Romance of the Three Kingdoms [ENDGAME]

[Bass_the_Clever]

On a side note it feels so good to play with everyone again and have enough time to keep up with the thread. I am trying to be 200% more active this game then my last few poor showings .

[Quin]

Assertion: townies are more likely to think outside the box when it comes to game mechanics, and it sometimes gets them into trouble. I think Boomslang is the example here -- when presented with this unique dueling mechanic, he thought outside the box the same way I did and arrived upon an idea that has a theoretical application even if it might not be the most practical. I might also include Golden in this, because his idea was to pit UTR players against each other instead of merely suspect against suspect. I don't quite agree with that method, but I don't fault him for proposing it.

Baddies however love these moments, because it gives them an easy opportunity to jump into a discussion and bring the more "logical" perspective -- in this case: "shouldn't we just have suspects duel each other?" This is to say that I am more suspicious of the players who have responded to Boomslang with incredulity (Turnip Head and Dunny) than I am of Boomslang himself. Sorsha can also apply, though she was less critical and more personal in her delivery.

The unique idea tends to come from the townie.

The critical response and recommendation that simpler methods be employed are more likely to come from the baddie.

Let me get this straight, you believe that a mafia player would suggest that we should vote for two mafia in the duel polls and a civ player is more likely to suggest we take a risk?

Yes, absolutely. The former option is obvious and easy, the latter is not.

Where do I place then, JJJ? You missed me.

Honestly picking 2 suspected baddies seems like it has a way higher probability of working.

I agree, but that's assuming we have two really good baddie reads on any given night. If we pick a known or highly suspected civ at random, we have a 75% chance of getting a warrior, which puts us in pretty good odds for a fight.

And thats assuming our civilian read is right too.

So you are counting on the read being right, the civilian being a warrior, and the dice liking you. Are you sure those odds are that good?

While if you vote for two baddie suspects, you are diminishing the effects of the duel while focusing on one variable: the quality of your reads. If they are good, you have better odds of lynching a baddie.

I don't think that can be calculated, but I think the later sounds more likely to work.

Yes, but civilian reads are more likely to be right. So if we get that factor correct, then we only need to pick one baddie, the most high-quality baddie we have. We don't need to go scraping for evidence for a second suspect every time.

That's exactly what we need to do. Just because we think we have one baddie nailed doesn't mean we should give up on scumhunting until we get a result for the current suspect. I don't understand anybody right now who thinks putting a suspected baddie up against a civ is a good idea.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I mean I agree one is easy and one isn't but I feel like a good mafia player would push for the civ against mafia option.

"Good" is a relative term. I know which side I'd be taking if I was a bad guy and it's not that one. To make that proposal (Boomslang's proposal) draws attention to oneself, because it is atypical and it places a civilian read at risk. This at face value sounds problematic, even if there is a perfectly valid rationale for the idea under the surface.

The single most frequent signal that a player is bad is that they aren't thinking critically -- they are taking the surface-most interpretation of posts and basing all of their reads on that. They think in fewer levels of complexity than townies, not because they're dumber but because they already know more about the game than townies know.

If I'm bad in this game, I'm quite content to suggest we pit suspects against each other knowing full well that town's ability to actually determine who should be called "suspects" is inherently flawed. I'd also be confident that there wouldn't be a townie out there telling everyone their initial perspective might be backwards like I'm doing now.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Where do I place then, JJJ? You missed me.

Honestly picking 2 suspected baddies seems like it has a way higher probability of working.

I agree, but that's assuming we have two really good baddie reads on any given night. If we pick a known or highly suspected civ at random, we have a 75% chance of getting a warrior, which puts us in pretty good odds for a fight.

And thats assuming our civilian read is right too.

So you are counting on the read being right, the civilian being a warrior, and the dice liking you. Are you sure those odds are that good?

While if you vote for two baddie suspects, you are diminishing the effects of the duel while focusing on one variable: the quality of your reads. If they are good, you have better odds of lynching a baddie.

I don't think that can be calculated, but I think the later sounds more likely to work.

Yes, but civilian reads are more likely to be right. So if we get that factor correct, then we only need to pick one baddie, the most high-quality baddie we have. We don't need to go scraping for evidence for a second suspect every time.

That's exactly what we need to do. Just because we think we have one baddie nailed doesn't mean we should give up on scumhunting until we get a result for the current suspect. I don't understand anybody right now who thinks putting a suspected baddie up against a civ is a good idea.

I think your response to Boomslang fails to acknowledge the point he is making. I'd be less inclined to call you "suspicious" for it though since you're shoving it in my face right now.

[MacDougall]

The guys MP is civ reading are in my opinion, pretty much just the most active people in the thread right now. I don't like it.

It's like ... let's buddy all the potential vocal players in the most obvious way and at the same time not upset a single person.

Hi Mac.

Don't look at me like that. I'm not even here yet. Stop it. I can tell what you're thinking.

And MovingPictures is giving me the heebie jeebies with his page 7 list of green skittles like he has a real read on people enough to give green skittles and no red ones. Where are the red ones brah? Everybody knows it's easier to get pings earlier in the game than good vibes. What are you so freakin' positive that you have anti hunting power that I don't have? Get real.

