Pick Their Power Mafia 2 - Page 35

On July 26 2011 05:25 BloodyC0bbler wrote:


if he is red, all checks reveal town maybe sks reveal third party. He just wouldn't out his team. So your idea of reversing all his checks is dumb, its not even guarenteed a red is ever checked by his alignment as they would have no need to participate.

Also, lynching a player based on not participating in a plan that cannot be confirmed without other players using powers / the user of said original power dying is dumb. Kita asked questions, perhaps that is a posting restriction.

Foolishness is using a ton of TLPD in his posts, perhaps that is his posting restriction.

We also have players who were using day vig powers. We have players who on day 1 were calling for people to use day vig powers. We have enough scummy, suspect play on day 1 already. How about we sit back and play normally instead of hoping our trust is rewarded. Luck should not be a factor in how we proceed if its not backed by solid analysis or very very very solidly made plan that has a near 0% chance of failure.

On July 26 2011 05:27 Mr. Wiggles wrote:


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.

On July 26 2011 05:31 redFF wrote:
I Really don't understand why you guys are arguing against a free alignment Check.

On July 26 2011 05:33 BloodyC0bbler wrote:


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.

On July 26 2011 05:40 Mr. Wiggles wrote:


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.

On July 26 2011 05:40 Mr. Wiggles wrote:


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.