Mini 545 - The Final Stand Mafia - Dramatic Finish!

[Joubert]

I'm currently playing in another game (Mini 529) where Day 1 was a No Lynch...

If so many people want to hear my claim, here it is:

I'm a Townie

, with no special power. Sorry not being Mafia...

[RetroDucts]

Hmm, you probably shouldn't be linking to ongoing games, but even so, the circumstances in that game were very different to this, being open and all. Also, I saw the post that seemed pivotal in the No Lynch of that game, and it seems like your were trying to emulate the "probability" argument for a No Lynch even though it doesn't apply very well in this game at all. I have to say that your entrance doesn't do a heap to convince me that you are a Townie. I feel quite comfortable about leaving you at L-2.

[Erg0]

Must... not... discuss... ongoing... game...

Having said that, I think I can now see where Joubert has got some of his ideas. Retro is right in saying that those principles do not apply equally in this game. I'm interested in seeing Joubert answer Glork's questions from the previous page prior to deciding where to go with this.

[Glork]

Unvote

for now (little to no access most of this weekend), but I very much expect Joubert to respond to my last post, or my vote will be going right back onto him with no reservations.

[Mizzy]

After thinking about it, Glork, by his behavior, seemed to try to "stir the shitstorm" (citation from the JFK movie), which is usually not advantageous for the Town. Actually, it makes more sense after reading Glork's last posts where he asks for a claim. Looks scummy even.

If stirring YOUR shit is stirring a shitstorm, then yes, I suppose he did. But I don't think he stirred anyone else's shit. And how is asking for a claim when you're at -1L scummy? That's kinda part of a normal game strategy.

I wish Mizzy won't vote me forever for personal reasons, which is a possibility. Unfortunately, we'll have to take all her posts with a grain of salt for now...

I didn't, actually, I voted for you because any decent player who was playing as a pro-town would NEVER suggest a no-lynch for D1 in a mini normal with no special conditions or deadlines because they would know that a no-lynch comes with the following bad consequences:

1) You lose a townie whom the mafia can kill without worry of the kill being linked to anything.
2) We begin D2 with no more information than we started with because mafia aren't going to kill an active player if they don't have to.
3) We start D2 needing the same number of people for a lynch but we are down a townie, making it harder to lynch.

And those are just SOME of the bad consequences of a no-lynch on D1. As for assuming there are 3 mafia, well duh, mafia games tend to be 25% mafia in normal games.

Not to mention voting no-lynch is effectively not playing the game. The game is to hunt scum, not let scum win.

Want to know why I suggested a No Lynch? Look at the numbers. If there's 12 players, let's assume there's 3 Mafia. So 3/12 chances we lynch Mafia, and 9/12 chances we lynch Town...

Let me direct your attention to this:

In many games, it is possible to end the daytime phase by a majority of players voting for "No Lynch". No one dies during the daytime phase, and night falls.

The appropriateness of this strategy has been much debated, but it generally comes down to two things: preserving favorable voting ratios (see Numbers, Part 1), or waiting for investigations. It becomes more strategically viable in the endgame, when an extra vote or investigation may make the difference between Lynch-or-Lose and having an extra chance.

Conversely, it is frequently put forward early in the game as a strategy by newbie Scum, to try to divert the town from using their most powerful weapon.

Certain Game Moderators handle No Lynch differently: for instance, one variation says that someone voting for "No Lynch" "goes home" and may not post for the rest of the Day, unless they later receive Votes totaling half of what would be required to lynch them.

That is why my vote is on you.

By the way, it is against forum rules to discuss on-going games:

Do not talk outside the game thread about an ongoing game except where allowed to do so by your role. Likewise, do not use bbcode to hide secret messages - this equates to discussion outside the thread.

You can read that at:

After thinking about it, Glork, by his behavior, seemed to try to "stir the shitstorm" (citation from the JFK movie), which is usually not advantageous for the Town. Actually, it makes more sense after reading Glork's last posts where he asks for a claim. Looks scummy even.

If stirring YOUR shit is stirring a shitstorm, then yes, I suppose he did. But I don't think he stirred anyone else's shit. And how is asking for a claim when you're at -1L scummy? That's kinda part of a normal game strategy.

I wish Mizzy won't vote me forever for personal reasons, which is a possibility. Unfortunately, we'll have to take all her posts with a grain of salt for now...

I didn't, actually, I voted for you because any decent player who was playing as a pro-town would NEVER suggest a no-lynch for D1 in a mini normal with no special conditions or deadlines because they would know that a no-lynch comes with the following bad consequences:

1) You lose a townie whom the mafia can kill without worry of the kill being linked to anything.
2) We begin D2 with no more information than we started with because mafia aren't going to kill an active player if they don't have to.
3) We start D2 needing the same number of people for a lynch but we are down a townie, making it harder to lynch.

And those are just SOME of the bad consequences of a no-lynch on D1. As for assuming there are 3 mafia, well duh, mafia games tend to be 25% mafia in normal games.

Not to mention voting no-lynch is effectively not playing the game. The game is to hunt scum, not let scum win.

