don_johnson wrote:a) who's yelling?
You for asking me to answer a question that I have not yet read as if I were intentionally ignoring it.
don_johnson wrote:b) this is a no reveal set up.
The only difference a no-reveal makes to me is that we don't know what anybody is upon their death. I fail to see how this affects the likelihood of something being in the setup itself.
don_johnson wrote:how does a mason unbalance this set up? i would like you to specifically address this question.
Everybody has a communiqué that they can use during the day, and my role gives me good reason to believe that most if not all of us also have a night communiqué. Isn't that enough opportunity for town to legally talk outside of the game?
don_johnson wrote:c) my legitimate reason is this: the only way you could know anything about the balance is if you have knowledge outside of your own role.
Which, in a game like this, says absolutely nothing about me being scum.
Rhinox wrote:coug wrote:The answer is simple. Experience playing Mafia. I have not seen a mini game that has had three Mafia goons, an SK, and a compulsive vigilante, for example—that's unbalanced against the town if not swingy. (I've run a game with three Mafia, an SK, and a one-shot vig, and I didn't like the end result.) As another example, there's a game I've played as scum with a lot of investigative roles that I was lynched in because my fakeclaim did not fit, and that was a normal.
I don't see the relevance of this paragraph. The examples you give do nothing to show how a mason pair unbalances the game in favor of the town. All this is, is one big appeal to authority. Why are you trying to get us to believe that you're so much smartner than us, and we should just accept what you say as law?
I am not trying to get you to believe that I am smarter than you (nor does that mean that I am a complete idiot).
Balance = the chances of one team winning and the other team winning. As I said, this should ideally be equal, but it might swing slightly one way or the other. I think mason swings it too much in communiqué. I am not claiming to have definitive knowledge of the balance. Maybe, by sheer coincidence, three Mafia, an SK, and a compulsive vigilante really do exist here. Maybe don_johnson really is a mason with whomever he told Juls. However, I don't have good reason to believe either. We'd lose the former in no time at all, and I simply don't think the latter fits with the theme.
Setup = the actual roles in play. Juls may or may not know exactly what I am, but I will say up front for argument purposes that I am not a role that tells me who anybody is (therefore, I am not counterclaiming don_johnson), and nobody has claimed roles to me à la communiqué. You make a good point with the balance/setup relationship, Rhinox, but I find the setup argument relevant only as far as my questioning don_johnson's claim is concerned. By questioning don_johnson's role, I am not questioning any other claimed role. It is entirely possible that don_johnson is lying through his teeth to Juls, but that does not make Juls scum; it only means that Juls should proceed with caution.
)
