Mini 199 - Time Travel Mafia, Game Over!

[Changling bob]

Well, I was going to say maybe I'll play in a game that EmpTyger isn't in, but that's that openning scuppered.

So instead, hi again to Mr Stoofer, and hi to n_lich.

Regarding Mr Stoofer's vote, I draw everyone's attention to the following statement: we've got to vote for someone. *imagine a lightbulb appearing over my head here*

And even if votes on the first day aren't labelled as random, does it really matter? There isn't any other info to go on 80-something percent of the time if you're the first non-mod post in the thread.

And in that kind of vein, I'll

vote: n_lich

, both because he is nefarious and not having posted yet.

[Changling bob]

Unvote: n_lich

Now everyone but fishbulb has posted, but he's got two votes on him, and its the weekend, so I'm not willing to put another vote on him yet.

[Changling bob]

Unvote: n_lich

Now everyone but fishbulb has posted, but he's got two votes on him, and its the weekend, so I'm not willing to put another vote on him yet.

why?

Partly because what fishbulb said, but mostly because it's my play style: I don't fling around votes until I'm happy with them.

@Gaspode: Don't assume anything. Just because your role doesn't say anything about post restrictions doen't mean anybody else won't have them. Having said that, I agree.

[Changling bob]

Mr Stoofer, although analysing the other game may give interesting information, it doesn't necessarily give us any solid information, as otherwise the game could be unbalanced.

For example, having read mathcam's post regarding cops, it seems like a good idea. However, if in the intervening time an idea has occured to him to suggest a way of making cops work in a time travel environment, the assumption that there is no cop is flawed, and potentially dangerous to the town if a cop is lynched for claiming cop for example.

[Changling bob]

I'm not dissuading people from reading the other game, but we have to be careful using that game as a source of information. However, we can't use that game to assume anything. Having reread your post, this isn't what you were trying to do.
Mea culpa.

[Changling bob]

I find it slightly worrying that Someone finds townies 'expendable', let alone being 'an advantage to the town to have them lynched'. Firstly, as has been already noted, it would be hard to unlynch them. Secondly, surely its best to have as many pro-town people alive as possible at all times.

Similarly, mole says 'It is probably good for the townies to die early'. Again, this is more than a little dubious, as it will require the spending of time juice by the doc (if there is one) to resurrect a townie, and this will be limited. And then, even if they are resurrected, if the mafia get lucky with kills and hit the doc, they will be unressurected again.

I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't ressurect people, but that any pro-town roles dying early is, inherrently a bad thing, as is basing a plan on killing plain townies (obviously this is a little further than what both Someone and mole are saying, but the point still stands).

@Gaspode: There's a first time for everything, although yes, you're probably right.

[Changling bob]

<snip>Oh, and after a read-through, I have upgraded from one to

two

scummy gut feelings. Actually, the one isn't so much of a gut feeling anymore...

So you've revealed one, is the other one forthcoming?

@Someone: Your original comments were exam induced CrapLogic™? Fair enough. I expect I'll do that a few times . Wait, I mean .

@Mr Stoofer: I can see where you're coming from in [75], but Someone hasn't shown up on my Scumdar yet. But then again, mine has been documented as rubbish. Although as Someone says, off topic discussion can give as much information as on topic discussion, and greatly more than none.

I'd like to hear some more from Sinister Overlord and Quagmire.

What he said

[Changling bob]

My scumdar is also rubbish. I bought it cheaply off a guy on eBay and it didn't have a manual and I don't know what all the lights mean.

Yours has lights?

I feel so deprived.

(This post brought to you by the powers of I've-just-come-out-of-an-exam-so-I-can't-think)

[Changling bob]

Yes, Mr Stoofer. Your Post 75 was in fact overboard.

In what way was [75] overboard? He calmly explains why he thinks that Someone is being scummy (even if his logic is a little fuzzy). It may not be completely accurate, but it's something to think about.

