Print

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

[O]

with a bit more consensus i'd be happy to.

[cayvie]

So, uh, at midnight, O had 3 votes, Young Nick had 2, and Shraeye had 2.

Despite my preferences, I don't think that's enough of a consensus to count for our "pre-lynch deadline lynch deadline" or whatever.

[cayvie]

does nobody else think it's weird for a JOAT to have a roleblock and a jailkeep ability?

my role is weird this game too, can't really fault him for that

[shraeye]

I agree with O card-claiming.  There are tons of theories flying around about what cards indicate with alignment.  If he's already given his true role and alignment, then there's not much else the card could indicate.  I think he should card-claim.

[Dsell]

I agree with O card-claiming.  There are tons of theories flying around about what cards indicate with alignment.  If he's already given his true role and alignment, then there's not much else the card could indicate.  I think he should card-claim.

Sounds good to me.

[Axxle]

does nobody else think it's weird for a JOAT to have a roleblock and a jailkeep ability?

I do. But I don't think you cared about hearing that.

I mean, I kind of care. I'm frustrated because lots of things don't make sense, but at the end of the day there's the "O would not be in trouble if he hadn't freely admitted to his roleblocking error" argument that is hard to answer without the cayvie-conspiracy-theory. I think since you've already claimed your role that little would be harmed and a lot would be gained from you claiming your card. Either way,

vote: young nick

FOS: eHunt

Suggesting he claim his card, and then voting for the only one who can verify if O is telling the truth?  That's very counter intuitive and counter productive.

... and your vote was already on YN...

does anyone have a good reason not to lynch eHunt?  Dark horse lynches can be pretty telling.

[Dsell]

does anyone have a good reason not to lynch eHunt?  Dark horse lynches can be pretty telling.

The wine thing is somewhat compelling insofar as it doesn't make sense as a scum role (and even if it did he probably wouldn't tell us about it, and certainly not about the "I blab if you're a power role" part.

[Dsell]

does anyone have a good reason not to lynch eHunt?  Dark horse lynches can be pretty telling.

The wine thing is somewhat compelling insofar as it doesn't make sense as a scum role (and even if it did he probably wouldn't tell us about it, and certainly not about the "I blab if you're a power role" part.

Hey looks like I suck at parentheses and complete sentences. (And forum CE!)

[Axxle]

does anyone have a good reason not to lynch eHunt?  Dark horse lynches can be pretty telling.

The wine thing is somewhat compelling insofar as it doesn't make sense as a scum role (and even if it did he probably wouldn't tell us about it, and certainly not about the "I blab if you're a power role" part.

It makes sense as a way to weaken scum, and if he had the role as scum he'd definitely tell us so he would never get the wine (which has worked so far and probably forever)

[Axxle]

does anyone have a good reason not to lynch eHunt?  Dark horse lynches can be pretty telling.

The wine thing is somewhat compelling insofar as it doesn't make sense as a scum role (and even if it did he probably wouldn't tell us about it, and certainly not about the "I blab if you're a power role" part.

It makes sense as a way to weaken scum, and if he had the role as scum he'd definitely tell us so he would never get the wine (which has worked so far and probably forever)

Actually, I'll have to go back and read how he said it works.

[Dsell]

does anyone have a good reason not to lynch eHunt?  Dark horse lynches can be pretty telling.

The wine thing is somewhat compelling insofar as it doesn't make sense as a scum role (and even if it did he probably wouldn't tell us about it, and certainly not about the "I blab if you're a power role" part.

It makes sense as a way to weaken scum, and if he had the role as scum he'd definitely tell us so he would never get the wine (which has worked so far and probably forever)

But the mafia can already deal with the wine. Whenever it's passed to them, they simply NK the person who passed it to them and then either pass it between each other or pass it to the person who they plan to NK the following night.

[Axxle]

does anyone have a good reason not to lynch eHunt?  Dark horse lynches can be pretty telling.

The wine thing is somewhat compelling insofar as it doesn't make sense as a scum role (and even if it did he probably wouldn't tell us about it, and certainly not about the "I blab if you're a power role" part.

It makes sense as a way to weaken scum, and if he had the role as scum he'd definitely tell us so he would never get the wine (which has worked so far and probably forever)

But the mafia can already deal with the wine. Whenever it's passed to them, they simply NK the person who passed it to them and then either pass it between each other or pass it to the person who they plan to NK the following night.

I think you're misreading what I'm saying.

[Dsell]

does anyone have a good reason not to lynch eHunt?  Dark horse lynches can be pretty telling.

The wine thing is somewhat compelling insofar as it doesn't make sense as a scum role (and even if it did he probably wouldn't tell us about it, and certainly not about the "I blab if you're a power role" part.

