Mini 199 - Time Travel Mafia, Game Over!

[Someone]

We do get townee/non-townee at death. Added to the fact that we surely have some time-docs that can go back to save them, and there is a good chance that we'll have some confirmed innocents in this game.

As for those time docs, I don't think you should go back and save emp-tiger tonight. There's a good chance that he's mafia, and it's better to save your time-juice for later use. It's more than likely we have more than one killing group in this game, and this means that emp-tiger is not completely confirmed.

As for the roles in this game, one must wonder if Mathcam brought back the coroner-type role, since it was really one of the funner parts of CS's TT's, even with the inconsistencies it made with the timelines.

As for voting, IMO, the final vote-count should look something like this:

Someone-6
Someone else-3
Everyone else- None

The small second bandwagon on the person we find suspicious, is to prevent dead mafia from being able to vote for whoever they want to kill, and then kill the leading vote getter. Ex:

Someone-9
Everyone else-0

Scum A dies and votes for who they want killed.
Scum A gets revived.
Scum A kills Someone.

As you can see, in this scenario Scum A gets to lynch whoever they want.

That's all I've thought of for now...
I'll talk more later.

[Someone]

non-townee means someone who's not a vanilla townee. Read the first game.

[Someone]

Since the mafia probably have limited time juice, by day 2 or 3 we should have a good idea how many kill groups we have.

IMO we should wait until we get some confirmed innocents before we go reviving people who might be scum. Also, I don't think that there's only one scum group, that would make the town overpowered as all the deaths would be confirmed innocents.

[Someone]

It's only two pages. Get of your lazy asses and read it.

[Someone]

Just remembered we're working on a deadline.

Anyways, let's get this moving.

vote:fishbulb

because he hasn't posted yet (but otherwise random).

[Someone]

Why is stoofer's vote considered any less random then the votes specifically labeled as random?

For all practical purposes, Mr Stoofer's vote was exactly the same as a random vote. What does the word "random" do for a post? Don't we assume that a lone vote in the first non-mod post of the game is random? And if Mr Stoofer

was

a cop with information, could he not be hiding it behind a random vote, just as easily as a non-random vote? Mr Stoofer obviously wanted it to be assumed a random vote, as he did not specify it wasn't. All this witchhunting about random/non-random votes only serve to madden me.

[Someone]

Didn't we decide that he didn't have to explain himself? Or did I miss something?

[Someone]

Ah, and

unvote:fishbulb

[Someone]

I believe that I am an active enough poster to be able to change my votes before any imminent deadline. Therefore, I'll be

slightly

more liberal with my voting. My plan was to make sure we had the 6/3 voting pattern at the end of the day. However, now that Mr. Stoofer mentions it, it may be better to use FOS's instead of votes until we choose a lynch target.

There is value in labelling a vote random, and one should only use the word if the vote is truly chosen at random. Pro-town players shouldn't lie - so a cop voting for a found bad guy shouldn't call the vote random. I hate posts like Stoofer's first one that give absolutely no reason - it makes people either assume randomness or ask for a reason, when you should just give a reason in the first place. And it isn't something to be proud of later because it "kicked of the debate."

There is no real reason why we random vote. We do it to start discussion.

What exactly is wrong with a cop hiding his investigation result under a "random" vote? I know "lynch all liars" is something that usually should be followed, however, there are exeptions to every rule. Instead of blindly following the adage, maybe you should give us some reasons why you are doing so.

And I re-iterate, we assume that it is a random vote, since if he was a cop he would have came out...and he obviously didn't have much reasoning, as it was the first post of the game.


We have to think a bit more about the mechanics of this game...and who we want to lynch. Of course, our first priority is to lynch the mafia. However, in this game, plain townees are not just expendable, it is actually an advantage to the town to have them lynched. This is because they get confirmed on death.

Just some food for thought.

Yeah, I have a question about the 6/3 voting strategy.

The person we're going to lynch gets the 6 votes. Do we put the next suspicious person at three votes, or do we just choose someone at random to put the three votes on?

The former, I believe.

Yes, the second most suspicious would be the one at three votes...unless you can think of a convincing argument not to.

[Someone]

Argh..didn't think through my idea...my bad...don't kill me .
[quote:someone]
We have to think a bit more about the mechanics of this game...and who we want to lynch. Of course, our first priority is to lynch the mafia. However, in this game, plain townees are not just expendable, it is actually an advantage to the town to have them lynched. This is because they get confirmed on death.
[/quote]

Who said this??? Someone??? Sure wasn't me...

