[UNKNOWN] Mafia Day 5 - The Disappearance [Abandoned]

[Rodion]

I won't argue about the whole Gimli thing anymore. I think certain people are overreacting and trying to get someone who presented the best case of the day lynched because of something really petty. But that's my opinion and you can disagree on that, so I won't elaborate on it anymore.

2. Mafia and third party factions already know who is "good" by the fact they are not in their group.

This is completely flawed logic. Mafia would know who is in their own group but they do not know any possible other groups that are out there. So they can not assume that the roles they reveal are town

Wolf, is that an answer to this?

d) if you're "good" (town or some harmless types of 3rd-party), the evil guys know that already, in part (mafia knows you are not mafia, multiplayer 3rd-parties know you're not part of their 3rd-party)

Do realize that you've said exactly what I've said, but you somehow got the guts to call my logic "flawed".

FOS Wolf.

[strike wolf]

I didn't say at all what you said. You are claiming it is unimportant to them because as you said they already know who is "good". It is an oversimplication. My argument is that mafia, cult and any other anti-town factions that could be in this game need more than that they are not in their group. If mafia wants to win they need to eliminate cult if cult wants to win they a. Need to avoid targeting mafia as that will in most circumstances kill the recruiter. B. Eliminate mafia. I really like the part where you editted out where I said it was important for mafia/cult to get this information.

So yeah your logic was flawed because you tried to paint it as why mafia would not care about name claims. It was imo complete bs.

As far as gimli is concerned when you get a bunch of accusations and fingers pointed at you with no support on that action maybe it is time to take a deeper look at why it is suspicious rather than just blame all those people as trying to sabotage you. But I guess you are the god sent messiah of this thread sent to light the path before all of us lowly clowns who do not understand your true genius.

[Rodion]

I didn't say at all what you said. You are claiming it is unimportant to them because as you said they already know who is "good". It is an oversimplication. My argument is that mafia, cult and any other anti-town factions that could be in this game need more than that they are not in their group. If mafia wants to win they need to eliminate cult if cult wants to win they a. Need to avoid targeting mafia as that will in most circumstances kill the recruiter. B. Eliminate mafia. I really like the part where you editted out where I said it was important for mafia/cult to get this information.

Read again. My blue highlighted part says they know "in part" (as opposed to "totally"). Red and orange highlighted parts explain why it is partial (because the mafia only know they are not mafia and the cult only know they are not cult).

When answering to my comment, you completely disregarded the "in part" remark and concluded I was riding a "completely flawed logic", when, in fact, you answered "against" me the same thing I've had noticed (that mafia only knows who's mafia and cult only knows who's cult).

I only quoted what I was answering. I agree that it is important for cult to avoid targeting mafia and that the knowledge would be good. I just don't see a simple name solving the whole puzzle as to who mafia should target or who cult should avoid.

As far as gimli is concerned when you get a bunch of accusations and fingers pointed at you with no support on that action maybe it is time to take a deeper look at why it is suspicious rather than just blame all those people as trying to sabotage you. But I guess you are the god sent messiah of this thread sent to light the path before all of us lowly clowns who do not understand your true genius.

THIS!!!

[safariguy5]

Man I could cut the sarcasm with a knife... Really Rodion, I understand the case, I just don't think it's strong enough to warrant a vote. Props for trying, but I'm not buying it.

[strike wolf]

For the full record so people this is where we are getting the current argument from:

You said "french character from the beggining of the 1400s". I don't see how that weakens the town at all. Why?
a) we don't know if you're telling the truth
b) assuming you're telling the truth, we don't know if your character is, to put it simply (since this is your first game), "good" or "evil"
c) if you're "evil" (mafia or 3rd-party) the town didn't get weak at all, as nothing from their own side was revealed
d) if you're "good" (town or some harmless types of 3rd-party), the evil guys know that already, in part (mafia knows you are not mafia, multiplayer 3rd-parties know you're not part of their 3rd-party)

The way I see it, that is all harmless. I'll know tell you how what you did could harm the town.you mentioned your power, which you didn't.