I said they were GTHs. Don't hate on me for contributing.

And re: bolded/underlined, since when?

Don't misrepresent my shit mate. I hate on you for pulling 5 town reads out of your bum bum on day 7 and not giving any mafia reads at the same time.

Re: the underlined. Well for me anyway and we are all one.

[Tangrowth]

Okay, let's just get this all on the table so all of you are aware of my situation this game, though I'm sure many of you are it bears repeating. I will not get sucked into this game and my normal posting habits. I am undergoing without a doubt the busiest time of my entire life right now. But that doesn't mean I won't still contribute what I'm thinking. If you all find that suspicious, cool. I get it all the time, especially on Day 1. But I'm not going to sit here and get all stressed out and post 10,000 times because I cannot afford that in my life right now. This will be a welcome distraction for me. Not a stressful chore. Or at least as much as I can avoid it.

Hi Mac.

Don't look at me like that. I'm not even here yet. Stop it. I can tell what you're thinking.

And MovingPictures is giving me the heebie jeebies with his page 7 list of green skittles like he has a real read on people enough to give green skittles and no red ones. Where are the red ones brah? Everybody knows it's easier to get pings earlier in the game than good vibes. What are you so freakin' positive that you have anti hunting power that I don't have? Get real.

Instead of criticizing me, Mac, and then bailing on the thread, if red reads are so easy to form, then why don't you provide some more reads of your own besides picking on the one person who's provided GTH content? Seriously, if you want to play ball, then let's fucking play ball. All you have thrown out is a read of only me giving you bad vibes because I've thrown out some civilian reads? I don't think so. Your justification that it's "easier" to come up with bad reads is unsubstantiated and something that's never been true for me; based on my experience, I would say I'm not the only one. Furthermore, you don't offer any substance whatsoever on why it gives you the "heebie jeebies", just that it does. So your elaboration would be appreciated.

Furthermore, what the fuck was this about? Just seems like unnecessary snark and aggression to me and a way to get me riled up. Did I miss a joke?

I would be willing to throw out the following slight town GTHs:

Boomslang
Dragon D. Luffy
JaggedJimmyJay
Quin
Turnip Head

Could change at the drop of a hat, but so far I'm feeling OK at what they've brought to this thread so far. Anybody else have some GTHs yet?

I'd like to see the inspirations for these reads, just briefly.

I'll elaborate briefly upon my slight green reads before I leave for a while, as I was intending to do. I figured someone would just ask me for elaboration and that folks would try to fucking contribute to the discussion instead of jumping on my case, but I should have known better.

Boomslang can be a quiet guy in the thread. I like his activity and engagement so far, and his post here and here regarding the mechanics discussion demonstrated to me that he was willing to engage in the topic, was critically evaluating it, and was willing to throw out his more unconventional thoughts on the matter despite a potential backlash (Linki: seems JJJ and I are on a similar page here). My gut tells me, based on my experience with Boomslang for years RL and in mafia, that if he were bad he may have refrained from posting some of these posts.

DDL was the first player to point out something potentially manufactured/forced in this thread here. This post read genuine to me. I also appreciated the math post but I realize that is non-alignment indicative.

Jay is being Jay. That typically isn't quite enough for him to earn any read from me just yet, but I tried to get a feel for him and he responded in a way that at least for now seemed genuine and with his explanation that jived with me. I haven't seen anything else questionable or alarming about his contributions just yet.

I liked Quin's questioning here. It made me feel he was genuinely interested in developing a read on Turnip Head.

Turnip Head's contributions here, here, and here demonstrate critical thinking and questioning.

Now please note that I said all of these are SLIGHT town and they are all tentative. I wanted to get discussion going. If you disagree with any of my reads, it'd be nice if you could engage me and the thread in why you do and not just that you do.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I have a much easier time getting town reads early in a game than scum reads.

[MacDougall]

Don't look at me like that. I'm not even here yet. Stop it. I can tell what you're thinking.

U shook mate?

Always mate.

Assertion: townies are more likely to think outside the box when it comes to game mechanics, and it sometimes gets them into trouble. I think Boomslang is the example here -- when presented with this unique dueling mechanic, he thought outside the box the same way I did and arrived upon an idea that has a theoretical application even if it might not be the most practical. I might also include Golden in this, because his idea was to pit UTR players against each other instead of merely suspect against suspect. I don't quite agree with that method, but I don't fault him for proposing it.

Baddies however love these moments, because it gives them an easy opportunity to jump into a discussion and bring the more "logical" perspective -- in this case: "shouldn't we just have suspects duel each other?" This is to say that I am more suspicious of the players who have responded to Boomslang with incredulity (Turnip Head and Dunny) than I am of Boomslang himself. Sorsha can also apply, though she was less critical and more personal in her delivery.

The unique idea tends to come from the townie.

The critical response and recommendation that simpler methods be employed are more likely to come from the baddie.

Let me get this straight, you believe that a mafia player would suggest that we should vote for two mafia in the duel polls and a civ player is more likely to suggest we take a risk?

