EPTFirst game on TL. Actually first post ever. I've played mafia for years IRL and on irc though, so I'm pretty familiar with the basics.
Newbie Mini Mafia XVIII
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
First game on TL. Actually first post ever. I've played mafia for years IRL and on irc though, so I'm pretty familiar with the basics. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
He can't prove it. If there's one thing I've learned from the internet, its that you NEVER fess up to anything. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
Intentional, or freudian scumtell? The world may never know. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On June 24 2012 13:05 Blazinghand wrote: I have no idea what you're talking about. Of course, Mr. Corleone. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On June 24 2012 23:37 JieXian wrote: wth Keirathi if you've played over 10000 games what are you doing in the newbies' game? I didn't say *I* have played over 10,000 games, although I have played probably 1000-2000. But IRC Mafia is fairly different from forum mafia, and I mentioned when I /in'd that I had played IRL and IRC mafia a fair amount in the past. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On June 25 2012 11:20 Release wrote: ##vote Hopeless1der I think Mafia is a very intricate game, and to say Lynch those who do not tell the truth is retarded. The Mafia knows the truth about the town. Townies know nothing (or very little). So in your scenario, the Mafia would never get lynched because in theory, they could always tell the truth. On the other hand, a honest and earnest townie may be pouring his heart into a case on another townie (calling him scum) and he is not telling the truth. That townie would get caught in a lie and would therefore deserve to die, in your opinion. I believe that we should be honest, because as a townie, we have no way of knowing if we are telling the truth or not. FOS: Release I don't see any situation where our infestation of evil (Mafia) can get out of this situation without lying. They can bend truths and suggest things that seem scummy, but in the end, they know who they are and who we are and will have to tell some lies or, at the very least, half truths. Making a case that someone is scum isn't lying, assuming you are town and you have some kind of reasoning that drew you to that conclusion. Being wrong != lying. Now, with all that said, your flawed logic isn't the reason for my suspicion towards you. Fast voting someone who has an argument with you is no way to catch the perps. If you honestly think someone disagreeing with your initial logic (which in this case was actually a disagreeing logic to *ANOTHER* person), then you're just asking to lynch innocent people because they have different ideas than you. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
Getting all read to bandwagon someone who had a policy idea that you didn't agree with less than 2 hours intot he game will when you no friends, no matter how much discussion it spawned. Your post with the ##Vote line = good discussion. Your post with the ##Vote line = mind boggling. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
As far as "friends", its way too early to know who I can trust. Need to hear some input from other people, but for now, yes you are my leading candidate. I 100% feel that your vote was too premature and has no reasonable explanation other than "to get the ball rolling", which is a terrible reason to vote. It accomplishes nothing other than to put a vote on someone who has a 75% chance of being a townie for the SOLE REASON that he had a good intentioned, albeit impossible, idea for a lynch policy. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On June 25 2012 13:13 Hopeless1der wrote: And thus we've arrived at the point of my original policy: dishonesty is a move for scum. Townies shouldn't have a reason to lie, at least not a good one. It's hard to imagine a game where someone instantly knows every scum and townie correctly - what would be the point of the game? We're going to have times where we're completely convinced of someones scumminess and manage to flip them as town. It happens, but I'd also rather Mislynch (when you're really really sure) than No-Lynch. No-Lynching basically gives Mafia a free kill while denying us a chance to get rid of someone, at the very least someone that is not necessarily scum but definitely not helping the town. Only if such a person can not be found would I actively pursue a No-Lynch. @Release: I pretty much agree with your stance on 'honesty'. Hence I moved on to Mis vs No Lynches I completely disagree with your first point, and mildly disagree with your second. There are definitely situations where dishonesty as a townie can win you the game. If you don't believe this is true, then I can list examples later, but I assure you that it is. As far as the second point, there are situations where No-Lynching is the correct choice, i.e. when lynching a townie then mafia night kill would lose the game, but if you no-lynch then mafia gets their night kill, you still have another day to play (and with better odds). Also depending on available roles (and more importantly what roles have been claimed with legitimate rationale), that no-lynching is a good solution. But I agree with you that no-lynching just for the sake of not taking a chance is silly. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On June 25 2012 13:44 Release wrote: You do realize that i can change my vote right? Shocking... + Show Spoiler + I know... Of course I realize that. Changing your vote later doesn't change the fact that you voted this time for no logical reason however. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On June 25 2012 23:52 Release wrote: If yourself and vivax found that confusing, doesn't that make him Mafia (as opposed to yourselves)? Townies are trying to avoid confusion while mafia try to cause confusion. If you say his reasoning is the reasoning is your reasoning, that's kind of a catch 22 This is the most confusing sentence in this thread, so maybe *YOU'RE* the mafia.  In all seriousness though, i feel like you are putting yourself in the limelight a bit too much on day1 for oyut o be mafia, unless you're just an idiot, which I assume isn't the case. As far as the whole "lynching the blues" comment by Esspen, really boggling. I can't even see how this would create good discussion; 1) you're serious, in which case WORST MAFIA EVER or 2) you're making a joke, people call you out, you say you're joking, people still suspect your motives but move on. I dont feel like anything that has come out of that statement has been useful towards finding whoever the mafia is, so that just makes it more suspicious/boggling. Now: lynch the lurkers. I've played around tis strategy many many times, and while it doesn't always work, it does have some key benefits: 1) a lot of mafia (especially inexperienced ones) are going to try to keep a low profile for a long as they can and 2) people who arent giving input, well, aren't giving input or opinions for others to base anything on, therefor aren't helping town to win. The chance of mafia nightkilling lurkers is exceptionally low, as well, because 1) thats one more person to cast suspicion on, and 2) the lurker isnt going to casting any suspicion on them. So thats my 2cents. Lynch All Lurkers is probably our best plan of action. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
| ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
Why would you want to vote me if you're detective and have proof that someone is scum? and 2, despite that, I actually feel inclined to trust the detective claim. There's really not much point tot he claim at that point if you're getting bandwagoned, because if you're wrong about the scum, then you just get lynched the next day, which doesn't really help the mafia out very much. Although, you *COULD* be claiming det and giving up a teamate to appear clean for a while until someone else claims det and we are forced to decide who's lying. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
That's the worst logic I've ever heard. You kill the target the DT claimed as scum, NOT THE DT HIMSELF. That would make no sense at all. Why would you not want more of the DT's info, assuming he is actually the DT? Here's the possible ways this can play out: 1) We lynch Vivax. He flips DT, so we lynch Jester tomorrow and have 1 mafia down. 2) We kill Vivax, he doesnt flip DT. 1 mafia down. 3) We lynch Jester, hes Mafia. Mafia compatriats kills Vivax tonight. 1 mafia down. 4) We lynch Jester, hes Mafia. Mafia targets someone else. 1 Mafia down, mild suspicion on Vivax still, at least 1 more night of "investigations". 5) We lynch Jester, hes Mafia. Doc save on Vivax. 1 mafia down, and another night of confirmed investigations. 6) We lynch Jester, hes NOT Mafia. We lynch Vivax tomorrow. It's pretty easy to see that 4 is our BEST CASE SCENARIO. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
| ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
But just think about it for a minute; if Vivax *IS* scum, then why would he put me out there as a target to vote, before he was getting bandwagoned? He would gain more in the *LONG RUN* if he had people at the end of the game that seemed scummier than he did. Lynch All Lurkers is a town policy. Lynch *NO* Lurkers is a mafia policy. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On June 30 2012 01:36 JingleHell wrote: Vivax thought Keirathi was a better target for a vote than me earlier in the day cycle. Vivax fakes roleclaim to support an OMGUS against me. Keirathi jumps in supporting that. And somehow, according to Vivax, the case against HIM is a bandwagon? As far as you, this is a contentless post. Tell me why my logic is wrong. Present a case to me. Don't just accuse me of bandwagoning you. I gave solid evidence and a fully laid out list of why I'm voting for you, yet you did nothing to try to change my mind. Seems like you've already given up. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On June 30 2012 01:56 BioSC wrote: You are assuming. What!? Are you dense? My list was *EVERY POSSIBLE SCENARIO THAT CAN HAPPEN* regardless of what roles there are. Okay, actually I missed a couple of possible scenarios. Vivax could be DT, and there could be no doc. The outcome is basically the same as #3. The last possible scenario is that Vivax isnt DT *AND* Jingle isn't Mafia. In which case, Vivax is retardedly dumb, and town ends up losing. Now, for obvious reasons, you can see why I didn't list this one. It makes no sense whatsoever. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
| ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On June 30 2012 02:08 BioSC wrote: Yes. You are making the assumption that Vivax is a DT, and saying its the best path for town. I do not believe Vivax is the DT at all. So how am I dense? You leave out scenarios and call ME dense? Amusing. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it isn't possible. 2) We kill Vivax, he doesnt flip DT. 1 mafia down. 6) We lynch Jingle, hes NOT Mafia. We lynch Vivax tomorrow. Where did I leave out scenarios where Vivax isn't DT? Thats what those look like to me. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On June 30 2012 02:14 BioSC wrote: Yes, you posted your wonderful list of things that could happen. I'm saying YOU are assuming he's a DT, thus you are saying that the best scenarios involve you taking 100% gospel of Vivax's claim. I don't. Not one bit. Case coming up shortly. The problem I'm seeing is that YOU are assuming that I am assuming he's DT. My only assumption is that town wants to win. The best possible case for town to win is if we ALL assume he's DT (and hope we have a Doc). And you were right about one thing; I am completely disregarding the scenario where Vivax is not DT but also still town. If you want to believe that, go ahead. I'm going to trust that fellow townies aren't that stupid though. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On June 30 2012 02:31 BioSC wrote: I would rather lynch into you to confirm your role So you would rather lose a blue role than keep one? You make no sense and I'm done arguing with you. If other people believe that garbage, then town is doomed and there's very little point to any discussion. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
Thats really all it comes down to. Simple game mechanics. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
| ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
Do I think he is suspicious? Hell yes. Do I think there is a possibility that he's not lying about DT and wants to clear himself? Yes, yes I do. If there's any possibility that he is actually DT, then lynching him to prove it is just dumb. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On June 30 2012 07:08 Esspen wrote: I do not get all this Jingle vs Vivax discussion. Whomever we lynch, the result will be the same in the end. Even if we confirm that Vivax is the DT, he'll be killed during the night immediately. Thats not necessarily true. What if there's a doctor and he saved Vivax? What if we lynch Vivax and hes DT, and then mafia kills another blue role tonight? There are lots of possibilities where this plays out differently than Jingle and Vivax both dying. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
There's a decent probability that he's Mafia and use the claim to buy himself an extra day. In this case, lynching his target hurts town in the short run, but basically guarantees us a mafia kill tomorrow, and possibly more leads from a real DT. IMO, its better to take the safe route than to just bet on the fact that he's lying. The opportunity cost is small enough at 10 players that its worth it. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
| ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On June 30 2012 07:30 JingleHell wrote: Small opportunity cost? With three scum, and only 7 of us left, with night kills, there's only 2 mislynches needed to bring our team down to equal with the scum. Worse, it's plurality, so if the scum vote fast at that point, we lose. One scum dies either today or tomorrow. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
Basically it comes down to why he was pressuring my if he knew jingle was scum. It's a valid question, and one I want to know a good answer for. Lynching a lurker to give another night of investigations, while eliminating a possible mafia sort of makes some small amounts of sense, though. However I'm much more inclined to believe hes just a newbie (this is the newbie mafia after all) and was trying to conceal the fact that he was DT for as long as possible, than I am inclined to lynch a DT claim on day2, no matter how desperate. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
| ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On June 30 2012 07:59 Miltonkram wrote: Keirathi, the question doesn't come down to "what does town lose if player X is telling the truth." It comes down to who you think is scum. The fact that you acknowledge that there is a decent case against him but you does not reflect well on your alignment. Here is why I'm voting Vivax over JingleHell: Vivax's play has been incredibly scummy, JingleHell's has not. It's that simple. I 100% disagree. This game is ALL about making careful decisions than win the game in the LONG TERM; fully clearing or condemning someone is much more important than any single days lynch. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
| ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
| ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
