Except, surely, if it was to the advantage of the scum to have even numbers of ??s and normals, if we lynch two ??s, they'll aim to kill one ?? and three normals. So the town can't control the balance of ??s-to-normals. The question is then - could it be to the advantage of the scum to have an imbalance?Mr Stoofer wrote:However, I don't think that the strategy of lynching ? accounts leads to the result you suggest. The scum have to kill off an equal number of normals and ? so as to avoid detection - as they did last night. This is because the scum get 4 kills at night and the town gets only 2 lynches a day. So if we only lynched the ? accounts, and the scum only killed the normal accounts, we'd quickly get to the position where the only normal accounts left were scum.
That's the one element of Stoof's argument I do agree with. I've actually gone and forgotten the password for my ?Charlie? account, I can't log in to it at all.Quailman wrote:bah. I hate signing in and out. Let's knock off all the ?? accounts and then none of us will have to worry about it.
Oh wait, THAT'S why I can't log in to it - it's not my account at all!?YouYou? wrote:Smooth claim... ?Seol wrote:I've actually gone and forgotten the password for my ?Charlie? account, I can't log in to it at all.
Come on Seol, think about it. How can the scum choose to kill 3 normals and 1 ? ?. Unless there is one kill group with 4 nightkills (unlikely) then there are 2 groups and they are not able to coordinate. The town can coordinate its lynchings and can influence the balance. And if there is a vig, then the town really can control balance.Seol wrote:Except, surely, if it was to the advantage of the scum to have even numbers of ??s and normals, if we lynch two ??s, they'll aim to kill one ?? and three normals. So the town can't control the balance of ??s-to-normals.
I can't think of any advantages at the moment. Can anyone else? I've suggestedSeol wrote:The question is then - could it be to the advantage of the scum to have an imbalance?
Why unlucky? If we only have 4 ?? accounts, they are probably all scum (3 mafia, 1 SK). We do a big claim and we know all the scum's accounts. That's why an imblanace helps us. (Unless ther scum start killing themselves, in which case we can afford to lynch the innocent ?? accounts to root out the evil ones.)Seol wrote: With 10 alive today, we could be dropped to justfour?? accounts tomorrow if we're unlucky
I may be being incredibly dense, but why?Seol wrote:As the town, we want to split the kills, not localise them.
By "a big claim" you mean that everybody claims a ?? account so that who claims the ?? accounts still alive must be scum? This is what I get from your post.Mr Stoofer wrote: Why unlucky? If we only have 4 ?? accounts, they are probably all scum (3 mafia, 1 SK). We do a big claim and we know all the scum's accounts. That's why an imblanace helps us. (Unless ther scum start killing themselves, in which case we can afford to lynch the innocent ?? accounts to root out the evil ones.)
And we will have lost half of our population! Or even worse, while we're busy lynching the ?? accounts, scum will kill some of the regular ones too. So in the end we'll have no ?? accounts and a lot of scum among the few survived regular accounts.Mr Stoofer wrote:Sorry for the multiple posts but I've just thought of a fifth reason in favour of concentrating on the ?? accounts: once they are all gone the scum will have lost 2 of their night kills.
So we should coincentrate on making random kills instead of more informed ones? I say we should pressure ?? accounts if they are not used enough, but not lynch all ?? accounts just because scum are using them to hide.Stoofer point 1 wrote:1. Everyone is likely to use their secondary accounts less often, so it will be much harder to pick up scum tells from the alter egos.
Yes, we should use that for the normal accounts. But that doesn't mean we should target ?? accounts. Do you normally go after newbies as well because you don't have experience with them?Stoofer point 2 wrote:2. I think that experience of how people play is an important part of finding scum. (e.g. X usually posts a lot, he is lurking, therefore he is scummy). We just can't use that reasoning on the alter egos.
Uhmm yeah, now that's a reason....Stoofer point 3 wrote:3. It is a pain logging in as a secondary account. If one of my boys is going to die I want it to be my alter ego.
If we go for ?? accounts as a strategy, chances are we won't lynch scum today. If the scum go for ?? accounts as well, we'll have four ?? accounts left tomorrow. Let's say one scum dies during nighttime crossfire, that will leave three or four scum tomorrow (estimate) and one or no good guy ??. That will mean that tomorrow we will have made a small dent in the scum pack, while the chances are very big half our docs and any other good roles are gone. Getting rid of the remaining ?? accounts still takes us two more days.Stoofer point 4? wrote:However, I don't think that the strategy of lynching ? accounts leads to the result you suggest. The scum have to kill off an equal number of normals and ? so as to avoid detection - as they did last night. This is because the scum get 4 kills at night and the town gets only 2 lynches a day. So if we only lynched the ? accounts, and the scum only killed the normal accounts, we'd quickly get to the position where the only normal accounts left were scum. We would then lynch the surviving normal accounts and their ? accounts (I suspect it will be very difficult for ? accounts to falsely claim to be associated with a normal account other than their own - impossible if we do the claim before lynching the surviving normals).
Yes, we can do a big claim, but it will take us four days to actually lynch them. I think we need to act quicker than that. At that point multiple scum factions will also be able to coordinate their votes (with four bad guys on normal and ??, that's eight out of 14!).Stoofer point 5 wrote:Why unlucky? If we only have 4 ?? accounts, they are probably all scum (3 mafia, 1 SK). We do a big claim and we know all the scum's accounts. That's why an imblanace helps us. (Unless ther scum start killing themselves, in which case we can afford to lynch the innocent ?? accounts to root out the evil ones.)
True, they can't co-oridinate perfectly. It may be a couple of kills out, but it will tend towards that.Mr Stoofer wrote:Come on Seol, think about it. How can the scum choose to kill 3 normals and 1 ? ?. Unless there is one kill group with 4 nightkills (unlikely) then there are 2 groups and they are not able to coordinate. The town can coordinate its lynchings and can influence the balance. And if there is a vig, then the town really can control balance.Seol wrote:Except, surely, if it was to the advantage of the scum to have even numbers of ??s and normals, if we lynch two ??s, they'll aim to kill one ?? and three normals. So the town can't control the balance of ??s-to-normals.
Well, if I can think of reasons why scum might want to put forward the reasoning and arguments you've been putting forward, then yes - you should be bandwagonned. Anti-town substance is a good reason to lynch you.Stoof wrote:I can't think of any advantages at the moment. Can anyone else? I've suggestedSeol wrote:The question is then - could it be to the advantage of the scum to have an imbalance?FOURadvantages to the town to Town in an imbalance (the 3 in my post 11 plus the fact that the surviving accounts in the minority group must be scum (my post 18 )).
Stoof wrote:Finger of Stupidity: everyone on my bandwagon who isn't scum. The one thing that annoys me about this game is the way that, when you start a discussion going, people who don't agree with you vote for you. I wanted to discuss how the town might use the set-up of this game to its advantage -- and as a result I get bandwagonned. Do you really think that I am more likely to be scum that all those who haven't posted anything of substance?
