With a bump and a bang, Ashrzr met the cold rain. It wasn't until the morning they found his corpse.

Day 1 has begun finally.

[This message has been edited by FancyDante (edited 05-05-2014 @ 06:56 PM).]

So. This setup certainly gives us none of our usual tools to work with, and if I were scum I'd have randomized my kill so that isn't a reliable source of information either.

I think we should start by having everyone post, since it looks like a setup which tends towards being vanilla.

Yep, we seem to have no names either, just roles. By the way, would it not be a bang, then a bump?

The killers most certainly pushed him down and then shot him. Bump then bang.

Poor Ash.

Random vote: WRP

What do you know that I don't!?!?!

Can we decide our policy towards survivor/miller claims now? I feel it would be prudent to adopt that old boring tactic of stating the following:

I am not a survivor nor am I a miller.

Mozzy, I think you're overreacting. The setup seems to be very generic, seeing as Ash, myself and WRP all do not seem to have names.

Were the multiple exclamation and question marks and the phrase "random vote" not obvious clues that perhaps I wasn't being serious?

Do you think this is some sort of game?

I really don't want to get bogged down into anything until everyone comes forward and announces that they are neither a survivor nor miller.

Ermahgerd! Mozzy MUST be scum!!1!

What do I know that you don't? What do we all know? What is knowledge, when we cannot get to understand the things around us, but just the phenomena, id est how things appear to us?

I'm no miller or survivor either btw.

Man, that's deep. I'm neither a survivor nor a miller. Rock the Casbah.

There are no survivors or millers in this game, because it's Matrix6. Which also means we have at least 5 vanilla townies.

Oh, thought that Matrix would be the theme and that IWAV mispelled it

Oh, thought that Matrix would be the theme and that IWAV mispelled it

Nope wasn't a typo. It's actually a kind of Mafia.

[This message has been edited by FancyDante (edited 05-06-2014 @ 04:30 PM).]

Maegereg is exactly right. We have no information about which of the six possible setups this is, but we know for sure that there are no Survivors or Millers.

This cuts out the amount of policy discussion we need, because there's no room for exotic roles or mechanics. We still need to lynch all liars though.

One conclusion from the possible setups is that if there is a Cop there may or may not be a Doc. However, the mafia will know for sure because whether or not they have a Roleblocker will tell them which of the possible setups it is. If there is a Doc, there is also a Mafia Roleblocker. For this reason, as soon as the Cop claims he will either be killed the following night or be useless until the Mafia Roleblocker is dead. Therefore, I think the Cop (if any) should be very wary of claiming. Even if the Cop has a guilty it will therefore be better to try to bring about a lynch without claiming if at all possible.

On the other hand, if the Tracker has a useful result there's not so much need to hold back. There will either be a Doc or not, but the scum won't know which, and are unlikely to risk the 50% chance of failure.

That's all I have to say about strategy. As for what's happened so far, the only interesting thing has been Popey. If I wanted to be uncharitable, I'd say this business about asking for Survivor/Miller denials is time-wasting trying to look like pro-town activity. It's not much, but we have to start somewhere and it's the only thing that's been (seriously) mentioned so far so I'm going to start there.

Vote: Popeychops

Quoted from Julius:

Maegereg is exactly right. We have no information about which of the six possible setups this is, but we know for sure that there are no Survivors or Millers.

This cuts out the amount of policy discussion we need, because there's no room for exotic roles or mechanics. We still need to lynch all liars though.

It does, this is very useful as I was also unaware of the mechanic and had signed up without reading into the title, because it's been a bloody long time since we last had a game. I don't really have too much to say about my mistake,

Quoted from Julius:

If I wanted to be uncharitable, I'd say this business about asking for Survivor/Miller denials is time-wasting trying to look like pro-town activity.

You can, and you would be being uncharitable. I've also called for everyone to post and we've seen everyone post now except Blatant and Lief, which is a good thing. It is hardly time-wasting when we had nothing else to distract from at the start of the day, and at least now we have something to discuss now.

Quoted from Julius:

One conclusion from the possible setups is that if there is a Cop there may or may not be a Doc. However, the mafia will know for sure because whether or not they have a Roleblocker will tell them which of the possible setups it is. If there is a Doc, there is also a Mafia Roleblocker. For this reason, as soon as the Cop claims he will either be killed the following night or be useless until the Mafia Roleblocker is dead. Therefore, I think the Cop (if any) should be very wary of claiming. Even if the Cop has a guilty it will therefore be better to try to bring about a lynch without claiming if at all possible.

I disagree with this. The benefit of the cop bringing forward a guilty is two-fold, it reveals scum and confirms the cop. We cannot trust cop results on day 4 or later, since we will be at lynch-or-lose and the mafia can counterclaim the cop at that point and almost certainly win the game. The cop will be subsequently blocked (if the mafia have a roleblocker and the town a doctor) or killed.

