BotW Mafia DP 2

Author: Moozer325
Mafia

Posts

Read-only
Total: 202
#31
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,077
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@Best.Korea
@AustinL0926
@JoeBob
Right now, Best.Korea is the closest to a confirmed player and has no reason to lie. Best.Korea's role was unsuccessful last night. That's a fact. Best.Korea is the doctor, so his role can't have failed for the same reason WF believes Austin's did. Meanwhile, whiteflame insists that he was roleblocked on the same night as BK, while he has previously insisted that two very similar roles are impossible. That should make whiteflame our number one lynch target today.
#32
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,077
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@whiteflame
I guess we’re all just assuming that there can’t possibly have been two means by which scum could nullify night actions, then?
How is nullifying night actions not role-blocking?
#33
AustinL0926
AustinL0926's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,288
3
5
9
AustinL0926's avatar
AustinL0926
3
5
9
-->
@Savant
I'm honestly a little bit more hesitant of lynching whiteflame than I was yesterday. I had a chance to go back and reread the DP, and his behavior wasn't as egregious as I thought it to be at the time.

I don't view whiteflame lying about his role (assuming that is his role) as being necessarily scummy. There are good reasons to lie as town, and covering night actions then claiming the truth afterward is an acceptable situation imo.

I get what you're saying about the pseudo-CC stuff, but I believe BK and I know that my action was unsuccessful (I'm still waiting for a response to Moozer on whether my target dying would give that message). That leaves whiteflame, but I don't really see the benefit for him claiming this.
#34
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,077
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@whiteflame
You’re saying that it would have been beneficial for town for me to give my actual role instead of biding out roles that manipulate my movement?
How is lying about your role not anti-town? Otherwise, scum could just claim they lied about their role whenever they are counterclaimed.
#35
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,017
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@whiteflame
@Savant
I will need some time to think, but I kinda also want to rush this. Last game, we took all our time and time ran out.

So, just to put vote, which might even change in future

VTL whiteflame

I know Savant and Joe are cc, so one is scum. The question of who the other scum is, is what interests me. We could lynch Savant, or we could lynch Whiteflame. We could lynch Whiteflame, then Savant. We could lynch Savant, then Whiteflame. And depending on Austin, even he is possible lynch in dp3 since I have great doubts roleblockers will let him "confirm himself". But again, 2 roleblockers? I am not buying it.
#36
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,955
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Savant
How is nullifying night actions not role-blocking?
When it’s done by any number of other means. Do you want me to start listing other roles that aren’t “Roleblocker” that could still result in a role failing? I can do it when I get home if that’s what you want.
#37
AustinL0926
AustinL0926's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,288
3
5
9
AustinL0926's avatar
AustinL0926
3
5
9
-->
@Savant
How is lying about your role not anti-town? Otherwise, scum could just claim they lied about their role whenever they are counterclaimed.
I think this is an oversimplistic view of things. There's a huge difference between the two situations. In the one you just mentioned, there would be no good reason for a town player to out a CC and cause mass confusion. In whiteflame's case, there was no risk whatsoever of this, since he was still a Bodyguard, just a modified one. I can also see a clear benefit: avoiding a redirector or similar visit-tampering role, which we've seen repeatedly in the last few games.
#38
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,077
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@whiteflame
Do you want me to start listing other roles that aren’t “Roleblocker” that could still result in a role failing?
Go ahead. Maybe I'm just too used to Town of Salem, but I don't see that being the likely explanation here.
#39
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,955
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Savant
How is lying about your role not anti-town? Otherwise, scum could just claim they lied about their role whenever they are counterclaimed.
I literally just explained that: the effect of the role was the same (I take the NK), but the means by which it is achieved are different, e.g. cannot have my target changed. In other words, no effect of lying on town, potentially strong effect on scum. So, again, explain to me how this decision was anti-town.

#40
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,955
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Best.Korea
I don’t mind being on the chopping block at this point because, frankly, my role failed and likely will continue to fail now that I’ve stated it. That being said, I don’t know why you’d start with me after I outed this claim. In what world does it make sense for me, as scum, to tell you that I know I was RB’d and not manipulated in any other way? You and Austin already saw that as a potential CC before I even posted. Why would I go out of my way to explain my role as a basis for why I could not be manipulated or prevented from using the BG in any other way? If you sincerely view that as scummy, then I’m at a loss.
#41
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,077
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@whiteflame
@AustinL0926
In other words, no effect of lying on town, potentially strong effect on scum.
If we 100% knew you were town, then yes. In this case it just seems suspicious. Any scum could come up with some excuse for lying later claiming it was helping the town. So if we buy this it sets a super bad precedent.

There's a huge difference between the two situations. In the one you just mentioned, there would be no good reason for a town player to out a CC and cause mass confusion. In whiteflame's case, there was no risk whatsoever of this, since he was still a Bodyguard, just a modified one. I can also see a clear benefit: avoiding a redirector or similar visit-tampering role, which we've seen repeatedly in the last few games.
If whieflame's not the only one insisting on this, then maybe there's a case to be made that the benefit outweighs the cost. I still think that the odds of luring a scum are outweighed by the confusion it causes though.
#42
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,465
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
Going to defend (minor) lies.

