|
No. No, no, no to every single one of your points.
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.
|
But right now, it sounds like a distinctly bad-for-town suggestion.
This is the part of your argument that I don't understand.
Right now: We have no concrete information, but a decent circumstantial case against Esspen.
Worst Case Scenario tomorrow: We still have no concrete information, but still have a decent circumstantial case against Esspen.
I don't see how that is distinctly bad for town.
In fact, in every case EXCEPT for the worst case, its distinctly good for town.
|
The same logic applies to jailer as it does to Doctor. Veteran would be slightly different, as only 1 person is clear rather than two, but same principals. DT is, of course, a different ballgame (albeit a less trustworthy one).
But you hit the nail on the head: today we have 0 information. Tomorrow we have a 14-25% chance of information per bleu role we have. Maybe we have 0 blue roles, which is our absolute worst case scenario. We don't lose anything by prolonging our decision by a day to see if we do in fact gain information.
|
On July 03 2012 01:35 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 01:26 Keirathi wrote:
The same logic applies to jailer as it does to Doctor. Veteran would be slightly different, as only 1 person is clear rather than two, but same principals. DT is, of course, a different ballgame (albeit a less trustworthy one).
But you hit the nail on the head: today we have 0 information. Tomorrow we have a 14-25% chance of information per bleu role we have. Maybe we have 0 blue roles, which is our absolute worst case scenario. We don't lose anything by prolonging our decision by a day to see if we do in fact gain information. But it still comes down to a ridiculous gamble, and it still all involves a lot of second guessing everything. And we potentially DO lose something, in losing a townie vote.
Let me put it to you like this: You are walking down the street today, and someone hands you a random Lottery ticket thats scheduled to be drawn tomorrow. When you get home, do you throw it away? Or do you check the numbers tomorrow just on the off-chance that you've beaten all probability?
|
I just don't agree with you that we do lose something. In fact, I think we GAIN something, in having less people to make cases against and therefor better voting odds. But, like I said, I can't seem to articulate my thoughts into print here, so I've avoided that argument.
|
Of course I'm not going to role claim. I claimed vanilla like 3 days ago. If I thought it would help town, I would offer myself up as a sacrifice so that blue roles would have another night for possible information. But that's obviously not possible at this point. In hindsight, maybe I should have proposed it yesterday to defuse the Vivax vs You situation.
As far as a case against me; I proposed all of this BEFORE anyone started laying out their case against Esspen, so its not like I knew who I would be "defending". I have no problem voting him, because he seems to have given up. That's unacceptable and ruins the spirit of the game, and if he's town, actually costs us the game.
But that aside, its still not the point. I honestly believe that the possibility of concrete information combined with the different voting odds, combine with the guaranteed elimination of 1, and possibly multiple, suspects outweighs this minor point you keep harping on. We have a difference of opinion; all I can really say is that my opinion is based on various successes and failures in similar situations from my past mafia experience, which is irrelevent because I can't document it and was in a different environment, with different, like-minded individuals.
Also, your hypothesis seems to hang on the premise that mafia won't vote on one of their own, if its benefits them.
|
The only way I could possibly be scum is if I agreed with you about town being better off voting today, but defended town voting tomorrow. Does it honestly sound like I have any inkling of agreement with you?
|
No. You are twisting my words. My point is that the combined effects of better voting odds (you can't argue that 3/8 is better than 3/7) is better when COMBINED with the possible information from an extra night, than having a "spare town vote".
The difference in you and I is that I value information and you seem to think its a fruitless endeavor that has zero chance of helping. I'm willing to make a sacrifice in the name of gaining said information because if there is information, then we are in a better spot tomorrow.
|
On July 03 2012 03:28 NrGmonk wrote:
Also, I don't think Keirathi is considering just the thought power that comes with 4 townies instead of 3. If we lynch a mafia member today, assuming we pick right, it will be 4 townies to 2 mafia tomorrow. If we decide no lynch, then in two days, it will be 3 townies to 2 mafia. The first case scenario is much much more desirable in terms of the ability for the 4 townies to reason and not get overwhelmed. We're basically betting that Esspen is mafia to get a 4:2 townie to mafia ratio instead of a 3:2 ratio, which again, is a bet I would definitely make.
Finally a reasonable argument that I agree with. The only small problem is that we can't be wrong today, which you seem to understand but discount as a possibility.
JingleHell wrote:
This isn't a game of chance, it's an educated guessing game.
This, I think, is our fundamental disagreement. I firmly believe it is a combination of both, based on past experiences.
But, I'm tired of the arguing. I'm obviously not going to convince you, and I fundamentally disagree with you.
You've backed me into a damn-if-I-do, damned-if-I-don't corner.
|
Luck might not determine the outcome, but it certainly plays a part in it. Luck of what roles town has, luck of what roles mafia has, luck in role actions, and even occasionally luck on a lynch vote. Its the same as poker. You can win games with just educated guessing and playing the odds, but some games, in the end, it just comes down to luck.
As far as arguing with you: I only argued so vehemently because you attacked me with your arguments. Monk was non-confrontational, so he got a non-confrontational reply.
|
JingleHell wrote:
you trying to push the argument just looks like an effort to discredit any future reads I make.
That's exactly what you've done to me. Seriously, where do I go from here?
If I refuse to vote Esspen because I truly believe my plan can work, then I look scummy.
If I vote Esspen, then I didn't really believe it in the first place, so I look scummy.
