You disapprove of him saying if he knows the alignment?
Since if Cyan dies somehow without claiming we'll have no idea who this "confirmed" (if this is the case) townie is in the first place, yes i do. I'd rather the mafia not know whether Cyan can or cannot confirm another player.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
Agreed with Alx. Axel this is the 2nd time you've enquired further about a role (first being ZDS) in a way we don't need to know at the moment. Fortunately, i don't think Cyan is likely to be answering that question with him not being pressured at all.
(1) You have no idea what you are talking about, or (2) you are scum.
Also, what on Earth gave you the idea that Cyan is not being pressured "at all?"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
(1) You have no idea what you are talking about, or (2) you are scum.
Also, what on Earth gave you the idea that Cyan is not being pressured "at all?"
Or 3, you're not getting my point. You are asking Cyan if he can confirm the alignment of another player. If the answer is yes, then cyan (assuming he's not lying obv) becomes an obvious target for the mafia...especially if he doesnt tell us the role he knows the alignment of. I'd rather the mafia not know this information. Capische?
And further more, I equate pressure with a wagon. To be fair, i didnt realize there were 5 votes on Cyan at last votecount, but it didn't seem like cyan was being particularly pressured beyond those 5 players and occasional others making statements (but not votes). Besides, the fade vote afaik was just to tell if Fade could vote, and he hasnt put much words behind it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
Actually, my (3) should have been "All of the above."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
Actually, my (3) should have been "All of the above."
Mind explaining then how that question helps us at this current time?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
I presume you're trying to insinuate by the "(town)" next to Xyre in the first quote that he is being inconsistent by taking a different stance as a townie there than he is here. You're missing one major point: Cyan was scum in that game. (Which you know full-well as you were his partner along with Fadeblue.)
So it stands to reason if Xyre used the "Cyan being Cyan" argument in 24 mafia and was burned by it in the sense Cyan actually was scum, that he wouldn't lean on that line of reasoning again as a townie, either. Your little attack here is flawed.
I think I'll do a PBPA on Alx2 when I get some free time. Should be fun.
@fade: Fine, whatever. I can handle atl getting lynched tomorrow. I think you underestimate the amount of confusion stuff like this ends up creating, not to mention the issues that arise from pressuring other people who might end up with better claims than atl's on Day 1. We may well end up optimizing the info from atl's lynch only to out the real cop or something.
@Grak: everyone always claims a power role Day 1. We can't give everyone 3-4 days before we lynch them.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
Besides, the fade vote afaik was just to tell if Fade could vote, and he hasnt put much words behind it.
While I voted to demonstrate that I could, I do support the Cyan wagon (as I mentioned in the same post). If I simply wanted to demonstrate I could vote and didn't support the wagon, I would've thrown my vote on someone who didn't already have 4 votes.
While it is true that Cyan is being pressured, I don't necessarily think he's scum. I do, however, think that it's likely that Xyre is scum.
(631) Tons of speculation and waffling. Votes atlseal after previously saying we should wait a day to see what he gets from an inspection (614)
(664) Huge speculation on the death scene, even making a "post-mortem PBPA of arimnaes." Speculates that it wasn't a scum (does this include SK?)... if it wasn't a scum, a vig just randomly offed someone?
(771) Said atlseal wasn't daykilled because the killer knows he isn't a Jack, voted for atlseal because he is "most likely scum", but then unvotes because it would be "a lot of risk for less reward" and votes Cyan because he doesn't go for the "Cyan being Cyan" argument, even though that used to be enough to convince him (587). Note that this is right after he said "I just don't feel like we can trust atlseal to cooperate with the town's demands, and if we give him another day, that's more of an opportunity for him to derail the wagon. I understand the desire to avoid lynching a jack, but still, he's a very possible scum." (737)
All-in-all, Xyre has done nothing but speculate and bandwagon, continually going back on what he said just the day before. Every post screams to me of opportunism, trying to get whoever he can lynched, and not a single one of his posts has read as townie to me. I'm going to have to go with Pod on this one and Vote Xyre for being fairly blatent scum.
While I voted to demonstrate that I could, I do support the Cyan wagon (as I mentioned in the same post). If I simply wanted to demonstrate I could vote and didn't support the wagon, I would've thrown my vote on someone who didn't already have 4 votes.
Understood. Hell, I didnt realize Cyan had that many votes, so i wasn't sure your vote was serious.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
You're missing one major point: Cyan was scum in that game.
This has nothing to do with anything. My original point was that Xyre was town in this game, and was thus sincere. Cyan's role was a non-issue.
Having said that, you're late on this train. As a result of Xyre's responce, I did realize it was reasonable of him to change him mind. My attack wasn't flawed, it was responded well by Xyre and retracted. There's a difference.
@fade: Fine, whatever. I can handle atl getting lynched tomorrow. I think you underestimate the amount of confusion stuff like this ends up creating, not to mention the issues that arise from pressuring other people who might end up with better claims than atl's on Day 1. We may well end up optimizing the info from atl's lynch only to out the real cop or something.
No, I don't think I'm underestimating the confusion. I'm aware of the danger in postponing the lynch, but as long as we can find at least an equally good alternative lynch, I think it's worth it.
Personally, I think we should be pressuring Cyan, and if he ends up with a stronger defense/claim, then we fall back on atlseal. (Though if support for a Xyre wagon picks up, then I would also like to explore that before defaulting to atlseal.)
I don't really think I'm being pressured, honestly, for the most part. Grak brought up alot of points that I have yet to answer, but will do so today. No one else seems to have put much thought into their votes, and/or is just voting me for 'being myself'. Seriously, the large majority of my votes are *sheer* bandwagonry, with not even a real pretext at an explanation. Hell, FB got on my wagon to prove that he could vote, but is now staying on it because he feels it is valid. Without ever explaining why it is valid. Such votes are hard to take seriously, and even more difficult to respond to. But situations like this are exactly what I'm trying to change.
@Axel: Correct, I have never been lyched as town, as I stated. Also, I don't think that I can accurately be accused of waffling. As I said, I have never, in my mind, had CP on my list of suspects. You yourself listed a post where I make this fairly clear, IMO. While the list of people that I'm suspicious of has grown, I don't think that I've waffled on any of those suspicions, really. I was initially suspicious of Xyre and Loran. I still very much am. I still don't completely believe that ZDS is town, and I'm not at all sure of atlseal, though I realize that particular wagon isn't going anywhere today. I noted suspicion of alx relatively soon after the ZDS wagon, and that suspicion has only increased recently. And lastly I'm suspicious of LJustus, for reasons already illustrated.
@Axel: Your intuition that I am a non-matrix character is correct. The non-matrix character whose role is relevant to mine is town beyond a shadow of a doubt. But again, we're not masons, the relationship is different. It's likely that this person doesn't know that my role exists, in fact.
@Loran: There is no danger in someone faking the role that is related to me or anything like that.
I also think that it's worth noting that alot of the suspicion towards me magically cropped up after I revealed that I have knowledge of non-matrix roles and a role other than my own. I've been the target of alot of wagons, and most of them I felt were justified. This isn't one of those. The wagon on me stinks of opportunism.
I also think that it's worth noting that alot of the suspicion towards me magically cropped up after I revealed that I have knowledge of non-matrix roles and a role other than my own. I've been the target of alot of wagons, and most of them I felt were justified. This isn't one of those. The wagon on me stinks of opportunism.
You keep saying that it stinks of opportunism, but the only player that you have specifically said appeared opportunistic was fade (although to your credit, you referenced it pretty well). So who else is being opportunistic with their vote on you?
@Axel: Your intuition that I am a non-matrix character is correct. The non-matrix character whose role is relevant to mine is town beyond a shadow of a doubt. But again, we're not masons, the relationship is different. It's likely that this person doesn't know that my role exists, in fact.
How fortunate (or is it unfortunate?) for you.
Is there a reason why, since you apparently know the name of a town role that you would not simply say it? There is no chance that the scum could do anything with this information, is there? It is not as though one of them could claim to be this role and not get caught. And if said role ever come out, then his alignment is assured.
Loran's fear of the scum capping you to prevent said role-name from coming out would seem to be mooted. Saying the name would actually seem to have the opposite effect, as the scum would not want your alignment confirmed and thus confirm the unknown role later in the game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
This has nothing to do with anything. My original point was that Xyre was town in this game, and was thus sincere. Cyan's role was a non-issue.
What? You can't simply negate the fact that Cyan's role was scum in that game and then apply that logic here. Doesn't work. Xyre at that moment is not the same Xyre now. His read on Cyan turned out to be wrong, why would he continue to use that?
What exactly are you trying to point out with the "oh really" comment, then?
Quote from Alx2 »
Having said that, you're late on this train. As a result of Xyre's responce, I did realize it was reasonable of him to change him mind. My attack wasn't flawed, it was responded well by Xyre and retracted. There's a difference.
That doesn't change the fact that it was flawed logic and a poor basis for attack.
What you are doing is merely rephrasing Xyre's own answer in different words. Just because a good answer to the question was found, doesn't mean the question was invalid.
EBWODP: and, oh poop, I see Cyan chose to answer Axelrod's question. Now he must go all the way and say the name of that character. Otherwise, this information could be lost forever.
