Mini 902: Pick your Poison 4 (Game over!)

[Yosarian2]

Ok everyone needs to answer both of the following questions:

1- If you were mafia, what 3 roles would you have given town? Why?

Vig, doctor, and one of (weak doc, masoniser).

Basically, anything but the cop. There's always the possiblity they'd try to WIFOM us with that, but it's unlikely.

I wouldn't want to give the town both the weak doc and the masoniser, either; my goal, personally, would be to reduce the number of confirmed innocents, and both weak doc and masoniser can create confirmed innocents; I'd be more worried about that then about either a doc or a vig (both of whom are only really dangerous if there are confirmed innocents.) That's just me, though.

2- what roles would be best to select for mafia, why?

Two shot roleblocker, Day Rolecop.

I absolutely do not want the scum to get either a vengeful scum (one extra scumkill really hurts the town mathmatically here, and if the vengeful dies later in the game it could be REALLY bad) or the janitor (IMHO, lynching someone and then not knowing their alignment just really, really sucks for the town. Could you imagine going into day 2 and trying to figure out what to do without knowing if your day 1 lynch was right or not? It's a huge frustrating pain, and really reduces the town's chances of winning.)

Godfather is more borderline, but scum do have to give us at least one "information" role (masoniser, weak doc, cop), and if there's a godfather, then none of those roles can give us "real" confirmed innocents. (Granted that a scum roleblocker can also mess with the results of either the weak cop or the masoniser, but it's not that likely to actually happen until a role claims, I think.)

Scum rolecop is probably the weakest of the scum roles, and I defiantly want to give them that one.

[Yosarian2]

If I was mafia I would have given the town doc, masonizer, and vig.

And after a little bit of thought, I have changed from role cop to vengeful. Roleblocker is the worst and we should definitely not give the mafia that.

Meh. It's then it's unlikely a roleblocker, especally a two-shot one, would hurt the town .

If he fires night one, there's a 3/8 or a 3/9 chance he hits a town power role (depending on if we lynched scum day 1 or not). Obviously hitting a masonizer would be really bad, but otherwise, it's unlikely to make much difference.

If they roleblock the vig, that only hurts us if the vig was going to kill that night and was going to hit scum, which isn't that likely on night 1. If they roleblock the doc, that only matters if the doc was actually going to sucessfully prevent a scumkill otherwise, which is very unlikely (only 1/10 chance). Roleblocking a weak doc might get a scum falsly confirmed, but only if the weak doc would have targeted a scum that night, and since if there is a weak doc he should be trying to target people who are obv town to confirm them, that's not very likely either. Roleblocking a cop costs us an investigation, which isn't good, but I doubt they would have given us a cop.

I think it's much weaker then, say, a vengeful scum, who WILL kill one pro-town person unless we lynch him third or a vig kills him, and in the process might actually kill a town power role.

[Yosarian2]

idk I feel a role cop for mafia is a powerful role too. Giving the mafia the ability to investigate for themselves a player to see what role that person has.........Worse is giving them rolecop with a roleblocker.

Hmm.

I don't think a scum rolecop is that big of a deal, because if the scum manage to find a power role night 2 they still wouldn't be able to kill him until night 3, by which point the power role likely would have claimed anyway. But you're right, giving rolecop and roleblocker does increase the risk a bit. is kind of a bad combination.

Perhaps rolecop and godfather instead then?

[Yosarian2]

The only reason I think we might want to give them the vengeful is because if we have a vig, we might be able to kill it at night, and of course if it is the last mafia to go down then no kill is given.

Eh, I don't want to bet on that.

Especally I don't want to get into a situation where we're in lynch or lose, say 5 people left, and all the vengeful scum has to do is to get HIMSELF lynched, jester style, OR get a townie lynched in order to win.

Even short of that, if the town looks like they know what they're doing, he could Jester on us and get himself lynched so his partners could pick off the two most dangerous pro-town people. I really don't want to go there, or end up having to deal with a "but we can't lynch him, because he looks SO scummy he probably wants to get lynched" situation.

[Yosarian2]

I think a godfather should be on the list because most lynch don't happen because of our cop getting a scum report.

The biggest problem with a godfather is that it would mean we can't get a true confirmed innocent from a cop, a masonizer, OR a weak doc without doubting it at least a little.

Godfather wouldn't be the worst choice, although it depends what the scum gave us exactally.

Most lynches are made from in thread scummy posts. I also now (after carefully re reading the roles.) am in favor of a Vengeful.

Really? Why?

[Yosarian2]

Not in this game:

You are a 1 shot janitor. Once during the game, before a lynch has taken place, you may PM me and ask for the lynched player's alignment to be covered up.

You may not cover up your own alignment in this way.

Um, the janitor can't cover up his own death, but I certainly would think he could cover up the death of another mafia member. If he could only cover up the death of pro-town people it'd be pointless.

[Yosarian2]

My analysis:

A Vengeful is not as powerful as some imply it to be. It has no effect if its the last mafia nor does it have any effect if nightkilled by a vig assuming we have one. Lets examine:

Assuming a lynch every day and one successful kill every day it would not cause the loss of any lynches because we are starting at an even number. Therefore the situation Yoss described would unlikely come up (only with a weak doctor early death if we have one, and even then we could get a successful protection). If we do have a vigilante then the vengeful can be killed at night and be neutralized that way. 1st choice and an easy one at that.

We could get on "odd numbers" with:

-A vig
-A doctor
-or A weak doctor.

If a town role prevents a kill, or a vig makes a kill, then we end up on odd numbers.

