Mini 521 (SMSM, Ended)

[Fiasco]

Madness? This is SPEED META!

There, now the rest will look profound in comparison. So that was for your own good.

Let's discuss metagame strategy. (He said, without discussing metagame strategy.)

[Fiasco]

Perhaps, but if there's any discussion that needs to be uncontaminated by subgame alignments, we should probably start it now. 72 hours isn't much.

[Fiasco]

Max: in C9++, basically what happens is you generate a town with some random power roles and then match it to a set of scum that's about equally strong. It may be worth looking at the examples.

[Fiasco]

As I see it, Mafia works with any day game, as long as:

• some people die in it
  
• who these people are depends on choices that everyone can see

Usually, the day game is voting. Here, the day game is Mafia itself.

A metatownie who is subscum knows at least one of the subscum is a metatownie. That gives him an incentive to play for a subscum win. A metatownie who is subtown knows at least one of the subtown is a metatownie. That gives him an incentive to play for a subtown win.

Until we develop metagame suspicions, we should play just as if we were playing a typical mafia game.

Discuss: should any N0 choices in the first subgame depend on pregame behavior?

[Fiasco]

In case anyone missed it like me, we have about 18 hours left before the first subgame.

[Fiasco]

Why? It's a fair point. If I said "I suspect mith because of his pregame behavior" and then mith died N0, scum might deduce from that that I'm a vig and kill me. So you have to be unpredictable about it.

[Fiasco]

Why do you say that "there obviously aren't"? There are power roles in the first three subgames, just not in the metagame. If those subgame power roles are in the hands of metatownies and they die, on average, that's a bad thing.

[Fiasco]

I'm saying the info from today could the scum info on who to kill. But there are no power-meta-roles, just meta-roles.

OK, I think I see what you were getting at. Meta-townies with power-sub-roles dying is still bad, though; any given meta-townie is more likely to be on a sub-team in which meta-townies are overrepresented... if that makes sense.

One of the weird things about this game is that some of the time, you're working against your own team without knowing it. But you're working with it more often than against it, so the right play is still to play for the subgame win unless you have a lot of metagame information.

Max, treating it as closed with a limited role list should be safe.

Everyone, impressing me with useful pro-metatown content may help you avoid being a night target in game 1. Hint, hint.

[Fiasco]

It's his fault the set-up had to be randomized again.

1) How so?
2) So what?

[Fiasco]

Oh, this is going to be one of

those

games?

[Fiasco]

Post 54 is a clever scheme with the intent of eliciting from Max the answers to two questions: "how so", and "so what".

[Fiasco]

Max and I were scum together pre-reroll. I have an idea as to how I might have caused the reroll, but I'm not sure how Max would know that. I'm hoping the answer will shed light on Max's alignment. Meanwhile I'm not sure Mod is even OK with us talking about this.

Sammich, giving out role info needlessly is bad.

[Fiasco]

kabenon007, let's shelve this subject and return to it when we've heard how the Mod feels about the use of extraneous information such as that from the pre-reroll period.

Max, if you're not scum, why doesn't that make you glad? Being scum is much more dangerous than being town in this setup.

vote: Max

[Fiasco]

OK, unshelved.

Max, Ryan, and I were the mafia pre-reroll. (Interestingly enough our kill choice was Sarcastro.) We weren't asked which of us was to make the mafia kill. I think this is probably the error that mith mentioned: it could be seen as implying the town had no blocker. If so, you could say that I caused the reroll because I brought up the issue to the mod; but the thing is, how would Max know this (especially that this issue is what caused the reroll)?

Does he get to participate in the Voting Phase?

Yes.

Also, how do these Sub Games help us? Since the person who is lynched in the subgame doesn't really get lynched, do subgames hold any power over us, or are they just to encourage discussion?

If you die, your team is less likely to win, so you're more likely to get voted out.

