@OS: What do you think about the red claiming?
Logical fallacy.
Appeal to Fear. Inactives mean scum has a better chance at winning, so we should kill the people that are inactive as quickly as possible or, in this case, make them claim so we have enough information to lynch or clear them.
appeal to fear said:
This is irrelevant. Having the inactives claim would result in 24% of our roster making their roles available to the public or lying and potentially harming their town play in the future (such as a tracker tracking a visit from the cop who claimed VT). Mafia and Town alike both have similar reasons for wanting to lie when they are supposed to claim, thus allowing anyone to claim "VT" and then later change their claim with no harm done. Claiming normally results in people claiming their actual abilities to save them from a lynch. Claiming prematurely merely results in the entire list of claimants being forced into a poor position from which they can't recover. Mafia kills them if they are valuable, or they are valuable and lie to town and then we can't use that information. Making inactives claim give us no better chance of winning; it would only be at their lynch after we could cross reference their play with their claim or force them to survive a Night and prove themselves that claiming would be acceptable in this circumstance.
Appeal to Belief. Everyone believes those people to be inactive, therefore they must be inactive.
They have shown no evidence of being inactive, and each game is completely different than the last. You have accused them of a crime they couldn't possibly commit as D1 hasn't even started yet.
Appeal to Common Practice. Appeal to Tradition. Inactives traditionally aid in scum due to their non-presence in the game and, more importantly, on the lynch, so therefore it is right to lynch them on the basis of being inactive alone, despite being scummy. We do it all the time and even when we don't it's almost always suggested, so why not?
Just because some dink always suggests killing inactives as per policy doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. There's a reason inactives are sometimes killed; there's 4 people on your list. Unless you are willing to lynch those 4 people for days 1, 2, 3, and 4 and then hope that we're in a good position to finally play the game I don't think you're thinking long term.
Confusing Cause and Effect. Inactives prevent us from having information due to their non-presence, making them unlynchable in the traditional sense; claiming presents us with information we can parse to determine their alignment.
Claiming (cause) does not reach realization of their alignment (effect). Claiming with evidence, such as a proveable tracking ability, or claiming with a post history we can look at for evidence allows us to reach realization of their alignment. Big difference.
Guilt by Association. The "red" names are of varying inactivity levels in the past, but since they can all be categorized within the same "tier" of activity in relation to the others we should treat the most inactive and the least inactive the same way.
You can't honestly tell me that they're all just as inactive as one another or that you did any sort of calculation to put them there. You lumped them together. Plus, you put Ranmaru/July as green.
Middle Ground Fallacy. Leaving inactives alive is bad, and lynching inactives by default is bad. Therefore, the middle ground of having them claim is the best action.
Pretty obvious. You haven't proved this is a good idea even worth considering.
Questionable Cause. Inactives are often a source of frustration for town and have sometimes cost town the game as they are not targets of mafia Night Kills, therefore they help mafia.
Just because Inactives and a Mafia win are often correlated doesn't mean that Inactives are the source of the mafia win, nor that they are the best aspect of mafia's strategy.
Biased Sample Fallacy. From this collection of players, we've selected which we feel to be most inactive, and have described them as inactive. Therefore, they will be inactive and others will be active.
You picked out a group and listed them as inactive, yet other players that have had a history of inactivity are simply listed as "yellow", or in some cases "green". They are immune from the mass claim. You specifically picked people out that have a persona of being inactive rather than the act of being inactive. Because you did not studies or any thought past your own interpretation, this is a biased sample. This is evidenced by the list Marshy quoted showing Orbo as a red, and your new list as a yellow, despite him not having any games inbetween that time. Ditto to Dark Horse.
Appeal to Novelty. Having inactives claim early on is new and sexy. Therefore, it can't be discounted and is a logical request in comparison to "policy lynch all inactives".
You seem fine submitting this idea as if it takes a village to determine if it is authentic or not. It is clearly not, and takes very little thought to know why. Your suggestion of this as a legitimate strategy makes me wonder about how careful you are being.
While these playeres may be more likely to be inactive due to their history, current evidence does not suggest they are inactive as D1 has yet to begin. Because of this, any attempt at manipulating the flow of information would be done totally on hidden motives or due to a standard logical fallacy.
I cannot in good faith force a player into a vulnerable position and, by a biased sample, choose who the Day is focused on, in a blind game that at best is fueled by logical fallacies and inadequate planning.
If we're going to force a claim, I'd do it by random lottery and only with myself being the chooser to determine authenticity. As this is the only acceptable stance at this point for anyone that wants a random lottery, it is not a viable course of action.
In short, it's a bad idea.
