A Mafia of Unfortunate Events [END GAME]

[Dragon D. Luffy]

I think it's weird that there are places that tell the role of the nightkilled player by default. Everything I have seen, it's part of the essential mystery of the game to have nightkills be unknown.

Most places, actually. The Syndicate is extremely insular in some senses.

Calling vigs "ninjas" instead if vigs is one example.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

I'm playing without reading my role.

Do you at least know if you are good or bad?

[a2thezebra]

I'm playing without reading my role.

In this game, I will defend Snow Dog to the death.

[a2thezebra]

I'm playing without reading my role.

If we lynch you, do we get to read your role?

Watch out!

[Scotty]

I know we're going as a group but I want to go west into the water to look for seashells.

So sue me.

[Jackofhearts2005]

I'm playing without reading my role.

In this game, I will defend Snow Dog to the death.

Why?

[Scotty]

I could get behind splitting the difference with alignment only flips. While no janitoring is more comfortable to me, I'm big on trying new things.

I'm playing without reading my role.

This seems like a terrible idea.

If you're being truthful and you're town, this only hurts your performance.

If you're being truthful and you're scum, maybe you don't accidentally give yourself away with a scumtell.

You could also be scum and lying, using this as a shield. "Anything scummy I say can't actually be scummy cause I don't even know my alignment."

I'm with the marmot. You seem like a great first lynch.

Heheh yeah he's probably lying.

Or not. I didn't read my role until day 1 started last game. Wilgy definitely read his role in the last game even though he said he didn't. Snow Dog? Well, let's just say I have a bit more faith in Balto

[a2thezebra]

I could get behind splitting the difference with alignment only flips. While no janitoring is more comfortable to me, I'm big on trying new things.

I'm playing without reading my role.

This seems like a terrible idea.

If you're being truthful and you're town, this only hurts your performance.

If you're being truthful and you're scum, maybe you don't accidentally give yourself away with a scumtell.

You could also be scum and lying, using this as a shield. "Anything scummy I say can't actually be scummy cause I don't even know my alignment."

I'm with the marmot. You seem like a great first lynch.

I don't like going after newcomers, but this post feels very disingenuous to me. For starters, you cover three possibilities with line breaks to give the impression that you're considering every scenario regarding Snow Dog's alignment. Truthful town, truthful scum, and lying scum. Yet you leave out lying town! Have you not considered that Snow Dog has in fact read his role and made that statement to see how people would react? Or have you considered that but it didn't contribute to your opportunistic behavior here? Second, you seem awfully eager to bite down on a lynch option. It isn't even Day 1 yet! Aren't you interested in looking at other options or at least seeing what interactions might produce more content you could find suspicious? It appears to me that you are prioritizing finding someone to tunnel over actually finding baddies. Third, it isn't true that if he is town and being truthful that such a move only hurts his performance. If he is a power role this is true, but if not then the mystery as to whose side he is on will instigate a more genuine pro-town performance than if he were knowingly town and the pressure was on.

With all that said, welcome to the Syndicate and I am only attacking your alignment and not your character.

[a2thezebra]

I'm playing without reading my role.

In this game, I will defend Snow Dog to the death.

Why?

I drove him a bit loopy in the last game we played together so I am indebted to him. This transcends alignment, you see. But for what it's worth I do believe he is civ from what little content there is to go off of so far. I don't think he would have drawn a target on himself if he were in fact bad.

[a2thezebra]

I could get behind splitting the difference with alignment only flips. While no janitoring is more comfortable to me, I'm big on trying new things.

I'm playing without reading my role.

This seems like a terrible idea.

If you're being truthful and you're town, this only hurts your performance.

If you're being truthful and you're scum, maybe you don't accidentally give yourself away with a scumtell.

You could also be scum and lying, using this as a shield. "Anything scummy I say can't actually be scummy cause I don't even know my alignment."

I'm with the marmot. You seem like a great first lynch.

Heheh yeah he's probably lying.

Or not.

Pick one please.

[sprityo]

East? I thought you said Weast?

That's "West," Patrick......

[a2thezebra]

I'm playing without reading my role.

Do you at least know if you are good or bad?

[Dragon D. Luffy]

I think it's weird that there are places that tell the role of the nightkilled player by default. Everything I have seen, it's part of the essential mystery of the game to have nightkills be unknown.

The only true mystery there needs to be in the core mafia game is who is mafia. Part of the unraveling of that mystery is seeing who flips mafia to make associative reads, default janitoring hinders that to an extent. I also can't get behind a system where there is no info dumping alongside default janitoring, the balance of no info dumping is still being able to see the cop/tracker/watcher flip then work out if their strong reads were based on scumhunting or ability info.

Janitoring should be tied to a role and/or be a limited resource.

Get used to it, it's part of the site's charm.

I think the info-dumping thing is particulary refreshing, it forces townies out of their ability-only confort zone.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

I'm okay with policy lynching Snow Dog.

Or rather, policy vigging him. A player who doesn't know their alignment is a waste of a lynch.