And this feigned incredulousness makes me wary of you too.

"Let me get this straight, this entirely rational line of thinking is the way you think?"

[Tangrowth]

I would be willing to throw out the following slight town GTHs:

Boomslang
Dragon D. Luffy
JaggedJimmyJay
Quin
Turnip Head

Could change at the drop of a hat, but so far I'm feeling OK at what they've brought to this thread so far. Anybody else have some GTHs yet?

Do you have a mafia reads yet, even just something that pinged you?

No, not really. I historically have overreacted to 'pings' in the thread which turned out to be nearly 100% inaccurate so since then I've tried to interrogate people if I find a ping or something questionable (like I did with JJJ), hear them out first, and proceed if I think their response doesn't seem genuine.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Your explanation works for me, MP. I agree with your perspective on each of the five except Turnip Head. With TH I actually have the opposite perspective -- I don't see critical thinking, I see him poking at easy points to contend with.

[Tangrowth]

The guys MP is civ reading are in my opinion, pretty much just the most active people in the thread right now. I don't like it.

It's like ... let's buddy all the potential vocal players in the most obvious way and at the same time not upset a single person.

Are you accusing me of this?

[Bass_the_Clever]

Well time to clock in so I shall return later.
MP on a side note , don't sweat the petty , pet the sweaty . Lls

[Dragon D. Luffy]

I would be willing to throw out the following slight town GTHs:

Boomslang
Dragon D. Luffy
JaggedJimmyJay
Quin
Turnip Head

Could change at the drop of a hat, but so far I'm feeling OK at what they've brought to this thread so far. Anybody else have some GTHs yet?

I have like 3 posts of meat. I can't help but wonder exactly what I've done to earn a green read from you.

Yeah I dont get it either. If anything you look slightly suspicious to me.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Yeah I dont get it either. If anything you look slightly suspicious to me.

Why?

[Tangrowth]

Okay, shit, it's 7am. Mafia time over. See you folks tomorrow. Please let me know all about all of the things that you're thinking. Mafia-related things anyway. :P

SHOW ME WHAT YOU GOT.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

Catching up. MP looks angrier than his hsual self. Wonder if that is alignme t indicative.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

Yeah I dont get it either. If anything you look slightly suspicious to me.

Why?

Gut read. Will elaborate later after work.

[Quin]

I would be willing to throw out the following slight town GTHs:

Boomslang
Dragon D. Luffy
JaggedJimmyJay
Quin
Turnip Head

Could change at the drop of a hat, but so far I'm feeling OK at what they've brought to this thread so far. Anybody else have some GTHs yet?

I have like 3 posts of meat. I can't help but wonder exactly what I've done to earn a green read from you.

Yeah I dont get it either. If anything you look slightly suspicious to me.

Oh.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Catching up. MP looks angrier than his hsual self. Wonder if that is alignme t indicative.

I don't think so. I see a progression that nets frustration:

1. Encounter minor pings, question players about them, decide they seem fine.

2. Put reads in the thread.

3. Immediately get crap from multiple people for putting reads in the thread (but but but it's SO EARLY)

4. Eyerolls for days

5. Respond to annoying accusations with visible evidence of being annoyed.

I'm fine with MP right now.

[Quin]

Catching up. MP looks angrier than his hsual self. Wonder if that is alignme t indicative.

I'd sooner put it down as being due to the stress of his PhD than being alignment indicative.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

MP always gets crap. Yet he is usually very patient. He is brraking way faster than usual.

[Glorfindel]

I want S~V~S to be second in command.

And I will be leader.

Welcome, Simon It's been a while - Star Wars, I believe? In any case, it awesome to have you back playing with us again. Now, speaking of S-V-S, It's been a day and a bit and there's been no sightings of her That's a shame - she always seems to have so much to say...

[MacDougall]

I have a much easier time getting town reads early in a game than scum reads.

Well I guess I'm wrong about that being a normal thing. Maybe just a me thing.

Okay, let's just get this all on the table so all of you are aware of my situation this game, though I'm sure many of you are it bears repeating. I will not get sucked into this game and my normal posting habits. I am undergoing without a doubt the busiest time of my entire life right now. But that doesn't mean I won't still contribute what I'm thinking. If you all find that suspicious, cool. I get it all the time, especially on Day 1. But I'm not going to sit here and get all stressed out and post 10,000 times because I cannot afford that in my life right now. This will be a welcome distraction for me. Not a stressful chore. Or at least as much as I can avoid it.

Hi Mac.

Don't look at me like that. I'm not even here yet. Stop it. I can tell what you're thinking.

And MovingPictures is giving me the heebie jeebies with his page 7 list of green skittles like he has a real read on people enough to give green skittles and no red ones. Where are the red ones brah? Everybody knows it's easier to get pings earlier in the game than good vibes. What are you so freakin' positive that you have anti hunting power that I don't have? Get real.

