Past Ages Mafia - Game Over

[Narsis]

no lynch = bad. it always has and always will. to be honest, i'd rather see two townies die from a lynch today, then start tomorrow will next to no added information.

[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.

[Braeden]

Im terribly sick right now and having trouble getting my thoughts together.

Im confused about the NL as well. Four possible dead townies is a pretty large risk to take, but I think that NL is still a last resort. We should start talking about whose the scummiest and go from there.
Also, I highly doubt that there will be another two-headed day. Im not sure why thats even being questioned.

I agree with my other heads vote right now, and will get back on later with a post that is a little more substantial.

[Kmd4390]

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 disagree with a no lynch. I'm with you there. But it's worth discussing, and to vote UROE for bringing it up looks like jumping on the first thing you see.

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.

There are certain games where it is worth discussing. I'm not sure I've seen one where it's a good idea, but the discussion coming up isn't exactly scummy.

...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.

Yes, a double-scummy-player lynch is ideal. Yeah, I pretty much agree with most of this.

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.

Ok, I wanted clarification on the "looks appealing" thing. So you meant that it looks like townies are agreeing with the idea, NOT that it was tempting because other people were agreeing with it. And you are on UROE for specifics, not just because he suggested the no lynch, correct?

Unvote

I think I follow what you are saying, and actually agree with quite a bit of it.

I agree with my other heads vote right now, and will get back on later with a post that is a little more substantial.

Even after his last post?

[forbiddanlight]

Ok, here's the deal. No lynch is probably a bad idea. But I understand the thought process that would drive someone to suggesting it. I know it seems weird, but I could understand someone being a little shy of the potential of doubling the town's losses in one lynch (I've had to deal with it in another game). I don't think URoE is suspicious for suggesting it, but not particularly pro-town either. It's a null tell, and I don't think it's worth voting him for. Everyone that IS voting URoE, I'd like to find out if you have any other explanation for why you are voting him beyond his suggestion of no lynch?

[UnofficialRulerOfEveryone]

I understand that suggesting it looks scummy, but it is something to consider...

The fact is, this is not a normal game, therefore, we must change strategies sometimes, this may, or may not, be what we want to do.

I agree with lynching someone pretty much the same as a no-lynch (I'm not 100% sure is better in the situation, don't want to go into more speculation...) the fact is, I wanted to make it clear that a mislynch would be pretty terrible for town in this case.

On second thought, in the event that we stay two-headed (Not saying I think we will), a no-lynch would hurt us enough for me to go ahead and say that I support a lynch more than a no-lynch for today.

[ortolan]

You are defending him with meta (which is something I don't like), while admitting that he could be scum. And I don't see how it could be bad that you get lynched if Empking is scum. It's also interesting to note that you say 'self-interest', while speaking about that you could be town or mafia. That's not what I would call 'self-interest' as you should do it for the best of the town or mafia.

This is an extremely frustrating and very, very, very dumb characterisation of what I said. Please get your scumtells sorted out properly. Using meta as a defence is not scummy. Pre-emptively using meta as a defence of someone likely to display scummy characteristics while not necessarily being more likely to be scum; when their lynch is linked to mine, is especially not scummy. This is because I know if he and I get lynched on the basis of Empking committing the plain old "vanilla" scumtells, then there is a high probability he is town despite this. Furthermore I know I am town and am "playing to win" by seeking to prevent my lynch.

[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).

[forbiddanlight]

Hmm...ok...that's a good rundown of reasons beyond null tells for URoE's possible guilt. I'll have to look over him sometime to see if I agree and/or pick up anything new.

[ShadowGirl]

"odd" is a euphemism for scummy, you are suggesting there was something untoward about my action.

What was wrong with voting Empking again? He did *exactly* the same thing also, voting Brandi twice in a row. His vote invalidated mine so I don't see how it's not perfectly reasonable to re-direct the vote (and I knew he was just going to change it back a minute after I posted anyway). And maybe my reasoning was that I didn't like the Brandi vote? Perhaps even if I didn't feel strongly about it I preferred an Empking lynch to a Brandi one, in which case changing the vote was justified? Perhaps, after all, it was a joke?

