Mini 199 - Time Travel Mafia, Game Over!

[Quagmire]

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?

Otherwise, I don't have much to say. I think Mr Stoofer's vote was pretty harmless; perhaps he forgot a random in front of the vote or didn't think it was necessary. I don't think he REALLY thought that Someone (was it someone? I don't remember exactly who) was suspicious before he even posted.

[mathcam]

The deadline is now in the front post, and has been extended a day to avoid panic from weekend-inducing lurking. The deadline is now 11 days from the start of Day 1, which gives you 8 and a half days left.

Don't forget that this deadline is extendable given a couple of requests.

Cam

[Mr Stoofer]

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.

[Nox]

Fishbulb: Nope. There was no note of sarcasm in my remark

[Fishbulb]

Oh, okay. For some reason I tend to read everything on forums with a tinge of sarcasm.

Maybe it's because I'm always sarcastic...

I think Mr Stoofer's vote was pretty harmless; perhaps he forgot a random in front of the vote or didn't think it was necessary. I don't think he REALLY thought that Someone (was it someone? I don't remember exactly who) was suspicious before he even posted.

The former, I believe.

Thanks for the demonstration.

If the person is still alive, they can explain themselves. It's usually best to get a genuine reaction than to give the suspicious player a list of excuses to pick from. Unless you are masons or a cop who investigated him, you have no idea if he is scum or not, so why defend him?

[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.

[Fishbulb]

I think Mr Stoofer's vote was pretty harmless; perhaps he forgot a random in front of the vote or didn't think it was necessary. I don't think he REALLY thought that Someone (was it someone? I don't remember exactly who) was suspicious before he even posted.

The former, I believe.

Thanks for the demonstration.

Heh heh heh...

I thought Mr Stoofer was replying to the part I quoted from Quagmire, not the part about the 6/3 voting idea. Teach me to not read exactly what the player put in the quote section!

[N_lich]

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.

Unlike normal games, where they show up as mafia[/sarcasm]

What I assume you mean is that it is a even lesser evil than lynching power roles than usual.

[Nox]

Hmmm. He means that we know -for sure- that they are pro-town at death, as opposed to everyone else(I think) that show up simply as "non-townie".

Smart thinking.

[Fishbulb]

Yeah, it was discussed in the previous Time Travel Mafia, as well.

[Gaspode]

@Gaspode: Don't assume anything. Just because your role doesn't say anything about post restrictions doen't mean anybody else won't have them. Having said that, I agree.

I'm basing the assumption on what I know of the mod (who I happen to have been playing with for more than two and a half years). He is not one to discourage discussion. Plus, I just did a search for the words "post restricted role" and "post restriction" and can safely say that in addition to the fact that he has never used a posting restriction in any of his games since the crash of 2003 (and probably before that), and none of his posts that contain those words say anything positive about posting restrictions. So I doubt he'd use them in this game. Plus, they wouldn't make much sense in time travel mafia.

it is actually an advantage to the town to have them lynched. This is because they get confirmed on death.

I understand the point, but I think the logic is flawed. It is certainly advantageous for a townie to die over another pro-town role, and it's even arguable that early townie night deaths are preferable to no night death at all (since they can be saved and are confirmed innocents). However, I can't see anything good about a townie being lynched except that the lynch a pro-town non-townie role is especially bad due to the lack of alignment info.

I'm not sure exactly what to make of Someone's post. After some consideration, it's probably just an honest mistake using some twisted logic, but taken at face value, it looks pretty darn suspicious and could theoretically be a mafia slip.

unvote: SinisterOverlord

just because he hasn't really done anything that suspicious yet, and people seem to want to be a bit more conservative than usual.

[mole]

I understand the point, but I think the logic is flawed. It is certainly advantageous for a townie to die over another pro-town role, and it's even arguable that early townie night deaths are preferable to no night death at all (since they can be saved and are confirmed innocents). However, I can't see anything good about a townie being lynched except that the lynch a pro-town non-townie role is especially bad due to the lack of alignment info.

It is probably good for the townies to die early so they can be revived as confirmed innocents (especially it's the only information we're gonna get). This is easy enough if they get killed by the mafia, since we can just send the doctor back in time to get them. But if we lynch them it's a bit of a waste.

Unless there is a way of bringing someone back to life after they're lynched. If we lynch the Tyger... then those votes won't count since he's already dead, and the second player on the list will be lynched (our suspect). Then if he turns out to be innocent, we can go back in time and revive Tyger, so he gets lynched instead of the townie...

Any thoughts? If we are intending on only using time-docs to revive the generic townies, then I think this might give us a bit more control over who gets confirmed first.

[mole]

Um... ignore all that. Can't vote for dead people.

We could have a 5 votes for lynchee, 5 for no lynch thing, and then revive a dead player to cast another vote for no lynch, but I wouldn't try it unless the revived player was a confirmed innocent as well. It will (if the situation ever occurs, and the mafia doesn't screw it up, which they will) result in us getting two townies back from the dead, though.

[Mr Stoofer]

I think we should concentrate for now on catching scum, rather than excessively elaborate plans such as that in the above post.

[Changling bob]

I find it slightly worrying that Someone finds townies 'expendable', let alone being 'an advantage to the town to have them lynched'. Firstly, as has been already noted, it would be hard to unlynch them. Secondly, surely its best to have as many pro-town people alive as possible at all times.

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.

I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't ressurect people, but that any pro-town roles dying early is, inherrently a bad thing, as is basing a plan on killing plain townies (obviously this is a little further than what both Someone and mole are saying, but the point still stands).

@Gaspode: There's a first time for everything, although yes, you're probably right.

[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.

[SpeedyKQ]

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.

Lynch liars doesn't work if a player can later fast-talk a justification for a lie. 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. Start adding a set of sub-rules and exceptions, which of course won't be commonly agreed upon, and the strategy loses all of its power. I follow it strictly, not blindly.

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.

I'm not crazy about following a plan that assumes doctor(s) will be able to perform lots of resurrections. We don't know how much time fuel potential doctor(s) would have.

Unvote SinisterOverlord.

Twas random, and I don't neccessarily want it to turn into bandwagon by virtue of being the only vote still hanging around.

[Nox]

IMO, Someone's previous post was probably the result of incoherent thinking after a math exam. I think he is honest when he says his post wasn't thought out. His second post seems to have more logic, and while I would disagree with elaborating a strategy based on lynching pro-town, I do agree that they are who we would theoretically want killed by the mafia, for the simple reason that we are confirmed that they are innocent.

Now. Back to catching scum?

[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?

[Fishbulb]

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?

Wow, you already have four people on an innocent list? I only have one so far, and that one's me!

I do have someone at the top of the suspect list, but as it is just a gut feeling, I'd rather not reveal at this time. I'd prefer to hear more from them without them realizing they are being watched.

[Someone]

*note the word decently

(...just gut feelings)

[N_lich]

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?

Wow, you already have four people on an innocent list? I only have one so far, and that one's me!

I'm with fishbulb on this one. I assume the decently means that you havn't felt anything scummy about those people yet rather than have any actual evidence in their favour.

[N_lich]

bah, sarnath'd [/obscure reference]

[Fishbulb]

*note the word decently

(...just gut feelings)

I noted it form the start. Guess decently doesn't mean the same to me as it does to you.

Oh, and after a read-through, I have upgraded from one to

two

scummy gut feelings. Actually, the one isn't so much of a gut feeling anymore...