It makes sense as a way to weaken scum, and if he had the role as scum he'd definitely tell us so he would never get the wine (which has worked so far and probably forever)

But the mafia can already deal with the wine. Whenever it's passed to them, they simply NK the person who passed it to them and then either pass it between each other or pass it to the person who they plan to NK the following night.

I think you're misreading what I'm saying.

How so? You said if it's a scum role, it weakens scum. I said it doesn't weaken them because they can already deal with the wine without issue. In fact, the mafia probably wants the wine in order to take it out of the game and keep the "circle of trust" from growing. So it's possible that ehunt's role is a scum role but I don't see that being very likely. If he were scum it'd probably be better to be silent about the role and just remove the wine from the game.

[Axxle]

How so? You said if it's a scum role, it weakens scum. I said it doesn't weaken them because they can already deal with the wine without issue. In fact, the mafia probably wants the wine in order to take it out of the game and keep the "circle of trust" from growing. So it's possible that ehunt's role is a scum role but I don't see that being very likely. If he were scum it'd probably be better to be silent about the role and just remove the wine from the game.

I misremembered.  Got it.  Don't want to lynch eHunt anymore, but he should realize that lynching YN right now is not the right call if we want O to cardclaim.

[theorel]

Big wall of text, since I'm starting to come to grips with the game.

Okay, so we're hitting the point where so many things are going on that it's hard to choose a lynch candidate.  AND we're in a situation where we essentially want to choose 2 lynch candidates.  Anyways with this much going on I need to write it all down, hopefully that helps other people too.
We have:
Young Nick: claimed card cop.  As noted, if O card-claims it's only reasonable to keep him around because we're gaining information about his investigative ability.

O: claimed JOAT.  We want to let him live in order to prove that he has a 1-shot vig.

Axxle: he's a double-voter.  Claimed to be town by O's investigation result.

Cuzz: claimed to have information about the description of shraeye/ashersky, and that the description made them vanilla town.

Ashersky/Shraeye: both have claimed that the description could apply to them.  Thereby claiming a "confirmed" VT-status.

sparky: current wine possessor.  While unable to be confirmed along-side eHalc, he might be confirmed by whomever he passes the wine to.

DSell: Former wine possessor.  Believed to be town by eHalc based on his description (although with caveat).

ehunt: claimed Town Drunk.  Has requested not to receive the wine in order to keep from taking it out of the game/revealing a town PR.

Morgrim: claims to be a VT with additional info about how many VT's are in the game.

cayvie: claims to have some role which acts upon whomever she's voting for at the end of the day.

Is that everything?
People who haven't made any claims that I remember:
myself, yuma, Insomniac, joth, ftl, watno

So, people I think we should not lynch or direct vig to tonight:
Young Nick, O or Axxle (since we're verifying O's vig claim)
both ashersky and shraeye (since at least one of them is probably VT)
Cuzz
Sparky - might as well at least see what the person who receives the wine says.
DSell/ehunt: I think they're both town.
me: I'm town.

Anyways, not really sure what to do at this point.  A lot depends on how many people are currently lying, which is a complete unknown (given the closed set-up).  I think probably 2-3 liars?  So, if we had 6 mafia that would leave 2-3 scum in the small set?  So probability-wise we should probably be looking at the small set.  However, at least some people thought we would have done better to lynch a claimant in MXII to get information about truth in claims.  But that might have had to do with significant set-up speculation concerning the existence of a SK?  I dunno, I actually disagree that the outcome of MXII had anything to do with looking into the VT-claims, and really if I'd had my wits about me I would have realized that we REALLY should have gone after Insomniac on the last day.  Grujah's analysis there was completely misleading, but I bought it at the time.
In this case though, several of our claims are for VT.  That significantly weakens the value of looking at the unclaimed since we may be more like to hit a PR there?

Alright, let's assume that Morgrim's information before is accurate (I have no reason to disbelieve it).  I think we could use that to determine whether we're better off going for claims or not given that we want to avoid PRs.  Someone should be able to double-check this (and should, because it's not straight-forward, and I'm relying on memory for what sort of claims people have made)

Let's see: Morgrim stated that there were 3 mostly VT, and 4 complete VT.  eHalc seems likely to have been complete VT.  Morgrim is and Galzria was probably mostly VT.  That leaves 3 completely VT and 1 mostly VT.  At least one of Shraeye/Ash is in the complete VT-group according to Cuzz.
That leaves 3 at least mostly VT.  Now, since not all the claims are PR-type claims, I need to recategorize people here:
people with no claimed powers at all:
DSell, sparky, (shraeye/ash)
people with claimed powers that could be considered "mostly VT".  Note only one of these could even possibly be a "mostly" VT if Galzria was considered "mostly" VT.
ehunt, Cuzz(if it was one-time start of game information).