First of all a simplication. Yeah he probably did not harm town just by saying that but a. We do not know that it won't so why take the chance when it offers 0% benefit to town b. We are not going after you for what gimli said we are going after you for your following comment where you took a stab at his name. A move that could have caused him to reveal more information.

You do mention that the cult and mafia know their own members but you are using it as part of an argument in detailing why the information is irrelevant to them. While you do acknowledge it your focus is on what the mafia DO know. I considered this a flawed argument and believe I put forth a good argument for why it is flawed.

Well of course it will not solve all the world's problems for mafia or cult but a name can help them to organize where they should go and it definitely helps them a lot more than it helps town.

I am glad you are able to at least accept harsh sarcasm...hope you are ok with nicknames.

[Rodion]

Yeah he probably did not harm town just by saying that but a. We do not know that it won't so why take the chance when it offers 0% benefit to town b.

I agree with some of your points. On further thought, I guess that getting a name from a townie COULD hurt the town. It is, however, a double edged sword. Say Gimli is mafia. We have a newbie making a claim and a decent shot at getting him to slip and make the town's job easier. I'm not saying the benefits outweigh the risks (it possibly breaks even, I don't know), but saying that is offers 0% benefit to town is a conclusion that could only be reached after Gimli is cleared. Now, perhaps you're a cop that investigated Karelpietertje (now Gimli) and got an innocent report, but unless you're willing to make that claim (and I don't think you should), you can't conclude that town benefitted 0% from my question.

Now, a little off-topic (I hope you don't mind that, Commander): I don't mind sarcasm. The issue I have with you is that, while you're somewhat level-headed, there's always something malicious in your posts (and it isn't the sarcasm, but rather how you use things like "0% benefit to the town" or "mafia knows mafia, cult knows cult" against me when those sentences are either false or not applicable to me). You're playing your game, as I'm playing mine and I don't take it personally (I won't carry a grudge on this game to a future one). And I don't mind nicknames if I like them.

[strike wolf]

Yeah he probably did not harm town just by saying that but a. We do not know that it won't so why take the chance when it offers 0% benefit to town b.

I agree with some of your points. On further thought, I guess that getting a name from a townie COULD hurt the town. It is, however, a double edged sword. Say Gimli is mafia. We have a newbie making a claim and a decent shot at getting him to slip and make the town's job easier. I'm not saying the benefits outweigh the risks (it possibly breaks even, I don't know), but saying that is offers 0% benefit to town is a conclusion that could only be reached after Gimli is cleared. Now, perhaps you're a cop that investigated Karelpietertje (now Gimli) and got an innocent report, but unless you're willing to make that claim (and I don't think you should), you can't conclude that town benefitted 0% from my question.

and here I thought you were one of the ones saying it was too early to gain any serious leads by using set up. Certainly you don't think that you would have instantly spotted his lie under these circumstances. Long term maybe but it is still very very slim and I will call it 0% because that's what it would have almost definitely gotten us.

Now, a little off-topic (I hope you don't mind that, Commander): I don't mind sarcasm. The issue I have with you is that, while you're somewhat level-headed, there's always something malicious in your posts (and it isn't the sarcasm, but rather how you use things like "0% benefit to the town" or "mafia knows mafia, cult knows cult" against me when those sentences are either false or not applicable to me). You're playing your game, as I'm playing mine and I don't take it personally (I won't carry a grudge on this game to a future one). And I don't mind nicknames if I like them.

Not directly applicable to you no but it is applicable to the argument I made as far as why name claims are relevant to town.

[Rodion]

Yeah he probably did not harm town just by saying that but a. We do not know that it won't so why take the chance when it offers 0% benefit to town b.

