Mini 1452 - Inevitable Mafia (Game Over)

[Yates]

So no, I see no downside in this specific situation.

At first I didn't like the idea of masons claiming. Upon further reflection, masons are of limited use to the Town. Equally, they are lower priority targets for scum. They are essentially two VT's that can chit chat, right? It's not like they are going to have information we don't already have outside of each others' identities. If the other mason reveals and they can cross-confirm each other, it's like having two innocent results from a cop.

So, if the scum want to waste their night actions on Masons, that buys our PR's more time to do what they need to do. Seems like a reasonable request. What am I missing?

[CooLDoG]

mod: I am going g to be v/la from thrusday to monday

[BROseidon]

1) Makes it easier for scum to try to weed out other power roles early. Scum can get a mason N1 if they want either way at this point, but if they want to get a stronger PR, not having the second mason claim results in there being a chance that they would still hit a mason.

2) Makes it easier for scum to target masons once masons become a threat. Masons are stronger as the game progresses, because conftown becomes scarier when there are fewer players; scum have fewer players to set up mislynches against. Thus, at a certain point scum do want masons gone, and having the second mason known makes it more likely for this to occur should they not accidentally hit him early.

Tl;dr giving scum more control over when they get the masons killed is bad.

[CooLDoG]

We will have no named townies in LyLo. If a mason claims in LyLo, scum would counter-claim. Scum might even claim mason first with the knowledge that a mason will definitely claim at some point. I'm not removing my vote unless DCL gives me a name and that person tells me DCL is a mason. DCL's "breadcrumb" doesn't make sense. His play this game has been manipulative and scummy. Nothing about him adds up.

also, claiming mason name(s) now shifts the wifom to the scum. DO the town have a doctor? Should we kill the mason? Should we counter claim now? Claiming masons now resolves the situation early so we can analyze and get more information.

That's why I said

not

in LyLo, but right before it.

Okay catch-up post coming.

There is no point to do this. Why later and not now?

Right now I consider [him fake claiming] a possibility. If no one confirms the single role-claim that can be easily confirmed over the next few days, then absolutely yes.

Which is exactly why we lynch him now and eliminate the wifom once and for all.

pls unvote dcl.

Actually, do whatever. If someone is bold enough to hammer him, and he is indeed mason - they will go down tomorrow.

If I had a vote I would do this right now. In my opinion it is the best tactical play. Also, mason partner needs to claim before lynch. Otherwise lynching him is self-defeating because we will have to go through wifom all over again with his partner.

Vote: Radiant

Agreed.

why the hop. Doesn't compute with previous statements.

Rob do you usually vote hop that easily?

fuck, why is it someone always says what I want to say before me.

@cooldog, your bullshit post claiming my formatting was bad was really, really stupid. One, because it wasn't bad, two, because even if it was bad. I had mentioned several times that I was limited to phoneposting yesterday so of course making my posts look good was going to be a lot harder.

doesn't get joke/sarcasm. The point I was making was that the post being poorly formatted does not mean that one shouldn't be expect to understand the post. This includes me. I should have knwo that you were joking with the gorcat post, btu I fail at reading. Interesting that you attack me with the same arguments that you justify your attacks on rob. You also defend my attacks the same way that rob defends your attacks. You are having the "globs of text" both ways, which was the point of the post I made.

Rob do you usually vote hop that easily?

I do when someone puts someone at L-1 while simultaneously stating that they don't want the person lynched without giving any reasons that a vote is warranted after having previously unvoted that person not long ago.

But this happens all the time.

I thought he was town PR all along. Town PRs often begin to seem to flail earlier than scum because they are obviously town in their mind, while scum try to keep it cool until its absolutely needed.

If dcl flips scum, you will die. Also, on a scale of 1-10 you are at "level 8" likelihood for claiming mason.

@Rob, Cooldog, TMT: Do you still want DCL to reveal a name for his mason partner, or are you fine with what he's given us?

yes. 100% yes. I want him to reveal his partner now.

DCL, if he's a town mason, is dead tonight or possibly the next night, agreed?

