I like the point you make, sort of. My first read of it, I kinda nodded along. Nice opener, the way people interact with its mix of logic and illogic - could be a very townie thing to probe! But, trying to wrap my head around it - because that's not an opener, an RVS thingy. You mean it, near as I can tell.
Yes, I mean it. I wasn't trying to probe people's reactions to it, I was trying to convince them that EuchreJack is the mafia. Is this a bad strategy? I have barely played any games with an RVS, so I just went off of my instinct.
Two kinds of bad strategy. Hey, if you're right that Jack is mafia (or any anti-town), that's what matters and it can't be a bad strategy. Even if he's caught for false reasons, or true ones, what matters is he's anti-town and he dies. But - if he's pro-town, that's a waste.
Your reasoning why he must be mafia don't make sense to me. Maybe you can explain it with fewer logic jumps? Maybe a branching tree? Show me why it doesn't make sense for a non-mafia Jack to have made that observation, regardless of if Mater is maf or not (which a town Jack wouldn't know unless they're both masons or something) - because I think I can see reasons for a non-mafia Jack to say:
NQT is a doublevoter eh
Part of my role is bus-driver-esque. Going to do my best to paraphrase. If I'm targeted, I switch that person's target(s) with that of a random other person who has the same number of targets. Claiming this now because I feel like it has the potential to royally screw up the night game otherwise.
Thanks Magma. Maybe everyone should just leave you alone then.
@NQT: Is your double vote for today only, or every day?
Now, if Jack is maf and you sniped him cold on his first post in your first game ever with him, I'm thrilled and excited and gonna keep watching you so close in future games, especially about Jack and especially if you keep being insta-right. That's
rare, that's a better call than I've ever made on Verm (first post? Not yet, though I've likely-towned him by his post 3 my first game with him (investigated him N2 to prove it, as well) and in a different game voted him with strong anti-town sus by his post 4 - and you're in your first game with Jack too, super impressive if you nailed a right read!).
Just, what he actually opening-posted reads/feels NAI to me.
RVS is kinda the 'scramble around' part of the game. Maf are already TMI about maf/not-maf, SK if we got any already know they gotta kill everybody else, any allies know they gotta help someone but may not know who, any survivors have a specific day to try to reach, and town know they got anti-town to hunt but that's about it. RVS - you can try to convince folks, sure. But if you're guessing... what are you even hoping to achieve in trying to convince?
You have your own answers; me I look for folks who seem to feel or be 'wrong', and I also work on whatever role business I may have (Like someone's gonna die and I can maybe save them; should I and can I? If so, how exactly? This has happened in 1+ previous games, because I'm a horrible person who keeps asking for roles that kinda need things to do like save folks or otherwise do stuff; which means folks end up with problems or stuff for me to do since my role literally requires that). Feeling and being 'wrong' often involves trying not to move towards a pro-town wincon; trying to get town dead and protect any fellow anti-town (any SK just want everyone dead).
But you also kinda probe and try to get ideas/interaction? "Is it just me, or does this feel extremely suspicious?" Is that sort of tentative style your normal way to talk as well? I don't see much of it in the rest of what you've said so far, so I'm really curious.
Yes. I only be confident in something when I know something is definitely true, such as if I have an investigative role. I'm working on being more firm since that's of course more persuasive, but if I'm confidently wrong in my accusations I'll be next on the chopping block.
Okay. I presume you are guessing about Jack, though you're using some pretty confident language/stance about him.
Like... where you say:
Of course, Mater is mafia if Jack is mafia, but while my reasons for suspecting Mater hinge solely on associations with Jack, I have more concrete evidence for Jack being mafia in the form of that suspicious post.
That's some darn confident language. And I can see worlds where Jack is town and Mater maf, where they're both town, where Jack is maf and Mater town, and where they are both maf (that one surprises me the most, it's the lowest odds by far, but it's not ruled out). And you're literally saying it seems that you think of Jack is maf then for sure Mater is too. I don't get it.
You bounce between,
An unconfirmed roleclaim doesn't really warrant not taking actions on Magma at all, and this could really benefit Mafia if Magma was mafia.
And because EuchreJack may be trying to cause this, I'll vote him.
