Mini 891 - British Comedy Mafia (Game Over)

[Josh Lyman]

Vote: imaginality

Time for tea?

[Josh Lyman]

Already?

That

was quick.

Unvote
Vote: Fuzzyman

For future reference: I agree that voting NL, especially this early, is scummy.

[Josh Lyman]

It has created nonrandom discussion. Also, since this is the first time I've tried to break the meta of excluding no-lynch votes from random voting stages, I am advancing mafia theory, which is in general a pro-town thing to do, I believe.

You're a loony.

[Josh Lyman]

For future reference: I agree that voting NL, especially this early, is scummy.

Why?

Given that we have three weeks to discuss things and lynch someone, voting no-lunch this early is extremely anti-town, because it deprives us of finding information and potentially lynching scum.

[Josh Lyman]

Given that we have three weeks to discuss things and lynch someone, voting no-lunch this early is extremely anti-town, because it deprives us of finding information and potentially lynching scum.

How is voting No Lynch at this stage of the game, placing it at L-6, depriving us of information? Did you think that his vote would stay on No Lynch?

P.S. Anyone voting No

Lunch

immediately gets my vote. I love a good sandwich.

Asking me to reveal my proprietary Thought Processes is inherently scummy. _{(Note to the humour-impaired: This. Is. A. Joke.)}

I figured if I voted him, his vote might move; also, a pressure vote such as that tends to elicit information. Surely I don't have to explain that to you?

Additionally (for clarity), to me, anti-town != scummy.

[Josh Lyman]

High-fives!

Also I missed earlier that Lyman actually entirely avoided answering my question:

How is voting No Lynch at this stage of the game, placing it at L-6, depriving us of information?

I figured if I voted him, his vote might move; also, a pressure vote such as that tends to elicit information.

Yes, his vote might move, but that would be true whether had earlier voted No Lynch, randomly voted for a player, or didn't drop a vote. No Lynch isn't any more anti-info in this regard.

Okay, now that you've made me actually put in the effort and

think

about it, a NL vote this early wouldn't exactly (on it own) deprive us of information; my thinking was along the lines of "they've voted, now there's no more to talk about (or hear about from them)."

I grant you this, I was mistaken.

[Josh Lyman]

Would you say that's the case moreso than when voting for a person?

I can't say I'm a big supporter of the Josh wagon; fun things (scumminess) and games (anti-townness) can be different things, but it doesn't mean that there can't be things like football (voting no-lynch), which is both a game and fun (both scummy and anti-town, depending upon opinion).

Now, I feel we're getting deep into the territory of theory, and I'll be the first to admit I suck at theory (mafia and non-Mafia. Theory in general. I suck. Practical experience is mainly what I rely on, IRL and here.)

Having said that, yes, I feel that voting no-lynch that early in the game is scummier than voting a person. During the RVS, it is expected that we throw out votes randomly -- votes

of people.

Seeing a NL vote that early just threw me for a loop. Does this make me scum? I don't think so. (I hate to play the newbie card, but I think I'm still relatively new.)

[Josh Lyman]

@Fuzzy

Additionally (for clarity), to me, anti-town != scummy

---

... my thinking was along the lines of "they've voted, now there's no more to talk about (or hear about from them)."

What are you trying to say here?

Are you asking Fuzzy, or asking me? Additionally, if you're asking Fuzzy, are you asking him to read my mind?

[Josh Lyman]

Am I missing the meaning of (!=)? It means, " is not equal to," right?

That is my intended meaning, yes.

Also, the way you typed it, it resembles a nice warm teapot. But I digress.

[Josh Lyman]

@

Fuzzy

Josh

Additionally (for clarity), to me, anti-town != scummy

---

... my thinking was along the lines of "they've voted, now there's no more to talk about (or hear about from them)."

What are you trying to say here?

Not sure how to clarify, but I'll try.