Alright, if we accept that, then his partner is just a VT. I'd rather that VT turn into a 100% no WIFOM confirmed townie - an innocent child, if you will - upon DCL's death and flip.

So no, I see no downside in this specific situation.

The only downside would be that the scum could kill that person in the night. But that means that the scum will have to wifom a potential doctor/watcher action.

1) Makes it easier for scum to try to weed out other power roles early. Scum can get a mason N1 if they want either way at this point, but if they want to get a stronger PR, not having the second mason claim results in there being a chance that they would still hit a mason.

2) Makes it easier for scum to target masons once masons become a threat. Masons are stronger as the game progresses, because conftown becomes scarier when there are fewer players; scum have fewer players to set up mislynches against. Thus, at a certain point scum do want masons gone, and having the second mason known makes it more likely for this to occur should they not accidentally hit him early.

Tl;dr giving scum more control over when they get the masons killed is bad.

1) scum will do that anyway with nigth kills. Also saves a random n1 power role nk. The pr night kill pool decreases naturally on its own, the mason claim is just an n1 protection. IF they decide to not kill the mason for aformentioned wifom reasons, then we have a smaller lynch pool. Your line of argument here falls through.

2) Actually it makes it dramatically fucking harder if DCL flips town. Because that person is basically 100% confirmed, making it nearly fucking impossible for scum to push a lynch for a mason partner claimed by a confirmed (via flip) mason. If dcl does NOT claim his partner right now, then we are introduced with a possible scum counter claim.. at which point we have a 50/50.. that is assuming the scum are stupid enough to counter claim mason at thsi stage in anyway.

This leads to an interesting point that people are making... the situation that is presented goes as follows:

1) day before lylo mason partner claims
2) Scum counter claims mason
3) town lynches one of the two
4a) If flips town: lynch other in lylo
4b) If flips scum: we just lynched scum

The situation presents a condition where it seems like a mason claiming one day before lylo guarantees that one scum is lynched. But this is not accurate because it makes one fatal assumption that a scum team, that is playing optimally, will never do. That assumption is at point 2, a rational scum team would never, ever, counter claim mason in this situation, because it is certain that one of them will die. Instead the situation will

for sure

play out like this:

1) day before lylo mason partner claims
2) scum say nothing
3) town lynches non mason
4a) lynch flips scum: yay we got scum, mason dies at night.
4b) lynch town: yay you just lost the mason to a night kill and lynched a townie, welcome to lylo.


this line of reasoning should be completely disregarded and purged from all talk about the masons.

But regardless of all of this, we have to lynch dcl today, no matter what. There is no real way around it. Scum will just keep this over our heads in wifom until 1 day before lylo where we have a possible 3 way mason claim thing going on... Don't assume that the scum will kill dcl tonight for us... oh no, they want to keep him alive for as long as possible.

[Does Bo Know]

We are not

Lynching

A claimed Mason today.

I don't even care if DCL decides to give away his partner anymore.

We can leave him alive for now, and later in the game we can determine whether he's a good kill or not.

[Rob14]

1) Makes it easier for scum to try to weed out other power roles early. Scum can get a mason N1 if they want either way at this point, but if they want to get a stronger PR, not having the second mason claim results in there being a chance that they would still hit a mason.

2) Makes it easier for scum to target masons once masons become a threat. Masons are stronger as the game progresses, because conftown becomes scarier when there are fewer players; scum have fewer players to set up mislynches against. Thus, at a certain point scum do want masons gone, and having the second mason known makes it more likely for this to occur should they not accidentally hit him early.

Tl;dr giving scum more control over when they get the masons killed is bad.

1) If they do this, we have two innocent childs in the late game. I fail to see a problem here.

2) Sure, but they only want to kill masons in the late-game if they're confirmed town. If there's no mason claims right now, then they won't reach conf-town status because one is guaranteed to die tonight in that scenario to prevent claims resulting in TWO confirmed town.