You should see the posts I can make when people are avoiding my questions...

[Changling bob]

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*'

As with Nox vs Mr Stoofer, I

think

that they agree but are coming from opposite directions, and haven't realised this yet. I could be wrong, but that's my interpretation.

Lots of stuff

I can see where you're coming from regarding Someone. He does appear to make an awful lot of unfounded assumptions, which pings my scumdar a little.
Also, in the other TTmini, it was generally agreed that only plain townies should be reivived. I don't know whether you thought this independently, but I agree that this is probably the best plan to ensure we don't revive scum by mistake.

Also, so that everyone knows, I will be away from the 28th to the 1st. I've already cleared this with mathcam, who says it should be alright. Please don't lynch me while I'm away

Also, also, I second a deadline extension.

[Changling bob]

SinisterOverlord: lurks, then upon being voted comes out firing (possible overreaction).

While I actually agreed with a lot of what SinisterOverlord said, I too found it interesting that SO had so much to say. He obviously had lots of thoughts in the game so why didn't he share them earlier?

Especially with our prodding of fishbulb to produce his information.

[Changling bob]

I have mixed feelings about talking strategy. Generally it is a good thing, and we really shouldn't be discouraging it. On the other hand, when I'm mafia, talking about strategy all the time is my favorite way of active lurking - staying involved in the conversation without drawing heat. I suppose we should talk strategy all we want, but stay aware of that tactic.

Ah, but now you're talking about strategy

@fishbulb: I realise that what you did and what SO did are different, but the fact that we were prodding you to reveal the info you thought you had, while he sat on his are what I was trying to get at.

@mole: Did you mean to quote me, or are you saying something that I don't quite get? I was attempting to insert content into the conversation in the post you quoted, and was pointing out that the quashing of discussion of Mr Stoofer's that Fishbulb picked up on was fairly justified, and not inherently scummy stifiling of conversation. Could you please clarify your point for me [/stupidity]

[Changling bob]

Well, For my analysis up to date, I`m still tempted to lean towards the first two. Someone, in my opinion, seemed to have made too much of an effort as to bringing analysis and thought into the game to be scum. What Im trying to say is that scum usually try to lurk

under

the radar, and to blend in. Someone seemed to me as the one most trying to stick out and actually bring something to the game.

One of the other options availible to scum is to contribute lots, so as to appear pro-town. Of course, this could obviously then mean that the person you are looking at

is

town, but you need to look at the content as well.

Now, I

still

don`t quite understand the 6/3 strategy, but as most people seemed to agree that it was a good plan, and you`re all more experienced than I, I`m going to assume its good. All I really got was the obvious; that the votes were to be separated into one main(6) and one secondary(3) bandwagon. If somebody could explain the concept to me a bit further though, I`d appreciate.

The idea behind this was (I think) that we should split the votes so that any people who are dead, especially scum, can't actually influence our lynches. If we put all of our votes on a single person, and then that person gets retroactively night-killed, then EmpTyger will be the only person who influences who gets lynched (as he's the only one who's dead now), and we don't know his alignment, and might not have much chance of finding out, seeing as (a) there may not be a cop, and (b) he's dead. Therefore, by having a second set of votes on someone else, we will lynch one of the people we find scummiest as a town, even if our first choice gets killed night one from the future. I think.

Hope that helps

At the moment, the general feeling seems to be blowing due Someone, although Speedy makes a good point about people who jump on honest stupidity (no offense Someone), but at the moment I haven't quite sorted out my thoughts on that yet.

I think at the moment I'm leaning marginally towards SO, due to his complete lack of action, then a huge post, then drops of the radar again. I realise that it's the weekend, but the whole way he's been posting (or not as the case may be (and is)) is grating a little with me, although this is probably more gut feeling than actually bad posting habits.

Hmmm... Well I'm still not any closer to picking anyone to vote yet

[Changling bob]

No problem Nox.