Instead of criticizing me, Mac, and then bailing on the thread, if red reads are so easy to form, then why don't you provide some more reads of your own besides picking on the one person who's provided GTH content? Seriously, if you want to play ball, then let's fucking play ball. All you have thrown out is a read of only me giving you bad vibes because I've thrown out some civilian reads? I don't think so. Your justification that it's "easier" to come up with bad reads is unsubstantiated and something that's never been true for me; based on my experience, I would say I'm not the only one. Furthermore, you don't offer any substance whatsoever on why it gives you the "heebie jeebies", just that it does. So your elaboration would be appreciated.

Furthermore, what the fuck was this about? Just seems like unnecessary snark and aggression to me and a way to get me riled up. Did I miss a joke?

I would be willing to throw out the following slight town GTHs:

Boomslang
Dragon D. Luffy
JaggedJimmyJay
Quin
Turnip Head

Could change at the drop of a hat, but so far I'm feeling OK at what they've brought to this thread so far. Anybody else have some GTHs yet?

I'd like to see the inspirations for these reads, just briefly.

I'll elaborate briefly upon my slight green reads before I leave for a while, as I was intending to do. I figured someone would just ask me for elaboration and that folks would try to fucking contribute to the discussion instead of jumping on my case, but I should have known better.

Boomslang can be a quiet guy in the thread. I like his activity and engagement so far, and his post here and here regarding the mechanics discussion demonstrated to me that he was willing to engage in the topic, was critically evaluating it, and was willing to throw out his more unconventional thoughts on the matter despite a potential backlash (Linki: seems JJJ and I are on a similar page here). My gut tells me, based on my experience with Boomslang for years RL and in mafia, that if he were bad he may have refrained from posting some of these posts.

DDL was the first player to point out something potentially manufactured/forced in this thread here. This post read genuine to me. I also appreciated the math post but I realize that is non-alignment indicative.

Jay is being Jay. That typically isn't quite enough for him to earn any read from me just yet, but I tried to get a feel for him and he responded in a way that at least for now seemed genuine and with his explanation that jived with me. I haven't seen anything else questionable or alarming about his contributions just yet.

I liked Quin's questioning here. It made me feel he was genuinely interested in developing a read on Turnip Head.

Turnip Head's contributions here, here, and here demonstrate critical thinking and questioning.

Now please note that I said all of these are SLIGHT town and they are all tentative. I wanted to get discussion going. If you disagree with any of my reads, it'd be nice if you could engage me and the thread in why you do and not just that you do.

First off, sorry if you perceive this as insensitivity, but you have played this "busy" card before, as Mafia, I think on more than one occasion. I am sure you are busy, but it's not relevant information when you are supplying it as some sort of explanation for in game play. Thank you for sharing it with us, it's good to know, but as a point while we are discussing your potential alignment it is entirely irrelevant, so putting it up front here reads a bit manipulative to me, especially since I'm sure I have seen you do this before as Mafia. You don't have much in the way of "Jageist Mafia Ethics" around this subject in my opinion. (quite frankly I don't either ... so that's not a personal attack hahaha, alls fair in love and Mafia).

I will say again ... I did not share suspicion of you because you are "contributing" for you to say that is a misrepresentation, quite a big one. I quite obviously took issue with the actual thing you did/said, which was make five civ reads.

At what point did I indicate that I was bailing on the thread? That's a bit of a rando shit sling right there.

To elaborate on why what you did is suspicious, and this is me diving deeper into what at first was a ping ... (and I did that in my previous post, did you not see that in post review before you hit submit or did you just post it anyway without referencing it?).

To reiterate. There is a fairly basic, perhaps too basic, Mafia mentality behind why you would make the post you did, and that's to butter up 5 vocal players. Fairly routine Mafia strategy. Perhaps you can be redeemed by the fact that it's almost too blunt, but I'm not in the business of making excuses for other players. Of course the obvious town strategy of "playing the game" applies.

There is also the fact that by sharing the opinion that these five players are town, you're lending them a bit of public support, which is likely to influence the thread. I'm not a huge fan of doing that in general. Especially for a guy like Jimmy who should be absolutely brutally analysed at every turn.

And I have provided a red read. You. I only just showed up mate, give me a chance.

And I meant nothing by that last sentence, it was just playful banter.

FWIW I agree with at least 1 of your town reads, I think Quin is town, but based on posts since you made yours...

Stepping back a bit, I think you reacted quite emotionally to being suspected too, which ... ehhh it's not something I've not seen before from you.

[MacDougall]

I want S~V~S to be second in command.

And I will be leader.

Welcome, Simon It's been a while - Star Wars, I believe? In any case, it awesome to have you back playing with us again. Now, speaking of S-V-S, It's been a day and a bit and there's been no sightings of her That's a shame - she always seems to have so much to say...

Glorfindel my main man! I hope you aren't going to retire from the game this time on the chance you are bad and can't handle the pressure *cough* Star Wars *cough*.

Is it fair to say that if you're still here by day 3 that you're a civ?

[MacDougall]

So who wants to talk about this duel mechanic? It seems we would want to nominate the two most suspicious players (in lieu of one) similar to lynching, but is that necessarily the case? What if a player is suspicious but has a role type that is stronger in duels and keeps winning them? What do you all think?

In the immediate presence I don't think we should worry much about this when making our selections, but it might become more important as the game progresses and we develop a better understanding of players' potential dueling strength.