Bad idea. Actually, we should avoid lynching townees and even revealing them at all costs. (I repeat, post 55 wasn't thought through at all.).

Similarly, mole says 'It is probably good for the townies to die early'. Again, this is more than a little dubious, as it will require the spending of time juice by the doc (if there is one) to resurrect a townie, and this will be limited. And then, even if they are resurrected, if the mafia get lucky with kills and hit the doc, they will be unressurected again.

Now this, is true. We want the mafia to kill townees at all costs. If they kill power roles, than they're dead, and we have no way of knowing they're pro-town. However, if they kill a townee role...we can now revive them for a confirmed innocent.

I reiterate...Sorry, lynching townees is a bad idea...even getting too many of them to reveal would be disasterous to the town.

We'll have to be extra-careful about careless bandwagons...every townee forced to reveal will be a townee that the mafia know not to kill. Actually, most people should try to not claim at all costs, because A) It'll give mafia more information and B) mafia have an easy claim: townee.

[Someone]

Argh..didn't think through my idea...my bad...don't kill me .

We have to think a bit more about the mechanics of this game...and who we want to lynch. Of course, our first priority is to lynch the mafia. However, in this game, plain townees are not just expendable, it is actually an advantage to the town to have them lynched. This is because they get confirmed on death.

(Damn quote tags)

Who said this??? Someone??? Sure wasn't me...

Bad idea. Actually, we should avoid lynching townees and even revealing them at all costs. (I repeat, post 55 wasn't thought through at all.).

Similarly, mole says 'It is probably good for the townies to die early'. Again, this is more than a little dubious, as it will require the spending of time juice by the doc (if there is one) to resurrect a townie, and this will be limited. And then, even if they are resurrected, if the mafia get lucky with kills and hit the doc, they will be unressurected again.

Now this, is true. We want the mafia to kill townees at all costs. If they kill power roles, than they're dead, and we have no way of knowing they're pro-town. However, if they kill a townee role...we can now revive them for a confirmed innocent.

I reiterate...Sorry, lynching townees is a bad idea...even getting too many of them to reveal would be disasterous to the town.

We'll have to be extra-careful about careless bandwagons...every townee forced to reveal will be a townee that the mafia know not to kill. Actually, most people should try to not claim at all costs, because A) It'll give mafia more information and B) mafia have an easy claim: townee.

[Someone]

The greatness of the strategy is the simplicity - scum needs to lie, town doesn't, so when you have found a lie, you have found scum.

The problem is, sometimes it would be advantageous for the town to lie (ie in our scenario). It is not true that pro-town characters are

always

advantaged by telling the truth. This is why I take it as a guideline, and not a rule. Pro-town people are

supposed

to inbed information in their random votes: so it's not really lying outright by doing so. Again, what is the point of random voting if semi-random voting stragegies are supposedly bad for the town? Was gapsode's 1%-over-random-vote lying? Are we supposed to lynch him for it?

On to other matters. I wouldn't be sure scum will claim townie. It is the only way they'd be confirmed as bad guys when they die.

True, I'm not saying that they will claim townee, I'm saying they have a fallback plan when they don't have a plausible claim.

Now. Back to catching scum?

As for who's scum, I've got no clue. I think gapsode, mole, bob and speedy are decently innocent (watch them all turn out to be scum ). If I was to take a wild guess as to scum, I'd say Sinister Overlord, or maybe fishbulb...but those are just wild guesses.

Anyone else have any ideas?

[Someone]

*note the word decently

(...just gut feelings)

[Someone]

I don't like Someone's post 69. First, yet more pointless off-topic discussion (diversion?);

Well I have a problem with your post # 75...Why is "pointless off topic disscussion" so pointless? I don't know about you guys, but I learned that discussion helped the town. "Pointless off topic discussion" is more helpful then the alternative: not talking at all.

followed by the rather surprising and frankly unsupportable statement that he thinks 4 people are "decently innocent". I am always suspicious of people claiming to believe in the innocence of others - especially on flimsy/non-existent evidence.

And what exactly is wrong with thinking that 4 people look decently innocent right now? Are you implying that we should not know anything about the innocence/scumminess of anyone, after over three pages of discussion? After all, saying that I believe in the innocence of these four people actually means that "I find the 7 other members of this town more scummy than these four people". I don't see how making a list of people you find suspicious is not scummy, while doing exactly the same thing but listing the people you find innocent is.