Besides, in any case, there's still a 2/3 chance that a vengeful ends up killing a pro-town player. It's even higher, if a vengeful decided to try to get lynched at a key time. Giving the scum 2 chances at night to take out power roles, or confirmed innocents, or just obv town players is a terrible, terrible idea.

Every other scum role has a much lower chance then that of doing anything. A scum rolecop is only bad if it finds a pro-town power role day 1, which isn't all that likely; a vengeful killer has almost the same odds of KILLING a pro-town power role as a rolecop has of just FINDING one on night 1.

The only way a vengeful killer dosn't hurt the town is if the town manages to not only lynch all 3 scum, but to lynch them in the correct order, to figure out which scum "wants" to be lynched first and lynch him last. I really doubt we'd be able to do that, and the amount of WIFOM we'd get from even trying would be crippling to our scumhunting efforts.

A Rolecop is INCREDIBLY powerful especially this day version. While scum may know what the power roles are, they do not know WHO they are. If this role was selected I would expect power role deaths to happen quickly.

The odds are against a rolecop finding a town power role night 1. If the scum find a town power role on night 2, they can't kill that person until night 3; and if the power role claims by day 3 (which is fairly likely, especally for town info roles), then it dosn't matter at all.

A scum rolecop increases the scum's odds of killing power roles early, but not by that much.

Janitor is quite strong if used well to compliment a fakeclaim informational claim or to cause doubt on someone else's. I would rather stay away from it but it would be my 3rd choice. (assuming it can hide either alignment, it would be an easily first picked choice if it could only hide one alignment)

It's quite strong no matter what. If we don't know if we lynched town or scum day 1, then day 2 we'll be stumbling around in the dark.

The strongest scum abilites are, by far, vengeful and janitor. None of the others are anywhere near as dangerous.

[Yosarian2]

Yos I agree with some of what you are saying, but this is bad reasoning:

Every other scum role has a much lower chance then that of doing anything. A scum rolecop is only bad if it finds a pro-town power role day 1, which isn't all that likely; a vengeful killer has almost the same odds of KILLING a pro-town power role as a rolecop has of just FINDING one on night 1.

Indeed the vengeful mafiate's

ability

is almost as likely to hit a PR as the rolecop ability is on day/night one, especially when used in conjunction with the scum's normal nightkill. But there's only a 1/12 chance of it being activated on day one anyhow (if the vengeful is actually lynched), whereas the rolecop resolves 100% of the time. That's an enormous difference which you have to take into account.

The thing is, the rolecop only matters if he finds a role that otherwise wouldnt' have claimed. Whereas later on, when a vengeful is more likely to get his kill off, it's likely the scum will have more town claims or confirmed innocents then they can kill, unless they have a vengeful.

Also, unless you end up with massclaim or large numbers of claims before the end of day two, the rolecop gives them two chances to off powerroles with a headstart on the town identifying them. Your post seems to imply you think the rolecop is a night ability- it is a day ability.

That is true; I did forget it was a day ability.

Still, scum have a 3/8 chance of killing a power role night 1 no matter what, assuming they kill at random and no one claims. A scum rolecop raises that to, let's think; (5/8*3/8=15/64+24/64=39/64.) So, 39/64 instead of 24/64; there's a 15/64 chance it makes a difference on day 1 (a little less then 1/4 chance); that is, a 15/64 chance that the scum kill a power role night 1 when otherwise they wouldn't have killed.

And after day 1, the odds go up that some people claim anyway, at which point the value of the scum cop goes down dramatically. Honestly, when's the last time you saw a game with 3 power roles get to day 3 without any pro-town player ever claiming anything?

[Yosarian2]

Also Yos you did not factor in the open nature of the setup in adition to the day aspect:

We know there is 3 town power roles. No more. No less.

This means that should any make it to a end game scenario, town's lynch percentages go WAY UP due to scum needing to CC, claim a 4th role and thus CC or let them be cleared. For instance, 1 town power role in 3 man makes lynch percentages at least 50/50 (+reads).

A rolecop would negate the benefit the nature of the openess of the setup gives us by ensuring the above is not allowed to happen. Saying a rolecops functionality does not matter is ludicrous.

The benefit of any town role goes beyond its functionality. Its CC or be cleared role as well.

Vengeful is much less harmful then a rolecop is.

Actually, the fact that we know there are exactly 3 pro-town power roles is exactly why vengeful is so much more harmful then any other role (except possibly Janitor, which also makes that information less useful to the town).

Think about it this way. We get to endgame, 6 people left alive, 2 scum. We massclaim, knowing there are two power roles. The vengeful scum counterclaims one of the two power roles, or else lies and claims a power role, because he's expendable. If we guess right and lynch the vengeful scum, then the scum get to kill both power roles that night, leaving us with no role-based info going into endgame.

In a game with confirmed power roles, and possibly other confirmed innocents, giving the scum an extra kill is HORRIBLE.

I don't see why you think that a rolecop "wouldn't allow that to happen". The scum are only going to get to investigate a few people, who then may or may not live until endgame; it's not like having a rolecop is likely to mean the scum will know the whole setup going into endgame.

Anyway, if you want power roles to survive until endgame, the absolute LAST thing you would EVER want to do is give scum an extra kill.

[Yosarian2]

Actually, that's not as bad as I thought; at least the masoniser is told he's role blocked, so he dosn't get a "false guilty".

I actually think that a masoniser recruiting a godfather is theoretically more dangerous then him getting roleblocked.

Either way, though.