[a2thezebra]

I'm okay with policy lynching Snow Dog.

Or rather, policy vigging him. A player who doesn't know their alignment is a waste of a lynch.

I strongly disapprove of this post with all due respect.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

I'm okay with policy lynching Snow Dog.

Or rather, policy vigging him. A player who doesn't know their alignment is a waste of a lynch.

I strongly disapprove of this post with all due respect.

Noted.

[Jackofhearts2005]

I could get behind splitting the difference with alignment only flips. While no janitoring is more comfortable to me, I'm big on trying new things.

I'm playing without reading my role.

This seems like a terrible idea.

If you're being truthful and you're town, this only hurts your performance.

If you're being truthful and you're scum, maybe you don't accidentally give yourself away with a scumtell.

You could also be scum and lying, using this as a shield. "Anything scummy I say can't actually be scummy cause I don't even know my alignment."

I'm with the marmot. You seem like a great first lynch.

I don't like going after newcomers, but this post feels very disingenuous to me. For starters, you cover three possibilities with line breaks to give the impression that you're considering every scenario regarding Snow Dog's alignment. Truthful town, truthful scum, and lying scum. Yet you leave out lying town! Have you not considered that Snow Dog has in fact read his role and made that statement to see how people would react? Or have you considered that but it didn't contribute to your opportunistic behavior here?

I did consider it and dismissed it. Townies generally shouldn't lie but may do so for the greater good. I see no greater good in this.

Saying complete bullshit that makes yourself look bad just to get a reaction? There are better ways to get reactions that don't involve making yourself look bad.

Second, you seem awfully eager to bite down on a lynch option. It isn't even Day 1 yet! Aren't you interested in looking at other options or at least seeing what interactions might produce more content you could find suspicious? It appears to me that you are prioritizing finding someone to tunnel over actually finding baddies.

I am always interested in all of my lynch options and I am always interested in producing more content.

Snow Dog is way out in front for basically only saying something that I consider pretty antitown while most everyone else has said nothing at all. That doesn't mean that I will ultimately vote for Snow Dog. One post saying "I like you for a lynch" does not tunneling make.

I'm going to take the above to be a mix of honest misunderstanding what I meant when I said Snow Dog would be a good Day 1 lynch and your desire to defend Snow Dog regardless of alignments and not you trying to make me look bad. That's the impression I'm getting from you.

Third, it isn't true that if he is town and being truthful that such a move only hurts his performance. If he is a power role this is true, but if not then the mystery as to whose side he is on will instigate a more genuine pro-town performance than if he were knowingly town and the pressure was on.

He is a power role. Did you read the setup?

I'm not sure I follow the "if he's not a power role" bit. You're saying this move will generate a more genuinely pro-town performance from....Snow Dog? From others? How so?

With all that said, welcome to the Syndicate and I am only attacking your alignment and not your character.

Thank you.

I would expect no less.

[Jackofhearts2005]

I'm playing without reading my role.

In this game, I will defend Snow Dog to the death.

Why?

I drove him a bit loopy in the last game we played together so I am indebted to him. This transcends alignment, you see. But for what it's worth I do believe he is civ from what little content there is to go off of so far. I don't think he would have drawn a target on himself if he were in fact bad.

You believe Snow Dog is a civvy but Snow Dog doesn't even believe Snow Dog is a civvy so forgive me if I totally write off your read.

[a2thezebra]

I'm okay with policy lynching Snow Dog.

Or rather, policy vigging him. A player who doesn't know their alignment is a waste of a lynch.

I strongly disapprove of this post with all due respect.

Noted.

Since you keep asking why I disapprove of it, I'll tell you.

You seem to be encouraging a policy lynch (I disapprove of all policy lynches with no exceptions) while at the same time distancing yourself from it by saying that it would be a waste. That way if Day 1 ends up being a policy lynch of Snow Dog and he flips town, you can say that you disapproved of his lynching and would have preferred that a vigilante killed him instead. If the same happens and he flips scum, you can reference this same post and take credit for contributing to his policy lynch.

I also disapprove of it for the same reasons I gave to Jackofhearts. Snow Dog could just be fishing for reactions along the lines of opportunistic baddies, and even if he isn't that's no reason to suspect him for not reading his role card. But even this I could excuse if you were only voicing suspicion of him and/or asking him to read his role card. The problem is that you (along with MM and Jackofhearts) seem settled on his being killed like it's a done deal, so so early in the game. I don't like that.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

Snow Dog has no alignment. All attempts to read him are pointless. There is no way to call him a civ or bad, because he has no winning condition. He has no intention to win for either side. He is not playing the game.

Why should he be kept alive?

Every lynch is a policy lynch. We take down people who don't contribute to town's cause, for reasons we decide at the time. This guy is the least contributive a player can possibly be.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

Unless he is lying. And if he is lying, chances he is bad rise to 99%.

[Nachomamma8]

Snow Dog, is there a reason you decided not to read your role PM this game?