I would normally agree with fishbulb, and say we don't need unnecessary bandwagoning. However, no one really wants to come out and say who they find are scummy, so maybe a few comments wouldn't hurt...

[Someone]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no, that was because at the time Quagmire thought that non-townee meant anti-town.

[Someone]

at the time Quagmire thought that non-townee meant anti-town

How do you know?

I don't

know

...but it's a reasonable explaination...

Anyways...I'm looking for posts by sinister overlord, and not just of the "I'm here, but I'm not going to help" variety. At least some analysis, please.

I'm of the opinion that the players in this game are just too good . Maybe it's because they're all lurking, but there's no

obvious

scum tells out in the open right now.

[Someone]

I don't know about you, but to me a gut feeling is something you get when you think somebody's suspicious, but you don't really know why. I don't really think you can have a gut feeling with a reason...but that's just me.

If you are searching for a reason for why I find some people suspicious, I don't have one. Thus, a gut feeling.

I can't prevent myself from having gut feelings...can I? And if I have them, why not post them? I don't see how posting gut feelings = scum.

Anyways, I'm tempted to ignore the little Mr. Stoofer/Nox squabble, and

vote:sinister overlord

. Lurkers must pay.

[Someone]

Ok firstly

unvote:SinisterOverlord

. He has posted, and that's why I voted him. Although I don't really agree with the reasoning, he did post.

Now let's get down to it

Okay. First, post 8. Excessively complicated plan, that confused me a great deal, multiple readings not helping much. Now I got it, but the problem is thus.

The reason we'd doing this is to prevent mafia getting revived and having their way with killing who they want. There's a big assumption there - that the mafia get revived. That should only be able to happen if they get nightkilled - thus, there's the assumption there's a SK, which is quite possible but by no means certain - and then a doc goes back to protect them.

Try to read some of the posts we've made, SO. There HAS to be an SK or some alternative killing force. There is no assumption there.

Also, what keeps mafia from being revived? I think it's

you

who's making the assumption...better safe then sorry, no? The only person who would want

not

to follow my plan is scum...

IMO, Docs should only go back to protect townies from nightkills. Yeah, we might not get some power roles, but better to not risk reviving antitown players.

So the only case in which this plan would have a point is if a doctor stuffs up, basically. I consider it an attempt to make the players focus on the mechanics of the game and not the task at hand; figuring out scum.

Yes, I agree, docs should not go back and protect power roles...However, this is not the opinion of the whole town. Unless you suggest that everyone in the town is SURELY as good as attentive as me or you, there's the possibility of a screw up. Again, the plan is a backup measure, just incase something happens.

And fine, let's say I'm talking about mechanics and stuff, and not talking about scum...Oh, hey, I know, I

won't post at all

! Maybe that will make me less scummy!!!

Going to nox's house...more in a few mins.

[Someone]

I forgot to mention it: How was my plan "excessively complicated"? If you can think of a more simple plan with the same benefits, by all means go ahead and say it. Otherwise, I thought it was easy enough to understand.

Six votes on the most suspisious, and three on the second most suspicious. Is it not easy enough? Anyways, moving along?

Post 28:

For all practical purposes, Mr Stoofer's vote was exactly the same as a random vote. What does the word "random" do for a post? Don't we assume that a lone vote in the first non-mod post of the game is random? And if Mr Stoofer was a cop with information, could he not be hiding it behind a random vote, just as easily as a non-random vote? Mr Stoofer obviously wanted it to be assumed a random vote, as he did not specify it wasn't. All this witchhunting about random/non-random votes only serve to madden me.

What gets me about this is that Mr Stoofer random voted Someone. We didn't know if it was a random vote or not. Now Someone's fervently arguing that it was 'obviously' random. Now if we assume for a moment here that Someone's scum, there's a possibility that Mr Stoofer's got info on him but is trying to be subtle about it, as we didn't know at this stage that it was definitely random. Wouldn't the best thing for him to do be to try and dismiss it as nothing? If he did so but then Mr Stoofer came out with his results, at least he'd have forced a cop claim for his scummates to pick off.

Argh. Completely not true. If Mr. Stoofer had info on me, me dismissing it doesn't make it go away, does it? Mr stoofer would still come out...and I would still get lynched...