[Yosarian2]

Although, like I said, I think I agree now that we don't want to give scum both a role cop and a roleblocker; if scum can investigate one person during the day, then if he comes up vanilla kill a different one and roleblock a third, the odds start going south real fast.

I'd agree to rolecop and godfather. Roleblocker and godfather wouldn't be the worst thing, but it would pretty much make masonisers and weak cops pretty close to useless if scum had both of those roles.

[Yosarian2]

Im currently wondering if the janitor role is really that bad? Im not seeing it as that big a deal.

Well, if a janitor hides the death scene, we won't know if we lynched town or scum day 1, which is going to make any kind of lynch analysis almost impossible. We also won't know if there are still 3 town power roles alive or not, since we won't know so when we do a massclaim and the last guy to claim claims a power role, we won't know if he's a scum or a town.

Think about it; person A claims doctor, person B counterclaims, we lynch person A, and then the janitor hides the evidence and we never get to find our if person A was scum or if he was really the doctor. Can you just picture how frustrating that would be?

[Yosarian2]

Out of the three that's left, I'm siding towards the roleblocker. For everyone claiming that the rolecop is entirely luck based, they should think about the roleblocker being the same. The difference is, the rolecop can use the ability every day, and the blocker only has two chances the entire game to do something of significance. Also, they really don't have a way of knowing whether the person they blocked even had any effect at all, unless they block a Vig. To me, it seems the roleblocker is even more based on luck than the rolecop, only it's less powerful.

The difference is:

1. The roleblocker has much more dangerous interactions with the town information roles, especally weak doc and the masonizer.

2. The roleblocker is potentialy more dangerous in endgame, especally if town has a vig.

I'd really, really rather not give the scum both godfather and roleblocker. With the two of them together, it would really cripple town information roles.

[Yosarian2]

amd what type of combo might that be? a role-cop vengful or maybe a role cop Rb? Godfather is the weakest role by himself, we might not even have a cop (I am almost sure we don't have one because they are a bit too powerful). I think that right now picking the gf and then somthing else is the best "combo" right now.

They don't have to give us a cop, but they had to give us at least one of the three information roles (cop, weak doc, masonizer), and all 3 are vunlerable to a godfather.

Still, I'm leaning towards settle for godfather-rolecop, with roleblocker-rolecop being my second choice.

[Yosarian2]

Yeah, I agree, farside, that's why Godfather/rolecop is now my first choice. I just really don't want to see Godfather/roleblocker, and the other two roles are just horrible.

Vote: RoleCop

[Yosarian2]

Yosarian2, what made you change your mind of this combo?

I changed my mind all the way back here:

idk I feel a role cop for mafia is a powerful role too. Giving the mafia the ability to investigate for themselves a player to see what role that person has.........Worse is giving them rolecop with a roleblocker.

Hmm.

I don't think a scum rolecop is that big of a deal, because if the scum manage to find a power role night 2 they still wouldn't be able to kill him until night 3, by which point the power role likely would have claimed anyway. But you're right, giving rolecop and roleblocker does increase the risk a bit. is kind of a bad combination.

Perhaps rolecop and godfather instead then?

[Yosarian2]

Oh, wait, I misunderstood the question. You were asking why I'm no longer in favor of godfather/roleblocker, right?

When I made that first quote, I was mostly thinking about how bad vengeful and janitor would be, and was willing to consider any combination that didn't have them. I still am to some extent, but the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that godfather/roleblocker is worse then, say, godfather/roleco[.

[Yosarian2]

Yeah, let's get this game moving forwards. Rolecop/godfather is fine by me.

Vote:Godfather

[Yosarian2]

vote: Yosarian

For trying to push the idea of a rb/rc as a good idea. His first post he did the suggestion and his second comment about it he started saying it was a second options.

Still, I'm leaning towards settle for godfather-rolecop, with roleblocker-rolecop being my second choice.

Looking at the fact it's a day cop and the possiblites of scum narrowing down there investigations to block this just is a scummy suggestion.

RB/RC are the two weakest roles the scum could possibly have. Becuase of the fact that they work well together, I eventually decided rc/godfather was somewhat less effective. Still, RB/RC wouldn't have been that bad; it wouldn't have been nearly as bad as what you were first suggesting, which was:

As for what role to assign the scum I would say godfather and vengeful.

Considering you were origionally pushing for a combo that's clearly far more anti-town then RB/RC, I'm not sure how you can say that me thinking RB/RC was the lesser evil could possibly be a point against me.

[Yosarian2]

If your going to ISO me on the subject lets see who else had the same thought process:

What does that have to do with anything?

I wasn't attacking you, I was simply pointing out that the idea I had in my first post was significantly "less bad" then the idea you had in your first post, and so even if you think I was wrong (I still don't think it's that clear cut, IMHO), it's foolish to attack me for it considering your suggestion was so much worse.

[Yosarian2]

If your going to ISO me on the subject lets see who else had the same thought process:

What does that have to do with anything?

I wasn't attacking you, I was simply pointing out that the idea I had in my first post was significantly "less bad" then the idea you had in your first post, and so even if you think I was wrong (I still don't think it's that clear cut, IMHO), it's foolish to attack me for it considering your suggestion was so much worse.

Again you calling my idea worse when others had the same thought process.

Huh? Your idea was worse. What does what other people thought thought have to do with anything?

Having a vengeful scum would be much more anti-town then having a roleblocker. By the end of the day, you seemed to realize that.