Having the cop as a confirmed player is useful, since we can deduce the setup from whether he dies or is blocked. It buys us a certain mafia lynch, and does not risk the town misinterpreting the cop's suspicious remarks as honest but mistaken. It's highly likely that we won't be handed two guilty results by the cop if we get one: we should just take it and not try to play follow-the-cop. The only downside I can see to having the cop claim is the removal of the possibility of catching future scum claims out, in the event of them making a ballsy try at tracker or one-shot iron. I don't see that as too likely though, and expect the scum to claim VT.

I'm leaning towards voting for Julius for the following reasons:

Casting an obvious mistake as suspicious

Accusation of "time-wasting" when we have no time limits

Unhelpfully suggesting that a cop should keep guilty results quiet

The third is probably influenced by my meta perception of Julius' logic.

---

Member of BlackForest Studios
Co-creator of Silent Evil (4.6) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009 (Most Fave'd Multiplayer Scenario)
and The Seas of Egressa (4.8) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
"Popey just hates everywhere." - Chocolate Jesus, on my fear of Romanian organ-traffickers
"Hooray for Dear Leader-Comrade-Generalissimo-Presidente-Lord Protector Popey!" - Lord Sipia, on my benevolent, iron-fisted rule
"You're not Popeychops; you don't get to physics." - Moff, in response to a clumsy muon simile

Popey, it's the start of Day 1 and if we don't do anything this will slide into the activity that besets almost every HG mafia that doesn't serve up the solution to the town on a plate. Don't "lean towards voting". If you think someone is suspicious, vote. Or we'll never get anywhere due to everyone hedging all the time.

I've also called for everyone to post and we've seen everyone post now except Blatant and Lief, which is a good thing.

So? Obviously it's a good thing that people seem to be active, but what does that have to do with you?

Unhelpfully suggesting that a cop should keep guilty results quiet

I think you're wrong about the strategy for the Cop, and we might as well argue about that rather than doing nothing so I'll explain why. The key is you've apparently not really read what I wrote. I said the Cop should try to get the lynch without claiming if at all possible. If they find this to be too difficult, then obviously they should claim and get the lynch that way - your objection that the town might not follow the Cop without a claim is therefore of no importance. Moreover, if the Cop at least attempts to do it this way it lends a lot more credibility when they eventually do claim, because they'll be able to point to behaviour that supports their claim. This is also why you're wrong about a Cop claim on Day 4 - we won't stupidly believe a mafia counterclaim, because the real Cop will be able to point to previous behaviour that completely fits with his claim.

On the other hand, if the Cop does well and succeeds in getting the lynch without claiming there is a potentially game-winning benefit. They might get a second guilty result and live to tell the tale, allowing them to claim credibly the following day. If there is a Cop in this game it is literally the best thing that could happen for the town, and I don't see why you wouldn't want to preserve the possibility as far as possible.

Casting an obvious mistake as suspicious

No, otherwise I'd have talked about WRP as well. It's more that it looks like you were attempting to build credit with the town by doing ostensibly useful, but actually useless, things. Like "calling for everyone to post" while simultaneously letting them do that by making a declaration of no value.

Also, you do know that there is literally nothing else to do today but try to find reasons why people are suspicious? If everyone just takes the attitude of "obvious mistake; he's probably fine" we will get nowhere. It's not like I'm pretending to have a particularly great case against you.

I don't think either of you are being particularly suspicious or helpful. While you two bicker back and forth, the scum just lurk and wait for somebody to be lynched so they can go to town on the Town. I think our best course of action is to look into lurking players and cut them out.

For one, it eliminates inactivity. Inactive players don't help the Town even if they are Town because a Townie who refuses to vote doesn't aid in the lynching of Mafia.

For two, and this is mild meta-gaming, scum are often lurkers. It's a legitimate strategy to wait and watch for the misguided bandwagon against a Townie and join in later.

So since Blatant and Leif have been quiet, I think we should look at them more closely. Not that claiming will help, given the setup. :/

My thoughts: I tend to agree with Julius on the question of whether the cop should claim or not. Definitely not, if they can get away with it. Mozzy is correct that lurkers are going to be a massive problem here. We need to get people posting if we're going to catch them based on poor logic, which is pretty much the only tool we have here. If we tolerate lurkers, we have a problem.

I agree with Mozzy. I don't think Julius is particularly suspicious and neither is Popey to me. So far, inactivity hasn't really reared its ugly head too much but it may. I know Leif isn't generally super active, so I don't think he's really very suspicious yet either. But, it's good to look into and to get people to post.

I'm leaving Switzerland this weekend to go back home, so I'd like to apologize in advance for my inactivity this weekend due to packing and final projects and whatnot. I'll be able to catch up on Monday.

I've been on the road the past couple days, so forgive me about being the last player to post. I'll be getting home tomorrow night.

I also wasn't aware of the fact that Matrix6 was a type of setup. In almost every game except this one, asking for survivors or millers to come out is a worthwhile strategy. For now, I trust that Popey wasn't aware of the setup, especially when reading the last part of post 7, so I don't think his behavior should be regarded as scummy in this instance.

About the general setup, the only thing I can think of raising is that the tracker, if we have one, is only useful for tracking kills. They don't have the added opportunity of catching a mafia roleblocker, so the tracker's strength is more limited.

