Conquer Club

DoomYoshi wrote:Vio, let's just say we are playing a game in which there is a confirmed innocent child. The mod comes out and says that player x is town and that if player x dies, town loses.

Then let's imagine that the watcher says "I don't want to report who I watched". Does that still make sense? It doesn't. Now my example may be extreme, but it's not too far from what actually happened.

Have you considered that he cares more for the safety of those who visited this confirmed towny rather than the towny himself? Obviously it won't matter to him, but exposing power roles is not a very solid strategy for town. We won't know which are town/mafia so have nothing to go on, but Mafia will know which ones they should kill.

VioIet wrote:jonty are scum.

My crime?

Perhaps DroZ is doing the same as chap in having his role as a 1 time thing? idk.. seems like a lot of 1 time roles in this game lol.

DoomYoshi wrote:Vio, let's just say we are playing a game in which there is a confirmed innocent child. The mod comes out and says that player x is town and that if player x dies, town loses.

Then let's imagine that the watcher says "I don't want to report who I watched". Does that still make sense? It doesn't. Now my example may be extreme, but it's not too far from what actually happened.

That's quite extreme, actually. Not only is that (in hindsight) untrue, but think about who could have targeted that player. Suppose I'm the watcher and player Y targets player X. Well, player X didn't die during the night, so why should I reveal player Y's action? Player Y could easily be a doc, and should I reveal that mafia wil kill him, then X, game over. And if no one targets X and I reveal that, now I've shown that the doc isn't protecting X. Now the doc is pulled away from anyone else and mafia has free reign over them.

Now that does play to a WIFOM scenario, but would you rather have the mafia guessing or eliminate their need?

FP: I doubt it. Sensor is waaaay more powerful than watcher, and that's likely to be a multiple use role, as it is so typically.

I'm in favor of lynching aage but I kind of want to wait a bit. at this point I think Dr. oz should claim. not because I think he should have to begin with but because I don't think this Will be resolved until he does.

Claim what happened night 3*

pancakemix wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:Vio, let's just say we are playing a game in which there is a confirmed innocent child. The mod comes out and says that player x is town and that if player x dies, town loses.

Then let's imagine that the watcher says "I don't want to report who I watched". Does that still make sense? It doesn't. Now my example may be extreme, but it's not too far from what actually happened.

That's quite extreme, actually. Not only is that (in hindsight) untrue, but think about who could have targeted that player. Suppose I'm the watcher and player Y targets player X. Well, player X didn't die during the night, so why should I reveal player Y's action? Player Y could easily be a doc, and should I reveal that mafia wil kill him, then X, game over. And if no one targets X and I reveal that, now I've shown that the doc isn't protecting X. Now the doc is pulled away from anyone else and mafia has free reign over them.

Now that does play to a WIFOM scenario, but would you rather have the mafia guessing or eliminate their need?

FP: I doubt it. Sensor is waaaay more powerful than watcher, and that's likely to be a multiple use role, as it is so typically.

I am not saying he should necessarily report player Y. I am saying he should report that he watched player x because he obviously did. If he didn't watch player x, he is anti-town.

DoomYoshi wrote:

pancakemix wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:Vio, let's just say we are playing a game in which there is a confirmed innocent child. The mod comes out and says that player x is town and that if player x dies, town loses.

Then let's imagine that the watcher says "I don't want to report who I watched". Does that still make sense? It doesn't. Now my example may be extreme, but it's not too far from what actually happened.

That's quite extreme, actually. Not only is that (in hindsight) untrue, but think about who could have targeted that player. Suppose I'm the watcher and player Y targets player X. Well, player X didn't die during the night, so why should I reveal player Y's action? Player Y could easily be a doc, and should I reveal that mafia wil kill him, then X, game over. And if no one targets X and I reveal that, now I've shown that the doc isn't protecting X. Now the doc is pulled away from anyone else and mafia has free reign over them.

Now that does play to a WIFOM scenario, but would you rather have the mafia guessing or eliminate their need?

FP: I doubt it. Sensor is waaaay more powerful than watcher, and that's likely to be a multiple use role, as it is so typically.

I am not saying he should necessarily report player Y. I am saying he should report that he watched player x because he obviously did. If he didn't watch player x, he is anti-town.

What would be the gain of your clever riddle? That Droz has to guess your player X correctly? That has nothing to do with his alignment. If he isn't a watcher, he will claim that regardless, and we will still know nothing.
I really don't follow your play at the moment. Why are you asking these irrelevant questions?

I'm going to assume for a moment that Yoshi actually does have a reason for pressuring droz to claim his target. I'm going to (safely I believe) assume Yoshi expected droz to target chapcrap. I'm also going to assume that Yoshi is town. The only way I can see droz claiming a target as being useful is if Yoshi had an ability, and targeted chap with it. He needs droz to claim his targets before asking if someone targeted chap. I know he's got a 50/50 shot of guessing the right answer, but if he disagrees with Yoshi, that would out him as a scum.

However, if this is the case, it won't work now that I've posted this.

That's not it. The point is that earlier drop refused to inform the game of who he targetted, when the only choice for who he targeted was chap. He has fallen back on cliches about why he shouldnt reveal his target.

Let me put this another way:

If the mod comes out and says "droz targeted chap last night" but droz refuses to tell us who he targeted, what is the reasoning for that. My point is that if there is an obvious target (player x, chap, however you understand it), what reason is there for keeping who you targetted a secret?

In most cases there is a reason. This isn't most cases.