Cooldog - don't go full retard. If a partner verifies DCL's claim, we're not lynching him. Sure, there remains the possibility that DCL and partner are BOTH scum, but that is unlikely and would become apparent in time if no kills on them went through.

[DCLXVI]

Cool dog wants me to make my partner and to lynch me...

This will result in two dead masons to start day 2.

How the hell do you think that is a good idea.

[DCLXVI]

Make = name... @#$% autocorrect.

[Yates]

Makes it easier for scum to try to weed out other power roles early.

This is probably the better argument for not revealing. Removing masons from the potential suspect pool increases their chances of hitting a PR at night if they choose not to go after masons.

Good call.

[Yates]

Also, mason partner needs to claim before lynch

Why can't the mason partner claim if DCL gets to L-1 or L-1 with declared intent to hammer? Also, if the mason partner gets run up, it's incumbent upon them to claim at that point and have DCL confirm.

This obviously only works today and wouldn't work tomorrow if DCL gets NKed but it's a reasonable compromise.

[jmo16mla]

We should drop the discussion on what we do with DCL and his mason claim and focus on others. We are waiting time on what we should do with it. Time will tell.

[Yates]

We should drop the discussion on what we do with DCL and his mason claim and focus on others.

Except that he is the leading wagon and we are discussing the best way to use this claim to our advantage. I don't see how spending 24-48 hours sorting this out is a bad thing.

[Rob14]

Makes it easier for scum to try to weed out other power roles early.

This is probably the better argument for not revealing. Removing masons from the potential suspect pool increases their chances of hitting a PR at night if they choose not to go after masons.

Good call.

It turns the masons into a power role, though. Innocent childs are a power role - a strong one at that.

[DCLXVI]

I'm actually not the leading wagon any more... and I do agree that sorting this out is important.. I will have access to a PC later tonight there are some thing I want to point out that I can't realistically do from my phone.

[BROseidon]

Okay, um, wow.

We are not lynching a claimed mason, when, most notably NOBODY HAS COUNTERCLAIMED MASON THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE DCL. Mason is not an unusual role. If there were masons in play and DCL weren't one, we'd already have a counterclaim because who the fuck wouldn't make that trade. Yes, there could just not be masons in play, but that is something we can bring up later should information come in that indicates DCL is lying (ie, the entire group of people not on the DCL wagon at any point claim not mason/flip not mason).

Going on to the scum counterclaim point:

This leads to an interesting point that people are making... the situation that is presented goes as follows:

1) day before lylo mason partner claims
2) Scum counter claims mason
3) town lynches one of the two
4a) If flips town: lynch other in lylo
4b) If flips scum: we just lynched scum

The situation presents a condition where it seems like a mason claiming one day before lylo guarantees that one scum is lynched. But this is not accurate because it makes one fatal assumption that a scum team, that is playing optimally, will never do. That assumption is at point 2, a rational scum team would never, ever, counter claim mason in this situation, because it is certain that one of them will die. Instead the situation will for sure play out like this:

1) day before lylo mason partner claims
2) scum say nothing
3) town lynches non mason
4a) lynch flips scum: yay we got scum, mason dies at night.
4b) lynch town: yay you just lost the mason to a night kill and lynched a townie, welcome to lylo.

this line of reasoning should be completely disregarded and purged from all talk about the masons.

This line of reasoning is fine. It makes us more likely to hit scum at the lynch before lylo, and it limits the scum's options for their NK.

Also, it's not like scum have an unrestricted ability to claim mason. There was most likely scum, and anyone on the DCL lynch who claims mason is obviously lying. There are literally only 6 people in the game who could possibly be mason with DCL, since he can't be mason with himself and he got put to L-1.

1) scum will do that anyway with nigth kills. Also saves a random n1 power role nk. The pr night kill pool decreases naturally on its own, the mason claim is just an n1 protection. IF they decide to not kill the mason for aformentioned wifom reasons, then we have a smaller lynch pool. Your line of argument here falls through.