I use 'odd' in the sense that it's curious. You know. Odd.

Well, when you vote Emp you are essentially self voting. And, I never said anything was wrong with it. I said it was odd. I had more a 'problem' with the meta defense (the rather in depth one) then the votes. You can't have it both ways - you can't bring up another scenario when that is not the one you said it was. Do you stick with that it was merely a joke, or do you sway to your new scenario?

[ShadowGirl]

And how is it odd, anyway- you agree with my characterisation of his meta as scummy, why do you take issue with me presenting evidence for such? Really having trouble seeing where you're coming from with this.

I agree with it, however, I'm not the one using it in his defense to prevent him from possibly being lynched. I think at this point, scum are most vunerable when paired with someone normally perceived as super scummy.

@Rabbit: I didn't move your vote. ;P -pat pat-

My thoughts on the NL:

I'm against no lynching but if it ends up being the best plan, I'll go for it. I want us to scum hunt before deciding NL though.

[MacavityLock]

Posting in all games: Hopefully short V/LA due to being down with a nasty fever. Trying to play Mafia when I can't fully concentrate is a bad thing. I'm sure poptaj will do us proud while I'm gone.

[Brandi]

I don't believe the NL suggestion is really warranting of many votes... I mean in this 2-headed situation, its not a completely TERRIBLE idea, but maybe still not a GOOD idea.

I also use "odd" for curious and/or weird =P I think Ort saying that it meant scummy was just an assumption based on how he is used to the word... maybe...

[Braeden]

@KMD, After rereading RRs post I wouldnt keep my vote on him.

[Santos]

10 scum is impossible, moron.

Cut the malarkey and tell me something I don't know.

[ortolan]

You can't have it both ways - you can't bring up another scenario when that is not the one you said it was. Do you stick with that it was merely a joke, or do you sway to your new scenario?

Nup, the point was that prior to my clarification, there were any number of valid explanations for me voting Empking twice (and he did exactly the same thing to me in changing his vote back to whoever it was, which you failed to mention). Yet apparently you felt the need to draw attention to it.

[KaleiÐoscøpe]

ortolan/empking (2): MavLock/popu, ani/Slicey
raider/Brandi (1): , ortolan/empking
Budja/UROE (1): Shadowgirl/RR

Not Voting (6): Narsis/forbiddanlight, raider/Brandi, Budja/UROE, Santos/BSG, julien/lawrence, Kmd/Braeden

[ShadowGirl]

You can't have it both ways - you can't bring up another scenario when that is not the one you said it was. Do you stick with that it was merely a joke, or do you sway to your new scenario?

Nup, the point was that prior to my clarification, there were any number of valid explanations for me voting Empking twice (and he did exactly the same thing to me in changing his vote back to whoever it was, which you failed to mention). Yet apparently you felt the need to draw attention to it.

Not quite sure what you're getting at with the first sentence (then again, I have been falling on ice today, so it might just be me.) Yes, but I would think selfvoting yourself twice is odder then voting someone else. If by 'drawing attention' would mean that I gave my opinion, I'll make sure to stay mum in the future.

[Brandi]

"stay mum" ... what does that mean ._.

[UnofficialRulerOfEveryone]

keep quiet...

[Brandi]

I've never heard it put like that before. =P

[raider8169]

I've never heard it put like that before. =P

I have heard British people use the term a few times before.

[ortolan]

Not quite sure what you're getting at with the first sentence (then again, I have been falling on ice today, so it might just be me.) Yes, but I would think selfvoting yourself twice is odder then voting someone else. If by 'drawing attention' would mean that I gave my opinion, I'll make sure to stay mum in the future.

Two things: first of all, we're dealing with "self-voting" in the conventional sense to begin with- voting for myself and another is not the same thing.

Secondly, we're not really dealing with "doing it twice" either, because the reason I re-voted was that Empking changed the vote, effectively validating my vote on him in the first place, so I revoted to re-instate a vote I had been forcibly deprived of.

[Santos]

BSG?

[KaleiÐoscøpe]

Activity seems alright. Might prod animorpherv1, who didn't post since monday. Keep it up.