Pick Their Power Mafia 2

On July 26 2011 05:27 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
[quote]

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 05:40 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
[quote]

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.