Mini 681 - Mish Mash Mafia - THE END!

[Max]

Kloud will be writing the execution piece, if you want you can send him a PM with ideas.

[Mana_Ku]

At this point, I will not vote Caboose, KoC or Letsbefriends.
Caboose his idea can be seen as WIFOM to vote him.
KoC has really strange posts.
Letsbefriends is again WIFOM. Does he say he doesn't want to kill to appear pro-town or does he really mean it.

At this point from what I've seen, I'm having doubts between Sekinj and RestFermata. Therefor I'll

Vote Sekinj

as I can agree with her thoughts most of the time.

[RestFermata]

Probably absent over the weekend. So

Unvote

. Please don't elect me in the meantime.

[Caboose]

Caboose his idea can be seen as WIFOM to vote him.

WIFOM? Where?

Therefor I'll Vote Sekinj

So, you vote for the person that I agree with?

[sekinj]

@caboose: you may agree with me, but I don't necessarily agree with you. I think that is the difference. We do agree on how to communicate, but it seems that you are more insistant that people tie themselves to another person, which I do not agree with. Let me know if I am mis-interpreting.

[Tovarish]

Why do you oppose binding?

[letsbefriends]

How was I not prodded.

Vote; Mana Ku

Any reason for your vote?

[sekinj]

Why do you oppose binding?

I don't oppose stating suspicions, but I don't think we shoudl tie the hands of the executioner either.

I just don't agree with trying to defeat the theme part of any theme game. For me it falls into the category of trying to outguess the mod.

[letsbefriends]

Why do you oppose binding?

I don't oppose stating suspicions, but I don't think we shoudl tie the hands of the executioner either.

Umm, doesn't this contradict your plan that you suggested earlier? What you're saying here is that you only want to vote/elect the executioner, but not say who to lynch or shoot, am I correct? Doesn't that mean you agree more with KoC than Caboose, strategy-wise?

I just don't agree with trying to defeat the theme part of any theme game. For me it falls into the category of trying to outguess the mod.

I disagree with you disagreeing. To me, the mod's most important role in a mafia game is choosing the game, and the rules that come with it. Once the game starts, the game is in the players' hands. Players should only be concerned with maximizing their chances to win, even if it means breaking the game. Being able to break a game either means the game isn't fair, or that it needs improvement. If a game has flaws, why not exploit them? It's about using your head.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Um, dunno about you, but I play Mafia for fun. Not to grind out results to make me look good. I'd rather lose a well-played game than break a game and win, thanks.

[sekinj]

@letsbefriends: I already explained this. I'm all for input.

I don't like the idea of openly stating who we would kill, and as such, I refuse to do anything but vote. Scum will aready be steering the lynch, so why give them even more information to base their decision on?

Actually, I don't think it shoudl be REQUIRED to state who we would kill. I was just suggesting those tags to make it clear what we are talking about. The person elected still has free rgith to choose anyone, and the person lynched has free right to choose anyone to shoot. However, it looked like people were going to make suggestion on lynches and shootings anyway, so I just proposed that way of stating it. I don't agree that everyone should HAVE to do anything except vote.

[letsbefriends]

Well, I play mafia for fun as well, but I play to win everytime too. I'd rather play a game that is fair than play a game that can be broken, even if it means I can win.

Breaking the game was just an example. I don't think that what we're talking about even constitutes anything close to breaking the game.

[letsbefriends]

@letsbefriends: I already explained this. I'm all for input.

I don't like the idea of openly stating who we would kill, and as such, I refuse to do anything but vote. Scum will aready be steering the lynch, so why give them even more information to base their decision on?

Actually, I don't think it shoudl be REQUIRED to state who we would kill. I was just suggesting those tags to make it clear what we are talking about. The person elected still has free rgith to choose anyone, and the person lynched has free right to choose anyone to shoot. However, it looked like people were going to make suggestion on lynches and shootings anyway, so I just proposed that way of stating it. I don't agree that everyone should HAVE to do anything except vote.

What I don't understand is why you would suggest a plan that you disagree with. If you think it will hurt the town by saying who to lynch and who to shoot, shouldn't you be more focused on trying to convince people to NOT do so, rather than suggesting a better way to go about it? It seems really counter-productive to what your goal is, assuming that your goal is to not openly state who to lynch/shoot.

[sekinj]

@letsbefriends: I already explained this. I'm all for input.

I don't like the idea of openly stating who we would kill, and as such, I refuse to do anything but vote. Scum will aready be steering the lynch, so why give them even more information to base their decision on?

Actually, I don't think it shoudl be REQUIRED to state who we would kill. I was just suggesting those tags to make it clear what we are talking about. The person elected still has free rgith to choose anyone, and the person lynched has free right to choose anyone to shoot. However, it looked like people were going to make suggestion on lynches and shootings anyway, so I just proposed that way of stating it. I don't agree that everyone should HAVE to do anything except vote.

What I don't understand is why you would suggest a plan that you disagree with. If you think it will hurt the town by saying who to lynch and who to shoot, shouldn't you be more focused on trying to convince people to NOT do so, rather than suggesting a better way to go about it? It seems really counter-productive to what your goal is, assuming that your goal is to not openly state who to lynch/shoot.

