227 - You Only Live Twice - Game Over!

[Mr Stoofer]

Vote: ?Impossible?

[Mr Stoofer]

I just typed up the following post as my alter ego. And then I realised it would be obvious who wrote it, so I'm posting it as me:

I suggest that on day 1, when the lynch is always a fairly random bandwagon, we should concentrate on alter egos (ie the secondary accounts) for 3 reasons:

1. Everyone is likely to use their secondary accounts less often, so it will be much harder to pick up scum tells from the alter egos.
2. I think that experience of how people play is an important part of finding scum. (e.g. X usually posts a lot, he is lurking, therefore he is scummy). We just can't use that reasoning on the alter egos.
3. It is a pain logging in as a secondary account. If one of my boys is going to die I want it to be my alter ego.

I know this is somewhat game-breaking but I think it is the best town strategy for now.

I certainly think that if any of the secondary accounts is consistently failing to post then we have no choice but to lynch them (see point 2 above).

[Mr Stoofer]

*@$£!!! . I meant to say at the end "see point 1 above".

[Mr Stoofer]

OMGUS vote: Mr Stoofer for wanting to take out all the ? accounts. If we keep doing that, the scum will take out all the primary accounts to get people out of the game completely. And we'll stop seeing ? accounts getting killed at night, so we'll have worse odds of finding a scum when we lynch. If there's a lynching strategy that favors the scum, I think you have just proposed it.

I think that you are right to the extent that my suggestion was not thought out properly. It needs further discussion.

However, I don't think that the strategy of lynching ? accounts leads to the result you suggest. The scum have to kill off an equal number of normals and ? so as to avoid detection - as they did last night. This is because the scum get 4 kills at night and the town gets only 2 lynches a day. So if we only lynched the ? accounts, and the scum only killed the normal accounts, we'd quickly get to the position where the only normal accounts left were scum. We would then lynch the surviving normal accounts and their ? accounts (I suspect it will be very difficult for ? accounts to falsely claim to be associated with a normal account other than their own - impossible if we do the claim before lynching the surviving normals).

But I accept my plan was not thought through sufficiently. I do think it is worth discussing ways in which the town can use the setup to their advantage.

I also think that we must have a zero tolerance policy for ? accounts which don't post regularly. The easiest way for scum to stay in the game would be never to post under their ? account except to say "sorry, I keep forgetting to sign in under this name..."

[Mr Stoofer]

Except, surely, if it was to the advantage of the scum to have even numbers of ??s and normals, if we lynch two ??s, they'll aim to kill one ?? and three normals. So the town can't control the balance of ??s-to-normals.

Come on Seol, think about it. How can the scum choose to kill 3 normals and 1 ? ?. Unless there is one kill group with 4 nightkills (unlikely) then there are 2 groups and they are not able to coordinate. The town can coordinate its lynchings and can influence the balance. And if there is a vig, then the town really can control balance.

The question is then - could it be to the advantage of the scum to have an imbalance?

I can't think of any advantages at the moment. Can anyone else? I've suggested

FOUR

advantages to the town to Town in an imbalance (the 3 in my post 11 plus the fact that the surviving accounts in the minority group must be scum (my post 18 )).

Finger of Stupidity: everyone on my bandwagon who isn't scum

. The one thing that annoys me about this game is the way that, when you start a discussion going, people who don't agree with you vote for you. I wanted to discuss how the town might use the set-up of this game to its advantage -- and as a result I get bandwagonned. Do you really think that I am more likely to be scum that all those who haven't posted anything of substance?

[Mr Stoofer]

That's odd, half my post went miossing. The rest would have said:

With 10 alive today, we could be dropped to just

four

?? accounts tomorrow if we're unlucky

Why unlucky? If we only have 4 ?? accounts, they are probably all scum (3 mafia, 1 SK). We do a big claim and we know all the scum's accounts. That's why an imblanace helps us. (Unless ther scum start killing themselves, in which case we can afford to lynch the innocent ?? accounts to root out the evil ones.)

As the town, we want to split the kills, not localise them.

I may be being incredibly dense, but why?

[Mr Stoofer]

Sorry for the multiple posts but I've just thought of a fifth reason in favour of concentrating on the ?? accounts: once they are all gone the scum will have lost 2 of their night kills.

