In post 49, Klick wrote:
Another way of viewing it is, collectively, we have to find all but two town (or one town, if we mess up!). This setup is a lot more scumsided than it seems.
Another way of viewing it is, collectively, we have to find 1 wolf and agree to trust fall anyone but that 1 consensus.
Two hangups -
1. Finding one wolf is Actually Really Difficult
2. Even if we all find one wolf, it would have to be unanimous. If one townie has a townread on the consensus scumread, we have a problem.
That "2." is what I find so funny about this setup
In post 76, patchwork wrote:
wait, so are you saying that because i took merlyn's joke seriously im scum or what
Well, I was pointing out how your confidence in her intentions being towny was unordinary and felt a little like TMI.
Don't worry, pointing out one towny think there one wolfy thing here doesn't mean I'm calling people wolves and towns. Yet.
In post 67, Merlyn wrote:
I don't see the point in pretending like that, I think town can take accidently take a joke seriously just as much as scum can
Yes they can.
My point was, I don't think your stopping content creation at it's tracks was for the better.
Nothing is stopping you from continuing asking Patch stuff, keep creating content!
The only thing I stopped was something we both agree is not relevant to scum hunting so you should be fine
wanted to note real quick that in theory we could use the trustfalls as personalized hammer tests (from the proposers POV). and then we can chain trustfalls if we reveal townies and know their proposees must be town
In post 67, Merlyn wrote:
I don't see the point in pretending like that, I think town can take accidently take a joke seriously just as much as scum can
Yes they can.
My point was, I don't think your stopping content creation at it's tracks was for the better.
Nothing is stopping you from continuing asking Patch stuff, keep creating content!
The only thing I stopped was something we both agree is not relevant to scum hunting so you should be fine
Yeah, true, I think I was looking forward to patchwork's reaction and then I saw your post and thought the reaction would be much weaker and I was frustrated with your post.
Honestly, I expected a more self serving post from you as response, but instead this response feels rather towny to me.
In post 79, Skygazer wrote:
wanted to note real quick that in theory we could use the trustfalls as personalized hammer tests (from the proposers POV). and then we can chain trustfalls if we reveal townies and know their proposees must be town
thats probably not the best idea but eh
This strategy feels like it'd be doomed to fail
"Hey, let me check if all my x amount of townreads are really all townies. Ohh snap, one of them wasn't and now the mafia are halfway through to victory!"
In post 79, Skygazer wrote:
wanted to note real quick that in theory we could use the trustfalls as personalized hammer tests (from the proposers POV). and then we can chain trustfalls if we reveal townies and know their proposees must be town
thats probably not the best idea but eh
An idea I had was that we could decide someone is scummy, and then use them to hammer-test people so that if we're wrong, we at least get rid of a scummy townie too
it might ease my mind a bit to elaborate at some point; i think i fooled you in monkey business and giratina, and usually people get more paranoid of me after i fool them
it might ease my mind a bit to elaborate at some point; i think i fooled you in monkey business and giratina, and usually people get more paranoid of me after i fool them
Fair, it's a read with my experiences with you in mind but it's also not super strong
I guess that's fair but I haven't really done anything with my presence, just some RVS stuff really. You're right about me but I think the way you got there is a little convoluted
In post 84, Skygazer wrote:
I mean, at the very least we could use the strat on people we were gonna trustfall anyways, so we can conftown them but still keep them around a bit
If I was Mafia and someone "confirmed" me town by trusting me, I'd use it as a leverage to try and get a good towny out of the game with me so that it's easier for my ally
We better agree to not pile up trusts on "conftowns" just in case
In post 79, Skygazer wrote:
wanted to note real quick that in theory we could use the trustfalls as personalized hammer tests (from the proposers POV). and then we can chain trustfalls if we reveal townies and know their proposees must be town
thats probably not the best idea but eh
Maybe I am missing something, but how exactly does this work?
If I propose to trust fall with you, and you accept.....we both leave the game.
Pre Edit: Oh reading what Ghandi said I get what you mean, just proposing the trust fall.....but then if I propose one with you, and you are scum, you just immediately accept it.
'dREW DID IT BETTER' - T-Bone
'doctor drew our hero' - Shiki
'I love playing with him, he's got an amazing presence to him that just feels like the game is lacking something when he's not there' - JacksonVirgo
I like Klicks idea better of coming with up with a consensus town read(or reads). Start with the top 2 strongest consensus town reads, and then move down the list. I will have the boys in the lab run some experiments, accounting will check the math, but I feel like odds wise it should be in towns favor.
'dREW DID IT BETTER' - T-Bone
'doctor drew our hero' - Shiki
'I love playing with him, he's got an amazing presence to him that just feels like the game is lacking something when he's not there' - JacksonVirgo
Imagining we having consensus 2 townreads, I rather they stayed in the game till the end than go out early.
The closer to the end the harder to make the right choice - so I rather have consensus townies guiding my choices, or at least have someone to talked them out with that I trust.
