Mini 408 - EXiLE Mafia, MOD ABANDONED

[Skruffs]

romanus - my last post was commenting on maz's game play.
Unfortunately nominations and the way people feel like them are part of a game play.
What exactly am i supposed to talk about that isn't going to 'upset' people?

[Maz Medias]

Am I correct in my understanding that Skruffs's case against me is based primarily on the fact that I strongly oppose premeditation of nominations? The numbers have already been laid out, and I've given my arguments; I believe it is anti-town behavior to try to coerce the town into conforming to a premeditated pattern of nomination, because this opens the door wide open for scum to tamper with it however they may please.

[DeanWinchester]

The amount of scum is really starting to grow in this game. Maz I am flat out voting you for everything I can until you are dead. WORKING ALONE HELPS MAFIA!! yes it's possible that the could still manipulate the noms,but only a little, THE TOWN WOULD STILL GET TWO OR AT LEAST ONE OF THE NOMS THEY WANT UP ON THE BLOCK.

Maz you are scum, you are scum, you are scum. I so can't wait to get you and Ghyrt up there.

[Skruffs]

I am asking you how they may please to tamper with it.
You're speaking as if there is nothing we can do to st op scum, I think, we can. I've provided scenarios - you only offer warnings.

You say scum will tamper with any attempts to collaborate in nominating people. You say scum more likely than not have power roles to interfere with that, but you don't elucidate on any specifics.

Let's say that A and B are not scum but it looks like the they will be nominated. Scum would want to interfere with that? No. It means that they get three townies killed. (nomination night, mislynch, next night)

Let's say A is scum and B is not. How will scum tamper with that? THey will kill off someone who was anti-A and put their combined votes on C to try and get B and C nominated. But that makes A look guilty - in a wifomish way - and then a hunt goes on for who voted C. AT least then we have people who originally seemed suspicious of A who would then have to explain why they changed their vote.

The same situation applies to if A and B are both scum and going to be nominated.

The funny thing is, I know that instead of attacking my logic, (simply sayign it's flawed without having any actual rebuttal of their own) and my arguments, they are sayign that i myself am ridiculous and should be voted/ignored/lynched/full of bullshit etc. That's how Maz treated RR when he was pushing it, and it's how he's treating me when I am pushing it.

I can only assume that they will continue this with everyone else who follows along with this mindset; that working together is bad and that not voting together is thte only way to stop scum from having an advantage.

Yes I will keep railling on it, until someone actually says something with meat in it instead of "no scum will win if we do that"

[JDodge]

The amount of scum is really starting to grow in this game. Maz I am flat out voting you for everything I can until you are dead. WORKING ALONE HELPS MAFIA!! yes it's possible that the could still manipulate the noms,but only a little, THE TOWN WOULD STILL GET TWO OR AT LEAST ONE OF THE NOMS THEY WANT UP ON THE BLOCK.

Maz you are scum, you are scum, you are scum. I so can't wait to get you and Ghyrt up there.

Why Maz and Ghyrt? Why not me? I've been pushing the same position, why am I any different?

[DeanWinchester]

Because the way there saying it, there teaming up of Ragging Rabbit, there general disregard to any logical argument for working together. You are Mostly in the same boat, but the graph on how the votes worked out has me, ATM, believeing you are town.

Ghryt and Maz keeping tripping off ever scum-o-meter I have. Even after I start leaning towards others they pipe up again and I become suspicious of them again.

Don't worry Jdodge I still have an eye on you.

[DeanWinchester]

Others just look way more scumie ATM.

[Romanus]

And all the while the lurkers lurk, the scum laugh and watch the town tear itself apart over crap that makes no difference at all whatsoever.

We can't even get everyone to post and you want the town to agree to nominations beforehand

whoever is advocating the town working together to this degree is just being naive.

Pragmatically, beyond everything else, it won't work, so why not just drop it?

[Skruffs]

JDodge - your position seems to come from an idealized, even political concept of how the game shuld be play. Even if I don't agree with it, you are still putting your neck out there in advocating it.
Maz is not - he's just belittling the people who say things he doesn't agree with, sayign this won't work and that won't work but not suggesting anything that will work. Gyrt, similarly, started immediately trying to find scumtells in the nominees, hasn't had much interest in anyone else in the game, really.

Romanus - I doubt we are tearing ourselves apart. It's a passionate discussion that is getting results. Look at your own sig.