[Fiasco]

Max, I don't understand. You have a plan for town to kill scum? Or a plan for scum to kill town? Also: what made you say the reroll was my fault?

Ryan, Waldo, Rose, Xdaamno: we're on a short deadline! No point in just random voting; say something!

[Fiasco]

Waldo, did I misinterpret? You seemed sure you wanted Max lynched, and yet you suddenly switched your vote. In six days we don't just need to lynch someone, we need to decide whom to lynch with enough of a safety margin to deal with any role or investigation claims.

Max,

I won't mention it as it will give it away if I'm scum in any future games

How would mentioning a pro-town plan give anything away if you're scum in future games? I don't understand.

[Fiasco]

We should aim to have someone at Claim Or Die by Wednesday, I think.

[Fiasco]

Clarification:

Waldo, did I misinterpret? You seemed sure you wanted Max lynched, and yet you suddenly switched your vote. In six days we don't just need to lynch someone, we need to decide whom to lynch with enough of a safety margin to deal with any role or investigation claims.

This suggests that I'd like Max bandwagoned already, which is not the case; I'd just like us to start working on the decision. I meant to point out separately that Waldo's vote switch didn't make sense to me, as a point against Waldo.

[Fiasco]

An idea occurs, a precipitate to a mass roleclaim down the line; if everyone stated now whether their role is the same as first time around. May be useful for catching folk in lies down the line... may be unutterably stupid. Thoughts?

Bad idea: people who do have the same role are almost certainly vanilla, which means the scum can use this info to kill off power roles.

I can safely say that my own role is different, though.

[Fiasco]

Where's Pooky?

Waldo, what sense does it make to say we have a week to lynch Max if you expect you'll probably change your mind anyway?

[Fiasco]

???

So although you seriously had the day planned around killing Max, saying we had a week to kill him was a joke?

[Fiasco]

Getting really annoyed with Max. He's posting all over the place but is still not answering my simple question.

[Fiasco]

I think kabenon is closest to being right. Either you plan the day around finding out who the scum are (which takes time) and then killing them; or you plan the day around killing a specific person. It can't be both.

Not sure I buy the "it was meant as humor". If people attacked me for saying something I didn't really mean, I'd make that clear immediately.

Adele, why the reluctance to vote?

[Fiasco]

Adele, that was a serious question. Usually you're against people refusing to vote in the random stage, are you not?

[Fiasco]

That covers the "so what" question, but I'm more interested in the "how so" question: what made you think I caused the reroll?

[Fiasco]

The lady doth protest too much / too little / too suspiciously close to the expected amount, methinks!

Anyway,

DAYKILL: POOKY

[Fiasco]

So were you scum?

[Fiasco]

If you were town, don't tell us your role, though.

[Fiasco]

Ryan, Sammich, do you two have opinions on anything other than each other?

That's why waterboywaldo didn't say in the post when he was kidding around that he was just kidding around.

That's not the point; the point is he could have said it when people called him on the statement.

Everyone, do you think Adele's "let's all say whether we have the same role" suggestion was scummy?

[Fiasco]

Boo hoo. "Suggestion" is not that different from "idea". I didn't even say it was scummy, just asked other people. Fact is that you proposed something that would have outed most vanillas in the game even if it didn't seem that way at first. If one or two people followed it because they couldn't see the harm, that would still have been damaging.

[Fiasco]

Or actually only about half of all vanillas, depending on setup. But still.

[Fiasco]

How shocking, I referred to something that happened

earlier in the game

.

I think it was a bad plan, but I'm unsure whether bringing it up was scummy. That was one of the reasons I wanted everyone's thoughts. The other was what it might say about

them

.

[Fiasco]

We should aim to have someone at Claim Or Die by Wednesday, I think.

We are not making progress.

[Fiasco]

UNDAYKILL: POOKY

unvote, vote Pooky

[Fiasco]

If a side with more townies wins, townies have a better chance of meta-lynching scum. I agree the stakes aren't as high as normal, but why not make some attempt at playing the game if we've signed up anyway? How else are we going to judge meta-alignments?

