Mafiascum.net

I think that

Newbie 189

, which has just ended, is the site's first case of "".

I'm not sure whether to be pleased or disappointed.

I think "no attempted NK, no lynch, no attempted NK" should be a town win. The town gets what they wanted, right?

EDIT: That is, the town stopped the killing. What's so bad about the mafia if they're not killing anyone?

I can understand if the town is unable to reach a majority decision, but the mafia doesn't have that problem. I don't like the thought of the mafia being able to repeatedly toss the ball back in the town's court...

Nope, no-one fulfilled their winning condition.

mith wrote:I'm not sure whether to be pleased or disappointed.

Hrm, after giving it a quick run-down, I think I'm disappointed. CA (replacing Ibaesha) was practically cleared and yet one of the final four people living. Nothing wrong with a tie, but I think if I were scum in that position, I would have to take out the confirmed innocent and force the town into lylo the next day. Although I can certainly understand that Lloyd was probably happy with a draw, I think he was in a good position to go for the win.

Anyhow, I do have to agree with DP, this would be a "losing" tie since neither side fulfilled their winning conditions. *shrugs*

If it's a no-win draw, shouldn't we rename it "And they were all big fat losers..." then?

If he was cleared, there's no reason for the town to no lynch either. The whole point of the no lynch with 4 left is to increase the odds of hitting scum from 1/4 to 1/3; and if there's a confirmed innocent, they're already 1/3; may as well lynch and if they get it right an extra player lives.

Practically cleared doesn't equal cleared though, so the no lynch/no kill was the "correct" play until the draw was mentioned.

If you consider a draw half a win, this is a better result for the town than the scum. Scum should expect to win 2/3 by killing if the lynch is random, and from a quick skim I'd say his odds were better than that. So in that sense, he should have killed once Stoofer declared it would be a draw otherwise.

Yeah...I would have expected the scum to kill on the last night, personally. No-kill once is fine, in the hopes that the town will give in and lynch the next day in order to avoid a draw, but the second no-kill was probably not the correct move.

petroleumjelly wrote:
Anyhow, I do have to agree with DP, this would be a "losing" tie since neither side fulfilled their winning conditions. *shrugs*

Eh...a tie is a tie. I'd think of it like a "perpetual check" or "stalemate" draw in chess; neither side can win, so neither side can lose. And if you don't think you'll win in chess, playing for the draw is a good idea; I'd think the same would be true in mafia.

I agree. It's a draw because the moderator stepped in and declared it so. Neither side can call it a win because they didn't meet the winning conditions as stated by the Mod, but since the Mod stepped in and said it's a draw, you can't say they lost either.

Yosarian2 wrote:Yeah...I would have expected the scum to kill on the last night, personally. No-kill once is fine, in the hopes that the town will give in and lynch the next day in order to avoid a draw, but the second no-kill was probably not the correct move.

Yosarian2, I play for fun, even if my moves are seen as incorrect

On Night 4, the win was less important than my curiosity of what would happen with a second straight night of no-kill.

petroleumjelly wrote:Although I can certainly understand that Lloyd was probably happy with a draw, I think he was in a good position to go for the win.

mith wrote:Scum should expect to win 2/3 by killing if the lynch is random, and from a quick skim I'd say his odds were better than that. So in that sense, he should have killed once Stoofer declared it would be a draw otherwise.

petroleumjelly and mith,

Once Night 5 arrived, I am happier with a draw of "...and they all lived happily ever after"

To me, a draw has the benefit of generating discussion in this forum section, which outweighs a win in the game.

Yeah, neither side won, but they didn't lose, either.

Mr. Flay wrote:Yeah, neither side won, but they didn't lose, either.

Why not? As far as I'm concerned, if you didn't fulfill your win condition, you've lost. I agree we should call this a mutual loss...

Neither side fulfilled their win condition *because* the mod stepped in and said no deaths = draw. You could argue that implicit in the winning conditon is a "losing condition": if you don't win, you lose; but that changes once the mod introduces a "drawing condition" (to "if you don't win or draw, you lose").

not winning=losers.

Lloyd wrote: Yosarian2, I play for fun, even if my moves are seen as incorrect

No offense intended lloyd; I'm just analyzing the game like I would a game of chess. (shrug) If, like in a chess tourniment , a draw is worth .5 points and a win is worth 1 point, then it's always best to play for the win if you've got better then a 50/50 chance of winning. Of course, that's just me doing general theorycraft about mafia in general, and dosn't really have anything to do with your motives in that one game.

Losing from the town's POV is scum winning and vice versa.

The scum didn't die so they didn't lose.

It's a draw, everyone is happy in some way and unhappy in another way... It's life more than anything else.

Of course, you have to be careful playing for a draw...if the town's winning condition was "kill all the scum", and the scum's winning condition was "have at least 1 scum left alive at the end of the game", then the scum would win and the town would lose in a "happily ever after" ending.

And the town would have no way of knowing they would lose an ending like that, because they wouldn't know the scum's win conditions...

Flying Dutchman wrote:

Mr. Flay wrote:Yeah, neither side won, but they didn't lose, either.

Why not? As far as I'm concerned, if you didn't fulfill your win condition, you've lost. I agree we should call this a mutual loss...

mith said it first; the mod modified (presumably) the win conditions to include a draw condition. Otherwise yes, they'd have both lost.

I made Reservoir Dogs go No Lynch AND choose to exit the building once they decided the game was over, before I called it. I respect Stoofer's decision to end a stalling game, but it's still not a clean win for either side IMO.

So Don Lloyd went soft on us enh? Couldn't pull the trigger? Cooperating with the Feds? In the witness protection program in Santa Clara? Possibly thinking of cutting a deal?

I'll have the hit squad on their way.

He shall not bring shame to the family!

he might have to go on the "weakling" list.

Lloyd could've easily won, all he had to do was take out the quiet guy.

I don't like the "happily ever after" stuff created by this situation (and similar situations). I think no lynch should be removed... there's no real flavour reasons for it to be removed, but it just strikes me as . Then again, a similar argument could be made for forcing the mafia to kill every night

I just don't think it's good sportsmanship to turn mafia games into games of chicken, especially over merely improving your chances.


As I think about it, I think giving the mafia freedom and forcing the town to lynch is the best plan. The mafia are supposed to be the deceptive ones, so I think they should be given the chance to deceive townies by no-killing... town no-lynching is kinda weak imo.


Problem is, without a flavour justification for disallowing no-lynch I'm not comfortable with that idea either

Here's the way I see it -

The only reason the town want to kill all the scum is so the scum stop killing them - the town are fighting for survival. If the scum decide to stop killing the town, then the town have achieved what they need - safety from the invading force.

Therefore... it's arguable that "happily ever after" should be seen as a .

Meh, he just wants to say that the game ended in a first. We'll probably hear about it for quite a while.