[a2thezebra]

I could get behind splitting the difference with alignment only flips. While no janitoring is more comfortable to me, I'm big on trying new things.

I'm playing without reading my role.

This seems like a terrible idea.

If you're being truthful and you're town, this only hurts your performance.

If you're being truthful and you're scum, maybe you don't accidentally give yourself away with a scumtell.

You could also be scum and lying, using this as a shield. "Anything scummy I say can't actually be scummy cause I don't even know my alignment."

I'm with the marmot. You seem like a great first lynch.

I don't like going after newcomers, but this post feels very disingenuous to me. For starters, you cover three possibilities with line breaks to give the impression that you're considering every scenario regarding Snow Dog's alignment. Truthful town, truthful scum, and lying scum. Yet you leave out lying town! Have you not considered that Snow Dog has in fact read his role and made that statement to see how people would react? Or have you considered that but it didn't contribute to your opportunistic behavior here?

I did consider it and dismissed it. Townies generally shouldn't lie but may do so for the greater good. I see no greater good in this.

Saying complete bullshit that makes yourself look bad just to get a reaction? There are better ways to get reactions that don't involve making yourself look bad.

The reason you see no greater good in this is because your perception of what qualifies as effective, innovative scum-hunting tactics is clearly a much narrower perception than mine (which many would say speaks better of you than of me) because I love it when townies make themselves look """bad""" to fish for eager opportunistic baddies. It strikes me as odd that you claim to have considered the possibility I brought up, because given that you considered the three other possibilities and included them in your previous post as well, it doesn't matter that you dismissed this one because the reasons you give for dismissing it are similarly negative to the reasons you gave for dismissing the other three which you included in the post. Why omit this possibility because you dismissed it? Because it doesn't contribute to your narrative I believe.

Second, you seem awfully eager to bite down on a lynch option. It isn't even Day 1 yet! Aren't you interested in looking at other options or at least seeing what interactions might produce more content you could find suspicious? It appears to me that you are prioritizing finding someone to tunnel over actually finding baddies.

I am always interested in all of my lynch options and I am always interested in producing more content.

Snow Dog is way out in front for basically only saying something that I consider pretty antitown while most everyone else has said nothing at all. That doesn't mean that I will ultimately vote for Snow Dog. One post saying "I like you for a lynch" does not tunneling make.

I'm going to take the above to be a mix of honest misunderstanding what I meant when I said Snow Dog would be a good Day 1 lynch and your desire to defend Snow Dog regardless of alignments and not you trying to make me look bad. That's the impression I'm getting from you.

I never go out of my way to make anyone look bad. Even when I'm bad myself I try to look for things that I find genuinely suspicious, pretending that I'm good if I have to. With that said, I'm not sure where the misunderstanding is. You confirm in this response that you are in fact interested in a Snow Dog lynch, disregarding that future content could change that even while claiming that you are interested in more content. It doesn't seem believable to me for one to be interested in "all of my lynch options" while at the same time only having one lynch option.

Third, it isn't true that if he is town and being truthful that such a move only hurts his performance. If he is a power role this is true, but if not then the mystery as to whose side he is on will instigate a more genuine pro-town performance than if he were knowingly town and the pressure was on.

He is a power role. Did you read the setup?

I'm not sure I follow the "if he's not a power role" bit. You're saying this move will generate a more genuinely pro-town performance from....Snow Dog? From others? How so?

When you know you're town you know that you have the responsibility of being town. If you end up in a LyLo (Lynch or Lose) situation the pressure is on you to make the right decision or cost town the game. This pressure can effect your performance; your judgment, your actions, how you choose to come off to other players. This pressure isn't there when you don't know whether or not you are in fact town, but your play still defaults as a town performance because you are used to pretending to be town even if you are bad. All in-thread performances are either genuine town or false town performances, so by emulating a town performance without having the pressure of town responsibility you may actually have better judgment in deciphering who is bad and who isn't.

With all that said, welcome to the Syndicate and I am only attacking your alignment and not your character.

Thank you.

I would expect no less.

[a2thezebra]

I'm playing without reading my role.

In this game, I will defend Snow Dog to the death.

Why?

I drove him a bit loopy in the last game we played together so I am indebted to him. This transcends alignment, you see. But for what it's worth I do believe he is civ from what little content there is to go off of so far. I don't think he would have drawn a target on himself if he were in fact bad.

You believe Snow Dog is a civvy but Snow Dog doesn't even believe Snow Dog is a civvy so forgive me if I totally write off your read.

This feels like a cop-out to me. You know it's more complicated than that.

[a2thezebra]

Snow Dog has no alignment. All attempts to read him are pointless. There is no way to call him a civ or bad, because he has no winning condition. He has no intention to win for either side. He is not playing the game.

Why should he be kept alive?

Every lynch is a policy lynch. We take down people who don't contribute to town's cause, for reasons we decide at the time. This guy is the least contributive a player can possibly be.

