Kinetic, post 77 (bolding added) wrote:If we assume there is a Pro-Town Killing role, EVEN if we out all of the power roles,
if we just focus on killing the players that are not the above six,
we could win this game in three days.
Kinetic, post 88 wrote:True. However if we have to find 2-3 scum hiding among 6 townies instead of 2-3 scum hiding in 12 townies, our odds of finding scum are basically 50/50 instead of about 25%.
Kinetic, post 96 wrote:AT THE END OF MASS CLAIM THERE ARE STILL AT MOST 2 SCUM AND STILL 12 PEOPLE WHO CAN VOTE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now I think you're just being obtuse on purpose.
In post 77, you outlined your approach. I have highlighted the detail that I find the most trouble with. I have done this in two posts running now.
In case this is still confusing:
I have a very specific problem with the approach you described. You suggested that the town should systematically lynch and/or vig anyone whose name does not fall into the list of names you posted above. I disagree strongly.
Please let me know if you'd like me to rephrase this point in other ways. I have a thesaurus.
Kinetic wrote:WTF ARE YOU SMOKING AND CAN I GET SOME PLEASE!
How's that reading up on "Poisoning the Wells" going?
Kinetic wrote:Gemelli wrote:So what is a scum player going to claim? Most likely one of the 6 major "non-automatic" roles.
And that is a bad thing? In that case we are actually in a BETTER position. If scum counter claim we know who the scum are better than if they claim secondary roles. If one of the counter claimers comes up town the other must be scum. If there is a vig or a SK, then the mafia team is going to lose, plain and simple. If there is a SK, then some things change, but honestly it still puts us (and by us, I mean the town) in a good position.
The situation isn't nearly as rosy if we have already started killing off people whose names aren't on your list. Which, again, is the part of this whole plan that I think causes problems.
Kinetic wrote:But that isn't what you're doing. What you are doing is addressing points that don't even exist...
No, I am discussing what I see as flaws in your massclaim approach. You don't have to agree with my points, but telling me that those points "don't even exist" is kind of silly.
Kinetic wrote:Gemelli wrote:Wait.
You
were the one that suggested killing off anyone who doesn't hold one of your "power 6" rolenames:
... ... After mass name claim, 6 people are not going to automatically die. And those 6 people are not automatically not scum... I have no clue WHAT THE FUCK you are talking about.
I am talking about the approach you advocated in the bolded part of post 77 above. The potential result of having 6 people die was spelled out by you in post 88, also quoted above. I honestly don't know how to make this any clearer.
Kinetic wrote:I am saying that if we have the 6 people I have stated are in this game, and are not counter claimed, there is a VERY GOOD chance they are not scum. Then the remaining OTHER 6 people in the game, there is a VERY GOOD chance at least 3 of them are scum.
Are you saying that after we narrow the six non-main character names there are not going to be any scum in them??
No. I am explaining (not assuming) that at least three of the players in the "does not have a role name on Kinetic's list" group will be pro-town. Those players will be faced with a choice: tell the truth and become a target for lynching/vigging (again, your approach from post 77), or LIE about their role to remain in the game. For scum players, it's much simpler: they MUST lie about their roles and claim to be in the Approved 6.
At the end of this process, we have at least 9 players claiming names from your list, more if any of the townies decide to lie to stay in the game. In this process, townies who tell the truth are targetted for death.
I'm not talking about auto-lynch here, so please stop saying that. I'm talking specifically about the approach you laid out in post 77 -- "if we just focus on killing the players that are not the above six, we could win this game in three days." THAT is what I am arguing against. You are tap-dancing around my rebuttal and shifting the details of your approach as you go along -- would we actually be focused on lynching/vigging players whose role names aren't on the list? Or are we just looking at the double-claims and leaving the non-approved names alone?
Kinetic wrote:You then say: Well none of the people that don't claim one of the six are scum and the ENTIRE SCUM GROUP is hiding among the six main characters.
Now THAT is a straw man; I never said any such thing. What I actually said was:
Gemelli wrote:Let's assume that all 6 of the players you list are in fact in the game. We then have three townies that hold pro-town secondary roles, and three scum.
Now, you have suggested that the goal of this process is to "identify and vote off the secondary roles." So what is a scum player going to claim? Most likely one of the 6 major "non-automatic" roles.
So what do we get coming out of this process?
A. The mafia know who is likely to hold the actual power roles, based on character names
B. Three of the town's major roles are put into suspicion, since they will have made the same claim as a scum player
C. If there is an SK, all they will have to do is pick off any players who have a double-claimed role
To sum up: I think that it is very likely that if we follow the process you put forth in post 77, all of the scum will survive the initial "purge non-primary role names" stage, and the only ones who will be killed will be townies who do not wish to lie about their role names. We will have more information to work with, yes, but I don't think that we will necessarily be in a better position than we are starting with.