Among the games I've played here, I don't know if the cop has ever been encouraged to announce their results immediately on Day 1, even if they have a guilty result. Most have advocated the cop lying low and try to draw out the scum player without announcing their results if possible, and I believe this mostly holds true for this game as well. However, this is a smaller game. With only two scum players, a guilty result is powerful. A mafia lynch for a cop death would be a worthwhile trade in this game. Therefore, if there is indeed a cop in this game and the cop has a guilty result, I believe they should claim their result as soon as they are confident their result will persuade the town, probably after the guilty player shows behavior that's at least mildly scummy. In this setup, I don't believe preserving a cop should be a significant concern, though of course it should be done if conveniently possible.

Out of curiosity, Julius, Popey, and Maeg, when do you guys believe a cop should make a guilty result known in this game? Of course, anyone else can answer this, but you guys have made your opinions on the subject known, and I think it would be good to have each of your opinions clearly defined before the subject changes to something else. This way, we can come closer to a town consensus for when a cop should claim a guilty result and perhaps make it harder for scum to fakeclaim as a cop.

After rereading, I suppose Julius has already answered my question. If I interpret his stance correctly, a cop in this game should avoid claiming a guilty result unless it seems like it would not be possible to get the town to lynch the guilty player otherwise. Is that correct?

In regards to Popey's arguments against Julius, the first two are just in response to the fact that Julius was suspicious of Popey calling for survivors and millers. At this stage of the game, I believe bringing up such suspicions is called for, even if they're likely nothing. Right now, all we basically have are opinions and behavior tendencies, not much that we can consider scummy at this point, only discuss.

While you two bicker back and forth, the scum just lurk and wait for somebody to be lynched so they can go to town on the Town

Without 'bickering' you can't distinguish lurkers, because there will be a complete absence of activity. Can't have a lurker hunt until at least some people are trying to discuss substance.

If we tolerate lurkers, we have a problem.

On the other hand, this is certainly true. It is vital that people post, and for that there should be consequences for not posting (obviously temporary, announced absences are okay, within reason). I would like everybody to avoid leaving a 96 hour gap between their posts, or else it will be fair to accuse them of lurking. That's hardly unreasonable to ask, again subject to pre-announced absences.

Out of curiosity, Julius, Popey, and Maeg, when do you guys believe a cop should make a guilty result known in this game?

It is the Cop's responsibility to get the guilty player lynched on the Day immediately after the result is gained. The result should be revealed if that becomes necessary in order to achieve this, and not otherwise.

There is one rather obvious caveat. If we get down to three players with one scum remaining, the Cop should claim before the final decision is made.


We seem to be at risk of running out of bickering. If we all agree on everything we won't get anywhere today. Remember, at this stage you don't have to confine your attacks to behaviour you think is particularly suspicious. It's okay - strongly desirable, even - to post about behaviour that could be scum-motivated, even if you think it probably isn't.

For example, does Maegereg have a personal grudge against Ash and was he trying to use his first post to distract attention from that line of enquiry? Do you think it makes sense to believe that scum would randomise their kill, or was that just a pretence?

Feel free to replace me back in.

Out of curiosity, Julius, Popey, and Maeg, when do you guys believe a cop should make a guilty result known in this game?

I would argue that a cop probably shouldn't reveal an initial guilty under almost any circumstances. As Julius says, they're probably dead once they claim. They should try to make a case against the player, and if it fails I would say back off and try to acquire more information. It's somewhat situational, but if, for instance, a cop had gotten a guilty today, they probably shouldn't come forward under any circumstances.

For example, does Maegereg have a personal grudge against Ash and was he trying to use his first post to distract attention from that line of enquiry? Do you think it makes sense to believe that scum would randomise their kill, or was that just a pretence?

Perhaps I'm not the best person to be stating this, but I don't have grudges against anyone on here. If I were taking a shot at night I would probably randomize it, in all honesty.

But if the cop argues for lynching scum without revealing his result and fails, he'll be killed that night because he's an obvious threat. I think the cop should refrain from revealing himself but, if he has a guilty and can't get a lynch without revealing himself, declare his result before nightfall.

when do you guys believe a cop should make a guilty result known in this game?

I think immediately is preferable. However, it's not going to be likely that we'll see a fakeclaim from scum because it risks contradicting the setup.

The reason why it does not gain us anything to keep the cop hidden is because the cop cannot expect to have a long lifetime anyway. There are too few people in this game for a player who has pushed for a lynch on mafia to escape the nightkill. It is not going to benefit the town if a guilty dies with the cop. We only have two mafiosi to find, if one of those is eliminated, we cannot expect to play follow-the-cop: the likelihood of getting successful investigations is very low, unless the mafia play badly and link themselves together in the thread.

I agree that the cop, if there's one and if he has a guilty, should try and remain relatively hidden, creating other arguments against the scum, as Julius says.

The benefits of this, as opposed to his claiming out right, are that he has a chance of surviving the night.

