I know it’s been theorized that we could achieve some sort of lame stalemate by no-lynching every day, but that’s most definitely not what we’re voting to do.
To be clear, I’m advocating no-lynching on Day One only – once we get past the point where some townie powers have been put into play, then all bets are off and we start stringing 'em up.
No – I wouldn’t suggest everyone use their power. Anyone who chooses to, ok, go for it. But I certainly wouldn’t require (not that it would be enforceable anyway) everyone to do it.
This is all a big risk, I know. I’m just finding it a better option than the high-odds of lynching an unused power role.
Alka, could you explain this? I don’t see anywhere in the rules that voting No Lynch is a one-shot thing; that if we use it now we lose it later. I’m not for it, at all, but I don’t get this small little bit.
I’m less concerned with ‘reliable’ than ‘useful’. And the amount of useful information you can gain from a blind lynch is damn near nil.
This is a transparently bad idea.
Besides the difficulty in making blind power use useful, think about the fact that we’d be telling the scum exactly when every single protective power will be used. By holding off for one night, they could guarantee all of their kills will be successful.
I haven’t been able to pay a whole lot of attention to the game for a couple of days now and I don’t remember exactly how I was interpreting what you said, but you said the “I suspect Visor, but I’m going to advocate a no-lynch” sounded like hedging your bets. I remember one game where in the post where I voted for a player, I made the statement that I didn’t think it likely he was scum. I voted for him because in the circumstances of that game, I thought he was the best choice for the lynch. Players didn’t necessarily accuse me of hedging my bets, but they did claim I was being inconsistent and various other things and a big bandwagon started on me. Now a big bandwagon doesn’t develop without some Town votes, but it was a good place for scum to hide. I can see how TexCat could think that Visor is the most likely scum, but still believe it to be a better idea to no-lynch. I don’t think just mentioning things like that really indicates someone is scum. I am much more likely to believe the players going after the person are scum.
The term “hedging your bets” just got my attention because it is essentially the same thing I am often accused of. Usually players will say I am “wishy-washy” or something like that because I will mention why I find something suspicious but then also mention why I could be wrong. Like in your case, I find you suspicious because this is behavior I have seen before, but with the bandwagon’s I have seen, obviously it is not unusual for Town players to feel the same way.
I don’t think the fact that there is very little information available is a problem. I would be fine with the investigators picking players at random to investigate.
If two investigators came back with the same result on the same player, I would consider the investigated player confirmed, but in reality all the investigators could be scum.
I think Stanislaus committed a typo here and capitalized days when he should not have. I think he was referring to 8 real days, not 8 game Days.
As I have said, I don’t think the no-lynch idea was totally off the wall, but after thinking about it, I come down on the side of Alka and Stanislaus.
I’m leaving my vote on Mahaloth for now, but I am willing to change to Visor(really I would change to pretty much anybody) if it means avoiding a no-lynch.
So the advocates for D1 No-Lynch now seem to be clear that it’s not expected that everyone will use their power. Could they please give some indication of which/how many powers they think will get an airing and which won’t?
It seems clear that protective roles aren’t being asked to act on N1. What about the trackers/watchers? The Cook? The Miller? (surely not). If we no-lynch the Squire they won’t be able to use their power. Some roles may already have chosen powers that can’t or shouldn’t be used on N1. At a rough count, how many are you really expecting to use this window your trying to create?
It seems that when we talk about saving power-roles, we really mean saving investigators. Given the doubts about their alignment and accuracy why do you think it’s worth the sacrifice?
Not only do I disagree with a no-lynch, I’m having trouble seeing any possible pro-Town motive behind it.
vote Texcat vote Tengu vote Hal Briston
(Note: reversing your stance doesn’t necessarily remove you from suspicion nor my potential final vote.)
When I have more time, I intend to revisit my vote on Enderw24, assuming he ever bothers to respond to it, and possibly revisit the whole Night 1 investigations thing.
My apologies. Obviously, I can’t read very well. That 7-4 was staring me right in the face so it should have been easy to tell what you were talking about.
Because, again, I don’t consider it a sacrifice. It’s a blind lynch that’s a sacrifice.
Approximately 80% of the time a blind lynch will catch a Townie. The useful information gained from that is negligible, so unless we blindly hit Scum, we’ve taken away the edge that we have.
ToDay, Town has the numerical advantage, 15-4.
D2, with no lynch, we will likely have the numerical advantage 14-4, plus any information gained from investigations.
D2 with lynch, we will likely have the numerical advantage 13-4, plus any information gained from investigations, plus the minimal information gained from the lynch.
That extra Townie is worth a hell of a lot more than the vague information the comes from an uninformed lynch.
Of course, it is possible to hit Scum with that lynch (advantage, Town, 14-4 [Edit 14-3, sorry], all information), just not very likely, therefor not weighted very high, any more than the possibility the Scum will skip the kill toNight is.
The fact that a continued no-lynch leads to a stalemate has an implication that the pro-lynch side is ignoring - lynching isn’t only the only way Town can win, it’s also the only way the Scum can win. So it’s incumbent on us to make the lynches count, rather than killing ourselves by flailing around blindly.