I never called you scummy for thinking that, because it's quite possible you were just mistaken and especially as you later changed your mind, but I find it really odd that you're attacking me for supporting a much more pro-town plan then the one you ware supporting at the same time.

[qute]
You were advocating the your idea and pushing it as a second option is far worse.[/quote]

I was pushing Godfather/rolecop as my first choice for most of the day, with rolecop/roleblocker my second choice. I decided that RB/RC was slightly worse then godfather/rolecop, but still significantly better for the town then any other possible pair; it's better for the town then RB/godfather, and far better for the town then any pair that includes vengeful or godfather.

[Yosarian2]

So, an OMGUS vote, and an unexplained FoS.

I'm pretty confident one of these two is scum.

<------------scummy comment.

Fos:riceballtail

[Yosarian2]

First of all I called your idea out because it wasn't just 1 time you posted it but put it as a second choice even though most said it was bad. Plus you wanted support on the idea.

Later in the day, I said I wouldn't mind RB/RC, that it was less bad them most other options, but I thought I was making it quite clear that at that point I would rather have RB/GF. Explain to me exactally why that is scummy, please.

For that matter, explain to me how me supporting an idea that "most of us said were bad" would have been a scumtell even if I had been doing that (which at the time, I was not).

Pointing to my idea saying it was worse is OMGUS when you note others had the same thought.

OMGUS would mean I'm voting you because of your idea. I never even called you scummy because of it.

Basically it's this convo
farside: hey this thought and idea is scum. He pushed the idea
yos: Oh yeah well your idea is far worse so how can you say it's scummy
farside: excuse me did you just call my point that others had worse when others had the same thought
yos: so?

In a nuts shell it feels like you want to point to me just because I called you out.

Let me use an analogy.

Farside: Vote: yos, he lurked for 12 hours during day 1.
Yos: Uh, why do you think that's scummy? You lurked for a week during day 1.
Farside: OMGUS!!!!

If you are claiming that me supporting an idea you think was anti-town is scummy, then it's certainly relevant that you were doing something far more anti-town.

[Yosarian2]

Have you all seriously considered the fact that Chamber, only quoting my post, then voted me and hasn't given a lick of reason for that vote?

He quoted your post and then voted you, implying that he thinks your post looks scummy. I can see why he thinks that your post looks scummy, so I certainly don't have a problem with his vote.

And then your OMGUS response to that was really scummy, IMHO

[Yosarian2]

Hmm, rbt only has 2 votes? I thought it was more.

Vote:riceballtail

[Yosarian2]

Let me use an analogy.

Farside: Vote: yos, he lurked for 12 hours during day 1.
Yos: Uh, why do you think that's scummy? You lurked for a week during day 1.
Farside: OMGUS!!!!

If you are claiming that me supporting an idea you think was anti-town is scummy, then it's certainly relevant that you were doing something far more anti-town.

Did you point out anyone else lurking?

No, because it's not necessary to point out anyone else's behavior in order to demonstrate that your attack on me here is hypocritical.

I think you either don't get my point on how you pointing out my logic saying it's worse when others had the same bad is zoning on the one person who called you out for pushing a weak idea.

The other people who pushed the same bad logic you did aren't hypocritically attacking others for doing the same thing. If someone else who had supported a vengeful killer was attacking you for doing the same thing, you'd be calling them out on it, I guarentee it.

Plus I have yet to read how the combo of gf/ven is worse. You say it's worse and hold that up as a shield to excuse a combo I should why it was bad together.

Because vengfull is a much more dangerous role then either role cop or roleblocker; any combination that included either a vengeful or a janitor would have been a terrible idea. Do you really want me to explain why again? I already spent a lot of time explaining that before we made the choice

Vengeful is bad on it's own the combo I don't see has worse then rc/rb

Role cop makes role blocker more dangerous, because if role cop investigates a vanilla, it slightly increases the chances of the roleblocker hitting a power role. However, no possible combination with anything could make roleblocker anywhere near as dangerous as a vengeful; at worst, a roleblocker might shut a power role down for two days, while at worst a vengeful kills a power role; and a roleblocker is likely to accomplish little or nothing unless it gets lucky, while there's a 2/3ds chance a vengeful will kill a pro-town person. There's absolutly no comparison.

Which is why I said I was willing to accept a RC/RB combo, was because I was completely unwilling to accept any combo with either a vengeful or a janitor.

[Yosarian2]

If someone else who had supported a vengeful killer was attacking you for doing the same thing, you'd be calling them out on it, I guarentee it.

Duh because they said vengeful too. But I'm saying the combo you supported even as a second choice is far worse then veng/gf I suggest in my first post and upon read looked at game wise and suggested rc/gf in my next post with thoughts.

(shrug) You can say that if you want, but it's still not correct.

A 2 shot roleblocker, even with a rolecop backing him up, might manage to roleblock 1 power role 1 time, or he might accomplish nothing; he's unlikely to block a power role twice, unless the scum find a power role with the role cop and then avoid killing him just so they can roleblock him, and that would probably be a foolish move on their part anyway in most situations.

A vengeful WILL kill a pro-town person, 66% of the time, and by the time he's activated it will usually be mid to late game, he will probably have a claimed pro-town power role or confirmed innocent to kill.

Most of the time, a vengeful/anything combo is going to do a lot more damage to the town then a roleblocker/rolecop combo would. The scum kill in general is an incredibly powerful scum tool; it's the reason scum tend to just destroy the town in vanilla games even though town do a lot better in nightless games that have a theoretically equal chance of success, IMHO, and it's even more effective in games where town has power roles. Giving the scum an extra kill would just be very, very bad for the town.

