Darvi:I don't get it. What does inspecting someone have to do with relying on them to not be bigger assholes than you?
What I'm saying is that'd it help to have somebody be a confirmed townie whose comments are actually worth the time it takes to read them and not just some crap said by a scumbucket.
How do you view comments made by nonconfirmed people?
Darvi, if you were a cop, who would you inspect first?
Why just one question?
Why just him?
I didn't think it'd have any meaning if I asked both/all of them.
Nuke:How are you going to play a game with so many special roles?
Carefully.
Why?
Very well.
Firstly, I will analyse the given flavour. We don't know if flavour will play a large role here, but it might.
Secondly, I will watch for odd behaviour. Occasionally BYOR roles will have requirements in the form of 'say this every post'.
Thirdly, I will watch with great interest what happens when someone is lynched; how much information we receive as to their role, and what flavour is involved with their death.
Fourthly, I will watch what happens at night, based on public knowledge, claims, and any information that my role might give me. Information pieced together can suggest the shape of missing parts.
Then, all information will be scrutinised for patterns. No crazy theory will be left unconsidered, at least until the level of sanity is known (or guessed at).
Every piece of information will be assumed to be wrong, or caused by someone deliberately obfuscating the truth, and the consequences thereof will be considered
It will be assumed that every lynching will fail (be it due to roles who prevent lynching, doublevoters, vote stealers, unlynchables, or other), and the consequences thereof will be considered.
It will be assumed that every night action will not only fail but backfire spectacularly and the consequences thereof will be considered.
Having considered what could go wrong an estimation as to what will probably happen will be constructed, being an average of the expected and the complete failure (unless the ratio of chaos has been better determined).
Action will occur on the basis of the the most probable scenario with a generous margin of error. Actions which require everything to go right will be considered invalid.
In summary, I intend to act cautiously.
This is completely and utterly worthless, as you basically say "I will assume everything is and goes wrong and nothing is as it seems and consider all possibilities," which mostly translates to "I will be paranoid and do nothing because of it." How exactly do you intend to be useful while contemplating bizarre theories which assume the inspection results are wrong and scum is unlynchable?
The level of chaos is unknown, and there are a lot of players. Which is to say, we have no idea what to expect. The possibility that the town has a glut of investigative roles is valid. A D1 no lynch, then, is not as foolish a course of action as it normally is in games where the structure is well known, and we can expect lynchings to have a useful effect.
D1 lynches being essentially random, it may be better not to risk killing a useful towny who might otherwise have identified a member of the scumteam in the night.
Level of chaos unknown, yet possibility of strong town power roles is valid enough to base actions off of. Right.
Also, this is mafia. Town has to scumhunt, scum has to hide. The notion that town can overwhelm scum using their raw night action strength, even just on N1, is utterly retarded outside of a bastard game (or
very specific scenario).
2)I don't. Please read. If, in the cold light of dawn (tempers having being tempered by a nights rest), they still look like scum, I have no problem with lynching them. I suspect that they will not look like scum anymore, unless they actually are. Mistakes could still be made, but I consider it less likely.
What massive difference is the night supposed to make? How are obvscum town going to suddenly look townier next day, while obvscum scum won't?
For example, in the classic WIFOM situation, the odds are 50/50. You can um and ah, but that is what they are. There are two situations, and arguments can be made for both of them- the odds, then, are 50/50, give or take an insignificant percentage. In a situation where, say, the wine in cup A is bright green, bubbling, and giving off smoke which stings the eyes, whilst it is still possible that cup B has been poisoned, the odds are no longer 50/50. More like 80/20, depending. Once again, you can um and ah, but you would still, with no other information, be smart to drink from cup B. Thus, this situation, whilst similar, is not WIFOM.
Not every situation which has two possibilities, neither of which you can be certain of, is WIFOM.
Except then they know it's 80/20 and so intentionally make the bubbling glass not poison, unless they know you'd know they'd do that and make the bubbling glass poison, etc.
Being more or less likely than 50/50 doesn't make it not WIFOM.
Orangebottle:webadict, what color are you thinking of?
I expected more from you.
You should be experienced enough to know that such questions are usually used as jokes. Except, you slapped a vote onto it, which makes me take the question seriously. Now you've taken the time to put pressure on someone to answer your question, except your question is silly and pointless.
Not necessarily. It got him saying something, and I'm sure he knows a correct/consistent answer to pretty much any "real" RVS question, so I'd say it served its purpose. At the very least, I don't think I'd have gotten more out of a more traditional question.
Tolyk:Questioning more experienced players imo has less of a chance of mislynching.
Folks pouring on newbtown will break them with the slightest slip, while if the experienced folks slip it's easier to get a closer-to-reality result.
This isn't saying that not everyone should be questioned - obviously we need a sampling of everybody.
The thing is that in my experience, one person breaks down (typically a new player) and they get trampled, with a potentially helpful player down.
Then why aren't you questioning experienced players? You've even said later that you're afraid of messing up, but here you're claiming there's several individuals you probably don't have to worry about that with.
I don't think we should lynch NUKE.
Well he's acting like himself
I think we should wait until the other folks come in to make any decisions...
>.>
Why? What do the others have to do with whether or not we should kill Nuke?
Webadict:The real question is would scum WIFOM. I don't think so, ergo, I don't think NUKE is scum. And yes, I did just use WIFOM on the use of WIFOM. He seemed genuinely sincere about it, so I figured he's probably town.
What about Totem Mafia? Sure, he abandoned it rather swiftly, but that could have been because his partner was the one ragging on him for it.
Urist:MBP, Think, IronyOwl, Jack: Do something.
Working on it. Long thread is long.
Think:IronyOwl: who do you currently suspect? What do you think about webadict's discussion about NUKE, considering your vote is currently still on him?
Mainly TolyK and Crown for passiveness.
I think he's experienced enough for it to potentially be valid, but I'm always concerned about anything that requires someone to not be a blithering imbecile, especially someone who's outright known for stupid plans.
Crown: I suppose if I'd wanted to know I should have asked you myself, but I really do want to hear your answer to
Simple's question.
Aside from that, who do you suspect other than TolyK? What's your view on the OB vs MBP scuffle?