Print

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

[Luckyowl]

Cnidaros, and you are most likely liberals. Since -- the last thing you want is to pick a fascist card off bat.

Doesn't the latter contradict the former? If a fascist wouldn't want to pick a fascist card this early on, how does picking a liberal card prove me and Cnidaros as liberal?

well I only was theorizing, but yes, a fascist could've just picked a liberal card to cover themselves. It doesn't outrightly make the both of you liberals, but it's something I am wiling to believe until more information comes forward.

Only four of us are trying to have a discussion on who might be the fascist.. Making me believe that there is 3 to 2 fascist among the 3 unspoken one.

 But do you really believe none or almost none of the active players so far have been suspicious?

oh no, I think we're all suspicious until more information arises. I only say that their silence is something to consider. I just got out my first Mafia game and both of the scums there were pretty passive and quiet. I'm basically just taking that experience and using it here. It might not be true, but I mean, it's hard to really know who might be the fascist. The only way we'll know if they lie about the card they discarded.

Flazeo25: Can you confirm Icytea31's cards? are they right?
IcyTea31: Who do you think is the most suspicious?

[IcyTea31]

IcyTea31: Who do you think is the most suspicious?

Of what I've seen so far, I particularly didn't like Dustan Hache's opening post. I know they've played Mafia before, so I'd have expected something other than analysis of game mechanics.


Addit: In fact, let me make what they call a read list. Green for liberal, red for fascist, orange for uncertain:

ctsun: Absent. Outright said they didn't want to discuss in the first turn with little information, so expectations will be high later.

Dustan Hache: Posted in turn 1, but showed little interest in finding fascists. Suffers from burden of experience.

Shadowclaw777: Absent. Will need to post beyond mechanical ayes.

Luckyowl: Truth-seeking attitude combined with the uncertainty of a newbie points toward having little to hide.

flazeo25: Insufficient data, but making me chancellor to test me is a good look (though a move a fascist would do as well).

Cnidaros: Held the liberal point of view when asked a complex question. If they turn out to be a fascist later, I'll congratulate them for subtlety.

[Dustan Hache]

Thats a bold accusation icytea, especially since I have yet to come into power either as president or chancellor. Why not have me investigated instead, since we are nearly at the power threshold for that?

[Shadowclaw777]

Why highly likely that a Fascist is trying to stay under the radar by not providing much discussion to sway attention off them, and the less discussion that happens is better for the Fascists, I just have no strategy going in except relying on the 35PP Investigation to get Fascists, because it would a bad play for a Fascist to lie about their investigation because I believe if a Fascist confirms another Fascist to draw less attention to themselves they still would out of there players; and if they lie about a Liberal with their Investigation well that would be sus, and we would know who is Fascist even more if a executed member role is confirmed upon death (I don’t think it’s the case with these rules)

If you want to know my strategy, is to probably investigate you IcyTea (Not salty over a previous Mafia game no lol) or maybe... Dustan since you think they have the possibility of being Fas, though I do not know if the Fascists are allowed a private discussion “channel” to discuss strategy and whatnot.

[Dustan Hache]

IcyTea31: Who do you think is the most suspicious?

Of what I've seen so far, I particularly didn't like Dustan Hache's opening post. I know they've played Mafia before, so I'd have expected something other than analysis of game mechanics.Dustan Hache: Posted in turn 1, but showed little interest in finding fascists. Suffers from burden of experience.

Upon closer inspection of this comment, i would like to point out you are absolutely Right, but are looking at it the wrong way. I want to find the liberals, because the best way to prevent fascists from taking control of the game is to determine who can actually be trusted and keep them in power for as long as possible without causing significant amounts discord.

In my opinion, the best approach to scumhunting in this setup is the Inverse of your approach, since the objective is to pass 5 out of 6 liberal policies before the facists can pass 6 out of their 11 and get a president in power. A confirmed liberal is thrice as powerful as removing a confirmed facist, not to mention less costly to obtain simply due to the nature of power gain.

