The Donner Party - Day 7

[S~V~S]

The roles say the Donners take someone off the poll. I doubt they would take off someone who was not one of them.

[thellama73]

Llama, are you bad?

Not yet.

[Ricochet]

Llama, are you bad?

Not yet.

I can wait.

[S~V~S]

And Thanks, yeah that makes sense, although I am not 100% sure I agree with it. I plan on basing my behavior on the present, and not worry too much about *if*

That may change, but for not it works for me. I am paranoid enough.

[Roxy]

Roxy - Are Making Things Impossible also categorized under Unforeseen Forces?

Oooopppps I have further clarified Page 1

[Roxy]

"Epig and MP, the worst of the bunch. Partners in crime, hungry for blood, and ideal for the first lunch."

[thellama73]

[Marmot]

[Marmot]

Also MP, I noticed llama is not on the poll which is why I was teasing you. :P

Oh wait, I'm not? Cool. Take that, MP :P

I may nibble on your toes if I am bored. Consider it a sign of affection.

[S~V~S]

If a marmot nibbles on my toes, I consider it a sign that it's time to get a tetanus shot. Maybe rabies, too.

[Russtifinko]

I definitely wouldn't call what I said a logical fallacy, or lunch me over it. I suppose it all depends on how often you expect roles to switch. Based on what I've read, it seems likely they'll switch a lot, in which case there's no reason not to lynch your BTSC-mates (unless they do stop completely, in which case you've likely screwed yourself). Other players seem to expect relatively little switching, at least across alignments, and it that case it does make more sense to look outside your group.

However, MP raises probably the best point for lynching your teammates. If you have a chance to switch and your teammates have figured out a way to catch you in a lie once you do, they're the people you need dead most in the game. So he's actually supporting my argument even though he says he's against it.

No, I respectfully disagree.

You're right, it does depend on how often you expect roles to switch. However, it also depends on how you're approaching the game: for your current alignment (i.e., for the benefit of civilians) or for your own self-interest (i.e., as an LMS), the latter of which you are doing.

I completely recognize your POV, and you are right, there is a point to be made with my exact argument as to preferring to lynch your teammates rather than defending them.

However, here's why the latter (your) viewpoint makes less sense:

1) Regardless of how often you expect the roles to switch, one has to make assumptions. The latter viewpoint makes many more assumptions than the former. The only assumption that one is making right now, if one is civilian, is that: I am civilian and my teammates are as well. This is a confirmed true assumption. Any other viewpoint is mere speculation. The problem with your viewpoint is that you're making several assumptions:

a) That roles are going to switch every night. We don't know this.
b) That everyone's roles will switch every night. We don't know this.
c) That, at some point, you or one of your teammates will be switched to a baddie role. We don't know this. See 2) for more detail.

The truth is, right now, we have no idea how often roles, and more importantly alignments, are going to switch. If one is going to play the game covering every possible contingency that one can never trust anyone else, even if one knows others are civilians right now, then the civilians have little to no chance of winning this game. Your viewpoint will essentially lead to the "random lynch" mentality, or rather, the "lynch my BTSCmates mentality". That's a dangerous mentality, especially at this stage where we have no idea how Rox planned these mechanics. In addition, you never explained why you believe the bolded and underlined above. What are you basing that on? Even if you believe you're basing it on solid information, is it not possible your interpretation is flawed?

2) Even if one expects the roles to cycle out every single night, with every player receiving a new role, it is still statistically likely that most players will be given civilian roles, just as it was at the start of the game. Even at the extreme of everyone's roles cycling out every night, it still very well could be possible for members of an original civilian BTSC group to never switch to a baddie role. That is possible. Naturally, it is even more possible the less that roles and alignments are switched.

3) Perhaps most importantly, mechanisms that assist one's original BTSC grouping in possibly rooting out future baddie converts, may hurt you, if you're the one that's switched alignments. What if you're one of the ones that hasn't, and you're still a civilian? Why would you argue against developing such a policy, and instead advocating lynching your BTSCmates? Developing ways to catch baddies in lies does not hurt the civilians one bit; in fact, it gives them an advantage, which they very much need this game. Why would you oppose that?

So, no, Llama, Russ is not "right". He has a valid and logical viewpoint, yes, but only if one cares only about him or herself, an attitude (LMS) that will very likely result in the civilians losing this game, and one that I think needs to be avoided at all possible cost.