I agree with some of your points. On further thought, I guess that getting a name from a townie COULD hurt the town. It is, however, a double edged sword. Say Gimli is mafia. We have a newbie making a claim and a decent shot at getting him to slip and make the town's job easier. I'm not saying the benefits outweigh the risks (it possibly breaks even, I don't know), but saying that is offers 0% benefit to town is a conclusion that could only be reached after Gimli is cleared. Now, perhaps you're a cop that investigated Karelpietertje (now Gimli) and got an innocent report, but unless you're willing to make that claim (and I don't think you should), you can't conclude that town benefitted 0% from my question.

and here I thought you were one of the ones saying it was too early to gain any serious leads by using set up. Certainly you don't think that you would have instantly spotted his lie under these circumstances. Long term maybe but it is still very very slim and I will call it 0% because that's what it would have almost definitely gotten us.

And I still don't, but you can't have it both ways. You could perhaps try to say you'd rather not risk it because the reward wouldn't be big enough, but you definitely can't have it both ways.

If you think names can reveal important stuff, asking for names can either put a townie in trouble (bad for the town) or a put in trouble a mafia/cultie (good for the town), so you can't say it benefits the town 0%. You must make a choice in calling my "Joan of Arc?" question a move that:
a) could help or harm the town
b) is harmless

Again, you can't have it both ways but saying it was "not harmless" and had "0% chance of helping the town".

[strike wolf]

Yeah he probably did not harm town just by saying that but a. We do not know that it won't so why take the chance when it offers 0% benefit to town b.

I agree with some of your points. On further thought, I guess that getting a name from a townie COULD hurt the town. It is, however, a double edged sword. Say Gimli is mafia. We have a newbie making a claim and a decent shot at getting him to slip and make the town's job easier. I'm not saying the benefits outweigh the risks (it possibly breaks even, I don't know), but saying that is offers 0% benefit to town is a conclusion that could only be reached after Gimli is cleared. Now, perhaps you're a cop that investigated Karelpietertje (now Gimli) and got an innocent report, but unless you're willing to make that claim (and I don't think you should), you can't conclude that town benefitted 0% from my question.

and here I thought you were one of the ones saying it was too early to gain any serious leads by using set up. Certainly you don't think that you would have instantly spotted his lie under these circumstances. Long term maybe but it is still very very slim and I will call it 0% because that's what it would have almost definitely gotten us.

And I still don't, but you can't have it both ways. You could perhaps try to say you'd rather not risk it because the reward wouldn't be big enough, but you definitely can't have it both ways.

If you think names can reveal important stuff, asking for names can either put a townie in trouble (bad for the town) or a put in trouble a mafia/cultie (good for the town), so you can't say it benefits the town 0%. You must make a choice in calling my "Joan of Arc?" question a move that:
a) could help or harm the town
b) is harmless

Again, you can't have it both ways but saying it was "not harmless" and had "0% chance of helping the town".

I do not like the it is one or the other approach to mafia. It is too straight forward and i have never seen a mafia game that has worked that simply. This is somewhat of a simplification in and of itself as I don't really want to get into all the ins and outs right this moment but I think of it a little bit more like this:

a. is this harmless?
b. Is it going to be more helpful to the town?
c. Is it going to be more harmful to the town?

In this scenario the conclusion I came to is as following:

a. No.
b. very unlikely
c. probably.

And there is also other factors as far as figuring out what you believe to be scum tells, innocent suggestions and possible town deceptions (yes town does on occasion deceive each other, for instance vanilla townies will often make themselves look like power roles to draw mafia attention...I learned that the hard way in the Quentin Tarantino Mafia ) and what deserves a vote and what does not and everything in between.

[Rodion]

Well, that's a change from the 0% idea. A good starting to point. I just wish I didn't have to constantly corner you in order to get you to appraise the situations in a better way. Feels like every post is a huge battle to unsmask one of your subtle anti-Rodion comments.

In the field of (formal) logic, things either are or aren't. When someone contradicts himself, you can be straight forward in saying one of his 1 assertions were wrong (perhaps both).

