|
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.
|
On July 26 2011 05:01 Palmar wrote: Are you seriously suggesting we DON'T use a dt check from a highly likely townie on day 1?
Like, I don't get how that logic makes any sense.
Remember, no one is forcing you to believe him, but blocking him from using it would be stupid.
how is blocking a role use that we don't control benefit us? You say we do benefit? How? People have to get in the quoted discussion for him to check that player. No player who doesn't want to be checked will do this. It spams a thread and clutters it and puts all our eggs in one basket. Almost all the people who originally jump into that criteria of him using his power will be immune to rolechecks, or be town. GG you just gave mafia a huge list of people to shoot. Thanks for losing us a game?
Think with your heads for once. Role doesnt mean alignment, and just because we know his role doesn't mean it can't be exploited. I sure hope checking jackal is worth the idea of potentially lots of townies getting capped. Seems like a good trade to me.
|
On July 26 2011 05:07 chaos13 wrote: BC, what you're saying is absolutely ridiculous. 1. You do not want people to vote on Kurumi, based on that you think he has a vote-activated power, despite how he is simply trolling and being anti-town. He has not hinted at all that his power is activated based on how many votes he receives though, all he said is that it happens when he dies. Worst case scenario, he is town and his power harms town. Best case scenario, he is mafia and his power harms town. I don't know about you, but I would gladly trade a likely mafia for a townie. We come out far better from that than scum do.
2. You do not want supersoft to use his DT check. Wat. Wat. WAT. You're reasoning is that "he will confirm someone town and mafia will kill them." Let's get him to check one of our top suspects. If they're town, rather than lynching them we will move onto someone else who is now that much more likely to be mafia. If they're scum, we lynch them without hesitation (duh). Let's face it, people are going to die from mafia tonight anyway. If we get a confirmed town, then we get any medic-type roles to protect them. I really see no possible way that getting him to use his power can harm us. A DT check that we all get to know the results of is good.
I'm really not liking your play here BC. I can't see why a townie would want to protect a spammer or avoid using a DT check.
Its called using your head. If you guys would stop herp derping and take your heads out of your asses you would see logic. You don't let random people use powers. You do not believe you can control powers that you as your own person do not own. You do not give open firing for mafia to get a read on who is a better shot than others. Seriously, sit the hell down and stop talking about how a role will help the town and get back on course of how you actually play mafia.
|
On July 26 2011 05:14 chaos13 wrote: Wait, isn't supersoft's check an alignment one, not a role check? BC seems to have these mixed up...
My bad I am confused on the role flip, confirms alignment and outright tells if they are lying. Still doesn't change the point. Town is more likely to want to be confirmed town than sk / mafia. Certain roles almost always wish to be confirmed first before others. Giving mafia / sk better ideas of who to snipe. As SS only claimed after he was forced to his personal alignment is suspect. We know based off his claim that his role / alignment is given to mafia, if he is red, who cares? If he is sk, this sucks, if he is town this sucks. If he is red regardless of his check the result will always be town. If it is sk he will reveal them in thread. If he is town all checks will be real.
Nothing he says can be taken in truth? As such why put faith in the ability of someone you cannot confirm. His role use does not mean he is town. He was called out and forced to use his power.
|
On July 26 2011 05:19 sandroba wrote: BC, do you have any doubts that his power is an aligment check? Do you think DropBear is lying and got a penalty on purpose just to out his own teamate and also endangered him of being lynch fucks for kicks? No. They can't both be mafia, so his role does indeed provide an aligment check and that's it. I'm not giving it the freedom so whoever wants to be checked can do it. I'm asking for a check on kita. If he fails to comply we lynch him. That simple. Even if supersoft is scum how does an aligment check helps him? It does not, it can only have potencial of helping us if he's town. Also if someone flips and he said his aligment wrong, there we got him. What's the downside to this?
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 05:21 syllogism wrote: I can only see two possibilities: BC has a really odd posting restriction or he isn't town aligned. Leaning on former as this would be incredibly bad scum play and there are no village idiots.
My posting restriction actually would make me the scummiest looking player in the game / near VI level. Thankfully I have the choice of never using it and being vanilla.
|
On July 26 2011 05:27 Mr. Wiggles wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On July 26 2011 05:30 sandroba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 05:25 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On July 26 2011 05:19 sandroba wrote: BC, do you have any doubts that his power is an aligment check? Do you think DropBear is lying and got a penalty on purpose just to out his own teamate and also endangered him of being lynch fucks for kicks? No. They can't both be mafia, so his role does indeed provide an aligment check and that's it. I'm not giving it the freedom so whoever wants to be checked can do it. I'm asking for a check on kita. If he fails to comply we lynch him. That simple. Even if supersoft is scum how does an aligment check helps him? It does not, it can only have potencial of helping us if he's town. Also if someone flips and he said his aligment wrong, there we got him. What's the downside to this? 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. Are you allowed to claim your post restriction BC? Because this is getting annoying. Where did I sugest we reverse his checks? Also how do you propose we do analysis when *anything* can be a post restriction acording to you? I'm done arguing with you, you don't make any sense.
I could claim it yes, I opt not to. You may ask me why? Simple. It doesn't benefit the town at this point where it benefits mafia / third parties extremely.
|
On July 26 2011 05:34 syllogism wrote: I suppose BC could also have a role that involves getting people to quote him
I wish.
|
On July 26 2011 05:40 Mr. Wiggles wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On July 26 2011 05:48 heist wrote: Also I stand by my decision about the stone at least night 1.