[Yosarian2]

Yeah, RBT is obvscum. That was easy.

[Yosarian2]

EBWOP: Of course no two people should protect the same person.

What is the reasoning for this?



@Yossiran- a vengeful would kill a protown person 66 percent of the time? Uh....

1- You brought up doctors protections as a reason to not have one, and then you do not factor them in when your talking about it again.

You do not consider Vig kills nor the fact that 2 kills happening on the same night (when town knows its about to happen too!) increases chances for a successful protection as well.

Your clearly using the facts that benefit the one small point your trying to make at that particular moment. I am debating whether or not I should find this a scum tell for you or if it is just shrewd arguing. Care to enlighten me?

66% of the time just meant that there was a 1/3 chance that the vengeful scum would be the last scum person left, and therefore wouldn't get a kill.

It's not really that likely that he gets either vigged or doc protected; the odds of a doc or weak doc stopping any given kill is quite small (There has to be a doc who's still alive at that point, the scum has to not target the doc, and then if there's, say, 9 people left it's still just a 1/8 chance) and the idea of counting on a vig that might not even exist to kill one specific scum before we lynch that scum sounds like a really bad idea to me. But you're right, there is a chance he tries to kill and fails, or gets vigged, and that actually lowers the odds a bit. (not much, IMHO, but a bit)

Of course, there's also a chance he intentionally gets himself lynched at a key moment, doing a "jester strike" to get himself lynched instead of a scumbuddy or in lynch or lose, which then raises the odds again.

I'm really not sure why we're still arguing about this, considering that everyone already agreed that giving the scum vengeful was a bad idea and we already made our decision. Also, I'm not sure why you're grilling me on this when I've already explained all of this in exhausting detail back when we actually WERE making this decision. If you thought vengeful was a good idea, you should have made that argument BEFORE we picked the power roles, not now.

[Yosarian2]

EBWOP: Of course no two people should protect the same person.

What is the reasoning for this?

No clue really. I think I might have been getting the weak doc mixed up with something else. Actually now that I think of it, and after rereading pyp2 a little bit, we should definitely repeat choices, so that if the weak doc ends up protecting a kill the scum do not automatically no his/her identity. We should have like groups of 2 or 3 people that protect the same person.

Doing "weak doc hypoclaim" is much more dangerous then doing a cop hypoclaim; every person who hypoclaims they would have protected a scum and then lives, the scum can then figure out "that person's not the weak doc". Also, if you hypoclaim you were doc protecting someone and they die, that also tells the scum you're not the weak doc. Doing that will likely let the scum figure out who the weak doc is fairly quicky, and once they do, they can use the hypoclaim to confuse us (either kill the weak doc who's going to target someone they want mislynched, or else not kill when the hypodoc is going to target them, so there's just one kill that night and it dosn't prove anything). I'm not really sure hypoclaim is the best way to use a weak doc.

[Yosarian2]

The scum know their claims are fake and the only thing they have to worry about is if someone targets one of them.
I think if I was a weak doc I would try and be subtle about who I was going to protect in some way. Idk I'm trying to think of the best way to utilize a possible role.

My advice to the weak doc would be something like this:

A weak doc, if there is one, should protect someone he or she thinks is obvtown. This both confirms the person as town, and has a good shot of preventing a scum kill, as well as making the scum second-guess their kill choice if the most obvtown person might get protected, and is less likely to cost us the weak doc. Probably the best thing a weak doc can do is to carefully confirm a few people as town and then claim, and/or breadcrumb after confirming someone as town. Breadcrumbing before the weak doc targets someone is possible too, although it's tricker.

[Yosarian2]

(shrug) Hypoclaiming certainly can work, I've seen it work, but I've also seen it backfire and I think it's less likely to work then the alternative. I also think weak doc is not really a good role to do hypoclaiming with, even though, yes, I have seen it work in the past.

[Yosarian2]

Hypoclaiming cop is pointless due to sanity issues and godfather. Weak doctor is an investigative role more than it is a protective role. There is no point in not hypoclaiming it.

Of course weak doc is an investigative role. The point in not hypoclaiming it is that when you hypoclaim it, it's unlikely it'll live long enough to do many investigations. The scum will be able to rule out a lot of possible weak docs by the hypoclaiming, and with that plus a role cop, they're likely to find and kill the weak doc very early if we hypoclaim.

[Yosarian2]

Except it doesn't work in clearing innocents because of the godfather.

(shrug) "Person X is either town or the godfather" is still a pretty useful piece of information, and it's all the information we're going to get from the weak doc anyway, hypoclaim or no, unless the weak doc targets a scum and dies. Which the weak doc should be trying to avoid, in any case.

[Yosarian2]

EBWOP: Of course no two people should protect the same person.

What is the reasoning for this?



@Yossiran- a vengeful would kill a protown person 66 percent of the time? Uh....

1- You brought up doctors protections as a reason to not have one, and then you do not factor them in when your talking about it again.

You do not consider Vig kills nor the fact that 2 kills happening on the same night (when town knows its about to happen too!) increases chances for a successful protection as well.

Your clearly using the facts that benefit the one small point your trying to make at that particular moment. I am debating whether or not I should find this a scum tell for you or if it is just shrewd arguing. Care to enlighten me?

66% of the time just meant that there was a 1/3 chance that the vengeful scum would be the last scum person left, and therefore wouldn't get a kill.

