Open 33: Crush Mafia (Game Over) before 471

xyzzy · Post Post #4 (isolation #0) » Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:36 am

/cowsfirm

FoS: SSF

First posts are scummy.

xyzzy · Post Post #31 (isolation #1) » Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:10 am

Finally here!

Vote: SSF

Because not knowing how the GF works would imply that he's... not the GF. Duh.

xyzzy · Post Post #40 (isolation #2) » Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:58 am

So your motive is to find motives?

That sounds almost protown, but assuming that others will reveal their true motives requires knowledge of who has the motive of killing us all.

FoS: HH

xyzzy · Post Post #64 (isolation #3) » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:18 am

*sigh*

Missing 2 weeks messes up your pace.

Hopefully I'll be back to a normal activity level soon.

xyzzy · Post Post #69 (isolation #4) » Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:51 am

STRATEGY IS 100% NECESSARY!

This game setup demands strategizing, fool. I strongly suspect you're one of two targeting people.

Those people, by the way, are the ones we should be looking for. Play the game like a normal game, but hold off any lynches. The two lyncher variations will have to do something eventually; once trends start forming and it's obvious someone wants a particular person lynched, we lynch them.

xyzzy · Post Post #72 (isolation #5) » Mon Jul 30, 2007 6:55 pm

Erg0 wrote:
xyzzy wrote:STRATEGY IS 100% NECESSARY!

This game setup demands strategizing, fool. I strongly suspect you're one of two targeting people.

Those people, by the way, are the ones we should be looking for. Play the game like a normal game, but hold off any lynches. The two lyncher variations will have to do something eventually; once trends start forming and it's obvious someone wants a particular person lynched, we lynch them.
Much as I agree, I don't see where the "two lyncher variations" are. We only have one lyncher in this game, and two potential game-ending targets (the GF and the lyncher's target).

Do I get bonus points for recalling what I thought was probably the setup from when Kelly suggested it rather than taking 20 seconds to read the first post?

Okay, well, we should be looking for anyone who's pushing too hard and not pushing hard enough. Requires a decent level of activity from everyone....

However, if someone is lurking and we have no obvious leads, I'm going to preemptively

FoS: Them

, because the 2 most important people are the goon and the lyncher.

I propose that we strictly enforce a requirement of no one defending themself; rather, anyone who appears scummy should be defended by their fellow players. This way, we'll be looking at who people want alive and dead in a totally unbiased fashion.

xyzzy · Post Post #74 (isolation #6) » Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:44 am

Because if we go with y plan of not letting anyone defend themselves, then the goon will need to protect the GF.

xyzzy · Post Post #76 (isolation #7) » Tue Jul 31, 2007 11:53 am

How is a plan that exploits the setup bad?

xyzzy · Post Post #80 (isolation #8) » Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:52 pm

JDodge wrote:
xyzzy wrote:How is a plan that exploits the setup bad?
It doesn't. It gives you a fake scumtell that you could use to justify going against anyone.

No, it gives us an incredibly successful scumtell, because it will be up to the scum to protect and attack.

If the GF is at -1 and he isn't allowed to protect himself, the goon is going to have to choose between going all out in his defense, or do nothing and risk losing.

xyzzy · Post Post #98 (isolation #9) » Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:48 am

Hmm, I didn't think about that.

You're right, though - that's a big flaw of my plan. My plan assumes people will play their role, rather than letting others do it for them.

Plan suggestion revoked.

xyzzy · Post Post #103 (isolation #10) » Sat Aug 11, 2007 2:49 pm

Call it a plea to remove votes if you will; I call it apologizing for not noticing the obvious.

I am aware that my plan, if implemented, could've resulted in an easy lyncher win. If I were the lyncher, I'd be trying to come up with a counterargument, not admitting that it wasn't actually a very well-made plan.

xyzzy · Post Post #106 (isolation #11) » Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:00 am

Yes: either myself or one of the people on my wagon is the lyncher.

Of course I know it's not myself, but there's no good proof that isn't WIFOMy...

xyzzy · Post Post #109 (isolation #12) » Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:30 am

benhalkum wrote:
Rand Althor wrote:
Deadline set for 5 days
THis is the most beautiful news I've seen all day.

While the information gleamed from a new day is useful, you should never be

glad

about a deadline - it hurts the town.

This is scummy.

xyzzy · Post Post #110 (isolation #13) » Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:34 am

EBWOP: I think I can pretty safely say benhalkum is the GF or goon from this statement.

unvote, vote benhalkum

Only the GF or goon would be "glad" about a possible no-lynch.

xyzzy · Post Post #116 (isolation #14) » Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:04 pm

JDodge wrote:Er, tell me...

How is a deadline implicitly anti-town?

Because the key to gaining information is day-discussion.

A deadline lowers the amount of time we have to get that information.

xyzzy · Post Post #119 (isolation #15) » Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:49 am

JDodge wrote:
xyzzy wrote:
JDodge wrote:Er, tell me...

How is a deadline implicitly anti-town?
Because the key to gaining information is day-discussion.

A deadline lowers the amount of time we have to get that information.
Yes, but with a distinct lack of activity, is it really that bad?

...Um, yeah.

Everything can be analyzed, even the lack of information. If someone chooses not to post while remaining active elsewhere on site, there is a reason.

xyzzy · Post Post #122 (isolation #16) » Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:40 am

benhalkum wrote:I am bothered by xyzzy being SO Anti-Deadline right now, and having such a big opinon about it. That's why I am finally going to go with

VOTE: xyzzy

When did it become wrong to not want a deadline?