# MAFIA: The Road to Canterbury - Game Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [June 21, 2012, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807 "2012-06-21T01:57:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![TexCat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/texcat/32/9041_2.png) [@TexCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TexCat)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/121 "2012-06-24T00:01:44Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > Just as we always need to accept that we will [barring miracles] mislynch during the game, we also need to accept in this instance that every mislynch \*\*will \*\*cost us a power role. We can’t run scared of that, because it’s inevitable. So mislynching the first role to claim isn’t any different to mislynching the fourth role to claim. If we agree not to run scared after the first claim, perhaps you are correct. I fear that we will run scared and just induce more claims. I still think that since most of our powers are one use, mis-lynching later in the game will cost us much less than mis-lynching on D1. So, I think you are incorrect not every mis-lynch will cost us a power role, only mis-lynches Today will cost us a power role. I realize that I am probably fighting a losing battle here, that town will probably not vote to no-lynch, but I am convinced that it is the statistically correct play. I think we always dismiss it out of hand, and especially in this game with no vanillas and a lot of one use powers that it would work in town’s favor. ---
**Author:** ![TexCat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/texcat/32/9041_2.png) [@TexCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TexCat)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/122 "2012-06-24T00:06:13Z")
\*\*vote: no lynch \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/123 "2012-06-24T00:31:07Z")
I think, theoretically, a continued no-lynch can work to town’s favor. 19 players, if we assume 7 knives and three other weapons that’s ten total scum kills. Maximum, right? Maybe the carpenter can take out someone in town. I’m on my iPod so I’m not switching between screens to see. And even with a max of ten we can still save some by luck. But either way that brings us to and end game of 5 town and 4 scum and scum can’t kill anyone else. Am I correct on this? Someone tell me if I’m wrong but it seems like we can literally do nothing and wait out a…what? Win? Stalemate? I dunno. ---
**Author:** ![MentalGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/439d5e/32.png) [@MentalGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MentalGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/124 "2012-06-24T01:44:27Z")
> [@Tengu](#): > > Perhaps, in the usual games, where all the players are familiar with the existing culture. But in this specific context within this game, it’s being helpful to the newbies, helping us us figure out the culture, so we don’t get ourselves mislynched simply out of ignorance of the culture. So, treating that as scummy is pretty much setting up the newbs to fail, which seems like a pretty good example of behavior that, if not itself actively scummy, is at least taking thoughtlessness to a level that’s pretty anti-town. I didn’t have a problem with Inner’s post. If the Day ends and that is the only type of post he has, then I would find that suspicious. That is why I said TexCat’s FOS was premature. > [@Babale](#): > > I know “me too” posts are frowned upon, so I promise that I’ll add something constructive too. But I just wanted to say that I agree with this. I’m also a new player, although I’ve read through a couple of Mafia games. One of them (Phere) was recent, but used a lot of D&D terms so I didn’t know what was Mafia and what was D&D; the other was old, so the language had changed. I think penalizing someone for doing something so helpful to us Newbies is bad for Town. In mafia, I don’t really mind “me too” posts. Especially for important topics. It at least shows you are not trying to avoid the issues. > [@Visorslash](#): > > What’s wrong with voting early? I don’t play games the way the SDMB regulars do, and I don’t intend to change that. Different styles are probably good to have and I don’t have a problem with voting early. I don’t see the point to a vote with absolutely no justification, though, since it can just be safely ignored. In regards to TexCat’s advocacy of a no-lynch: I haven’t tried to analyze the numbers or anything, but my first thoughts are that I am not comfortable giving away one of our opportunities to eliminate a scum. I might change my mind, though, once I think it through more. However, I don’t think the idea is completely ridiculous and I don’t see why the suggestion of it would point to TexCat being scum. It seems in my experience that scum are less likely to suggest out-of-the-mainstream ideas like this. I find Visor somewhat more likely to be scum because of the possible slip, but as I said, I do believe it is possible that Town might make that mistake. For now, I am going to **Vote Mahaloth** to try to get him into the game. I am also suspicious of Mosier. I often consider different possibilities and get accused of trying to “hedge my bets” or “play both sides of the fence”. It is an easy but often effective attack. And on refresh, I see this: > [@Enderw24](#): > > I think, theoretically, a continued no-lynch can work to town’s favor. 