But this is a straw man argument. My point of view doesn't require that we switch every night, just that we switch. The argument is stronger the more often we switch, and my opinion based on Roxy's posts and descriptions of the game s that there will be a decent amount of switching (I'd say expecting a switch every 3 nights is not unreasonable). But ANY switch makes my viewpoint valid. Guaranteed nightly switching would just make it the only valid viewpoint.

Your 2nd point is correct. Everyone is more likely to switch to a civ role than a bad one. But that doesn't mean that if you don't switch to a bad role you're safe.
Say everyone does what you say and comes up with a mechanism to determine whether former teammates have switched alignments (I presume if civs can do this, baddies can too. Let me know if that isn't valid somehow.) So if you're civ, and you turn bad, you get caught and killed. If you're civ and don't turn bad, but your teammate does, you might catch him first....or, he determines whether you switched alignments first and lunches or NKs you. If you're bad, same deal. So literally everyone can be killed just by having the bad luck to switch or have a teammate switch. So if your teammates are dead, you're the safest person in the game, at least until the next switch.

Like in your first post, you seem unreasonably and inexplicably committed to the civvies winning, regardless of your role. You should ONLY want the civs to win if you know you'll be one at endgame, and you absolutely do not know that. That's just mafia. If you are the final baddie and volunteeer yourself to die, you have lost the game. So it doesn't make any sense to take a stance based on alignment right now, when we have no idea how the switch mechanic works or who we'll be in a few days. The only point right now is to stay alive until we get a better handle on how we can actually win. People might not like me saying it, but that's the only point of this game so far.

[Russtifinko]

Hopefully that last post answered Ricochet's question for me, too.

I do not wish to be lunched, I am a vegetarian and no threat to anyone

And yeah, Russ wanting to lunch his presumably civ teammates makes me wonder if they are indeed not civs.

Don't you know that herbivores taste much better and carnivores or omnivores?

Debatable.

I don't think I can say I've eaten carnivore before. But I will say ducks and lambs are probably my favorite meats. I think they're herbivores, unless ducks eat insects.

[thellama73]

Oh snap, Russ is right again.

For those keeping score, that's 2-0

[thellama73]

I don't think I can say I've eaten carnivore before. But I will say ducks and lambs are probably my favorite meats. I think they're herbivores, unless ducks eat insects.

Alligators are carnivores and delicious. So are most fish. Yes, most of the animals we eat are herbivores, but bear in mind that they have been bred for hundreds of years to be delicious, whereas alligators have not. I bet if we farmed alligators for food the same way we do cows, they would stack up favorably against most anything.

[Long Con]

True, I've had gator down in Florida at Gatorland. It was pretty good.

MP07, thanks for the idea for tracking baddies. I've come up with a plan and proposed it to my teammates. This plan, while not foolproof, will only become stronger with time, and will yield better results than the randomness that we are met with at face value. It will require that Civvies be more convincing than baddies in a head-to-head thread confrontation.

[Epignosis]

Elizabeth Donner - Wife of Jacob - You can post 20 words to the thread each night via the Host.

I counted thirty-five words in that message, Mrs. Donner. Thirty-five. Tsk. tsk.

That's okay. I now know who you are.

[Dom]

I'm going to say 3 spread sheets. Also whats up with Russ?

what?

"Epig and MP, the worst of the bunch. Partners in crime, hungry for blood, and ideal for the first lunch."

tbh
i might agree

[Epignosis]

The idea of lynching someone preemptively in case that person would inherit a bad role in the future does nothing but eliminate civilian roles.

That's...not a winning strategy.

[Tangrowth]

Russ, I appreciate your response, and I think your elaboration made here is more logical than your previous exposition. I still disagree. I'm playing the game as a civilian now, so I might as well try my darnedest to accomplish a civilian win. I think you saying: "The only point right now is to stay alive until we get a better handle on how we can actually win." could be true regardless of what point we're at in the game, and I contend it's dangerous thinking for those who currently have civilian roles.

Dom, why do you agree that Epi and I are legitimate candidates for today's lynch? On that note, I have no idea why Elizabeth Donner thinks that, but whatever. If someone wants to make a point as to why they think I'm bad, other than all the usual confounding and contradictory reasons I get eyed every game, then I'll be more than happy to respond.

LC, I appreciate it. I believe the same is true of my plan as well.

