Romance of the Three Kingdoms [ENDGAME]

[Jan]

This game is so huge it's hard to keep track.

But since I don't know most of you and all that has been posted so far sounds pretty irrelevant, to my taste, I'll wait with my vote until a later time of this Phase.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

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

Someone just died and was revealed to have some kind of role/alignment-checking power. They were constant and harsh in their suspicion of a single specific Player X while they were alive. Player Y has survived multiple duels and/or volunteers due to having special dueling secrets to duel the implicated Player X to maximize the likelihood that he/she is destroyed.

The alternative is to pit an alternative suspect Player Z against Player X and just hope that both the suspicion on Player Z is accurate and also that he/she is potent enough in a duel to get rid of Player X. It might be a better alternative, I don't think it's clear cut.

[Dunny]

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.

Its not a defense at all, just trying to understand your way of thinking when multiple people have made the same statement yet you only acknowledge two as suspicious is all. Im sorry if my curiosity offends you

[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.

Its not a defense at all, just trying to understand your way of thinking when multiple people have made the same statement yet you only acknowledge two as suspicious is all. Im sorry if my curiosity offends you

The thing that I would call "suspicious" is more the thoughtless discard of Boomslang's idea as if it's an obvious and undeniable truth that what he said is objectively wrong given what we know right now on Day 1. Not everyone has shown that attitude, and context is always important.

I would have suspected Quin too had I seen his post before he told me to see his post. I am not "offended", that's a bizarre word choice. I am voicing suspicion in a Mafia thread.

[MacDougall]

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

Someone just died and was revealed to have some kind of role/alignment-checking power. They were constant and harsh in their suspicion of a single specific Player X while they were alive. Player Y has survived multiple duels and/or volunteers due to having special dueling secrets to duel the implicated Player X to maximize the likelihood that he/she is destroyed.

The alternative is to pit an alternative suspect Player Z against Player X and just hope that both the suspicion on Player Z is accurate and also that he/she is potent enough in a duel to get rid of Player X. It might be a better alternative, I don't think it's clear cut.

Sweet, cheers.

[Nerolunar]

Im in another game that is very dramatic at the moment, so I will be flying under the radar for now.

There is some good discussion going on though.

MP's reaction to the slight suspicions against him over his GTHs looks way too defensive for my taste. *Ping*

[Turnip Head]

The thing that I would call "suspicious" is more the thoughtless discard of Boomslang's idea as if it's an obvious and undeniable truth that what he said is objectively wrong given what we know right now on Day 1. Not everyone has shown that attitude, and context is always important.

You keep calling it Boomslang's idea even though you posted it first. Any reason for that?

[Dragon D. Luffy]

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.

Oh boy I always do that when I'm bad.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

The thing that I would call "suspicious" is more the thoughtless discard of Boomslang's idea as if it's an obvious and undeniable truth that what he said is objectively wrong given what we know right now on Day 1. Not everyone has shown that attitude, and context is always important.

You keep calling it Boomslang's idea even though you posted it first. Any reason for that?

He's the one that seemed to get more direct responses for that, and my suspicion of others stems from their treatment of him. I have given both of us credit for the idea; I said earlier that I like where his mind is at because he arrived at the same idea I did (with the appearance that he wasn't just parroting me).

I don't really know why I haven't gotten the same response.

[Dunny]

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.

Its not a defense at all, just trying to understand your way of thinking when multiple people have made the same statement yet you only acknowledge two as suspicious is all. Im sorry if my curiosity offends you

The thing that I would call "suspicious" is more the thoughtless discard of Boomslang's idea as if it's an obvious and undeniable truth that what he said is objectively wrong given what we know right now on Day 1. Not everyone has shown that attitude, and context is always important.

I would have suspected Quin too had I seen his post before he told me to see his post. I am not "offended", that's a bizarre word choice. I am voicing suspicion in a Mafia thread.

I didn't say it was wrong, I said it didnt make much sense to myself.
And i have many bizarre word choices its more fun than using a conventional dictionary.
In regards to not giving you the same response, from what ive seen people just didnt seem to get on board with the idea not that it was odd that boomslang had mentioned it

[Tangrowth]

OK, Mac, if you're going to make fun of me, that's fine, whatever. You're proving my point in that yes, I'm always fucking busy, and I'm pretty sure we've never even played a game together where I was civilian because I say the same shit every game I'm in, but whatever. I should have listened to my better judgment when it told me it would be a mistake to get back into mafia, especially now. This game infuriates me way too much; I'm getting out now before I waste more of my time on this. This game is just not fun enough for me to continue, and I'm going to bow out before I can cause any more drama.

