|
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.
|
@ BC
On July 26 2011 04:50 heist wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 04:45 syllogism wrote:On July 26 2011 04:38 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On July 26 2011 04:24 syllogism wrote:
Hello, he just killed mafia and another person confirmed his role. Even if your strange theory that they likely aren't of the same alignment, there's almost no chance at all that the role description isn't correct ...... Are you dense? I as red have killed my own members before. It builds credibility. So yes we know he killed a mafia, after someone said "i made his role and its this" not before. The person who did this made the claim to put FoS on SS. So if they were both red, DB wouldn't have said a thing. If SS is red and called out, he has to respond or get lynched. Using information caused from a forced from a situation where you live or die does not confirm the player. It may confirm the role, but not the player. Role does not equal alignment. Had SS killed trackster before being called out I would more likely buy he is town, had DB not thought he instantly had to out SS there are enough variables that you want to not risk activating powers of players you cannot confirm at this point. So you are admitting the role is likely confirmed. What exactly will mafia/third party supersoft do with his alignment checking role that town is forcing him to use? At worst we will be mislead, but we are always free to ignore his checks. At best he gives us red today. There's no risk at all unless it's a gambit and they are ALL red. Agree. If flip turns out red, then we lynch. If green, we take it as a grain of salt and potentially have a confirmed townie if supersoft is ever killed and flipped green. Also, either we kill jackal or we don't, but if we aren't, then I really think we should give him the stone and tell him to protect supersoft.
|
On July 26 2011 06:05 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 06:03 Mr. Wiggles wrote:On July 26 2011 05:56 BloodyC0bbler wrote: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. Now I am seeing the first person with some sense -_-. Wiggles, go back and originally read the use of his role and you will see NO ONE advocated what you did just now. You will see it otherwise and should realize my discontent. What you just proposed is more cautious than everything else in relation to using his role to this point.
hey bc, wanna check?
|
@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.
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 26 2011 06:05 sandroba wrote:
@foolishness do you have anything to say on the matter? I assume you want a check on kita, is that right?
No. I want to use our Killer powers to lynch Kita, I want someone to vigi Kurumi, and I want the check on Lanaia or Wiggles. Probably Wiggles.
|
And what's your reasoning behind that Foolishness? Why Lanaia or Wiggles, what have they done that stands out to you?
|
The thing is, apparently most of the town is not convinced kita is scum.
|
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."
|
Of course not.
By your own policy we should be lynching you sandroba, and why the hell isn't the alignment check being used on jackal?
|
jackal needs to respond to supersoft
|
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: Show nested quote +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.
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
I am in favor of using the check, but BC's arguments are looking better and better as time goes on. If we can't agree on the check then I'm totally envisioning a scenario where supersoft comes back and goes "oh hey I checked random person X because random person Y said so" and we can't hold him accountable because we as a town did not agree on who to check. I have slammed my head against my desk so many times reading the thread at the stupidity of players that I'm going to die of blood loss at this rate. I don't want that.
We use the Check on someone like Wiggles, and even if it turns up mafia, we still kill Kitaman (or Jackal if he comes back and can't explain himself). We need the check's information, but we should not act upon it today.
|
??? Because I actually don't think he's scum, based on behaviour. Also we know jackal's role (useless unless he has items) and kita has the potencial to have a good scum role. Where is your analysis that indicates jackal is scum? I like kita as scum much better.
|
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.
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On July 26 2011 06:18 Curu wrote:
And what's your reasoning behind that Foolishness? Why Lanaia or Wiggles, what have they done that stands out to you?
Wiggles is probably an SK. Lanaia does not seeM to be posting with a pro-town state of mind.
|
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.
No, you are being intentional obtuse; no one ever argued that we should trust his checks until there's further confirmation of his alignment. You kept changing your argument over and over again and now you are finally making some sense. You are just one of those players who can never admit to being wrong.
|
If you can actually convince these people that kita is scum, then alright. And if we are not checking kita I propose a check on chaos13 instead of wiggles. He does not strike me as scum this game, and I usually have a good read on him.
|
On July 26 2011 06:27 sandroba wrote:
??? Because I actually don't think he's scum, based on behaviour. Also we know jackal's role (useless unless he has items) and kita has the potencial to have a good scum role. Where is your analysis that indicates jackal is scum? I like kita as scum much better.
Jackal claimed ON was a red in disguise via his role, whereas ON claimed he was town. ON's role included a bit stating he had to kill HP. Regardless they were fighting for the same power items. It seems unlikely both are the same alignment, although they could be.
Also, kita could have a good scum role? Everyone in this game could have a good scum role, that is not a valid reason to lynch someone. He asked questions and got shafted for it. That is far less scummy than a ton of day 1 rc's into creating this chaotic mess as of right now.
|
On July 26 2011 06:25 Foolishness wrote:I am in favor of using the check, but BC's arguments are looking better and better as time goes on. If we can't agree on the check then I'm totally envisioning a scenario where supersoft comes back and goes "oh hey I checked random person X because random person Y said so" and we can't hold him accountable because we as a town did not agree on who to check. I have slammed my head against my desk so many times reading the thread at the stupidity of players that I'm going to die of blood loss at this rate. I don't want that. We use the Check on someone like Wiggles, and even if it turns up mafia, we still kill Kitaman (or Jackal if he comes back and can't explain himself). We need the check's information, but we should not act upon it today.
Are you kidding me? How is his argument getting better and better?
SS using his check gives us NO NEGATIVES.
Who cares if he just says town? If he flips green, we'll have a load of confirmed townies. Even if town argues about the dt target, if SS even checks one of them, we'll be good. ITS BETTER THAN NOTHING.
|
Foolishness please don't make roles for me while scratching Your balls. Love, Kurumi
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
