Mini 436 - Game over - Mafia wins with no casualties!

[Miztef]

Your strategy in this game is just insane Rampage. I want to believe your scum due to the tells, but my gut tells me your pro-town. This just frustrates me alot, and it helps me little to discern who the scum may be.

I'm going to have to keep my vote on you because I dislike the way your playing, and I don't think it should be tolerated as a pro-town way of playing.

Mod edit
Votecount:
Albert B. Rampage 5 (DeathSauce, Miztef, Paradoxombie, VanDamien, vollkan)
Snichkin 2 (StallingChamp, Ryan)
Deathsauce 1 (HurriKaty)
StallingChamp 1 (Snichkin)
Hurrikaty 1 (TopHat)

Not voting: Albert B. Rampage, darhken

With 12 alive it takes 7 votes to lynch.

[Albert B. Rampage]

The funny thing is that you cannot punish me for a bad play, because I do not care whether I win or lose this game. It is an experiment.

If

you

, Miztef, think that I am innocent, you should take your vote off of me. If you think my lynching will result in finding scum, then stick to your guns.

As for acting irrationally, I am done. I have shown you what I wanted you to perceive. From now, I am simply going to observe what goes on until night falls.

Interpret anything I have said so far however you wish.

[TopHat]

I've seen enough to

unvote, Vote Albert B. Rampage

.
Whether a scum or a townie deliberately trying to be unhelpful, he's good enough for a day 1 lynch.

[Albert B. Rampage]

At this point, I would like to claim.

I am a Psychopath.

To paraphrase to the best of my abilities...

I am a pro-town power role that, when lynched, will take down a person of my choice and the person who hammers me.

https://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Psychopath

This is going to be fun!

[Miztef]

well... this is just great. I'm going to have to think on this for a while before I move forward.

I'll

unvote

for the time being though.

[TopHat]

Nice claim. So basically that's 1/4 of the starting lineup dead in one lynch? I'm going to look through our mod's previous games, if I can find any, and see if he's crazy enough to actually put such a role in the game.

[VanDamien]

Oh in so many ways, you're hurting us if you're pro-town. Which I am beginning to doubt more and more.

Beyond that being a pretty rare role to hand out, in any sort of set-up, in a plain mini it seems even less likely. Furthermore, if it is as the wiki, that you directed to, says; then it won't be your choice, it'll be DeathSauce to go along with you. Furthermore, that claim doesn't jive with you "just trying to make a point" stance either, nor with your claim tha this game is just an experiment for you and you do not care whether you live or die.

[TopHat]

Upon further deliberation,

Unvote

We can't afford the risk of lynching him at this time.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Although I have this ability, I am not bulletproof. Sure I might have hurt the town a little by giving the mafia different targets tonight, and surely the doctor will not be crazy enough to protect me, but I can still be either your greatest ally, or your worse enemy. You decide, my friends.

Because the mafia will not be foolish enough to hammer me, that will leave at least 3 townies dead by day 2 (odds that doc successfully are low).

As for the "point", or "experiment" if you will, is something that I am waiting to occur - and I think the Lawrencelot is eager to see as well!

As for our moderator, Lawrencelot, if there is some clarification of the rules or nature of my role that you can make, please do so publicly, thanks

[HurriKaty]

Do whatever you please, believe what you will.

I will be the last one laughing.

I fail to see how this works if we kill you.

[Miztef]

Here's my propsal with Albert B. Rampage:

We wait till day 2. If he is scum, then he is very unlikely to have been NKed, if he is not then hopefully a doc or something saves him. Assuming he survives the night, we lynch him day 2, If what he states is precisely true, we should have the most suspious person be forced to hammer him, or lynch them instead. That way, both alberts kills can be used to our advantage. If he's scum, he dies anyway.

[TopHat]

Here's my propsal with Albert B. Rampage:

We wait till day 2. If he is scum, then he is very unlikely to have been NKed, if he is not then hopefully a doc or something saves him. Assuming he survives the night, we lynch him day 2, If what he states is precisely true, we should have the most suspious person be forced to hammer him, or lynch them instead. That way, both alberts kills can be used to our advantage. If he's scum, he dies anyway.

This is wrong on so many levels that I don't even know where to start. How about I start with "If we intend to lynch him on day 2 anyway, why waste a doc protection on him??".
Anyway, if we think ABR is a likely scum, the correct play is to direct our vig to hit him. Before this day ends, each player needs to say whether they want ABR vigged or not.

[Miztef]

Here's my propsal with Albert B. Rampage:

We wait till day 2. If he is scum, then he is very unlikely to have been NKed, if he is not then hopefully a doc or something saves him. Assuming he survives the night, we lynch him day 2, If what he states is precisely true, we should have the most suspious person be forced to hammer him, or lynch them instead. That way, both alberts kills can be used to our advantage. If he's scum, he dies anyway.