And besides, assume that Mr. Stoofer got info on me. What would be the point of voting me with no explaination? Everyone would go OMG NO RANDOM. LYNCH, LYNCH (Like they did). And Mr Stoofer would be forced to reveal. So what's the point of not doing so in the first place?

Post 55:

However, now that Mr. Stoofer mentions it, it may be better to use FOS's instead of votes until we choose a lynch target.

For reference purposes -

I think we should follow the voting strategy suggested by Someone in post 8; using FOS's as proxies for our votes, and then piling on the votes close to deadline.

So because he thinks we should use FOS's, it may be better. Why? You say it would be better, but there's no reasoning. Piling on votes quickly only advantages the mafia - something that happens quickly is usually to their advantage, not the town's. It's also a common scum tactic for when there's a deadline to get who they want lynched.

What??? This is completely out of context. Firstly, note that it was Mr. Stoofer's idea, and not mine to do so. I was just assuming that was the better plan was to FOS. As you may have noted, there were no objections to the FOS plan, which means that most of the town agreed with it at the time...why am I the only one to be singled out?

Since a majority doesn't mean a lynch, I've got no problems with using votes liberally. It allows everyone to see easily exactly where I stand, as votes are tallied by the mod but FOS's aren't, and means things don't have to move very quickly.

The logic of witholding your vote is this: if we're going to follow the plan cleanly, we're going to have to have everyone unvote whoever they're voting for at the end of the day. Now, for me, that's no problem since I log in almost every day. However, as you can see at mafiascum, everyone is not as active as us. If we had been using votes, I'd be willing to bet that there are some people that would have not been able to get back to unvote. It gives scum an excuse to leave their vote hanging on an innocent. The less people voting aimlessly, the better, IMO.

And I re-iterate, we assume that it is a random vote, since if he was a cop he would have came out...and he obviously didn't have much reasoning, as it was the first post of the game.

Again, not neccesarily. You assume if you wish. I prefer not to make such assumptions. He could've been trying to be subtle about it, as I said earlier... direct suspicion as the result of an investigation without coming out, which usually is fairly certain death. And, you don't need reasoning if you've got an investigation result.

Read above. You actually prove my point here...It's certain death if he comes out with a investigation result. Then why bother to deny it???

However, in this game, plain townees are not just expendable, it is actually an advantage to the town to have them lynched. This is because they get confirmed on death.

No, no,

no

. It is

never

to the town's advantage to have protown players dead, unless we're playing Suicide Mafia or something to that extent. Yeah, it's better than normal if they get NIGHTKILLED -

not lynched

- cause they're confirmed town and we can revive them with a protect. But lynching, the only way to get em back is for them to have less of a majority - chances are that'll be pretty hard to make happen, if not downright impossible.

Read the game please. I know this was stupid.

Now granted, he retracts this later, says it wasn't thought through. However, it still stinks. I don't think a protown player would have arrived at that, even thinking it through very little. I think it was a not-thought-through attempt to get townies lynched, since I don't think it could've been arrived at from any other direction.

If you really want to know, I concluded this by assuming that townees could be revived by a doc when they are lynched, which would be advatageous to the town, as now the doc would have had a target to revive tonight. (The townee lynched) This being not true, I retracted my statement.

Post 69:

The problem is, sometimes it would be advantageous for the town to lie (ie in our scenario). It is not true that pro-town characters are always advantaged by telling the truth.

This is true. However, scum need to lie all the time. Town need to lie occasionally. As was said about Lynch All Liars, it's power lies in it's simplicity. Yes, if you find a lie sometimes it will be town. However, you've got to play the percentages sometimes. Town can cope with a single loss better than the scum, for the most part, and there's a much better chance that a liar will be scum than just any randomly selected player.

Yes, but when it's clear why the town is lying (ie trying to hide an investigation result in a pseudo-random vote) then there's no indication of scumminess. Sure, you can "play the odds" and hopefully come out on top. However, I prefer to evaluate all options before resorting to luck.

I'm actually with Someone about the finding some people more scummy than others thing. While I don't exactly have a scientific method for it, I have a general idea of who I think to be innocentish and who I think to be guiltyish.

Post 92:

I'm looking for posts by sinister overlord, and not just of the "I'm here, but I'm not going to help" variety. At least some analysis, please.

When have I said anything like that? My posts have been few, granted, but they've to date been either discussing the possible randomness or not of Mr Stoofer's vote, or my previous post where I voted you and promised this post.

