Thespival Mafia (Denouement)

[petroleumjelly]

Do you want to share your action, hasdgfas?

[Beep! Beep!]

The problem, my dearest goofball, is that I may need to lynch MGIA first. If he is scum and steals another vote overnight, then the town could easily be put into a {3 votes} v {3 votes} situation, or worse.

Then nightkill me. Please.

[petroleumjelly]

The problem, my dearest goofball, is that I may need to lynch MGIA first. If he is scum and steals another vote overnight, then the town could easily be put into a {3 votes} v {3 votes} situation, or worse.

Then nightkill me. Please.

I'll put it on my "list of things to do", then.

[hasdgfas]

not immediately

[Beep! Beep!]

The problem, my dearest goofball, is that I may need to lynch MGIA first. If he is scum and steals another vote overnight, then the town could easily be put into a {3 votes} v {3 votes} situation, or worse.

Then nightkill me. Please.

I'll put it on my "list of things to do", then.

Thanks. Don't disappoint me.

[Mizzy]

Has, any reason why you don't want to tell us immediately?

I agree with Jelly on the couch recruitment action last night...it does seem awfully convenient and I don't see how it can be seen as anything but anti-town. Even his responses as to why he did it don't really ring as sincere to me.

And for heaven's sake, can we stop bickering? Beep, if you're town, please help out a bit more...I know your vote got taken but that is no reason to give up. You can still tell us who you WOULD vote, and that will help. Just play like nothing has changed.

[hasdgfas]

useless currently

[Mr_Gnome_It_All]

1.)

If you are town, then I do think it is the town's decision to make. A directed Vig does not change their choice overnight simply because "they make the decision" -- if they do they are not too good of a player (even, I would argue, if they happen to hit scum). If you want to make a choice like that, you ought to be arguing about it ahead of time instead of doing it leaving yourself discredited by not following the guidelines to which the town had agreed.

I never made any such agreement and refuse to allow myself to be led by anyone, in any game, ever. If you don't like that, tough, I don't care.

2.)

You might not "trust" what we say, but a little common sense goes a long way. Your role hurts the town more than it helps the town. Even if you managed to steal a vote from scum, having you killed just replaces the vote and you turn out to be ineffective. Stealing a vote from a townsperson could be disastrous. And of course, if you are scum this was highly convenient timing for you.

How, exactly, does is hurt town and can be disasterous? I have yet to see a reasonable explination to this. And I've already addressed that it's better scum spends a night killing me than to kill another power role.

[petroleumjelly]

It's not question of whether or not you are "willing to be led"; it's a question of "why didn't you argue for your position prior to making the action", or -- at the very least -- "why did you not inform us you might take a vote prior to actually doing it?". You are more than free to steal votes, but if you are going to do so the town deserves to either know beforehand, or have you argue about the merits for it instead of waiting until after you've done so. You're like the child who sticks a piece of candy in her mouth and then asks "Can I have this candy?".

Stealing votes can be disastrous because (a) a misplaced vote from you is all the more likely to end in a quicklynch [or in fact

be

a quicklynh vote], and (b) if you happen to find one of the scum townish, the town may

never

be able to lynch that person because we will never be able to garner enough votes without your double-vote (or triple-vote, etc). You are accumulating more and more power which allows you to lynch anybody with only a few voters on them, or alternatively, effectively have the town refuse to lynch somebody.

[mathcam]

PJ: Let me make sure I understand your argument. If the scum group was MGIA and three others (CKD, Mos, and unknown), then last night they may have decided to play for the immediate win and use MGIA's ability. Waking up with 8 alive and none of the scum dying would be a win since they'd control 4 out of the 8 votes, meaning that they'd have (essentially) full control over the lynch for that day, and hence a pretty clear victory. Right?

One issue: Given how scummy this makes MGIA look, they'd have to be confident that there would be two kills again tonight. Unless they have control over both kills, they'd have to be somewhat foolish to risk MGIA's lynch to the chance that there wouldn't be a second kill, and to the whims of an unknown killer who had a 1/3 chance of killing scum. Or maybe this isn't an issue, since even if there wasn't a second kill last night, they'd control 4 out of 9 votes, a pretty significant advantage when all they have to do is make one good kill. Hm.

On a completely separate note:

Has, any reason why you don't want to tell us immediately?

This question set off my scumdar something fierce. Has obviously has a reason, whether it be because the information will be more useful later or that he's scum and hasn't though of the answer yet, or else he would have told us. Mizzy's question reeked of scum wondering whether or not she had been tracked/investigated/whatevered last night. In any case, my instincts tell me to give Has the benefit of the doubt until it becomes necessary to do otherwise. If he doesn't come up with something satisfactory, we can always insist that he breaks his posting restriction.

Cam

[petroleumjelly]

Issues with your 'issue':

1.)