The first statement was actually an afterthought to two previous posts (my posts 9 & 19). I just wanted to clarify that, to my thinking, anti-town actions and scummy actions may not always be the same thing, necessarily. As an example, lying is scummy (and anti-town, but.) Lurking is anti-town, but not necessarily scummy. Something can be anti-town without being scummy; usually (generally?) anything scummy is also anti-town. Any better?

The second was what I was trying (apparently not well at all) to explain why I initially thought the NL vote so early was scummy. I've explained that it was basically a knee-jerk reaction, and now, thinking on it after a bit, it doesn't seem as scummy as I had first thought when I reacted.

To restate my quote above: Once someone votes (especially such a weird vote in RVS or a NL), this may tend to stifle discussion. Perhaps to the detriment of town. Perhaps to the benefit of scum. Perhaps BOTH.

If you'd like more attempts at me clearing the mud, let me know.

[Josh Lyman]

This implies that the RVS is bad in itself. (Which is wrong IMO)

Well, I personally can't stand RVS -- which is no great secret if you know me. Yes, it's a tool to stimulate discussion. In much the same way a sledgehammer is a tool for opening a walnut.

I think that voting for no-lynch is scummy, whatever it's in the rvs or mid-day.

And I'm not seeing how such pressure formed on Josh for those posts. I'm even more suspicious of Budja jumping in the wagon.

I know! I've become a very easy target of late. I know it's just scum trying to throw the spotlight off of themselves, but still.

Fuzzy's post 13 also makes me a little uncomfortable. The whole thing feels forced.

I don't think 'forced' is the feeling I'm getting from it. However, I've mentioned my reasons for staying away from theory (I suck at theory).

For the moment:

unvote
vote: Budja

[Josh Lyman]

We need to hear from the following players, who have not posted AT ALL since the start:

@mod: PLEASE PROD the following, all of whom have not posted since the opening of the thread: 9 days now.

ConfidAnon
Netopalis
Grandi
Locke Lamora

NINE days? Really now. Four of you? Perhaps our entire scumteam is there. Not sure yet.

[Josh Lyman]

Actually, the mod created and locked the thread with placeholder posts at first. The thread was opened on the 4^th.

I completely forgot about that. (I was going off the timestamp of the first post.)

@mod: Please disregard my rather premature request for prodding. I'll re-request tomorrow (Monday) evening.

I'm not a fan of avoiding things simply because I'm bad at them. Scum do that to avoid tripping up.

Vote: Josh Lyman

.

Smokescreen. I'm not avoiding playing, I'm avoiding a theory discussion. All the theory in the world will get you nowhere if you don't find scum. Which I am most decidedly not. (Getting my doubts about you, though.)

[Josh Lyman]

Whatever. I guess I not only suck at theory, I just suck at Mafia.

Lynch me, whatever. I'll be back in a day or so.

[Josh Lyman]

I have not given up on this game. Just very frustrated.

I will try tonight to re-read the game and see if I can be of any use in scumhunting.



What is AtE? It's not in the Wiki.

[Josh Lyman]

I find Josh's appeal for mass-prods particularly odd. Josh, did you receive your role at the same time as the thread was opened? I certainly didn't get my role PM 9 days ago, so unless you were given yours a lot earlier, how do you justify trying to draw attention to players for not posting when the game hadn't even begun?

I got my role PM several hours prior to this post. I hesitate to be more precise in order to avoid a modkill for quoting mod communications.

But about two reality days had passed prior to my requesting prods. Other than this one question for me in two posts (compared to my fifteen), do you have any other scumhunting to do? Perhaps not. Perhaps you're actively lurking.[/url]

[Josh Lyman]

@Mod: Can you prod Fuzzyman, please?

yes

- ortolan

[Josh Lyman]

Still alive, still needing to catch up. Sorry, due to finals and my other game picking up, I've not had as much time. Expect a good post within 24 hours.

Well, according to

Chinaman

's logic, you should be lynched for paying more attention to another game than this one.