19 players, if we assume 7 knives and three other weapons that’s ten total scum kills. Maximum, right? Maybe the carpenter can take out someone in town. I’m on my iPod so I’m not switching between screens to see. And even with a max of ten we can still save some by luck. But either way that brings us to and end game of 5 town and 4 scum and scum can’t kill anyone else. Am I correct on this? Someone tell me if I’m wrong but it seems like we can literally do nothing and wait out a…what? Win? Stalemate? I dunno. Well, I don’t like the idea of playing for a stalemate, since it just seems kind of pointless to be playing in that case. If we did no-lynch down to the 5-4 situation, that seems like a very powerful case for scum. In a normal 9 player game, you just start with 2 scum. This might be mitigated somewhat by the extra info we have gathered during the game, but I don’t think it would be enough. So, right now, I don’t advocate any no-lynches, but if we did have any, I think only the first Day would it be appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/125 "2012-06-24T02:05:35Z")
> [@Enderw24](#): > > I think, theoretically, a continued no-lynch can work to town’s favor. 19 players, if we assume 7 knives and three other weapons that’s ten total scum kills. Maximum, right? Maybe the carpenter can take out someone in town. I’m on my iPod so I’m not switching between screens to see. And even with a max of ten we can still save some by luck. But either way that brings us to and end game of 5 town and 4 scum and scum can’t kill anyone else. Am I correct on this? Someone tell me if I’m wrong but it seems like we can literally do nothing and wait out a…what? Win? Stalemate? I dunno. If the scum manage to nab the seraph they can win. With your strategy, the best we can hope for is a draw, whatever that means. No-lynch is lose-lose for town. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/126 "2012-06-24T02:13:05Z")
> [@MentalGuy](#): > > I am also suspicious of Mosier. I often consider different possibilities and get accused of trying to “hedge my bets” or “play both sides of the fence”. It is an easy but often effective attack. My attack was not pointing out that TexCat was considering different possibilities. If you reread TexCat’s post that prompted my attack, you’ll see that I was attacking the fact that TexCat was advocating what I consider an anti-town action (no-lynch) while also claiming suspicion of another player. However, since then TexCat has made a better argument for a no-lynch. It’s enough to make me reconsider my suspicion, but not enough to actually agree with the strategy. No-lynch is a losing strategy, full stop. But I now think that TexCat probably made the argument for it in good faith. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/127 "2012-06-24T02:14:30Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > My attack was not pointing out that TexCat was considering different possibilities. If you reread TexCat’s post that prompted my attack, you’ll see that I was attacking the fact that TexCat was advocating what I consider an anti-town action (no-lynch) while also claiming suspicion of another player. To be a bit more clear, I consider those two positions (I suspect someone; I think we should no-lynch) as being opposed to each other. ---
**Author:** ![fubbleskag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fubbleskag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fubbleskag)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/128 "2012-06-24T02:53:58Z")
my first review; unless otherwise noted below, you’ve not yet pinged my scumdar > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > Why would you assume that? Player don’t normally (and shouldn’t) joke about suspicions without making it clear once the game has started. In my, admittedly limited, experience, this isn’t true; while the dope is less of an offender than other boards I’ve visited, joke suspicions and votes on Day 1 are quite common. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > That’s how I see it. \*\* Stickler\*\* being helpful is a null town. Town motive: help town play better. Scum motive: look town. Likewise, I don’t make much of **TexCat** ’s FOS. It’s weakly justified, but at this stage of the game some players need to be prepared to poke others. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > The investigators would need a power-use/claim order in order for this to work, which could simply be the order of the roles in the town rules. The implications of this strategy are quite complicated and difficult to work out. Right now, I think I’m opposed to this, as the odds of a double investigation aren’t that high. **Another problem with claiming results too early is scum can kill off any confirmed town.** :dubious: > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > On preview - I’m in agreement with what **Stanislaus** has to say about the implications of roleclaims in this game. A claim that cannot be tested is worthless. In a game where everyone has a power, most of them one-shot, how exactly do you expect to test any claims? Person A claims, so we have Person B investigate them and confirm; but how do we know Person B is on the up-and-up? Continue, and we’ve burnt all our investigations to verify one claim. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > There are two possibilities here. He is thinking in terms of 15s because he is scum, and getting mixed up with the chances of a night kill getting an investigator. Or his justification is honest. > > At best, this is muddled, and inconsistent with his first post. If we _probably_ won’t lynch scum on Day 1, the _odds_ of us lynching an investigator aren’t 3/15. The pessimism is unhelpful and confusing. It could be an attempt to cover his mistake. > > One point in **Visorslash** ’s favour, the pessimism is consistent with his earlier post below (bolding mine). On that basis, I’m not prepared to vote for him at this time. The bulk of your posts revolve around of a lot “it could be this [town] or it could also be that [scum]” - hiding in plain site? **vote Alka Seltzer** > [@Enderw24](#): > > So do we actually vote on someone to lynch on the first day, **before the scum have gotten their kill?** That seems a bit off flavorwise. > [@Enderw24](#): > > True. I guess it’s a good thing that we’re all granted with the power of knowing with 100% certainty there are 4 scum out there. Otherwise, the reality would be that **we, the townspeople, shed first blood. Now the scum are justified.** These townfolk are crazy! Self defense baby! > [@Enderw24](#): > > It would. But first we have to assume the cloak is even in play. At random, it’s about 50% probability. The choice isn’t even remotely random, I know, but there are some better options out there. \*\*If the goal of the scum team is to win, individual scum lynchings be damned, the bloody spear and the Hawk are two better choices IMO. \*\* > [@Enderw24](#): > > There’s another option for the spear’s use. Any time town’s vote is heavily favored to land on scum for anlynching, the spear can come into play as a low risk way of killing a townie. The scum was already set to die so why not? > [@Enderw24](#): > > I think, theoretically, a continued no-lynch can work to town’s favor. I haven’t done the math (and to be honest, probably won’t, as it’s not my strong-suit and I’d probably just butcher it) but on it’s face, the idea of a deliberate no-lynch gives me the mafia heebee geebees. That, and the fact that you seem to be a little too sympathetic to scum’s cause and potential tactics: **vote Enderw24** > [@MentalGuy](#): > > In mafia, I don’t really mind “me too” posts. Me neither. > [@Tengu](#): > > Hmm. Terminology question. Is a scum type claiming the role they would have been had they not been scum considered a false claim? (Granted this gets a little more complicated with the memento scum tool, but I doubt any investigators-turned-scum would bother with that.) I’m having difficulty imagining why a townie would ask this question, care to clarify? > [@TexCat](#): > > vote: no lynch :dubious: Lurkers: **vote Mahaloth** **vote KellyCriterion** ---
**Author:** ![Kamino\_Neko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kamino_neko/32/34_2.png) [@Kamino\_Neko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamino_Neko)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/129 "2012-06-24T03:05:05Z")
> [@fubbleskag](#): > > I’m having difficulty imagining why a townie would ask this question, care to clarify? Because some of the reasons people have for suspecting someone is scum (such as, for instance, wondering about local terminology) makes newbies rather nervous about saying anything, for fear that phrasing something the wrong way will get us lynched. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/130 "2012-06-24T03:39:26Z")
Sweet! My first vote against me in mafia! I won’t even hold it against you that I have to share that vote four ways. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/131 "2012-06-24T11:43:32Z")