EBWODP: and, oh poop, I see Cyan chose to answer Axelrod's question. Now he must go all the way and say the name of that character. Otherwise, this information could be lost forever.
This post is both so forced and so scummy that it is just..silly. Seriously. Unvote, Vote Alx2
@Axel: I honestly don't understand what you're asking. I don't really see any need to give the name of the other role that I am aware of. If I'm ever killed, my role and ability will be revealed anyway. The role of the other person, in relation to mine, is very obvious. I can't really understand why you would want me to come forward with it at this time.
@AG: As far as I can tell, the people voting for me are Grak, FB, Vampyr, Hawkeye, ZDS, and Xyre. The only person to give any real reasoning behind voting me, from what I can tell, is Grak. I'm not really suspicious of most of them, but the lack of real evidence against me, with the exception of Grak's one post, certainly makes it hard for me to take them seriously. Specifically, I don't remember Hawkeye getting on my wagon, and certainly don't know why he did so. All ZDS and Xyre have said for awhile now is 'he is scum!' without ever providing any real reasoning to it. I remember Vampyr jumping on Grak's suspicion of me early, the entire context of which was 'I agree with Grak'. This being before I actually had a chance to even answer Grak's suspicion.
@AG: As far as I can tell, the people voting for me are Grak, FB, Vampyr, Hawkeye, ZDS, and Xyre. The only person to give any real reasoning behind voting me, from what I can tell, is Grak. I'm not really suspicious of most of them, but the lack of real evidence against me, with the exception of Grak's one post, certainly makes it hard for me to take them seriously. Specifically, I don't remember Hawkeye getting on my wagon, and certainly don't know why he did so. All ZDS and Xyre have said for awhile now is 'he is scum!' without ever providing any real reasoning to it. I remember Vampyr jumping on Grak's suspicion of me early, the entire context of which was 'I agree with Grak'. This being before I actually had a chance to even answer Grak's suspicion.
1) "I agree with Grak" is a perfectly valid reason to vote for you. They don't have to each provide NEW reasons not previously covered by me.
2) You've had a billion "chances" to respond to my post, and you have continually chosen not to do so. So don't give us this "before I had a chance to even answer Grak's suspicion" line. You've had ample opportunity.
No, I don't think I'm underestimating the confusion. I'm aware of the danger in postponing the lynch, but as long as we can find at least an equally good alternative lynch, I think it's worth it.
Personally, I think we should be pressuring Cyan, and if he ends up with a stronger defense/claim, then we fall back on atlseal. (Though if support for a Xyre wagon picks up, then I would also like to explore that before defaulting to atlseal.)
Not that I believe it to be true, but just saying, hypothetically, that Cyan turns out to be the cop. Would you regret this wagon, then? 'Cause I would. Cyan is not as suspicious at this point as atl is, so we are not currently pressuring the scummiest player, which feels wrong to me.
In 20+ games of mafia played and dozens more watched I've only once seen a scum claim power role and live till the end game.
ONE TIME.
Scum who fake claim power roles almost always get caught on it if the town is shrewd.
In 45+ games of mafia played and dozens more watched I've only five or six times seen scum claim power role and live 'til the endgame. However, that doesn't make it bad play. Drawing out power players early in the game is often worth the sacrifice of a suspicious mafioso. The goal of mafia isn't to get all the mafiosi to the endgame. Just one of them.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
@Axel: I honestly don't understand what you're asking. I don't really see any need to give the name of the other role that I am aware of. If I'm ever killed, my role and ability will be revealed anyway. The role of the other person, in relation to mine, is very obvious. I can't really understand why you would want me to come forward with it at this time.
You said it was "likely" that this other role did not even know of your existance. You also said that this other role is town "beyond a shadow of a doubt." But you think you don't need to say anything else because if you die, everything will be self-evident? Am I understanding you correctly?
Let me put it another way: are you claiming that you believe revealing this role-name would be actively harmful to the town? If so, can you elaborate at all on why that might be the case?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
Not that I believe it to be true, but just saying, hypothetically, that Cyan turns out to be the cop. Would you regret this wagon, then? 'Cause I would.
Would you regret lynching atlseal if he turns up town?
We're taking a chance no matter what we do. You wouldn't regret lynching a townie because it appears to be a good play at the time. Similarly, I'm not going to regret pursuing an alternative lead if it appears to be a good play to me.
Cyan is not as suspicious at this point as atl is, so we are not currently pressuring the scummiest player, which feels wrong to me.
In 45+ games of mafia played and dozens more watched I've only five or six times seen scum claim power role and live 'til the endgame. However, that doesn't make it bad play. Drawing out power players early in the game is often worth the sacrifice of a suspicious mafioso. The goal of mafia isn't to get all the mafiosi to the endgame. Just one of them.
That's like saying the goal of basketball is not to win by 10 points, it's to win by 1.
Well... that's the MINIMUM requirement... but it's a lot easier if you can win by 10 or even 20.
The point is, if we wait a few days and are shrewd, either the mafia will kill our claimed power role, or else the claimed power role will be caught as a liar.
Either way, it's not worth risking lynching a power role NOW.
Check and see what the win %'s are on towns that lynch their own power roles.
Grakthis... you're really grating on me, mostly because your logic is absolutely horrible. Look at DotA mafia. Pod claimed a cop and claimed a few investigations. The town let him live even after he turned in a guilty investigation on a townie. If the town had just lynched him (especially since his claim had so many hole to begin with) then they would have gotten him and 2 other mafia instead of all the mislynches they got. One of the reasons we won is because the town didn't lynch one of its "power roles" that had a dubious claim. Had they lynched him instead of waiting, they almost certainly would have won.
A better basketball analogy would be the number of players on the court. You have to keep at least 5 from fouling out. If you go below that, you lose. Still, some player's will intentionally foul to get an advantage for their team because they know it doesn't matter if they foul out, since there will still be 5 players on the court.
That's like saying the goal of basketball is not to win by 10 points, it's to win by 1.
I think his argument is that winning by 1 is better than losing by any amount.
Quote from carrion pigeons »
Not that I believe it to be true, but just saying, hypothetically, that Cyan turns out to be the cop. Would you regret this wagon, then? 'Cause I would. Cyan is not as suspicious at this point as atl is, so we are not currently pressuring the scummiest player, which feels wrong to me.
Nice crap-logic, my friend. There's always a degree of uncertainty in the town's lynch simply because they are the group with the least amount of information. You can easily turn around your argument by saying that, if atl is telling the truth about being a Jack, then we'd probably regret lynching him as well. In the end, you need to just realize that the scummy players are more likely to be scum, regardless of what they claim. It's with that kind of philosophy that I've approached the wagons on atl and Cyan.
What you are doing is merely rephrasing Xyre's own answer in different words. Just because a good answer to the question was found, doesn't mean the question was invalid.
You're missing the point (in bold, no less). I'm stating that you presented an attack on Xyre that was founded on shoddy logic. Do you think that's true or not?
Before I comment any further, I'd like you to please answer my prior questions, too.
@Sutherlands: Grakthis' logic is not terrible. By having more than one scum alive, the bad guys win quicker. You don't aim as scum to have one guy make it to the endgame - you want the endgame as quickly as possible - a blowout, if you will.
I'm stating that you presented an attack on Xyre that was founded on shoddy logic. Do you think that's true or not?
For the second time, no. Just because a logic was found aposteriori that rebutted the question, doesn't mean the question was invalid apriori. Since you only started the counter-attack on me after Xyre responded, you're armed with the aposteriori knowledge (and using it to good effect, I might add - you are regurgitating Xyre's answer again and again).
Quote from DYH »
Before I comment any further, I'd like you to please answer my prior questions, too.
1. Aha, so you WILL comment further. I eagerly await.
2. What prior questions? I could only find
What exactly are you trying to point out with the "oh really" comment, then?
No, it is horrible logic. What he said (paraphrasing) in the beginning is that if the mafia claims a power role, they never live til the end of the game. It was then pointed out that the mafia don't need for THAT PERSON to survive to the endgame, just to create enough of an advantage by mislynches for the other mafia to survive until the endgame. He claims that towns who lynch their power roles lose, but I gave a specific example of where the town lost because they DIDN'T lynch their "power role." They lost because they WAITED, not because he survived.
You said it was "likely" that this other role did not even know of your existance. You also said that this other role is town "beyond a shadow of a doubt." But you think you don't need to say anything else because if you die, everything will be self-evident? Am I understanding you correctly?
That is correct.
Let me put it another way: are you claiming that you believe revealing this role-name would be actively harmful to the town? If so, can you elaborate at all on why that might be the case?
I see no benefit, to anyone, in revealing this information now. That's all. I can't say that it would necessarily be harmful, but I don't think it would be beneficial either.
Grakthis... you're really grating on me, mostly because your logic is absolutely horrible. Look at DotA mafia. Pod claimed a cop and claimed a few investigations. The town let him live even after he turned in a guilty investigation on a townie. If the town had just lynched him (especially since his claim had so many hole to begin with) then they would have gotten him and 2 other mafia instead of all the mislynches they got. One of the reasons we won is because the town didn't lynch one of its "power roles" that had a dubious claim. Had they lynched him instead of waiting, they almost certainly would have won.