It's not really that likely that he gets either vigged or doc protected; the odds of a doc or weak doc stopping any given kill is quite small (There has to be a doc who's still alive at that point, the scum has to not target the doc, and then if there's, say, 9 people left it's still just a 1/8 chance) and the idea of counting on a vig that might not even exist to kill one specific scum before we lynch that scum sounds like a really bad idea to me. But you're right, there is a chance he tries to kill and fails, or gets vigged, and that actually lowers the odds a bit. (not much, IMHO, but a bit)

Of course, there's also a chance he intentionally gets himself lynched at a key moment, doing a "jester strike" to get himself lynched instead of a scumbuddy or in lynch or lose, which then raises the odds again.

I'm really not sure why we're still arguing about this, considering that everyone already agreed that giving the scum vengeful was a bad idea and we already made our decision. Also, I'm not sure why you're grilling me on this when I've already explained all of this in exhausting detail back when we actually WERE making this decision. If you thought vengeful was a good idea, you should have made that argument BEFORE we picked the power roles, not now.

You completely dodged the point of my question.

Let me restate it so you do not do so again:

I am accusing you of manipulating the facts in order to get the town to vote a certain role.

I did not dodge the question.

66% is a rough estimate of how often I'd expect the vengeful to kill someone. There are some factors that bring it slightly lower (the small chance of a doc protection, the small chance of a vig) and some factors that bring it slightly higher (the increased chance of the vengeful being bussed, or getting himself lynched).

I think it comes out to about 66%, probably a little higher actually, since I think the latter factors would be more likely to come into play then the former factors, but there's no real way to calcualate any of it. In any case that was just a rough measure, a shorthand, because I didn't really feel like arguing about it when it's no longer relevent to anything and everyone has already agreed that I am right and vengeful would have been a bad role.

The above shows that you thought town power roles could mitigate the effect a vengeful would have.

Of course I have. And I just explained that. The answer is: it makes very little difference. Which I would have been glad to explain, IF YOU HAD ARGUED THIS BACK WHEN IT MATTERED.

Do you think I'm wrong here? Do you think we should have picked vengeful? Or are you just screwing around with irrelevent details to try to invent a reason to make me look bad?

I am saying that your changing your arguments about the potential effects of roles to benefit your stance. Do you agree or disagree?

Of course I disagree.

When trying to figure out how much damage an extra scum kill will do, you can basically just ignore the chance of a doc protection, because the odds of any doc stopping any one kill is pretty bloody low. A doc will very rarely prevent ANY kill in ANY game, let alone one specific kill.

And again, I was glad to explain that when you brought up the detail. I didn't really think I needed to go into all that all over again.

Additionally:

I'm really not sure why we're still arguing about this, considering that everyone already agreed that giving the scum vengeful was a bad idea and we already made our decision. Also, I'm not sure why you're grilling me on this when I've already explained all of this in exhausting detail back when we actually WERE making this decision. If you thought vengeful was a good idea, you should have made that argument BEFORE we picked the power roles, not now.

Why should we not use that discussion now? Its all a mute point? No. I find your manipulation of the role choice scummy sir. You say everyone was against the vengeful? I was arguing pro vengeful in almost every post.

Only scum would want the scum to have a vengful role. Farside seemed to realize this pretty early in the day, and I think she's town. I think it's interesting that you still have not, no matter how many times I've explained it.

[Yosarian2]

Unvote vote farside22

For the record, I agree that farside isn't really making any sense here, but I think she's probably town.

[Yosarian2]

Unvote vote farside22

For the record, I agree that farside isn't really making any sense here, but I think she's probably town.

I wish I knew why people say I'm not making sense. I keep getting this reaction.

Because if something is a null tell, then it dosn't make any sense to attack someone for that tell; so I don't understand why you have a problem with Scot saying Chamber shouldn't be attacked for something you apparently agree is a null tell.

[Yosarian2]

Sorry for 4th post, but, Yos, do you think Sajin is scum?

I don't know. This attack he's trying to make against me here seems really farfetched and silly, but it's possible he's a townie just trying to stir something up.

That being said, if RBT is scum, then Sajin is a likely buddy for the way he voted RBT but then took the first chance he got to jump off the wagon.

[Yosarian2]

You consider the effect and complications of other roles only when they benefited your chosen stance. You had already chosen what role you wanted and were trying to campaign to get it. You were arguing for the result you wanted and not the reason why it was beneficial/harmful and it is showing through to me.

No, I explained exactly why Vengeful would be so harmful; there is a 2/3 chance it will kill a pro-town person (actually I'm pretty sure it's higher then that, despite the chance of a vig or a doc protection, because I can't imagine the scum would likely let the vengeful be lynched third) and if it does, there's a pretty high chance it kills a pro-town power role.

I specifically mentioned the chance of a vengeful being vigged in my second post, and in fact I was the FIRST one to point out that it was possible; I'm not sure why you're acting like I never brought it up when I came up with it in the first place.

I campaigned on vengeful all day and your just now reading that?

Towards the end of the day, you were still campaigning against role-cop, but at that point you had not mentioned vengeful at all for several days, nor were you voting for vengeful. So, yes, I had gotten the impression that you had dropped the pro-vengeful argument by the end of the day.

And now your strongarming me for RBT because I saw a horrible response from you?

Hmmm? I'm not "strongarming" you at all. I'm observing that you are using a very weak reason (me not mentioning very low-probability events when I'm doing a quick rehash summery of why we made a decision that is already finished) to vote me; I doubt you actually believe that that makes me scum, and I also find it odd that you're still not convinced a vengeful would be anti-town even long after everyone else figured that out, so I'm looking for other possible motives for your actions. One is that it's possible you're a townie who's trying to stir the pot, which would be plausible for early day 1 like this. Another is that you were a scumbuddy of RBT who was looking for an excuse to vote him and then quickly unvote him and try to get a counterwagon on someone else going.