> [@Visorslash](#): > > I don’t pay all that much attention to what I type. I don’t think about every word I post, or whether I make much sense. Why would I? I’m town, I don’t have anything to hide. Scum have more to lose than town by being careless, but sloppy town play is a gift to the scum. Players have to be held accountable for what they post, or scum always have an easy out - “I didn’t mean that”. > [@Visorslash](#): > > Regardless, Texcat’s “Visor is likely scum, but I want a no lynch” is pretty scummy by most definitions of the word. Curiously you ignore those posts, what are your thoughts on them? Not ignoring, I was waiting to see how **Mosier** and **Texcat** ’s exchange developed. **Mosier** ’s position in post #155 was reasonable, and I’m somewhat satisfied with **TexCat** ’s response. Town often have a tendency to over-emphasize the importance of power roles. I’m **very** strongly opposed to no-lynch as a policy, the vote and lynch is town’s greatest weapon. Right now, we have an odd number of players. A successful town block or protect would buy us another mis-lynch. Likewise, a single scum extra kill doesn’t not cost us a mis-lynch. No-lynch changes that equation in favour of scum. > [@fubbleskag](#): > > In my, admittedly limited, experience, this isn’t true; while the dope is less of an offender than other boards I’ve visited, joke suspicions and votes on Day 1 are quite common. Not what I said, I just said the difference between joke suspicions and real ones should be (and normally is) clear. > [@fubbleskag](#): > > The bulk of your posts revolve around of a lot “it could be this [town] or it could also be that [scum]” - hiding in plain site? > > **vote Alka Seltzer** To be clear, I was going to vote **Visorslash** until I reviewed and found his previous post, which I thought was worth sharing. **@fubbleskag** - And straight away there is a problem with your multiple votes. Right now, what is your preference, to lynch me, **Enderw24** or a lurker? Do you intend to have multiple votes in place at the end of the Day? Players pinging me a little right now: **Tengu** - Could be scum over-playing the newbie card a little. Nothing wrong with asking questions, but is doing little else. When prompted, said **TexCat** was suspicious if FOS on **Inner Stickler** was genuine, but hasn’t followed this up in any way. **Enderw24** - Fairly active, but only posting content on strategy. I notice from another thread that he is a chess player, and I’d expect him to realise why no-lynch is such a bad strategy. **Visorslash** - Previously noted possible slip, not as damning as I first thought. Don’t like his pre-emptive FOS on anyone wagoning him and his defence of posting style above (which has nothing to do with why he’s attracted attention in this game), but perfectly reasonable attack on **TexCat**. **fubbleskag** - Includes an obvious [joke post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15190853&postcount=31) in his case against **Enderw24**. **Unvote Mahaloth** **Vote Enderw24** ---
**Author:** ![fubbleskag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fubbleskag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fubbleskag)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/132 "2012-06-24T13:56:38Z")
> [@Tengu](#): > > Because some of the reasons people have for suspecting someone is scum (such as, for instance, wondering about local terminology) makes newbies rather nervous about saying anything, for fear that phrasing something the wrong way will get us lynched. Noted. > [@Enderw24](#): > > Sweet! My first vote against me in mafia! I won’t even hold it against you that I have to share that vote four ways. That’s the spirit. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > Not what I said, I just said the difference between joke suspicions and real ones should be (and normally is) clear. I did not, and will not, attempt to refute the ‘should be’ portion of your statement, as I happen to agree. My comment was simply that in my experience, your statement that it “normally is” isn’t true on Day 1. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > **@fubbleskag** - And straight away there is a problem with your multiple votes. Right now, what is your preference, to lynch me, **Enderw24** or a lurker? Do you intend to have multiple votes in place at the end of the Day? Skimming much? I stated earlier that I agree with the consensus that only a single vote should remain at end of Day in most cases. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > **fubbleskag** - Includes an obvious [joke post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15190853&postcount=31) in his case against **Enderw24**. It didn’t seem obvious to me, especially in context of his posts as a whole. I suppose if it was a joke, perhaps he should have been more clear about that, don’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![fubbleskag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fubbleskag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fubbleskag)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/133 "2012-06-24T13:58:10Z")