Every statement within this post is false. For one, Snow Dog does have an alignment. Whether he knows what alignment that is is up for debate, but he does have one. All attempts to read him are pointless only operating under the assumption that he is playing without reading his alignment, which even then doesn't make it pointless to read him because not knowing your alignment doesn't automatically dictate whether or not you are going to attempt to genuinely contribute to the town cause. Not reading one's role card is a bold unorthodox move, if we are willing to acknowledge that why are we unwilling to consider bold unorthodox explanations for this move? Saying it's a bad move has no bearing on whether or not it is alignment-indicative. He does have a winning condition. We don't know what his intentions are. He most certainly is playing the game.

He should be kept alive so we can figure out his intentions and decipher if he in fact has read his role card, and what his alignment is.

Snow Dog's decision to not read his role card, or at least his claim that he hasn't, has sparked more discussion than anything else so far in the game. And yet you have the nerve to say that he is the least contributive a player can possibly be? Either you are being disingenuous or downright stubborn. No, not every lynch is a policy lynch and no, we do not take down people who don't contribute to town's cause. We take down people who do contribute to the anti-town cause. The difference is monumental and you seem to be choosing to pretend that it isn't. My eye is on MM, Jackofhearts, and you, but especially you after this post.

[Jackofhearts2005]

I'm okay with policy lynching Snow Dog.

Or rather, policy vigging him. A player who doesn't know their alignment is a waste of a lynch.

I strongly disapprove of this post with all due respect.

Noted.

Since you keep asking why I disapprove of it, I'll tell you.

You seem to be encouraging a policy lynch (I disapprove of all policy lynches with no exceptions) while at the same time distancing yourself from it by saying that it would be a waste. That way if Day 1 ends up being a policy lynch of Snow Dog and he flips town, you can say that you disapproved of his lynching and would have preferred that a vigilante killed him instead. If the same happens and he flips scum, you can reference this same post and take credit for contributing to his policy lynch.

I also disapprove of it for the same reasons I gave to Jackofhearts. Snow Dog could just be fishing for reactions along the lines of opportunistic baddies, and even if he isn't that's no reason to suspect him for not reading his role card. But even this I could excuse if you were only voicing suspicion of him and/or asking him to read his role card. The problem is that you (along with MM and Jackofhearts) seem settled on his being killed like it's a done deal, so so early in the game. I don't like that.

And then what?

"Aha! You all are trying to lynch me because I did something suspicious but actually, I was trying to be suspicious so as to draw out aggressive players, who are scum. We should lynch YOU instead, JoH, MM and Luffy!"

Would such a move convince anyone?

If it did convince anyone, would it be likely to result in actual scum lynches?

I would think "No."

We wouldn't even be able to point to his town autopsy and say "These players voted for a townie so maybe they are bad" because every scum player voting for Snow Dog would have the get out of jail free card of "But Snow Dog was actually acting bad. The only one to blame for Snow Dog's lynch was Snow Dog."

This brilliant townie gambit you're proposing doesn't seem to help the town at all. It will help us find aggressive players, not scum players, and likely get a townie lynched, too.

I'd love to see an example of this actually nailing scum, though, since you think I'm being narrowminded about this type of thing as a scumhunting tactic.

[Jackofhearts2005]

I'm playing without reading my role.

In this game, I will defend Snow Dog to the death.

Why?

I drove him a bit loopy in the last game we played together so I am indebted to him. This transcends alignment, you see. But for what it's worth I do believe he is civ from what little content there is to go off of so far. I don't think he would have drawn a target on himself if he were in fact bad.

You believe Snow Dog is a civvy but Snow Dog doesn't even believe Snow Dog is a civvy so forgive me if I totally write off your read.

This feels like a cop-out to me. You know it's more complicated than that.

It is more complicated but I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[a2thezebra]

I am a mafia deconstructionist.

In mafia, much less is alignment-indicative than what the average mafia player believes is.

Because of this, unorthodox tactics of finding mafia should not be punished but encouraged.

Your claim that reaction-fishing tactics only help identify aggressive players rather than baddies simply isn't true.

The best way to catch baddies is to spot mafia-motivated tactics in real time. The best way to spot it is to fish for it.

[a2thezebra]

My main point in defense of Snow Dog is that you can disagree with what makes for effective mafia tactics but that doesn't make other players bad for using them. You and DDL seem to simultaneously look down on Snow Dog's tactics while also claiming that they aren't genuine. Which is it?

[Glorfindel]

North, one of the greatest movies of all time.

Zebs!!!

[a2thezebra]

North, one of the greatest movies of all time.

Zebs!!!

GLORF

[a2thezebra]

I'll be defending Glorfindel too unless I catch him unwilling to lie about something.

[insertnamehere]

I agree that what Snow Dog's doing is idiotic and not helping the civilian cause in any way, shape, or form.

I just don't think he's necessarily bad for it. I remember an earlier game where I suspected (I think it was Wilgy? Eh, probably Wilgy.) for doing the same thing only for him to flip civ.