Anyway:

1 - I do admit that the odds of someone being pro-town is higher than the odds of someone being anti-town. That forces me to consider that probability of your "c" is higher than probability of your "b" ("very unlikely" seems nerfed, but I won't get down to numbers).

2 - There is, however, one thing you didn't consider when using those probabilities. Whie getting a townie is more probably, the benefit of getting a mafia is more than the harm of losing 1 townie, so you have to "calibrate" those odds in order to reckon that (I explained it in Terminator - I was mafia there, but that doesn't remove the truth of the formula). The proper calculus is:

probability of town being found x risk of losing a townie
compared to
probability of mafia/cultie being found x benefit of killing a townie/cultie

That seems like enough to bring those odds to an about equal degree.

[strike wolf]

Well, that's a change from the 0% idea. A good starting to point. I just wish I didn't have to constantly corner you in order to get you to appraise the situations in a better way. Feels like every post is a huge battle to unsmask one of your subtle anti-Rodion comments.

I am only anti-you to the point that i find you suspicious...

In the field of (formal) logic, things either are or aren't. When someone contradicts himself, you can be straight forward in saying one of his 1 assertions were wrong (perhaps both).

I will say I agree that in cases of contradictions very often it is best to confront the person about it and that is what I liked about your bleed case. I just wish to caution you that not all straight up contradictions are what they appear to be. I provided one example of that in the last post.

Anyway:

1 - I do admit that the odds of someone being pro-town is higher than the odds of someone being anti-town. That forces me to consider that probability of your "c" is higher than probability of your "b" ("very unlikely" seems nerfed, but I won't get down to numbers).

than you understand the basis of why I first found you suspicious and why I felt the question should never have been asked in that scenario.

2 - There is, however, one thing you didn't consider when using those probabilities. Whie getting a townie is more probably, the benefit of getting a mafia is more than the harm of losing 1 townie, so you have to "calibrate" those odds in order to reckon that (I explained it in Terminator - I was mafia there, but that doesn't remove the truth of the formula). The proper calculus is:

probability of town being found x risk of losing a townie
compared to
probability of mafia/cultie being found x benefit of killing a townie/cultie

That seems like enough to bring those odds to an about equal degree.

I would say this
A. does not account for potentially exposing power roles.
B. is a big leap as we don't actually know how many town or anti-town roles might be in the game in a situation where even one role one way or another could unbalance the equation and is at the very least a big leap of faith.

If you had some case on gimli I could see this working out but there was no case as far as I can see nor have you attempted to establish one and honestly I would not expect you to.

[gimli1990]

just saying i am still and reading this unsure what to think right now.

[Rodion]

Well, that's a change from the 0% idea. A good starting to point. I just wish I didn't have to constantly corner you in order to get you to appraise the situations in a better way. Feels like every post is a huge battle to unsmask one of your subtle anti-Rodion comments.

I am only anti-you to the point that i find you suspicious...

Or because of a hidden agenda. But that's WIFOM, no need to reply.

In the field of (formal) logic, things either are or aren't. When someone contradicts himself, you can be straight forward in saying one of his 1 assertions were wrong (perhaps both).

I will say I agree that in cases of contradictions very often it is best to confront the person about it and that is what I liked about your bleed case. I just wish to caution you that not all straight up contradictions are what they appear to be. I provided one example of that in the last post.

The vanilla pretending to be powerful just to get NKed and preserve the life of a PR? That's interesting. You're saying that not all lies are anti-town. It kinds of makes sense, but it could epically backfire if your actions of pretending to have a power get the real townie with that power to counterclaim you. Then you get to lynch a VT and expose the PR for a NK. Unless you can lie and suggest you have a power without explaining it, then you don't get the counterclaim. Yes, you convinced me that not all lies are anti-town by definition, but I'm thinking pro-town lies are (or at least should be) extremely rare and well thought.