Anyway. That's what I think, at least. I hope I didn't bore any of you with the length of that.

You haven't. It's just, thats the general attitude of a lot of lurkers here at scum. I'm sorry for categorising you as so. Clearly I was wrong.

I'm looking foward to your response. I don't think you're scum, just town that didn't really think through the posts you made.

[Someone]

Vote:deadling extension

(FYI- I've always thought SO's avatar was a raven...but I looked at it closely today and realised it's a cat. Anyone else have this impression? Or is it just me...)

Anyways...I missed a post

What, you think that if we come up with a clever plan mathcam's going to go "Congratulations!" and tell us everyone's alignment? Yeah, we can come up with this, that and the other plan, but that plan's useless if we don't revive any non-townies. It's not going to help us tell who's scum and who isn't, it's not going to save the lives of the town players and it's not going to make bleeding cups of coffee. All it does is keep us talking about it, tying up the time left until the deadline so we have less time for discussing who's scum.

The plan is not useless if we don't revive non-townees. It also prevents other weird goings on like scum leading two or three alternative bandwagons who aren't really scummy, and then killing the main one.

The plan could help us win the game. I don't see how you can't see that.

It's true that we could be posting about finding scum, but it's hypocritical for you to critisize me about not trying to find scum when you spend the first 4 or five days not posting anything of content at all. If you thought we should have been discussing about scum, you should have done so, instead of waiting until half the deadline passes by and saying: hey, shouldn't we have been discussing who's scum?

[Someone]

Wow. Speedy managed to say what I was trying to say for like 3 humungo-posts in like three lines.

Nice... a new deadline. I'm wondering how our game is going to be affected by jeepfest...if possible, I'd like people who are here to make an extra effort not to lurk during these next few days...it would be a shame to see such an exiting game slow down.

I'm willing to participate in a SO or a Stoofer bandwagon, but I must say that I'm more prone to go for Stoofer. The logic that SinisterOverlord posted was faulty, but at least he made an effort to find scum. However, the fact that Mr stoofer agreed readily with him seems more like scum jumping on a bandwagon.

[Someone]

If I was psuedo-lurking (posting but without adding content) I would have been much more circumspect (See for example my dust up with Nox. There is no way I would have got drawn into that if I was scum and I knew she was innocent.)

WIFOM

Anyways, the deadline looms closer and the town looks undecided about who to lynch. I still like my vote on SO. Although the Mr.Stoofer/Changeling Bob issues are intriguing, I just think SO is more scummy, especially now that he goes into another bout of lurking, right before the deadline, no less.

As for my scumminess, I must say I really don't see it. I have made mistakes, but hey, who doesn't? I think that people that are after me for no reason but my miscalculation about lynching townees are scummy...I made a mistake, and immediately caught it and apologised. What would I have been trying to achieve as scum?

All other accustions have been made because of "inconsistencies" in my posts. However, this is completely not true. Only one specific accusation has been made...that I changed my position on the FOSing issue. However, my post about the subject was blatantly misquoted by SO. My real post goes like this:

I believe that I am an active enough poster to be able to change my votes before any imminent deadline. Therefore, I'll be slightly more liberal with my voting. My plan was to make sure we had the 6/3 voting pattern at the end of the day. However, now that Mr. Stoofer mentions it, it may be better to use FOS's instead of votes until we choose a lynch target.

Which is completely uniform with my other posts on the subject. Note the use of

may

. I'll FOS everyone who agreed with this logic.


That being said, I'd like to volunteer myself for the 3 part of the 3/6 voting pattern...but I think that either SO or Mr stoofer should be the 6 part.

[Someone]

There's no number to lynch Quagmire. The day ends on the deadline, and not before.

Firstly, I assume that we have at least two killing groups, because if not, all dead people would be confirmed innocent since scum wouldn't kill themselves.

But, as I said, you would've at least forced a cop claim, whereas he might've been able to get you lynched without claiming if it wasn't dismissed.

I'm saying that if he was not a cop, there is no reason for a bandwagon on me, because it is essentially a random vote. Therefore, he would not have been able to start a bandwagon on me with a mere vote, unless he was a cop.

We must assume it random, because the alternative is that it's a cop investigation, and for it to mean anything, the cop must come out...which at that point it would have just been easier to come out in the first post anyways.

That's classic scumminess... just agreeing with the town, attempting to lie low on that issue, at least, not actually going 'Hey... that's actually pretty stupid' and picking up on that.