[Fiasco]

Signing up for a speed game that says "post something relevant every day if not more" and then not saying anything relevant the first, what, five? days the thread is open, is just plain rude.

[Fiasco]

What statement isn't true?

I suggest the mafia now out themselves because I think we have our metalynches now.

Quoted for embarrassment.

[Fiasco]

I think I pretty much explained all this in pregame.

For example, if there are 9 protown subgame players and 3 mafia subgame players, but the metamafia are all in the "town" section of the subgame, then if the side with more "metatownies" which would be the "subgameTown" won, the chances for the metatownies to lynch metamafia would not be "better", it would be zero since there are no metamafia in the subgameMafia for them to lynch.

Obviously by "more" I meant a greater fraction, not a greater total number. To a metatownie, being subtown is weak evidence that subtown contains more metatown; being subscum is weak evidence that subscum contains more metatown.

If you think for a second what Subgames actually do, I would argue that they do nothing but decide who is up for lynch.

Yes, and if you're a metatownie you have no business putting yourself up for lynch. If the subgames were completely useless mith wouldn't have put them in.

Also, why Sarcastro?

[Fiasco]

Actually maybe you're right -- sorry. Putting yourself up for lynch may be a sort of "bad play", but as long as it's a sort of "bad play" that you can force everyone else to participate in, that doesn't matter.

One thing we can say for sure is scum have a better idea who they want to win than town.

[Fiasco]

Same as usual? Not sure why you're asking.

I'm thinking about your proposal of skipping the subgame entirely. How would you handle it if scum just refused to give themselves away? We have to vote off two players -- how do we choose them, especially considering we can't eliminate two that are on different teams? Will the possibility of a serial killer screw things up?

Certainly your plan doesn't seem like any fun. I can't prove at the moment that it's not slightly better play.

[Fiasco]

You could treat it mostly as a standard nightless game and pay special attention to any attempts to bend the subgames in anti-town ways.

There are complications to your proposal and I'm not really happy with how you tried to implement it without discussion.

How would you handle it if scum just refused to give themselves away? We have to vote off two players -- how do we choose them, especially considering we can't eliminate two that are on different teams? Will the possibility of a serial killer screw things up?

[Fiasco]

By "your proposal", what I mean is: 1) ask the scum to out themselves, 2) everyone vote on metagame lynches, 3) ask whatever side the lynches are on to lose the subgame intentionally. Tell me if I misunderstood.

[Fiasco]

So could all the non-me, non-magical, non-kabe people please weigh in on whether we're going to play this subgame at all? If yes, may I suggest threatening Max?

unvote, vote Max

[Fiasco]

Under normal play scum wins about half the time. If we follow Pooky's plan, we need two lynchees on the same team, so the town almost certainly has to lose. Metascum have a much better idea than metatown as to which side they want to win. Discuss.

[Fiasco]

deadline incoming

That is pretty damn ironic coming from you.

I will greatly enjoy watching certain people make asses out of themselves by lynching me.

[Fiasco]

Max, best unvote me then, ah?

Everyone, I apologize for my earlier frustrated outbursts. I do still consider the case against me weak to nonexistent, on both the subgame level and the metagame level. Responses to specific claims to follow when I get the chance.

Pooky, Waldo, in the mean time, could you please give me a better idea as to what I'm being accused of? It seems to have something to do with me claiming metatownies should play well for whatever side they are on -- but I'm hardly the only one making that claim (or assuming it in play), and it still seems true to me insofar as intentional bad play is hard to punish in the metagame.

[Fiasco]

If only one thing is clear, it's that this subgame requires a more confrontational style. I know this post is unlike me, but I think it's necessary to be a bit shoutier.