[Luckyowl]

Why highly likely that a Fascist is trying to stay under the radar by not providing much discussion to sway attention off them, and the less discussion that happens is better for the Fascists, I just have no strategy going in except relying on the 35PP Investigation to get Fascists, because it would a bad play for a Fascist to lie about their investigation because I believe if a Fascist confirms another Fascist to draw less attention to themselves they still would out of there players; and if they lie about a Liberal with their Investigation well that would be sus, and we would know who is Fascist even more if a executed member role is confirmed upon death (I don’t think it’s the case with these rules)

If you want to know my strategy, is to probably investigate you IcyTea (Not salty over a previous Mafia game no lol) or maybe... Dustan since you think they have the possibility of being Fas, though I do not know if the Fascists are allowed a private discussion “channel” to discuss strategy and whatnot.

I agree, I don't really have a plan myself. I'm sort of just waiting for the game to develop and see what info we get from it. However everyone should say something at least talk. Playing tiger, might work now, but if they stalk their prey for too long. Their prey will notice.

[hector13]

((Not a player, posting so I remember this exists and to express interest))

[IcyTea31]

Why not have me investigated instead, since we are nearly at the power threshold for that?

Because we're not at that threshold yet, and I'd like to see your reaction now rather than later. Also, would you really be the prime investigation target, or would there be someone of higher priority, especially when you later say it's more important to find liberals?

Upon closer inspection of this comment, i would like to point out you are absolutely Right, but are looking at it the wrong way. I want to find the liberals, because the best way to prevent fascists from taking control of the game is to determine who can actually be trusted and keep them in power for as long as possible without causing significant amounts discord.

Sure, that's a valid approach. In that case, why didn't you townhunt on the first turn?

In my opinion, the best approach to scumhunting in this setup is the Inverse of your approach, since the objective is to pass 5 out of 6 liberal policies before the facists can pass 6 out of their 11 and get a president in power.

What do you believe my approach is?

A confirmed liberal is thrice as powerful as removing a confirmed facist, not to mention less costly to obtain simply due to the nature of power gain.

In the scenario where I suggested executing a fascist is an option, the card to make it cheaper would have been played. However, don't forget that we have the majority: we can "remove" a known fascist simply by voting Nay whenever they would be in government, which only costs discord. Also, where are you getting "thrice" as powerful?

I just have no strategy going in except relying on the 35PP Investigation to get Fascists, because it would a bad play for a Fascist to lie about their investigation because I believe if a Fascist confirms another Fascist to draw less attention to themselves they still would out of there players; and if they lie about a Liberal with their Investigation well that would be sus

Why would it be a good play for a fascist to investigate and tell the truth about it? How can you tell if it's a fascist confirming another fascist? How can you tell if a fascist is lying about investigating a liberal?

I don't like this post, since it implies you already know enough about everyone's alignments to know whether or not someone is lying about an investigation, yet you say you plan to rely on investigations to learn those alignments. Chicken or egg?

[Dustan Hache]

1: I absolutely would be a prime investigation target by my own logic, so i honestly dont care about my appearance since the real show of who I am will come if and when i get chancellor. An investigation on me will either tip me off to who is a facist (by lying about my alignment) or give some confirmation that I am who i claim I am. Ideally, I need at least two investigations and a chancellorship to solidly prove my alignment.

2: most of the townhunting tools available are passive, and any information available will have to come from the elections and their passed cards. The real townhunt begins once we can start investigating and if i become president, since the chancellor will be under scrutiny unless i clear them for having gotten a poor hand. The only purpose questions serve for me is to provide insight into the tactics I am using and the perceived tactics of others, which does not provide an alignment tell.

3: by your own words you are scumhunting, which could be interpreted two ways: one: you are facist and are trying to leverage the inherent distrust caused by the early lack of information to prevent liberals from getting elected, or two:you are a genuine liberal with a lack of information trying to determine who to trust and who to avoid.

4: a confirmed liberal provides three things, the first two are obvious: A good chancellor target for every other turn after they have been revealed, and a potential means of detecting a facist president deterring them from forwarding facist cards that do not provide a benefit, or outright forcing them to try and get a term while the chancellor is being alternated which halves their effectiveness.
The third thing provided is a bit more subtle: a confirmed liberal has free reign to apply their view to the other liberals, confirmed or not. If the confirmed liberal has suspicions they can justify regarding who is what, then the other liberals can use this information to either confirm additional liberals or root out facists without letting them take power first.

[ctsun]

...so expectations will be high later.