These are the possibilities:

1. There's no cop. Too bad.
2. The cop claims his guilty result. Therefore the scum necessarily understand which setup it is, so they know whether or not to expect a doctor.
   • There is a doctor. The mafia may or, more probably, may not gamble and kill him.
   • There is no doctor. The cop dies.
3. The cop does not claim his guilty result, but aggressively makes arguments against the scum. The mafia will not know the setup, but might guess it.
   • The mafia decide that this guy is a threat, the doctor, if there's one, does not protect him and the cop dies.
   • The mafia decide that this guy is a threat, but there's a doctor who protects the cop. The mafia's kill fails.
   • The mafia does not take the risk, and another townie dies in the cop's place.
4. The cop does not claim his guilty result, makes some arguments against the scum, a more aggressive townie jumps on the wagon and takes the scum's attention away from the cop. The mafia cannot guess the setup.
   • The mafia still kills the cop out of luck.
   • The mafia kills another townie instead of the cop. Their kill, if there's a doctor, might fail (best case).

But if the cop argues for lynching scum without revealing his result and fails, he'll be killed that night because he's an obvious threat.

Not necessarily. If the cop can't make their 'suspicions' stick, they might not be considered a threat.

Not necessarily. If the cop can't make their 'suspicions' stick, they might not be considered a threat.

Seeing as the people who don't think cops should immediately come forward thinks that cops should come forward as a last resort to ensure a lynch, this is moot.

Popey, can you explain to me why you apparently don't find Post 27 suspicious? You haven't flagged up any suspicion at any rate. In particular, this statement by Maegereg:

They should try to make a case against the player, and if it fails I would say back off and try to acquire more information. It's somewhat situational, but if, for instance, a cop had gotten a guilty today, they probably shouldn't come forward under any circumstances.

That seems to go much further than I suggested (your latest Post 32 accurately states my opinion). Maegereg seems to be suggesting that a Cop with a guilty should actually back off and acquire more information, rather than revealing the guilty result as a last resort. I can't see any other at all plausible interpretation of Maegereg's words, although I'm open to one being pointed out to me. This approach of backing off is very much not something I would recommend, as it creates the risk of the guilty result being lost while the scum is allowed to live. That would be very damaging and cannot be allowed to happen - the Cop must ensure that the guilty player is lynched that very Day.

It also puts him clearly in substantial disagreement with you, although your latest post suggests you don't see this. You criticised me for "unhelpfully suggesting that a cop should keep guilty results quiet", so will you call him suspicious for making a rather stronger suggestion along those lines? One that could damage the town if followed, unlike mine.

You can go ahead and replace me, I don't have nearly as much time as I thought I would. Sorry

And Ashrzr tags in.

This approach of backing off is very much not something I would recommend, as it creates the risk of the guilty result being lost while the scum is allowed to live. That would be very damaging and cannot be allowed to happen - the Cop must ensure that the guilty player is lynched that very Day.

To the contrary, I don't think the result would be lost at all. Even if the cop dies it should be obvious in retrospect that they were trying to get someone killed.

For a cop's unannounced guilty result to not be lost after they die, that would require a cop's actions to be obvious enough that the town would be able to posthumously deduce that they had a guilty result on a specific player. It would be very difficult for a cop to be obvious enough for the town but not so obvious that they attract the attention of the scum. Since a guilty result in this game is more important than usual for the town, I'm going with the assumption that the cop will play aggressively if needed in order to get the guilty player lynched. If a guilty player survives the day, the cop should have made a noticeable effort to lynch that player, but failed. Therefore, I doubt the cop will be able escape the notice of the mafia in this game. In other games the cop can be more subtle, but the cop can't be subtle in this game since their role is more important.

Quoted from Julius:

Popey, can you explain to me why you apparently don't find Post 27 suspicious? You haven't flagged up any suspicion at any rate. In particular, this statement by Maegereg:

Sorry, this week involved the last deadline of my academic year before the start of exams. I've been a little preoccupied and haven't given full thought to this game. I've definitely been too reactionary and not in the slightest bet proactive. I'll try to analyse every article of significance following post 18 and put across every thought I've had about the game.

Quoted from Julius:

You criticised me for "unhelpfully suggesting that a cop should keep guilty results quiet", so will you call him suspicious for making a rather stronger suggestion along those lines? One that could damage the town if followed, unlike mine.

Yes, this is a fair point. I do find Maeg interesting and I will Vote: Maeg.

Quoted from Maeg post 21:

My thoughts: I tend to agree with Julius on the question of whether the cop should claim or not. Definitely not, if they can get away with it. Mozzy is correct that lurkers are going to be a massive problem here. We need to get people posting if we're going to catch them based on poor logic, which is pretty much the only tool we have here. If we tolerate lurkers, we have a problem.

This post is articulated very badly. "I tend to agree"? Well, do you agree or don't you agree? This is a very non-committal statement at a point where it does not benefit anyone to be non-committal. This is an overt attempt at appearing neutral, rather than an attempt to express an opinion. This caught my eye earlier, but I was prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt in the short term, as I do not feel it is wise to go bandying about every suspicion. However, it provides a direction in which I feel Maeg has continued: deflecting away from a matter of logical outcomes, toward a manner of guesses and opinion.