Anyway:

1 - I do admit that the odds of someone being pro-town is higher than the odds of someone being anti-town. That forces me to consider that probability of your "c" is higher than probability of your "b" ("very unlikely" seems nerfed, but I won't get down to numbers).

than you understand the basis of why I first found you suspicious and why I felt the question should never have been asked in that scenario.

I can't understand it that way. You can't force me to make an admission based on 1 without analysing 2 as an ensemble. I'll show you a silly example just to make it clear:

Person A manages a business and he invests 1 dollar in a "gamble" that works like this:
a) 99% chance he loses the dollar
b) 1% chance he gains 1 million for the business

You can't blame person A for being reckless simply because 99% loss is a lot bigger than 1% win. You need to "weigh" losses and wins. Losing 1 townie isn't as much of a big deal as getting a mafia/cult recruiter killed and working with low odds doesn't make it temerary.

2 - There is, however, one thing you didn't consider when using those probabilities. Whie getting a townie is more probably, the benefit of getting a mafia is more than the harm of losing 1 townie, so you have to "calibrate" those odds in order to reckon that (I explained it in Terminator - I was mafia there, but that doesn't remove the truth of the formula). The proper calculus is:

probability of town being found x risk of losing a townie
compared to
probability of mafia/cultie being found x benefit of killing a townie/cultie

That seems like enough to bring those odds to an about equal degree.

I would say this
A. does not account for potentially exposing power roles.
B. is a big leap as we don't actually know how many town or anti-town roles might be in the game in a situation where even one role one way or another could unbalance the equation and is at the very least a big leap of faith.

If you had some case on gimli I could see this working out but there was no case as far as I can see nor have you attempted to establish one and honestly I would not expect you to.

It accounts for the potential of exposing power roles since the game is theoretically balanced. It could expose a mafia PR, for instance. It's a big leap of faith to believe I should know everyone's names and I don't believe that. I asked for Bleed's with a good reasoning behind it and made Gimli a question just because he had already narrowed his spectrum up to the point that there weren't really many other options. You can call me overly curious and perhaps reckless for the Gimli question, but that's all you got against me, considering you can't even find 1 inconsistency in my Bleed case (you said so yourself).

And no, I didn't have a case on Gimli and I still don't.

[safariguy5]

Well, that's a change from the 0% idea. A good starting to point. I just wish I didn't have to constantly corner you in order to get you to appraise the situations in a better way. Feels like every post is a huge battle to unsmask one of your subtle anti-Rodion comments.

I am only anti-you to the point that i find you suspicious...

Or because of a hidden agenda. But that's WIFOM, no need to reply.

In the field of (formal) logic, things either are or aren't. When someone contradicts himself, you can be straight forward in saying one of his 1 assertions were wrong (perhaps both).

I will say I agree that in cases of contradictions very often it is best to confront the person about it and that is what I liked about your bleed case. I just wish to caution you that not all straight up contradictions are what they appear to be. I provided one example of that in the last post.

The vanilla pretending to be powerful just to get NKed and preserve the life of a PR? That's interesting. You're saying that not all lies are anti-town. It kinds of makes sense, but it could epically backfire if your actions of pretending to have a power get the real townie with that power to counterclaim you. Then you get to lynch a VT and expose the PR for a NK. Unless you can lie and suggest you have a power without explaining it, then you don't get the counterclaim. Yes, you convinced me that not all lies are anti-town by definition, but I'm thinking pro-town lies are (or at least should be) extremely rare and well thought.

Anyway:

1 - I do admit that the odds of someone being pro-town is higher than the odds of someone being anti-town. That forces me to consider that probability of your "c" is higher than probability of your "b" ("very unlikely" seems nerfed, but I won't get down to numbers).

than you understand the basis of why I first found you suspicious and why I felt the question should never have been asked in that scenario.

