ScottHoward wrote:
Then again this is Eskimo we are talking about...
i can only imagine that omg had some reason that he thought was brilliant.
but, if i was in oejos shoes, if i was town, i would probably go along with omg, and if i was scum, i would deny omgs claim. [/quote]
Town should never lie about their roles. So if the claim was untrue, the expected thing for town to do is deny it. Scum, on the other hand, might go along with it... but I think this may have been what OMG had in mind, if EJ 'confirmed' the masonry, OMG would then deny it and 'out' EJ as scum.
reasoning: its early day 1, and im town. if i admit to being mason, nothing bad really comes of it. also, if i would assume that omg was a cop who investigated me, and he was getting his knowledge out for free, with little chance of getting nked.
The only things wrong with that are that a) TOWN SHOULD (basically) NEVER LIE ABOUT THEIR ROLES, and b) Claiming mason DOES make you more likely to get NKed. Hugely so.
[/quote]if i was scum, i would deny having anything to do with omg due to my almost automatic lynch if omg is ever found out to be not a mason.
not sure if any of these thoughts can be applied to oejo though.[/quote]
Meh, it wouldn't be a GOOD idea, but stupid scum might go along with it in order to be 'confirmed.' So I basically see the complete opposite reading to you there. It's a minor town tell to deny the masonry.
ScottHoward wrote:The Fonz wrote:
Would you care to point me to where you think players have been softclaiming vanilla town?
i didnt say "vanilla town", and i presume that you were planning to make a case that theres a difference between claiming (or softclaiming, whatever) "vanilla town" and "town". but really, there isnt.
No, really, there's all the difference in the world.
plenty of people have already insinuated that they are town. its only natural.
Yup. Everyone talks as if they are town. This is to be expected.
to make a big deal out of somebody claiming "vanilla town", is nitty, and if we were to believe you that it gives too much info to the wolves, then claiming vanilla is perfect if claimer is actually a cop, or doc or some other power town role. a wolf isnt going to believe somebody isnt the cop just the same as i am not going to believe that same claimer is actually not mafia.
TOWN SHOULD NEVER LIE ABOUT THEIR ROLE!!!!ONE!
If you are actually a cop, you should never claim town. That's because if you subsequently claim cop, no-one will believe you, and infact they will lynch you for lying about your role.
Therefore, the reasonable expectation for town and scum alike is that anyone claiming vanilla town is actually either a vanilla townie, or scum.
The correct play as town is to not mention your role unless forced to claim it. Claiming vanilla as powerrole isn't quite as detrimental as claiming powerrole as vanilla, but it's damn bad. Because you can never then claim your real role.
Let me guess... on 2p2, do people lie about their roles as town frequently? The expectation here is that a) people don't mention their roles unless they have to and b) that if required to disclose their role, town will not lie.
claiming "vanilla town" doesnt narrow anything down for anybody. its a waste of breath, but its definitely not something that harms the village. to use an extreme example, which is the easiest way to simplify things, what if everybody claimed vanilla town? youre gonna lynch everybody?
Yes, yes it does. Because the default assumption is that decent town players will never claim vanilla town if they are not actually vanilla town. Town are expected not to lie about their roles.
and to your other point about not thinking everybody who thinks differently than you is scum, well, you might have learned that as a newbie, but you learned wrong.
No, I didn't learn wrong. Countless games have confirmed the truth of this to me. Disagreeing over game theory is not scummy.
if youre town, thats all you know. that and that there are people who are trying to deceive you in the game. now, you come across two people, player A says player X is acting scummy, player B says X is acting town. If you think also that player X is acting scummy, you have to increase the chance that player A is town and player B is scum. you dont have to make it definitive, but you must increase the chances.
No, you just assume that people read things differently to you. People legitimately disagree on what the best action for town is.
if everybody did this, the town would hardly ever lose.
No, you'd end up with massive and very angry arguments between people who just happen to view the game differently.
now, we can save the strategy and theory talk for after the game because i dont want it to turn into another distraction.
I'd rather not, because if you actually believe this stuff, you'll be barking up the wrong tree perpetually.
youve called upon atak to step up and get going. we saw your post, but if you took out ataks name, do you agree that you could insert walles name it would apply just as well? what if we inserted your name there? not much difference if you ask me.
HUGE difference. I've made very clear who I suspect, and expended a considerable amount of effort in getting a wagon going on Hitch.
Wall-E hasn't settled on a suspect, but is pointing out things he thinks are scummy. So I don't think he's in the same boat.
atakdog gives the impression that he's spent most of his time trying to look like a rational mediator between 2p2 and MS players, without actually doing much scumhunting.
one last thing, again, when applying your logic, apply it consistently. you say that bad reasoning (zhaorx's reasoning to vote for whoever for example) is a good reason to vote for somebody(zhaorx), but then say bad reasoning(scrutinizer wanting to go after the omg voters) is not a good reason to vote somebody (scrutinizer), and in the latter case, claim he is a terrible lynch.
I didn't say his reasoning was bad. I said I didn't think it would come to anything much because of the nature of the wagon. Also, note that he has not actually voted anyone on the basis of it. TCS' 'we should look at who was on the wagon' statement is based off a defensible premise, that scum are somewhat more likely to attack town than town are. I've explained that the specific circumstances of the wagon mean I don't think it really applies so much in this case, but it's a decent basis to argue from.
On the other hand, saying that a random vote seems forced makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It was also earlier in the game; you obviously need less solid reasons to vote at that point than you do, say, now.
and write off his bad reasoning to him playing differently. well, perhaps zhaorx plays differently as well.
Except that I'm not accusing TCS of bad reasoning, so the whole house of cards falls down. Of course, it does somewhat annoy me that he hasn't actually gone back and looked at that wagon, and tried to see if he could draw conclusions from it.
just because you or whoever cant understand how zhaorx can make such claims, doesnt mean he cant be correct. i can point you to a couple recent games on 2p2 where wolves made one post and they were so odd that they were found right away, and the posts were less than 3 words each. (i can point you to more than a couple, but it would take longer to figure out which games it was)
Please do. But I look at those posts, and see standard random votes. I see nothing odd about them in any way, and therefore I can understand that a player looks at someone attacking them and thinks 'that's bullshit.' Having read a 2p2 game, then zhaorx's post makes a lot more sense in that context, and looks a lot less suspicious.
But at that point, those players voting zhaorx didn't know that he comes from a different site with completely different conventions. He just looked like he was either a newbie who didn't understand random voting, or a scum trying to make a knowingly bad argument. Therefore, it was reasonable to vote him.
