Ok, I must be dumb as a stump (at this point ESPN and I sign a multi million dollar/multi picture movie deal).
I thought that if it was a mod-kill we got no information. If it was a lynch we would get delayed information. But I still am unclear which takes precedence. At least as far as a I have gotten on catching up Pleo’s answer seems to be contradictory. Long days and short nights, I guess.
Fliipin Board at my post. Not as elegant but what the hey.
Unvote CIAS
Who will be the next to gather votes and then subsequently claim? Since there are only scum and “power” roles this is inevitable.
Leading to the Mafia version of musical chairs where the last one standing is lynched. And on short notice, most likely.
You’re right: you didn’t say that. But if you’re against tactical moves that are pro-town because they’re strong tactics, then I can only guess that you’re either scum, or against tactics all together. If you remove tactical consideration from this game, it comes down to random voting. I mean, hell, if someone does one of the famed wrong-board-scum-posts, will you feel that voting for that person based on that post is wrong, and outside the spirit of the game? Is Lynch the Luker an unfair tactic?
Mass claims seem to be part and parcel of the consideration of any no-vanilla game. At this point, (with a Detective and Witch already revealed, forcing the Witches and Witchdoctor to play WIFOM no matter what we do), I’m wondering if there’s any reason other than your scum-sympathetic ‘that’s too strong’ argument against mass claiming.
I know it’s late in the Day, and I probably won’t whip up any steam, but I want to change my vote to be Pro-Mass Claim
In previous games, a modkill meant that we would get no information on that person. But Pleonast has explained that that is not the case in this game:
So it’s not as bad in this game from an informational point of view, since we’ll get the same (delayed) info on a modkill as with a lynch.
Well I don’t know that I would go so far as to say that a Witch and a Detective have been revealed merely that we have two players that have claimed those roles.
I kind of wonder if that was the whole point of the delayed information. To frustrate a mass role claim strategy. I also go back to the Clinton strategy of the difference between a and the wording of the roles. Normally, you get two detecs, say, claiming. Stretch one and you either bagged a scum that day or the next. Also, since it normally one side against another the implications are clear. Here it is one against three so false claims could come from a wider variety of directions and motives.
Two cents, as usual.
Gotcha.
It just seemed a little contradictory on first read but now I finally get it.
And I was just doing a little simple math in my head. If there are three killing activities at night coupled with the Day lynch that would be four per cycle (if they were all to succeed). That means something along the lines of five or six Days. Since we are already at 17 pages we are talking about something along the lines of 80 - 100 pages.
I know it will slow down a bit but the poster who shall remain nameless has not even started weighing in.
Yikes.
On that pleasant thought, goodnight all.
That’s what everyone says and **storyteller ** starts complaining if I don’t post analytically.
So in other words, because the last game had 3 Cabal in, you were speculating that this game would also have three Cabal in.
In that case what were you thoughts about the sizes of the other groups given that the number of players is much larger in this game?
Your post both said that certain roles were in the game but that you were probably wrong about it. It feels like a post that is trying to say two things at once and be able to be interpreted either way depending on what you feel like.
That makes more sense now. Thank you for clarifying.
It could also be taken as no-one else has joined the CIAS bandwagon, I can move off him as the role-reveal idea seems to be going nowhere and people are getting suspicious of those against CIAS. Purely my take on it, of course.
Thank you for pointing it out. I apologise for missing it while reading your posts.
Your answers make some sense and I would probably look somewhere else apart from the fact you appear to have missed out two answers to a couple of my questions.
And these two are the questions that are at odds with the rest of your stance.
I look forward to your response.
It’s good to be missed 
Sorry about the unannounced absence; I was off on a research trip for the last week and didn’t have the kind of internet access that I had expected.
Anyway, having just re-read the entire thread I’m still not sure who to vote for. The vast majority of posts so far concerned CIAS’ mass roleclaim suggestion and Nanook’s slip and subsequent roleclaim.
