Actually, I misread the rules for the Seraph. I was under the impression that if scum killed the seraph, they could exchange a used weapon for a fresh one, but that’s not the case.
That still doesn’t really change the fact that essentially starting on night 1 instead of day 1 (which is what a no-lynch ends up accomplishing) does no good for town.
I actually feel the opposite. That she is less likely to be scum since she was willing to openly suggest this. I think if there are scum on the no-lynch wagon it is more likely the ones that joined it later.
The investigating roles can investigate anyone and that will give us useful information (though I would like them to avoid overlap). The protective roles should probably be operating with a bit more information rather than just firing blindly. Also, some roles block actions. I don’t really want to put them in play on a Night when we are encouraging investigators to investigate.
I don’t know that ‘blowing our wad’ on Night 1 is any worse than possibly not blowing it at all if our investigators get killed.
I don’t really understand why this is a problem. No-lynch is just one more thing on the ballot and you are allowed to vote for as many things on the ballot as you would like.
In general, I think it is a Town tell, but I have seen some experienced players that know that it is a Town tell do a good job of faking it.
Unvote Mahaloth
Vote Visorslash
for reasons stated earlier. I have already mentioned my suspicions of Mosier and I also suspect Hal for both getting on the no-lynch wagon and the analysis Stanislaus did (though the suspicion is mitigated some by his reaction to Snickers; I don’t really know how experienced Hal is or how likely he would be to fake outrage like that). I also thought Sinjin made good points in regards to MHaye and Suburban Plankton (along with Hal).
(I’ll try and catch up with the game today. I’ve been a bit distracted as we’re having some redundancies at work and I’ve been waiting to hear what’s happening.)
@ The guy who said I was lurking
I have things to do besides mafia. As do most of you.
That said, we need a lynch.
Unvote; Vote: Visorslash
Greetings, travellers.
It’s nice to be missed, so thank you to everyone who enquired as to my whereabouts.
Tengu’s attempt to add momentum to a No Lynch bandwagon is the fishiest thing I’ve smelt all Day.
vote Tengu
Just to throw some opinions out there, I think “on the balance”, it is better for town investigators to get busy on Night 1, especially when cloak of lies and blocks and blocking blocks and lucky charms etc would make the results of a one-off-investigation a “cool story, bro” at best. I encourage the investigators to get to work toNight and report back in the morning.
Why is Visorlash voting for him/herself?
If you’re not prepared to cope with the idea that you might get voted for, you shouldn’t be playing Mafia in the first place.
Now that you are playing, you should do your teammates the courtesy of at least trying.
It’s getting to the point where having multivotes is unhelpful:
unvote visorslash
I’m not convinced he’s not scum, but I’m just getting the impression that the lack of engagement following his early vote lead is a general dissatisfaction with the game rather than an attempt by a scum to withdraw from attention.
Also, Snickers’ vote for Hal sets warning bells ringing.
Snickers’ has spent virtually every post arguing about N1 investigations, including with repeated mentions of how he’s going to stop talking about it. Aside from one initial comment about visorslash, that’s all he’s talked about:
..until he jumps on Hal’s wagon (yes, 3rd vote in fact) late in the Day with a case that I don’t really love.
I’m not going to say too much about that now, only because I want to see Hal’s defence first. (I don’t want to prompt or pre-empt him.) My main problem is the timing, the choice of a target who already had votes, and the fact that Snickers has done as much “strategy-not-scum-hunting” as Hal. It all looks like someone trying not to be too controversial.
But to keep things interesting, and in the knowledge that I’ll be unvoting one of them:
vote Snickers
Good to see some players weighing in with some interesting cases and votes, and that our final player has turned up.
@gnarlycharlie - Who are you suspicious of right now?
@Visorslash – If you wish to play, please share your suspicions. Self-voting just damages whatever team you are on.
This pings me. Gives the illusion of participation without actually contributing anything useful, with the potential of kicking off a distracting conversation for town. It doesn’t need careful working out to determine that the loss of a lynch isn’t worth exchanging the loss of one of our powers for, given the weakness of most of our roles. MHaye is an experienced player, and should be familiar with the mantra of “odd numbers favour town, even players favour scum”.
In this earlier post, MHaye is in favour of lynching:
@MHaye – What changed your mind here? I also want to hear who you are voting for.
The lynch isn’t an isolated, one-off event. Without a Day 1, the amount of information we’d get from the first scum night kill would be zero. Town trade numbers for information. Nor is there anything ‘blind’ about a Day 1 lynch. The scum certainly aren’t voting blindly.