No! You aren't understanding at all. I think everyone should obviously vote. Beyond that, think it would be great for people to state who they want to Lynch and/or shoot, but I don't think it should be required of each person. Once an executioner is decided that person can agree to go with the majority deicion on lynch or choose their own lynch. Then the Lynchee can choose to go with the majority on shooting, or can choose their own shooting target. Either way, the executioner will have to face the consequences of their actions. If they decided to go with the town, and a townie gets killed... well bad luck... but if they decided to go it on their own and scum gets killed... well maybe they bussed, maybe they have a good scumdar... if they decide to go on their own and town gets killed... well they are looking pretty scummy and will probably be on the chopping block next. My point is that I think information and the game should flow. I don't want to BIND myself to someone or make others BIND themselves into a death embrace. I don't think it gains us anything. In fact, if we leave it more open we may be able to gather more evidence on the person who is elected executioner.

My suggestion was to use Vote/Elect, Lynch, and Shoot, in order to communicate better since it seemed liek some people were using VOTE (as in normal mafia) to vote for the scummiest person and others were using it correctly (in this game) to vote for the executioner.

[letsbefriends]

You're still reeeeeeally confusing me. Do

YOU

, only you, want to list who you want to vote/lynch/shoot?

... if they decide to go on their own and town gets killed... well they are looking pretty scummy and will probably be on the chopping block next.

But you're saying everyone should be given the option of using the vote/lynch/shoot system or not. Going with majority vote would only be best if

everyone

participates rather than say, only half of everyone. For example, 5 people participate in saying who to vote/lynch/shoot, and the executioner ignores majority vote and kills someone, who flips town. Does that mean the executioner should be killed because he killed a townie? What if scum used their power in numbers to sway the lynch/shoot candidates? If not everyone is participating, it makes no sense to go with majority decision.

I'm not too keen on the logic you're using at this point.

I don't want to BIND myself to someone or make others BIND themselves into a death embrace.

What do you mean by bind? By saying who you want to vote/lynch/shoot, would that be considered binding? If not, what would? You keep saying you don't want to bind yourself as if you don't want to take responsibility for it if town is on the receiving end of something bad happening.

[sekinj]

You're still reeeeeeally confusing me. Do

YOU

, only you, want to list who you want to vote/lynch/shoot?

I want to list who I will vote and probably lynch as well. Shoot is meh, since I probably won't care whether scummy person X is shot or lynched, just as long as they are dead, but I might use shoot to list my second most scummy suspect... or if I end up looking liek I will be lynched I will probably share my shooting target...

... if they decide to go on their own and town gets killed... well they are looking pretty scummy and will probably be on the chopping block next.

But you're saying everyone should be given the option of using the vote/lynch/shoot system or not. Going with majority vote would only be best if

everyone

participates rather than say, only half of everyone. For example, 5 people participate in saying who to vote/lynch/shoot, and the executioner ignores majority vote and kills someone, who flips town. Does that mean the executioner should be killed because he killed a townie? What if scum used their power in numbers to sway the lynch/shoot candidates? If not everyone is participating, it makes no sense to go with majority decision.

I agree, the more poeple that participate the better. I dont' think the excutioner should be AUTO killed if they are wrong, but the situation would bear attention.

I'm not too keen on the logic you're using at this point.

I don't want to BIND myself to someone or make others BIND themselves into a death embrace.

What do you mean by bind? By saying who you want to vote/lynch/shoot, would that be considered binding? If not, what would? You keep saying you don't want to bind yourself as if you don't want to take responsibility for it if town is on the receiving end of something bad happening.[/quote
I'm talking about someone's suggestion of each person chosing one other person they would lynch until everyone has a proposed lynch and proposed executioner. I dont' like that idea. I think we shoudl all take responsibility of who we want to lynch. but I don't like the idea of each player binding to one and only one other player until it is a big death circle.

[ShadowGirl]

I don't trust letsbefriends as executioner... she could be trying to draw that vote by repeatedly saying she doesn't want it aka reverse psychology.

Yes, that sounds extremely plausible, so don't vote me!

Bah, that makes it even more WIFOM-y.

How was I not prodded.

Vote; Mana Ku

Any reason for the vote?

For example, 5 people participate in saying who to vote/lynch/shoot, and the executioner ignores majority vote and kills someone, who flips town. Does that mean the executioner should be killed because he killed a townie?

Did said give a logical, well thought explanation for straying for the majority? Then maybe then shouldn't be noosed, even if they are wrong.

[letsbefriends]

... if they decide to go on their own and town gets killed... well they are looking pretty scummy and will probably be on the chopping block next.

But you're saying everyone should be given the option of using the vote/lynch/shoot system or not. Going with majority vote would only be best if

everyone

participates rather than say, only half of everyone. For example, 5 people participate in saying who to vote/lynch/shoot, and the executioner ignores majority vote and kills someone, who flips town. Does that mean the executioner should be killed because he killed a townie? What if scum used their power in numbers to sway the lynch/shoot candidates? If not everyone is participating, it makes no sense to go with majority decision.

