# International Mafia **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [December 1, 2010, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553 "2010-12-01T16:47:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Mrs\_McGinty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6bbea6/32.png) [@Mrs\_McGinty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mrs_McGinty)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/181 "2010-12-09T21:13:31Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > The part of the post I elided is a good summary of our differences in play philosophy. No, the part you left out was the argument against an immediate reveal. The reason you don’t address it, I assume, is because you don’t actually have any kind of counter-argument. I have to assume this because you have yet to give anything approaching a decent case to the contrary. > [@Pleonast](#): > > We’ll simply have to disagree on that. How many times have I heard scum say that? Not that townies are immune to this particular cop-out, of course. But it’s a first mark against you in my book. > [@Pleonast](#): > > But the paragraph I quoted here is anti-town. We can’t let the actions of those of us here to be stalled because we want input from the other venue. We need to make our decisions here and they need to make their decisions there. There’s too much time delay to wait for a global consensus. Again, you have yet to justify the notion that we desperately need to do a travel-reveal straight away, so how can it possibly be anti-town to wait and see if those who cannot yet speak have any useful points to make on the subject? ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/182 "2010-12-09T21:56:29Z")
Let’s revisit it then, if you wish. > [@Mrs\_McGinty](#): > > How so? As soon as anyone travels, we’ll know about it, and can demand reasons. > > What an immediate travel-reveal means for the scum is that they can’t save the decision whether or not to lie until a later date, with the trade-off that they know for certain which townies can and cannot travel. In other words, the reveal guarantees the scum a concrete benefit now, in exchange for cutting off a possible benefit in the future. > > Is that a good deal for the town? At this stage, it’s impossible to say. But the decision not to reveal can be reversed at any time, whereas the decision to reveal is permanent. Absent the expectation that it will help us catch scum today, I’m inclined to err on the side of caution. Yes, this is your argument against a mass travel claim. You think the risks are not worth the benefits. I do. As you say, at this stage it’s impossible to say who’s right. > [@Mrs\_McGinty](#): > > How many times have I heard scum say that? Not that townies are immune to this particular cop-out, of course. But it’s a first mark against you in my book. To paraphrase: “we disagree on how to play the game, therefore you’re suspicious of me”. That’s not a useful argument. > [@](#): > > Again, you have yet to justify the notion that we desperately need to do a travel-reveal straight away, so how can it possibly be anti-town to wait and see if those who cannot yet speak have any useful points to make on the subject? And what else do you want to wait on the other venue to speak about? Whether or not we decide to do a mass travel claim, we need to decide among the players here. > [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > What I don’t get is why anyone would want to do this, when best-case scenario it’s a neutral event for town (equally helpful to town and scum) and anything less than best-case is pro-scum. Yes, we should hope that the game is balanced, but we _don’t know if it is,_ and this seems like a marginal play **at this time**. At least, that’s my feeling on it. If it’s neutral and marginal, then there’s no reason not to do it. If the sole reason you don’t think it’s wise to do it is because the game may not be balanced, well let’s find out: **Dear moderator, is this game balanced?** ---
**Author:** ![sachertorte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sachertorte/32/3727_2.png) [@sachertorte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sachertorte)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/183 "2010-12-09T22:14:54Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > **Dear moderator, is this game balanced?** Perhaps. And perhaps not. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/184 "2010-12-09T22:33:44Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > Perhaps. And perhaps not. 😃 Perhaps I am the only moderator with enough hubris to claim my games are balanced. ---
**Author:** ![Mrs\_McGinty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6bbea6/32.png) [@Mrs\_McGinty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mrs_McGinty)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/185 "2010-12-09T23:11:31Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Yes, this is your argument against a mass travel claim. You think the risks are not worth the benefits. I do. As you say, at this stage it’s impossible to say who’s right. What is your actual argument, though? > [@Pleonast](#): > > And what else do you want to wait on the other venue to speak about? Eh? I’m saying it makes sense to wait in this particular case, because this is the first day, the decision to reveal is irreversible, and there’s no pressing reason to do it now. I’ve not said we should make it a policy to wait on other issues. ---
**Author:** ![NAF1138](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naf1138/32/3245_2.png) [@NAF1138](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NAF1138)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/186 "2010-12-09T23:16:17Z")
\*\*When you get a second, could we get a vote count? Please and thank you.\*\* ---