I find it odd you are arguing against established game theory. The key number in any game of mafia is the number of lynches town have available, not the number of town players. No-lynch decreases the number of lynches we get. An extra town player has little value, because no-one knows their alignment.
That’s quite astute.
Early on, while coming down in favour of lynching,fubbleskag does at least have some sympathy for the idea of not lynching on Day 1.
@fubbleskag – At what point did you decide no-lynch wasn’t an option? Why do you think advocating a position you found worthy of consideration is an indication of scummyness? And again, which of the players you are voting for do you have a preference for lynching?
Personally, I don’t find voting for no-lynch more scummy than advocating it and not committing.
I need to review Enderw24’s responses before I decide whether to move my vote.
Storyteller, you didn’t answer one or two mod questions on the previous pages. Is that because you missed them, or because you won’t answer please?
Yes, we do need a lynch. We also have 28+ hours left in the Day. I don’t think we’re at the “Oh noez, we have to lynch somebody!..OK, I’ll sacrifice myself for the good of the team” stage quite yet.
Vote Visorslash
For trying to drum up sympathy by playing the martyr.
Also for pointing out on multiple occasions how he’s ‘acting Scummy’; perhaps that’s because he’s Scum.
And as a policy vote: because he voted himself.
In Post 118 Alka Seltzer spends the entire post pointing out how **Visorslash **has been anti-Town, then ends the post with
In Post 131 he again spends most of the post building a case on Visorslash. Then he adds this
He had previously voted **Mahaloth **for lurking. Mahaloth had not posted again at this point, so was still ‘lurking’…why the unvote? And why the vote on **Enderw24 **as opposed to one of the other three people mentioned in this post? There’s nothing here to indicate why Ender is more suspicious than any of the other players mentioned in this post.
Both of these votes almost seem like ‘afterthoughts’, as in “Oh, I can’t vote for Visorslash, even though I’ve just pointed out why I think he’s Scummy…so I’d better put a vote on someone else real quick…”
Unvote Snickers
Vote Visorslash
I still have concerns about Snickers, but that can be put to the side for the moment. I’m voting for Visorslash for a variety of reasons.
You are misrepresenting me. The main point of that post was that, after reviewing him, I wasn’t prepared to vote Visorslash solely on the basis of that slip, and I explained why.
This is clearly untrue. Quote the actual lines where I build a case on Visorslash.
Because my vote had served it’s purpose and drawn attention to the inactive players/lurkers, and other votes were down against them. I can’t tell if a player is actually lurking or is not caught up on the game. A point against Mahaloth, and why I voted him over KellyCriteron, is that he did post in other threads.
It was partly a pressure vote. At that point Enderw24 had avoided commenting on any players, which is suspicious of itself but put him in company with a lot of others. I found his dismissal of the first vote against him to be a bit off, I’ve seen scum affect indifference to votes before, and decided to see how he’d respond to his first bandwagon vote. Now he’s posted some content and a couple votes I can have a better look at him.
Hee. Love the third vote thing, Stanislaus. What, I should vote for someone like gnarlycharlie because he doesn’t have any votes instead of who I feel is most scummy? Eh, whatevs; I’m not fussed. I voted for Hal because I think he’s the most scummy right now, and gave my reasoning. You don’t really love my case, eh - that’s mafia! I will say this, though: the third vote thing is tired, lazy thinking, and an easy excuse when someone has little better. IMO, only.
You mention my timing, though (as did Hal). I don’t get this - what’s problematic about the timing? Sure, I posted at the end of the workday, for Hal. It wasn’t the end of the workday for me. Nor was it anywhere close to end of Day. He wants to refute it, he’s got plenty of time. And if he’s that incensed about it, why not post a rebuttal then? He had time to make a post, clearly. Would it have been better had I posted at 7 PM my time (8 PM his)? If so, why? This is just really weird to me.
Visorslash, bizarre. You don’t want to play, that’s fine, but asked to be subbed out at least. Voting for yourself because someone called you on a possible slip? Because people might think you’re scum? Weak. Maybe it’s actually brilliant scum play, but it just reads like disgusted townie committing suicide. Thanks for hurting town, dude.