Urgh, aaaaah. Lower them please.  I'm about as at-home in social games as a fish out of water so staying quiet in the face of uncertainty is my natural state of things. Besides, I'm haven't seen any clear sign of suspicious behaviour just yet so, uhhh, still nothing much to go on. Just seems all very clash-of-approaches, is how I would put it. I suppose the real meat of the game will come when in the next rounds? when investigations become a thing and we get actually tells to go off from.

[IcyTea31]

1: I absolutely would be a prime investigation target by my own logic, so i honestly dont care about my appearance since the real show of who I am will come if and when i get chancellor. An investigation on me will either tip me off to who is a facist (by lying about my alignment) or give some confirmation that I am who i claim I am. Ideally, I need at least two investigations and a chancellorship to solidly prove my alignment.

The game won't last enough turns to mechanically confirm everyone. By what metric do you choose whom to investigate first?

2: most of the townhunting tools available are passive, and any information available will have to come from the elections and their passed cards. The real townhunt begins once we can start investigating and if i become president, since the chancellor will be under scrutiny unless i clear them for having gotten a poor hand.

If your preferred strategy won't work in the early turns, why aren't you starting with another strategy? I know I'm going to change my tactics once there's more information.

The only purpose questions serve for me is to provide insight into the tactics I am using and the perceived tactics of others, which does not provide an alignment tell.

But wouldn't you agree that some tactics are more effective for one alignment than the other? If you can see what someone else is doing, and it seems to be a fascist-favouring strategy, wouldn't you be suspicious of them?

3: by your own words you are scumhunting, which could be interpreted two ways: one: you are facist and are trying to leverage the inherent distrust caused by the early lack of information to prevent liberals from getting elected, or two:you are a genuine liberal with a lack of information trying to determine who to trust and who to avoid.

Yes. In other words, I'm trying to win the game. Consider the opposite: if I wasn't scumhunting, I'd be a fascist not trying to leverage the distrust (i.e. laying low and trusting my allies) or a liberal with a lack of information not trying to fix that situation (i.e. losing the game). Liberals win through communication, for fascists it's not a strict requirement.

a potential means of detecting a facist president deterring them from forwarding facist cards that do not provide a benefit

I had to think about this, but I think this is actually the subtlest part of having a confirmed liberal, not the part where we have a voice we don't need to trust. If a fascist president passes the confirmed liberal two fascist cards and says they drew three, that's a lie they can be caught in later if the cards have been counted rigorously. To counter this, the fascists will have to make the same accusation of another player, which is a problem for them if the player who actually drew it is the confirmed liberal.

The only problem with the membership investigation power is that you need to trust that the one doing the investigation isn't lying.

[Luckyowl]

...so expectations will be high later.

Urgh, aaaaah. Lower them please.  I'm about as at-home in social games as a fish out of water so staying quiet in the face of uncertainty is my natural state of things. Besides, I'm haven't seen any clear sign of suspicious behaviour just yet so, uhhh, still nothing much to go on. Just seems all very clash-of-approaches, is how I would put it. I suppose the real meat of the game will come when in the next rounds? when investigations become a thing and we get actually tells to go off from.

this doesn't right with me. Why should we lower our suspicion on you? unless you're the fascist? Be mindful what you're saying. It will be use against you in later game. starting off with, "Urgh, aaaaah". Shows signs of cracking down() and everyone will focus on you. Right now I think you're the most suspicious one.  So I will give a  you question

Cstun: Who do you think is the most fascist among us?

[ctsun]

No one. No one's done anything to warrant suspicion yet.

Look, all I was saying up there was that if you were looking for skillful plays, you're looking at the wrong person. I thought I made that clear enough.

[IcyTea31]

No one. No one's done anything to warrant suspicion yet.

I disagree; people have made several dozen posts. If you go through each of them and ask "why did this player say this?" you should be able to find at least some motivations that seem trustworthy or suspicious. For more challenge, you can also ask "why didn't this player say X?"

[Luckyowl]

No one. No one's done anything to warrant suspicion yet.

Look, all I was saying up there was that if you were looking for skillful plays, you're looking at the wrong person. I thought I made that clear enough.

You may see it one way, but someone might see it in another light. I just got out a mafia game, where the scum team chose to stay low barely discussing who was the mafia, they also said "They aren't sure who was the scum.". What you're doing will hurt you. Our job is to know who is the fascists so we don't elect them to president. I'm a bit unsure if I should vote for you when it's your turn.