I don't see how you can call that "strongarming"; I'm certainly not trying to pressure you to vote for RBT. I'm simply trying to figure out your alignment by looking at your actions and trying to figure out the motives behind them.

You are the one who jumped on right after me, declared me scum and yet have not moved your vote.

I've hardly "declared you scum". The closest I came was that I had trouble believing a pro-town person would still support a vengeful. I do hate your posting here, but I'm honestly having trouble telling if that's just an emotional reaction on my part to being attacked for a terrible reason.

Not wanting to apply pressure in multiple places so that when you flip its harder to find your partners perhaps?

And that's just silly. If I think RBT is the scummiest looking person, which he is, and he's got the largest bandwagon right now, then why would I unvote him to chase some other trail?

[Yosarian2]

The chart was designed to be a summary of what information players had decided to give D0.

Actually, that chart looks to me more like you're a scum who's trying to figure out which townie has what power roles based on what they said.

Chamber's refusal to provide information is scummy.

How is it scummy for someone to not respond to a question of "what do you think the scum would do"? Why would scum be more likely to ignore that question then town? How does chamber not speculating on that question hurt the town?-

[Yosarian2]

.

Unvote vote farside22

For the record, I agree that farside isn't really making any sense here, but I think she's probably town.

Can I get some more detail on this? Do you think she often talks kind of incoherently (no offence) as town? Do you think it is in fact a town-tell? Or do you get a townie vibe from her posts in spite of her incomprehensible position on chamber?

It dosn't really have anything to do with her position on charter. At this point, I'd say it's a general vibe I get from her posts; willing to disagree with the majority on issues, and yet willing to listen to reason and be flexible at the same time; that's usually a combination I see more often from townies then from scum. Scum usually either follow the crowd, or else they stake out a position they think they can defend and never budge from it.

[Yosarian2]

.

Unvote vote farside22

For the record, I agree that farside isn't really making any sense here, but I think she's probably town.

Can I get some more detail on this? Do you think she often talks kind of incoherently (no offence) as town? Do you think it is in fact a town-tell? Or do you get a townie vibe from her posts in spite of her incomprehensible position on chamber?

It dosn't really have anything to do with her position on charter. At this point, I'd say it's a general vibe I get from her posts; willing to disagree with the majority on issues, and yet willing to listen to reason and be flexible at the same time; that's usually a combination I see more often from townies then from scum. Scum usually either follow the crowd, or else they stake out a position they think they can defend and never budge from it.

[Yosarian2]

It dosn't really have anything to do with her position on charter. At this point, I'd say it's a general vibe I get from her posts; willing to disagree with the majority on issues, and yet willing to listen to reason and be flexible at the same time; that's usually a combination I see more often from townies then from scum. Scum usually either follow the crowd, or else they stake out a position they think they can defend and never budge from it.

Would you describe the way you responded to everyone day 1 like the way you talk in this post?[/quote]

Nope, not at all. I have pretty firm ideas on mafia theory and game balance, and I feel like I'm a pretty good judge of what roles are more powerful then others.

Also, I didn't say that was the ONLY way townies behave; it's certainly not. Just that farside's behavior is something I see more often from town then from scum, which is a very different statement.

Do you disagree with that? Or are you still just trying to come up with weak excuses to suspect me?

You attacked everything in sight that was not in agreement with your perfered choices.

Also, this is pretty clearly not at all true. I did not attack anyone for disagreeing with me, I just explained why I thought they were incorrect.

[Yosarian2]

@Yoss- My reasoning for you being scum actually has less to do with your actual play and more with your attitude. You are coming off to me just like you did in WoT mafia, lashing out at all potential attackers and not like you did in California Trilogy 3 where you carefully answered anyone's concerns without the counter attack.

...you think I didn't lash out at people in California Trilogy 3? Lol. Pretty sure Ort's going to disagree with that.

Anyway, I'm not "lashing out" at anyone who attacks me. Exactly 2 people have attacked me so far, and I've already said that I think one of them is town.

[Yosarian2]

It has nothing to do with scumminess, it has everything to do with using a useless playstyle for communication and overall effectiveness. (See also, lynching people who only have few and far between posts, and they're almost always content free.)

Except Chamber has produced a lot of content, and I think his playstyle has been quite useful and effective in scumhunting so far. So that explination is not going to fly.

[Yosarian2]

@yos, would you ind quoteing chamber's posts where he did bring content. He hasn't posted much...

Honestly, I'd rather see someone who votes for people he suspects and dosn't explain, rather then see someone who explains and dosn't vote.

You're right, he hasn't said much lately; he's now been lurking for a few days. Still, I think his votes, and the timing of his votes, have told me a lot about what he's thinking; usually when he votes for someone, I can see why, and it gets me thinking about players.

[Yosarian2]

yos-- for haveing some shaky posts and not willing to provided evidence

Wait, what? What "shaky posts" have I have? Where have I been unwilling to provide evidence?

(I am going to re-read [maybe ]) and being alightly un-willing to describe votes

Again, what? I've only voted for 1 person so far, and I've explained that in a fair amount of detail. Are you getting me confused with someone else here or something?

[Yosarian2]

nope, Once you did vote for that one person you didn't give a good rreason till a bit latter, if I remeber correctly.

