Okay, went through the whole thread and found what I think is interesting...
I'll start with Friend
Friend wrote:I'm still curious to the reasoning behind the soft VT claim. Generating discussion doesn't seem to be enough.
There was no VT soft claim
Simple as that
Friend wrote:Andrius and others: What are the pros and cons of a mass-popularity level claim? I'm fairly new to this whole thing so if this is a dumb idea please tell me
Ok, so you're the one that started this whole mass popularity claim idea right?
Friend wrote:I know that a mass popularity number claim wouldn't be hugely beneficial in terms of scumhunting, but it would help ensure success at neighborizing. That's all I wanted to get.
So you just want to because it could help neighborizing? but not scum hunting... hmm
Friend wrote:I agree with vollkan completely. That's what I had in mind when I suggested it. And I highly doubt that the level of popularity is tied to anything (PR-ness, alignment) so I don't think claiming it is rolefishing, like you said xite. Also, xite, why do you think scum would be able to fool a townie in the QT, when if they're that good at playing scum, they'll probably just be fooling them in the thread anyways?
I like this idea too. But yeah, we should wait 'til everyone's said their piece on the matter before we start claiming numbers.
Then what was with the VT claim statement before??
Friend wrote:I think most of us are in favor of this...so who wants to start? Andrius and then we can just popcorn from there, or go by the playerlist, or have everyone shout it out at once, doesn't really matter.
So you're the one pushing it again...
So which one is it? you do or don't think that popularity levels have to do with roles?
For the record, other than the basic, preps will be more popular, and so on and so forth ideas, I have evidence to believe that power roles ARE effected by popularity level.
And as for the popularity claim push thing, just pointing that out for future reference...
Next, i'll go with Vollkan
vollkan wrote:Interesting point. I'm not sure if it is a flaw, though. My reasoning proceeds as follows:
1) Assuming that such a role could be used in passing period
n
and then the target has the new rank in passing period
n + 1
, then the biggest risk is simply that the person they speak to, if it is somsebody that they could not have spoken to before, will accuse them of having lied about their ranking.
2) However, we already know that it will be impossible for scum to lie at the initial claim stage because they will get counterclaimed.
3) Accordingly, any purported change in popularity ranking will have to be true
The fact that the changes would be caused by a power role (though, we don't know of what alignment) instinctively makes me think that such changes should not be changed. Reason being is that, as a general rule I think, a person would want to increase the ranking of somebody they consider pro-town (so as to give them more choice) and decrease the ranking of somebody they suspect (so as to reduce their ability to pick their scumbuddies and avoid exposure to the town); hence, claiming changes, (publicly, since people might well target somebody they think is likely town and tell them about the change) could out a PR. So, at this stage I don't think changes should be publicly claimed.
Prana wrote:
Regarding the bolded bit there, they wouldn't be able to. If we all said "target the person below you in the list" then anyone who didn't would be automatically pointed out as scum. They would basically be forced into neighboring with the person below them or being known as scum.
The problem is that saying "Target the person below you" or any other rigid formulation removes any ability of town to individually target and interrogate a particular player they suspect, or collaborate with somebody they think is town. Hence, we need to have a free choice; in which case, we need to claim those choices and (because reasons are always good) the reasons why.
1) Considering everyone's idea that lies = scum, that is a big risk
2) We weren't completely sure of this... Just saying
3) wha?
I think for today, we should do everyone target person lower than you, this will guarantee some night talk for town no matter what and we can have that if they didn't, they're probably scum.
Tomorrow we can let it be free choices and see what happens
Just to let you know, I've learned that the biggest fault of town in mafia games is that everything becomes black and white. Lets try not to do that
Regarding some of your other posts
Vollkan there are plenty of chances of outing a PR in that case, but there are also plenty of chances NOT to.
Here's some possibilities of that role
1) Talking with someone in their QT makes that person's popularity go up/down
2) They can target one person per night to bring them up one (or more) popularity level
3) They can target one person per night to bring them down one (or more) popularity level
4) They can do either 2 or 3
5) They can do both 2 and 3
Now the rest of it, I'm just going to post in order.
Tasky, what they were doing with the role thing was more setup speculation/gaming the mod than IioA
You did pull IioA yourself, but with the idea of analyzing it it seems.
Tasky does not seem scummy for this, just misguided
Friend fighting with him over this concerns me for some reason
And the wagon seems somewhat unwarranted at that point, Friend, making me more suspicious of you
Next, why is Vollkan one of the morep pro-town players at that point?
I mean, it was page 3 and he only posted 4 times
And nothing he wrote made me either here or there with him
Can you explain please?
Tasky, self voting was really stupid, and I voted you for it out of policy. (Although it did make me laugh
)
Friend, trying to get an opinion from me, not really scummy but worth the question, why only me?
Volkan, I know, I do it on purpose all the time. Just a saying I've come to call my own