TL;DR: think before you make dumb decisions. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
| ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
8 people left: if we lynch a townie (5/8 chance), then mafia kills a townie, that leaves us at 6 people with 3 mafia. Game over. If we no-lynch at 8 players: mafia kills an extra townie, but we are at 7 players now. 3/7 chance to get mafia, rather than 3/8. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
I can explain more if necessary. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
All of this is with the assumption that there isn't a doc save tonight. If there is, then disregard everything I'm saying now, and we can discuss things tomorrow. 1) We no-lynch tomorrow, unless there is very, very, VERY solid evidence against someone. I don't mean hunches. I mean nearly concrete evidence. I listed in my previous post why this is beneficial, and it gives us another night of blue roles, if we have any. 2) Assuming we do no-lynch tomorrow, I propose that on the following night, everyone claims their role (and results, if applicable) absolutely as close as possible to the following night ending, preferably with just minutes or seconds to spare, so we don't give the mafia time to change their kill/role targets.. The following day will be do-or-die, so there's no point in holding back information at that point. We HAVE to get it right. I hope everyone at least gives my proposal some serious thought and discussion. I 100% believe its the best course of action for the town if we want to have any chance of winning the game. P.S: If this post is out of line or against the rules, I sincerely apologize. I couldn't find anything against it in the rules post, and I pm'd kitaman but didn't get a response before it was time to post. I saw nRgMonk ask, but no response as well. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
##Vote: No-Lynch | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
Haha, I apologize. I noticed it after I had already posted, but it seems a bit of a waste to double-post just to fix it. It was obvious who I was talking about | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On July 01 2012 09:30 JingleHell wrote: Keirathi, of course, was right in the thick of a lot of the hot points of that mess, and now he's trying to discuss policy when we're in a world of trouble numerically. Not sure if you realize it, but my policy discussion was *BECAUSE* of the numerical trouble we are in. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
So, you said you agree with much of what I have said. What specifically do you not agree with? And to the point of defending myself because Milton pointed a very, very fragile argument towards me: since we now know that Vivax *WAS* town, how was my staunch DEFEND THE DT stance anti-town at all, even if he wasn't DT in the end? I still fully stand by my actions; taking a chance on lynching the DT, no matter how small, is silly. And for more defense, lets assume that I am mafia for one moment. Why would I, BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE, lobby for a no-lynch policy for today? It's an extremely pro-town stance to take; a no-lynch doesn't benefit Mafia in any way whatsoever, and in every possible situation, its actually a bad thing for them. Higher odds that one of them gets lynched and all. Agreeing with the proposal after-the-fact is one thing; you can't really afford ti disagree with it if people in the town feel its the right decision, but to flat out propose it during the night before any discussion has taken place would be flat out idiotic. Not to mention, the call for last minute role-claims tonight hurts mafia too, because assuming everyone complies, they *WILL* be forced into lying. They will have to make up evidence to support there claims, and dismiss evidence of other people's claims. Much more liable to slip up when you have to lie. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
| ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On July 01 2012 10:00 JingleHell wrote: I'm not entirely against a no-lynch, in fact, I prefer it if it's the best option, I just feel we're really running far too late to take that sort of risk. It's entirely in what-if land, and assumes scum don't have any scum-vigi holding a shot. There is no mafia extra shot role. The only possibility for losing tonight if we no-lynch is if we have another town vigi and he shoots a townie. I would certainly hope that wouldn't happen though. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
Like I said, its not that I don't agree with you, its just that no-lynching is our best solution, and until it happens, any information we disclose can give mafia ammunition to use during the next day. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On July 01 2012 12:45 JieXian wrote: If higher odds are so good why wouldn't a 3-3 be a better situation since it's 50%? Because it means you have no power in the voting. That' why 3-9 is better than 3-8. About roleclaiming, it sounds good. 3-3 is game over. Theres no possible way for town to win. I dunno if the rules specifically state that mafia has to OUTNUMBER the town to win, but since we're using priority voting, it works out to the same thing. On the day that its 3-3, the 3 mafia just agree to fast vote someone as soon as the day starts, and since their 3 votes happened first, they have priority. Even if the 3 town consensus to vote on one of the mafia, its too late. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