[Skruffs]

I"m past advocating we all work together, however, apart from maz not agreeing to nominate, i think he's playign a very under-the-radar game in only criticizing people who are on the chopping block. His arguments are appeals to emotion with no apparent solid basis behind it. I'm not going to just let him say whatever he wants and not try to hold him to it.

[Maz Medias]

When have I belittled anyone for disagreeing with me? I feel my position is the only logically sound argument and I have provided the basis for them. My arguments are not appeals from emotion but appeals in theory and corollary. In a normal game, it's incredibly scummy to ask town power roles to coordinate their decisions the day before. I feel that the same applies here.

Furthermore, I

have

suggested the other solution: do it the way it's meant to be done. If each individual nominates the people he or she feels is scummiest, we will have a board that encompasses the general mean consensus of scumminess, rather than a premeditated and limited spread. Careful calculation will allow scum to change a premeditated plan into something different in a definite sense, whereas nominating on an individual basis will require scum to guess at how to interfere. More later, I have to go to Florida.

[JDodge]

I"m past advocating we all work together, however, apart from maz not agreeing to nominate, i think he's playign a very under-the-radar game in only criticizing people who are on the chopping block. His arguments are appeals to emotion with no apparent solid basis behind it. I'm not going to just let him say whatever he wants and not try to hold him to it.

Since when does under-the-radar mean "Posts almost every day"?

If you want under-the-radar, look at yellowbounder who has a grand total of 3 posts in the game and hasn't posted since Feb 20th.

[DeanWinchester]

Working in secret helps mafia.

I do think we need some prods to go around. I also think maz has been flying under the radar by not really saying ANYTHING, except don't work together.

[Maz Medias]

Excuse me, Dean, but what have

you

contributed? What have

you

done but snipe at people like me with minimal basis? Who are you - and who are you, Skruffs? - to tell me that my substantiated opinion on this issue makes me scummy? Are you so deluded as to believe that anyone disagreeing with you must be anti-town?

Let me challenge you this way, then. Offer me any hypothetical nomination plan involving 11 people: 8 townies and 3 scum (for argument's sake, we're assuming these nice even numbers). I will show you some way that the scum could manipulate that premeditated plan to lessen the power of the lynch - which, being the town's primary weapon, needs NOT be lessened.

Stop misrepresenting me and making unsubstantiated attacks, just for a moment, and humor me, please.

[JDodge]

Are you so deluded as to believe that anyone disagreeing with you must be anti-town?

Oooh! Pick me! Pick me!

I am not going to nominate lurkers, myself, though that theory would generally be a good one -

I'm going to go all fascist

and say we should nominate people who are refusing to cooperate with everyone else. Not only does it put a bigger target on all fo the cooperators backs - because mafia know that if they keep uncooperative townies around they'll have more control over the game - btu it also makes it less possible to get people to slip up in why they want to nominate people, etc.

Is this the answer?

[Skruffs]

Intellectual talk instead of just calling me flagrantly bullshit. Marked improvement.

In a normal game, asking power roles to coordinate games allow scum to know who's not going to be protected, who's going to be vigged, etc. Yes- scummy.

This is Not the same situation. In this situation, we effectively have to lynch someone twice - the night before in a privat erandom stage, and then, based on that, a definitive stage.

If each individual nominates the people he or she feels is scummiest, we will have a board that encompasses the general mean consensus of scumminess, rather than a premeditated and limited spread.

Exactly. A wide range of people will receive nomination votes -

but only two will be up for lynching the next day.

Giving scum a wider range of choices to play with means that town will be hard-pressed to get enough of a collaborative effort to nominate actual scum without receiving paranoid-defensive votes from other people,

which scum can exploit

.

Careful calculation will allow scum to change a premeditated plan into something different in a definite sense, whereas nominating on an individual basis will require scum to guess at how to interfere.

How? How, dangit?? Give me an example of how scum can stop a group of townies nominating enmasse rather than a sloppy wide variety of nominations?

The worse that I can come up with is that scum would kill a townie who's acting scummy (who is being nominated because a majority of people think they are acting scummy in the first place) and get someone unexpected nominated.

[JDodge]

Ahahaha! You finally showed me the major flaw in the three person system!

Say you have 5A, 4B, and 4C.

Let's say the mafia have one each of AB, AC and BC.

They all switch to DE, which makes it 3A, 2B, 2C, 3D, 3E.

They NK A.

You have D and E nominated.

