Past Ages Mafia - Game Over

[Raging Rabbit]

What about the night game? Is a pair allowed only one action? Do we get to nighttalk?

Vote Tajo

for being popular.

[Raging Rabbit]

Two-Headed Mafia takes place in a town where everyone has two heads. Maybe they live near a toxic waste dump, maybe they just evolved differently -- no one really knows for sure. In this game, every player will be paired with someone else. The pairs have one vote to use. Either head can change the vote simply by voting for someone else. I will count the most recent choice if there is any differing choices in votes

or night choices

made by people in the same pairing.

Looks more like a day-night cycle.

[Raging Rabbit]

Mod: Do we die together? Is a pair allowed only one night action?

[Raging Rabbit]

Get a room, relationship challenged heads!

[Raging Rabbit]

I'm pretty sure the distribution's random, makes no sense for it to be anything but. What we need to figure out is whether we want to lynch based on who's the single scummiest player, or lynch a pair where both heads are somewhat scummy (unless the scummiest player has a scummy partner, in which case problem solved).

[Raging Rabbit]

Hmm, actually if it is random as RR suggests, then "self-voting" can be VERY pro-town.

Only if you're overwhelmingly sure your partner's scum, which I doubt ort is after 2 pages of playing.

Yes to Kmd's post.

[Raging Rabbit]

Actually, now that I think about it that brings up an interesting question. When we're close to a lynch, how should we deal with claims? I think it makes sense to formally decide this before we get near a bandwagon that would allow scum to manipulate claim process based on who likely lynch will be.

I'd say only the scummy player needs to claim, but I don't want to see a power role lynched just for being attached to a scummy player, so I guess both should claim. Or maybe the scummy player should claim and the second head should answer "yes" or "no" to claiming without adding anything that the scum can use.

Why should the scummy player claim first? (I guess I just don't understand why.)

'Cause if the other head's still alive tommorow, he's out of danger.

[Raging Rabbit]

You called, sweetie?

Just don't do anything naughty while me and emp are attached to your heads.

On a more serious note,

unvote vote UROE

for suggesting a no lynch. UR, what makes you think we'll stay in any game type for longer than one day? Even if it were true, don't you think we're much better off going into d2 with some info, even at the price of a possible mislynch?

Note: technically, 6 players out of the 20 can create a lynching majority. That makes speedlynces very easy, so I'm gonna look extra closely at anyone who hammers without clear town consensus.

[Raging Rabbit]

In this case, maybe, maybe not. (On the info thing...)

Um, what's to be unsure about? Suppose we do have another two-headed day tommorow - would we really be better off if we no lynched today? We'll be in more or less the same position we're in right now. What would you suggest then, another no lynch?

[Raging Rabbit]

Oh, I thought that was somehow part of your hypothetical situation in which a no lynch would be good. So, if the game works like we all think it does and we switch to another system tommorow, why no lynch?

[Raging Rabbit]

I guess the idea looks pretty appealing seeing all the support it's getting, so I'm not sure how much of it tell it was of UR to suggest it, but no lynching is a terrible idea. It really doesn't matter what game we'll be in tommorow, giving the scum a free night and starting tommorow with close to no info far outweighs the disadvantage of a slightly more dangerous d1 lynch.

[Raging Rabbit]

Well, considering I listed all the possibilities of these pairings there is definitely a point in going for a lynch, however, it may cost us the game if we lynch two townies. Adversely, lynching two scum in one hit would grossly overpower the town. I just don't see town/town or scum/scum being a possibility in this game or else the game ends QUICKLY; wanting the day to end quickly is scummy.

"Cost us the game" is ridiculous - the most it'll cost is two townies we find scummy. Town wins through the day game, by going to night we only help scum. Successful lynches require analysis of past ones, as well as discussion and a healthy flow of information - so by negating all of this d1 you hurt our future lynches, as well. And even if your guess about the nature of the pairings made sense, which it doesn't because we don't have 10 scum out of 20 players, trying to blatantly outguess the mod like that doesn't lead to anything good.

[Raging Rabbit]

I was waiting for this.

The no lynch is a valid discussion in a game like this. The normal consensus is that no lynch Day 1 is always bad. Easy for scum to jump on someone for that.

Unvote, Vote Raging Rabbit

It's not a valid suggestion, for reasons I already detailed and Lawrencelot just explained very well. Your analysis arrived to the same obvious conclusion, as well.

I would say a no lynch d1 is always bad for the town, but given the nature of this game it's easier for scum to throw the idea around and hope the town will bite.

The reason for a no lynch would be that we wouldn't have to sacrifice a possible townie to lynch scum, and we could just lynch the same scummy player tomorrow.

...which is a bad argument. Sacrificing a possible townie to lynch a prime suspect is vastly superior to doing nothing. And, of course, we're likely to find a pair of two players we consider scummy, which throws this argument out the window. Maybe if we only had one suspect paired with a very protown looking second head I would see this as a legitimate argument, but even then it's a rather poor one.