This is wrong on so many levels that I don't even know where to start. How about I start with "If we intend to lynch him on day 2 anyway, why waste a doc protection on him??".
Anyway, if we think ABR is a likely scum, the correct play is to direct our vig to hit him. Before this day ends, each player needs to say whether they want ABR vigged or not.

I'll elaborate:

I think it's

better

if he's lynched. though him getting NKed is fine.

On day 2 we will have more of an idea who is scum. Therefore, if albert is still alive, we lynch him. We ask the most suspicious person to hammer him. That way, if he's telling the truth, we kill the person we think is most likely scum and albert can choose another person he thinks is scummy and we get another likely scummy person killed. Hence, we use his ability to our advantage rather then just let him die. Plus, even if he's scum, there's no harm done to the town.

I'm actually happier with a day 1 lynch of you Tophat. Your latest comments have been especially suspicous to me.

[ryan]

Miztef: Just so I'm understanding what you're doing, you would put a vote on Tophat and be fine with him being lynched BUT if Albert is lynched you'd be disappointed? I guess I'm a little confused because I thought you were pretty sure Albert was scum but now you seem to be thinking Tophat is the scum we're looking for? Can you elaborate?

[vollkan]

I don't think Miztef meant he ACTUALLY wants 7 people to pile onto Tophat and lynch him, more that he just suspects Tophat at the moment.

For now, I am ambivalent to this plan. It doesn't seem to have anything wrong with it; but that could all change if someone raises a valid objection.

Care to elaborate regarding Tophat, Miztef?

[Lawrencelot]

As for our moderator, Lawrencelot, if there is some clarification of the rules or nature of my role that you can make, please do so publicly, thanks

All I can say is that this game follows the normal game rules: http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=Normal
and is considered a mini game because of the amount of players.

[Miztef]

I don't think Miztef meant he ACTUALLY wants 7 people to pile onto Tophat and lynch him, more that he just suspects Tophat at the moment.

For now, I am ambivalent to this plan. It doesn't seem to have anything wrong with it; but that could all change if someone raises a valid objection.

Care to elaborate regarding Tophat, Miztef?

of course, and you are correct that I am suspicious of Tophat.

My suspicion stems from this post:

I have recently been mafia in a game on another site, and I'm proud to say I made some mistakes and learned from them. And when I say "learned", I don't only mean learned not to repeat them, I also mean learned to identify those who make the same mistakes.

So, short version: ryan and Hurrikathy are scumpartners.

Long version: in his big analysis post (#55), ryan devotes FOUR WHOLE LINES to Hurrikathy (more than to anyone else), despite the latter only having 2 posts, both fairly meaningless. Not only that, but (with respect to HK), he comes to no conclusion altogether. This

OVERANALYSIS WITH NO CONCLUSION

is a scumbuddy tell, and I know it is, because I made it previously myself with respect to my own scum partners in another game (luckily, that time nobody noticed).

At this point, I would really like to see one of them bandwagoned into a claim. That's all for now.

Clearly invalid logic is used here, and that is understandable, but I kept on eye on him.

I've seen enough to

unvote, Vote Albert B. Rampage

.
Whether a scum or a townie deliberately trying to be unhelpful, he's good enough for a day 1 lynch.

He is the last one to vote albert b. rampage and it seems to be a mostly bandwagoning vote, but again, not all too suspicious in itself.

This is wrong on so many levels that I don't even know where to start. How about I start with "If we intend to lynch him on day 2 anyway, why waste a doc protection on him??".
Anyway, if we think ABR is a likely scum, the correct play is to direct our vig to hit him. Before this day ends, each player needs to say whether they want ABR vigged or not.

This is what put me over the line. Complete dismissal of my idea, or any idea at that, is not very pro-town to me, he then states "the correct play..." but who is to say that's the correct play? This whole post seems to me like scum manipulation. (Why is he so sure there is a vig anyway? It's not

that

common of a role)

[TopHat]

This is what put me over the line. Complete dismissal of my idea, or any idea at that, is not very pro-town to me, he then states "the correct play..." but who is to say that's the correct play? This whole post seems to me like scum manipulation. (Why is he so sure there is a vig anyway? It's not that common of a role)

1. I dismissed your idea because it was bad, with the doc protection and all.
2. ABR is clearly either a scum OR an extremely unhelpful townie; in both cases he needs to die. Lynching him is too dangerous, hence the vig.
3. A vig is sure as hell more common than a role that kills two players upon being lynched. It is beyond my comprehension why one would accept ABR's claim at face value, yet deny the possibility of a common role such as vig being in the game.