I’m going to have to go back and examine in detail some of the explanations for the votes cast thus far to see if I agree with them, but thus far I’m just not seeing anything that scummy (not that surprising at this stage, I know). I think all Mafia games involve a fair amount of fumbling around in the beginning but this rule set and number of players exacerbates that problem greatly here. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it takes a few Days before this game becomes manageable. Thankfully the likely large number of scum means that there’s a better chance that one of them will be the victim of town’s fumbling.
And Day Two is actually going to be longer than Day One…
Really? Simply agree with someone esle’s reasoning for a lynch IS scummy and opportunistic. All the ‘me too’ voters can just say, “well I didn’t come up with the idea, I was just going along with it.” and attempt to absolve themselves of the blame.
Ideally, the first several votes should be because the voter believes that the person they are voting for is scummy. Not because of what the voter before them reasoned, but because they had also noticed something scummy. Sure, maybe after 6 or 10 or 15 votes have accumulated, there may be no other new reasoning for a vote. But, after one?
**Pleo, just wanted to point out that I fucked on the bleaching on that quote. It’s getting down to the wire and I wanted to make sure you didn’t mistake it for an actual vote. **
Not to answer for ped or anything, but I meant to mention why these two things bothered me earlier. I didn’t get around to it then, so how convenient of you to bring it back up again.
First, you attack ped for not talking about the Cabal when ped, in post 152, was talking about the vig and other factions with known Nightkills. The Cabal doesn’t fit that description.
Second, when ped is talking about Witches, he’s specifically responding to Dio’s post where Dio says he thinks there might not be Witches. Saying that one faction might be a weak faction, and something can change to make them more powerful, is not a contradiction in my book.
So, there’s two posts where you conveniently left out the context of ped’s statements and used them to attack him. I don’t like it one bit.
Day One ends in about five hours. Note that the Day ends even without an explicit post from me. Votes with a post time after noon PT will not be counted. Be patient while I do final vote tallies and resolve powers.
Remember, the player with the most votes is lynched. Ties mean no lynch takes place.
brewha, despite your claim otherwise, your vote appears to be completely omgus. You reason that two people can’t have the same reason to vote for the same person, which means that whoever reads through first and catches something has valid reasoning, but the next person to come to the same conclusion is scummy. That doesn’t really hold water, if the reasoning is valid, why wouldn’t two people come to the same conclusion?
Also, while I can find reasons to vote for a no-lynch on day with the particular set-up we have, not having a decent target is not among them. We get information only after significant delay, how is reducing that information beneficial to the town? Also, how do we gain insight into you from a no-lynch vote, other than you appear to motivated to not take any risk, and motivated to reduce the town’s information pool?
I think I’m pretty comfortable with:
vote brewha
Somehow I’m envisioning a last minute flurry of votes where everyone is going to panic and just tack their vote on to whomever is leading to prevent themselves from gettting modkilled.
Allow me to remove my name from the list of lynchables.
Let me 'splain why I didn’t want to vote. When I reveal the role and identity of the person we lynch tonight, I don’t want people to think that I’m giving biased information based on my own lynch preferences. I’d rather play the role of a messenger rather than a crusader with an axe to grind.
I didn’t want to do this for another Day or so. I had planned on laying low and revealing my role just before Pleo revealed the true identity of our first victim. That way there wouldn’t be as much of a trust issue and I would be more likely to live through the first night. You are 100% correct, Cookies, my no lynch vote was intended to avoid the exact attention that you gave me.
So, to make it official, I’m A Coroner. Yes, A coroner. I really doubt that there is more than one, but my PM states A not The, so make of that what you will.
I also wanted to add that I don’t think my early reveal is too big a deal. Sach revealed early in Conspiracy 1 and it seemed to work out alright for him. I believe that the scum are just as eager as the town to find out the identities of the dead - so hopefully I’m not putting myself high on their kill list.
Again, this misunderstanding.
You do not risk a Modkill if you have no outstanding vote at close of play on a Day. You risk Modkill if you have never placed a vote during the Day.
Placing a vote and removing it suffices to avoid Modkill.
Point taken. I think it’s bullshit though. How can someone vote for, then subsequently unvote, themselves and avoid scrutiny? I vote no lynch - with good reason - and I’m suddenly the leader in votes ( or nearly the leader. Anyone got a vote count?).
When’s the last time anyone heard from CoG888?