THANK YOU EPIG. Jeeze.

Also MP, I noticed llama is not on the poll which is why I was teasing you. :P

Oh, lol. I didn't notice.

Also, MP, I guess I AM confused. I thought you agreed on what Russ said. Now that i am rereading it not on phone, I see that you do not. I was not trying to put llama in a spot. I just wanted it explained like I was in grade school, and I thought he would be better at that than you would.

Wait, what?

Re-read what I said then and let me know because I clearly do NOT agree with what Russ said. At all. But if you disagree with me, that wouldn't surprise me.

However, MP raises probably the best point for lynching your teammates. If you have a chance to switch and your teammates have figured out a way to catch you in a lie once you do, they're the people you need dead most in the game. So he's actually supporting my argument even though he says he's against it.

Oh snap, Russ is right.

I don't totally get it; can you explain it like I am in kindergarten? (I am asking you to be condescending to me; make the most of it )

Russ's point was this, and I think it is a very good one: MP says he has a way to detect when his teammates rotate into bad roles. If this is true, his teammates should want to lynch him, knowing that he will be able to get them lynched later if they are on the other team. Anyone can become bad, so why would anyone want someone kept alive who can easily get them killed later?

I hope that makes sense, SVS.

As for you, MP, what am I meant to be aggressive about? There is literally no information to go on. We haven't had a kill and we haven't had a lynch to analyze. I think you going after Russ is ridiculous. I think you eyeing me now because I am not quixotically tilting at windmills is ridiculous. I agree with you that we are not likely to see complete role switches every cycle, so I am waiting for data. I don't currently have any suspicions to speak of, but your scattershot approach this game is not productive, or at least I don't think so. A game like this requires some circumspection.

Where am I going after Russ? I am merely strongly disagreeing with something he's said; I even stated that I don't find him bad (although I do wonder). How is that ridiculous?

That's fine, I understand the desire to wait for data, but then how can you agree that it makes sense for my teammates to lynch me?

I find it odd (not necessarily suspicious) that you have no suspicions or real thoughts; wouldn't you agree that's uncharacteristic?

[Dom]

The idea of lynching someone preemptively in case that person would inherit a bad role in the future does nothing but eliminate civilian roles.

That's...not a winning strategy.

Please point me to where that has been said.

No one has proposed this. And if this were the case, you have a pretty big chip on your shoulder if you think MP and yourself are the only two players we should "fear" getting baddie roles.

Russ, I appreciate your response, and I think your elaboration made here is more logical than your previous exposition. I still disagree. I'm playing the game as a civilian now, so I might as well try my darnedest to accomplish a civilian win. I think you saying: "The only point right now is to stay alive until we get a better handle on how we can actually win." could be true regardless of what point we're at in the game, and I contend it's dangerous thinking for those who currently have civilian roles.

Dom, why do you agree that Epi and I are legitimate candidates for today's lynch? On that note, I have no idea why Elizabeth Donner thinks that, but whatever. If someone wants to make a point as to why they think I'm bad, other than all the usual confounding and contradictory reasons I get eyed every game, then I'll be more than happy to respond.

LC, I appreciate it. I believe the same is true of my plan as well.

THANK YOU EPIG. Jeeze.

I want to vote you because you literally just said people always suspect you for stupid reasons.

If you're suspected so often-- maybe you act suspiciously.


Anyway, I think you're trying WAY too hard. It's not much, but it's a ping. I don't actively suspect you or anything.

[thellama73]

I find it odd (not necessarily suspicious) that you have no suspicions or real thoughts; wouldn't you agree that's uncharacteristic?

It is characteristic for me not to agree.

[triceratopzeuhl]

I'm still confused

[thellama73]

I know we're not typically supposed to discus other games in progress, but did it occur to you that maybe I just got burned hard for leading an unsuccessful lynch and it might be nice to let others do some work for a change instead of expecting me to build all the cases for them?

[Epignosis]

The idea of lynching someone preemptively in case that person would inherit a bad role in the future does nothing but eliminate civilian roles.

That's...not a winning strategy.

Please point me to where that has been said.

No one has proposed this.

No one?

Man, I stink at Mafia.

And if this were the case, you have a pretty big chip on your shoulder if you think MP and yourself are the only two players we should "fear" getting baddie roles.