Please bear in mind that I am not saying that we have to do this, I just want to discuss it. But at the moment I can think of 5 reasons in favour and none against.

[Mr Stoofer]

Yes, we can do a big claim, but it will take us four days to actually lynch them.

That is as fast as we can lynch scum anyway! And if we have a vig we can be quicker.

Just to clarify why the scum are screwed in a mass claim:

1. The scum ?? accounts can't falsely claim to be a normal account which is alive, since the normal account will just log on and say "?whetever? is lying: I'm not ?whatever?'s alter ego".

2. The scum ?? accounts can't falsely claim a normal account which is dead if that normal's ?? account is also dead (because once both accunts are dead, the link is revealed).

3. So a false claim would have to be to a normal account which is dead, but where the corresponding ?? account is alive. In such a case there will be a counterclaim. And it is easy to prove who is right: we just ask both acounts to predict what the first word of that normal account's next post (in another thread) will be. If they are both wrong they are both lying.

[Mr Stoofer]

Yeah, by the time you do the mass claim and identify all the scum, it might well be too late to do anything about it. Hmm... not such a good idea after all.

[Mr Stoofer]

Unvote: ?RainbowBrite?

for posting content (which I happen to agree with).

Vote: ?NamelessOne?

for not posting any content.

[Mr Stoofer]

It doesn't look like there's any claiming or voting strategy that helps us. So let's lynch ?Nameless One? and BrianMcQueso and see where that gets us.

I don't think I've ever seen someone push a lynch without voting for the proposed lynchee, who hasn't been scum. If you want someone lynched, the only reason not to vote them is so your name doesn't turn up on the vote count when they turn out to be pro-town.

unvote:?NamelessOne?

but IGMEOY)

Vote: You?You?

.

[Mr Stoofer]

D'oh! I accept your finger of stupidity.

I saw 2 people saying that ?YouYou? hadn't voted for his targets and I thought "hey, that

is

scummy!" so I went ahead and voted. My bad. I'll revert to my previous vote:

unvote: ?YouYou?, vote: ?NamelessOne?

.

[Mr Stoofer]

MOD

: Can we have a vote count, please?

[Mr Stoofer]

I don't really like ?YouYou?'s response but I'm not sure that it is a scummy response or just shows that he/she is over eager. I can sort of have sympathy for anyone who has a strong desire to lynch someone, as I feel that we don't have much to go on yet and we have to find

2

lynches today.

At the moment ?YouYou? has not done enough to make me want to switch from ?NamelessOne? who is still lurking.

[Mr Stoofer]

I am pretty much out of ideas -- I would suggest going after some of the lurkers. ?Colinus?, ?PurpleLiquid? and Quailman are amongst those keeping an un-healthily low profile.

Dunno why I didn't mention ?Namelessone?. he's just as bad and at least has a bandwagon.

unvote, vote: ?Namelessone?

[Mr Stoofer]

Yeah, I had noticed and was hoping no one else would.

Still, it's pretty obvious who you are.

[Mr Stoofer]

lol

[Mr Stoofer]

unvote: ?RainbowBrite?, vote: Quailman

Very active in other games on this site but luring in this one. Doesn't have the excuse that it is a secondary account. Classic scum behaviour.

Hey, what a brilliant point! That Allstar guy sure is clever. I bet in RL all the pretty girls fancy him.

unvote: ?NamelessOne?, vote: Quailman

.

[Mr Stoofer]

I'm willing to join a Green Liquid (or any other lurker) bandwagon but before I do...

MOD: can we have vote count please?

[Mr Stoofer]

*sigh* this is really dragging.

unvote: Quailman. Vote: Green Liguid

. For lurking and then posting no content when called on it.

[Mr Stoofer]

do you guys want a claim or something?

We want you to die like the scum that you are.

[Mr Stoofer]

Before you die, Green Liquid, can you tell us who your secondary account is so we can lynch that, too.

Thnx.

[Mr Stoofer]

Green Liquid's alter ego.

[Mr Stoofer]

we could try to find the other half of greenliquid, but i am not sure how we can do that.

Let's ask him.

Green Liquid: who is you alter ego?

[Mr Stoofer]

vote: ?ClearLiquid?

. I'm a big fan of clearing out the secondary lurkers.

[Mr Stoofer]

Wow!

Well played everyone and congrats d_rouge for the win.

A very interesting set-up Strykker, thanks very much for modding.