The point is, I did agree partially with the point. I didn't think that "that's actually pretty stupid". I thought, "That's not what I had in mind, but I see where you are coming from".

As for the issue...I certainly don't advocate holding back votes when you think somebody is scummy, but random votes and whatnot have no place in this game, since it could have dire effects on the game since history can be changed.

Someone wrote:
The plan is not useless if we don't revive non-townees. It also prevents other weird goings on like scum leading two or three alternative bandwagons who aren't really scummy, and then killing the main one.

I think we have enough decent players in this game that unscummy bandwagons wouldn't happen. And even if this does take place; scum make a false bandwagon then kill the main one - then we'd have an excellent lead on said scum.

The problem is, without following the plan, innocent votes could hang around, and complicate things for the town...even if there's a false wagon and the main one gets killed, it's just as likely it's a townee with a stray vote than scum, With the plan, we are increasing our margin of error...stray votes will not hurt us as much.

SpeedyKQ wrote:
I'm mostly bothered by his attacking Someone for his stupid comment. My experience is that obviously stupid statements aren't scummy, but those most eager to pounce on them are.

Someone wrote:
Wow. Speedy managed to say what I was trying to say for like 3 humungo-posts in like three lines.

Yeah, scum would joyfully jump on a town slip. But a town player should just as joyfully jump on a scum slip. If you care about winning this game, if you want to win, wouldn't you take advantage of what you saw as a big slip by your opponent in a heartbeat?

Misquoted. I wasn't referring to that part of Speedy's post, but the other part. (Which incedentally, actually was three lines)

Similarly, Someone goes from

I'm looking foward to your response. I don't think you're scum, just town that didn't really think through the posts you made. to
Someone wrote:
I just think SO is more scummy
with very little in between. And furthermore, in post 117 he unvotes me, and I haven't seen him revote me since, so why is his vote on me?

Just lurkishness, I guess. I really was looking foward to your response, and was a bit mad that it wasn't coming . I'd unvote, but you're right, I did unvote you already.

That being said, I'd like to volunteer myself for the 3 part of the 3/6 voting pattern...but I think that either SO or Mr stoofer should be the 6 part.

This bothers me. If you're pro-town, why would you volunteer to be the backup lynchee? How does that help out your side? The 6/3 voting plan only works if we have suspicous people in both slots. This feels more like scum trying to ingratiate themself, because a good guy volunteering to put themself in the 3 slot doesn't help the town.

FOS Someone.

Not necessarily.

A) We want to keep the very important roles off of the 3, so that scum can't go back and "lynch" them by killing N1. I'm mostly talking about townees, but other important roles apply somewhat here as well.

B) I'm not one of the roles detailed in A, so I can comfortably take the 3 spot.

C) The town obviously thinks I'm scummy to a certain degree, so it's not like I just volunteered out of the blue to be there.


Of course, if I've miraculously convinced the town of my innocence, we can put somebody else on the 3 spot...

Again, the deadline is pressing, so I'll

vote:Mr.Stoofer

[Someone]

1. Good point, but it dosn't make 2 groups a given at all. The fact that multiple killers is a possibility combined with time travel somewhat negates this. Furthermore, there are these things called lynches.

2. Is this a claim or not?

1. Why not? Do you agree or dissagree with this statement: If there is only one mafia group, everyone who is killed by them are innocent.

2. Semi-claim.



It's too late anyways. There's not enough time. The backup doc not very useful after he's outed, and the deadline's tomorrow, so we have to lynch.

If the next person to see this is SO, please unvote me and vote Mr. Stoofer. If either Mr.Stoofer or Speedy log on next, then please unvote SO, and vote me. If somebody not voting logs on, vote stoofer. And everyone PM mathcam for a deadline extension.

If Mr.stoofer or Speedy gets on to change their votes, SO should not unvote.

[Someone]

*bump*

Hello?


I must admit, it's looking pretty bad for my multiple-killing groups therorem, but I maintain that it would be an easy town win if there was only one. Although, we can't rule out the presence of a cult.

I'm really in the dark about why scum would kill quagmire. Perhaps they picked up a tell?

I'm gone until monday-ish, so don't lynch me while I'm away.

[Someone]

Mathcam told me to post, so I'll do so right now.

Since we only have 48 hours, I feel reasonably comfortable in a

vote:SO

.

And BTW, I'm not so sure about yesterday's lynch, but it was obviously necessary.

