EPTOn July 01 2012 20:31 Esspen wrote:
I agree with all of you!
I agree with all of you!
Are you just opting out? If you are scum, this is the strangest bus I've seen. If you are town, then IDK what to say. Are you just going to afk till tomorrow?
Newbie Mini Mafia XVIII - Page 29
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
BioSC
United States636 Posts
Are you just opting out? If you are scum, this is the strangest bus I've seen. If you are town, then IDK what to say. Are you just going to afk till tomorrow? | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On July 02 2012 13:38 JieXian wrote: If you assume he's town you'd also need to assume he's ...... kinda confused about the game or something. Thats kind of my point. Just look at the Vivax case. | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
On July 02 2012 12:40 Keirathi wrote: No. That is exactly the opposite of concrete. Does he have the most compelling case against him? Certainly. Does that make it a concrete case? Definitely not. Think about our judicial system. Everything you quoted is circumstantial evidence. Its probably enough to convince a jury of our peers of the defendants guilt, but it is very much not guaranteed. Think about it like this: if you assume that he is mafia, then those quotes can easily feel like indicators of that. But what if you assume he is town? Now, I agree that he probably still has the strongest individual case against him. But it is NOT concrete. But, our only hope for concrete evidence at this point are credible blue role claims, and the slim chance that they actually have useful information. And claiming them during the day today would just be suicide, hence my whole no-lynch policy. What exactly does a mass blue role claim achieve? Nothing. Medic: Only knows as much as the rest of town. Veteran: Same as above, at this stage; there has been a night kill each night so far. Jailkeeper: Also only knows as much as the rest of town at this stage. Vigilante: Dead The ONLY role that would provide us with more information is the detective, and we don't even know if we have one. So please clarify exactly what concrete information would be gained from a mass role claim? You are taking the risk that we actually have a detective, which is not "concrete". You would need EVERYONE to actually trust the role claims if we go ahead with your no lynch in order to get some "confirmed" town. Also: + Show Spoiler + If we have even the slightest evidence against someone, and lay it out, then decide to no-lynch and they are in fact town, then there is virtually 0% chance that the mafia night-kills that person, which just leads to more suspicion towards them the next day, giving mafia a stronger case to get them lynched and win the game. To which I replied: + Show Spoiler + This might be true if it wasn't for one factor: Esspen. There is already evidence against him (and 2 votes currently against him from NrGmonk and dNa). We have to come to a consensus regarding him as soon as possible. He has been suspected the entire game so far and with good reason. If we decide on a no lynch, people will still be arguing about him the next day and mafia knows it. As you said, they won't shoot him; he's too valuable an asset for them if he's town (granted at this point even if he is mafia, he could still be considered an asset, just look at how many cases have been made against him or revolve around him, and he is STILL alive with no mafia lynched). If you want to no lynch, this point, combined with JieXian's points, must be considered. You didn't even address that post, so how can you hope to convince others if you don't even defend the flaws in your idea? + Show Spoiler + It seems that everyone is against the no-lynch then role-claim idea. I really don't understand, but whatever. I'm not going to keep defending the idea over and over and over again. You can't just propose an idea and expect us all to go along with it if you don't even address the points made against it. Or maybe you just didn't read my post, I don't know. | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On July 02 2012 14:41 BassInSpace wrote: Medic: Only knows as much as the rest of town. Veteran: Same as above, at this stage; there has been a night kill each night so far. Jailkeeper: Also only knows as much as the rest of town at this stage. Vigilante: Dead Key words: at this stage. Maybe there's a doc save tonight. Maybe a Vet is shot. Maybe a Jailer roleblock's the mafia kill role. Maybe we  O* have a detective. We just don't know anything for sure. And being wrong is game over.I didn't address your post because there's nothing new to address. If we don't get extra information tomorrow after a no-lynch, then we're back at this exact spot again, but we only have 7 people to make cases against, rather than 8. My whole spiel only works if we do both things I propsed, and it might already be too late for the no-lynch to be effective. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
The repeat votes on the mislynches go to BioSC, rofl/JingleHell, and Esspen. Turns out all of them were in Vivax's list, but I'm not really sure how much stock we can put into that. It does seem fishy that rofl/Jingle had a large number of votes both days, and got out of it with an Esspen vote change. However, Jingle has his vote on Esspen right now. Has the mafia decided to give up one of their own already? Or is it possible that Esspen is just playing badly and mafia sees a chance to railroad him? IMO Esspen is still the best target out of those 3. I was actually getting suspicious of BioSC, who hasn't said much at all recently, but then I realised yesterday that it was his birthday (he had a birthday icon while I looked through his filter), so I'm not sure if this is really lurking with a mafia agenda or not. I'm not sure about JingleHell, but Esspen's last minute vote switches are either an attempt to save a mafia JingleHell from a lynch, or a continuous attempt at setting up suspicions. If he is a poor town player who just doesn't care (if he is a town player I was ok with the poor posting since it's a newbie game, but that last post was just in poor form), then I'm sorry, but he will still be causing problems for the next day if we leave him alive. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
| ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
| ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
And I highly doubt a vigi would sit quietly without shooting Esspen or JingleHell. | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On July 02 2012 15:31 JieXian wrote: what .. pretty sure you can't roleblock a "mafia kill role" because there isn't one in the OP >_> And the game won't make sense if there was one. And I highly doubt a vigi would sit quietly without shooting Esspen or JingleHell. What I meant was that in other versions of Mafia that I have played, the mafia nightkill goes through a single person, generally the lowest on the mafia totem pole (for example, vanilla mafia aka mafioso). It works like this because it enables other advanced roles, like for instance a Watcher/Tracker, who can see who visits someone at night, or if a person visited someone at night. In a situation like this, if the mafia kill goes through a single person, then a roleblock of the mafia night kill is possible. But I reiterate, I don't know the technical mechanics here, so its just speculation based on previous experience. | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
can we get a clarification of the jailkeeper role? If a member of the mafia is jailed, does the mafia team's night shot still go through? | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25558 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 02 2012 15:09 Keirathi wrote: No. I'm gambling on the fact that the probability of having concrete information tomorrow is greater than the certainty that we have ZERO concrete information today. We won't have any concrete information. Unless you expect the scum to actually claim red roles, which I'm guessing isn't on the agenda. What we'll have is fewer town votes than today, and the same amount of good information. I can't imagine a scenario where this could possibly benefit the town. If it was early game and there were a lot of lurkers, to the point of it nearly being a shot in the dark, no lynch could easily make some sense. But not when it's so perilously close to us losing, and as good a case against one person as we could hope for. | ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
On July 02 2012 21:27 JingleHell wrote: We won't have any concrete information. Unless you expect the scum to actually claim red roles, which I'm guessing isn't on the agenda. What we'll have is fewer town votes than today, and the same amount of good information. I can't imagine a scenario where this could possibly benefit the town. If it was early game and there were a lot of lurkers, to the point of it nearly being a shot in the dark, no lynch could easily make some sense. But not when it's so perilously close to us losing, and as good a case against one person as we could hope for. Esspen, do you have something to claim? ^^ | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On July 02 2012 21:27 JingleHell wrote: We won't have any concrete information. I can't imagine a scenario where this could possibly benefit the town. How do you know we won't have any concrete information? Lets just make a hypothetical situation: Let's say I'm a doctor, and tonight I decide to protect you. I did my last minute role claim, saying that I'm protecting you tonight, and no one else claims any kind of vet/doc/jailer role. Day dawns tomorrow, and no one dies. I get a PM that my target was shot, and I share that information with the town. Now there are 2 people that are 100% clear (The Doc and his Target). Everything they've said and everything they will say, none of it has scummy motives; you don't have to try to pick apart their arguments. I'm not sure why you don't see the benefit of this. Yes, there is a chance that we have no useful information and we are back at this exact same spot tomorrow, but if we do by some miracle get concrete information, we are in a MUCH BETTER spot tomorrow. That's really all I can say. I don't want to spoon-feed the mafia with what to do to hard-counter my proposal. JingleHell wrote: If it was early game and there were a lot of lurkers, to the point of it nearly being a shot in the dark, no lynch could easily make some sense. But not when it's so perilously close to us losing, and as good a case against one person as we could hope for. There are definitely more solid cases that can be made. Lets go back to my previous hypothetical. Now we have 2 people that are completely clean, and then 6 people (there was a doc save) that are still suspects. Even just the elimination of 2 people from the suspect pool has some subtle (and in some case, not so subtle) changes on every other individual suspect's case. Every thing that the 2 clear people have said has slightly more weight just because of the fact that we KNOW they aren't lying. Anyone who has every made an accusation towards the 2 clear people now looks slightly scummier, just because of the what-if of them being mafia and knowing that the cleared people were town beforehand. That said, there's not NECESSARILY a more solid case that can be made in our situation, even if we no-lynch. Its a gambling game (although, despite what everyone thinks, i don't think losing a townie is actually detrimental, ie 4 townies to vote tomorrow vs 5 today, but i can't seem to get the idea from my head and expressed into print in a convincing way, so I'm intentionally avoiding those arguments) on the hope that we do have blue role claims with good information. There's a very good possibility that we don't, but at the same time, I don't see how the case against Esspen changes any if we're back in this spot tomorrow. It doesn't magically make his case not the strongest still, it just means that maybe we have other information to consider alongside it. | ||
| ||
