Ectomancer wrote:Alright, I'm going to go ahead and claim by saying that
I'm
not standing in the way of this being mountainous.
Advantage to killing OP, we confirm Ortolan or catch them both Day 1. At the very least we keep the verbose one and his word is at least unquestionably coming from a townie.
The reason this question needs to be answered today is to avoid a LYLO where scum convinces the remaining vanilla member to test these two and it turns out it is only
mostly
mountainous.
Now obviously, there is reason for some members of the town not to overly protest the validity of this. It's why its such a damn thorny subject to get around. I had to claim even to be able to talk about it, and to dispute it here and now, a power role would need to claim.
But Ectomancer, wouldn't their gambit mean they are gambling on there being no investigative role?
Would that really be a stretch even in the slightest? I mean think about it. Here you are in a 10 player game, you get your role of Goon, and that you also have only 1 scum buddy who is also a Goon. Do you think there is an investigative role? Do you think claiming mason is really such a risk for scum in that scenario?
When do you think would be a good time to test them if not today? Assuming they really are Masons, do you really think we also have an investigative role to confirm them? Probably not is my guess.
So does any of this mean scum has to NK the masons? Not until after the first LYLO. They get to try to get the masons tested, or get the townie killed for a win. Failing that, even should one of them get lynched, they kill a mason and go into the final day only needing to convince the remaining mason that the other guy is scum in the final LYLO.
I'd prefer to win today, or confirm the remaining one and let scum decide when they will either NK him or have to go into the final day with him as judge.
How on earth do you reason that you being vanilla in any way connects to the game being mountainous?!? I just don't see your logic here.
Secondly, what makes you think there isn't an investigative role here? Have you ever played a newbie game? They have just 9 plays and some contain cops AND docs (!).
The initial reasons you gave for your mason lynch were reasonable, but this is looking a bit odd.
Orto wrote:
And I still don't understand vollkan's
vollkan wrote:
Otherwise, we have a tough decision to make.
What decision exactly are you referring to? Please clarify your position exactly in regards to how you think the masons should be tested in light of your new knowledge that this is a 10-player game. When do you think would be best to test mason claims in light of either a scum lynch or townie lynch day one, and a scum lynch or townie lynch day two (account for both scenarios). I get the impression in talking about testing our claim you've talked about generalities: "oh, well they could both still be alive day 3 in which case town is in a bit of a pickle" without considering what I consider a very strong likelihood that scum will have been lynched day 1 or 2, or even apart from that one of us will be night-killed or another town death will occur which will have the effect of verifying our claims, or a power role verifies our claims. Why did you not consider these obvious possibilities which will clearly bear on our likelihood of being confirmed by day 3? It seems as though you deliberately ignored these possibilities.
In my eyes, the conduct of OP and yourself would be lynchworthy, but for your claims. What prevents me from voting for either of you is that I think that the nature of the gambit you would need to have pulled as scum to make such claims is very ballsy. Thus, my inclination is to believe your claims, albeit with an unusual level of doubt.
The tough decision, at the most general level, is basically this:
How pro-town does somebody need to appear, or how bad does the play of the masons need to be, in order for suspicion of the masons to outweigh their claim and make them subject to lynch?
There is no easy answer to that question, even at such a general level.
If we lynch scum today (or any day as the case may be), then, provided that you/OP don't flip scum by D2 as a result of any NKs, you are more likely town than before. The only way you couldn't be would be the slim chance of a 7:3 setup (which is possible if town is power-heavy). You seem to be under the impression that I think there is some abstract time when we should "test" your claim. That is not at all what I am saying.
Orto wrote: FYI, I've re-read the case on don_johnson and the arguments against him really do seem rather subjective
Can you explain what you mean by "subjective" here?
Orto wrote:
I have considered I've been tunneling on vollkan so will Unvote for now. That said I believe that whole ridiculous "you're being prejudiced trap" argument was extremely stupid, and even if it was meant to demonstrate my tunneling on him only made me want to vote for him more.
This improves your pro-town ranking in my eyes. Or, more accurately, it seriously weakens one scum interpretation I had of your actions: the risk that you were exploiting your gambit to try and eliminate me.
(that said, I am amused that you still can't bring yourself to accept my trap
)
Orto wrote:
mykonian, SpyreX, vollkan (I know you didn't vote don_johnson but you have been attacking his arguments): do you think don_johnson is likely to be mafia in this game, or do you think he is merely playing badly or has been unfairly targetted due to the difficult circumstances of replacing in?
I think his arguments are scummy, more so than I would expect to simply arise from difficulty or inexperience. I am by no means settled on him though, and intend on doing a reread very soon to order my thoughts.
Orto wrote:
on balance I still would be quite content with a vollkan lynch at present: and to be sure, my argument against him is different to the one OP made in his last post. It is not just "vollkan might be scum so let's lynch just in case" but rather "apparently vollkan is good, but his play this game, while being verbose, has shown little evidence of actually being useful in catching scum
1) Nobody's play has shown any evidence "of actually being useful in catching scum"
2) focus is reasons not results.