And:
Because Magma roleclaiming in and of itself isn't that suspicious, but Jack coming to his conclusion is. So Jack is more suspicious than Magma, and might just be roping Magma into this.
I'm really confused about your thinking here. Magma either is or isn't maf. If he is or isn't, Jack either is or isn't.
If Magma ISN'T maf. Can you see a maf Jack saying what he said?
If Jack isn't maf (or other teamed anti-town) with Magma, can you see Jack saying what he said?
I dunno. Toaster, your reasoning works perfect for me if you're teamed anti-town with Magma; you set up for an illusion of 'oh, Jack wasn't teamed with Magma, so Magma's fine too/was always not that sus'. I really need help to get what you're doing and how you think it works.
In my view, I was pretty consistent with my arguments and I would like to hear why they sound inconsistent to you. I thought that both Jack and Magma were suspicious, but Jack is much more suspicious than Magma.
I am not teamed anti-town with magma, I am only not voting Magma because I am more suspicious of Jack. And if I did say "Jack wasn't teamed with Magma, so Magma's fine", I would be committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent in a game hosted by someone with fallacy in their name.
To me, it's vastly less 'you are being inconsistent' and 'your logic does not track, it's deeply mixed with either TMI or imagination/illogic and I can't sort it out, and you are claiming it's all logic, apparently'.
It would help me if you walk me through your thinking about how a town Jack can't say what Jack said, and how a maf Jack can't say what Jack said if Mater is not-maf. That's the inconsistency to me; you're appearing to ignore most of reality or know too much information (so you're not seeing the same reality I am).
I mostly agree with this list, probably since I'm too lazy to form coherent opinions on all 14 people here.
Yeah. You're... not really focusing on anything except the one issue you picked in your first post, right? And that Tric (but why not NQT?) and Verm catch your attention, whatever that means. I would really like to understand more about what the game looks like from your eyes.
I can't focus on multiple things at once, and I can't vote twice. It would be kind of hard to be suspicious of two separate people at once, and my attention can be easily diverted so I'm trying not to get tangled into other things.
I explained Tric and Verm catching my attention above.
I recommend notes.
Some players, like Sal, have only 5 posts so far. Others have 3x or more that many.
If you're town, I need you to try. See, anti-town only have to try as hard as the weaker town. They don't have anything to solve, maybe a hunt for other anti-town or power roles, but the game's a very different game for them than for pro-town roles. We have to find all the anti-town before too many of us are killed. Every mis-elimination
hurts. Badly. We only have a few. Maybe we can prevent a few kills from anti-town, or we're lucky and there's more than one type and they kill each other, or some genius town manages to redirect or otherwise force anti-town to kill their own team.
Otherwise, if we don't find anti-town to elim, we're losing our lifeblood even faster.
If Jack isn't exactly anti-town, and you 'lucked onto him' his first post in the game - then our elim of Jack if we do is a huge waste.
Worse, you're not even hunting for anti-town among the other players, questioning if you're right or wrong and if you might be wrong - then hunting for the actual anti-town; instead you're acting like anti-town yourself. And you're making it easier for anti-town if you actually are town. Maybe we can catch them by whom jumps on an incorrect wagon, that's not useless and it's part of why I was really happy with your post sussing Jack originally.
But if you're town I need your help. All of town need to find the anti-town, or we lose. If you're wrong about Jack and we elim a town Jack - okay, that's a town dead. Night 1, we probably lose at least 1 more town (good luck protection/redirection/other pro-town artists that I pray exist!)
Now it's D2. If you're alive then... and heck. If you're only working that weak as town? Anti-town probably do let you live. Probably want you in endgame - or you are anti-town saying 'ahh, nice tunnel, I will push it and not strain my brain with stuff I don't care about.
But hey, it's D2. And you... what? Grab 1 other name out of the 'mass' and say 'haha, my new tunnel. Let's drill here! No need to look at anyone else'. We rapidly run out of town, losing them night and day. We rapidly lose. I'm very against that.
So, if you're town. Please try harder. Pick out likely town, likely other antitown. People you sus more and less. I need your help if you're town.
Author
Topic: FBYOR 7 - Day 2 - Ineffable (12 / 14) (Read 13392 times)