Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheDarkStar]

You didn't answer my question earlier.

Oops, I missed that one.

Here:

TDS:
You are a Confederate, and someone claiming to be the Union General points to someone who isn't a fellow spy as a Confederate, what would you do?
[/quote

I realize that either they found the Ugly or they are a third party / Union solder who is lying to try to get trust. If the latter, they will die the next day for leading a mislynch. If they are telling the truth, I'll wait for the Ugly lynch to make sure of what they are saying, and then kill them the next night. Either way, the town wastes several days.

[Imperial Guardsman]

Imperial Guardsman:
You see players 1 through 5 form a bandwagon in that order, one that votes for someone else and another one who doesn't say anything about it, who would you suspect first?

Third, Fourth, and Fifth to vote.
Also, Scientist, not good enough. vote stays

[Silthuri]

Sorry for being absent for a while. College hates me.

Wolf:

MOWE: You are the confederate general, and have discovered the identity of the good.  Do you claim union general and try to get them lynched, as they would have revealed confederate to the general, and hope that the counterclaim will give you a clear target?

I would. I could get rid of the good and possibly the union general in quick succession, which seems like it would strike a heavy blow to the union.


NQT:

MyOwnWorstEnemy — What's a particularly telling scumtell in your eyes?

Hmm... this is a hard one. What I think is scummy is someone not scumhunting, or doing as little as possible while trying to seem like they're doing something.


Caz:

MyOwnWorstEnemy - If you were the Bad, how would you go about identifying the Good and Ugly? Would you kill each night regardless?

I would look for someone who's very active. I would probably kill every night, but make sure that I try not to draw attention to myself by who I kill.


Scientist:

MOWE- How do you take your tea/coffee?

I like my tea very sweet. I don't drink coffee anymore, but back when I did, I liked it very sweet as well.


darkpaladin:

Anyone, I guess
You're the Good. You suspect that another player might be the Bad but you're not convinced. How do you proceed with this?

My solution to anything: go back and read through stuff. Look at things that might be suspicious. How they've acted, their relationship with others, what flips have told me about them and other things that strike me as suspicious.

[Silthuri]

Mastahcheese:

MyOwnWorstEnemy: You're a Union Soldier, and someone is going after you, despite not having real evidence, yet people are still agreeing with them. What do you do? And why?

I'd point out the flaws in my attacker's logic and go after them.

[Silthuri]

I'm probably more on the side of saying things as they come to me. Sometimes I keep a little list of things that bothered me, but I don't really structure the games out. Too much work.

I think you're showing insufficient dedication. You think this is a game? Mafia is serious business.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

XD My opinion of mafia has changed dramatically because of this.

Seriously though... my weekend has finally arrived so I can finally start playing!


darkpaladin109:

Darkpaladin109 - Haven't seen you before. What's your strategy to win this game?

Remaining cautious and hidden. Mostly depends on the role I'm assigned otherwise.

Why are you planning to be cautious and hidden?


Imperial Guardsman:

Imperial Guardsman:
You see players 1 through 5 form a bandwagon in that order, one that votes for someone else and another one who doesn't say anything about it, who would you suspect first?

Third, Fourth, and Fifth to vote.

Mind giving an explanation? You don't seem to keen on explanations. You haven't really elaborated on any of your answers thus far.


Tiruin:
You've been active on the forum, but not here. Any particular reason why?


Solymr:
You seem to be curious about the third parties. Just trying to get a feel for the rules of this game, or is it something else?

[+!!scientist!!+]

Scientist

+!!scientist!!+ — As far as you understand it, what's the point of the random vote/random question phase?

To try and get a reaction out of anyone or everyone, and use these reactions for future scum hunting. Also, while these questions and answers are not as useful as people make them out to be, looking back at who attacked whom and what the dynamics were at the beginning can be very helpful on later days.

Of course the answers are going to be useless if you ask useless questions. It's almost impossible to get a rise out of someone with some casual RVS questions. A good RVS question sets a trap: you get the player to pin themselves to a standard you can hold them to later. Of course, even a bad question (what could you gain from your question to MOWE?) starts a conversation and all games need to start with people talking before the accusations start flying.

Here's a question: say it's near the end of Day 1 and you're pretty sure the player that is about to be lynched is town. Your vote could tie the vote. What do you do?

In my opinion, the kind of questions you suggest are  just as likely, if not more, to make a naïve, honest townie look guilty and make a deceptive, thoughtful scum look innocent as they are to work properly. At the same time, it is beneficial for town to lynch on day 1 because it gives us a lot more to go on, so as far as your question goes, I would have to say that I wouldn't tie up the vote, and pray my read was faulty.

[Solymr]

MOWE:
Third parties change the game completely, as a noobie I don't want to get surprised in a bad way. Besides, other people are also curious about third parties and I didn't really know what else to ask.

Imperial Guardsman:
You're acting quite suspicious to me. When asked about being a pro-town you give decent reasons but when asked about your actions as scum you give mathematician's answer.

You also insist on keeping your vote on scientist, despite your initial reason being "join the danged discussion" and your reason for keeping the vote after he did being "not good enough".

Your answer to my last question is also suspicious, not giving reasons for why would you suspect the last 3 players on a bandwagon. It seems like you're trying to divert attention from the fact that you voted second for scientist (even if the first was just a pressure vote) and that the middle of the bandwagon is the least noticeable and therefore the most preferible place for scum.

[notquitethere]

Scientist

In my opinion, the kind of questions you suggest are  just as likely, if not more, to make a naïve, honest townie look guilty and make a deceptive, thoughtful scum look innocent as they are to work properly.

