Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[faust]

I repeat:

I'd like to hear what an effective response would be to results that indicate Mafia is on both sending teams.

There are two groups and three mafia. So in one group, there will be two mafia. We can focus on this group tomorrow. The information becomes ever more valuable as we progress through the game, because on later days, we can POE even more.

[Witherweaver]

I repeat:

I'd like to hear what an effective response would be to results that indicate Mafia is on both sending teams.

There are two groups and three mafia. So in one group, there will be two mafia. We can focus on this group tomorrow. The information becomes ever more valuable as we progress through the game, because on later days, we can POE even more.

At least two mafia.  One group could have three.

What about this for tonight only?  Every player sends one item to Chairs.  Tomorrow, each player claims what they sent. Chairs checks any inconsistencies and makes it public.  This way, if Mafia lies and trades items with each other, Chairs will be missing some items and we'll know which ones.  This will also let us put the Mafia into groups (by which items didn't match up), which could be used for PoE later.  If Mafia does give their items to Chairs, then great, no issue.  Plus they can't make anything beyond a 1-item power tonight.

[pingpongsam]

I am not opposed to sending an item to chairs.

[Archetype]

I don't like taking that kind of risk - it makes the game rely way too much on how good our reads are today rather than helping to develop them and still be useful.

Also, since there are probably 3 scum, then we can calculate whether random kills are good or bad to do. I think that two lynches a day would be a good idea, especially later in the game, because we end up mislynching the people that scum primed, it's pretty much a wasted NK for them, which is kind of bad, especially when they have to spend an extra day igniting. More flips can also facilitate better reads depending on wagons too.

Vote: Xerxes

Vote: Xerxes

[xeiron]

I repeat:

I'd like to hear what an effective response would be to results that indicate Mafia is on both sending teams.

Mostly ignore it for a few days, and then use it to nail the last mafia in a LYLO situation. It is really useful when one or two mafias are already dead, and we are looking for the last one.

[xeiron]

I repeat:

I'd like to hear what an effective response would be to results that indicate Mafia is on both sending teams.

There are two groups and three mafia. So in one group, there will be two mafia. We can focus on this group tomorrow. The information becomes ever more valuable as we progress through the game, because on later days, we can POE even more.

At least two mafia.  One group could have three.

What about this for tonight only?  Every player sends one item to Chairs.  Tomorrow, each player claims what they sent. Chairs checks any inconsistencies and makes it public.  This way, if Mafia lies and trades items with each other, Chairs will be missing some items and we'll know which ones.  This will also let us put the Mafia into groups (by which items didn't match up), which could be used for PoE later.  If Mafia does give their items to Chairs, then great, no issue.  Plus they can't make anything beyond a 1-item power tonight.

Items claiming tomorrow is a good idea. It can be done with even greater effect if we send items to two persons. I still like the original plan better.

[Witherweaver]

I repeat:

I'd like to hear what an effective response would be to results that indicate Mafia is on both sending teams.

There are two groups and three mafia. So in one group, there will be two mafia. We can focus on this group tomorrow. The information becomes ever more valuable as we progress through the game, because on later days, we can POE even more.

At least two mafia.  One group could have three.

What about this for tonight only?  Every player sends one item to Chairs.  Tomorrow, each player claims what they sent. Chairs checks any inconsistencies and makes it public.  This way, if Mafia lies and trades items with each other, Chairs will be missing some items and we'll know which ones.  This will also let us put the Mafia into groups (by which items didn't match up), which could be used for PoE later.  If Mafia does give their items to Chairs, then great, no issue.  Plus they can't make anything beyond a 1-item power tonight.

Items claiming tomorrow is a good idea. It can be done with even greater effect if we send items to two persons. I still like the original plan better.

But there's still the risk of picking a Mafia member.  This eliminates that issue.

[xeiron]

I repeat:

I'd like to hear what an effective response would be to results that indicate Mafia is on both sending teams.

There are two groups and three mafia. So in one group, there will be two mafia. We can focus on this group tomorrow. The information becomes ever more valuable as we progress through the game, because on later days, we can POE even more.

At least two mafia.  One group could have three.

What about this for tonight only?  Every player sends one item to Chairs.  Tomorrow, each player claims what they sent. Chairs checks any inconsistencies and makes it public.  This way, if Mafia lies and trades items with each other, Chairs will be missing some items and we'll know which ones.  This will also let us put the Mafia into groups (by which items didn't match up), which could be used for PoE later.  If Mafia does give their items to Chairs, then great, no issue.  Plus they can't make anything beyond a 1-item power tonight.

Items claiming tomorrow is a good idea. It can be done with even greater effect if we send items to two persons. I still like the original plan better.