Um, okay so it's possible that all town players in the 6 non-claims are PRs (assuming Morgrim's statement is true).  But this is highly speculative, given that we don't know what "mostly VT" contains, or if we should consider them PRs.
Personally I think Cuzz is the other mostly VT.  I have no reason to expect DSell and sparky of being VT, so I'd say that 2 of DSell, sparky, myself, yuma, Insomniac, joth, ftl, and watno are in fact VT.  Now if we assume that 2 of the non-claimants are scum (note that eliminates DSell and sparky), and assume 2 are VT, suppose we choose a player from the non-claimants (say Insomniac).  The probability that Insomniac is scum is 1/3.  The probability that he's VT is 1/4.  The probability that he's a town PR then is 1-(1/3+1/4)=1-(7/12)=5/12.

(Note: I've made several assumptions such as 2 scum in the 6 non-claimants, obviously these probabilities are speculative, I'm just trying to get a sense for it, also these probabilities change drastically if you have additional information (which I do, but am not including in order to avoid revealing PR-info to scum, so my numbers are a bit different from the general case)).

Now, if we lynched say shraeye/ash.  We would have a 0% chance of hitting a PR.  Supposing we have 3 scum in the claimants group we would have a 3/11 chance of hitting scum.  Although this can be refined if we suppose for example that one of Young Nick or O is scum (which I'm not sure is necessarily true...although many people have stated such belief).  Anyways, if we did so we'd have a 2/9 chance of hitting scum.  And if you're in the non-claimant group it goes up to 1/4.

So, I think personally that to avoid hitting PRs and to get better information, we should target one of shraeye/ash with the lynch or vig-kill.  And then maybe target one of the 6 non-claimants for the other kill.
I knew I was forgetting something...the Grujah lynch.

Let's see that takes up yuma, joth, ftl, and watno of the six.
Well, I don't have much memory of what Insomniac's done this game.  So, that seems fine to me (although maybe not ideal given that we could easily be dealing with only bussers when we eliminate down to the 6 non-claimants).

[theorel]

tl;dr
We have 2 kills to direct: lynch and NK.
I think one of those should be one of shraeye/ashersky, with my preference going to ashersky.
I think one of those should be someone who hasn't claimed something: which is one of: myself, Insomniac, yuma, joth, ftl, and watno.
I think we shouldn't kill me.
If we do eliminate the Grujah-voters that leaves only Insomniac, which I'm fine with as a target.

If you want the full reasoning, you're gonna have to read the mammoth post.
I'm going to Vote: ashersky
and Vig-vote: Insomniac.

[ehunt]

I don't understand why I'm getting pressure for voting YN. I decided it was very likely that one of YN and O was lying a long time ago and have been constantly voting for one or the other based on which one I thought was lying.

Happy to unvote for now till we hear an O card claim. I imagined that the claim would implicate O deeper.

Anyway, Theorel's analysis suggests that even if one of them [O and YN] is lying, it might be best to vote elsewhere while they prove their claims.

[jotheonah]

Insom is a bad vig target. Try again.

[ehunt]

there are just so many investigative or partially investigative roles being thrown out there.

1. bottle of wine
2. YN's card-reading ability
3. O's one-shot coppage
4. eevee's semi-naive alignment coppage
5. cuzzclaim
6. jothclaim (? since joth is keeping the nature of his knowledge ambiguous, which is fine, given how much else is out there)
7. possibility of cayvie = watcher (?? since cayvie didn't confirm this, but it does make a ton of sense)

it's game-breaking if all of these are true and townaligned. moreover, we know some of them to be true. There is a bottle of wine, in all probability YN can read cards (although there's no reason to suspect this is town-aligned), and eevee flipped cop.

[Watno]

I think we all agree that it's very likely that one of O and YN is scum. So if O is town and has a vigshot, it must be YN who's scum. So O should vig him. If it's the other way round and O is the scum of the two, then he probably doesn't have the vig-shot and even if he does, he wouldn't use it on who we tell him to, especially if that target is scum.
So, when telling O who to kill, our premise for choosing the target must be that he is town, so YN must be scum, so that's the obvious choice.
Also if YN checks if Os cardclaim is true, what does this get us if we believe one of them is scum anyway?

I don't agree with the votes on shraeye for being suspicious of Axxle, probably he just forgot to take what O said into consideration. However, i don't agree with shraeyes vote either, since sparky has the wine. While it wouldnt be out of the game if we kill sparky, if we don't, it will still give us information about sparky tomorrow, and we shouldn't lynch him today if we know we're gonna have more info about him tomorrow.

I really don't like theorel's last post. He summarizes claims, takes random premises and "calculates" the chance that people are scum.  What makes you believe there's 2-3 liars in the group of people who have claimed? Also why can't there be more scum in there, telling the trurh about their ability?
Why don't you even say who you believe the liars are?
Also, Cuzz claimed to have reason to believe he knows YN description, and it doesn't say anything about his alignment in #2656. SO I'd assume it's an active ability. Btw, there should be a third information you have, Cuzz, what is that?