**Author:** ![sachertorte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sachertorte/32/3727_2.png) [@sachertorte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sachertorte)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/187 "2010-12-09T23:51:55Z")
> [@NAF1138](#): > > \*\*When you get a second, could we get a vote count? > > Please and thank you.\*\* Seriously? There haven’t been very many votes at all. I can count them on one paw. T0:00 post #80 Baffle(1) : Pleonast(128) ShadowFacts(1): NAF1138(131) Pleonast(0): [del]Astral Rejection(158 - 180)[/del] ---
**Author:** ![NAF1138](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naf1138/32/3245_2.png) [@NAF1138](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NAF1138)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/188 "2010-12-09T23:58:22Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > Seriously? There haven’t been very many votes at all. I can count them on one paw. > > T0:00 post #80 > Baffle(1) : Pleonast(128) > ShadowFacts(1): NAF1138(131) > Pleonast(0): [del]Astral Rejection(158 - 180)[/del] Yes seriously. It’s important to have an official record that everyone can see. Doubly so when we are 48 real life hours into the game and there haven’t been many votes at all. ---
**Author:** ![NAF1138](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naf1138/32/3245_2.png) [@NAF1138](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NAF1138)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/189 "2010-12-09T23:59:22Z")
Oh, and, thanks again. 🙂 Forgot my manners there for a second. ---
**Author:** ![Astral\_Rejection](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@Astral\_Rejection](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Astral_Rejection)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2010, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/190 "2010-12-10T00:17:31Z")
I like the format of the official vote count. Thanks Sach! ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2010, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/191 "2010-12-10T01:47:18Z")
For the record, **Astral** , and not that it means much of anything, every time that I’m aware of that **Pleonast** has claimed something out the gate (whether magic bag or outright roleclaim), he’s been Town. ---
**Author:** ![MentalGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/439d5e/32.png) [@MentalGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MentalGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2010, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/192 "2010-12-10T03:09:32Z")
> [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > My only question to you is, what pro-town benefit do you see for voting for someone who hasn’t had a chance to play yet, who can’t talk to defend themselves, that we can’t imprison until they come over here, which won’t take effect if they’re incapable of coming over here, and removes town’s one proven, unstoppable way of earning information? I don’t think there is any protown benefit. But I also don’t think that Town players always play in a protown manner. I consider Wolverine’s suggestion a colossally bad idea. Scum players don’t tend to suggest colossally bad ideas because they tend to think about how things are going to be perceived more. Colossally bad ideas are an easy thing for scum to jump on, though. Now that I think about it, I guess this is sort of an extension of Drain Bead’s “players who point out PIS’s are scum” theory, though I don’t really have solid evidence to cite in support of my reasoning like she does hers. > [@Rin\_Twisted](#): > > I think this is classic WIFOM. Are you basically saying that Wolverine’s suggestion was soooo scummy that there’s no way he could be scum? When I read the post in question, it pinged my radar as off, and a comment worth exploring. I don’t want to dismiss it because there’s just no _way_ a scum player would say something so scummy. I think “no way” is a bit strong for almost anything in mafia, but I do find it highly unlikely. I have mentioned that in theory this means scum could give themselves cover by suggesting really bad things for town, but in practice it doesn’t happen. I especially think it unlikely if Wolverine is really a newbie to online play. > [@Baffle](#): > > Also, we now have a bunch of ‘don’t travel without a reason’ and MentalGuy now saying ‘travel to confuse scum.’ I think it is a lot more likely to confuse town – and give scum more cover to amass in one location. I suggest limiting travel as much as possible – even to the point of making this effectvely two mafia games in the same thread. Only the scum will know if they are successfully concentrating in one place, so it’s our job to make it as difficult as possible. You may be right that it is best to limit the amount of travel as much as possible, but I will give you what my thought process was. First it was based on some assumptions. 1. We have power roles in the game. I think this is a pretty safe assumption. 2. For the power roles to use their powers on a player, they must be in the same city as the player. I am assuming this because murders and arrests can only occur in the city a player is in. 3. There will be times that power roles must travel to use their powers to the most benefit. If these assumptions are correct then the scum can look at the list of travellers and know who is likely to be a power role, since they know who the scum are. You are right that if we increase the pool of travellers that it does make it harder to pick out the scum as well as making it harder for the scum to pick out the power roles. I think that if we do try to keep travel to a minimum then we are essentially trading some power roles for scum. This could possibly be a good trade, though. I don’t really know, which is why I asked for comment from other players. ---