But there's still the risk of picking a Mafia member.  This eliminates that issue.

True

[yuma]

I mostly disagree here.

So you understand that a mostly random lynch on day 1 is usually preferable to no lynch. If so, I don't get the argument why a second such lynch (with more information, as we already had the first lynch) would suddenly be detrimental. You're saying you prefer to shoot with lights on once or twice over shooting in the dark 5 times. Only, that's not the decision we have. The decision in front of us is, do we prefer to shoot in the dark 2-3 times, then shoot in the light once or twice, or do we only shoot once or twice in the light. And here, I don't understand how you would want to take the second option.

A first lynch is preferable because the alternative is no information. But the quality of information that you get from a lynch is of low quality but it is better than nothing. It is something to start off of.

Compared to other opportunities for information (investigations, lynches based off previous lynches and wagon analysis, etc...) later in the game

In that light a second blind lynch is bad because it robs us of those further opportunities. You say we would have more information, but would we? The thread is locked before we receive a flip. We would have to make a decision on whom to potato before lynching... so we would be making that decision before having the necessary information.

As for my comparison. you are incorrect in what I am suggesting. I never said we should do a true no-lynch. I am saying that we shoot in the dark as much as necessary, but no more than that. Once tonight (today). Then the lights start coming on a bit for another lynch. Then maybe we can shoot fully in the light. But every shot in the complete dark robs us of one in more light.

This is why I have steadfastly refused to use my dayvigs that I have had during the first days that I had them. Because the would effectively be shots in the dark and not an effective way of using them at all.

And as a last point... not only will these be shots in the dark they will be shots in the dark manipulated by scum who are in the light! There is a proven track record of later day lynches being more successful than early day ones. Why would you want more early day lynches that are proven to be less successful? I am not nearly confident enough in our ability to successfully lynch day1 even with two opportunities. What is far more likely is that we will be down two townies...

[yuma]

Why not expand this a bit then? Instead of sending to the IC and 1 other person, why not send to the IC and 2 or 3?

This does expand the chance that a few items get sent to mafia, but it does eliminate the possibility mafia getting such a large suprplus and continues to utilize the checking of how many items were received... and actually helps that attribute as the pools will be 2 or 3 people sending instead of 5 if someone doesn't get an item sent.

Two reasons that speak for having only one other receiver:
- 1. the chance that mafia gets items is higher, when part of the purpose of this plan is to not provide them items. You already said this.
- 2. powers that require lots of items to be built are the strongest. The less items we accumulate on one person, the less likely they are to be able to produce a really good power.

Generally, the more players we take into account, the more this gets shifted from a high risk - high reward strategy to a strategy that only gives us less benefit, but also can't go awfully wrong. Now I'm more the kind of guy who would take the risk, but I understand if other players have different opinions on this.

yeah... we have a completely different mindset. I have always been low risk, low reward. Why? Because I believe that we have enough quality players to, overtime, figure out who is scum and who isn't using investigations, wagon analysis and post analysis. We don't need high reward-high risk plans to try and get a win. Why gamble and toss the dice on something that might completely backfire when you already have a pretty good chance of winning based off skill?

I think I am at the point where I am pretty unlikely to go along with any plan that involves giving items to specific players. I will either keep them or give them to people that I have town reads on (which would include chairs).

[yuma]

I don't like taking that kind of risk - it makes the game rely way too much on how good our reads are today rather than helping to develop them and still be useful.

Also, since there are probably 3 scum, then we can calculate whether random kills are good or bad to do. I think that two lynches a day would be a good idea, especially later in the game, because we end up mislynching the people that scum primed, it's pretty much a wasted NK for them, which is kind of bad, especially when they have to spend an extra day igniting. More flips can also facilitate better reads depending on wagons too.

Vote: Xerxes

lame... and I saw your reason below... still lame

[yuma]

I don't like taking that kind of risk - it makes the game rely way too much on how good our reads are today rather than helping to develop them and still be useful.

Also, since there are probably 3 scum, then we can calculate whether random kills are good or bad to do. I think that two lynches a day would be a good idea, especially later in the game, because we end up mislynching the people that scum primed, it's pretty much a wasted NK for them, which is kind of bad, especially when they have to spend an extra day igniting. More flips can also facilitate better reads depending on wagons too.

Vote: Xerxes

Vote: Xerxes

vote: arch

[EFHW]

Vote Count 1.2

faust (3): ashersky, xeiron, pingpongsam
pingpongsam (1): Jimmmmm
XerxesPraelor (2): faust, Archetype
Archetype (1): yuma

not voting (5): A Drowned Kernel, sudgy, mail-mi, Witherweaver, XerxesPraelor

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.  Deadline is Thursday, May 29th at 8 pm

[Archetype]

Not this thing again? I thought we agreed in the last game that it's okay to make guesses based on the number of players?