I can't understand it that way. You can't force me to make an admission based on 1 without analysing 2 as an ensemble. I'll show you a silly example just to make it clear:

Person A manages a business and he invests 1 dollar in a "gamble" that works like this:
a) 99% chance he loses the dollar
b) 1% chance he gains 1 million for the business

You can't blame person A for being reckless simply because 99% loss is a lot bigger than 1% win. You need to "weigh" losses and wins. Losing 1 townie isn't as much of a big deal as getting a mafia/cult recruiter killed and working with low odds doesn't make it temerary.

2 - There is, however, one thing you didn't consider when using those probabilities. Whie getting a townie is more probably, the benefit of getting a mafia is more than the harm of losing 1 townie, so you have to "calibrate" those odds in order to reckon that (I explained it in Terminator - I was mafia there, but that doesn't remove the truth of the formula). The proper calculus is:

probability of town being found x risk of losing a townie
compared to
probability of mafia/cultie being found x benefit of killing a townie/cultie

That seems like enough to bring those odds to an about equal degree.

I would say this
A. does not account for potentially exposing power roles.
B. is a big leap as we don't actually know how many town or anti-town roles might be in the game in a situation where even one role one way or another could unbalance the equation and is at the very least a big leap of faith.

If you had some case on gimli I could see this working out but there was no case as far as I can see nor have you attempted to establish one and honestly I would not expect you to.

It accounts for the potential of exposing power roles since the game is theoretically balanced. It could expose a mafia PR, for instance. It's a big leap of faith to believe I should know everyone's names and I don't believe that. I asked for Bleed's with a good reasoning behind it and made Gimli a question just because he had already narrowed his spectrum up to the point that there weren't really many other options. You can call me overly curious and perhaps reckless for the Gimli question, but that's all you got against me, considering you can't even find 1 inconsistency in my Bleed case (you said so yourself).

And no, I didn't have a case on Gimli and I still don't.

The thing with a VT playing aggressively is because he knows that his death will not affect town that greatly. When claiming under pressure, I think a straight VT claim is in order. They're not telling a lie, which is important for town. No town member can retain much credibility if he does lie.

And given the size of this game, mafia fakeclaims probably are pretty easy and difficult to disprove.

[strike wolf]

Well, that's a change from the 0% idea. A good starting to point. I just wish I didn't have to constantly corner you in order to get you to appraise the situations in a better way. Feels like every post is a huge battle to unsmask one of your subtle anti-Rodion comments.

I am only anti-you to the point that i find you suspicious...

Or because of a hidden agenda. But that's WIFOM, no need to reply.

In the field of (formal) logic, things either are or aren't. When someone contradicts himself, you can be straight forward in saying one of his 1 assertions were wrong (perhaps both).

I will say I agree that in cases of contradictions very often it is best to confront the person about it and that is what I liked about your bleed case. I just wish to caution you that not all straight up contradictions are what they appear to be. I provided one example of that in the last post.

The vanilla pretending to be powerful just to get NKed and preserve the life of a PR? That's interesting. You're saying that not all lies are anti-town. It kinds of makes sense, but it could epically backfire if your actions of pretending to have a power get the real townie with that power to counterclaim you. Then you get to lynch a VT and expose the PR for a NK. Unless you can lie and suggest you have a power without explaining it, then you don't get the counterclaim. Yes, you convinced me that not all lies are anti-town by definition, but I'm thinking pro-town lies are (or at least should be) extremely rare and well thought.

pretty much what safari said...they don't outright claim to be the cop or anything like that but they will hint heavily...in the qt mafia case. Speculation arose about whether the game was non-vanilla or not. Ga7 (vt) said something along the lines of not being sure it was vt or not which to the casual reader is basically like saying "hey I am a power role". I don't know how rare it is to lie as a townie but I do know I do it all the time.

Anyway:

1 - I do admit that the odds of someone being pro-town is higher than the odds of someone being anti-town. That forces me to consider that probability of your "c" is higher than probability of your "b" ("very unlikely" seems nerfed, but I won't get down to numbers).

than you understand the basis of why I first found you suspicious and why I felt the question should never have been asked in that scenario.