You know what would be awesome, Sutherlands? If you would try to understand what I am saying before you decide my logic is horrible.
Because, see, my logic is not only NOT horrible, it's 100% flawless. It's just that you seem determined to never actually understand what I am saying. More importantly, rather than admit that maybe you don't get it (or even tell me that I am not explaining it properly), and ask me questions, you decide to go off half-cocked and pretend you know something you don't.
So, let's start with what you didn't understand, and then we will cover why what you said is wrong anyways:
1) It's better to win by a lot, than win by a little.
2) The mafia have a MUCH easier time winning if they have 4 members left than 1 member left. For every mafia member that gets lynched, they need to kill an additonal 3 or 4 townies on average to make up for it.
Now, if you cannot disagree with these two comments, then you cannot call my logic flawed. Can you possibly disagree with these two comments?
Now, let's cover why what you said is wrong anyways.
1) I never suggested NOT lynching a power role with a dubious claim. Never. By bringing this into the discussion and using an example of such, you are implying a position I did not take.
2) As long as you catch the lying scum BEFORE you lose the game, then you win! So just like the example of only needing one scum alive, you only need to catch the scum BEFORE you lose and not a moment before.
Normally, this is where I talk down to you. But I'll try being nice instead and see if you recipricate instead of continuing to be an arrogant dick like you have been thus far.
Tree theory is a theory of mafia which basically explains that when the scum run out of trees to hide behind, they lose the game. It does not matter what the game state is. For example, in a game on MT, the town was in LOL, but thanks to some bad decisions by the mafia and one REALLY good series of plays by the towns cop and doc, there were NO unconfirmed townies left. The town then lynched all 3 scum in consecutive days and won and there was nothing the mafia could do about it.
A tree is any role the mafia can use to hide themselves behind. Basically, an unconfirmed role.
Any time you can eliminate a tree without having to lynch him or her this is a WIN for the town. Because you eliminate a tree without losing a vote and lowering the lynch requirement.
Power roles, by their nature, are CONFIRMABLE in various ways. Or if not completely confirmable, you can minimize doubt and make them bad lynches.
Therefore, lynching a power role should be reserved for situations where the power role has had CONSIDERABLE doubt cast on him or her in some fashion.
9 times out of 10, a claimed power role on day 1 will turn out to be a townie telling the god's honest truth.
That 1 time out of 10 is NOT WORTH mislynching the other 9 times. Because that 1 time out of 10 the lying scum WILL slip up and get his or herself lynched within a few days.
Meanwhile, the town should be catching the REST of the scum. Because, you don't have to catch that first liar till later.
If he fake claims cop, the real cop investigates him. If he claims cop, returns several results and doesn't get killed by the mafia within a few days, you vig him.
If he claims cop and there's a watcher, he checks him out to see what he does at night.
Do you see how this works?
Now, if you are still confused, rather than go "OMG YOUR LOGIC IS TERRIBLE" why don't you ask me about the parts that confuse you, and I will try to help. Ok?
No, it is horrible logic. What he said (paraphrasing) in the beginning is that if the mafia claims a power role, they never live til the end of the game. It was then pointed out that the mafia don't need for THAT PERSON to survive to the endgame, just to create enough of an advantage by mislynches for the other mafia to survive until the endgame.
The town lost that game because they were incompetent. Not because scum fake claimed power role.
If they let someone fake claim power role, give bad results, and continued to follow him to mislynches, that town had NO CHANCE of winning.
Are you suggesting that this town is too stupid to be able to properly test a power role? And to let him continually do damage day after day without vigging him, tracking him, investigating him or otherwise testing out his claim?
Are you that stupid?
Or maybe you aren't a member of the town?
You know, I bet someone posted the word "the" in that game too. Maybe the town lost because someone said "the?" We should be careful and have no one post "the" anymore this game.
Quote from Sutherlands »
He claims that towns who lynch their power roles lose, but I gave a specific example of where the town lost because they DIDN'T lynch their "power role." They lost because they WAITED, not because he survived.
No. You gave an example of where a town that didn't lynch a LYING MAFIA MEMBER LOST.
I can give you examples of that all day. I never said that people who fail to lynch mafia will win. That would be insanly stupid for me to suggest.
Man... you think I said towns should let members of the mafia live? I mean...really? Wacky, sutherlands. Wacky.
For the second time, no. Just because a logic was found aposteriori that rebutted the question, doesn't mean the question was invalid apriori. Since you only started the counter-attack on me after Xyre responded, you're armed with the aposteriori knowledge (and using it to good effect, I might add - you are regurgitating Xyre's answer again and again).
In fairness, I wasn't around when your question was asked and before Xyre answered it, but as the mod for 24 mafia, the immediate reaction that jumped into my mind when the attack was made was "Hey, Cyan was scum in that game- this is a bogus statement!" It's much like the correlation I called out Loran for earlier.
That said, the fact is that I'm not arguing with you based on Xyre's response. I'm arguing that you used a shoddy attack - which you did - because you were trying to show a conflict of stances on Xyre's behalf by openly ignoring important details of 24 mafia (namely that Cyan was scum in that game). That's my point, yet you keep derailing it to Xyre's response.
Now, if my attack consisted of "once Xyre answered that way I think you realized that your attack held no ground and immediately acquiesced" that would've been attacking you aposteriori. That's not my point, nor has it been all along.
Another random musing: what are you trying to accomplish with the use of the legal terms, really? Because it looks a lot like trying to use "big words" or "I'm smart status" to deflect an argument you don't want to take on.
Quote from Alx2 »
1. Aha, so you WILL comment further. I eagerly await.
2. What prior questions? I could only find
Nothing. I believe it's called 'banter'.
1. It's above.
2. "Nothing" and "Banter"?
Yikes; I hope I have time to get to that PBPA soon.
@Grakthis: Take Sutherlands' example with a big grain of salt. We (the town) didn't lose that game because of a scum claiming cop (we did lynch him later), we lost because the mafia had a recruiting ability and took the real cop.
That said, the fact is that I'm not arguing with you based on Xyre's response. I'm arguing that you used a shoddy attack - which you did - because you were trying to show a conflict of stances on Xyre's behalf by openly ignoring important details of 24 mafia (namely that Cyan was scum in that game). That's my point, yet you keep derailing it to Xyre's response.
To my original question, Cyan's alignment was a non-factor. The only factor was that Xyre was innocent, and hence sincere (in the 1st example).
In Xyre's responce, he managed to show that he changed his stance on Cyan as a result of being burned. Thus, Cyan's alignment is a factor. Which I accepted. Why is there a problem here?
Another random musing: what are you trying to accomplish with the use of the legal terms, really? Because it looks a lot like trying to use "big words" or "I'm smart status" to deflect an argument you don't want to take on.
I believe this argument hogged the most part of the last three pages. Accusing me of "not wanting to take it on" is disingenious.
Xyre is most likely just making that up anyway. In Trek Mafia, as scum, I actively lead a lynch against Xyre, the lynch which caused the town to lose the game, even. I had tried to lead a lynch against him recently before that game, also as scum. If he was going to change his mindset about not giving people a pass based upon playstyle(particularly since Xyre himself continually draws suspicion because of his playstyle..a problem that he clearly has not tried to rectify this game), he would have done it before now. He is changing his tune now because it gives him an easy reason to be voting for me.
2) The mafia have a MUCH easier time winning if they have 4 members left than 1 member left. For every mafia member that gets lynched, they need to kill an additonal 3 or 4 townies on average to make up for it.
False. For every mafia that gets killed, they need to kill 1 extra townie to make up for it.
Now, let's cover why what you said is wrong anyways.
1) I never suggested NOT lynching a power role with a dubious claim. Never. By bringing this into the discussion and using an example of such, you are implying a position I did not take.
Sure you did. Or at least you suggested not lynching for "3-4 days [. . .] at a MINIMUM!" This is why I brought up a scenario where the town lost for waiting. The more scum are alive, the easier it is for them to set up mislynches.
2) As long as you catch the lying scum BEFORE you lose the game, then you win! So just like the example of only needing one scum alive, you only need to catch the scum BEFORE you lose and not a moment before.
Normally, this is where I talk down to you. But I'll try being nice instead and see if you recipricate instead of continuing to be an arrogant dick like you have been thus far.
Did you even read your first few posts this game? There is a reason your reputation precedes you.
Tree theory is a theory of mafia which basically explains that when the scum run out of trees to hide behind, they lose the game. [. . .]
A tree is any role the mafia can use to hide themselves behind. Basically, an unconfirmed role.
Any time you can eliminate a tree without having to lynch him or her this is a WIN for the town. Because you eliminate a tree without losing a vote and lowering the lynch requirement.
Power roles, by their nature, are CONFIRMABLE in various ways. Or if not completely confirmable, you can minimize doubt and make them bad lynches.
Therefore, lynching a power role should be reserved for situations where the power role has had CONSIDERABLE doubt cast on him or her in some fashion.
How would you claim that we confirm a JoaT? Mafia can fake investigations, kills, and even roleblocks. How then, do we get him out from behind the trees?
9 times out of 10, a claimed power role on day 1 will turn out to be a townie telling the god's honest truth.
