Mini 681 - Mish Mash Mafia - THE END!

[lord_hur]

Do you think skipping the 'elect an executioner' stage would be good or bad for town?

Bad. Elect an executioner then getting him to select a target is better, because it gives town more info : once as a normal vote, and another nice bit on the executioner himself.

[letsbefriends]

The only additional information you gain from electing the executioner is if they decide to not follow majority decision and lynches someone on their own. If they follow majority decision, it yields no information. And little bit of information you do get is WIFOM. If the executioner kills scum, they could be town with good scumdar, or they could be scum bussing. I don't see how that is more useful than completely eliminating that step to remove it.

[lord_hur]

The only additional information you gain from electing the executioner is if they decide to not follow majority decision and lynches someone on their own. If they follow majority decision, it yields no information. And little bit of information you do get is WIFOM. If the executioner kills scum, they could be town with good scumdar, or they could be scum bussing. I don't see how that is more useful than completely eliminating that step to remove it.

- following majority is a decision, and gives info
- it's no more WIFOMy than a standard vote

I think my point stands.

[letsbefriends]

- following majority is a decision, and gives info

I'm saying it gives no ADDITIONAL information. If we skip electing executioner, we will still be majority voting on a lynch, thus getting the same information.

- it's no more WIFOMy than a standard vote

You're comparing one person to the entire population. It's a lot easier to catch scum and scumbuddies alike when having everyone participate than when narrowing it down to one person.

[lord_hur]

- following majority is a decision, and gives info

I'm saying it gives no ADDITIONAL information. If we skip electing executioner, we will still be majority voting on a lynch, thus getting the same information.

I disagree. The steps are obviously different, thus there is no chance we'd get the same info. But if you're talking about quality, both electing an executioner and voting for a lynch would be the same (I don't think you're discussing this), but we'd have a chance to get extra info from the execution itself (I agree, it's not a big chance, but I don't think the chance is inexistant).

- it's no more WIFOMy than a standard vote

You're comparing one person to the entire population. It's a lot easier to catch scum and scumbuddies alike when having everyone participate than when narrowing it down to one person.[/quote]

Of course, but then we'd have both a decision in which everyone is participating, *plus* a single-person decision. More is still better, even if marginally.

[Empking]

I won't vote Caboose, that's a given.

By suggesting that idea, it seems as if he's pro-town

. I saw a game at the marathon day, where someone who also suggested an idea was the bad guy. This is a clear case of WIFOM.

See here why i believe proposing this idea is WIFOM. This is why it's not WIFOM to agree with it.

State every idea you want. It's good for town as it leads to discussion. However, there are ideas which i won't agree with or which I don't trust. Just like now.

Also, why don't you want to be the executioner?

I didn't propose that system to look pro-town, I did it to make an organized system.

x2 FoS: Mana Ku

For again, labelling my idea WIFOM when it clearly is not.

I'm interested in hearing KoC's response to my FoS. I'd also like to see his explanation for why he used an ad hom argument.

If you're scum: Doing something that disadvantages the scum in order to look pro-town is basicly the definition of WIFOM.

I think you don't realise that we don't know your alignment.

[Mana_Ku]

If you say so .
Then lets call it not trust worthy. The game is called 'Vote the electioner'. The players vote for the player who they see as best option. This player decides who the lynch will be. Only if we're gonna do it your way, the scum will have some influence on the lynch. Or the scum will be elected with this game.

But Sekinj is right. I was wrong. Sekinj has a whole other idea then Caboose. Caboose suggests we should vote the player who wants to kill the player you want to have lynched. Sekinj suggests that we should still vote the player who we see as most pro-town, but at the same time also show who we want to see lynched and who we want to see shot.

The difference is that Caboose wants us to discuss the lynch, while Sekinj wants us to discuss the executioner, the lynch and the person shot.
Am i correct here or still not?

[sekinj]

If you say so .
Then lets call it not trust worthy. The game is called 'Vote the electioner'. The players vote for the player who they see as best option. This player decides who the lynch will be. Only if we're gonna do it your way, the scum will have some influence on the lynch. Or the scum will be elected with this game.