[DeathSauce]

Reading the link provided by ABR, it says nothing about "taking down" a person of his choice or the hammer vote. It says the bomb kills the first person that voted for him that day, which in this case would be me.

It's supposedly a "pro-town" role, but Albert has not been playing as a pro-town player. I don't see any reason to believe his claim, the role is uncommon, Albert is giving his role more power than it actually has in an attempt to frighten us from his lynch. If the claim is true, I am dead meat, but I'm willing to take the chance.

[DeathSauce]

Also, after reading the link provided by our moderator I would like to call attention to this point:

All I can say is that this game follows the normal game rules

A normal game does not have to have any other roles other than Mafia and Townies. If it includes other roles, they should mostly be considered standard, such as Cop, Doctor, Vigilante, Roleblocker, Mason, Traitor, Serial Killer.

"Psychopath" is in no way a standard role. I think that puts the lie to ABR's claim once and for all.

[Miztef]

Also, after reading the link provided by our moderator I would like to call attention to this point:

All I can say is that this game follows the normal game rules

A normal game does not have to have any other roles other than Mafia and Townies. If it includes other roles, they should mostly be considered standard, such as Cop, Doctor, Vigilante, Roleblocker, Mason, Traitor, Serial Killer.

"Psychopath" is in no way a standard role. I think that puts the lie to ABR's claim once and for all.

That is quite the point, and I am also inclined to believe the claim is a lie because of lawrencelot's post.

However, there is still a chance it is a possible, and I believe we should ask a person the majority of us agree is scummy to hammer him. That way, if he is telling the truth, we at least used his power to the best of our ability, with the least risk.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Reading the link provided by ABR, it says nothing about "taking down" a person of his choice or the hammer vote. It says the bomb kills the first person that voted for him that day, which in this case would be me.

It's supposedly a "pro-town" role, but Albert has not been playing as a pro-town player. I don't see any reason to believe his claim, the role is uncommon, Albert is giving his role more power than it actually has in an attempt to frighten us from his lynch. If the claim is true, I am dead meat, but I'm willing to take the chance.

Honestly, nobody cares about you Deathsauce. But if you die, it will only become that much harder to find the scum.

Also, I just read the link the mod sent, and under the guideline that you have conveniently quoted, there was this one, which I think adds credibility to my claim:

Other (new or otherwise) roles can be included. However, there should be no more than 1-2 of these, and they should be based around the usual game mechanics: Killing, Protecting, Investigating, Voting.

I don't thin you are scum, but I think you are greatly mistaken, deathsauce. (About a great many things, would say the emperor)

[DeathSauce]

Albert , you are correct. I did stop reading after the first mention of roles and did not see that next paragraph. However your role as quoted by you still doesn't conform to the role description in the wiki.

Miztef, you say that the person "the majority of us agree is scummy" should place the hammer vote. What if I think you are the second-scummiest player behind Albert? If the majority of us feel that way would you be willing to drop the hammer?

[Albert B. Rampage]

Heh what can I say, man. Marijuana is legal in the netherlands, and this experimental game might have been born from a toke too much of the hydroponic

[vollkan]

I agree. Albert's play has been scummy. He exaggerates his role tremendously and, furthermore, his claim contradicts the rules. Yes (acknowleding his most recent post) it doesn't necessarily contradict the rules since non-standard roles based around the "usual mechanics" may be included, but I quote the article ABR linked us to:

The Psychopath actually describes two different roles, neither of which are very common.

Not that it proves anything, but it gives a further indication of the unlikelihood which, combined with ABR's conduct and misrepresentation of his power, convinces me.

I do have a question though.
Miztef wrote:

However, there is still a chance it is a possible, and I believe we should ask a person the majority of us agree is scummy to hammer him. That way, if he is telling the truth, we at least used his power to the best of our ability, with the least risk.

Now, the article states:

The Psychopath is a normal townsperson, except he has a bomb and an aggressive streak.

If the Psychopath is lynched, he takes someone down with him - the first player who voted for him that day dies as well.

Does that mean DeathSauce only will die, or DeathSauce AND the lyncher will die if ABR is Psychopath?

If it is the first case, then Miztef's plan (ie. the scummiest person hammers ABR) doesn't need to be enacted since only DeathSauce will die.

In the alternative, if it is lyncher AND DeathSauce I think I have an idea even more cunning than Miztef's!

The first player who voted dies, right. So, if the lyncher dies as well, why not have DeathSauce unvote ABR, then have other people join the wagon and put ABR to -1 and THEN have DeathSauce REVOTE. That way, DeathSauce is both the first voter AND the lyncher - meaning we don't risk losing a second town. Unless you feel damned sure someone else is scum, this option is certainly the safest.