Also I'm not really sure why the statement you bolded initiated a FoS. If you can tell me how lobbying for no-lynch is anti-town, then please do. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On July 01 2012 12:26 JieXian wrote: Let me point out some glaring flaws in your idealised assumption. Firstly, you're correct. But you were wrong in leaving out a few facts: You do know that at 7 players every single townie needs to be on the same page to win? Thats a really huge risk you left out from your analysis, just like your arguement for Vivax. You're presenting a situation while hiding some facts. ATM I have very little confidence that all townie can be on the same page. I wonder why you do. I guess I could have combined these all into 1 post, I apologize. Anyways, 4 townies have to be on the same page in either situation. It's basically one extra night of possible blue roles vs arguing today over who to lynch and then voting with lesser odds. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On July 01 2012 14:11 JieXian wrote: No no no >_> once again you seem to keep leaving out things. Yes, 4 townies need to be together in either situation. However today 80% need to be on the same page (with better timing) as opposed to 100% tomorrow. Your idealised situation is only optimal if you already have a 4 townie alliance. I'm arguing that this statement is not true. Mafia does have something to gain as I explained above, hence I question "extreme pro-townness". On the other hand, what would you expect from a roleclaim? (this isn't an attack) I'd assume mafia will claim VT and blues can be excluded from being targets. I don't get how you can "catch people lying". Sorry about this, but I think I'm going to sleep before I reply. I wrote up a long post, but it felt like I was just rambling without getting my point across and repeatedly losing my train of thought. I'll discuss more in the morning. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
I just want to make this clear before I move on. The entire idea was because INFORMATION beats HUNCHES every time. If we do have a Cop, or a doc saves someone, or a Veteran gets shot, those are people WE CAN CLEAR. We CANNOT mislynch again. It is game over if we do. The odds are more favorable at 7 people than 8. Thats really all I'm going to say about it. If you can't see the merits of my proposal, then talking it to death is just wasting time. So, first things first: Lets take a look at the votes for the first 2 days: Day1: Votes for Hopeless1der TOWNIE: BioSC - Unconfirmed Release - Townie roflwaffles55 (Jingle) - Unconfirmed Esspen - Unconfirmed Votes for roflwaffles55 (Jingle) Unconfirmed: BassInSpace - Unconfirmed dNa - Unconfirmed Hopeless1der - Townie Votes for Release TOWNIE: JieXian - Unconfirmed Votes for AegonC (Milton) TOWNIE: Vivax - Townie Votes for Keirathi Unconfirmed: NrGmonk - Unconfirmed Day2: Votes for Vivax TOWNIE: JieXian - Unconfirmed JingleHell - Unconfirmed Miltonkram - Townie BioSC - Unconfirmed Esspen - Unconfirmed NrGmonk - Unconfirmed Votes for JingleHell Unconfirmed: BassInSpace - Unconfirmed Vivax - Townie dNa - Unconfirmed Keirathi - Unconfirmed 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? | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
| ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On July 02 2012 04:58 NrGmonk wrote: Keirathi, I think now the evidence against Esspen is indisputable and "concrete", with quotes like: 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. | ||
|
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. | ||
|
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
| ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
| ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
| ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 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. | ||
|
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. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
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. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
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. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On July 03 2012 01:35 JingleHell wrote: 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? | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
| ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
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. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
| ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
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. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
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. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
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. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
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. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
