how i mentioned earlier I was willing to swap to someone I felt better about but hadn't yet? No that would require you reading my posts. However, the game is about catching scum, not about someone giving their opinion on who feels more town than another player, or who feels slightly scummier than x. Without more information its like randomly drawing a bad choice from a selection of meh choices. How many people in this game are even talking? How many are even weighing in on the conversation at hand, who has outright dodged comments directed at them? I am fairly transparent where it matters. The game is not lets find townies, its lets find red. As of now I don't have any strong enough reads to properly push a lynch target. This is an issue that has been stated multiple times by multiple people. You only list off people you are confident enough at the time to lynch, not randomly spout names. Are you serious? What more against Jackal do you need? Him defending himself to be honest. I'm kinda tired of seeing others do it for him. How does Jackal defend himself from his role PM though? That's what I don't get. Unless there's another reason to be voting for him, or you really think he faked parts of it. Care to explain your stance on him a little bit for me? How about he posts? instead of lurk insanely hard he could be doing anything productive. As for the stance, it seems very odd to call out a player (he called out ON) for lying based on his role pm. His stance was one of "he is lying my pm says he is disguised as town" which would infer red. That entire claim got ON killed. He flipped town. Jackal then vanished into unknown land. Someone got shot over this entire situation yet the people who ask questions or FoS the guy responsible are getting questioned more heavily than the person responsible. TL towns are awesome.
I can get behind that for now, will reevaluate in the morning. I went back and looked at his posts, and near all of them are arguing about either his or ON's role, and then some stuff about penalties. On the whole, not very constructive. Assuming he's town, you'd think he'd be wanting to be very active and contribute to establish his innocence in the wake of ON's death, but instead he mostly disappeared, as though hoping pressure would disperse with time (which it seems to have).
##Vote: Jackal68
|
You see actions before/after they happen? That's not so useless.
|
Jackal showed up, revved up his chainsaw, and left. I'm gonna keep my vote on him.
|
If you're red, I can't imagine you being bad enough to get caught on Day 1 in an argument that most of town will call you scum for, and then agree to a DT check that you know will paint you as red.
If you do end up flipping red though:
On July 27 2011 04:40 heist wrote:
SS just give us kita. That'll do for now.
|
What happened to checking a random and ignoring the checks for now? If BC flips green, I'm going to be pissed. The only way this makes sense in my mind, is if BC is miller, SS is lying scum, or BC is some kind of mass vengeance role.
|
On July 27 2011 05:34 supersoft wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2011 05:31 redFF wrote:On July 27 2011 05:30 sandroba wrote:
Man if BC flips miller I'm going to be pissed. Why did you not check kita? because bc was the better check... I wanted to fakeclaim a check on kita and say that he turned red if BCs check returned green. unfortunately kita wasn't around and BC returned red.
So you were going to lie to town and possibly lynch a green, then getting yourself killed in the process and losing town a DT?
|
On July 27 2011 05:34 Curu wrote:
Well if he's Miller we'll find out from his role PM.
It really makes no sense to me if supersoft is Mafia because he did kill one of his buddies with no reason to.
Miller wouldn't show up in his role PM. It would be he gets a Town PM, but he's really a miller. Normally, you don't know you're a miller, and we'll only find out on his flip.
|
On July 27 2011 05:36 redFF wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2011 05:32 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
What happened to checking a random and ignoring the checks for now? If BC flips green, I'm going to be pissed. The only way this makes sense in my mind, is if BC is miller, SS is lying scum, or BC is some kind of mass vengeance role. or bc is mafia...
Except I don't believe that. The only way I see that happening is if he's some kind of role where mafia benefits upon his lynch, otherwise, I don't see him getting lynched as mafia on Day 1. He's more valuable to the mafia and a better player than that.
|
On July 27 2011 05:43 heist wrote:
Look BC all my gut instincts and your behavior is telling me you are not scum.
But if the mafia are prepared to give us a 1 for 1 trade, then I'm willing to follow through. If you end up miller however, I can't really see how that faults SS.
That's actually terrible. If you don't think he's scum, why are you voting for him? You're letting a DT check tell you who to vote for instead of behavioural analysis?
|
On July 27 2011 05:46 heist wrote:
Did you not read?
For the 1/1 trade with mafia.
I did read, but if you think he's town, and SS is scum, why not just go for a 0-1 trade with mafia? Why do you need to kill BC when you don't think he's scum? That makes no sense at all.
|
On July 27 2011 05:46 syllogism wrote:
If any of you created a framer role, now would be a good time to claim
Day-framer*
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