[Someone]

I admit to lurking today, and I promise to post regularly from now on.

And it's still true, I do log on almost every day, but I don't always take the time to read/analyse the thread, just check in and make sure there are no pressing issues.

I do have more suspicions, but from the way you guys went after me for talking about my gut feelings in day 1, I won't express all of them right now.

What I will ask, is directed at fishbulb: Do you think that changeling bob's defense of a player 4 times was warranted? Or do you think it was mostly crap logic?

[Someone]

I don't really like the role.

The vote stays because

A) It's a good claim for scum
B) He has looked suspicious for a while
C) It's a fairly safe lynch for the town

As mentioned in other posts, mafia would want to claim a generic townee role that wasn't too important. This claim fits that description to the letter. It is somewhat confirmable. I'll ask mole to post at this point.

SO has looked suspicious, and there is no reason to disregard our suspicions just because he has claimed. Now, granted, he may be confirmed, at which point we will retract our votes willingly. But, for right now the vote stands.

We are not lynching a townee, nor an important role (such as a time doc). This is important because our important roles are extra important in this game. I think it's extremely lucky that we have not revealed more important roles than we have already in this game.

[Someone]

Ok, I'll claim now. I'm the

time sage

. Once per game, I have the ability to ask a yes or no question to the mod.

I asked him, if as of night three, are at least one of these three people alive and scum:

nox, gaspode and SO.

The answer was no. Therefore, these three people are pro-town.

[Someone]

I'm going to

vote changeling bob

Since I have cleared nox and Gapsode, either him or fishbulb (or both) must be scum.

[Someone]

I'm going to

vote changeling bob

Since I have cleared nox and Gapsode, either him or fishbulb (or both) must be scum.

If you choose to believe me, then we lynch him today, fishbulb tomorrow, for a guarenteed town win.

[Someone]

The thing is, if I had my way, the game would be over...the fact remains that I have to convince you guys of that.

Firstly, this brings the cop-gets-killed-retroactively-but-his-info-doesn't problem with it. If you were now killed night one, we would still have this information.

Since I am a time sage, my info transcends all the killings and stuff. That is part of the reason that I included SO. It doesn't really do anything. I just wanted to keep tabs on him just in case he would be revived. (I would get a PM from the mod changing my answer.)

How is a yes/no question over-powerful? I got lucky for surviving to the end-game, when it gets slightly more powerful...but I am really just a less powerful form of the cop. The more people I try to clear at once, the more of a chance I have for my results to be meaningless, think about it...

The fact that I can not be confirmed, means that my role was not very important at all...at least compared to a time-doc, or the coroner in the original games.

I'd like to hear more from the last alive player. Perhaps a mini-prod/reminder is in order?

I'm pretty convinced that bob is our last scum. He's deflecting the accusations on him in a way that makes no sense at all. Why vote nox? If you think I'm town, then nox should be too. If I'm scum, then why vote nox, who you are not sure of? Why not vote me?

I'll

unvote:changling bob

. I didn't expect a second vote so quick. That doesn't mean I find him any less scummy or anything.

[Someone]

Because A) I thought SO was scum and B I didn't want another person to be revived and to screw up my plan. I purposely only chose two people to search, because any more, and my chances of success got worse.

The fact that it was so hard to revive SO played right into my hands. I didn't have to worry about him waking up an screwing my chances.

And yes you are lucky that you got to the end-game given your claimed role, but then the same could be true of anyone claiming anything else.

I'm just saying that my role-power is a lot stronger than it seems now that we are in end-game.

I don't like the way that, as fishbulb points out, you have dictated to us what our last two lynches should be, with no way of verifying that until the game is over. If you and Nox were hypothetically scum together, then you would win and town would lose.

Well, what else am I supposed to say? Oh, I know who the rest of the scum are...but you don't

have

to lynch them if you don't want to...

It all hinges on whether you believe me, I guess.

[Someone]

Again, insurance.

Worst-case scenario- SO stays dead, and I'm basically looking at two people
Best-case scenario- SO somehow get's revived, and I can get another investigation\

The question is, why not two plus SO?

[Someone]

Perhaps a mass claim is in order?

[Someone]

I do not think that my claim is as convinient as you guys think it is.

If you're assuming that I'm scum with nox or gaspode, I don't need two wrong lynches to win, just one. Why throw doubt upon it by making it possible that the lynch is wrong?