Well Yoshi in that case...

DRoZ wrote:Is there a reason you just post a vote with no long drawn out tirade... Certainly not like you. As for myself, I watched chap again with the same roleblock and no vote as yesterday. Vote nosurvivors for verification.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0#p4010074

Now what?

edocsil wrote:Chapcrap has told me he no longer has the time to play, his role isn't worth replacing, and I have no one handy to replace with in any event.

Chapcrap ~ Francis of Assisi Saint ~ One-Shot Sensor has been modkilled

There are 17 alive, 9 to lynch.

Just to make sure, is this an official vote count?
Yoshi, DroZ and I voted before you posted this.

I'm talking about day 3, when he said "I'm not going to telltale my target because I don't want mafia to know who it was". This is a bullshit bromide and totally not applicable to the situation. Claiming later on won't help his case. After reading through Rodion's suggestion again though, I can trust the plan for a night.

Vote Aage

Just remember to wait for Saf before we rush anything.

Deadline is on the 17th.

DoomYoshi wrote:That's not it. The point is that earlier drop refused to inform the game of who he targetted, when the only choice for who he targeted was chap. He has fallen back on cliches about why he shouldnt reveal his target.

Let me put this another way:

If the mod comes out and says "droz targeted chap last night" but droz refuses to tell us who he targeted, what is the reasoning for that. My point is that if there is an obvious target (player x, chap, however you understand it), what reason is there for keeping who you targetted a secret?

In most cases there is a reason. This isn't most cases.

If you already know, what does it matter? Maybe he wants them to think he watched chap but was actually able to get a watch in elsewhere. Saying that claiming now won't help is case is now just saying we should just lynch him regardless. This sounds fishy, as des saying we should follow Rodions plan for a night. It just sounds like you're trying to earn points.

Rodion wrote:Just remember to wait for Saf before we rush anything.

Deadline is on the 17th.

Hmm, plenty of time, and I'm sure saf will stick his head in. He's normally very active.

i would also suggest waiting to hear from saf,

pancakemix wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:That's not it. The point is that earlier drop refused to inform the game of who he targetted, when the only choice for who he targeted was chap. He has fallen back on cliches about why he shouldnt reveal his target.

Let me put this another way:

If the mod comes out and says "droz targeted chap last night" but droz refuses to tell us who he targeted, what is the reasoning for that. My point is that if there is an obvious target (player x, chap, however you understand it), what reason is there for keeping who you targetted a secret?

In most cases there is a reason. This isn't most cases.

If you already know, what does it matter? Maybe he wants them to think he watched chap but was actually able to get a watch in elsewhere. Saying that claiming now won't help is case is now just saying we should just lynch him regardless. This sounds fishy, as des saying we should follow Rodions plan for a night. It just sounds like you're trying to earn points.

I am cop-confirmed town, I don't need to earn points.

Anyways, does anyone have any thoughts on why mafia would waste a roleblock on a watcher? Making a scummy player voteless doesn't seem all that useful, tbh.

DoomYoshi wrote:does anyone have any thoughts on why mafia would waste a roleblock on a watcher

Weren't you the one saying town watcher was OP?

Good for you that you're asking questions but you're asking the wrong ones.

But if you know the target of the watcher, it is easy to work around.

DoomYoshi wrote:But if you know the target of the watcher, it is easy to work around.

And yet you are the one consistantly trying to telegraph my watch...

DoomYoshi wrote:I am cop-confirmed town, I don't need to earn points.

Is it not possible for you to be the godfather, or to have been bus driven... Your alignment isn't completely indisputable.

DoomYoshi wrote:Vio, let's just say we are playing a game in which there is a confirmed innocent child. The mod comes out and says that player x is town and that if player x dies, town loses.

Then let's imagine that the watcher says "I don't want to report who I watched". Does that still make sense? It doesn't. Now my example may be extreme, but it's not too far from what actually happened.

It makes perfect sense, and I think it's exactly what happened. But I understand Dro'z viewpoint on it.

In fact, I think I know exactly who Droz watched, and exactly which person visited the person that Droz watched. And I think that person would be very happy that Droz didn't say anything about it. Just a hunch I have.

Think about what type of people would be visiting this "innocent child."

Scenario 1
Could be the mafia, trying to kill them. But since the "innocent child" didn't die, this isn't likely (course that mafia member could've been roleblocked). Droz might consider this and be possibly suspicious of this person. But no need to let this mafia member know that he/she has aroused suspicion. Best for Droz to keep this quiet until more information is known.

Scenario 2
Could be a positive town role that visited the "innocent child." In this case, why draw attention to this for the mafia to note. I understand Droz keeping silent in this scenario as well.

DoomYoshi wrote: My point is that if there is an obvious target (player x, chap, however you understand it), what reason is there for keeping who you targetted a secret?

In most cases there is a reason. This isn't most cases.

Let's say that Droz watched Person X.
Person Y visited Person X.
Droz does not want Person Y to know that he saw him/her.


And Jonty, it was just by a process of elimination. Out of the list of 6, I took out the three who seemed to be most town-like, or had claimed. That just left you, aage and soundman.

VioIet wrote: And Jonty, it was just by a process of elimination. Out of the list of 6, I took out the three who seemed to be most town-like, or had claimed. That just left you, aage and soundman.

So, nothing I can respond to.

Normally as an outed watcher I would say everything I know; but I assume DroZ is doing what he thinks is best, so I'll let him be.

aage wagon, now? Saf is probably silenced.