[Turnip Head]

Yeah, I feel like the response has been focused towards the idea and less about who came up with the idea.

linki: MP

[JaggedJimmyJay]

In regards to not giving you the same response, from what ive seen people just didnt seem to get on board with the idea not that it was odd that boomslang had mentioned it

Yeah, I feel like the response has been focused towards the idea and less about who came up with the idea.

That could be. In any event, I think the relevant parties have said their piece in this discussion and I'll leave it for others to talk about before we eat up too much thread space. It's a long day phase.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

OK, Mac, if you're going to make fun of me, that's fine, whatever. You're proving my point in that yes, I'm always fucking busy, and I'm pretty sure we've never even played a game together where I was civilian because I say the same shit every game I'm in, but whatever. I should have listened to my better judgment when it told me it would be a mistake to get back into mafia, especially now. This game infuriates me way too much; I'm getting out now before I waste more of my time on this. This game is just not fun enough for me to continue, and I'm going to bow out before I can cause any more drama.

I don't think Mac intended to be insulting; he has a way of sounding like that when it's not his intent. If you can find the motivation, I'd encourage you to give it another go. The game is quite young and people are just dipping their feet in the waters of suspicions.

[Tangrowth]

I'm sorry guys, I just can't do this. I'm not mad at Mac, and I realize he didn't intend anything insulting; I just can't handle this. I thought I could, but I have an addictive personality and I'm struggling to keep myself stress-free every day as it is with everything going on, and for whatever reason I thought this game would help but every single time I play this stupid game I just get too emotionally wrapped up in the game to handle the accompanied stress, especially when I have a lot going on on the sideline. And yet again I've taken it too far now. I'm tired of getting upset at a game, I'm tired of it affecting my RL mood; furthermore, I'm tired of ruining anyone else's time. I've derailed enough games; I'm done doing the same with this one. Hopefully Epi can find someone to take my spot. I'm sorry.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Understood man. Do whatchoo gotta do.

0.8% chance MP/his replacement is bad, btw.

[Bullzeye]

I think we should vote people who we believe to be mafia to duel. I think maybe later in the game if a civ wants to volunteer then that's their choice but early game I believe we run the risks of losing civs that could help us later in the game.

I'd be wary of people volunteering to duel tbh, they could be particularly tough/confident baddies looking for an easy ride and hoping for a nice reward.

Otherwise though, I don't think any opinion on whether to pit civ v baddie or baddie v baddie makes someone more likely to be good or bad. I think people who are naturally more careful will want to have a guarantee of a baddie dying and feel more comfortable putting two people they suspect up for a duel. People who are happier taking risks will want to do riskier things.

[DFaraday]

I think we should vote people who we believe to be mafia to duel. I think maybe later in the game if a civ wants to volunteer then that's their choice but early game I believe we run the risks of losing civs that could help us later in the game.

I'd be wary of people volunteering to duel tbh, they could be particularly tough/confident baddies looking for an easy ride and hoping for a nice reward.

Otherwise though, I don't think any opinion on whether to pit civ v baddie or baddie v baddie makes someone more likely to be good or bad. I think people who are naturally more careful will want to have a guarantee of a baddie dying and feel more comfortable putting two people they suspect up for a duel. People who are happier taking risks will want to do riskier things.

This is all pretty much where I'm at. Whether you like this idea or not, and whether you'd want to volunteer or not, are I think more indicative of the player's personality than alignment.

For the record, I'm not a fan of the idea, and would prefer just voting for people I find suspicious.

[Boomslang]

I think we should vote people who we believe to be mafia to duel. I think maybe later in the game if a civ wants to volunteer then that's their choice but early game I believe we run the risks of losing civs that could help us later in the game.

I agree that volunteers should be more effective late-game. Once all the treasures come into play, civs can become more dangerous in duels; again, this runs the risk of NK targeting, but how else will we know how to take advantage of said treasures?

Also, I understand MP The game is emotionally draining, and I wish you the best of recovery.

[Scotty]

Caught up.

I was going to say exactly what JJJ said in regards to Boomslang, albeit probably in a less succinct way. His idea seems pretty sincere even though I don't agree with it.