**Author:** ![Rin\_Twisted](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/82dd89/32.png) [@Rin\_Twisted](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rin_Twisted)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2010, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/193 "2010-12-10T03:43:37Z")
> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > **Pleonast** isn’t starting the game in transit. You’re confusing **Pleonast** with **Plankton**. Pleonast just claimed out of the blue, not because he’s traveling (he’s not traveling right now). > [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > the only things that really jump out at me are Baffle’s odd treatment of Pleonast–not so much the initial smudge as the backpedaling afterwards–and **Rin Twisted** somehow confusing **Suburban Plankton** and **Pleonast** , thinking that the latter had claimed because he started in transit, when really it was the former who started in transit and who hadn’t claimed at all. I’m not sure why that rubs me the wrong way, other than maybe it’s evidence of skimming, but it did. Posting right before bed is never a good idea. Two P names, that’s all I got. > [@MentalGuy](#): > > I think “no way” is a bit strong for almost anything in mafia, but I do find it highly unlikely. I have mentioned that in theory this means scum could give themselves cover by suggesting really bad things for town, but in practice it doesn’t happen. I especially think it unlikely if Wolverine is really a newbie to online play. I agree with that actually, I just don’t like taking anyone’s word that they’re new to the game, it’s such an easy way to get out of mistakes. I don’t think it’s a big enough thing for a vote, just something I’ll be keeping in the back of my mind as the game progresses. ---
**Author:** ![ShadowFacts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shadowfacts/32/2934_2.png) [@ShadowFacts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowFacts)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2010, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/194 "2010-12-10T04:21:45Z")
I have two related things to comment on, mostly referencing the following quotes: > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > Question for **Idle Thoughts** : Why did you post your role PM? (Aside from “because I have nothing to hide.”) > [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > For one, Pleonast did right before me. If I had known PMs could be posted, I’d have posted mine from the start, first most likely. That’s just how I tend to play sometimes. > > For two, you (and others) have said things like “I will automatically find people traveling more suspicious than others” (you said something like this in post number [84](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13224185&postcount=84)) while, at the same time, making a foolhardy assumption (IMO) that all people who stayed put are probably vanilla while Dual Citizens were anything but Vanilla (at least that’s how I read your post). > > Obviously, since I _started out the game by traveling_, this doesn’t sit well with me–people already suspicious of travelers–so I figured I’d come right out with it what I was…plain, vanilla, Dual Citizen. > [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > Anyway, that’s fine, but again, this quote was made earlier by ShadowFacts. Bolding and underline is mine. > > > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > > > Sweet. Let’s get started! > > > > My first reaction upon seeing the sample role PMs that **sach** provided was that I would definitely start by voting for anyone traveling. **Of the 3 roles, Vanilla could not travel** , Dual Citizen could travel, and Scum could travel. Therefore, travelers have a higher percentage of being scum. Sadly for my theory, however, **sach** then clarified that the roles were samples only, and that not all Vanilla Town, Dual Citizen, or Scum roles need to be identical. So, it is possible that there are Vanillas who can travel, making travel currently a null tell. So it’s back to the usual Day One flailing about blindly/game mechanic speculation! > > This is wrong/false/mistaken/what-have-you…because I am vanilla yet I can travel. > > Hence why I decided to fully claim and make that clear. You’re welcome. 🙂 (for making it known Dual Citizens can be vanilla too) The first comment is, why don’t people seem to read my entire posts? **Idle** , in the post you quoted, linked to, and bolded a portion of, I am clearly stating the opposite of what you call me “foolhardy” and “wrong/false/mistaken/what-have-you” for saying. Look, the conclusion of what I was saying is right there: **“it is possible that there are Vanillas who can travel, making travel currently a null tell.”** Hello, is this thing on? Did you just not read the rest of my post or what? **Pleonast** did pretty much the same thing (without the namecalling), and I already made a point to clarify it. But, if I can get back to your claim, **Idle** , my reading of your reasons for claiming are: 1. This is how you “tend to play sometimes.” 2. People seemed to be suspicious of travelers (e.g. yourself), so you claimed vanilla to reduce that suspicion. Did I miss any other reason? If not, I find these to be extremely unsatisfactory reasons for claiming. A big part of the job of Vanilla players, which you claim to be, is to be cannon fodder for scum kills. You’ve just eliminated that function of your role to reduce suspicion on yourself, when you had not even garnered a single vote. **Vote Idle Thoughts** ---