Let's say I'm the doctor or cop, and I don't want to get NKed... I do what scum does and makes a fake claim, which keeps my role in the game.
#43
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,077
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@whiteflame
Why would I go out of my way to explain my role as a basis for why I could not be manipulated or prevented from using the BG in any other way? 
Isn't this just a WIFOM argument
#44
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,077
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Barney
Let's say I'm the doctor or cop, and I don't want to get NKed... I do what scum does and makes a fake claim, which keeps my role in the game.
That works because doctor and cop are usually unique roles. If a miller tried that strategy, we would lynch them.
#45
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,955
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Savant
If we 100% knew you were town, then yes. In this case it just seems suspicious. Any scum could come up with some excuse for lying later claiming it was helping the town. So if we buy this it sets a super bad precedent.
You’re calling me out for doing this because I could have done it later… sincerely, is anyone else reading this? You’re acknowledging that it’s no help to me now if I am scum. I said I was RB’d. I wouldn’t have moved and I still would have failed if I was just a normal BG. So my decision to state it now makes absolutely no sense if I’m scum. If it’s bad precedent to point that out, then I guess I’m setting it, because this is absurd.

If whieflame's not the only one insisting on this, then maybe there's a case to be made that the benefit outweighs the cost. I still think that the odds of luring a scum are outweighed by the confusion it causes though
What’s the cost to town? Please, explain this to me. I’ve laid out the benefit. What harm did I do to town?

Isn't this just a WIFOM argument
You’re not addressing it for some reason, but sure, it’s a bit WIFOM. I suppose it’s possible that I went out of my way as scum to both divulge the entirety of a role claim when I didn’t have to (I already claimed I was RB’d, so the result would have been the same) and specifically said there was nothing else that could explain why my role failed after two other people had claimed to be RB’d. I guess if you assume that I decided to put myself into the “pseudo-CC” pool (as you put it) for no apparent reason, then sure, it’s WIFOM. Either I did all this because I wanted to clarify my role for town to explain what could have happened and why, or I did it because I just decided I wanted to be scumread. Seems legit.
Topic's author
#46
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 1,191
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
Vote count…

Whiteflame (2/4): Best.Korea, Savant

"Link... You are the light. OUR light... that must shine upon Hyrule once again. Now go."
—Princess Zelda

#47
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,017
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@whiteflame
Let me put it this way.

If casey is scum, we most likely lose anyway, since the other scum would be hidden among 4 players (savant, austin, joe, whiteflame), maybe even more, and we dont have 4 lynches left after this dp.

But if casey is town and we lynch her, we only have 1 lynch left to find scum among 4 players.

So I am forced to think as if casey is town just to get some chance at winning.

Its not what I like to do, its just that we missed the opportunity to lynch casey.

So as crazy as it may be, I have to assume casey is town and even Earth read her as town.

That leaves those 4 players and 2 lynches left.

Those 4 players, 2 are scum. I dont think Savant and Joe can be scum.

That leaves these possibilities:

Savant and austin

Savant and whiteflame

Whiteflame and austin

Joe and whiteflame

Joe and austin

So to put it simply, your name is in 3 out of 5 possible combinations.

Lynching you takes out 3 combinations.

Its not a perfect system, but after that last dp where we should have removed casey as suspect, now I am forced to consider casey as town and really hope that she is, just because going after her is high risk low reward.

I will admit that Savant, Austin and Joe are all also possible lynches. I just dont find Joe to be a more likely scum. So if you are town, then we lynch Savant and Austin, and same if you happen to be scum.

Ideally, we should have lynched all 4. But it just so happens that we no longer have 4 lynches left, so we have to guess and hope we guessed correctly.

6 - 2

4 - 2

2 - 2

So we have 2 lynches to hit scum. If we successfully hit, then its 2 - 1 and then maybe luck will be on our side.

I am counting that mod didnt actually put 5 protective roles and 2 roleblockers in the game, and also gave scum a fake claim. If he did, we lose this anyway. I am just going to assume the logical setup of 3 protective roles and lynch 2 out of 5 protective roles. So its austin, you or savant or joebob. Its going to be a guessing work anyway, but if you turn town, then it makes sense that austin and savant, who both pushed hard to lynch you, are scum.
#48
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,077
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@whiteflame
You’re calling me out for doing this because I could have done it later
When did I say this?

What harm did I do to town?
Making it easier for scum to fake claim and then not commit to said claim later.

I think at this point you know where I stand, and I know where you stand. My vote stays where it is for now, but I'm open to changing it later if someone else becomes more suspicious.
#49
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,077
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Best.Korea
I am forced to think as if casey is town just to get some chance at winning.
Why though? Why assume Casey is town instead of assuming JoeBob or Austin is, for example?
#50
AustinL0926
AustinL0926's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,288
3
5
9
AustinL0926's avatar
AustinL0926
3
5
9
I think BK's logic is theroretically sound, but we need to take a holistic approach with behavior as well.