The only thing that any of this makes me feel is slightly better about Jackofhearts, who seems to have the same instinctual response as me to this type of (in my opinion) braggadocious (a word which here means "gutsy reaction based tactics") play.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

Snow Dog has no alignment. All attempts to read him are pointless. There is no way to call him a civ or bad, because he has no winning condition. He has no intention to win for either side. He is not playing the game.

Why should he be kept alive?

Every lynch is a policy lynch. We take down people who don't contribute to town's cause, for reasons we decide at the time. This guy is the least contributive a player can possibly be.

Every statement within this post is false. For one, Snow Dog does have an alignment. Whether he knows what alignment that is is up for debate, but he does have one. All attempts to read him are pointless only operating under the assumption that he is playing without reading his alignment, which even then doesn't make it pointless to read him because not knowing your alignment doesn't automatically dictate whether or not you are going to attempt to genuinely contribute to the town cause. Not reading one's role card is a bold unorthodox move, if we are willing to acknowledge that why are we unwilling to consider bold unorthodox explanations for this move? Saying it's a bad move has no bearing on whether or not it is alignment-indicative. He does have a winning condition. We don't know what his intentions are. He most certainly is playing the game.

He should be kept alive so we can figure out his intentions and decipher if he in fact has read his role card, and what his alignment is.

Snow Dog's decision to not read his role card, or at least his claim that he hasn't, has sparked more discussion than anything else so far in the game. And yet you have the nerve to say that he is the least contributive a player can possibly be? Either you are being disingenuous or downright stubborn. No, not every lynch is a policy lynch and no, we do not take down people who don't contribute to town's cause. We take down people who do contribute to the anti-town cause. The difference is monumental and you seem to be choosing to pretend that it isn't. My eye is on MM, Jackofhearts, and you, but especially you after this post.

Town's cause is to lynch scum.
Scum's cause is not to lynch scum.

Town is active. Scum is passive. Scum plays by stalling and not actually doing things. If someone is not trying to scum, they are more likely to be bad. Because that's the bread and butter of bads.

I concede that Snow Dog could help civs, if say, he decide to scum baddies despite potentially betraying his own team. I still argue that he is 100% unreadable, though. Because there is zero connection between his alignment and his posts. And if he is 100% unreadable, how are we supposed to trust him. How can we make the call to leave him alive. It's basically lottery.

We should either investigate him and hope someone manages to hint through the role reveal ban, or vig him. But leaving him alive and unchecked is leaving the game to pure chance. And I don't like games of pure chance.

[a2thezebra]

I agree that what Snow Dog's doing is idiotic and not helping the civilian cause in any way, shape, or form.

I just don't think he's necessarily bad for it. I remember an earlier game where I suspected (I think it was Wilgy? Eh, probably Wilgy.) for doing the same thing only for him to flip civ.

The only thing that any of this makes me feel is slightly better about Jackofhearts, who seems to have the same instinctual response as me to this type of (in my opinion) braggadocious (a word which here means "gutsy reaction based tactics") play.

But Jackofhearts and DDL don't seem to care that he might not necessarily be bad for it. Don't you think that makes them look bad?

[Dragon D. Luffy]

I agree that what Snow Dog's doing is idiotic and not helping the civilian cause in any way, shape, or form.

I just don't think he's necessarily bad for it. I remember an earlier game where I suspected (I think it was Wilgy? Eh, probably Wilgy.) for doing the same thing only for him to flip civ.

The only thing that any of this makes me feel is slightly better about Jackofhearts, who seems to have the same instinctual response as me to this type of (in my opinion) braggadocious (a word which here means "gutsy reaction based tactics") play.

This is the only way to figure out whether he is bad or not:

https://www.random.org/

[Dragon D. Luffy]

I agree that what Snow Dog's doing is idiotic and not helping the civilian cause in any way, shape, or form.

I just don't think he's necessarily bad for it. I remember an earlier game where I suspected (I think it was Wilgy? Eh, probably Wilgy.) for doing the same thing only for him to flip civ.

The only thing that any of this makes me feel is slightly better about Jackofhearts, who seems to have the same instinctual response as me to this type of (in my opinion) braggadocious (a word which here means "gutsy reaction based tactics") play.

But Jackofhearts and DDL don't seem to care that he might not necessarily be bad for it. Don't you think that makes them look bad?

That is not the problem. The problem is being okay with the idea that one player is allowed to go through all game without having his alignment read.

What do we do to him once we get to a point where we have to decide if he is civ or bad?

[insertnamehere]

I agree that what Snow Dog's doing is idiotic and not helping the civilian cause in any way, shape, or form.

I just don't think he's necessarily bad for it. I remember an earlier game where I suspected (I think it was Wilgy? Eh, probably Wilgy.) for doing the same thing only for him to flip civ.

The only thing that any of this makes me feel is slightly better about Jackofhearts, who seems to have the same instinctual response as me to this type of (in my opinion) braggadocious (a word which here means "gutsy reaction based tactics") play.

But Jackofhearts and DDL don't seem to care that he might not necessarily be bad for it. Don't you think that makes them look bad?