**Author:** ![ShadowFacts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shadowfacts/32/2934_2.png) [@ShadowFacts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowFacts)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2010, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/195 "2010-12-10T13:34:53Z")
I realized after I went to bed that my vote poses a conundrum due to\*\* Idle’s\*\* traveling. I want to vote for him (for the reasons stated above), but even if everyone else agrees with me, we cannot gaol him toDay as he is off gallivanting in NZ. Therefore, we get no information from a gaoling toDay. That’s obviously bad. On the other hand, not voting for people just because they are out of reach essentially gives them a pass, which is also bad. So, what’s the optimum strategy? I think my play here is going to have to be to vote for someone else who is London before the Day is out. But for now I’ll leave the vote on **Idle** in the hopes of generating some conversation, as well as to give our friends in Wellington something to think about when they get their turn. ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2010, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/196 "2010-12-10T13:57:18Z")
**ShadowFacts** , I’ve gotten burned by this enough that I have to bring it up. In two games, I decried a player for unnecessarily giving the Scum info. In both of those games, the person who did it was Town. Personally, I think **Idle** ’s reason for claiming was valid, although I can understand not seeing it that way. It’s similar to the debate we have every now and then on Day One as to whether or not Millers should claim. Some people say yes, some say no. **Idle** was given a role that was going to draw attention (and suspicion) from the get-go–I agree with him that the proper pro-Town move for someone with his role is to put the fire out ASAP and move on to actually finding Scum, rather than being a distraction. And if it gives the Scum one less person in the pool as they attempt to find power roles, so be it. Had he said nothing, I can guarantee you that if I were Scum I’d be leaving him alive anyway, thinking that eventually the Town would kill him because of the bias against travel that many people seem to have in this game. It’s quite possible that the Scum in this game would be thinking along similar lines. ---
**Author:** ![ShadowFacts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shadowfacts/32/2934_2.png) [@ShadowFacts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowFacts)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2010, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/197 "2010-12-10T15:51:24Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > **ShadowFacts** , I’ve gotten burned by this enough that I have to bring it up. In two games, I decried a player for unnecessarily giving the Scum info. In both of those games, the person who did it was Town. Personally, I think **Idle** ’s reason for claiming was valid, although I can understand not seeing it that way. It’s similar to the debate we have every now and then on Day One as to whether or not Millers should claim. Some people say yes, some say no. **Idle** was given a role that was going to draw attention (and suspicion) from the get-go–I agree with him that the proper pro-Town move for someone with his role is to put the fire out ASAP and move on to actually finding Scum, rather than being a distraction. And if it gives the Scum one less person in the pool as they attempt to find power roles, so be it. Had he said nothing, I can guarantee you that if I were Scum I’d be leaving him alive anyway, thinking that eventually the Town would kill him because of the bias against travel that many people seem to have in this game. It’s quite possible that the Scum in this game would be thinking along similar lines. OK, you’re an experienced player and your past experience may have some bearing here, so I will consider your position further. But I want to address the “bias against travel that many people seem to have in this game.” Where is this bias? **Idle’s** evidence for said bias was quotes by me stating the opposite position. Certainly a couple of people have said that travelers should be scrutinized and questioned for the reasons for their travel, but I don’t think that’s bias, it’s smart play. So, has anyone actually said that people who travel are automatically suspicious? I’ve gone through the game and pulled every quote I could find that was relevant to the subject. Here they are, with bolding mine: > [@USCDiver](#): > > **It looks to me like Town and Scum alike travel during the Day** (arriving at their destination at Dawn the following Day) Otherwise it would trivially easy to spot a scum who had travelled. > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > My first reaction upon seeing the sample role PMs that **sach** provided was that I would definitely start by voting for anyone traveling. Of the 3 roles, Vanilla could not travel, Dual Citizen could travel, and Scum could travel. Therefore, travelers have a higher percentage of being scum. Sadly for my theory, however, **sach** then clarified that the roles were samples only, and that not all Vanilla Town, Dual Citizen, or Scum roles need to be identical. \*\*So, it is possible that there are Vanillas who can travel, making travel currently a null tell. \*\* So it’s back to the usual Day One flailing about blindly/game mechanic speculation! > [@Pleonast](#): > > I tend to agree with **ShadowFacts** that anyone travelling is immediately suspect. Without travel, we are essentially playing two separate mafia games, one at each venue. My first inclination is to let each venue deal with its own scum, since a killer must be at that location to kill there. > > **Of course, those thoughts were disturbed when I received my role pm: > As you can see, I automatically travel back and forth. However, I do think anyone who does travel will need to justify themselves.** > [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > I’m still trying to wrap my head around the travel rules…but the way I see it anyone who is traveling is immune from lynching; is that correct? > > Travel begins at Dawn (Departure City) and ends at Dawn (Destination City). Voting can only occur during the Day, and is only effective in the City where voting occurs. So if a person is in transit _out of_ your City and you vote for them, they won’t be around to lynch come Dusk. And if the person is in transit _to your City, then it’s Night (from your perspective) while they are traveling, so you can’t vote for them in the first place. > \*\* > Which, I suppose, is one reason to be suspicious of a person who does a lot of traveling_. > [@Rin\_Twisted](#): > > I’m at work and can’t post much for a few hours, but I don’t think you can avoid gaoled by trying to travel, right? You’d be gaoled before you got to travel, I’m assuming. Cause otherwise, it’s not fair. Scum could just stay in the air that way. > [@Suburban\_Plankton](#): > > No, Scum couldn’t stay in the air, because whenever you travel you land at Dawn local time. Travel is a Night action, so once you land you will need to spend a full Day/Night cycle in your current city before you can leave again at Dawn the following Day. You are therefore subject to gaoling during the Day and also to Mafia Kill at Night before you can take to the air again. > > Travel ‘protects’ you for one Day, but also takes away your ability to vote during that Day. It also effectively causes you to skip a Night, because once you land you begin a new Day in your new City. I’m not sure yet when that would be considered a ‘good’ thing, and when it’s a ‘bad’ thing… > [@Baffle](#): > > [speculation] > I see no reason to believe that all the scum can travel, either. It’s entirely possible that there are scum who are stuck in the same city all game. > > For that matter, we might have characters with a ‘deport’ power that can force someone to travel, even if they don’t want to, or don’t have the ability. > [/speculation] > [@Romanic](#): > > Okay, let me see if I understand the travel rules right, with the example of a player who travels back and forth, and compare it with someone who does not travel. > > \ > > **Unless I made a mistake somewhere, is appears that traveling is not necessarily a bad thing. A player will vote less, and will also have less kill opportunities, but will however be able to participate more and you won’t be as much a target to be night killed.** > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > Just to be clear, I don’t actually think this anymore. I did before **sach** clarified that the roles he posted are just examples. That said, given that travel is the really unique known mechanic in this game, \*\*it does make sense to pay really close attention to who is traveling. \*\* > [@Pleonast](#): > > I am proposing that every player unequivocately state their travel capabilities. > > \*\*Based on information from the moderator, we have no reason to expect any correlation between travel capability and citizenship, alignment, or other powers. \*\*Thus, we do not even risk exposing our power roles by making a mass travel claim. > [@MentalGuy](#): > > I have been thinking about the travel mechanism. **I think it would be logical for us to be suspicious of anyone who is travelling, especially if they have not claimed some need to beforehand.** I got to thinking that since we will be suspicious of travellers, we will likely try to arrest them and likely force our power roles that needed to travel to claim. When I got to thinking about power roles, I realized the scum are going to be suspicious of travellers also and likely target them for nightkills. So, I think that vanilla town players should remember that it is their job to get nightkilled. It would be a good idea if every night we had a couple of vanilla travellers to draw some of the heat. I think if you are vanilla and can travel, you should travel occasionally. I don’t know how often would be best or how to decide when (maybe something random). Obviously, we don’t want everyone who can travelling every chance they get, but I do think some non-necessary travel would be good. > > Maybe I am wrong and we would be better off with as few people travelling as possible to pick the scum out of them easier. Anyway, I would like to hear what other people