I'm holding a grudge because I think lynching current civilians before they get a new role is a lousy idea and therefore I think that MP and I should be feared?

wat

[Dom]

The idea of lynching someone preemptively in case that person would inherit a bad role in the future does nothing but eliminate civilian roles.

That's...not a winning strategy.

Please point me to where that has been said.

No one has proposed this.

No one?

Man, I stink at Mafia.

And if this were the case, you have a pretty big chip on your shoulder if you think MP and yourself are the only two players we should "fear" getting baddie roles.

I'm holding a grudge because I think lynching current civilians before they get a new role is a lousy idea and therefore I think that MP and I should be feared?

wat

Welp, I've been using that phrase incorrectly for 21 years. I believe the intention I was hoping to deliver was that you are pretty arrogant to think that only you or MP should be feared in a baddie role tbh.




And no-- no one has suggested it that I remember reading. If you'd point it out, that'd be great.

[Epignosis]

I really don't see how what I said has anything to do with people needing to fear certain people getting evil roles. My record alone shows that I'm far more dangerous as Mafia than as a civilian, but that's irrelevant.

So I realize now that there will be at least some semblance of evidence, even on D1. Because there is so much BTSC, obviously players will be hesitant to lynch anyone else in their own BTSC group. Typically, civilians would be hesitant to defend teammates, but in a game such as this where roles and alignments could switch, there is less incentive to worry about being NKed as a result of defending a civilian teammate. Of course, baddies will be doing this as well, but even if roles are switching, we should still be able to compile information at snapshots, rather than over time.

As to the first part of this post, MP, why not? If were all switching anyway, I can't see any reason at all not to push for the lynch of my current teammates.

Unless of course they would all turn and vote for me for voting one of them, but that assumes they ascribe to an unwritten code of not lynching BTSC mates that really holds no value for them, and that they have arbitrary but strong and misplaced senses of justice.

Unless Russ admitted to being bad in this post, then he suggested lynching civilians because "we're all switching anyway."

I suppose it all depends on how often you expect roles to switch. Based on what I've read, it seems likely they'll switch a lot, in which case there's no reason not to lynch your BTSC-mates (unless they do stop completely, in which case you've likely screwed yourself). Other players seem to expect relatively little switching, at least across alignments, and it that case it does make more sense to look outside your group.

However, MP raises probably the best point for lynching your teammates. If you have a chance to switch and your teammates have figured out a way to catch you in a lie once you do, they're the people you need dead most in the game. So he's actually supporting my argument even though he says he's against it.

And Russ double-downed on that position.

Am I reading Russ' suggestion incorrectly?

[Dom]

I really don't see how what I said has anything to do with people needing to fear certain people getting evil roles. My record alone shows that I'm far more dangerous as Mafia than as a civilian, but that's irrelevant.

So I realize now that there will be at least some semblance of evidence, even on D1. Because there is so much BTSC, obviously players will be hesitant to lynch anyone else in their own BTSC group. Typically, civilians would be hesitant to defend teammates, but in a game such as this where roles and alignments could switch, there is less incentive to worry about being NKed as a result of defending a civilian teammate. Of course, baddies will be doing this as well, but even if roles are switching, we should still be able to compile information at snapshots, rather than over time.

As to the first part of this post, MP, why not? If were all switching anyway, I can't see any reason at all not to push for the lynch of my current teammates.

Unless of course they would all turn and vote for me for voting one of them, but that assumes they ascribe to an unwritten code of not lynching BTSC mates that really holds no value for them, and that they have arbitrary but strong and misplaced senses of justice.

Unless Russ admitted to being bad in this post, then he suggested lynching civilians because "we're all switching anyway."

I suppose it all depends on how often you expect roles to switch. Based on what I've read, it seems likely they'll switch a lot, in which case there's no reason not to lynch your BTSC-mates (unless they do stop completely, in which case you've likely screwed yourself). Other players seem to expect relatively little switching, at least across alignments, and it that case it does make more sense to look outside your group.

However, MP raises probably the best point for lynching your teammates. If you have a chance to switch and your teammates have figured out a way to catch you in a lie once you do, they're the people you need dead most in the game. So he's actually supporting my argument even though he says he's against it.

And Russ double-downed on that position.

Am I reading Russ' suggestion incorrectly?

I think I read far too deeply into your post. I apologize.

I read Russ as poking holes in MP's argument-- not actually recommending lynching civilians.

[Tangrowth]

The idea of lynching someone preemptively in case that person would inherit a bad role in the future does nothing but eliminate civilian roles.