Quoted from Maeg post 27:

I would argue that a cop probably shouldn't reveal an initial guilty under almost any circumstances. As Julius says, they're probably dead once they claim. They should try to make a case against the player, and if it fails I would say back off and try to acquire more information. It's somewhat situational, but if, for instance, a cop had gotten a guilty today, they probably shouldn't come forward under any circumstances.

This is just bad play. Under any circumstances? No, I don't think that's an appropriate comment. There is no more information to be obtained from a guilty result. It is confirmation of scum. I definitely feel that Julius and I have covered the only two sensible courses of action for a cop with a guilty result: either immediately claim, or insistence upon a lynch without immediately claiming. Backing off is never acceptable when you know a player is scum. This is the golden rule of mafia, and if Maeg is town, he does the rest of us a disservice by posting that.

I hope it's easily inferred that I'm comfortable agreeing to disagree with Julius about which is the better choice, but I believe his suggestion to be sub-optimal, rather than anti-town. Maeg's post is definitely anti-town.

Moving onto post 31: Maeg mates a statement that is obviously moot point.

I think Maeg should be lynched. While his posts are not inherently scummy in and of themselves, they are bad for the town. At worst, we remove a player from the game who is providing poor contributions towards advancing the town cause.


Towards other posters:

I'm not sure what WRP is aiming to achieve with his colour chart. The outcomes need to be assessed based on how good or bad the outcome is for the town, and then how probable each outcome is. It's helpful to see the possibilities but several key points of discussion are left out:

In possibility II outcome 1, there is no need for the scum to try to kill the cop. They can merely keep the cop blocked for the rest of the game, neutralising him. This enters into a game of chicken with the doctor, who has to decide whether to continue protecting the cop or not.

In possibility III outcome II, there is again the presence of the mafia roleblocker to consider. We can expect another night to pass before this situation becomes important, at which point there would be (assuming VT lynched and nightkilled, then the goon lynched): Mafia roleblocker, 3 VTs, cop and doctor. There is a 2/5 chance of the doctor or cop being blocked at this point, which either prevents an investigation, or allows a certain kill. By this point, the cop may have additional innocent results which allow for a bloc of confirmed town to be formed. This will then allow for analysis, to see who has consistently tried to undermine the players now confirmed.

Nobody else has posted anything which has caught my eye.

Quoted from Popey:

I'm not sure what WRP is aiming to achieve with his colour chart. The outcomes need to be assessed based on how good or bad the outcome is for the town, and then how probable each outcome is.

The point of the chart is to show how pushing for a lynch is more helpful for the town than claiming out right. I'm directly coming back from the national math olympiads here and kinda tired of numbers atm, so I'm not gonna do calculations about how probable each is.

It's helpful to see the possibilities but several key points of discussion are left out:

In possibility II outcome 1, there is no need for the scum to try to kill the cop. They can merely keep the cop blocked for the rest of the game, neutralising him. This enters into a game of chicken with the doctor, who has to decide whether to continue protecting the cop or not.

This does not change the outcome. We can then consider the cop "dead", as if he was just a vanilla townie, and a VT will die in his place. This possibility is still yellow-colored.

In possibility III outcome II, there is again the presence of the mafia roleblocker to consider. We can expect another night to pass before this situation becomes important, at which point there would be (assuming VT lynched and nightkilled, then the goon lynched): Mafia roleblocker, 3 VTs, cop and doctor. There is a 2/5 chance of the doctor or cop being blocked at this point, which either prevents an investigation, or allows a certain kill. By this point, the cop may have additional innocent results which allow for a bloc of confirmed town to be formed. This will then allow for analysis, to see who has consistently tried to undermine the players now confirmed.

What's your point there exactly? You seem to be attacking that possibility as if it was wrong somehow. Yes, there might be a mafia roleblocker, or there might not be (lynched). The odds you mention go down to 2/10. I'd say that's kind of a good chance for the town, do you not agree? This possibility is still green-colored.

For a cop's unannounced guilty result to not be lost after they die, that would require a cop's actions to be obvious enough that the town would be able to posthumously deduce that they had a guilty result on a specific player. It would be very difficult for a cop to be obvious enough for the town but not so obvious that they attract the attention of the scum.

Difficult, yes, impossible, no. I think it's much easier than you're assuming to infer a cop result in hindsight. Furthermore, I think it's far less likely for a cop to be killed at night be a vengeful mafia than you do. The mafia have every incentive not to kill the person who just failed to get them killed on the off chance that they come up as a cop and because their death would look suspicious. In general, as mafia, I'm not worried about the people who tried to get me lynched and didn't succeed.

This post is articulated very badly. "I tend to agree"? Well, do you agree or don't you agree? This is a very non-committal statement at a point where it does not benefit anyone to be non-committal. This is an overt attempt at appearing neutral, rather than an attempt to express an opinion.

That's not me being noncommital, that's just how I write. If you've read many of my posts you'll know that I tend to pepper them with a lot of qualifiers like "probably" and "tend" and "seems." It's not because I'm always trying to appear noncommital, it's because qualifiers are the truth - seldom, if ever, do I feel like I know anything 100% in one of these games, and representing otherwise seems dishonest. Also, in the particular case you're quoting, I didn't completely agree with Julius. If that statement doesn't deserve a qualifier, I don't know what does.

Honestly, this seems like an irrelevant point. Whatever the language, I think I made my points fairly clear in that post - the meaning conveyed is not one of neutrality and hedging on the issue of whether cops should claim. Seems like Popey is searching awfully hard for anything he can possibly spin towards being "suspicious."

Moving onto post 31: Maeg mates a statement that is obviously moot point.

It's hardly unimportant - it's part of an argument as to why a cop could survive after trying to get someone lynched quietly, which forms the basis of my strategy. Dismissing that basis as irrelevant is hardly a productive way to address it.

This is just bad play. Under any circumstances? No, I don't think that's an appropriate comment. There is no more information to be obtained from a guilty result.

Whether or not you can get information from a guilty result is not the point at all. The point is whether we get more information from the cop. If the cop claims, they're out of the game - either dead, or perma-blocked.

Backing off is never acceptable when you know a player is scum. This is the golden rule of mafia, and if Maeg is town, he does the rest of us a disservice by posting that.

I've never heard this "golden rule" of mafia before. Would you care to defend it with logic, rather than simply appealing to its theoretical metallic composition?

More specifically, here's a case in which I believe your "golden rule" does us a disservice. Suppose the cop had a guilty today. They make an effort to get their target lynched, and it's not going to work without them claiming.

If they claim, they're out of the game. We get an investigation result on a single player, and the knowledge that the cop is probably good. That's a poor trade. If the cop survives for another day or two, they'll be able to narrow down who the second scum is to a much better degree of certainty and might even be able to get their initial guilty lynched quietly along the way. I think that's clearly a much better course of action.

Of course it's quite possible to disagree (as Leif does) with my basic assumptions: that a cop who pursues a guilty quietly and fails is not overwhelmingly likely to be killed, and that we'd be able to tell fairly easily who a cop was pursuing in retrospect, even if it was not obvious at the time. If you disagree with those assumptions, I respect your position. I think you're wrong, but I agree that my suggested strategy doesn't make sense without those conditions.

Popey is not doing that. He hasn't stated any disagreement with those assumptions. In trying to prove that I'm scum he's taken to dismissing my assumptions as "moot," harping upon irrelevant stylistic details, and countering my arguments not with logic, but with an appeal to a "golden rule" that I've never heard of before and which he hasn't defended with any sort of logic.

Final point:

I hope it's easily inferred that I'm comfortable agreeing to disagree with Julius about which is the better choice, but I believe his suggestion to be sub-optimal, rather than anti-town. Maeg's post is definitely anti-town.

I think it's strange that Popey should identify me as the anti-town position in this debate. Julius and I have drawn similar strategies from different assumptions. If we assume that a cop cannot survive after attempting and failing to pursue a quiet lynch, I agree with Julius' position. In contrast, Popey thinks cops should throw away any chance of future usefulness immediately, even if they could survive by being more circumspect. He hasn't disagreed with Julius that it's possible for a cop to do so, he just doesn't think they should for reasons that remain unexplained. If there's an anti-town position, that's it.

Thus, for his bad cop strategy, as well as his poor techniques of argumentation, I think Popey has earned my vote.

Vote: Popey

What do I know that you don't? What do we all know? What is knowledge, when we cannot get to understand the things around us, but just the phenomena, id est how things appear to us?

If we can prove that our minds lie in the crevice of logic as more than mere brain processes, we can validify metaphysics, thereby making certain claims about the noumenal world and achieving knowledge.

I think Maeg should be lynched. While his posts are not inherently scummy in and of themselves, they are bad for the town. At worst, we remove a player from the game who is providing poor contributions towards advancing the town cause.

Popey made a very strange statement here. Why would you want to lynch a player who isn't scummy, not to mention, commit to lynching a player who has not even claimed? For what it's worth, I disagree that Maeg's points are bad for the Town.

I disagree that scum probably randomized their kill. It's not unreasonable to assume they would want to get rid of better players earlier. To that end, it's interesting that I was killed over Julius, because he is certainly a better Town player than I am.

WRP's notes are very helpful and looking at them, I think he's got everything right with the possibilities. I am in the camp that believes a cop should not claim a result yet if there is one and they have one.

I think it might also be useful to outline a couple other important things we would know about roles if we find one role or some other out:

1. If there is a jailkeeper then there is neither a cop nor a doctor.

2. If there is a tracker then there is no regular cop, but a 50% chance that there is a doctor.

3. There is a 1/3 chance that mafia have a power role.

More notes for the future than anything, but I think they are good for future reference.

Quoted from Maeg:

Honestly, this seems like an irrelevant point. Whatever the language, I think I made my points fairly clear in that post - the meaning conveyed is not one of neutrality and hedging on the issue of whether cops should claim. Seems like Popey is searching awfully hard for anything he can possibly spin towards being "suspicious."

What an absurd thing to say. Your quote is selective: you are removing the context which follows it where I explain how I previously read and considered this point, which you admit means something other than is written. (I tend to agree =! I do not agree completely). In my context, I also explained that I earlier gave you the benefit of the doubt, but that I now wished to bring this up in the context of my later criticisms. It's precisely that I was looking through your posts for statements that struck me as suspicious. I don't see why that's a bad thing.

It's hardly unimportant - it's part of an argument as to why a cop could survive after trying to get someone lynched quietly, which forms the basis of my strategy. Dismissing that basis as irrelevant is hardly a productive way to address it.

That's totally untrue. The people who think cops should not immediately come forward think that cops should do anything to secure a lynch, including coming forward. It seems you may be an exception to this, because you imply that cops should let a guilty result go to one side if they are unable to secure an easy lynch.

This is an absurd notion. When you have a guilty result in this game, you know for certain that the person in question is scum. It is a certain lynch that will advance the game towards a town victory. It is information that will allow the town to deduce links in play between the one scum player and the other. "Backing off" implies that you want to cop to cease pursuing scum, to stop actively pursuing your win condition. The town do not want their cop to do this. By insinuating that the cop should do this, you are acting against the town's best interest.

Whether or not you can get information from a guilty result is not the point at all. The point is whether we get more information from the cop. If the cop claims, they're out of the game - either dead, or perma-blocked.

So? The cop will have given the town an excellent shot at winning the game. Mafia requires you to catch scum sometimes without flavour or night-actions. (See Julius' step 10 in his how-not-to-be-terrible guide). We cannot expect the cop to give us two guilty results and the game. That would require a lot of luck. Instead, by presenting the guilty (and innocent) result, we get halfway towards our win, and information to deduce the second half. Additionally, there is a 25% likelihood that the mafioso lynched will be a roleblocker. In this outcome, the definite existence of a doctor means that we are likely to have one or more additional investigation(s). So it's not exactly doom and gloom. Suggesting we follow the cop result is not a glowing example of good cop strategy.

Suppose the cop had a guilty today. They make an effort to get their target lynched, and it's not going to work without them claiming.

Why won't they be able to secure the lynch without claiming? And why are you asking me to defend a position I don't hold? I believe the cop should claim. This is an example of poor argumentation.

If they claim, they're out of the game. We get an investigation result on a single player, and the knowledge that the cop is probably good. That's a poor trade. If the cop survives for another day or two, they'll be able to narrow down who the second scum is to a much better degree of certainty and might even be able to get their initial guilty lynched quietly along the way. I think that's clearly a much better course of action.

Conversely, if they die due to a randomised kill, we lose information and have to hope that the town can deduce from the cop's posts that they have a guilty verdict. That's also a bad outcome for the town. I strongly disagree with your second basic assumption, I don't believe that day-one conversation is easy to boil down into a guilty result. You spend much of the final portion of your post trying to tie yourself to Julius' position, when Julius himself expressed how different the two are (post 33). You are attempting to suggest Julius and I are the incompatible positions when in fact they are not. It is clear to me that Julius wants what I want: for the cop to ensure the guilty verdict results in a lynch while they are alive. What he and I disagree on is how far the cop should go immediately to ensure that.

Remember that if the cop claims with the first post of the day, or after a long day of fruitless discussion, the result is still the same: the cop has claimed, the mafioso is lynched. In that respect, my position of immediate claiming is simply a more extreme extension of Julius'; skipping the attempt at subtlety and bringing out the big guns. I agree that it may be sub-optimal, but I do not believe that it will be easy to get the "quiet lynch" early on. And by the latter stages of the game, the possible innocent results make the cop claim of great benefit to the town.

Quoted from Ash:

Popey made a very strange statement here. Why would you want to lynch a player who isn't scummy, not to mention, commit to lynching a player who has not even claimed?

At the time, Maeg had not done anything I considered scummy, and day-one lynches are always for less-scummy play than later lynches. But now Maeg has suggested that a cop act against their own win condition, I feel much more comfortable towards my earlier posts. Obviously Maeg's claim could change that, but I suspect he will claim VT. If he claims something other than VT, it will give me at least a pause for thought.

I disagree that scum probably randomized their kill. It's not unreasonable to assume they would want to get rid of better players earlier. To that end, it's interesting that I was killed over Julius, because he is certainly a better Town player than I am.

I suspect you were killed over Julius because he is the biggest target for a doctor on the first night. When it is established which setup we have, I imagine he will die if he is town.

The auric metal rule of mafia: If you know for a fact that a player is scum, you must secure a lynch on that person. You're advancing towards your win condition, and that lynch is the only lynch you should allow that day. I and Julius agree on this, as you can see with his concession that a claim is permissible to secure the lynch. But Maeg does not agree. My vote stays.

I suspect you were killed over Julius because he is the biggest target for a doctor on the first night. When it is established which setup we have, I imagine he will die if he is town.

True, I didn't even think of that.

The current arguments are useful, but we need more people to chime in with their opinions. Leif, WRP, Mozzy and Pulse have yet to comment on whether they think Popey and/or Maegereg (and/or anyone else) is suspicious. What we will want on future Days is to see where people stood on the important questions, so that we can identify scum-motivated behaviour with the benefit of hindsight. That won't work if people abstain from pointing fingers.

For my part, as I said earlier, I think Maegereg's proposed approach for Cops carries the greatest risk of damaging the town. His defence of his approach in Post 41 is quite persuasively worded, but I think that's because it doesn't account for the possibilities correctly. I have two main points:

1. Maegereg says that "if the cop survives for another day or two" "that's clearly a much better course of action". The problem with this is that even if we accept Maegereg's assumption that the quiet Cop is not overwhelmingly likely to be killed there's still a fair chance the Cop won't live for even one more Day. That's because the game is small and even if we assume the scum shoot randomly they could well hit the unclaimed Cop. You can't ignore this scenario and just do the comparison using the best case scenario for the approach you advocate. Of course your proposal looks better if everything goes just right.

2. Suppose that the Cop does back off instead of ensuring the lynch. That means we lynch someone else instead, with only one other scum out there to hit. Give me the known scum ahead of the probable mislynch, any day - especially Day 1, when the town has the most players to choose from and the least posts to examine. This consideration does not appear in Maegereg's analysis at all.

Maegereg could just be genuinely wrong, but it's also possible he was trying to sell the town some dud advice. I'll not switch my vote to him yet, because I want to hear from Leif, WRP, Mozzy and Pulse before we go any further.

Unvote

I read over the debate more thoroughly.

I think Julius's position on the Cop claim ordeal is the most reasonable, as is any compromise - that a cop should at least try to get a player lynched before claiming outright, and the rest is up to the circumstances. What Popey and Maeg have said can potentially lead to bad outcomes in their rigid assessments: Maeg said that the cop should not reveal an initial guilty, and Popey said that the cop should always reveal an initial guilty.

I suppose I'm obligated to choose a side, in which case I think that what Popey has offered is more scummy. Maeg believes the cop should lay low, and Popey thinks the cop should always come out. Whether or not we agree, Maeg's beliefs are certainly in the best interest of the cop. I'm also bearing in mind that the discussion here is about initial guilty, and that it says nothing about how the cop will behave later on. Therefore, strictly speaking, Maeg's case is more inconsequential than Popey's, which almost certainly renders the Cop useless. Either there is a doctor and a mafia roleblocker or there is no doctor and no mafia roleblocker, and in either case the mafia would know for sure how to incapacitate a claimed cop.

Bear in mind I'm not agreeing with Maeg's strategy, or as Maeg would say, "I tend to disagree", but I can't see how issuing a cop to stay hidden is scummy.

Either there is a doctor and a mafia roleblocker or there is no doctor and no mafia roleblocker, and in either case the mafia would know for sure how to incapacitate a claimed cop.

This actually isn't true. My bad.

Well, Ash did make a good post there, but fairly, in a game like this, I'd lean towards Popey's position rather than Maeg's. As Leif said, a 1v1 trade is a favourable one for the town in most cases, this game being one of them. As such, Maeg's suggestion harms the town. Julius's suggestion of a randomized kill hitting the cop is very true. Ash's jumping to the conclusion that this suggestion is "in the best interest of the cop" is quite scummy, in that it is actually false: a cop may want to sacrifice his life for the interest of the town. What Ash is taking out of Maeg's suggestion would only be in a survivor cop's interest.

This is not a big, closed setup game. In one like that, Popey's suggestion would actually be scummy. However, in this game, the cop cannot let a guilty slide. It is confirmed that there are no millers or survivors, or ghosts. Thus the cop knows that the player he got a guilty on is actually scum, and it is his duty to have him lynched by the day. Lynching a scum one day or another, in a small game like this, may really be game-changing. I recognise that I've been against Popey in my latest posts, but if I'm forced to choose a side, I'd rather have Popey's case than Maeg's. I hope I do not have to make a coloured table for Maeg's case as well, it would be redundant.

I think it's important to keep in mind that the cop discussion could be a red herring used by mafia to try and get a cop to, possibly inadvertently, reveal themselves early. They could in essence, be ready to "play around" a potential 1-for-1 loss if the mafia has a power role. In any event, isn't there only a 1/3 chance that we have a cop anyway?

To Julius's post, I already have voiced previously in the thread that I don't find anybody particularly scummy at this point and I think that a cop with a guilty should keep it under wraps for the time being, with the caveat being that if we start heading towards a mislynch, a cop should come forth with a result.

One other thing I've realized: If we have a tracker, then it's a role that should be completely silent in this setup unless they track a sure kill. Any other track would reveal a doctor. So, tracker know that if they track somebody and there is not a kill on the person they tracked to, they have certainly found the doctor.

Hypothetically, if a tracker tracked a kill, do you think the tracker should remain silent about that or immediately present their information? Very similar to the normal cop situation.