I think they're making the mistake of confusing styles of gameplay that they find counter-intuitive and actual scumtells.

I should know, I've made that exact mistake many a time as a civilian. In fact, that's my biggest difficulty as a townie, usually.

[insertnamehere]

I agree that what Snow Dog's doing is idiotic and not helping the civilian cause in any way, shape, or form.

I just don't think he's necessarily bad for it. I remember an earlier game where I suspected (I think it was Wilgy? Eh, probably Wilgy.) for doing the same thing only for him to flip civ.

The only thing that any of this makes me feel is slightly better about Jackofhearts, who seems to have the same instinctual response as me to this type of (in my opinion) braggadocious (a word which here means "gutsy reaction based tactics") play.

This is the only way to figure out whether he is bad or not:

https://www.random.org/

Exactly. Which is why I'm not interested in lynching him today.

[Jackofhearts2005]

I am a mafia deconstructionist.

In mafia, much less is alignment-indicative than what the average mafia player believes is.

Because of this, unorthodox tactics of finding mafia should not be punished but encouraged.

Your claim that reaction-fishing tactics only help identify aggressive players rather than baddies simply isn't true.

The best way to catch baddies is to spot mafia-motivated tactics in real time. The best way to spot it is to fish for it.

You're watching a guy throw pretzels in the water and a) assuming he's fishing and b) assuming that throwing pretzels in the water will lead to catching fish.

I'm watching the same guy and saying he's not contributing to solving our food shortage.

Now, you could be right and I could be wrong but I think my position is more logical.

It strikes me as odd that you claim to have considered the possibility I brought up (JoH note: that Snow Dog read is role, is a townie and is lying), because given that you considered the three other possibilities and included them in your previous post as well, it doesn't matter that you dismissed this one because the reasons you give for dismissing it are similarly negative to the reasons you gave for dismissing the other three which you included in the post. Why omit this possibility because you dismissed it? Because it doesn't contribute to your narrative I believe.

Um....I omited the one possibility I dismissed.

I did not dismiss the possibility that SD is lying scum, truthful scum or truthful town. That's why I included those three possibilities in my post.

I'm not sure what you mean to my reason for dismissing the one thing I dismissed was similar to my (nonexistent) reasons for dismissing the other three options. Can you clarify?

I never go out of my way to make anyone look bad. Even when I'm bad myself I try to look for things that I find genuinely suspicious, pretending that I'm good if I have to.

That's a limiting scum strategy, imo. To each their own.

With that said, I'm not sure where the misunderstanding is. You confirm in this response that you are in fact interested in a Snow Dog lynch, disregarding that future content could change that even while claiming that you are interested in more content. It doesn't seem believable to me for one to be interested in "all of my lynch options" while at the same time only having one lynch option.

I'm interested in all lynch options. I am leaning towards one, based on currently available information.

I'm confident that other information will be available later before I have to make a final D1 decision and will of course consider said information.

I feel that you are misunderstanding that (or pretending to), implying that I have already 100% committed myself to voting Snow Dog.

When you know you're town you know that you have the responsibility of being town. If you end up in a LyLo (Lynch or Lose) situation the pressure is on you to make the right decision or cost town the game. This pressure can effect your performance; your judgment, your actions, how you choose to come off to other players. This pressure isn't there when you don't know whether or not you are in fact town, but your play still defaults as a town performance because you are used to pretending to be town even if you are bad. All in-thread performances are either genuine town or false town performances, so by emulating a town performance without having the pressure of town responsibility you may actually have better judgment in deciphering who is bad and who isn't.

The game just started. We're not even close to lynch or lose.

I think most players will do a better job of being town should they know they are town.

ONUW does a great job of demonstrating how a player's uncertainty of alignment can cause townies to do anti town things, hedging their bets on the potential of having been role swapped to a scum win condition until they can better determine if they still have their initial role.

So there's the support for my stance. Do you have an example of a time a townie made a mistake and cost the town a win but they would have done a better job in that lynch or lose scenario if they hadn't known their alignment?

[a2thezebra]

Snow Dog has no alignment. All attempts to read him are pointless. There is no way to call him a civ or bad, because he has no winning condition. He has no intention to win for either side. He is not playing the game.

Why should he be kept alive?

Every lynch is a policy lynch. We take down people who don't contribute to town's cause, for reasons we decide at the time. This guy is the least contributive a player can possibly be.

Every statement within this post is false. For one, Snow Dog does have an alignment. Whether he knows what alignment that is is up for debate, but he does have one. All attempts to read him are pointless only operating under the assumption that he is playing without reading his alignment, which even then doesn't make it pointless to read him because not knowing your alignment doesn't automatically dictate whether or not you are going to attempt to genuinely contribute to the town cause. Not reading one's role card is a bold unorthodox move, if we are willing to acknowledge that why are we unwilling to consider bold unorthodox explanations for this move? Saying it's a bad move has no bearing on whether or not it is alignment-indicative. He does have a winning condition. We don't know what his intentions are. He most certainly is playing the game.