And 74% of statistics are made up on the spot. I'd like to see your evidence for this. Not to mention that IF this were true, it would all of a sudden become false, since scum would just claim power roles.
If he fake claims cop, the real cop investigates him. If he claims cop, returns several results and doesn't get killed by the mafia within a few days, you vig him.
He didn't claim cop, he claimed JoaT, which has been pointed out, are usually neutered to begin with. Also, the idea that you automatically vig him if he hasn't been killed by the mafia in a few days means that you're just giving the mafia the same kill that you would happen if you lynched him today and he turned up town.
@Grakthis: Take Sutherlands' example with a big grain of salt. We (the town) didn't lose that game because of a scum claiming cop (we did lynch him later), we lost because the mafia had a recruiting ability and took the real cop.
The town lost because of a lot of things, one big part of which was exactly what I said. You easily had enough power to compensate for the recruiting ability. Don't blame your poor judgement on setup.
That's like saying the goal of basketball is not to win by 10 points, it's to win by 1.
Well... that's the MINIMUM requirement... but it's a lot easier if you can win by 10 or even 20.
The point is, if we wait a few days and are shrewd, either the mafia will kill our claimed power role, or else the claimed power role will be caught as a liar.
Either way, it's not worth risking lynching a power role NOW.
Check and see what the win %'s are on towns that lynch their own power roles.
Hint: it's not good.
Yes, but you don't plan to win by 10 or 20, even in basketball. That causes a team to flame out. The analogy falls down when you explore how 'points' are made in each game, in any case: points are made independantly in basketball. Every 'point' made in mafia reduces the odds of making further 'points' for your side. Therefore, tradeoffs are necessary which aren't in basketball. You are never going to voluntarily give up a point in basketball; the same is not true of mafia.
Check and see what the win %'s are on towns that lynch players with weak, suspicious claims, regardless of how potentially useful the role would be if it were real, and I suspect it isn't that bad at all.
@fade: the difference is that I would regret atl being alive at any point in the game, whereas I can see lots of scenarios where having Cyan (or whoever) alive and not outed as cop would be nice. Lynching a town atl only leads to regret in the sense that we didn't lynch mafia, not because I feel that his role is likely to benefit the town if we keep him around: we can't trust him regardless. Outing a cop Cyan leads to regret in the sense that it's both avoidable and actively damaging to the capacity of the town to win, beyond just the waste of a lynch.
Lots of responses, no time to read them now, will comment further later.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
Oh, and, reasonings like this one also convince me that you're scum.
Feel free to expound on this. Particularly since I'm right.
Xyre's 'reasoning' for suddenly not accepting the 'people shouldn't get a pass because of their playstyle' argument makes no sense. Instead of trying to present logically why this shouldn't happen(and it shouldn't, something I have always maintained), instead he just tried to appeal to everyone emotionally by making himself look vulnerable and making me look like the bad guy. Nevermind that this somehow hasn't come up since the end of that game and this one. What Xyre is asserting doesn't add up at all.
To my original question, Cyan's alignment was a non-factor. The only factor was that Xyre was innocent, and hence sincere (in the 1st example).
We'll have to agree to disagree here. I think the fact Cyan was scum in that case totally plays into Xyre's stances for future games. People like analogies: It's as if you want to ask Xyre a life question but deny him his experiences at, say, age 18 to draw from.
Quote from Alx2 »
In Xyre's responce, he managed to show that he changed his stance on Cyan as a result of being burned. Thus, Cyan's alignment is a factor. Which I accepted. Why is there a problem here?
Right, this is fair enough, but I still think it was an poor attack since Xyre (town) was listed, yet Cyan (scum) was not in the quotes. You were clearly trying to show him as inconsistent without presenting all the facts. That's my beef.
Quote from Alx2 »
I believe this argument hogged the most part of the last three pages. Accusing me of "not wanting to take it on" is disingenious.
Nah, we're nowhere near Grak's wall-o'-texts yet. That's a fair rebuttal, but it doesn't really answer the question. Semantics, really, and it just seems I butt heads with egotists.
Quote from Sutherlands »
The town lost because of a lot of things, one big part of which was exactly what I said. You easily had enough power to compensate for the recruiting ability. Don't blame your poor judgement on setup.
Sorry, I'm not going to take much blame for presuming RafK was scum with an uncounter-claimed cop (or countered by pod, if you'd like) and two 'masons' left. There is never enough power to compensate for recruitment because it skews the intangible in the game of mafia - human perception. That's neither here nor there really in the scope of this game- we can take that up in the Mafia Discussion Thread if you'd like, Krobelus.
@fade: the difference is that I would regret atl being alive at any point in the game, whereas I can see lots of scenarios where having Cyan (or whoever) alive and not outed as cop would be nice. Lynching a town atl only leads to regret in the sense that we didn't lynch mafia, not because I feel that his role is likely to benefit the town if we keep him around: we can't trust him regardless. Outing a cop Cyan leads to regret in the sense that it's both avoidable and actively damaging to the capacity of the town to win, beyond just the waste of a lynch.
This doesn't make sense unless you strongly believe Cyan to be townie and a cop (or other power role). If the town always played too scared to get claims out of people just because they have a chance of being cop, we would never get anywhere. If atlseal had claimed cop, would you have regretted pressuring him?
No it's not. Either way it's winning. It doesn't matter how much you win by. Close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades.
Yes. it is.
If the mafia wins with 5 members alive, they can leave up to 5 townies alive. That means 3 masons and a cop and a doc they can basically ignore!
If the mafia wins with 1 member alive, they have to somehow get EVERYONE dead except 1 other person!
That is much harder!
Just like in basketball, when you're up by 20, you can coast. But if you're only up by 1, you have to pay attention to every second of the game.
I don't think you understand what is being discussed here. We're not talking about "after the game." We're talking about what is relevant DURING the game.
Quote from Sutherlands »
False. For every mafia that gets killed, they need to kill 1 extra townie to make up for it.
Uh... no.
Let's look at the math on this....
20 town 4 scum.
Town lynches a mafia member... mafia kills a townie.
19 - 3.
Repeat 3 times. Town wins.
Now let's do it my way....
20 - 4.
Town mislynches twice, mafia kills twice, then town correctly lynches once.
15-3.
Repeat this.
10-2.
5-1.
See how this works?
Each time a member of the mafia dies, the mafia is moved further away from winning.
This happens at the ratio of town to mafia.
Quote from Sutherlands »
Now that I disproved both of them, are you willing to accept that you were wrong? Probably not.
*sigh*
And there you go again.. you'd rather declare victory before you even realize why you're wrong.
Does this tactic ever work? Seriously. Do people ever go "Wow! Sutherlands! Nice strawman! You defeated an argument that is totally irrelevant to what we are discussing! GOOD SHOW!"
Quote from Sutherlands »
Sure you did. Or at least you suggested not lynching for "3-4 days [. . .] at a MINIMUM!" This is why I brought up a scenario where the town lost for waiting. The more scum are alive, the easier it is for them to set up mislynches.
See, now you're just lying.
When did I say that ATL's claim was dubious?
Oh, wait, I didn't.
So, I, in fact, did not suggest not lynching a power role with a dubious claim.
Now, we can argue whether his claim is dubious or not... that's a fair argument to have. But that's an entirely different argument than we are having right now.
Quote from Sutherlands »
What exactly did I say that went against this?
"It was then pointed out that the mafia don't need for THAT PERSON to survive to the endgame, just to create enough of an advantage by mislynches for the other mafia to survive until the endgame."
You said that the lying scum can get caught, but if he can create "enough of an advantage" for the other mafia to survive.
I am telling you that if the lying scum is caught, the town can commonly unravel his web of lies and everything falls down like dominoes from there.
Quote from Sutherlands »
Did you even read your first few posts this game? There is a reason your reputation precedes you.
Nothing I said in my first few posts was arrogant. I explained something to someone who accepted my explanation in the same spirit it was given.
You, who I wasn't even talking to, decided I was being arrogant and preachy.
It's funny that the person I was actually addressing didn't.
Quote from Sutherlands »
How would you claim that we confirm a JoaT? Mafia can fake investigations, kills, and even roleblocks. How then, do we get him out from behind the trees?
Rember, confirming is not neccesary (though preferable). Just creating a great deal of likelyhood is enough.
How? By other dead bodies aligning with his. By him performing a confirmed roleblock AND THEN a dead mafia roleblocker showing up later. By having 2 roleblocks in a night. By having him get killed by the scum. by having a cop investigate him. By having his rolename turn up in someones list of known town roles (seen it happen twice before). By having someone who is a townie question asker ask a question about the Chessire Cat. By having a tracker verify who he targets. By having him vig a member of the mafia. By having him sucessfully catch 2 or more members of the mafia.
I mean, there is a massive list of ways.
Quote from Sutherlands »
And 74% of statistics are made up on the spot. I'd like to see your evidence for this. Not to mention that IF this were true, it would all of a sudden become false, since scum would just claim power roles.
That stat was obviously pulled out of my ass for the point of demonstrating personal experience. But if it would actually sway you for me to go back and find all of the time in games I've read or played in where a claimed power role on day 1 was a townie telling the truth, i'll do it.
