AWKWARD ZOMBIE

...I don't know how but I always fall for these tests in mafia games (though I guess I "passed" so who am I to complain). Anyway, I haven't had or currently have the time to go over everything in the thread, though I do support finding a good lynch for the day. I don't like the way the "no lynch for the first two days" plan lets mafia get free kills and often leads us astray on days 3 or 4 anyway; We might as well keep going with the route of conjecture and find someone to smartly lynch now and have a chance of getting mafia already, instead of letting them pick off important roles. I'll help figure stuff out when I have the chance, probably not until tomorrow. Just from what I've seen though, nobody really sticks out, especially since joking's nearly customary Day 1 and there doesn't seem to be anything outright suspicious.

Evidence is certainly nice and it leads to cleaner cut lynches (provided we can trust the source to be honest), but the tool that we mainly use in reach a conclusion is our gut. If we follow our gut on day 1, we're most likely going to be wrong and then wind up dead because of it. What's important about the first day is the testimony. Getting people to say something that, down the line, they can be called on and wind up backing themselves in a corner over.

Here's the two situations I propose to happen:

1. We lynch

If we lynch, we have a 10:3 chance of hitting robot. Even worse, it could wind up being an important power role. If we hit an innocent, the best option is to then lynch in the hopes of hitting a real target (no use no lynching on Day 2 if you already forced a bad lynch on Day 1). If the humans play their cards right, they will help along the lynch on day 1 without catching attention, so that when people look for someone to lynch on day 2, they'll be more likely to go after a bumbling robot than them. In this case, we could very easily lose 2 robots via lynch and 2 robots via night kills. This would bring us down to 6 robots in the town and undoubtedly, some of the dead would be our power roles. It's possible to hit a human on either day, but the odds are low, everyone is pretty much equally suspicious, and it's a bit of a crapshoot, especially for the one wanting to start the kill. You'd have to be prepared to lose the most crucial role if your judgement is wrong.

2. We wait

This option doesn't necessarily mean we don't lynch, but it means waiting out the time, getting people to talk so that their words, or lack of words, can possibly be used against them down the line when we need to root the humans out with no evidence. The longer we wait to vote, the more we can get people to talk, and the more likely they are to get caught for saying something.

The issue is that waiting tends to make people more lax about voting (quickly), and can make them unsure of what to vote either (especially if multiple lynching options open up). It's very likely that a no lynch will be reached on Day 1, but it's not necessarily guaranteed, especially if someone slips up and says something very fishy in order for them to become an easy target to get more information from.

What I want more than anything is information. If we get enough to make a lynch vote on the first day, alright. If we don't, I don't want this turning into the first option if we hit a robot by accident.

Bolded a couple of replies I had and underlined something I found good.

But what can be done about people who are inactive? Sometimes inactive players are mafia who don't want to say anything in case the sound suspicious, but sometimes they're just...people who are really bad at making a post in a thread once in a while.

It's only Kergan and Fuzznut that hasn't chimed in with their thoughts yet, if I haven't counted completely wrong. That said, we're not that far into the first day, so it's not unreasonable for them not to have posted because they haven't been by yet.

I mostly want to wait till I ahve information worth lynching people on.

Generally if you bandwagon on a bad lynch, they tend to target you next. -_-

Well yeah, I was referring more to people who will stay inactive as the game progresses. You hope that everyone will be active, but there always seem to be one or two people who fall off the face of the earth.

Speaking as someone with only a very slight presence so far, sometimes there just isn't much to add to the discussion. I came into the thread last night to post something but then it turned out that Kamak had posted everything I wanted to say and more. No sense with an empty 'I concur,' especially since if he wound up being mafia it'd reflect poorly on me. I'm sure there are a few other people in the same boat.

True, however, I would expect people to post at least once per two-three days. It's still rather early to start with this, but since the chatter died down I guess it could be worth starting to discuss this. Players who have power roles or are humanstend to invest more time with the game as they have more influence over it. You have a few outliers like Reyo who enjoy it no matter the role, but this is probably true for a majority. I would infer that the ones who don't post on the first day are probably (with a rather large boulder of salt) a regular robot. The thought process going something along the lines of "I don't need to check up on the game as often because I don't hold as much sway over it."

I propose we rule out the two inactives for the first night at least to narrow down the suspect field to 11. They can always pop back on the radar, but for the first day we could assume they are not suspicious.

Now, onto the most suspicious players from my point of view.
D-vid: The reason is that you have avoided commenting on any other peoples posts except for when directly challenged and then you turn the challenge back without at all voicing any thoughts on any other players. You are otherwise highly active with nothing of real substance to say. You are hiding behind the "wait for more information" card, but not trying to get more out on the table from others.
Kitsune Dzelda: Pretty much the same here. You say you don't want to bandwagon on a bad lynch as it would make you seem bad, but you don't have to bandwagon. You can reason out a post. Comment on suspicions or challenge assumptions, but for the most part we have seen jokes and posts that don't shove in any direction other than staying put.

It's not like others aren't suspicious, but these are the ones I think has stalled and tried to stay as "unoffensive" as possible. It's not impossible for them to have a power role and not wanting to risk it, but their posts seem to not want to step on any toes. To me it seems like a defensive strategy.

Youre asking me for reason. I dont do reason. I do chaos. XD

That alone is why I find your statements are hilarious like shooting rainclouds in a factory of dartboards.

Could we lynch Kitsune to get that sort of post of this thread?

I dont like your attitude son. Why cant I enjoy a little fun like the rest of you?

Dont like my post style? Deal with it. Sick'n bloody tired of getting picked on for this very reason.

Or... are you just looking for an excuse to murder me?

Well, how do I get information out of others?

Should I say, "Hey, Cori, do you enjoy wearing asbestos suits and gas masks in your free time? Hmmmm?"
I don't really know how. You can't really get information out of others apart from what they're willing to say anyway.

When you say this it is minorly suspicious. If you have a great teason to vote for someone, telling reasons will point them out. Even just adding reasons to other people's points is useful. Chaos leaves us with no information besides that you want someone lynched or whatever you're trying to say in a situation.