Please clarify the bolded.

Many people supported no lynch, I doubt all of them are scum. Therefore, the idea apparantly has serious appeal (probably based on the scare element of two townies possibly dying today), which means UR suggesting it is likely misguided rather than scummy. However, reviewing UR's posts, I dislike how the suggestion was very tentative - he kept checking to see if the town supports it, while I'd expect a townie genuinely convinced of the idea to actually vote no lynch - and also how his last post is a two liner calling Santos (who supports no lynch) a moron and saying nothing about my counter arguments.

SG moved my vote away, but for the moment I like it there.

Unvote, vote UR.

Im just wondering why do you people think this game will have another day of Two headed. DId you read the thread where you joined this game?

I don't actually think that, thought UR suggested it.

[Raging Rabbit]

And you are on UROE for specifics, not just because he suggested the no lynch, correct?

The original vote was for suggesting no lynch, which isn't much but is better than a random lynch for my money. I then noted many others are swayed by this line of thinking, so it's even less of a scumtell for UR to suggest it. I read UR in isolation and realized he was very tentative about the whole thing, and seemed to want to throw the idea around just to gauge the town's reaction (and hopefully quietly sway everyone to no lynch) without really putting his foot down is support of the idea, so other more vocal supporters would take the fire. He also ignored my couter-arguments to his suggestion in favor of calling Santos' defense of the no lynch idea moronic. This is why I'm voting him now. His last post gives me bad vibes as well, feels overly cautious. Like he's subtly doing everything he can to avoid the negative attention resulting in his association with the no-lynch plan.

(This answers FL's question as well).

[Raging Rabbit]

I'm so very sick of these self-voting discussions.

[Raging Rabbit]

It seems remarkable little has happened for so many pages, or maybe thats just how big games go.

That's just how big games go.

I'd like to hear people's opinion on my case on UR.

[Raging Rabbit]

Is it this?

Yup.

Then again, he's suggesting a no-lynch. This is normally a bad thing, but given the risk of lynching not just one, but two townies - it might be OK. Caution in suggesting such an idea is understandable.

I'm talking less about caution in suggesting the idea in itself, and more about how it seems to me he did everything he can to put the idea out there without getting associated with it to an extent that could draw negative attention to him.

[Raging Rabbit]

RR, you have a decent point, but a decent point is different from a decent case.

Call it whatever you want, I think it's decent for early D1.

[Raging Rabbit]

Yes, I can see what you mean about not wanting to be associated with the idea.

But do you think it's a scumtell?

[Raging Rabbit]

@RR

I'm fine with being associated with the thought of a no-lynch, but there is no point putting my vote there (Although, I guess it would be better than just setting it on a random person or not voting at all) if it wasn't going to happen.

Do you usually only vote for people when you're sure their lynch is going to happen?

[Raging Rabbit]

@RR

I'm fine with being associated with the thought of a no-lynch, but there is no point putting my vote there (Although, I guess it would be better than just setting it on a random person or not voting at all) if it wasn't going to happen.

Do you usually only vote for people when you're sure their lynch is going to happen?

No, a lynch and a no-lynch are very different in my eyes.

How so? Is a no lynch vote somehow more dangerous than a regular one?

[Raging Rabbit]

@RR

I'm fine with being associated with the thought of a no-lynch, but there is no point putting my vote there (Although, I guess it would be better than just setting it on a random person or not voting at all) if it wasn't going to happen.

Do you usually only vote for people when you're sure their lynch is going to happen?

No, a lynch and a no-lynch are very different in my eyes.

How so? Is a no lynch vote somehow more dangerous than a regular one?

[Raging Rabbit]

It can be.

In this particurlar instance, how exactly?

[Raging Rabbit]

I think slicey is probably more likely an indecisive new player than scum.

Santos is just way weird.

UR ignored my question, which makes me like my vote some more.

[Raging Rabbit]

UR:

It can be.

In this particurlar instance, how exactly?

And next time just read my posts in isolation.

Slicey claiming is stupid, but that makes my feeling he's newb town even stronger.

[Raging Rabbit]

None of these games were on MS.

[Raging Rabbit]

I'll have very limited to no access starting Sunday until the 23rd or 24th. Will try to post something substantial tommorow. Still quite happy with my vote.

[Raging Rabbit]

I don't have the time to write in detail, but out of this list my order of suspicion is as follows:

Santos/BSG
Braeden/KMD
ort/emp - Slicey/IT

With UR/Budja still being my top pick. I trust my other head to move our vote to wherever's necassary if deadline's looming too close. See you guys in 10 day, though I may have the time to pop in on Wednseday.

[Raging Rabbit]

I'm back, will catch up when I can. Hopefully not later than tomorrow.

[Raging Rabbit]

Bah.