2) Actually it makes it dramatically fucking harder if DCL flips town. Because that person is basically 100% confirmed, making it nearly fucking impossible for scum to push a lynch for a mason partner claimed by a confirmed (via flip) mason. If dcl does NOT claim his partner right now, then we are introduced with a possible scum counter claim.. at which point we have a 50/50.. that is assuming the scum are stupid enough to counter claim mason at thsi stage in anyway.

1) Scum ideally don't want to hit masons N1. Masons are good NKs on mid-late nights, because they are huge problems in lylo but not huge threats early. Scum ideally want to hit information or protective roles earlier, before information roles can get information or protective roles can successfully protect people. Sure, killing a mason guarantees that scum've done better than hitting a VT, but also guarantees that any information roles are getting information.

2) I don't think you're getting my point. What I'm saying is that a 2nd mason claim now guarantees that we have no masons by the time masons become a useful thing to have, because scum will target the masons once the numbers start dwindling. A second mason claiming now means that it's very likely that the masons will get NK'd as the numbers dwindle. Also, if it's stupid for scum to counterclaim mason, why wouldn't you want them to make that move? A scum counterclaim on mason before lylo is dumb, so obviously we'd want the mason to step forward on the round before that. Just not now.

Also:

also, claiming mason name(s) now shifts the wifom to the scum. DO the town have a doctor? Should we kill the mason? Should we counter claim now? Claiming masons now resolves the situation early so we can analyze and get more information.

Because it's not WIFOM on a doctor which claimed mason to target. Also, again, why the fuck would scum ever counterclaim mason before lylo?

[CooLDoG]

We are not

Lynching

A claimed Mason today.

yes, we actually are.

Cooldog - don't go full retard. If a partner verifies DCL's claim, we're not lynching him. Sure, there remains the possibility that DCL and partner are BOTH scum, but that is unlikely and would become apparent in time if no kills on them went through.

If someone claims mason, it will not change my position of lynching dlc. So yes, I am going full retard.

Cool dog wants me to make my partner and to lynch me...

This will result in two dead masons to start day 2.

First part is true. Second part is not. We don't know if your buddy (not partner, I think buddy is the best term) will die tonight or not. Regardless you should be lynched today.

Also, mason partner needs to claim before lynch

Why can't the mason partner claim if DCL gets to L-1 or L-1 with declared intent to hammer? Also, if the mason partner gets run up, it's incumbent upon them to claim at that point and have DCL confirm.

This obviously only works today and wouldn't work tomorrow if DCL gets NKed but it's a reasonable compromise.

yes that would be fine.

Makes it easier for scum to try to weed out other power roles early.

This is probably the better argument for not revealing. Removing masons from the potential suspect pool increases their chances of hitting a PR at night if they choose not to go after masons.

Good call.

True yes, but if they do go non-mason then we have a lowered lynch pool. It is a double edged sword. We get a confirmed town they get a higher chance of hitting a power role. Or we get a "pr shield" contingent upon if they target the mason.

We should drop the discussion on what we do with DCL and his mason claim and focus on others. We are waiting time on what we should do with it. Time will tell.

100% no.

This is the most important part of the game right here.

Stop trying to distract us from what is important.

This leads to an interesting point that people are making... the situation that is presented goes as follows:

1) day before lylo mason partner claims
2) Scum counter claims mason
3) town lynches one of the two
4a) If flips town: lynch other in lylo
4b) If flips scum: we just lynched scum

The situation presents a condition where it seems like a mason claiming one day before lylo guarantees that one scum is lynched. But this is not accurate because it makes one fatal assumption that a scum team, that is playing optimally, will never do. That assumption is at point 2, a rational scum team would never, ever, counter claim mason in this situation, because it is certain that one of them will die. Instead the situation will for sure play out like this:

1) day before lylo mason partner claims
2) scum say nothing
3) town lynches non mason
4a) lynch flips scum: yay we got scum, mason dies at night.
4b) lynch town: yay you just lost the mason to a night kill and lynched a townie, welcome to lylo.

this line of reasoning should be completely disregarded and purged from all talk about the masons.