However, I think saying that Mr Stoofer is lurking is a little odd. A quick analysis shows he has a post count roughly in the middle of the current range, having 13 posts, with a maximum of 20 (Someone) and a minimum of 6 (Quagmire). Although these numbers are both over the whole thread, and possibly wrong (I don't trust my memory and I'm too lazy to note a quick search down), Mr Stoofer isn't really lurking that much. And in terms of recent posts, posting always tends to go down over the weekends.

[Changling bob]

Whatever I say now will be viewed with suspicion, but here goes anyway.

Anyone else think it is a little odd that this is the fourth time Changling bob has come to Mr Stoofer's defense? As I said earlier, I find it much more beneficial to let the accused wiggle their own way out. Maybe it's a simple as Changling bob stated, but let him defend it. And four times? He hasn't defended anyone else even once that I noticed.

Actually, looking back through both of their posts, it seems quite suspicious. Go do it right now (at the bottom, change it to show All Posts from Changling bob, and then Mr Stoofer). They do have a little "clash" about whether or not to read the previous game, but it's starting to look pretty staged to me.

Tell you what, you say something that I don't find scummy, then have people say "that's scummy", and I'll come to your defense.

Maybe I don't play mafia hard enough, but I never want to lynch a pro-town player, for obvious reasons. Therefore, I will defend things I don't think are scummy.

However, after Nox's post about Mr Stoofer lurking, and now you pointing out to look through my and Stoofer's posts, I did. He's not lurking per ce, but his content is lacking somewhat. Only one post of any really size, and lots of 'yeah but no but' posts.

Right now I think that Someone and SO are most dubious, but I don't know which one I find more dubious. And because I think these two are most scummy, I find everyone else less scummy, and will defend them if I find it necessary or even just wise. Or justifiable. Or something.

[Changling bob]

I still think that SO and Someone are the most scummy looking. However I am not going to vote for either of them. This is the last time I'm going to get internet access until Friday. So I might get on before the deadline. Or I might not. In the intrest of fairness, I am refusing to vote someone as circumstances will have changed by Friday. Similarly, please don't lynch me

[Changling bob]

Just doing some brief analysis of Quagmire:

He had joint lowest number of posts.
He voiced suspiscions on Someone, including a vote at one point
He voted for Mr Stoofer at the end of the day.

Not a lot to go on really. Stoofer died, although as noted the ressurection possibility exists. Another possiblity is that Someone is scum, but there are others who voiced stronger suspicions. He could have been killed because he lurked, but I don't know why that would really help scum, when a more prolific poster could be eliminated, to increase their chances.

SO: re revival: It could be WIFOM (if I get that concept right of course ). If Mr Stoofer is revived, he could be scum being revived, or he could be townie revived by scum so he's lynched again, or he could be scum banking on us thinking the second, repeat ad nauseum...

[Changling bob]

Sorry for not posting, loads of issues have come up irl recently, reducing my onlineness considerably .

Regarding n_lich's Point and FoS: The reason for trying not to analyse the other game too much is because any number of things could change since then, either from new ideas since the last game, or critisisms of the last game. For example, we're given more information about how time travel works in this game, whereas in the first game several townies accidentally claimed by not knowing how time travel actually worked.
Also consider this: Mr Stoofer suggested we look back at the first game, and then later claims backup doc: a role from the first game but which we can't verify. Now this could obviously be true, but then again it could be a scummy 'look, it was in the last game' ploy.

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).

@Nox: Quagmire wasn't lynched. Would you care to explain what you mean by what you said? Or was it just not thinking before you spoke?

[Changling bob]

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.

On the other other hand, if he's a backup doc, this information is far less important, and since he was fairly certain to be lynched by that point anyway, as far as I can think of, the only role that could really use the information would be one who can use dead people's time fuel. I don't see how the information could therefore help the mafia more than the town, although feel free to correct me.