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. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
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. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
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. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
| ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
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. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On July 03 2012 12:43 JieXian wrote: 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. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
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. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
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. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On July 03 2012 21:09 marvellosity wrote: 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. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On July 03 2012 21:53 marvellosity wrote: I would have killed Vivax in that situation. Of course in this situation he was VT, but he was definitely lying. If you really had a strong read on Jingle, then you push THAT fact, rather than that you shouldn't be lynching the DT (that's how it came across). The best time to lay out your reads is asap. See towards the end, where BassinSpace got a town read on you and figured that Esspen were town and mafia were trying to secure the mislynch? You weren't to know that's what he was thinking. But if you'd laid out your suspects with good cases earlier in the day, then between you/Bass/Monk you could have perhaps worked things out and lynched someone else instead. Again, if I was townie on the final day, I wouldn't have spent my efforts trying to get a no lynch, but instead desperately trying to push through my strongest read. How is town supposed to avoid a lynch on Esspen if you were unwilling/unable to push and make a case on your strongest reads?? Edit: This goes for Vivax too. His play day 2 was just insane. His plan seemed to be to wait until everyone found him scum and then make a desperate DT claim? With all the "I have info later". Noooooooo. You clear your name by pushing your strongest scumread with good logical reasoning and getting town to see your point of view :/ Its so easy to say that when you're in the mafia QT and know that Vivax was checked night 1 and was a VT. From my perspective, he really only had 2 options. He was either DT, or he was Mafia. Because being a VT and making that claim is just insane, and basically asking to lose the game. I would take the chance on him being DT and just an inexperienced player (it was day2...it wasn't do or die time) 9 times out of 10. And you're right. I almost certainly could have convinced Bass to vote one of them on the last day. But I felt at the time that I had a better chance of getting a no-lynch than of convincing 2 more people not to vote Esspen. Especially since he had quit posting altogether. | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On July 03 2012 22:24 marvellosity wrote: Meh @ easy to say. Objectively I would have lynched him. BH and I briefly talked about it at the time and he agreed with me too. Maybe I'm being too aggressive because you're getting defensive, I'm just trying to explain how I see it. You spent a lot of time on scenarios, while disregarding actual analysis of the content of people's posts (at least that's how it came across). I'm glad you see where I'm coming from on the final day. Generally speaking, pushing your strongest read, hard, is the best way of getting someone lynched. I've been killed off in LVI now, but I replaced in to day one, 3 hours before lynch time - and I got someone who previously had 0 votes lynched. Anything is possible if you push your read(s). Interesting. Lynching Vivax was certainly the safer option. I have playing risky so ingrained into my playstyle because that's how me and my friends have always played. That is to say, my friends and I that play together would almost always take the risk of killing a VT over the risk of killing a DT (its a much different case when the fake DT target happens to be a blue role, then things really get messy). It's a different style of play where we try to game the system, and only resort to reads as a worst case scenario. Sorry if I came off as being defensive, I certainly didn't intend to. I find your post not aggressive whatsoever, so I honestly didn't intend to be defensive. Just arguing a point now, for the sake of it :p | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On July 03 2012 22:43 marvellosity wrote: Unfortunately trying to game the system in TL Mafia will only get you so far. And by so far, I mean lynched That's the part that is so baffling to me. I've broken so many games with clever strategizing  | ||
|
Keirathi
United States4679 Posts
On July 03 2012 22:50 JingleHell wrote: Well, clever strategizing broke this game too. Fakeclaim secured D2, and left Esspen as the one better target than me. So your pattern is unscathed at least, it just broke it a way you didn't want. Touche, good sir. Although, I think that was more of a case of unclever strategizing :p | ||
| ||