This line of reasoning is fine. It makes us more likely to hit scum at the lynch before lylo, and it limits the scum's options for their NK.

no it doesn't. It doesn't do that at all. read it again. Nothing is guaranteed. And this won't work unless we lynch dlc

before

lylo. We have to lynch him 2 days before lylo at the very least.

1) Scum ideally don't want to hit masons N1. Masons are good NKs on mid-late nights, because they are huge problems in lylo but not huge threats early. Scum ideally want to hit information or protective roles earlier, before information roles can get information or protective roles can successfully protect people. Sure, killing a mason guarantees that scum've done better than hitting a VT, but also guarantees that any information roles are getting information.

Great, if this is true (which it might be...) then why not have the other mason claim. So now we have two confirmed town going into d2. I would gladly trade a

random power role hit

for 2 confirmed town any day of the week. So if the premise for your argument is true, then you are proposing sub-optimal play.

2) I don't think you're getting my point. What I'm saying is that a 2nd mason claim now guarantees that we have no masons by the time masons become a useful thing to have, because scum will target the masons once the numbers start dwindling. A second mason claiming now means that it's very likely that the masons will get NK'd as the numbers dwindle. Also, if it's stupid for scum to counterclaim mason, why wouldn't you want them to make that move? A scum counterclaim on mason before lylo is dumb, so obviously we'd want the mason to step forward on the round before that. Just not now.

Also:

also, claiming mason name(s) now shifts the wifom to the scum. DO the town have a doctor? Should we kill the mason? Should we counter claim now? Claiming masons now resolves the situation early so we can analyze and get more information.

Because it's not WIFOM on a doctor which claimed mason to target. Also, again, why the fuck would scum ever counterclaim mason before lylo?

2 is fair, except that as you point out scum will never counter claim mason. There is never a situation where we can really make a bargain with the masons at all. We have to rely on the scum making a stupid and actually counter claiming mason in any way. The only thing that it does is to make it a coin flip at the end which in lylo it is already. There is literally no advantage gained. And plus, this contradicts your previous statement that "Scum don't like to kill masons n1" because if the town can gain an advantage by having masons around then the scum would kill them. Your arguments propose two contradictory view points where on one hand having masons is good for scum and on the other it is bad.

I would be willing to do the following as a compromise. I think it is sub-optimal, personally, but it is the second best choice. I propose that we lynch dlc today and that the other mason can claim whenever. Middle of the road, we no for a fact if there are masons in the game or not and you guys get your lylo coin flip.

[CooLDoG]

"scum making a stupid"... forgot the word play.

[Does Bo Know]

Then

Let's lynch him two days before LyLo.

Instead of lynching him today.

K?

[nhammen]

I didn't post at all over the weekend, so I have 4 pages to catch up on. I will mention one thing about Mason claims. I was in an open game, in which my partner was forced to claim on D-1 (Link). The SK (Ythill) then pressured my partner into outing me as well. This was on page 7 on D1, with no other roles claimed. This SK ended up winning and claimed that they would have done the same as town. A thread was started in MD after the game ended (don't have link), in which most players did not agree with Ythill, but there were a few that did.

My memories of that game make me somewhat suspicious of anybody that wants our Mason to out his partner. But I have 4 pages to read now, so I'll do that before making any more comments.

[TMTOLBTWNTOF]

Yates. So you think that asking the mason partner to claim is a reasonable request, as per your #200.

And yet when I say that I think the other mason should claim it's the so called "straw on the camel's back" that makes you vote me?

[jmo16mla]

Probably along with your random throwing out of names and calling them scum too.

[Does Bo Know]

Probably along with your random throwing out of names and calling them scum too.

Lulz

[nhammen]

Got sidetracked while reading. Also, this will likely end up being a big wall, so I will break it up a little bit. This also will give people more time to respond to earlier parts, and may show the thought processes that I have while doing my readthrough.

I like how you're subtly pushing this TMT lynch without getting behind it.

vote:TMT

I think Rob's point about him is accurate.

I am behind a TMT lynch, please don't misrep me.

With the fact that you have claimed Mason, and thus are likely town, this looks even worse for Radiant.