I can't understand it that way. You can't force me to make an admission based on 1 without analysing 2 as an ensemble. I'll show you a silly example just to make it clear:

Person A manages a business and he invests 1 dollar in a "gamble" that works like this:
a) 99% chance he loses the dollar
b) 1% chance he gains 1 million for the business

You can't blame person A for being reckless simply because 99% loss is a lot bigger than 1% win. You need to "weigh" losses and wins. Losing 1 townie isn't as much of a big deal as getting a mafia/cult recruiter killed and working with low odds doesn't make it temerary.[/quote] I answerdd your second example and I have stated multiple times that I feel the risk outweighs the reward.

2 - There is, however, one thing you didn't consider when using those probabilities. Whie getting a townie is more probably, the benefit of getting a mafia is more than the harm of losing 1 townie, so you have to "calibrate" those odds in order to reckon that (I explained it in Terminator - I was mafia there, but that doesn't remove the truth of the formula). The proper calculus is:

probability of town being found x risk of losing a townie
compared to
probability of mafia/cultie being found x benefit of killing a townie/cultie

That seems like enough to bring those odds to an about equal degree.

I would say this
A. does not account for potentially exposing power roles.
B. is a big leap as we don't actually know how many town or anti-town roles might be in the game in a situation where even one role one way or another could unbalance the equation and is at the very least a big leap of faith.

If you had some case on gimli I could see this working out but there was no case as far as I can see nor have you attempted to establish one and honestly I would not expect you to.

It accounts for the potential of exposing power roles since the game is theoretically balanced. It could expose a mafia PR, for instance. It's a big leap of faith to believe I should know everyone's names and I don't believe that. I asked for Bleed's with a good reasoning behind it and made Gimli a question just because he had already narrowed his spectrum up to the point that there weren't really many other options. You can call me overly curious and perhaps reckless for the Gimli question, but that's all you got against me, considering you can't even find 1 inconsistency in my Bleed case (you said so yourself).

And no, I didn't have a case on Gimli and I still don't.

I really don't feel it does as not every power role is created even and while we can believe it is balanced as it likely is (I trust both commander and the person who helped check it as mods) we don't know how it is balanced and it was an assumption of that balance that got me in trouble in terminator mafia (I was so convinced of the 9 town 3 mafia alignment I was too tunnel visioned to notice the high number of bombs, protective and investigative roles that could affect balance). We do not know if we have a lot of really powerful town roles balanced out by a higher number of scum in which case the chance of catching scum goes up but the value of catching those scums goes down and the expense of dooming a townie goes up. Perhaps we have a weak town with multiple lover pairings and debilitating roles. The chance of catching mafia goes down but the value goes up and the opposite for town. And there are countless other ways that balance could be achieved in a game this size to the point where your equation will not balance out properly for all of them and I don't think it works out in this one.

Finally and no offense as you are obviously highly intelligent but I really do not feel you have enough experience under your belt to make these kinds of high level assumptions.

[freezie]

Any other players feel like there is 5 people arguing over and over and the day beeing dragged because of inactivity?

I sure do right now.

[Commander9]

Any other players feel like there is 5 people arguing over and over and the day beeing dragged because of inactivity?

I sure do right now.

Well, I feel that this discussion is going somewhere (albeit really slow), so I don't think deadline is necessary just yet, but the activity has already declined a bit and if it will continue, I'll probably do a deadline.

[freezie]

here's a quick list of the people who haven't posted for the last 6 pages, approximatly 72 IRL hours:

pancakemix
ndrs
vioiet
naxus
Iliad
DoomYoshi
karelpietertje
blakebowling
jeraado
sheepofdumb
nagerous
Campin_Killer Fircoal
Namliam



We'll never reach a majority if more than half the players don't bother..

And for me to go back and noted all the inactives, it means alot....First time I do it I beleive XD

[safariguy5]

here's a quick list of the people who haven't posted for the last 6 pages, approximatly 72 IRL hours:

pancakemix
ndrs
vioiet
naxus
Iliad
DoomYoshi
karelpietertje
blakebowling
jeraado
sheepofdumb
nagerous
Campin_Killer Fircoal
Namliam



We'll never reach a majority if more than half the players don't bother..