If I'm scum alone, then it makes a bit more sense. However, I am taking a big risk because because if we have a vig amist us, and the day doesn't end the game. There's a good chance that I'll be dead before day dawns.



As for doubts about my role, that's what it is. Again, my info transcends the timelines. Mathcam has been trying to incorporate an investigative role in for a long time. If you don't believe me, there's not much I can do. All I can ask is that you think about it.

And again, mass claim?

[Someone]

By the way, Someone, can you find me somewhere mathcam has implied that he's "been trying to incorporate an investigative role" into a Time Travel Mafia? I briefly looked, and he seemed to think that this type of game was better off without them.

I know I've read it somewhere...I'll try to find it for you.

[Someone]

Hmm...still looking for where I saw mathcam leaning towards incorporating a cop role...

All that I've found so far is that there was a significant demand for a cop if you read the last page of TT1...

[Someone]

I keep going back to how Someone played this. Why reveal all so suddenly? Why not see where the town is going before trying to push us in a direction? I was all ready to vote for Changling bob anyway.

Exactly. That's why I'm so doubtful about the claim. The correct play probably would have been to see if one of the two in question could be lynched without a claim, and then using the info if it were needed. Claiming at the start of the day just seems like scum's way of establishing a claim before they are under pressure and heavily scrutinized.

I disagree. As scum, I would probably hold back and wait for more information before claiming. Especially if I'm the only one left....I maintain it's a very risky move.

[Someone]

Can everyone give their opinion on the mass claim? I don't know if it is necessary right now, but I'd like to see where everyone stands.

The reason I mentioned a mass-claim, is that there is a possibility that we have enough pro-town roles to end this game right now. (Although it is possible that we have up to two scum left, which is not a good thing)

[Someone]

The reason I proposed a mass claim, is that I thought that it was probable that we have enough roles to insure a town win right now. However, when I look at the number of non-townee deaths, I'm not so sure any more, which is why I changed my position from "mass claim is a good idea" to "I don't know if it's necessary, but I would like to hear some opinions on the matter.

Also, there's a chance that you guys would find my role less suspicious when you look at the game in a whole...mayhaps you would have more of a context for it. Of course, this point is secondary to point A.

[Someone]

The problem is, if we get nox today, when she turns up as townee, where do we go from there?

If you lynch me today, and the game doesn't end, what do we do?

IMO there's only one scum left, else fishbulb would have probably voted me too. Or course, you guys also have the option of believing that me and nox are scum buddies.

I still think bob is scum, though.

[Someone]

Our options

A)Lynch bob, then lynch me

We win if I'm scum alone, if bob is scum alone.
We lose if I'm scum with somebody else, or if fishbulb is scum (alone, or with bob).

B)Lynch me, then lynch nox

We win if I'm scum, or if I'm scum with nox.
We lose if I'm town (therefore either fishbulb or bob or both are scum)

C)Lynch nox, if townee, lynch bob. If not, lynch me.

We win if I'm scum with nox, or if bob is scum.
We lose if I'm solo scum, if fishbulb is scum.

D)Lynch bob, lynch fishbulb

We win if I'm town (Therefore bob or fish or both are scum)
We lose if I'm scum

E)Lynch me, then lynch bob

Same as A.

I think that I've outlined the most likely courses of action. Of course, I've ignored the power roles that we don't know we have.

[Someone]

Wait a sec, fish.

Why doesn't gaspode claim, since he's probably dead tomorrow anyways?

Actually gaspode, don't claim until somebody else comments on my idea. I might be missing something.

[Someone]

Yeah. Bob, if you're not mafia, it would be good for the town for you to post more, since it may cause me to change my read on you from mafia to townee. You're not helping anyone by sulking in your corner while we're suspecting you.

otoh, if you're mafia, go on lurking and we can lynch you.

[Someone]

I still can't figure out why I killed Someone. It makes no sense, and I can't remember what crazy reasoning I had at the time that I submitted that.

And then I made it worse when I claimed townie. I immediately realized I shoulda said I was a vigilante and I did indeed kill Someone.

I wanted to do more time traveling stuff, but I never saw an opportunity to use it for more than confusing people.

Argh...

It saved you a humungo post I had written up for the last day to point out how you were scum .

[Someone]

I think the no-roles revealed upon death kinda ruins the thing. I don't know how you'd run a time-travel without it...but whatever...

Anyways, that was fun. I'd be sure to sign up if there's another.