655 replies to this topic

[Euclid of Alexandria]

Great. I look forward to that.

[Martino]

Ok, I am back. It is nice to see that this game has started with a high activity. My notes about most of the discussion so far:

 

I don't think KevinH did anything scummy, so I am not sure why he quickly attracted 4 votes.

I also don't think KevinH did anything early on that makes him town, so Reign of Terror stating that he believes KevinH to be town is interesting as well.

 

I like KevinH's idea to plan for our Vigilante. With two hostile night kills, I think it is vital that we use 'our' night kill well. I think the idea of making "shadow votes" to determine who the vigilante should kill is good as well. However, I would suggest that the vigilante is not completely bound to killing the one with the most shadow votes. If he strongly believes one of the other choices is more scummy, he should kill that one. His later suggestion that the vigilante kills someone who attracted many votes but was not lynched is interesting as well. It of course depends on the outcome of the lynch. If we end up lynching a cannibal, then the person with the second highest vote total would probably not be such a great target for the vigilante. 

 

Kazio suggests the Vigilante should kill inactives. I don't necessarily like the idea of simply killing people off because they are inactive. It does force the scum to be more active and that gives them more opportunities to make a mistake. However, I am not sure the percentage of scum amongst the inactive players is significantly higher than amongst the active ones. So it looks a lot like a random kill though with the benefit of forcing the scum to be somewhat more active. I would prefer to target suspicious players over inactives ones though.

 

Commander Shepard brings up a good point about the Dietician. Normally, I am in favor of playing it rather conservative as a town power role. You know that you will die the moment you reveal yourself, so you should have enough information to make your death worth it. However, with three possible night kills each night, I think that the risk of our dietician being nightkilled is too large. So I would propose that he claims as soon as he finds a cannibal.

 

Finally I will:

 

vote Lyner

 

Lyner seemed to be the most vocal about lynching me because I was inactive. I announced in the sign up thread that I would be busy until today, and Kazio and a few others even clearly mentioned it here. Therefore, it seems like he is just looking for an easy lynch rather than trying to find scum.

[Euclid of Alexandria]

Great to see you arrive at the scene Martino!

 

I must say though... I find your first post to be kind of scummy.

[Rafay]

Good God!!! Seriously can you believe these 2. Why do you spread so much confusion? That's scummy. Euclid and Kaz better improve your gameplay playas your gonna get caught. Every1 is scummy except you 2?

[Euclid of Alexandria]

Not everyone no.

[Euclid of Alexandria]

If the dietician finds a cannibal there is a 25% chance that it is the vig. No townie would know for sure except the vig himself, who obviously doesn't want to come forward. So, it would be kind of hard to act upon this information for the town as the exposed cannibal will obviously claim to be vig and, if that claim is true, lynching him would deprive the town of a vig kill.

 

On the other hand the goons can easily act upon this information. If the exposed cannibal is not one of them they would surely kill him immediately. They would thus find out whether it was the vig or the SK and they would not share that information with the town. If it was indeed the vig they can subsequently falsely claim to be the vig in the end game to get us to lynch another townie.

 

Similarly the SK will surely kill any exposed cannibal immediately, keep the information from the town and possibly claim to be the vig in the end game.

 

Therefore, scum have a much greater interest than town in the dietician coming forward as soon as he finds a cannibal, as per Martino's suggestion. Ergo, either Martino is scum or he failed to think this through properly.

[Commander Shepard]

Whether they have an interest in it is irrelevant.

The odds are it would be scum that the dietician uncovers which gives the town a good chance.

The off chance of it been the vig for the scum is probably as hopeful as two scum killing eachother on the first night is for the town.

[Martino]

If the dietician finds a cannibal there is a 25% chance that it is the vig. No townie would know for sure except the vig himself, who obviously doesn't want to come forward. So, it would be kind of hard to act upon this information for the town as the exposed cannibal will obviously claim to be vig and, if that claim is true, lynching him would deprive the town of a vig kill.

 

On the other hand the goons can easily act upon this information. If the exposed cannibal is not one of them they would surely kill him immediately. They would thus find out whether it was the vig or the SK and they would not share that information with the town. If it was indeed the vig they can subsequently falsely claim to be the vig in the end game to get us to lynch another townie.

 

Similarly the SK will surely kill any exposed cannibal immediately, keep the information from the town and possibly claim to be the vig in the end game.

 

Therefore, scum have a much greater interest than town in the dietician coming forward as soon as he finds a cannibal, as per Martino's suggestion. Ergo, either Martino is scum or he failed to think this through properly.

I would take my 75% odds of lynching a scum.

[Euclid of Alexandria]

The off chance of it been the vig for the scum is probably as hopeful as two scum killing eachother on the first night for the town.

