Discussion: 3 of the same claim doesn't make them more suspicious

I don’t think that’s how logic works but if you disagree please explain why. And I’m not talking about 3 of the same claim when the claim is already suspicious in and of itself.

it’s not and it shouldn’t be

people using that as an argument is an example of gambler’s fallacy



just beacause 2 chronos spawned in a game does not mean a 3rd is any more or less likely to spawn

however some people fail to grasp incredibly basic logic so :man_shrugging:

1 Like

Didn’t at some point xBlade announce that he intentionally made 2+ rolls rare to nearly impossible?

There may be artificially tweaked odds, but it happens often enough that 3 claims is not by itself worthy of a lynch.

There are also other factors in play – one Paladin/Sheriff and one healer is guaranteed, so if you only have a single claim they’re nearly confirmed, whereas if you have three none of them are confirmed.

For what it’s worth, I usually see this specifically with suspicious claims – “third Sheriff” is more suspicious than “third Observer,” “third Knight” is more suspicious than “third Drunk,” et cetera.

1 Like

also people are more likely to listen to ‘third Sheriff exe’ than ‘10 and 12 are both obviously Unseen, they ought to be suspicious of each other under the circumstance but they’re soft-defending each other and voting together, based on the Merc’s N1 logs 10 is MM and 12 is converted’

1 Like

Let’s see it logical:
Yes, 3 of the same claim are not impossible, but unlikely.
Therefore they are more suspicious in general.

You just lynch the most suspicious of them, aka the person with the worst logs etc.
There is always more reason for a lynch than “3 claims”.

Wallpost bad. Why dont you just say
10 and 12 defend each other now, 10 converted 12

Isn’t that exactly what @Marshal was talking about?

1 Like

i think it’s usually “there’s 3 chronomancers” more than “there’s 3 of X class”

if there’s 3 drunk claims in an unseen game people won’t usually push it because that’s not a common fakeclaim

but if there’s 3 of a common fakeclaim? the odds of one being fake is certainly notable

with that said, pushing someone just because they’re the third of X claim is weak


If there are 3 Observers, 3 Butlers, and 3 Drunks then:

  1. I feel bad for the scumteam.
  2. People will most likely believe them because their claim can be backed up

nah pushing someone because there are 2 other people claiming it is weak AF

you can find another reason if u so desire

but otherwise it’s gambler’s fallacy

1 Like

It’s not just because of there being 3 claimed ones.

I did have a time where there were 4 claimed Observers, and all of them looked like they had legit logs.

1 Like

now maybe if it’s 3 people claiming an invest and there are no other non-confirmed invest claims it’s different

same with killer claims

or etc.

like 3 maid claims likely contains a wolf, but the fact that there are two other maid claims does not change the wolf likelyhood of the third maid

1 Like

Why can’t 3 maid claims all be legit? Why are all 3 of them being maids, disregarding all other factors except claim, be suspicious?

like oftentimes a good idea is manifested in a “3 maids exe one of them” way

Like “these few people are likely candidates for MM based off of claim” is oftemtimes communicated as “3 sherrifs exe”

and while the logic is good the communication is fallacious


No? I dont think so? I see “exe for third claim” as legit, as long as you exe the most sus of the three

1 Like

why does 2 other people claiming maid(or anything for that matter) make a 3rd one more suspicious?