That's...not a winning strategy.

Please point me to where that has been said.

No one has proposed this. And if this were the case, you have a pretty big chip on your shoulder if you think MP and yourself are the only two players we should "fear" getting baddie roles.

Russ, I appreciate your response, and I think your elaboration made here is more logical than your previous exposition. I still disagree. I'm playing the game as a civilian now, so I might as well try my darnedest to accomplish a civilian win. I think you saying: "The only point right now is to stay alive until we get a better handle on how we can actually win." could be true regardless of what point we're at in the game, and I contend it's dangerous thinking for those who currently have civilian roles.

Dom, why do you agree that Epi and I are legitimate candidates for today's lynch? On that note, I have no idea why Elizabeth Donner thinks that, but whatever. If someone wants to make a point as to why they think I'm bad, other than all the usual confounding and contradictory reasons I get eyed every game, then I'll be more than happy to respond.

LC, I appreciate it. I believe the same is true of my plan as well.

THANK YOU EPIG. Jeeze.

I want to vote you because you literally just said people always suspect you for stupid reasons.

If you're suspected so often-- maybe you act suspiciously.


Anyway, I think you're trying WAY too hard. It's not much, but it's a ping. I don't actively suspect you or anything.

Where did I say the word stupid?

May I point you to this: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 41#p110241. That's what I meant by contradictory and confounding. I just can't believe that right off the bat again people are suspecting me (you and Elizabeth Donner, whoever that is). It's just amazing to me.

If you think I'm trying way too hard, that's your prerogative, or if you want to vote for me because I am frustrated that I get suspected heavily every game because I actually play the game, then go for it. But I don't "act suspiciously", that's absurd. If you always suspect me every game we play together, then perhaps you should consider that and evaluate your opinion of me in that light. I do the same with S~V~S; it doesn't keep me from voicing my opinion on her (and I would never want you to feel you shouldn't voice it about me), but I at least recognize that I suck at reading her.

Also, you said you agree to me being bad before I complained about getting suspected, so I presume that you agreeing was because of your ping, yes?

[thellama73]

Where did I say the word stupid?

Right there:

The civilian self-voting needs to stop.

At least randomize your vote, for goodness sake. Who would have ever thought I'd be saying THAT?

Then I will vote the first person who does it because I think it's ridiculously stupid.

[Snowman]

I'm new to this, but I'm not new to social deduction games, so I'm trying to wrap my mind around how this version works. I see four possible perspectives:

1) I don't know what team I may be on during the final round, so the best strategy would be to eliminate the most potent competitors, regardless of what team they may currently be on,

2) I will role play my current affiliation, and behave in a manner that is completely loyal until I'm told that loyalty has changed,

3) we've been told that affiliation/powers may not change every night, so I should remain loyal to my current group because there is a chance that they will remain my group the following day,

4) the pre-determined alternation of groups can't be predicted or planned for, so there is no reason not to simply fire blindly into the crowd, because as long as you remain alive personally, you have no influence over who will be on your team the following day.

Personally, I'm leaning toward strategy #3...or am I?

[Snowman]

Llama, do you have big plans for post #6666? I expect it will be epic!

[Russtifinko]

I really don't see how what I said has anything to do with people needing to fear certain people getting evil roles. My record alone shows that I'm far more dangerous as Mafia than as a civilian, but that's irrelevant.

So I realize now that there will be at least some semblance of evidence, even on D1. Because there is so much BTSC, obviously players will be hesitant to lynch anyone else in their own BTSC group. Typically, civilians would be hesitant to defend teammates, but in a game such as this where roles and alignments could switch, there is less incentive to worry about being NKed as a result of defending a civilian teammate. Of course, baddies will be doing this as well, but even if roles are switching, we should still be able to compile information at snapshots, rather than over time.

As to the first part of this post, MP, why not? If were all switching anyway, I can't see any reason at all not to push for the lynch of my current teammates.

Unless of course they would all turn and vote for me for voting one of them, but that assumes they ascribe to an unwritten code of not lynching BTSC mates that really holds no value for them, and that they have arbitrary but strong and misplaced senses of justice.

Unless Russ admitted to being bad in this post, then he suggested lynching civilians because "we're all switching anyway."