See, I don't think is necessarily the case, but I'm not going to hold it dogmatically. Let's look back on this on Day 2 or 3 and see whether any of these questions turned out to be useful or telling.

At the same time, it is beneficial for town to lynch on day 1 because it gives us a lot more to go on, so as far as your question goes, I would have to say that I wouldn't tie up the vote, and pray my read was faulty.

It's interesting that you say this. I just realised that we've played together just over a year ago. In that game you were town lynched day 1, I was the cop and I tried to tie the vote because I pretty damn sure you couldn't be scum because you were playing too suicidally. You were lynched, I was night killed and the game was later won by scum. Did I make the wrong call then?


MOWE

Hmm... this is a hard one. What I think is scummy is someone not scumhunting, or doing as little as possible while trying to seem like they're doing something.

OK. I'll be asking you about who's done the least scumhunting at the end of the day.


Imperial Guardsman

NQT, you are the Good. Do you side with the Union or Confederates?

Given that if the Ugly dies, the Good essentially becomes a Unionist, it would make sense for them to side with the Union.

I note that you asked me this question here. I overlooked it (because it was in a huge undifferentiated bolded block). I post afterwards here, answering a whole bunch of people but not you. Yet you enter into the thread again here, but you don't pull me up on the missed question. OK. I get that playing mafia is strongly performative: some people are better at juggling lots of different conversations than others. And even then, it's difficult to get right all the time. But it seems like you're just going through the motions. Can you give an explanation for your play so far?

[Caz]

NQT

Anyone can end up typing things that appear contradictory. An innocent town player acting without deliberate deception can always give an honest explanation for their words. A dissembling scumster who has been caught out in a contradiction will be forced to make excuses if the contradiction didn't flow from an honest mistake. Excuses are harder to manufacture than explanations and are more liable to multiply the player's deceptions.

I suppose that's true to the extent that scum has more info than town, but in general townies make just as many mistakes imo, if not more. While townies are trying to pick apart words to find any argument they can (frequently bad arguments, as townies don't want to look like they're lurking even less than scum), while the mafia can coordinate a strategy to make lynching someone seem reasonable, even if it was just a dumbly-worded statement.

You say you use some kind of evidence-backed system to scumhunt. Do you think this absolves you of your responsibility to defend your own actions?

I think you're showing insufficient dedication. You think this is a game? Mafia is serious business.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Heh.

IG

Also, Scientist, not good enough. vote stays

What could Scientist say in his defence that would convince you to remove your vote?

mastahcheese

Absolutely not. If a union soldier fake-claims, then odds are they would be a counter-claim by the real general. Then one would die, and the next day, the other would. It'd be a terrible loss, both of the loss of 2 town, and the loss of 2 whole days that could have been productive. What are your thoughts on the situation?

I say that's fair. In certain setups it can work, but since the only PRs are cops and third parties, it wouldn't be in town's best interest. It might work for the Bad, though. If you were a third party, would you try to go for a major victory and fulfill your wincons, or go for the minor and town/mafside?

MOWE

I would look for someone who's very active. I would probably kill every night, but make sure that I try not to draw attention to myself by who I kill.

What's your method for avoiding attention being attracted to you?

Solymr

When asked about being a pro-town you give decent reasons but when asked about your actions as scum you give mathematician's answer.

What does this mean?

[Solymr]

Caz:
When IG answered the question you asked him about calling out a fellow scum or just leave it, he just answered yes. He didn't even specify which of them he was saying yes, just yes.

He just gave you a Mathematician's answer. As in technically correct, but completely useless answer.

[Caz]

Caz:
When IG answered the question you asked him about calling out a fellow scum or just leave it, he just answered yes. He didn't even specify which of them he was saying yes, just yes.

He just gave you a Mathematician's answer. As in technically correct, but completely useless answer.

Ah, thanks.

* Caz was linked to TVtropes and may not return.

[Silthuri]

MOWE

I would look for someone who's very active. I would probably kill every night, but make sure that I try not to draw attention to myself by who I kill.

What's your method for avoiding attention being attracted to you?

I basically mean that I wouldn't just off everyone who gave me a bit of trouble. In my book, that's quite scummy and I'd probably be labeled as Confederate.

[notquitethere]

Caz

I suppose that's true to the extent that scum has more info than town, but in general townies make just as many mistakes imo, if not more. While townies are trying to pick apart words to find any argument they can (frequently bad arguments, as townies don't want to look like they're lurking even less than scum), while the mafia can coordinate a strategy to make lynching someone seem reasonable, even if it was just a dumbly-worded statement.

You're quite right that town players don't always make good arguments, and people can be lynched for jumped-up reasons. That's why, ultimately, I base my decisions on the what people have done more than what they've said.

You say you use some kind of evidence-backed system to scumhunt. Do you think this absolves you of your responsibility to defend your own actions?

I don't just say I do, I actually do: look back on almost any of the games I've played in before. By 'actions' I take it you mean, votes, accusations and general activity. It is quite likely (especially from Day 2 onwards) that I'll cast votes and accusations based on a player's overall voting behaviour and activity. This doesn't absolve me from offering explanations to defend what I do.

[TheDarkStar]

Currently, I'm confused about why multiple people are seriously considering lynching IG. NQT's argument is that IG won't seriously answer a question, and Solymr doesn't like the answer that IG gave for another question. NQT's argument would work with other evidence, but Solymr's argument makes no sense. If IG was scum, he'd probably give a more detailed scum answer than town answer, since he would have spent much more time thinking about what to do as scum than town.

[Solymr]

Really? I thought that if he were scum he probably wouldn't like the others to know how he would act as scum, since it could give him away.
Even then, IG never really answered that question, so I want to know why didn't he give a detailed answer and what is his real answer to the question.