 

If we lynch the vig and scum subsequently kill the dietician we are left with one power role at best. The chance that this happens when the dietician comes forward with a cannibal result is 1 in 4. Not really an off chance. Certainly not comparable to the chance of two scum killing each other in the first night, which is 0 since the SK has a one time NK immunity.

 

I would take my 75% odds of lynching a scum.

 
The dietician may very well be able to get a wagon going on the exposed cannibal without actually coming forward. That is a much better play than sacrificing himself.
 

It all depends on what other information has become available and how the next day develops. The dietician is the only one that can really judge when it is in our best interest for him to come forward. Since he is a townie I'd rather just trust him than have possible scum pressuring him into coming forward prematurely. So, Martino and Commander Shepard, please stop doing that. It's kind of scummy.

[Euclid of Alexandria]

Also, if the exposed cannibal is a goon, which is a 2 in 4 chance, lynching him doesn't even prevent a night kill as the other goon will still kill. So, even then it is probably better that the dietician tries to get at least one more read before coming forward.

[KevinH]

It would be an unusual circumstance for the Dietician to role claim.  Maybe to counterclaim or maybe at the very end of the game.

 

Everyone will be saying that some thing or another looks scummy, the Dietician should make a similar claim but be subtly emphatic. 

[Lyner]

Ok, I am back. It is nice to see that this game has started with a high activity. My notes about most of the discussion so far:

 

I don't think KevinH did anything scummy, so I am not sure why he quickly attracted 4 votes.

I also don't think KevinH did anything early on that makes him town, so Reign of Terror stating that he believes KevinH to be town is interesting as well.

 

I like KevinH's idea to plan for our Vigilante. With two hostile night kills, I think it is vital that we use 'our' night kill well. I think the idea of making "shadow votes" to determine who the vigilante should kill is good as well. However, I would suggest that the vigilante is not completely bound to killing the one with the most shadow votes. If he strongly believes one of the other choices is more scummy, he should kill that one. His later suggestion that the vigilante kills someone who attracted many votes but was not lynched is interesting as well. It of course depends on the outcome of the lynch. If we end up lynching a cannibal, then the person with the second highest vote total would probably not be such a great target for the vigilante. 

 

Kazio suggests the Vigilante should kill inactives. I don't necessarily like the idea of simply killing people off because they are inactive. It does force the scum to be more active and that gives them more opportunities to make a mistake. However, I am not sure the percentage of scum amongst the inactive players is significantly higher than amongst the active ones. So it looks a lot like a random kill though with the benefit of forcing the scum to be somewhat more active. I would prefer to target suspicious players over inactives ones though.

 

Commander Shepard brings up a good point about the Dietician. Normally, I am in favor of playing it rather conservative as a town power role. You know that you will die the moment you reveal yourself, so you should have enough information to make your death worth it. However, with three possible night kills each night, I think that the risk of our dietician being nightkilled is too large. So I would propose that he claims as soon as he finds a cannibal.

 

Finally I will:

 

vote Lyner

 

Lyner seemed to be the most vocal about lynching me because I was inactive. I announced in the sign up thread that I would be busy until today, and Kazio and a few others even clearly mentioned it here. Therefore, it seems like he is just looking for an easy lynch rather than trying to find scum.

 

Yes because euclid demands me to give my inputs also I clearly point out that I'll wait until it's almost deadline before voting the inactive if I don't find anyone suspicious enough

[Kaziocore]

lol reply back if you have a better case against me.

Basically you're saying
1. Since I'm scum hunting, I'm automatically scum trying hard to get town cred (prove first I'm artificially scum hunting to get town cred)
2. I'm diverting attention to me (on the contrary, am I more vulnerable since I post a lot)
3. I advocated lynching lurkers (which I don't if you actually read my posts)

Interesting
If you could prove that I did the following
1) Something that (at first glance) looks like it helps the town but doesn't (and the "helper" should be aware of that.)
Example: Information over Analysis
2) Something that though seemingly pro-town conflicts with the expressed viewpoint of the poster.
Example: Expressing a wish to see a player lynched but being reluctant to hammer for fear of being seen as too rash

Your case against me will have more weight.

 
Well there is limited info available as you well know.
But generally the vibe I get from you leaves a bad scummy taste in my mouth.
Scum hunting is not why I am voting you, I am voting you mainly because I made clear I think your voting of Rafay is ridiculous.
I'm not even sure why you voted him, please explain why you voted him as I requested earlier.
 
And I generally don't like the voting pattern you would like us to take.
 
You didn't advocate lynching them and I was not referring to that.

> think the best course of action of the vig is to night kill the lurkers.
They're disadvantageous to the town especially if they are scum.

 
Even worse you want the vig to target a particular group who may or may not be scum and are likely to be comprised mostly as townies.
Avoiding attention away from the other groups, very unwise and I don't trust your reasons for this notion.
 
