Mini 199 - Time Travel Mafia, Game Over!

[Mr Stoofer]

Vote: Someone

.

[Mr Stoofer]

Personally, I just hope Stoofer says something soon

Something.

My random vote certainly had the desired effect of kicking off a debate; but I can't see that the debate has lead anyone to say anything very scummy at all.

I strongly recommed everyone reads Cam's first time-travel game, especially his explanantions at the end. That set-up contained (I think):

1 mafia family
1 SK
1 doc and 1 backup doc (who got lynched the moment they claimed backup doc)
1 vig - who seems to have done more harm than good.
NO COP - for reasons explained by Cam in this post.

I think we should follow the voting strategy suggested by Someone in post 8; using FOS's as proxies for our votes, and then piling on the votes close to deadline. So I'll

Unvote: Someone

but

FOS: Someone

for not sticking to his own policy. Care to explain?

[Mr Stoofer]

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.

Of course. But the other game is obviously a major source of potentially useful info, not least because this game is expressly presented as a sequel to that one. I'm going to give you a major

FOS:changling bob

for trying to dissuade people from reading that game.

[Mr Stoofer]

Yeah, I have a question about the 6/3 voting strategy.

The person we're going to lynch gets the 6 votes. Do we put the next suspicious person at three votes, or do we just choose someone at random to put the three votes on?

The former, I believe.

[Mr Stoofer]

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

[Mr Stoofer]

I don't like Someone's post 69. First, yet more pointless off-topic discussion (diversion?); followed by the rather surprising and frankly unsupportable statement that he thinks 4 people are "decently innocent". I am always suspicious of people claiming to believe in the innocence of others - especially on flimsy/non-existent evidence.

I've never played with Someone before but he is setting off my scumdar (such as it is).

[Mr Stoofer]

I hope my post 75 wasn't overboard - I was just voicing a

feeling

I was having - I hope I made that clear.

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

. (Drummer in Mini 102).

at the time Quagmire thought that non-townee meant anti-town

How do you know?

[Mr Stoofer]

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.

[Mr Stoofer]

There is a difference between:

(a) making a broad statement that 4 people are "decently innocent" without any supporting explanation (i.e. what I thought Someone was doing),

(b) expressing a gut feeling based on

2

stated reasons (i.e. what I did in post 75).

There was plainly no inconsistency in my post 75.

Vote: Nox

.

[Mr Stoofer]

Hey Nox?

I have never suggested that there is anything wrong with stating gut feelings.

As is obvious from post [75], and as I made absolutely clear in post [101], what I didn't like was the lack of any explanation. You seem to be ignoring this point.

[Mr Stoofer]

Vote: dealine extension

.

I agree with SO's post above and I don't think we've made much progress towards finding scum.

[Mr Stoofer]

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?

[Mr Stoofer]

Unvote: Nox

. On a re-read, I think she genuinly doesn't get the point I'm trying to make. That's probably my fault.

[Mr Stoofer]

On a re-read, no-one jumps out at me as the obvious best candidate for a day 1 lynch. The thing that I noticed most was somehting that I and others have already pointed out, namely SO's early lurking. As I understand post 109, he is saying that he was following the thread but not posting. And his next post makes clear that he had had lots of thoughts to contribute but had chosen not to until called out for lurking. That is not a pro-town strategy.

This is not much to go on, but this is day 1 after all. So I'm prepared to

vote: SinisterOverlord

.

The only other odd thing was Nox's accusation that I am lurking. I found that totally bizarre.

[Mr Stoofer]

There are 2 main points there.

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?

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.)

[Mr Stoofer]

I don't really know what I can say about the changling bob thing. I don't disagree with anything anyone has written on the topic. Yes, his defences of me raise an eyebrow, but from my point of view they are all entirely rational (because I know for certain that he is right). Perhaps the explanantion is that we have recently played a game together (Mini 167), where we were both pro-town: so he knows that this is my pro-town style. And yes, if I am innocent that doesn't mean he is too.

I suppose mole will say that the above is "capitalising on what content other people post, and not contributing anything yourself" (although the 4th sentence is a new point). But I really don't know what else to say on the topic.

[Mr Stoofer]

Given the vote count, and the impending deadline, there is not much I can do to save myself now. This will actually be the first time I've ever been lynched and I feel bad that I've let the town down by drawing suspicion on to myself.

FWIW, I'm the back-up doc. That is why I made the point in postpost 44 that there was a back-up doc in Time Travel 1 and that he got lynched when he claimed back-up doc.

Since my role won't be revealed on my death, this won't help the town much. All I can ask is that if anyone else claims back-up doc you look very carefully at the claim.

[Mr Stoofer]

Why?

[Mr Stoofer]

See: I told you that you wouldn't believe me.

I have no time fuel - my PM makes it pretty clear that I would "inherit" the doc's fuel.

[Mr Stoofer]

[Mr Stoofer]

poor Stoofer

Indeed. When I got my PM I knew I'd be lynched as soon as I claimed back-up doc. I wrote in the thread that the back-up doc would be lynched as soon as he claimed. And as soon as I claimed, I was lynched.

Still, we win and kudos to Someone, Fritzler and Nox for winning this game for the town! Yay!!!!

[Mr Stoofer]

Stoofer, if you had said you had one day of time fuel instead of inheriting mine, I'd have tried to save you.

My role PM said that I didn't have any time fuel but I would be given more info when the doc died.

[Mr Stoofer]

And thankls mathcam for the game.