It's because Letters is scum. Duh.

Yes, I do.

Someone, please let me know what I did. I feel like it's one of those situations where people are talking behind your back, but in a way so that you can hear snatches of the conversation.

WHY ME!!!!?!??!?!?!??!?!

Are you drawing attention to this because you think it looks scummy? If so, why are scum more likely to mke this comment than town? If not, what is the purpose behind this part of your post?

I thought you were a PR with the way you were deflecting and such. Hence, my caution to see his scumminess

You think deflecting is a town tell... Ummm, wow. Just wow. Does "hey I told you guys I was right to defend him" ping anybody else's scumdar? At this point, jmo is either a mason partner or a scum, in my eyes. Since scum already know the answer to that, the only qualms I feel about pressuring him are the whole "what if I'm wrong" thing. If jmo is town, scum probably already suspect jmo as the most likely partner, so if he is non-Mason town, then he will draw an extra kill away from the Mason(s).

Gorckat is town for reasons already given.

Wait, what reasons already given? I just isoed you to make sure and don't see squat. Just a discussion about that first post of his.

Rob is omgusing me cause of that glob of text comment. He makes sense as a tmt partner if tmt is scum.

I'm gonna disagree. I have a pretty strong townread on Rob. Well, "had" I guess. He is one of the players that wants more info on the Mason claim, which reduces my read somewhat. But either way, that wasn't OMGUS. Your description of Rob's case was completely incorrect.


On to the next page!

[nhammen]

That was one part of the breadcrumbing I was doing before I got ran up.

wow... what? You bread crumb with a question about an rvs thing with gorcat? what? So you claimed on page 2 that you are masons with gorcat so on page 8 you could be "cleared". What the heck?

Gorckat is town for reasons already given.

Admiral is town. He is technically correct with his reason for voting me but the reason I left out the possibly of gorckat knowing radiant was town cause he was scum was because at that point I already had gorckat as a town read.

So you are masons with gorcat.

Two things here. First, you FAIL at reading comprehension. Second, even if it were true, and he was Masons with gorc, WHY WOULD YOU ANNOUNCE THAT FACT?!?!? Why do you want the scum to know who the Mason partner is?

Got to love how cool dog is both assuming gorckat is a mason with me and calling for my lynch.

Yeah... that looks extremely scummy.

One mason is already out. If DCL isn't scum, then the mason team can already be "taken out" by killing the one mason already revealed. What good is a single mason? They're just a VT.

Give me one good reason NOT to reveal the other "mason," especially when you consider that if DCL is scum, he'd be forced into a position to be lynched or hand us a scum-partner as his "mason-buddy" to keep alive.

If DCL is Mason, and is killed before revealing his partner, then later in the game (day before LYLO?) Other Mason claims. If there is a counterclaim, then we get a 1 for 1 trade, yay! If not, then Other Mason is confirmed, yay! If there is another PR alive, Other Mason has drawn the scumkill away from the PR, yay! So many good outcomes... but only if we DON'T OUT THE PARTNER!

I think a mason number would be good, but not their identities. DBK pointed out the use of having named townies in LyLo, but that's only true if we know how many masons there are as to prevent mason fakeclaims when all the masons are taken out.

This is very very true. We need this info from DCL before the day ends.

I don't think someone needs claim mason also, if there is one. He would be relying on his scum partner to claim mason with him, if one of them flip scum, he just gave away his partner too.

As written, this post makes no sense. Could you explain it better jmo? Right now it looks like you say that no other player needs to claim Mason, but if DCL flips scum, then the other player who claimed Mason (even though you "don't think someone needs claim mason also") would be the next lynch.


For my own use:
At this point CooLDoG, Rob, and TMT have advocated outing the Mason partner.


On to the next page!

[nhammen]

I'm fine with DCL being town right now.

I thought he was town PR all along. Town PRs often begin to seem to flail earlier than scum because they are obviously town in their mind, while scum try to keep it cool until its absolutely needed.

Why is that first quote only "right now" then? Also, your reasoning for him being a PR sounds like BS to me.