The two "baddie" factions appear to be the Yellow Turbans and the Nanman. Their dueling prowess is as follows:

Yellow Turbans:
1 leader - d6
2 strategists - d4
(all secrets)

Nanman:
1 leader - d6
4 warriors - d8

Purely from a dueling perspective, the Nanman appear significantly more potent. We'll need to keep that in mind as we proceed. Indeed, it might even be worth considering combining a town read with a baddie read in our voting pattern to try to arrange a winnable duel. That might even amount to people volunteering themselves to enter a duel if there is a consensus suspect present. I hope enough people are able to withhold their votes long enough for those discussions to develop.

The Yellow Turbans don't have the strength in their dice, but all three of them have *secrets* which I am sure are meant to make up the difference somehow.

Hey I don't get this bit. How does this work in execution?

[MacDougall]

My opinion is that we should just lynch the people we want to see dead the most. But in case of endgame situations, putting a warrior on the battlefield against a strategist just to get the strategist killed sounds like a smart move. I mean, look at those odds. Of course, that's assuming we know who are the warrior and the strategist.

Can you show me a circumstance where we would? Is there something obvious I have missed?

[Dragon D. Luffy]

Ok so I just saw MP's bigger post about being busy so what Quin said about him makes sense.

I've heard stories about baddie MP having meltdowns though, so I'm paranoid about that.

[Dunny]

Assertion: townies are more likely to think outside the box when it comes to game mechanics, and it sometimes gets them into trouble. I think Boomslang is the example here -- when presented with this unique dueling mechanic, he thought outside the box the same way I did and arrived upon an idea that has a theoretical application even if it might not be the most practical. I might also include Golden in this, because his idea was to pit UTR players against each other instead of merely suspect against suspect. I don't quite agree with that method, but I don't fault him for proposing it.

Baddies however love these moments, because it gives them an easy opportunity to jump into a discussion and bring the more "logical" perspective -- in this case: "shouldn't we just have suspects duel each other?" This is to say that I am more suspicious of the players who have responded to Boomslang with incredulity (Turnip Head and Dunny) than I am of Boomslang himself. Sorsha can also apply, though she was less critical and more personal in her delivery.

The unique idea tends to come from the townie.

The critical response and recommendation that simpler methods be employed are more likely to come from the baddie.

I can understand why you view me as a bit suspicious, though i stand by my point id rather put in two suspects than one suspect and a civ, thats just my point of view

Where do I place then, JJJ? You missed me.

Honestly picking 2 suspected baddies seems like it has a way higher probability of working.

I agree, but that's assuming we have two really good baddie reads on any given night. If we pick a known or highly suspected civ at random, we have a 75% chance of getting a warrior, which puts us in pretty good odds for a fight.

And thats assuming our civilian read is right too.

So you are counting on the read being right, the civilian being a warrior, and the dice liking you. Are you sure those odds are that good?

While if you vote for two baddie suspects, you are diminishing the effects of the duel while focusing on one variable: the quality of your reads. If they are good, you have better odds of lynching a baddie.

I don't think that can be calculated, but I think the later sounds more likely to work.

Yes, but civilian reads are more likely to be right. So if we get that factor correct, then we only need to pick one baddie, the most high-quality baddie we have. We don't need to go scraping for evidence for a second suspect every time.

That's exactly what we need to do. Just because we think we have one baddie nailed doesn't mean we should give up on scumhunting until we get a result for the current suspect. I don't understand anybody right now who thinks putting a suspected baddie up against a civ is a good idea.

I think your response to Boomslang fails to acknowledge the point he is making. I'd be less inclined to call you "suspicious" for it though since you're shoving it in my face right now.

Personally with Quins quote there it basically says what i said but just simplier except you dont believe it to be the same kind of response as mine and TH? Why is that?

[MacDougall]

Working on the assumption that a 'Prefect' is a position of some significant authority and influence, can anyone explain to me why Golden only has one vote? I mean SERIOUSLY? He was (is?) The Syndicate's representative at the Mafia Championships. He won a s#*^load of awards on this site this year (including The Syndicate MVP). He has demonstrated an ability for intelligent analysis and shown that he has the courage of his convictions (from my experience of him in Arkham Mafia). On top of all that, he's just a really nice guy... If anyone out there is still undecided, I'll be voting for him and for the reasons stated, I think you should too.

This is a mafia game, not a job interview. We are judging whether people are civ or bad.

This guy is a civ ^

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I have a much easier time getting town reads early in a game than scum reads.

Well I guess I'm wrong about that being a normal thing. Maybe just a me thing.

You use your Day 1 scum finding powers and I'll use my Day 1 town finding powers and with our powers combined GG.

[MacDougall]

He's heaps busy. Busier than he's ever been before.™

From Transistor Mafia.

Well, I'm , and I'll be busy but considering I'll be working at my computer constantly (still), I'm sure I'll be here plenty often. See you folks tomorrow!

Well, that's it for me. See you all tomorrow. It'll be a busy day for me though, but I'll be sure to contribute, being the addict I am. I hope to hear more from all of you, but especially most of you who haven't been saying too much yet.