If the scum thought they knew who was doing the nightkilling other than themselves, this would be quite a bit of information to work off of. CKD claimed he knew who the Vigilante was ("it seems pretty obvious"). Given that Battle Mage died over night, I am going to wager the scum thought he was the Vigilante. Going off of that, they would base their decision for whether or not MGIA stole a vote on who they thought Battle Mage would kill -- if they thought he was leaning towards somebody not in the scum-group, then their chances only increase.

^ And if you think this is far-fetched, it really is not. In Double-Headed Mafia, I was the Mafia Godfather and I figured out how the SK/Vig (turned out to be Vig) was by around Night Three, and I purposely kept them alive because I could always gauge who they were likely to kill. That Vig ended up killing about 3 town roles, and I also got the Vig to kill the Cult Leader (although I had also killed the Cult Leader that night just in case).

So basically, what it comes down to is that if the scum thought they knew who was doing the killing and was able to gauge who they thought that person would kill, then going for the auto-win is certainly not a bad idea.

2.)

Even if the scum happen to fail in getting said auto-win, they clearly have a somewhat plausible argument to make to "explain" why a town MGIA would have stolen a vote against the town's wishes. So in a large sense, there is really little "risk" in stealing a vote and a potential game-winning reward.

[Mr_Gnome_It_All]

It's not question of whether or not you are "willing to be led"; it's a question of "why didn't you argue for your position prior to making the action", or -- at the very least -- "why did you not inform us you might take a vote prior to actually doing it?".

OK, I guess I can concede this point to you. However, by the time I decided I would, there really wasn't enough time to debate, so I just went on with it.

Stealing votes can be disastrous because (a) a misplaced vote from you is all the more likely to end in a quicklynch [or in fact

be

a quicklynh vote], and (b) if you happen to find one of the scum townish, the town may

never

be able to lynch that person because we will never be able to garner enough votes without your double-vote (or triple-vote, etc). You are accumulating more and more power which allows you to lynch anybody with only a few voters on them, or alternatively, effectively have the town refuse to lynch somebody.

Now this I just don't agree with. A person would have to be extremely careless and irresponsible for either of those scenarios to play out (and don't try to argue that using my ability was just that, because it was neither careless nor irresponsible. It was merely inconsiderate). I don't just throw around votes, and have no intention of "quick-lynching" anybody. Also, at this point in the game, there isn't a single person here I would refuse to lynch unless there's a damn good reason, in which case I shouldn't need to refuse because other people would see it the same way.

[Beep! Beep!]

ZzZ

zz

zzz

zz

z

Z

Z

Z

ZZzzZzZ

z

zZ

z

zZzz

no vote

no night action

Z

Z

ZZ

Z

Z

ZZ

Z

Zz

ZzzZzzZ

zzz

Z

Zz

z

zZ

[petroleumjelly]

Mod

, in the Cult of the Couch Recruiter role, you state:

You are the Cult of the Couch Recruiter. Your role is public, but your alignment is not. Each night, you may select a person to join the Cult of the Couch. That player must accept, may no longer vote, and their name will be public.

The number of your votes are equal to the number of members of the Cult of the Couch, and they may not be split up among different people.

(e.g. If you and two others comprise the Cult of the Couch, your vote counts for 3 votes.) Should you die, the Cult of the Couch is no more, and former members will regain their ability to vote.

Is the highlighted portion meant to imply that "The number of your votes are equal to the members of the Cult of the Couch

who are currently alive

"? I see nothing about votes disippating once a Cult of the Couch Member other than MGIA dies.

[Mizzy]

This question set off my scumdar something fierce. Has obviously has a reason, whether it be because the information will be more useful later or that he's scum and hasn't though of the answer yet, or else he would have told us. Mizzy's question reeked of scum wondering whether or not she had been tracked/investigated/whatevered last night. In any case, my instincts tell me to give Has the benefit of the doubt until it becomes necessary to do otherwise. If he doesn't come up with something satisfactory, we can always insist that he breaks his posting restriction.

Wait, so trying to get more information is scummy? Asking why someone won't share information is a bad thing? Last I checked, sharing information is pro-town and hiding information is anti-town. Not to mention, I didn't attack him at all, I was trying to get some conversation started.

[petroleumjelly]

^ I'll let somebody else respond to that. I am just getting off work, don't want to type up the necessary post. I will also be grading the response(s) on a scale of -10 to 10, where -10 is "supporting Mizzy", 0 is "completely missing the point", and 10 is "spot on".

[Mizzy]

^ I'll let somebody else respond to that. I am just getting off work, don't want to type up the necessary post. I will also be grading the response(s) on a scale of -10 to 10, where -10 is "supporting Mizzy", 0 is "completely missing the point", and 10 is "spot on".

Because being a sarcastic bugger takes so much less time than answering my question quickly.

Remember, I haven't been here the whole game, and while I have read the thread, I also don't have the same emotional responses as the rest of you having not been here actively through most of it...I'm sure that those of you who have replaced into large games can relate.

I honestly wanted to know why he wouldn't answer...I don't really see why that's a bad thing.