I'm sorry to see Mp go. I know we've talked about this before in previous games- I almost felt like bowing out of Psych Mafia, but kept up. MP, I'm addicted to you, and just can't quit you. I wish you the best.
I also read his outburst as different from his baddie games I know him as. It's one thing to be overly defensive and use lack of time as the main factor, and it's another to blow up over a minute thing.
Mac's examples of his lack of time in his baddie game is rather unfair, because they don't have the same feel to them. They seem more controlled excuses in those games whereas this doesn't. I would expect MP to put up more of a calculated fight if he were bad, so I'm willing to foregoing voting him or his replacement.

I'm not sure if JJJ is being town or bad right now. Nothing has changed in my opinion, except that we are agreeing on the Boomslang point, and I actually agree with his stance for people looking to take advantage of the error in Boom's philosophy. Not exactly suspicious to me.

I'm probably gonna be voting low posters this phase. Surprise surprise.
Got my eye on Simon especially, for not answering my question posed to him.
And I'll be looking to whom hasn't checked in as we creep towards the EoD

[Scotty]

I'm not liking MM's contributions so far this game. He has expressed desire to be a prefect and...nothing else. 1/10 will not prefect.

This game is so huge it's hard to keep track.

But since I don't know most of you and all that has been posted so far sounds pretty irrelevant, to my taste, I'll wait with my vote until a later time of this Phase.

Hey Jan, I remember playing with you at JTM and I remember you being more active over there. That the game is huge and is hard to keep track is a lame excuse not to give anything. What is "relevant" to your taste that hasn't been posted yet?

[Marmot]

Hehe... I was like wth does "utr" mean... Unable to read?

Anyway, I think voting for those who are the most suspicions is the best bet.

Unable to rezz.

[Marmot]

Also, my rainbow list looks something like this:

S~V~S
Turnip Head
MovingPictures07

Stay tuned for more.

[Scotty]

Hehe... I was like wth does "utr" mean... Unable to read?

Anyway, I think voting for those who are the most suspicions is the best bet.

Unable to rezz.

Speak of the marmot

Also, my rainbow list looks something like this:

S~V~S
Turnip Head
MovingPictures07

Stay tuned for more.

I see.
I look forward to you placing someone who hasn't posted yet as your only civ on your rainbow list

[Marmot]

Hehe... I was like wth does "utr" mean... Unable to read?

Anyway, I think voting for those who are the most suspicions is the best bet.

Unable to rezz.

Speak of the marmot

Also, my rainbow list looks something like this:

S~V~S
Turnip Head
MovingPictures07


Stay tuned for more.

I see.
I look forward to you placing someone who hasn't posted yet as your only civ on your rainbow list

Would you like me to show you the proper use of pedantic pink?

[Marmot]

I'm leaving for a camping trip soon. I'll be back on Wednesday. Peace!

Oh hey Scotty, I posted this at the beginning.

And to be fair, I probably wouldn't have contributed, even if I was around.

[Turnip Head]

It's pretty suspicious that I am the marmot's only neutral read. I wonder if I am his teammate.

I don't mind that Jan hasn't found the content to be relevant so far. I would feel pretty detached if this was my first game with 30+ other players and nothing of consequence had happened yet.

[S~V~S]

Hi all, I just found out this started. I will do my best to get caught up on phone (no wofi for another week or so, and post as much as is feasible on phone.

[S~V~S]

Can someone give me a tl;dr about what the poll is about so I have a starting point?

[Turnip Head]

Can someone give me a tl;dr about what the poll is about so I have a starting point?

We're picking two players to duel. Based on their character stats and a dice roll, one of them will be lynched and the other one wins some good shit.

[Jan]

I'm not liking MM's contributions so far this game. He has expressed desire to be a prefect and...nothing else. 1/10 will not prefect.

Hey Jan, I remember playing with you at JTM and I remember you being more active over there. That the game is huge and is hard to keep track is a lame excuse not to give anything. What is "relevant" to your taste that hasn't been posted yet?

Oh hi there hunty, your name rings a bell.



However, I don't remember your playing style. I remembered Wilgy well because we were both scum in that one game we had.

I'll now pay more attention to you though. :P

And in response, what I read so far was just pretty much banter over who wants to be Prefect the most and in practice, it turned out to be a popularity contest. It's meaningless, what happens with these two that won it will be much more relevant than speculation. I cannot make out anything from you, JJJ and that third person getting elected prefects, really.