Just to let you know, I will not be availible between Sunday and Thursday due to another DofE trip (grrr). I may also not be able to post much between now and Sunday, as I'm putting on a production of As You Like It, and tomorrow is both the openning night, and the first time the entire cast will be performing together

[Changling bob]

For some reason, Mr Stoofer was the only person he didn't consider scummy, yet he gave no reason why.

Mr Stoofer wasn't the only person I didn't find scummy. He was the only person I didn't find scummy

who was being layed into by what I percieved to be CrapLogic™

.

Given that I didn't have internet access for the last few days of day 1, I did not get a chance to really comment on Mr Stoofer's actions then, which were more suspicious to me than before I went. Having had no impact on his lynching (not having been able to comment until after the event really), I think it was justifiable, and I'm inclined to believe we did the right thing.

Well, given the closeness of the deadline, I will claim. I'm a saboteur (spelling?). I can nullify the time-travelling portion of one target's role, causing that action to happen on that night instead of another.

So far, both nights I've targeted mole. I found it interesting the first night that I targeted him, and there was a kill that night, so I tried again the following night - but there was a timetravelled kill, and no non-timetravelled kill last night. So mole is probably not antitown - but he may be, if he's one of a scum group and another sent the kill in last night.

Firstly, as your role is spelled (most probably correctly) in your role PM, it shouldn't be easy to misspell it, unless you're making it up.
Secondly, this may be confirmable. If mole does have a time travelling role, he shouldn't have lost any time fuel, as he ended up not time travelling. This of course could be wrong, depending on specifics. It could also be falsifiable

if

both are scum.
Thirdly, I'm slightly wary of the role. It could set up some paradoxical situations (eg. roleblocker targets you night one tonight, you target them tonight tonight, what happens). It also seems it could be very powerful if it is a time travelling role, although you didn't claim that it was (just speculating a little here).

What with the other comments pointed at you,

FoS:SO

. I'm not willing to put a vote on until you've defended yourself, and in case I don't get back on before the deadline and you end up confirmed or whatnot.

[Changling bob]

Regarding the misspelling, if you are unsure and need to say '(spelling?)', surely a couple of seconds to check your PM or run it through a spell checker isn't too much bother. If you hadn't bothered to question the spelling, I wouldn't be any the wiser that you may be unsure about it, and none of this questioning would be happening.

Regarding the confirmation idea, depending on how the role was implemented, it

could

be confirmable. Obviously now, with SO saying the time fuel is most probably lost, it probably isn't. I just thought that if it could be confirmable, then that would be to our advantage as we'd have an alive, confirmed townie, given that they aren't both scum.

Regarding the paradox, I was mainly thinking out loud. SO has said his role doesn't time travel, so that makes the role more balanced than if it did.

The more I think about it, the less inclined I am to believe him, partly gut feeling about SO given the thread, and partly the convenience of a claim that isn't a major townie role, but explains a non-townie death scene if scum.

This is probably going to be my last post before Thursday evening. I don't not believe SO enough to be happy leaving a vote on him while I'm not around, so no vote from me still.

[Changling bob]

Whoa whoa whoa.

Firstly, there is no e in my name. Changling bob. Because I can spell

To go back a few posts:

Ok, I'll claim now. I'm the

time sage

. Once per game, I have the ability to ask a yes or no question to the mod.

I asked him, if as of night three, are at least one of these three people alive and scum:

nox, gaspode and SO.

The answer was no. Therefore, these three people are pro-town.

Firstly, this brings the cop-gets-killed-retroactively-but-his-info-doesn't problem with it. If you were now killed night one, we would still have this information.
Secondly, a single yes or no question? That seems very powerful when it can be used to determine a setup.
Thirdly, SO is dead. Why ask about if he is alive and scum? The answer for him is always going to be no.

Next, it must be one of fishbulb and me. Or you. You are not cleared yourself. Hence, it could be anyone.

Arg. I'm

sort of beginning to inch against

Changling bob, for previously mentionned accusations... Ill post later on.