@ehunt Where did joth claim some ability? Are you refering to his last post?

[ehunt]

I think we all agree that it's very likely that one of O and YN is scum. So if O is town and has a vigshot, it must be YN who's scum. So O should vig him. If it's the other way round and O is the scum of the two, then he probably doesn't have the vig-shot and even if he does, he wouldn't use it on who we tell him to, especially if that target is scum.
So, when telling O who to kill, our premise for choosing the target must be that he is town, so YN must be scum, so that's the obvious choice.
Also if YN checks if Os cardclaim is true, what does this get us if we believe one of them is scum anyway?

I don't agree with the votes on shraeye for being suspicious of Axxle, probably he just forgot to take what O said into consideration. However, i don't agree with shraeyes vote either, since sparky has the wine. While it wouldnt be out of the game if we kill sparky, if we don't, it will still give us information about sparky tomorrow, and we shouldn't lynch him today if we know we're gonna have more info about him tomorrow.

I really don't like theorel's last post. He summarizes claims, takes random premises and "calculates" the chance that people are scum.  What makes you believe there's 2-3 liars in the group of people who have claimed? Also why can't there be more scum in there, telling the trurh about their ability?
Why don't you even say who you believe the liars are?
Also, Cuzz claimed to have reason to believe he knows YN description, and it doesn't say anything about his alignment in #2656. SO I'd assume it's an active ability. Btw, there should be a third information you have, Cuzz, what is that?

@ehunt Where did joth claim some ability? Are you refering to his last post?

no, early in the day he had some "don't ask me how i got this information" information.

[shraeye]

I think we all agree that it's very likely that one of O and YN is scum. So if O is town and has a vigshot, it must be YN who's scum. So O should vig him. If it's the other way round and O is the scum of the two, then he probably doesn't have the vig-shot and even if he does, he wouldn't use it on who we tell him to, especially if that target is scum.
So, when telling O who to kill, our premise for choosing the target must be that he is town, so YN must be scum, so that's the obvious choice.
Also if YN checks if Os cardclaim is true, what does this get us if we believe one of them is scum anyway?

I don't agree with the votes on shraeye for being suspicious of Axxle, probably he just forgot to take what O said into consideration. However, i don't agree with shraeyes vote either, since sparky has the wine. While it wouldnt be out of the game if we kill sparky, if we don't, it will still give us information about sparky tomorrow, and we shouldn't lynch him today if we know we're gonna have more info about him tomorrow.

Yes, my voting record lately has been not great.  Unvote sparky, vote: YoungNick

[jotheonah]

with a bit more consensus i'd be happy to.

CARD-CLAIM. How much more consensus do you need?

If we really think the best thing is for O to shoot tonight, then I think it might be time to make certain info public (to avoid a misfire). If the other people who have that info agree, please indicate that. If you disagree, don't respond to this comment at all.

[ehunt]

with a bit more consensus i'd be happy to.

CARD-CLAIM. How much more consensus do you need?

If we really think the best thing is for O to shoot tonight, then I think it might be time to make certain info public (to avoid a misfire). If the other people who have that info agree, please indicate that. If you disagree, don't respond to this comment at all.

My concern with the "test" plan is that we get a repeat of the DSell situation in MIV. If there's not an extra death, we won't know if we're supposed to suspect O or whom we told O to kill, or both, or neither. Based on MIV's lessons, my inclination would be to go after O if this happened, BUT...

if O is town, then mafia knows that most people are going to think like this, so if mafia has any roleblocking capacity left (and my feeling is that they've just got to, in a town this size with so many town-power roles, although perhaps Grujah's power accounted for all their roleblockage) they are going to block him. And then we will be filled with unpleasantries.

I think the better strategy is to believe the claim until a contrary claim falls down. But I do want the card name.

[ehunt]

(for those who didn't read MIV, DSell, who was an ordinary Mafia Goon, claimed one-shot vig when he got to L - 1. the town decided to lynch jotheonah instead of Dsell under the theory that DSell could prove he was vig by killing axxle2, who was the third highest suspect. In fact nobody died that night (mafia's kill, which wasn't axxle2, was doctored; for reasons i don't understand the sk decided to kill axxle2 but was roleblocked by mafia). the town blamed this, at least initially, on axxle2, not on DSell, and wound up losing a couple game days later without ever lynching DSell.

The point is, "if x happens tonight, then we will definitely do y tomorrow" commitments very rarely pan out and "if we force O to do this, it will definitely happen if he is town" is not true. We learn a lot if O manages to make an extra death happen but almost nothing if he doesn't. And even if it works out, the cure could well be worse than the disease - we confirm O's townitude by losing an extra town; then mafia just kills O the next night (though perhaps there is a doctor). I think we should just conditionally believe him until there is contrary evidence.