On my activity, I remember that using excessive gifs pissed off people a lot, so I have to keep it down a bit. I'm not really familiar with this type of mafia game too, so i'd rather be passive for a while and see what happens to get a general grip Also, speaking on JTM 90s Kids, I got much more active at the end of that game when less people were around and throughout most of the game I just pretty much responded to stuff once in a while. That's how I usually act when I'm new to a mafia community.

However, from my general experience of over 20 mafia games played and 3 hosted, Day One lynches are usually pretty much wild guesses and there's more meta and philosophy to them than necessary. I'm rather poor at guessing who is scum, I'd rather have some evidence first. Besides, literally nothing arose my suspicions yet. I reread everything while I'm writing this post and the only thing that made me raise an eyebrow was someone that said "civ reads tend to be more accurate than scum reads". LOL

[Marmot]

However, from my general experience of over 20 mafia games played and 3 hosted, Day One lynches are usually pretty much wild guesses and there's more meta and philosophy to them than necessary. I'm rather poor at guessing who is scum, I'd rather have some evidence first. Besides, literally nothing arose my suspicions yet. I reread everything while I'm writing this post and the only thing that made me raise an eyebrow was someone that said "civ reads tend to be more accurate than scum reads". LOL

About 71% of the roles are civilian, so the probability is there.

[Marmot]

^^^Jan said that.

[Jan]

About 71% of the roles are civilian, so the probability is there.

That's even a bit less a proportion of civ/scum than in games I hosted. I usually stuck with 20-25%. How is that convincing?

Oh and in relation to that large ass post: *these three are elected. The two cast votes got me confused.

[Marmot]

About 71% of the roles are civilian, so the probability is there.

That's even a bit less a proportion of civ/scum than in games I hosted. I usually stuck with 20-25%. How is that convincing?

Oh and in relation to that large ass post: *these three are elected. The two cast votes got me confused.

You have a 71% chance of being correct about a civilian read.
You have a 29% chance of being correct about a non-civilian read.

Therefore, civilian reads are more likely to be accurate.

[Jan]

You have a 71% chance of being correct about a civilian read.
You have a 29% chance of being correct about a non-civilian read.

Therefore, civilian reads are more likely to be accurate.

Oh lord, turns out I misunderstood the whole point that person was making. And here as well, I thought you were trying to convince me to make wild guesses by giving me that proportion.

I thought they basically had said that civilians are more likely to read scum correctly than scum, which is pretty obvious and facepalmed.

I guess I should go to sleep.

[Marmot]

You have a 71% chance of being correct about a civilian read.
You have a 29% chance of being correct about a non-civilian read.

Therefore, civilian reads are more likely to be accurate.

Oh lord, turns out I misunderstood the whole point that person was making. And here as well, I thought you were trying to convince me to make wild guesses by giving me that proportion.

I thought they basically had said that civilians are more likely to read scum correctly than scum, which is pretty obvious and facepalmed.

I guess I should go to sleep.

Well there you go. Have a good rest.

[nutella]

Just caught up on quite a bit of discussion here. I found myself largely agreeing with JJJ, for instance his point about baddies tending to go for simpler options, but I also don't think Bass's response to that was unreasonable -- it makes sense that baddies might be wary of dueling two suspects rather than taking the riskier route. I also generally agreed with JJJ in that I think it's perfectly normal to have some town reads early on and no particular pings (I could certainly name several GTH town reads at this point and would struggle to name anyone I have any particular reason to suspect, and yes, the town reads tend to be the more active players at this point in the game). And it's too bad that MP got so upset and couldn't stick around, but I'm honestly not particularly surprised and I don't think it's alignment indicative at all.

The duel mechanic has sparked some interesting discussion and I'm not really sure where I stand on it. It definitely seems safer on the surface to choose two top suspects, but with the realization that the winner of the duel gets benefits, it gets a lot more complicated and it may be worth taking some risk to try our best to ensure a baddie doesn't get those benefits. In any case, since it's Day 1 we probably won't have strong enough reads/evidence to back up either particular plan, since even the top suspects (whoever those end up being) may well be civ.

[Turnip Head]

I am however totally down to try to make each lynch a 3 way tie.

[Turnip Head]

And damn nutella, that was quite a meaty post with lots of well-reasoned opinions. I like it, even though I'm not sure what to do with it yet

[birdwithteeth11]

I think you bring up a good point though, Sock. Jay, why are you sick of anti-you paranoia on Day 0?