At this point, I am just completely uncertain about jackal. If we are willing to give jackal the benefit of the doubt, don't leave him completely powerless. Give him the stone. How does this help mafia night 1? No townies should be shooting each other in the night at this point. Mafia can not predict who the SK will be killing.
If we are willing to trust him enough to not kill him, the stone has a lot of upside for town if jackal is town and very miniscule downside if he's mafia. We can always force him to give it back after night 1.
Town shouldn't have been shooting town only a few hours into day 1 either yet it still happened. Just because you hope something won't happen doesn't mean it wont. Keep in mind townies don't know who other townies are.
If your hesitant about someones alignment and you know they for the most part are powerless and as of now only have a mason role, why the hell wouldn't you keep them having a mason role. That is powerful enough without making someone a med / immune to death / kp role. Also by restricting what his powers are if he is town he is not as threatening a target as someone else.
|
On July 26 2011 05:51 Mr. Wiggles wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On July 26 2011 05:52 Curu wrote:Show nested quote +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. Difference in a normal game scenario, DT is willingly outing himself to buy Town cred. supersoft was forced out and as I explained in my above post there's very little chance he's Mafia unless he is actively trying to hurt his team. If he's a 3rd Party then he has no reason to lie about his alignment checks anyways, since if he lies we kill him. You're arguing about relying on behavior analysis and not powers to find scum and it's true but in a game where everyone is a friggin blue role it'd be absurd to ignore powers especially one as heavily Pro Town as a DT alignment check.
Pro town roles does not mean pro town alignment. Fucking christ. Putting a super powered pro town role into the hands of mafia would be a great balancing tool for a host. A player who comes forward with their own role, risking death is also more likely to be town (later in game not day 1) than someone who only came forward after a player forced them too. If the person who forces you out is town they believe they are doign a town action, mafia forces out a role that then gives them free reign to cap, third party gets a role out that will get shot, etc..
By coming out after being forced he plays the role of any player in that situation. Reveal his role or get lynched. Every mafia/sk/town would have used their power and claimed. It gives us nothing on his alignment, and his checks are not 100% accurate.
|
On July 26 2011 06:03 Mr. Wiggles wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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 06:30 syllogism wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2011 06:28 BloodyC0bbler wrote: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 none of you speak worries of your thoughts on a check until pressured. You didn't think that through enough to see the issues. I haven't fully changed my argument, I have added to it. My core argument is the same, where the information I use to back it up changes. Note that. I am still against his check, I was from the start. The information I use to get people to see reason is different that is all. My issue isn't being proven wrong and admitting to it, it is people who stubbornly believe they are always right when they fail to even mention the negatives to a situation. No one was talking about them, ie no one
A) cares B) thought of them C) herp derp
I have thus far been one of the most transparent players in this game, and saying otherwise makes you look bad.
|
On July 26 2011 06:33 Curu wrote:No Mafia wants to be put into a position where they have to surrender any more information than they have to. Even if supersoft was Mafia, which is unlikely, having to submit himself to bussing more teammates or getting caught in lies is detrimental to him as well. You're just introducing a shitload of WIFOM too "well Mafia can't act like obvious Mafia so whoever is acting least like Mafia is probably Mafia but maybe they know that too so we can't trust that either." Show nested quote +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. This is just ridiculous. Mafia gets more info from an alignment check than we do? Mafia knows everyone's alignments (in terms of Mafia vs not Mafia) anyways. How is supersoft pointing at someone and saying he is Town giving Mafia information? Herp derp, they knew that already. Unless you're somehow convinced Mafia getting 3rd Party alignments will lose the game for Town. "If he is SK he will most likely out the reds" Yep, that's the whole point of us wanting to use his ability. Point out reds. If we're in a position where we can't trust his checks, ie he's Mafia, then Mafia isn't getting anything from his checks either because they know it's BS. Mafia shooting YM pretty much shows how afraid they are of alignment checks and BC is falling right into it. Please people, lynch BC.
No mafia wants to? You are correct. He didn't however have a choice did he? Are you fucking retarded? HE WAS CALLED OUT BY HIS ROLE CREATOR. What's he going to do? Say "uh no im not that role" we spend time offing him and db and both die. In the situation now however he is already out in the open and no one was seriously speaking downsides or possibilities of him being of any alignment.
As for you saying mafia doesn't get more from a check? He publically claims people are legit or not -_-. Sup confirmed townie kills? Hearing me or foolishness cleared as a confirmed town makes us far more likely to get shot by mafia and third parties. At the moment with people annoyed with me I stand far less of a chance getting capped by third party or mafia as town would prob do it for them. That is the difference. Confirmation of a player gives them better insight of who to shoot. Mafia knows who isn't mafia, but not who is third party. Someone really solid as third party is just as dangerous to town as to them, but its another person who will shoot town.
|
On July 26 2011 06:38 sandroba wrote: Yes, I asked for people to claim the Tim role. Then I asked for SS to kill whoever shot YM and it gave us dead scum. How is that bad? Also I can see jackal's reasoning for claiming in that situation. It's null at best for me, it does not indicate that jackal is scum, because he could do the same thing as either aligment. In the mean time you have kita. He's not just asking questions. He's pushing suspicion on people that he doesn't even think are scum. There is no reason to do that as town, thus he must be scum.
Why would jackal have to claim? People know harry potter lore. Voldy is always evil. People would have been hesitant to actually trust him. Except you apparently?
he could have pm'd people using his mason ability and the like and found stuff that way. He opted to day 1 RC. Maybe he was scared, who knows, but it created a situation of chaos not helped get us back on serious track.
|
|
|
|