Print

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

[A Drowned Kernel]

Three M's, actually, because if there were 4 we'd have an IC. UB can convert but we can also just straight up have masons.

[silverspawn]

I think that Masons, if present, should probably claim now.

yes, because then we know if there's a UB. If there's a UB, at least we still get the cop shot, even if you lynch me (which seems increasing likely). If not, then lynching me is not so good for us, as we lose my cop shot.

Nonono. Chances are, if there are Masons, that there's NO UB.

There can be masons and UB if there are four M's, so Masons claiming doesn't do anything except give scum info.

I assume you mean two separate pairings, which is 6 M's. That's a chance of (0.1)^6 = 0.000001 = 0.0001%

[silverspawn]

actually no, that's not even true. Only a single Mason removes the UB, and a single Mason is only there with exactly one M roll. So, if a mason claims we know for sure.

[silverspawn]

which doesn't necessarily mean a mason should claim. but I'm afk for now, so you guys should do the theorizing.

[faust]

I think that Masons, if present, should probably claim now.

yes, because then we know if there's a UB. If there's a UB, at least we still get the cop shot, even if you lynch me (which seems increasing likely). If not, then lynching me is not so good for us, as we lose my cop shot.

Nonono. Chances are, if there are Masons, that there's NO UB.

There can be masons and UB if there are four M's, so Masons claiming doesn't do anything except give scum info.

And how likely is it that there are 4 Ms AND a 1-shot Cop?

[faust]

actually no, that's not even true. Only a single Mason removes the UB, and a single Mason is only there with exactly one M roll. So, if a mason claims we know for sure.

I don't know what you're saying here. A single M means there is a Mason and there is an UB now transformed into a second Mason. From a Mason perspective, that is indistinguishable from three Ms.

[faust]

I don't understand why Masons wouldn't claim at game start anyway.

[faust]

I'm already voting for him but vote: faust again for trying to out PRs and for trying to lynch a claimed 1-shot. We can always lynch him after he's had a chance to use his shot, and there's plenty of opportunity in this setup for protection.

There's also plenty of opportunity for him to be blocked. I'd much rather have an unknown UB perform the shot. You are being ridiculous, "oh, oh, he's trying to out PRs, he must be scum ohmygod!" A decent amount of games can be won by taking as much out of the setup as you can.

[A Drowned Kernel]

Mason Roles
M** = 1 Mason
MM = Innocent Child (Confirmed at start of Day 1)
MMM = 2 Masons
MMMM = 2 Masons; Innocent Child
MMMMM = 3 Masons
MMMMMM = 2 Masons; 2 Masons (i.e. two separate pairings)

Read the damn setup. Two masons don't mean that the UB automatically convert, and while 1 M is more likely than 3, masons claiming doesn't prove anything, and the longer they wait to claim the better.

[chairs]

vote: faust.

Yeah... I'm not feeling good about the direction you're heading here.

[faust]

Mason Roles
M** = 1 Mason
MM = Innocent Child (Confirmed at start of Day 1)
MMM = 2 Masons
MMMM = 2 Masons; Innocent Child
MMMMM = 3 Masons
MMMMMM = 2 Masons; 2 Masons (i.e. two separate pairings)

Read the damn setup. Two masons don't mean that the UB automatically convert, and while 1 M is more likely than 3, masons claiming doesn't prove anything, and the longer they wait to claim the better.

Can you explain why it is better for Masons to wait to claim? I sure as hell don't want to run into a Dice Mafia scenario here.

[faust]

Mason Roles
M** = 1 Mason
MM = Innocent Child (Confirmed at start of Day 1)
MMM = 2 Masons
MMMM = 2 Masons; Innocent Child
MMMMM = 3 Masons
MMMMMM = 2 Masons; 2 Masons (i.e. two separate pairings)

Read the damn setup. Two masons don't mean that the UB automatically convert, and while 1 M is more likely than 3, masons claiming doesn't prove anything, and the longer they wait to claim the better.

Hey, let's do some math. Assume Masons claim, and we have a single pair. We know that

P(one M) = 1/10*(9/10)^5*5 = 29,5 %

P(three Ms) = (1/10)^3*(9/10)^3*(6 choose 3) = 1,5 %

P(one Mason pair) = P(one M) + P(three Ms) = 31,0 %

P(one M | there are Masons) = P(one M)/P(one Mason pair) = 95,2 %

P(three M | there are Masons) = 4,8 %

So, even if we know we have Masons, three Masons are pretty unlikely.

[faust]

and that should read "three Ms are pretty unlikely" of course. So when Masons claim, I'm going to assume that there is no UB.

[faust]

vote: faust.

Yeah... I'm not feeling good about the direction you're heading here.

Man... we are in the one game where I don't have a scum read on you, and now you've got to vote for me.

[A Drowned Kernel]

What's the benefit of them claiming so early? We don't want them to wait until LYLO but having them claim now just gives scum better NK targets IMO.

On the other hand, I don't see scum getting so invested in a theory argument, so I'm going to switch to vote: silverspawn

[faust]

What's the benefit of them claiming so early? We don't want them to wait until LYLO but having them claim now just gives scum better NK targets IMO.

On the other hand, I don't see scum getting so invested in a theory argument, so I'm going to switch to vote: silverspawn

Late claims always have a possibility of scum tactics. Scum wants to claim late, not early.