But Sekinj is right. I was wrong. Sekinj has a whole other idea then Caboose. Caboose suggests we should vote the player who wants to kill the player you want to have lynched. Sekinj suggests that we should still vote the player who we see as most pro-town, but at the same time also show who we want to see lynched and who we want to see shot.

The difference is that Caboose wants us to discuss the lynch, while Sekinj wants us to discuss the executioner, the lynch and the person shot.
Am i correct here or still not?

Thank you! I was beginning to think i was going crazy.

Yes, Caboose wanted each player to pick one other person, until everyone had someone who would lynch them. Then we supposedly vote the person who pick the person we think is scummy.
EXAMPLE: Anna chooses to lynch Bobby, Bobby chooses to lynch Charlie, Charlie chooses to lynch Dan, Dan chooses to lynch Anna. Then everyone Votes for Charlie because they think Dan is suspicious. Everyone has ONE person who will lynch them and ONE OTHER person who they will lynch. I DON'T LIKE THIS IDEA.

Instead for ease of communication I just suggested that everyone use ELECT, LYNCH AND SHOOT. So everyone

Elect/Vote

s the person they believe is most town. AND everyone gives input on the lynches and shooting by pointing out people they would

LYNCH

and

SHOOT

.

[ShadowGirl]

Can't remember whose question it is, but it was something along the lines of why sekinj's idea is not WIFOM [in relation to alignment], while Caboose's is.

Caboose's idea can lead to scum steering the lynch, while sekinj's gives town more information as everyone is needed to participate, which I think is more indicative of a townie mind.

[Caboose]

Can't remember whose question it is, but it was something along the lines of why sekinj's idea is not WIFOM [in relation to alignment], while Caboose's is.

OK, I didn't create the "WIFOM." You and Mana Ku did, in your minds. I don't know why I have to be held accountable for that. I did an action, and you can interpret it any way you want, but don't twist what I did into WIFOM when your interpretation of what I did is really WIFOM.

Caboose's idea can lead to scum steering the lynch, while sekinj's gives town more information as everyone is needed to participate, which I think is more indicative of a townie mind

The scum can steer the lynch with sekinj's suggestion too, or any system for that matter. I did nothing scummy. SG, Mana, and KoC are all inventing attacks on me, and I'm surprised that no one has caught on to that yet.

[sekinj]

@caboose: I don't see either of our ideas as "scummy". I just think yours breaks the theme part, which I would rather not do. Nothing against you at all. I'm actually dissapointed we have even discussed mechanics this long.

I also think some people need to take a refresher course on WIFOM, I don't even understand how it's been thrown around in this game.

[letsbefriends]

If you say so .
Then lets call it not trust worthy. The game is called 'Vote the electioner'. The players vote for the player who they see as best option. This player decides who the lynch will be. Only if we're gonna do it your way, the scum will have some influence on the lynch. Or the scum will be elected with this game.

But Sekinj is right. I was wrong. Sekinj has a whole other idea then Caboose. Caboose suggests we should vote the player who wants to kill the player you want to have lynched. Sekinj suggests that we should still vote the player who we see as most pro-town, but at the same time also show who we want to see lynched and who we want to see shot.

The difference is that Caboose wants us to discuss the lynch, while Sekinj wants us to discuss the executioner, the lynch and the person shot.
Am i correct here or still not?

I have to say no. The original reason why you did not want to vote Caboose was because he suggested an idea, and that by doing so, it is WIFOM. Sekinj suggests a different idea, but you don't consider it WIFOM.

I won't vote Caboose, that's a given. By suggesting that idea, it seems as if he's pro-town. I saw a game at the marathon day, where someone who also suggested an idea was the bad guy. This is a clear case of WIFOM.

You aren't saying why it's WIFOM because you agree or disagree with the idea itself, but it's because he SUGGESTED it. Sekinj suggests an idea, you don't consider it WIFOM, you vote her.