Want to know why I suggested a No Lynch? Look at the numbers. If there's 12 players, let's assume there's 3 Mafia. So 3/12 chances we lynch Mafia, and 9/12 chances we lynch Town...

Let me direct your attention to this:

In many games, it is possible to end the daytime phase by a majority of players voting for "No Lynch". No one dies during the daytime phase, and night falls.

The appropriateness of this strategy has been much debated, but it generally comes down to two things: preserving favorable voting ratios (see Numbers, Part 1), or waiting for investigations. It becomes more strategically viable in the endgame, when an extra vote or investigation may make the difference between Lynch-or-Lose and having an extra chance.

Conversely, it is frequently put forward early in the game as a strategy by newbie Scum, to try to divert the town from using their most powerful weapon.

Certain Game Moderators handle No Lynch differently: for instance, one variation says that someone voting for "No Lynch" "goes home" and may not post for the rest of the Day, unless they later receive Votes totaling half of what would be required to lynch them.

That is why my vote is on you.

By the way, it is against forum rules to discuss on-going games:

Do not talk outside the game thread about an ongoing game except where allowed to do so by your role. Likewise, do not use bbcode to hide secret messages - this equates to discussion outside the thread.

You can read that at: This page

[Mizzy]

EBWOP: Sorry for the weird copy/paste, stupid forums were down and I was half a sleep when I wrote it

[shaka!!]

And Shaka's post 215 is almost ironic because a very few posts after his, I am suddenly at L-1. Very impressive, actually...

I don't see any irony. Care to elaborate?

[Joubert]

Okay, no No Lynch. I suggested this initially because I felt the prior discussions were more like people throwing empty suspicions to each other, OMGing and such, that seemed to go nowhere. But if you all think it's constructive discussion with Scum hunting and hints digging, then I'm favorable to pursue the discussion. Simply take note that No Lynch IS a possibility that can be used. But not now, apparently...

I put my original vote on Glork because, in my opinion, it seemed like he took something I said that was moderately significant, make it bigger and invective me with exclamation marks and sputter. But then, after rethinking, I thought it could be jesterish behavior, so I retired my vote without even reading the new posts, because obviously the Jester wants to be lynched...

By the way, it is against forum rules to discuss on-going games:

I did refer to the other game only to answer Glork's question. Don't blame me, for I didn't talk about it. RetroDucts did...

If stirring YOUR shit is stirring a shitstorm, then yes, I suppose he did. But I don't think he stirred anyone else's shit. And how is asking for a claim when you're at -1L scummy? That's kinda part of a normal game strategy.

There's a big difference between simply pointing out what someone said, and blatantly use another player's talk, amplify it, and make me it look bad. That's the kind of behavior I condemn. Glork's reply really looked like the latter, although his subsequent replies did put some water on the embers...

Shaka, there's no irony anymore, I guess...

[Tarhalindur]

Aaah, I'm glad I said those funky things, very funny posts ensued...

Frankly, I didn't intend sexism against anyone, and I admit "unparalleled" was

almost

taken at random in the dictionary.

Unvote,

mostly because Glork could be Jester

. By the way, Shaka, what does "pull a Glork on you" mean exactly...

Vote: Joubert

to put him back at L-2. I will keep my vote on him unless he can answer the following questions to my satisfaction.

Joubert, why did you think that Glork might be a Jester? Also, what were your other reasons (if any) for unvoting Glork?

[RetroDucts]

I've had a reread of Trebis/Joubert and was about ready to decide what to do with my vote, but I think Tarhalindur has asked good questions, and will wait for the answers.

In the meantime, I noticed there are a few questions asked of Glork that haven't been answered.

Right now, I'd put Khel, Mizzy, and RD in my tentative "protown" list. No real good scum candidate has stood out yet.

Besides Trebis, who else would have you called a not so good scum candidate?

And this one from Erg0, which is actually somewhat related.

Glork: In light of this discussion, I'm curious as to why you included Mizzy in your tentative pro-town list in post 92?

Glork, can you answer them now?

[Mizzy]

Okay, no No Lynch. I suggested this initially because I felt the prior discussions were more like people throwing empty suspicions to each other, OMGing and such, that seemed to go nowhere.

I know why you suggested it, I just don't think it would ever have worked the way you think it would have.

But then, after rethinking, I thought it could be jesterish behavior, so I

retired my vote without even reading the new posts

, because obviously the Jester wants to be lynched...

But Glork wasn't ever in danger of being lynched so I don't see how you could see that as him being the jester...if he is a jester, he's a crappy one.

Also, see the bolded part above? What the hell is that about?

By the way, it is against forum rules to discuss on-going games:

You're still not supposed to refer to or take into consideration on-going games.

[Glork]

Okay, no No Lynch. I suggested this initially because I felt the prior discussions were more like people throwing empty suspicions to each other, OMGing and such, that seemed to go nowhere. But if you all think it's constructive discussion with Scum hunting and hints digging, then I'm favorable to pursue the discussion. Simply take note that No Lynch IS a possibility that can be used. But not now, apparently...