MHaye’s made a couple of posts that have pinged me a bit. One is post 24, which originally pinged me as obvious - of course people will vote. (This was before the no-lynch discussion, which honestly I hadn’t even considered would be an option and had forgotten was mentioned in the rules.) But Alka’s brought up a good point: what changed his mind that no-lynch might be a good idea? Also in post 24, he mentions being shocked that the knives weren’t taken, which pinged me, as it’s right there in the rules. I got a third ping from post 35 - I made a note that it seemed weird to assume that a scum Parson wouldn’t get the powers of the first player to die. But then I thought about it, and reread the rules, and he’s right in that a scum Parson wouldn’t get those powers because scum lose their town power when they become scum. As long as they don’t select and use the memento. And even if they did select the memento, I think they’d want to use it to save a stronger power anyway (perhaps the Carpenter’s or the Physician’s). It’s worth noting that the Parson’s power might only come into play if we lynch, however, and last I can tell, MHaye is at least considering a no-lynch vote. But he corrected himself about the knives, and I rethought about the Parson, so these pings evaporated.
I’ve also gotten the obvious pings from Visorslash, but these just read as pissy townperson to me, as I mentioned above.
The last ping I have in my notes is from Stanislaus, in post 32. My thoughts were that both of these are saying the same thing. But he’s right, and they’re not - only scum know what tools they’ve selected, town certainly doesn’t. They’re saying similar things, to be sure, but they’re not identical. So this is really minor and probably stupid.
Anyway, that’s what I’ve got so far. Maybe I’ll need to do a reread to see if anything else jumps out.
OK, rereading both of your posts from the point of view that you’ve just stated, I can see what you’re saying here. But on first read, you certainly didn’t come across to me that way. At best, you seem ‘on the fence’ about **Visorslash **in those posts. You spend a fair amount of time talking about him, only to go on to state how your suspicions of him aren’t enough to warrant a vote.
Maybe your words and your votes are inconsistent, maybe they’re not. Still it strikes me as odd that you would address the bulk of your posts to Visorslash and then end each of them with a vote on a different player, that you had previously mentioned not at all (in the case of Mahaloth) or only in passing (in the case of Enderw24).
okay, catching up now. there are a number of points i will comment on but will not address specific posts.
i think there are very few times where a no-lynch is good strategy. i’ve only played in one game that a no-lynch was clearly the right thing to do. that was however at the endgame. for this game, i definitely wouldn’t agree with a no-lynch for D1. true, usually, town gets lynched on D1 but as has been mentioned we still get information from the voting record, the reactions for being voted, reactions of someone else being voted and more. unless there is a more compelling reason than that, a no-lynch is a bad idea.
as i mentioned earlier i prefer that that all investigators use their powers tonight. however i would not support a plan to dictate how they decide to use their powers. that way each one is responsible for their choices. this applies to all roles.
i don’t subscribe to the thinking that investigators should wait so they are not shooting blindly. that implies that an investigator is only useful if he finds scum. finding town is just as important as it it clears a player. in this game, there is the question whether results will be accurate because the investigator might be scum or the target affected by the Cloak. but this problem will persist not only on N1 but on other Nights as well.
i don’t think having more than one vote at EOD is anti-town. it’s part of the game. in De’endee, all had two votes available to them. at first people used only one vote. after a few Days, everyone was using both votes. everyone can use them. get over it.
it is possible that he’s scum. i’ve seen scum do it and i’ve seen town do it. i’ve done it twice and i was town both times. his supposed slip is a good as any reason for a D1 vote. however, the other reasoning not so much. i feel the anti-town behavior reason is flawed. anti-town does not equal scummy. you can criticize his play all you want but that doesn’t make him scum. in my experience, scum are more likely not to rock the boat. i’ve seen a similar argument for Texcat’s towniness for being the first to suggest a no-lynch.
statistically he’s probably town. there are 4 out for 19 who are scum. also, i doubt the scum who came before him would have chosen him. he’s too much of a lightning rod. he’d have to be the first scum, which is even statistically lower. if he is town, i wouldn’t be surprised if this is his last game here.
this brings me to a point of discussion that hasn’t been introduced, that scum chose it’s team. i’m inclined to believe that most if not all scum are experienced players and likely have played with each other. i’d also argue that they are the ones who usually don’t get lynched early in the game.
so here’s what i have. feel free to correct my assumptions.
fairly new to mafia: Tengu, Babale, Snickers, EnderW24(?); Mosier (2nd game)
unsure: Alka Seltzer - haven’t played with him but sounds like an experienced player
usually lynched early: Visorslash, Texcat
while by no means are those i mentioned surely town, i will focus on those not mentioned first. now, i will do a reread.
busier day at work than usual; quickie between work/dinner, hope to be back after the kid goes to bed
unvote KellyCriterion
06-23-2012, 8:44 PM. I was in the shower, washing my face, which I do after washing my hair but before washing the rest of myself. Except my feet, I never wash those.
