Gem wrote:
Maybe this is just a case of me being new. But I could forsee an argument -- not a strong one, mind you -- being made that "here's a confirmed pro-town player that supported me, so shouldn't you think twice about suspecting me?" I wanted to preemptively arm the town with my own thoughts on this in advance. Why do you find that scenario unlikely?
Because the very fact that someone is pro-town means their opinion is founded on lack of knowledge. It proves they were sincere in support, but nothing else. In contrast, a supporting scum player has no basis for subtle support (ie. simply ignoring) other than helping a player, though I concede that scum commonly buddy up to a townie. Nonetheless, you can usually separate buddying behaviour from actual scum relationship behaviour.
shaft.ed wrote:
Gemelli, I get your point, and vollkan does to. He's just pointing out that what you've said has very little bearing on our opinions for the reasons he stated. He will go back and forth with you on this for eternity if you are up for it. That's just the way he is about the details. But please continue to speak your mind.
This is true. I know exactly what you are saying Gem, the point is that I think you are wrong.
dybeck wrote:
What did you want me to say? I don't have any really strong opinions about you. You could be scum for all I know, but I think there are better lynch targets out there.
More wishy-washy behaviour from dybeck. Perhaps dybeck could do a bit of a reread of Gem and give us a comment?
Gem wrote:
I've been giving more thought to Vollkan's advocacy of the "give Originality free rein with our guidance" position. The more I think about it, the less I see how that strategy benefits the town.
As I see it, we have two goals for directing originality this evening:
(1) Improve the town's odds at hitting scum tonight
(2) Vet or refute originality's vig claim
As far as (1) goes, please remember that we are dealing with a player whose views are sharply in contrast with the rest of the town. This is the only player who does NOT include "No kill" in his top 4 list. This is a player whose #2 choice of targets is one of only two votes among the entire town for that player. And of course, this is a player whose judgement resulted in a town kill on night one.
Giving the mafia uncertainty as to what originality might do is a good thing. But the ONLY scenario in which a blanket "use your judgement" approach is superior than a "select from the top 4 choices on this list" approach is if the town fails to include a single mafioso in the consensus list. I find that scenario deeply implausible, assuming that we have 3 mafia in this game at the moment -- it's not like we are assembling these lists at random.
For (2), if originality has a free rein to pick whichever target he thinks best, the town loses its primary tool in being able to deduce originality's alignment. Our goal here is simply to validate whether originality is willing to comply with the town's direction. If we give him the option to pick anyone he likes, even assuming the onus of explanation after the fact, we are implicitly telling him that he can ignore the town's input.
Vollkan: you've mentioned that you want to leave the door open for originality to find a scumtell that everyone else has missed. For the record, I do not trust his ability to perform detective work on behalf of the town, and I'm suspicious as to why you are willing to extend this level of trust to him. As such, if he selects a target outside the town's top 4 list, I will be voting for him on the morning of Day 3, regardless of what his explanation might be.
1) The list probably improves our odds of hitting scum, except for No Kill obviously.
2) This is the one advantage of giving Orig a demand to NK. However, it does not prove his alignment and the opportunity cost is the uncertainty factor.
We need Orig to present the threat that he could kill any mafia tonight, that a mafia could be lynched tomorrow and that orig could NK a mafia on N3 in order to hold this against the mafia. Imagine if, for instance, the mafia are Lucienne, Gemelli and shaft.ed. In that case, there is no threat posed by Orig even if he is limited to No Kill, Dybeck, Oman and Elias.
If Orig is mafia, we have a SK who can only hope to win by getting rid of Orig and his buddies. Thus, I think an Orig NK will be a certainty even if he is demanded not to NK, because the SK needs to off the mafia. The worst thing for the SK would be for the mafia not to NK, thereby clearing Orig.
If Orig is SK, he cannot afford to risk himself being lynched (ie. straying from consensus) but, equally, he needs to get rid of mafia. As such, I would think that SKOrig is much more likely to NK than vigOrig, but is very likely to stick to consensus. If Orig is SK, he needs to get rid of mafia tonight to have a hope of winning. As in, if he does not NK, even if mafia is lynched tomorrow, Orig's NK on N3 is a certainty.
Thus, what we see here is that mafOrig will end up dead, vigOrig may or may not NK and SKOrig has to NK. If Orig survives and does not NK, he is most probably a vig.
My point is that SKOrig can very easily take out one of the top 4 and then get away with it. If we were to blanket ban Orig from NKing, we would therefore be able to know for certain that he is a vig tomorrow. That's one advantage of a blanket ban; I don't know how it measures up though and I will think about it some more.
Also, I need to clarify the "free rein" thing. All I want is for their to be the prospect that Orig could NK anyone and live. That is all we need. To deal with that, all we need to do is say that we will not autolynch Orig. Whilst his lynching may well be the outcome, that uncertainty is crucial. I do not want Orig to have free rein, but I do want him to present a threat to the mafia regardless of who they are.