[faust]

What's the benefit of them claiming so early? We don't want them to wait until LYLO but having them claim now just gives scum better NK targets IMO.

On the other hand, I don't see scum getting so invested in a theory argument, so I'm going to switch to vote: silverspawn

What's your read on Joseph?

[chairs]

vote: faust.

Yeah... I'm not feeling good about the direction you're heading here.

Man... we are in the one game where I don't have a scum read on you, and now you've got to vote for me.

The irony, right?

[silverspawn]

actually no, that's not even true. Only a single Mason removes the UB, and a single Mason is only there with exactly one M roll. So, if a mason claims we know for sure.

I don't know what you're saying here. A single M means there is a Mason and there is an UB now transformed into a second Mason. From a Mason perspective, that is indistinguishable from three Ms.

I thought mason means having the other masons confirmed as town and daychat. So, one mason will most likely know the difference between M and MMM.

[Seprix]

Looking like a Silverspawn/Faust lynch with Joseph taking his cop shot (if he has one) and hoping he doesn't die. If he doesn't die, he's either scum, or the scum are setting him up. If he does die, he's innocent, unless he gets bussed, which isn't very likely and is counter productive.

[Witherweaver]

Joseph, I think you are scum, so the idea of you telling me to be more helpful is kind of funny

dim dim

and I just posted a reads list, so there you go

Yes, that was helpful, thanks

Also, as I mentioned before, I don't think you're scum, think what your doing would be a really dumb scum move, as it attracts attention to yourself.

I'm pretty certain there's a scum lurking, more sure than I am on either chairs (who seems like an easy mislynch, as in M53) or faust (who I still think is scum, but less sure).

Hence, Unvote: faust .

On a different note, I've had problems logging onto f.ds (i've been able to get on twice in 3hrs), so if I'm away/slow-responding, it's not my fault.

Worrying about people perceiving your posting patterns in a certain way is a bit of a scum tell.

No it's not. If you're town, you want to look town. If you're scum, you still want to look town. That's not a tell. There's no tell that 100% works. You're all just shooting in the dark. So please, if we have to lynch someone, let's lynch someone we all think is scum, and not just guess.

So I don't know who you are or why you're arguing this point, but you're wrong here.  Though perhaps your wrongness is more of a factor of language choice.

"Tell" doesn't mean one can draw unmitigated and provable deductions.  It means it's indicative of a scum way of thinking.  It's obvious that "there's no tell that 100% works".  Obvious to the point that there is really no content in saying so, which makes me wonder for what reason you made this post at all.

"Tell" means someone is betraying a line of thought that is more likely to come from scum than from town.  It can, of course, come from both.  As I've argued many, many times before, scum has to worry a lot more about how there posts are interpreted.  They also have to worry about how their posting patterns appear.  They have to think, e.g., "is lurking giving me away?" and often that causes them to feel like they need to post more, which gives their posts a bit of a constructed feel.  (It's hard to find stuff to post about if you're thinking "I really need to post something of substance.")  Scum is more likely to think that their absence for a very short period needs to be excused (because of forum problems), because they're going to think of everything they do as possibly giving them away.

This I know because I've been scum before, and these are the kind of thoughts that go through my head.  This is why scum is a lot harder.  Now, of course, other people have different thoughts, but I only have my own thoughts, and what I glean from others' actions, to go by, and we're all playing within the same parameters here, so I often use what I consider to be my scum tells as a means of finding scum.  It's worked out well for me so far.

Now that that's out of the way, the real question is, why did you have such confidence Joseph was town?  (This was before his claims.)

[Witherweaver]

Looking like a Silverspawn/Faust lynch with Joseph taking his cop shot (if he has one) and hoping he doesn't die. If he doesn't die, he's either scum, or the scum are setting him up. If he does die, he's innocent, unless he gets bussed, which isn't very likely and is counter productive.

Not sure what this means.. aren't you talking about night death?

[Seprix]

Looking like a Silverspawn/Faust lynch with Joseph taking his cop shot (if he has one) and hoping he doesn't die. If he doesn't die, he's either scum, or the scum are setting him up. If he does die, he's innocent, unless he gets bussed, which isn't very likely and is counter productive.

Not sure what this means.. aren't you talking about night death?

I was reading up on Mafia strategies because I have no idea what you all are discussing. I think I'm using the term wrong, but bussing is Mafia members throwing one of themselves into the fire so one of the other Mafia members looks more credible, but it has to be done right, and in this instance, there's no way for any Mafia player to gain any sort of advantage to sack one of their own via lynching. Yeah, I did use the term 'bussing' wrong. You can't nightkill a Mafia player. As far as I can tell, at least.

[faust]

actually no, that's not even true. Only a single Mason removes the UB, and a single Mason is only there with exactly one M roll. So, if a mason claims we know for sure.

I don't know what you're saying here. A single M means there is a Mason and there is an UB now transformed into a second Mason. From a Mason perspective, that is indistinguishable from three Ms.

I thought mason means having the other masons confirmed as town and daychat. So, one mason will most likely know the difference between M and MMM.

I don't follow. Both scenarios result in a 2-person masonhood.

[faust]

Looking like a Silverspawn/Faust lynch with Joseph taking his cop shot (if he has one) and hoping he doesn't die. If he doesn't die, he's either scum, or the scum are setting him up. If he does die, he's innocent, unless he gets bussed, which isn't very likely and is counter productive.

Or we could, you know, lynch Joseph. Does anyone have serious objections to that?