I suppose it all depends on how often you expect roles to switch. Based on what I've read, it seems likely they'll switch a lot, in which case there's no reason not to lynch your BTSC-mates (unless they do stop completely, in which case you've likely screwed yourself). Other players seem to expect relatively little switching, at least across alignments, and it that case it does make more sense to look outside your group.

However, MP raises probably the best point for lynching your teammates. If you have a chance to switch and your teammates have figured out a way to catch you in a lie once you do, they're the people you need dead most in the game. So he's actually supporting my argument even though he says he's against it.

And Russ double-downed on that position.

Am I reading Russ' suggestion incorrectly?

Not civs...

Just your BTSC mates, regardless of alignment.

[Russtifinko]

I don't think I can say I've eaten carnivore before. But I will say ducks and lambs are probably my favorite meats. I think they're herbivores, unless ducks eat insects.

Alligators are carnivores and delicious. So are most fish. Yes, most of the animals we eat are herbivores, but bear in mind that they have been bred for hundreds of years to be delicious, whereas alligators have not. I bet if we farmed alligators for food the same way we do cows, they would stack up favorably against most anything.

This is an extremely good point. Alligator breeding program, anyone?

Linki: Snowman, perfect summation! Thanks.

I was operating on #4, but I'll consider switching to #1 now.

[Ricochet]

I think I'm losing grip on the debate. I think Russ explained things better and with valid points, but at the same time I (still) can't say everything feels right. The "BTSC mates are my enemy" mentality does even reflect that any mate switching to bad will find it easiest to lynch me and that any mate switching to civ will be preocupied to test me and find out where I ended up. But, if I am or stay a civ, the rate of success of me targeting my former teammates is still not guaranteed and said teammates will be just as troublesome as anyone else in the game (except my new current teammates). If I am or become bad, my task will the simplest - my former mates are my easiest prey.

I'm at #3 on Snowman's chart, I think, but with several truths stated in all the other perspectives. #1 is the only one, I think, with something objectionable in its mentality, except we somehow define what "most potent competitors" means.

And Dom and MP are at each other's, from Day 1. Again. Lol.

[Ricochet]

The "BTSC mates are my enemy" mentality does indeed reflect*, dunno why I used even there.

[S~V~S]

I'm new to this, but I'm not new to social deduction games, so I'm trying to wrap my mind around how this version works. I see four possible perspectives:

1) I don't know what team I may be on during the final round, so the best strategy would be to eliminate the most potent competitors, regardless of what team they may currently be on,

2) I will role play my current affiliation, and behave in a manner that is completely loyal until I'm told that loyalty has changed,

3) we've been told that affiliation/powers may not change every night, so I should remain loyal to my current group because there is a chance that they will remain my group the following day,

4) the pre-determined alternation of groups can't be predicted or planned for, so there is no reason not to simply fire blindly into the crowd, because as long as you remain alive personally, you have no influence over who will be on your team the following day.

Personally, I'm leaning toward strategy #3...or am I?

I like this. I like it ALOT. I have to digest it a bit, and think about what it means to me.

Um interesting, Epig reacts to what looks like a joke to me with standard Bravado~ "I am awesome and everyone is afraid of me" which makes me smirk a bit, but not have any desire to vote for him. And MP overreacts with fairly typical "How dare you, I am tired of being incorrectly maligned" etc etc type post. Fairly stereotypical for both of them.

I am glad Rox went with 48 hour days, with 3 games and the unusual mechanics, I will need the extra time to wrap my head around the mechanics.

And @MP, yes, I misunderstood you. And realized it when i did more than skim through your post. That is why I said what i said.

[FZ.]

I'm at work, so I don't have time to go over everything, but I was thinking that I already know two groups Epig is not a part of (mine and the Donners), since he practically said he wasn't a Donner. This means that to me and my group, the odds of him being a baddie are higher than any other player at this point. As a civ, he can either be Lavina or one out of the fourth group (who has 3 or 4 players). As a baddie, he has 5 options. Which basically brings his odds of being a baddie to at least 50%, which is higher than the rest of the players.

[thellama73]

Llama, do you have big plans for post #6666? I expect it will be epic!

Oh, I've got plans all right.

[thellama73]

Snowman and FZ both make a lot of sense, but I'm not seeing the post where Epig says or implies that everyone is/should be afraid of him. Did Dom just make this up?

[Roxy]

Effective immediately fingersplints is replacing Dom. offc you may not lynch her today or NK her Night 1.
Please someone offer her a piece of yourself as she is quite hungry.