That is correct. I didn't give a reason until later.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with that, that's often a good way for a pro-town person to get more useful reactions, especally early on day 1.

And as for shaky posts I don't like your tone boy...

:eyebrow:

Some of the ways in which you worded your posts were shaky as well as content

Specifics would be useful.

[Yosarian2]

I'm not understanding the yosi/sajin interaction.
Can sajin or yosi give the short verision on this argument. The probablity talk of vengeful doesnt' make sense to me at all.

Basically, this was how it went:

In saying how I thought vengeful'd be a bad idea, I mentioned that there's a 2/3 chance a vengeful will kill a pro-town person. (That is, with a 3 man scumgroup, vengeful will generally kill a pro-town person unless he's lynched last; so, 2/3 times). Sajin flipped out at this point, claiming that I was delibratly ignoring the chance of a doc protection or a vig killing the vengeful, and that this somehow made me scum trying to manipulate the town. (Which makes no sense, of course, since this entire discussion came after we'd already made our decision).

I explained that of course I knew about te possibility of a doc or a vig; I was the first to mention the vig, in fact. I just didn't think it's that likely for either role to actually stop a vengeful , and considering a vengeful is also more likely to get lynched then 2/3 in reality since he'd be more likely to get bussed. I didn't bother to go into all this detail, since we had already made our decision, but I do think that my "2/3" comment was reasonable, as a shorthand.

I'm still waiting for him to explain exactally how any of that is supposed to make me scum, or what kind of possible scum motivation I might have for any of it. This whole attack just seems bizzare to me; it's like Sajin is just pissed off he lost the debate and we decided to not give the scum the vengeful role, and is looking for someone to blame, or something. None of his behavior here really makes sense to me from a pro-town viewpoint, and I'm still waiting for him to explain himself.

[Yosarian2]

Wait. You're just going to try to start a hypodoc claim without actually getting consensuss that it's a good idea, even though something like half the town seems to oppose it? You realize that's likely to lead to disaster, right?

[Yosarian2]

@all, and why did the RBT wagon break up we were at l-2, we should have gotten to l-1 before we decided to stop it.

Hmm? It hasn't broken up, I believe it's still the largest bandwagon.

I must add that RBT does seem to be playing a bit more town as of late

Interesting. can you explain how?

[Yosarian2]

CooLDoG is really freaking me out.

I'm not entirely sure if it's his content, or if the way he keeps calling everyone "boy". Either way, IGMOY.

[Yosarian2]

There is a difference between saying "I think RBT is town and am getting town vibes from him" and "Farside is town, don't even look at her."

Wait, where did Anon say that?

I see three posts where Anon said he thought farside was town. There was this one:

Anyways, this feels town-town so far. First for the fact that I think farside scum would be more careful with attacking someone of the reputation of yosarian2. So I think this is more probable farside town thinking he saw something damning and pushed the case, as an inquisitive townie would do.

Then there were two more where he was pretty much just agreeing with points I had made.

Unvote vote farside22

For the record, I agree that farside isn't really making any sense here, but I think she's probably town.

QFT.

I havent bothered to read the Sajin-Yos stuff with the exception of the CAPS Yos used. IIRC, Sajin was prob the only one that was supporting a vengeful scum in day 0.

.

Unvote vote farside22

For the record, I agree that farside isn't really making any sense here, but I think she's probably town.

Can I get some more detail on this? Do you think she often talks kind of incoherently (no offence) as town? Do you think it is in fact a town-tell? Or do you get a townie vibe from her posts in spite of her incomprehensible position on chamber?

It dosn't really have anything to do with her position on charter. At this point, I'd say it's a general vibe I get from her posts; willing to disagree with the majority on issues, and yet willing to listen to reason and be flexible at the same time; that's usually a combination I see more often from townies then from scum. Scum usually either follow the crowd, or else they stake out a position they think they can defend and never budge from it.

I partially agree with this. I also get an extreme sincere vibe from here posts. Like she is not worried of being wrong.

I don't see anywhere where he "tells people to not even look at her" or whatever. Just the opposite; he asks Leech to explain why Leech disagrees with Anon's points about farside.

I do agree with you that the obsessive asking for scum lists, to the point where he's almost doing that instead of scumhunting, is unhelpful, but I don't see what you're talking about here, Scot. Especially since I also have a strong feeling that farside is town here.

[Yosarian2]

Uh. Wow.

Unvote:RBT

for the moment.


Why'd you wait so long to claim, RBT? Now i don't know if we'll have time to lynch someone else; if you are a pro-town cop, why didn't you claim days ago, and give us a chance to find scum.

[Yosarian2]

Hmm...yeah, I kind of agree with Prozac here; it's very likely the claim is a fake, it'd be easy enough since hte scum know what roles are and aren't in the game. I'm still kind of weirded out by the idea of lynching a claimed cop day 1 though.

[Yosarian2]

Leech. Any comment on what I said about the weakdoc hypoclaim?

Yos. Any comment on where I showed you that Anon directly said "Farside is town" and told leach to not look at her?

Well, thanks for answering my question; I didn't find that in my readthrough of Anon for some reason.

I still don't agree that it's a scumtell, mostly because I think most of Anon's posts where he explains his pro-town vibe about farside make sense.

For the most part, though, I'm more worried about this cop claim and what to do about it. We have to lynch someone, we need a real majority on someone, and we have very little time. What do you think, Scot? How likely do you think it is RBT is telling the truth? If you had a choice between lynching him and seeing a no-lynch happen, what would you do?