He should be kept alive so we can figure out his intentions and decipher if he in fact has read his role card, and what his alignment is.

Snow Dog's decision to not read his role card, or at least his claim that he hasn't, has sparked more discussion than anything else so far in the game. And yet you have the nerve to say that he is the least contributive a player can possibly be? Either you are being disingenuous or downright stubborn. No, not every lynch is a policy lynch and no, we do not take down people who don't contribute to town's cause. We take down people who do contribute to the anti-town cause. The difference is monumental and you seem to be choosing to pretend that it isn't. My eye is on MM, Jackofhearts, and you, but especially you after this post.

Town's cause is to lynch scum.
Scum's cause is not to lynch scum.

Town is active. Scum is passive. Scum plays by stalling and not actually doing things. If someone is not trying to scum, they are more likely to be bad. Because that's the bread and butter of bads.

I concede that Snow Dog could help civs, if say, he decide to scum baddies despite potentially betraying his own team. I still argue that he is 100% unreadable, though. Because there is zero connection between his alignment and his posts. And if he is 100% unreadable, how are we supposed to trust him. How can we make the call to leave him alive. It's basically lottery.

We should either investigate him and hope someone manages to hint through the role reveal ban, or vig him. But leaving him alive and unchecked is leaving the game to pure chance. And I don't like games of pure chance.

More baseless assertions. Town's cause is to win. Scum's cause is to win. Period. Winning for town doesn't always mean lynching scum, and if it does then that goes against your earlier assertion that every lynch is a policy lynch, as not every anti-town player is scum. Scum's cause often is in fact to lynch scum, whether it be a game like this with multiple scum teams or a situation that requires a mafia player to bus another to earn civ credibility. As for the town-is-active and scum-is-passive assertion, I'm sorry but that's just pure fiction; even if we're going to reduce mafia to extreme generalizations, that idea still has no basis in any of these games. I for one have a reputation for being the exact opposite kind of player. If you concede that Snow Dog could help civs I'm not sure why you're even bothering to not concede that his lynch or his being killed by a vigilante might be a bad thing, especially so early before we can determine what his intentions are or at the very least if he wishes to change his mind about helping the civ cause. Also, you're both moving the goalposts by asking how we can make the call to leave him alive (by that logic it's no better to make the call to kill him) and by misrepresenting me by saying that he should go unchecked. What? I am only arguing to leave him alive, not to not even try and read him. He is most certainly not unreadable, if he was you wouldn't be advocating that a vigilante take him out.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

I agree that what Snow Dog's doing is idiotic and not helping the civilian cause in any way, shape, or form.

I just don't think he's necessarily bad for it. I remember an earlier game where I suspected (I think it was Wilgy? Eh, probably Wilgy.) for doing the same thing only for him to flip civ.

The only thing that any of this makes me feel is slightly better about Jackofhearts, who seems to have the same instinctual response as me to this type of (in my opinion) braggadocious (a word which here means "gutsy reaction based tactics") play.

This is the only way to figure out whether he is bad or not:

https://www.random.org/

Exactly. Which is why I'm not interested in lynching him today.

The only reason I don't want to lynch him actually is because his role flip is equally useless. This kind of player is better dealt with using abilities.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

Snow Dog has no alignment. All attempts to read him are pointless. There is no way to call him a civ or bad, because he has no winning condition. He has no intention to win for either side. He is not playing the game.

Why should he be kept alive?

Every lynch is a policy lynch. We take down people who don't contribute to town's cause, for reasons we decide at the time. This guy is the least contributive a player can possibly be.

Every statement within this post is false. For one, Snow Dog does have an alignment. Whether he knows what alignment that is is up for debate, but he does have one. All attempts to read him are pointless only operating under the assumption that he is playing without reading his alignment, which even then doesn't make it pointless to read him because not knowing your alignment doesn't automatically dictate whether or not you are going to attempt to genuinely contribute to the town cause. Not reading one's role card is a bold unorthodox move, if we are willing to acknowledge that why are we unwilling to consider bold unorthodox explanations for this move? Saying it's a bad move has no bearing on whether or not it is alignment-indicative. He does have a winning condition. We don't know what his intentions are. He most certainly is playing the game.

He should be kept alive so we can figure out his intentions and decipher if he in fact has read his role card, and what his alignment is.

Snow Dog's decision to not read his role card, or at least his claim that he hasn't, has sparked more discussion than anything else so far in the game. And yet you have the nerve to say that he is the least contributive a player can possibly be? Either you are being disingenuous or downright stubborn. No, not every lynch is a policy lynch and no, we do not take down people who don't contribute to town's cause. We take down people who do contribute to the anti-town cause. The difference is monumental and you seem to be choosing to pretend that it isn't. My eye is on MM, Jackofhearts, and you, but especially you after this post.

Town's cause is to lynch scum.
Scum's cause is not to lynch scum.