I'm still skeptical of Joe's claim, especially given that Savant has been consistently contributing to town (sometimes wrong, sometimes right, but still putting his opinions out there) while I can't remember a single substantive contribution of Joe so far. I mean, Joe literally dropped in this DP, made one post, then dipped.

I also find whiteflame scummy (albeit not as scummy as I did last DP) in terms of behavior, and his claim, while valid by itself, is also a partial CC in terms of being a protective role.

Imo the ideal lynch order here is to lynch Joebob. If he flips scum, then lynch whiteflame and Casey in that order. If he flips innocent, then lynch Savant and whiteflame. I think this is pretty much solvable, unless either Moozer messed up and put two near-identical roles in the game, or the team is Casey and Barney (not impossible, but not likely).
#51
AustinL0926
AustinL0926's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,288
3
5
9
AustinL0926's avatar
AustinL0926
3
5
9
btw, not sure why I'm being lumped as a protective role. As I already mentioned, I can't save anyone from the mafia kill.
#52
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,955
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Savant
You’re calling me out for doing this because I could have done it later
When did I say this?
“Any scum could come up with some excuse for lying later claiming it was helping the town.”

You’re arguing that I could lie about my claim in a later game, so I should be punished for this lie now. Seems straightforward.

Making it easier for scum to fake claim and then not commit to said claim later.
Again, how am I harming town in this game? You said that you could understand my lying about my role if the benefits outweigh the costs. They do for this game, so it was justified by your metric. If your goal is just to punish people who lie about their roles, then that’s not scum hunting, that’s just enforcing your preference.
#53
AustinL0926
AustinL0926's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,288
3
5
9
AustinL0926's avatar
AustinL0926
3
5
9
I think the argument between Savant and WF is silly tbh. You can argue over policy all you want, but let's focus on winning the current game.
#54
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,017
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Savant
Why though? Why assume Casey is town instead of assuming JoeBob or Austin is, for example?
Three reasons:

One: 5 protective roles doesnt make sense. Neither does 4.

Two: if casey is lynched and scum, the other scum cannot be logically found at this point. If casey turns scum, we have 50% chance to win if we lynch her now, and if casey turns town, we have less than 25% chance to win because not only do we have 1 in 4 chance after that, but another 1 in 2 chance after if we succeed hitting 1 in 4. So thats 1 in 8 chance for victory if casey turns town, about as bad chance as it can get.

Three: For some reason, Earth behaviorally read her as town. I dont know why, but to him she was obvious town.

So these 3 reasons very much mean I have to town read casey. Everyone knows I wanted to lynch casey in dp1 and I pushed for that lynch, its just that now its very risky and I dont see the point.
#55
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,077
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@whiteflame
@AustinL0926
@JoeBob
You’re arguing that I could lie about my claim in a later game, so I should be punished for this lie now.
No, I'm pointing out the absurdity of not scum-reading claims of this nature. If it's suspicious in most cases, it's probably suspicious in this case.

You can argue over policy all you want, but let's focus on winning the current game.
JoeBob isn't my top scum read, but I'm willing to consider that angle at least. JoeBob, why should we trust you?
#56
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,077
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Best.Korea
if casey is lynched and scum, the other scum cannot be logically found at this point
Same for if anyone else is lynched and is scum, because Casey could be the other scum we don't find.
#57
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,017
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@AustinL0926
btw, not sure why I'm being lumped as a protective role.
You said that your role protects from some night actions.

#58
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,955
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Savant and austin

Savant and whiteflame

Whiteflame and austin

Joe and whiteflame

Joe and austin
I honestly don’t understand how you’re getting it down to this subset. I understand leaving Luna out because he can theoretically confirm himself during this DP (and should). I don’t agree with the assumption that it can’t be Barney just because he claimed that he’ll be confirmed by next DP. I agree with not lynching him until then, but he should still be in PoE now.

Also, I sincerely do not understand how anyone could think that, after all the sussing I did of him in DP1, Savant and I are a scum team. If you sincerely believe that’s a plausible scum team based on our behavior so far this DP and last, then nothing I could have said or done up to this point could change that because I’ve been about as blatantly divisive with him as anyone at this point. If you think that’s all staged, then my lynch was a given the moment I claimed my role.
#59
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,955
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Savant
At this point, I don’t see reason to keep arguing this with you. I think you’ve undercut your own logic for pushing the lynch on me several times, but I’ve said all I have to say on the matter.


#60
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,017
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Savant
Same for if anyone else is lynched and is scum, because Casey could be the other scum we don't find.
Yes, thats why I gave 3 reasons. But anyway, the combination of these 5 roles in game doesnt make any sense.

Casey is indirectly confirmed by them as town.

So its whiteflame, austin, then savant.

Thats the lynch order which we should follow. 

We can change the order of a lynch, but we shouldnt do that either due to combinations..

Whiteflame takes out 3 combinations, leaving only "austin and joe" and "austin and savant". Then lynching austin takes out remaining 2 combinations, and then its savant vs joe.

I mean, this is good for you. You get to live by dp4.