|
Kurumi is gambiting something or other, I don't think he's a good day 1 lynch. When I was on his scum team he decided to play the "intelligent lurking Townie" and that's certainly not the case here. Pure meta but I don't think he's a worthwhile lynch yet.
kita I would want to see him post more first but I wouldn't be against lynching him if I can't get a BC wagon to form.
BC is so against having a DT check someone that we choose (we can even just not use his checks until after he dies, then use them) at no cost except providing extra information that I have to think he has an ulterior motive.
|
Giving the stone is not just a matter of "jackal might be scum. we could be giving scum medic powers!"
The real question you should be asking yourself is
"Is the possibility of a townie getting the med kit worth the risk of mafia getting it?"
I say yes. Night 1 is not the time to be shooting at possible mafia targets if you are town. There is a very slim chance jackal correctly predicts the SK, if SK happens to shoot mafia.
Pretend it like this if you don't like this situation.
Deconduo comes down and gives us the option of giving one random player a med kit. We are all told who it is given to. And we can take it back at any time if we want to.
Would you agree?
|
No. If he's alive and not getting shot after a few cycles in the game we simply lynch him. Most of the evidence actually points to him being town. Assuming otherwise by default and rendering him useless while he could be a good asset for town and will probably be killed sooner or later is just foolish. Even if he's mafia forcing him to give us info (lies or not) is a good thing for town. We have plenty of ways of dealing with this in the future. I'm not saying everyone should trust every single thing he says, but preventing him from acting is in no way shape or form optimal play. You are assuming everyone is stupid to justify non-optimal play and that's just wrong.
|
@heist man seriously fuck this stone deal. Let's discuss this at night shall we?
|
On July 26 2011 07:36 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
I'm done arguing with BC so I wanted to move onto something else.
|
On July 26 2011 07:43 chaos13 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Also, you realise that if we don't force people to take his check he will never check a red ever again. No red will ever submit to quoting him willingly.
|
Just to be clear once again, most roles have been changed for balance and may not be the same word for word as you submitted.
|
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 -_-
|
No one ever said we should lynch based on the checks. You were arguing that checks should not be used at all, and that's just wrong. Now given the situation (everyone knows how his role works) the best way we can possibly use his ability is making suspicious players take the check forcefully. Otherwise his ability is wasted.
|
kitaman27
United States9244 Posts
I'm growing rather tired of seeing my name mentioned so many times. Foolishness mentions how I happened to be useless, a few hours in the game and suddenly half the town decides to consider me a prime lynch candidate. (omg, did I just cast suspicion on Foolishness?! ##Vote Kita)
There are three people who have mentioned I've been trying to make others look suspicious by questioning them (You disappoint me Wiggles). Hate to break to you guys, but I can't question someone for being suspicious if they're not suspicious in the first place. I asked Sandroba why he was giving his kp away so readily. That's a valid question. The only reason I'm not pushing it further and willing to think he is just a misguided townie is because he was the first person to identify Jackal's town win condition. From what the town is saying, you would think I'm a propaganda spewing machine.
Lets take a look at our dead scum.
On July 25 2011 23:20 Tackster wrote: I suggest YM, heist and kita as possible targets
On July 25 2011 23:24 Tackster wrote: Oh and to explain my target choices:
YM - That vig shot was just awful and to cover yourself with 'mafia would never do this' is pure drivel Heist - You seemed too into the item game from the start and seemed to be breadcrumbing you had an item or were harry (not scummy but close to lying IMO) kita - this has been explained at length. Lurk much?
On July 26 2011 00:28 Tackster wrote: Suspects: Kitaman Jackal heist sandroba YM (dead)
Cool, I'm apparently his top suspect. (omg bus! -_-) Last game scum tried to bandwagon me day one because of my "uselessness" and then ended up shooting me day two when I attacked half their team. I fail to see how my contribution is any different from half the other players. I'm not lurking, I'm posting when I'm available. I'm not putting any effort into trying to blend in. That's what scum do. People are just repeating my name a bunch of times without providing valid reasoning. If push comes to shove, I'll take an alignment check, but I would much rather see it used on someone else as a confirmed scum is much more useful than a confirmed town. I'll post in a little bit on who I would prefer it to be.
|
Yo kita, since you are here, are you willing to take THE TEST?
|
kitaman27
United States9244 Posts
On July 26 2011 08:04 sandroba wrote: Yo kita, since you are here, are you willing to take THE TEST?
By test, I assume you refer to the alignment check? I'll take it only if I'm forced to. Obviously, I'm going to push for someone else so it wouldn't be wasted, but I'll assume that's what you would expect everyone to say.
|
It's not a bus, he was not pushing for your lynch. He was basically saying "yeah kita is suspicous, but look at all these other people". I shared the same sentiments as foolishness regarding you, but I wanted to wait a bit more and give you a chance to continue with your scummy behaviour, so I could build a more solid case, but unfortunatelly he jumped the gun.
|
Well, I really think you are scum and a lot of people share my opinion. In your position, the best thing you can do if you are really town is to do the check, so we can move to someone else and hope ss gets shot at night or something, so you are confirmed.
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
Nooooo check Wiggles the serial Killer!!!
|
kitaman27
United States9244 Posts
On July 26 2011 08:11 sandroba wrote: Well, I really think you are scum and a lot of people share my opinion. In your position, the best thing you can do if you are really town is to do the check, so we can move to someone else and hope ss gets shot at night or something, so you are confirmed.
Is there anything I could say otherwise that could change your mind? I honestly don't see how you see me as scummy. The only logical argument you can make is that I haven't caught scum yet, but no one has. I'm not trying to push a scum agenda. You haven't even bothered to make an argument because there isn't one. If I can't convince town to use it on others, I'll take the test if when I pass, town agrees to let me select the lynch
|
How about you just tell us who you would lynch?
|
kitaman27
United States9244 Posts
On July 26 2011 08:14 Foolishness wrote:Nooooo check Wiggles the serial Killer!!!
The OP says no posts restrictions are allowed in roles. Either 1) An exception to the rules was made for your role 2) You've created your own post restriction.
If its the first, claim that you do indeed have a post restriction and if that is false, your role creator can counter claim that you are lying. If its the second, you are distracting town. Who cares what you are saying when you're posts are full of progamer names! lolz
|
|
|
|