And for me to go back and noted all the inactives, it means alot....First time I do it I beleive XD

How many of these people you wanna bet just pop in and post saying "I'm reading along but I cannot decide where I stand."

[freezie]

here's a quick list of the people who haven't posted for the last 6 pages, approximatly 72 IRL hours:

pancakemix
ndrs
vioiet
naxus
Iliad
DoomYoshi
karelpietertje
blakebowling
jeraado
sheepofdumb
nagerous
Campin_Killer Fircoal
Namliam



We'll never reach a majority if more than half the players don't bother..

And for me to go back and noted all the inactives, it means alot....First time I do it I beleive XD

How many of these people you wanna bet just pop in and post saying "I'm reading along but I cannot decide where I stand."

I haven't even included those people in that list. They will probably do it anyway...

[strike wolf]

here's a quick list of the people who haven't posted for the last 6 pages, approximatly 72 IRL hours:

pancakemix
ndrs
vioiet
naxus
Iliad
DoomYoshi
karelpietertje
blakebowling
jeraado
sheepofdumb
nagerous
Campin_Killer Fircoal
Namliam



We'll never reach a majority if more than half the players don't bother..

And for me to go back and noted all the inactives, it means alot....First time I do it I beleive XD

Nag said he would be busy this week so I suspect he should be back Friday or Saturday, commander has already said nam won't be replaced (prod if possible), the rest you are right (I have not checked myself on all of them). Vio has been on several times and beyond rodion I still very much have an interest in her and will regard this retreat as further evidence of the case I have already made.

Beyond that I believe sheep has been gone the longest and has already been prodded so I believe he is due for replacement.

[jeraado]

How many of these people you wanna bet just pop in and post saying "I'm reading along but I cannot decide where I stand."

I'm reading along and I know where I stand. I'm just really hoping that Rodion and Strike run out of steam soon so we can move on. I don't think their discussion is really benefitting the game at all, but until they've stopped any case is pretty much going to get lost in their pissing contest

[safariguy5]

How many of these people you wanna bet just pop in and post saying "I'm reading along but I cannot decide where I stand."

I'm reading along and I know where I stand. I'm just really hoping that Rodion and Strike run out of steam soon so we can move on. I don't think their discussion is really benefitting the game at all, but until they've stopped any case is pretty much going to get lost in their pissing contest

It's an interesting case though. I'll put you down as not buying the case on bleed, but what do you think about the gimli comment? That's really the crux of the argument.

[strike wolf]

That's ok jeraado. As long as you know I have pissed further.

Honestly it is pretty simple. Rodion questioned about a name claim, has omgusedly accused everyone going against him and is trying to hide behind his case on bleed and a lot of fancy posts that don't change the situation to guise the fact. I apologize for getting over involved but I always fight for my cases.

[Rodion]

Freezie, out of the inactives list, Karelpietertje has already been replaced by Gimli, who's active.

Safari, Jeraado said he wanted to move on. It looks like he doesn't want to land his vote on neither Bleed nor me.

Jeraado, I think the discussion you mentioned is coming to an end. Regardless, if you want to move on and you have a good case to present, you don't need to wait for the Strike-Rodion discussion to end. Did it occur to you that maybe it is precisely the lack of a 3rd strong opinion that is keeping our discussion from coming to an end?

Wolf, no offense taken. I don't have enough experience and I can't argue with that (and never tried to). Regarding the rest of your post, I undertand your thought process. I can also respect your idea that the risk outweighs the reward, but I can't tell I regret what I did (as I have my own opinion about risk, reward and the importance of a name when the theme is this broad).

Fasposted by Wolf - I reserve the right to OMGUS everyone that presents an opinion that I consider to suck (and I'm really radical with that).