I don't understand why you said this. I think what's necessary (at least

now

) is exactly the opposite -- let's make a point of de-escalating the sarcasm and discussing constructively.

yeah, if I'd not made a point of saying it might be unutterably dumb, and asked specifically for thoughts.

I don't see how this matters much. There are two reasons why your bringing up the plan could be seen as scummy. First, people could have missed the flaw in the plan and implemented it. But they weren't going to do so blindly anyway; they were going to examine it critically whether or not you asked for thoughts etc. Second, a few uncautious people might have said whether they had the same role before the flaw could be found. Again, why would those people pay a lot of attention to how confident you were in proposing it? What matters is whether the idea is out there. So I don't think bringing up the

possibility

of it being a scum tell is at all unreasonable. I would be more reassured had you warned people not to give out the information until we had all examined the plan.

You would be right to disagree with me if the topic of discussion were whether you said something

wrong

or

unsupported

; because of the caveats, you did not. But what we're trying to determine is whether you said something

dangerous

.

Asking everybody else if something's scummy so, if anyone (like Joe-average) says "maybe, yeah", you can later say "Um, I think I agree with Joe-average that Adele was scummy" = scummy.

I can see how that might be a possible (rather transparent) scum tactic. I don't think it's something you can always avoid as town, though; sometimes you're not sure whether something is a scum tell, but you think it could be important.

"Look at me, I'm the only one who cares about the game, look how many posts I've entered (bickering off-topic), follow me in bandwagoning this guy cause what else are you gonna do?"

I'll do this.

Vote: Fiasco

This comes across to me as malice caused by me having annoyed you somehow, which you then didn't separate 100% from your judgment of my alignment. At the time, there was disagreement over whether to play the subgame at all; this seemed to me like the most important issue at that moment, some people were ignoring it, and I wanted to hear their opinion. The subtext you put in quotes isn't really there, in my opinion, and if there wouldn't be that scummy.

The "off-topic" remark annoyed me, to be honest. Most of my comments have been about the usual mafia topics of who is scummy, what are good strategies to play the game, and the like. I think you may be using an unusual definition of "off-topic".

You yourself agreed that we should have threatened someone with lynch by Wednesday. I thought Max was suspicious because the earlier comment about me causing the reroll could point to him having discussed the roleblocker issue as scum, and he has refused (and continues to refuse) to give us any other explanation for the comment.

Then you voted me, without explaining why the couple of "things that scum might do" in my posts outweighed the evidence against other people. I've probably been posting too much (especially in this one); post count is not evidence of good alignment, but the more posts, the more scum tells you can find, and you should take care to correct for this. Not that a full explanation is always needed, mind you; but this vote on top of the inertia from Max's random vote is probably the one leading to my lynch.

God, yes, how embarrassing: an info-free short-deadline day-1 lynch that doesn't have a perfect justification behind it. Boy will my face be red if Fiasco's innocent!

I would say "a weak attempt at justification", but we can disagree on that. I don't think "short-deadline" should be an excuse; to my mind, the point of a speed game is that you play faster, not that you go on (much) less information. On "info-free": if we'd planned ahead more, we might have had more info from claims, might have used the standard push people to claim strategy, etc.

Last post on the subgame, probably. There's probably no point in discussing it, but I wanted this off my mind.

[Fiasco]

What galls me a bit about being suspected in the metagame is -- I started out asking about metagame strategies, then everyone said let's just play the subgame before thinking about that stuff, so I went along with them and just played the subgame, and then Pooky attacked me basically for just playing the subgame. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Pooky.)

[Fiasco]

Mmm, I suppose that's a point. Not sure it incriminates me more than those who never considered metagaming in the first place.

I think you're overstating the uselessness of the subgame somewhat. As I did say early on:

A metatownie who is subscum knows at least one of the subscum is a metatownie. That gives him an incentive to play for a subscum win. A metatownie who is subtown knows at least one of the subtown is a metatownie. That gives him an incentive to play for a subtown win.