Quote from Sutherlands »
He didn't claim cop, he claimed JoaT, which has been pointed out, are usually neutered to begin with. Also, the idea that you automatically vig him if he hasn't been killed by the mafia in a few days means that you're just giving the mafia the same kill that you would happen if you lynched him today and he turned up town.
NO!
I have never seen the JOAT role as titled, but assuming I understand the role correctly then let's try this... tonight he gives us an innocent on someone. tomorrow night he doc protects someone. The next night he vigs someone.
Then he's still alive, and the town vig kills him. He shows up town.
What have we gained? A confirmed innocent result. An extra doc protection. An extra vig that may or may not have killed scum.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from Sutherlands »
And if he's mafia, he just makes sure that he does something every night and the watcher will never know the difference.
He must do something that his target does not feel (so he can't roleblock or kill) and he must HOPE that our mod does not provide flavor to the watcher (which LOTS of mods do).
So he has to be like a mafia name investigator or something like that.
So basically, if he's lying, and he's a mafia investigator, and he actually targets exactly who he says he targets each night..... which basically means the mafia are now reporting back to us who they target with their name investigator each night. And it also means they can't use him to verify mafia members without wasting the ability at night.
And that still doesn't help him if he gets cop investigated instead of watched.
Quote from Sutherlands »
The town lost because of a lot of things, one big part of which was exactly what I said. You easily had enough power to compensate for the recruiting ability. Don't blame your poor judgement on setup.
Just as an FYI, I ran a game with a recruiter where the towns only cop was recruited to the mafia, and it broke the game wide open.
So much so, that the people playing and spectating universally agreed that it was completely game breaking in a way that destroys the validity of the game.
in fact, Axelrod was that cop. Why don't you ask him how he felt about it?
So the odds are, unless the town was grossly overpowered, they did NOT have enough power to compensate for the recruiting ability. Not when the cop gets recruited.
I'll re-read the last two pages later, it was very confusing the first time through. And probably FOS or vote whoever made it a stats argument- that's never a good sign.
I'll re-read the last two pages later, it was very confusing the first time through. And probably FOS or vote whoever made it a stats argument- that's never a good sign.
Mafia is a game of odds. If you don't like stats, don't play mafia.
It's easier to win with more people on your side, that's not what I'm arguing. It doesn't matter how many people are alive at the end, the mafia only need one.
If the mafia wins with 5 members alive, they can leave up to 5 townies alive. That means 3 masons and a cop and a doc they can basically ignore!
I'm going to ignore the scenario where there is a cop alive and somehow he inspected the 3 masons and the doc but never inspected a mafia and instead focus on the "math" of your argument, if you can call it that.
To make the math easier to comprehend, I'm going to assume 15 town and 5 mafia. The mafia have to get the town to mislynch 5 times to win. At that point they will have killed 5 people and it will be 5-5. If the town get 1 mafia, they have to kill 6 people and it will be 4-4. If the town get 2 mafia, the mafia have to kill 7 people and it will be 3-3. Etc, etc. Therefore, "For every mafia that gets killed, they need to kill 1 extra townie to make up for it."
So, I, in fact, did not suggest not lynching a power role with a dubious claim.
You didn't say that his claim was dubious, but that's not what I said either. Multiple people have expressed doubt as to his ability, you said the idea that we're even CONSIDERING lynching him is "INSANITY." Thus, you're saying that lynching a power role who "we" think has a dubious claim is dumb. Thus, you're suggesting "NOT lynching a power role with a dubious claim."
I am telling you that if the lying scum is caught, the town can commonly unravel his web of lies and everything falls down like dominoes from there.
Except that the my point has, and always will be, that the mafia are more likely to create mislynches WHILE THEY'RE ALIVE, especially if we believe they have a power role. By the time they're dead, we will have lost a lot of ground.
So we "clear" someone by having them die? Isn't that exactly what you were going against? Not to mention that the mafia aren't going to clear people for us, so this is really not a way to "confirm" someone.
That stat was obviously pulled out of my ass for the point of demonstrating personal experience. But if it would actually sway you for me to go back and find all of the time in games I've read or played in where a claimed power role on day 1 was a townie telling the truth, i'll do it.
I have never seen the JOAT role as titled, but assuming I understand the role correctly then let's try this... tonight he gives us an innocent on someone. tomorrow night he doc protects someone. The next night he vigs someone.
Then he's still alive, and the town vig kills him. He shows up town.
What have we gained? A confirmed innocent result. An extra doc protection. An extra vig that may or may not have killed scum.
We gain one doc result, a probably useless protection, and a vig that will probably kill a townie anyway. Then we have to hope the vig is still alive. What do we stand to lose? 3 days where he is misleading us and we all "trust" his investigations and are more likely to lynch the wrong person since there are more mafia.
So basically, if he's lying, and he's a mafia investigator, and he actually targets exactly who he says he targets each night..... which basically means the mafia are now reporting back to us who they target with their name investigator each night. And it also means they can't use him to verify mafia members without wasting the ability at night.
And then we can't trust a thing he says, because he could easily say the rolename of one of his mafia buds.
So the odds are, unless the town was grossly overpowered, they did NOT have enough power to compensate for the recruiting ability. Not when the cop gets recruited.
Go read the very end of it. The town was EXTREMELY overpowered. We should have easily lost that game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
@Axel: Your intuition that I am a non-matrix character is correct. The non-matrix character whose role is relevant to mine is town beyond a shadow of a doubt. But again, we're not masons, the relationship is different. It's likely that this person doesn't know that my role exists, in fact.
just out of Curiosity, what would happen if that other person figured out who you are?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
RELAPSED MAFIA JUNKIE
W – 33, L – 19, Broke Games - 9
Calvin & Hobbs Mafia, Mafia MVP
X-Men Mafia Town MVP
Simpson's Mafia - best use of character
Mtgnews Mafia Mafia - Town Madman
Mythos Mafia: the Dunwich Massacre Town MVP
English Literature Mafia Town MVP
Best Role-Playing Sin City Mafia
Werewolf Mafia - Mafia MVP
Doctor Mafia - Mafia MVP
Mafia: Escape from the Cylons - Town MVP
Lost Mafia - Co SK Winner with Kops
Random Mafia 3 - Town MVP
Grak: Mafia do need to force ~5 mislynches already, so it would be more fair to say that mafia need to kill 2 more townies every time one of them dies (one more mislynch and one more nightkill). Also, if you're scum, it generally isn't advisable to get into a fight with a townie with a posting restriction, 'cause then you look bad if they forget their posting restriction and get modkilled.:D Could be interesting to see what happens here.
fade: I would only regret pressuring someone who turned out to be the cop if we already had a better target when that pressure started happening. I think you should be making a case for why Cyan is scummier than atl if you want to justify making him claim.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Since if Cyan dies somehow without claiming we'll have no idea who this "confirmed" (if this is the case) townie is in the first place, yes i do. I'd rather the mafia not know whether Cyan can or cannot confirm another player.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
(1) You have no idea what you are talking about, or (2) you are scum.
Also, what on Earth gave you the idea that Cyan is not being pressured "at all?"
Or 3, you're not getting my point. You are asking Cyan if he can confirm the alignment of another player. If the answer is yes, then cyan (assuming he's not lying obv) becomes an obvious target for the mafia...especially if he doesnt tell us the role he knows the alignment of. I'd rather the mafia not know this information. Capische?
And further more, I equate pressure with a wagon. To be fair, i didnt realize there were 5 votes on Cyan at last votecount, but it didn't seem like cyan was being particularly pressured beyond those 5 players and occasional others making statements (but not votes). Besides, the fade vote afaik was just to tell if Fade could vote, and he hasnt put much words behind it.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Mind explaining then how that question helps us at this current time?
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
I presume you're trying to insinuate by the "(town)" next to Xyre in the first quote that he is being inconsistent by taking a different stance as a townie there than he is here. You're missing one major point: Cyan was scum in that game. (Which you know full-well as you were his partner along with Fadeblue.)
So it stands to reason if Xyre used the "Cyan being Cyan" argument in 24 mafia and was burned by it in the sense Cyan actually was scum, that he wouldn't lean on that line of reasoning again as a townie, either. Your little attack here is flawed.
I think I'll do a PBPA on Alx2 when I get some free time. Should be fun.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
@Grak: everyone always claims a power role Day 1. We can't give everyone 3-4 days before we lynch them.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
While I voted to demonstrate that I could, I do support the Cyan wagon (as I mentioned in the same post). If I simply wanted to demonstrate I could vote and didn't support the wagon, I would've thrown my vote on someone who didn't already have 4 votes.
(631) Tons of speculation and waffling. Votes atlseal after previously saying we should wait a day to see what he gets from an inspection (614)
(664) Huge speculation on the death scene, even making a "post-mortem PBPA of arimnaes." Speculates that it wasn't a scum (does this include SK?)... if it wasn't a scum, a vig just randomly offed someone?