As for me, I have to go now, and the next 48 hours or so I'll be pretty busy. I wanted to make sure to sneak in some Night posting while I could before the period ended (1) in case I die tonight, or otherwise (2) due to the next 48-hour period. I'll contribute what I can. I think we should widen the discussion of players. I'd like to perform some ISO analyses, but they're a bit meaningless this early and without a mafia flip, and I'm short on time until near the end of Day 2. So we'll see. Someone else feel free to do them if you're so inclined (JJJ, I'm looking at you primarily).

RIP Wilgy!

I've been pretty busy with PhD stuff, and now Draconus's Attack on Titan game has started so my mafia attention is already split between the two games. I'm going to re-examine the lower part of my rainbow list today.

To everyone: Whom are you considering for a vote today (tentatively) and why?

Well, I'm still really busy, and this poll time is inconvenient since I'll be out. I'm alright with the nutella vote, but my feelings haven't really changed regarding my suspicions, and I'd rather vote off one of those red reads. So I'm going to vote for agleaminranks. I'll be back either late tonight after the deadline or sometime tomorrow.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Hey I don't get this bit. How does this work in execution?

I'm not sure it does. Volunteerism here might actually equate to an infodump, and if not it could expose the volunteer to a night kill. My concern is that it will be really hard to eliminate the Nanman faction with their four warriors just by pitting suspect against suspect over and over. They have a very strong dueling arrangement with their 4 eight sided dice. I think my idea would probably only have an application in the event that there is a significant, consensus baddie read. In that instance eliminating the player would be easiest if they are pitted against a warrior -- even if a civilian warrior volunteering (hence the pseudo-infodump).

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Personally with Quins quote there it basically says what i said but just simplier except you dont believe it to be the same kind of response as mine and TH? Why is that?

No, it is the same type of response. The difference isn't in the response, but in that Quin took that response and mashed it against my face saying "what about me? Huh?". I appreciate that behavior even if I don't like the post.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Ok so I just saw MP's bigger post about being busy so what Quin said about him makes sense.

I've heard stories about baddie MP having meltdowns though, so I'm paranoid about that.

Don't you remember the Town MP Bean Dip Meltdown of 2015?

[MacDougall]

Hey I don't get this bit. How does this work in execution?

I'm not sure it does. Volunteerism here might actually equate to an infodump, and if not it could expose the volunteer to a night kill. My concern is that it will be really hard to eliminate the Nanman faction with their four warriors just by pitting suspect against suspect over and over. They have a very strong dueling arrangement with their 4 eight sided dice. I think my idea would probably only have an application in the event that there is a significant, consensus baddie read. In that instance eliminating the player would be easiest if they are pitted against a warrior -- even if a civilian warrior volunteering (hence the pseudo-infodump).

If someone volunteered to battle a consensus Mafia read I would actually be quite suspicious of that player. Would be a fantastic way to bus for cred would it not? I doubt many civilians would nominate themselves, nor do I think it would be a good idea for a civilian to risk themselves like that, even if they did win, when there is a better alternative. Also you're basically removing the voting right for the civs and the voting risk for the Mafia of all the players by coordinating the votes that way.

Fundamentally, the idea is just nowhere near as good as just putting the top two consensus reads together. It seems like a really convoluted strategy and I don't get it. Let everyone make their reads and vote, the top two battle. It's pure, it's good.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Hey I don't get this bit. How does this work in execution?

I'm not sure it does. Volunteerism here might actually equate to an infodump, and if not it could expose the volunteer to a night kill. My concern is that it will be really hard to eliminate the Nanman faction with their four warriors just by pitting suspect against suspect over and over. They have a very strong dueling arrangement with their 4 eight sided dice. I think my idea would probably only have an application in the event that there is a significant, consensus baddie read. In that instance eliminating the player would be easiest if they are pitted against a warrior -- even if a civilian warrior volunteering (hence the pseudo-infodump).

If someone volunteered to battle a consensus Mafia read I would actually be quite suspicious of that player. Would be a fantastic way to bus for cred would it not? I doubt many civilians would nominate themselves, nor do I think it would be a good idea for a civilian to risk themselves like that, even if they did win, when there is a better alternative. Also you're basically removing the voting right for the civs and the voting risk for the Mafia of all the players by coordinating the votes that way.

Fundamentally, the idea is just nowhere near as good as just putting the top two consensus reads together. It seems like a really convoluted strategy and I don't get it. Let everyone make their reads and vote, the top two battle. It's pure, it's good.

I don't necessarily disagree. It was my initial idea but I will probably be voting solely for suspects until further notice.

By the way, why do you want Wilgy and I to kill each other?

[MacDougall]

Hey I don't get this bit. How does this work in execution?

I'm not sure it does. Volunteerism here might actually equate to an infodump, and if not it could expose the volunteer to a night kill. My concern is that it will be really hard to eliminate the Nanman faction with their four warriors just by pitting suspect against suspect over and over. They have a very strong dueling arrangement with their 4 eight sided dice. I think my idea would probably only have an application in the event that there is a significant, consensus baddie read. In that instance eliminating the player would be easiest if they are pitted against a warrior -- even if a civilian warrior volunteering (hence the pseudo-infodump).

