Mini 199 - Time Travel Mafia, Game Over!

[mole]

In fact it's in the second post:

All that will be revealed upon death is whether or not the player was a generic townie.

I was all for saving EmpTyger tonight until I read Someone's post. He's right that it is probably better to wait until we think we're bringing back a pro-town role, but what can we do find out? We won't find out how many killing groups there are by lynching people, and trying to count the number of deaths that occur per night is going to take some work, and a lot more data than we'll have even tomorrow.

Perhaps it's better to just save the generic townies, as we can be sure they're innocent.

[mole]

Whoa, posted that too quickly. It

is

possible to prove there's more than one killing group if enough deaths occur on one night. (since all the kills submitted on Night 2 are posted on Night 2, even if the mafia travelled back in time to commit them). What we can't prove is that there is only one family (which would be useful as it would prove EmpTyger innocent, unless he killed himself or something), since a kill could have been sent into the future, or blocked by a time shield or a doctor.

All we can do is wait until someone's brave enough to say "You know, we've gone five nights and there's only ever been one kill on each of them. Isn't it about time we brought Tyger back to life?"

[mole]

While we're waiting though, let's continue with the useless voting theory.

80% of the fun of Mr Stoofer's vote is in the fact that we don't know what it means. It he had told us all it was a random vote then Someone would be ignoring it even more than he is at the moment. Maybe it was random, maybe he knows something. Maybe he doesn't know what his information means and was trying to get Someone's reaction to make sure he was sane before he claimed.

In all of these cases I don't see any point to Stoofer revealing what he knows right now. It's either going to confirm that his vote is meaningless, or it's going to force a cop claim or something when he may want to remain hidden. I'd rather he tell us when he's ready.

[mole]

I understand the point, but I think the logic is flawed. It is certainly advantageous for a townie to die over another pro-town role, and it's even arguable that early townie night deaths are preferable to no night death at all (since they can be saved and are confirmed innocents). However, I can't see anything good about a townie being lynched except that the lynch a pro-town non-townie role is especially bad due to the lack of alignment info.

It is probably good for the townies to die early so they can be revived as confirmed innocents (especially it's the only information we're gonna get). This is easy enough if they get killed by the mafia, since we can just send the doctor back in time to get them. But if we lynch them it's a bit of a waste.

Unless there is a way of bringing someone back to life after they're lynched. If we lynch the Tyger... then those votes won't count since he's already dead, and the second player on the list will be lynched (our suspect). Then if he turns out to be innocent, we can go back in time and revive Tyger, so he gets lynched instead of the townie...

Any thoughts? If we are intending on only using time-docs to revive the generic townies, then I think this might give us a bit more control over who gets confirmed first.

[mole]

Um... ignore all that. Can't vote for dead people.

We could have a 5 votes for lynchee, 5 for no lynch thing, and then revive a dead player to cast another vote for no lynch, but I wouldn't try it unless the revived player was a confirmed innocent as well. It will (if the situation ever occurs, and the mafia doesn't screw it up, which they will) result in us getting two townies back from the dead, though.

[mole]

Vote: SinisterOverlord

Prod! Time to say something new now the Stoofer's vote thing has been cleared up.

I'm going to sleep to avoid the post-exam crap logic posts (no more uni until August! ). See you tomorrow.

[mole]

I consider it an attempt to make the players focus on the mechanics of the game and not the task at hand; figuring out scum.

I strongly disagree with this sentiment: figuring out the mechanics of the game is essential if we are going to win, since our ability to "figure out scum" isn't going to help us much when we can't confirm our suspicions. What are we going to do after we lynch someone and we aren't told whether they were scum or not.

[mole]

Well, the other person I was getting bad vibes was from Mr Stoofer. Mostly because of this post:

I think we should concentrate for now on catching scum, rather than excessively elaborate plans such as that in the above post.

Usually it is scum who wants to stifle strategic discussion. It's not like it hurts to discuss as long we don't focus solely on that. Not really enough to go on, though.

Not sure about the whole Nox vs. Mr Stoofer business.

I think that the 'excessively elaborate plans' were the plans to kill with exactly the right number of votes, get the doc to travel back in time to resurrect someone who would have had to have voted the correct way while dead *breathes* so that the person who was lynched would be ressurected if they were plain townie and therefore allowing us to have as many town as possible alive, and hence win the game.

I think it was fairly reasonable to say 'That's a rubbish plan. And now for something completely different *organ music*'

I'll disagree here as well. Saying "Let's talk about something else" doesn't add anything to the discussion unless you're prepared to kick things off by adding some content to the post. Instead Mr Stoofer said "Let's catch scum", and then

Someone

was the first player to post his suspicions. Which Stoofer then didn't like.

My vote stays on SinisterOverlord for now (I don't see anything particularly cautious or considered about his last post), but I'll be watching Mr Stoofer closely as well.

[mole]

I don't like the fact that Mr Stoofer said 'That's a rubbish plan. And now for something completely different' when that was the entirety of the post. It's completely meaningless unless you acutally post some content that will start a discussion on another topic.

[mole]

Everyone had a dull weekend, it seems. Let's make things more interesting.

Unvote: SinisterOverlord

Vote: Mr Stoofer

First of all, I don't agree that we should settle for "not much to go on" for

any

lynch, even if it is day 1. Remember the mechanics--it is likely that we will

never

find out if the guy we lynch today is scum, or a doctor, or whatever, since they all show up as "non-townie".