(771) Said atlseal wasn't daykilled because the killer knows he isn't a Jack, voted for atlseal because he is "most likely scum", but then unvotes because it would be "a lot of risk for less reward" and votes Cyan because he doesn't go for the "Cyan being Cyan" argument, even though that used to be enough to convince him (587). Note that this is right after he said "I just don't feel like we can trust atlseal to cooperate with the town's demands, and if we give him another day, that's more of an opportunity for him to derail the wagon. I understand the desire to avoid lynching a jack, but still, he's a very possible scum." (737)
All-in-all, Xyre has done nothing but speculate and bandwagon, continually going back on what he said just the day before. Every post screams to me of opportunism, trying to get whoever he can lynched, and not a single one of his posts has read as townie to me. I'm going to have to go with Pod on this one and Vote Xyre for being fairly blatent scum.
4 Atlseal-Abbeygargoyle, Alx2, Carrion Pigeons, Cyan
6 Cyan-Grakthis, Vampyr, Hawkeye7, ZDS, Fadeblue, Xyre
1 Loran16- Athos
1 Spoon-Wizzpig(?)
1 Sutherlands- Atlseal
1 Vampyr-Spoon
2 xyre- Pod, Sutherlands
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Understood. Hell, I didnt realize Cyan had that many votes, so i wasn't sure your vote was serious.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
This has nothing to do with anything. My original point was that Xyre was town in this game, and was thus sincere. Cyan's role was a non-issue.
Having said that, you're late on this train. As a result of Xyre's responce, I did realize it was reasonable of him to change him mind. My attack wasn't flawed, it was responded well by Xyre and retracted. There's a difference.
No, I don't think I'm underestimating the confusion. I'm aware of the danger in postponing the lynch, but as long as we can find at least an equally good alternative lynch, I think it's worth it.
Personally, I think we should be pressuring Cyan, and if he ends up with a stronger defense/claim, then we fall back on atlseal. (Though if support for a Xyre wagon picks up, then I would also like to explore that before defaulting to atlseal.)
In 20+ games of mafia played and dozens more watched I've only once seen a scum claim power role and live till the end game.
ONE TIME.
Scum who fake claim power roles almost always get caught on it if the town is shrewd.
@Axel: Correct, I have never been lyched as town, as I stated. Also, I don't think that I can accurately be accused of waffling. As I said, I have never, in my mind, had CP on my list of suspects. You yourself listed a post where I make this fairly clear, IMO. While the list of people that I'm suspicious of has grown, I don't think that I've waffled on any of those suspicions, really. I was initially suspicious of Xyre and Loran. I still very much am. I still don't completely believe that ZDS is town, and I'm not at all sure of atlseal, though I realize that particular wagon isn't going anywhere today. I noted suspicion of alx relatively soon after the ZDS wagon, and that suspicion has only increased recently. And lastly I'm suspicious of LJustus, for reasons already illustrated.
I forgot something.
@Axel: Your intuition that I am a non-matrix character is correct. The non-matrix character whose role is relevant to mine is town beyond a shadow of a doubt. But again, we're not masons, the relationship is different. It's likely that this person doesn't know that my role exists, in fact.
@Loran: There is no danger in someone faking the role that is related to me or anything like that.
I also think that it's worth noting that alot of the suspicion towards me magically cropped up after I revealed that I have knowledge of non-matrix roles and a role other than my own. I've been the target of alot of wagons, and most of them I felt were justified. This isn't one of those. The wagon on me stinks of opportunism.
You keep saying that it stinks of opportunism, but the only player that you have specifically said appeared opportunistic was fade (although to your credit, you referenced it pretty well). So who else is being opportunistic with their vote on you?
How fortunate (or is it unfortunate?) for you.
Is there a reason why, since you apparently know the name of a town role that you would not simply say it? There is no chance that the scum could do anything with this information, is there? It is not as though one of them could claim to be this role and not get caught. And if said role ever come out, then his alignment is assured.
Loran's fear of the scum capping you to prevent said role-name from coming out would seem to be mooted. Saying the name would actually seem to have the opposite effect, as the scum would not want your alignment confirmed and thus confirm the unknown role later in the game.
What? You can't simply negate the fact that Cyan's role was scum in that game and then apply that logic here. Doesn't work. Xyre at that moment is not the same Xyre now. His read on Cyan turned out to be wrong, why would he continue to use that?
What exactly are you trying to point out with the "oh really" comment, then?
That doesn't change the fact that it was flawed logic and a poor basis for attack.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
What you are doing is merely rephrasing Xyre's own answer in different words. Just because a good answer to the question was found, doesn't mean the question was invalid.
This post is both so forced and so scummy that it is just..silly. Seriously. Unvote, Vote Alx2
@Axel: I honestly don't understand what you're asking. I don't really see any need to give the name of the other role that I am aware of. If I'm ever killed, my role and ability will be revealed anyway. The role of the other person, in relation to mine, is very obvious. I can't really understand why you would want me to come forward with it at this time.
@AG: As far as I can tell, the people voting for me are Grak, FB, Vampyr, Hawkeye, ZDS, and Xyre. The only person to give any real reasoning behind voting me, from what I can tell, is Grak. I'm not really suspicious of most of them, but the lack of real evidence against me, with the exception of Grak's one post, certainly makes it hard for me to take them seriously. Specifically, I don't remember Hawkeye getting on my wagon, and certainly don't know why he did so. All ZDS and Xyre have said for awhile now is 'he is scum!' without ever providing any real reasoning to it. I remember Vampyr jumping on Grak's suspicion of me early, the entire context of which was 'I agree with Grak'. This being before I actually had a chance to even answer Grak's suspicion.
1 Alx2-Cyan
3 Atlseal-Abbeygargoyle, Alx2, Carrion Pigeons
6 Cyan-Grakthis, Vampyr, Hawkeye7, ZDS, Fadeblue, Xyre
1 Loran16- Athos
1 Spoon-Wizzpig(?)
1 Sutherlands- Atlseal
1 Vampyr-Spoon
2 xyre- Pod, Sutherlands
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
1) "I agree with Grak" is a perfectly valid reason to vote for you. They don't have to each provide NEW reasons not previously covered by me.
2) You've had a billion "chances" to respond to my post, and you have continually chosen not to do so. So don't give us this "before I had a chance to even answer Grak's suspicion" line. You've had ample opportunity.
Not that I believe it to be true, but just saying, hypothetically, that Cyan turns out to be the cop. Would you regret this wagon, then? 'Cause I would. Cyan is not as suspicious at this point as atl is, so we are not currently pressuring the scummiest player, which feels wrong to me.
In 45+ games of mafia played and dozens more watched I've only five or six times seen scum claim power role and live 'til the endgame. However, that doesn't make it bad play. Drawing out power players early in the game is often worth the sacrifice of a suspicious mafioso. The goal of mafia isn't to get all the mafiosi to the endgame. Just one of them.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
You said it was "likely" that this other role did not even know of your existance. You also said that this other role is town "beyond a shadow of a doubt." But you think you don't need to say anything else because if you die, everything will be self-evident? Am I understanding you correctly?
Let me put it another way: are you claiming that you believe revealing this role-name would be actively harmful to the town? If so, can you elaborate at all on why that might be the case?
Would you regret lynching atlseal if he turns up town?
We're taking a chance no matter what we do. You wouldn't regret lynching a townie because it appears to be a good play at the time. Similarly, I'm not going to regret pursuing an alternative lead if it appears to be a good play to me.
Can I hear your opinion on Cyan then?
That's like saying the goal of basketball is not to win by 10 points, it's to win by 1.
Well... that's the MINIMUM requirement... but it's a lot easier if you can win by 10 or even 20.
The point is, if we wait a few days and are shrewd, either the mafia will kill our claimed power role, or else the claimed power role will be caught as a liar.
Either way, it's not worth risking lynching a power role NOW.
Check and see what the win %'s are on towns that lynch their own power roles.
Hint: it's not good.
A better basketball analogy would be the number of players on the court. You have to keep at least 5 from fouling out. If you go below that, you lose. Still, some player's will intentionally foul to get an advantage for their team because they know it doesn't matter if they foul out, since there will still be 5 players on the court.
1 Alx2-Cyan
3 Atlseal-Abbeygargoyle, Alx2, Carrion Pigeons
6 Cyan-Grakthis, Vampyr, Hawkeye7, ZDS, Fadeblue, Xyre
1 Loran16- Athos
1 Spoon-Wizzpig(?)
1 Sutherlands- Atlseal
1 Vampyr-Spoon
2 xyre- Pod, Sutherlands
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
I think his argument is that winning by 1 is better than losing by any amount.
Nice crap-logic, my friend. There's always a degree of uncertainty in the town's lynch simply because they are the group with the least amount of information. You can easily turn around your argument by saying that, if atl is telling the truth about being a Jack, then we'd probably regret lynching him as well. In the end, you need to just realize that the scummy players are more likely to be scum, regardless of what they claim. It's with that kind of philosophy that I've approached the wagons on atl and Cyan.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
You're missing the point (in bold, no less). I'm stating that you presented an attack on Xyre that was founded on shoddy logic. Do you think that's true or not?
Before I comment any further, I'd like you to please answer my prior questions, too.
