Long post (sorry).
yogsloth: I don't know GameRager or Carradice, but I'm feeling pretty comfortable with both of them... always great to see newer people (at least new to me) active and engaged!
Glad to hear that! it is being a great game.
@Lifthrasil: Had been waiting to see your comments on the situation, since you were leading the list. Two comments, though:
1st: Two (apparent) worrying phalacies detected, maybe because of rushed writing.
"their 'joke' can only be true, if they are scum." This is equal to saying: they are scum if they are scum. This is a tautology, meaning, it is repeating the premise without adding anything new.
"if they did lie about anything (name or anything else), they are liars" and therefore the logical jump to the inmediate, application of the tenet Occedere Omnes Mendaces (Lynch All Liars), without any consideration about the fact that, like all rules, it might require a degree of interpretation. In this case, no account of yogsloth being all in for the application of the tenet, and without any regard for the circumstances of the saying (at the beginning of the game, when some joking and poking are to be expected). This strikes as very rigid, at least.
2nd: Even if the implementation of LAL might be beneficial, according to theory, and the threat of LAL might keep everyone in place, theory says also that Gryffindor might want to seek Slytherin out, not punish whatever might be considered undesirable tactics (whatever that means), since doing so might lead to worse results in practice (although that might be arguable, too). This might be the strongest notion against a heavy-handed approach.
@ SirPrimalform:
Agreed that no direct table on how the motivations might be applied to the cases you listed was given. However, the connections, risks and possible rewards were implied in the descriptions. However, here goes a table that includes everything explicitly, for your enjoyment!
## Motivation list ##
1) Joking for breaking the ice and setting the gears into motion.
2) Creating opportunities, by triggering reactions and waiting to see if others trip themselves (a somewhat risky move for a Gryffindor, and even more for a Slytherin).
3) Protection against Gryffindor: A little inverse psychology might favour considering them as non-Slytherin. A bold but potentially beneficial move for a Slytherin. Useful also for any neutral or even Gryffindor that does not want to be voted for (but risky nonetheless).
4) Protection against Slytherin: Since lying is considered by some a sub-par strategy, and a liability to Gryffindor et alter, maybe another motive would be hoping to increase survivability against the special casting phase? (the 'night', in Mugglespeak). Most interesting for a third party.
## Table: Alignment and Motivations ##
(Hopefully it can be readable, even if the format appears broken)
Alignment Motivation Risk* Reward* Risk/Reward*
(S acc - high - - )
S delib 2,3 high medium-high 2/3, 1
(G joke 1 low - - )
G delib 2,3,4 low low-medium 1, 2
N delib 3,4 high high 1
## Key ##
S: Slytherin
G: Gryffindor
N: Neutral
*: very arguable estimations by an unexperienced player.
You can enter your own values.
(): particular cases that are included only to fit with SPF's table. These cases are suppossed to NOT be part of a strategy, therefore no risk/benefit ratio applies.
Numeric values for obtaining a ratio (that is to be evaluated qualitatively, though): low = 1; medium = 2; high= 3
Risk/Reward ratio: the higher, the better; everything equal or higher than 1 means an acceptable risk, in principle.
acc: accident
delib: deliberate
joke: joke
## Discussion ##
Each one is free to draw conclusions. The values for the Reward field are provided as a range, with the final value depending on the skill of the player and circumstance (such as the experience, play style and skill of other players, and chance).
The Reward field contains a combination of the rewards seeked by each motivation. Note that the reward for each motivation may be dependent on the alignment, as well. For example: a Slytherin gets more from "3) protection against Gryffindor" than a Gryffindor, since the latter may be exonerated by a night action (by a 'Cop') and may not be falsified when claiming a name, while the former may be both detected by a night action or discovered.
The value for the Risk/Reward ratio is to be evaluated qualitatively: acceptable (equal to 1), very acceptable (higher than 1, the higher, the better), and unacceptable (lower than 1, the lower, the worse).
As a prospect for the opening, the Risk/Reward ratio offers acceptable values for (in descending order): Gryffindor, Neutral, Slytherin.
Motivations 1 and 2 seem to weight more in a Slytherin claim made at the very beginning of the game.
## Conclusions ##
In absence of more data, and
with the values assigned to Risk and Reward, it might be plausible to consider the player as Gryffindor. More data might make all the difference for assessing the possible alignment of the player.
In terms of strategy for the Gryffindor team, an approach that wants to minimize friendly fire casualties will acquit the player, in absence of more data.
On the other hand, a more agressive approach, might want to
Votus the player, especially in the absence of better candidates.