**Alka Seltzer** the fact that the only portion of my review that you commented on was a semantic one isn’t doing much to improve your rating; care to shed light on the rest? ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/134 "2012-06-24T14:15:44Z")
> [@fubbleskag](#): > > Skimming much? I stated earlier that I agree with the consensus that only a single vote should remain at end of Day in most cases. I missed that. I don’t have a big problem with multiple votes right now, given the state of the game and the need to prod players into action. I do have a problem that it can hide intentions. I notice you’ve ignored my question, who is your actual preference for a lynch right now. > [@fubbleskag](#): > > **Alka Seltzer** the fact that the only portion of my review that you commented on was a semantic one isn’t doing much to improve your rating; care to shed light on the rest? Not true, I also clarified my position on **Visorslash**. I’ll comment on the claims and confirmation issue later, it’s not a priority to me and I’m going out in a minute. I’m also waiting on **storyteller** ’s reply to my query about the cloak. If it can be taken out of play, that changes the equation. ---
**Author:** ![fubbleskag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fubbleskag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fubbleskag)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/135 "2012-06-24T15:41:58Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > I missed that. I don’t have a big problem with multiple votes right now, given the state of the game and the need to prod players into action. I do have a problem that it can hide intentions. I notice you’ve ignored my question, who is your actual preference for a lynch right now. I’m not sure why you’re emphasizing “actual” as if only one of my votes is real and the others are meaningless. I’m voting everyone who pings me enough to warrant it, for a variety of reasons. Before end of Day, I’ll decide which ones get their vote removed for tally. If you’re asking who my final vote would be for if tally was right this minute, it would be yourself. > [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > Not true, I also clarified my position on **Visorslash**. I’ll comment on the claims and confirmation issue later, it’s not a priority to me and I’m going out in a minute. I’m also waiting on **storyteller** ’s reply to my query about the cloak. If it can be taken out of play, that changes the equation. Your position on **Visorslash** isn’t the issue, only one of a few examples I quoted. You’re doing a lot of “he did this; it could be because he’s scum and this, or it could be because he’s town and that” which makes you look active but isn’t very helpful. Town doesn’t need someone pointing out all of the things people do that can be equally explained as both Town and Scum. You’ve also made other perplexingly obvious nothing statements, which were also previously quoted. ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/136 "2012-06-24T15:46:42Z")
Hey, all, my apologies for lack of posting. Anyway, here is what I think. 1. I actually think it would be cool, and kind of effective, if all the investigators investigate toNight. Let us know what you find in the morning(if you survive) and that way the power is not wasted. 2. Everyone using their power toNight? Huh, I guess that is kind of a possibility, I’m not totally against it, but I think it will be really hard to get us all to actually do that. **Vote Visorslash** The incorrect ratio thingy. And overall, I am just getting a scum vibe off him. That is my first vote, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/137 "2012-06-24T17:18:29Z")
> [@fubbleskag](#): > > If you’re asking who my final vote would be for if tally was right this minute, it would be yourself. That was what I wanted to know, and I’m going to keep asking this if people make multiple votes. As I stated before, it muddles the voting record. If, say, someone votes for two players, and one flips town and the other scum, how can we draw any meaningful conclusions from that? To deal with the points you picked out: “That’s how I see it. Stickler being helpful is a null town. Town motive: help town play better. Scum motive: look town. Likewise, I don’t make much of TexCat’s FOS. It’s weakly justified, but at this stage of the game some players need to be prepared to poke others.” - Was aimed at the new players, to introduce them to the term “null tell” (although I managed to bowdlerize it), and to