@Sutherlands: Grakthis' logic is not terrible. By having more than one scum alive, the bad guys win quicker. You don't aim as scum to have one guy make it to the endgame - you want the endgame as quickly as possible - a blowout, if you will.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
For the second time, no. Just because a logic was found aposteriori that rebutted the question, doesn't mean the question was invalid apriori. Since you only started the counter-attack on me after Xyre responded, you're armed with the aposteriori knowledge (and using it to good effect, I might add - you are regurgitating Xyre's answer again and again).
1. Aha, so you WILL comment further. I eagerly await.
2. What prior questions? I could only find
Nothing. I believe it's called 'banter'.
1 Alx2-Cyan
3 Atlseal-Abbeygargoyle, Alx2, Carrion Pigeons
6 Cyan-Grakthis, Vampyr, Hawkeye7, ZDS, Fadeblue, Xyre
1 Loran16- Athos
1 Spoon-Wizzpig(?)
1 Sutherlands- Atlseal
1 Vampyr-Spoon
2 xyre- Pod, Sutherlands
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
That is correct.
I see no benefit, to anyone, in revealing this information now. That's all. I can't say that it would necessarily be harmful, but I don't think it would be beneficial either.
You know what would be awesome, Sutherlands? If you would try to understand what I am saying before you decide my logic is horrible.
Because, see, my logic is not only NOT horrible, it's 100% flawless. It's just that you seem determined to never actually understand what I am saying. More importantly, rather than admit that maybe you don't get it (or even tell me that I am not explaining it properly), and ask me questions, you decide to go off half-cocked and pretend you know something you don't.
So, let's start with what you didn't understand, and then we will cover why what you said is wrong anyways:
1) It's better to win by a lot, than win by a little.
2) The mafia have a MUCH easier time winning if they have 4 members left than 1 member left. For every mafia member that gets lynched, they need to kill an additonal 3 or 4 townies on average to make up for it.
Now, if you cannot disagree with these two comments, then you cannot call my logic flawed. Can you possibly disagree with these two comments?
Now, let's cover why what you said is wrong anyways.
1) I never suggested NOT lynching a power role with a dubious claim. Never. By bringing this into the discussion and using an example of such, you are implying a position I did not take.
2) As long as you catch the lying scum BEFORE you lose the game, then you win! So just like the example of only needing one scum alive, you only need to catch the scum BEFORE you lose and not a moment before.
Normally, this is where I talk down to you. But I'll try being nice instead and see if you recipricate instead of continuing to be an arrogant dick like you have been thus far.
Tree theory is a theory of mafia which basically explains that when the scum run out of trees to hide behind, they lose the game. It does not matter what the game state is. For example, in a game on MT, the town was in LOL, but thanks to some bad decisions by the mafia and one REALLY good series of plays by the towns cop and doc, there were NO unconfirmed townies left. The town then lynched all 3 scum in consecutive days and won and there was nothing the mafia could do about it.
A tree is any role the mafia can use to hide themselves behind. Basically, an unconfirmed role.
Any time you can eliminate a tree without having to lynch him or her this is a WIN for the town. Because you eliminate a tree without losing a vote and lowering the lynch requirement.
Power roles, by their nature, are CONFIRMABLE in various ways. Or if not completely confirmable, you can minimize doubt and make them bad lynches.
Therefore, lynching a power role should be reserved for situations where the power role has had CONSIDERABLE doubt cast on him or her in some fashion.
9 times out of 10, a claimed power role on day 1 will turn out to be a townie telling the god's honest truth.
That 1 time out of 10 is NOT WORTH mislynching the other 9 times. Because that 1 time out of 10 the lying scum WILL slip up and get his or herself lynched within a few days.
Meanwhile, the town should be catching the REST of the scum. Because, you don't have to catch that first liar till later.
If he fake claims cop, the real cop investigates him. If he claims cop, returns several results and doesn't get killed by the mafia within a few days, you vig him.
If he claims cop and there's a watcher, he checks him out to see what he does at night.
Do you see how this works?
Now, if you are still confused, rather than go "OMG YOUR LOGIC IS TERRIBLE" why don't you ask me about the parts that confuse you, and I will try to help. Ok?
The town lost that game because they were incompetent. Not because scum fake claimed power role.
If they let someone fake claim power role, give bad results, and continued to follow him to mislynches, that town had NO CHANCE of winning.
Are you suggesting that this town is too stupid to be able to properly test a power role? And to let him continually do damage day after day without vigging him, tracking him, investigating him or otherwise testing out his claim?
Are you that stupid?
Or maybe you aren't a member of the town?
You know, I bet someone posted the word "the" in that game too. Maybe the town lost because someone said "the?" We should be careful and have no one post "the" anymore this game.
No. You gave an example of where a town that didn't lynch a LYING MAFIA MEMBER LOST.
I can give you examples of that all day. I never said that people who fail to lynch mafia will win. That would be insanly stupid for me to suggest.
Man... you think I said towns should let members of the mafia live? I mean...really? Wacky, sutherlands. Wacky.
In fairness, I wasn't around when your question was asked and before Xyre answered it, but as the mod for 24 mafia, the immediate reaction that jumped into my mind when the attack was made was "Hey, Cyan was scum in that game- this is a bogus statement!" It's much like the correlation I called out Loran for earlier.
That said, the fact is that I'm not arguing with you based on Xyre's response. I'm arguing that you used a shoddy attack - which you did - because you were trying to show a conflict of stances on Xyre's behalf by openly ignoring important details of 24 mafia (namely that Cyan was scum in that game). That's my point, yet you keep derailing it to Xyre's response.
Now, if my attack consisted of "once Xyre answered that way I think you realized that your attack held no ground and immediately acquiesced" that would've been attacking you aposteriori. That's not my point, nor has it been all along.
Another random musing: what are you trying to accomplish with the use of the legal terms, really? Because it looks a lot like trying to use "big words" or "I'm smart status" to deflect an argument you don't want to take on.
1. It's above.
2. "Nothing" and "Banter"?
Yikes; I hope I have time to get to that PBPA soon.
@Grakthis: Take Sutherlands' example with a big grain of salt. We (the town) didn't lose that game because of a scum claiming cop (we did lynch him later), we lost because the mafia had a recruiting ability and took the real cop.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
To my original question, Cyan's alignment was a non-factor. The only factor was that Xyre was innocent, and hence sincere (in the 1st example).
In Xyre's responce, he managed to show that he changed his stance on Cyan as a result of being burned. Thus, Cyan's alignment is a factor. Which I accepted. Why is there a problem here?
I believe this argument hogged the most part of the last three pages. Accusing me of "not wanting to take it on" is disingenious.
False. For every mafia that gets killed, they need to kill 1 extra townie to make up for it.
Now that I disproved both of them, are you willing to accept that you were wrong? Probably not.
Sure you did. Or at least you suggested not lynching for "3-4 days [. . .] at a MINIMUM!" This is why I brought up a scenario where the town lost for waiting. The more scum are alive, the easier it is for them to set up mislynches.
What exactly did I say that went against this?
Did you even read your first few posts this game? There is a reason your reputation precedes you.
How would you claim that we confirm a JoaT? Mafia can fake investigations, kills, and even roleblocks. How then, do we get him out from behind the trees?
And 74% of statistics are made up on the spot. I'd like to see your evidence for this. Not to mention that IF this were true, it would all of a sudden become false, since scum would just claim power roles.
He didn't claim cop, he claimed JoaT, which has been pointed out, are usually neutered to begin with. Also, the idea that you automatically vig him if he hasn't been killed by the mafia in a few days means that you're just giving the mafia the same kill that you would happen if you lynched him today and he turned up town.
And if he's mafia, he just makes sure that he does something every night and the watcher will never know the difference.
Do you?
The town lost because of a lot of things, one big part of which was exactly what I said. You easily had enough power to compensate for the recruiting ability. Don't blame your poor judgement on setup.
1 Alx2-Cyan
3 Atlseal-Abbeygargoyle, Alx2, Carrion Pigeons
6 Cyan-Grakthis, Vampyr, Hawkeye7, ZDS, Fadeblue, Xyre
1 Loran16- Athos
1 Spoon-Wizzpig(?)
1 Sutherlands- Atlseal
1 Vampyr-Spoon
2 xyre- Pod, Sutherlands
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Yes, but you don't plan to win by 10 or 20, even in basketball. That causes a team to flame out. The analogy falls down when you explore how 'points' are made in each game, in any case: points are made independantly in basketball. Every 'point' made in mafia reduces the odds of making further 'points' for your side. Therefore, tradeoffs are necessary which aren't in basketball. You are never going to voluntarily give up a point in basketball; the same is not true of mafia.
Check and see what the win %'s are on towns that lynch players with weak, suspicious claims, regardless of how potentially useful the role would be if it were real, and I suspect it isn't that bad at all.
@fade: the difference is that I would regret atl being alive at any point in the game, whereas I can see lots of scenarios where having Cyan (or whoever) alive and not outed as cop would be nice. Lynching a town atl only leads to regret in the sense that we didn't lynch mafia, not because I feel that his role is likely to benefit the town if we keep him around: we can't trust him regardless. Outing a cop Cyan leads to regret in the sense that it's both avoidable and actively damaging to the capacity of the town to win, beyond just the waste of a lynch.
Lots of responses, no time to read them now, will comment further later.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
Feel free to expound on this. Particularly since I'm right.