Until we develop metagame suspicions, we should play just as if we were playing a typical mafia game.

Or in other words, putting yourself up for lynch is self-destructive behavior.

What I didn't realize until your comments is that this doesn't apply to schemes where you decide on the metalynchees during the subgame, then force the side that they are on to lose the game. To do this you need to agree in advance to punish non-losers; if I'm subscum and I win the game instead of coming out, you have to hope that the next time I'm on the losing side, the town is still willing to metalynch me for it. If you see what I mean.

As I said earlier:

How would you handle it if scum just refused to give themselves away? We have to vote off two players -- how do we choose them, especially considering we can't eliminate two that are on different teams? Will the possibility of a serial killer screw things up?

There's also the fun factor to consider; most of us did sign up expecting to play subgames, and I'm not sure even I am enough of a "play to win" fundamentalist to want to skip these altogether.

[Fiasco]

Wonder if some of the scum are (subtly) trying to lose on purpose.

[Fiasco]

Wonder if some of the scum are (subtly) trying to lose on purpose.

I don't know, ARE you?

That makes no sense. If I were a subgame scum, why would I want to throw metagame suspicions on this game's subgame scum? (BOCWATT) Remember, we'll know everyone's sub-alignment after the subgame.

Max, I'd still like you to answer the question why you believed me to have caused the reroll. Not much hope at this point, though.

With a little effort you can think up reasons why absolutely anything is a scum tell. It seems some of you are set on doing that. Go ahead and lynch me if you want. Trying to avoid that outcome no longer seems worth the effort to me.

[Fiasco]

he is blowing smoke.

and scum

This is a scummy thing to say, and not just because I'm not scum; given that we have no clear evidence on anyone,

any

claims that "X is scum" (as opposed to "X is more scummy than the others but still probably town") make more sense caused by bloodthirst than by an honest thought process. So I would say Pooky is more scummy than the others but still probably town.

[Fiasco]

Pooky, you're right that I overlooked something, but wrong on what it is. You're also overlooking some other things. I probably won't get around to a full response until tomorrow.

If you're arguing for a scum win, why did you call for the scum to give themselves away yesterday? Sure, that could make sense as part of some scheme where one side agreed to lose, but no one had agreed on such a scheme. What would probably have happened if scum gave themselves away is that they'd get lynched/vigged/SKd and they'd lose.

[Fiasco]

The incentives for scum play are the SAME in this subgame as the incentives for town play in terms of WHICH SIDE THEY WANT TO WIN!

Mostly true. However, not everyone has the same chance of being meta-lynched. Also, if metascum subtown somehow know at least one of their partners is subscum, that's an incentive for them to play against their own side.

When you say "Fiasco is blowing smoke and scum" do you mean "Fiasco could be blowing smoke and is probably town but scummier than the others"? If no, then my earlier point is content and not semantics. If yes, OK, but that's a bit confusing.

I still owe you a response to your big post, but meanwhile I note that you haven't responded to my point about your calling out the subscum.

Could someone ask Max to take me off his ignore list?

[Fiasco]

Wait, maybe this will work.

Max! Yes, you! What made you think I caused the reroll?

[Fiasco]

I can't expect YOU to tell me truthfully, so if they won't come out, I'm going to push for your lynch to find out your subalignment and play my damndest to make sure that subalignment is up for metalynching so I can metalynch you.

This part makes sense to me.

I'm calling out the subscum so I will know if you are on the subscum or on subtown.

This part does not. Do you disagree that the likely outcome of the subscum giving themselves away would have been for them to die? Do you disagree that metatown subscum are more likely to give themselves away than metascum subscum?

[Fiasco]

It's the first post, How would I, and not anyone else, know why the PMs had to be resent?

The role PMs for the scum are different this time around; they now say scum have to choose a killer. It seems possible that this came up in PMs with the mod somehow. It also seems possible that it really was a random vote and it's just a coincidence.