[thellama73]

Effective immediately fingersplints is replacing Dom. offc you may not lynch her today or NK her Night 1.
Please someone offer her a piece of yourself as she is quite hungry.

Well, there go my plans to lynch Dom. Guess I'll have to come up with something else.

[Long Con]

Epig's not on my Civvie team either.

[Epignosis]

Epig's not on my Civvie team either.

Now I have an 83% chance of being bad.

[thellama73]

I'm new to this, but I'm not new to social deduction games, so I'm trying to wrap my mind around how this version works. I see four possible perspectives:

1) I don't know what team I may be on during the final round, so the best strategy would be to eliminate the most potent competitors, regardless of what team they may currently be on,

2) I will role play my current affiliation, and behave in a manner that is completely loyal until I'm told that loyalty has changed,

3) we've been told that affiliation/powers may not change every night, so I should remain loyal to my current group because there is a chance that they will remain my group the following day,

4) the pre-determined alternation of groups can't be predicted or planned for, so there is no reason not to simply fire blindly into the crowd, because as long as you remain alive personally, you have no influence over who will be on your team the following day.

Personally, I'm leaning toward strategy #3...or am I?

Theis a very thought ful and good analysis. I have a few comments.

1. This makes logical sense, but I don't like the idea of just gunning for people mbecause they are perceived as "good at mafia." That doesn't seem fair to me, although partially this may be because I have been on the receiving end of it.

2. This seems shortsighted to me. As I understand it, all of us are more likely to change at some point than not, so it is foolish to ignore that.

3. This makes a lot of sense in the short run, at least.

4. "Firing blindly into the crowd" is putting it strongly, but trying to lynch people based on their actions as in a normal game makes sense to me.

I would also like to add that I don't think we should be openly discussing who is or is not in our BTSC groups. It seems like infodumping, and it seems against the spirit of the game. I may vote for an infodumper today.

[thellama73]

In fact, I see no reason to wait. I'm voting for Long Con.

[Long Con]

I thought a game like this was designed to require infodumping, given the random nature of people's roles and alignments. If there's a 'no infodumping' rule in place, then... I guess the plan I thought of off MP07's idea won't work, because it requires signalling which Group you're in to your former Group-mates.

[thellama73]

I thought a game like this was designed to require infodumping, given the random nature of people's roles and alignments. If there's a 'no infodumping' rule in place, then... I guess the plan I thought of off MP07's idea won't work, because it requires signalling which Group you're in to your former Group-mates.

YOu can play how you like, but I don't like all the role hinting and infodumping that has become the norm in recent games, and I plan on signalling my displeasure with my vote.

[Ricochet]

So fill me in on the concept of infodumping. Is it what FZ. did?

Even if he's statistically right about Epig's alignment odds, how do we know what kind of group is FZ. in? And why trust FZ. at all? I didn't hear him suspect Epig of anything so far, either.

Effective immediately fingersplints is replacing Dom. offc you may not lynch her today or NK her Night 1.
Please someone offer her a piece of yourself as she is quite hungry.

Well, there go my plans to lynch Dom. Guess I'll have to come up with something else.

There goes your 6666th special post as well.

[thellama73]

So fill me in on the concept of infodumping. Is it what FZ. did?

Even if he's statistically right about Epig's alignment odds, how do we know what kind of group is FZ. in? And why trust FZ. at all? I didn't hear him suspect Epig of anything so far, either.

Effective immediately fingersplints is replacing Dom. offc you may not lynch her today or NK her Night 1.
Please someone offer her a piece of yourself as she is quite hungry.

Well, there go my plans to lynch Dom. Guess I'll have to come up with something else.

There goes your 6666th special post as well.

Oh shoot! I forgot! Haha!

Anyway, it is generally considered infodumpping to claim a particular role, out someone else as a particular role, talk openly about things that are only happening behind the scenes, reproduce host PMs, or anything of that nature. If we all come out and just name our BTSC partners in the thread, the game wouldn't be very fun. I object to that kind of playing, and while I think FZ was guilty of it as well, LC's was more blatant so he got my vote. Also, either of them could be lying, and I think LC might have seen FZ's post as an opportunity for such a lie.

[Ricochet]

Actually, since they're both keen to infodump, shall we assume FZ and LC are actually in the same group and infodumping is their "mechanism"?