Instead for ease of communication I just suggested that everyone use ELECT, LYNCH AND SHOOT. So everyone Elect/Votes the person they believe is most town. AND everyone gives input on the lynches and shooting by pointing out people they would LYNCH and SHOOT.

Ok, you keep saying I misrepresent you when I say this. Tell me if this incorrect.

Your idea: You want everyone to elect an executioner via

Vote

, who is to be lynched by the executioner via

Lynch

, and who is to be shot via

Shoot

.
My idea: We decide who we want to lynch via

Lynch

. Once everyone has given their input, we choose anyone to be an executioner and they lynch person with the majority. The executioner will not lynch anyone else.

Tell me what is different from your plan and mine. I have said many times that the only major difference would be in the executioner having the decision to change their mind and choose whoever they want to lynch, majority or not. BUT, you've said quite a couple times that you would prefer that the executioner follows majority. So ideally, following your idea, the executioner will lynch the person who we have chosen by majority, correct? So is that not a redudant step?

What also differs is having a say in who to

shoot

. I find that quite useless but I don't see why we can't implement it either way so I consider it a minor difference not even worth mentioning. We can still do it if everyone wants.

So tell me, why do you want to follow your idea rather than mine. So that the executioner will always have the option to ignore majority decision and kill anyone they want? You kept saying you want to play ETE and not a "regular mafia game". Are you arguing that you don't want to play a "regular mafia game" over a small bit of freedom that the executioner loses?

I'd still like everyone to answer this question; Is it more beneficial to town or to scum to give the executioner the choice to make the final decision on who to kill?

[sekinj]

Ok, you keep saying I misrepresent you when I say this. Tell me if this incorrect.

Your idea: You want everyone to elect an executioner via

Vote

, who is to be lynched by the executioner via

Lynch

, and who is to be shot via

Shoot

.
My idea: We decide who we want to lynch via

Lynch

. Once everyone has given their input, we choose anyone to be an executioner and they lynch person with the majority. The executioner will not lynch anyone else.

Tell me what is different from your plan and mine. I have said many times that the only major difference would be in the executioner having the decision to change their mind and choose whoever they want to lynch, majority or not. BUT, you've said quite a couple times that you would prefer that the executioner follows majority. So ideally, following your idea, the executioner will lynch the person who we have chosen by majority, correct? So is that not a redudant step?

What also differs is having a say in who to

shoot

. I find that quite useless but I don't see why we can't implement it either way so I consider it a minor difference not even worth mentioning. We can still do it if everyone wants.

So tell me, why do you want to follow your idea rather than mine. So that the executioner will always have the option to ignore majority decision and kill anyone they want? You kept saying you want to play ETE and not a "regular mafia game". Are you arguing that you don't want to play a "regular mafia game" over a small bit of freedom that the executioner loses?

I'd still like everyone to answer this question; Is it more beneficial to town or to scum to give the executioner the choice to make the final decision on who to kill?

OKay. I think we are finally understanding each other. I thought YOUR idea was more similar to Caboose's. I'm not sure where I got that stuck in my head... but I thought you wanted to have each player choose one to lynch and then the executioner couldn't change their mind afterward. so anyway I'm glad we got that cleared up.

So, yes, i believe we should proceed. the differences between our ideas will basically be born out by natural play. If people want to input who to shoot, they will, which is fine. If the executioner wants to do whatever and go against the town, he/she will.

[letsbefriends]

So, yes, i believe we should proceed. the differences between our ideas will basically be born out by natural play. If people want to input who to shoot, they will, which is fine. If the executioner wants to do whatever and go against the town, he/she will.

Proceed as in stop talking about this? I'm not willing to. I'm asking everyone whether they find cutting out the executioner step would be a good idea or not. I find it to be much more helpful to town than not, and I find that this will be useful in determining where people stand and possibly help find scum. We would be able to cut out all the WIFOM logic, remove the possibility of a scum executioner who will undoubtedly kill town, as well as gauge other people's reaction.