This isn't a case and I don't need to prove anything as I am not trying to make a case, so your expectations are flawed.
Your behavior is very suspicious and I don't trust your intentions.
I would almost say it was scummy that you called it a case.

 

 

1. Pressure. Rafay looks suspicious, I voted him.

 

2. Explain the voting pattern I have said. I don't think I didn't force anyone to vote for a specific player

nor sheep a particular player. If you're arguing about my playstyle, then that's a weak reason to vote me.

 

3. Because I believe that the vigilante should kill every night. If the vigilante is inexperienced, then

killing the lurkers are much safer.

 

I believe that lynching lurkers during the day is terrible because you will miss interactions if the lynchee

isn't active therefore the only way to kill the stubborn lurkers is to vig them.

They will not certainly be missed as they could be a liability.

I don't know why you find my idea suspicious but you didn't mind Imran voting an inactive player.

Now explain the scum motivation for suggesting the vigilante to kill the lurkers.

 

Also explain why you think the lurkers are likely to be comprised mostly of townies

because statistically, they have the same chance as active players to be scum

and besides, there shouldn't be a town motivation to lurk.

 

4. Okay case might not be the right word, a better word would be reasons.

[Kaziocore]

And it was more of a reaction to KevinH's opinion that the vigilante shouldn't kill anyone

[Kaziocore]

@Martino What's your opinion on Imran?

[Commander Shepard]

You're asking questions to things I already stated.

- Why it would not benefit the town for the vig to kill lurkers.

- Why your style is somewhat scummy, generally it flawed.

   If it is flawed on purpose I don't know.

 

Your explanation for voting Rafay is still suspicious, why did you find him suspicious?

 

 

Your second post

The vig not killing anyone is a valid standpoint for a townie as the chances are he may indeed kill a townie with little to no relevant info to work with.

[Euclid of Alexandria]

@Commander Shepard: It's not allowed to edit your posts. If you want to add or change anything do so in a new post.

[Martino]

@Dietician claiming debate: The problem with the dietician making subtle claims against his guilty target is that these kind of clues are far more likely to be picked up by scum than by the townies. The scum know that they are scum, so if someone starts making a weak case against them out of the blue, they will quickly realize what is going on. Now, eventually some townies might realize, but it is questionable whether enough townies realize to be able to get the lynch the dietician wants. Even if that does happen, the dietician will have a huge target on his back since he has pretty much cleared himself by outing one of the scum. So in this case he might as well have claimed.

 

Now, I do agree that in a regular game, I would prefer the cop to take that risk and try to get some more results before he claims. However, with 3 kills each night, I simply think the odds of him getting nightkilled before being able to reveal any useful information is too big. Remember that we do not even get to know his allignment if he is nightkilled. So his subtle hints will most likely be lost. So you might find it scummy all you want, but I will repeat that I believe the dietician should claim once he has found a cannibal. With some bad luck the whole game might be over for the town by the end of Night 2. There simply seems to be no time to wait around and sit on a guilty result. 

 

 

@Martino What's your opinion on Imran?

 

Very similar to my opinion on Lyner. The only contribution he has made has been him advocating lynching the inactives. While I agree that inactives can be frustrating, they are not more likely to be scum. So also in his case it seems like he is simply looking for an easy lynch. Besides, he should know from last game that D1 discussion can definitely uncover scum. It doesn't matter whether it is D1 or D4, by putting some pressure at the right time you give them the opportunity to slip up. 

[Kaziocore]

You're asking questions to things I already stated.

- Why it would not benefit the town for the vig to kill lurkers.

- Why your style is somewhat scummy, generally it flawed.

   If it is flawed on purpose I don't know.

 

Your explanation for voting Rafay is still suspicious, why did you find him suspicious?

 

 

Your second post

The vig not killing anyone is a valid standpoint for a townie as the chances are he may indeed kill a townie with little to no relevant info to work with.

1. Vigilante killing every night is not flawed. Research about it. It's a valid strategy.

2. You didn't address why you think it's more likely for lurkers to be town.

It's actually a great service to town for them to be night killed because

you would find it hard to read them as town or not.

3. Since you didn't reply concerning Imran, I'll take it as you agree with his plan.

4. Post #37 looks suspicious. He didn't suspect Xarastier and neither you for voting KevinH but

he deliberately finds me scummy for voting KevinH even though Xarastier and you have

weaker reasons for voting KevinH. That means he is just finding weak reasons to

justify his random vote on me.

 

I'm like 20% suspicious of him at that time and voting him would help me solidify my read on him more.

Frankly, he's not doing a great job right now in changing my read.

[Commander Shepard]

@Commander Shepard: It's not allowed to edit your posts. If you want to add or change anything do so in a new post.

 

That's a rule?

I was wondering why some people are posting a ridiculous amount after their initial post.