[Josh Lyman]

Uhg. I'll apologize now for saying he hadn't posted in here today (the 10th). He in fact has....it just worth anything to me and was forgotten instantly.

JL: Did you re-read through this game? If so, was that little bit toward LL all you had to go on for hunting for scum out of all 4 pages?

I haven't, actually, thoroughly re-read yet. I'm frustrated, which, if I were a better player, I would not allow to affect my play. However....

Also, I'd like to point out real quick you totally ignored my p101 where I apologized for saying you hadn't posted recently and asked you a few questions. I'll add another for you to answer:

Any reason you feel you don't need to answer my questions?

I did have a post written yesterday when connection problems prevented it from posting. Let's see if I can remember what I said for next post.

Also, you irritate me. See above answer.

[Josh Lyman]

As for my role: I am a essentially Vanilla Town. I have a screenwriter's name (whom I can't recall, and don't want to risk quoting PMs).

However, I have this one-shot thing where I can almost kill someone. It's worded very oddly to me, and it's almost a one-shot vig, but not quite.

If you all would like to spare me one more Day, I will certainly take suggestions on who to kill. I will announce who I will kill prior to in order to prove myself.

[Josh Lyman]

I am awaiting Mod approval of further role explanation.

[Josh Lyman]

My name is Richard Curtis, and my 'special ability' stems from my recent work not being the same standard as my earlier work, my recent movie The Boat That Rocked was so devoid of life that I now have the power to suck the life out of one player of my choosing. Said player can then still post, but has no life; therefore, is dead.

[Josh Lyman]

So you are a one-shot ability to turn a player into a "treestump"?

Does you know if your ability gives an alignment flip?

I don't know.

So you can take the vote away from a specific player.

That does the town absolutely no good. If you apply that to a town player, then they cannot help in LyLo. Therefore town loses. If you apply that to scum, they probably still have their night kill, making LyLo situations a little bit more bearable, but their is still all the WIFOM.

No, the player I would choose would be dead for all game purposes, it says, except still being able to talk in the thread.

[Josh Lyman]

Regardless, he would still be able to talk with his scum team. Unless he became the last member of the scum team.

Aside from using it to test your theory, I think it would be a horrible idea to put that role into play. Because eventually, players would get the mindset "oh we should just lynch him because he's useless." Which I think is a very sad excuse for a lynch.

You never answered my question. Is it a day or night action.

I apologize for missing that -- it's a night action.

[Josh Lyman]

Spoon fed me an answer? Where else would I find this from? What are you implying?

That you possibly schemed up this claim.

Since we're in Day One, please tell me how HE could have cooked up a scheme that I just claimed? I don't follow.

[Josh Lyman]

Waiting on Mod answer as to flip.

[Josh Lyman]

Waiting on Mod answer as to flip.

Yes, there will be a flip.

[Josh Lyman]

JL, do you have the ability to do that to yourself?

You people ask A LOT of questions, do you know that? (Oh, wait...that's the point, huh? )

Checking with Mod.

[Josh Lyman]

I have received word that I cannot target myself with my unusual ability.

[Josh Lyman]

We need imag's questions answered before we lynch.

@Mod, two questions.

Supposing Josh does have the ability he claims:

1. If he targets someone tonight who is targeted for a kill, is that player killed or treestumped?

2. If he treestumps someone tonight who has an investigative role, does that player get the results of their action?

If necessary, I'm okay with them being answered not directly by mod, but filtered through Lyman.

Right now, I'm thinking that if Lyman is around tonight, he should not be using this treestumping shot tonight. Saving it for later, once we've got fewer targets is probably a better idea.

Are you (or anyone else) asking me to ask?

Also, noted about not using it tonight.

[Josh Lyman]

Awaiting modly answers.

[Josh Lyman]

@Mod, two questions.

Supposing Josh does have the ability he claims:

1. If he targets someone tonight who is targeted for a kill, is that player killed or treestumped?

2. If he treestumps someone tonight who has an investigative role, does that player get the results of their action?

1. Kill actions trump stumping, so if I target someone who is also targeted for a kill, they are

killed dead

and can't post anymore.

2. Answer refused, with apologies.

Also, in regard to order of action: If I target someone, and they have an action, they will still perform their action.

[Josh Lyman]

Wait a minute....So if someone were to NK someone you stumped, they'd then be unable to post?

1. Kill actions trump stumping, so if I target someone who is also targeted for a kill, they are

killed dead

and can't post anymore.

I'm quoting rather than rephrasing, as I just don't know how to make it any more clear.

[Josh Lyman]

I mean on a subsequent day.

My interpretation is that if I target someone, they are dead for game purposes, and thus cannot be NKed later, as they are

already dead.

Do you want me to ask?

[Josh Lyman]

Apparently, once a player has been stumped, they can still be killed and thus have to stop talking. This is what I was told; it seems contradictory to me, but I will have to go back this evening and re-read some thread and some PMs.

[Josh Lyman]

@Mod: I am going to be partially V/LA until Monday. "Partially" means I may only be online once per day.

[Josh Lyman]

I'm here for about 20 minutes. Given my lack of time, would someone like to reiterate anything I should be answering? (I hate asking this, as it looks as though I'm unwilling to read: it's truly a time limitation thing. If I could sign in on my stupid phone, this wouldn't be a problem.)

[Josh Lyman]

It is a role that creates tree stumps..

No it isn't. A Tree Stump self-declares and can not be killed. This is an action that forcibly removes the ability of a player to vote, but leaves them night-killable. Not at all an apt comparison.

Still I do agree that as such it is fairly unlikely as a scum role. Perhaps it is coupled with a unique win condition? For example, we have only Josh's word that this is a "one-shot" action. What if he is able to "suck the life out of one player" every night?

Why would I lie about my power being 1-shot as opposed to every night? If I had the ability every night, I would've said so. (Also, that would make me a quasi-Serial Killer, which I am not; I am Town.)

I am Town, and my win condition is that I win with Town when all threats to Town are gone (that's a paraphrase; I looked at my role PM a few minutes ago).

Also, for those of you asking, my role name is Richard Curtis.

I have a good idea that I will most likely be using my power tonight, unless you guys collectively talk me out of it. I have narrowed my list down (to about 3) as to whom I will target.

[Josh Lyman]

I still disagree with it being called a "stumping", I know that seems meaningless to many of you, but let's look at what Josh's power is, it is a night action that kills someone. Yes, they can still post, but they are effectively dead in-game.

Josh, do you really have to ask me why you would lie about your role in a game of Mafia?

Yeah, that was probably a stupid

thing to say

way to phrase it.

Why would I lie about my power being 1-shot as opposed to every night? If I had the ability every night, I would've said so. (Also, that would make me a quasi-Serial Killer, which I am not)

Who came up with the tell that a player subconsciously

wants

to tell you their role? Is it one of Jeep's? I forget.

Also, thinking last night about this role. Let's say Josh uses it and hits scum. That means we have a confirmed scum that is allowed to continue posting but not vote? What is the point of that? Obviously no one would pay attention to that player from that point on. Makes no sense, either he is lying about there being a flip, or he is lying about his role.

So, which is it, Josh?

I am only telling you guys what was told to me both in my role PM and in my PMs seeking clarification from the Mod.

I am not the one who made up this stupid, useless, dumb, idiotic role. Look to your Mod.

[Josh Lyman]

I am confused as to why he wasn't Mod-killed for the post you quoted on him when he explains it and it looks like an almost direct quote from his PM, but maybe the Mod is being nice. It very much looks like something the Mod would write as it is similar in tone to the PM I received.

I was very careful to get Mod approval for everything I posted about my role PM.

Damn it all to hell. Now I have to go back and find someone else who's scummy.

So sorry for the inconvenience.