Mini 891 - British Comedy Mafia (Game Over)

[Fuzzyman]

More Budja votes, please.

Do you want more votes, or do you already think of Budja as lynch-worthy?

Either way, I'd really like to question him as to how other people voting is "encouraging" to him.

[Budja]

1. It means I am not alone in my thinking.
2. It adds more pressure.

[Fuzzyman]

The first point shouldn't matter to a townie and the second doesn't apply at L-5. In other words,

wrong answers

.

Unvote

Vote: Budja

[ortolan]

Eighth vote count

Budja (5): Josh Lyman, Snow Bunny, BloodCovenent, Netopalis, Fuzzyman
Josh Lyman (1): Chinaman
BloodCovenent (1): Budja
Snow_Bunny (1): jasonT1981

Not voting (3): ConfidAnon, Locke Lamora

7 to lynch

[Budja]

I disagree.

- A second vote is a lot more pressure than a single vote IMO. I don't see how you can think otherwise.
- Having people agree with my line of thought makes me more certain.

[imaginality]

I'm not keen on this Budja wagon yet. I'll have more to say after my re-read tomorrow.

[MacavityLock]

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.

Even if he has the ability, I wouldn't recommend it. The benefit of this will be having a confirmed innocent scumhunter, and I doubt that if Lyman were in that position the town would follow his lead.

so who would you suggest?

Imaginality...I think he's probably our best pick, given the limited set of players that we have. Alternatively, I guess that I could always replace out and see about setting something up with a player you folks would trust more, having them replace me and then Lyman using his ability...

Neto is so bloody wrong here. 1) We should at least be trying to hit scum. 2) If we fail to hit scum, we should be clearing someone under real suspicion. How can requesting what is essentially a vig on someone who is basically under no suspicion be a townie point of view?

I have no interest in a Budja wagon right now and feel like a

Vote: Neto

is in order.

[Netopalis]

Macavity: Don't you see the value in having a really good player that we all know is town? We *know* that their arguments are not scum-driven and we can trust them to be fair and impartial. It creates a really, really useful role if used...

[MacavityLock]

You know what else is useful? Dead scum.

[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.

[Netopalis]

Sure, go ahead and ask. I'd also urge you to use it tonight. I have a feeling that the scum will be targeting you tonight; asking you to save it is, I think, marginally scummy.

[BloodCovenent]

I'm beginning to not like this claim....

What if we're in MyLo, and a scum is "treestumped," and there is 1 full scum 1 TS scum VS. two townies. That doesn't seem like a logical play for the moderator to let that happen.

[Netopalis]

I don't know why it wouldn't be - the treestumped player can't vote - they can only post in thread...I'm not sure how it would affect mylo.

[Netopalis]

Oh, and Lyman, ask the mod about priority, if you could - what happens if you and the mafia target the same person?

[Budja]

A stumped player is a dead man who can talk. So a treestumped scum is dead.

I agree that Net's suggestion is a bad idea.

...and thats about all I have to say there.

I'd really like ConfidAnon and Locke to chime in.

[Netopalis]

Why? Don't forget, it also makes that player unnightkillable. That means that whoever is killed will be able to be here permanently. I wouldn't consider it to be killing a player - more like trading that player's vote for a role reveal, and really, one vote doesn't help the town THAT much, comparatively.

[Budja]

It still should be used as a vig IMO.
If we hit scum, sweet.
If we hit town, we still have their presence in thread.

[Netopalis]

Why? You still haven't articulated that.

[Budja]

I would think it was obvious.
By stumping someone, we essentially kill them. Killing scum > killing town.

[Netopalis]

We don't essentially kill them. The primary function of killing a player in Mafia is removing them from the game.

[MacavityLock]

We don't essentially kill them. The primary function of killing a player in Mafia is removing them from the game.

They are removed for winning condition purposes. I don't give a crap what they say or don't say. It's a vig with the additional benefit of potential scumhunting from beyond the grave.

[Netopalis]

...but if we were to use it on somebody crappy, then we've just got somebody crappy yammering at us for the rest of the game without any help whatsoever.

[BloodCovenent]

...but if we were to use it on somebody crappy, then we've just got somebody crappy yammering at us for the rest of the game without any help whatsoever.

Here is why I am against what you are saying to an extent: You are saying that taking a player's vote away SPECIFICALLY a pro-town players vote.

[Netopalis]

...and reveal their role. You can't leave that part out. It's rather essential.

[Josh Lyman]

Awaiting modly answers.