I agree, the more poeple that participate the better.

Why say that people should have an option of giving their input or not then? Instead, you should be like, "Hey, you! Tell me who you want to vote/lynch/shoot, or I'll...umm...gnaw on your legs!", and then everyone will be scared and participate.

I don't oppose stating suspicions, but I don't think we shoudl tie the hands of the executioner either.

if they decide to go on their own and town gets killed... well they are looking pretty scummy and will probably be on the chopping block next.

In the first post, you're saying the executioner should be able to make his own decision, to choose if he wants to follow majority or not, but in the second, you seem to be trying to urge them to go with majority or lest be faced with the wrath of the townies. I agree that you should be responsible for your actions, but your opinions seems to fluctuate a bit.

I'm talking about someone's suggestion of each person chosing one other person they would lynch until everyone has a proposed lynch and proposed executioner. I dont' like that idea. I think we shoudl all take responsibility of who we want to lynch. but I don't like the idea of each player binding to one and only one other player until it is a big death circle.

I've reread the thread but I don't see who mentions an idea like this. Can you point it out for me?

It also wouldn't work as we're only playing "Elect the Executioner" for one day.

[letsbefriends]

For example, 5 people participate in saying who to vote/lynch/shoot, and the executioner ignores majority vote and kills someone, who flips town. Does that mean the executioner should be killed because he killed a townie?

Did said give a logical, well thought explanation for straying for the majority? Then maybe then shouldn't be noosed, even if they are wrong.

I'm just saying it's not a true majority if only a handful of people participate, so it wouldn't be exactly fair to lynch the executioner for not following it.

[ShadowGirl]

For example, 5 people participate in saying who to vote/lynch/shoot, and the executioner ignores majority vote and kills someone, who flips town. Does that mean the executioner should be killed because he killed a townie?

Did said give a logical, well thought explanation for straying for the majority? Then maybe then shouldn't be noosed, even if they are wrong.

I'm just saying it's not a true majority if only a handful of people participate, so it wouldn't be exactly fair to lynch the executioner for not following it.

Ah, sorry. Bit scatterbrained at the moment.

[sekinj]

... if they decide to go on their own and town gets killed... well they are looking pretty scummy and will probably be on the chopping block next.

But you're saying everyone should be given the option of using the vote/lynch/shoot system or not. Going with majority vote would only be best if

everyone

participates rather than say, only half of everyone. For example, 5 people participate in saying who to vote/lynch/shoot, and the executioner ignores majority vote and kills someone, who flips town. Does that mean the executioner should be killed because he killed a townie? What if scum used their power in numbers to sway the lynch/shoot candidates? If not everyone is participating, it makes no sense to go with majority decision.

I agree, the more poeple that participate the better.

Why say that people should have an option of giving their input or not then? Instead, you should be like, "Hey, you! Tell me who you want to vote/lynch/shoot, or I'll...umm...gnaw on your legs!", and then everyone will be scared and participate.

because someone may give a valid reason for not wanting to tell who they would lynch, that is their peragative, and I don't think it is an important enough issue to try to force someone to name who they would lynch and shoot. I feel that it would be best that everyone participate, but that's as far as I will take it.

I don't oppose stating suspicions, but I don't think we shoudl tie the hands of the executioner either.

if they decide to go on their own and town gets killed... well they are looking pretty scummy and will probably be on the chopping block next.

In the first post, you're saying the executioner should be able to make his own decision, to choose if he wants to follow majority or not, but in the second, you seem to be trying to urge them to go with majority or lest be faced with the wrath of the townies. I agree that you should be responsible for your actions, but your opinions seems to fluctuate a bit.

No LBF, I've had the same opinion all along. if the executioner has a convincing arguemnt, then that is fine. my point was that the executioner was free to choose, and then I and others are free to judge them on that choice. I didn't write out evey single example that could happen.

I'm talking about someone's suggestion of each person chosing one other person they would lynch until everyone has a proposed lynch and proposed executioner. I dont' like that idea. I think we shoudl all take responsibility of who we want to lynch. but I don't like the idea of each player binding to one and only one other player until it is a big death circle.

I've reread the thread but I don't see who mentions an idea like this. Can you point it out for me?

fine, it was Caboose and here is it.

Unvote

Enough foolishness from me.

Here's what I suggest.

We each pick a person that we would kill if elected executioner. Once we have everyone covered (everyone's got somebody that would kill them), then we play like a regular mafia game. Instead of voting for the person we want to lynch, we vote for the executioner who would kill that person.

Is that OK, or is that stupid?

It also wouldn't work as we're only playing "Elect the Executioner" for one day.

I don't want to do that even for just one day.

[Empking]

Unvote

I voted Mans Ku because she was the most pro-town.

Vote; Caboose

I think he's the scummiest and it looks like he has a reasonbly good scumdar.

[letsbefriends]

Scummy scumdar?

[Empking]

I don't understand the question?

[Empking]

I don't understand the question.