Mini 448: Judgement Day Mafia-Game Over!

[The Fonz]

Hmmmm. I think I have an idea which might resolve the Xyzzy situation. If his win condition statement matches the one I have, I'll consider him confirmed town. You can all do likewise.

Xyzzy, if your win condition is the same as mine, it will be in a sentence of its own. How many words are in that sentence, and of those what number word is the word 'town?'

(To those who have played themes on here before- that doesn't constitute quoting, right?)

[JDodge]

Now, you see, this is why the townie PM should always be posted by the mod. It cheapens the game to do something like this.

Now we wait for xyzzy.

[The Fonz]

Now, you see, this is why the townie PM should always be posted by the mod. It cheapens the game to do something like this.

Now we wait for xyzzy.

Or the mod can phrase the win condition differently for different protown players (which is why I'm not necessarily going to consider it conclusive if his answer differs from mine). But if neither of these have happened, and there is a gamebreaking strategy available to us, I can't see why we shouldn't employ it.

[Higsby]

Hmm, same to you. Where did I say that I was so sure that he was scum? I said that he had a scummy post. I love how condraticting you are JDodge. So if you will, please post where I say that he was scum.

Well, the way I read your Post #58 was that you thought everyone agreed that xyzzy was scum.

Your Post #61 confirms that, "I meant a free mafia dead."

You are definitely contradicting yourself and I can't understand why. I don't know why you couldn't just stick to your guns the whole time and said, "Yes, I think he's scum and at the time I thought most others did too." When I can't understand why someone would do something, I have no choice to believe that they have ulterior motives for what they did (i.e., are scum).

My vote on ~N9V~ was random, but now it's for cause.

[Battle Mage]

Wrong. Any reference to the role pm other than the name and role, will be considered quoting. No trying to bend the rules here.

Hmmmm. I think I have an idea which might resolve the Xyzzy situation. If his win condition statement matches the one I have, I'll consider him confirmed town. You can all do likewise.

Xyzzy, if your win condition is the same as mine, it will be in a sentence of its own. How many words are in that sentence, and of those what number word is the word 'town?'

(To those who have played themes on here before- that doesn't constitute quoting, right?)

[xyzzy]

Eh, yeah, if I was modding a game and someone asked that specific a question about a role, they'd be replaced.

As in, "no, I'm not giving you that information."

It's metagaming.

[The Fonz]

It may be a lot of things, but it's not metagaming. The idea was to help win

this

game. See McDonald's mafia for a game where exactly that kind of question was asked to help find out whether someone was townie.

[kabenon007]

I went back a little, because ~N9V~ has been making my scumdar go off. I find that he ignores the fact that if we lynch xyzzy and he is town, then the mafia gets another free kill without having one of their own die. He seems to think that if we lynch xyzzy, even if he is town, then all of our problems will be solved, we will be able to tell from who was and wasn't defending him exactly who the mafia is. It just doesn't make sense to push that hard for a lynch that is in question.

vote ~N9V~

[Battle Mage]

Now A Ranger replaces Higsby

Welcome to the game!

[The Fonz]

I went back a little, because ~N9V~ has been making my scumdar go off. I find that he ignores the fact that if we lynch xyzzy and he is town, then the mafia gets another free kill without having one of their own die. He seems to think that if we lynch xyzzy, even if he is town, then all of our problems will be solved, we will be able to tell from who was and wasn't defending him exactly who the mafia is. It just doesn't make sense to push that hard for a lynch that is in question.

vote ~N9V~

All lynches are in question. I'm suspicious of everyone pushing the 'Mafia get a free kill,' angel, er, well, they get a free kill tonight whatever we do today. That the mafia get to kill tonight is

not

a reason to not lynch Xyzzy. It is a reason we shouldn't hammer early, but then N9V really wasn't pushing for a hammer.

[kabenon007]

Of course all lynches are in question. I'm not debating that, because that could get into some serious WIFOM. I'm just saying that I don't like the way that N9V is pushing hard his argument that a lynch is better than a -1. By going to a -1, we could get someone to role-claim, snitch on a partner, or let a scum slip up. And if nothing happens when someone is at -1, then it is a simple vote to get the lynch that N9V thinks is better than a -1. But a -1 is reversible, a lynch is not. If we made a mistake with a lynch, it is unrectafiable. Bringing someone to -1 and then discovering they are not scum is worth the wait.

[The Fonz]

He's not pushing the argument that a lynch is better than L-1. He's saying that the argument Albert put forward, that a lynch would not yield more info than an L-1 vote, is crap, which it is.

[~N9V~]

First off, am I voting xyzzy anymore kabenon007? No. And I haven't disregarded the whole scum gets a free kill. Of course they will get a free kill today, or mabey tommorow, or the day after that. It all depends when we make an error in judgement.