give them some idea of what is expected on Day 1. After poking **Tengu** to give an opinion I thought it only fair to add my own. **@fubbleskag** - Are you disagreeing with me that **Inner Stickler** providing a glossary of terms and **TexCat** ’s FOS are null? “Another problem with claiming results too early is scum can kill off any confirmed town.” - Confirmed or semi-confirmed town are more valuable in the mid to end game than early on. Often, if a player is confirmed or semi-confirmed early on, scum will just kill them off. I was specifically thinking about **MHaye** ’s one-by-one investigation strategy at the time. > [@fubbleskag](#): > > In a game where everyone has a power, most of them one-shot, how exactly do you expect to test any claims? The odds of us fully confirming any town aren’t great, but there are various mechanisms that make it possible. As I said in a previous post, ultimately we will have to use our judgement when assessing any claims, and how they use their power is a data point, so they are a bit more useful than I was thinking. **@Fubbleskag** - In post #133 you complain I’ve only answered part of your case. Why are you giving **Enderw24** a free pass, when he made no attempt whatsoever to answer? ---
**Author:** ![Kamino\_Neko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kamino_neko/32/34_2.png) [@Kamino\_Neko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamino_Neko)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/138 "2012-06-24T17:19:51Z")
> [@Mahaloth](#): > > 1. Everyone using their power toNight? Huh, I guess that is kind of a possibility, I’m not totally against it, but I think it will be really hard to get us all to actually do that. Eh. I’ve no strong opinion on the Investigators using their powers toNight\*, but the others I don’t think so. The protective powers are nearly useless if cast blindly, and the Shipman’s attack worse than that - it’d be basically giving toDay 2 blind lynches\*\*, both of which are most likely to hit Town, just by the numbers. - It’s a bit of a vicious circle, really - it’d be nice to have the information from the investigators, but will it really be useful information if they investigate without any information to go on? But how will they get the information if they don’t? \*\* Frankly, I’d rather see the actual lynching held off until we have some information, too. So… **Vote No Lynch** But since that’s not likely, and we’ve got multiple votes: **Vote Visorslash** He’s dangerous, IMO. Randomly aggressive out of the gate and far too cavalier about the possibility of a mislynch, especially with the strong odds of hitting an investigator that his mis-chosen ratio gave. ---
**Author:** ![sinjin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@sinjin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinjin)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/139 "2012-06-24T18:19:29Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > **@sinjin** - Who is pinging you right now? Aloha; I’ve just gotten back from an impromptu two day Ikea run and am trying to catch up. Unfortunately I also installed some new software that is making my computer crash too. Hope I got that taken care of by uninstalling. But got to go to the store now.:mad: ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2012, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807/140 "2012-06-24T18:42:12Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > **Enderw24** - Fairly active, but only posting content on strategy. I notice from another thread that he is a chess player, and I’d expect him to realise why no-lynch is such a bad strategy. > > **Unvote Mahaloth** > **Vote Enderw24** Well, to clarify, I didn’t say that I’m in favor of not lynching. I said “I think, theoretically, a continued no-lynch can work to town’s favor.” Mainly I was just sort of thinking out loud to see if others can help critique my line of thinking. The first thing I wasn’t sure about was whether a no-lynch strategy would lead to a win. It won’t. It will, at best, lead to a stalemate. At worst, I’m missing something crucial in our toolbox or we’ll misstep and town will end up losing. Not worth the risk, IMO, but I wanted to play it through in my head just to see. Anyway, I agree with what someone said above. Why bother playing for a stalemate? So no. I’m not in favor of a no-lynch. I’m really not in favor of a no-lynch for night one. I agree with many of you that **Visorslash** \*\*\*\* has been intentionally confrontational and it’s not surprising he’s garnered the votes he has. But there’s something about the way **Snickers** has gone about trying to get us to hold off on D1 lynchings that’s been nagging at me for awhile. Vote Snickers [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mafia-the-road-to-canterbury-game-thread/625807.md?page=8)