I'm really in a lose-lose situation now.
|
Good game, gents, however I think this will be my sole TL Mafia game. It was such an exercise in frustration and was ruined by 2 people's...I don't want to say terribleness, but maybe just lack of dedication/preperation/knowledge that 100% cost us the game.
As an aside, it is nice to know that in my personal notes, I had the mafia picked, although with a Esspen/JieXian tie for the third spot. Its just unfortunate that because of Esspen giving up, no one would have ever voted for them over him, so the game was basically lost anyways.
|
Also, I really am curious how the rest of the game would have played out had we actually no-lynched.
Maybe people still think its a silly plan, but I *know* it works. Certainly not every time, but obviously lynching doesn't work every time either 
It probably still would have been too easy for mafia to get Esspen bandwagoned though. I'm just curious who would have died if we delayed and it that death could have helped town.
|
reading through the mafia QT:
JingleHell wrote:
Well, bear in mind that Keirathi will instantly believe ANY half-assed roleclaim, so he probably thinks scum would actually claim red. It's the only thing I can imagine making sense.
No. No, no, no, no, no.
I mentioned in one of my posts that I didn't want to spoon feed the mafia the game. What I meant was, mafia claiming blue roles would be the easiest way to cause confusion. Since you only needed to get one person lynched to win, it would have probably been worth the risk for one or two of you to fake role claim, even though in doing so, you're painting a big sign on your back. Everyone else seemed to expect the mafia to claim VT, which is the safe thing, but you were in a position where you didn't have the be safe, you just had to get a single lynch.
|
As an aside, is it actually possible for mafia to not kill anyone at night? I never really thought about that, because in every version I've played its not possible.
|
On July 03 2012 10:17 dNa wrote:
i can think of no reason whatsoever not to kill anyone at night... maybe to fake a medic safe... but.. that would be some deep game ..
That was their plan for it.
|
On July 03 2012 12:43 JieXian wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 11:05 kitaman27 wrote:
Keirathi
Not voting on day one is pretty harmful to town. Not only does it mean one less town aligned vote in the lynch, it also prevents others from getting a good read on you. More posting on day one definitely would have helped. Your logic was pretty sound throughout the game and you were one of the easiest players to follow. The biggest problem was that you only pushed one target the entire game. The no-lynch plan that you pushed on day three doesn't work in a game that isn't majority lynch. If the entire town votes for no lynch, the three mafia players swap to a player at the deadline and its GG.
I found him to be terribly stubborn and incapable of seeing logic and argue once he has his mind set on something, for d3 and d2 as in the QT.
As far as D2, I was right to trust my gut. Lynching the target rather than the, admittedly fake now, DT is just a smarter practice than lynching the claimer, as long as you make the assumption that the claimer isn't trying to throw the game.
D3 is a whole other story. I honestly wasnt aware that even if we had 5 no-lynch votes, and 3 votes on someone, that there would be a lynch instead of a no-lynch because I've never played in a game like this. No one ever made that argument, and when I asked for no-lynch clarification, it wasn't mentioned. That would have made it a completely different ball game, and a no-lynch could never work in that circumstance.
I could keep arguing my point about it working, because I know for a fact it does work, but that's not the point of this discussion.
|
On July 03 2012 15:01 BassInSpace wrote:
Oh I didn't know that about the no lynch either. The only reason I chose to vote for it though was because at that stage of the game I thought there was a higher chance of getting a no lynch than a lynch of a player besides esspen. We really did waste too much time talking about the no lynch.
That's probably true, but Esspen was the least scummy of my suspects in my personal notes, and simultaneously the hardest to make a case for being townie. Despite everything he did, it just didn't "feel" like he was scum. It felt like he was a townie that was being railroaded and didn't know how to defend himself, so he threw in the towel. There's no way to defend that. So I resorted to constantly arguing a point that I see now was utterly stupid.
|
On July 03 2012 15:42 JieXian wrote:
That last line shows that you're still stubborn after even Kita told you it won't work.
I'm sorry, I wasn't specific in that line. I meant "I know that a no-lynch can work in a majority vote system." Because I've seen it work (and I've seen it not work too, but with a higher success rate than flat out lynching). It was obviously an extremely stupid argument in this case, like I said, because there's no way for it to work. I misunderstood the mechanics, and I admitted that.
|
On July 03 2012 21:09 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 16:01 Keirathi wrote:On July 03 2012 15:42 JieXian wrote:
That last line shows that you're still stubborn after even Kita told you it won't work.
I'm sorry, I wasn't specific in that line. I meant "I know that a no-lynch can work in a majority vote system." Because I've seen it work (and I've seen it not work too, but with a higher success rate than flat out lynching). It was obviously an extremely stupid argument in this case, like I said, because there's no way for it to work. I misunderstood the mechanics, and I admitted that. To repeat, you would have been a much greater asset to town if you'd actually scumhunted and made cases rather than proposing no lynch plans and the like. Also I feel your point on never killing claimed DT is incorrect. It's just sloppy thinking.
That isn't helpful at all. Please for the love of god tell me how I could have possibly convinced enough people to vote Jingle or Bio over Esspen (I  ID* have them as the 2 strongest reads in my personal notes) after he basically said "Screw it, I give up" on top of his other scummy actions? So, despite how ultimately ignorant it was, I argued for the option that was at least getting a bit of traction.
While I certainly understand your point, there was never a time when I could realistically lay out my reads.
And I didn't say never kill the person who claims DT. Or maybe that's what I implied, but its certainly not what I meant. There are certainly times when killing the claimer is the right course of action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