It's annoying to be at the center of consistent illogical paranoia even when it's understandable.

So it's both illogical....but understandable?

How does that one work?

[birdwithteeth11]

I just don't want to see, 5 cycles from now, someone going "I trust Jay. He had been leading town since the start!" Because that is where the danger lies.

And I agree here. I voted for him because he is a more active participant (or maybe I just considered him. I can't remember now). But I can also see this being an easy out for baddies down the road.

[Russtifinko]

Lots to read. Things I saw to respond to on Page 8:

Agreed, JJJ.

Hey, I REALLY like the idea of the "whoever does ____ first, gets my votes" posts. They prevent people from finding excuses to give votes to baddie teammates. So I'm gonna do one too, and would suggest others do the same (even though it's an itsy bit late for a few).

The first two people to post pictures or emojis of platypi earn my votes.

DDL brought this post up and I think his concerns were valid. Russ, it appears here that you are attributing a meaningful strategy to what I would perceive to be typically arbitrary Day 0 behavior. This method removes the responsibility from your votes and increases the likelihood that they will be given to people who are in deliberate pursuit of power for whatever motive. Indeed, the two respondents to your platypi request were INH and I -- both eventual prefects.

I'd like for you to talk about this, please.

You didn't like it, you shouldn't have posted a platypus picture. You say those pursuing power shouldn't get it, but went ahead and pursued away yesterday. Dunno what to tell ya, I had an idea. It was pointed out to me that it could in theory be used to work out even better for the baddies, and after thinking about it, I agree.

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.

You even think this is true when the strategy that you propose each side would promote is demonstrably, mathematically better for their opponents? Please. This is ridiculous. I'm an economist, and incentives just do not work that way.

[Russtifinko]

So, do we have any volunteers to duel today?

[birdwithteeth11]

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?

Ah, MP, always wanting to talk mechanics :P I can see where you're coming from; if we were able to identify a strong dueling civ, we could put him or her up against the suspect for a better chance at a death. However, and this is important, the rules for warriors say "most likely to win in a duel." It's not a guarantee, it would seem. On the negative side, that strategy would identify good NK targets for the baddies. And if we try to get two baddies in a duel and succeed, one of them is destined for death

However, the civs have many more warriors than the baddies. So picking one from each list (suspected civs and suspected baddies) for each night might actually be a good call.
Linki: Just as JJJ put a little more eloquently.

I would be in favor of this strategy, barring that we do not have at least 2 good baddie suspects for each day cycle.

[birdwithteeth11]

I have a bad feeling the "UTR" crew will be more than half of the player roster. :P

Thats why I said 'generally' utr - players I have a hard time getting reads on in normal circumstances.

I mean, I'm gonna be utr this game.

I would hope it doesn't become the norm personally. If we have a lack of better options I'm all for it. But in a game this large, we may have quite a few UTR people, and it gives baddies a free pass IMO.

I am also now playing mafia buzzed so this may become really interesting. :P

[DisgruntledPorcupine]

Hello friends.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I think you bring up a good point though, Sock. Jay, why are you sick of anti-you paranoia on Day 0?

It's annoying to be at the center of consistent illogical paranoia even when it's understandable.

So it's both illogical....but understandable?

How does that one work?

Humans are illogical creatures. They say illogical things and behave illogically. Even if I think a perspective is lacking in logic, that doesn't imply it's lacking in sincerity.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

You didn't like it, you shouldn't have posted a platypus picture. You say those pursuing power shouldn't get it, but went ahead and pursued away yesterday. Dunno what to tell ya, I had an idea. It was pointed out to me that it could in theory be used to work out even better for the baddies, and after thinking about it, I agree.

This does not make sense. By posting a platypus picture I secured your vote. I trust me. The problem is that you have no reason to trust me and you didn't seem to care about that.

You even think this is true when the strategy that you propose each side would promote is demonstrably, mathematically better for their opponents? Please. This is ridiculous. I'm an economist, and incentives just do not work that way.

It is not demonstrably, mathematically better for their opponents. It is theoretically better for their opponents in certain situations. I am sure we disagree on many economics concepts, and this isn't about that anyway. You can be an economics scholar; I am a Mafia scholar.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

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.

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.

That kind of plan never actually happens (at least not this early) and the baddie gets to appear as the voice of reason.

I don't think this is a reliable way of spotting baddies though, but I certainly think well of people who take stupid risks like that this early.