[Albert B. Rampage]

He's not pushing the argument that a lynch is better than L-1. He's saying that

the argument Albert put forward, that a lynch would not yield more info than an L-1 vote, is crap, which it is.

Why are you distorting the truth ? First of all, I never said that.

Second, he has time and time again said that its better to hammer than -1.

[The Fonz]

Liar. At no point does N9V say someone should hammer.

Confirm vote: Albert B. Rampage

Your consistent misrepresenting of N9V makes me pretty sure you're scum.

He's not pushing the argument that a lynch is better than L-1. He's saying that

the argument Albert put forward, that a lynch would not yield more info than an L-1 vote, is crap, which it is.

Why are you distorting the truth ? First of all, I never said that.

Second, he has time and time again said that its better to hammer than -1.

Liar. He has not

It is a bit of each, of course. If is good in that we can usually get quite a bit of info from -1; it is bad in that someone stupid could hammer before we get said info.

But with the amount of justification from Higsby without any action is bad.

I agree with this, except for the part a -1 gives us more info than a hammer. A -1 can give us absolutly no info at times, when a hammer gives us his allegience, and then we can work from there to determine who attacked him, who defended him, and so on.

Not neccesarily. It doesn't always lead to a claim. I didn't say we should hammer him, I just pointed it out that it can give more info than a -1 can.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Wow, I hope everyone saw this.

Second, he has time and time again said that its better to hammer than -1.

This is what I

said

.

Liar. At no point does N9V say someone should hammer.

This is what he said I said. He did a nifty job of transforming what I said. This buster is really going to extremes to draw a case on me.

[Albert B. Rampage]

To clarify further, I said he said its better to lynch than to -1 for your information, while you say I said he said that someone should hammer.

Gah, how many times did I use the verb saying in this post ?

Anyway. You are either lying, or as clumsy as they come, twice accusing me wrongly.

[xyzzy]

It may be a lot of things, but it's not metagaming. The idea was to help win

this

game. See McDonald's mafia for a game where exactly that kind of question was asked to help find out whether someone was townie.

No, any attempt at gaining information beyond the thread, for the sake of being publically revealed in the thread, is metagaming. It's applying an upper level of the game (the wording of role PMs) to a lower level (Who got what PMs)...

*Goes to count votes on N9V*

[Arkest]

Pronouns replaced for clarity:

Second, [N9V] has time and time again said that its better to hammer than -1.

Liar. At no point does N9V say someone should hammer.

To clarify further, I said [N9V] said its better to lynch than to -1 for your information, while [Fonz] says I said [N9V] said that someone should hammer.

Who's misrepresenting here? I'd have to say Albert.

[Albert B. Rampage]

How so ? Please explain as obviously it is clear that Fonz is the one making up stories.

[Arkest]

I'll just go back to your original vote on N9V then.

JDodge, if I put him at -1, would that be a good or a bad thing for the town ?

It is a bit of each, of course. If is good in that we can usually get quite a bit of info from -1; it is bad in that someone stupid could hammer before we get said info.
But with the amount of justification from Higsby without any action is bad.

I agree with this, except for the part a -1 gives us more info than a hammer. A -1 can give us absolutly no info at times, when a hammer gives us his allegience, and then we can work from there to determine who attacked him, who defended him, and so on.

That's absolutely nonsensical, talking about how the hammer is the best play while the game is still at this stage. That, coupled with his free mafia kill retort, tickles my evil detector...

There's the quotes in order. I read that as N9V pointing out that putting someone at L-1 won't necessarily give you any additional information. He doesn't say we should immediately hammer someone at L-1. I really don't see how you justify saying:

Second, he has time and time again said that its better to hammer than -1.

That's just blatant exaggeration no matter how you read his post.

As for what Fonzie has said, it seems to me the whole argument is just a miscommunication. I don't think anyone is actually arguing that we should quick lynch someone. Obviously we want as much information as we can get before a lynch.

[Albert B. Rampage]

There's the quotes in order. I read that as N9V pointing out that putting someone at L-1 won't necessarily give you any additional information.

To which I said:

Also, a -1 could give possible claims, incite mafia to act overconfidently, other players can slip, etc.

How is that not risk-free information ?

I take it that he is building an argument with the basis that hammering is a good move the way he is promoting such an action. Hence what I said earlier.

IGMEOY The Fonz

This is the kind of misunderstanding that can blow up into false accusations which can be exploited by scum.

[~N9V~]

I have

NEVER

said we should hammer him. I

SAID

that if we want any info, then it is best to hammer him.

[now a ranger]

I'm going to do a quick re-read.

[JDodge]

Geez. I go away for five hours and come back to a whole load of bullcrap.

You're all forgetting the obvious; they're both misrepresenting each other.