think. > [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > \*\*When people came out guns-a-blazing in this game suggesting that they’d lynch all travelers, \*\*I got the feeling that Scum would likely not travel unless it was wholly necessary. I know that if I were Scum with the ability to travel, I wouldn’t necessarily want to draw attention to myself. Who “came out guns blazing to lynch all travelers?” As far as I can see, only two people have said anything remotely close to that - \*\*Suburban Plankton \*\* (a traveler) and **MentalGuy** , and those are not exactly guns blazing (see quotes above). Other people, myself included, have said that travel is not currently grounds for immediate suspicion, just something to pay attention to. So, yes, there has been a lot of discussion around traveling, as should be expected, but I’m not seeing a bias. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2010, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/198 "2010-12-10T16:04:29Z")
> [@Mrs\_McGinty](#): > > What is your actual argument, though? We have information that we can all reveal, whose revelation does not pose a significant risk to town power roles, and whose revelation forces scum to make a claim that they will have to stick to. We know there’s little risk to town power roles because of moderator statements that the sample roles are only examples, not general rules. And because we have two claims of roles without powers, except for travelling. > [@](#): > > Eh? I’m saying it makes sense to wait in this particular case, because this is the first day, the decision to reveal is irreversible, and there’s no pressing reason to do it now. > > I’ve not said we should make it a policy to wait on other issues. That’s reasonable, although I disagree it’s the best course of action. > [@Rin\_Twisted](#): > > Posting right before bed is never a good idea. Two P names, that’s all I got. Not just “P”, “Pl”. I sometimes get confused when I read quickly. :smack: > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > The first comment is, why don’t people seem to read my entire posts? **Idle** , in the post you quoted, linked to, and bolded a portion of, I am clearly stating the opposite of what you call me “foolhardy” and “wrong/false/mistaken/what-have-you” for saying. Look, the conclusion of what I was saying is right there: **“it is possible that there are Vanillas who can travel, making travel currently a null tell.”** Hello, is this thing on? Did you just not read the rest of my post or what? **Pleonast** did pretty much the same thing (without the namecalling), and I already made a point to clarify it. You need to go back and reread what I said in my role claim post, because I was agreeing with you, including the part about travelling not necessarily being a scum tell (“those thoughts were disturbed”…). > [@](#): > > Did I miss any other reason? If not, I find these to be extremely unsatisfactory reasons for claiming. A big part of the job of Vanilla players, which you claim to be, is to be cannon fodder for scum kills. You’ve just eliminated that function of your role to reduce suspicion on yourself, when you had not even garnered a single vote. I know some players are eager to lynch over it, but some of us really do think that revealing information early is more helpful than hurtful to town. And it should be obvious that lynching because of this fundamental disagreement on game philosophy is not helpful to town. > [@ShadowFacts](#): > > I realized after I went to bed that my vote poses a conundrum due to\*\* Idle’s\*\* traveling. I want to vote for him (for the reasons stated above), but even if everyone else agrees with me, we cannot gaol him toDay as he is off gallivanting in NZ. Therefore, we get no information from a gaoling toDay. That’s obviously bad. On the other hand, not voting for people just because they are out of reach essentially gives them a pass, which is also bad. > > So, what’s the optimum strategy? This something that everyone needs to think about and then discuss. My general rule of thumb is to always vote for who you think is most likely to be scum. But I am also a proponent of more information early. Forfeiting an arrest by voting someone who is not currently arrestable is not immediately useful. My inclination is that you should first vote who you think is scummiest, but switch to someone who can actually be arrested before the end of the Day. ---
**Author:** ![Suburban\_Plankton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/suburban_plankton/32/219_2.png) [@Suburban\_Plankton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Suburban_Plankton)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2010, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/199 "2010-12-10T16:49:39Z")
Catching up on the last day and a half of posts…real life suddenly intruded and knocked things for a loop. Here are some thoughts that I’ve had floating around since Wednesday morning… Regarding Travel Who _needs_ to travel? Certainly Vanilla Town have no need to travel. Since they have no abilities, it doesn’t matter which city they are in when they don’t use them. I’d say that certain Town Power roles might need to travel, in order to be most effective. Investigators might need to ‘follow’ their prospective targets. Protectors might need to relocate in order to protect, and role-blockers in order to block the right target. And I think that Scum might need to travel, in order to make sure they have a precsnece in both cities in order to maximize their killing abilities, and