If someone volunteered to battle a consensus Mafia read I would actually be quite suspicious of that player. Would be a fantastic way to bus for cred would it not? I doubt many civilians would nominate themselves, nor do I think it would be a good idea for a civilian to risk themselves like that, even if they did win, when there is a better alternative. Also you're basically removing the voting right for the civs and the voting risk for the Mafia of all the players by coordinating the votes that way.

Fundamentally, the idea is just nowhere near as good as just putting the top two consensus reads together. It seems like a really convoluted strategy and I don't get it. Let everyone make their reads and vote, the top two battle. It's pure, it's good.

I don't necessarily disagree. It was my initial idea but I will probably be voting solely for suspects until further notice.

By the way, why do you want Wilgy and I to kill each other?

I don't want to say it, people don't like it...

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I don't want to say it, people don't like it...

who cares about people

[MacDougall]

I don't want to say it, people don't like it...

who cares about people

Did you not see the flag! What does the flag say!?

[Dunny]

Personally with Quins quote there it basically says what i said but just simplier except you dont believe it to be the same kind of response as mine and TH? Why is that?

No, it is the same type of response. The difference isn't in the response, but in that Quin took that response and mashed it against my face saying "what about me? Huh?". I appreciate that behavior even if I don't like the post.

What im saying is, you didnt even mention Quin until he smashed it in your face, even though his comment on the subject was the same as mine yet me and TH are on your suspicion chart. I just dont understand that

[Dunny]

Hey I don't get this bit. How does this work in execution?

I'm not sure it does. Volunteerism here might actually equate to an infodump, and if not it could expose the volunteer to a night kill. My concern is that it will be really hard to eliminate the Nanman faction with their four warriors just by pitting suspect against suspect over and over. They have a very strong dueling arrangement with their 4 eight sided dice. I think my idea would probably only have an application in the event that there is a significant, consensus baddie read. In that instance eliminating the player would be easiest if they are pitted against a warrior -- even if a civilian warrior volunteering (hence the pseudo-infodump).

If someone volunteered to battle a consensus Mafia read I would actually be quite suspicious of that player. Would be a fantastic way to bus for cred would it not? I doubt many civilians would nominate themselves, nor do I think it would be a good idea for a civilian to risk themselves like that, even if they did win, when there is a better alternative. Also you're basically removing the voting right for the civs and the voting risk for the Mafia of all the players by coordinating the votes that way.

Fundamentally, the idea is just nowhere near as good as just putting the top two consensus reads together. It seems like a really convoluted strategy and I don't get it. Let everyone make their reads and vote, the top two battle. It's pure, it's good.

I don't necessarily disagree. It was my initial idea but I will probably be voting solely for suspects until further notice.

By the way, why do you want Wilgy and I to kill each other?

And here MacDougall has basically elaborated on my point, does that make him suspicious also?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Personally with Quins quote there it basically says what i said but just simplier except you dont believe it to be the same kind of response as mine and TH? Why is that?

No, it is the same type of response. The difference isn't in the response, but in that Quin took that response and mashed it against my face saying "what about me? Huh?". I appreciate that behavior even if I don't like the post.

What im saying is, you didnt even mention Quin until he smashed it in your face, even though his comment on the subject was the same as mine yet me and TH are on your suspicion chart. I just dont understand that

I didn't notice Quin's post until he did that.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

And here MacDougall has basically elaborated on my point, does that make him suspicious also?

No. Mac and I had a conversation, and he also acknowledged the validity of the assertion I made that you've been questioning. I'm not a fan of your "why me?" defenses.

[MacDougall]

Hey I don't get this bit. How does this work in execution?

I'm not sure it does. Volunteerism here might actually equate to an infodump, and if not it could expose the volunteer to a night kill. My concern is that it will be really hard to eliminate the Nanman faction with their four warriors just by pitting suspect against suspect over and over. They have a very strong dueling arrangement with their 4 eight sided dice. I think my idea would probably only have an application in the event that there is a significant, consensus baddie read. In that instance eliminating the player would be easiest if they are pitted against a warrior -- even if a civilian warrior volunteering (hence the pseudo-infodump).

If someone volunteered to battle a consensus Mafia read I would actually be quite suspicious of that player. Would be a fantastic way to bus for cred would it not? I doubt many civilians would nominate themselves, nor do I think it would be a good idea for a civilian to risk themselves like that, even if they did win, when there is a better alternative. Also you're basically removing the voting right for the civs and the voting risk for the Mafia of all the players by coordinating the votes that way.

Fundamentally, the idea is just nowhere near as good as just putting the top two consensus reads together. It seems like a really convoluted strategy and I don't get it. Let everyone make their reads and vote, the top two battle. It's pure, it's good.

I don't necessarily disagree. It was my initial idea but I will probably be voting solely for suspects until further notice.

By the way, why do you want Wilgy and I to kill each other?

And here MacDougall has basically elaborated on my point, does that make him suspicious also?

I think you're doing that thing where you're defending yourself because you think you've been caught in an illogical manner and that it's not fair.