Town is active. Scum is passive. Scum plays by stalling and not actually doing things. If someone is not trying to scum, they are more likely to be bad. Because that's the bread and butter of bads.

I concede that Snow Dog could help civs, if say, he decide to scum baddies despite potentially betraying his own team. I still argue that he is 100% unreadable, though. Because there is zero connection between his alignment and his posts. And if he is 100% unreadable, how are we supposed to trust him. How can we make the call to leave him alive. It's basically lottery.

We should either investigate him and hope someone manages to hint through the role reveal ban, or vig him. But leaving him alive and unchecked is leaving the game to pure chance. And I don't like games of pure chance.

More baseless assertions. Town's cause is to win. Scum's cause is to win. Period. Winning for town doesn't always mean lynching scum, and if it does then that goes against your earlier assertion that every lynch is a policy lynch, as not every anti-town player is scum. Scum's cause often is in fact to lynch scum, whether it be a game like this with multiple scum teams or a situation that requires a mafia player to bus another to earn civ credibility. As for the town-is-active and scum-is-passive assertion, I'm sorry but that's just pure fiction; even if we're going to reduce mafia to extreme generalizations, that idea still has no basis in any of these games. I for one have a reputation for being the exact opposite kind of player. If you concede that Snow Dog could help civs I'm not sure why you're even bothering to not concede that his lynch or his being killed by a vigilante might be a bad thing, especially so early before we can determine what his intentions are or at the very least if he wishes to change his mind about helping the civ cause. Also, you're both moving the goalposts by asking how we can make the call to leave him alive (by that logic it's no better to make the call to kill him) and by misrepresenting me by saying that he should go unchecked. What? I am only arguing to leave him alive, not to not even try and read him. He is most certainly not unreadable, if he was you wouldn't be advocating that a vigilante take him out.

How do you propose we read him, then?

Based on the assumption he doesn't know whether he is civ or bad himself.

[Jackofhearts2005]

By the way, is Day 0 followed by Day 1 or Night 0?

[Dragon D. Luffy]

And "could help the civs" is a really low bar for not killing a player, imo.

[a2thezebra]

I agree that what Snow Dog's doing is idiotic and not helping the civilian cause in any way, shape, or form.

I just don't think he's necessarily bad for it. I remember an earlier game where I suspected (I think it was Wilgy? Eh, probably Wilgy.) for doing the same thing only for him to flip civ.

The only thing that any of this makes me feel is slightly better about Jackofhearts, who seems to have the same instinctual response as me to this type of (in my opinion) braggadocious (a word which here means "gutsy reaction based tactics") play.

But Jackofhearts and DDL don't seem to care that he might not necessarily be bad for it. Don't you think that makes them look bad?

I think they're making the mistake of confusing styles of gameplay that they find counter-intuitive and actual scumtells.

I should know, I've made that exact mistake many a time as a civilian. In fact, that's my biggest difficulty as a townie, usually.

But they can't be making that mistake, because both of them have acknowledged that Snow Dog not reading his rolecard is not in itself alignment-indicative. Both are not arguing for a lynch based on alignment but rather a policy lynch. If I felt they were making that mistake then I would give them more credit, but they clearly understand that what they're advocating for is the killing of a potential civ for reasons that aren't alignment-indicative and they still advocate for it anyway.

linki - There's your problem, you can only argue that he can't be read under that assumption, which like most of your other claims is baseless.

[a2thezebra]

In fact not only is it a baseless assumption but if we look at previous claims of players not reading their rolecard in past games, they are usually lying. Their reasons for doing so vary wildly but not all of them are mafia-motivated and on some level DDL and Jackofhearts must recognize this.

[Jackofhearts2005]

How do you propose we read him, then?

Based on the assumption he doesn't know whether he is civ or bad himself.

As we normally would. We cannot be sure he's being truthful. He could be a lying scummer and we should be reading his posts attempting to look into that possibility.

If he's being truthful about not reading his role pm, he'll not likely contribute to scumhunting and will eventually get himself lynched or vig killed.

I disagree with you that his alignment is worthless, primarily based on A2 defending him. I'd agree with you if he chose to provide no further content and nobody defended him. At that point, there would be nothing to gain from his autopsy so yeah, vig kill him.

I propose that if SD is being truthful, he needs to read his role PM and either play as a townie or pretend to do so. Then we can treat him as a normal player who has done one scummy thing, which may or may not ever be the tipping point in lynching or vigging him. That's better than being a normal player who continues to do a scummy thing over and over, which will certainly become the tipping point eventually, probably sooner than later.

[Jackofhearts2005]

In fact not only is it a baseless assumption but if we look at previous claims of players not reading their rolecard in past games, they are usually lying. Their reasons for doing so vary wildly but not all of them are mafia-motivated and on some level DDL and Jackofhearts must recognize this.

I would have an easier time recognizing it if I had been present for said past games.

I've asked you for these examples.

[Golden]

I think LC has his land and water backwards. I voted East because the pyramid looks good.

Thought edit - unless I am missing a compass somewhere that LC saw.