also to counteract Town powers. If we were to adopt a policy to restrict travel to only those players for whom it was necessary, we would effectively ground all of our Vanilla Townies. Anyone on a plane would either be Scum or Power. Since the Town can’t tell the difference, and the Scum can, that would be a ‘bad thing’. I would argue that **some amount of travel by ‘Vanilla’ townies is necessary** , in order to help hide our Power Roles from Scum. Now the question becomes: how much travel is _necessary_ and how much is _too much_? Unfortunately, I’m afraid I don’t have the answer to that one yet. Ultimately, I think that travel, while it is unique in its functionality, is really no different than any other mechanism in the game. If the game is well balanced, then it should be a null-tell. Now since this is a new and therefore untested mechanism, it might be more likely that it is \*not \*as well balanced as the mods would like…but in that case the scales could shift either way, and there’s no way to tell right now which way that is. I think that we need to consider when and why a person is traveling, not just the fact that they are traveling. It is a factor in considering a person’s alignment, but in and of itself I think it’s no more important than any other factor. Regarding “we are essentially playing two separate mafia games” I don’t think this is the right way to look at things. It sort of looks that way, but it really isn’t. For one thing, travel assures us that the player base in each city is not constant. More importantly, there is a single win condition for each faction. It is not possible to “Win London” or “Win Wellington”. On the contrary, that can be a dangerous way to look at things. If we treat this as 2 separate games, then the Town must “win” both in order to win the game. Scum only has to “win” one side, and then wait for attrition to take out the other. Say that the good people of Wellington manage after a few days to identify and arrest all of the criminals in their city. At that point, they’ve “won”. except they haven’t. They don’t know that everyone left in Wellington is Town. All they know is that the game is not over. They must continue playing, which generally means continuing to arrest more people (who in this case will all be Town). While the game is still being played out in London, the people in Wellington are unwittingly helping the Scum by continuing to whittle down town numbers. Now obviously, the actual situation is more complicated. It’s possible that everyone in Wellington can be confirmed (by a Masonry, by investigative roles, etc.). In that case, they could vote “no lynch” every Day and ride out the storm until things are settled in London. But it’s likely that not every person in the city will be “absolutely confirmed”, and the natural tendency is to continue hunting Scum until the game is over. Even if we wind up with a city populated only by Townies, I think it’s going to be hard to convince all of them of this fact. The natural tendency is going to be to continue eliminating “unknowns” until the game is over. Looking at the game objectively, it \*might \*be possible, or even desirable, to play this as two separate games. But we aren’t looking at it objectively. We’re inside the game, and we must consider that most people are not going to take the “best possible course of action” most of the time. Regarding mass claims There is a suggestion that we all claim whether or not we can travel. This is supposedly a ‘safe’ claim, because it is assumed that travel ability has no relation to alignment or power status. In this case, my question is: “what’s the point?” The idea of making a mass claim is to provide information to help the Town’s cause. What information is the Town going to get from this? The only thing I can see is that it will force the Scum to “lock themselves in” regarding travel. But since travel ability is assumed to be a null-tell, then the Scum have no reason at all to lie about it. They only “lock themselves in” to the truth. There might be some value in knowing that Person X cannot travel, so we know that he will be in London for the entire game, while Person Y might be able to move around. This could help our Power roles with strategy. But it will help Scum in the same way, and since they don’t have the added challenge of needing to figure out what side everyone is on, I think any advantage here would belong to Scum. If such a claim provides any useful information, I think it’s more useful to Scum. And if it doesn’t provide any useful information (which is my personal opinion), then it’s pointless. And in any case, it’s premature to make any decision before 9 of the players in this game are even allowed to post. By the time Dawn hits in Wellington, and then the people there have time to hash out the issue, we’re going to be 2 weeks into this game. By that point, the landscape may be so different that this discussion is moot. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553/200 "2010-12-10T17:06:51Z")
Good discussion, **Plankton**. I think you missed one critical detail. Town will have a strong indication that scum are locally extinct if there are no Night kills. It’s not definite of course, but I think that if there are no Night kills, barring additional information, it’ll be better to have no arrest the next Day. Or put a warrant on a player at the other venue. If a Night kill happens later, we can react to that after it happens. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-mafia/562553.md?page=11)