(emphasis mine)
With three to lynch, I'd rather answer questions that you give me before getting to two votes, as scum could easily place the last vote and get me lynched. Especially if you are only beginning to inch against me.

I'm going to have to

Vote: Nox

. With three to lynch you shouldn't have put a second vote shouldn't be on me as it makes it too easy for me to be killed, therefore putting the town a whole assload closer to a loss, as at this stage in the game, we may be close to a loss given we don't get scum confirmed on death. I'd rather you explain your suspisions before flinging a vote to put me so close to a lynch. I will retract my vote when you do.

[Changling bob]

unvote: Nox

I voted Noz because he put me a scum vote away from a lynch, and wasn't over happy with that situation.

And yes you are lucky that you got to the end-game given your claimed role, but then the same could be true of anyone claiming anything else. I don't like the way that, as fishbulb points out, you have dictated to us what our last two lynches should be, with no way of verifying that until the game is over. If you and Nox were hypothetically scum together, then you would win and town would lose.

OK, so your information transcends normal time. Handy that . I still don't like how you include SO. He is unlikely to be resurrected, as either three people would have to be killed retroactively, or two people killed and two people revived retroactively. Thats an awful lot of night actions that all have to go the town's way for it to happen. Why not pick a death from last night, who is far more likely to be revived?

[Changling bob]

I voted Noz because he put me a scum vote away from a lynch, and wasn't over happy with that situation.

I meant Nox obv

[Changling bob]

So why not only look at two people, rather than two plus SO?

[Changling bob]

Also, something I meant to point out to Bob before: Nox's vote wasn't that dangerous, as there are no instantaneous lynches in this game. You don't need to worry until the deadline gets close (I suggest we PM for an extension).

That completely slipped my mind. I'm in two other mafia games in various places and running a third, and seeing nearly half the votes on me makes me think I'm near a lynch.

I extend my apologies to Nox.

[Changling bob]

So Someone has a very convinient claim, then he pushes for a mass-claim.

Firstly, isn't this in the wrong order? I would ask for a mass claim before opening myself up. But even then:

Secondly, as Gaspode points out, surely we can at least start to deduce from what's being said who is (or isn't) scum. A mass claim may be useful, but if it goes wrong, it hands the mafia the game on a plate as they know who to take out for maximum damage to the town.

Someone's actions today are really rubbing me up the wrong way. Not just because he's (wrongly) fingered me, but through dodgy tactics and the convinience of it all.

[Changling bob]

Also, there's a chance that you guys would find my role less suspicious when you look at the game in a whole...mayhaps you would have more of a context for it. Of course, this point is secondary to point A.

Hard to look in the context of the game as a whole, as most people are dead and can't comment. And how would you know that we would have more context? Do you know more than you're letting on?

And given your first comment, do you still advocate a mass claim, or have you changed your mind?

My main hesitation for lynching Someone, as I don't believe his claim, is that it won't give us any information. If he's scum, he'll show up non-townie. If he is actually telling the truth, he will still be non-townie. Either way, we won't really know if we're on the right track.

The same has been true of every lynch so far in the game. Its a risk we take due to the mechanics of the game when we lynch someone (or they wake up dead).

[Changling bob]

So, Someone, after declaring 'this is who we lynch to win, you follow up with 'this is who to lynch to ensure we win mk2' in [274]. But this analysis misses out entirely whatever actions scum may have, ie, the death of anyone relavent to your plan. And why is Gaspode probably dead tomorrow? Does his claiming have mch to do with the current scenario? The only thing that would help is, ironically, if he were a doc who could protect someone (as in a random person, not necessarily Someone ) to make your [274] plan work as you want it to. Even then, thats ignoring any time travelling that may happen.

And yes Nox, I'm lurking, its my normal mode of play: watch whatever's going on without influencing it by opening my big mouth. In fact, its my normal mode of life.

@Fishbulb: Why vote for me rather than doing some analysis of your own? You don't

have

to break the tie, you could help determine the actual guilty party.