[Fiasco]

Cuz it seems like you are claiming that you know what the scum PM's say now, for the second role assign.

They're right there in the setup post.

[Fiasco]

Yes, there's a difference -- for example, if you're investigated guilty, that's subgame-scummy but not metagame-scummy.

[Fiasco]

I can see five possible explanations for the lack of a scum kill:

1. intentional no kill by the scum
2. successful doc protect
3. successful block
4. scum missed the deadline
5. scum hit a kill-immune SK

In case 2 the doc should probably not come out. In case 3 the blocker should probably come out. Agreed?

[Fiasco]

Ebwop: case 5 doesn't work unless the SK is not-killing intentionally, of course.

[Fiasco]

I thought that was too much of a coincidence to list, but actually it turns out that in this setup docs and blockers don't work on SKs at all.

[Fiasco]

1. Doc may have an innocent, blocker may have a guilty = more info
2. Doc will get nightkilled if out, blocker less so.

[Fiasco]

It happened to come up in a convo with myself. I agree it's fairly obvious.

The SK would've killed by all means

Why? I'd consider not killing as an SK.

Looks like we're heading for another no-lynch. Still interested in hearing more discussion of Pooky's meta plans. I don't think I could stomach having to come back to the site daily for the next several weeks just to post in subgames that everyone agrees don't matter.

vote Max

[Fiasco]

Pooky, I'm having more doubts about your meta plans. Let's say the scum give themselves away and we all vote on meta lynches. If you're a metatownie and you happen to disagree with the majority meta lynch choices, why would you even help throw the game? "Because otherwise you'll get lynched in the metagame as a punishment"? Perhaps, but if I happened to agree with your actions why would I want to punish you?

[Fiasco]

I'll try to summarize and respond to Pooky's case against me.

In each subgame, the better you play, the smaller the chance you'll lose and be up for lynch. As a metatownie, you know you're a metatownie, and so you don't want yourself to be up for lynch. So all else being equal, metatownies should play for the win, no matter what subgame side they're on.

Pooky attacked me for saying this. He pointed out that metascums, like metatownies, on average want their side to win; and that playing for a subgame win is therefore not a metatown tell. This is true, and I never disputed it. In a normal game, not-voting-for-yourself is something both townies and scums want to do. That doesn't mean townies shouldn't do it. He also pointed out that, if everyone plays better in the subgame, this does not help the metatown. This is also true. However, you control only your own actions, and playing better as a metatownie does not directly cause the metascum to play better too --

unless

you can set up a system of bad subgame play (like voting on which side will throw the game) in such a way that people who refuse to do bad subtown play can be punished later. This is a real possibility that I missed until Pooky brought it up. I now think it's probably flawed, because how do you make a

credible

threat of punishment against someone you happen not to believe is scum?

Pooky's theory is that my claims on this were obviously wrong, and that I knew this. But I don't do craplogic. You will not find many examples of intentional bad logic in past games where I was scum. That alone should explode Pooky's case against me.

I don't buy Pooky's case against Sarcastro, either. His theory is the metascum among the subscum wanted Sarcastro dead, because Sarcastro is another metascum, and, according to Pooky, the metascum believed the N1 kill would cause Sarcastro not to be metalynched. This requires the subscum metascum to be a bit stupid. Moreover, it requires that one or two metascum be subscum, and in that case, why wasn't Pooky arguing for a town win?

I hope this was an accurate representation of Pooky's case. I will probably not have any more to say about this. Further posts will be less verbose.

[Fiasco]

playing better as a metatownie does not directly cause the metascum to play better too

I guess that should read "worse" and "worse".

[Fiasco]

Moreover, it requires that one or two metascum be subscum, and in that case, why wasn't Pooky arguing for a town win?

Actually, the "why wasn't Pooky arguing for a town win" question makes no sense. But it's still true that the argument for Sarcastro as metascum depends on subscum metascum deciding on the kill, which is not a given.