Problem is: We all KNOW there are three scum. Yet you are making it sound as though you don't know it. That looks very much like scum thinking: "Well, I know who my partners are, but I shouldn't write that I know there are three mafia, so I'll throw in a 'probably'".

This is exactly how I read it.

@EFHW: faust is voting for Xerxes, not ash.

[ashersky]

Pretty sure my vote is still on Faust.  Did I change it?  Definitely not to XP, though.

vote: faust to be safe.

[Witherweaver]

Not this thing again? I thought we agreed in the last game that it's okay to make guesses based on the number of players?

Problem is: We all KNOW there are three scum. Yet you are making it sound as though you don't know it. That looks very much like scum thinking: "Well, I know who my partners are, but I shouldn't write that I know there are three mafia, so I'll throw in a 'probably'".

This is exactly how I read it.

@EFHW: faust is voting for Xerxes, not ash.

I'm a little unconvinced of this.  After the huge thing that went down in WoT with the "scum slips," I did this same thing as town in HoC, where I started stating everything with uncertainty modifiers. 

[Archetype]

Not this thing again? I thought we agreed in the last game that it's okay to make guesses based on the number of players?

Problem is: We all KNOW there are three scum. Yet you are making it sound as though you don't know it. That looks very much like scum thinking: "Well, I know who my partners are, but I shouldn't write that I know there are three mafia, so I'll throw in a 'probably'".

This is exactly how I read it.

@EFHW: faust is voting for Xerxes, not ash.

I'm a little unconvinced of this.  After the huge thing that went down in WoT with the "scum slips," I did this same thing as town in HoC, where I started stating everything with uncertainty modifiers.

But did you profess uncertainty regarding how many scum there were? The problem in WoT was that it was a closed setup - the exact number of scum was unknown. Here, though, the alignments and numbers associated with them are available to everyone. So understand why Xerxes would be hesitant to state absolutes, but he shouldn't be if there is no way he can scumslip about how many Mafia there are.

[faust]

I repeat:

I'd like to hear what an effective response would be to results that indicate Mafia is on both sending teams.

There are two groups and three mafia. So in one group, there will be two mafia. We can focus on this group tomorrow. The information becomes ever more valuable as we progress through the game, because on later days, we can POE even more.

At least two mafia.  One group could have three.

What about this for tonight only?  Every player sends one item to Chairs.  Tomorrow, each player claims what they sent. Chairs checks any inconsistencies and makes it public.  This way, if Mafia lies and trades items with each other, Chairs will be missing some items and we'll know which ones.  This will also let us put the Mafia into groups (by which items didn't match up), which could be used for PoE later.  If Mafia does give their items to Chairs, then great, no issue.  Plus they can't make anything beyond a 1-item power tonight.

The problem with sending everything to chairs is scum can use a Roleblocker to devastating effect. But I think item claiming will have some merit.

[sudgy]

I haven't read pretty much anything, I know I'm an IC, and I realized I'm busy tomorrow as well, so I'll catch up on Tuesday.  Hopefully I'll be able to help out enough by deadline.

[faust]

As for my comparison. you are incorrect in what I am suggesting. I never said we should do a true no-lynch. I am saying that we shoot in the dark as much as necessary, but no more than that. Once tonight (today). Then the lights start coming on a bit for another lynch. Then maybe we can shoot fully in the light. But every shot in the complete dark robs us of one in more light.

But I don't think it's every shot we shoot early we will miss later. Consider a worst-case scenario.

a) 1 town controlled death per day/night
Then we get three shots. By then, mafia will have primed three players. D4, another shot for us, and if we fail, mafia immediately wins. Note that even if we manage to lynch mafia in this scenario, they might still win by successfully using the Hot Potato.

b) 2 town controlled deaths per night
We already get four shots until the end of N2. Then two players are primed. We have two more shots for D3/N3. SO this totals to 6 shots before we reach the point where we lose. Effectively, we gain two shots.

[Witherweaver]

Not this thing again? I thought we agreed in the last game that it's okay to make guesses based on the number of players?

Problem is: We all KNOW there are three scum. Yet you are making it sound as though you don't know it. That looks very much like scum thinking: "Well, I know who my partners are, but I shouldn't write that I know there are three mafia, so I'll throw in a 'probably'".

This is exactly how I read it.

@EFHW: faust is voting for Xerxes, not ash.

I'm a little unconvinced of this.  After the huge thing that went down in WoT with the "scum slips," I did this same thing as town in HoC, where I started stating everything with uncertainty modifiers.