[Skruffs]

JDodge, the funny thing is, your example just proves MY point; that we need to agree colelctively to ONLY nominate two people. The more of a field - as Maz wants - of nominees we have, the more that scum can dick with it. Thank you for your agreement.

Here, I'll explain it for you.

First of all : What letter representation are the three scum?

I am assumign that scum would have no reason to protect/prevent from being nominated B and C, if B and C are actutally townies. In that case, they don't do anything, at all, kill townie E, and one of A, B or C is lynched.

Let's say that the town has a good reason to believe that two of A, B, and C are scum, and B and C actually are scum. A, B, and C are agreed on to be nominated.
JDodge's situation occurs as he states it, (this includes B and C publicly agreeing to vote with each other).
The next day, D and E are mysteriously nominated, A is dead, and B and C are *curiously* scott free. One of D and E will be lynched. The other one is almost *cleared*... B and C would claim they had no idea that the other was ALSO going to nominate D and E, as well as a third, unknown person (hmm) or something along those lines. It wouldn't be very pretty watching them squirm. IS town going to let B and C do the same thing with a third townie? No.

In that regards, I believe that, the next night, there would be only two nominees: B, and C. Even if one scum kills the other to nominate towne F or whatnot, B is still looking suspicious. Bammo.

With four nominations, or five, or six (as would happen if everyone chose independantly), scum have even MORE choices.

Nominations should be based on gameplay.
Being anti-town = bad game play.
Discussing what constitutes bad game play = playing mafia.
Giving scum advantages = Bad gameplay
Forcing scum to be public about decisions they will make = Information that can be used later on.

How about this

: We have a regular vote lynch for who gets lynched today - and then we have a "tommorrow lynch" vote count, too. The top two people on the 'tommorrow lynch' are agreed by everyone to be voted on.
With 8 votes (assuming scum defect) each, scum can not nominate someone that's not on the top two. THEN the game isn't played in secret - then it's all about scum having to persuade the town on WHO to nominate based

entirely

on public posts.

With two people:
If neither are scum : Why would scum lie? A scummy-acting townie is lynched the next day, and hopefully the town picks better nominations the following night.
Scum could kill off one of the nominees that night and nominate someone else (Even one of their own) to damn the remaining nominee.

If one is scum:
Scum could : put extra votes on another townie, and kill the first one, however, this will not prevent the nominated scum from being nominated, and in fact, will make him look guilty.
They could NOT screw with the nominations, and just push for a mislynch the next day. While killing a townie that is being nominated might be tempting, they could instead focus their kill on a very pro-town player, instead.

If both scum are nominated, with eight other votes behind the nominations - what can they do to stop it? Killing a townie won't keep the townie from nominating them, and though they can put 3 votes on any townie, it won't matter because they'll have an unmaneuvarable block of votes (7) coming at them.

The reason I want to nominate people who aren't going to cooperate is because; if they are not going to cooperate, they are going to be Helping the scum by Not helping the town in nominating who is the guiltiest. Scum will keep scummy players alive if possible, killing off those that put up the most resistance to them doing what thtey want.


Maz - you countered my request with a request of your own, and I fulfilled it. I am still waiting to see your own scenario.

[Skruffs]

Guys - it's a huge post - but I Really think it is worth reading all of it.
(Just incase you think it's bickering and should be ignored)

[JDodge]

The reason I want to nominate people who aren't going to cooperate is because; if they are not going to cooperate, they are going to be Helping the scum by Not helping the town in nominating who is the guiltiest. Scum will keep scummy players alive if possible, killing off those that put up the most resistance to them doing what thtey want.

You want to lynch people you imply are

innocent

in order to make your own plans come true?

Once again, terrible, terrible plan.

[Skruffs]

JDodge, seriously, why are you *constantly* trying to strawman me?

[JDodge]

JDodge, seriously, why are you *constantly* trying to strawman me?

I'm not. Why are you trying to get people who oppose your view lynched?

[Skruffs]

JDodge - who's voting who for opposing their view?

[JDodge]

JDodge - who's voting who for opposing their view?

I am voting you not because I oppose your view; rather that you have threatened to get rid of anyone who opposes your view.

[Skruffs]

I want to get rid of scum. People who are anti-town are much more likely to be scum than people who are pro-town. People who want to let scum choose who gets lynched, consequently, are scum, because scum generally are not going to lynch themselves.

You were doing so good when you had Maz to guide you, too.