Anyone can disagree with the idea, but I'm expecting to hear why also. If you disagree with no valid reason for doing so, I'm moving you up on my scum list.

[sekinj]

@LBF: i meant proceed as in play the game. I think it's fine for you to ask that. I, for one, already answered.

[orangepenguin]

LBF, this is Mish Mash Mafia. Day one is elect the executioner. If I wanted a mini normal, I would've gone to Little Italy, thanks.

[letsbefriends]

@LBF: i meant proceed as in play the game. I think it's fine for you to ask that. I, for one, already answered.

But you answered when you thought I was suggesting a completely different idea. Do you still stand by your answer now? And just to be sure we're on the same level here, this what you're referring to, right?

THIS QUESTION IS ADDRESSED TO EVERYBODY:

Do you think skipping the 'elect an executioner' stage would be good or bad for town?

I do not want personal reasons. I just want you to discuss whether or not it would help or hurt town. I'm not asking if you want to go through with the plan or not.

I don't think it is any better or worse for the town on D1.

If it is, it still seems to be quite vague. Can you tell me what would or wouldn't be better for town? For example, by cutting the executioner step, we remove the chance of electing a scum executioner who would be able to kill anyone they want, since we decide who to kill by majority, would that be better worse for town?

LBF, this is Mish Mash Mafia. Day one is elect the executioner. If I wanted a mini normal, I would've gone to Little Italy, thanks.

This is Mish Mash Mafia. If you joined, I assume you want to play. Two post in 10 pages is not really playing.

You voted for sekinj to be executioner, so do you agree with her idea to have everyone give their opinion on who they want to

Vote/Lynch/Shoot

? I have a feeling you're not even reading most of what was said in this game, so I'll repeat it. This game will never be a regular mafia game, no matter how you look at it. What we're discussing is strategy on how to play

ELECT THE EXECUTIONER

for the maximum benefit of town.

Lynch/Shoot: orangepenguin

[sekinj]

@LBF: I get tired of your questions. I think they are goign around in circles.
I don't beleive we can truely "cut the executioner step". Anyone who is elected executioner KNOWS that they have to answer to the town anyway, and that's IF they don't just get shot by the lynchee right off.

@Mod: Can I get vote count, please?

[letsbefriends]

LBF, this is Mish Mash Mafia. Day one is elect the executioner. If I wanted a mini normal, I would've gone to Little Italy, thanks.

I've looked at past Elect the Executioner games and the mechanics are completely different from Mish-Mish ETE. In "traditional" ETE, there are no scum; we have scum here. In traditional ETE, executioners are chosen by a point system. Each person has 3 points, the person who has the most amount of points in the allotted time becomes the exectioner. Traditional ETE game mechanics are completely different. I also noticed you were in one of the past ETE games. You should know that the mechanics are completely different.

[letsbefriends]

@LBF: I get tired of your questions. I think they are goign around in circles.
I don't beleive we can truely "cut the executioner step". Anyone who is elected executioner KNOWS that they have to answer to the town anyway, and that's IF they don't just get shot by the lynchee right off.

Look, I'm not asking if you think if it will or will not be possible. I'm asking if you think it will benefit town

if it is done

. If everyone agrees that it will benefit town, that means we can decide together that that is how we should play. I'm getting tired of you trying to avoid the actual questions.

[letsbefriends]

In fact,

Lynch: orangepenguin

Shoot: sekinj

Or vice versa, i.e. if sekinj is lynched, shoot orangepenguin.

[Empking]

I don't see why we're discussing it. Sekinj's idea is obviously the way we should go.

Shoot: Letsbvefriends

[ShadowGirl]

I'm not attacking you Caboose, I still find you pro-town. :/ I'm stating my opinion, and I have not said that you purposely created WIFOM. A bit odd that you're so hostile over it.

Lynch/Shoot: Orangepenguin

Where on earth have you been?

[MafiaSSK]

Sekinj's idea is still the way to go.

Shoot: LBF

[letsbefriends]

Wow, are all of you that want to shoot me actually think I am scummy or are you only voting me because you don't disagree with me?