Second, you're being a little too opportunist for my tastes. I agree with Nox, I think your posts do lack content, and in fact I don't feel that we've ever heard

your

thoughts on who is suspicious.

Case in point: you said you wanted to focus on "catching scum" rather than my (admittedly convoluted) plan, but you never did anything to further that purpose. Instead, you waited until Someone had posted a list of people he felt were innocent, and then attacked him for not providing reasons.

Then, this, again with no thoughts:

I strongly agree with those that say we should be sharing our suspicions. FWIW, the only previous time I have come across a player saying that they thought they knew who was scummy, but wouldn't tell, he turned out to be the scum.

Also, when SO made his post about Someone, you agreed with it, adding no comments of your own, and then complained about how little progress we'd made. And then when N_lich found it odd that SO "lurks, then upon being voted comes out firing", you basically said "Hey, I noticed that too!". I'll ask you the same question: why didn't you share those thoughts earlier?

Finally, there's something about your posting style that just doesn't seem right. It looks like there's more to your posts than there actually is after a closer look. All the above posts about "we need to catch scum, yeah!" fall into that category, but so does the most recent one. It was just a rehash of what you/N_lich had posted earlier, only you've added a reference to the post number, and pointed out that his behaviour is "not a pro-town strategy". Did we really need that again?

It looks to me like you are capitalising on what content other people post, and not contributing anything yourself, while maintaining the

illusion

that you have something to say. Nox is right--you have been lurking, it's time to come out.

[mole]

I suppose mole will say that the above is "capitalising on what content other people post, and not contributing anything yourself"

You missed out the "maintaining the illusion" bit--that part's important too.

Also, you should probably respond to the points I'm

actually

making, rather than those hypothetical ones. I don't see anything wrong with your responding to an accusation involving you. It's markedly different from the pattern of behaviour I noted above.

More to come soon, related to the other post.

[mole]

There are 2 main points there.

I think we can have this discussion without restating each other's points. Things tend to get lost in the translation, whether deliberately or accidentally.

First:

I don't agree that we should settle for "not much to go on" for any lynch, even if it is day 1

There is never much to go on, on day 1, and we have a deadline here so we have to do our best. All we can do on day 1 is (a) make an educated guess, or (b) no lynch. I favour (a). Do you favour (b)? If not, what?

This is a pretty generic complaint about Day 1, and doesn't take into account the mechanics of the game (or the rest of my paragraph). What do you hope to gain by lynching based on an "educated guess"? We aren't going to be able to tell between a doctor or a cop or a mafia, so we'll still be just as blind going into Day 2.

What the hell, I'll advocate a no lynch in all circumstances unless we're confident enough that someone's scum that we want them dead. The mafia kills are going to give us more information than lynching (since we know the mafia aren't going to kill their own members), and the doctors can revive the people who were killed--we can't do that if we lynch a pro-town player.

I'm really interested in people's responses thoughts on this issue, even if some of you dismissed it the first time I brought it up (SinisterOverlord?). We don't want to end up in a situation where we spend all of Day 2 arguing over whether we lynched the right person on Day 1, so we need to keep it in mind.

Second:

It looks to me like you are capitalising on what content other people post, and not contributing anything yourself, while maintaining the illusion that you have something to say. Nox is right--you have been lurking, it's time to come out.

Frankly I have not had much original thought, though you are exaggerating if you are saying I have had none. But the real point is that I have had no hesitation in pointing out my suspicions and commenting on what I agree/disagree with. I have pointed suspicion at at least 3 players. If I was psuedo-lurking (posting but without adding content) I would have been much more circumspect (See for example my dust up with Nox. There is no way I would have got drawn into that if I was scum and I knew she was innocent.)

But it's my contention that you

haven't

given enough (if any) commentary where you agreed or disagreed with a post, and that you are pseudo-lurking. I don't want to argue generalities: I've given examples of this behaviour (e.g. three posts that say "let's focus on catching scum" without any attempt to achieve that). Do you have a response to those?

[mole]

Unvote: Mr Stoofer

Hrm. That is a powerful claim you have there... I'll need to think about this.

[mole]

On second thoughts, you probably can't do what I thought you could after all. You're really not much use to us out in the open either... damn.

It is possible to test your claim, I guess, since we can get you to burn some timefuel and revive someone, but it requires you to have a power to test... and I don't think you'll survive that long.

[mole]

The most likely explanation I can come up with for Quag's death was that they picked him to deny us information and leave us blind for another day. And then they got lucky and he turned out to be non-townie.

I don't think the "revive Stoofer" theory is true--killing three people on Night 1 just because of the way they voted seems like a waste of time fuel, and it's too easy for the town to prevent.

[mole]

Regarding how confident I personally am of Mr Stoofer's lynch, one thing stands out to me. When asked how much time fuel he has he responds 'Why?'. This comes after having pointed out that he's claiming the same roll as is in TT1, in which if memory serves, the backup doc inherited the original doc's fuel. As Mr Stoofer had already claimed his ability, I don't see any reason why he (a) shouldn't say, or (b) need to ask why we need it. More information is (usual) always beneficial to the town (barring deliberate misinformation, obviously).

On the other hand, I don't really see how this information in particular helps the town. If Stoofer was telling the truth then knowing how much time fuel the doctors get could help the mafia a lot more than it helps us.