[Turnip Head]

Assertion: townies are more likely to think outside the box when it comes to game mechanics, and it sometimes gets them into trouble. I think Boomslang is the example here -- when presented with this unique dueling mechanic, he thought outside the box the same way I did and arrived upon an idea that has a theoretical application even if it might not be the most practical. I might also include Golden in this, because his idea was to pit UTR players against each other instead of merely suspect against suspect. I don't quite agree with that method, but I don't fault him for proposing it.

Baddies however love these moments, because it gives them an easy opportunity to jump into a discussion and bring the more "logical" perspective -- in this case: "shouldn't we just have suspects duel each other?" This is to say that I am more suspicious of the players who have responded to Boomslang with incredulity (Turnip Head and Dunny) than I am of Boomslang himself. Sorsha can also apply, though she was less critical and more personal in her delivery.

The unique idea tends to come from the townie.

The critical response and recommendation that simpler methods be employed are more likely to come from the baddie.

Here's the thing: I think I agree with you that the idea is more likely to originate from a civilian mindset, someone who is trying to think outside the box.

But here's the other thing: your idea to willingly put a civilian up for a duel makes no sense on any level. It is not +EV (positive Expected Value) for town to make this play in any situation. I expect that baddies and civilians alike will disagree with your idea, because that's how obviously bad this idea is. My only intention was to nip it in the bud as early as possible so we can move on from talking about it.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

But here's the other thing: your idea to willingly put a civilian up for a duel makes no sense on any level. It is not +EV (positive Expected Value) for town to make this play in any situation.

I don't agree with this, but I understand the perspective. I don't think we know enough yet about this game to discard this notion entirely, and I do think there are plausible scenarios where it'd at least be worth considering. If I am close to 100% sure someone is bad, I am not going to feel great about throwing other suspect-fodder against them and hoping they die (because the Nanman faction is so potent in dueling power). If I have reason to believe there is a stronger dueling candidate available who I suspect less, I wouldn't be immediately averse to that vote.

The bigger issue I think is that it'd require a great deal of voting coordination which is probably not practical in a game without vote changes.

[MacDougall]

But here's the other thing: your idea to willingly put a civilian up for a duel makes no sense on any level. It is not +EV (positive Expected Value) for town to make this play in any situation.

I don't agree with this, but I understand the perspective. I don't think we know enough yet about this game to discard this notion entirely, and I do think there are plausible scenarios where it'd at least be worth considering. If I am close to 100% sure someone is bad, I am not going to feel great about throwing other suspect-fodder against them and hoping they die (because the Nanman faction is so potent in dueling power). If I have reason to believe there is a stronger dueling candidate available who I suspect less, I wouldn't be immediately averse to that vote.

The bigger issue I think is that it'd require a great deal of voting coordination which is probably not practical in a game without vote changes.

Could you please give 1 plausible scenario where it's a good idea that isn't a complete reach?

[Turnip Head]

I actually didn't realize that the winner of the duel gets prizes and protection. So that's something. I still don't think it makes sense to try to coordinate something like that when it's a dice-roll at the end of the Day. Maybe when we get closer to endgame, if we have a few things figured out, we can try to manipulate the duels. It is definitely not a risk worth taking this early, IMO.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

But here's the other thing: your idea to willingly put a civilian up for a duel makes no sense on any level. It is not +EV (positive Expected Value) for town to make this play in any situation.

I don't agree with this, but I understand the perspective. I don't think we know enough yet about this game to discard this notion entirely, and I do think there are plausible scenarios where it'd at least be worth considering. If I am close to 100% sure someone is bad, I am not going to feel great about throwing other suspect-fodder against them and hoping they die (because the Nanman faction is so potent in dueling power). If I have reason to believe there is a stronger dueling candidate available who I suspect less, I wouldn't be immediately averse to that vote.

The bigger issue I think is that it'd require a great deal of voting coordination which is probably not practical in a game without vote changes.

Could you please give 1 plausible scenario where it's a good idea that isn't a complete reach?

I just did in that post.

linki: I agree TH that we shouldn't be doing it this early. I have no intention of voting for anyone other that suspects for the time being.

[MacDougall]

But here's the other thing: your idea to willingly put a civilian up for a duel makes no sense on any level. It is not +EV (positive Expected Value) for town to make this play in any situation.

I don't agree with this, but I understand the perspective. I don't think we know enough yet about this game to discard this notion entirely, and I do think there are plausible scenarios where it'd at least be worth considering. If I am close to 100% sure someone is bad, I am not going to feel great about throwing other suspect-fodder against them and hoping they die (because the Nanman faction is so potent in dueling power). If I have reason to believe there is a stronger dueling candidate available who I suspect less, I wouldn't be immediately averse to that vote.

The bigger issue I think is that it'd require a great deal of voting coordination which is probably not practical in a game without vote changes.

Could you please give 1 plausible scenario where it's a good idea that isn't a complete reach?

I just did in that post.

linki: I agree TH that we shouldn't be doing it this early. I have no intention of voting for anyone other that suspects for the time being.

No I am asking for an actual scenario. The details. Paint me a picture.