[petroleumjelly]

[At home]

I was thinking while walking home: we cannot afford to lynch by a "plurality" lynch today, or on any other day from here on out. If do not formally lynch somebody, then all the scum have to do is switch their votes last minute to give somebody "the most votes" so that they will be lynched by plurality. We need to decide on a lynch and actually

lynch

them.

[mathcam]

This question set off my scumdar something fierce. Has obviously has a reason, whether it be because the information will be more useful later or that he's scum and hasn't though of the answer yet, or else he would have told us. Mizzy's question reeked of scum wondering whether or not she had been tracked/investigated/whatevered last night. In any case, my instincts tell me to give Has the benefit of the doubt until it becomes necessary to do otherwise. If he doesn't come up with something satisfactory, we can always insist that he breaks his posting restriction.

Wait, so trying to get more information is scummy? Asking why someone won't share information is a bad thing? Last I checked, sharing information is pro-town and hiding information is anti-town. Not to mention, I didn't attack him at all, I was trying to get some conversation started.

Wow. This response elevates the original suspicion to a major

FOS: Mizzy.

You completely ignored the point of my suspicion in favor of defending against inane accusations that were never made. How you got from "The way Mizzy asked for that information seems scummy to me" to "mathcam thinks that the town having information is bad" is beyond me. To be absolutely clear, I was not accusing you of attacking him, or even necessarily arguing that he should keep his information secret -- I was arguing that your question reeked of a fake nonchalance when trying to extract that information, as if you were scum worried that you had got caught killing someone last night.

Cam

[mathcam]

Sorry, clicked submit a little too early:

BEEP: Man, it must have taken forever to size and color those z's the way you wanted to. Maybe you could devote that greater than or equal to that much time to sharing your thoughts on who's scummiest? Look at this way -- if you can convince MGIA to listen to your choice of targets, you have double the strength of your vote from yesterday!

Current thoughts on MGIA: My gut says that MGIA would't have made this move as pro-town without serious discussion beforehand. Now I haven't played a ton of games with MGIA, but my mental profile of him is as a solid and deliberate player, relying more on his scum-finding abilities than on unorthodox gambits (not that there's typically anything particular unorthodox about using one's role, but when the town has already agreed in thread that it would be best not to, I think it qualifies). On the other hand, I could certainly believe that a scum MGIA would be willing to take a chance at an immediate victory by using his role, figuring that even in the worst case scenario it wouldn't be an impossibly hard task to defend his actions. Again, this is just a gut reaction, so I think I need to re-read looking for MoS and CKD links.

Cam

[Mizzy]

Wow. This response elevates the original suspicion to a major

FOS: Mizzy.

You completely ignored the point of my suspicion in favor of defending against inane accusations that were never made. How you got from "The way Mizzy asked for that information seems scummy to me" to "mathcam thinks that the town having information is bad" is beyond me. To be absolutely clear, I was not accusing you of attacking him, or even necessarily arguing that he should keep his information secret -- I was arguing that your question reeked of a fake nonchalance when trying to extract that information, as if you were scum worried that you had got caught killing someone last night.

Actually, I didn't see the point of your suspicion on me other than that I asked Has a question, so that's why I "ignored" it. And no, I didn't accuse you of anything, I simply asked a question in return. It honestly, to me, felt like you were attacking the fact that I asked at all rather than in how I did ask.

As for nonchalance, I suppose I can see that, but I didn't/don't see the need to write a paragraph to ask one question. But as to why I asked, I honestly want/wanted to know why he didn't want to share the information.

[petroleumjelly]

Current thoughts on MGIA: My gut says that MGIA would't have made this move as pro-town without serious discussion beforehand. Now I haven't played a ton of games with MGIA, but my mental profile of him is as a solid and deliberate player, relying more on his scum-finding abilities than on unorthodox gambits (not that there's typically anything particular unorthodox about using one's role, but when the town has already agreed in thread that it would be best not to, I think it qualifies).

On the other hand

, I could certainly believe that a scum MGIA would be willing to take a chance at an immediate victory by using his role, figuring that even in the worst case scenario it wouldn't be an impossibly hard task to defend his actions. Again, this is just a gut reaction, so I think I need to re-read looking for MoS and CKD links.

How does "on the other hand" fit in? It seems that on both hands you're holding, you are leaning towards MGIA-scum.

[Beep! Beep!]

BEEP: Man, it must have taken forever to size and color those z's the way you wanted to. Maybe you could devote that greater than or equal to that much time to sharing your thoughts on who's scummiest? Look at this way -- if you can convince MGIA to listen to your choice of targets, you have double the strength of your vote from yesterday!

I already said how I thought was scummy but I can't get anything right, right?

I don't think MGIA asked for my opinion. I don't think he cares. He's on his own.

Coloring z's is more fun.

[Beep! Beep!]

EBWOP of boredom:

I mean WHO not HOW.

[Beep! Beep!]

Lynch PJ for crying out loud.