But did you profess uncertainty regarding how many scum there were? The problem in WoT was that it was a closed setup - the exact number of scum was unknown. Here, though, the alignments and numbers associated with them are available to everyone. So understand why Xerxes would be hesitant to state absolutes, but he shouldn't be if there is no way he can scumslip about how many Mafia there are.

I did exactly that, actually (link).  Volt called me out on it later. 

[Witherweaver]

I repeat:

I'd like to hear what an effective response would be to results that indicate Mafia is on both sending teams.

There are two groups and three mafia. So in one group, there will be two mafia. We can focus on this group tomorrow. The information becomes ever more valuable as we progress through the game, because on later days, we can POE even more.

At least two mafia.  One group could have three.

What about this for tonight only?  Every player sends one item to Chairs.  Tomorrow, each player claims what they sent. Chairs checks any inconsistencies and makes it public.  This way, if Mafia lies and trades items with each other, Chairs will be missing some items and we'll know which ones.  This will also let us put the Mafia into groups (by which items didn't match up), which could be used for PoE later.  If Mafia does give their items to Chairs, then great, no issue.  Plus they can't make anything beyond a 1-item power tonight.

The problem with sending everything to chairs is scum can use a Roleblocker to devastating effect. But I think item claiming will have some merit.

Hm, I had it in my head that they couldn't tonight.  But you're right.  However, they need Badge+Magnifying glass.  So there has to be one scum that can't send an item to Chairs.  So we'll have one unaccounted for item in the claiming, so it's pretty risky for scum to do. 

[XerxesPraelor]

Not this thing again? I thought we agreed in the last game that it's okay to make guesses based on the number of players?

Problem is: We all KNOW there are three scum. Yet you are making it sound as though you don't know it. That looks very much like scum thinking: "Well, I know who my partners are, but I shouldn't write that I know there are three mafia, so I'll throw in a 'probably'".

This is exactly how I read it.

@EFHW: faust is voting for Xerxes, not ash.

I'm a little unconvinced of this.  After the huge thing that went down in WoT with the "scum slips," I did this same thing as town in HoC, where I started stating everything with uncertainty modifiers.

But did you profess uncertainty regarding how many scum there were? The problem in WoT was that it was a closed setup - the exact number of scum was unknown. Here, though, the alignments and numbers associated with them are available to everyone. So understand why Xerxes would be hesitant to state absolutes, but he shouldn't be if there is no way he can scumslip about how many Mafia there are.

Yeah, I just forgot that we knew that part of the Setup. You probably already know that's the case, but it seems

I mostly disagree here.

So you understand that a mostly random lynch on day 1 is usually preferable to no lynch. If so, I don't get the argument why a second such lynch (with more information, as we already had the first lynch) would suddenly be detrimental. You're saying you prefer to shoot with lights on once or twice over shooting in the dark 5 times. Only, that's not the decision we have. The decision in front of us is, do we prefer to shoot in the dark 2-3 times, then shoot in the light once or twice, or do we only shoot once or twice in the light. And here, I don't understand how you would want to take the second option.

In that light a second blind lynch is bad because it robs us of those further opportunities. You say we would have more information, but would we? The thread is locked before we receive a flip. We would have to make a decision on whom to potato before lynching... so we would be making that decision before having the necessary information.

Isn't the Workaround for this obvious. We just choose two People to lynch, depending on how someone Flips.

[Jimmmmm]

FYI I haven't forgotten this game and will hopefully have time to catch up tomorrow.

[Archetype]

Not this thing again? I thought we agreed in the last game that it's okay to make guesses based on the number of players?

Problem is: We all KNOW there are three scum. Yet you are making it sound as though you don't know it. That looks very much like scum thinking: "Well, I know who my partners are, but I shouldn't write that I know there are three mafia, so I'll throw in a 'probably'".

This is exactly how I read it.

@EFHW: faust is voting for Xerxes, not ash.

I'm a little unconvinced of this.  After the huge thing that went down in WoT with the "scum slips," I did this same thing as town in HoC, where I started stating everything with uncertainty modifiers.

But did you profess uncertainty regarding how many scum there were? The problem in WoT was that it was a closed setup - the exact number of scum was unknown. Here, though, the alignments and numbers associated with them are available to everyone. So understand why Xerxes would be hesitant to state absolutes, but he shouldn't be if there is no way he can scumslip about how many Mafia there are.

I did exactly that, actually (link).  Volt called me out on it later.

Huh. Weird. That gives Xerxes some leeway, but I'm still comfortable with my vote on him.

I don't think anyone has answered, so I'll ask again: If we follow the bomb plan, do we have any guarantee that Mafia would send the bomb. If I were Mafia, I certainly wouldn't. My team gets a free priming and the intended recipient of the bomb is going to be lynched the next day anyways.