The thing about D1 that a lot of people (especially scums) don't realize is that, even though a mislynch is statistically likely, there are often more player-interactions that take place D1 than most of the rest of the game

combined

. D1 play is sortof a lost art nowadays, because hardly anybody goes back and

re-reads the early parts of the game

after a scumbag has been busted, but re-reading information with more knowledge is really, really, *REALLY* helpful. And figuring out who gets that D1 bandwagon over the edge into true "lynch territory" can be a pretty big deal.


That said, I don't like a Joubert lynch anymore. His last post rang pretty protown to me. I'd like to lynch Erg0 or possibly one of Tarh/Khelv today. I'm pretty sure we'd find scums in that group, unless somehow Joubert really *IS* scum. (If Joubert does turn up scum, I'd expect somebody really late on the wagon to be busing him.)

Vote: Tarh

[Erg0]

1. You still didn't answer my question.

2. I think that you think you have a meta on me. You need to expand your sample.

[Joubert]

If stirring YOUR shit is stirring a shitstorm, then yes, I suppose he did. But I don't think he stirred anyone else's shit. And how is asking for a claim when you're at -1L scummy? That's kinda part of a normal game strategy.

I was refering to my first post, which was nothing shitty, only something most people disagreed on. That's different. Taking this kind of situation and make is look like a big mistake IS a mistake by itself...

You're still not supposed to refer to or take into consideration on-going games.

Okay, got that. Stop mis-quoting me. Sangy did the same but got away with it. Double standards are fun...

[Glork]

Right. Believe it or not, I passed over both it and the first time you askedme to answer it.


Q:

Glork: In light of this discussion, I'm curious as to why you included Mizzy in your tentative pro-town list in post 92?

A: Post 84 felt

very

protown to me... I had asked Mizzy if she thought Khelv was making up his misinterpretation of "pressure vote" and she just flat-out stated that she wasn't sure and that she wanted to dig around more. I don't really know why, but that rings genuine to me. It reads like a post I might make in that situation.



Now, regarding your second point: No, I don't think I have a meta on you. I think that your initial vote was a bit opportunistic (that's why I said I felt like I was getting cold feet), and I have another minor tell that I don't yet want to divulge (because I'm honestly unsure exactly how reliable it is at this point, hence the "minor"ness of the tell). If anything, the unnamed tell is a meta on players in general. The former is based purely on your attitude towards Joubert, whom I have decided is probably not scum anymore.

[Erg0]

I'm not really feeling the Joubert thing any more either - his entrance was weird, but I think I understand where he's getting his ideas from now.

Unvote

while I re-read.

[Mizzy]

I'm going to keep my vote on him for the moment but I do want to hear more from him that's not

sexist bullshit

psychobabble.

[Erg0]

Mod:

Can we please have a vote count?

[death_omen]

Third Vote Count - Day 1

Joubert - 4 (Mizzy, Retroducts, Tarhalindur, Khelvaster)
Tarhalindur - 1 (Glork)
yeahthatguy224 - 1 (TheJiveMachine)

Not Voting: OhGodMyLife, yeahthatguy224, Joubert, Shaka!!, Erg0, Sangy

With 12 Alive it takes 7 to Lynch

Deadline Status:

Jan 30 2008 Noon (GMT + 12)
Thats approximately: 7 days 13 hours and 5 minutes away from the time of this post.

Mod Update:

A replacement has been found for yeahthatguy224 as he has been inactive for 12 days with no notification to me. I have found his replacement and this replacement will be implemented into the game within 12-24 hours.

[shaka!!]

The deadline has enlightened me.

I'll reread the thread and post my findings.

[shaka!!]

Oh my God that was the most boring reread I've ever done.

The worst thing is that I can't pick anything up on anyone in this game so far because every quarrel that has been held between people has ended with a friendly hand shake and moving the conversation onto something completely irrelevant.

My word I just realized how scummy of a tactic that would be. I'll reread again and investigate scum distancing and buddying up possibilities when my brain has reformed from its melted state due to the reread I just took.

[Mizzy]

Oh my God that was the most boring reread I've ever done.

The worst thing is that I can't pick anything up on anyone in this game so far because every quarrel that has been held between people has ended with a friendly hand shake and moving the conversation onto something completely irrelevant.

My word I just realized how scummy of a tactic that would be. I'll reread again and investigate scum distancing and buddying up possibilities when my brain has reformed from its melted state due to the reread I just took.

Cripes, you managed a WHOLE re-read? You poor, poor bastard. I tried, got most of the way through, and my lack of attention span due to circumstances outside my control made me scream and run off.

Just keep in mind that just because person A and person B argue and then make up all nicey-sweety doesn't mean it's a scumtell. Either of them, or both, could be town OR scum. That's why my brain hurts.

[shaka!!]

Just keep in mind that just because person A and person B argue and then make up all nicey-sweety doesn't mean it's a scumtell. Either of them, or both, could be town OR scum. That's why my brain hurts.

I'm not going to argue a case unless their is more evidence of them being scum other then distancing.

[death_omen]

killa seven replaces yeahthatguy224 effected immediately.

[killa seven]

lets get rid of the mafia scum..