As I said, I don’t see a pro-town value in a no-lynch. Some/all of them could be Town and just genuinely wrong - I’ve been that many times. But, as they say, it’s Day 1.
Of the three, I haven’t formed a preference as of yet.
this is an interesting line of thought.
How clever of you to spot that the throwaway comment in brackets "(yes, 3rd vote in fact) was absolutely the core of my case. How right you are to ignore the lengthy quote of your posts that shows you to be hardly different from Hal in terms of your dedication to analysing strategy rather than hunting scum.
But I don’t mean timing as in hours and minutes. I mean timing in terms of the build up of votes and the approaching deadline. We were about 48 hours to go, which is when people who don’t have a vote begin to stand out. Given that you’d steadfastly avoided any discussion of who might be scum, or commenting on others’ cases, it seemed odd for you to suddenly appear with a case that felt a little “back of the envelope” on someone who was already in the frame. It felt a little like an attempt to keep yourself safely unexceptional.
Who won De’endee?
For those who weren’t in it, that’s a rhetorical question. The Scum did. I was part of them, and using multi-votes to avoid accountability was part of my strategy.
If you vote for the leader and the runner up, you might as well not have voted for all the difference you make to the result. That’s a great place for scum to be.
If you vote for the Town leader and throw away a solo vote on a Scum teammate, you can duck responsibility for the mislynch and later look good if they get nabbed.
If your votes don’t express a preference, they contain much less information. So we should be suspicious of people who muddy the vote record.
This is a really good point, with the caveat that if the first scum chosen were fairly new, they may not share these insights into who the “smart” picks should be. And, of course, one of the scum may well have tried to make an unexpected pick precisely to avoid being predictable. But it’s well worth bearing in mind, especially once we find our first scum.
I still prefer a no-lynch Today, but it looks like we are going to lynch someone. As I said earlier my suspicions lie with Visorslash. His voting for himself almost seems like a admission of his slip to me, and I’m guessing that he disappeared so has not to inadvertently give anything about his teammates away.
**Vote: Visorslash **
My original vote on Visorslash was made in case I was for some reason unable to return before end of Day. I wanted to make sure I was voting against the no-lynch idea and voting for someone I thought had at least a slightly better than random chance of being scum.
While reading and getting caught up on today’s play, though, I decided I was going to vote for Snickers. His response to Stanislaus just seems too focused on the wrong things, like he is trying to distract from the real issues that Stanislaus had with him.
The post I quoted, though, does make some good points about Visorslash and makes me doubt whether I want to switch or not.
After thinking it over though, I think I will
Unvote Visorslash
Vote Snickers
I don’t really expect it will change the final outcome, and I am not really against a Visorslash lynch (though I would prefer to see him subbed out), but my first preference is to lynch Snickers.
So, let me define scum gloating quickly. Traditionally, scum gloating happens when town mislynches and a scum player posts at the reveal, “Oh no, this is a terrible thing, we’re so sunk.” but inside, of course, they’re chortling, “Oh ho ho, we’ve got them by the short hairs, now!” It’s not a matter of whether the assessment is fair, it’s a matter of why the assessment was made, and a very pessimistic assessment made at the very start of the game reads like an attempt to encourage town not to try, because if the odds are against you, why bother?
I’m very glad this is your last reason and I hope it’s not very serious because that’s a terrible thing to burn a lynch on. If you think he’s scum, vote him for being scum. If you think he’s town but a poor sportsman or whatever, don’t vote for him! Why would you hand scum a freebie like that! Let him hang around as a sandbag and scum control obstacle. A player with an attitude like that is ripe for a vigging but not a lynch.
Voting for visorslash because he voted for himself is a crap reason to vote. Why is it a crap reason to vote? Because it looks like a great reason to vote but there’s nothing about it that makes it especially likely to be a scum thing to do. Townies, especially frustrated townies often choose to vote for themselves if they feel that there’s no escape and they want to get on with it so that town can hopefully move onto scum. Those are the sorts of things that scum love to vote for because they’re ridiculously easy to build cases around without actually interfering with scum behavior.
vote mosier
I really don’t like how his reaction to the game is how screwed town is.