Xyre's 'reasoning' for suddenly not accepting the 'people shouldn't get a pass because of their playstyle' argument makes no sense. Instead of trying to present logically why this shouldn't happen(and it shouldn't, something I have always maintained), instead he just tried to appeal to everyone emotionally by making himself look vulnerable and making me look like the bad guy. Nevermind that this somehow hasn't come up since the end of that game and this one. What Xyre is asserting doesn't add up at all.
We'll have to agree to disagree here. I think the fact Cyan was scum in that case totally plays into Xyre's stances for future games. People like analogies: It's as if you want to ask Xyre a life question but deny him his experiences at, say, age 18 to draw from.
Right, this is fair enough, but I still think it was an poor attack since Xyre (town) was listed, yet Cyan (scum) was not in the quotes. You were clearly trying to show him as inconsistent without presenting all the facts. That's my beef.
Nah, we're nowhere near Grak's wall-o'-texts yet. That's a fair rebuttal, but it doesn't really answer the question. Semantics, really, and it just seems I butt heads with egotists.
Sorry, I'm not going to take much blame for presuming RafK was scum with an uncounter-claimed cop (or countered by pod, if you'd like) and two 'masons' left. There is never enough power to compensate for recruitment because it skews the intangible in the game of mafia - human perception. That's neither here nor there really in the scope of this game- we can take that up in the Mafia Discussion Thread if you'd like, Krobelus.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
This doesn't make sense unless you strongly believe Cyan to be townie and a cop (or other power role). If the town always played too scared to get claims out of people just because they have a chance of being cop, we would never get anywhere. If atlseal had claimed cop, would you have regretted pressuring him?
Yes. it is.
If the mafia wins with 5 members alive, they can leave up to 5 townies alive. That means 3 masons and a cop and a doc they can basically ignore!
If the mafia wins with 1 member alive, they have to somehow get EVERYONE dead except 1 other person!
That is much harder!
Just like in basketball, when you're up by 20, you can coast. But if you're only up by 1, you have to pay attention to every second of the game.
I don't think you understand what is being discussed here. We're not talking about "after the game." We're talking about what is relevant DURING the game.
Uh... no.
Let's look at the math on this....
20 town 4 scum.
Town lynches a mafia member... mafia kills a townie.
19 - 3.
Repeat 3 times. Town wins.
Now let's do it my way....
20 - 4.
Town mislynches twice, mafia kills twice, then town correctly lynches once.
15-3.
Repeat this.
10-2.
5-1.
See how this works?
Each time a member of the mafia dies, the mafia is moved further away from winning.
This happens at the ratio of town to mafia.
*sigh*
And there you go again.. you'd rather declare victory before you even realize why you're wrong.
Does this tactic ever work? Seriously. Do people ever go "Wow! Sutherlands! Nice strawman! You defeated an argument that is totally irrelevant to what we are discussing! GOOD SHOW!"
See, now you're just lying.
When did I say that ATL's claim was dubious?
Oh, wait, I didn't.
So, I, in fact, did not suggest not lynching a power role with a dubious claim.
Now, we can argue whether his claim is dubious or not... that's a fair argument to have. But that's an entirely different argument than we are having right now.
"It was then pointed out that the mafia don't need for THAT PERSON to survive to the endgame, just to create enough of an advantage by mislynches for the other mafia to survive until the endgame."
You said that the lying scum can get caught, but if he can create "enough of an advantage" for the other mafia to survive.
I am telling you that if the lying scum is caught, the town can commonly unravel his web of lies and everything falls down like dominoes from there.
Nothing I said in my first few posts was arrogant. I explained something to someone who accepted my explanation in the same spirit it was given.
You, who I wasn't even talking to, decided I was being arrogant and preachy.
It's funny that the person I was actually addressing didn't.
Rember, confirming is not neccesary (though preferable). Just creating a great deal of likelyhood is enough.
How? By other dead bodies aligning with his. By him performing a confirmed roleblock AND THEN a dead mafia roleblocker showing up later. By having 2 roleblocks in a night. By having him get killed by the scum. by having a cop investigate him. By having his rolename turn up in someones list of known town roles (seen it happen twice before). By having someone who is a townie question asker ask a question about the Chessire Cat. By having a tracker verify who he targets. By having him vig a member of the mafia. By having him sucessfully catch 2 or more members of the mafia.
I mean, there is a massive list of ways.
That stat was obviously pulled out of my ass for the point of demonstrating personal experience. But if it would actually sway you for me to go back and find all of the time in games I've read or played in where a claimed power role on day 1 was a townie telling the truth, i'll do it.
NO!
I have never seen the JOAT role as titled, but assuming I understand the role correctly then let's try this... tonight he gives us an innocent on someone. tomorrow night he doc protects someone. The next night he vigs someone.
Then he's still alive, and the town vig kills him. He shows up town.
What have we gained? A confirmed innocent result. An extra doc protection. An extra vig that may or may not have killed scum.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He must do something that his target does not feel (so he can't roleblock or kill) and he must HOPE that our mod does not provide flavor to the watcher (which LOTS of mods do).
So he has to be like a mafia name investigator or something like that.
So basically, if he's lying, and he's a mafia investigator, and he actually targets exactly who he says he targets each night..... which basically means the mafia are now reporting back to us who they target with their name investigator each night. And it also means they can't use him to verify mafia members without wasting the ability at night.
And that still doesn't help him if he gets cop investigated instead of watched.
Just as an FYI, I ran a game with a recruiter where the towns only cop was recruited to the mafia, and it broke the game wide open.
So much so, that the people playing and spectating universally agreed that it was completely game breaking in a way that destroys the validity of the game.
in fact, Axelrod was that cop. Why don't you ask him how he felt about it?
So the odds are, unless the town was grossly overpowered, they did NOT have enough power to compensate for the recruiting ability. Not when the cop gets recruited.
Mafia is a game of odds. If you don't like stats, don't play mafia.
I'm going to ignore the scenario where there is a cop alive and somehow he inspected the 3 masons and the doc but never inspected a mafia and instead focus on the "math" of your argument, if you can call it that.
To make the math easier to comprehend, I'm going to assume 15 town and 5 mafia. The mafia have to get the town to mislynch 5 times to win. At that point they will have killed 5 people and it will be 5-5. If the town get 1 mafia, they have to kill 6 people and it will be 4-4. If the town get 2 mafia, the mafia have to kill 7 people and it will be 3-3. Etc, etc. Therefore, "For every mafia that gets killed, they need to kill 1 extra townie to make up for it."
You didn't say that his claim was dubious, but that's not what I said either. Multiple people have expressed doubt as to his ability, you said the idea that we're even CONSIDERING lynching him is "INSANITY." Thus, you're saying that lynching a power role who "we" think has a dubious claim is dumb. Thus, you're suggesting "NOT lynching a power role with a dubious claim."
Except that the my point has, and always will be, that the mafia are more likely to create mislynches WHILE THEY'RE ALIVE, especially if we believe they have a power role. By the time they're dead, we will have lost a lot of ground.
How does that confirm him?
And making sure that we know there's not a town RBer.
So we "clear" someone by having them die? Isn't that exactly what you were going against? Not to mention that the mafia aren't going to clear people for us, so this is really not a way to "confirm" someone.
And if he's mafia, we've just wasted an investigation since we were going to lynch him anyway.
That doesn't confirm that he's not lying about his role.
Huh? You lost me.
Possibly.
Won't help if he's the SK.
Mafia do this all the time, it helps their "townie credibility". Not proof.
Ok.
We gain one doc result, a probably useless protection, and a vig that will probably kill a townie anyway. Then we have to hope the vig is still alive. What do we stand to lose? 3 days where he is misleading us and we all "trust" his investigations and are more likely to lynch the wrong person since there are more mafia.
And then we can't trust a thing he says, because he could easily say the rolename of one of his mafia buds.
But as I said, that wastes an investigation.
Go read the very end of it. The town was EXTREMELY overpowered. We should have easily lost that game.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
just out of Curiosity, what would happen if that other person figured out who you are?
Calvin & Hobbs Mafia, Mafia MVP
X-Men Mafia Town MVP
Simpson's Mafia - best use of character
Mtgnews Mafia Mafia - Town Madman
Mythos Mafia: the Dunwich Massacre Town MVP
English Literature Mafia Town MVP
Best Role-Playing Sin City Mafia
Werewolf Mafia - Mafia MVP
Doctor Mafia - Mafia MVP
Mafia: Escape from the Cylons - Town MVP
Lost Mafia - Co SK Winner with Kops
Random Mafia 3 - Town MVP
1 Alx2-Cyan
3 Atlseal-Abbeygargoyle, Alx2, Carrion Pigeons
6 Cyan-Grakthis, Vampyr, Hawkeye7, ZDS, Fadeblue, Xyre
1 Loran16- Athos
1 Spoon-Wizzpig(?)
1 Sutherlands- Atlseal
1 Vampyr-Spoon
2 xyre- Pod, Sutherlands
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
fade: I would only regret pressuring someone who turned out to be the cop if we already had a better target when that pressure started happening. I think you should be making a case for why Cyan is scummier than atl if you want to justify making him claim.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia