You know who I haven't heard a lot from? PopPa. You, too, opposed the mass claim. Got anything more to add to it as opposed to just hanging back in the shadows?

@15377:
I think we just had 2 seperate discussions and just went with assuming we knew what the other was going on about.
The thing that irked me was that you claimed I was opposing 'any claim ever'. Which is false. I was only opposing the mass claim on an early day.

Also, for the 2nd paragraph, you claim I use something that has a small chance of being true, but then you use a 3-people LyLo with no claims and a living cop variant. Surely you realize that by using that example you're doing the same thing as me, right?

As for your intention, no, I get it. But the problem with it is that scum can just go hide behind the people that opposed it first. I think I posted that earlier too...or perhaps I typed it up and removed it before heading to work 3 days ago, I honestly can't remeber.

Given that I expressed what I felt you said and gave you two opportunities to rephrase for clarity (which you still haven't bothered doing), I don't really see how you think I just went with any assumption on my part.
As I said before, I took your argument and applied it to the context of a later game mass claim. The numbers which you described as a deal breaker were worse in such a later game scenario. I then asked, given that information, if you were opposing those claims too. Because not doing so shows you're selectively applying your arguments.

I never said it was a 3 person LyLo, only that it was LyLo and expressed that a cop claiming at such time does the town no good. Keep in mind this is a 9 player game. The cop has three days in which he can claim. Day 1, Day 2, or Day 3 - which would be LyLo assuming 2 scum and no scum lynches. This conventional snail pace that you're trying to impose on this game is only going to benefit the mafia. But perhaps that's your aim, all things considered.

Ye, I'll comment later today/tomorrow.


Heading out to pptq.

I think everyone who thinks claiming their role would be beneficial day one should do so. A mass claim this early only puts needless pressure on players with strong abilities (if two or more players have powerful abilities, they can probably mindgame and hit one of them) and gives the mafia an easier means of finding the doctor (they know the roles of their players so they are more likely to be able to use process of elimination to determine who is lying about their ability in town and then just kill them). All it serves to do is increase the risk on the doctor and the 2nd-xth most powerful known power roles. I don't see what holding people accountable to what they say will do, because most of the scum will probably just claim vanilla or an easy to fake power role or even their actual power role.

Ì'm actually kinda done with this argument, but here, let me put all quotes in order:


*Note that I am warning for other players to keep stuff in mind before they take things at face value in mass claims. It has no bearing at all for my personal stance, which I already laid out in the first post.
Here you construe my post to imply I am against every claim ever.
But seeing how we were discussing the phenomenon 'mass claim' it is complete nonsense to take my stance on mass claiming and apply it on every claim ever or at least make it seem as if I was.
After all, not every claim ever will give all (false) role information, which a mass does and which was my point to stand against it in the first place.
And I even confirmed earlier that I am trusting your claim, even though we are not mass claiming. See where I'm going with this?

I'm back from vacation. While my gut reaction was against the mass claim, the more I think about it, in a non-standard game, it really could help.
While I've not been that active. I'm also going to throw my vote on the least active player.

Vote: Garren


Doing a quick re-read, you've contributed the least.

Scarlet, this might just be me, but I don't think you are getting what Numbers is getting at. You're completely missing addressing what I believe is the crux of his argument against your stance for being against mass claiming.

The focus is on the "deal-breaker" for you. For reference, in case you have forgotten, this is in regards to how many people will be lying when a mass claim happens. Numbers extended your statement about the deal-breaker to any day past D1. Except for situations where scum die on D1, the percentage of liars will only increase in later days until you reach LyLo. So, based on your deal-breaker statement, it can only be concluded that you are always against "mass claiming" since the percentage of liars will increase. This obviously can't be true because even you know how beneficial it is, as we near the end of a game, to get more information even from claims from everyone during LyLo.

So what we have here is a paradox created by your statement and negligence to clarify what you said. I believe that is what Numbers is focused on.

It's day 1. What do you want me to say? I couldn't care less about the mass claim if I tried. There. Seven pages of thread articulately addressed.

KoD still gets me.

I'll let Scar address KoD's post for a change of pace. Maybe he'll see more reason if my words are not coming from me. To everybody poo poo'ing day 1, once again, this is a 9 person game. Worst case scenario, we should be assuming Day 3 is LyLo, so unless you have some secret master plan, fapping 1/3 of the game away is not beneficial to the town. Start doing stuff. I don't care if it is Day 1.

You're scaring me Numbers.

Anyway, there are the two voting Garen for essentially the same thing that PopPa is doing. The second vote, from Neo, interests me the most since it is for the same exact thing as the first person's vote.

Alright, trying to summarize it as clear as possible:

I am against mass claim because everything comes out almost simultaneously, which means, added with the lying part, that it is harder to verify everything. Of course, day does not matter (I know I said I had 'nothing' against later ones in an earlier post, but that's partly because at that time I tend to be the only one opposing, so there is no choice but to play along).
I said that too earlier. I am opposed to mass claims at any time, but early days even more because of the other point (lazy town). If a mass claim comes out later, the lazy town point is slightly less relevant because there will have been proper discussion earlier.

I am not against all claims because when they're spread out asking for details and looking for inconsistencies can be focused on 1-2 persons at a time.

Conclusion:
Statistically 8 people focusing on 1 claim is much better than 8-9 people focusing on 7-8 claims. So individual claims have my preference, if there has to be claimed at all.


But why?

I mean, I gave reasoning, numbers disagreed, and while I agree we may have been going on about it quite lengthy (probably my fault), it at least shows behavior.
Also, if you post proper reasoning, you will most likely not be declared 'actively lurking' which could get you lynched.

So, I've been not paying this game the due attention it deserves. Arguably a good thing because I haven't yet stuck my foot in my mouth. I'm sure that will change as the steam summer sale monster game draws to an abrupt end.

Anyway, reread by player. Not going to give the whole summary, but I find three people very mildly suspicious.

Neosilk
Garren
PopPa

Neosilk flip flopped on the mass claim and brought up irrelevant info from a prior game. Garren and PopPa have just been lurking. Feel free to throw me in the lurker camp, btw. While I wasn't actively paying attention to the game, I could've and should've made time for it, even if we were just going at it over stances on mass claims. Interesting side note on PopPa is that he appears to call lurking a playstyle and caution against judging players on their playstyles.

I am still prepared to do a mass claim, but I find that it's pointless to do unless almost everyone is doing it. Yes, some people may lie about being vanilla, but, aside from a doc or doc variant, I would expect most players to see more danger in having to reveal the lie down the road. I will say that I won't be choosing to individually claim at this moment.

Anyway, in the tossup of Neo, Garren, and PopPa, I'd honestly most like to vote the last because I dislike the whole "Lurking is my playstyle" bit. But, as he points out himself, lynching or not lynching on playstyle is stupid. And two lurkers don't really draw my suspicions like someone flip-flopping and doing little actual scumhunting.

Vote: Neo

I'm against mass claims as a whole mostly, though I have supported them in the past.

In the even that a mass claim is used to drive discussion, inidividual claims do so more effectively.

In the event of a mssclaim, mafia has an advantage from a theoretical standpoint. There are always going to be liars in a mass claim scenario(or at least, those who lie about their role in the event everyone is vanilla), and the number fluctuates and isn't easily determined. However, mafia knows what each other are, so they can utilize the claims more effectively than town.

I simply don't like using massclaims just to massclaim, and I see them more as a last resort type of situation, though by that point hopefully a cop would have enough town results to justify claiming on his own anyway.

While there is merit for mafia having to commit to a claim early, I don't see that as worth the informational advantage(though it's actualyl advantageous for certain roles to outright lie or omit parts of their role in a claim).

Obligatory response for you Scarlet:

On the issue of "harder to verify everything" that a mass claim seemingly presents, I have to disagree with this as a reason to be against a mass claim. The disagreement has several parts. First, in the absence of a mass claim you have nothing to verify which isn't helpful as opposed to having something -- no matter how much of something there is -- to verify. Essentially one phrase helps summarize this... Information. Second, while it may be harder to verify everything "immediately", a mass claim would lock people into what they say leaving little wiggle room as the game moves along. Finally, the earlier the claims, the better as it gives more time for verification. Note: I believe Numbers brought up the issue of verification to you before. Is verifying everything that comes from a mass claim hard? Not exactly. Just time consuming. Should the game move to a LyLo point and you're left with a situation where you are unable to verify one or several claims because of the time left in the game, then that just hurts town overall.

I'm not sure if Numbers ever addressed the lazy town part, but there is one thing I know for sure. By virtue of the fact that I am in this game along with Numbers, there will be anything but "lazy town" up until active players are killed off. Were several of us not in this game, I'd chalk that point up to you as proven. But I'm not lazy nor is Numbers. So a mass claim won't cause town to be lazy.

Also, we all know statistics are just a way of manipulating numbers. So if we're going to get technical, here is what I would like for the statistics: I'd like your samples that you got your numbers for that help prove your point about 8 people focusing on 1 claim is better than 8+ people focusing on 7+ claims. Otherwise, how am I to believe you when it is fully possible that having 8+ people focusing on 7+ claims is better? Better yet how do I know that having 7+ claims now gives town a much better chance of winning when they happen early? (I'm reminded of one of Numbers's early statements to you which was something along the lines of Town hasn't been winning so it is time to try something different -- mass claiming now is something different.)

Anyway, don't feel the need to argue, again, all the points that you keep reiterating. Numbers's overall goal was to unravel the arguments you and others against mass claiming put forth. In unraveling those arguments, he felt you would have no viable reason to continue opposing and so have to come over to the side of a mass claim. From my perspective, while I may understand what you are saying, I, in all honesty, believe your arguments have been wrecked time and time again by Numbers.


******************************

I'm going to change my pace and officially

Vote: PopPa

and

FoS: Niklor

Here is my reasoning, and it is entirely based on playstyle. First, PopPa seems to have a playstyle where he actively lurks and does his utmost to be either entirely vague with helpful posts or outright doesn't participate. The community here seems to have the opinion that PopPa does play with a style like this, especially when it comes to killing the most active people. In my own experience I have played with PopPa twice here. In the first game he killed me off right away and let inactivity take a hold of the town. In the second game, he was town and despite being town he actively did nothing to help avert his lynch on him based on policy all because it seemed, to me, that he cared nothing for helping the town (focusing more on maintaining his playstyle more than anything).

That brings me here to this game. He has a few posts which is not a big deal, but his posts are actually full of participation. Even when called out he participates rather than trying to be vague or nonresponsive or outright not helpful. I can't say he had a change of heart since his being policy lynched last game since I don't know what he is this game, but I'm going to go on the assumption that he's actually participating and avoiding being the not helpful player he was that last game for some unknown reason. And I believe that reason is that he is scum.

Connecting Niklor now. Yes, he says he has been lurky/inattentive to this game, but my focus is on something he said which may be nitpicking on my part, but I feel relevant.



Nevermind that the lurkers are not scumhunting. Niklor was a part of the policy lynch on PopPa. I find it hard to believe that the same arguments from the last game -- about voting someone based on their playstyle which came from the policy lynch -- had such an impact on Niklor this game. I shouldn't have to point out how terrible it is to let lurkers get away with doing very little of anything. At least Neo, who may be flip-flopping for legitimate reasons in his own mind, is actually participating and trying to scumhunt as opposed to others who are not hunting at all.

Okay I should probably expand a little on that. I just don't think mass claims help. Like at all. Everyone either lies to protect themselves (mafia, power roles etc), or tells the truth and paints a target on themselves. Regardless of what the players say nothing can be verified so the only use is to try and catch people in stupidly elaborate traps for lying when there are perfectly good reasons to lie during these things.

So yeah. They just don't help. Nothing is gained from them and they don't help us kill mafia so what is the point?

It's hard to idle in idling games.

I don't wish to policy lynch this game. Simple as that. Lurkers are not suspicious. They are unreadable. If I'm going by suspicions, I vote for the person who is suspicious. Finding a lurker suspicious for lurking isn't how I feel about lurkers. I fully understand they are bad for the game. However, if I policy lynch every game, I am far less likely to scumhunt. I'd rather go with my gut than try to make an example when there are not a ton of lurkers. I don't think the argument bore any additional impact, but rather I am willing to listen to it if I am not looking to policy lynch.

VOTES (5 to lynch)
(2) NeoSilk - 15377, Niklor
(2) Garren_Windspear - Rubik, NeoSilk
(1) Popular Pariah - KingofDominaria


DAY ENDS: 14.5 hours from this post

NOTE:
I do apologize for missing this morning. I always want to try and get a 24 hour remaining post, but I was busy earlier today. I'm gonna work on that in the future. However, continue on as normal.

I'll make my vague claim to hopefully get things moving. My role gets game information, not specific to the players.
For example, for now, I know that the puzzle is trying to figure out how to open the tunnel.
I know that I need to send Alt random numbers each night, which will (somehow?) determine the next piece of information I get.

Anyone got any favorite numbers?


@Nik - I'll respect your vote on me. The odds of having "strong" reasons to vote someone on D1 are slim, and, sometimes we have to take what we can get. I've also not contributed much, between my vacation and today being fathers day. I can say, assuming I survive, I expect I'll be more active starting tomorrow, but, as it's been said before, those are just words.

Right now, without strong feelings either way, I'll keep my vote where it is, or I'd be willing to switch to PP. I'm somewhat interested in seeing where Scar goes, since I can't ever remember him being close to this active on D1 before.

As always, I think starting off D1 with a lynch is always a good idea.