Mafia Reunion - Day Three

[Pleonast]

Still skimming. I hate it, but there’s no alternative.

@Nanook_of_the_North_Shore

An idea just occurred to me that might be a worthwhile pursuit, and would potentially give a lot of information regarding toejam.

There’s at least a reasonable possibility that Batman would have targeted toejam last night. There is furthermore a reasonable possibility that one of the scum teams holds Batman’s other switch, meaning they can turn him off at will. Together, this indicates at least the possibility that scum turned off Batman to protect toejam. The question then becomes is there any way to confirm or otherwise pull more information out of this situation?

What if Batman were to claim today, and tell us who he or she targeted last night? If it was indeed toejam, that would be a strong indication that the logic presented above is true, at which point lynching toejam is extremely compelling as it is very likely he is in fact scum.

The downside of such a plan of course is that Batman is now exposed. But how much of a downside is it really? If scum do in fact hold the other switch, Batman isn’t really any better than vanilla at this point, and won’t stop being so until/unless the other switch holder dies. And since we have clearly seen that switches are not revealed on death, the only people who will know when Batman is unleashed again will be the scum team that holds the switch. Even Batman won’t know for sure, since there’s no way for him or her to know if the target died to him or her, or if it was just coincidence.

Thoughts?

Terrible idea. There’s is no benefit to us in knowing who the Vigilante is or who they targeted.

@LightFoot

this makes sense- AUBatman is neutered at this time. ( if Scum hold the switch) odds are they do.

If the switch is held by a Townie though… which one should claim?

:smack: Every singleton Town role is valuable because a false claim of that role can be counter-claimed by the actual holder. That is, effectively a Mason group of one. Unless you’re advocating a mass claim, there is no advantage to exposing our counter-claimable roles to targeted killing by Scum.

@paulwhoisaghost

But we don’t know their wincon. We don’t know if it is for them to complete a chain of all 5 of them having investigated another without dying or if it’s something really crazy like fulfilling a list of unlikely to survive tasks… who knows. If they aren’t telling the truth it could be anything and without knowing what we have no clue when it will be achieved. If it’s before town or scum meet their wincon, then they win.

But I’m going to proceed with leaving them alone for now and hoping they toe the line and act in towns best interest.

If there’s five of them and they exclude us from winning if they meet their win conditions, we’re going to lose unless Scum start killing each other and the third party, because there’s no way we’ll be able to eliminate 19 players in time.

There’s no hurry to eliminate the third party now, but unless they can verify they are non-exclusively-winning third party or their numbers are the 5 they claim, we will have to eliminate them.

@paulwhoisaghost

I was looking back at N2 and found this a bit interesting. I missed it the first go through, but knowing that by the numbers scum gain progress toward their wincon by killing 3P, town do not consider this post

@Pleonast

Well that is the dilemma. But if they have a win condition that can interfere with ours, that means we do need to lynch them before we lynch all the Scum. Thus increasing our lynch burden substantially. That doesn’t seem plausible if there is 5 of them. But what if there’s fewer, maybe 2? Then eliminating them is not unreasonable.

This is the reasoning why Town needs to see all LUTHA claim sooner rather than later. Having 5 players saying “yes, I’m LUTHA” and cross-confirming each other would completely remove them as a threat, in mine eyes. Five is the number claimed and so having five actually claiming would virtually confirm them (just like claimed Masons, one would have to die at some point to confirm the group as a whole). I’d advocate lynching anyone trying to lynch LUTHA at that point, since they’d be threatening only to Scum at that point.

But either fewer or more than that indicates someone is lying. And we’d have to start lynching claimed LUTHA once we have a few Scum eliminated.

Pleo, do you still feel this way?

I’m liking this as a reason for Lynch better than my reasoning against DiggitCamara or the case against ToeJam. Unless Toejam feels the same way. I’ll have to go look. If he does it tips the scales for me.

I am also suspicious of…

Thing Fish, but I feel I may be letting myself become OMGUS biased.

Prof P. for previous discussed reasons

Koldanar for only really participating in D2 by calling out non-participants.

But I haven’t had the opportunity to look very closely at them yet. So…

** Vote Pleonast **

But I’m gonna keep looking at others.

Yes, I agree with my post. Do you disagree with any part?

Is there a reason for your vote?

@BillMC

if that is the case then it is very selfish to commit ritual suicide rather than let someone else sub in; if it’s a case that they couldn’t find a sub, then then that does kinda suggest sario was the least valuable of the roles needing a sub - which paints a big target on our new subs. to put a positive slant on it, sario could have used the power n1 and/or n2, and actually saved some from a nk

There’s Day-kills, too.

@Johnny_Bravo

Lynching Sachertorte may or may not net us scum, but it will definitely not result in a town lynch* and it will definitely give us hard facts that we do not currently have.

Lynching third party: 1) does advance both Scum teams’ win conditions, and 2) does not advance our win conditions. We may have to lynch them later (like if their claim of 5 players is shown to be unlikely), but let’s not intentionally lynch to help scum while not helping us until we need to.

@AngeloftheNorth

Your impression is consistent with his early town game. I feel pretty good about SNF right now.

Sorry, I’m not up to date on Mafia terms. What is SNF?

@AngeloftheNorth

Zeriel, besides me who else are you suspicious of? I’m not capable of doing a WOW on my phone but I just looked at your ISO and I see nothing but fluff, negativity towards me, general policy stands and comments on mechanics. It’s entirely possible that I’m missing something trying to read this way, so if so please correct me.

Yeah, more unexplained acronyms. What’re WOW and ISO?

Is it so hard to type things out? Doesn’t your phone have auto complete? Don’t turn Meeko on us.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

My votes, in no particular order, except the firstest is the mostest.
vote Thing Fish for revealing that Scum do not learn the identity of everyone on their team on their secret board in D1.253.
vote Idle Thoughts for the meta-reason of typically lurking when scum.
vote Scathach for scolding a player for being too helpful to Town in D1.35.
vote Johnny Bravo for being too defensive and misrepresenting another’s case in D1.265.
vote Plumpudding for refusing to vote when called on it in D1.401.
vote Meeko for admitting that they deliberately want their posts to be difficult to parse.

I have no real opinion on ToeJam.