I don’t have strong scum leads yet, but TexCat fills enough criteria for me to feel comfortable with a vote.
Vote: TexCat
I think TexCat has a better than random chance to be scum, due to his/her pushing for a no-lynch before it was popular. This doesn’t mean I think TexCat is scum, but it is the strongest lean I have.
With the current vote count, there would be a one-hour extension to the Day if it ended right now; if the tie remained following the extension the result would be No Lynch.
Day ends sometime between 1:00PM and 5:00PM Eastern on Thursday, June 28.
No, it’s not. The information we gain isn’t just the role reveal. It’s the vote record. It’s who follows who. It’s how the votes build up. It’s very likely we’ve voted for one scum already toDay. How they respond to that matters. If we get a role claim, how people respond to that will give us useful information. There will be/are multiple lynch candidates - how the scum split themselves among those matters. It may not let us make decisions immediately, but as we develop info over the game, we can go back and use what happened toDay to find Scum. If we don’t start building up info toDay, we’ll spend the rest of the game with less evidence than we could have.
Alka’s already shown how not lynching actually brings us closer to LyLo faster.
No, the info’s worth more than the Townie. If you keep counting, you’ll see that under your scheme, we reach LyLo (assuming no extra kills or blocks for simplicity) after 5 lynches. If we lynch toDay, we reach LyLo after 6 lynches. Your way gives us fewer chances to hit Scum.
What’s the info from investigations actually worth? What weighting are you giving the chances of scum having an investigator? You argue that a c.20% chance of lynching Scum is negligible, but the c.50% chance of an investigator being Scum doesn’t seem to phase you. To put it another way, if an investigator announces toMorrow that I’m Town, does that mean you’ll never vote for me?
It seems you can make the same argument for no-lynch every day. Unless you think the info you get is going to be solid, your logic would always say that an extra Townie is worth more than the lynch. When and why does this change?
Right, and under your plan, Scum need one less mislynch than they do now. So it makes it easier for them.
Do you really think the Scum are watching this growing movement towards no-lynch and thinking “Damn, they’ve got us over a barrel now!” The idea that they won’t have to risk negotiating their way round a lynch will be catnip for them. The pressure of the vote record; the pressure of defending or bussing team-mates; the pressure of making cases; these are the things that worry scum. Ducking that and being rewarded by needing one less mislynch must feel like Christmas.
These two posts ping me because both of them suggested how the investigators possibly should and then retracted their suggestions. Hal suggests just letting the investigators work on their own terms. THIS is always the case, so why bother saying it. MHaye’s post is more troubling. He brings up the possibility that we would lynch an investigator for not following thru on town’s investigation “orders”. When in the course of Mafia has that ever been the case? Sure we try that sometimes with SK’s but never town power roles. This “scare” tactic just seems off to me.
This doesn’t even make sense and SubPlank is a better player than this.
Vote MHaye
I’d be willing to switch to either Hal or SubPlank. For the moment I’m not getting into multiple votes.
Because I had suggested a way to organize a targeted investigation before thinking through whether or not we should. Once I realized it probably wasn’t a good idea, should I have not corrected myself, since that would be saying something that is “always the case”*?
*A claim I have my doubts about, by the way. Has there never been a game where town has organized a directed, mass investigation?
Perhaps it is just my OMGUS reaction kicking in, but I find this wishy-washy post suspicious. This looks to me like scum hoping to start a bandwagon on an easy target. And Mosier was my third vote.
Why exactly is it scummy to want to no-lynch? I am quite sure that scum want us to lynch. Because we are more likely to mis-lynch than not, and this is particularly true on Day One. Scum need mis-lynches in order to win. Throw in the possibility of some powerful roles claiming to escape the lynch, and scum would be crazy to vote for no-lynch.
I think I’m starting to get a minor Scum lean on you. You’re completely ignoring all the arguments AGAINST a No-Lynch in order to accuse Mosier of being Scummy. Mosier still hasn’t pinged me at all, which is why I think you’re pinging me, if that makes sense. I think it would help if you addressed Stanislaus’s post earlier, the one with the table that talks about why Scum could, in fact, want us to vote No-Lynch. Could you respond to it please?
My stronger Scum lean is still on Visorslash. He came in here, talked like a jerk, was called on it, said “I’m always a jerk! Screw you guys!” and then disappeared. Whether or not he’s Scum, he’s certainly doing absolutely nothing to help town. In fact, he’s actively hurting Town if he’s also Town. If he is Scum, he is simply terrible at playing Scum. If he’s Town, he’s distracting us from Scumhunting. Visorslash, if you’re really Town, please TRY to contribute and stop lurking!
If End of Day was now, I’d vote for **Visorslash **because he’s acting more scummy than TexCat. If both Visorslash and TexCat are Scum, lynching him is a good decision. If Visorslash is Scum and TexCat is not, lynching him is also a good decision. If Visorslash and TexCat are both Town, I’d rather we lose the unhelpful Visorslash rather than TexCat.
Luckily, it’s still not End of Day, so Visorslash or TexCat have a chance to change my mind. Additionally, it’s possible that a third player will ping me before EoD. With that in mind, I think it’s time to start pressuring people; therefore I will place my vote where I would were it End of Day.
