I mean, this is also why I didn't vote AoC, I disafree that his reply saying claiming VT prevents him getting terminated is in any way a towny analysis (it's just fluffposting, making you upset with what was a fine post and analysis). That saod, I am certain this is trolling done regardless of alignment, I don't understand where I said AoC is mafia insteas of a wolf, so again it's fake/forced-searching for holes in thinking, it's just fluff.
Everyone's a fool in some ways, we all can only try.
Ar arbitrary as it seems, I do not think Robert would ever make those two posts as town. Who would open saying someone is overcomplicating the game only then to give absolutely passive response to a scumread? He'd either make a jibe back at me or would contribute more.
Everyone's a fool in some ways, we all can only try.
In post 6, RationalMadman wrote:We should push for elminations today. Not for a NL and also not with the normal random-elmination(RE, as opposed to the former RL) strategy.
The setup is 100% open to scum, who know which PR can can catch them and want town to not use their free moselimination.
We stop at E-1 and before hammering let the person claim
If they are counterclaimed, we hammer on them. The other PR is probably useless to us but still is utilisable as a clear to lead the following day phase. Even if we hammer the real PR, it is as bad regardless.
So, we should talk as much as possible as this is a setup where the PRs only matter day two but where we as a town should put deep pressure on each other and scum from the get-go since we can't protect the investigative PR with a role regardless, so we're they're only useful for finding a scum member and dying the next night phase anyway.
If at E-1 they go un-counterclaimed (unCC'd) we unvote and let them lead the elimination today (again at E-1 we let the person claim).
No matter what, the PR is useless when it comes to finding both Mafia or WW. We should be hunting instantly and sharing thoughts.
Yeah I completely agree with this.
I'm guessing when you say random elimination you're talking about the informal process of hammering people at will?
In post 11, RationalMadman wrote:If we play passive and scum hits a PR on night phase 1, we are potentially screwed in entirety as the results from the other PR meam absolutely nothing during day 2 regardless (si ce we don't know which type of scum it is)
It wouldn't mean absolutely nothing, if they have a "clear" on someone their chance of being scum gets cut in half.
In post 15, Agent of Chaos wrote:I haven't played with anyone here before, should be fun.
Anyone here a total newb? Myself and the other guy are experienced, let me know if you have any questions.
Conversation hasn't really started yet, so it's random vote time. Obviously, the guy above me can't be scum, his avatar is too cute. Perhaps it's a ploy, though...
The chances are 1/5 if you mean the PR that can catch the type of scum but there's both Cop and Seer regardless if I understand the setup correctly.
So the odds are 40% not 25% but are 20% for the PR that cpuld physically have caught (and we won't know either way if a PR dies Night One unless the other found a guilty or wolf read)
Yep, that's what i meant.
But most effective play for mafia who getting killed then is claim PR which they fear (Mafia claim Cop, Werewolf claim Seer). They dying anyway and have nothing to lose, but can reveal PR. It's still 1vs1 though.
So it's impossible to kill mafia without revealing PR right now, as they WILL fakeclaim, if they are somewhat competent.
In post 22, RationalMadman wrote:If Not_Mafia can't control himself and hold back from hammering as town, that is a severe violation. I don't want to be accused of OGI so I won't discuss the implications of that. However, it is 100% anti-town to hammer before the voted has a chance to claim in this setup even if you are one of the two PRs.
Yes. It's anti-town.
No, he still doing that.
RationalMadman wrote:We shouldn't cower out of voting just because someone has a meta of hammering as any alignment. It's them who should cower out of doing so.
As long as no one at E-1, we are fine. We can ask claims on E-2 without much danger.
And yes, i am Town.
This is not the solution.
If I get there I will refuse to claim at E-2, I'm not going to be part of an obviously worse strategy just to accommodate for town (not that we even know that that is the case) who are intentionally playing poorly.
In post 35, RationalMadman wrote:I also townread Enchant not for what they said page 1 (or he, pronoun not revealed so I will stick to they) but because they follow up by consistently explaining that they support the lynch today just that E-2 is preferable to E-1 as we have a player with habit of hammering regardless. This shows me also that the discussion of odds was regarding how i stantly wrong things can go if the E-1 outs as a PR.
I don't think enchant is scummy but I don't think this is a good reason to townread someone.
In post 22, RationalMadman wrote:If Not_Mafia can't control himself and hold back from hammering as town, that is a severe violation. I don't want to be accused of OGI so I won't discuss the implications of that. However, it is 100% anti-town to hammer before the voted has a chance to claim in this setup even if you are one of the two PRs.
Yes. It's anti-town.
No, he still doing that.
RationalMadman wrote:We shouldn't cower out of voting just because someone has a meta of hammering as any alignment. It's them who should cower out of doing so.
As long as no one at E-1, we are fine. We can ask claims on E-2 without much danger.
And yes, i am Town.
This is not the solution.
If I get there I will refuse to claim at E-2, I'm not going to be part of an obviously worse strategy just to accommodate for town (not that we even know that that is the case) who are intentionally playing poorly.
I agree. Letting N_M and/ or me lolhammer is much better strategy.
Roughly how serious is this?
I'm guessing not very but with a grain of truth that it should be avoided?
It has racistic subtext.
I am crazy enough to take down Batman, but BLM? No - thank you!
Sure, I'm more asking how important it is to avoid using that word, I've used it for a very long time and there's a pretty decent chance I'll accidentally say it.
In post 22, RationalMadman wrote:If Not_Mafia can't control himself and hold back from hammering as town, that is a severe violation. I don't want to be accused of OGI so I won't discuss the implications of that. However, it is 100% anti-town to hammer before the voted has a chance to claim in this setup even if you are one of the two PRs.
Yes. It's anti-town.
No, he still doing that.
RationalMadman wrote:We shouldn't cower out of voting just because someone has a meta of hammering as any alignment. It's them who should cower out of doing so.
As long as no one at E-1, we are fine. We can ask claims on E-2 without much danger.
And yes, i am Town.
This is not the solution.
If I get there I will refuse to claim at E-2, I'm not going to be part of an obviously worse strategy just to accommodate for town (not that we even know that that is the case) who are intentionally playing poorly.
I agree. Letting N_M and/ or me lolhammer is much better strategy.
I think it's a better strategy to punish anyone who plays anti-town, in this way or others, by setting the bar for how towny they need to be to be higher, particularly if someone will do it as both alignments.
If I have a close decision from reads between two people, I'll go for the one who has been more anti-town unless I have meta reasons to think that their anti-town plays are town-indicative for whatever reason.
As an example of this, since I don't have strong reads, VOTE: Agent of Chaos because they have gone out of their way to not contribute real content.
It's possible this isn't alignment indicative but I definitely haven't read anything they've done as towny.
In post 66, Vanderscamp wrote:
This is not the solution.
If I get there I will refuse to claim at E-2, I'm not going to be part of an
obviously worse strategy
just to accommodate for town (not that we even know that that is the case) who are intentionally playing poorly.
Explain why this strategy is worse or you getting my vote for this day.
Because forcing more claims from people is generally not helpful.
If this isn't the case, if more claims are fine or we are at least indifferent to them, then we should (or be at least indifferent to an) all claim today.
But I think that's pretty clearly not true.
Forcing claims at E-2 instead of E-1 forces more people to claim, assuming that we do not eventually put every person who gets to E-2 at E-1.