[Fiasco]

Before you accuse me of "semantics" again, should I read that as "I think they are metascum together" or "I think they aren't metascum together, but they're a bit more likely to be metascum together than any given other pair"?

[Fiasco]

Now I believe Fiasco is meta scum because he suggested the N1 kill of Sarcastro

That is a very misleading description of what happened. Here's how I started out:

Adele and Pooky and maybe SSS and Sarcastro are probably the most well-known players, so they're more likely to be doc-protected and also more likely to be serial killed/vigged. For both reasons they are probably better block targets than kill targets. I would say block Adele or Pooky and kill one of the five newer players.

Note that here I'm advocating killing someone else than Sarcastro.

If Ryan is OK with it I'll quote what his role was in the kill choice. I don't take this very seriously as a scum tell, though.

[Fiasco]

You wanted Sarcastro dead, right?

[Fiasco]

By "role" I didn't mean role in the sense of townie/cop/etc, I meant how you played a part in how it happened. Sorry if that was unclear.

[Fiasco]

I don't know how this is a scumtell nor how it has anything to do with anything.

According to Pooky the metascum were trying to kill each other N1 so they couldn't be voted out on anything they did in the subgame. I don't really believe it either.

[Fiasco]

I would like those people who had night choices (docs, RB, mafia RB) to claim what their night choices were.

I would like Pooky to address at least these points: 1) I don't do intentional craplogic, 2) plans that ask metagame townies to play against their own subgame side cannot be enforced because people will vote out of suspicion rather than punishment, 3) asking for scum to come out if you're playing for a town loss is stupid, because you don't know the town will go along even if it's the right strategy; better ask them first.

I am not excited at the prospect of getting lynched by default on Pooky's say-so. I respect him for being serious about the metagame, but if people tried to follow the argument they would find he has no case. I feel like I'm just getting a grip on this game's strategy and have some tricks I want to play on the scum now that we're going to go into the subgame with some actual information.

I would prefer a lynch of Pooky and maybe Max or Sarcastro.

[Fiasco]

Now I believe Fiasco is meta scum because he suggested the N1 kill of Sarcastro

This argument depends on Sarcastro being scum, so why would you single out me?

mild FoS: Max and Sarcastro

[Fiasco]

If anyone wants me to reply to Pooky's latest post I'll do so. Some of it was a misunderstanding as to what I was trying to say.

[Fiasco]

Scum have more setup knowledge here than in C9, which is bad.

vote Sarcastro

[Fiasco]

The last setup. . .adds 'confusion' for the scum to balance the lack of power roles

Actually I think 50-50 (blocker/no-blocker) is on average

more

informative for the scum than 33-67 or 25-75 would have been.

[Fiasco]

So what's the plan? Wait for deadline and lynch someone at random?

[Fiasco]

Quicklynch!!!

unvote, vote Adele

[Fiasco]

Why would we have to wait for the deadline for that?

You tell me.

[Fiasco]

Why would we have to wait for the deadline for that?

You tell me.

[Fiasco]

Sorry about that double post.

Weren't we playing Speed Mafia or something?

[Fiasco]

Why should I be lynched?

[Fiasco]

Oh noes. I'm being lynched in the subgame for which I've already forgotten my role.

lolqft.

As there could be a blocker, role hinting here seems to me like an especially bad idea.

[Fiasco]

I trust Mike about dead Max being innocent. As for Sammich, who knows?

Is fake knowledge scummy?

[Fiasco]

Basically, I cannot believe anybody thought Pooky was the most scummish person

Don't tell me that after the exchanges between Pooky and me last subgame, you were surprised that I put him on top of my list.

[Fiasco]

I will not be able to post today after this. I'm OK with Adele dying. Though SOMETHING tells me we'll probably end up with another no-lynch.

[Fiasco]

Sammich/SA was the other subscum. Which is not actually news to some of you. I hope.